dark light

thobbes

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 2,012 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Kinetic performance comparison Mig21F 1959 model vs F35 #2230376
    thobbes
    Participant

    Though I’m sure someone thought MiG-17 v F-105/F-4 was also an apples and oranges comparison as well. :very_drunk:

    in reply to: Potential Syrian War – no fighter involvement? #2230379
    thobbes
    Participant

    Frankly when I read that:

    I wonder what hve gone in the mind of Cenciotti .

    Failing to understand that with 200+ C17 and ~100 C5, the USAF managed that way to only rely to 1/6th of its transport fleet to support the forward deployment of its entire fleet of next gen air dominance assets in a discrete manner, is a fail.

    But giving the overall quality of his website, I guess this is perhaps a single unlucky occurrence.

    I think the Aviationist is pretty poor – lots of fluff and pictures but not much information.

    must be noticed that, even if such kind of deployment could be completed fairly easily, quickly and possibly in a stealthy manner, it involves just two pairs of Raptors, a ridiculous amount even for a small scale operation.

    In real life, it means 1 pair operational at any one time, especially given F-22’s poor-ish availability rates (sure AF claimed 80% but GAO showed only 55%).

    Even with 80% availability, it still means only 1 pair available with 1 jet as spare and 1 out of action on average.

    I’m also not sure what this “base switching” is meant to do. Not all bases are the same in terms of range from target area of operations.

    And in 2013 full fledged airbases are a rare occurrence with many now turned into housing estates!

    in reply to: Potential Syrian War – no fighter involvement? #2230381
    thobbes
    Participant

    The interesting thing about the whole Syria thing is that it was a major diplomatic coup for Russia:

    1. USA found itself isolated, even by it’s own traditional partners,
    2. UNSC follows Russian preferences and goals and not Americans.

    in reply to: USAF could scrap KC-10, F-15C, and A-10??? #2230383
    thobbes
    Participant

    Slashing F-15 C/D is better than slashing F-16. F-16 should be kept as they are multirole and cheap to operate.

    I agree.

    That’s still saving 9 combat squadrons, 1 aggressor squadrons, 6 airbases as well as the TES units.

    PACAF would lose two high end units though. To offset I’d redeploy the two USAFE F-15E squadrons to Japan.

    in reply to: IRIAF 2020? #2230387
    thobbes
    Participant

    I think the key is that Iran has to reemphasis it’s conventional defence forces again, as opposed to whatever it spends money on (nuclear, missiles etc).

    To be honest I can see rebuilding Iranian conventional capability to balance things in the Gulf – the Persian Gulf states are awash with cash and starting to look further afield (e.g. Libya and Syria). In both instances their interventions have been as destructive and disruptive as any US ones (e.g. funnelling foreign Al Qaeda based militants into the mix).

    Resurgent conventional Iran would help temper this by refocusing Gulf States back to homeland defence.

    I don’t see the Russians coming to the rearmament party though due to potential problems it could cause the Russians in the Caspian.

    The Chinese and European losers of Gulf procurements on the other hand probably would chip in if the dollars were there.

    in reply to: Tally of A2A kills since 2000 #2230390
    thobbes
    Participant

    What meat? An ancient article in ACIG that nothing has since come of? This is nonsical.

    As meaty as most other claims posted above and indeed as most other A2 kills recorded in human history.

    in reply to: Tally of A2A kills since 2000 #2230393
    thobbes
    Participant

    A USAF F-16 killed an Iranian drone over Iraq:

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/16/iran.iraq/

    Thanks – have updated.

    in reply to: What if De Gaulle and Pompidou never had an embargo on Israel? #2230397
    thobbes
    Participant

    Not necessarily. A lack of a French embargo does not prevent Israel buying American equipment, or from receiving US aid. The USA did not leap in with masses of military shipments in 1967. It provided limited quantities to start with (much of it paid for with loans), e.g. 24 F-4 in 1969, & vast quantities starting in 1973. See table.

    Note that the massive grant in 1974 includes accounting for the shipments straight from USAF & US army stocks in October 1973. The increase in grants from 1985 includes turning loan repayments into grants.

    That table is amazing piece of data. Imagine the IDF without those loans and grants.

    Mind you didn’t the Americans benefit out of it as well – from memory , didn’t the Lockheed plant at Fort Worth, Texas survive on US funded F-16s for Israel, because US orders had dried up?

    in reply to: What if De Gaulle and Pompidou never had an embargo on Israel? #2230403
    thobbes
    Participant

    Operation Nickel Grass was an US response of a Soviet resupply of the Arabs. That airlift was forced by the distance at first. A sea-lift from the USA was a matter of weeks and one from France a matter of days. In the hindsight it did not change the political outcome of that war. As Sadat claimed the results from the first week of fighting was enough for the Arabs to restore the military pride lost in 1967. In 1973 Israel had no nuclear option, because it was not under a realistic military threat, whatever was claimed to rise the fighting spirit of the own forces.

    My point was that I don’t think the French could’ve sustained it to the level the Americans did – far less materiel and far less logistical capability.

    The French could not have plundered whole units worth of French materiel without damaging French military capability.

    On the other hand the Americans coud do it and they had the logistical capability to do it quickly (e.g. C-5s and C-141s).

    in reply to: Tally of A2A kills since 2000 #2231696
    thobbes
    Participant

    Thanks QuantumFX.

    This is excellent stuff!

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2231698
    thobbes
    Participant

    The US Department of Defense’s decision to relax the sustained turn performance of all three variants of the F-35
    was revealed earlier this month in the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 2012 report.
    Turn performance for the US Air Force’s F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g’s to 4.6 sustained g’s.
    The F-35B had its sustained g’s cut from five to 4.5 g’s, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated
    from 5.1 to five sustained g’s.

    I get the feeling that the DoD knows that A2A is as rare as hens teeth and probably will continue to do so in the future.

    It’s also why they gutted F-22 numbers.

    A2A capability means little when your opponent’s pathetic mainly 1970s vintage fighter fleet with dubious airworthiness is blasted on the tarmac.

    And stealth jets are a great way of blasting them without opfor even knowing it’s happening until their museum pieces have been turned to pikes of charred metal.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2231703
    thobbes
    Participant

    I’d like it if when people disputed something, they put up a source or data or whatever supporting why they dispute it.

    I don’t trust APA figures either by the way.

    in reply to: Tally of A2A kills since 2000 #2231713
    thobbes
    Participant

    Checked ACIG and have added MiG-21 kills – though ACIG does consider them claims, I’ll bite.

    I’ll keep Israeli-Syrian kills as there appears to be enough meat to the story.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2231760
    thobbes
    Participant

    F-22 really does introduce a whole new level of brutality in A2A field doesn’t it?

    It’ll be interesting to see Pak Fa numbers.

    in reply to: USAF could scrap KC-10, F-15C, and A-10??? #2231761
    thobbes
    Participant

    Well one think tank is advocating sending all F-16s to ANG/Res and reducing active tactical fleet by half to only about 500 aircraft (basically F-15E, F-22 and A-10).

    Ths would seem to imply following fleet structure:

    184 F-22A
    221 F-15E
    100 A-10C

    Only problem here is it’s counter to the Asian pivot strategy as it would slash PACAF fleet by two-thirds (down to a mere 3 squadrons F-22, 1 A-10).

    And if you shifted active F-15E/more A-10s to PACAF to maintain squadron numbers you’d only have 240 active aircraft for ACC/USAFE.

    There’s also a recent RAND study whose underlying message slash F-16 units in USAFE (biggest savings).

    Personally I’d slash all USAFE fighter squadrons and make assignments rotational.

    That would mean:

    Lose 2 F-15E units in UK – use aircraft to replace F-15C/F-16/A-10 units in USA/PACAF.
    Lose 1 F-15C/D unit in UK – retire aircraft
    Lose 2 F-16C/D unit in Italy – use aircraft to replace A-10/F-15C units in USA/PACAF
    Lose 1 F-16C/D unit in Germany – use aircraft to replace A-10/F-15C units in USA/PACAF

    In fact I think the German F-16 unit will be next to go anyway as USAF doesn’t usually operate single squadron wings overseas and the German wing lost it’s A-10 squadron this year.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 2,012 total)