Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[Nied]

For the love of God don't hang around ACIG.org.    Trust me, it's like going to Robotech.com for Macross info.  Tom Cooper may be fairly reputable, but the forums there are no better than Abovetopsecret.com etc.

400741[/snapback]

I did notice a few posts about UFO intercepts. Tom Coopers articles are pretty interesting though.

[Briareos9]

Just wondering how many A-10s could be purchased for the price of one F-35? perhaps it's time to start up a new A-10 production line  .

399783[/snapback]

I seem to remeber the initial cost was around 7 mil, this site indicates in 98 dollars it's 9.8 mil. A Western 4/5th gen supersonic jet fly away cost is high enough you can practically buy half a squadron of A-10s for the price of one jet. Throw in the distributed R&D and tooling costs, and you're pretty much full squadron for the price of one pointy nose. All the fancy electronics are what drives costs mainly. Price is and never will be comparable plane to plane.

There is however one not so minor problem, Fairchild folded out of existence a while ago. That leaves things in a akward position to actually start new production line, and the USAF has never been that fond of the bastard child that is the A-10. As far as I'm concerned anyone claiming a supersonic jet can simply replace the Warthog and by entension Spectre/Spooky gunships, effectively because CAS and the Mark 1 eyeball are no longer needed is pushing it.

[Phalanx]

Much as I'd like to see those high thrust 4th gen russian engines in a Tomcat (which should make the Iranian birds out accelerate the D), all reliable sources point to the Iranians still using the TF30.

I don't have any data on the dimensions but which Russian turbine could theoretically bolt onto the F14 without having to redesign half the airframe?

400728[/snapback]

The AL-31s in an Su-27 are roughly the same size as the TF-30 and GE110, physically they would fit. Though as Knight26 pointed out a while back the Russian engines use completely different mount points than American ones and thus still would take some work to be made compatible (I could see the Chinese being convinced to license a custom version of the WS-10 for installation into the ALi-Cats).

400730[/snapback]

Funny Nied, because the Chinese Chengdu Jianji-10 fighter actually uses that exact engine model known as the Saturn L'yulka.

[Nied]

Much as I'd like to see those high thrust 4th gen russian engines in a Tomcat (which should make the Iranian birds out accelerate the D), all reliable sources point to the Iranians still using the TF30.

I don't have any data on the dimensions but which Russian turbine could theoretically bolt onto the F14 without having to redesign half the airframe?

400728[/snapback]

The AL-31s in an Su-27 are roughly the same size as the TF-30 and GE110, physically they would fit. Though as Knight26 pointed out a while back the Russian engines use completely different mount points than American ones and thus still would take some work to be made compatible (I could see the Chinese being convinced to license a custom version of the WS-10 for installation into the ALi-Cats).

400730[/snapback]

Funny Nied, because the Chinese Chengdu Jianji-10 fighter actually uses that exact engine model known as the Saturn L'yulka.

400818[/snapback]

It does. What's more it was supposed to eventually received WS-10s instead of the AL-31, but after disappointing performance in the J-11 (a license built Su-27) it was switched back to AL-31s for the time being. AFAIK China is continuing to work out the bugs in the WS-10 in the hopes of introducing it later.

[buddhafabio]

The space shuttle discovery was wheeled ot to the launch pad yesterday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5000116.stm

[Nied]

As Dave mentioned the Forums at Acig.org are atrocious but in amongst the threads about UFOs and making fun of women pilots I found this thought provoking thread that I thought I'd share here since this one has died down a little. I'm going to quote it here so that I can fix some grammar errors and add a few comments of my own (in bold):

Your nation is Sakhalin, which has recently separated from the Russian Federation. This includes Sakhalin Island itself, and the Kurile Islands to the east. Your country is an amalgamation of various ethnicity's, Russians, Tatars, Japanese, Ainu, Ukrainians, Koreans, etc but the lingua de franca is still Russian.

Relations with your neighbors:

USA: First to recognize your country's independence, many American companies are investing heavily in your rich oil fields in the north. Because of fears of Russian reprisals, your leader was quick to establish relations with the US.

Russia: Eventually acknowledged your nation being politically independent..but have a keen habit of breaching your maritime territories, particularly from Kamchatka and the Sea of Okhotsk. They're still willing to sell you weapons, but consider you as part of their sphere of influence. A good percentage of your population is of Russian ethnicity, but prefer being politically independent due to higher living standards.

Japan: Similar to Russia. Since the Kuriles are now your possession, the Japanese are asserting their claim on the four southernmost islands. There is some maritime incursion (primarily civilian) in the southern Sea of Okhotsk. Many Japanese of Ainu and part Ainu ancestry have emigrated to your country. To make this even more interesting lets say that members of the Japanese opposition party have claimed that using military force would not violate article nine (self defense) of the Japanese constitution, claiming the islands are Japanese territory occupied by a foreign power

N.Korea: While it is some distance away, your government does not view them too favorably, especially after a stray "missile" from a test, came near your waters.

The Author of the original thread left China out completely, which is strange considering it's proximity to our theoretical nation.

China: While separated from your nation by Russia to the north and the two Koreas to the south, China has taken an intense interest in your nation.  They are quite happy to have another source of oil so near by, and are willing to sell you arms in exchange (that this helps check Japanese and Russian influence in the area makes them even happier)

--

objective:

With this in mind, your nation is seeking to building a credible defense force, focusing primarily on the air force and navy. Your nation is small (1 million people), and you know you will never beat your two neighbors in a full blown war.  As such your nation has strategically allied itself with the US, and seeks to build a force that can reduce the number of incursions, or better, prevent them from happening.  Should a war occur, the hope is to have a force that can last long enough until foreign help arrives.

Since independence, your country has inherited a number of L-39 trainers lets say six, and bought 20 MiG-21's from Eastern Europe including two Mig-21UB trainers, as well as several Mi-8 and 24 helicopters. It is considered to be woefully under-equipped.

requirements:

Your country is seeking to acquire TWO types of fixed wing combat aircraft as well as  patrol aircraft to monitor maritime activities. In addition to this you require transport aircraft and helicopters to maintain steady supplies between Sakhalin and the Kuriles.

The two combat aircraft MUST come from separate sources, one of which, MUST be American, and the other MUST NOT be American. The reasoning is that Sakhalin intends to exploit its relations with the US, while at the same time maintaining a cautious stance towards a close American ally, Japan. It is considered wise to buy from another vendor should the Americans object to your actions against Japan. While Sakhalin Island is only 600 miles long, the distance between Sakhalin and the Kuriles, is as far as the two ends of Texas. Thus one aircraft should at least be able to have the endurance to cover the area.

Others in your government have considered the F-15, Mirage 2000, Su-30MK and F-16, but are open to many options.

To try and cut down on people becoming armchair aircraft engineers (Knight26 excepted of course) lets also say that your parliament has mandated that all aircraft purchased should have as little modification as possible, and whenever possible be purchased "off the shelf"

You have ten years to enact your plan.

And before anyone starts trying to pack their air force with Typhoons and Raptors, someone down thread already came up with realistic numbers you have to stay within:

Figure GDP per capita at around $10k, which gives a GDP of $10billion.

What percentage of GDP goes towards the military? How 'bout 7%?

That would give us an annual military budget of $700 million.

Figure a third of this is devoted to procurement.

So that's about $233 million per year.

Thus a 10-year plan gives you $2.3 billion to work with for the entire military.

I've got my own idea which I will post tomorrow, but I'm curious to hear what other people come up with.

Edited May 23, 2006 by Nied

[kalvasflam]

Your nation is Sakhalin, which has recently separated from the Russian Federation. This includes Sakhalin Island itself, and the Kurile Islands to the east. Your country is an amalgamation of various ethnicity's, Russians, Tatars, Japanese, Ainu, Ukrainians, Koreans, etc but the lingua de franca is still Russian.

Relations with your neighbors:

USA: First to recognize your country's independence, many American companies are investing heavily in your rich oil fields in the north. Because of fears of Russian reprisals, your leader was quick to establish relations with the US.

Russia: Eventually acknowledged your nation being politically independent..but have a keen habit of breaching your maritime territories, particularly from Kamchatka and the Sea of Okhotsk. They're still willing to sell you weapons, but consider you as part of their sphere of influence. A good percentage of your population is of Russian ethnicity, but prefer being politically independent due to higher living standards.

Japan: Similar to Russia. Since the Kuriles are now your possession, the Japanese are asserting their claim on the four southernmost islands. There is some maritime incursion (primarily civilian) in the southern Sea of Okhotsk. Many Japanese of Ainu and part Ainu ancestry have emigrated to your country. To make this even more interesting lets say that members of the Japanese opposition party have claimed that using military force would not violate article nine (self defense) of the Japanese constitution, claiming the islands are Japanese territory occupied by a foreign power

N.Korea: While it is some distance away, your government does not view them too favorably, especially after a stray "missile" from a test, came near your waters.

The Author of the original thread left China out completely, which is strange considering it's proximity to our theoretical nation.

China: While separated from your nation by Russia to the north and the two Koreas to the south, China has taken an intense interest in your nation.  They are quite happy to have another source of oil so near by, and are willing to sell you arms in exchange (that this helps check Japanese and Russian influence in the area makes them even happier)

--

objective:

With this in mind, your nation is seeking to building a credible defense force, focusing primarily on the air force and navy. Your nation is small (1 million people), and you know you will never beat your two neighbors in a full blown war.  As such your nation has strategically allied itself with the US, and seeks to build a force that can reduce the number of incursions, or better, prevent them from happening.  Should a war occur, the hope is to have a force that can last long enough until foreign help arrives.

Since independence, your country has inherited a number of L-39 trainers lets say six, and bought 20 MiG-21's from Eastern Europe including two Mig-21UB trainers, as well as several Mi-8 and 24 helicopters. It is considered to be woefully under-equipped.

requirements:

Your country is seeking to acquire TWO types of fixed wing combat aircraft as well as  patrol aircraft to monitor maritime activities. In addition to this you require transport aircraft and helicopters to maintain steady supplies between Sakhalin and the Kuriles.

The two combat aircraft MUST come from separate sources, one of which, MUST be American, and the other MUST NOT be American. The reasoning is that Sakhalin intends to exploit its relations with the US, while at the same time maintaining a cautious stance towards a close American ally, Japan. It is considered wise to buy from another vendor should the Americans object to your actions against Japan. While Sakhalin Island is only 600 miles long, the distance between Sakhalin and the Kuriles, is as far as the two ends of Texas. Thus one aircraft should at least be able to have the endurance to cover the area.

Others in your government have considered the F-15, Mirage 2000, Su-30MK and F-16, but are open to many options.

To try and cut down on people becoming armchair aircraft engineers (Knight26 excepted of course) lets also say that your parliament has mandated that all aircraft purchased should have as little modification as possible, and whenever possible be purchased "off the shelf"

You have ten years to enact your plan.

Interesting... ten years to enact the plan... Hmm, nice set of problems. The limiting factor is money.

Figure GDP per capita at around $10k, which gives a GDP of $10billion.

What percentage of GDP goes towards the military? How 'bout 7%?

That would give us an annual military budget of $700 million.

Figure a third of this is devoted to procurement.

So that's about $233 million per year.

Thus a 10-year plan gives you $2.3 billion to work with for the entire military.

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)

[Nied]

I honestly hadn't thought of Harriers. I'm assuming you're talking about purchasing second hand FA.2s from the UK? Remember you do need something with legs to get out to the Kuriles for CAP and there's a fair amount of (assumedly territorial) water in between. Here's a map of the area for reference. I believe that the original author is referring to the long island in the center of the map, the Kuriles are the chain of islands to the east.

[Knight26]

Not really feeling up to a long lengthy reply but here is my two cents:

Fighter/Maritime Strike: Get the Grippen, good STOL performance, with legs enough for what they need and is a good multirole platform with maritime strike capabilities.

AEW: JSTARS, uses primarily off the shelf hardware so maintenance shouldn't be too bad, and they are farily inexpensive.

Fighter/Attack: F/A-18C/D. If another platform is truly required/desired I would then buy F/A-18s, this will ease maintenance costs since they do use the same engine as the Grippen, making a common supply train. Also in this way you can use strictly western armament for all platforms.

[kalvasflam]

I honestly hadn't thought of Harriers.  I'm assuming you're talking about purchasing second hand FA.2s from the UK?  Remember you do need something with legs to get out to the Kuriles for CAP and there's a fair amount of (assumedly territorial) water in between.  Here's a map of the area for reference.  I believe that the original author is referring to the long  island in the center of the map, the Kuriles are the chain of islands to the east.

401489[/snapback]

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.

[kalvasflam]

Not really feeling up to a long lengthy reply but here is my two cents:

Fighter/Maritime Strike:  Get the Grippen, good STOL performance, with legs enough for what they need and is a good multirole platform with maritime strike capabilities.

AEW:  JSTARS, uses primarily off the shelf hardware so maintenance shouldn't be too bad, and they are farily inexpensive.

Fighter/Attack:  F/A-18C/D.  If another platform is truly required/desired I would then buy F/A-18s, this will ease maintenance costs since they do use the same engine as the Grippen, making a common supply train.  Also in this way you can use strictly western armament for all platforms.

401499[/snapback]

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.

[Nied]

A bit of googling will give you some decent ball park figures on the price of most military equipment. That Globalsecurity the various fact sheets on the airforce and navy webistes and a sparing amount of Wikipedia (not always acurate but good enough for a thought exercise like this) have given me most of what I needed.

[Nied]

All right I was going to post my plan after I got home from work tonight, but a crashed hard drive has left me twiddling my thumbs here so I might as well post my plan. Here goes:

Air Defense/attack: I've got 18 perfectly good Mig-21s (and two UM trainers) here, and it would be a shame to just throw them away, so lets upgrade 'em. The Russian Bison programme is attractive in that it gives me excellent BVR capabilities in the form of the R-77, however I'm then stuck using weapons that are incompatible with the western designs I'm going to buy. In the end I decided on sending my Migs to Israel to be upgraded to Mig-21 Lancer standards. At $5 million a copy they are extremely cheap and allow me to use familiar Russian equipment while at the same time maintaining interoperability with western designs. They're so cheap that I can afford to buy an additional 6 Mig-21s to be upgraded to the same standards, bringing me up to a full two squadrons in strength (figure $5 million for the initial purchase, plus the extra $5 mil for the upgrade, $10 mil total per plane). The only modification to the baseline Lancer design I would request are In Flight Digital Data Links (IFDDL) and refueling probes. These planes would be armed with Python V SRAMs and Derby MRAAMs for air superiority work, LITENING targeting pods and Paveway LGBs in a strike configuration, and Harpoon (or other suitable ASM) for a secondary maritime strike role. price: $160 million

Air Superiority/Maritime Strike/Tanker: F/A-18F Super Hornet I need an aircraft that can sit CAP for a few hours over my oil fields or the Kuriles, or alternatively can haul huge amounts of ordinance against maritime threats. A squadron of 14 Rhinos (2 dual control trainers and 12 ACS versions) equipped with an IFDDL compatible with my Lancers and buddy refueling tanks should fill the bill perfectly. Typical air superiority load would consist of 6 Meteor BVRAAMs two Derbys and two Python Vs. Alternatively they can load up on Harpoons for maritime strike, or sling a LITENING pod and LGBs for ground attacks. Ease of maintenance would mean low support costs and high flight times, and the buddy tanks will mean more hours aloft for all of my pilots. In a true emergency we could even use their powerful APG-79 radars as make shift AEW assets. price: $840 million

Maritime Patrol: S-3 Viking The P-3 is a ubiquitous and attractive option, but the US Navy is literally giving S-3s away! A squadron of these can patrol the sea lanes with torpedoes or Harpoons, or be fitted with tanking pods to further extend the range of my fighter assets. Hell I can even hang a LITENING pod under a wing for limited bomb work or reconnaissance. Along with my fighters, these would be fitted with datalinks to help integrate my C3 picture. price free!

AEW&C: RB-99 Erieye The Boeing Wedgetail's ability to simultaneously track air and surface targets was extremely attractive, however buying reasonable numbers would have used my entire ten-year procurement budget. So I've opted instead for Embraer and Ericson's Erieye system. It should outperform JASDF Hawkeyes, and four of these with data links should give me good control over my airspace and waterways. Also I can train crews easily on a standard ERJ-145 that will double as a VIP transport. price: $800 million

Cargo: C-130J-30 I originally thought about buying some second hand An-12s and calling it a day, but I realized that I'd pay for that down the road in sustainment costs. The J model Hercules should give me years of reliable service, and three stretch versions should be more than enough to move tons of men and material out to the Kuriles in an emergency. A tanker version seems redundant considering that I have two platforms for that already, but that might be an option down the road. price $210 million

And that's it. I see no reason not to keep my Helicopter assets as they are, both the Hip and the Hind are sturdy reliable helicopters. Total price comes out to $2.01 billion, most likely some of the remaining $290 million would go towards ordinance procurement, the rest I would put towards training (maybe another two Mig-21UMs and more L-39s, or Pilatus PC-9s). The vast majority of the airframes I've purchased are rugged and reliable, and both of my combat aircraft can be flown from minimally prepared fields. Long term I can replace my Lancers with F414 powered Grippens to improve the reliability of my air force even more, and the Lancers allow me to do that without a painful transition to a completely western force.

Edited May 24, 2006 by Nied

[Coota0]

[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.

401508[/snapback]

I saw something in the original posting about Naval power as well, you could buy subs or destroyers from the Russians, you wouldn't need anything bigger. You could also use the Russians as your rotary-wing supplier.

- 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)

Did you consider using parts of the highway system as emergency runways. You could even stash fuel bladders and use the mountains nearby for shelters.

[Mislovrit]

3. In fact, depending on what is actually worth my time in the Kuriles, I might even negotiate with Japan to return that territory.

401505[/snapback]

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.

[kalvasflam]

3. In fact, depending on what is actually worth my time in the Kuriles, I might even negotiate with Japan to return that territory.

401505[/snapback]

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

[Mislovrit]

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.

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.

[kalvasflam]

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.

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.

[Mislovrit]

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.

Things would be very interesting with that setup.

But what economic value is there to the Kurile?  I can see strategic value, but economic?  Please elaborate.

Potential for oil, natural gas, and etc to be located in or around the islands is the primary value.

[Noyhauser]

Here’s my political take on the game, you guys can fill in the rest.

First off kalvasflam, I think you're mistaken to believe that because a state can crush another conventionally that there is no point to arm. First off Russia will not have their complete military capability available for such an invasion, it will have to send much of it via Siberia, while also preventing a possible attack by China.

Moreover if you’re fishing for a potential ally, they want you to have effective military forces to contribute. The US, China ect, is sure as hell not going to defend you tooth and nail if you’ve essentially done nothing to defend yourself. Look at the issue of Burden Sharing for the trans atlantic alliance and you’ll get a feel for it.

So lets look at this clearly. The Republic of Sakhalin’s (ROS) two natural allies are Japan and China. Its #1 ally is China. First off, China will benefit the most from the ROS’s resources, and has limited reasons to invade this country. China has absolutely no scruples sending military machinery to 3rd party states and would almost be happy to ship weapons during a crisis. Due to these two states proximity re-supply would be greatly facilitated. China’s Security council seat is another advantage. Finally, China’s relationship with Russia also plays into the ROS’s advantage because it can “keep Russia honestâ€, forcing Russia to keep many of its units pinned down in Siberia to deter a potential Chinese invasion, thus limiting the amount of forces it can spare for an Invasion. The Bulk of your military capability should be of Chinese make.

Japan is second. Yes Japanese extreme right politicians are known for their bluster, but in truth they command a very limited segment of Japanese population. Easing relations with Japan would not only increase trade relations between both states, but also security relations. By extension this would increase its standing with the United States. Unfortunately Japan is not a weapons producer, and its ability to influence Russia would be minimal. The ROS’s secession would have likely rehabilitated relations between Russia and Japan since the Kuril islands dispute no longer stands in their way. Trade and investment would have likely increased dramatically once a peace treaty has been signed between the two states. Still though Japan would be the best recipient for ROS’s trade, and is likely to be the most stable state in the region.

The US is unlikely to be a reliable ally, and difficult to promote support. Cultivating relations with the United States would immediately run into problems with Russia, as cozying up to the US would be seen as allowing an enemy into Russia’s spehere of influence. Witness the problems of NATO expansion circa late 1990s. Russians are growing resentful of NATO’s encroachment, and direct relations between ROS and the US are likely to provoke a negative reaction from Moscow. What I’d be looking for is getting American Technical experience, specifically in training pilots. This might be low level enough not to engender deep negative reactions from Russia, provides effective ways to greatly increase the ROS’s Airforce, while being a relatively self sufficient program. If the US refuses support in the future, the trained pilots remain, and do not need spare parts.

Finally the EU would be the last ally. Too far away, and wholly dependant on Russian Oil, Europeans would be the first to jump ship. Parts would take too long to arrive, and be vulnerable to interdiction… Europe is of limited use to ROS.

I hope that gives people some things to think about.

[Phalanx]

Here’s my political take on the game, you guys can fill in the rest.

First off kalvasflam, I think you're mistaken to believe that because a state can crush another conventionally that there is no point to arm. First off Russia will not have their complete military capability available for such an invasion, it will have to send much of it via Siberia, while also preventing a possible attack by China.

Moreover if you’re fishing for a potential ally, they want you to have effective military forces to contribute. The US, China ect, is sure as hell not going to defend you tooth and nail if you’ve essentially done nothing to defend yourself. Look at the issue of Burden Sharing for the trans atlantic alliance and you’ll get a feel for it.

So lets look at this clearly. The Republic of Sakhalin’s (ROS) two natural allies are Japan and China. Its #1 ally is China. First off, China will benefit the most from the ROS’s resources, and has limited reasons to invade this country. China has absolutely no scruples sending military machinery to 3rd party states and would almost be happy to ship weapons during a crisis. Due to these two states proximity re-supply would be greatly facilitated. China’s Security council seat is another advantage. Finally, China’s relationship with Russia also plays into the ROS’s advantage because it can “keep Russia honestâ€, forcing Russia to keep many of its units pinned down in Siberia to deter a potential Chinese invasion, thus limiting the amount of forces it can spare for an Invasion. The Bulk of your military capability should be of Chinese make.

Japan is second. Yes Japanese extreme right politicians are known for their bluster, but in truth they command a very limited segment of Japanese population. Easing relations with Japan would not only increase trade relations between both states, but also security relations. By extension this would increase its standing with the United States. Unfortunately Japan is not a weapons producer, and its ability to influence Russia would be minimal. The ROS’s secession would have likely rehabilitated relations between Russia and Japan since the Kuril islands dispute no longer stands in their way. Trade and investment would have likely increased dramatically once a peace treaty has been signed between the two states. Still though Japan would be the best recipient for ROS’s trade, and is likely to be the most stable state in  the region.

The US is unlikely to be a reliable ally, and difficult to promote support. Cultivating relations with the United States would immediately run into problems with Russia, as cozying up to the US would be seen as allowing an enemy into Russia’s spehere of influence. Witness the problems of NATO expansion circa late 1990s. Russians are growing resentful of NATO’s encroachment, and direct relations between ROS and the US  are likely to provoke a negative reaction from Moscow. What I’d be looking for is getting American Technical experience, specifically in training pilots. This might be low level enough not to engender deep negative reactions from Russia, provides effective ways to greatly increase the ROS’s Airforce, while being a relatively self sufficient program. If the US refuses support in the future, the trained pilots remain, and do not need spare parts.

Finally the EU would be the last ally. Too far away, and wholly dependant on Russian Oil, Europeans would be the first to jump ship. Parts would take too long to arrive, and be vulnerable to interdiction… Europe is of limited use to ROS.

I hope that gives people some things to think about.

401899[/snapback]

I mean you no disrespect Noyhauser and to all you guys, but this political piece of yours may cause this thread to be locked since we're swaying a little too far off topic. So if it's not too much trouble, is it OK if all of you guy's go back to the discussion of aircraft please? Thanx!

Phalanx

[Noyhauser]

I mean you no disrespect Noyhauser and to all you guys, but this political piece of yours may cause this thread to be locked since we're swaying a little too far off topic. So if it's not too much trouble, is it OK if all of you guy's go back to the discussion of aircraft please? Thanx!

Phalanx  

401903[/snapback]

Look, I've been around here for quite some time, and I know where I can and can't go, almost certainly better than you. these threads are littered with posts of this kind. Please don't tell me what to do, k? My post was right on the topic, and its elucidation of what geostrategic considerations may be involved in purchases. Someone else can chose the exact weapons based on my choices. It wasn't meant to be overly political, rather an identification of how states act in the region. If a mod has a problem with it, then he can tell me, but I've said similar things in the past, and with the exception of Mistrovit nitpicking, its been fine.

Edit: I'll probably make exact choices later... I only did the above for idle musings.

Edited May 24, 2006 by Noyhauser

[Nied]

Buying western and American weapons might inflame Russia slightlty but given the recent history (Poland buying F-16s, Czech Republic buying Grippens and Romania buying Lancers) I doubt it would be too big of a deal.

[Nied]

The ARC Forums are back online! That explains why we haven't seen David or Skull Leader here lately.

Incedently I think I'm going to edit my choices slightly, I realized last night that I purchased too many C-130s and not enough Erieyes. I'm going to trade one C-130J-30 and one Rhino (one of the dual control versions) for another Erieye, fit them with in flight refueling probes and I should be able to keep at least one AWACS in the air 24 hours a day. I've also found an intersting choice for basic trainer: the Pilatus PC-21 has a fly-by-wire control system so that it can act as a basic trainer, or with a flick of a switch mimic more advanced types, at roughly $7 million a copy you can buy a squadron for under $100 million.

[Noyhauser]

Buying western and American weapons might inflame Russia slightlty but given the recent history (Poland buying F-16s, Czech Republic buying Grippens and Romania buying Lancers) I doubt it would be too big of a deal.

401914[/snapback]

Those three countries are former states in their own right, Russia had little sway over them in any case (especially CZ and Poland which were fundamentally western countries prior to 1939, as was romania to a slightly lesser extent) although even in the early in the 1990s the USSR had serious problems with them joining NATO due to Russian intransigence. The ROS buying weapons from the US would likely be similar to one of the CIS states trying to cozy up to the United States, and that being in its sphere of influence would likely provoke a negative reaction. There's actually been a bit of a backlash lately in Russia to NATO's encroachment. I don't think the US would like to involve itself into that sort of disupte.

The best case for them is to go for China. I think that new Cheap F-16 type fighter that was just unveiled would look good. I'd also look to Israel, and India for other defence purchases, ones that are non essential. I think you can separate logistical items into three areas.

Critical Supplies (parts that wear out or are used quickly, like certain parts, bombs ect.)/ Semi-critical (parts and equipment that wear out or may need replacement every couple of months, like certain avionics) /non critical supplies (Stuff that does not need constant replacement, ie airframes).

How you purchase you fighters should be based on this critera. You want to make sure that you have assured, quick access to critical supplies, or have large stores of it. Think Israel during the 1967 and 73 wars. So China would be a good bet. For Semi Critical parts, you probably can get away without replacement for a conflict if its short, but you'll probably need replacements if the conflict becomes protracted, or if you don't have deep stores. Think Iran's american Fighters during the Iran/Iraq war. Finally for non critical supplies, you can purchase anywhere, because you don't have to worry so much about resupply during the war.

[Nied]

I mean you no disrespect Noyhauser and to all you guys, but this political piece of yours may cause this thread to be locked since we're swaying a little too far off topic. So if it's not too much trouble, is it OK if all of you guy's go back to the discussion of aircraft please? Thanx!

Phalanx  

401903[/snapback]

I wouldn't worry about it Phalanx we tend to get into broad geopolitics from time to time and haven't had a problem, we went some 100 pages in the original Aircraft Vs Super thread and would regularly get into subjects that make this topic look tame. The Mods know that we try to behave ourselves in this thread and give us a fairly wide latitude. As long as you do the same you'll be fine.

[Nied]

Buying western and American weapons might inflame Russia slightlty but given the recent history (Poland buying F-16s, Czech Republic buying Grippens and Romania buying Lancers) I doubt it would be too big of a deal.

401914[/snapback]

Those three countries are former states in their own right, Russia had little sway over them in any case (especially CZ and Poland which were fundamentally western countries prior to 1939, as was romania to a slightly lesser extent) although even in the early in the 1990s the USSR had serious problems with them joining NATO due to Russian intransigence. The ROS buying weapons from the US would likely be similar to one of the CIS states trying to cozy up to the United States, and that being in its sphere of influence would likely provoke a negative reaction. There's actually been a bit of a backlash lately in Russia to NATO's encroachment. I don't think the US would like to involve itself into that sort of disupte.

The best case for them is to go for China. I think that new Cheap F-16 type fighter that was just unveiled would look good. I'd also look to Israel, and India for other defence purchases, ones that are non essential. I think you can separate logistical items into three areas.

Critical Supplies (parts that wear out or are used quickly, like certain parts, bombs ect.)/ Semi-critical (parts and equipment that wear out or may need replacement every couple of months, like certain avionics) /non critical supplies (Stuff that does not need constant replacement, ie airframes).

How you purchase you fighters should be based on this critera. You want to make sure that you have assured, quick access to critical supplies, or have large stores of it. Think Israel during the 1967 and 73 wars. So China would be a good bet. For Semi Critical parts, you probably can get away without replacement for a conflict if its short, but you'll probably need replacements if the conflict becomes protracted, or if you don't have deep stores. Think Iran's american Fighters during the Iran/Iraq war. Finally for non critical supplies, you can purchase anywhere, because you don't have to worry so much about resupply during the war.

401923[/snapback]

I worry about buying Chinese weapons mainly from a reliability and maintainability standpoint. Historically their aircraft are a bit crappy and I'd worry about my FC-1s of J-10s constantly breaking down on me. American aircraft on the other hand generally have a reputation for reliability. That might piss off the Russians but it appears that in the scenario I outlined the ROS has made the conscious decision to flip them the bird anyway (I made my purchases accordingly).

Interestingly enough you've done a pretty good job of explaining why I decided to arm my air force with mostly Israeli ordinance. In a shooting war I figured I would be expending missiles the fastest, I figured the US might shy away from sending me more AMRAAMs or Sidewinders to use against the Japanese or the Russians, but the Israelis will sell to anyone.

[Noyhauser]

Buying western and American weapons might inflame Russia slightlty but given the recent history (Poland buying F-16s, Czech Republic buying Grippens and Romania buying Lancers) I doubt it would be too big of a deal.

401914[/snapback]

Those three countries are former states in their own right, Russia had little sway over them in any case (especially CZ and Poland which were fundamentally western countries prior to 1939, as was romania to a slightly lesser extent) although even in the early in the 1990s the USSR had serious problems with them joining NATO due to Russian intransigence. The ROS buying weapons from the US would likely be similar to one of the CIS states trying to cozy up to the United States, and that being in its sphere of influence would likely provoke a negative reaction. There's actually been a bit of a backlash lately in Russia to NATO's encroachment. I don't think the US would like to involve itself into that sort of disupte.

The best case for them is to go for China. I think that new Cheap F-16 type fighter that was just unveiled would look good. I'd also look to Israel, and India for other defence purchases, ones that are non essential. I think you can separate logistical items into three areas.

Critical Supplies (parts that wear out or are used quickly, like certain parts, bombs ect.)/ Semi-critical (parts and equipment that wear out or may need replacement every couple of months, like certain avionics) /non critical supplies (Stuff that does not need constant replacement, ie airframes).

How you purchase you fighters should be based on this critera. You want to make sure that you have assured, quick access to critical supplies, or have large stores of it. Think Israel during the 1967 and 73 wars. So China would be a good bet. For Semi Critical parts, you probably can get away without replacement for a conflict if its short, but you'll probably need replacements if the conflict becomes protracted, or if you don't have deep stores. Think Iran's american Fighters during the Iran/Iraq war. Finally for non critical supplies, you can purchase anywhere, because you don't have to worry so much about resupply during the war.

401923[/snapback]

I worry about buying Chinese weapons mainly from a reliability and maintainability standpoint. Historically their aircraft are a bit crappy and I'd worry about my FC-1s of J-10s constantly breaking down on me. American aircraft on the other hand generally have a reputation for reliability. That might piss off the Russians but it appears that in the scenario I outlined the ROS has made the conscious decision to flip them the bird anyway (I made my purchases accordingly).

Interestingly enough you've done a pretty good job of explaining why I decided to arm my air force with mostly Israeli ordinance. In a shooting war I figured I would be expending missiles the fastest, I figured the US might shy away from sending me more AMRAAMs or Sidewinders to use against the Japanese or the Russians, but the Israelis will sell to anyone.

401931[/snapback]

The great thing about china is that they are literally a flight away. You lose a couple of planes? Big deal, purchase 5 more and get a 6th one free, delivered all in the next day. Given the losses that they may suffer (looking at the 1973 war as an example), its likely that cheap and flimsy is a better option than few and expensive, especially if you have a good fighter corps of well trained pilots. Morover if a few Chinese Pilots ferrying fighters were to accidently be shot down... well that plays right into the hands of the ROS.

I think where Israel offers the best options is for AEW stuff, maybe someone like Dave could cover this more, but they would fit neatly in a mid range supplier if they have the equipment to sell in this area (I'm not sure). However they are too far away to be a critical parts supplier.

[Nied]

*snip*

The great thing about china is that they are literally a flight away. You lose a couple of planes? Big deal, purchase 5 more and get a 6th one free, delivered all in the next day. Given the losses that they may suffer (looking at the 1973 war as an example), its likely that cheap and flimsy is a better option than few and expensive, especially if you have a good fighter corps of well trained pilots. Morover if a few Chinese Pilots ferrying fighters were to accidently be shot down... well that plays right into the hands of the ROS. 

401939[/snapback]

True but from an uptime/cost of ownership perspective Chinese equipment is a nightmare. I could field a larger Chinese-built force but end up with the same number of airframes flying at any one time (and less effective ones at that), what's more I'll still have to pay for the maintenance on the planes that aren't flying. That means less money to spend on all sorts of better things like training and a larger pilot corps. That'll cripple me in peacetime and kill me in a conflict.

I think where Israel offers the best options is for AEW stuff, maybe someone like Dave could cover this more, but they would fit neatly in a mid range supplier if they have the equipment to sell in this area (I'm not sure). However they are too far away to be a critical parts supplier.

Israel has the Phalcon AEW system that they have mounted on old 707 airframes (there's that maintainability problem again). They also offered an A310 based version for the RAAF's Wedgetail competition, reportedly it was more expensive and less effective than Boeing's winning 737/MESA combo. The Erieye, being from Brazil and Sweden, seemed a good compromise.

::edit:: Israel is replacing their E-2Cs with the 707/Phalcon combo, reportedly they're selling off the Hawkeyes for cheap.

Edited May 24, 2006 by Nied

[Mislovrit]

So lets look at this clearly. The Republic of Sakhalin’s (ROS) two natural allies are Japan and China. Its #1 ally is China. First off, China will benefit the most from the ROS’s resources, and has limited reasons to invade this country. "snip"

Doubtful China would be a natural or friendly ally without the U.S., Russia, and Japan keeping them from getting any ideas of annexing the ROS.

The US is unlikely to be a reliable ally, and difficult to promote support.

True and false the U.S can be a very reliable ally when both parties see it's in their interest to do so. Problems comes

Cultivating relations with the United States would immediately run into problems with Russia, as cozying up to the US would be seen as allowing an enemy into Russia’s spehere of influence. Witness the problems of NATO expansion circa late 1990s. Russians are growing resentful of NATO’s encroachment, and direct relations between ROS and the US  are likely to provoke a negative reaction from Moscow. "snip"

Russia been ineffectual in opposing the U.S. allying up spree with most of the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet republics via the CotW. Plus it is in the U.S. interests to contain Russia and China.

[Noyhauser]

True and false the U.S can be a very reliable ally when both parties see it's in their interest to do so. Problems comes 

Well thats the point, unless the US has a clear defence agreement, like the North Atlantic Treaty, the US has been in the past a very mediocre ally, acting on its interest. And I sincerely doubt that the US would do such a thing. It would be tantamount (and portrayed as) giving a defence treaty to Chechnya. While NATO expansion was a foregone conclusion in most Western European States, it brought up alot of hackles in the US, especially the Senate, precisely because it would force the US to honour a mutual defence treaty. I doubt that the US would immediately rush to the ROS's aid, and its also unlikely they would provide it with high grade military equipment, especially if it were to be used against russia (since there are obvious territorial disputes occurring). They may well deny critical military supplies to the ROS, as they did to Israel at certain junctures.

Russia been ineffectual in opposing the U.S. allying up spree with most of the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet republics via the CotW. Plus it is in the U.S. interests to contain Russia and China.

First off, its not like Russia is agressively expanding its territory. IT would be very much percieved as an Chechnya type problem, which is basically in the Russian sphere of influence, and not the US's problem.

And while you say Russia has been ineffectucal, I'd reply, up until now. As I pointed out, the Russian perception of the west has changed since Putin has come to power, and the economy has shown signs of major revival. In the 1990s, the Russians soon learned that Former Warsaw Pact states were well out of there sphere of influence, and that they had limited control over their sphere after Chechnya. But that was then and this is now. I would certainly not want to buy Russian airfames if I was in the ROS's position.

[Noyhauser]

Doubtful China would be a natural or friendly ally without the U.S., Russia, and Japan keeping them from getting any ideas of annexing the ROS.

Very very very doubtful that china would annex Sakhalin, or act like an expanding power in that sense. China in the past has been willing to give nuclear weapons technology to its neighbours (ie Pakistan)... thats how worried its about expanding its sphere of influence. If you're interested in how Chinese Geopolitics operate, I suggest David Kang's article in International Security:Getting Asia Wrong (27:4). (Now that is cutting it close to politics.)

[Coota0]

::edit:: Israel is replacing their E-2Cs with the 707/Phalcon combo, reportedly they're selling off the Hawkeyes for cheap.

401960[/snapback]

Heard they're selling at least some, if not all to Mexico, to go with the SU-27s they're buying.

Mexico’s Navy plans to buy Russian SU-27 fighter aircraft

MEXICO CITY, April 27 (Prime-Tass)

The Mexican Navy intends to buy Russian SU-27 fighter aircraft, Undersecretary of the Mexican Navy Admiral Armando Sanchez Moreno told the Mexican newspaper El Universal.

The Mexican Navy also considered bids submitted by Russia and Sweden and decided to choose Russia's SU-27 fighters, Moreno said, according to the paper.

The Mexican Navy plans to set up an air defense unit using SU-27 aircraft, Moreno said. Ivan Goncharenko, deputy general director of Russia’s government-owned military export company Rosoboronexport, confirmed Thursday talks with Mexico about the SU-27 purchase. He did not elaborate.

SU-27 fighters are produced by Russia's Sukhoi aircraft maker.

Here's the story (on the Flnakers) but its in Spanish

[Knight26]

Mexico has a navy?

[Nied]

Well thats the point, unless the US has a clear defence agreement, like the North Atlantic Treaty, the US has been in the past a very mediocre ally, acting on its interest. And I sincerely doubt that the US would do such a thing. It would be tantamount (and portrayed as) giving a defence treaty to Chechnya. While NATO expansion was a foregone conclusion in most Western European States, it brought up alot of hackles in the US, especially the Senate, precisely because it would force the US to honour a mutual defence treaty. I doubt that the US would immediately rush to the ROS's aid, and its also unlikely they would provide it with high grade military equipment, especially if it were to be used against russia (since there are obvious territorial disputes occurring). They may well deny critical military supplies to the ROS, as they did to Israel at certain junctures.

401988[/snapback]

There's two key differences to your Chechnya comparison.

1). According to the scenario outlined Russia has (reluctantly) recognized your independance, and are on freindly enough terms to sell you arms. The main conflict with Russia are airspace sovereignty issues.

2). Oil. Chechnya doesn't have any the ROS does, possibly a lot. That alone would give the US an incentive to buddy up with the ROS (incedentally I unintentinally made the ROS a democratic nation when I mentioned a parliment). The prospect of cutting off a new source of oil for a burgeoning China helps matters.