In Defense of the Red Army

[KozmasSchmierfink]

Yeah you can definitely argue that like Russian forces are reliant on their air defense umbrella, NATO/US forces need that assumed air superiority. Certainly makes breaching operations easier when everything in the air is yours...

of course every time I see a map with symbology on it I want to break out my doctrinal pins...

[bash]

While NATO/US prefers air superiority I'd say that even without it their use of AWACS makes up a bit for SHORAD. Anything bigger than a drone that leaves the ground is going to be seen and tracked by AWACS which can guide weapons to shoot it down.

Even with NATO AWACS planes over friendly countries or international airspace the lack of Ukrainian air and ground assets compatible with NATO systems mean they can't use the AWACS umbrella a NATO army could.

I think AWACS integration was a better investment for NATO. That's not to say SHORAD is not worthwhile. But the reality is AWACS integrated weapons have a much longer detection and engagement range than SHORAD.

For instance the Russian helicopter ATGMs have an 8km stand-off range. I don't know that you're going to be able to build a SHORAD system (without AWACS or aerial radar) with a 9+ km engagement range. The missiles might have the range but you need sensors to be able to see and shoot something that from the perspective of the system is right on the horizon.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by bash

For instance the Russian helicopter ATGMs have an 8km stand-off range. I don't know that you're going to be able to build a SHORAD system (without AWACS or aerial radar) with a 9+ km engagement range. The missiles might have the range but you need sensors to be able to see and shoot something that from the perspective of the system is right on the horizon.

Your points regarding AWACS and comparative weapons ranges are well taken.

As this thread is, by design, an apologetic for the Soviet military, I shall endeavor to provide a couple of counterpoints.

Not all Soviet helicopter-launched ATGMs outrange NATO SHORAD systems.

One of the most common Soviet helicopter-mounted ATGMs, the AT-9 Spiral, has a maximum range of 6km (product-improved versions introduced later have a range of 8-10km). The Stinger and Roland SAMS each have a range of 8km so, depending on the version of Spiral, either side has a slight range advantage.

The longer range AT-16 Scallion (10-12km) is only carried by KA-50 Hokum, of which the Soviets had relatively small numbers, compared to their older models of attack helicopters.

An IR-guided SHORAD system with a range of 10-15km would have given NATO ground forces a security blanket against Soviet attack aircraft.

Regarding NATO AWACs, there's no doubt it was/is a huge force multiplier for NATO. The Soviets were not unaware of this. I suspect that the Soviets had plans in place to neutralize NATO's advantage in that department, to some extent. I wouldn't be surprised if one of those plans involved attacking at least some of them on the ground at the outset of armed conflict with NATO.

Although NATO AWACS would be very well defended in the air, they can't hide (as long as their radar is turned on). The Soviets developed an AAM specifically to attack large aircraft like the AWACS and JSTAR at very long ranges- the hypersonic AA-13 Axehead (200+km range at Mach 5). Once they ran out of AA-13's, I can see the Soviets launching barrages of slightly shorter-ranged AA-9s (75-100km), and even AS-11s HARMS (120km) at any surviving NATO AWACS. The Soviets wouldn't even have to kill them (the AWACS) to reduce their impact on the battlespace- they could neutralize them by disrupting their operations or denying them certain sectors of airspace over the front).

And jammers might be able to screen Soviet attack helicopters operating at tree-top level.

I think NATO made a mistake putting all its eggs in once basket by choosing to skimp on SHORAD capabilities v. the Soviets.

-

[bash]

Note I completely agree WRT NATO putting their air defense eggs in one basket. If their AWACS umbrella ever comes down or they have to operate without it they're incredibly vulnerable to things like attack helicopters. I'd include low-flying cruise missiles in that threat bucket too. Even non-nuclear cruise missiles could severely damage NATO rear lines lacking both good SHORAD and AWACS/air cover. A bunch of dudes with Stingers wouldn't quite suffice.