Red Storm Rising.

GI_JOEJK said:
I think boris116 is referring to Clancy's books.
Click to expand...

that's right!

I can't understand how the same person could be so meiticulous in descriing American Armed Forces and so ignorant while describing "the other guy". This kind of ignorance borders with treason in my book.
 
I can't understand how the same person could be so meiticulous in descriing American Armed Forces and so ignorant while describing "the other guy". This kind of ignorance borders with treason in my book.
Click to expand...
I found red storm to be rather interesting and didnt see any obvious ignorance. He gave plenty of credit to the soviets, in the late middle to late 80s he just thought we were better, which in my opinion we were. <3 the Reagan buildup
 
Last edited:
EagleHammer said:
Is that Like a Fictional War like Red Stort Rising.
Click to expand...

yes of course. Its about a limited WW3 conflict that happens in West Germany only, If I remember correctly.
 
Book was interesting, but poor in professional view. Clancy, despite of being expert in armaments, did not know Soviet Army good enough to make his book reliable.
For example, he:
- Sets a human gun-loader in T-80 tank;
- Arms Soviet infantry with AK-47, despite of AK-74 of most common infantry weapon in 80-ies;
- Puts responsibility of intelligence on KGB, not on GRU, as is it was in reality;
- There were no child excursions on Kremlin in USSR. Especially, in early-early mornings.
 
wow....MASSIVE thread revive! haha


what you must remember is this

*clancy is, and was always a civilian
*at the time of writing, much was unknown about the soviet military
*it's a work of fiction, meant to entertain

it's a massively entertaining read, and one i go back to re-read regularly.

a similar book IMO is larry bonds "red phoenix", based around a invasion of south korea by the north
 
I enjoyed reading Red Phoenix though I think I want to read it again since I read it years before serving in South Korea's military. One mistake I remember from Red Phoenix is that it has RoK Air Force A-10s when the RoK Air Forces doesn't have any (though I think it's toyed with the idea of buying some).
I'm not sure when it's supposed to be set but if it's set in the 90's then having the Coup d'Etat as in the story would actually be quite ridiculous.
Other than those I think it was pretty decent.
Cauldron is good except the ending.
Clancy actually predicted that the attack helicopters would have a lower survivability than advertised and that the most effective ground attack would come from A-10s. This has proven to be true.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Clancy actually predicted that the attack helicopters would have a lower survivability than advertised and that the most effective ground attack would come from A-10s. This has proven to be true.
Click to expand...
Proven in Iraq, where Iraqi anti-aircraft was little out-of-date. Ground attack planes such as A-10 or Su-25 needs a clear sky and almost none ground mounted anti-aircraft protection. In symmetric battle with modern army efficiency of A-10 would not be high enough, if no clear sky will be achieved.
 
I think the A-10 will be fine as long as it doesn't have enemy fighters chasing it down and in a situation where the skies are not clear for either side, enemy fighters may not be able to get close to the A-10s operating within the range of friendly SAM coverage. It flies low enough for it to avoid a lock from SAM targeting systems and low enough to confuse radar. In places where the land is not as even as Europe, it will hide in the "shadows" of hills and mountains making it even harder to track.
Also the A-10 can actually take the damage that is claimed while the AH-64 can't.
It's one of those things that the Air Force desperately wants to replace but can't.
 
We discussed this situation in Latvian forum, also mobile chaingun systems like `Vulcano`, `Gepard`, `Shilka` and `Tunguska` have to be taken in consideration, since such things always will escort armored units. If they woun't be taken out - the attack of A-10 will be quite costly with little efficiency (tanks are pretty tough for 30mm rounds, especially to be wasted. Damaged tank will proceed combat after some repair) and high casualties. In symmetric war any measure has its countermeasure, and so on...
 
You know how quickly you'd have to react to a low flying bird traveling at high speed?
I know what the heck those Vulcanos and Shilkas are. Truth is, a light machine gun will probably have a better chance of hitting an A-10 because it can be swung around faster. Of course a light machine gun won't be able to take it out.
If you're out in the open, they'll hit you with Mavericks. If you're in a forest they'll pop up for a split second, fire off a burst of GAU-8 and before you know it the trees will get in your way and you won't get a shot off.
No doubt there will be A-10s shot down anyway one way or another but I still think it would be a feasible close air support jet.
If you don't agree, we'll go with your logic and say SAM renders the Air Force obsolete.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
You know how quickly you'd have to react to a low flying bird traveling at high speed?
Click to expand...
That's `Shilkas` and other high intensity AA chainguns are designed for...
If you're out in the open, they'll hit you with Mavericks. If you're in a forest they'll pop up for a split second, fire off a burst of GAU-8 and before you know it the trees will get in your way and you won't get a shot off.
No doubt there will be A-10s shot down anyway one way or another but I still think it would be a feasible close air support jet.
If you don't agree, we'll go with your logic and say SAM renders the Air Force obsolete.
Click to expand...
Nope, SAM does not make AF obsolete. But if armed forces have proper, up to date anti-aircraft systems, there wouldn't be easy bombing and air-to-ground attacks without any countermeasures (in fact in `RSR` Clancy writes so - he makes couple of A-10 burn down dozens of Soviet tanks with no anti-aircraft activity from Soviet side). Further, it means that wide use of A-10 and Su-25 type aircraft will be possible only after gaining full control of air space over battlefield, or in those parts of front line, where anti-aircraft defense of enemy is weakened, destroyed of fled the battlefield.

Air-to-ground planes can be quite effective, if certain criteria fullfills (overhelming control in air space, high casualties of enemy ground-based and mobile anti-aircraft defense systems). If these criteria will not be achieved, efficiency of attack aircraft will be quite low with high casualties.

Respectively, for wide use of air-to-ground attack planes, the first you have to:
- shot down most of enemy interceptors and fighters;
- take out most of ground-based and mobile long and medium range SAM systems;
- take out most of enemy mobile short-range AA defense systems (`Shilkas`, `Volcanos`).
 
Infern0 said:
not strictly true


shilkas would be more effective Vs helicopters more than anything
Click to expand...
The ZSU-23-4 outclassed all NATO anti-aircraft guns at the time, and it is still regarded as posing a major threat for low-flying fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. [...] During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the system was particularly effective against the Israeli Air Force. Israeli pilots attempting to fly low in order to avoid SA-6 missiles were often shot down by the Shilka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4

During `Yom Kippur` war, from 98 Israeli aircraft, shot down by Syrian AA defense, 11 were shot down by `Shilkas`. During Israeli-Syrian conflict in 1974 Israeli side lost 19 aircraft, from which 5 were shot down by `Shilkas`. Captured Israeli pilots revealed, that `Shilkas` created a storm of fire and forced them to climb higher, above the killing zone of `Shilkas` and there they were attacked by SAM.

Chechen separatists used some `Shilkas` in First Chechen War and even managed to shot down a Russian Su-25 in February 1995...
 
For the case of the interceptors, if the sky is so hard for a strike jet to fly, it'll be hard for an interceptor to fly in a manner that in can endanger a strike jet. Of course it's not just the opponents who have AA capability. Your side has that too. Like I said, if we follow your logic only, taking anything to the sky would be an impossibility.
Besides, any SAM or AAA system turning on its radar isn't exactly going to have a free lunch. In a SAM or AAA rich environment, there's going to be a lot of SEAD missions going on around the clock. And whereas ECM can jam incoming SAM which rely on radar to find a moving target like a fighter jet, the AGM-88 won't have such a problem, ECM or no ECM.
 
Rabs said:
For future reference supostat, wikipedia is a horrible source.
Click to expand...
If Wikki lies on some facts or events, opponent can always post a reference from more trusted source.
Second claim (11 from 98 and 5 from 19) was from http://shilka.guns.ru/inarmy.htm, sorry, but it's only in Russian.
the_13th_redneck said:
Like I said, if we follow your logic only, taking anything to the sky would be an impossibility.
Click to expand...
Not impossible, but quite difficult. If speak more correctly - no so easy as in Iraq and Yugoslavia, because those conflicts weren't fully symmetric, coalition/NATO side had a lot of superiority, both numbering and technological. In case of war, described in `RSR`, it wouldn't be so.
Besides, any SAM or AAA system turning on its radar isn't exactly going to have a free lunch. In a SAM or AAA rich environment, there's going to be a lot of SEAD missions going on around the clock. And whereas ECM can jam incoming SAM which rely on radar to find a moving target like a fighter jet, the AGM-88 won't have such a problem, ECM or no ECM.
Click to expand...
Again, in Israeli-Arab wars survived those Arab mobile AA defense systems (SAM), which strictly followed field manual and changed their positions every hour.

Of course, any dense AA defense system can be destroyed or suppressed, if enemy has considerable superiority - as result of SEAD. The question is, can the SEAD missions be fully successful, if enemy has forces enough to protect his air space? If conclude - it will be a long and hard fight to get a air control, with nearly similar chances for both sides (`RSR`), since both sides have similar attack and defense means. Too many factors will influence the result, to correctly foresee which side will win. Remember - Clancy gave air superiority to NATO side by destroying `Soviet Mainstay` type AWACS planes by stealth fighters, which US in reality hadn't in 80-ies. The same with downing of recon satellites - only US side did not, while Soviets neither had technology nor idea to answer the same.
 
It was a book that juggled with what were at the time a lot of unknowns but yeah, if you did manage to knock out the enemy AWACs, this could give you a crucial advantage.
Again, if air superiority is a huge issue for both sides, heavily armored, low flying aircraft could have a window to operate in. SAM would have an easier time in fact targeting higher flying interceptors than low flying A-10s.
And I know that SAM crews during war relocate but SEAD can be conducted (and probably is when neccessary) not as a standalone mission but as an escort mission. Moving every hour won't do it. The instant the targeting radar is turned on at a distance meaningful in engaging the incoming aircraft, the HARM system on the Wild Weasel birds will pick it up and a lot of hurt will be on the way.
Plus you are assuming that Russian and American Air capability is the same, which it is not. American air capability trumps Russian capability in almost every category.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Again, if air superiority is a huge issue for both sides, heavily armored, low flying aircraft could have a window to operate in. SAM would have an easier time in fact targeting higher flying interceptors than low flying A-10s.
And I know that SAM crews during war relocate but SEAD can be conducted (and probably is when neccessary) not as a standalone mission but as an escort mission. Moving every hour won't do it. The instant the targeting radar is turned on at a distance meaningful in engaging the incoming aircraft, the HARM system on the Wild Weasel birds will pick it up and a lot of hurt will be on the way.
Click to expand...
Of course, consequent SEAD will have result, even more, in selected sector of front line it is quite possible to concentrate a lot of aircraft and numeral superiority. Besides, `Shilka` type mobile AA systems, which is main threat for low-flying A-10, also can be take out by artillery, ATGM or saboteurs. But - all this depends from creativeness of high command, of means what command have and many other factors. And this is the mistake of Clancy - nobody did not forbid him to describe all in this manner, not just `A-10 freely flying over battlefield and one by one destroy battalions of Soviet tanks`.
Plus you are assuming that Russian and American Air capability is the same, which it is not. American air capability trumps Russian capability in almost every category.
Click to expand...
I guess we do not have today exact info on how many aircraft did have USSR and USA in mid-80-ies. For today (±few years), Russia have:

Bombers:
- 28 Airforce Tu-160;
- 100 Airforce + 140 Navy Tu-22M;
- 43 Airfoce Tu-95;
- 87 Airforce Tu-95SM;
- 500 Airforce + 100 Navy Su-24.

Fighters:
- 450 Airforce + 35 Navy MiG-29;
- 150 Airforce + 200 Air defence + 30 NAvy Su-27;
- 250 Airfoce MiG-27*;
- 300 Airfoce + 250 Air defence MiG-23*;
- 130 Airforce Su-22*;
- 30 Airforce + 320 Air defence MiG-31;
- 20 Airforce + 180 Air defence MiG-25;
- 20 Navy Su-33;
- 90 Navy Su-17*;
(*Wikki claims as `retired`).

Ground-attack:
- 250 Airforce + 7 Navy Su-25.

AWACS:
- 15 A-50 `Mainstay`.

USA have:
Bombers:
- 21 Airforce B-2A;
- 92 Airforce B-1B;
- 94 Airforce B-52H;

Fighters:
- 957 Airforce + 13 USMC Reserve F-15;
- 2 724 Airforce F-16;
- 195 Navy + 14 Navy Reserve F-14 (in process of retirement);
- 226 Navy + 36 Navy Reserve + 211 USMC + 48 USMC Reserve F/A-18;

Ground attack:
- 52 Airforce F-117;
- 336 Airforce A-10;

AWACS:
- 33 Airforce E-3C;
- 63 Navy + 11 Navy Reserve E-2C.
(Source: http://www.topgun.rin.ru/cgi-bin/texts.pl?category=state&mode=select&lng=eng, I used Russian version since I read and write Russian better than English)

Let's sum its up. So, result is:
Airforce, US (airforce + USMC) vs. Russia (airforce + air defense):
Bombers: 207 vs. 758
Fighters: 3953 vs. 2280
Ground attack: 388 vs. 250
AWACS: 33 vs 15

Navy, US vs. Russia:
Bombers: 0 vs. 240
Fighters: 471 vs. 175
Ground attack: 0 vs 7
AWACS: 74 vs. 0

Apparently I did not count ALL the aircraft, besides I do not know exactly how far there is retirement of old aircraft in both countries; I am not sure how to classify F-117, too - it is nor fighter nor real bomber. But I think you are right - US has considerable superiority in number of fighters (almost 2x, if claims of retirement of MiG-23/27 and Su-17/22 are true, then superiority is even greater). Superiority in bombers of Russia is made by Su-24, which is front bomber (strike aircraft).
 
In the book air superiority, or something very close to that was won with "operation Dreamland".
Clancy never reveals the exact enemy planes lost during that action.

Such an operation is very feasible.

Second, tank crews (again in the book) were ordered to specifically target AA systems on the battlefield as the ground attack planes had taken heavy casualties.

Also a very feasible statement.

In my humble opinion Backfire bombers got WAY too MUCH credit if anything.
Same goes for the Norwegian air defence that was completely supressed early on in the conflict.

The book may be inaccurate, but is is so in both ways for the readers enjoyment.

It is a fictional book, not a documentary.

In my opinion it´s a worthwhile read.

//KJ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top