thobbesThe old “quantity has a quality of its own.”
Another interesting scenario would be say a modified Libyan one.
Assume Libya but also assume a modern Libyan air and defence force based on assumptions in scenario 2.
Assume size of Libyan air force was same is it was in real life (about 100 operational aircraft) but with modernised aircraft (Su-30, MiG-29).
Assume Libyan AD was also operational with some S300s.
The USA is unwilling to be involved on a major level. Some of NATO partners contributing airpower are only willing to fly no-fly zone enforcement after enemy AD has been neutralised.
Could France/Britain with limited US support suppress the opponent’s AD system without suffering massive casualties?
thobbesThe other important area where NATO has managed to maintain overwhelming superiority against poorer air defence forces is electronic warfare and intelligence.
Soviets maintained massive EW support for their forces (e.g. Yak-28PPs, Il-28s, Su-24MP, Mi-8s).
This is something generally ignored by most modern opponents of NATO who focused on combat aircraft/helicopters (Iraq/Libya) or in Yugoslavia’s case national defence industry.
thobbesIn any case if this is the kind of result obtained by experienced pilots flying a 1980s vintage Soviet aircraft with 1980s Soviet vintage missiles, then the Israelis and Yanks are very, very lucky that Arab pilots were poorly trained and generally equipped with export “monkey model” equipment and that Serbs had 10 years of sanctions and non-functional radars.
I wonder what the result would be if you pitted experienced late model Flanker pilots versus NATO jets in BVR scenarios (F-22 aside).
It does make one wonder how long outnumbered NATO airforces would’ve lasted in a Cold War Goes Hot Scenario.
thobbes1)scenario :
BVR – distance over 50km , 4 MiG-29 (9.12) vs 2 F-16blk 52+
results : 2 F-16 and 1 MiG-29 shoot down
What are the assumptions on those MiG-29 v F-16 BVR engagements?
Currently AIM-120 has a real life hit ratio of about 33% from memory. So 4 aircraft launching 8 missiles would probably bag at least 2 and maybe a third MiG-29.
R27 has 4% – from Eritrea-Ethiopia where only 1 out of 24 missiles hit (and that wasn’t a hit but caused enough damage for aircraft to crash later). We don’t know about type of R27 used and they were apparently “max range” shoots.
Also were any R27s launched in Serbia in 1999?
1)scenario
Red : 4 F-16 (escort) , 4 Su-22 ( bombers )
Blue : 4 MiG-29 (CAP)
-some AMRAAM and R-27 shoot were evade ( max range shoot ) by turning away
-AMRAAM kill 2 MiG-29 in BVR
-R-27 kill 1 F-16 in BVR
Seems a bit optimistic given outcome of max range shoots in Ethiopia-Eritrea (4% hit ratio for R27).
To be honest I’m a bit dubious on these electronic simulations. In real life there are a lot more factors affecting hit probability.
thobbesThe F-35 Joint Strike Fighter promises a military future for Cherry Point air station as it replaces older Marine Corps aircraft, but it already has a growing impact for North Carolina’s civilian economy
In this one sentence, they describe the problem with not only the F-35 but defence procurment as a whole.
Military acquisitions are no longer viewed as a part of defending the realm but rather job creation programs.
And job creation programs are seldom run efficiently and seldom result in improvements in defence or tax payer efficiency.
E.g. Australian Collins Class subs.
Or even less topically – licence assembly of UH-60s – I once read that it took 36,000 hours to assemble each Blackhawk in Australia rather than 7,000 hours for assembly in the USA.
thobbesThis is not very intersting it is just plain BS, I don’t know if it is just a sign of ignorance or the colonel is in complete bad faith.
Anyway this officer shows no respect for the 52 Italian casulaties and the 56 German casualties who died in A-stan since the start of the operations, let alone for the military efforts of the involved Countries.I invite the “many oserving from the sidelines” to find better sources on that conflict.
Given the type of war being fought in Afganistan, casualties don’t necessarily have to be combat troops – IEDs, green v vblue, random ambushes, bombings, occassional helicopter shotdowns, accidents.
E.g. 52 out of 56 dead Italians:
34 – combat related (unspecified events . e.g. doesn’t indicate IED etc)
9 – vehicle accident
4 – illness
1 – suicide
2 – hear attacked
1 – plane crash
1 – accidental weapons discharged
4 since then not specified.
For Germans we have even better documentation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Armed_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan
As you can see many accidents, IEDs, green v blue, suicide bombings and ambushes.
Many partners are involved in support operations (training, logistics, security, development, engineering, peacekeeping) and not dedicated combat troops.
From memory most of the German and Italian contingents are not primarily combat ones and they initially have very limiting rules of engagment. The Germans are posted in a relatively quiet part of Afghanistan too.
Fromn what I’ve read I’d agree with the colonel’s statements.
In Kosovo, the US found the NATO command structure so cumbersome it ran large chunks of its missions as non-NATO missions.
It was the same in Libya. And as stated many Coalition forces in Afghanistan are of limited utility due to politically imposed restrictions.
Joint ops have always been problematic due to political and national interests.
Even in WWII there was considerable tension between Britain and USA (e.g. Churchill kept pushing for an invasion of the Balkans as opposed to France, issues with command structure and whose troops participated where or were under whose command).
In this day and age the politicians are involved in directing combat operations to a level that would make Hitler proud.
As LBJ once said: “they wouldn’t bomb an outhouse with my approval.”
thobbesIt’s very aviation based – the issue is the role of NATO airforces in the 21st century.
Are we going to see continued use of air power in small interventions in Africa or are European Airforces going to become more globally involved?
thobbesInteresting comment about the General Cagiano’s successor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Msimang
Trained in USSR,
Combat in Angola in 1986 but spent 89-91 in flying training in USSR so I assume his combat experience in ground based.
Flew helicopters
Worked on A109 acquisition program
Commanded Helicopter Flying School
The really interesting thing is rapidity of his promotions:
2005 – Promoted to Colonel (Officer Commanding Air Force Base Bloemspruit )
June 2007 – Promoted to Brigadier General (Director Helicopter Systems )
November 2010 – Promoted to Major General (Chief Director Air Policy and Plans)
October 2012 – Promoted to Lieutenant General (Chief of Air Force)
Either he is really good at his jobs or his promotions were expedited.
Another interesting comment on the page about General Cagianao:
In 2012 Sisulu cancelled a parliamentary committee appearance by Gagiano after it appeared that he would make public detrimental information about the state of the service
They did that here in Tasmania too where they refused to allow Treasury officials to talk to a Parliamentary Committee on the state of the economy.
Basically covering up a dire state of affairs.
thobbesAt Swerve:
Article 6:
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
So according to this the US could draw on NATO in for combat in North Asia?
E.g. a US destroyer gets attacked Vietnam style in Yellow Sea or even an attack on a US base in Asia.
thobbesApparently Tigres are being deployed:
thobbesRemember that NATO technically did not have any jurisdiction in Afghanistan yet Article 5 was invoked in 2001 allowing NATO participation in the occupation of Afghanistan.
NATO has also expanded operations/activities to include:
– Libya
– Gulf of Aden anti-piracy patrols (Ocean Shield)
– Training mission in Iraq.
– Invited India to be part of Ballistic Missile Shield.
– Istanbul Cooperation Initiative – helping expand ties with oil rich Persian Gulf Arab countries.
-Mediterranean Dialogue with Middle Eastern and African countries ala Mauritania
NATO’s current role is confused.
– It’s a defence treaty without any substantial external threats.
– Some partners wish it to become a global police force.
– Many partners use it as a way of cutting defence expenditure to bare minimum
– There’s a push by some countries such as Australia to expand NATO membership to include non-European countries.
– Many NATO partners might approve policing roles but do not contribute.
However I can see in say a Taiwan or South China Sea scenario that NATO would become involved even if most members only contribution is a paper sign off for British/French involvement under NATO banner.
thobbesInteresting indeed! Thanks for the link.
What’s the 12 month service only campaign about?
thobbes+2.
However the F-22 deters nothing – it’s a defensive air defence fighter, not an ICBM/SLBM, a nuclear/chemical/biological weapon, a submarine, a strategic bomber, a carrier group, an ability to respond almost instantly or something that can damage/disrupt the aggressor’s economy.
Even North Korea’s antiquated yet extremely numerous artillery systems offer substantial deterence (an analyst once wrote if each gun only fired one shell, Seoul would be destroyed), let alone their nuclear weapons.
Iran has also been effective in deterring the US and co as well.
The F-22 is an asset with a very specific mission – shoot down enemy jets. Unfortunately for the F-22, most modern opponents don’t have jets and if they do, they’re often grounded due to poor servicability, poor resource allocation/management, embargoes and general neglect.
The Teen series will probably be still more than adequate against ACTUAL opponents in the 2050s.
thobbesTheis is even more the case for the F-22 that has not seen any use yet
Totally agree. The F-22 is generally a waste of time in current wars being fought and more likely future wars as well which will undoubtedly involve fights against fruit that’s so low lying, it’s rotting on the ground.
thobbesAs for crewing, things have moved on from the early days of the mining boom, when cashed up mining companies were willing to pay huge $ to hire engineers, techs and tradies. Given enough time to orientate the recruitment/ training / retention pipeline to a 12 boat submarine force, crewing in itself should not be a huge issue.
The Australian military seems to suffer from recruitment issues frequently, thanks to a very low unemployment rate in Australia plus perhaps a lack of interest in military service (I live in an an area with relatively high unemployment and when I was younger, no-one I knew was interested in serving in the military even when they were desperate for a job – they preferred to work in a supermarket or delivering pizzas).
Look at the Army’s current 12 month service only recruitment campaign. A while back they only had about 40 pilots for the F/A-18 Hornet fleet.
And the mining boom’s still chugging along in WA and NT. It’s the main thing keeping the country afloat.
Sign In
