at its peak a majority of SU’s population was on the Asian side (west of the Urals). You are confusing it for Russia where the majority of the population is on the European side. SU included more than just Russia.
secondly people aside, both SU and Russia, majority of the key resources and military industries that give SU and Russia its power are on the Asian side. (look at where the oil is, the aircraft factories, etc).
Finally Slavic people means nothing these days. its just a language group. Serbians and Russians are both Slavs and look nothing alike despite calling each other brothers. Ukrainians are more closely related to Russians than Serbian yet they hate each other.
Finally Russians are unique within Slavic speakers because many contain strong Mongol and Tatar admixture, hence their unique features.
As we speak Putin is playing cupcake a Tatar gymnast, their child will be the next Russo-Tatar leader of the Federation.

Prior to 1941, most of SU’s industrial strength was in Europe. Hitler’s invasion saw a massive shift and one that was maintained post WWII for purposes of strategic depth.

As for Serbs and Russians looking nothing alike, meh that depends. Serbs look more like Russians than Croats from the coast (more Southern European like yours truly) look like Croats from the hinterland (Slavic). They’re all still Croats though.

Russians are Europeans by definition. Otherwise Hungarians, Albanians, Bulgars and most Southern Slavs (e.g. Croats, Bosnians and Serbs) aren’t Europeans either as they’ve had considerable “mingling” with Turks and other Asiatic races.

Indeed the original Hungarians (Magyars) and Bulgarians (Bulgars) are Asiatic peoples as well.

As for not getting along, Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims speak the same language and all hate each other to the point where every now and then they commit genocide on each other. Hence the fact the Ukranians and Russians don’t get along is irrelevant.

the Japanese may have lost the overall battle, but in terms of equipment and personnel damage.. the Japanese and their Manchurian/Chinese slaves destroyed way more planes and tanks than the Soviets-Mongols did.

Destroying equipment/units is irrelevant. It’s winning wars that matters.

After all Germans destroyed a helluva lot more Soviet gear and units than anyone else, but in the end it was the Soviets that were wondering through Berlin.

Also Japanese deployed a measly two tank regiments to Khalkin Gol and lost most of them.

They destroyed the numerically superior Russian military in past wars too.

[/quote]

In 1904-05 as well as some minor skirmishing in 1930s. When the crunch came in 1939 and 1945 the Soviets annihilated the Japanese.

Japanese performance against the Allies also left something to be desired. The Japanese military lacked flexibility and lower level initiative. It lacked the ability to learn.

They were tenacious but that’s it.

Hence such idiotic events as Alligator Creek at Guadalcanal where the Japanese fed a regiment straight into USMC machine guns, because such tactics worked against poorer trained Chinese troops.

The Japanese “lesson” from this kind of thing was that it was clear the US was using hardened criminals in it’s Marine Corp.

There were exceptions of course, but overall the Imperial Japanese forces were run along very poor models.

The German SS proved far better, fanatical troops. Indoctrinated to the same extremities as the Japanese were but with superb military learning, flexibility, innovation and tactical development.

The Fallschirmjager (including its Panzer units*) were a similar example (the Luftwaffe was a highly politicsed organisation).

*Yep the Luftwaffe ran a Panzer Korps during the war. Herman Goering Panzer Division mainly served in Tunisia and Italy before being shifted out to Eastern Front and then expanded to a 2 division Corp.

South Korea is not going to wage a war over a corvette, they have more to lose than N.Korea in a war.

Actually the the point was a thing called “readiness” If South Korean military is so well prepared for war against North Korea, why were its antisubmarine defences down?

Does this mean key air defence systems are also at poor state of readiness? Or key ground forces?

The Chinese mostly fought other Asian countries in recent history, the one time they fought a non Asian power, Soviet Union (actually SU is more of an Asian power than European really..but for the sake of this thread).. they did quite poorly as the Soviets spanked them around the river

China has not fought a war since 1979. The modern PLA is a completely untested force.

The PLA that fought in the 1960s and in 1979 was based on obsolete Soviet models.

That number continues to drop as the project matures.

According to the source (which was quoted here), 25% more was the most likely estimate. Obviously there are other estimates predicting huge blow outs or underspends – again DoD boffins stated there were many different ways to calculate the costs.

Plus, the fact they will operate fewer far more capable aircraft.

Fewer is bad. I don’t understand why people think fewer aircraft is better just because they are more capable.

As stated many times, you need a lot of resources to maintain an operational deployment. You need to maintain training, home defence, reserve aircraft, maintenance requirements etc etc.

And you will lose jets over the years – they do crash every now and then.

Oh and 50 planes can be in a lot more places than 35.

I’d rather replace 50 F-16s with 100 F-35s or even 50 F-35s, rather than replace 50 F-16s with 35 F-35s.

Basically reduction in numbers is bad even if the replacement jet is superior.

No, what about the best minds of the respective JSF Partner Nations. They also agree and support the F-35 Program. Unless, you believe they’re all idiots or have been bought off by the US Government and Lockheed Martin. Which, is hardly even plausible………..

As stated it’s all about requirements. F-35 fits the requirements of USA and those operators really well.

However it’s clear that some countries have to sacrifice other key services to get F-35s. This is called conflicting requirements

And then you have to figure out what you really need, what you can compromise on and what you can scrap.

Defence is MORE than just fighter planes

You didn’t answer the question………

What question – F-16 Blk 50 is cheaper and that’s proven.

What again predicting the future????

In Scooterland we prepare for deterring Martian invasions.

Sure and those in High Political and Military Leadership Positions. Believe the F-35 is the best solution……..

Except the French, German, Czech, Hungarian, Saudi, UAE, Indian, blah blah blah.

Who said they can’t???

What’s your point. They chose not to.

That’s more important. As stated Europeans can pick and chose their wars and their involvement in them. They’ve done that since 1991.

Last time a continental European country was forced to go to war was 1940-45.

Sure but with time and resources that will change….Wasn’t that many years ago that Poland was flying Russian Aircraft. Now they have Brand New F-16 BLK 50’s!:dev2:

As stated a million times, Poland is an exception. The other Eastern Europeans have disarmed and are continuing to do so. Belgium, Netherlands and Portugal are all slashing their F-16 fleets.

In Scooterland, every Albanian will be driving an F-35 by 2030.

Back to predicting the future again!

What predicting future?

It’s already happening. Slovakia has 12 MiG-29, Austria has 15 Eurofighter, Hungary has 14 JAS-39C/D, Croatia has 12 MiG-21. Romania is scheduled to go to 12 F-16A/B in 2017. Serbia will go to 12-16 MiG-29.

Czech Republic actually debated as to whether thet should keep their 14 Gripens.

Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, Baltic 3, Slovenia etc etc don’t have any fighter planes and generally don’t intend to buy any. In some cases they’ve retired jets they had.

Some may send a few, other none, and some many. Of course that depends on the conflict and threat.

Which is what I’ve been saying all along. :rolleyes:.

Nonetheless, in most cases even a small country could send 6-12 F-35’s.

Not if your operating 12-24 aircraft as your whole fleet – which is what Denmark might come down to. And deploying 6 jets out of 36 for a prolonged period of time is difficult.

Not only is there a limited number of jets but also a limited number of air crew, maintainers, armourers etc. Regular rotation becomes difficult under such circumstances.

Very often a small NATO deployment of 6 jets might require resources of several squadrons to maintain capability.

You said they will only bomb 3rd World Countries and Errant Airliners! Sorry, you can’t have it both ways!

What does this even mean?

Many small European countries need to buy F35 to offset the failure of France and Germany to produce a 5th generation fighter from a European collective military perspective. Let Germany and France provide heavy armor and primary air defense fighters while others provide the primary 5th generation strike aircraft and more infantry centered units.

So the smaller European countries with extremely small defence budgets have to gut their far more useful ground and naval forces, so they can subsidise France and Germany in case of WWIII? :stupid:

There is no reason that a small country that will only ever take military action as part of a coalition to always think small in its weapons purchases.

If you buy only 1-2 squadrons of F-35s, your ability to contribute is poor. At best you have no sustainability and at worst you have no expeditionary capability (e.g. Czech, Hungarian, Slovak airforces).

And what about the lost ground units, lost naval assets?

Yet, you don’t base you defense on the lowest threat

By your definition, Belgium and Netherlands should be still operating 200-300 combat jets a piece and have several armoured divisions sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Britain should still operate numerous carriers as it did post WWII and maintain it’s vast colonies (which provided a huge pool of manpower, especially Indai). JUST IN CASE!

You base your defence on realistic threats which in near to medium term future for Europeans is basically terrorists, piracy and unstable yet often militarily weak regimes in Middle East and Africa, threatening European commercial interests.

For this kind of thing, JAS-39 or F-16 Blk 50 is enough. 4th generation jets have in fact proven to be absolute overkill over these kind of opponents.

If you have to gut your military to be able to afford a small number of F-35s, then that’s the wrong thing to do.

50 JAS-39 + Navy support ship + 1-2 infantry batallions is far better than 36 or less F-35s.

………..I think they tried that once. It was called WWII.

Actually if you read about WWII, you’ll see that all parties were investing heavily in new equipment, new units and increasing readiness from the mid-1930s.

Also even if Belgium or the Dutch had operated a squadron or two of F-22s in 1940, it would not have stopped the Wehrmacht from smashing them with relative ease. After all what good is an F-22 when it hasn’t got an airfield to land on.

Remember also in WWII in the early days the Germans did extremely well with often inferior equipment – e.g .the most numerous German tanks in 1940 (Panzer I and II) were usually undergunned and underarmoured compared to French or British tanks (Matilda was a brute and the cruisers had the superior 2 pounder which was far better than German machine guns and 2cm guns).

But the Germans prevailed through better strategy, better tactics and a better grasp of modern warfare.

War is a lot more than toys.