My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

Having fought in one modern war, consulted with my American colleagues in their modern war in Iraq and studying options should we need to go against a near peer competitor in Ukraine, I do think I have some qualifications to speak on this subject.

As a FYI, when we look at what we may possibly face in Ukraine, the main kinetic threats are asymmetric forces (Spetsnaz troops leading irregular forces), rocket and artillery weapons systems, conventional mechanized forces and high altitude precision bombing. Despite the fact that NATO does not field the same sort of integrated GBAD systems that the Russians do, the threat of Russian CAS aircraft like SU-25's isn't considered to be significant.

Wonder why that is?

Thucydides wrote:...the threat of Russian CAS aircraft like SU-25's isn't

Wonder why that is?

If that was (or was not) scarcasm, I did not follow.
I do however recognize it as a rhetorical question.
Please answer your own question.

Are you saying that just the SU-25 sucks, or
Are you saying all CAS aircraft are nothing to be concerned about?


.

Thucydides wrote:te the fact that NATO does not field the same sort of integrated GBAD systems that the Russians do, the threat of Russian CAS aircraft like SU-25's isn't considered to be significant.

Wonder why that is?

Duh, cuz NATO forces doctrine demand air superiority. Russian doctrine did/does not.

GBAD requires the entire line to have equal amounts of air defense, otherwise it gets picked apart and surrounded. Well, the opponents know this so, they bring in twice as much ground suppression aircraft which can easily be vectored in whereas GBAD cannot.

GBAD loses every time.

Best defense is a good offense.

No one is saying GBAD are useless or even ineffective. Tactically, they are very useful. Strategically, they are a speed bump.

Ensign Re-read wrote:If that was (or was not) scarcasm, I did not follow.
I do however recognize it as a rhetorical question.
Please answer your own question.

Are you saying that just the SU-25 sucks, or
Are you saying all CAS aircraft are nothing to be concerned about?
.

CAS aircraft are a concern if you don't have any effective way to protect yourself from air attack, but they are a much lower level of concern in modern war. *We* don't have integrated GBAD systems of anywhere near the same magnitude as the Russians, but tend to use air power to clear the air of enemy aircraft. Low performance aircraft are at particular risk from enemy fast movers.

Russian doctrine has changed quite significantly since the fall of the wall, and their capabilities have been upgraded to a certain extent as well. They are not as big on massive armoured columns, but cyber attacks, special forces and political and military posturing to distract *enemy* decision makers and paralyze the decision making cycle. They may have massed 40,000 troops on the border of Ukraine to put fear into the hearts of Ukrainian and NATO decision makers, but the actual numbers of "little green men" and "vacationing" Russian soldiers in Ukraine is only a small fraction of the available military power.

Russian air power doctrine, much like ours, relies on off board sensors like drones, SoF and other means to identify targets and direct fire against them. Since they view airpower as even more akin to artillery than we do, the targets can be serviced by artillery and rocket weapons in preference to aircraft (since they can be "on call" 100% of the time and are far less weather limited). Aircraft like MiG-29's and SU-34's provide icing on the cake.

Thucydides wrote:

Ensign Re-read wrote:If that was (or was not) scarcasm, I did not follow.
I do however recognize it as a rhetorical question.
Please answer your own question.

Are you saying that just the SU-25 sucks, or
Are you saying all CAS aircraft are nothing to be concerned about?
.

CAS aircraft are a concern if you don't have any effective way to protect yourself from air attack, but they are a much lower level of concern in modern war. *We* don't have integrated GBAD systems of anywhere near the same magnitude as the Russians, but tend to use air power to clear the air of enemy aircraft. Low performance aircraft are at particular risk from enemy fast movers.

Russian doctrine has changed quite significantly since the fall of the wall, and their capabilities have been upgraded to a certain extent as well. They are not as big on massive armoured columns, but cyber attacks, special forces and political and military posturing to distract *enemy* decision makers and paralyze the decision making cycle. They may have massed 40,000 troops on the border of Ukraine to put fear into the hearts of Ukrainian and NATO decision makers, but the actual numbers of "little green men" and "vacationing" Russian soldiers in Ukraine is only a small fraction of the available military power.

Russian air power doctrine, much like ours, relies on off board sensors like drones, SoF and other means to identify targets and direct fire against them. Since they view airpower as even more akin to artillery than we do, the targets can be serviced by artillery and rocket weapons in preference to aircraft (since they can be "on call" 100% of the time and are far less weather limited). Aircraft like MiG-29's and SU-34's provide icing on the cake.

Tenshenai's alter ego finally revealed himself.

Lets see, who developed FLIR again? Lets see, it wasn't the Ruskies, so who could it possibly be... Hrmmm.

Whole modern battlefield is all about sensors.

RADAR
IR
PHONO

Integration of said sensors into a net for overlapping coverage. Both in the air and on the ground.

With this sensor envelope we have counters of "stealth". Works at long range, but is useless at short range where IR dominates.

While both RADAR can be passive, it by and large is not sensitive enough to be effective. Making RADAR easily countered offensively. The days of RADAR as the preeminent defensive system are long past. Sure, it still works against non peer foes, but in reality... IR/PHONO on the other hand are both 100% effective on passive meaning one cannot search and destroy these sensors leaving the missile SAM systems and AAA blind.

What this means is that detecting at long range with RADAR is near impossible passively. IR and PHONO are effectively useless at long range. Terrain/curvature of earth also effectively makes RADAR useless at long range. Why everyone went to AWACS. But AWACS are gigantic easily destroyed aircraft from even extreme range.

This leaves the modern battlefield to IR/PHONO. Any supersonic aircraft is going to light up the sky on IR making it VERY obvious where it is. Any HIGH flying aircraft is also going to be VERY obvious where it is against the backdrop of space. So, to dodge IR, one must fly low, slow, or stay far far away.

IR counters? None as it is passive, cannot even destroy the sensors (couple caveats here obviously) IR dishes can be "activated" to give off a return by a sufficiently IR beam source. Of course, if you are giving off such a gigantic beam of IR so as to make said dish "activate" giving a return, your aircraft just became the most obvious IR signature in the sky. Of course this also requires you to "know" about where the IR dish is to begin with. As your aircraft must "sweep" to find said dishes.

PHONO: Been around since WWI, but only with the advances of computers can counter fire be near instantaneous. Counter fire for snipers is what it is used on modern battlefields. Traditionally it has been used for counter artillery. Today, if 2 opposing artillery with equivalent range and one has PHONO processing, the other artillery is automatically destroyed. One of the major reasons Crusader never went forward. To counter the counter fire, the Crusader platform spec was for heavy armor. Heavy armor on a vehichle large enough to house an 8"(~200mm) large caliber gun would place the weight well over 70-100 tons making all temp bridge equipment obsolete along with moving equipment(towing) trucks etc. MAJOR problems. Of course it was canceled before the range for EXCALIBER was known with traditional caliber 155mm gun systems.

PHONO is not all that useful for aircraft as it is too slow(speed of sound limited). But it has already been shown that anti Sniper systems are more than capable of tracking Helos. Yet one more Giant nail in the Attack Helocopter as a useful platform.

In short, there is currently a GIANT advantage for IR sensors for both tracking and command(missiles) at short range. Extended range RADAR is also effectively useless except for very high flying old obsolete aircraft who are obliging enough to fly nice and high. Current laser "blinding" systems are not cutting the mustard against IR missile sensors. The obvious is the missile simply homes in on the laser. Currently systems are trying to Overwhelm IR sensors creating massive homing and are not strong enough to burn out the sensor in question.

So, currently some say, one must launch from long distances. Uh, as if the missiles/bombs launched from long range do not show up on RADAR/IR as obvious targets... Knocking them down is almost trivial in the case of ballistic bombs. So, bombs must be made stealthy, but IR now sees them, so the days of dropping dumb bombs from HIGH(JDAM) and letting them glide to target are over. So, all modern weapons must be missile based so as to maneuver, but IR still sees them just fine if launched from high altitude. So, why is the Tomahawk still being bought? Because it can fly VERY low and it is slow enough to not show up on IR all that much. Currently Look down IR sensors for targeting do not exist and the logic behind them not being all that useful is that by the time a LOOK-DOWN IR sensor sees say, a Tomahawk missile it will be long past the aircraft.

So, Low and SLOW avoids both RADAR/IR. High/FAST are both out. Currently there is NO counter missile system for aircraft. If there will be such a system it will initally be bulky making it near impossible for high and fast aircraft to field. So, if I can buy 4-10 low and slow aircraft for the price of one semi stealth high and fast aircraft, then the obvious is to buy the low and slow. Add in I can fly a low and slow aircraft on half the fuel as a high and fast aircraft making field logistics vastly easier. Low and slow at least has the additional benefit of being made redundant and able to be damage tolerant unlike high and fast who must adhere to supersonic aerodynamics.

Until anti IR missile systems are developed, high and fast aircraft are pretty much nothing but targets.

Before considering IR to be the be all and end all; IR is limited by various "windows" where the atmosphere absorbs IR wavelengths, and of course like other visual systems IR can be blinded by smoke, water vapour, dust and other obscurants suspended in the air.

There is also ongoing research into Meatmaterials, which can "bend" light and other wavelengths of radiation around in ways which are not defined by conventional optics. The NextBigFuture blog has described a myriad of different approaches to creating this effect (besides optical lattice structures).

There is also a new form of "chaff" which uses quantum dots to confuse the picture that optical sensors receive looking into the sky for the target.

And of course, UCAV's provide a means of filling the sky with multiple targets, overwhelming enemy sensor and GBAD or CAP.

The use of high altitude and long range aircraft and weapons does have one effect which favours the attacker; the amount of area that has to be searched is vastly increased, and even if you get a "hit", you then must hand over the attack to some form of narrow angle precision sensor.

So like the contest between steel armour and muskets, there is always a response and counter response to any new technologies and tactics. Sometimes it is easy to come up with and deploy a counter response, and sometimes it is very difficult (personal body armour fell out of favour for almost 500 years until material science technology caught up, to cite an extreme case).

To be sure, I suspect that low and slow UCAVs or cruise missiles using cooperative "swarming" or flocking techniques are probably the hardest form of attack to defend against, but there is something to be said for being able to deliver fire quickly and "on call" against targets of opportunity, so the high flying B-1 or Strike Eagle will be around for a while to come.

Nothing in life is the end all be all.

Other than lazyness. Now EVERYONE has that bugaboo.