Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Dealing with mass air attacks
EW3    3/10/2005 7:24:08 PM
In the case of NK and ChiCom, they have hundreds of "expendable" older aircraft that could be used to overwhelm local forces on Taiwan and SK. What options do we/they have? After the hostilities start, could we load up a bomber, say a B-1 or B-2, with as many AMRAAMs and fly CAP. Seems the cost of AMRAAM is slightly more than 1/2 the cost of a Patriot and the bomber could move the battlespace away from friendly territory.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
gf0012-aust    RE:Dealing with mass air attacks   3/10/2005 8:23:51 PM
notionally what would be on the cards is to disrupt tempo and momentum, ie create a disconnect by strikeing other targets, striking airfields, striking organic GCI facilities etc.... I actually don't see swarming as a huge issue - unless they do a "pearl harnour" on you... I really think that China only has a window of 1-2 weeks to achieve dramatic gains - otherwise I think they'll then start to slightly succumb to a number of external influences. you don't want to fight them on their terms anyway - you need to disrupt their plans from day 1, and IMV, that is not difficult. Taiwan can hold for a while - but they will need support.
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Dealing with mass air attacks   3/10/2005 9:00:16 PM
Thanks GF. Here is what I wonder about: 1. Would we go after their airfields? NK yes, China not so sure. 2. I'm assuming their intent in both cases is to "pearl harnour" ROC or SK. So that their ground/amphib forces can move in. 3. I don't think China would last 2 weeks unless they keep most of their forces on the mainland. But what can we do to disrupt them on day 1. The day of the 1000 Migs. I'm actually concerned that because of lack of air defense 600 or 700 of those Migs will make it home. That creates a seperate, simpler issue as the element of surprise is lost. I guess the bottom line is it's China not the NKs I wonder about, as they are someone we'll go after fulltime 100%.
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Dealing with mass air attacks   3/11/2005 9:59:49 AM
I would like to say: Any air defence can be saturated - given enough aircraft, but a good layered air defence with guns, manpads, missiles and fighters can make it exceedingly expensive - if on the other hand there is small integration it is easy.
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Dealing with mass air attacks   3/11/2005 12:15:17 PM
I understand to some degree the air defense of a CBG. For the most part it can't be surprised in deep water, so we would know well in advance and the carrier air wing will be ready to meet and greet. Then the next layer is SM-2s, then inside that the ESSMs, then inside of that CIWS particularly RIM-116 RAM. In terms of numbers a pair of Aegis destroyers and a pair of cruisers could put up about 1000 missiles if they were fitted out, CIWS 20MM. The ships also have 5" guns for air defense. The carrier wing will have another few hundred missiles of their own, plus the carrier has defensive missiles and CIWS 20MM. Is there an analogue to this for air defense on land? Do we still have anti-aircraft guns? MANPADs in large enough numbers?
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    RE:Dealing with mass air attacks   3/11/2005 12:22:33 PM
Air to Air could get tough. But if the fighters were coming in for a ground mission, SAMs would help too. But air to air hmm the standard F-16 AtoA loadout should at least handle a 4:1 ratio.
Quote    Reply

blacksmith    RE:Dealing with mass air attacks   3/12/2005 12:42:41 AM
One of the issues overlooked is the difficulty of a swarming attack. The 8th Air Force in Europe practiced massed raids for years. The launch 1,000 bomber raids with all of the bombers in coordinated tight formatins. And the bomber train was still 100 miles long. If a green air force tried to pull a Pearl Harbor you wouldn't get the massively coordinated swarm. You would get a prolonged attack that might last hours. The problem with a 1,000 MiG raid is that they don't begin to have the range of the lowly B-17. If someone started gathering their entire air force into a very small patch of real estate right across the straits from a possible target, somebody would notice.
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Dealing with mass air attacks   3/29/2005 4:42:28 AM
Well if I should devise the air-defence (presupposing small depth): 1 Start with Air offence: If the enemy is swarming they will ahve alot of activity on the concrete and with the short range of the Chinese planes the cioncrete will be near and not tooo abundant and a bomlet dropping run would bring disorder - at the very least. 2. Get your AMRAAM Squadron(s) in the air in front of the missile belt to take out high priority targets plus a squadrons of infrared F-16 to provide close cover and cover the retreat of the AMRAAM. When the AMRAAMs have expended their missiles they are to fly back and reload (probably with infrareds) and position themselves behind the missile belt. 3a. The missile belt should have AA guns (they are cheap - so lot of them) they wont hi much, but they will force the attacker higher so they will be seen by the SAMs. 3b. MANPADs immidiately behind the guns, They jprobably wont hit much either, but they will disorganise the attack: The fighter-bombers are heavily loaded and do not have that much fuel to spare. 3c. The SAMs (for instance Hawks) will take out a lot of the attackers and disorganise what is left. 4. Behind the missile belt the refuelled and rearmed fighters will take care of what has passed the previous airdefences in more or less one piece. If the enemy decides to take out the missiles and guns first: Well that is exactly what you want them to do, as it will leave your fighter in peace and let them swoop in in hit and run attacks. If your C3 is really up to it: Fly the fighters in the missile belt (few airdefence pilots like that; but given proper observation and communication, I think it will work). 5. Keep those C-5, C-17 flying with replacement ammo. To be quite honest: I think the attacker will have a very, very hard time - and I don't think it unrealistic to hold off a Red Chinese air-campaing. - But You have to get your act together.
Quote    Reply

USN-MID    RE:Dealing with mass air attacks   3/29/2005 5:23:58 AM
It is theoretically possible to come up with a land based alternative to the AWACS-AEGIS system, but I wonder how effective it would be without the massive VLS magazines those AEGIS ships have. Patriots have 6(?) ready rounds per launcher I believe. But a massed low tech air attack would probably involve a lot of aircraft without PGMs, conducting low level strafing with guns/rockets. A few CIWS type systems should shred that nice and quick.
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Dealing with mass air attacks   3/29/2005 8:47:55 AM
Well a Patriot battery is easier to resupply than a ship at sea. The new concept is that information from all sensors integrate, that may be targeting information for missiles; but just as important is the overall warning and control picture. But again: The point is not one Air Defence weapon: It is the synergic effect of all weapons working together.
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Dealing with mass air attacks -    3/29/2005 9:11:50 AM
Thomas - thanks for a good explanation. USN - The Patriot II which is what the ROC has, is a longer range system (think SM-2) and there are up to 32 missiles battery. The PAC-III which they are buying is the shorter range (think Sea Sparrow) they have 16 missiles/launcher so they can handle 128 missiles per battery. The ESSM on the Aegis have 4 per cell. So on a DDG they may be packing 200+ missiles. And that would leave 40+ cells for Tomahawks, ASROC, SM-2 and SM-3. Thomas, the real value of the ships is that they give you depth in defense when added to land based defense. Different radars and weapons at different ranges.
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT