via NYTimes.
KIEV, Ukraine — Fighting intensified in the rebel-controlled region of Ukraine on Wednesday, with military officials reporting that two Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jets had been shot down near the village of Dmytrivka in the east.The title of this post is poorly worded but it does get me to the point. Either we're seeing extremely poor airman-ship by the Ukrainian Air Force or it appears that anti-air defenses are ascendant and are finally holding their own against air power.
Few details of the latest downings were available. But the news was reported as Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council in Kiev said the military operation to suppress the insurgents was advancing in the east, with government troops having retaken two cities in the Luhansk region as they continued an aggressive push from the north and west.
Officials said rebels had blown up a road bridge, a railroad bridge and train tracks in the city of Gorlivka, and they reported continued fierce fighting along a section of the border with Russia that remains porous. Ukrainian forces are increasingly desperate to seal that border to prevent resupplies of weapons or new fighters from entering Ukraine.
This has bearing on the US way of war.
Why?
Because we have a basic playbook. First we send in UAVs and gather intel on potential targets...while attempting to learn about enemy air defenses. Then we move on toward launching a full broadside of attacks against those defenses using cruise missiles, stealth aircraft etc...finally once those defense are down we go after command and control, strategic targets and once the USAF gets around to it their actual forces that will be attempting to put steel on American grunts closing with the enemy.
But what if we're seeing all that change.
What if UAVs will not be allowed to fly in even "limited" war situations? What if medium altitude attack is challenged and not permitted? What if close air support is actually fought with manpads all over the battlefield?
The threat forces have read our playbook and will act to prevent us from doing what we've become accustomed to. They will challenge us and I'm afraid I don't see us developing any answers (well, the USN is, but the USAF, USMC and our allies are all looking slack eyed and silly).
The US will be far more capable of operating in the SAM environment. Like you said, unmanned drones for recon, Tomahawks for high threat targets, and stealthier aircraft. Add in massive electronic warfare/jamming, AWACS control, satellite coverage, etc. Tie in HIMARS/MLRS/Arty and attack helicopters to match the right answer to the right target. Manpads are a threat, but have been for 40 years now.
ReplyDeleteThe soviets were always reliant on gbad to win the air war. So their gbad was always better than NATOs, we don't play that game.
ReplyDeleteGround attack, well, my views on the a10 have been loudly stated.
We don't play that game because we haven't yet had large numbers of drones used against us. Yet the rest of the world is coming up with short and medium range drone-killing platforms as fast as they can. Because they know how vital it's going to be to bring the enemy's eyes down fast.
Deletehttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/bvp-m-80m-80a-infantry-fighting-vehicle/bvp-m-80m-80a-infantry-fighting-vehicle2.html
Once US forces get into a real war, and look up to see low-flying Russian/Chinese/Iranian drones overhead that they can’t knock down, that attitude will change quick, and you’ll see a range of solutions developed. From AA tracking systems on Bradleys, to dedicated gun platforms and directional jammers.
I guess Ukraine can't afford Wild Weasels
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel
They were probably shoot down or at least one was shoot down and second probably only damage, by MANPADS. The Wild Weasels are ineffective against this type of AA systems.
DeleteI think that again the IDF is the precious source of info. They operate own planes above highly populated and urbanized areas, wonder how many Israel planes were under MANPADS attack?
ReplyDeletenot even the USAF has wild weasels anymore. the only organization that has an effective anti-air platform is the USN. none of our allies, not the USAF, the USMC only for a little longer but mostly the USN.
ReplyDeletethink about that for awhile and then consider that the rebels don't have an intergrated air defense system. i think the over reliance on air power is about to bite everyone in the ass.
i meant to say effective airplane against enemy air defenses not anti-air....
DeleteUSAF still has the SEAD mission. Some F-16 squadrons (what's left...) have that has their primary mission. Otherwise the Navy's growlers are pretty SH. They can take care of a much wider variety of threats. Newer tech, more hard points, more hurt.
DeleteSol, Su-25 is a very outdated aircraft now (I mean those are used by Ukraine). It haven't even a modern RWR or for example systems like A-10C' Missile Approach Warning System which can detect missiles' launches. Also there is no automatic shooting IRCM like at A-10C'. If Su' had such a thing they would react to some threats more effectively and haven't so many losses. So, these plane haven't even targeting pods only eyes of a pilot.
Delete1Modeus, you speak about Ukrainian ones, they are indeed rather outdated. Lack of funding and very poor state of Ukrainian air force is not a mystery. But machines that are equip Russians (not all, they can't afford that) can have serious upgrade packages including all systems you mention.
DeleteSu-25 is outstanding attack plane, it's a rare breed that is die out in modern times... the only ones still on the stage more or less is A-10 and Su-25, and only the last one still are in active service in larger numbers.
Shas, yes, I know, but let me disagree. Russian ones are better and more modern however its modernisation can't be compared with A-10a to A-10c one. Su-25SM' have a GPS, MFD's, new RWR but they are not capable of operate high precision weapons at the same level like NATO's atack airplanes (no pods or analogues). Yes, the modern battlefield conditions are real challenge to such planes.
DeleteThis is interesting boys...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/23/us-ukraine-crisis-commander-exclusive-idUSKBN0FS1V920140723
Khodakovsky don't like Striełkow... well that is understatement, those dude are "political" enemy's. And I think, we have our scapegoat. Striełkow will be one.
Btw: Khodakovsky in opposite to the rest of "leaders" of separatist is Ukrainian from that region, not imported from Moscow.
DeleteHad to really work the old noodle for this one, but remember Najaf in 2003?
ReplyDelete"On March 24, 32 AH-64D Longbow Apache attack helicopters of the 11th Aviation Regiment were tasked with carrying out a long range penetration mission against armored forces belonging to the Iraqi Republican Guard's Medina Division which was positioned outside Najaf. Rather than provide close air support near the front lines, the helicopters were going to be used in a manner similar to strike aircraft.
It is believed that Iraqi observers had the 11th AvR's forward assembly areas under observation. Regardless, when the helicopter forces of 1-227 AVN and 6-6 CAV approached Najaf that night, the city's power grid was shut down for several seconds as a signal that the helicopters were approaching. Heavy antiaircraft and small arms fire targeted the helicopters. Every single helicopter on the mission was hit and one even survived a direct hit from a rocket-propelled grenade.[6] The flight turned back towards base, with some of the helicopters on fire and others running on one engine or shot full of holes. One Apache was brought down and crash-landed in a marsh. Combat search-and-rescue aircraft were unable to reach the crash site due to the heavy antiaircraft fire"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Najaf_(2003)
Some blamed opsec, others blame the way the Apaches were used. Regardless, if you use capable platforms like Apaches and send them into situations where there are intense AA defenses that waiting for them, it's going to end bad.
The Soviets/Russians were on the wrong of end of way too much German airpower in WWII. It was a major part of their doctrine to never be that vulnerable again hence the reason they've developed so much anti-aircraft assets and deployed them at several echelons. Cannons, HMGs, Manpads, SAM systems were/are a major feature of their doctrine so there have to be a large percentage of vets and active duty soldiers who know what the hell they are doing when they setup anti-air defense. Same goes for armor.
Air defenses are an afterthought for US and Western militaries because they ASS/U/ME they will have air superiority.
It's a cultural thing: the Russians are realistic and know there will be times they won't have air cover. a
Is air defense ascendant? Only if you assume air power is supreme.
On a related note, do you ever think the Russian air force has Douhet Dilletantes who are convinced air power will win the day? I doubt it.
Well, that's indeed true. When "western" forces design air defense systems they put bets on air force. Soviets invest a lot more in ground to air defense. Maybe they just realize they air force sucks to much to be equal force against western army's? Who knows... the fact is that ZSRR create and build large number of mobile and stationary air to ground systems.
DeleteSoviets/Russians are used to fighting in the mud... not that we're not, but the AF (sadly) would wince at the mud getting on the shiny new toys... God help them if the F-22 missed it's corrosion control wash cycle in the last 30 minutes.
DeleteThis is the real reason that you'll need ground AA support at every level going forward:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTVfznp9Klw#t=37
Obviously that guy's green laser pointer isn't enough to get the job done.
The reason Soviets invested in air defense vs air force was that their posture was rather defensive ,having fought 2 world wars on home turf ,while US (which by the way never fought on home soil) allways planed to fight on foreign soil and the posture was always way more agressive so massive airforce makes sense . Nato allies in central Europe built mobile AA and SAMs while US never real did or they sucked completely.
Deletewait what? have you forgotten about the war with Mexico, the civil war, the attack on Pearl Harbor? the US has fought plenty of fights on its territory. not to the same extent as WW2 battles but the same can be said of most North and S. America countries. taken from that perspective Europe, Africa and the Middle East are just particularly fucked up....Asia trails but only a little.
DeleteWar with Mexico or civil war these don't count as modern wars with hardly any industrial tech,attack on Pearl Harbor was just that an attack that lasted couple of hours and was totally one sided.
DeleteIf you take it that way Russians and most European countries fought many wars before WW1 & 2 ,but cold war posture stems from WW2 experience . In the western front airpower was a big factor in allied effort while in the east not that much. Allied armies barely needed any AAA while on eastern front AAA was pretty much in play till the end.
Just goes to show. We need to get Ukraine to order 100 F-35s.
ReplyDeleteThings are getting ridiculous right now with all the lying and bullshit flying around.
ReplyDeleteUkrainian military are now claiming like on the previous occasion(su 25 shot down supoedly by Mig 29 when it was flying at 6000m) that planes were at 5000m and were shot down by Russian military with SAMs as the rebels don't posses anything that could reach that far.
I am confused now they can't shoot down planes at 5000m and 6000m but shooting down planes at 10.000m is no problem.
Ukraine needs to find some old Afghanistan vet pilots and study how things used to work. They need Su-25s flying cover for Mi-35s. As soon as some anti-air fire or MANPADs are launched, they need to guide in Su-25s with rockets and take out the source of the fire.
ReplyDeleteSu-24s/MiG-29s provide cover for Su-25 provide cover for Mi-35.
Word is when the Marines went over the berm into battle during the first Gulf war MANPADS were issued to every Bn, given to 0351 assaultmen (A Gunnery Sgt's nightmare!) then when the air threat dissolved and Blue on blue was feared the MANPADS were quickly withdrawn.
ReplyDeleteThe ability to flood the front areas with missiles is effective anti air tactics, just keep you own Tac Air out of those areas
The major problem with the Apaches was the ballistic arc of the AK 47 which literally threw a hail of bullets in an umbrella of lead for them to fly through.
If every man with a rifle shoots on orders at the same time in one direction somebody flying into that will get their ass shot.