The US probably wouldn’t have released F-15 just like they didn’t release F-15 to Egypt.

Or the aircraft would’ve been degraded “monkey model” versions like Saudi F-15S.

USAF is quietly shrinking it’s F-16 fleet on a continual basis. The numbers reductions don’t get much press because most of the squadrons aren’t being disbanded but rather converted to other roles – transport, air refuelling, UAV etc. Most of these conversions have been in ANG.

From memory about 200+ F-16s are slated for retirement in recent years.

The main active user of F-16 is actually Air Education and Training Command – 8 squadrons though a couple are foreign.

Air Combat Command has a mere 125 combat coded F-16s in 5 squadrons.

USAFE has 75 in 3 squadrons. – And I’ll bet that’ll be reduced to 2 squadrons assigned to 31 FW as 52nd FW is down to 1 squadron only and USAFE is a easy target for cutbacks.

PACAF has 125 in 5 squadrons.

So total of 300-ish combat coded active F-16s in active service.

All other combat coded F-16s are in Air Force reserve (3 squadrons but 1 may be associate (466th)) and ANG (15 combat squadrons, i.e. not training) and some of these have been slated for conversion to other roles (e.g. recent conversion of 124 FS to UAV ops). There’s also 3-4 ANG/AFRes training squadrons.

Note not all ANG/AFRes squadrons are assigned 24-25 aircraft – many are only 15-18 aircraft.

The F-4 was the super fighter of the 60s and from 1969 the Israelis never looked back and always to the best from the USA.

US military aid helps though. Israel wouldn’t be able to afford most of it’s military without US aid. Between 2000 and 2007 Israel received about $19.5 billion in US military aid. Military aid in 2012 was $3 billion (20% of Israel’s defence budget).

Also in a 1973 like situation, I don’t think the French could’ve pulled off an Operation Nickel Grass style resupply.

Such vast amounts of North Korean Artillery would be extremely vulnerable to attacks from the air and almost impossible to conceal. So, the North has it share of things to worry about like the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (70 MLRS) that is operate in large numbers by both the South Korean and US Army’s.

Of course that doesn’t even touch on Apache Attack Helicopters, MBT’s, or F-15/F-16’s. Nor, USN Surface/Carrier Battle Groups.

Except the North Koreans have spent 60 years creating dug in emplacements, bunkers, underground tunnels and concealments and decoys. And not to mention that we’re talking about 13,000 guns of all calibre.

And defended by a vast array of ATGMs, SAMS, AAA, infantry, tanks etc. Even if all these are neutralised, the time taken to neutralise them would still not be enough to neutralise 13,000 guns as well as numerous TBM launchers.

MBTs have to breakthrough the lines to be able to engage artillery (artillery is kept behind the front line and used in an indirect bombardment role – it’s not 1812 anymore) at best of times.

But the terrain is mountainous which means crap tank territory and makes MANPADS easier to hide to take out helos and difficult for attacking infantry (read any infantry account from 1950-53).

As stated if every single gun in DMZ only gets 1 shot, the destruction is massive.

In fact estimates range for 30 minutes to under 2 hours for North Korea’s artillery to heavily damage Seoul. And no amount of US/South Korean firepower can neutralise 13,000 guns in that short period of time.

Oh and tac nukes/chemical/biological weapons are out because of proximity to major South Korean urban centres (though North Koreans might not have same reluctance).

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/weapons/north-korea-conflict-weapons-available

Bare in mind only a proportion of the 13,000 systems can hit Seoul.

However it’s still big damage to a nation’s capital and is even worse if North Koreans load up Chemical/Biological weapons – this is the Hermit Kingdom we’re talking about.

http://blog.keia.org/2013/02/north-koreas-conventional-weapons-threat/

… a typical nonsense claim. The intel people have a very sound idea about that. .

Personally I’m not sold on the intel guys given how often they miss the boat – e.g. 9-11, India-Pakistan nuclear tests, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, 1973 Yom Kippur.

I remember reading in an old World Air Power Journal about West’s first impressions of MiG-29s. Western intel had missed a few things such as HMS. And as we know from Luftwaffe experience with MiG-29, Western intel also overestimated BVR capability.

The great example was that of German intelligence completely missing T-34 and KV-1/-2 tanks which caused them a nasty surprise in 1941!

Then there is the recent claim of an Iranian Russian built EW system take down an RQ-170. We don’t know what the truth is.

But again it could be the intel guys missed something and the Russian system (or something else entirely) can hack the RQ-170s system.

The other things are tactics which mere technical data can’t tell you anything about but which are critical to a system’s success.

This is why systems falling into enemy hands are critical – they give a very accurate picture of what a system does as opposed to some intel guy making some assumptions based on electronic signals and occassional bits of hacked data.

And combat data is especially effective as you get to witness the tactics used for those systems and develop counters.

This isn’t just a critique on Western intel but all intelligence services – they basically guesstimate.

I tend to agree. But with regard to the M60 – how many exports were paid for, rather than gifts?

To be honest, it’s a good marketing ploy to suck people into your product – militaries are driven by logistics and freebie American gifts drive you towards American logistics.

Btw, IAI starting to sell Kfir “60” with AESA radar, datalink etc. I’m not joking!

Saw that myself.

Upgraded Kfir is fine for a whole heap of airforces. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone bites.

It’d be funny if technically 3rd generation Kfir started outselling 4.5th gen Gripen and Rafale!

You’re not reading what I’m writing. I didn’t say that an F-16, or whatever, can do everything alone, all the time. I said ‘above turboprop level’. Modern fighters can operate with impunity (probably without even being challenged: the enemy is unlikely to be suicidal) against an enemy who has aircraft which an A-10 could not survive against alone, & would need escorts.

But as stated a CAS tasked F-16/-18/etc would require escort for all the above reasons I mentioned before.

You take account of specific circumstances. If your enemy is close to your own level, then you’re going to need to dedicate considerable resources to fighting him in the air. But realistically, how often will that be true for the USAF? The Cold War finished over 20 years ago.

I’ve been saying this for years.

The A-10’s capabilities have proven more valuable than F-15/-16/-18 A2A capability.

In fact the number of aircraft downed by F-15/-16/-18/-22 since 2000 is 0.

Meanwhile CAS is all the rage!

Not saying that CAS should be your only capability.

And CAS that’s as time-critical as your case should be dealt with by a cab rank, not aircraft launched specifically for the task (thus dooming them to be late). Your cab rank aircraft would be available for whatever task comes up, if they’re multi-role, but only for CAS, if they’re A-10s.

I’m not sold on cab rank jets equipped for any role.

I mean you’ve got an F-16/-18/-35 equipped with some A2G munitions, some A2A weapons, some ARMs as well as fuel tanks (cab rank is an endurance thing). Hardly great loadout for A2A combat and suboptimal for other roles – remember we’re talking CAS in a conventional high intensity environment. 2 JDAMS isn’t going to stop a T-80 column.

So the cab ranked F-16/-18/-35 would probably still be assigned a specific role with load out to match. A2G dedicated birds get some AIM-120s for self protection.

BTW, where did IADS come into this? You suggest it as a reason for a multi-role aircraft failing in a mission, & therefore being inferior to an A-10/air-air fighter combination. Are you saying that an A-10 is immune from an IADS? Or that air-air fighter escorts could engage it?

Not saying any of the above.

I was saying that sending a single jet to do the job of at least 2 and possibly more is not a good tactical solution even when that 1 jet is a jack of all trades multirole aircraft.