Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[David Hingtgen]

Knight26---you're not the only one to ask that question.

The real question is why not SEA Flankers?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Phalanx, most of the questions you ask are all covered in the old 100+page super thread thats archived. I suggest going there, read through each page, and you'll come back here knowing way more, asking a lot less.

No offense.

[Phalanx]

Phalanx, most of the questions you ask are all covered in the old 100+page super thread thats archived. I suggest going there, read through each page, and you'll come back here knowing way more, asking a lot less.

No offense.

402023[/snapback]

None taken, friend.

[Coota0]

Knight26---you're not the only one to ask that question. 

The real question is why not SEA Flankers? 

402011[/snapback]

If you don't have a carrier, what's the point?

[Nied]

Knight26---you're not the only one to ask that question. 

The real question is why not SEA Flankers? 

402011[/snapback]

If you don't have a carrier, what's the point?

402042[/snapback]

Reportedly the Flankers are to defend against drug dealers. Just a wee bit of overkill if you ask me.

[VF-19]

Knight26---you're not the only one to ask that question. 

The real question is why not SEA Flankers? 

402011[/snapback]

If you don't have a carrier, what's the point?

402042[/snapback]

Reportedly the Flankers are to defend against drug dealers. Just a wee bit of overkill if you ask me.

402057[/snapback]

Nothing's overkill when dealing with drug dealers. Ever.

[buddhafabio]

when you want to deal with drug dealers hammer heads by dale brown has some very intresting ideas.

his books are a little out there but they are meant to be entertaining

[Phalanx]

when you want to deal with drug dealers  hammer heads  by dale brown has some very intresting ideas.

  his books are a little out there but they are meant to be entertaining

402082[/snapback]

Dale Brown? My dad is huge fan of his books. Just recently he read the one about that fake B-52 megafortress. I personally found that book interesting.

[kalvasflam]

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.

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.

[buddhafabio]

when you want to deal with drug dealers  hammer heads  by dale brown has some very intresting ideas.

  his books are a little out there but they are meant to be entertaining

402082[/snapback]

Dale Brown? My dad is huge fan of his books. Just recently he read the one about that fake B-52 megafortress. I personally found that book interesting.

402085[/snapback]

He is my faviorite author. i even built a 1/144 scale megafortress out of a revel b-52h model and a bunch of f-14s and f-15s and a arii vf-1s model. (used the nose to make b-52s pointy

[Phalanx]

when you want to deal with drug dealers  hammer heads  by dale brown has some very intresting ideas.

  his books are a little out there but they are meant to be entertaining

402082[/snapback]

Dale Brown? My dad is huge fan of his books. Just recently he read the one about that fake B-52 megafortress. I personally found that book interesting.

402085[/snapback]

He is my faviorite author. i even built a 1/144 scale megafortress out of a revel b-52h model and a bunch of f-14s and f-15s and a arii vf-1s model. (used the nose to make b-52s pointy

402202[/snapback]

Interesting, how long did it take you to build it?

[Nied]

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.

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.

402107[/snapback]

Frankly based around what's been discussed here (and also a brief PM discussion between Noyhouser and myself that got too deep into politics to post on the thread at large) I think the ROS defences should be built around short term defence. It's got a ton of oil and is under the watchful eye of three major super-powers and a major regional power. The way I see it any conflict the ROS gets involved with will be short because either a) all three major superpowers will work to defuse the situation to avoid sparking WWIII, or b) the conflict escalates into WWIII. The first scenario requires a military strong enough to still be holding onto strategically significant sites (Oil fields and the Kuriles) when the dust settles, while the second scenario can only be dealt with by instituting a national Yoga training programme (so ROS citizens have the flexibility to bend over and kiss their butts goodbye).

[kalvasflam]

Frankly based around what's been discussed here (and also a brief PM discussion between Noyhouser and myself that got too deep into politics to post on the thread at large) I think the ROS defences should be built around short term defence.  It's got a ton of oil and is under the watchful eye of three major super-powers and a major regional power.  The way I see it any conflict the ROS gets involved with will be short because either a) all three major superpowers will work to defuse the situation to avoid sparking WWIII, or b) the conflict escalates into WWIII.  The first scenario requires a military strong enough to still be holding onto strategically significant sites (Oil fields and the Kuriles) when the dust settles, while the second scenario can only be dealt with by instituting a national Yoga training programme (so ROS citizens have the flexibility to bend over and kiss their butts goodbye).

402226[/snapback]

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.

[Noyhauser]

I think if you wanted to design a scenario for such an attack, the best you could come up with is Falklands 1982. This sort of scenario is quite close actually to what the Russians and Chinese would be able to mount. Three key factors I see.

First off Effective Air to Air Capabilities are a must, one that can survive a prolonged conflict. Whomever rules the skies over the ROS will win. Due to the Country's odd size, effective AEW is irreplacable and a fundamental to victory.

Anti Ship warfare is also key, preferably with stand off weaponry, though I think that given the state of Russian Navy that you could still see dumb bombs being effective. IF the Russians are able to amphibiously land forces, its all over for the ROS. I think the ROS's forces would be more than adequate to deal with paratroops, if they can be quickly cut off. However if the Russians and Chinese get forces on the ground, they would not be able to stop such a large attack.

Air to ground stuff will be vital. It could well become a force multiplier in the large country, against forces spread out. Mid altitude stuff would be prime, given the Russian to carry large amounts of MANPADS.

Edited May 25, 2006 by Noyhauser

[kalvasflam]

I think if you wanted to design a scenario for such an attack, the best you could come up with is Falklands 1982. This sort of scenario is quite close actually to what the Russians and Chinese would be able to mount. Three key factors I see.

First off Effective Air to Air Capabilities are a must, one that can survive a prolonged conflict. Whomever rules the skies over the ROS will win. Due to the Country's odd size, effective AEW is irreplacable and a fundamental to victory.

Anti Ship warfare is also key, preferably with stand off weaponry, though I think that given the state of Russian Navy that you could still see dumb bombs being effective. IF the Russians are able to amphibiously land forces, its all over for the ROS. I think the ROS's forces would be more than adequate to deal with paratroops, if they can be quickly cut off. However if the Russians and Chinese get forces on the ground, they would not be able to stop such a large attack.

Air to ground stuff will be vital. It could well become a force multiplier in the large country, against forces spread out. Mid altitude stuff would be prime, given the Russian to carry large amounts of MANPADS.

402248[/snapback]

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.

Edited May 25, 2006 by kalvasflam

[Nied]

China has historically shown little interest in expansion, even so either they or the Russians would be at the end of a long supply train even with a build up. The key would be to inflict massive casualties before your forces are spent, it would result in enough of a lull to either sue for peace or allow reinforcements to arrive. That requires a highly trained pilot corps to do, which in turn requires an air force that does a lot of heavy flying in peacetime. An air force consisting of low maintenance aircraft can be airworthy more often and leave more money to pay for flight time. A good net-centric C3 structure should act as a good force multiplier as well, which is why I made sure to outfit most of my air force with datalinks.

[Nied]

Even though it's outside the perview of the exercise a good set of shore based ASM batteries (which I would buy from the Chinese) would be a good companion to any airforce the ROS sets up.

Edited May 25, 2006 by Nied

[Mislovrit]

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.

Forget China, India, and Australia make for better allies and have the ability to power project and able to pull your butt of the fire should the need arise.

After looking at the population numbers for the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin, the ROS is going to need protection as roughly 700,000 people will be hard pressed to maintain a military large enough to cover the entire nation.

[Nied]

Forget China, India, and Australia make for better allies and have the ability to power project and able to pull your butt of the fire should the need arise.

After looking at the population numbers for the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin, the ROS is going to need protection as roughly 700,000 people will be hard pressed to maintain a military large enough to cover the entire nation.

402429[/snapback]

There's been some significant immigration since the ROS seceded. From the original scenario outline:

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.

That's still not exactly a large population, but the objective is not to engage in a long war, but to hold the line until someone (the US, China, Russia, India Australia or whoever) can show up to pull your but from the fire, or alternatively to hold your assets until one of the major superpowers can defuse the situation.

[Mislovrit]

That's still not exactly a large population, but the objective is not to engage in a long war, but to hold the line until someone (the US, China, Russia, India Australia or whoever) can show up to pull your but from the fire, or alternatively to hold your assets until one of the major superpowers can defuse the situation.

402439[/snapback]

Yup the definition for "speedbump."

Even with the additional 300,000 people it would just add couple thousand more men to the military. That's is going by the usual 0.1 to 3ish percent of population currently serving.

[Noyhauser]

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.

Forget China, India, and Australia make for better allies and have the ability to power project and able to pull your butt of the fire should the need arise.

After looking at the population numbers for the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin, the ROS is going to need protection as roughly 700,000 people will be hard pressed to maintain a military large enough to cover the entire nation.

402429[/snapback]

Chechens did it in 1994 and again in 1996, with the same population numbers, and far less preparation.Airpower in this case can be used to great effect by denying Russians the mobility they need to move their forces in the region. You're not going to see a massive russian invasion force, they wouldn't be able to send enough units anyway, and not many heavy weapons.

If you honestly think that India would be a better ally in this case than China, you need to read up on your geo-politics. You honestly think that the Indian government is going to send their only prized carrier all the way around the straits of malacca, and up to ROS... probably to have it sunk by a Akula. And for what strategic reason would they do that for? They already sit beside the world's largest proven resources of hydrocarbons, and have been exceptionally unwilling to participate in anything but UN peace keeping operations. Do the words "non aligned state" ring a bell? Sweden is more likely to intervene than India ever would. But, you could probably count on them to lodge a protest in the UN.

What use is Australia? Australia has no carriers, limited power projection capabilities that certainly are not able to reach or effectively operate in the ROS's sphere. C-130Js can't even get a half of the way there. Moreover their forces are not well configured for pure expeditionary warfighting, and they certainly aren't going to come into a conflict that is literally half way around the world. Unless the US or someone else goes in, they aren't going to show up.

China on the other hand, has geo political interests here, they are very close by (thereby eliminating the problem of distance), and have the ability to pin down a large amount of Russian forces simply by moving their own forces along the border. They don't have to do much and they would probably have done more than any other state could do by providing troops to counter a Russian invasion directly. Its the ROS's natural ally.

Edited May 26, 2006 by Noyhauser

[kalvasflam]

Forget China, India, and Australia make for better allies and have the ability to power project and able to pull your butt of the fire should the need arise.

After looking at the population numbers for the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin, the ROS is going to need protection as roughly 700,000 people will be hard pressed to maintain a military large enough to cover the entire nation.

402429[/snapback]

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?

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

How about letting the US set up a Subic Bay 2 or equivalent base in one of the islands? Pretty sure the US would _love_ such a forward base.

Russia and China would blow their entire fuse box though.

[Nied]

How about letting the US set up a Subic Bay 2 or equivalent base in one of the islands? Pretty sure the US would _love_ such a forward base.

Russia and China would blow their entire fuse box though.

402548[/snapback]

And that's why you shouldn't do it.

Buying US equipment is one thing, it's slightly antagonistic, but giving out basing rights is the type of move that might just convince Russia it was wrong to recognize your independence. Given China's attitude towards the US they might just decide to sit on their hands while Russia returns things to the old status-quo (better than letting the US get another strategic foothold in the area). Hell if they moved fast enough the Russians could retake ROS before you could start thinking of any kind of military build up, and well before the US could even break ground on any base in the Kuriles.

No China is a good ally, I just shy away using them to supply my air force. The general low build quality of Chinese fighters means they'd be expensive to operate, meaning less flight time during peacetime, that's exactly what I don't want. Like I said, it's outside the purview of the scenario but a better way to curry favor with China would be to equip my ground forces with their equipment (especially their supersonic anti-ship missiles with mobile launchers).

[David Hingtgen]

Latest news is that Blair personally brought up the "UK having full rights/access to JSF stealth technology" issue and Bush gave the go-ahead. Now to see if it actually happens. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if we see Australia make the same request.

[Noyhauser]

Latest news is that Blair personally brought up the "UK having full rights/access to JSF stealth technology" issue and Bush gave the go-ahead.  Now to see if it actually happens.  Also, I wouldn't be surprised if we see Australia make the same request.

402711[/snapback]

Bush has been all for the ITAR waiver, for quite some time. Its congress thats been holding them up. Given the state of relations between congress and the President, especially with mid-term elections coming up, I'm skepctical that it will happen, but Its possible.

[Graham]

That's what I've been hearing as well, that it's the US congress, not Bush himself that is deathly opposed to the ITAR waiver.

Oh well, I'd rather UK have more Typhoons and a navalised Typhoon variant than F-35s anyway.

Graham

[Coota0]

Saw this on Airwarriors

One authoritative recommendation comes from Lt. Col. Art "Turbo" Tomassetti, a Marine pilot who flew the X-35, the prototype for the future F-35, during competitive tests in 2001.

After the flights, Tomassetti said last week, he and a half-dozen pilots and engineers gathered "over a couple of pints" to mull over a name.

"We went through a whole list," he recalled. "It had to be something that all the services could relate to." The consensus, he said, was Fury, with adaptations for each of the services -- Sky Fury for the Air Force, Sea Fury for the Navy and Storm Fury for the Marines because, he said, "the Marines storm the beaches."

For the record that's just stupid.

[Phalanx]

Latest news is that Blair personally brought up the "UK having full rights/access to JSF stealth technology" issue and Bush gave the go-ahead.  Now to see if it actually happens.  Also, I wouldn't be surprised if we see Australia make the same request.

402711[/snapback]

Cool, Imagine someday hypothetically seeing a stealthed up variant of an Typhoon I wonder if Canada may be next in line to get the same request.

[Knight26]

ACtually I kind of like the name Fury, as it was the naval variant of the first operational jet to be used successfully by all services, the FJ-1 Fury, which was a variant of the F-86. And Phalanx the Typhoon is plenty stealthy, it just focuses on front quarter stealth which really the only place that it matters.

[F-ZeroOne]

Fury wouldn't be tyoo bad; after all the Hawker Sea Fury was one of the best (and last) prop-driven carrier fighters. You'd just have to put up with a few years of muttered Brit grumbles about those bloomin' yanks nicking our proud aircraft heritage yet again...

Edited May 29, 2006 by F-ZeroOne

[David Hingtgen]

Thus it should be the Fury II.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Fat Fury would be descriptive, and sound cool. lol

I'm thinking thrust vectoring on the tranche 3 typhoon will make it kick more ass than it already does. Its like overkill on something that is already good at killing.

It'd be awesome if it replaces the alpha jets on the snowbirds team. Wait...maybe I got the teams mixed up...

Will tranche 3 have the internal gun?

[David Hingtgen]

Maybe, maybe not. May be functional, may not. May have ammo, may not.

[F-ZeroOne]

Thus it should be the Fury II. 

403456[/snapback]

Fury III, in fact - you're forgetting the biplane Hawker Fury.