Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 13, 2016 9:18 am

    The problem is thresholds.

    Once a country tries to take on Kaliningrad they cross a threshold where Russia is free to use serious force against them.

    NATO is a collective security organisation so that actually makes things easier for Russia because no doubt the justification for an attack on Kaliningrad would be self defence of course... which means the attacking force will claim to be the victim and demand NATO support... if they get that then Russia can choose a land route to get to Kaliningrad and the aggressor nation and push them back, reinforce the defences and then withdraw.

    To attack Kaliningrad however you would need a land border and that land border could be crossed both ways... a couple of corvettes in Kaliningrad waters could easily loose off a few dozen cruise missiles at NATO targets in the aggressor nation... which could only be from Poland or Lithuania as the only two countries that have a land border with Kaliningrad.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10245
    Points : 10733
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

    Post  George1 on Wed May 25, 2016 11:45 am

    Is Air Power essential to winning a Modern War?


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

    Post  Militarov on Wed May 25, 2016 11:48 am

    "All in all and as a result of my essay I would say that air power definitely will be essential to winning modern wars in the recent age and upcoming ages of warfare. The boiling point is that none of the other services could ever reach the comparative advantages that evolve from air powers’ unique capabilities. "

    TY, TY Airman Third Class Tobias Dobrowolski of German Air Force , whoever da hell are you...

    Azi

    Posts : 115
    Points : 117
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

    Post  Azi on Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:38 am

    Was in Sovietunion or Russia ever plans to create a gunship like AC-130? I know Russia has the Mil Mi-24 serving as a gunship, but the AC-130 has a few advantages even a few disadvanteges.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:22 am

    To be honest I doubt it.
    Not that it would be hard as they have plenty of aircraft types that would be suitable... the new MTA or the old An-12 would be of suitable size and of course in terms of actual weapons a 120mm gun/mortar, a 57mm gun high velocity new gun, plus 23mm and 30mm gatling guns in abundance... but I rather expect other platforms to be rather more use in such a role.

    Helicopter gunships, CAS aircraft, and artillery... as well as bomb trucks like the Tu-22M3 and Su-34 and Su-24 are all able to hit targets accurately... even long range rocket artillery like 300mm Smerch and Tochka and Iskander...

    Their airborne forces are fully armoured... having transport vehicles and also vehicles with direct and indirect fire heavy guns means more firepower moves with the forces and so less needs to be sent to support them.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

    Post  Militarov on Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:43 am

    GarryB wrote:To be honest I doubt it.
    Not that it would be hard as they have plenty of aircraft types that would be suitable... the new MTA or the old An-12 would be of suitable size and of course in terms of actual weapons a 120mm gun/mortar, a 57mm gun high velocity new gun, plus 23mm and 30mm gatling guns in abundance... but I rather expect other platforms to be rather more use in such a role.

    Helicopter gunships, CAS aircraft, and artillery... as well as bomb trucks like the Tu-22M3 and Su-34 and Su-24 are all able to hit targets accurately... even long range rocket artillery like 300mm Smerch and Tochka and Iskander...

    Their airborne forces are fully armoured... having transport vehicles and also vehicles with direct and indirect fire heavy guns means more firepower moves with the forces and so less needs to be sent to support them.

    Fixed wing gunship is very specific by its role and you cant really compare it to frontline bombers or any kind of artillery. Its huge loiter time, very high payload of conventional and cheap payload, plenty of space for optronics compared to other platforms, great crew comfort, ability to act as command post... makes it very unique.

    There are drawbacks too, as it cant be operated if enemy has air supremacy, if enemy has major air defence assets (still were used in Vietnam despite that), require at least well prepared airstrips...

    If soviets had fixed wing gunship aircraft in Afghanistan, it would have helped alot more than their bombing runs did.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:22 am

    Fixed wing gunship is very specific by its role and you cant really compare it to frontline bombers or any kind of artillery. Its huge loiter time, very high payload of conventional and cheap payload, plenty of space for optronics compared to other platforms, great crew comfort, ability to act as command post... makes it very unique.

    Only makes it unique for a western weapon system in terms of being relatively cheap. In terms of firepower the 105mm gun lobs 20kg HE shells... well the Su-25 carries 240mm rockets with heavier payloads (125kgs)... and the other guns are interesting but nothing that cannot be delivered by other means.

    There are drawbacks too, as it cant be operated if enemy has air supremacy, if enemy has major air defence assets (still were used in Vietnam despite that), require at least well prepared airstrips...

    The Laotian dragon or the great Laotian truck eater was a myth fabricated to explain the huge difference in the number of targets (trucks and vehicles) claimed killed by gunships, and the number of wrecks found on the battlefield after an attack... its publicity was often rather better than its actual performance.

    And it was horribly vulnerable to MANPADS.

    Something like Tunguska or Pantsir would be devastating to it...

    If soviets had fixed wing gunship aircraft in Afghanistan, it would have helped alot more than their bombing runs did.

    Not really... big slow aircraft are horribly vulnerable to MANPADS...

    When Stinger arrived they switched to artillery... which meant more dead Afghans because of the lower accuracy, but the US didn't care about that.


    Very much a niche weapon.

    For the Russians they would more likely have BMDs with their 30mm cannons and 100mm rifled guns in the direct fire role on the ground with the troops instead of fixed wing support aircraft...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

    Post  Militarov on Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:55 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Fixed wing gunship is very specific by its role and you cant really compare it to frontline bombers or any kind of artillery. Its huge loiter time, very high payload of conventional and cheap payload, plenty of space for optronics compared to other platforms, great crew comfort, ability to act as command post... makes it very unique.

    Only makes it unique for a western weapon system in terms of being relatively cheap. In terms of firepower the 105mm gun lobs 20kg HE shells... well the Su-25 carries 240mm rockets with heavier payloads (125kgs)... and the other guns are interesting but nothing that cannot be delivered by other means.

    There are drawbacks too, as it cant be operated if enemy has air supremacy, if enemy has major air defence assets (still were used in Vietnam despite that), require at least well prepared airstrips...

    The Laotian dragon or the great Laotian truck eater was a myth fabricated to explain the huge difference in the number of targets (trucks and vehicles) claimed killed by gunships, and the number of wrecks found on the battlefield after an attack... its publicity was often rather better than its actual performance.

    And it was horribly vulnerable to MANPADS.

    Something like Tunguska or Pantsir would be devastating to it...

    If soviets had fixed wing gunship aircraft in Afghanistan, it would have helped alot more than their bombing runs did.

    Not really... big slow aircraft are horribly vulnerable to MANPADS...

    When Stinger arrived they switched to artillery... which meant more dead Afghans because of the lower accuracy, but the US didn't care about that.


    Very much a niche weapon.

    For the Russians they would more likely have BMDs with their 30mm cannons and 100mm rifled guns in the direct fire role on the ground with the troops instead of fixed wing support aircraft...

    Americans fly AC-130s at 3.600m during combat and 7000m+ on approach which makes them out of reach of MANPADS an virtially any AAA that is active today.

    Soviets in Afghanistan had nothing that offered loiter time, literally nothing, even Su-25s flew strike missions and went away, only platform that stayed around was Mi-24 and we know how well that went. Sure, gunships are vulnerable aganist SHORAD-s, but if you have effective SEAD... and its not something you fly in where you expect active AD.

    There are atm like 17 or so active gunships in whole USAF, its platfrom with specific role.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:49 am

    Americans fly AC-130s at 3.600m during combat and 7000m+ on approach which makes them out of reach of MANPADS an virtially any AAA that is active today.

    Several old model gunships were lost in Vietnam to 37mm and 57mm AA guns and at least one Spooky was shot down in Iraq or Afghanistan by MANPADs.

    Soviets in Afghanistan had nothing that offered loiter time, literally nothing, even Su-25s flew strike missions and went away, only platform that stayed around was Mi-24 and we know how well that went.

    The Russian Army knows the only thing that offers 100% loiter time is artillery.

    Without night vision optics able to find and identify targets at standoff ranges such a system is largely useless.

    It is a very specific system for a very specific mission... which is pretty much why no one else uses them.

    Sure, gunships are vulnerable aganist SHORAD-s, but if you have effective SEAD... and its not something you fly in where you expect active AD.

    They are more vulnerable than Su-25s and Hinds and other platforms but then nothing is perfectly safe...

    They would not last long anywhere near a Tunguska or Pantsir system... in fact I think they might even be in trouble with the new Kornet-EM system...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Azi

    Posts : 115
    Points : 117
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

    Post  Azi on Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:46 am

    Like Militarov wrote loiter time is the critical point. Ok, of course you can't use gunships in heavy defended areas, but for example Syria is the place there gunships could have done good work in some places. You can surpress enemy movement and allow your own allied troops to march forward. Of course gunships fill a niche and nothing more, but they bring cheap a lot of firepower to a less defended place.

    And by the way, gunships are not soo sensitive to manpads as thought. The concept of the AC-130 is very robust and simple, only a direct and lucky hit would cause a lot of trouble.

    For Russian Air Force a few gunships 5 to 10 would be pefect against low level enemies, in a conflict against powerful enemy of course useless. In Syria they could hammer some parts of frontline. In some enclaves manpads are really really rare. In general it would be cheaper to let gunships hammer some frontlines, than Tu-22M3 coming direct from Russia.


    Sponsored content

    Re: Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:46 pm