Delaying operations for equipment to become operational is not necessarily a good thing.

E.g. Hitler delayed Citadelle so Wehrmacht could receive Panther tanks. It did not work out well for the Germans as Soviets had time to prepare defences and rebuild units damaged in Mannheim’s Backhand Blow and other operations.

In fact Germany did very well when it’s main equipment was training tanks (Panzer I and II). Waiting for Panzer III and IV to come online in prescribed numbers would’ve just meant that the French and British had also rearmed.

You want to strike while the iron is hot – I think Saddam’s timing was ok as Iran was in chaos. It was the execution that was the problem.

And much like Hitler, Saddam underestimated Iranian resolve.

Wars are not about superiority of equipment. They’re more about strategic initiative, good strategy, good tactics, access to resources and logistics.

The most important thing about equipment is the personnel that use them and the logistics that sustain them (again T-34/Sherman v Panther/Tiger analogy is good here).

Therefore having MiG-25s operational even in 1979 would not have made a lick of difference. Delaying war to 1982 so MiG-25 would be in service would result in loss of strategic initiative as Iran would’ve reorganised by then.

The Australians have had all manner of issues with them.

Eurocopter’s even thrown in a free MRH-90 as compensation for late delivery, major problems with navigation systems, problems with engines (faulres due to overheating), windscreen cracking, as well as the floor issues,

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ongoing-problems-hit-defences-2-billion-mrh-90-choppers/story-e6frea6u-1226203021391

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2012/10/26/368659_defence.html

And from Wiki

In November 2011, the MRH-90 program was placed on the Australian Department of Defence’s list of “Projects of Concern”.[60] As of January 2012[update], it remains on the list with the 15 MRH-90s that have been delivered, cleared only for testing and initial training. The most serious problem identified by a diagnostic review and also the cause of the mid-2010 groundings,[61] is compressor blade rubbing caused by the bending of a spool in the Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322 engine due to uneven cooling after shutdown. Other problems identified include:[62] failure of transmission oil cooler fans; windscreen cracking; an inertial navigation system that takes too long to align; and the weakness of the cabin floor to withstand the impacts of soldiers’ boots

Australia should’ve gone for UH-60M/S.

A bunch of armed helicopters would let her patrol quite a nice area (with both ASW and ASuW armaments), and she has saying power (endurance) smaller ships may not have. The ability to air assault troops onto small contested islands should also not be undervalued.

In short, it’s not about fighterplanes.

Maybe they should look at new frigates etc in the first place.

Current Navy’s main “frigates” are 2 Hamilton class Coast Guard Cutters with ASW or Air Defence capability.

A third “frigate” is a 1943 vintage Cannon class Destroyer Escort, also without ASW, AD etc.

Then there’s 11 “corvettes”:

– 3 are ex-Peacock class patrol boats used in Hong Kong – no ASuW, ASW or AD.
– 8 are 1940’s ex-USN minesweeper – again no ASuW, ASW or AD.

So you have a fleet of mainly WWII-era “corvettes” (really minesweepers) and customs boats (“frigates”/”corvettes”) with at best limited military capability.

Tell me again how an aircraft carrier is useful in this force.

And again, Philippines does not even maintain a rudimentary fighter fleets -there’s a few S211 light jet trainers and some OV-10 Broncos and that’s it (see if order for T/A-50 eventuates).

It all reeks of typical third world prestige programs, which any sane person would call stupidity.

I think the old saying “learn to walk before you learn to run” is appropriate.

The ability to air assault troops onto small contested islands should also not be undervalued.

Provided:

a.) They have any airworthy Hueys to fly of her.
b.) Even primitive air defences ala SA-7 MANPADS or 12.7mm guns don’t shoot down the Hueys as the Philippines Navy and Air Force lack the resources to suppress even this level of mediocre air defence.

All assuming:

c.) Enemy submarines/aircraft haven’t sunk the carrier in the first place. Remember there is no CBG and there is no air cover in this scenario as Philippines doesn’t have any of these nor are they looking at acquiring it.

By the way this assumes:

d.) The ship is seaworthy in the first place. Not a guarantee given Philippine attitude to defence (they talk big but never put their money where their mouth is – e.g. there’s been virtually no progress since first modernisation program announced in 1995).

With our current government, stupidity is the name of the game and the 2013 Defence budget has actually been one of their less stupid policies. Unfortunately the opposition with Tony “Budgie Smuggler” Abbot and that thug Joe Hockey is not much better.

I’m really stumped as to who to vote for in September. It’s truly a case of dumb an dumber (if only Howard let Costello take the reigns over back in 2006-07).

Indian A2A losses in 1965 were all Western aircraft – Hunters, Ouragans, Mysteres, Vampires, Gnats and Canberras.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_324.shtml

MiG-29s are scheduled to serve into 2020s. Poles still get usage out of them.

As for Polish AF needs, given they’re history they’re probably keen to maintain more than just an airpolicing components.

Swerve,

I can see the rationale of piggy backing the Eurofighter fleet off the Germans. Joint Force Eurofighter so to speak!

If F-35 running costs are comparable to Eurofighter, then Eurofighter makes sense for most Northern European NATO AFs as Eurofighter is the mainstay in Germany and UK.

For Southern Europe, F-16 is probably best choice due to lower running costs. JAS-39 removes synergies with USA in terms of logisitcs and economies of scale.