What would be needed to repel a US bombing campaign?

[Gukpard]

I'm working into a scenario in which some country is attacked by the USA in the early 90s, and first there is a bombing campaign and then a land invasion, like in Iraq. Then I wondered how many casualties they must cause in the US air force to make they cancel the bombing campaign, and how many AA weapons are needed to deliever that damage too

Cheers
Gukpa

 

[viperzero]

I guess be the Soviet Union maybe possibly. in the early 90s nothing else could, even today really unless the US acted really dumb, which could happen but still.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm working into a scenario in which some country is attacked by the USA in the early 90s, and first there is a bombing campaign and then a land invasion, like in Iraq. Then I wondered how many casualties they must cause in the US air force to make they cancel the bombing campaign, and how many AA weapons are needed to deliever that damage too

Cheers
Gukpa

The USA, like most western countries cannot tolerate many casualties. The GOP's favourite president withdrew its forces from Lebanon after a single barracks was bombed. The USA abandoned its occupation of Iraq after suffering 4,425 over more than ten years.

 

[Gukpard]

The USA, like most western countries cannot tolerate many casualties. The GOP's favourite president withdrew its forces from Lebanon after a single barracks was bombed. The USA abandoned its occupation of Iraq after suffering 4,425 over more than ten years.

Ok, but this country is far away from the continental USA, and it is a first world country, plus the USA have a good casus belli against them; since this country is well developed, they have a huge anti aircraft defence network and because of that Clinton have to send as much bombers and fighters he can mobilize

under this conditions, I believe (I'm no expert) that even if they lose 30% of their bombers they still would continue with their bombing raids, If I'm wrong, please correct me

 

[Wallet]

Shoot down 1 pilot, parade him on live TV, then execute him.

Repeat

The US will not tolerate this. Either they invade or stop the bombing. If this is only bombing, then I assume the US doesn't want to invade. Of course, how does this nation shoot down US aircraft.

Yulglosvia gets some Soviet anti aircraft missies, top of the line. They break apart like OTL. When Clinton starts bombing Serbia, they use it. Clinton withdrew from Somalia only after a single black hawk helicopter went down, he might do the same in Eastern Europe

 

[Just a Rube]

Except American planes were shot down OTL over Kosovo, and it didn't lead to a pull out (and executing an American pilot would be an excellent way to seriously anger the US into escalating things).

 

[Gukpard]

Ok, but what would be necessary to make the USA unleash a massive bombing campaign like what the eight air force did in WWII, and how bad this campaign should go to make the USA cancel it and call for a truce?

 

[strangecircus]

To counter Americans you would need a completely united country ideologically committed to fight or die (North Korea on steroids) so you could use certain tactics. for example, use small arms ambush over urban areas to completely counter at least rotary wing the way Iraqis did early in the war.

Next you would need a dense IADS of slurpus s300 and a few s400 missiles, and some way to shoot down counter-battery fire from cruise missiles. Add in some special tactics to predict stealth bomber runs like Kosovo. You need American will to be fragmented (no fly zones based on hearsay or flimsy evidence) and preferably China+Russia backing you at the UN. Finally, and most important, you need nuclear weapons or research into nuclear weapons or guarantee of some nuclear umbrella, because nuclear weapons even if it's a simple gun type Hiroshima style bomb accomplishes the main goal of all of the above -- make it far too costly for USA to attack or invade.

So yes with the right diplomatic, military and scientific moves you can make attack by Western powers unpalatable to the extreme. Oh and if a Bin Laden type shows up and kills thousands (black swan event) you go on CNN decry terrorism and hand him and his associates over asap. So add ability to react to current news cycle and mastery of modern propaganda (Putin style) as another prerequisite.

 

[Veiovis]

Ok, but what would be necessary to make the USA unleash a massive bombing campaign like what the eight air force did in WWII, and how bad this campaign should go to make the USA cancel it and call for a truce?

this really depends on the scenario and could go from "oops,lost a aircraft,gotta get out of here" and "time to get the nukes out aka you have lost"

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Odd isn't it - during the 60s and early 70s the US lost over 9000 aircraft to all causes during the Vietnam war - although the Loss to Sortie rate was 0.4 which is pretty good - but still 9000 planes and helicopters!!!

I think it depends on the cause - I mean Somalia was a rude introduction to the 3 block war and got well out of hand - I think it came as a bit of a shock TBH!

If the cause is perceived as just and or vital then i can see the US accepting casualties and heavy losses.

I can see the acceptable loss rate in an action in the former Yugoslavia being higher than Somalia for example.

 

[Riain]

The US/Coalition airpower's key weaknesses are their bases and their support assets like AWACS, Tankers, ELINT and the like, these are what you need to go after to make a bombing campaign be called off. The best way to attack bases is with ballistic and cruise missiles with mobile and redundant launchers and modern, area denial warheads, the US would struggle to defend against two or three dozen ballistic and cruise missiles converging on a single airbase simultaneously. Force multiplier/support aircraft are a tougher nut to crack, probably best with ultra high performance aircraft attacking en masse as part of a combined operation with other air and air defence assets, firing barrages of high performance missiles with multiple homing modes including home-on-jam. Again the aim is to momentarily overwhelm standing US defences with new and numerous problems.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Ok, but this country is far away from the continental USA, and it is a first world country, plus the USA have a good casus belli against them; since this country is well developed, they have a huge anti aircraft defence network and because of that Clinton have to send as much bombers and fighters he can mobilize

under this conditions, I believe (I'm no expert) that even if they lose 30% of their bombers they still would continue with their bombing raids, If I'm wrong, please correct me

Your wrong. If our hypothetical opponent have a Soviet-style IADS with Soviet-level resources and the competence to use it correctly, then the US would be taking loss rates with a daily loss rate in the double-digits unless the US adopts such stringent ROE that they effectively neuter their own air campaign. At that rate the US is looking at running through its stocks of aircraft in two weeks at the most.

It should also be noted that a Soviet style IAD network isn't just SAMs and AAA, it incorporates a large fighter force as well.

 

[Gukpard]

If our hypothetical opponent have a Soviet-style IADS with Soviet-level resources and the competence to use it correctly, then the US would be taking loss rates with a daily loss rate in the double-digits unless the US adopts such stringent ROE that they effectively neuter their own air campaign. At that rate the US is looking at running through its stocks of aircraft in two weeks at the most.

Yes, this hypotetical opponent got soviet level of competence and the same air defence capacity, since this country is land locked, they focus most of their military budget on the airforce

That means that this opponent needs to hold on the USAAF for two weeks before coming to the table?

 

[galveston bay]

really depends on the stakes now doesn't it? In a total war situation massive, indeed nearly total losses, were expected. Against the North Vietnamese we lost literally hundreds of aircraft to combat causes and a lot of aircrew to go with them. American pilots shot down knew that mistreatment was certain in North Korean, Chinese, and North Vietnamese hands in both of the Korean and Vietnam Wars. So if the stakes are high enough, very high levels of loss are accepted.

On the other hand, a single full scale airstrike against Syrian targets during the US intervention in Lebanon in the 1980s resulted in one aircraft shot down with 1 aircrew killed, 1 captured and the US negotiated to get him released and withdrew from the conflict

So the stakes really matter

The US Air Force in the 1990s, even after the post Cold War draw down is very formidable, and very very good at destroying air defense networks and interceptor forces. It is their first mission during wartime or major interventions.

So the defenders are going to need a very powerful defense indeed

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Yes, this hypotetical opponent got soviet level of competence and the same air defence capacity, since this country is land locked, they focus most of their military budget on the airforce

That means that this opponent needs to hold on the USAAF for two weeks before coming to the table?

Against an opponent of that level? The US would be looking at two weeks maximum (one week minimum) before they have to give-up or the USAAF effectively ceases to exist.

 

[Gukpard]

Ok thank you, this thread is finished

 

[galveston bay]

Against an opponent of that level? The US would be looking at two weeks maximum (one week minimum) before they have to give-up or the USAAF effectively ceases to exist.

I question that.... the Iraqis had a very heavy air defense system with both the large fighter force and the massive SAM and AAA artillery force, as did the North Vietnamese, and in 1972 against the North Vietnamese, and in 1990 against the Iraqis both were taken down with minimal losses (1st Gulf War) or acceptable losses (Linebacker).

A full scale war against the Soviets would mean very likely nuclear strikes (which means everyone runs out of air power pretty quickly), or best (?) case, things remain conventional. Western Air Forces practiced taking on the Soviet style air defense from the 1968 Israeli / Egyptian War of Attrition all the way until the end of the Soviet Union, and still retain most of their capability against such. So again, it depends on the stakes how willing the US Air Arms (don't forget the Navy is involved in any likely war) against a major power with a Soviet style PVO type organization and set up

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I question that.... the Iraqis had a very heavy air defense system with both the large fighter force and the massive SAM and AAA artillery force, as did the North Vietnamese.

The Iraqis in Desert Storm are a textbook case of how not to run an air defense campaign and the North Vietnamese were operating at a radical disadvantage in numbers and from a more primitive tech base then even the Serbs. Neither are comparable to a opponent with Soviet level competence and resources.

 

[galveston bay]

The Iraqis in Desert Storm are a textbook case of how not to run an air defense campaign and the North Vietnamese were operating at a radical disadvantage in numbers. Neither are comparable to a opponent with Soviet level competence and resources.

they were however operating at a higher density of combat systems than anywhere in the Soviet Union outside of the Moscow Air Defense Army. While the Soviets had huge numbers of launchers, interceptors and guns, they also were defending a land mass that was staggeringly huge, so their density outside of Moscow, and to a lesser extent Leningrad and Murmansk, were considerably lower than found in the Hanoi/Haiphong area or Baghdad area in either campaign. As the North Vietnamese shot down a lot of American fighter bombers and a fair number of B52s (before running out of SAMs), I wouldn't underrate them. While it seems like the Iraqis were incompetent, they were taken down by an air force literally at the top of its form in 1990 that used special operations and cyberwar assets to assist in that take down plus Stealth aircraft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Ok, but what would be necessary to make the USA unleash a massive bombing campaign like what the eight air force did in WWII, and how bad this campaign should go to make the USA cancel it and call for a truce?

The closest we came to that in the post-WW2 era is Vietnam. Perhaps in 2020 North Korea invades the South, and after determining that PRK has no real nukes, starts bombing? China may complain.