A challenge to the forum and to arm chair generals (air marshals)

[Libyan]

If It is a given that a poorer nation will not have the technical support from abroad nor the massive funding for its airforce to maintain parity or even the assembledge of parity vs a western equipped rival,

Wouldnt it make sense for that nation to scrap its air arm?

An example would be Egypt (the eaf) will throw 230 modern aircraft (20 mirage 2000 and 230 f-16s (mid series) against the close to 500 ultra-modern isreali f-16's and f-15s, nevermind the remaining 180 egyptian mig/f-7 or dm5 as the 300 f-4 and kfir are vastly supperior to them


If egypt was to merely use the f-16 and DM2000 and scrap the rest wouldnt it stand a better chance of denying the israelis air superiority?


The face of air warfare is changing once the f-22 and f-35 as well as the attack versions of uavs get here,

Poorer nations must realise this and I feel change their focus of their airforces being from being able to deny the air to the enemy to being able to for a limited time deny the air, while during the war being able to have secure communications,


Immagine what the effect Iraqi secure communications and netcentric based warfare could have had on the co-alition (net centric warfare is defined as down to the lowest level information is sent to higher up, immediate intelligence, reconissance and direct fire is then applied a Military doctrine is forth coming where batallions will reach a new level of force multiplication where the batallion or even Company commander has at his disposal the ability to Instantly bring direct and indirect fire upon a much larger sized enemy, the lines of FEBA (forward edge of battle area and) Flot (Forward lines of own troops) is now shattered!

 

[gf0012-aust]

You're covering a broad range of subjects here. So I'll dot point them, and maybe that can act as a trigger for others to contribute.

- quality of training
- will to fight
- quality of equipment
- battle doctrine
- economies of scale
- capacity to integrate and deliver combined arms solutions persistently

as an example of where a nations capacity to deliver at an air level was compromised, then you only have to look at Russia. Russia recognised that there was little it could do to stop a US air strike by offering up it's own air, Reagan basically sent the Soviets bankrupt, they couldn't afford to pump money into their airforce or navy at the same rate, so they countered by focussing on missiles. Until very recently, and generally, russian missiles are considered to be superior to "western" equivalents. For them it was logical to spend money on R&D on a missile which was cheaper to make, easier to deploy, and not a loss if destroyed (no pilot loss, no negatives on training pilots etc)

Generally, most airforces are shifting to a Hi-Lo mix, so any airforce maintaining disparate numbers and types of aircraft is maintaining a logistical and training burden. They should be minimising aircraft type on the basis of eficiencies and economies of military scale anyway.

The other issue is that to establish a netcentric warfare model requires extensive committment to infrastructure. Ironically the country that is best placed to do that is Sth Korea. They have the largest installed digital framework in place in the world - if they had the US Sat system, they would be a very potent electronic based warfighter.

There are very few countries that have the infrastructure to support a netcentric model, and that also includes a redundant civilian support model.

 

[Gremlin29]

Great topic!

My viewpoint is it all depends on which country we're speaking of and under what types of conditions. There are for instance, strategic advantages challenging an aggressor even though said aggressor is marginally or even infinitely superior.

I don't believe building a "big" air defense program is the answer to thwarting superior forces, didn't do the Russians much good. The Iraqi's were supposed to have had the highest concentration of SAM's per square mile than anywhere else on earth....didn't stop coalition forces from bombing the heck out of Baghdad either, and with very minimal loses.

Perhaps the air defense solution works when there is not much desparity between combatants but I don't see it as an answer to combating a technically, tactically, or quantatively superior force.

Lastly, what does the ground war do without TACAir, or CAP's?

 

[gf0012-aust]

If you look at the most defended airspace in the world (over the approp decades of importance). It was Russia, Hanoi, Serbia, and lastly Bagdhad

Apart from Moscow never being subjected to an air attack, the last 3 were absolutely compromised by air strikes.

Static air defence is a dinosaur relic from the cold war, any ADS needs to be fluid and mobile - and even that will not guarantee effect.

At the end of the day, it gets down to seize and hold (if thats the final onjective) - and that means an integrated operation where superior ground forces are supported by air or naval strikes.

The problem with "discrete" analysis is that it forgets that operations are integrated, so force elements can't be excised for convenient analysis.

 

[Libyan]

I disagree when you say russia you must mean the USSR, hanoi was defended but not to the same level as egypt was, and prob cuba. Serbia was not all that effective nor was it lavishly equipped, 20 and 30mm domestic guns without radar and with a handfull of soviet client export systems from the 1970s with crude weapon sights does not an airdefense make.




baghdad would have been something in 1980s

in 1990 most of its systems were allready 20 years old.

In the face of overwealming air attack such as lets say syria vs israel or jordan vs israel , the air arm should be scrapped and replaced with secure communications and satelite reconnisance, combined with ballistic missiles in order to keep the ability to respond to force with force.



Immagine if the Iraqis down to the lowest level had the ability to correctly see where the enemy was at and at what strength and if the american airbases on zero hour were struck with ballistic missiles.

 

[Awang se]

I think we should look back to Yom Kippur and see how a secure communications and advance AA system could effectively be use to deny enemy air superiority below specific height. I still got a lot of questions about yom kippur but from what i learn it is clear that the arabs learn the effectiveness of Israel ELINT capability and device a mean to neutralizing it. In this war, for the first time, IAF receive it's hardest blow by high density integrated AD deployed by the arab states with the help of the russian. But of course i still don't have clear picture and maybe i miss something. so, what's everyone say?

 

[lamdacore]

i think libyan is right about the fact that incompetent aircraft should be scraped and focus in keeping uptodate aircraft for air superiority or evn the development of ballistic missiles would be suitable. but the R&D costs for such missiles will be high for poor nations and will subject to sanctions immediately. therefore, i suggest tactical airstrikes by a less superior airforce. this might sound impossible or dumb but think about using your entire aircraft to at least target communication systems of the enemy, well it won't be achieved by airforce alone but would require a few ballistic missiles and special forces of the army. integrating them for the sole purpose of destroying the enemy's communication would mean blank radar screens for the enemy. of course there can be a recovery of these communication systems and so the inferior force will just take advantage of that situation and throw everything its got at the enemy.

there might not be a success but there will be pride and honour!!

 

[Aussie Digger]

No air defence systems have proved immune to attack from the air in the long term, but they have been successful in certain aspects. Libyan, how would you maintain your secure communications and ballistic missile systems without an ability to control your airspace? They would very quickly be destroyed by a modern air arm without any protection. Remember as well aircraft are every bit as useful offensively as they are defensively (depending on aircraft type of course). Iraq was able to fire scuds at Israel and Saudi Arabia in 1990/91 because of it's IADS and air force. The threat presented by these systems forced the allies to concentrate on them. If air assets available to countries like Israel (particularly surveillance and reconnaissance assets) were unhindered over a Country, than the outcome would be inevitable. I doubt there would be much pride and honour in observing your ground and missile forces being decimated by strike aircraft. A few ballistic missiles fired at an enemy doesn't really mean much tactically or strategically in the long term. Did Iraq's Scuds fundamentally change the strategic position in the middle east?

 

[Gremlin29]

Actually if you really think about it the idea has merit, particularly for underdeveloped countries with a shoestring defense budget who's antogonist will most likely be a neighbor with an equally limited budget. So an ADA based defense would be just that, a defense. It's almost a Catch 22, but as I said it would really totally depend on which countries we are talking about. What works for one country or region will most likely not work for others.

 

[adsH]

No air defence systems have proved immune to attack from the air in the long term, but they have been successful in certain aspects. Libyan, how would you maintain your secure communications and ballistic missile systems without an ability to control your airspace? They would very quickly be destroyed by a modern air arm without any protection. Remember as well aircraft are every bit as useful offensively as they are defensively (depending on aircraft type of course). Iraq was able to fire scuds at Israel and Saudi Arabia in 1990/91 because of it's IADS and air force. The threat presented by these systems forced the allies to concentrate on them. If air assets available to countries like Israel (particularly surveillance and reconnaissance assets) were unhindered over a Country, than the outcome would be inevitable. I doubt there would be much pride and honour in observing your ground and missile forces being decimated by strike aircraft. A few ballistic missiles fired at an enemy doesn't really mean much tactically or strategically in the long term. Did Iraq's Scuds fundamentally change the strategic position in the middle east?

Those missiles were quiet serious they did mange to hit a building slightly in Saudi that was the Ministery of interior but it only took out an entire wall the building has been abandaned and has been left untouched since then you can go past it in Riyadh and it stands a reminder to many as what Saddam represented. i guess it was a lucky shot. the other scud landed near the Palace of The King actually quiet close in a matter of speaking but it was far off. this might of been Because of Patriot Defense system or just the LUCk, but any hoo these incidents were shocking!!

I strongly believe in a realy strong and developed Automated Air defense system, where there is litle need for offensive manned AC assets, it can be done!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

I disagree when you say russia you must mean the USSR

I was referring to moscow (hence the follow on comment about moscow). It was ringed with more layered defence systems than anyother location on earth at one point. It also fielded a first generation anti-BM system.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think we should look back to Yom Kippur and see how a secure communications and advance AA system could effectively be use to deny enemy air superiority below specific height.

There was also an issue of complacency on the part of the israeli's. It was a tacit lesson in succumbing to the notion of absolute superiority in one event migrating to future events when the OPFOR had also learnt from their mistakes.

The Israelis did react very quickly with a counter to it - but it nearly cost them the war in the beginning.

 

[umair]

Actually, the matter in the Yom Kippur war was that the Israelis didn't know the frequency of the SA-6 deployed by the arabs(the SA-6 was the major killer sam in that war) hence their RWRs couldn't warn them of an SA-6 lock when it happened.BTW interesting point to note, the SA-6 was more efficiently employed by the Syrians than the Egyptians.The Egyptian SAM crews ended up getting as many blue on blue kills as their IAF kills.
BTW I agree with Gary that training and the will to fight count a lot.An airforce with a highly trained and motivated perssonnel core can (even if it is small) outfight a larger opponent.Cases in point:IDFAF in the Six day war, PAF in the 65 and 71 wars.In all three cases the airforces were numerically inferior to opposing forces, but came out on top just because of the above two factors.People might say that in these cases the IDFAF and PAF were technologically superior to their foes.Nothing can be farther from the truth.Comparison of the inventories at that time clearly show that the opponents were far better equipped than these two, it was only the will to fight and high training standards which pulled these airforces through.Like a friend of mine says"it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog which matters."If any of the senior members remember I had once quoted from an article by an Israeli defense analyst(the article was mailed to me by an Israeli contact, unfortunately it got lost when I reformatted my HD) which stated that what makes the IDFAF and PAF pilots stand out from is their high training standard and their will to fight and go to any extreme necessary to carry out their mission and if necessary give the supreme sacrifice in defence of their homeland.(the writer also elaborated on religion and the fact that both these countries are theological states being twoof the key factors which motivate these guys.)

 

[Awang se]

How so? i mean how can Israel can't find out the SA-6 freq? surely the Syrians and Egyptians trained with this weapons before they can use it. We know that Israel have a lot of ESM antennas sticking all along the borders. I'm sure that some of it might pick up the FC radar freq.

One more thing is, Sinai campaign by egypt. Officially it's a draw with the signing of treaty at camp david. But unofficialy, the Israel was defeated and egypt regain sinai. How can we relate the function of air forces in this conflict?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Because the Syrian and Egyptians were very careful and cautious in the use of this system prior to the war starting. Initially the weapon was used to great effect against the IDF, but the Israeli's soon worked it out and were able to negate it's capability. Once that happened it was "all over red rover" to quote a saying... Neither the Egyptian or Syrian Air Forces could match Israel, and the IDF were able to come out on top.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Israeli commandos actually managed to "lift" an entire star pattern self defence system. They had the emissions data within a fortnight.

 

[mysterious]

Woah! Now that's impressive. :smokingc:

 

[fieldmarshal]

the only reason y isreal dident loose Yom Kippur was the fact that america did an airlift compain to fly in much needed weapons and supplies to shore up the isreali defences....n that wt made all the difference

 

[imported_Anonymous]

You need to look at the USN and Soviet Fleet dispositions in the Mediteranean. Both sides were monitoring events. Egypt accuded the USN of supplying the Israelis as they couldn't comprehend how Israel was maintaining such a high sortie rate.

The Soviet Fleet commander confirmed that no supply was happening. The reason why the Egyptians went to the Soviets on Day 3 was that they wanted Russian help on the basis that the USN was helping Israel. They clearly weren't - as the Soviets attested to.

 

[Awang se]

I bet they have massive weapons storage long planned. i don't think they supply the Israelis during the war. they might do it before the war and probably diguise as harmless cargo.