kalvasflam

What a nightmare the JSF is.... I doubt if they'll even get 250 planes into full production at the end of the day for the US armed forces. The US need to provide an export verision of the JSF and leave it alone. It's roundly stupid to think they can just provide the plane and hope people don't modify it afterwards. I predict if this goes on for too long, the JSF will just turn into another debacle like the -22s. Although I suppose in the case of the Israelis, it's not too likely that they'll source their weapons from someone else.

I'm going to have to just echo what Noyhauser said earlier on the geopolitical side. In terms of capabilities, I'd stick with China. After all, what can India and Australia offer you in terms of power projection capabilities anyway... at least compared to China or Russia? More importantly, why does ROS need to power project in the first place? It's like saying the Kuwaitis need to project power far beyond their shores. It isn't needed. The only reason you have to have maritime strike in this case is because part of your territoy is stretched some hundreds of miles away from your mainland. By the way, in your last sentence, are you trying to imply that ROS is going to need other troops to help you protect your territory? Is that way you'd think about inviting in India and Australia as partners?

The issue though ends up being any attack by Russia will probably be launched after a build up period. Under those conditions, Russians should probably end up dominating in the air. This is all getting a bit too theoretical, but I just don't see the ROS air force surviving as an effective organization after the first week if the Russians decide to go in. If nothing else, that air force will get overwhelmed by mass. The Russians can probably do better than 4 to 1 ratio in terms of fighters, and that'll wear the ROS down logistically. Once that happens, paratroopers can probably take and hold territory if they have sufficient support from the Russian air force. Phibs are nice, but not an absolute necessity for the Russians. With China, it's more difficult to tell. But for this theoretical state, it is not likely that they'll be attacked by either their gigantic neighbors, in both cases, it will invite an inevitable response by the other neighbor. Unless of course the Chinese and the Russians collude, in which case, the ROS is doomed anyway.

Short term defense? To me, the course should be a short ranged defensive capabilities with no power projection capacity. Thus, the focus on maritime patrol, and surperior air defense systems. I liked the upgrade Mig-21 idea. If nothing else, they could be used to patrol coast lines. I agree with scenario I as well, and likely what will have to happen is strong ground force emplacements around key economic targets (i.e. oil fields). It would be very difficult to dislodge such a force with what the regional competitors have. The air defense is only in place to reduce the amount of damage that can be done to the infrastructure and the ground forces. Outright seizure of oil fields will be difficult for regional opponents, but not the destruction of such fields, which really benefits no one in the region.

Wrong assumption, Noyhauser. I like your reasoning on why you need to arm, but then that's why I piped up with my choices, otherwise, I wouldn't bother. Good analytical points though, it is a bit wasted trying to preach to the choir, but would be useful for others. ROS in this case has to have a military, there is no doubt there. But the military has to be balanced toward the most likely foe. In this scenario, it was Japan and NK initially, I agree with a majority of your assessments. I think alliance with all the major powers doesn't hurt. ROS need to be essentially like Kuwait, yes, their neighbor could and did crush them, but they had so many allies, it didn't matter in the long run. Having an alliance with the current big boy (US) is a good idea, but with an eye toward the long run, China must also be a big ally.

Strategic and economy value of the islands and the surrounding area is almost to important to let go without getting something in return for them. Best bet is probably to do business with both sides and thus everyone benefits in some way. 401773[/snapback] Ha ha, ok, that's easy then. We'll give basing rights to both the Russians and the Japanese, and then toss in the Americans to boot. We'll then colocate our own base with the Americans and have them train our new fighter force. In addition to placating other parties, we will have the benefit of having bases supporting the local economy. But what economic value is there to the Kurile? I can see strategic value, but economic? Please elaborate.

Japan is almost certainly willing to bend over backwards (nonmilitarily) and then some to get the Kuriles back, but Russia is almost certainly willing to bend over backwards (nonmilitarily) to keep you from giving, selling or trading the islands to them. 401733[/snapback] How funny, tell them to feel free to have a battle royale. We don't want it, we vacate it, feel free to take it. Let them fight it out... or better yet. Auction it off on Ebay. ha ha ha ha

Nice choices, hmmm, I guess what I would've loved to have found out is the costs on the planes before going for them. JSTARS, are they the E-8s? I didn't know they were sold internationally. The questions though are in both political and practical terms. If you go with all western, the downsides are longer training time, possibly more maintanence needed on equipment. To be effective, you really have to train like there is no tomorrow. But if you do that well, you'll have a very effective force and streamlined logistics. The political question is tougher, with the Russians, there is already some degree of familiarity with their equipment, so faster training, but long term, if you can't streamline the logistics, things are much easier to fall apart.

Yep, FA.2 The range is not that much of a consideration. Unrefueled range is approximately 600 miles. Easily allowing you to hop from Kurile to Sakhalin and control the seas below if you had adequate CAP. Combat radius is 300 miles, more than enough for maritime strikes if needed. Sea Eagles are respectable, may be you could adapt AV-8Bs to fire them or harpoons if you had to. The Mig-29s aren't really the best choice, since both the F-16 and the SU-27 will have longer combat range. But the problem is price. How much could you really afford once you start counting training and logistics? It's very nice to have a show air force that just sits on the tarmac, but I would want an air force that flew regularly and had combat abilities. Ok, the problem is not so difficult. The problem again are the objectives. 1. Where is the oil fields. The north means it's on the Sakhalin itself. So, that's where the primary defenses are. Against Japan, defense in depth, so you have patrols of E-2Cs backed up with CAP. Then you have SAMs involved. 2. In terms of the Kuriles, if you have to have it to ensure your SLOC (sea lanes of communications), I would not put an aggressive stance there, since I consider that an exposed position. Probably older Mig-21s based out of a strip there backed with a ground radar station. Occasionally put in the Mig-29s with E-2Cs just to show I care, but I would not have a very aggressive stance there if there is nothing serious to protect. The Harriers would be the best aircraft I would consider permanently basing there in that situation. b) addendum: if however, the Kuriles is vital to national security. I would do defense in layer arrangement. E-2C will shuttle between Kuriles and Sakhalins daily. With another one operating out of the northern most island, backed by the Mig-21s. Mig-29s are held back on the Sahkalins in any case. The ground situation has to be sorted out. Rough strips for operating Harriers, and at least two good strips to forward deploy Mig-29s to in case of shooting war. 3. In fact, depending on what is actually worth my time in the Kuriles, I might even negotiate with Japan to return that territory.

Interesting... ten years to enact the plan... Hmm, nice set of problems. The limiting factor is money. Ok, consider geography first, we're an island nation rich in oil. The primary operating grounds will be coastal waters probably extending out no more than 100 miles, much less in some instances. The primary things we'd have to protect: a) oil fields b) oil terminals where tankers load c) sea lanes of communications where tankers will traverse Ideally, we'd have to have an integrated air defence system, and a very limited maritime anti-ship capability to guard against surface incrusions. That gives me a pretty good basis for setting up my defense capabilities, I'll go a little further than just what fighter/bomber type to procure. Given my primary interest is protection against air strikes and ballistic missiles. The latter threat the air force cannot do much about, but the former threat includes: a) cruise missiles of various types from submarines, air launch platforms, and ships b) attack aircraft with LGBs, smart munitions, and cruise missiles c) possible stealth aircraft in the worst case Who are the primary enemies: a) Japanese: they are primarily geared toward air superiority with AEW and F-15s, limited strike capabilities with some capable anti-air platforms for their navy. b) NK: ballistic missiles: not much we can do about this c) Russia/China/US: Not real threats because - Any of them could completely crush us - But none of them could do it readily because others will keep them in check - Two of these could get oil from us and sell weapons Assuming the defense ministry is on the ball, I assume that ground sites will be adequately located for SAMs, and ground radar installations. The air fields need to be widely dispersed because we cannot afford to have a majority of air power caught on the ground, considering the flight time from nearest enemies. Here is what I would consider for the infrastructure first: - Several airfields (at least two good military ones) and the international airport to be colocated with a major military base. (Think Hickam and Honolulu International) - Then some rough field capable strips with sufficient mobile logistics. By mobile logistics, I mean large trucks loaded with weapons, technicians, and replacement parts. (rough field strips to be provided with underground fuel tanks, should be easy here) - Dispersed ground control stations. Aircraft choices: I. AEW: E-2C or equivalent. We'll need at least four of them, preferably six or more. Have two up on the major threat axis orienting toward Japan and monitor. Reasoning: These will be your aerial quarterbacks in case of major air to air combat. But will provide maritime monitoring capabilities and air control capabilities. These will be supplemented with ground radar sites. They are the eyes to see incomings. Downside: training and maintenance. E-2C willhave lots of expensive parts, some from the US which cannot be easily replaced if relationships went sour. II. Maritime strike: Harrier. (purchased from US or UK) Reasoning: Harrier is a low performance aircraft with easy dispersal capabilities in event of conflict. They can carry low level anti-ship missiles, and still be used in a limited AA role. They are reasonably non-threatening in long range offensive capabilities, but would be a nightmare to anyone who tried to find them. Downside: training and maintanence. Harriers are notoriously difficult to operate, and have a high accident rate. III. Two choices here: The considerations are both political and practical. Choice 1: Air defense: Mig-29 or Su-27. (purchased from Russia) Reasoning: High performance aircraft, should be able to operate well with current pilots who have training in Russian equipment. Easier to train with Russians than Americans. Downside: Maintanence, and non-uniformity in terms of ordinance used. You can't easily put sidewinders and AMRAAMs on these things without major modifications. Choice 2: Air defense: F-16s (if Harriers from UK) Reasoning: High performance aircraft, should be able to operate well with common set of logistics. Same ordinance, and probably a lot of the same electronics packages. Aircraft is widely used, and simpler to operate. Downside: Not as easy in terms of familiarization with pilots. There are practical considerations in both choices, if I had to go with integration of air force, I would probably choose western, because in the long run, common set of logistics are better than wider set. It does place all of the eggs in one basket if things went sour with the Americans though. But I think politically, the nation is a fence sitter, and needs to placate others more than a uniformed set of weapons systems, which would be useless in a wide conflict since the major powers would crush it. So, the better choice on fighters will be the Russians, and then just try my best to deal with the logistical issues. Key issues for the new air force is not equipment. The actual issues are: - training with AEW and anti-air capability - streamlining logistics to reduce cost and maximize survivability - wide dispersal of air fields so that some military capabilities survive in case of a surprise attack (remember, hostile neighbor has a history of such in spite of current non-aggressive stance)

Hello Mr. Bauer, this is how we say hello in China... *five guys come in and beat the crap out of Jack*

Oddly enough, I hope Logan stays president at end of season and is around next season to cause further havoc. I know it's not likely, but it would be nice. And by the way, this season need to continue into next season. Cliffhanger, anyone?

Ok, Phalanx, I'm not going to argue with you on this, because we're really going to deviate off topic here and stray into some unpleasentness. Which actually is my fault in the first place for responding to your message. Rather, I'll get back to simple business of airplanes. In terms of regional capabilities, F-15Ks are probably more of a response to NK threat, and to some extent the Flanker threat the Chinese is building up. It almost seem that in terms of doctrine, the SK are trying to emulate the US. The bigger concern for them of course is China. The PLAAF has invested a ton of money in their air force, whether that's equivalent to having a capable war fighting force is something else that we may never find out. But on paper it looks impressive. Right now, if it's a conventional shooting war with no ground forces involved, it's tough to say who would win. The PLAAF will have superiority in numbers, but SK might have better overall doctrine when it comes to a fight. In terms of capabilities, the JDSF has a fairly well integrated air defense systems, the -22s should augment that capability further. As for European aircraft, well, it's just not that likely since Japan has their own aircraft industry that will compete with the Europeans, and the closer ties to the US will likely ensure no Typhoons or Rafales in their service.

Phalanx, where the hell are you getting these crazy ideas from? While it is true that Korea, and most of Asia has had horrible experiences with the Japanese (see WWII), there is no reason for them currently to go to war with Japan, and in turn the US. For South Korea, there is this little psychotic with nukes to the north of them. That's more than enough reasons for the SK F-15s. The same reason for the Japanese desire for high performance fighters. But looming larger in their vision is to counter the real power in the east, or in their case, to their west. With probably the world's fastest growing economy, and a large armed forces, the only thing that the smaller countries can do is hope that they can outpace China in terms of technology. Snip the rest of the ridiculous comments. Boy, I have one thing to say, your line of logic is so far off base that it's crazy. Geopolitics of the region has changed. If you want to talk about moral high ground, let's just be honest, Japan doesn't hold it when comparing to the Koreans, all you have to do is look at history.

Exactly, Lord Nelson must be turning in his grave right now even at the thought of this. Although I do believe the UK had plans to have an aircraft carrier built by the French. Oh, how the mighty (back in 1800s at least) has fallen. The travesty of the US armament industry is something that needs serious redress. As brought up several times now, the number of next generation fighter planes being built for the USAF is just scandalous. The amount of money used for the development process will soon outweigh what was slated in production.

Without meaning to get all political, I'd say it's not so much that the US won the cold war, but rather the Soviets just couldn't afford to play anymore and gave up. Perhaps a good analogy would be the poker player who quits because the stakes have become too high and he can no longer afford to keep up with the big dogs, (or dog in this case). Perhaps it's more accurate to say the US won by default. Anyway, back to our scheduled airplane discussion. Graham 399993[/snapback] Hence won in quotes...

Think the guy that slept with Chloe at start of season.

Oh the humanity! PLEASE!! Won't somebody think of the children! In all honesty though, Fukuda as director means this is going to suck like a kid with a lollipop. Enough, stop beating the dead horse, SEED is as dead as Star Trek right now. 397588[/snapback] Running by the 1st 10 episodes of GSD, where they had time and weren't making last minute changes to the script....I have no problem with Fukada as director. 397615[/snapback] Exactly... GSD sucked because... well, Kira and Athrun took over the show. But the movie is a one shot deal, and they might do ok with it. But one would also hope that the movie kills off a few of the character. Top of the list that should NOT die is Shinn. For someone that's supposed to be new, not a lot of focus on him. And I truly hope they don't go for Gundam of the week action. It was kind of weak if you ask me.

Moving off point a bit, I think the US right now is equivalent to what the British was like at the turn of the 19th century. It is the biggest power on the block, it has just "won" the struggle against communism, and is the most dominant player in the world. But to the west, there is a new power (or in this case, an old power) rising, (yes, China is more to the west of the US than the east) it'll take the rest of the century, may be more, but China will inevitably rise to the status of dominant player. If the US manages to stage its exit gracefully, think UK ceding power at turn of century to the US, then, things stays nice and calm. Otherwise... China though has yet to bloody itself in modern warfare. The opportunity, when it comes will likely be on its western borders. But we're getting off the topic of aircraft. While the US maintains a nice military lead, there are others who aren't far behind. The Russians with their SU-35 aren't bad at all, technology wise, the US is ahead, but that lead is diminishing. The war fighting capacity of the US really comes in its doctrine, warfare isn't about having the best guns. More about having good guns along with the know how to use them. But it'll be interesting to see development of US military aircraft in the next decade. Obviously, the system is very broken right now. Who knows when the next leap (if there is one) will be.

I personally dislike the concept of reviving a threat at the last minute. The Bierko contingency to me is so far the biggest failing of the season... it brings back the bad old times with Marwan. I like the conspiracy theory in the government, but it is been pulled a little too far... basically we haven't had a season where there wasn't a mole in the agency. Sad.

I hope and believe that Logan will be around next season. Because like him or not, Logan is a great villian, and great villians need to stay around, and not be nina-nized. It's best if Logan stays president, but Jack takes out Logan's support mechanism, because that's what makes Logan a little more dangerous. The support from outside the government. The submarine part was a little too contrived, a little too Marwanish... oh, let's see, nerve gas failed, ok, how convenient, there is this submarine parked at an easily accessible dock loaded with cruise missiles. Hmmm, wrong sub type too... Delta IV is an SSBN, not a SSGN, they should've made it an Oscar class, a little more believable. On another note, I think for once I like the 24 premise to be a little different, as far as the time goes. Here is one idea, it takes roughly 5 hours to fly from LA to DC. It's not inconceivable that you could have five episodes at one location, then set to shot the next five to six episodes in airport/airplane location, then finish off in another city. 24 hours right? Hell, you could even fly back and forth. Starts at 11 pm west coast, a red eye to east coast, do stuff, and catch the last flight out back to the west at night.

I believe Oceania is NAS, not AFB, so likely no F-22. I have heard that funding is really hard to come by for -22, and USAF is buying planes by parts at a time, and then assembling them later (last week's business week) and raising a fuss in Congress. The cost on this plane is extreme. It is in my opinion shameful to have such an expensive program to develop a plane and then have only so few planes. B-2 program was outrageously expensive, and there will only be 20 units. The number of -22 is poor too, 183 planes... Jesus. I recall the original USAF order for -15 was at 729 units, but went eventually to well over 1000 units. At some point, quality just can't make up for quantity. Would you rather have 1000 upgraded F-15 or 200 F-22.... hmmmm, I'd pick the -15s. The only question is cost of maintanence. I know there are people in the world who keeps thinking peace is breaking out... but let's not kid ourselves, there is a new cold war going on... the only problem is there is no clear cut enemy this time.

No they haven't said it, but you get the feeling that the guys in that meeting are the CEOs of Exxon Mobil, BP, Citgo, Haliburton, etc.

If Audrey dies... well, that's nothing new, so far, we had dead Terri, dead Mexican girlfriend, Audrey is next... the one that got away from death is the one from season 2. All things considered, this season is pretty good, definitely better than season 4, and probably on par with season 2.

Last night's episode was pretty good. I hope they keep Logan around, perfect seesaw with Jack, if one is up, the other is down. Logan hit his lowest point last night, almost ready to commit suicide, and then an unexpected... well, not so unexpected... source of help, and he is off to the races again, Logan is actually not a bad president, he is having a tough 24 hours too, having his plot foiled and unraveled, only to be delivered 11th hour solution. Weathered the Heller storm, and looks like he'll weather the Bauer storm. It would be nice if Logan comes up to a dimished capacity at the end of the day, but remains president. I see they are bringing Bierko back in, I wonder what that's about. Is Bierko Graham's contingency?