Austria is a perfect example of a country that uses its fighters mainly to protect the sovereignty of its air space. The Drakens were famous for chasing US aircraft taking shortcuts over Austria.

The Air forces of most countries are mostly for air space protection during peace time with transport and ferrying of VIPs as major secondary tasks.

Competitive defense of air space is increasingly unaffordable even for industrialized nations. Small but per inhabitant rich countries like Denmark, Norway or Singapur cannot size their fleet of aircraft down to a proportional value. So the 24 fighters they have are less effective but more expensive, actually leaving the question where the point in air defence is.

On the other hand a few capable fighters can make a considerable difference. Think of a long range fighter like the Su-27 (and derivatives). Having 6 of these in your inventory gives you the ability to control airspace over the sea even 1500km off shore. In some situations this could mean to deny a neighboring country the access to the sea or to trade routes.

As poor countries normally have no problem with losing some soldiers and can have poeple in the field longer, the added firepower by air is of reduced importance.

The often mentioned “GCI” is often considered obsolete and of little use. That is not true. For a defensive situation (the mission of the MiG-29) GCI is very useful and will lead to favorable results. In such a situation MiG-29 can normally establish numerical advantage, climb to optimum altitude and vector to their targets. Then switch on their radar and get a favorable shot.

The problem is the limited flexibility of this system
– if used beyond the line of GCI coverage
– if ground stations are destroyed
– if ground stations are affected be extreme jamming (which is not so easy as they’re normally quite powerful)

This system did not work with Soviet middle eastern allies due to their special limitations and because this system is very static and can be put out of order by a force with sufficent capability (IAF 1982).
In a situation of similar numbers of F-16A against MiG-29A the deciding factors are a lot. An offensive F-16A against a ground-guided MiG-29A will lose BVR fight.

Flogger’s usual claims of “better” should not be taken too serious. In an optimization with several variables there is no optimum until you define exactly your cost function (or in straight words: you have to be very precise about the scenario, mission and requirements to talk of anything being “better”).

Now how do you know how many WTC workers voted for Bush? I’d really like to hear that one. As for the WTC attack being a valid military operation? Sure, if they used cruise missiles and not suicide pilots. Military operations don’t tend to require suicide.

And this has what to do with anything?

Eh? That myth again, that only the rich got tax breaks? I’m living proof that this is complete BS.

SOC,
just indicate if you meant this “total retaliation” thing honest or not.

If yes
forget my post and just note my disappointment about you obviously strange opinions.

If no
see my posts as they were meant, a little bit ironic.

Retaliate terrorism with terrorism is for stupid idiots only and will lead to nothing else than a step back in humanity. Every sane person knows that the active for terrorism is easiest to break by isolating them from the normal population. The thing would work as effective as moral bombing did in second world war, that is not at all.

I am serious. What better way to demonstrate the vulnerability of your enemy and the inability of that nation’s leaders to defend their constituents by bombing high-use civillian targets? You don’t even have to consider them civillian targets in a nation like Iran. They vote for their President, so we’re attacking a political target, the electorate.

Then you have to consider the 9/11 attack as a valid military operation, because a high percentage of WTC-inhabitants voted for GW Bush. I know that he lost the popular vote and NYC is a liberal disaster and doesn’t have much appreciation for southern US cowboys sending 16 year old to death penalty. But consider that most WTC-people are rich above average, so they waiting for George’s next tax cut.
After all striking a sky scraper in Houston will definetly wipe out 70% republican voters and actually will promise mild headlines in the NY Times.

However, if meant honestly your have a lack of understanding of the whole issue. Sorry to say it that rude.

Then why U.S are not attacking!! thats I think becaus e they afraid of outcome sure they can hit iran and kill but outcome would be unpredictable. And what if Iran has Nuke already! And they test one medium size nuke warhead in persian gulf!!

Or why don’t test nuke inside Iran, preferably some big, religious but rather useless city. Then blame US and declare Jischad on all Western people, and just for simplicity, on Israel, too. Can’t have a better pay-back for the enrichement facility.

Also, when discussing the F-105’s ‘alleged’ susceptibility to antiaircraft fire one must bear in mind the fact that the USAF’s entire fleet of ‘Thuds’ were produced and delivered throughout the first half of the 1960s, before American airpower began to play a more substantial role in the SE Asia war. It’s as if the RAF and the US Army Air Corps were only allowed to use bomber aircraft produced before 1941 for their strategic bombing campaign against Nazi Germany. There was no opportunity to introduce design changes to the F-105, as a result of lessons learnt during combat experience in Vietnam, in any later production run. It always seemed to me that the f-105’s hydraulics issue could have been rectified/redesigned without incorporating any major airframe redesign or fuss.
Come to think of it; a lot of the aircraft used by the USA in the Vietnam war had their production finished before things got busy in that war in 1964/65: F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-8, A-3 Skywarrior, A-5 Vigilante, not to mention the B-47, B-52, B-57, B-66, etc. This was certainly not a situation found in WW 2, a war with a duration only half as long and fought with aircraft which were always in a continuous process of design, redesign, and production as lessons were been learnt during combat.

A very good point. the Vietnam war was the last war long enough to use it for changes in the used aircraft. However, while in WW2 aircraft were only used for that war, in Vietnam the aircraft performed roles which they were not really intended with the air force not willingly to change the requirements. The F-4 was adapted by using different hydraulic systems and finally the -E model with the gun.

Even in WW2 most designs were started and entered service in the early years. Some modifications were made during production but except for more engine power most aircraft kept their shortcomings through the war.

Actually very interesting topic. Sad that it will drown in all the Iran- and MiG vs GD Threads.

They have already tryed it in Vietnam… Well, lets just say it mildly, it caused more problems than solved.

This retaliation can work, but only if some requirements are met.

1. your enemy needs to be a at least partly industrialized country not living from the hand to the mouth (negative example: Afghanistan)
2. your victim should have a government which is at least a little bit interested in the fade and health of its inhabitants (negative example: North Korea)
3. your victim should be focussed on economic growth through technology adaption and domestic workshare in global economy
4. your enemy should have an elite consisting of educated people with some influence on government and politics and objectives beyond the sometimes ill objectives of a government

These points are true for Serbia, not North Korea or North Vietnam (although this strategy worked there 1972). Iran does partly fulfill these requirements, point 2 is questionable and point 4 unknwon to me.

If these requirements are met you can retaliate by destroying key facilities of its infrastructure. A normal industrial society heavily relies on few facilities and the whole system can be slowed down by destroying some major things like
– energy facilities (power plant, power distribution, transfomer stations)
– water (a little bit unethitical)
– bridges
– government buildings
– scientific facilities
– key industrial sites (raffineries)

All these targets are well known and can be substantially damaged with a few JDAMs. One B-2 could wipe out the whole power distribution system in Tehran in 15 minutes. They could strike once a weak with limited civilian losses clearly signilizing who has the military means to strike and who has no chances to defend.

Remember Barnes Wallis created ‘Highball’ which was a dimpled spherical design – similar in appearance to a golf ball – to use as a ‘bouncing bomb’ against axis forces in WWII. Showing that golf ball principles could be used on a larger scale to improve aerodynamics. Of course this couldnt be applied to aeronautics, but im just pointing out that scaling does work.

There is (and has always been) a huge effort put into scaling techniques and there is research everywhere. The simplest idea being wind tunnels? Scale models are analysed in conditions similar to large scale conditions and as such improvements can be made judging on similar effects.

You do not research boundary layer and turbulent vs laminar flow on a scaled airframe in a wind tunnel. Wind tunnels are good for reasearching the shape of the a/c. And wind tunnel always comes with errors which can be corrected due to lots of experience.
Wind tunnel, CFD and flight test are all needed.

Are the current ….”unpleasentries” in France affecting Airbus?

Yes, on Thursday the factory was blocked for two hours by students. But that’s it. No other effects.

To the topic:
I don’t think it is wise to sell the share although I clearly see the point. BAe has a clear strategic focus. Airbus is more a German-French thing and they are actually giving the direction. Little space for BAe to make strategic decisions. So they can bail out now and get got money for it.

I don’t see Airbus doomed. Just to put it into perspective: In 2002 Airbus had achieved 100 A380 orders, Boeing was struggling with the funny Sonic Cruiser. Everybody was talking about Boeing disappearing from the market, which was at that time BS. Same applies today other way round: Don’t speculate too much, it gets emberrassing in a few years.

I am very worried about Boeing taking over BAe Systems. No sane government could allow that. Bad enough that my government does not have too much idea of defending strategic defense industry against foreign investors (HDW Docks in Kiel building U-Boat 212), but having the world market leader taking over the second biggest European aviation company doesn’t look good.

Britain wrecked its car industry completely (BMW was glad to help) and has castrated its aviation industry from the leading European nation in the 1950s to a single company in 2000, which now reduced its share in civil aviation to that of a subcontractor instead of a decision taker. Let’s hope they get sober over there again.