The year is 2020.
Tensions between China and Japan have intensified to the breaking point and all eyes are on the disputed islands. Meanwhile Russia, seeing a chance to expand its territory AND gain access to rare earth minerals makes a quick move to Central Africa.
They moved a couple of Airborne Brigades and two Naval Infantry Brigades to the region before the intel community knew what was what.
The US Army responds by sending a Stryker Brigade (reinf) with a Brigade from the 82nd. SOCOM is supporting.
Sounds like a solid plan.
Except for the fact that as well thought out as the Stryker Brigade Family of Vehicles is, they did not include an Anti-Air variant.
Russian SU-25's, SU-30's and PAK-FA's are rampaging all over while the few USAF F-35's dedicated to the effort are having trouble staying in the air after the 1st week of operations.
The above is just a rough and dirty fictional account of future warfare but not having a dedicated anti-air platform is a big miss that both the USMC and US Army needs to correct.
PS. Something with more range than a ground launched Sidewinder too! Long range attack against ground targets is now the norm. As things currently stand if the enemy is able to gain local air superiority over any of our formations then we're filling body bags and not able to even defend ourselves.
That's why the Air Farce exists, right? Since their plans to ditch the A-10 betray their intentions, it's just a side-step to the left for Air Farce to abandon air superiority for protecting ground forces in addition to canning CAS, right? I joke, but still, the lack of any anti-air assets in our ground forces is arrogance on the part of all our forces.
ReplyDeleteM6 Linebacker Bradley variant: canned
Chapparal SAM M113 variant: canned
M163 20mm Vulcan variant: canned
SLAMRAMM/CLAWS variant: cancelled
the only thing protecting ground forces is Patriot (range 70km) and Stingers with a range of under 5km. Get past the Patriot or overwhelm it and all you have is Stingers.
SLAMRAAM/NASAMs would be a intermediate, but no US branch is acquiring it.
It's usually a dumb thing to depend upon best case scenarios for force protection.
well said! but i seriously wonder. would they even need to destroy the Patriot or can it be jammed? i know the Russians have gotten a look at the machine or at least the plans so they must be working on a countermeasure.
Deletedepending on the USAF is a really bad idea. especially when they proven time again that close air support is AT BEST a secondary mission.
Ah, this must be where our allies and jointness and interoperability and international team building and stuff come into play, who else is coming to the party and what are they bringing? Whats all this jiber jabber about weak foreign policy? C'mon who else is coming? Britain? France? Canada? Georgia? What do you mean "fool me once."? Shut up ya crickets! I can't hear Britain and France!
DeleteI guess your SOCOM chaps are gonna have to go Pantsir/Tunguska hunting. Would love to see you "Much Revered Company Landing Teams" in action agaisnt AA units.
Deletea company landing team would be in trouble against an equal sized opposing force equipped with Toyota pickup trucks with heavy machineguns.
DeleteUS always relied on Airpower to clear the air and never had any proper mobile AAA and SAM that is an area where Soviets excelled and Russians continue that tradition ,how effective that can be we have seen in 1973 Yom Kippur War where IAF suffered huge losses and IDF couldn't count on its airsupport till SAMs were neutralised..
ReplyDeleteThere is a small air defence system called Ozelot based on Stinger or anything of such size:
ReplyDeletehttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_2_Ozelot
http://youtu.be/uaR98A6ahdI
patriot proved to be not as effective as intended... in gulf wars. I can't imagine the result on a SU 30 or supersonic cruise missile rather than a Mig 23 and scuds..
ReplyDeletefabsther, the Patriot has undergone a number of upgrades since then.
ReplyDeleteHowever, If the US Navy and US Air Force can't provide Air Superiority or Air Supremacy in a region, then having boots on the ground is going to be problematic.
And this version of LAV ?
ReplyDeletehttp://bf3blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/battlefield-3-lav25-ad.jpg
the USMC only bought 18 and they've been long retired.
Deletewhat was the reasoning for that Solomon, was it just internal bs or was the design faulty?
Deletei think, because i'm not entirely sure and i've tried to dig into it, the way the Marine Corps organizes its anti-air assets that a bit of Marine Corps politics reared its head. Marine Air has the anti-air mission in total. that means even the Stingers that accompany the Ground Combat Element are from the wing.
DeleteMarine Air likes to think that they will protect the ground forces from any enemy air activity. i have my doubts because the USAF has been real aggressive and they have big fans in Marine Air when it comes to their integrated air campaign concept. to cut this a bit short, i think Marines will get hit by enemy air in the future because Marine Air will be off with the USAF fighting the deep interdiction or air superiority campaign in general and ground forces will be hit by targeted enemy attacks.
The Russian Pantsir S1 is a really great system it's a shame the west has nothing equal.
ReplyDeleteIt can kill any air target from 20km to 200m with it's guns and missiles.
When was the last time the US fought someone with a dangerous air force for the ground forces. That's basically Korea and in some ways WW2. Maybe the Evolved Sea Sparrow or AIM-9X can be containerized and used in a quick fix system.
While I agree about the lack of a MANPAD platform, a medium range AD missile system doesn't need to be on a combat vehicle.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Stryker family is missing a dedicated recovery vehicle. But maintenance has never been well considered on this project.