GW1, Kosovo should not be considered given today's technology.
Today technology? Lybia conflict has nothing to do with today technology
(the most "successful" weapon employed against ground vehicles was a....redesigned AGM-114 Hellfire
), it instead had anything to do with an internal insurrection
-obviously guided and aided by foreign forces- in a third world nation with a very limited military structure mostly more than 35 years old
,several cities risen against the government with theirs linked military assets and strategical positions present,lost without that even a battle happening.
No military structure of any nation can win a war against its own people.
For example, insurrecting people in the French revolution was ,under a purely military value, immensely less powerful than French Army but that don't prevented the Nation established structure to collapse ,growing military defections ,loss of defensive deepness and strategic positions are enemies and progressive disintegration of all the civilian assets supporting the same military structure's existence are enemy far, far, far more dangerous than even an invasion by part of militarily superior enemy forces (as well proved in any pasted conflict)
Libya Conflict most of the damage to heavy machines was done by NATO bombs.
Oh True? Well therefore i am all ears and very impatient to know those impressive figures
Victor7 leave out of your mind those odd ideas on how to defend against Air Forces and try to ask to yourself ther question that any serious analyst ask to itself 24/24 any day of the week 12 months at year : in what way is possible to defend Air Forces in theirs classical roles from complete obliteration
(both against very advanced IAD or for the effect of destruction of theirs prerequisite structures) in a modern conflict against an advanced enemy ?
In fact today, Air Forces, in a full scale war against a very strong opponent, would result ,by a very long margin, the branch of Armed Forces more frail and vulnerable
Theirs high "popularity" in the wars of last 30 years has been dictated merely by the scale of those conflict (regional at best),by the level of sofistication of the enemy involved (small ,third world nations, devoid of any offensive and defensive weapons capable to render this type of approach not simply wrong but even suicide) and ,above all, by the political acceptability (Attack by air, against those inferior opponents, generate very low or even null friendly losses ,an element that render a military intervention politically acceptable by part of pubblic opinion on the nations proposing it and even a good internal "promo" for the Government figures ; moreover the lack of a direct "invasion" of the territory of a foreign sovereign state is considered in the international diplomatic chessboard much more politically acceptable).
The problem is that almost any
Air Forces are a very ,very ineffcient way to deliver military power . In the same time window of an Air Operation ,Ground Forces for the same value deliver
not some dozen...not some hundreds .....,but some thousands of times more destructive power at a little fraction of the costs
and them are also virtually immune to those type of early "beheading attacks" capable ,conversely, to completely cripple or rule out Air Forces in a modern war.