"Where's the smart money on air defence penetration?" Topic

In Iraq the RAF low level flights suffered a number of losses – reduced markedly when they switched to higher altitudes, but the USAF suffered significant losses in Vietnam against a well organised air defence from higher altitude attacks. So where'e the smart money these days? High or low level penetration of air defenses against a well equiped enemy? Particulalry against a coordianted air defense with low level guns/SAMS, higher level SAMS all backed with fighters?

I am not an expert. However my answer would start with, what are your ROE? How stick your finger in is higher command? What assets do I have?

Stealthy insertion to destroy the integrated defense (radars and communications, mostly) that then leaves the high altitude blocks clear to JDAM everything that is left.

The problem with the RAF Tornados in the Gulf War was they were attacking obvious targets (runways) with very short ranged weapons. Their flight path was therefore somewhat predictable, and the Iraqis loaded up with AAA around the airfields with predictable results.
The USAF had started receiving smart weapons and were therefore able to launch from greater distances and higher altitudes. I expect that this would continue to be the preferred method, given the proliferation of GPS-guided weapons since then. Ed's message is a good, concise explanation of how modern air campaigns are run.

Hoser

I think the secret here lies within some of the plans for the future CVBG air groups which will consist of around 48 F-18s(or F-35s) and 24-36 UCAVs. The UCAVs will go in first, sending back data about radar locations, strength, etc., where an AWACS or JSTARS will then formulate a 3D map of enemy air defenses. F-18 Growlers working with the UCAVs will then be vectored to clear a channel through the defenses where the main strike force will pass. No need to take everything out in sight when you can use surgical Iron Hand strikes to get the main package through and back.

Generally, against hardened targets, I suspect high altitude is best, unless you have a very robust SEAD force accompanying you.

For less well defended targets, that are scattered around the country, attacks from down in the weeds probably still work well.

Attacking airbases during any war is very dangerous business, as the US Air Force learned way back in WWII. Many of its most experienced pilots were lost in attacks on them.

Or you send the B52s in with their jammers set to 'white-out' and their bellies full of JDAMs, HARMs, and maybe a few AMRAAMs.

Or you send the B52s in with their jammers set to 'white-out' and their bellies full of JDAMs, HARMs, and maybe a few AMRAAMs.

Against a tech savvy oponenet that might be difficult. Thinking large Asian country that is busy grabbing all the high tech it can. For a start won't GPS jammers be deployed to degrade JDAM? I'm also guessing any command and control centres will be well hardened – deep underground for example. Also wondering if it is possible to integrate mobile AD assests into the overall plan? Given how much trouble coalition forces had in tracking down and destroying SCUD's some mobile radars and missile batteries that change position frequently would be hard to take out. The other part of the equation is a credible fighter force. From as far back as Vietnam no air war has been fought against a decent fighter threat. The Vietnamese never fielded many fighters and the various middle east wars saw Israel take out the Arab air forces very qickly. In the Gulf wars Iraqi fighters were destroyed on the ground or fled to neutral countries. How effective would a SEAD package be if they were having to dodge AAM's?

My understanding of it is that going in on the deck is terribly seventies. Back in the day, European air forces trained to attack at very low level, in order to reduce the effectiveness of what was perceived to be a fearsonely effective Soviet air defence system, based on the observation that the best SAM can't shoot through a hill. Low flying was a difficult skill to maintain, and required the acceptance of a certain level of training losses.

The US, being rich, planned instead to attack at medium altitude, and employ specialist defence suppression (Iron Hand and Wild Weasel flights) and protective jamming capabilities (not just self-defence pods, but specialist standoff jammig aircraft and chaff bombers) to fight the SAMs directly, instead of hiding from them. This led to much larger strike packages than the Europeans put together, but, as I said, the US were rich.

As it turns out, the US were right, and now everybody attacks at medium altitude. SAMs have historically been much less of a threat than the old Cold Warriors feared, whereas going in on the deck risks not only an unplanned meeting wth the cumulo-granite, but puts one in range of old-fashioned AAA which is cheap, plentiful, and harder to counter electronically.

As my old pal Ed Egan of the Warrior Prep Centre used to say, "Control of the electromagnetic spectrum -- don't leave home without it."

All the best,

John.

SAMs have historically been much less of a threat than the old Cold Warriors feared, whereas going in on the deck risks not only an unplanned meeting wth the cumulo-granite, but puts one in range of old-fashioned AAA which is cheap, plentiful, and harder to counter electronically.

Not sure that is strictly true. SAM's did relatively well against the US in Vietnam – wasn't there a pilot's revolt after which the USAF changed tactics? In Linebacker II for example the US lost 27 aircraft in 11 days of ops. The Israeli's also suffered quite heavily from SAM's in '73. In neither case were they facing state of the art Soviet kit.
Of course low level attacks are somewhat less of an advantage in the age of AWACS.

Fred Cartwright wrote:

Not sure that is strictly true. SAM's did relatively well against the US in Vietnam – wasn't there a pilot's revolt after which the USAF changed tactics? In Linebacker II for example the US lost 27 aircraft in 11 days of ops. The Israeli's also suffered quite heavily from SAM's in '73.

If my arithmetic is correct, based on the figures from the Wikipedia article for Linebacker II, that's a loss rate of about 1.33%. That is only doing "relatively well" in the context of expecting to be beaten like a ginger stepchild, when you consider that this effort put some fifteen kilotons of ordnance on targets in North Viet Nam. It is an excellent result compared to what the North Viet Namese normally managed, perhaps; the usual USAF loss rate was about 0.4 per cent, including flying accidents.

Never in Viet Nam, and I believe never in the Yom Kippur war, did Soviet-style missile-based air defences prevent an attack mission from attacking the target it was tasked to attack. In terms of mission success, that means the SAM boys are averaging something very close to zero per cent, although the attrition rates they are inflicting and the rounds-per-bird are in the ones or twos.

The Cold Warriors I was referring to who worried so much about the Soviet SAM threat were planning on the basis of 50% loss rates for strategic strikes, and tactical routing was based on the idea that it was suicide to appear anywhere in a SAM's engagement envelope. I recall getting some hysterical over-estimates of gunship loss rates from a well-respected defence company in Yeovil, and I tried to be polite when expressing my doubts about them.

Stanley Baldwin is righter now than he was in 1932, because loss rates of attack aircraft have been declining ever since WW2. The bomber will always get through. Sensible people, like the Serbs, base their air defence principally on passive measures, such as hiding and decoy targets.

All the best,

John.

True, you might have some doof playing with GPS jammers or taking down satellites. Assuming that you aren't already in a full-blown world war, you just started one by attacking every nation's innocent airliners.

I'm not sure that playing games with GPS is a safe arena.

True, you might have some doof playing with GPS jammers or taking down satellites. Assuming that you aren't already in a full-blown world war, you just started one by attacking every nation's innocent airliners.

I'm not sure that playing games with GPS is a safe arena.

Sorry I don't follow this. If someone is dropping bombs on your country how is jamming their GPS signals an act of war? Aren't you already way past that and civil traffic isn't going to be anywhere near your airspace!

The answer is …… it depends.

Going in at medium to high level level has advantages as the height gives you additional kinetic energy and a steeper angle of impact for peneratrive weapons also It doesn't require as much training as low level attacks and it doesn't limit your aircrafts' payloads. And it puts you above the effective engagement envelopes of most tactical SAMs, MANPADs and AAA. However, until you have your opponents radar network he know you are coming, therefore you require force multipliers such as SEAD, fighters and jammers to escort your bombers and C3 and additional tankers to support this larger package. This means that you have to be the USAF or in a Coalition due to the number of aircraft required. Having said that as combat aircraft become more truely multirole you can take some risks and reduce the size of the package required (i.e. bombers with AMMRAM can self escort, reduce bomb load but carry HARM to enable self SEAD etc).

Long range strike (cruise missiles or even SRBM) can be used to strike static targets but are not much use against pop up or mobile target sets. Also they do not tend to be much good against hardened targets for a variety of reasons. But they don't risk pilots in attacking a high risk air defence environment.

Low level offers advantages in surprise (terrain masking), because of this you don't need the mixed package as at med/high level (therefore can be done without having to be in a Coalition), accuracy with cheaper 'dumb' bombs, can enable you to attack mobile forces below cloud (GPS weapons cannot track a moving target). Low level attacks require high quality pilots (especially as you want them to be able to do this at night, in rubbish weather and at the kind of height similar to a hover mower rides at). You will also be in the engagement envelope for MANPADS and AAA, however you will be below the minimum engagement altitude for the most widely employed strategic SAMs.

Stealth offers advantages (surprise or at least complications in targeting your aircraft) but also has its limitations, mainly lower payloads. It is not a panecea. there are ways to track 1st gen stealth aircraft and I would guess that there are people working on improving those to meet the current and next gen aircraft). So stealth is good for the first couple of days of an air war but once you have taken down the enemy IADS you have a relatively small number (due to expense) of aircraft with lower payloads than conventional aircraft to 'service' the same number of conventional targets (bridges, enemy C3 etc, enemy fielded forces etc) making them less efficent in supporting the other component commanders although more efficent in gaining control of the air.

So you really want to be able to do all of the above and tailor your approach to a particular opponents air defence environment.

Does that help?

OK, so when was the last time anyone made an air attack at low level?

How many air forces train their pilots to fly below 500ft routinely?

All the best,

John.

OK, so when was the last time anyone made an air attack at low level?

I'm guessing GW1 when Tornados flew low level strikes. I don't think the RAF did any low level work in 2003. So that's 20+ years ago. Do the RAF still train at low level?

Does that help?

Yes it does. As I suspected mounting significant strikes agains a properly constituted AD network with multi layer SAM/AA defences backed with an effective fighter force is going to require deep pockets. Having siad that having such an AD network is going to require deep pockets too. I'm guessing only China and the USA will be able to do that in the forseeable future.
Victory will presumabley go to however wins the electronic war.

Sorry I don't follow this. If someone is dropping bombs on your country how is jamming their GPS signals an act of war? Aren't you already way past that and civil traffic isn't going to be anywhere near your airspace!

Depends on how exactly you're screwing with GPS signals. If you're shooting down GPS satellites? You have just ed off every nation on Earth.

Fred,

Yes the RAF still train at low level and 500ft is considered medium level :-)

Low level was not needed in 2003 because there was no IADS to defeat. The preceding 12 years of no fly zones had made sure of that.

Low level flying is used in Afghanistan as a non kinetic show of force.

Rich

Low level flying is used in Afghanistan as a non kinetic show of force.

Yeah, nothing says 'if we wanted you dead right now, you would be' quite like a B52 at 500ft AGL.

Yes, the Tornadoes flew in at very low level, to take out some runways, and attack airfields in the Gulf War, and from a brief blurb I read, had a pretty high loss rate.

Not really sure what that was.

The Buff pilots in Vietnam were upset, because they had rather high losses in just a few raids, and the brass in DC kept sending them back in, using virtually the same routes and altitudes, at about the same time, making it easier for the enemy to predict where they should place their AA and SAM batteries.

Also, they were ordered to turn tightly after their bomb drops, to avoid SAMs on the far side of the target. Trouble was, their ECM emitters only faced downwards, which negated their use if they complied with their orders.

Lion in the Stars.

Or a Tornado GR4 so low you have to duck :-)

Rich

Mako,

GR1 losses in the first Gulf War were mostly due to the method of weapon employment.

The JP233 anti runway weapon was designed to deny Warsaw Pact operating surfaces in Europe. The Iraqi airfields were much larger, so required more sorties to cut the operating surfaces to lengths too short for the Iraqis to use as runways. The JP233 required the crew to fly at a set height and dead straight until the weapon had finished ejecting all its bomblets (about 30 seconds) and for maximum effect you had to do this about 30-45 degrees from the runway direction. After the war it was found that most of the Iraqi AAA crews had just used their weapons in fixed arcs to fire across the airfield, rather than tracking the aircraft. Needless to say the RAF got rid of JP233 soon afterward.

IIRC the bomblets were not as effective at damaging Iraqi concrete as it was laid on sand, rather than the earth of eastern European airfields.

So although the RAF used low level it was for the effective employment of the weapon they were tasked to use at the time by the ATO, not as a tactic to penetrate an IADS. Interestingly the AH64 strike that started the First Gulf War air campaign to destroy 2 Iraqi EW radars before the F117s crossed the border were conducted at NoE for surprise.

Rich

I've seen the B52 at 500 feet AGL. You duck when that monster comes by.

The more impressive demo I saw was one veterans day football game in Boise, ID. This was back when F111s were still in service at Mountain Home AFB. We got an F111 flyby *below the height of the bleachers*! I was looking down onto the upper surface of that 'Vark!

It's a nice theory, but no Tornados were lost during JP233 runs (though one was lost some ten miles after delivering its JP233). It should also be remembered that the RAF Tornados were doing JP233 strikes as part of USAF-RAF SEAD strike packages, in concert with Tornados, F-15s, F-111s and F-4s doing Wild Weaselly stuff. It wasn't a case of the RAF swanning off to do its own thing.

Six RAF Tornados were lost to enemy action, with four of those being lost during the first four days, when they were engaged on low-level SEAD operations. IIRC, an Italian Tornado was also lost doing low-level SEAD.

R Mark Davies,

I guess that serves me right for believeing the Spec Aircrew mate I used to share an office with. Now having done what I should have done and researched it properly I retract what I wrote on JP233 being the cause.

Interestingly, and I will admit that the source is pPrune, 4 of the 6 GR1 lost were not at low level when hit but in the final stages of a loft manouevre putting them at medium level. So are we in error as well in attributing low level insertion as the cause of the losses?

Rich

If you're tossing bombs at targets, that's still a low-level maneuver. (Because you wouldn't need to release the bomb on an upward vector if you were up higher!)

Yes, I believe that the top end of lofts (during SEAD strikes against SAM and AD radar sites) was where most of them got hit – the 'Tornado Down' crew compounded this by failing to release the bombs during the loft, before being hit by a Roland or somesuch. I'll have to ask my best mate, as he's a Tornado Nav who undoubtedly has all the answers.

I agree that lofting is a low-level manoeuvre, but at the top of the loft you're still a couple of thousand feet up and well above the terrain you're trying to hide behind. It's an awful lot safer than the alternative of overflying the target, but for a few vital seconds it still makes you a big, obvious target for switched-on SAM crews.