anandaWe also cannot rule out confusion on the South.
Having 20,000-30,000 shells a minute being fired at you, missiles landing in place, several hundred enemy aircraft trying to breach your airspace and thousands of enemy tanks and troops trying to breach your border will inevitably result in some chaos.
In the long run, South Korea wins.
I suspect any attack by the North would be one last suicide run before an implosion caused by internal strife.
For the North Korean government, the status quo is favourable. They get to exist and that’s probably the sum of their goals.
That’s what the North hoping to achieved. However the ROK plus the US force have better sensors and early warning. No way the North will be abble to mass hunderds of tanks without allerting ROK and US defenses. They will try to swarm the South with most of their obsolete Fighters, but just the Kamikaze on latest stages of WW II, they will be facing superiors Aircraft and Sensors, and the US and ROKAF will wait and shoot them before they can even see the target.
With all the provacation and bravado they are doing right now, no way they can take ROK and US forces by surprises. Like Saddam did with his Scud arsenal in 91, those missiles only can do minimum damages, and far from achieving any tactical and strategical,advantages. Is not like the North regime have someting with simillar capabilities of say ‘Iskander’. Their nuclear arsenal only work for deterance from ROK invasions ‘only’ if they are not conducting the Invasions first. Once they are making the first move, the arsenal of several nuclear crude devices, will bot sufficients to maintain regime survival, ‘with’ the only exceptions the Chinese support them like in the 50’s.
anandasince Psy has declared us bases as targets and has recently cut off all communication ties with south korea..
how would norks go about an air war with south korea and to some extent, japan?
using recent history, norks are willing to strike first since the south koreans are unwilling to retaliate.
what could china provide for assistance? tankers? kj-2000?
Just like what Imperial Japan did by end of WW II, facing with more superior and sophisticated aeriel oppositon, Kamikaze style attack is the only thing they can do. They will try to swarm ROK air defence with as many fighters they can mustered, and try to inflict damages as much as they can.
anandaIf you got similar to Indonesian deal, than it’s F-16. With slightly more than USD 1bio, you got upgrade packagess for 34 airframes, which all airframes being upgrade for additional 6000 hours flight on top the existing 3000 hours of the average original conditions. Plus the avionics and sensors up to block 50 standard (minus AESA).
The block 15 OCU within Indonesian AF operations cost around USD 4,500 +/- per hours (around IDR 50 mio depending on exchange rate). However I do believe it works for existing F-16 users. New users can be different stories.
Before that Indonesian Mindef got an offer on 2010 for ex Qatari Mirage F-1. Being turned down since it means Indonesia must invest on new support infrastructure. Also with large populations and support availability, getting fully upgrade F-16 will be much more economical.
ananda16 more Russian Sukhoi fighter jets.
The previous report from Mindef simply indicating they stop the contract for Flankers after completing one full sq. It’s not clear whether the talk about 16 Flankers refered to present procurement or indication interest for another Sq. However some official in Mindef publicly (at least on local media), show their displessure on Rosoboron follow on procurement contracts especially dealing with support and spare parts. Will see if this also a move to Rosoboron on getting better deals for support contracts.
Whatever the result, it will not affect the F-16 deal, the contract for fully upgrade24 ex USAF F-16 C/D block 25 plus upgrade packages for existing F-16 Block 15 OCU still on going. 16 of ex USAF F-16 will be housed on new additional sq in Pekanbaru AB in Sumatra, while the rest 8 will join existing sq of 10 F-16 in Madiun AB in Java. Both the upgrades packages will extend the airframes lifeframe for another 6000 flight hours, thus potentially still provide those 34 airframes with 8000-9000 flight hours or 10 – 15 years of operational life. The avionics packages will be similar to block 50 standard minus AESA radar. Time frame delivery for those ex USAF schedulled end of this year and next year.
anandaAll large orders like this are good news – now for Airbus and previously for Boeing – but I can’t help wondering what Lion Air is going to do with that many aircraft. And, the fact that it is not allowed to fly in EU airspace doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
Let’s hope I’m wrong for the sake of lots of people, not least the Airbus and Boeing workers.
What is the relations on ordering many aircraft with can’t flying on EU Airspace ? Lion Air, Air Asia or any other high growth budget Airline in Asia never (or if they did, only on very small percentage) considered EU as their target on any of their business plan. The airline industry growth in Asia far exceeding EU.
As I’ve mentioned before, not all of those 400+ aircraft order by Lion Air will operated in same period. Like any other Airline that put large order, some of the order will be counted as replacement for existing Aircraft. Presently Lion Air (and it’s subsidiary Wings Air) already operated more than 100 Aircraft, thus some of the new order when delivered, will be slotted as replacement, since the airline already targeted the average age of it’s fleet around 5-6 years. Most of those high growth budget Airline in Asia like Lion, Air Asia, Cebu Pacific etc, will target their average fleet age around that number, for cost efficiency.
Lion like Air Asia plan to operated several Airlines subsidiary in several Regional Country. Air Asia Group already operated Airline from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines and Japan. Lion besides Indonesia already setting subsidiary which will operated soon from Malaysia, and from what I heard they are in negotiations in Vietnam, Philippines and Myanmar.
Those hundreds of Aircraft thus will fly solely on Regional Asian routes, and chances very small they ever think on operating to EU airspace. Budget Airline concept seems not fit well with long haul operations from Asia to EU airspace. Look Air Asia X, after try for some time with EU routes, then finally decided focusing only on Asian routes.
BTW: Lion Airline after got ban to US Airspace by FAA, then got approval by FAA for US operations after they place huge order with Boeing. Can anybody still certain they will still ban much longer from EU operations after ordering this large number of Airbus :dev2:
Not they ever will try budget airline concept to fly to EU or US anyway 😉
anandaAccording to Local Article, those Airbus are plan for overseas operations. From Lion point of view, they are planning to rival Air Asia by opening several airlines subsidiaries outside Indonesia. The first such subsidiary was Malindo Air in Malaysia.
Since 2010 the only large operational airline fatal crash is Merpati airlines in West Papua, using Chinese made turboprop. Other was SSJ demo flight last year.
Btw. I only fly with National Flag carrier Garuda 😉
Some talk with a Lion Air executive indicate they’re only plan to use their plane for average of 5-6 years. If this true than it’s means those orders will not all operating with Lion Air (and Subsidiaries) at same time. In paper, Lion, order more than 400 aircraft from Airbus and Boeing, however I believe only around 50% of that that going operational at same time. The rest will be used as replacement on existing fleet.
anandaDidn’t Venezuela only turn to Flankers after US refused to supply parts for F-16s?
US will support those F-16 again if the opposition wins. However some how I believe even Maduro or the Opposition will try to find middle ground. They will try to keep some of Russian assets whille try to gain some Western ones to show they are not anti western like Chavez. French will be a good candidate. It’ll show they are moving some reconciliations to West but not entirely to the US like pre-Chavez era. Moving toward to US too soon will be too devisive for the Country internal reconciliation.
anandaThey will drop the F-16, maintained the Flankers, forgot China’s as suppliers and buy Rafale :diablo:
anandaFirst Sukhoi Super Jet with an Indonesian Airlines (Sky Aviation) arrived yesterday. Sky Aviation will used their SSJ for route mostly in Eastern Indonesia, and will used Makasar (in South Sulawesi/Celebes) as their regional hub. Total SSJ planned to be operated by Sky is 12. Sky will operated SSJ with 87 pac capacity with combine business and economy class.
More photo’s can be seen on Kompas Online : http://foto.kompas.com/photo/detail/2013/03/01/6678916531851362070842/kisah-sukhoi-superjet-100-di-indonesia?utm_source=WP&utm_medium=box&utm_campaign=Kimagewp
Attached photo also come from Kompas Online.
anandaWe may have surprises about your asumption : EADS A330MRTT would have created more employment in the US then KCX…
Will it provide more value added to overall US Industries ? That’s why I don’t say just employment, but also overall involvement and value added to US Industries. Put this way, if Allenia let GD full license to M-346, in such that GD can tweek the content and design that what come out is no longger M-346, but GD versions of LIFT, then perhaps the US congress will see it bring enough value added to US industries that in the end it’s US Trainers and no longger Italian ones.
I do believe the Hawks, the M-436 that will try to enter T-X will try to potrait that idea. However so does T-50 (well it’s practically already close to LM Trainers as it can be to begin with), and Boeing design (if one did enter) will potrait themselves as true US trainers. In the end they all will be calculated as which ones that really provide the most value added to US industries and economies, as the main factor.
Cost of course will be a factor, however if one design proved provided the most value added for US industries, that design can be the winner even one other design show relative more economical cost (however), less value added to US industries.
anandaWhy do I got the feeling that in the end, this will be determined by who got the biggest influence, LM,GD,NG,or Boeing. In the end with current economic conditions and political mood in the Congress, I do believe it will be whoever can convince the congress that their stuff will be the one that used most US components, employed most US workers, and the design that already altered enough so can be call US own design.
anandaAnanda’s comments on the blk25 deal are also interesting in comparison to the Philippines US$450mn deal for 12 FA-50’s. 34 6000-hr remaining blk25’s for a little over twice the price of 12 new build FA-50’s?.
For me the comparison that more appropriate in this case is USD 1 bio with the choice of 12 new Block 52 F-16 against 34 Fully Refurbished Block 25 + Block 15 OCU.
anandaWhich the Romanians rejected as being too expensive. The upgrade & follow-on support contract (a mandatory part of the deal) was more than Sweden was asking for JAS39, which were already at the level the US was offering to upgrade old F-16s to, & with more support included than in the US contract. Yes, that’s right – the “free” aircraft were more expensive than the ones which were being sold.
True, that US offer for ‘free’ airframes is not cheap. However considered the alternatives on getting new Viper with only a third in quantity on the same budget. It’s still make sense considering the upgraded for electronics, airframes and engine will be substantials.
Romania is not F-16 customers, Indonesia on the other hand is an existing customers. The way they (Indonesian Mindef) see it, provide USD 1 bio + budget for full substantial upgrade (USD 750 mio for 24 ex US and USD 270 mio for 10 existing ones), provide them with 34 fully refurbished airframes. Rather than 12 (at most), newly build F-16 block 52. In other word, they have to let go existing F-16 for new ones, due no budget to refurbished and keeping existing ones, if new Block 52 being procured. However if refurbished choice being taken, they can have 34 fully refurbished airframes.
The offer from Sweden for JAS39 is also being forwarded to Indonesia. However the AF decided to still go with F-16, as the Fighter they prefered.
anandaI don’t think the F-16 Blk 30/40s will be that popular on the export market. Most of those air frames are old and have huge amounts of hours on them.
The Block 25s have not proven popular except for Indonesia who rarely has sane procurement processes.
In the past the USAF had quick turnover of jets which meant second hand jets were often relatively low houred and quite new. Nowadays US flies jets for 8,000-12,000 hours for 20+ years. Not exactly an appealing prospect.
Finally the FA-50 does have one massive disadvantage over JF-17 or Yak-130 – a lot of it’s components are subject to US export approval.
Why not ? Those second hand F-16 mostly nowdays will be given free by the US providing the customers conducting upgrade deal with US contractors. USD 750 mio in case of Indonesia got 24 fully refurbished airframe that at minimum will gain another 4000 hours on the airframe. Add that to 2000-3000 hours left on original airframes, this will provide 15 – 20 years of service.
That kind of budget will only provide at most 8 new airframes of Block 52 (with all following usual packages). For Indonesian deal, the electronics and sensors being given to the upgraded airframes mostly belong to Block 50+ Viper. Actually that’s the deal being offered to Indonesia. Get 8 newly build block 52 or 24 upgraded block 25 with fully refurbished airframes and block 50+ avionics and sensors with same amount of budget. Looking that way getting those refurbished airframes with updated electronics still make sense.
Add: I do agree some of Indonesian procurement logic come to question even from me. However on this case, I do believe the logic make sense.
anandaNow let’s assume that the Iraqis were up to the standard of Israelis.
This means not only excellent pilot training, but good command and control, good planning capability and an emphasis on proactive engagement.
Would the US have engaged such a force?
Why do you think Israel will fare much better against coalitions of US, UK, French, and the rest of NATO ? At most if Israel facing that kind of opposition, they will buy few days (at most) longer before got the same fate with Saddam’s AF. That kind of Coalitions in the fact can only be faced on equal term by Warsaw AF at it’s might.
Sign In
