Air supremacy

[JOHN THURSTON]

A Russo Phile post a picture of a "4th" generation (a/k/a Sukhoi Su-27 Terminator) Blasting a B-52 and it's escorts from the sky like clay Pigeon.

Howvever the awesome (interms of bomb load) "Buffs' are not sanely is used in this fashion.

Well, at least not any more.

Before the B 52g fleet was chopped up for Soviet satelite viewing (no Idea whether the Russan's have replaced them.

For some time I am sure they were not replacemed, but the oil revenues garnered in by Russia due to new fields being opened and the giant increase in prices indicates that they might be.

Only the B-52H Fleet remains in operation.

I must say I cried real tears when I say the G's be slashed.

the point being that in the era when MAD was an accepted doctrine and the B-52's flying low level en masse would insure the succesfull penetration of CCCP air defenses by a decent percentage of Buffs, then, in an all out nuclear confrontation, the loss of 25% of your bomber fleet was acceptablee.

When used in the conventional role, such as in in operations Line Backed One and Two in Vietnam, when at least 15 of the Buffs were taken done, such a loss ratio is not sustainable.

I the days of my youth, when Nike Zeus and/or Nike Hercules batteries protected most large metropolitan areas, the measure of proction by these relatively short range SAM's (roughly equivalent to Sam-2's) could be judged my the succes of NVA Sam's against the Buffs.

Now that the ICBM seems to be the only weapon that we (not counting the US Navy) are concerned about, we, frankly are defenselless.

When the F-14's werer retired, i suggessted moving them into a less pounding land and launch cycle, such as at Otis or the defunct NAS So. Weymouth.

I felt sure that the reduced pouning that would ensue after a land posting would decrease the maintance problems re: the F-14's.

As AAM platforms, they are impressive.

But who Listens, right?

Now the rest of the world's 4th generation fighters (Chendu 7, Rafale, SU 37 and its brethren, Eurofighter) totally outclass our 4th generation fighter, The super Hornets and Bloc 22 F-16's.

so, when taken in conjunction with the LONG LONG range of the newly hatched Chinese and Russian Sams, it would appear that we have a proble,.

In Fact we do. Gen'l Horner, Swartzkopf and Franks had no illiusions about the probable effectiveness of Saddams SAM system against the Buffs.

Since the Buff's carry the largest payloads overal tot target, the first effort of the air was was to use any means available to destroy the Radar and command and control for AAA and SAM batteries.

When these systems were breached, the Buffs,B-1, and in the case of Gulf War 1, F-111 and Tornadoes could "pound away" a bit more easily.

So, most of our effective airpower is deployed on Carriers and most of our effective SAM systems (sue to a doctrine called "Forward Deployment" was in effent.

Now SAM's and ABM appear as though they might be a need other than in the forward deployment more as ICBM and Nuclear weapons become available to parties more 'rational" than the soviets.

We talked briefly about the guts and dollars it took for the US to skip 'super upgrades' of it existing firgther and fighter bomber systems.

The Fact that the F-22 and F-35 will has respectable strike capability (not for the moment perhaps, but iti is on the way.) it would be unreasonable for any but the more deeply disturbed of those among our current crops of enenmies to be not to fear this "stealth" generation which poses a significant problem to any Air Defence System.

As an aside one notes that in 1982, supposedly sophiticated British Seaborn and land deployed SAMs (Rapier in the second Case and Seawold and Sea dart in the first, were rendered rather ineffective by the 'mistake' on the part of the Brit's in deploying in San Carlos 'water" and hill surounded bay which shield incoming obsolecent Argentine A-4 and Mirages from being propery engaged by Seaborne SAM systems in the, Bay.

Mor later