US Army News and updates general discussion

[Feanor]

I'm very new to defense forums in general so I am here to learn what I can from whom I can. So I really appreciate the knowledge you're throwing down to me.

Can we all agree that the Kiowa was a valuable asset? If not, why?
Can we all agree that it should not have been retired until it could have been replaced? If not, why?

There's also the fact that it's yet another type of helo with its own spare parts, separate pilot training, etc. Basically everything it used to do can be done with other tools, better, and frequently cheaper. You'll notice that the US isn't alone in basically ditching the recon-helo concept. So, in a way, it has been replaced, but instead of little a replaced with big A, the capabilities little a has are improved on and added to big C and big D, making a redundant.

 

[Feanor]

Right, The Kiowa has the same payload capacity in the Hellfire department. That's not really my main beef. Mainly I'm concerned with rapid reaction and survivability of systems. Generally speaking the MQ-9 is not considered stealthy, although its smaller airframe does contribute to a small RADAR cross section. I read Command Authority by Tom Clancy and when he used the Kiowa's in a fictional war with Russia they were flying nap of the earth and popping out from behind buildings and hills; killing T-90s that didn't even know they were there. Although, as I said before, the Reaper has a small RADAR footprint, once it is detected it cannot run or defend itself reliably.

Didn't know the MQ-9 could carry LGBs, that's good. Thanks for that.

Just a small piece of reality, every Russian Tank Bde has an air-defense btln, every Motor-Rifles Bde has two (1 pure SHORAD one with tac-SAMs). In a given battlespace they'd be linked together with a system called Barnaul, that also talks to local PVO (air-defense) command, and ultimately fighter CAPs. Even in Georgia (that war was a cluster-f*ck) armor columns always had Tunguska-Shilka class systems, and even buckets of ZU-23-2s and MANPADS. In '14-'15 the Russian 200th MRB in Eastern Ukraine also used Tunguskas, and they were probably linked up to Russian Tor-M1 and Pantsyr-1S systems also in Ukraine at the time. Even in Syria the Russian field camp in Palmyra, set up so some EOD guys could help clear the city of IEDs, with 0 ISIS airpower threat, the camp was covered by Pantsyr-1S systems, and Flankers regularly flew CAPs over the area. Hopefully this illustrates what ngati was saying above.

Your general point on the vulnerability of UAVs against a high-tech conventional enemy is valid, but helos are every bit as vulnerable, and have expensive human pilots inside of them.

 

[Feanor]

What about the Wedgetail makes it better than the E3? You say the RAAF does things differently? Exactly how when it comes to AWACS deployment?

Keep dropping knowledge bombs on me. I'm really loving the feedback I'm getting.

A final thought. Areas like AEW, ELINT/SIGINT, are all highly specialized and fairly sensitive. So while some meaningful answers can be given, typically not as many as one would like. Basically the people that talk don't know what they're talking about, and the people who really know aren't allowed to say.

 

[Guardian52]

Just a small piece of reality, every Russian Tank Bde has an air-defense btln, every Motor-Rifles Bde has two (1 pure SHORAD one with tac-SAMs). In a given battlespace they'd be linked together with a system called Barnaul, that also talks to local PVO (air-defense) command, and ultimately fighter CAPs. Even in Georgia (that war was a cluster-f*ck) armor columns always had Tunguska-Shilka class systems, and even buckets of ZU-23-2s and MANPADS. In '14-'15 the Russian 200th MRB in Eastern Ukraine also used Tunguskas, and they were probably linked up to Russian Tor-M1 and Pantsyr-1S systems also in Ukraine at the time. Even in Syria the Russian field camp in Palmyra, set up so some EOD guys could help clear the city of IEDs, with 0 ISIS airpower threat, the camp was covered by Pantsyr-1S systems, and Flankers regularly flew CAPs over the area. Hopefully this illustrates what ngati was saying above.

Your general point on the vulnerability of UAVs against a high-tech conventional enemy is valid, but helos are every bit as vulnerable, and have expensive human pilots inside of them.

So long story short... The Russians are very prepared to deal with enemy air. How does that compare to the US? And, just a thought, how does that compare to the PRC?

 

[Guardian52]

A final thought. Areas like AEW, ELINT/SIGINT, are all highly specialized and fairly sensitive. So while some meaningful answers can be given, typically not as many as one would like. Basically the people that talk don't know what they're talking about, and the people who really know aren't allowed to say.

I saw that coming.
I was on Oahu, Hawaii, earlier this month and last month and got to see a bunch of stuff for RIMPAC. Including that GIANT golfball-looking seaborne RADAR systems used to track ICBMs in flight. Really cool piece of machinery.

The more research I try to do online about that system, the more I realise how tight-lipped everybody is; at least amongst those who actually are in the know.

 

[ADMk2]

Point conceded on the novel thing, not gonna happen again.

Do we not usually destroy a country's air power before invading? Wasn't that an aspect of the bombing campaign directly preceding the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Would we not see that in a potential invasion of Iran? If so, one could make the argument that we'd have a need and use for the Kiowa in that permissive environment.

But as far as the current war, I know the Kiowa has its uses as a CAS platform. I'd like to point out that the 160th SOAR still uses AH-6Ms and that aircraft has less of an offensive capability than an OH-58 with two Hellfires and a .50 Cal.

Just because it is armed, doesn't make it a CAS platform. If you want to compare apples and oranges, go ahead but you have to understand what the specific aircraft are used for.

The Kiowa can't do the AH-6M role and vice versa.

The Kiowa can't do the Apaches role as it isn't meant to and so on...

 

[ngatimozart]

What about the Wedgetail makes it better than the E3? You say the RAAF does things differently? Exactly how when it comes to AWACS deployment?

Keep dropping knowledge bombs on me. I'm really loving the feedback I'm getting.

Well if you read the two links that I placed in my post then you might become somewhat educated. They explain it. Then whilst looking at those links use the search engine there to search for Plan Jericho. Read them before coming back.

 

[Feanor]

So long story short... The Russians are very prepared to deal with enemy air. How does that compare to the US?

The US has relatively little in the form of organic air defense in mech and armor formations. In fact the US has retired quite a few of those systems. And even during the Cold War the US placed a higher premium on gaining air superiority and air dominance at the theater level then on trying to provide tactical and operational level IADS that can operate independently of the air force.

And, just a thought, how does that compare to the PRC?

The PRC has made a considerable effort to develop and field modern air defense assets at every level so in this they are more similar to Russia and the USSR, but you'd have to talk to someone around here who knows a little more about PRC OrBats and force org charts. Also the PRC hasn't gone to war in quite some time. So it's hard to judge how exactly they operate. And undoubtedly the very first significant war they are in will change the way they operate.

 

[Waylander]

Which IMHO is a real vulnerability these days with the US armed forces (and other NATO forces) when it comes to near peer forces and partially even with nominally inferior adversaries.

While I have no doubt that the USAF and USN are able to eventually gain air superiority there are some problems with this premise.

Dismantling a modern ground/air based air defense system takes time. While this goes on I have my doubts that there are enough spare assets available to hunt down modern attack choppers and drones which act in support of the enemy attack echelons.

And the US basically needs to send a F-15 or hope for a Patriot lock for every lowly enemy UAV scouting the battlefield. This could even be a problem against the mentioned inferior forces. Like seen in Ukraine relatively low tech UAVs in concert with MLRS assets are very dangerous. I have my doubt about the US ability to supress these MLRS assets given the difficulties in hunting down SCUDs in the past. And it also lacks the assets to reliably and fast engage the enemy recce UAVs.

Getting back to the vulnerability of Kiowas. Supressing large and medium AA assets and enemy fighters is quite doable but as has been mentioned doing this with all the low tech stuff and MANPADs is very difficult. One can hardly supress all the ZSUs, HMGs, MANPADs etc. Iran fields in huge quantities exactly for that reason. This is no big problem for fast movers but quite dangerous for rotary assets. Just remember the Apache battalion which got trashed over unknown terrain by unsophisticated trashfire.

Against a peer enemy I expect NATO rotary assets to take heavy losses as it will take some time before the air forces manage to focus onto the enemy brigade level AA. And till then our helicopters have to operate facing Shilkas, Tunguskas, Pantsyrs, MANPADs and the like. And while such an environment is extremely dangerous even for AH-64D/Es or Tigers it is nothing but murderous for a Kiowa.

 

[ngatimozart]

Which IMHO is a real vulnerability these days with the US armed forces (and other NATO forces) when it comes to near peer forces and partially even with nominally inferior adversaries.

While I have no doubt that the USAF and USN are able to eventually gain air superiority there are some problems with this premise.

Dismantling a modern ground/air based air defense system takes time. While this goes on I have my doubts that there are enough spare assets available to hunt down modern attack choppers and drones which act in support of the enemy attack echelons.

And the US basically needs to send a F-15 or hope for a Patriot lock for every lowly enemy UAV scouting the battlefield. This could even be a problem against the mentioned inferior forces. Like seen in Ukraine relatively low tech UAVs in concert with MLRS assets are very dangerous. I have my doubt about the US ability to supress these MLRS assets given the difficulties in hunting down SCUDs in the past. And it also lacks the assets to reliably and fast engage the enemy recce UAVs.

Getting back to the vulnerability of Kiowas. Supressing large and medium AA assets and enemy fighters is quite doable but as has been mentioned doing this with all the low tech stuff and MANPADs is very difficult. One can hardly supress all the ZSUs, HMGs, MANPADs etc. Iran fields in huge quantities exactly for that reason. This is no big problem for fast movers but quite dangerous for rotary assets. Just remember the Apache battalion which got trashed over unknown terrain by unsophisticated trashfire.

Against a peer enemy I expect NATO rotary assets to take heavy losses as it will take some time before the air forces manage to focus onto the enemy brigade level AA. And till then our helicopters have to operate facing Shilkas, Tunguskas, Pantsyrs, MANPADs and the like. And while such an environment is extremely dangerous even for AH-64D/Es or Tigers it is nothing but murderous for a Kiowa.

Those ZSU 23mm x 2 and ZSU 23mm x 4 might be old weapons system, but they will ruin any helo drivers day. They are downright evil. I to think that the US, UK, Australian, Canadian & NZ armies have not paid enough attention to mobile AAA in the form of auto cannon as much as the Russians or the Chinese have. To my mind it is a big weakness. There is no guarantee that western forces will achieve full air superiority quickly like they did in GW1 and GW2 especially against some one like the Russians or the Chinese.

 

[Boagrius]

Which IMHO is a real vulnerability these days with the US armed forces (and other NATO forces) when it comes to near peer forces and partially even with nominally inferior adversaries.

While I have no doubt that the USAF and USN are able to eventually gain air superiority there are some problems with this premise.

Dismantling a modern ground/air based air defense system takes time. While this goes on I have my doubts that there are enough spare assets available to hunt down modern attack choppers and drones which act in support of the enemy attack echelons.

And the US basically needs to send a F-15 or hope for a Patriot lock for every lowly enemy UAV scouting the battlefield. This could even be a problem against the mentioned inferior forces. Like seen in Ukraine relatively low tech UAVs in concert with MLRS assets are very dangerous. I have my doubt about the US ability to supress these MLRS assets given the difficulties in hunting down SCUDs in the past. And it also lacks the assets to reliably and fast engage the enemy recce UAVs.

Is this problem not being addressed at least in part by the likes of SLAMRAAM/MHTK/MML/AMRAAM-ER or CAMM? I note there certainly seems to be an emerging recognition of the inadequacy of our traditional (lackluster) GBAD capabilities here in Australia. Seems to me that the technology is there, it's just not being widely fielded (..yet?)

 

[Waylander]

There are enough gun, missile or gun/missile-combo AA systems available in the west but for the most part they are not in service or just in small numbers. Tactical AA for protection and support of ground forces is scarce.

 

[Boagrius]

^ As I suspected, thanks Waylander.

Those ZSU 23mm x 2 and ZSU 23mm x 4 might be old weapons system, but they will ruin any helo drivers day. They are downright evil. I to think that the US, UK, Australian, Canadian & NZ armies have not paid enough attention to mobile AAA in the form of auto cannon as much as the Russians or the Chinese have. To my mind it is a big weakness. There is no guarantee that western forces will achieve full air superiority quickly like they did in GW1 and GW2 especially against some one like the Russians or the Chinese.

Mercifully I hope it's still a remote possibility but (without wanting to side track the thread) I can scarcely imagine how such a conflict would be received domestically. It's been a very long time since two major powers have clashed with significant losses being suffered by both sides, and the home front has never had to experience such an event with the kind of information sharing now possible today.

Even in comparative brushfire conflicts like today's Syria, the sheer volume and timeliness of high quality footage coming from the front line is surely unprecedented. I can only imagine what the domestic reaction would be to Go Pro footage of allied troops enduring artillery barrages, or smart phone clips of them dealing with the aftermath of close contact with the armoured elements of a near peer adversary. Even in victory it wouldn't be pretty, and one wonders how that one plays out.

We all know what happened in Vietnam when film crews got to the battlefield... what happens when every grunt out there is a potential HD cameraman???

 

[Feanor]

Which IMHO is a real vulnerability these days with the US armed forces (and other NATO forces) when it comes to near peer forces and partially even with nominally inferior adversaries.

While I have no doubt that the USAF and USN are able to eventually gain air superiority there are some problems with this premise.

Dismantling a modern ground/air based air defense system takes time. While this goes on I have my doubts that there are enough spare assets available to hunt down modern attack choppers and drones which act in support of the enemy attack echelons.

And the US basically needs to send a F-15 or hope for a Patriot lock for every lowly enemy UAV scouting the battlefield. This could even be a problem against the mentioned inferior forces. Like seen in Ukraine relatively low tech UAVs in concert with MLRS assets are very dangerous. I have my doubt about the US ability to supress these MLRS assets given the difficulties in hunting down SCUDs in the past. And it also lacks the assets to reliably and fast engage the enemy recce UAVs.

Getting back to the vulnerability of Kiowas. Supressing large and medium AA assets and enemy fighters is quite doable but as has been mentioned doing this with all the low tech stuff and MANPADs is very difficult. One can hardly supress all the ZSUs, HMGs, MANPADs etc. Iran fields in huge quantities exactly for that reason. This is no big problem for fast movers but quite dangerous for rotary assets. Just remember the Apache battalion which got trashed over unknown terrain by unsophisticated trashfire.

Against a peer enemy I expect NATO rotary assets to take heavy losses as it will take some time before the air forces manage to focus onto the enemy brigade level AA. And till then our helicopters have to operate facing Shilkas, Tunguskas, Pantsyrs, MANPADs and the like. And while such an environment is extremely dangerous even for AH-64D/Es or Tigers it is nothing but murderous for a Kiowa.

And this is where time becomes a major factor as well. If the proverbial Russian blitz into the Baltics happens, NATO could be facing a fait accompli, before they gain air superiority. Generally time has been a factor in all 3 recent Russian wars, including Ukraine, Georgia, and Syria. Part of the logic of Russian anti-access strategy is to buy time to either accomplish objectives on the ground or escalate the conflict to a level where it has to be resolved diplomatically. If NATO needs 2 weeks to properly de-laminate and roll back Russian IADS, when the relevant time window is 96 hours, NATO may be forced to either concede or throw mech and armor into the fight without sufficient protection from the air, allowing Russian UAVs and even helos and fast jets, to perform strikes. Especially if we're talking about stand-off munitions.

And of course there's the missile defense factor. With the proliferation of modern missiles, both land and sea-based, and on smaller and smaller carriers, having something in the mech formation that can deal with that would be helpful.

 

[Ranger25]

And this is where time becomes a major factor as well. If the proverbial Russian blitz into the Baltics happens, NATO could be facing a fait accompli, before they gain air superiority. Generally time has been a factor in all 3 recent Russian wars, including Ukraine, Georgia, and Syria. Part of the logic of Russian anti-access strategy is to buy time to either accomplish objectives on the ground or escalate the conflict to a level where it has to be resolved diplomatically. If NATO needs 2 weeks to properly de-laminate and roll back Russian IADS, when the relevant time window is 96 hours, NATO may be forced to either concede or throw mech and armor into the fight without sufficient protection from the air, allowing Russian UAVs and even helos and fast jets, to perform strikes. Especially if we're talking about stand-off munitions.

And of course there's the missile defense factor. With the proliferation of modern missiles, both land and sea-based, and on smaller and smaller carriers, having something in the mech formation that can deal with that would be helpful.

Couldn't agree more about the lack of western integrated SAM/AA The US has even pulled the Linebackers from ground formations and has limited stinger teams.

IMO western air forces could gain (at a minimum) local air superiority quickly, rotary and UAV assets would be an issue. The US is investing in CRAM and counter UAV for these reasons

https://www.msl.army.mil/Pages/C-RAM/default.html

US Army Engineers Demonstrate Anti-Drone Technology | Unmanned Systems Technology

Marines and US Army also prepared to deploy mobile Lasers for Anti UAV on JLTVs

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/marines-mobile-anti-drone-laser/

Again, IMO, advances in laser tech could provide endless magazines for countering not only UAV threats but also incoming rounds as small as 81mm mortar shells

More US counter drone updates. Army runs counter drone excercise Black Dart at Elgin focusing on drones down to only 20 lbs

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/counter-drone-exercise-black-dart-expands-moves-to-eglin-afb/





That said, you eluded to taking days plus to delaminate IADS allowing land gains to be made. Western Air power/LACM etc would also be degrading Red ground formations. Even sea based assets could be used(SSGNs)

Either way, would be a real mess for both sides.

 

[Waylander]

The problem is that western air power will take heavy losses if it goes for the land forces firstwithout degrading the air defense assets. I doubt that such a conflict will see massive buildups on both sides so the NATO air forces need to be more economical in how they apply their limited assets.

And besides hitting the enemy IADS and tactical GBAD, hitting their logistics and C3 facilities (which IMHO are the really important targets), hitting their airfields, targeting their airborn assets and defending our own installations and assets there might be pitifull few assets available for interdiction and CAS.

And we are going to face a certain degration of our own assets as enemy strikes by cruise missiles, SRBMs and air strikes will hit us.

 

[Feanor]

That said, you eluded to taking days plus to delaminate IADS allowing land gains to be made. Western Air power/LACM etc would also be degrading Red ground formations. Even sea based assets could be used(SSGNs)

Either way, would be a real mess for both sides.

It goes to time and geography. Was sufficient air power in position, and are sea-based LACMs available? It's not like US nuke subs regularly hang out in the Baltic, and given Russian airspace awareness, the further away the launch is, the more warning time, and more chance at least some of the missiles are intercepted en route. They recently had exercises with MiG-31s not only intercepting typical cruise missile targets, but even Granit missiles allegedly at least one was flying supersonic. But again, it all depends. It's important to note that Russia has relatively little ability to project force overseas, but quite a bit of power in its immediate surroundings. And their interests primarily lie around the ex-USSR space. Syria is an exception. It's also important to note that Russia's next big fight is likely to be in the CARs. An area inherently difficult to reach for the west.

 

[Nick underscore]

... It's also important to note that Russia's next big fight is likely to be in the CARs. An area inherently difficult to reach for the west.

Interesting bubble there Feanor.

25th Independence anniversaries coming up for all the CAR's, with celebratoon dates varying between August 31st to December 25th.

Specifically, you referring to Uzbekistan, Khazakstan or Turkmenistan? To me, these are the most logically for a myriad of strategic/ economic & political reasons.

Kamirov's death may leave a small confusing vacuum..

 

[Feanor]

Interesting bubble there Feanor.

25th Independence anniversaries coming up for all the CAR's, with celebratoon dates varying between August 31st to December 25th.

Specifically, you referring to Uzbekistan, Khazakstan or Turkmenistan? To me, these are the most logically for a myriad of strategic/ economic & political reasons.

Kamirov's death may leave a small confusing vacuum..

Kyrgyziya is also a potential conflict zone, but Uzbekistan seems the most likely right now, especially with the death of Karimov, and their border with Afghanistan. Tadjikistan has a history of recent conflict but also is an CSTO member and has a large Russian military base. With NATO's upcoming departure, it's likely there will be some sort of a conflict there that involves Russia. Kazakhstan is less likely. It has a stable government, pro-Russian government, is relatively wealthy, and is closest to Russia but furthest from the Middle East. It also has a huge Russian minority.

 

[Feanor]

It looks like the US is looking at getting their own Iskander equivalent. Long Range Precision Fires Missile is said to be a 500 km ranged ATACMS replacement.