The awful beauty of the riots in Kiev, Ukraine

[Hooked on Huskers]

Are you suggesting that the accuracy of Combat Skyspot is comparable to modern guided ordinance?

Absolutely not. Skyspot was an average of plus or minus 300 feet accurate. Modern smart bombs........ plus or minus 50 feet or better.

[carlfense]

Are you suggesting that the accuracy of Combat Skyspot is comparable to modern guided ordinance?

Absolutely not. Skyspot was an average of plus or minus 300 feet accurate. Modern smart bombs........ plus or minus 50 feet or better.

I think that Skyspot average was estimated in non-combat conditions, right?

 

Not to mention if we were fighting Russia it wouldn't be the sort of asymmetrical warfare that we faced in Vietnam.

[Excel]

You're right, it worked in Vietnam. Had we not bombed the crap out of the North I don't think we would have won so convincingly.

. . . that's a really terrible argument.

 

If you're comparing Arc Light B-52 runs dropping unguided munitions onto the jungle to modern air to ground tactics . . . well . . . you're doing it wrong.

 

 

Now, you're right to point out that wars can't be won from the skies alone. Also, "non-nuclear strategic air power" isn't used in quite the same way that it was in the past and tactical air power is an entirely different ballgame today.

 

It's not a perfect argument, I'll concede that because the conflict in Vietnam isn't a perfect parallel to what we'd see in a hypothetical conflict with Russia. My point isn't that air forces are complely useless as tools at a strategic level, it's that their use isn't a be all end all or even an overwhelmingly decisive factor. Could it conceivably be one in the future? Sure. But it has never lived up to what theorists have hoped. I'm just saying that there's room for debate.

 

We're comfortable throwing out lessons from World War Two and Vietnam because those were different, they're old. We can look at the wars with Iraq or the campaigns in Kosovo/Serbia and Libya and say, see airpower won that. Did it? It certainly helped but are those meaningful lessons in our hypothetical conflict? I'm not sold on that. None of those cases are perfect parallels for Russia but World War Two and Vietnam are better I think. But you say "No, Technology and Smart Bombs and Sentient Missles oh my!" I am no expert on that stuff but if I remember right those munitions represent only a small portion of what was used in say, Iraq and I'd be willing to bet they're employed in mostly tactical situations, not widespread Strategic bombings...and what about the supply of those things, didn't we see a huge shortage of them in the air campaign in Libya?...and that was small peanuts compared to a conflict with Russia.

 

I'd say almost all the "old war" thoughts still apply. Wars are won by troops on the ground and most certainly would be in our imagined war. Strategic air power is important but give me a case in a war between two peers or powers of equal, or nearly equal power, in which one power employed an airforce in a strategic manner and the other did not, and the power with the strategic air force won because of it.

 

Were the Germans able to break the British in the blitz? No.

Did it break the Germans? No.

Did it break the Japanese? No, if anything the failure of conventional strategic airpower necessitated the use of nuclear weapons.

Did it break the Chinese and North Koreans? No.

Did it break the North Vietnamese? No.

 

I think that if one combatant is any where near being competent it has been able to minimize and compensate for the affects of strategic air campaigns. They can still be devestating and effective to a degree but my issue is with strigori's original assertion that if you can get a strategic air campaign going that "everything else is a forgone conclusion." A forgone conclusion? Far from it.

 

The skies represent only one of many arenas in which war is waged. It is important, terribly important, but its control is not the deciding factor. It has limitations.

 

To bring it all in I'd say that the Russians are near peers if not peers. Their ADA is top notch and their Air Force would more than put up a fight. Acting like our Air Force could steamroll them and then win from the sky like in the Gulf War is a little out there.

[carlfense]

I am no expert on that stuff but if I remember right those munitions represent only a small portion of what was used in say, Iraq and I'd be willing to bet they're employed in mostly tactical situations, not widespread Strategic bombings...and what about the supply of those things, didn't we see a huge shortage of them in the air campaign in Libya?...

But why are you trying to limit the conversation to the utility of airpower to conventional strategic bombing? If a war with Russian expanded to a strategic level there is virtually no doubt that it would eventually go nuclear.

 

Why ignore the increased impact of tactical strikes?

 

Acting like our Air Force could steamroll them and then win from the sky like in the Gulf War is a little out there.

I don't think that it would steamroll them by itself. That said, air superiority would be an enormous advantage and shouldn't be minimized.

 

Edit: grammatically awful. now slightly better.

[Hooked on Huskers]

Are you suggesting that the accuracy of Combat Skyspot is comparable to modern guided ordinance?

Absolutely not. Skyspot was an average of plus or minus 300 feet accurate. Modern smart bombs........ plus or minus 50 feet or better.

I think that Skyspot average was estimated in non-combat conditions, right?

 

Not to mention if we were fighting Russia it wouldn't be the sort of asymmetrical warfare that we faced in Vietnam.

I don't think so. Peaceful (training) and combat conditions was the same accuracy.

 

AN/MSQ-77's (Skyspot radar) analog ballistic computer using 3-dimensional double-integration to continually predict the bomb impact point from an aircraft track during a bomb run. The Cartesian aircraft data were propagated by the BTG mathematical modeling which included aerodynamics for different bombs, Earth "curvature and Coliolis corrections", and vacuum tube integrating amplifiers. The integration was based on the varying aircraft position and velocity prior to the bomb release, so as with the use of the Norden bombsight analog computer in World War II, a nearly steady bomb run was required for the AN/MSQ-77 to provide sufficient bombing accuracy. As in the Nike missile guidance system(s), electro-mechanical servos controlled sine/cosine resolvers in a feedback loop for computing the simulated bomb's horizontal velocity and along with the drop rate, the simulated bomb's airspeed and dive angle ("Pitch Servo"). Likewise, a "Z servo" allowed the Air Resistance Circuits to adjust for altitude-varying air density, and the drag aerodynamics were vectorized by a servo operating potentiometers to pick-off 3 bomb-specific deceleration voltages based on each cartesian velocity voltage.

 

Analog computer was very crude now days but supposedly semi-accurate. One "Q-77" location site: Det. 10 Hastings NE. I was stationed there.....1975 thru 1982. I was assigned MPS-T1 radar set (SAM radar) but I briefly worked with MSQ-77.

 

 

Q-77: on the right. MSQ-46 on the left.

[Excel]

I am no expert on that stuff but if I remember right those munitions represent only a small portion of what was used in say, Iraq and I'd be willing to bet they're employed in mostly tactical situations, not widespread Strategic bombings...and what about the supply of those things, didn't we see a huge shortage of them in the air campaign in Libya?...

But why are you trying to limit the conversation to the utility of airpower to conventional strategic bombing? If a war with Russian expanded to a strategic level there is virtually no doubt that it would eventually go nuclear.

 

Why ignore the increased impact of tactical strikes?

 

Acting like our Air Force could steamroll them and then win from the sky like in the Gulf War is a little out there.

I don't think that it would steamroll them by itself. That said, air superiority would be an enormous advantage and shouldn't be minimized.

 

Edit: grammatically awful. now slightly better.

 

 

OP said no nukes.

[carlfense]

I am no expert on that stuff but if I remember right those munitions represent only a small portion of what was used in say, Iraq and I'd be willing to bet they're employed in mostly tactical situations, not widespread Strategic bombings...and what about the supply of those things, didn't we see a huge shortage of them in the air campaign in Libya?...

But why are you trying to limit the conversation to the utility of airpower to conventional strategic bombing? If a war with Russian expanded to a strategic level there is virtually no doubt that it would eventually go nuclear.

 

Why ignore the increased impact of tactical strikes?

 

Acting like our Air Force could steamroll them and then win from the sky like in the Gulf War is a little out there.

I don't think that it would steamroll them by itself. That said, air superiority would be an enormous advantage and shouldn't be minimized.

 

Edit: grammatically awful. now slightly better.

 

 

OP said no nukes.

And then you focused in on strategic airpower. That's fine, but why limit the discussion?

[Excel]

I am no expert on that stuff but if I remember right those munitions represent only a small portion of what was used in say, Iraq and I'd be willing to bet they're employed in mostly tactical situations, not widespread Strategic bombings...and what about the supply of those things, didn't we see a huge shortage of them in the air campaign in Libya?...

But why are you trying to limit the conversation to the utility of airpower to conventional strategic bombing? If a war with Russian expanded to a strategic level there is virtually no doubt that it would eventually go nuclear.

 

Why ignore the increased impact of tactical strikes?

 

Acting like our Air Force could steamroll them and then win from the sky like in the Gulf War is a little out there.

I don't think that it would steamroll them by itself. That said, air superiority would be an enormous advantage and shouldn't be minimized.

 

Edit: grammatically awful. now slightly better.

 

 

OP said no nukes.

And then you focused in on strategic airpower. That's fine, but why limit the discussion?

 

Just read the thread and you'll see how the discussion evolved.

[carlfense]

The integration was based on the varying aircraft position and velocity prior to the bomb release, so as with the use of the Norden bombsight analog computer in World War II, a nearly steady bomb run was required for the AN/MSQ-77 to provide sufficient bombing accuracy.

That's kind of what I was thinking . . .

[Hooked on Huskers]

The integration was based on the varying aircraft position and velocity prior to the bomb release, so as with the use of the Norden bombsight analog computer in World War II, a nearly steady bomb run was required for the AN/MSQ-77 to provide sufficient bombing accuracy.

That's kind of what I was thinking . . .

Yep but not completely blind.

 

Enola Gay Norden bombsight missed slightly ...... 300 meters off in super-high altitude and heavy crosswind release (Aioi Bridge and Shima Hospital distance)

[Excel]

An interesting move by the State Department today. They posted this press release on their website. Copied and pasted below. Screenshot because it seems like the kind of thing that might get removed.

 

President Putin's Fiction: 10 False Claims about Ukraine

 

As Russia spins a false narrative to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine, the world has not seen such startling Russian fiction since Dostoyevsky wrote, “The formula ‘two plus two equals five’ is not without its attractions.”

 

Below are 10 of President Vladimir Putin’s recent claims justifying Russian aggression in the Ukraine, followed by the facts that his assertions ignore or distort.

 

1. Mr. Putin says: Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets. It is “citizens’ defense groups,” not Russian forces, who have seized infrastructure and military facilities in Crimea.

 

The Facts: Strong evidence suggests that members of Russian security services are at the heart of the highly organized anti-Ukraine forces in Crimea. While these units wear uniforms without insignia, they drive vehicles with Russian military license plates and freely identify themselves as Russian security forces when asked by the international media and the Ukrainian military. Moreover, these individuals are armed with weapons not generally available to civilians.

 

2. Mr. Putin says: Russia’s actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

 

The Facts: The 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, which have given them operational control of Crimea, are in clear violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

 

3. Mr. Putin says: The opposition failed to implement the February 21 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

 

The Facts: The February 21 agreement laid out a plan in which the Rada, or Parliament, would pass a bill to return Ukraine to its 2004 Constitution, thus returning the country to a constitutional system centered around its parliament. Under the terms of the agreement, Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain. Instead, he packed up his home and fled, leaving behind evidence of wide-scale corruption.

 

4. Mr. Putin says: Ukraine’s government is illegitimate. Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine.

 

The Facts: On March 4, President Putin himself acknowledged the reality that Yanukovych “has no political future.” After Yanukovych fled Ukraine, even his own Party of Regions turned against him, voting to confirm his withdrawal from office and to support the new government. Ukraine’s new government was approved by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, with 371 votes – more than an 82% majority. The interim government of Ukraine is a government of the people, which will shepherd the country toward democratic elections on May 25th – elections that will allow all Ukrainians to have a voice in the future of their country.

 

5. Mr. Putin says: There is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum.

 

The Facts: To date, there is absolutely no evidence of a humanitarian crisis. Nor is there evidence of a flood of asylum-seekers fleeing Ukraine for Russia. International organizations on the ground have investigated by talking with Ukrainian border guards, who also refuted these claims. Independent journalists observing the border have also reported no such flood of refugees.

 

6. Mr. Putin says: Ethnic Russians are under threat.

 

The Facts: Outside of Russian press and Russian state television, there are no credible reports of any ethnic Russians being under threat. The new Ukrainian government placed a priority on peace and reconciliation from the outset. President Oleksandr Turchynov refused to sign legislation limiting the use of the Russian language at regional level. Ethnic Russians and Russian speakers have filed petitions attesting that their communities have not experienced threats. Furthermore, since the new government was established, calm has returned to Kyiv. There has been no surge in crime, no looting, and no retribution against political opponents.

 

7. Mr. Putin says: Russian bases are under threat.

 

The Facts: Russian military facilities were and remain secure, and the new Ukrainian government has pledged to abide by all existing international agreements, including those covering Russian bases. It is Ukrainian bases in Crimea that are under threat from Russian military action.

 

8. Mr. Putin says: There have been mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine.

 

The Facts: Religious leaders in the country and international religious freedom advocates active in Ukraine have said there have been no incidents of attacks on churches. All of Ukraine’s church leaders, including representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, have expressed support for the new political leadership, calling for national unity and a period of healing. Jewish groups in southern and eastern Ukraine report that they have not seen an increase in anti-Semitic incidents.

 

9. Mr. Putin says: Kyiv is trying to destabilize Crimea.

 

The Facts: Ukraine’s interim government has acted with restraint and sought dialogue. Russian troops, on the other hand, have moved beyond their bases to seize political objectives and infrastructure in Crimea. The government in Kyiv immediately sent the former Chief of Defense to defuse the situation. Petro Poroshenko, the latest government emissary to pursue dialogue in Crimea, was prevented from entering the Crimean Rada.

 

10. Mr. Putin says: The Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists.

 

The Facts: The Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine. Recent legislation has passed with large majorities, including from representatives of eastern Ukraine. Far-right wing ultranationalist groups, some of which were involved in open clashes with security forces during the EuroMaidan protests, are not represented in the Rada. There is no indication that the Ukrainian government would pursue discriminatory policies; on the contrary, they have publicly stated exactly the opposite.

 

 

 

[strigori]

Were the Germans able to break the British in the blitz? No.

Did it break the Germans? No.

Did it break the Japanese? No, if anything the failure of conventional strategic airpower necessitated the use of nuclear weapons.

Did it break the Chinese and North Koreans? No.

Did it break the North Vietnamese? No.

Lots of apples and oranges there.

 

WWII air power was not even remotely similar to the modern era. Carpet bombing with wings of bombers dropping lots of bombs hoping they hit the target.

 

No ground forces were every a threat against the Brits. And only a fool thinks you are going to cross the English Channel into England. And the RAF was still a factor. And in WWII dogfighting was really in its infancy. Without guided air to air missiles you have a much better chance to get the bomber wings into place.

 

The Germans would be a close example, but we are still dealing with an era where the number of men on the ground mattered, a lot. And air support was not as devastating as it is now.

 

The Japanese is another WWII bad comparison. And factors in nothing about the societal differences and the honor system the would have left the majority of the populace honorbound to fight to the death to the last man.

 

Both Vietnam and Korean "Wars" were not true wars, and not even comparable to the discussion vs the Russians. Especially the jungle fighting that was so prevalent in that arena. And honestly they have much more in common with Afghanistan now than anything else.

 

Do you win outright with only air power? No. Does it leave the writing on the wall? Absolutely. 70 years is a very, very long time. Especially with the technological advances over that time. You cant casually discount that.

[MLB 51]

What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?

[MLB 51]

[walksalone]

Good on you guys for dropping the knowledge about bombing and so on, but there's variables missing to all this.

 

Are the Russians capable of using their air assets to delay "NATO" forces from getting to where the action is? Would the Russians just say "f*ck it" and see how much armor they can pour into the Ukraine? How long would the Ukrainians be able to hang against the brunt of the Russian military? How long would it take the West to mount a response to a Russian invasion of the Ukraine? Which countries will actually step up to the plate if things get messy?

 

Unless managed carefully, the air conflict wouldn't last long because the skies would be filled with anti-aircraft missles and the life expectancy of a pilot you'd imagine wouldn't be very long. Then I'd imagine it would come down to what question was during the cold war, would the Soviets numbers of tanks and men be able to overwhelm the lesser numbers, but better technology of the West?