US Would Fight Without Air Support for Weeks if War With Russia Began

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Senior U.S. Army officials on Monday mapped out a plan to dramatically increase the range of the service's artillery and missile systems to counter a Russian threat that would leave ground forces without air support in the "first few weeks" of a war in Europe.

Ok, doesn't this sound a a bit like having a crazy war, not just terrible but crazy cream on top, with a red cherry? Troops without air support are dead troops; or at least very high casualties.. And if anyone wonders why they would be without air cover?

"Because of the power and the range and the lethality of these Russian air defenses, it's going to make all forms of air support much more difficult, and the ground forces are going to feel the effects," Gordon said.

Well, there you go... because they will be shooting down our planes left and right? Those new S-400 and/or S-500 missile systems and make the region "too hot" to fly in and offer troop support?

At this point, the "west" has an awful lot of catching up to do me thinks. A "butt-load" of money got pretty much wasted on this really questionable F-35...that's another topic, but..you get my point i think. At this point they should do the same thing the Russians did to the USA not long after WW2 was over.

They somehow got ahold of a perfectly good B-29 bomber, and copied it down the smallest detail. The west needs to somehow come up with a MIG-35 in it's garage, and copy these in the smallest detail..Ha! I think they would wind up with a far better jet than the F-35. It is also claimed that the Russian are working on a Mig-41 that is capable of flying in space???

MiG-41: Will Russia’s next fighter jet be able to fly in space?

Anyhow, I think a conflict at this time would not go so well for the west at all. In fact might get their butts thumped real bad. Lots of coffins..disasters.

US Would Fight Without Air Support for Weeks if War With Russia Began

There is a lot of information in the article.. but consider the source too.. There are a lot of "promises" being made that we will counter this lack of long range artillery by advances in technology, etc. Promises, and not yet developed "gun goodies" is basically pie in the sky.

It also might be a wanton "cry" for massive artillery funding..sigh.. Anyway, have a read, come to your own conclusions, and perhaps pipe in?

I think regardless, a lot of spending is what it would take to get back into being a solid fight match, or to be able to beat the foes forces expectantly.

Pravdaseeker

Russia doesn't really have a Navy. They have one aircraft carrier that needs a permanent tugboat escort because is breaks down so much. Now imagine how well kept the rest of their armed forces are. Putin has even made it a point to get his military up to standards with the world.

Russia at this point has a big bark but no bite. And if they do bite it won't be very hard.

Yes they have tech that can bring down our jets but so does NK. In all honesty, Russia would put up a pretty good fight for about 2 weeks until their machines and infrastructure broke.

I bet most of their tanks wouldn't last 6 days in a real combat scenario without losing half to mechanical failure.

Their infantry would be a formidable foe until we eliminated all infantry support then they would be cannon fodder.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Never under-estimate your opponent.

Which by the way how many aircraft total do we even have here mainland, as so many are forward deployed?

Surely this would be a moot point if US troops had air support from most of the Europe?

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Ha that's a pretty good analysis Big bad Russia is like a barking dog. So don't be afraid afraid of the boogey man.

U.S. Military is rebuilding. We'll be OK if that battle with Russia, on European soil, some day materializes.

a reply to: carewemust

When its had nearly a trillion dollars annual thrown at it since 9/11, the idea that it "needs" "rebuilding" is insane.

Yeah.. its about time. Would be nice to see two warmongers killing each other.
And no.. no two weeks. Few months atleast.. wont be a fair war with regulations are followed. Both are evil as each other. War would be very nasty...

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Thanks PraetorianAZ...(I used to live in Az for 40+ years.) I see your point.... But I think the Russians demonstrated a lot of their new wonder weapons not long ago.. and that T-38 they made in the mid 20th century was simple but tough and worked.

Here's to hoping we don't ever need to find out who can kick whose behind..amen?

Their fighter jets prove they should not be taken lightly..

Many made the mistake of underestimating the Japanese in WW2... then found out they were some of the toughest meanest men around..and it required high casualties to defeat them, and you needed air support, artillery, and overwhelming numbers of men..to make it happen in most cases.

I am pretty sure they tested these new tanks pretty severely, to make sure they could/would cut the mustard.. An ex M1 Abrahms dude I know says these new Russian tanks would be a pretty bad a** enemy tank to go up against. And I have seen video or two of the Abrahm's tank getting shredded to pieces with a Russian missile..That fancy Abrahm's turret didn't last very long at all in the videos I saw.

I appreciate your input and thoughts, thanks for that.

Pravdaseeker

a reply to: carewemust

No, we would not be okay. Honestly, this comparison unit by unit of Russia, USA, or China is useless. Each of these countries enough nukes and enough delivery systems to ensure total destruction if anything major did escalate.

And for this same reason, there will never be a major war between the US/RUS/China. There might be some proxy conflicts, or PMCs performing actions against each other, but you'll never see Russian tanks attempting to roll across Europe. My opinion is most of this "cold war 2.0" need to rebuild is nothing but a great PR move by the MIC to drive more founding. Same for Russia and China. Building toys and selling to boys (friendly or not doesn't seem to matter) is a great business.... if you can convince the world they need your firecrackers.

I could see trade wars, proxy wars, but anything major will be settled via backroom deals... or we all die.

~Winter

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: TwistedPsycho

Thanks Twisted, but I think the S-400 and/or S-500 missile systems would also make a European fighter just as vulnerable, and they could not offer air support either. They would not be able to help troops on the ground very much..or else risk getting blown out of the sky.

At umpteen million per plane....I see why they wouldn't want to risk losing very many of them.

Pravdaseeker

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Thanks Blisss.. good point there mate.

I guess that shows just how wasteful, and bloated those budgets were then eh?

Pravdaseeker

a reply to: pravdaseeker

You are right, I understand that any air support would be vulnerable. The original point though was, as I understand it, that the US would not be able to contribute to air support in the first two weeks rather than be effective.

Cheap drones to suck up their missile supplies
I think it's been thought through

The Russian military is basically called a artillary force. They already have in Place the guns and the missiles the US are now seeking to have themselves.

Russia is way ahead of the US when it comes to different artilliry delivery systems and tacktics. And some of these systems deliver missiles that travel at 3000km/h. and have a range to about 500km and more.

THeir Electronic warefair systems are also werey good and can shut Down practically any communication within a very large aria of land and airspace. Last year russia shut Down practically the Whole Northern part of Norway when they tested these Things. At the same time they simulated attack towards Norway With their SU24s. One Orion was sent up but it was practically blinded.

Their subs are becomming very sophisticated deliverysystems and are now forcing Norway to look towards the US to buy newer detction systems. These subs can deliver torpedo lauched cruise missiles. This means the torpedos can travel a very long distance under water before they deliver the cruice missile for flight. This reduces Our ships ability to come within good detection range and to Counter these subs. Today Our ships dont know what is comming at them. Is it a ordiary torpedo or is it a SuperSonic cruice missile that will pop out of the water at any time?

The newest the Russians are working on now when it comes to torpedoes are drones that travel With or without a sub escort. This means that the weapon is already launched when it leaves port. It is like a prededator patroling under water on its own. It is a sea arial denail weapon. And you dont know if it is a ordinary torpedo or a system that will deliver a SuperSonic cruice missile. When you have these Things and subs in the waters, it complicates everything when it comes to a ships detection systems and its ability to respond properly.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

There's so much BS sloshing around about this increasingly Cold War. Russia aren't about to attack the West any more than the West is planning to preemtively attack them. What scares me are articles like these where people lose their # against their own straw men. These people will take us to the brink on 'What Ifs' and paranoia. They're their own conspiracy community. Like this part here:

Senior U.S. Army officials on Monday mapped out a plan to dramatically increase the range of the service's artillery and missile systems to counter a Russian threat that would leave ground forces without air support in the "first few weeks" of a war in Europe.

Minus any evidence that Russia is about to invade Europe, 'senior officials' are flapping about how to respond to a possibility of their imagining. They're broadcasting their response to their own straw man which will motivate Russia to design their own version...

"They've got a range advantage over us in a number of different areas, particularly cannons," Gordon said. "Typically, modern Russian cannons have got 50 percent to 100 percent greater range than the current generation of U.S. cannons."

We're talking about the single largest military budget on the planet being outclassed by Russia. Really? It's barely conceivable that US cannons have half the range of Russian cannon. Where's all the trillions of R&D gone? That's not a 'bad Russia' problem, it's a 'where did you spend all the money' problem.

Or an emotive plea to increase the world's biggest defense budget again and get the old Reagan era arms race going full steam ahead. Cos that's what we all need after a recession and with uncertain global economies. We need a bunch of assholes having a big dick contest too.

Bunch of horse pucky.

They wouldn't last in a ground war against the US and Nato anyway, with or without.

Unless NOKO can get their troops to the Western Front.

Then it's ICBM Time!

Let's drop the big one and see what happens.

a reply to: Kandinsky

So, time for the public patriot movement to claim ownership ? ... not today.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

A) no the Russians will not make a space ready attack plane..

Breaking gravity in the thin air of high altitude takes WAY more fuel than a plane can carry.

B) we won’t be fighting a ground war with russia.. well maybe for 5 min.. the INSTANT one side or the other starts to feel like they will lose. We launch nukes.

Russia knows they can’t compete with out military bullet for bullet. So their only option will be to hope MAD holds true.

We have a better funded military than the 13 countries behind us.. that means we spend as much as the number 2-13 nations.

We could destroy EVERY other navy on the planet LITERALLY in an afternoon.

a reply to: Timely

It's hard to tell who's for real or which is a real issue instead of a useful straw man to gain advantage. Bastards all.