I agree - we have alway`s lacked a good ADA weapons system in the Army, we just can`t seem to make up our minds on what we want.
Air Defense for Armored Formations
- Thread starter .pt
- Start date
This is one area the Russians have us beat.
This is one area the Russians have us beat.
Yep - we are at the mercy of guys like you to protect us from the skies, you may already know this but our number target priority on the battlefield was to take out enemy ADA units.
local air superiority
I think the US military has come to take air superiority for granted. This might be a safe overall assumption when you compare the USAF to other national air forces. But you may not always maintain local air superiority even if you have strategic or theatre superiority.
An opposing air force may be able to concentrate their forces to create conditions where USAF might temporarily lose it's advantage. In this case the air defence capabilities of the ground forces become critical. I don't know how well the US would fare in such circumstances.
I think the US military has come to take air superiority for granted. This might be a safe overall assumption when you compare the USAF to other national air forces. But you may not always maintain local air superiority even if you have strategic or theatre superiority.
An opposing air force may be able to concentrate their forces to create conditions where USAF might temporarily lose it's advantage. In this case the air defence capabilities of the ground forces become critical. I don't know how well the US would fare in such circumstances.
As to air defence of armoured formations:
I'm all for it. I just want it integrated with fighters, would get better results.
I once asked the CO of the Air Defence artillery, why the the Danish Army used only Redeye - later Stinger: A Gepard or Roland is so expensive in every way it is a question of having armour to protect after you bought the Air Defence vehikles.
Another real dilemma:
I once counted the anti-aircraft component of a Soviet Division assigned at different levels and found - if memory serves me - that about 20-25 % was dedicated air defence. In view of not only do air defence vehikles have little ground combat use - other than the odd APC - they would also NEED protection in the face of hostile armour, thus further detracting from the offensive force in an attacking armour coloum.
Still: I drove in 1995 along the road (with the railroad beside it) in Northern Germany from Stralsund to Lübeck where all the armoured coloums of the WAPA for the northern theater would have travelled - a good road as eastern European roads of the period go; but a 4 division armoured corps takes a lot of road and space - the sligtest hickup and a giant traffic jam would have resulted.
Not only that but the proximity to the Baltic Sea was close and I've seen German Tornadoes flying mock attacks on ferries at "safe" altitude and I've seen British pilots fly where other nations PR officer would have to deal with the complaints. Without access to classified information it is hard to say: But my bet is that a coordinated attack by a flight of Tornadoes could have been carried out without prohibitive loss. A Tornado is a PGM or suicide bomb truck that changes it's mind at the latest possible moment.
Another thing: I'm all for PGM and not going where they throw everyting in your face - if you can avoid it. But the US concept of going in high and staying at arms length has not met a decent air defence in decades.
You could argue that that is what the air force gets its incredible expensive fighters for - which is exactly what I'm doing.
I'm all for it. I just want it integrated with fighters, would get better results.
I once asked the CO of the Air Defence artillery, why the the Danish Army used only Redeye - later Stinger: A Gepard or Roland is so expensive in every way it is a question of having armour to protect after you bought the Air Defence vehikles.
Another real dilemma:
I once counted the anti-aircraft component of a Soviet Division assigned at different levels and found - if memory serves me - that about 20-25 % was dedicated air defence. In view of not only do air defence vehikles have little ground combat use - other than the odd APC - they would also NEED protection in the face of hostile armour, thus further detracting from the offensive force in an attacking armour coloum.
Still: I drove in 1995 along the road (with the railroad beside it) in Northern Germany from Stralsund to Lübeck where all the armoured coloums of the WAPA for the northern theater would have travelled - a good road as eastern European roads of the period go; but a 4 division armoured corps takes a lot of road and space - the sligtest hickup and a giant traffic jam would have resulted.
Not only that but the proximity to the Baltic Sea was close and I've seen German Tornadoes flying mock attacks on ferries at "safe" altitude and I've seen British pilots fly where other nations PR officer would have to deal with the complaints. Without access to classified information it is hard to say: But my bet is that a coordinated attack by a flight of Tornadoes could have been carried out without prohibitive loss. A Tornado is a PGM or suicide bomb truck that changes it's mind at the latest possible moment.
Another thing: I'm all for PGM and not going where they throw everyting in your face - if you can avoid it. But the US concept of going in high and staying at arms length has not met a decent air defence in decades.
You could argue that that is what the air force gets its incredible expensive fighters for - which is exactly what I'm doing.
I always think back to what the Israeli's faced in the '73 war. The SA-6 and ZSU-23-4 gave the Israeli's a very hard time.
If the US or any other power took on a seriously modern well organised layered air defense system I do wonder how well we would fare. There are not really any current examples where such a system has been tested.
If the US or any other power took on a seriously modern well organised layered air defense system I do wonder how well we would fare. There are not really any current examples where such a system has been tested.
Nice post.
If you look at the Kosovo air campaign you see that all the MANPADs, short ranged SAMs and AAA prevented the NATO air forces from flying at lower altitutes and so reached its goal without really firing a shot. The Serbian forces maybe bound to their hiding positions and immobilized but they remained relatively unharmed.
If you look at the Kosovo air campaign you see that all the MANPADs, short ranged SAMs and AAA prevented the NATO air forces from flying at lower altitutes and so reached its goal without really firing a shot. The Serbian forces maybe bound to their hiding positions and immobilized but they remained relatively unharmed.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
But then again, not that many PGM's were used in the Kosovo Air Campaign. And ISTAR has moved some paces since then.Nice post.
If you look at the Kosovo air campaign you see that all the MANPADs, short ranged SAMs and AAA prevented the NATO air forces from flying at lower altitutes and so reached its goal without really firing a shot. The Serbian forces maybe bound to their hiding positions and immobilized but they remained relatively unharmed.
Also, what about the standoffish battlefield weapons like Brimstone. That could pose a problem for such systems - unless they can shoot them down.
I totally agree with you, on the modern day battlefield if you do not have good ADA support and the overhead friendlies leave the area, you could have major issues.
eckherl: My contention is if the freindlies leave the sky - you are in trouble; but I agree with SAM's in slightly less trouble.
Grand Danois: In a way You are right; but it doesn't quite hold.
If the Serbian army had assembled and moved in formation the game would have been different.
As it were: I think it was a wise tactical decision: Keep the serbs dispersed - a non-moving tank is only a potential tank. With that aim achieved: Why run any unnecessary risks?
Grand Danois: In a way You are right; but it doesn't quite hold.
If the Serbian army had assembled and moved in formation the game would have been different.
As it were: I think it was a wise tactical decision: Keep the serbs dispersed - a non-moving tank is only a potential tank. With that aim achieved: Why run any unnecessary risks?
I agree that the serbian army was not able to work as a cohesive force.
But the target was eliminating the serbian forces in and around Kosovo. That later the NATO began to hit more and more strategical targets was more due to no other possibilities. And it can be discussed if all of these targets were "have to hit targets".
NATO was close to go in with Apaches due to the bad results against the enemy forces and expected casualtis.
But the target was eliminating the serbian forces in and around Kosovo. That later the NATO began to hit more and more strategical targets was more due to no other possibilities. And it can be discussed if all of these targets were "have to hit targets".
NATO was close to go in with Apaches due to the bad results against the enemy forces and expected casualtis.
ZSU-23-4, Tanguska, Pantisir can give serious headache to infantry also.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Re Kosovo. Yes, the Serbs could disperse, hide, use decoys etc. Effectively acting as an army in being. But it was also a politically sensitive campaign, lacking the will to await for Serb attrition to set in. The shifting target criteria was an odd attribute of that war.
However, ISTAR and ability and proliferation of PGM has improved since then.
My question is, how does ADA counter the likes of Brimstone, with its multi-missile/12 km range attacks cued by a standoff sensor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_missile
However, ISTAR and ability and proliferation of PGM has improved since then.
My question is, how does ADA counter the likes of Brimstone, with its multi-missile/12 km range attacks cued by a standoff sensor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_missile
Grand Danois
Entertainer
1. SA-3, presumably optically guided, and static ie not mobile.
2. An F-16 and an F-117, the famous Maj Brunel box-kill.
From memory (correct me if I am wrong) the Serbs used decoys extensively, NATO claimed to have destroyed a good proportion of the armour, APCs and Artillery that were in the Kosovo theatre, once the war was over and the Serbs pulled out we were treated to pictures of all that destroyed equipment moving intact across the boarder. There was embarrassment for NATO. There were a lot of tactical mistakes from NATO, yet there was a victory all the same.
Much of the reason for this was that NATO did not operate below 20,000ft due to the threat posed from manpads etc. and to be fair did not throw there whole effort in from day one.
My two cents from memory.
Much of the reason for this was that NATO did not operate below 20,000ft due to the threat posed from manpads etc. and to be fair did not throw there whole effort in from day one.
My two cents from memory.
Last edited:
Thank you for the information, did they get the F-117 during the day or during the night.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I'll admit that perhaps the Serb SA-6 was the most potent, however, as the SA-3 scored the two kills, they were the most effective.
Both at night. Should that exclude some sort of EO guidance?
None that I can think of for exclusion, I was just a little surprised that they got a F-117, I remember hearing about us losing one in that time frame but I was in South Korea so the information that I recieved was sketchy.I'll admit that perhaps the Serb SA-6 was the most potent, however, as the SA-3 scored the two kills, they were the most effective.
Both at night. Should that exclude some sort of EO guidance?
The Air Force really talked it up for night time bombing as a ace in the hole for them.
That's the beauty of using guns instead of missiles. Dual use. Remember the German use of 20mm and 88mm AA guns as anti-infantry and anti-tank guns respectively. Most heavier Russian anti-aircraft guns (57mm and up) were also used deployed as anti-tank weapons.
Another favorite of mine is the US M55 quad .50 cal. Devastating as an anti-personnel weapon.