Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: yngla@ida.liu.se (Yngve Larsson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Infantry vs. Air Support -- Any problems?
Message-ID: <1990Sep14.042342.630@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 14 Sep 90 04:23:42 GMT
References: <1990Sep10.053550.5189@cbnews.att.com> <1990Sep12.014534.28254@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: yngla@ida.liu.se (Yngve Larsson)
Does anybody know how the Soviets partition their air assets? I seem
to recall areas such as "Frontal Aviation" (tactical air), "Long-range
Aviation" (i.e. their SAC), "Naval Aviation" (mostly long-range
anti-shipping) and [some term I cannot recall] for Air defense of the
SU (against strategic strikes, presumably).

Is this "Frontal aviation" subordinated to the army at any level (Division,
Army or Front), thus giving ground commanders more control of air support?

As a side note: here in Sweden, my understanding is that the entire military
defense is divided into several self-contained Military Districts (in a
war situation, that is). These all have integral ground, air and naval assets
at their disposal. If this _really_ gives better coordination between 
ground and air is anybodys guess, I suppose.
--
Yngve Larsson                               UUCP: ...mcvax!enea!liuida!yla
Dept of CIS                                       Internet: yla@ida.liu.se
Linkoping University, Sweden                          Phone: +46-13-281949