AurelYou’re thinking of An-225, I was thinking of the An-124 😛
And my F-14’s were considered too expencive, Now these guys are talking about An-124’s and Bigger.
I’m talking about the An-124 Ruslan, not about hte An-225 Mriya.
And I still think it is overkill. Do you like to use them like wolga-dniepr airlines in international heavy transport buiseness ? Otherwise, what do you want to transport ? Even the Il-76/78 is to big and expansive for Kyrgyzstan.
I still think the heli-combo Mi-17/Mi-26 is by far the best for a country like Kyrgyzstan. Standart transports can be done with the -17, while trucks and tanks can be transported with the -26. Maybe the STOL An-72 if you prefer fixed wing aircraft.
AurelHey, and feel free for revenge 😀
AurelAnyways, what do you think of my AF, shouldn’t be that expensive to run in General as most of those aircraft are pretty maintenance friendly. Also the support and maintenance should be much easier for all those C-130 Variants, H-60 Variants and other Aircraft.
Would be nice for an Southeast Asian country, maybe for the Thai ?
But for an central asian state with nearly no infrastructure ?
The Ruslan ? Overkill, and where do you
get them, I think only two
uncompleted could be sold to
any body. Buiseness use ?
F-18C/D ? like you said, better
something
that is in production.
SH/UH-60 seems o.k.
BO-105 & AH-6 Why both ? You can get
AH-6 with TOW’s too.
Super Tucano, everytime a good choice.
C-130 normally o.k., but in this special
case I would rather use some
An-72 or better a Mi-26
I don’t know if AEW, tankers and such stuff are really needed and within the budget.:confused:
AurelThe JSF/F-35 is supposed to be even easier.
The mechanical part will shurely be much more reliable. Much will depend on the electronics and the software. Do they use the same computer architecture as in the Raptor ? Or do they use some comparable to the Typhoon ?
AurelI kinda thought it was a Cold War Relic because it was designed to be “stealthy” or low observable, which made them in someway give up performance.
I think you miss a point here. The JSF is not stealthy because the U.S. need it. It is stealthy because many U.S. allies will use it, too. It is a big export argument. And it works well in my opinion.
AurelAn Australien company is involved in the development of CFT’s for Typhoon. But even together with the new 2000 l external tanks I think the Typhoon is to short legged for Australia. Besides those CFT’s look damn ugly. Why couldn’t the Italians be responsible for the CFT-design ? 🙁
Rafale isn’t that much better. They only got already the big external fuel tanks. I have to admit their CFT’s look way better !
Since they refused to buy Sukhois, the SuperHornet or later the JSF are the only option. (I guess they don’t feel the need for F-22)
Aurel-24 MiG-29 SMT or M, according to better
package price and availability
-24 Su-25, used ones, update to a
modern standard
-48 SuperTucanos for training and COIN
-24 new Ka-50, the Kamov should do
better in the thin air
-24 SA-341 Gazelle Helicopters, the
Indians made good experiences in
Himalaya with them
-48 Mi-17, partly used ones
-24 Mi-26 more cargospace then a
Transall and better suited for the low
infrastructure
AurelIn addittion would europe support a breakaway republic from Russia? That has long been a nightmare for western european politicians that Russia should become even more fragmented. Would they dare supporting shuch a move?
Nobody would if it comes immidiately to an conflict. The hole thing works only if Russia decides to grant the independence.
I assume nobody who is at war with Russia is able to build a new army, airforce and navy from ground up.
your mission is to make an air force with a 10 year procurement plan..
This was the task for the military planner, how to achieve 10 years peace may be discussed in a diplomacy forum…
I apologize for bringing politics into this thread:rolleyes:
AurelI would also try to get planes from two sources. Typhoon and Grippen are both strongly depending on the support of the brits. What will they do if the US does ask them not to supply your forces ??
If the U.S. are against you, then you won’t have many sources left…
Buying all new built planes will mean that you will have to stretch the purchase over some years, meaning you will only achieve your normal strength after some years.
The Gripens will be leased… And even if you get all your equipment at once, how long does it take to recruit and train your personel ? The scenario makes only sense if Russia grants your independence. So you have to be only prepared for a new hostile Russian government. Politics, like the involvement of Russian, American, Chinese and European companies in the exploration of your resources will give you as much protection as your army.
In my opinion the Navy should be more orientated on controlling the fishery, what means more surface vessels.
So 6 Visby class corvettes and 3 LaFayette class frigates. Main armament would be Aster and RBS 15.
4 expansive U-212 should be enough to keep the rusty remains of the Russian pacific fleet buisy.
Considering the topography of Sachalin, I would focus on infantry and airdefense.
Therefore 80 T-80 tanks, used Roland and Patriot Systems, some Russian trucks and towed artillery. AK-74 assault rifles and many Stingers.
Additional infantry-weapons like AT-Missiles, grenades and mines from China and Russia.
Everything you can do is hold off an airborne or maritime landing as long as possible to give your diplomates time…
AurelOne attack option open to the opfor would be a sneak sub-launched cruise missile strike on your airbases and, if you happened to have your ‘silver bullet’ Typhoons concentrated in the wrong place, at the wrong time, then they become very expensive piles of scrap and not likely to use their capabilties quite to the fullest!.
If Russia really likes to kick your small forces, then they can. What you need is therefore something that doesn’t allow Russia to handle it as limited conflict. Komsomolsk, Wladiwostok and Chabarowsk are in range of your forces. Komsomolsk as ‘home of the Flanker’ is important, as well as Wladiwostok. ‘Share’ the oilfields with as many major powers as possible, inluding Russia. This makes the conflict international.
So why Gripen + Typhoon ?
Both are very reliable and have therefore low running costs. You can both operate from roadstrips,and because of their reliability, you can do this longer then with any other combo.
Gripen & Erieeye for daily patrols (the superior datalink makes it perfect for this mission). The Typhoon with its superior climbing rate and acceleration will be the ‘cavalry’. As soon as a problem occcurs, they will be the reinforcement. Further more, it will provide you with a deep strike capability.
Next thing are weapons. Iris-T, Meteor, Mjölner, Taurus and RBS-15 will be available for both. Those new european weapons have once again low maintenance costs. Mjölner and Taurus share the same platform. One further example for usefullness: If you take the AMRAAM out of it’s storage container, you have to fire it within 80 or 100 days. This is not the case for Meteor. So you don’t run out of your expansive weapons, if you like to patrol with them.;)
In the end, this is more then a combination, it is a system. And it gives you the possiblity to fight longer under difficult conditions.
AurelThere where some discussions to integrate the MICA instead of the AMRAAM C5, but as far as I know, this idea found only some sympathy in Germany. So no, we depend completely on Meteor as BVR-weapon for export Typhoon’s.
Aurelthe Typhoon and Gripen are nice.. too bad if you want a nice medium range missile.. your AMRAAMs might end up being stored in the US.. there goes the advantage of the Typhoon and Gripen against Flankers and Eagles the Mirage or Rafale is a better choice.
Thats why I don’t like the British idea of delaying the Meteor and Striker in favour of Brimstone and Stormshadow.
I would like Meteor and Stormshadow/Taurus now and Brimstone and Striker later. But who asks me 🙁
Aureli’m also not surprised you chose the Typhoon too
Huh ? Well, I somehow like the words *air superiority* 😀
But nethertheless I hope the Chinese will rescue the MiG-1.42/1.44. Imagine the combination J-10 and J-something aka MiG-1.42. Both of course fitted with the AL-41 in it’s original power configuration.
AurelI think the Greece should try to reduce the number of aircraft types they use. So what would be the benefit of using Rafale and Typhoon together ? You would only have lower numbers for each, which means lower influence on the further development. Further more, most new weapons will be available for both, Typhoon & Rafale. I would go for Typhoon. More weapons will be available and the compatibility to American weapons is better.
The only reason to go for Rafale would be a Greek aircraft carrier.:D
AurelSo,so an independend Sachalin. If Russia is hostile forget it and await the Russian invasion. If they grant your independence, you should buy something from them as a goody.
Well, the distance to the mainland isn’t that big. I would lease 48 Gripen A’s and later buy Gripen fitted with EJ-200.
24 Typhoons would be on the list, too.
Weapons would be Iris-T, Meteor, Taurus,RBS-15 mk3, Alarm or Armiger and GPS guided Bombs. For transports and MPA 24/24 Beriejev 200. As far as I know, it is possible to get them with western engines. 3 A-330 MRTT for strategic transport/tanker.
3 EMB-145 AEW’s and 2 additional for VIP Transports.
24 NH-90 for transports and SAR, 24 for ASW. Pilot training I would do externally, maybe the Japanese would be happy about such a deal ?
Additionally some used Patriots and Rolands for point defense.
Summary:
48 Gripen
24 Typhoon
48 Be-200
3 A-330MRTT
5 EMB-145
48 NH-90
+ Patriot and Roland
Sign In
