Quote:
Originally posted by Praxus
This may not be exactly on topic...
How effective do you think the X-45C would be against say Swiss or Swede Air Defense?
|
As far as I am concerned, the X-45 is on par with a cruise missile. Therefore, it should be treated as such. In this case, not very effective at all.
The problem is that you're trying to replace a pair of eyes on the ground with a 2 inch lense 2000 feet into the air. There is simply no way for the remote operator (I wouldn't call him pilot) to have the same situational awareness.
UAVs and UCAVs have their roles as newly defined by the technology and the doctrine but these are not the battlestars Galactica.
Like any war, there are two axioms that apply here.
1) Find the enemy.
2) Kill the enemy.
For the Swiss and Swedish AD nets, they would include passive systems (stealth, decoy, burial, terrain) as well as active (SAMs, MANPADs, AAA). Those forts are hidden and buried within mountain ranges and very difficult flying. Therefore, any aircraft would have to come down low, fly through a wall of steel, find his target, and bullseye it (a near miss would not count).
The USAF can achieve this. The numbers simply ain't on the Swiss nor Swedish side but it would be awefully expensive.
There are enough modern precedent to state the very difficulties. The Kosovo War and the Taliban War. The Kosovo War shown the ineffectiveness of high altitude bombing on precision attacks. The Taliban War shown how mountain sides provide a very effective shield against even the heaviest of bombs (OP ANNACONDA).
Operations ANNACONDA and HARPOON had shown you need ground forces to find and fix the enemy for airpower to be effective and here is where another problem for the US to take on the Swedes or the Swiss. We don't have enough recee assets that can act in that high altitude, at least not without 3-4 months aclimatization.