plawolfplease try to use the quote function, as it does help others save time.
“A very cheap rethoric excuse, for not looking into history. “
:rolleyes: like u have shown much detailed knowledge of history yet, so right back at u mate.
“What are the similarities of those different scenarios??????????????? “
er… let me see now, for kosovo. on the right, u have the world’s only remaining superpower and friends, with complete air domonence, who wants to win the war from the air. on the left, u have the serbian underdogs, who’s airforce was so decemated by sanctions that few planes can fly let alone fight.
for iran, u have the world’s sole remaining superpower minus friends, who will gain total air dononance (albert at a heavier cost), and who again will try to bomb their way to victory. and once again, they will be facing the underdogs.
i think even a person with the IQ of 50 would see that the attacking force will pretty much be the same.
the main difference lies in the opposition and the terrain involved.
in kosovo, after weeks of intense airstrikes, NATO feels it has ‘softened up’ the opposition enough to risk sending in the grunts. however, with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that the serbs had carried out one of the world’s most successful battlefeild deception operations (which, in my view can rival the work done by jasper against the germans in the north african campaign), which resulted in NATO VASTLY OVERESTIMATING the successfulness of its air campaign (ie, to greatly underestimate the opposition it might face had they send ground forces in).
for iran, u are talking about an area of land tens of times the size kosovo, against an opponent many times stronger then the serbs (in terms of manpower and hardware available).
given that the unique geographical and climate conditions in kosovo greatly reduced the effectiveness of NATO weapons, and also NATO (especially the US) has since brought in a new gen of PGMs. however, iran is not just all flat open desert, and offer some geographical problems of its own, and the new US GPS guided weapons were brought in more to deal with kosovo style conditions, and will not prove much more effective in iran then the older laser and optical guided weapons (except maybe in cost terms).
having taken all that into consideration, what on earth makes u think that the same force can do in 10 days what it couldnt come close in doing in 11 weeks against a far weaker oppenent on a far smaller battlefeild?!
Now it becomes childish. What has war to do with – fair fight – ????????
LOL!! i cant believe anyone here could have said something as stupid as that. :rolleyes:
did we miss the last couple of cenutries of military development? :confused: not since the napolian days have the world seen whole armies lining up in front of each other in duel style combat.
ever since then generals and engineers have tried their hardest to give their side the greatest possible advantage in combat. the current trend is to deny ur oppenent the chance to see u let alone shoot at u (ie by killing him first). in the words of a serving US general’ ” we dont want a fair fight, if we have to send our boys into combat, we’ll send them in with as much of an edge as we can possibly give them.”
against the US and NATO, few countries could even dream of giving its armed forces an advantage on the battlefeild. the best most can hope for is to deminish the US’ overwhelming military advanatge as much as possible (ie to try and make the fight fairer) and to at least give its troops a chance to shoot at the enemy before being killed. and thats exactly what NATO would have given the serbs had it sent in the grunts. the end result would still have been a serb total defeat, but it would have cost NATO hundreds if not thousands more death.
simple enough for u?:rolleyes:
plawolfUnfortunetly it’s only the population that wants a moderate future. In recent
election which banned moderate conservatives won in a land slide (duhhh)
and now their are more authocratic then ever. I do believe that an attack
on Infrastructure might upset the vast majority that wants change.
However targeting pasdaran and the Revolutionery guards will only
make it easier for those that want change.
go ask any democrate what they think is standing in the way of progress and a more liberal america, and most would say the conservatives in power. 😀 but ask if they would welcome a foreign power coming in and ‘taking out’ the conservatives (ie whats standing in the way of a ‘better’ america), the vast majority will ‘no’ probably also saying they will fight alongside the conseratives. its the same for iran.
as soon as a foreign (ie common) threat arises, then ppl tend to forget their internal differences and band together to oppose this new threat. it is human nature, and in fact, many polititions have been accused of creating an external threat to divert attention from domestic problems, the most famous of them being hitler himself.
plawolfmalaysia buys chinese L-SAR
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/important/64/20040924/11892639.html
contract signed on the 17th for airborn SAR (pods/UAV?).
interesting extract of the article:
在航空遥感方面，我们已经实现了从单一波段到多波段的发展；从单极化到多极化的发展；分辨率从最初的几十米发展到几米甚至更高的分辨率；从单一条带模式发展到条带、聚束、扫描等模式，并实现了动目标检测；已完成几代实时成像处理器的研制和实际应用，完全具备处理高分辨率的能力，值得一提的是所有的软硬都是自主研发的；完成了干涉合成孔径雷达的研制和试验飞行，实现了我国雷达图像从二维到三维的跨越；从有人机载平台发展到无人机、空间吊舱等平台；测绘带宽度从几公里发展到几十公里；作用距离从几十公里发展到几百公里，并能保证长时间的连续大面积成像能力。
roughly says that china’s SAR development over the last 25 years have seen SAR evlove from single wavelength to multi-wavelength; from uni-polar to multi-polar; resolution increased from tens of metres to a few metres and beyound; view feild has improved from merely a strip (of land) to focused sensing and scanning etc, and can track moving targets;…moved from manned platform to unmanned platform, pods (space based?) etc; the feild of vision has increased from a few km to tens of km; range has increased from tens of km to hundred of km, and can scan large areas for long periods (large onboard memory perhaps).
plawolfhmm, I know how they do it, that’s because these SSMs are in standardised containers. Pulling the box off and putting one instead is quite easy. But then on the other hand, putting the missile upright and sliding it into the VLS module is quite a different thing. From experience, I can tell you such operations aren’t easy. It’s like changing a cilinder in the Engine of a ship. We had to go at anchor for doing that since the ship was moving too much. Moving too much meant rolling for even less than 5°. I can tell you that warships tend to roll more than that… Which also means sliding the missile canister in the VLS will be quite hard.
Didn’t you read my last post. Do you see any rails to transport them around the ship? Do you see a crane that can effectively grab such a canister, assuming you can roll it below the crane that is, and and lift it? There is this one erector, but honestly I don’t see it doing such operations… Also, if that missile lays on your deck it’ll start rolling, never quite laying still below your crane to grab it. We’re not talking about land operations, we’re talking about a clear sea operation and the movement of a ship should never be underestimated, especially not on warships.
dont know about u, but where i come from a tried and tested method to avoid embarressing oneself in a discussion is to know a little background info and read what the other guy has said CAREFULLY before posting.
the basic background knowledge i would expect anyone who wishes to form a reasonable conlusions as to whether the 052C DDGs can reload at sea are the images i am about to post, which clearly shows DDG 170 loading its VLS without any external aid on the part of the port once the missiles are on ship.
as the pictures show, the crane on the 052Cs can carry the missiles around as well as load them, which deals with ur ‘rolling missiles’ and ‘vertical positioning’ problems.
in terms of reading what others of have already said, well didnt i say that the ability to reload at sea will depend on weather conditions in my last post? and i have no idea why u should think that this 5° limit can even be used as a very rough estimate since we are talking about completely different operations and ships here.
plawolfMaybe Israeli hardliners don’t give a hoot about that. Maybe they just see “The Bomb” in the hands of a sworn enemy. Don’t know.
Regarding the possibility of a successful Iranian counter-attack with ballistic missiles against Israel: They can of course fire a couple, but it is questionable if Taepo-Dong can penetrate a shield of Arrow-1/-2 ABMs and PAC-2/-3. I bet Israel won’t do anything until a couple of Arrow 2 batteries are operational.
well as hard as it is to belive, Israel is not ruled completely by the ultra-hardliners, and unlike the US, the Israelis have to live in the neighbourhood forever, and so will feel and live with the consequences of such an act.
in regard to iranian counter offensives. well purhaps they can convert some of their sea-skimmers into LACMs like iraq did. with the level of enginuity iran has shown over the years, they should have little trouble in making a curisemissile that can reach israel. the only question will be about the accuracy of these missiles.
plawolfMiddle ages means no plane/airliner in and out of Iran for a long time to come. Even to visit Afghanistan by feet will become difficult for them. No free travel for potential terrorists. No foreigners in Iran. No electricity. No TV of cause. No motorised transportation without gasoline and so on.
What is left, to try sabotage attacks against “own” oil-installiations. Doing so the Iranians force the reaction. No Irani inhabitants at the Persian Gulf coast allowed any longer near or around oil-installations.
So far no plan excists to do such things. The Iranian regime uses fear as political weapon, knowing the West feel restricted by humanitarian values. We feel still committed to that. But in “wartime” this can change. I think the Iranians are intelligent enough to recognise, who will be at the receiving-end, despite shouting in the streets.
“No motorised transportation without gasoline and so on.”
lol, someone forget that iran is one of the world’s biggest oil producers? :rolleyes:
or was this supposed to be after the US somehow take over all the parts of iran that has oil under it? :rolleyes:
come on, enough with all the chest beating and ranting already. just how excatly is the US supposed to keep the peace in such a vast area full of hostile (and not just unfriendly as in iraq) people? or are u thinking…i dont know, along the lines of forcably removing all iranians who happen to live on top of some oil and keeping them all in a couple of gettos out of the way someplace, and purhaps ‘disposing’ of a couple when it gets too crowded?! :rolleyes: 😮 😡
plawolf1. A ten days bombing campaign could disarm Iran.
2. Further ten days destroy main parts of its infrastructure.
After that it is not a long way, to say “welcome back in the middle ages.”
Just start to blockade the Iranian oil-export. No income = internal problems.
Iran starts to blockade Street of Hormuz. What set in motion points 1 and 2.
USA has no need to occupy the new Iraq. The northern oilfields are secured by the
Kurds. The southern oilfields by US-troops. When it comes to a secure oil supply, something like a united Iraq or Iran are not in need. The oilworkers for this closed zones can come from everywhere, like Saudi Arabia. Threatening the vital intrests of militarily much stronger countries can be very very dangerous.
Till today we pay for all the oil we need and the sellers are in need of those money.
In 1973 two super powers had different interests, today the world looks different.
Even the Europeans are not interested to go by bycycle or risc a brake-down of their economies to support Iranian politics. Not loved by the muslim world before, what will change after that?
re-1. ah, just like how NATO thought they’d vaporise the serbs in a couple of days of air strikes right? :rolleyes:
check the reports, NATO did far less damage to the serb military then it ever imagined, with the number of civilain casaulties matching or even suppassing serb military casaulties. it was only the threat of a NATO ground attack that convinced a couple of serb generals to turn over their president. which is just as well for NATO, because with the troop concentrations the surbs had left and NATO’s vast over-estimation of the effectiveness of its air campaign, had ground troop went in, the result would most likely have been a fair fight, with similarly heavy losses on both sides.
also, i have no idea what u are on about europe supporting iranian politics. :confused: if u ‘tuned out’ for the last couple of pages, what we were trying to discuss was the possible remifications of a US/Israeli first strike on iran’s nuclear reactors. in which case, it would be the americans who are putting europe’s economic welfare at risk, hence europe will be opposed to what the US has done, not supporting iran to attack the US as u seem to think.
plawolf“china continued south after it got to the 38th for the same reasons the US continued north after they reached the 38th a few months ago. the enemy was in total disarray and complete victory seemed well within reach. only a fool would stop then and let ur opponent recover to come at u again.”
That was no more the case in spring 1951!!!
its easy to see what was the right decision decades later with the benefit of hindsight, that doesnt mean it was easy at the time. by ur logic, the US should have pulled out of SK when they got bottled up in pusan. :rolleyes: in the real world, u take ur chances, sometimes it pays off, sometimes it dont. thats just life.
plawolfthere are actually very were 3rd world countries that are seriously arming up. and the amount spent on training and facilities really depends on which part of the world u are talking about.
most afrian countries tend to hire ex-soviet/russian AF pilots, while in aisa, there is a great deal being spent by the likes of china, india and pakistan on a much more comprehensive military upgrade, with ‘spftware’ being improve to match the increases in hardware quality.
plawolfi think we should remeber that there is a difference between ‘can it reload at sea?’ and ‘does it reload at sea?’. just because the russians and americans opted not to reload at sea during peacetime because of the risks involved does not necessarily mean they cant reload at sea at all.
i have seen pictures if PLAN destroyer’s recieving C80X AShMs from a supply ship at sea (dont have the picture, so if someone can please post it). this means that there is a proven method of getting replacement missiles onto the ship, and once they are on the ship, the cranes should have no difficulty loading them into the VLS.
this process might be limited by the weather, but i beleive it is doable, albert risky.
plawolfWasting whatever they have on U.S. forces in the region would be foolish. Their chance is to inflict max damage, to attack Israel, or even better Europe (also I don’t think they have that capability today, it should be priority number one for them to get that capability, even if it is only a single missile), widen that conflict as fast as possible and as wide as possible (maybe even to the north, depending on Russia’s stance).
[A strategy btw akin to what would possibly enable China to take Formosa w/o fighting the USN … threatening to widen the conflict as far and fast as possible, hikeing up the price for the West.]
well attacking poorly gaurded oil infrastructure is even more of a waste of what IRBMs iran has. given the large boarders and close proximity of iran to most of the other oil producing nations in the ME, SF and/or insurgent attacks would be effective without needing IRBMs and much more economical (especially considering the accuracy of iran’s missiles).
attacking europe is a very bad idea for iran, since europe will most likely take an anti-US stance if america or israel attacked iran without provocation. attacking europe will cut the legs from under those in europe supporting iran and force NATO to join in the fight against iran. so in effect, iran will be turning a political ‘allie’ into a military opponent.
however, israel will almost certainly be attacked in such a situation. but i think the main focus of iran’s BMs would be large US troop bases in the ME to try and cause max US casaulties.
But would Iran even try to intercept an incoming manned airstrike? Wouldn’t their political game be more helped by posing as the poor victim of imperialism and zionism? Provided their nuclear R&D is safe and sound in the belly of some distant cave? As I see it, Iran has only very limited chances to intercept an attack. Iran’s current main strength is their huge country, the impossibility to conquer them (w/o general mobilisation in the U.S. and Western Europe) and their grip on the Straits of Hormuz (were they can inflict substantial damage to the West’s and Far East’s economy by repeated attacks against oiltankers).
well, how would iran know what those US/Israeli warplanes are out to hit? for all the know, it could be a mirror of the start of Gulf War II, with the US trying to ‘decapitate’ the enemy leadership before the main war kicks off. doubt they will take that risk.
my oppinion is that they will send everything they got to try to stop any western military ac they see coming their way (if they can see them in time that is).
plawolfIf you right about that, the Korea War had ended spring 1951.
please! dont tell me u seriously believe that. :rolleyes:
china continued south after it got to the 38th for the same reasons the US continued north after they reached the 38th a few months ago. the enemy was in total disarray and complete victory seemed well within reach. only a fool would stop then and let ur opponent recover to come at u again.
plawolfplawolf,
Hypothetically, what might have China’s response been if MacArthur’s plans to nuke the Chinese border areas were accepted? I am unfamiliar with China’s history at that time, did it have a viable nuke back then?
We can take this to another forum if you like…
china could and would have done nothing, no nukes or long range bombers (well any bombers at all for that matter) or balistic missiles. it would be the USSR who will be the one to respond if that happened.
just as the US is committed to fighting a nuclear war if the soviets invaded western europe, the soviets were committed to fighting a nuclear war if the western powers used nukes on its biggest allie (at the time).
thats why McArthur’s dilusional plans were never acted upon.
plawolfArthur, Srbin- Lets make clear that the reason you like the Su-39 is this supposed ability to withstand flak better than other jets. I havent read anything about older “heavy” russian jets like Su-7 withstanding damage better in combat than any other jet, so its all up to your imagination so far. And just because this jet hangs so and so missle is not what I consider a good reason for buying overweight junk. And srbin, if you read my post I said “old style russian hardware” thinking the word style would be understood as a class of airplane, NOT ITS BUILDER YOU IDIOT!
my my, arent we in a bad mood today? :diablo:
its funny how the JH7, which some claim to be a tornado/jag spin off (well they do look kinda alike), has now become a ‘soviet style’ ac. 😮
plawolfIdiot JH-7 is Chinese and not Russian, there is a difference. Su-39 actuall carries 6000kg on 10 hardpoints while AMX carries some 3800kg on 7 hardpoints I think. Su-39 not only has much better avionics it also has a radar(Kopyo-M) and has R-77, Kh-35 abilities, lets see the AMX match that. Not only that but it is significantly cheaper.
You should compare the latest Russian Su-24M/? to the Tornado or Jaguar, that is if you want to compare it to Russian.
The JH-7 seems underpowered with the Spey, but I think they said they will replace it with the WS10A, which is the same engine that is going to power J-10s and J-11s(Chinese Flankers)
err, not quite. the JH7 is to be upgraded with the WP9A kunlun (WoPeng in chinese means turbojet), whith, obviously is a turbojet engine. while the J10 and J11 uses the WS10 (WoShan means turbofan in chinese), which unsuprisingly is a turbofan.
Sign In
