Air-Superiority and Air-Defense Strategy

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by ant80, Oct 13, 2009.

  1. ant80

    ant80 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    22
    I have been reading and trying to make sense of how to deploy the various air-force and Naval assets for effective neutralization of enemy assets. I've been trying to understand the doctrine and I would like some help in understand this.

    The following is from my strategy-newbie point of view, in the case of a war with Pakistan. Pakistan has subs, but doesn't have subs capable of carrying submarine-launched nuclear missiles. Air strike with nuclear attack is a real threat, so air superiority needs to be achieved. Land-based nuke-tipped missiles on mobile launch pads is a very real possibility. So these need to be neutralized.

    However, there are reports that suggest that Pak separates cores from detonation devices like India. If that is the case, we might be able to take advantage of that fact to neutralize the nukes. I am going to assume that there are roaming nuke-tipped missiles mounted on mobile launch pads.

    To achieve these goals, I want to see the following. Devastating early simultaneous surprise-attack on ALL their airfields, with a tactical nukes if necessary, thereby achieving total air-superiority. This can be achieved through the use of a combination of land-based aircraft as well as carrier based aircraft. I want to see the effective use of Phalcons, satellites, thermals, whatever we can lay our hands on, to detect the enemy combatants. Good, if not great communication between aircraft tasked with bombing and those tasked with protecting them and achieving air-superiority is necessary of course. Secondary targets should be naval ships.

    Next, to take out the mobile missiles, I envision four layers... at least three. First, medium-flying planes that try to shoot down the missiles during the booster stage. Then, high flying planes that do the same, after that, the missile shield being proposed, and fourth (optionally), planes to shoot down the missiles over each city.

    IMO, the entire operation of neutralizing aircraft and achieving air-superiority should be achieved within 12 hours. Preferably start the bombing just when sun sets, and finish before sunrise.

    Then send in the army!

    This is the kind of strategy between USA and USSR during the Cold-War era. We have an advantage because if we neutralize the nukes on land, Pak doesn't have 2nd strike capability. We'll also minimize civilian casualties as much as possible.

    From what I can understand, we don't have the resources to achieve this. But is there a movement towards achieving this goal? Everything I'm reading from the Cold Start doctrine suggests the army is planning to make shallow forays into Pak territory with air support. The aim is that Pak wouldn't "have to" use nukes against us with shallow cuts.
     
  2.  
  3. ant80

    ant80 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    22
    I am aware of the non-first use policy and no attack on nuclear facilities treaty, but a treaty is just that, a piece of paper. Many wars were started because treaty violations. I say use these to our advantage to deceive Pakistan into a false sense of security.
     
  4. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    262
    Location:
    Boston
    Dear Warmonger,

    You do realize that if your plan is not carried out to perfection then millions of Indians will be dead? Do you place little value on the lives of your family, friends, and fellow citizens? Also, do you believe that the other side is stupid to the point that they haven't planned contingencies in response to a surprise attack?

    Sincerely,

    Concerned moderate
     
  5. ant80

    ant80 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    22
    With respect, coming from an American with years of zero-sum-game and MAD theory? But a very valid point nevertheless. I was a bit concerned about the tone of my post, and didn't mollify it before posting. In retrospect, I should have.

    India has the ability to acquire high-end weapon systems. Pak does not. Unlike USSR, Pak cannot produce them in-house either. As time progresses, due to economic growth, technology and firepower will effectively become skewed towards India. With advanced technology, we have a higher probability of success. And that's all its about. Numbers measuring probability of success.

    And I do take exception to this word. Are all military strategists warmongers? You plan a strategy, and pray to the heathen gods that there is never a situation where we need to use it. That's being careful, also called planning. And as I said in the original post, I am new at this. This was more of a hypothetical question posted in a strategies section rather than an outright declaration of war.
     
  6. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    262
    Location:
    Boston
    Don't take the label "Warmonger" personally. I would have called any Neocon (that advocated a first strike) a warmonger.

    war⋅mon⋅ger
      /ˈwɔrˌmʌŋgər, -ˌmɒŋ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [wawr-muhng-ger, -mong-]

    –noun
    a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war

    Anyway, the idea of precipitating a war against a nuclear-armed neighbor borders on the insane. You see, you only get one chance to carry out your highly-complex and highly-synchronized-coordination-demand plan.

    "If the news reports of (Pakistan) having 70 to 90 atomic bombs are correct, then I think they are going well beyond the requirement of deterrence." See India Together: The nuclear numbers game - 07 September 2009

    The first problem is that the Indian military doesn't currently know how many nuclear bombs that Pakistan possesses. This does not instill confidence that your military can eliminate all of the Pakistani bombs. Are you looking for 70 enemy bombs; perhaps 90; could there be more? And where the heck are they anyway?

    The second problem is that ""No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." See Helmuth von Moltke the Elder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Colin Powell Famous Quote about Contact, Enemy, No, Plan, Survives | Quotes Daddy

    Your enemy is not a dumb piece of rock that sits there and waits for you to kick it over. Your enemy is scheming and planning to surprise, ambush, and generally hurt you as much as possible. You can be sure that your enemy has lots of dirty tricks up their sleeves; waiting just for you.

    Last, but not least, a first strike is never a sane option, because:

    "Jan 12, 2009 ... Belgaum: The former Supreme Court judge Shivaraj Patil has said that war with Pakistan should be the last option." See The Hindu : Karnataka / Belgaum News : ‘War must be last option’

    Finally, if you're a warmonger, don't try to deny it. It won't work.
     
  7. ant80

    ant80 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    22
    Great start to my day being accused of being a warmonger by an American. Read the following paragraph from my first post. Especially the bolded part.

    Explain to me exactly what I said has "advanced", "endorsed" or "precipitated" war. This is STRATEGY. Secondly FYI, News Flash: This is an internet defense forum. That too a strategies section of the forum where you discuss... how do I say it... STRATEGY. I was questioning the Cold Start doctrine. You do that on an internet forum. Thirdly, every single country has a war strategies division in their military. And strategy is what they do. And questioning war strategy during peacetime is imperative to operational success. Way to put words into my mouth.

    As an American you have no right to question me about "warmongering" considering you guys voted for Bush and the neocons... twice. I can understand Afghanistan, even support it. But Iraq? The best possible explanation or reason I can understand is, "My daddy made war there, so I have to be cool too!" That is warmongering. Remember zero-sum game? If you don't know what that is, it is a part of economic game theory where every opponent gain is viewed as your loss. MAD theory is warmongering. Sending a battle group into the Bay of Bengal to intimidate India is warmongering. That America accused India then of warmongering is icing on the cake. Don't lecture me on what is, and what isn't warmongering. Open your eyes, read, understand the statement, then use your brain to discern something before you accuse me of something.

    Another point, it must be said that in over 10,000 years of our history, India has never ever started a war with any other country. Yet that streak almost ended in 2001. Who is to say we won't be pressured into anything? If there is another attack like the one on the parliament, or something like Mumbai, who's to say the Indian government won't respond militarily? There is the Cold Start doctrine, but that deals with the symptoms, not the problem. Questioning whether dealing with symptoms is more appropriate when you have the capability to deal with the disease is warmongering to you?

    To answer questions about the number of warheads, it is irrelevant under this scenario. We're depriving them of launch capability with this. And it is much more likely to succeed against the limited capabilities of a country like Pakistan than it ever was with USSR. Did you know that USSR's plans against China were far more detailed than those against the USA? The Soviets thought that war was unlikely against USA, but far more likely and were far more likely to SUCCEED with China, primarily due to the vast differences in capabilities of both militaries. Even if one or two warheads escape the four-layered protection (again, I don't know if that is a plan that might achieve success, and probably won't find out thanks to your derailing the thread) they won't cause irrecoverable damage, and their launch capabilities will be neutralized.

    Finally, before you give me the definition of warmongering again, I'll recommend that you read the first paragraph of what I said again. READ THE BOLDED PART.
     
  8. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,207
    Likes Received:
    6,638
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    What is difference between Air-Superiority and Air-Dominance
    pls i'm so confussed between both.
     
  9. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    Air Dominance: to establish absolute control of the skies from the very inception of the battle.

    Air Superiority.: That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another which permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.

    Air Supremacy.: That degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference.
     
  10. gambit

    gambit Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    47
    My explanation here...
    Hope that clears up some confusion.
     

Share This Page