3 ms·

Thx for the info. Question, since you probably know more than me: what would be NATO's way of defeating a single high value target that is under good air defen

Thx for the info. Question, since you probably know more than me: what would be NATO's way of defeating a single high value target that is under good air defense? First suppression/defeat of that air defense, then launch Tomahawks or whatever other missiles are available? That's something I'd imagine an Iskander is good at. (My example may not be very realistic).

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> what would be NATO's way of defeating a single high value target that is under good air defense? Too many branches to give a meaningful answer. What kind of air defence? How high value? What’s the urgency? Need for deniability? Iskander does okay for all those missions. But there are better tools for each branch. There is no mission profile I can think of (which, to be clear, isn’t worth much) in which Iskander opens novel tactical space. It’s compromises across the board.
dragontamer 4y ago
> what would be NATO's way of defeating a single high value target that is under good air defense? Wild Weasel air force pilots, who fly into areas of high air defense and fights it head on. > First suppression/defeat of that air defense, then launch Tomahawks or whatever other missiles are available Probably the opposite. Pilots and F35 are more expensive than Tomahawks. USA opened Iraq 2003 with 700+ Tomahawk missiles and then flew in with Wild Weasel pilots afterwards. Bonus points: as the enemy shoots down Tomahawk missiles, you learn where their strongest air defense systems are. So a massive bombardment of Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at the most important radar / air defense systems / enemy runways, followed up by specialist pilots who train for the role of flying inside the enemy's air defense system. Maybe 2003 Iraq is a bad example because their air defense system was basically crippled before the Wild Weasel pilots even entered the battlefield. Nonetheless, a huge saturation attack like that is what the USA is capable of. There's something to be said about just masses of missiles attacking all roughly at the same time... its really hard for defense systems to react to such a large mass.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> what would be NATO's way of defeating a single high value target that is under good air defense? Too many branches to give a meaningful answer. What kind of air defence? How high value? What’s the urgency? Need for deniability? Iskander does okay for all those missions. But there are better tools for each branch. There is no mission profile I can think of (which, to be clear, isn’t worth much) in which Iskander opens novel tactical space. It’s compromises across the board.

dragontamer 4y ago

> what would be NATO's way of defeating a single high value target that is under good air defense? Wild Weasel air force pilots, who fly into areas of high air defense and fights it head on. > First suppression/defeat of that air defense, then launch Tomahawks or whatever other missiles are available Probably the opposite. Pilots and F35 are more expensive than Tomahawks. USA opened Iraq 2003 with 700+ Tomahawk missiles and then flew in with Wild Weasel pilots afterwards. Bonus points: as the enemy shoots down Tomahawk missiles, you learn where their strongest air defense systems are. So a massive bombardment of Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at the most important radar / air defense systems / enemy runways, followed up by specialist pilots who train for the role of flying inside the enemy's air defense system. Maybe 2003 Iraq is a bad example because their air defense system was basically crippled before the Wild Weasel pilots even entered the battlefield. Nonetheless, a huge saturation attack like that is what the USA is capable of. There's something to be said about just masses of missiles attacking all roughly at the same time... its really hard for defense systems to react to such a large mass.