Also, if I sounded hostile, I don't mean to. Basically, I'm not denying the latest Russian SAMs are high threat systems. I'm just saying that you basically can NOT stop air power from striking its objectives with air defense. Or at least you CAN, but you'd need to cover nearly the entire country with SAMs and radars, which would starve the rest of the military.

IIRC, in Exercise Crocodile 2003 at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland, Australia, USMC/USN Hornets and Blackhawks were nearly decimated by Australian Rapiers - they didn't consider the possibility of placements etc. and the Rapiers knocked out most of the Marine Fixed Wing Assests. From what I've heard, most of the Air trouble to the OPFOR (mostly Aussies) came from the Super Cobras - from an eyewitness, watching ASLAVs scatter like rabbits under trees etc. on the appearance of Snakes was 'bloody funny', as was the time a Marine company tried to land via Helos only to have the LZ surrounded by dug in Diggers and Leopards of 1st Armoured....... If I were to draw conclusions from this, it would be that the US military isn't ignorant of the fact, but work on assumptions a lot of the time, and make little allowances for variations or mistaken assumptions. This Attitude is the main problem/concern, not the competency of US air defence. Pucka

Thank You PuckaMan You caught my original drift. Rapiers - especially in the optical mode - are very difficult to jam. And again the essence of air defence is cooperation between warning, fighters, sams, guns and control.

>>If I were to draw conclusions from this, it would be that the US military isn't ignorant of the fact, but work on assumptions a lot of the time, and make little allowances for variations or mistaken assumptions.<< If I were to draw conclusions, I would conclude that this was a very scripted scenario that doesn't really mean a whole lot in the general USAF/USN/USMC vs SAM discussion. Are SAMs dangerous? Sure. Does the US have means of dealing with them? Definitely. Had the USN/USMC flown at 20k+ feet & dropped simulated JDAMs, the Rapiers would've scored zero simulated kills.

That exercise scenario has actually happened a few times over the last few years. I would have said that the problem was in part one of historical knowledge. ie nobody on the "orange" side had picked up the mistakes made in prev years. Similar results have occurred in the North West of Australian in some of the mountain range exercises. I'd suggest that someone isn't looking at prev contact reports let alone exercise reports.

An A-10 pilot I talked to basically said, they can easily wipe the floor with SAMs if they have the element of surprise. I think that pretty much sums the AD vs AG argument up. Both can wipe the floor with the other given the right conditions...and airpower's mobility gives it the ability to create those conditions, rather than being forced to adopt to the enemy's patterns(if any) like air defense.

The problem with dropping to 20' and bombing from there is that it does take a lot of training to make it a reasonably safe procedure.

>>The problem with dropping to 20' and bombing from there is that it does take a lot of training to make it a reasonably safe procedure<< In CAS perhaps, but not in BAI. Dropping bombs near friendlies takes a LOT of training regardless of if it's done from 20kft or 5kft.

True, some might not be taking the exercises seriously, which is strange,given that the point of exerises is to give experience, expose some problem/areas in need of attention. The thing about wild weasel and JDAMs is that they have to find the target first, and it is generally too late when the Missile is on its way. I'd be quite interested to see how the F111 Wild Weasel (the Raven variant?) would do in this area,given that it is still the fastest attack bomber anywhere. Pucka

USN-MID wrote: Basically, I'm not denying the latest Russian SAMs are high threat systems. I'm just saying that you basically can NOT stop air power from striking its objectives with air defense. Or at least you CAN, but you'd need to cover nearly the entire country with SAMs and radars, which would starve the rest of the military. Alright I can agree with that. Here is my contention, however, on the impact of these systems in a Taiwan Strait crisis. All of China's S-300 systems are concentrated in the east. They defend all of the bases that would support an attack on Taiwan; the missile and aircraft bases most notably. The objective for the US/Taiwan defense would not simply be to blunt a potential invasion. It would be to prevent a blockade of Taiwan, and to prevent China from terrorizing the Taiwanese population with missile and air strikes (and thus provoking them to force Taiwan's leaders to begin reunification talks). Well you know US military doctrine - in such a situation it is not adequate to merely defend. What is necessary is to proactively go after the airbases and especially the missile bases, and EARLY. What the US Navy faces (the main task is going to fall to them) is a situation it never has: Enemy targets that were specifically designed to resist US precision strikes, defended by an air defense network with weapons specifically designed to counter modern US air operations. Not to mention about 300 front-line Chinese aircraft (a US carrier would bring what, 50-60 combat fighter-bombers? They still have to conduct fleet defense). You see, if China had to defend all of China from air attack, then you would be correct, the US could really hurt them. But that's not going to happen, in my opinion. Interdicting Chinese operations against Taiwan is one thing, striking the mainland is another. I am ASSUMING the president can be persuaded to attack Chinese bases supporting the Taiwan operation, but I certainly think that punitive strikes against Chinese targets outside an extremely limited theater will be out of the question. And thus the US will already have committed a cardinal violation of military strategy - allowing the enemy to define the terms and scope of the conflict. Let me close by saying that I think the American military mind is without equal in the world. Our soldiers are brave and our leaders(military, not necessarily civilian) are superb strategists. The defeat of the US military in achieving its objectives has been, historically and will be in the future, I belive, borne in the offices of America's self-concerned political sheisters.