View Single Post
  #395  
Old 02-11-2018, 10:20 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,284
Default

I have a few questions Matt.

Firstly how quickly did the USAF change its low level attack tactics?

The reason I am asking is that in the 1980's (and 1990's) the USAF (and Navy and Marines) were not well trained or equipped in low level attack missions against hostile forces with intact air defences. This was mainly due to the fact that they mostly used precision guided munitions including anti-radar weapons fired/dropped from high altitudes to degrade enemy infrastructure and air defences. We saw this in the First Gulf War were US strike aircraft such as the F-15E, F-111F and F-117A flew at altitudes of 15,000 to 20,000 feet using LANTIRN and Pave Track targeting pods, as opposed to British Tornado's with TIALD who went in as low as 100 feet to hit Iraqi airfields with JP-233 cluster munitions. The British were also doing this at night and this tactic pretty much explains why British Tornado casualties were fairly high in the early part of the Gulf War. Dedicated US ground attack aircraft such as the A-10 and Marine Harrier's were only used after the Iraqi Air Force and air defences were effectively wiped out or degraded. The US tactic was highly effective in the First Gulf War, but in the Red Dawn scenario the US does not enjoy the luxury of total air domination against an inferior foe and the plentiful availability of precision guided munitions.

Secondly to what degree did the USAF alter the fundamentals of its tactics? US aerial attack tactics generally have pilots going into combat zones in large groups, covered by protective fire that busts holes in enemy air defenses. In your Red Dawn scenario the USAF is using tactics similar to the RAF designed for combat against Soviet Bloc forces in Europe, by flying in small groups of two or three aircraft low and fast over the terrain, hitting the target and then streaking out again. Your not coming in at tree top level but still much lower than the USAF generally is trained for. In NATO the British were widely regarded as the best tactical strike air force in Europe. Did the USAF copy this from the British or where they using British advisors?

Thirdly why do US strike aircraft have such relatively low casualty rates?

If we go by the First Gulf War which is the first time that US forces went up against a powerful Soviet designed air defence system on a massive scale, the US achieved total air domination very quickly. Baring in mind the Iraqi Air Force was inferior in training and equipment to the USAF in every level, their air defence radars, both Soviet and French, were not top of the line by 1991 and their performance was known to Allies, and their SAM's were older or "export" versions of Soviet SAM's this was no surprise. But as we seen from British experiences in the Gulf War they lost quite a few aircraft when they had to go low at them while Iraq still had an intact air defence network. In Red Dawn the US does not enjoy air domination over a lesser enemy (the Soviets at least), and does not numerically outnumber the Soviets, and is also facing a more effective air defence network than anything the Iraqi's ever had. In Red Dawn I could see the USAF (and Navy and Marines) quickly achieving air superiority over the Soviets and the others in large parts of occupied America for a whole load of reasons, but I think the casualty rate of all strike aircraft would be a lot higher.
Reply With Quote