Military Aviation > Air Power

Tactic vs. Tactic

<< < (2/5) > >>

Webmaster:
It certainly is a confusing topic you set out here Raptor. I think it's because you want to basically take tactics, weapon capabilities, strategies, and doctrines all into one?

Anyway, alyster made a good attempt here.

I think the best doctrine and/or strategies is the one that best fits your needs what Alyster explained, and then come the weapons, and then the tactics, and finally training.

But let's say your strategy is clear and basic, fight the enemy on the battlefield, both attacking. Then we can say weapons range is very important. Whether it's the spear, pike, longbow, rifle, rocket, cruise missiles, BVR, or intercontinental nuclear missiles, obviously they outperformed their enemies thanks to their superior range. Maybe even more important than fire power.

If you need to deploy more advanced strategies, because of terrain, of defensive enemy, then also the mobility of the 'weapon system' is important, e.g. expeditionary armies, paratroopers, motorized/mechanized infantry, strategic bombers, etc. Mobility depends on weight, and determines speed and range. I'm not sure how one would say they are all connected, but it's always a trade off, whether it's troops that need to carry water, food, weapons, etc. or an aircraft with fuel and weapons.

It's just two things that popped into my mind as important factors. Again, the topic is so unstructured/broad from the outset, that it's confusing. It's a bit like asking: you have different fruits Apples, Bananas, Oranges, all fruit, they need to fit in the fruit basket. There are different fruit baskets, different colors, different sizes and shapes. Now which is the best one?

Webmaster:
Regarding the mission you've set out for us. I think almost anything will do, depending on the situation. If the president is up in air force one in a state emergency, you might even just use EW to disable all his communications. Then he has to land (at least if he wants to control anything, Bush would be fine with it, just fly on and take a nap or something, then again his sat. TV won't work either). If you have several S-300s or even just 50 SA-6 launchers, and he is in range, you won't need any plane to take him down. But you see if are already requiring me to use one single-seat fighter, offensive mission, outnumbered/hostile environment.  So I'd use BVR missiles then, the rest doesn't really help you, i.e. is not applicable for this scenario. So what would be the aircraft with most BVR missiles? Typhoon or F-15 I guess. F-22/F-35 maybe with external pylons. If a WSO doesn't count, then a F-14D or MiG-31BM will be better with AIM-54/R-33 and AIM-120/R-77, longer range, plus I can outrun the escorts on my way back home. Stealth would be nice to sneak up, but I'd rather just launch my missiles out of their radar range and then make a run for it. I'll search for the nearby tanker track, fly a bigger/faster track around it, eventually they will show up there. That way I can attack from their rear, instead of intercepting them head-on. A 747 underneath a KC-10 or KC-135...should be a nice big target for my ancient radar and missiles... no need for AESA.

Raptor:
Sorry about the question. Perhaps it's more of a "which is your favorite"  :-\

I think you guys have done quite a good job answering the question. So who's favorite method of winning is blowing up a nuclear AAM in the enemy's face?   ::)

alyster:
I do agree with Webby, exept when we're talking about air warfare I wouldn't want to make the weapon's fireing range stand out so much. That would make BVR one of the best choices. However with long ranges there's always a question of hitting the target. It's quite hard to miss a target with a knife. With a a rifel you can already miss if you can't aim. Just today Interfax published a news that Russian artillery missed in Chechenya by 25km!!! So are these new 100+ km range BVR missiles truely the best weapons? Look at the AIM-120D - 180km range. Can that thing actually hit anything smaller than B747? How about a Viper? Can it take down something that can actually manuver? Planes which don't manuver as well as some other surely depend on such missiles so we can't discharge them either. But ofcourse we can go with Raptor's idea. Put a nuclear warhead on the Aim-120D. Massive explotion, a hit wave and EW all together. That weapon can miss by a mile and still score.

Raptor:
Well, you could compromise and make it so fast the enemy doesn't see what hit it...  ;D

I think there's a Nuke AAM somewhere... Was it the Genie? I don't think so i can't remember which it was... Help anyone?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page