Europe and 5th generation aircraft

[gf0012-aust]

But such "not fair" preposition will lead nowhere in analysis and discussion. Because EVERY weapon or tactic will be completely ineffective for the side meeting such "not fair" train.

War isn't fair - and yet you expect us to engage in some amateur debate where all reality is suspended just because your own view of this is geared towards the use and effectiveness of SAMs.

I ask you again: WHAT tactic, and WHAT weapon should employ a country against such "not fair" enemy? What is your alternative?

As I said, over a dozen countries are able to deliver some kind of parallel capability at battlefield level (as opposed to theatre level). Do we discount all of those countries in this mythical counterforce just because they have an electronic capability, an airborne ewarfare ability and long range strike ability?

You're loading the bases to fit your theory. Thats not debate. Thats spin. If you don't include countries with an ability to impose contemporary ewarfare etc then they will resort to tried and true methods such as specforces raids etc... what will your answer be then? that the place is heavily defended and that no special forces can breach the facilities? You're loading the bases to fit your view of the world. Suspending reality on that basis is disingenuine at best.

So far you presented none. Somehow your always place IADS user on the side which get badly gang banged by "not fair" enemy. This is just wrong and illogical. Lets revert things. IADS user now is "lucky" guy. Non-IADS user get the worst stick and his airforces were completely obliterated in the first strike, while his weak attempts to answer were repelled by opposing SAM's and fighters.

Actually, it's been responded to a number of times. You keep on wanting to have a loaded debate just because you're aggrieved that modern technology effects your pet theories in some form or fashion - and because it has been demonstrated that modern ewarfare systems and packages have shown that they can dominate IADS/GBAD

Now, how that "not fair" case sounds to you, and how useful it is for analysis of SAM's effectiveness?

Suspending reality using force matchup that only reflects 3rd world offensive forces is hardly effective debate

P.S. Btw, it is not only me who think SAM's are very useful. Somehow every other army leaders around the world thinks the same. Even USA, with by far world strongest airforces, still develop, maintain and field fair number of SAM's.

strange that the growth in system development is not in SAMs but in ewarfare airborne systems and ABM. the fact that ABM development is the priority should say something to you....

Dont you think they have some plan how to use them?

militaries use whatever tools they have at their disposal. they also use bicycles and pigeons to get messages to areas where e-comms is deficient. whats your point?

P.S. Also, may i remind you, what airfields are far, far, like 2 orders of maginitude, more vulnerable then SAM's? And any enemy capable of reliably killing whole IADS will surely have zero problem suppressing and damaging enemy airfields?

how long has it taken for airfields to be recovered in airstrikes in the last 40 years? Atypically they have been back in business within a day. If you lose command, if you don't have redundant systems in place, if you can't liaise or distribute threat and response messages to your controllers, then it means that whatever intact nodes are left are autonomous. Guess who's vulnerable now?

Ever noticed that the attack on IADS is geared towards their C2, C3 nodes? Killing the SAM is a plus. Killing the comms node is the priority.

 

[Feanor]

This discussion is really reolving around the same thing. The assumption that an IADS means having an inferior air force by default. Again if the two sides have ~equal resources to spend on their military and one acquires a balance of fighters and GBAD, and networks it properly, while the other side goes all airborne, then the side that's entirely airborne will be at a disadvantage, because the side that has GBAD will have an order of magnitude higher control of the battlespace, including the ability to keep the GBAD off until AWACS detect enemy within range, and only then light up. And of course shut down and relocate as soon as the fight is over.

 

[DarthAmerica]

So what? I repeat, look at they airforce performance! What makes you think Libyan have better SAM's crew than pilots? Leave alone USSR crew, in some phrase irritated Libyan crew and slow-to-order Libyan officers are mentioned...

Thats 1st...

Now, there is also second. Libyan AD lacked several key components (like long-range SAM's) , which are essential against 1st-world airforce with full range of tools like USAF.

No long range SAM's? You are whoefully lacking in knowledge...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFpDMz7plTM"]YouTube - S-200 SA-5 GAMMON Missile[/ame]

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.175766,14.452782&z=14&t=h&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=30.998318,16.625541&z=14&t=h&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=31.949941,20.644547&z=14&t=h&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.609079,13.089041&z=15&t=h&hl=en

Those are SA-5 sites! Do you have any idea how far an SA-5 flies? Here is a hint. It was the predecessor to S-300! What excuse to depart from reality are you going to make now? Before you try, SA-5's are old? Not in the 1980's they weren't. Chrom, stop playing pretend please.


-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

This discussion is really reolving around the same thing. The assumption that an IADS means having an inferior air force by default. Again if the two sides have ~equal resources to spend on their military and one acquires a balance of fighters and GBAD, and networks it properly, while the other side goes all airborne, then the side that's entirely airborne will be at a disadvantage, because the side that has GBAD will have an order of magnitude higher control of the battlespace, including the ability to keep the GBAD off until AWACS detect enemy within range, and only then light up. And of course shut down and relocate as soon as the fight is over.

No nations have equal resources!

-DA

 

[gf0012-aust]

This discussion is really reolving around the same thing. The assumption that an IADS means having an inferior air force by default. Again if the two sides have ~equal resources to spend on their military and one acquires a balance of fighters and GBAD, and networks it properly, while the other side goes all airborne, then the side that's entirely airborne will be at a disadvantage, because the side that has GBAD will have an order of magnitude higher control of the battlespace, including the ability to keep the GBAD off until AWACS detect enemy within range, and only then light up. And of course shut down and relocate as soon as the fight is over.

But this exactly why the counter claims are surreal.

• there is no such thing as equal resources
• there is no such thing as equal military resources
• IADS are not countered just by airborne. The neutralisation of IADS was by a systems approach - and that was in 1991. The degree of standoff and space based contribution to managing counter strike has increased demonstrably since 1991

the notion that this is a contest just between a networked IADS and an airborne capability flies in the face of what has happened and what nations are actually doing now in the ewarfare spectrum.

It is not just the US that has this capability at the battlespace level.
Warfighting is not about equality, it's about the destruction of the enemies communications, killing its capacity to effectively respond, the destruction of its asset management capacity and about visiting absolute violence on those enemy assets that contribute to the enemies defence. It's not air vs ground, SAMs vs HARM, SAMS vs AGM etc... it's about a contest of capability between opposing systems.

It the debate is going to revolve around a pretend contest of equals then we might as well debate Eritrea and Ethiopia.

If people can't understand the basics then don't continue to post. It's WASTING time and is not contributing to a discussion based on rationale and actual existing capabilities.

and can we not continue this mythology that the iraqi IADS was third world - at that time it had a degree of sophistication in its networking and connectivity that rivaled a number of coalition partners - and certainly rivaled the infrastructure of some of the major powers.

there is an abuse of truth happening in here that is being promoted to further some individuals own bias - and that needs to be checked.

 

[Feanor]

Those are SA-5 sites! Do you have any idea how far an SA-5 flies? Here is a hint. It was the successor to S-300! What excuse to depart from reality are you going to make now? Before you try, SA-5's are old? Not in the 1980's they weren't. Chrom, stop playing pretend please.


-DA

The S-300 is the successor to the S-200 (Nato: SA-5). Not the other way around.

But this exactly why the counter claims are surreal.

• there is no such thing as equal resources
• there is no such thing as equal military resources
• IADS are not countered just by airborne. The neutralisation of IADS was by a systems approach - and that was in 1991. The degree of standoff and space based contribution to managing counter strike has increased demonstrably since 1991

the notion that this is a contest just between a networked IADS and an airborne capability flies in the face of what has happened and what nations are actually doing now in the ewarfare spectrum.

It is not just the US that has this capability at the battlespace level.
Warfighting is not about equality, it's about the destruction of the enemies communications, killing its capacity to effectively respond, the destruction of its asset management capacity and about visiting absolute violence on those enemy assets that contribute to the enemies defence. It's not air vs ground, SAMs vs HARM, SAMS vs AGM etc... it's about a contest of capability between opposing systems.

It the debate is going to revolve around a pretend contest of equals then we might as well debate Eritrea and Ethiopia.

If people can't understand the basics then don't continue to post. It's WASTING time and is not contributing to a discussion based on rationale and actual existing capabilities.

and can we not continue this mythology that the iraqi IADS was third world - at that time it had a degree of sophistication in its networking and connectivity that rivaled a number of coalition partners - and certainly rivaled the infrastructure of some of the major powers.

Again we are discussing the utility of IADS in principle. That's not possible (just like science experiments) to do in an existing setting, which is why we have to set up an artificial situation to isolate the variable (IADS). You guys continuously evade this simple and logical approach by saying that in the real world you don't have that. Well in real life a feather and a cannon ball fall at different speeds, so if you didn't isolate the variable (gravity) from other features (air resistance) you would come to the conclusion that acceleration due to gravity is greater for the cannon ball. Whether or not any nations have equal resources in the real world doesn't matter. What matters is that we need to set such parameters to look at the effect of a networked modern IADS on the battlefield. Even your Ethiopia-Eritrea example is not quite there because one side had air superiority fighters, and the other had air defense fighters. Neither side invested in both, which is what I'm talking about. As for Iraq, air force is part of the IADS, no? Their air force crumbled like a house of cards. So third world or not, it obviously wasn't up to the task.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Again we are discussing the utility of IADS in principle. That's not possible (just like science experiments) to do in an existing setting, which is why we have to set up an artificial situation to isolate the variable (IADS).

You want to discuss the utility but ask for us to suspend reality and artificially define non existent variables. If we remove all the countries that have an ewarfare, signal management, long range strike, battlespace management capability and specforces insertion capability, then we end up with a backward military attempting to take on (surprise surprise) an enemy with a considered and competent ADS. It's the real world. Your scenario works only in Tom Clancy novels and fan club sites.

You guys continuously evade this simple and logical approach by saying that in the real world you don't have that.

It's not simple and logical. You are asking people who actually have subject competency to live in a virtual world and suspend reality by setting blue/red force conditions which are nonsensical

Well in real life a feather and a cannon ball fall at different speeds, so if you didn't isolate the variable (gravity) from other features (air resistance) you would come to the conclusion that acceleration due to gravity is greater for the cannon ball. Whether or not any nations have equal resources in the real world doesn't matter. What matters is that we need to set such parameters to look at the effect of a networked modern IADS on the battlefield.

And to look at effects based parameters you have to look at existing and available competency. Thats what effects based analysis is formed upon - its what happens in the real world with real battle planners.

Even your Ethiopia-Eritrea example is not quite there because one side had air superiority fighters, and the other had air defense fighters. Neither side invested in both, which is what I'm talking about.

and you start to get my point.....

As for Iraq, air force is part of the IADS, no? Their air force crumbled like a house of cards. So third world or not, it obviously wasn't up to the task.

again, the lessons of 1991 have moved demonstrably forward, where in the real world is a meaningful comparitive analysis able to be made.

wargames are based on capability that is known, the weightings are always given to a defenders advantage - not blue force. At least thats how it works in the real world. red force always gets overmatch generosity so as to over stress blue force competency.

 

[DarthAmerica]

The S-300 is the successor to the S-200 (Nato: SA-5). Not the other way around.

Agreed, that is what I meant. A clerical error made in haste. Thanks.

-DA

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

This discussion is really reolving around the same thing. The assumption that an IADS means having an inferior air force by default. Again if the two sides have ~equal resources to spend on their military and one acquires a balance of fighters and GBAD, and networks it properly, while the other side goes all airborne, then the side that's entirely airborne will be at a disadvantage, because the side that has GBAD will have an order of magnitude higher control of the battlespace, including the ability to keep the GBAD off until AWACS detect enemy within range, and only then light up. And of course shut down and relocate as soon as the fight is over.

Mate did you actually read any of my previous posts? This is why i stopped contributing. Anyone who has invested that heavily in a GBAD centric IADS is uncompetitive in the air vs their adversaries. Quite simply this is because if they were competitive or superior, there would be no need for said GBAD centric IADS in the first place. The already artificial scenario of 2 OPFOR's with near equal resources always leads to one side with said IADS and one side with a more capable air force. This is the 4th time i have said this.

Its becoming apparent that gf is right on the mark. You guys are moving the goal posts to further the capabilities of pet systems. Theres NO point in having these debates if they are not firmly grounded in reality. If not then we may as well talk about X wings and photon torpedoes (as cool as one of those would be).

P.S. Yes i am aware that the previous comment did refer to both the Star Wars trilogy and Star Trek and that there is a difference.

 

[Chrom]

War isn't fair - and yet you expect us to engage in some amateur debate where all reality is suspended just because your own view of this is geared towards the use and effectiveness of SAMs.

I repeat again. WHY you always assume SAM's user is inherently unlucky, while other side enjoys all the benefits of "unfair" war? This IS very illogical. It is completely useless and misleading to discuss performance of Iranian AD and fighters in a conflict with USA - because NOTHING would be effective from Iranian side. It just doesnt depend from equipment used.

We can, however, discuss f.e. USSR SAM & Airforce performance vs NATO, or Russia performance vs Japan, Turkey, or France... Heh, even Russia vs whole NATO is worth discussion. We can discuss Iran vs Turkey performance, Greek vs Turkey... here we can get some good scenarios of SAM's and fighters involments.

As I said, over a dozen countries are able to deliver some kind of parallel capability at battlefield level (as opposed to theatre level). Do we discount all of those countries in this mythical counterforce just because they have an electronic capability, an airborne ewarfare ability and long range strike ability?

Nope. Assume France vs Germany performance. Is they good and modern enough for you? Remember, anything what hurts IADS network - will degrade airforce performance of same country at order of magnitude more.

If enemy can jam ground and EW radars - airforce is useless. If enemy can reliable strike mobile SAM's - he surely long ago obliterated much more exposed airfields. If enemy can find SAM's in matter of minutes -friendly fighters will have about zero chances to even take-off unopposed.

All your examples is not the ones of SAM's vs fighters performance for defense or even for offence. Nope. They are examples of SAM's vs fighters/airforce FIGHTS, which is a whole and entirely another matter.

You're loading the bases to fit your theory. Thats not debate. Thats spin. If you don't include countries with an ability to impose contemporary ewarfare etc then they will resort to tried and true methods such as specforces raids etc... what will your answer be then? that the place is heavily defended and that no special forces can breach the facilities? You're loading the bases to fit your view of the world. Suspending reality on that basis is disingenuine at best.

I DO include them. Somehow you find ewarfare works only against SAM's and not against aircrafts. Here is the hammer for you. Against aircrafts EWAR works 10 times better. Moreover, aircrafts rely on 3rd side means to be effective - this is again ground radars and AWACS - which, as you said, were jammed long ago.

Specforce raids, again, is even more effective against aircrafts. Again, your place SAM user in "unlucky" position. I repeat - in such position everything is useless. If your army somehow get in this position - all you can do is surrender.

Actually, it's been responded to a number of times. You keep on wanting to have a loaded debate just because you're aggrieved that modern technology effects your pet theories in some form or fashion - and because it has been demonstrated that modern ewarfare systems and packages have shown that they can dominate IADS/GBAD

Nope. You didnt presented ANY alternative to SAM's user. As i constantly showed - airforce is not alternative, it is destroyed even quicker and easer than SAM's

Suspending reality using force matchup that only reflects 3rd world offensive forces is hardly effective debate

True. But somehow it is you who like to bring 3rd world offensive forces as example. But what is 100 times worse and completely illogical, you like to bring 3rd world forces performance against 1st world forces - and judge any equipment or tactic effectivity from that.

strange that the growth in system development is not in SAMs but in ewarfare airborne systems and ABM. the fact that ABM development is the priority should say something to you....

Both. Btw, EWAR airborne systems is 100 times more vulnerable, expensive and less effective than ground based systems. If enemy can reliably kill your ground based systems - than your airborne systems will have even less chances to survive.
Besides, funny thing - bad Patriot performance against ABM missiles whole forum attributed to Patriot design intention vs aircrafts, not ABM's...

how long has it taken for airfields to be recovered in airstrikes in the last 40 years? Atypically they have been back in business within a day. If you lose command, if you don't have redundant systems in place, if you can't liaise or distribute threat and response messages to your controllers, then it means that whatever intact nodes are left are autonomous. Guess who's vulnerable now?

Guess, airfield without command and controllers are even more useless than SAM's. Moreover, if enemy can kill SAM's - he will be able to kill aircrafts on ground just as easy.

Your again bring "superior airforce vs lone old SAM's". This is about as useless comparision as "superior airforce vs lone old Mig-21". This is cases when 1 side ALREADY lost and no equipment or tactic can change that. It doesnt offer us any possibility to judge any equipment performance.

Ever noticed that the attack on IADS is geared towards their C2, C3 nodes? Killing the SAM is a plus. Killing the comms node is the priority.

I repeat, airforce without comms are even more useless than SAM's. What is your point? Offer ANY alternative to SAM's!

P.S. Ok, so your better understand how half-logical analysis should look.

1. Imagine side A and side B.

2. Both have resources to spend, training and technical level. Equal or not - doesnt matter even.

3. Now, side A is pure airforce user, side B is hybrid SAM/Airforce or even pure SAM user.

4. Side A and B employs best tactic and tools available. Analyze outcome. BUT! This is NOT end of analysis! This is only HALF of it.

5. NOW, reequip side B with pure airforce following same training, technical and resource level as before.

6. Side A and B employs best tactic and tools available. Analyze outcome.

7. Compare 2 cases. THIS IS true end and result of half-proper analysis of SAM vs fighters effectiveness.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I repeat again. WHY you always assume SAM's user is inherently unlucky, while other side enjoys all the benefits of "unfair" war? This IS very illogical. It is completely useless and misleading to discuss performance of Iranian AD and fighters in a conflict with USA - because NOTHING would be effective from Iranian side. It just doesnt depend from equipment used.

I have not mentioned countries - I have discussed systems concepts and capability - you're getting distracted and not even paying attention to what has been offered. I deal with real world systems - you are discussing fantasy matchups which are patently able to be challenged. What happens in the real world is what I'm flagging - you're discussing at an internet warrior level.

We can, however, discuss f.e. USSR SAM & Airforce performance vs NATO, or Russia performance vs Japan, Turkey, or France... Heh, even Russia vs whole NATO is worth discussion. We can discuss Iran vs Turkey performance, Greek vs Turkey... here we can get some good scenarios of SAM's and fighters involments.

transnational and transcontinental warfighting are different concepts. unless you wargame properly its just kids stuff - and quite frankly you're debating like a teenager with lots of books and data but no real insight into whats actually required. There is a world of difference between internet surfing and actually comprehending real world systems

Nope. Assume France vs Germany performance. Is they good and modern enough for you? Remember, anything what hurts IADS network - will degrade airforce performance of same country at order of magnitude more.

There is no relationship between what IADS counter systems are used and what can be used to degrade an airforce - again it's a systems and resource competency issue. UNDERSTAND the BASICS

If enemy can jam ground and EW radars - airforce is useless. If enemy can reliable strike mobile SAM's - he surely long ago obliterated much more exposed airfields. If enemy can find SAM's in matter of minutes -friendly fighters will have about zero chances to even take-off unopposed.

Do you even understand what the first few days of war an attacking force will attack? Day 1-5 are decapitation, dislocation, destruction. Your last sentence doesn't even make sense.

All your examples is not the ones of SAM's vs fighters performance for defense or even for offence. Nope. They are examples of SAM's vs fighters/airforce FIGHTS, which is a whole and entirely another matter.

READ AGAIN. I'm discussing systems. Warfighting since 1991 is about systems coherency - and nobody except the US and the Israelis have shown or demonstrated real world potential. Static Jamming? Come on. Don't pretend to know about jamming in the 21st century when your example is not even viable in modern contested complex battlespace.

I DO include them. Somehow you find ewarfare works only against SAM's and not against aircrafts. Here is the hammer for you. Against aircrafts EWAR works 10 times better. Moreover, aircrafts rely on 3rd side means to be effective - this is again ground radars and AWACS - which, as you said, were jammed long ago.

READ my RESPONSES properly - NOT what you think I wrote.

Specforce raids, again, is even more effective against aircrafts. Again, your place SAM user in "unlucky" position. I repeat - in such position everything is useless. If your army somehow get in this position - all you can do is surrender.

You are simplifying this debate to the point of stupidity. UNDERSTAND whats been debated and stop making up scenarios and make the effort to comprehend what I've said. You're demonstrating a complete inability to understand basic warfighting systems concepts

Nope. You didnt presented ANY alternative to SAM's user. As i constantly showed - airforce is not alternative, it is destroyed even quicker and easer than SAM's

The real world examples of this are where? What capability has been shown - real example, not theoretical.

True. But somehow it is you who like to bring 3rd world offensive forces as example. But what is 100 times worse and completely illogical, you like to bring 3rd world forces performance against 1st world forces - and judge any equipment or tactic effectivity from that.

Again, make the effort to read what has been said. I've not tried to make this stupid debate revolve around 3rd world capabilities and Tier 1 players.

Both. Btw, EWAR airborne systems is 100 times more vulnerable, expensive and less effective than ground based systems. If enemy can jam ground and EW radars - airforce is useless. If enemy can reliable strike mobile SAM's - he surely long ago obliterated much more exposed airfields. If enemy can find SAM's in matter of minutes -friendly fighters will have about zero chances to even take-off unopposed.

Guess, airfield without command and controllers are even more useless than SAM's. Moreover, if enemy can kill SAM's - he will be able to kill aircrafts on ground just as easy.

Good grief, if you are trying to convince any of the Professionals in here that you actually are a subject expert then you are certainly not convincing me. There is no relationship between the pilot autonomy over contested space and a disabled GCI or IADS system. The priority is to kill command and co-ordination. In centralised management like Russian based systems the priority is to kill the nodes as the airforce independance to fly and co-ordinate at an individual level is less capable.

Your again bring "superior airforce vs lone old SAM's". This is about as useless comparision as "superior airforce vs lone old Mig-21". This is cases when 1 side ALREADY lost and no equipment or tactic can change that. It doesnt offer us any possibility to judge any equipment performance.

AGAIN. I have not focussed on an airforce response. DON"T BOTHER RESPONDING if you are not going to make the effort to read WHAT i typed

I repeat, airforce without comms are even more useless than SAM's. What is your point? Offer ANY alternative to SAM's!

Do you have any idea how complex it is to completely kill an airforce comms structure - ie any airforce with satellite and space based comms has redundancy - you do realise that 1991 was the first time that a battle event was dominated by space based comms? To kill the air war you have to wage total war at the theatre level. ie regional, naval and space based comms. Good luck in the fantasy world you're trying to create here.

P.S. Ok, so your better understand how half-logical analysis should look.

1. Imagine side A and side B.

2. Both have resources to spend, training and technical level. Equal or not - doesnt matter even.

3. Now, side A is pure airforce user, side B is hybrid SAM/Airforce or even pure SAM user.

4. Side A employs best tactic and tools available. Analyze outcome. BUT! This is NOT end of analysis! This is only HALF of it.

5. NOW, reequip side B with pure airforce following same training, technical and resource level as before.

6. Side A employs best tactic and tools available. Analyze outcome.

7. Compare 2 cases. THIS IS true end and result of half-proper analysis of SAM vs fighters effectiveness.

BTW, Analysis is part of my job. Mickey mouse scenarios created in here do not reflect how proper analysis is done - not by a long shot

get over it, it's apparent that you have no idea what you're talking about when you offer scenarios and make claims in which anyone with a background knows is geared up and does not reflect what we actually know about how systems and campaigns are structured.

 

[rjmaz1]

I still dont see why we cant compare two countries with equal budgets during a simulated war with one country orientated towards SAM and the other orientated towards fighters.

I dont see how unrealistic such a comparison would be. However this comparison obviously could not involve any of the top 10 countries as its far more complex system wise as gf0012-aust points out. Countries such as the US or a Coalition force have so many other assets that can be combined to overwelm the enemy.

1. Imagine side A and side B.

2. Both have resources to spend, training and technical level. Equal or not - doesnt matter even.

3. Now, side A is pure airforce user, side B is hybrid SAM/Airforce or even pure SAM user.

4. Side A and B employs best tactic and tools available. Analyze outcome. BUT! This is NOT end of analysis! This is only HALF of it.

5. NOW, reequip side B with pure airforce following same training, technical and resource level as before.

6. Side A and B employs best tactic and tools available. Analyze outcome.

7. Compare 2 cases. THIS IS true end and result of half-proper analysis of SAM vs fighters effectiveness.

I personally think such a comparison is actually quite valid. SAM systems would be considerably cheaper to operate than a squadron of fighters so with any given budget the SAM orientated force would no doubt have a larger number of SAM systems. This larger number SAM's may offset the the effectiveness of the more versatile air force orientated force.

I think its completely unrealistic to make one side 100% SAM orientated and the other 100% fighter orientated. However to see the pro's of cons of being slightly orientated to either side it would be better to use a fighter only versus SAM only scenario. That can cut down a few other variables.

Personally i dont see the point.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I still dont see why we cant compare two countries with equal budgets during a simulated war with one country orientated towards SAM and the other orientated towards fighters.

I dont see how unrealistic such a comparison would be.

Because unless you are playing command and conquer and fighting over tiberium supplies such conditions DO NOT EXIST. Do any of you find it odd that NONE of the Def Professionals have weighed in positively about such a comparison?

In other words people who do this for real in the real world, engineers, analyst and people who get shot at have never experienced or seen two "equal" countries go to war?

This is akin to discussing medical conditions and treatments that don't exist with a doctor. Like asking a doctor to proscribe treatment for a person who is allergic to Kryptonite!

-DA

 

[Chrom]

I have not mentioned countries - I have discussed systems concepts and capability - you're getting distracted and not even paying attention to what has been offered. I deal with real world systems - you are discussing fantasy matchups which are patently able to be challenged. What happens in the real world is what I'm flagging - you're discussing at an internet warrior level.

No, you dont deal with real world system. Your intentionally choose 1-sided match ups what dont offer any basis to compare any system. Once i try to bring other examples, like Greek vs Turkey, like even Russia vs Japan or Turkey or Germany - you hasty hide behind "real words systems".

transnational and transcontinental warfighting are different concepts. unless you wargame properly its just kids stuff - and quite frankly you're debating like a teenager with lots of books and data but no real insight into whats actually required. There is a world of difference between internet surfing and actually comprehending real world systems


There is no relationship between what IADS counter systems are used and what can be used to degrade an airforce - again it's a systems and resource competency issue. UNDERSTAND the BASICS

Both require quite similar resources and conditions. SHOW ME, please, even 1 single scenario where someone SAM's will be degraded but airforce NOT. All this done with about some tools.

Do you even understand what the first few days of war an attacking force will attack? Day 1-5 are decapitation, dislocation, destruction. Your last sentence doesn't even make sense.

And? Other side will also attack and do "decapitation, dislocation, destruction." And?

READ AGAIN. I'm discussing systems. Warfighting since 1991 is about systems coherency - and nobody except the US and the Israelis have shown or demonstrated real world potential. Static Jamming? Come on. Don't pretend to know about jamming in the 21st century when your example is not even viable in modern contested complex battlespace.

Israel showed potential? Against who? USA showed potential? Against WHO? Are you from the same camp who declare everything russian and French useless because 25 Iraq Mig-29 and Mirages lost to 1500 USA F-15?

READ my RESPONSES properly - NOT what you think I wrote.

Some here on aimed at your part

Do you have any idea how complex it is to completely kill an airforce comms structure - ie any airforce with satellite and space based comms has redundancy - you do realise that 1991 was the first time that a battle event was dominated by space based comms? To kill the air war you have to wage total war at the theatre level. ie regional, naval and space based comms. Good luck in the fantasy world you're trying to create here.

Do you have ANY idea how complex it is to kill modern IADS structure? I.e. any IADS "with satellite and space based comms has redundancy"? It is order of magnitude harder than to kill modern airforce comms structure - just by its nature...

You again play the game were SAM user is greatly inferior both in technology and development. This will not lead us anywere.

BTW, Analysis is part of my job. Mickey mouse scenarios created in here do not reflect how proper analysis is done - not by a long shot

get over it, it's apparent that you have no idea what you're talking about when you offer scenarios and make claims in which anyone with a background knows is geared up and does not reflect what we actually know about how systems and campaigns are structured.

I cant see it. I want simple anwer:

A country wants to choose between buying 300 F-15 or 250 F-15 and 100 Patriot SAM's. Convince me 2nd option is worse.

And dont forget, all other armies in the world somehow think 2nd option is better.

You may also review 200 F-15 + 200 Patriot options, 100 F-15 and 400 Patriot options for proper analysis.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I cant see it. I want simple anwer:

A country wants to choose between buying 300 F-15 or 250 F-15 and 100 Patriot SAM's. Convince me 2nd option is worse.

And dont forget, all other armies in the world somehow think 2nd option is better.

You may also review 200 F-15 + 200 Patriot options, 100 F-15 and 400 Patriot options for proper analysis.

This is silly. 1st of all you don't procure systems in a vacuum. What is the threat matrix? 2nd, SAMs and Fighters are designed to do two completely different things. They have over lapping capabilities in that they are both designed to deal with air threats. But the types of threats and limits are two completely different concepts. 3rd why do you not get it that you can't do this fantasy warrior crap?

YOU REALLY WOULD LEARN A LOT BY STUDYING OPERATION DESERT STORM. Especially the first 5 days of the air war.

What if I asked you to purchase a car but didn't tell you anything about the conditions you would need to use it in? Do you think you could make a wise purchase? This is just what you and others who keep on about this silly SAM debate are doing and you are seriously lowering the quality and intelligence of the debate. Why don't you just ask sincere questions as opposed to these loaded ignorant questions and then we can try to explain it to you or figure out things together? Grow up.


-DA

 

[merocaine]

I have to say as a non expert I find level of bullying on this thread to be quite over the top.

There is no need to get all shouty.

Bellowing at people to GROW UP AND READ ABOUT BLAH BLAH, is no way to conduct your self.

Also why is everyone getting so worked up over the Idea that SAM's and an Air defence might provide a credible alternative to using an Airforce alone?

I dont see Chrom making any claims that they are some kind of wonder weapon.

I see Greece and Turkey as being a valid example (and interesting one) of
who neighbours who have developed impressive SAM and Fighter
combinations.

Anyway what has all this got to do with a 5th gen euro fighter!

Can we please change the name of the thread....

One last thing, can the Defence Professionals stop loading there writing with jargon.
We dont all work in the industry.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I have to say as a non expert I find level of bullying on this thread to be quite over the top.

There is no need to get all shouty.

Bellowing at people to GROW UP AND READ ABOUT BLAH BLAH, is no way to conduct your self.

Also why is everyone getting so worked up over the Idea that SAM's and an Air defence might provide a credible alternative to using an Airforce alone?

I dont see Chrom making any claims that they are some kind of wonder weapon.

I see Greece and Turkey as being a valid example (and interesting one) of
who neighbours who have developed impressive SAM and Fighter
combinations.

Anyway what has all this got to do with a 5th gen euro fighter!

Can we please change the name of the thread....

One last thing, can the Defence Professionals stop loading there writing with jargon.
We dont all work in the industry.

Perhaps you should find it more troubling that we are professionals and we disagree so strongly with Chrom. It's like several doctors and a fisherman discussing a heart condition. Who do you think would be more likely to know what they are talking about? Of course, if you prefer your health to be accessed by the fisherman thats your choice.

-DA

 

[Grand Danois]

Merocaine is right: back on track with euro 5 gen fighters. No more SAMs vs fighters.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have to say as a non expert I find level of bullying on this thread to be quite over the top.

There is no need to get all shouty.

Bellowing at people to GROW UP AND READ ABOUT BLAH BLAH, is no way to conduct your self.

Have you noticed that where rational debate exists the level of frustration between the debaters (even with opposing views) is almost non esistent.

Our responsibility is to lift the quality of debate by input and proffer our experience.

If people want to indulge in fantasy combat at the expense of discussing real technology, demonstrated doctrine and real systems, then perhaps they're in the wrong forum.

As indicated before, this is not the "Command and Conquer" forum. I would have thought that anyone with the remotest interest in discussing real issues would take advice coming from those with even a little bit of subject matter expertise.

Considering how long I've been on this forum, I can count on less than 2 hands the number of posters who have frustrated me to the point of recycling broken record responses and have resulted in me "online yelling".

I'm quite happy for anyone to create fantasy scenarios, but don't promote pet ideas and unrepresentative swill as fact in supporting that process.

My last on this.

If there is an issue of jargon being overused then detail them in another post and we'll respond. Going back on my own threads I can't see anything thats not been explained or is self evident. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

 

[merocaine]

If there is an issue of jargon being overused then detail them in another post and we'll respond. Going back on my own threads I can't see anything thats not been explained or is self evident. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

I dont know, maybe there should be a thread for this kind of stuff.

Threat Matrix
GCI
IADS system
AGL
IADS/GBAD
RMA
IRIS-VL
IRIS-T SL
MEADS
SEAD/DEAD
Overmatch

Our responsibility is to lift the quality of debate by input and proffer our experience.

If people want to indulge in fantasy combat at the expense of discussing real technology, demonstrated doctrine and real systems, then perhaps they're in the wrong forum.

Totally agree, its great reading this kind of thread, I for one really enjoy the to and fro, as its great learning from people who have a real depth of knowladge and are willing to share it.

But sometimes I think some of the Defence Professionals seem to assume a level knowledge in the non experts that is lacking, With yourself, DA and Chrom it certainly seems your argueing at cross purposes.

Rather than saying there is a dozen ways to cripple a SAM network, it should be about how a IADS (I looked that one up) can be used to protect a critical location. Which is surely the point of a IADS. Into that can be drawn the different ways a IADS can be circumvented by an aggressor air force.
Different strands such as force mix and doctrine can be added.

At least in that way people like me would be able to learn some of the basics.


At the end of the day most of the people on this site arent experts, merely interested in military history and the defence industry.