- Joined
- Jun 15, 2014
- Messages
- 29,241
- Reaction score
- 9,750
- Location
- Florida The Armband State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
When Slipchenko coined the term Sixth Generation Warfare he coined a term rather than created an existing thing, i.e., reinvented the wheel. Slipchenko was in fact describing and focusing on what Israel did in 1981, i.e., create a radar path in Iraq to blast the nuclear plant under construction at Osirak and return otherwise unnoticed and unscathed. This was during the Iraq-Iran war when incoming aircraft were always spotted on the combatants radars. The Iran-Iraq war was in fact more the 2GW defensive fortifications of WW I than the swift maneuver warfare of WW II which itself was 3GW. Moreover nowhere in your alleged discussion did I say 6GW was going to defeat Russia or the US in a full scale war.
Rather I cited this by Gerasimov speaking of the USA Global Strike capacity and capability:
"As you know, the United States has already developed and implemented the concept of rapid global strike. The US military is calculated to achieve the ability to, in a few hours, deploy troops to defeat enemy targets at any point of the globe. It is envisaged [as] the introduction of a promising form of warfare – of global integrated operations. It proposes the [introduction] to any region of forces capable of joint action to defeat the enemy in a variety of operating environments. According to the [commanders], this should be a kind of blitzkrieg of the twenty-first century."
The plain and simple translation is that the US armed forces integrated, Global Rapid Strike capability has the Russian general staff scared and scrambling. US developed and has a global strike "blitzkrieg" armed force that can show up anywhere, anytime and defeat anyone.
Gerasimov's hybrid warfare was this:
When members of the 810th Naval Infantry Brigade in Crimea [Marines] took off their unit patches and moved out to seize key roads on the peninsula in February 2014, they did not become “hybrid warriors.” They were merely naval infantry without unit patches on. Is there anything hybrid about using special forces, with the support of elite infantry, to prepare the battlespace for a conventional invasion? This is standard practice for military forces around the world, to include those of the United States. If a Russian missile cruiser lowers its ensign, does it become a hybrid cruiser about to engage in a new form of naval hybrid warfare? Of course not. There is simply not much hybrid war to be found in the case of Crimea.
In late February and early March of 2014, Russia, together with vested Ukrainian oligarchs in the eastern regions, leveraged their influence to mobilize protests and advance those on the fringe of Ukraine’s politics. Throughout the conflict, Moscow sought to scare Ukraine’s government into agreeing to a federalization scheme, that would neuter its ability to move the country in a more Western direction, and result in de facto political partition of Ukraine along regional divisions. The entire affair was cheap political warfare and done in a hurry.
It was only at the end of May, when irregular warfare had run into too much resistance from Ukraine’s volunteer battalions and armed forces, that we began to see Russia backing into a hybridized approach. By August 24, the hybrid approach had demonstrably failed in the vein of previous efforts. Moscow traded it in for a conventional invasion by regular Russian units, which it had sought to avoid. The invasion in August of 2014 marked the transition to conventional war as the deciding approach, but with limited political and territorial objectives.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/03/russian-hybrid-warfare-and-other-dark-arts/
You're missing a lot in your already failed campaign to elevate Russia and leverage the US into retreat.
Any Russian Bomber will be seen and intercepted long before even getting close to the United States and is useless without bombs anyway. This silly propaganda campaign was a Joke when it started and is now just embarrassing.
Those things move faster than our jets can intercept and anti aircraft missiles can shoot down, hence they require missiles like the aim54 which have the range to catch up to them, but the aim54 was retired with the f-14 and it is beyond me why no one has brought them back and modified them to work with an f-15 or f-22.
Fyi they rarely use bombs in those strategic bombers, they use standoff off cruise missiles most of the time with ranges varying from a few hundred miles to 3-3.5k miles with the kh101 and 102 missile, the era of flying over their target with bombers has been long gone in strategic bombers.
Those things move faster than our jets can intercept and anti aircraft missiles can shoot down, hence they require missiles like the aim54 which have the range to catch up to them, but the aim54 was retired with the f-14 and it is beyond me why no one has brought them back and modified them to work with an f-15 or f-22.
Fyi they rarely use bombs in those strategic bombers, they use standoff off cruise missiles most of the time with ranges varying from a few hundred miles to 3-3.5k miles with the kh101 and 102 missile, the era of flying over their target with bombers has been long gone in strategic bombers.
Current iterations of the much smaller and lighter AIM-120 exceed most of the performance parameters of the last iteration of the AIM-54 especially in regards to range.
I will admit you are correct, the large majority of the aim 120 was unable to meet the mission of the aim54, while the newest aim120d is only slightly less range than the aim54, with much less weight, the range iss essential because with a combat load even the f-15 would not catch a tu-160 since an unloaded f-15 can reach mach 2.5 governed but fully loaded for intercept their speed is much lower, as with most aircraft, this gives the tu-160 the advantage until long range mmissiles are used as missiles travel faster than jets, the aim120 for example is mach4 but needs the range still to catchup, which is why most standard missiles never worked for the role of air interception of aircraft of mach 2+
the era of flying over their target with bombers has been long gone in strategic bombers.
Any Russian Bomber will be seen and intercepted long before even getting close to the United States and is useless without bombs anyway. This silly propaganda campaign was a Joke when it started and is now just embarrassing.
Here's Why Russian Bombers Are in Venezuela. And Why the U.S. Is So Angry About it
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...-so-angry-about-it/ar-BBQV0FI?ocid=spartanntp
When two of Russia’s most modern, nuclear-capable bombers landed in Venezuela earlier this week, American officials quickly took note.
Saudi Arabia has a bigger defense budget than Russia does.
Which is misleading.
Unlike most countries like the US and Russia, Saudi Arabia really does not have a "National Police", or anything resembling organizations in the US fulfill a similar role. Border Patrol, INS, Marshals, FBI, CIA, NSA, Coast Guard, and all the rest of what makes up "Civilian Security Agencies" in Saudi Arabia are actually part of their military.
And it makes sense, when your country is only 830k square miles, and 33 million people. Cheaper to have all "defense" agencies all fall under the same umbrella organization, and share the same budget.
One caveat there. It is dead, only so long as the air-space is contested or not secure.
Taking such a bomber say to drop a load of bombs over say Afghanistan or Iraq, that would not be much of a problem. Or dropping them on rebels Syria, since the rebels have no real air defense at all.
Using them to drop bombs on say the UK or Israel? Not a good idea if they want the bomber to return at the end of the mission. Both of those potential enemies have significant air and ground based air defenses.
We have been using such tactics for 18 years now, quite successfully. Of course, the US has had air superiority from the start in Afghanistan in 2001, and what defenses Iraq had were eliminated very quickly in 2003. We rarely used them in 1990-1991 in that way, because we never had enough air superiority that we were comfortable with using conventional bombers in that manner.
Last time I went through old doctrines on conventional bombs with the tu-95 and the b-52 I remember reading since icbm's became a thing they were never meant for first strike, but rather to hover near enough to the territory and after the icbm strike be used to finish off what either side needed as most civilian and military infrastructure critical to either side would have already been hit. Granted I am not sure how well this doctrine works today or if it is even still doctrine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?