What would an asymmetric air defense be? Are there any historical examples? Has the quality verses quantity argument been settled? Is it all hardware or do tactics and experience matter?
asymmetric air defense
- Thread starter methrodati
- Start date
I am venturing a guess on this. If the goal is to have an integrated air defense system, from the highest levels to the front lines, then the architecture would be IP-based, open, and seamless. A distributed denial of service to the system would render air defense useless.
No historical examples that I know of....anyone else?
Tactical and military experience combined with knowledge of computer network attack is definitely the best combination.
No historical examples that I know of....anyone else?
Tactical and military experience combined with knowledge of computer network attack is definitely the best combination.
napa710, thank you for you post, I will research IP integrated systems. I read a interesting article about the air war over Kosovo on S.P.P.L. I am sorry I could not figure out how to attach it.Its main point was that American tactical air doctrine had become to integrated and centralized,relying to much on technology ,relegating the pilot to an interface.How would US or NATO air forces deal with an enemy that combined electronic jamming,cyber attack,decoying,and some stealth ability;with a decentralized flexible hit and run strategy?American doctrine emphasizes absolute control,is that achievable against any halfway competent enemy.Has the American officer core become to bureaucrat to adjust to changing conditions ?.
Ground based air defence is per def. asymmetric. Symmetric air defence would be to use interceptor aircraft. Asymmetric warfare is a word that has become very popular in these times of terror, but you have to remember that nothing is more asymmetric than running over an infantry man with a 70 ton tank
Skorzeny thank you for your post. I agree that the term asymmetric has been over used and over rated gorilla tactics,unconventional warfare,asymmetric warfare,what ever you what to call it is the resort of the desperate. I would much rather be in a 70 ton tank than a infantry man facing it.But it is a correct truism that all power is local.A infantry man with a sniper riffle or an rpg in the right place at the right time will beat the tank, that is in the wrong place.For example in the Iraq war where there are no front lines, large enemy formations,fixed objectives,or command structure the 70 ton tank becomes a liability.American style combined arms mechanized warfare is too expensive and distractive to be cost effective in a counter insurgency.There is a often quoted estimate(I don't know if it is true ) that the US spent $250,000 for every Vietnamese that it killed in the Vietnam war.I don't know how much the dead Iraqis or Afghans will cost ,but it wont be cheep.Using American doctrine and tactics to fight a counter insurgency is like trying to put in a lawn sprinkler using a bulldozer. You my eventually get it done,but you won't have a lawn or even a house by the time you are through.
Well I suppose that asymmetric air defence would be something very much like the North Vietnamese practiced in the Vietnam War. They used inferior aircraft to try to ambush the US planes and close quickly so they could use their guns, as well as hitting the Americans after they hit their targets when they were low on fuel and missles. They also made major use of SAMs (nowadays you have to know when to turn your radar on and of with SAMs to avoid HARMs.) and large amounts of AAA to force American planes up to high altitude and reduce the accuracy of their bombs.
Hi guys
I think Iraq war 2003 and for that matter even Labenese war July 2006 was a asymettric war, considering the force levels, training, professional attitude and the force multipliers used by Israeli forces, but at the same time Hezbollah armed with low tech medium range rockets, missiles like Katyusha, Haifa & UAVs created such a asymettry that even though Israeli Air Force may have achieved their objectives but overall military objective of Israel was not achieved this led to military analyst terming it to be Israeli defeat in asymmetric warfare. Can somebody enlighten me on Chinese air defence strategy??
I think Iraq war 2003 and for that matter even Labenese war July 2006 was a asymettric war, considering the force levels, training, professional attitude and the force multipliers used by Israeli forces, but at the same time Hezbollah armed with low tech medium range rockets, missiles like Katyusha, Haifa & UAVs created such a asymettry that even though Israeli Air Force may have achieved their objectives but overall military objective of Israel was not achieved this led to military analyst terming it to be Israeli defeat in asymmetric warfare. Can somebody enlighten me on Chinese air defence strategy??