thobbesHad China been “reasonable” or did nothing, the US would have found it hard to contain China. But it is none other than China’s actions that drive China’s neighbors into the arms of the US.
If China did nothing, the US would still turn it into the enemy. The Chinese could’ve adopted Hari Krishna ideals and disbanded their entire military and the US would still turn them into the enemy.
The US psychologically and economically needs enemies. Look at even little Cuba which poses no threat but the US still treats them as an enemy at the gate.
As for the other Asian countries, most of them welcomed US involvement even when the Chinese were locked in their little mass suicidal isolationist coccoon in the 1950s-1960s.
Here are some of the benefits the Asians see in US involvement in addition to China:
1. Philippines – economic benefits from US bases, subsidised defence.
2. US presence and subsidising of Japanese defence ensures no rationale for massive Japanese military build up.
3. Containment of North Korea and in the past Vietnam.
4. Keeps relative peace in SE Asia. Indonesia has had issues with Malaysia in past and Singapore-Malaysia have also had differences.
5. Australia – US presence keeps “yellow hordes” at bay. Australia’s big fear is Indonesia. So many Australians I’ve spoken to are convinced the Indonesians are a threat.
thobbesSo in essence the MiG-15 was obsolete before it even started?
Did MiG-15s or -17s ever tangle with Orenda engined Canadair CL-13B Mk 6s – finest dogfighter until F-16A and best Sabre model?
I suspect that would be absolute genocide when compared to the slaughter inflicted by F-86As.
thobbesYeah, but those are issues that could’ve been negotiated and dealt with in good faith. Many things are possible when all parties recognise a certain outcome as in their best interests and are willing to compromise to get there, as was once the case.
It was the War on Terra that screwed it all up. Inflamed xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe, and turned the Turkish public against the Americans and their Euro buddies waging war on Muslims. The well is poisoned on both sides now. Europe is drawing inward and Turkey has a new sense of and pride in itself and no longer sees Europe as a goal to aspire towards.
Turkish membership of EU was contested before War on Terror. In fact it started in the 1980s when the Turks first applied for membership.
Back then it was a poorly managed economy and issues with Greece and Cypress.
As for Islamic-Western relations, they too started to sour long before War on Terror with a whole heap of issues including 1979 Iranian Revolution, failure of Arab nationalism and subsequent strengthening of Arab funded Wahhabist fundamentalism, stationing of infidel troops in Saudi Arabia in 1991 and failure to achieve peace in Israel-Palestine.
Islamic relations with non-Muslims have been strained in places like India, Pakistan, Malaysia and elsewhere for a lot longer.
War on Terror was an unfortunate but almost inevitable outcome.
And Turkey is intimately entwined with the history and culture of Europe. The raw material is there to divide or unite according to one’s inclinations.
Unfortunately most of that history is one of invasion and occupation.
The other question is where do you stop with the EU?
I think it’s already too big. The bigger it is, the more bogged down it will get with everyone wanting their say in policy.
And whilst Turkey is growing now, it’s got a history of economic mismanagement and instability as do countries like Spain and Greece and all the small fry Eastern European economies. And look at the problems countries like Spain and Greece are causing the Euro now.
And as stated they’re all entitled to a say in the running of the Union.
They should’ve kept it a mainly Northern European entity.
Carriers and nukes … well, mostly carriers I guess. Nukes are rather more limited as tools of state, although obv. effective within their niche. Turkey already has American nukes anyway. :p
No reason Turkey couldn’t go on to build several such vessels. 3-4 LHDs with two F-35B squadrons between them?
Yet they’ll still have to rely on the smaller Dutch and German militaries to provide Air Defence.
Politics – the true game of lunacy.
thobbesThere are some tiny, little issues regarding Turkey’s adminssion into EU such as human rights violations and the fact that they’re a predominantly Muslim country.
Culture and religion still play a role even in civilised Western Europe.
I agree the carrier is the admission price of The Club of Countries Wot Matter.
Maybe they should do something smart like buy Patriot SAMs instead of relying on NATO to defend them against Syria’s mighty rust bucket squadrons.
thobbesOrder numbers go down, unit price goes up, increased chance of international partners delaying orders or jumping ship.
In many ways they’ve already done this:
-Australia – dual aircraft fleet accepted especially with conversion of 12 F/A-18F to E/A-18G. Delays on ordering 12 F-35s.
– Canada – procurement process to be rebooted:
– Italy – reduced from 131 a/c to 90 a/c and even that might be a stretch.
– Netherlands – procurement process being reviewed. Probably as low as 47 a/c to be acquired instead of 85 originally planned. At best 1 for 1 replacement of F-16 (about 60)
– Turkey – delays 2 a/c
– UK – currently only committed to 48 a/c. Additional requirement to be set out 2015
– Denmark – looking at options.
Theoretically one could restructure and cut the fat (e.g. F-16s) instead, but we all know that isn’t going to happen.
Isn’t the F-16 the current Wild Weasel SEAD a/c for USAF? And there’s only 200-odd F-15Es so no scope for additional role allocation. Still some of the fighter bomber ones could go.
I think the ANG is a good start for cutting:
– Closure of small bases.
– Greater usage of associate squadrons.
– Retire costly F-15C’s used for air policing – F-16C is good enough here.
– Implement planned cutbacks to A-10 fleet.
Of course Congress is opposed to any closure of cash cow military bases or even retirement of old aircraft and ships.
thobbesThe US gave up on this idea in the 1960s when most of MAP program was abandoned.
In the 1950s and 1960s the US provided thousands of jet fighters to NATO and allied airforces as well as subsidising production of foreign produced fighters such as Dassault Mystere.
These days the subsidised sales are politically motivated – Israel and Egypt come to mind..
I suspect the Kiwis would politely decline anyhow.
thobbesWhy would they want to have jets whose sole purpose is to fighter other people’s wars especially if it means gutting other roles such as peacekeeping in order to fund training, fuel, maintenance etc?
NZ military does a sterling job with peace keeping and stability missions in the Pacific and elsewhere. These are often missions the US could not care less about (e.g. Solomon Islands stabilisation).
Hence NZ already contributes more than enough.
thobbesThobbes
So when Iskander-fired submunitions are raining down on your deployed artillery batteries or hitting your defensive positions that isnt ‘battlefield artillery’?. Seems like it might be quite an academic difference to those on the receiving end?!.
Interdiction, interdiction.
Those artillery guys on the receiving end would not be able to directly coordinate with a fast mover to take out the Iskander now would they?
As stated CAS has a coordination with ground units role.
The hint was in the use of the word ‘legacy’. Also I’ve not suggested anything at all regarding attack helicopters as they are not within the scope of the thread.
When it comes to CAS, helicopters have replaced light jets in many instances.
The Mi-35 or AH-64D is a competitor to a CAS jet.
And given continuing sales of AH-64 as well as Tigre, Mi-35 and T-129, I would not lump attack helos in as a legacy system just yet.
Well we used to refer to something called ‘suppressive fire’ that could be laid down from the main gun. I’m assuming that putting shedloads of rounds on to the target would still have a similar effect today and that a) falling back a few hundred yards doesnt necessarily mean your force throwing its weapons aside and pelting off waving their hands in the air screaming for mummy and b) not every scenario will involve a force able to exploit the window of a couple of minutes while the tacair rolls in.
If you’re under heavy fire, pulling back might not be appropriate either.
It’s all very situational.
Go to Liveleak…search for ‘Igla’ and ‘FSA’. MANPADS proliferation has been with us since the 70’s. Difference is they are really bloody nasty now…there’s footage online of Igla’s blowing right past flares en route to blasting a fastjet target.
Yet the OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE has not proven anything.
MANPADs had better success rates against fast jets in the 1970s and 1980s then they have in the 1990-2010s.
Fine. I may be wrong but I believe that the RAF Typhoon force has released more PGM’s on ops than it has performed strafing runs. Might be worth checking up on…as that is the key point!
Regardless the gun is still viewed as useful by those in the know.
thobbes:p
OK so now we have the culprit for the ballooning costs of the F-35: swerve :rolleyes:
It is not just the need for raising profits that push aerospace firms around the world keep developing new and more modern aircraft.
No it’s profits. They don’t develop new aircraft cause they love planes. They see a market and develop a product to meet market needs. :p
Sorry just being cheeky.
You seem to assume that DC-3s, Spits or Mig-21s could do what Hercs, Tiffies or SU-35s do nowadays, just because the formers were doing well their job at their time.
To be honest it depends on the role.
The US State Department still uses DC-3s (reengined BT67s) because of excellent performance, ruggedness and inconspicuousness. I’m sure they could afford King Air 350s or other more modern aircraft, but the BT67 fills a niche.
If one needs to beat an enemy airforce, then of course a Su-30 or Eurofighter is better than a MiG-21 or an F-4 or even an F-16/F/A-18.
If one needs to just respond to maintain a presence and occassionally intercept wayward civilian aircraft then a MiG-21 is enough.
Also in some instances the designs are pretty much the pinnacle of their role – look at say the C-130 series or CH-47 or Boeing 737. The basic airframe is the pinnacle of their design and as such they’ve been produced for 4-5- decades (albeit upgraded).
thobbes…and equally Swerve there are times when you have a target compound in view at 500yds and have no issue calling down 1000lb class ordnance with friendlies pulled back to clear the splat zone.
Still like this concept of giving up ground in a conventional engagement.
You’re somehow assuming the bad guys are dumb enough to not spot the withdrawal and not advance forward.
Fighting insurgents is a lot different to fighting in a conventional slugfest against a large force.
Fine against insurgents who also have not really had SHORADS in recent years, so A-10 and AH-64 are fine.
Thobbes is trying to paint a picture that 80’s legacy CAS systems are still viable despite evidence to the contrary stretching back two decades or more. By picking out very specific tasks and ignoring inconvenient realities like the proliferation of murderous VSHORADS systems…something that will get worse and not better for the type obliged to fly through their lethal envelopes…he’s trying to interpret that picture to support an assertion that it just doesnt.
I think you’re overstating the lethality of air defences especially MANPADS as well as their proliferation.
Despite the fears of MANPADs being delivered to insurgents especially after Libya, we’ve not seen it happen – there’s been no recorded MANPAD launches in Mali, let alone the SA-24s that were meant to have been looted out of Gaddafhi’s arsenals.
In Libya aircraft kills were often to old fashioned AAA. In Syria it’s been the same as well as usage of older SA-7s but then used against older fashioned Su-22/L-39s/MiG-21/MiG-23 with limited self defence mechanisms.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, the biggest killers of helicopters were/are RPGs.
As for lethality…
During the actual invasion of Iraq in 2003 the AH-64 and A-10 operated well and with very few combat losses (only 1 A-10 to a Roland and 2 AH-64s ).
The Iraqis had considerable SHORADS ranging from AAA to SA-7/-9/-14/-16 to Roland.
The use of AH-64s in battlefield interdiction role proved to be fatally flawed though but then the AH-64 is a CAS machine and does not have the speed for interdiction.
Even so despite 30+ AH-64s flying into heavy flak at Kabala only only one was downed.
Most of the SHORAD systems in service today with potential opponents are older ones ala SA-7 and SA-16 whose capabilities are known and whose main threat is to helicopters.
The more modern ones have not been sold in an as many numbers or to as many operators.
In any case they’re still light weapons that can be deterred by flares and countermeasures.
Do you have to use a strafing A-10/Jag/Su-25 if your target is not suited to receiving an SDB….no of course not. There’s a whole suite of lighter PGM ordnance specifically developed to put effect on target with minimal collateral disruption – DMB, Viper Strike, LMM, Saber etc. It may even be, as noted, that a system like Jumper or a similar ground based capability may be more suited. The point was that the SDB configured F-15E is likely the optimum current CAS platform for the widest scope of engagement scenarios.
People have been discussing the end of gun armament on planes/helicopters since the 1950s. Yet guns persist and even the RAF ended up putting them on the Eurofighter Typhoon.
thobbesNZ scrapped it’s fast jet fleet because it has no use for it at all and figured the money spent on pointless combat jets could be better spent on health, education as well as military spending that’s more appropriate for NZ’s needs – OPVs, upgrade to P-3s, NH90s..
Why would they resurface a pointless fast jet capability?
It would mean scrapping some other more useful ability.
thobbes…but the SSM battery is in range of your troops?. How is engaging it, by the above definition, not CAS?.
So CAS is only CAS when the target is engaging your troops with direct fire?. Plainly nonsense…engaging a battery of 155mm SPH’s 40 miles off is CAS…but not a heavy SSM battery at 200 miles?.[/quote]
Elements of CAS:
1. Enemy directly engaged in a firefight with your own guys on front line.
2. There is close coordination with ground troops directly engaged in combat.
Elements of interdiction:
1. Destroy or disrupt enemy units before they reach the combat area or negating an ability to prevent future use.
The Iskander is not battlefield artillery. It’s a TBM that is used for interdiction (i.e striking assembly areas, artillery parks, .
Destroying the Iskander is interdiction (i.e. depriving the enemy of an ability that can be used against your troops before it is used).
Like I said…debating this is inviting madness…I’ve tried it several times with many different people and never gotten a satisfactory resolution to it…
Only in your mind.
The paradigm today, and going forward, is to sit above the envelope, peer in with uber-optronics and play whack-a-mole with a merry collection of pgms. Its not as ‘Biggles’ as 400knt strafing runs on Toyota’s but its a damnsight safer.
Then why the hell are they still using AH-64s, AH-1s and A-10s as well as low level passes?
CAS is dangerous and always has been. Given proximity of ground troops, you can’t always lob PGMs.
Of course as you have no understanding as to what CAS is, the discussion is indeed pointless.
thobbesI think those Tornados were confirmed as being shot down by SAMs/AA.
The only Iraqi A2A kill in 1991 was an F/A-18 Hornet by a MiG-25.
Tornado losses:
RAF
1 to premature bomb explosion
3 SAM
2 AAA
Also 1 on take off landing when it suffered a malfunction
Saudi Air Force
20/01/1991 – 765 – fuel starvation
Italian AF:
16-18/01/1991 – AAA
thobbesI’m always amazed how many Westerners are oblivious to the Soviet contribution.
Most of the Wehrmacht was deployed on the Eastern Front.
The big American contribution was lend lease which enabled the Soviets to fight more effectively.
The war in Europe was won by US industrial might and Soviet blood.
So it’s not “if the Americans were too scared to fight, you’d be talking German now.”
The correct answer is : “If the Germans weren’t stupid and attacked the USSR, you’d be talking German now.”
thobbesOK. I’m glad someone out there thinks this is simple…for me its absurd. In your terminology though you have a bridge 200 miles away…if the A-10 attacks an Iskander battery sat on that bridge its CAS but if it attacks the bridge its BAI and if the bridge is 300 or 400 miles distant it becomes, somewhere at an arbitrary point, interdiction/strike?!. Lunacy!.
Attacking an Iskander battery on a bridge is not CAS. It’s interdiction.
CAS involves direct support of ground troops.
If there was a T-72 on the bridge and that T-72 was firing on your guys, that would be CAS.
Interdiction differs from strategic strike though sometimes it’s blurry.
Often easier for troops to fall back a few hundred yards or go to ground to allow an airstrike in than it is to fully suppress a SHORADS environment!
Falling back a few hundred yards could result in giving the initiative to the enemy.
In conventional fighting against a conventional opponent, a few hundred yards is critical in a company or battalion level engagement.
In urban warfare, it’s a massive thing to give up a “few hundred yards” especially if you’ve spent the last few days in brutal house to house fighting to get there.
Urban fighting has shown to be common in late 20th and early 21st centuries – Balkans, Libya, Syria, Chechnya, Georgia. In all instances air support was used.
Warfare is still a game of position and maneouvre. Even civil wars such as Syria emphasise this as the opponents are often evenly matched especially in dense terrain where heavy equipment is not as easy to gain maximum efficacy.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are counter-insurgencies and in reality a form of police action.
If the bad guys have enough SHORADs to make life difficult for AH-64s or A-10s, then we can assume a more conventional battle and not a police/counter insurgency action. Hence position and maneouvre become more critical.
True that they are coming from widely disparate positions but I’m not sure the requirement is all that different. Both are after a strikefighter – Indonesia having a primary air superiority type in the form of the Sukhois and the Phillipines, as you say, starting from scratch. In context of the thread we see that neither are interested in a subsonic, austere, manned light striker.
Indonesia is after multi-role with an emphasis on airdefence – a single squadron of Su-27/30 is inadequate. Hence the plan for a total of 34 F-16s.
The Phillippines is looking at rebuilding an air defence capability because of issues with China.
In either case a light strike aircraft is not necessary. However the Indonesians still maintain the “subsonic, auster, manned light striker” Hawk 100/200 as their currently most numerous combat jet and will continue to do so in the future (though it will be in similar numbers to F-16s).
I suspect the goal is to replace them with KF-X. However given Indonesia’s past procurement history, that’s anybody’s guess.
Sign In
