tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post4471428098904800874..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: Air Force strike packages and peer warsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-5859223333529706762016-02-18T10:28:15.035+01:002016-02-18T10:28:15.035+01:00I'll just avoid mentioning things like Cessnas...I'll just avoid mentioning things like Cessnas and Red Squares. :)<br /><br />Ground based SAMs have a very glaring weakness, terrain. People may say that Moscow has a lot of SAMs, but the reality is that these emplacements are on the outskirts of the city or in very open areas. They have the same problem we have with artillery in urban areas. Radar, like artillery shells, don't pass through buildings too well. It isn't simply about numbers. The S-300 and the ABM systems are all configured for high altitude intercepts, especially of ICBMs, not for things like the B-1B or F-111 going in low.<br /><br />BTW, the "targets" in the Skyshield exercise included IIRC New York and Washington. Hardly "low end" targets and considering the times. These were the times when the Nike missile system was still in place, so it was hardly "only" an air force show.<br /><br />My point overall being that "bombers will always get "intercepted" (which in your reply you included SAM systems too) was a basic premise that may not be supported. Hell, even the "Black Buck" missions that the British were still bragging about was done against a Roland missile system, which at that time was top end.<br /><br />Not to mention IIRC most long ranged bomber missions are done solo. Dragging along a train of escorts just gives your position away when the bomber's best defence historically was the inability to pinpoint their exact location. So in short, the basic premise and the method of engagement is wrong. The "strike package" style of fighting is more from "naval aviation" where they use lots of smaller, shorter ranged planes, not the air force bomber style of operations. Not sure, but I think the fighter-bombers of the USAF do use strike packages, just not Bomber Command.Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18391214831340182290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-86336914320567422902016-02-17T10:02:03.904+01:002016-02-17T10:02:03.904+01:00Really important areas are usually well-defended i...Really important areas are usually well-defended if the Country is wealthy or highly militarised.<br />North American air defences are a special case. <br />They have become pro forma defences based on air force reserves/national guard fighter squadrons because the U.S. knew that no defence against SLBMs or ICBMs would be possible and Soviet Bombers were rather meant to face naval targets rather than the United States.<br /><br />The Russians have a very different attitude, particularly at Moscow (SAM capital of the world) and frontier hot spots.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-15917589685543596752016-02-17T06:05:40.471+01:002016-02-17T06:05:40.471+01:00Actually, there is a very basic premise that may b...Actually, there is a very basic premise that may be flawed in the argument, that bombers will "always" get intercepted. This is not a given, even before stealth. IIRC during Exercise Skyshield, 8 British Vulcan bombers were tasked to simulate Russian bombers attacking the US. Out of the 8, only one was intercepted, the rest all got through to their targets. The next year, *all* 8 got through to their target. So it is hardly a given that "bombers will always be intercepted". These attacks are not computer games where "planes" simply fly blindly straight at their target, bombing runs have a *LOT* of work behind them to keep the pilots safe, from consolidating intel to form a complete picture of the enemy air defence net to plotting terrain following to avoid radars. It's hardly point and click.<br /><br />Another fallacy is that radar coverage is ubiquitous. It isn't. Unless a country is very, very small, covering the entire country with radar is near impossible and frighteningly expensive. There are lots of blind spots in a country's radar coverage and once you are past a certain range, no one can track you. Case in point, MH-370. Even now, we still have no idea where the plane is. Or Air France 447. It took 2 years to find the plane, even heading to Europe, who we can be sure they did not skimp on the radar coverage.<br /><br />So, no. Bombers do not always get intercepted.Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18391214831340182290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-2558511225946579242016-01-30T11:17:39.884+01:002016-01-30T11:17:39.884+01:00"On paper, sure, in a lab, maybe, in the real..."On paper, sure, in a lab, maybe, in the real world, that sounds like a failure waiting to happen."<br /><br />Sorry, that is IMHO shallow. You can define technical requirements (they are essential for the military version too). If a civilian system meets them it is at least a contender.<br /><br />Dedicated military systms are expensive and only produced in low numbers, the killing of a few systems (sabotage) may create huge gaps in you defense. A civilian system with a huge number of transmitters is much harder, the enemy has very likely not the resources to create larger gaps.<br /><br />UlenspiegelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-87287996027747949982016-01-29T08:27:17.395+01:002016-01-29T08:27:17.395+01:00"It also means that in many countries it is p..."It also means that in many countries it is possible to set up passive low frequency radars using the GSM base stations as the emitters,"<br /><br />On paper, sure, in a lab, maybe, in the real world, that sounds like a failure waiting to happen.TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-73094027137927354642016-01-28T02:49:07.946+01:002016-01-28T02:49:07.946+01:00I covered precision guided ballistic missiles (Isk...I covered precision guided ballistic missiles (Iskander, LORA, ATACMS) as alternative to A2G long ago already, and GLCMs are near-perfect substitutes to precision guided ballistic missiles.<br />http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2010/07/first-week-of-peer-vs-peer-air-war.htmlS Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-50460188336794301982016-01-28T01:11:47.653+01:002016-01-28T01:11:47.653+01:00I am surprised that you did not address cruise mis...I am surprised that you did not address cruise missiles as part of your discussion.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-45194716481210615982016-01-26T13:00:31.078+01:002016-01-26T13:00:31.078+01:00It's not so much about "sexy" (there...It's not so much about "sexy" (there's a subtle difference when I use that word).<br />The armed bureaucracy has no self-interest in doing stuff such as preparing civilian shipping for conversion to auxiliary cruisers, or preparing trucking companies for logistical wartime tasks or -hypothetically- preparing civilian radio emitters for air wartime search tasks. Such projects would not yield units, formations, commands, many officer jobs, prestige, size to boast . Instead, one would have a tiny project office of mostly technical expertise officers, requiring almost no budget.<br /><br />This is similar to why armies stare at active personnel strengths in peacetime (instead of wartime strengths), why navies are so obsessed with adding hulls to their fleets and why air forces are fixated on having transport aircraft (even though most have poor STOL and rough field capabilities anyway) instead of harnessing civilian air cargo capacities (even) more.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-724409223110501012016-01-26T11:12:36.079+01:002016-01-26T11:12:36.079+01:00So apparently low frequency radars live in the GSM...So apparently low frequency radars live in the GSM bands, which means it is pretty reasonable to expect plenty of spares since there is ample experience of construction for those frequencies. <br /><br />It also means that in many countries it is possible to set up passive low frequency radars using the GSM base stations as the emitters, which means you are tasked with eliminating a network of emitters that is dense around all important infrastructure in the country... <br /><br />Of course, I don't think this latter aspect is an deployed technology yet because as Sven likes to say "its not very sexy". It is however doable, and Fraunhofer apparently has a small demonstration (constructed at some unknown but probably reasonably recent point in time) http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/fkie/de/documents/forschungsbereiche/sdf-flyer-passiv-radar-engl.pdfRettawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-38098260792251144192016-01-26T08:43:29.082+01:002016-01-26T08:43:29.082+01:00"The United States Air Force and the even mor..."The United States Air Force and the even more affected United States Navy appear to have understood this, hence their interest in stealth aircraft which - if not defeated by technical or tactical means - may offer a practical alternative to a sophisticated strike package even against a peer air force. "<br /><br />Its a common belief, but not one held by the USAF/USNAF<br />Stealth is an addition to a strike package, not a replacement for it.<br /><br />"The big problem here is in radio physics; long wavelength radars can detect all but impractically large stealth aircraft, and normal fire control radars can pick them up once they know where to search."<br /><br />True. but they are more effective against less stealthy platforms. Networking multiple radar is not a new idea and its not a specific stealth counter.<br /><br />Low Frequency Radar can indicate a location, which search radar can then search for even the stealthiest aircraft, but low frequency radar sites can and will be bombed, search radar sites can and will be bombed, with every weapon available, both types will be jammed, spoofed, variously hacked.<br /><br />The US will have a much harder job than it did against Iraq, but Russia will face a far greater challenge than it did against ISIS or Ukraine or Georgia.TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.com