Depending on who your opponent is, just an honorable way to die?
Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Depending on who your opponent is, just an honorable way to die?
Not necessarily.
SAMs are an important part of a layered defense on land or at sea.
If you have enough fighters to assure that you can always take down evey attacking aircraft, that is one thing. But given the various methods of attacking (ie. coordinated attacks from different points on the compass and/or at varying altitudes, including very low level) you cannot be sure that no attacking aircraft will get near the target (be it a base, a vessel, a research facility, etc.).
So, you poistion various types of SAMs at various locations and establish SAM zones where your defending aircraft allow the enemy...if they get that far...to proceed into and then the SAMs do their job at various ranges depending on the SAM.
In such a scenario, an effect SAM layer of defense is neither lazy or incompetent. It can be very effective in saving the bacon if the attacking enemies get that far.
Last edited:
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Under such circumstances SAM is good but many country's have fell into the trap of using SAM network to substitute their airforces lack of quality which has been disastrous
Iraq was one of them, they had more than 10,000 air defence systems to close the gaps the air force had and still they never managed it
Plus anyone making a sweep over SAM users electronic jamming, counter measures and many other types of suppression aircraft to lock down SAMs then take them out, Bekav Valley 1982
Many Arab country's established massive SAM networks covering huge areas in essence substituting their air force rather than complimenting it, well we all know what was the outcome of such a endeavour
For this reason I say it's best to have a highly trained squadron of fighters rather than a battalion of SAM battery's
In naval scenario the situation however is different
Iraq was one of them, they had more than 10,000 air defence systems to close the gaps the air force had and still they never managed it
Plus anyone making a sweep over SAM users electronic jamming, counter measures and many other types of suppression aircraft to lock down SAMs then take them out, Bekav Valley 1982
Many Arab country's established massive SAM networks covering huge areas in essence substituting their air force rather than complimenting it, well we all know what was the outcome of such a endeavour
For this reason I say it's best to have a highly trained squadron of fighters rather than a battalion of SAM battery's
In naval scenario the situation however is different
Equation
Lieutenant General
True, but to begin with Iraq did not have much of a radar systems of networks to coincide with their SAMs capability. If one has a good network radar, tracking, and communication systems working together as a unit, any SAMs, fighter squadron, or even drones can intercept the threat and eliminate it.
Both are required on land and at sea for the strongest defense. The SAMS alone cannot replace the necessary aircraft...and the aircraft alone cannot replace the job the SAMs do in the event of enemy aircraft overwhelming, or getting past your aircraft.
That means that a nation employing them must also exercise, train, and use them both...and be prepared to do so. Iraq, when attacked by the US was unable to do either, though they had decent physical assets in both regards. The results were disasterous and loed to complete air supremacy for the US and her allies.
I personally believe we would see a very similar situation develop with Iran if it were ever seriously attacked as Iraq was.
A good thought, but pilotless aircraft are a very poor match against manned fighters in my own experience, but asif, in order to meet the enemy fighters mano a mano, you will have to be good, and most folks never get to that level, and their equipment is poorly maintained and second string to begin with. You're dead meat before you get off the ground.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
It is very true, Iraq was really a disaster and an example on how not to fight wars, I think if Allies had Iraq’s equipment and Iraq had all of the allied equipment the result of the war would be the same
Mirage 5 and Mig-29 are not bad aircraft and neither is the T-72, Serbs managed to down F-117 using same equipment Iraq had, anyhow that was then this is now
And for Iran they won’t even go there, which is why Iran never spends billions on air force, because whether it does or it doesn’t result will still be the same, it will lose, this is why they have changed war doctrine to go unconventional and come up with radical change of tactics to impose maximum casualties on any attacking force, similar to Imperial Japanese during WWII
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
That downing should always include mention of a a fail in command as regard to tactics, The F117 was flying the same entry routs over and over again. Keep running the same path over and over again and some one is going too picket there.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
I am aware of how it was downed, regardless it was downed that is what counts
On the World's Carrier topic, here's a great PIC popeye posted on another thread showing the water decon system on the Indian's new carrier, the Virkamaditya.
It's a nice high-res pic of the carrier itself from the aft.
- Status