It’s a neat example though, because it shows what doing something like this would actually look like, and the summary is “Stupid. It’d look stupid.” I don’t think, in any world, this is a strategy the US would employ to do anything except flex on some children hiding in caves or something. The only reason I bring this up is because you’ve handwaved away every other logistical capability of the US (like the establishment of FABs, the capturing of strategic assets like airports, carrier-based invasions, opposed landings (which are still dumb, no arguing), the elimination of EU air defense, seaborne shore transport, etc…) as non-viable because of a bunch of reasons, most of which boil down to “the EU also has armies”. And you know what? That’s completely fair! I am 100% willing to toss every single one of those potentially effective (except opposed landings) (the USMC would be so mad at me if they could read) techniques in the bin! Because I think we’ve finally arrived at an effective approach entirely within US capabilities that even you haven’t handwaved away yet.
Sure, It’s a stupid stupid strategy that would never be used in reality, but staged refueling of mass aerial assets enabling standoff strike missions via the arctic circle are at least completely and demonstrably within the capabilities of the US military. Personally, were I the one planning this, I’d prefer something like: the utilization of carrier-based assets to deny air supremacy to either side while coordinating seven IRF and three CRG deployments to establish strategic air staging points across a broad swathe of terrain, then use the incredibly popular mid-air refueling to enable rapid transit of air superiority fighters like the F22 which then base from the expeditionary air bases (I hope they want burger king). Or something more simple, like the elimination of strategic targets using combined carrier-based SEAD operations to disrupt the quite formidable EU AA operating in concert with submarine based near-shore under-envelope cruise missile strikes. Or combined naval and aerial saturation of the AA capabilities present in the theater using things like the B52 to force constricted operating times, eliminating the need for DEAD operations nearly entirely.
Or you know, the US could keep things simple, stick with tradition. Invade poland. Then just expand out from there.
Listen, the original point here was that anyone trying anything right now would leave them and the rest of the EU seriously vulnerable to Russian aggression. That’s what this whole thing was about, and I’m pretty damn sure THAT point has been exhaustively made by now. Even depleted as they are by the war in Ukraine, they are still a serious threat. And for what it’s worth, Russia failed to take Hostomel via a combination of ridiculously poor logistical planning (not accounting for delays in capturing the airport was the real death knell, if 2nd VDV group had been inbound earlier they would have taken it) and a ton of bad luck in the form of 3rd SpO, the most tenacious and underestimated bastards I have ever encountered. But the point here is that ruzzia was about an hour away from taking Kyiv, one of the best defended cities in Europe, and with the lessons learned they could pull a similar stunt on any of the border countries.
I don’t know that it would succeed, but do you want to risk that?
Errata:
In general fighters with buddy refueling are not called air tankers.
I unfortunately do not believe there was a misunderstanding on terms such as ‘tanker’ […]
Also claimed that this is what allows strategic bombers to reach Russia from the US.
launch directly on missions, without a need for a forward air base. We do this all the time, too
Sorry, I can see how that could be interpreted ambiguously. I meant that B-2 and B-52 missions are carried out without a forward air base, that is something done with casual frequency. From the B-2 Spirit’s wikipedia page, “[…] and can fly more than 10,000 nautical miles (12,000 mi; 19,000 km) with one midair refueling.” I do believe that’s far enough to hit russia, it’s certainly far enough to fly missions in Iraq/Afghanistan. (And the B-52’s operational range is even further than the B-2s. The B-1 Lancer though, it only counts as a strategic bomber because it can carry nukes, it’s operational range is dinky.)
There is no way Iraq should have been considered a peer to the US, it had a big army but was completely outclassed and outnumbered in the air.
This is absolutely true in hindsight! But (and you can just go and look up reporting at the time on this subject) the world collectively didn’t understand what modern warefare had become. It put tremendous stock in ideas like the relevancy of dogfighting, and spectacularly overestimated how impactful the Iraqui army’s then-recent experience would be. They flew several of the best dogfighters at the time, they had extremely good air defenses, ones that had been repeatedly demonstrated to be highly effective. Without knowing any better, they looked like they were in a very strong position to hold out against coalition forces until the political will to continue ran out.
(I am getting so tired of explaining to americans that it’s not [some random band] ft. Babymetal but, in fact, Babymetal ft. [some random band]. Apropos of nothing I know, but still. Americans, man. We suck.)
You know, in pulling up sources for this I ran across this utterly absurd UK operation which may be the single most british thing I’ve ever read about. So much logistical expenditure to inflict damage that was so minimal it was repaired in 24 hours. What a sublime metaphor for the collapse of the empire. (The HP Victor was such gorgeous plane, though. My god, roll-down windows in the cockpit? How can you not love it.)
It’s a neat example though, because it shows what doing something like this would actually look like, and the summary is “Stupid. It’d look stupid.” I don’t think, in any world, this is a strategy the US would employ to do anything except flex on some children hiding in caves or something. The only reason I bring this up is because you’ve handwaved away every other logistical capability of the US (like the establishment of FABs, the capturing of strategic assets like airports, carrier-based invasions, opposed landings (which are still dumb, no arguing), the elimination of EU air defense, seaborne shore transport, etc…) as non-viable because of a bunch of reasons, most of which boil down to “the EU also has armies”. And you know what? That’s completely fair! I am 100% willing to toss every single one of those potentially effective (except opposed landings) (the USMC would be so mad at me if they could read) techniques in the bin! Because I think we’ve finally arrived at an effective approach entirely within US capabilities that even you haven’t handwaved away yet.
Sure, It’s a stupid stupid strategy that would never be used in reality, but staged refueling of mass aerial assets enabling standoff strike missions via the arctic circle are at least completely and demonstrably within the capabilities of the US military. Personally, were I the one planning this, I’d prefer something like: the utilization of carrier-based assets to deny air supremacy to either side while coordinating seven IRF and three CRG deployments to establish strategic air staging points across a broad swathe of terrain, then use the incredibly popular mid-air refueling to enable rapid transit of air superiority fighters like the F22 which then base from the expeditionary air bases (I hope they want burger king). Or something more simple, like the elimination of strategic targets using combined carrier-based SEAD operations to disrupt the quite formidable EU AA operating in concert with submarine based near-shore under-envelope cruise missile strikes. Or combined naval and aerial saturation of the AA capabilities present in the theater using things like the B52 to force constricted operating times, eliminating the need for DEAD operations nearly entirely.
Or you know, the US could keep things simple, stick with tradition. Invade poland. Then just expand out from there.
Listen, the original point here was that anyone trying anything right now would leave them and the rest of the EU seriously vulnerable to Russian aggression. That’s what this whole thing was about, and I’m pretty damn sure THAT point has been exhaustively made by now. Even depleted as they are by the war in Ukraine, they are still a serious threat. And for what it’s worth, Russia failed to take Hostomel via a combination of ridiculously poor logistical planning (not accounting for delays in capturing the airport was the real death knell, if 2nd VDV group had been inbound earlier they would have taken it) and a ton of bad luck in the form of 3rd SpO, the most tenacious and underestimated bastards I have ever encountered. But the point here is that ruzzia was about an hour away from taking Kyiv, one of the best defended cities in Europe, and with the lessons learned they could pull a similar stunt on any of the border countries.
I don’t know that it would succeed, but do you want to risk that?
Errata:
Look you’re just wrong about this one, I’m very sorry friendo.
Sorry, I can see how that could be interpreted ambiguously. I meant that B-2 and B-52 missions are carried out without a forward air base, that is something done with casual frequency. From the B-2 Spirit’s wikipedia page, “[…] and can fly more than 10,000 nautical miles (12,000 mi; 19,000 km) with one midair refueling.” I do believe that’s far enough to hit russia, it’s certainly far enough to fly missions in Iraq/Afghanistan. (And the B-52’s operational range is even further than the B-2s. The B-1 Lancer though, it only counts as a strategic bomber because it can carry nukes, it’s operational range is dinky.)
This is absolutely true in hindsight! But (and you can just go and look up reporting at the time on this subject) the world collectively didn’t understand what modern warefare had become. It put tremendous stock in ideas like the relevancy of dogfighting, and spectacularly overestimated how impactful the Iraqui army’s then-recent experience would be. They flew several of the best dogfighters at the time, they had extremely good air defenses, ones that had been repeatedly demonstrated to be highly effective. Without knowing any better, they looked like they were in a very strong position to hold out against coalition forces until the political will to continue ran out.
(I am getting so tired of explaining to americans that it’s not
[some random band] ft. Babymetalbut, in fact,Babymetal ft. [some random band]. Apropos of nothing I know, but still. Americans, man. We suck.)