What role do HIMARS fill in the US doctrine? I thought they're entirely based around air superiority, so what targets could a tactical missile hit that a plane couldn't?
Note, this is not a Ukraine thread. I wanna know how the actual country that developed them uses them. Feel free to post about TZD though
>I thought they're entirely based around air superiority
people still believe the memes about America needing total air superiority in order to fight?
Not needing, preferring. What you're saying is they built their doctrine around air superiority but also developed weapons just in case they don't have it? Makes sense
The thirdies need something to cope about. The realization that American forces enjoy full spectrum dominance in every arena is kind of mind breaking. Even on a man for man, squad against squad basis the American is going to win 90% of the time.
>Even on a man for man, squad against squad basis the American is going to win 90% of the time.
This isn't true at all.
NATO believes that air superiority is a PREREQUISITE for battlefield success, especially on the offensive
>preferring
No
See above
>What role do HIMARS fill in the US doctrine
Artillery, which has the advantage of not being deterred by SAMs
>NATO believes that air superiority is a PREREQUISITE for battlefield success, especially on the offensive
The current war has proven NATO right.
But air superiority means you suppressed or destroyed the enemy SAMs. So what target would a general use a HIMARS on instead of just launching some CAS?
Using little tiny truck-o instead of endangering jets/helis from nasty manpads
>But air superiority means you suppressed or destroyed the enemy SAMs
It does not. SEAD/DEAD is a removed concept from aerial superiority/supremacy. Consider the role of the F-22, an "air superioty fighter" which has no SEAD/DEAD capability and fairly limited strike capability.
>SEAD/DEAD is a removed concept from aerial superiority/supremacy
How? If there are SAMs around you cannot say that you can operate freely, therefore at least air supremacy has not been achieved.
Aerial superiority/supremacy deals soley with "air force on air force," SAMs and AAA is considered cross-domain. Consider ships. If one nation had like 50 aircraft carriers and cruisers each and the other has 2 rowboats, clearly the first has naval supremacy, even if they still have to be careful of guys on the shores with RPGs.
Okay, then the context more accurately should have been "US doctrine is to first SEAD and/or DEAD" but the question remains the same
Its for the situation when you have ten planes capable of hitting 3 targets each but there are more than 30 targets that need to be hit
>NATO believes that air superiority is a PREREQUISITE for battlefield success, especially on the offensive
I hate you retards like you wouldn't believe. There isn't a NATO doctrine. Different countries in NATO have different doctrines and don't always rely on air superiority.
Individually yes
When they work together in coalition ops however they have to agree on strategy and doctrine to a certain extent, and usually they follow what the major NATO armies decide. Those major nations will also tend to backfill missing capabilities - no air force? they'll bring it. You do your part. But nobody's going in without air cover. That is part of the function of the "framework" or "lead" nation in a multinational task force.
Yup
>what target would a general use a HIMARS on instead of just launching some CAS?
Any target which strike aircraft can't manage. Say for example the S-400 way in the rear. That's a part of SEAD as well. Nobody ever said SEAD can only be done from the air.
Waste of quads
Multidomain ops mainly addresses HOW the US Army will fight
The major principles remain the same, if you look at the Air Force's part of MDO they still emphasise achieving air superiority
>Aerial superiority/supremacy deals soley with "air force on air force
[Citation needed]
>[Citation needed]
AAP-6 ( I used 2021 ed but take your pick)
>air supremacy / maîtrise de l'air
>That degree of air superiority
>wherein the opposing air force is
>incapable of effective interference.
>1973-02-01
air surface zone / zone air-surfac
That's not "Air Force on Air Force" however; it only defines the condition of the opposing air force.
While acknowledging that the Air Force does most of the SEAD work, US publications talk about Joint SEAD and indeed we see a good example in Desert Storm itself, where SF and Army helicopters fired the first shots, and Navy Prowlers and Navy Tomahawks were all part of the initial strikes. Army SF attacking SAM sites, another traditional mission, is that "Air Force"?
>wherein the opposing air force is
>opposing air force
>air force
Bro, I literally went and pulled the NATO dictionary for you. What more do you want?
He wants to be right, but he can't so the only option left is mindless denial
Fuck you
Let me try to explain this again
Your claim, as I understand it, is that SEAD is Air Force vs Air Force
I said no
SEAD is Joint Force vs Air Force
Even so this may change
The reason for this current state is that air forces typically were in charge of the air, and SAMs were typically organised under the Air Force. There are significant exceptions actually.
The future of SEAD will be increasingly Joint force vs Joint force, as other nations adopt similar practices and invest in similar assets as the US's Multi Domain Ops.
>Your claim, as I understand it, is that SEAD is Air Force vs Air Force
You are a complete dumbass and can't read.
Are you up to speed now?
> America needing total air superiority in order to fight?
Although, I won't even pretend that I understand all the nooks and crannies behind the theory. After multidomain warfare air superiority is no longer a prerrequsite, just part of a bigger scheme.
Although I won't ev
Obvious advantages are reaction speed and cost. Basically something like himars can be available for a much lower cost per hour 24/7 and can send the rockets on their way as soon as they get the coordinates with no worries about fuel or bad weather, much like conventional artillery but with more range
But do they actually get used like that? I've seen soldiers call in A-10s to BRRRRRTTTTT some terrorists near them but I have never seen a HIMARS being called in
Actually I'm stupid, clearly counter-insurgency is not what most of these weapon systems were designed for. I retract that statement
I'm not really familiar with US divisional structure but that is a great explanation. Thank you
You can just read the operational history section on Wikipedia to see how they were used. Some excerpts:
In November 2015, the U.S. Army revealed that it had deployed the HIMARS to Iraq, firing at least 400 rockets at Islamic State (ISIL) targets since the beginning of that summer
In September 2018, US support forces coordinated with Syrian Democratic Forces fighting to defeat ISIS in east Syria in the Deir ez-Zor campaign, sometimes striking ISIS positions with GMLRS rockets 30 times per day.
>What role do HIMARS fill in the US doctrine? I thought they're entirely based around air superiority, so what targets could a tactical missile hit that a plane couldn't?
Usually none, but you could also say what target can a grenade launcher hit that a mortar can't or what target can a mortar hit that a howitzer can't?
The difference is in where they are positioned, you can have a guy in your squad fire a grenade launcher far faster than you can call in mortars. A howitzer may have greater range and firepower than a mortar but that range means they have more priorities while your companies mortars are serving your needs.
Calling in an airstrike requires that aircraft be overhead now or you got a bit of a wait. What's more you have to liaison with other branches of the military and they may have their own priorities like air to air, SEAD, anti-ship or just other targets. HIMARS are for the army, an inhouse truck mounted airstrike that services the armies needs ASAP.
If you think two weapons serve the same purpose, take a close look at where they are in the organization and who commands them.
Watch Operation Room video on ground war in Gulf War and you won't have to bother us with retarded questions.
Will do, thanks for the recommendation
its one more tool at their disposal.
artillery doesnt have limited time on target, isn't affected by bad weather, can't be intercepted by enemy AA units or aircraft (most of the time anyway).
also artillery is infinitely cheaper and easier to handle, you dont need huge easily identifiable airfields/airports, you can just scatter it all over the place and as long as it is about 80/100km from the frontline it can fire on the enemy.
They have better battlefield awareness since they're used on the ground. Plus a plane would have to fly back to a base and rearm once it's used up its munitions. The rearming process for tactical missiles on the ground shouldn't be as long in comparison if you have mobile ammo resupply.
>They have better battlefield awareness since they're used on the ground
Explain? I mean, by definition they should have less as they only throw missiles at targets and bail out before the enemy answers. So, there is no damage assessment unless observers are used.
Planes need airfields, or carriers.
In a big war the air assets will be to busy destroying the enemies air defense, air assets and command forces, to support ground forces, so you need artillery for that.