Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

x_54_u43 wrote:

wilhelm wrote:
Don't stress about it too much, Elbows.

x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig?

Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman.

On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

Contract for Armata have begun.

Militarov wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

wilhelm wrote:
Don't stress about it too much, Elbows.

x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig?

Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman.

On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

Contract for Armata have begun.

And yet, Iraq and Libya were obliterated by air power in matter of days. Same happened to Germans on Western Front, and to Egyptians and Syrians in wars with Israel... Air power wins the war there is not even a spot for discussion on that matter.

Under full air superiority of the enemy there is very little you can do on the ground, at the best you can do what we did in Serbia... hide, run, evacuate. When you actually operate with your armored and mechanised units while enemy has full air superiority you can only hope they do not have good battlefield awareness or that weater is too challenging for them to perform airstrikes.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

wilhelm wrote:
Don't stress about it too much, Elbows.

x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig?

Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman.

On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

Contract for Armata have begun.

And yet, Iraq and Libya were obliterated by air power in matter of days. Same happened to Germans on Western Front, and to Egyptians and Syrians in wars with Israel... Air power wins the war there is not even a spot for discussion on that matter.

Under full air superiority of the enemy there is very little you can do on the ground, at the best you can do what we did in Serbia... hide, run, evacuate. When you actually operate with your armored and mechanised units while enemy has full air superiority you can only hope they do not have good battlefield awareness or that weater is too challenging for them to perform airstrikes.

I do not agree on this. The war in Ukraine is an example of how today can be stablished an space of air interdiction based only on land surface-air warfare, without a need of air superiority.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

wilhelm wrote:
Don't stress about it too much, Elbows.

x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig?

Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman.

On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

Contract for Armata have begun.

And yet, Iraq and Libya were obliterated by air power in matter of days. Same happened to Germans on Western Front, and to Egyptians and Syrians in wars with Israel... Air power wins the war there is not even a spot for discussion on that matter.

Under full air superiority of the enemy there is very little you can do on the ground, at the best you can do what we did in Serbia... hide, run, evacuate. When you actually operate with your armored and mechanised units while enemy has full air superiority you can only hope they do not have good battlefield awareness or that weater is too challenging for them to perform airstrikes.

I do not agree on this. The war in Ukraine is an example of how today can be stablished an space of air interdiction based only on land surface-air warfare, without a need of air superiority.

x_54_u43 wrote:

wilhelm wrote:
Don't stress about it too much, Elbows.

x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig?

Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman.

On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

Russian air force or American, it makes no difference

Contract for Armata have begun.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

wilhelm wrote:
Don't stress about it too much, Elbows.

x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig?

Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman.

On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

Contract for Armata have begun.

And yet, Iraq and Libya were obliterated by air power in matter of days. Same happened to Germans on Western Front, and to Egyptians and Syrians in wars with Israel... Air power wins the war there is not even a spot for discussion on that matter.

Under full air superiority of the enemy there is very little you can do on the ground, at the best you can do what we did in Serbia... hide, run, evacuate. When you actually operate with your armored and mechanised units while enemy has full air superiority you can only hope they do not have good battlefield awareness or that weater is too challenging for them to perform airstrikes.

I do not agree on this. The war in Ukraine is an example of how today can be stablished an space of air interdiction based only on land surface-air warfare, without a need of air superiority.

Maybe because of incompentent, outdated and few in numbers Ukrainian airforce? Here we are talking about real air superiority, where enemy actually can fly and perform high precision airstrikes and control airspace.

eehnie wrote:

Future wars between armed forces with enough developed surface-air weapons, are likely to produce spaces of air interdiction for both sides, like is the Donbass now. The air superiority only works to crush fairly weaker countries that have not enough good surface-air weapons.

The military tactics based on air superiority to destroy land warfare are old and outdated stuf to fight with modern adversaries since the massive development and deployment of surface-air manpads and the improvement of the accuracy of the bigger surface-air platforms.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

wilhelm wrote:
Don't stress about it too much, Elbows.

x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig?

Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman.

On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

Contract for Armata have begun.

And yet, Iraq and Libya were obliterated by air power in matter of days. Same happened to Germans on Western Front, and to Egyptians and Syrians in wars with Israel... Air power wins the war there is not even a spot for discussion on that matter.

Under full air superiority of the enemy there is very little you can do on the ground, at the best you can do what we did in Serbia... hide, run, evacuate. When you actually operate with your armored and mechanised units while enemy has full air superiority you can only hope they do not have good battlefield awareness or that weater is too challenging for them to perform airstrikes.

I do not agree on this. The war in Ukraine is an example of how today can be stablished an space of air interdiction based only on land surface-air warfare, without a need of air superiority.

Maybe because of incompentent, outdated and few in numbers Ukrainian airforce? Here we are talking about real air superiority, where enemy actually can fly and perform high precision airstrikes and control airspace.

I do not agree. Until now the kind of air superiority that you commented has been based on low vulnerability of the air platforms, but in the case of Ukraine, the Surface-Air weapons proved to be able to destroy every platform fliying, until a point where the alone good tactic for air warfare is to avoid to fly.

Future wars between armed forces with enough developed surface-air weapons, are likely to produce spaces of air interdiction for both sides, like is the Donbass now. The air superiority only works to crush fairly weaker countries that have not enough good surface-air weapons.

The military tactics based on air superiority to destroy land warfare are old and outdated stuf to fight with modern adversaries since the massive development and deployment of surface-air manpads and the improvement of the accuracy of the bigger surface-air platforms.

GarryB wrote:

Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

So people with an opinion that is different from yours are retarded?

Why are you being rude?

Abusing other members for whatever reason violates the rules of this forum and also more importantly stifles open and honest discussion.

This is a warning... people who abuse others for not holding their views will find themselves banned for a period of time... I hope this is clear for everyone.

But he started it will not be accepted as an excuse so if someone abuses you and you reply in kind don't be surprised if you both get a time out...

Not sure how I can make this clearer.

GarryB

And yet, Iraq and Libya were obliterated by air power in matter of days.

No, they really weren't. Iraq... that is the first time around had 100 days of bombing which didn't wipe out anything... it took a ground campaign to actually get Iraq out of Kuwaite.

equally in Kosovo the air campaign was ineffectual.

In Libya the government was broken but then you can create anarchy easily... that really has no practical value.

Same happened to Germans on Western Front,

Yeah... that strategic bombing won WWII... they didn't fire a shot from the French beaches to Berlin because the air power had already defeated the german occupiers... NOT.

Egyptians and Syrians in wars with Israel... Air power wins the war there is not even a spot for discussion on that matter.

In flat open deserts it has a bearing on the outcome, but I would suggest that the quality of the ground forces is far more decisive.

Under full air superiority of the enemy there is very little you can do on the ground, at the best you can do what we did in Serbia... hide, run, evacuate. When you actually operate with your armored and mechanised units while enemy has full air superiority you can only hope they do not have good battlefield awareness or that weater is too challenging for them to perform airstrikes.

Only when one force is NATO and the other force is Serbia. Replace the Serbian force with a modern Russian army, or even equip the Serbian force with modern Russian Army equipment including their air defence forces and NATO would not have been able to fly.

Air power against a very much weaker side can look impressive but Kosovo proved even against an enemy with obsolete equipment it can be totally ineffectual, but you are claiming it is a war winner?

I do not agree on this. The war in Ukraine is an example of how today can be stablished an space of air interdiction based only on land surface-air warfare, without a need of air superiority.

X2

The fact is that air power has serious weaknesses... including cost. It looks great in an open desert against an enemy lacking weapons effective above 10Km...

With good tactics however they fly around unable to find targets and hit nothing.

Maybe because of incompentent, outdated and few in numbers Ukrainian airforce? Here we are talking about real air superiority, where enemy actually can fly and perform high precision airstrikes and control airspace.

You mean the US and British fight against Daesh?

US had air control over south vietnam and USSR had control over Afghan air space but could not find targets... they controlled the air but the enemy did not use the air for anything so the value of control was small. A supply of MANPADS means the power in control of the air can't even exploit it with air delivered troops for fear their helos get shot down...

A dilapidated military against a bunch of angry experienced war veterans, miners, and Spetsnaz advisers.

A situation where one side had an air force but not the stand off capability to avoid MANPADS, and the other side had no air force but had MANPADS so could eliminate the threat of the enemies air force... result air force quickly eliminated from the equation and ground forces forced to deal with the situation.

Better ask Austin about Indian airforce and Pakistani tanks. We have example in Syria - how few planes can change course of war in few months.

But not on their own... in the case of Syria you need ground forces to attack an enemy target... when the enemy concentrates its forces to meet that attack it becomes a target for air power. If it does not concentrate to meet the ground force the ground force will crush them piece by piece. If they run away air power can harass them.

Without the ground forces however the enemy has no reason to group up and remains invisible target for air power so air power is not effective.

Syria is a perfect
example of this how Russia cannot keep advancing with how weak the Syrian army is versus
NATO armed ISIS and Alqaeda fighters.

I disagree... as long as the Russian and Syrian air support is accurate and effective ISIS is doomed... it can either form up and meet the attack... in which case it will be bombed, or it can run away.

As more areas are liberated they lose more territory and more resources and more local support in the form of food and men.

sepheronx wrote:Well, Iraq and Serbia were operating relatively outdated equipment during the conflicts. Modern systems all have much better capabilities especially in jamming environment. Iraq had a huge defense system but that was still obsolete and poorly manned. Serbia seemed was obsolete but well manned. If it had more modern equipment, would have been more devastating for nato aircrafts. Also good protection against standoff weapons. Latest training with manpads and shorad shows their importance.

Plus manpads have a track record of getting a good shot at modern aircrafts.

sepheronx wrote:

Militarov wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

wilhelm wrote:
Don't stress about it too much, Elbows.

x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig?

Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman.

On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

Contract for Armata have begun.

And yet, Iraq and Libya were obliterated by air power in matter of days. Same happened to Germans on Western Front, and to Egyptians and Syrians in wars with Israel... Air power wins the war there is not even a spot for discussion on that matter.

Under full air superiority of the enemy there is very little you can do on the ground, at the best you can do what we did in Serbia... hide, run, evacuate. When you actually operate with your armored and mechanised units while enemy has full air superiority you can only hope they do not have good battlefield awareness or that weater is too challenging for them to perform airstrikes.

Not quite.  The Arab nations were devastated due to piss poor tactics, and even then, the west lost a lot of equipment in the process (they can call it technical failures all around, doesn't make it any better) and it really didn't help when majority of Saddams army folded quite early for whatever reason.  Example of poor tactics is Syria's AD setup where Buks are constantly moved and struck when during movement, but not like Pantsir that was used when shooting down a Turk jet a while ago.

AD systems could very well be a determined factor and mobile units are indeed a huge game changer.  If Saddam's army had more modern and capable, mobile sam systems then I don't think the US would have gotten away with the same amount of losses.  Add to that, if they even had low altitude radar or UHF radar as well.  No, we are also seeing that artillery units and alike are a determining factor.  You cannot win a war against an enemy without a ground troops, and even then Israel had to conduct ground ops against various nations during the 6 day war to destroy SAM sites before they could use their airforce to pummel the enemy.  Libya was an example of having mercenaries fight on the ground while your airforce hunts a specific person down.  They didn't win, they just assassinated a person and helped create a power vacuum because of it.

sepheronx wrote:So you are saying Russia would lose too, on an invasion on its own land even though they have new equipment, strongest IADS, and advanced aircrafts because somehow US/NATO outmatches them? Logistics means nothing?

If Iraq had all of that, they would win. The amount of forces engaged against Iraq were smaller than Iraqi overall forces. It was horrifically out of date and poorly trained. If not why do you think the US would win? Cause of hollywood? You make no sense. Your answer borderline of just because USA, Southern redneck style.

The only determining factor of what you may be saying is Iraqi willingness to fight.

sepheronx wrote:So you are saying Russia would lose too, on an invasion on its own land even though they have new equipment, strongest IADS, and advanced aircrafts because somehow US/NATO outmatches them? Logistics means nothing?

If Iraq had all of that, they would win. The amount of forces engaged against Iraq were smaller than Iraqi overall forces. It was horrifically out of date and poorly trained. If not why do you think the US would win? Cause of hollywood? You make no sense. Your answer borderline of just because USA, Southern redneck style.

The only determining factor of what you may be saying is Iraqi willingness to fight.

sepheronx wrote:But he said with modern weapons and modern training they couldn't win. But if they had Tochka-U and Iskanders, new MLRS, New sukhoi jets a cruise missiles and the like, then Iraq would have been able to strike massed groups and supply lines as well as bases themselves from afar. These are all Russia has as well. Besides nukes of course, Russia got nothing else special.

Actually, even with Nukes, it isn't stopping US building up a mass of troops along Russia's borders and threatening them of war. So technically, same situation as Iraq. Only difference is Russia has more assets and manpower, nukes that now no one believes Russia would use no matter what, and possibly a way to replenish destroyed gear from Eastern section.

eehnie wrote:

I do not agree on this. The war in Ukraine is an example of how today can be stablished an space of air interdiction based only on land surface-air warfare, without a need of air superiority.