4 ms·
HALO insertions against an A2AD environment are suicide. Same with using something like an AC-130 in daylight. They rely on large, slow, easily detected transpo
by greedo 3y ago
HALO insertions against an A2AD environment are suicide. Same with using something like an AC-130 in daylight. They rely on large, slow, easily detected transports.
- cpursley 3y agoFor fun, let's assume they could get in; the math still doesn't work. A bunch of parachuter guys with automatic guns and limited ammo vs Russian combined arms is going to end very poorly.
- greedo 3y agoYeah, short of a Tom Clancy novel, using your best operators on a one-way trip doesn't work well.
- cpursley 3y agoYep. Russia lost some of its best paratroopers during the initial Kiev/Kyiv thing. Not a great investment and pretty incompetent planning.
- greedo 3y agoWell... I guess they might have been Russia's best airborne units, but both at Hostomel and in other engagements, they've been shown to be overrated. Then again, Hostomel was a shitshow of poor planning/intel. I bet the VDV would have loved to know that there was a UKr unit right next door with heavy artillery before they kicked off the assault.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- armchairgen 3y agoSo how do they stop cruise missiles and other artillery? Stop decoy missiles? What happens when the enemy has exhausted it's supply of AA ammo? Or lost use of its radar?
- greedo 3y agoIf the enemy's air defense is either DEAD or SEAD, then why would you need to insert operators/SForces via HALO? At that point you could just use helicopters to infiltrate/exfiltrate. HALO is for opponents lacking AD and radar.
- armchairgen 3y agoI mean what's it matter though? HALO is just one option for insertion, the point is that there are multiple avenues of attack.
- cpursley 3y agoLike what?
- greedo 3y agoWell, you just spitballed a few ideas that really aren't founded in either US or NATO doctrine, and now you ask "what's it matter though?"
- armchairgen 3y agoAround-the-clock bombing, missile and artillery strikes, and deep insertion of covert assets are not US/NATO doctrine? Did I watch a different invasion of Iraq than you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion Edit: If you're objecting to HALO insertion as a measure against AA then fine but even describe as a way around AA: "The technique is used to airdrop supplies, equipment, or personnel at high altitudes, where aircraft can fly above surface-to-air missile (SAM) engagement levels through enemy skies without posing a threat to the transport or load. In the event that anti-aircraft cannons are active near the drop zone, the HALO technique also minimizes the parachutist's exposure to flak... ... The combination of high downward speed, minimal forward airspeed, and the use of only small amounts of metal helps to defeat radar and reduces the amount of time a parachute might be visible to ground observers, enabling a stealthy insertion." Edit: I don't understand why you're fixated on one or two options being insufficient for certain scenarios out of a redundant number of options at the U.S. disposal but whatever. Like HALO is the only way to insert a team? You're clearly not clueless about a variety of tactics so I'm confused why you're not extending that here.