Forward Line Of Troops for those unaware.FLOT
I wouldn't be surprised if artillery shells got a SEAD/DEAD upgrade or if all ARMs in the future were either cluster munition only or useless.It would he flying close to the FLOT, which means artillery support for SEAD/DEAD.
This is mainly because it's a matter of density, not numbers. From my understanding, SHORAD level AA and higher have surprisingly low density throughout this conflict. As the US learned, MANPADs are kind of useless in situ.Counterpoint: It's the third year of the war, yet plenty of Su-25's, planes of similar age and characteristics, still fly on both sides, despite being used very much, over the most AA filled battlefield since Vietnam.
Only because the planes rarely get into their range, that's the trick. The attack planes are generally not being used to "get down and dirty" like they are normally known for, but to sling unguided rockets from a semi-ballistic trajectory (as many videos show), or throw standoff weapons when right ones available. It's risky and they get shot down sometimes if they make a small mistake...This is mainly because it's a matter of density, not numbers. From my understanding, SHORAD level AA and higher have surprisingly low density throughout this conflict. As the US learned, MANPADs are kind of useless in situ.
Eh, not really. GPS guidance already helps as does long rangeI wouldn't be surprised if artillery shells got a SEAD/DEAD upgrade or if all ARMs in the future were either cluster munition only or useless.
There is plenty of both, MANPADS aee valuable for low level flyingThis is mainly because it's a matter of density, not numbers. From my understanding, SHORAD level AA and higher have surprisingly low density throughout this conflict. As the US learned, MANPADs are kind of useless in situ.
This basicallyOnly because the planes rarely get into their range, that's the trick. The attack planes are generally not being used to "get down and dirty" like they are normally known for, but to sling unguided rockets from a semi-ballistic trajectory (as many videos show), or throw standoff weapons when right ones available. It's risky and they get shot down sometimes if they make a small mistake...
But so do more expensive Su-34's that are supposed to be actually hard to shoot down.
Only because the planes rarely get into their range, that's the trick. The attack planes are generally not being used to "get down and dirty" like they are normally known for, but to sling unguided rockets from a semi-ballistic trajectory (as many videos show), or throw standoff weapons when right ones available. It's risky and they get shot down sometimes if they make a small mistake...
But so do more expensive Su-34's that are supposed to be actually hard to shoot down.
Yeah, this is why to get a true comparisson you need to compare their performance and suitability to helicopters.Case in point: during the '91 Gulf War, the A-10s were the *only* Coalition air taking damage from Iraqi AA guns and MANPADs. . . because they were the only Coalition air that actually entered the low-altitude bracket at all. All other air support remained in the medium-altitude bracket; the A-10s initially did as well, but were later authorized to get down low where they were most effective, since the risk was manageable.
Yeah, this is why to get a true comparisson you need to compare their performance and suitability to helicopters.
TBH that depends on specific opponent involved and what they have. Syria, Libya or Afghanistan in 2023 would hardly be worse than then, while something like China would make it absolutely suicidal.Yes, but I'm saying that a "manageable risk" in 1991 is "likely suicide" in 2023.
Please note that the frames with the highest loss rate were 1) Tornados on anti-runway duty (because of the specs of their anti-runway ordinance was leaked to the Iraqis) and 2) A-10s...Case in point: during the '91 Gulf War, the A-10s were the *only* Coalition air taking damage from Iraqi AA guns and MANPADs. . . because they were the only Coalition air that actually entered the low-altitude bracket at all. All other air support remained in the medium-altitude bracket; the A-10s initially did as well, but were later authorized to get down low where they were most effective, since the risk was manageable.
I mean that the shells have anti-rad guidance packages to purposely hunt down AA batteries.Eh, not really. GPS guidance already helps as does long range
There is plenty of both, MANPADS aee valuable for low level flying
This basically
Hence, why I said density; the funny thing is that air power is now becoming increasingly subservient to ground/naval assets as air defense capabilities increase and more nations invest in their production and deployment.Only because the planes rarely get into their range, that's the trick. The attack planes are generally not being used to "get down and dirty" like they are normally known for, but to sling unguided rockets from a semi-ballistic trajectory (as many videos show), or throw standoff weapons when right ones available. It's risky and they get shot down sometimes if they make a small mistake...
But so do more expensive Su-34's that are supposed to be actually hard to shoot down.
To be fair, the Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle Enhanced program which produced the M6 Linebacker was only ever meant as an stopgap SHORAD capability. The program itself is considered a pretty successful example of bypassing the normal equipment acquisition procedures to meet an urgent field need.Also, the 'unresponsiveness of MANPADS' is something that came out of the Bradley-Stinger abomination and its child, the M6 Linebacker (not the cool one with the ADATS racks, the one that is a Bradley with the TOW launcher replaced with a quad-Stinger launcher) from what I remember.
I mean that the shells have anti-rad guidance packages to purposely hunt down AA batteries.
HARM missiles are just better, and are more easily able to find the target due to nature of it being a missile.Please note that the frames with the highest loss rate were 1) Tornados on anti-runway duty (because of the specs of their anti-runway ordinance was leaked to the Iraqis) and 2) A-10s...
I mean that the shells have anti-rad guidance packages to purposely hunt down AA batteries.
Also, the 'unresponsiveness of MANPADS' is something that came out of the Bradley-Stinger abomination and its child, the M6 Linebacker (not the cool one with the ADATS racks, the one that is a Bradley with the TOW launcher replaced with a quad-Stinger launcher) from what I remember.
Hence, why I said density; the funny thing is that air power is now becoming increasingly subservient to ground/naval assets as air defense capabilities increase and more nations invest in their production and deployment.
... I distinctly remember that, once upon a time, various air forces had men like Bomber Harris try to obsolete everything else via the 'bombers always get through' memetic hazard—a memetic hazard that died hard during Vietnam within most of the military.
It's not density alone, if it was just MANPADS and crappier guns with right tactics getting closer would be doable. But that's not a given for all wars from now on.Hence, why I said density; the funny thing is that air power is now becoming increasingly subservient to ground/naval assets as air defense capabilities increase and more nations invest in their production and deployment.
... I distinctly remember that, once upon a time, various air forces had men like Bomber Harris try to obsolete everything else via the 'bombers always get through' memetic hazard—a memetic hazard that died hard during Vietnam within most of the military.
Yeah, there is a very contextual clause to this.It should be noted that the "bombers always get through" as a meaningful point referred primarily to nuclear bombers, and was pretty much a matter of comparing the effectiveness of WWII era fighter interception + flak to the new reality that one bomber getting through meant you lost an entire city.
They didn't, even at peak Air Force uber alles, ever seriously think that bombers were invincible -- just that you couldn't shoot ALL of them down EVERY single time.
Following this discussion very closely.By Sparky and Co., are you referring to the infamous M113-obsessed Sparks himself??
How long it lasts and how easy it is to make in the home nation, as well as making it as calorie dense as possibleHere is a question. What could be done to improve the field rations troops eat? I mean you have the French ration which is supposed to be very good to something like the ration the Taiwanese army uses.