ACCIPITERThat’s for sure 😉
Ours Typhoons are designed for Air-Air and will have no fear of the multirole Rafale.
But, that doesn’t mean that Lybia with Rafale is not a threat or a problem more for AMI.
How could them be a problem for our Typhoons?
Why Libia should put a Rafale near our shores, assuming it could make a trip like that and come back.
The last time a Lybian Mig 23 made a flight like that it took off from Grosseto…….:D
ACCIPITERHackett’s Third World War was a novel. Italians are not, and were not, regarded by anyone as second rate fighters…when motivated, equipped and led well. UK was very pleased, first to have them onside WW1, and then that the casus belli was seen, 1940-43, as unconvincing by many It. soldiers.
In Cold War times Italy was close to the action: Tito/Yugoslavia was on the edge of Trieste, occupied Fiume and sat strong on the Adriatic. Togliatti’s PCI came very close to winning 1948 Election – he had been Justice Minister! – yet Italy was a founder member of NATO, 1949. Much effort was spent by USSR to undermine the running-dog notion that Italy’s best interests lay with monopoly capitalism. Moscow’s belief was that some countries would see the light and join their Empire without set-piece military operations. Albania did (then moved to Sino orbit), odd Africans did, in and out. Portugal came close. Italy did not, because (I as a Brit friend feel) voters could support PCI (protesting Christian Democrat/Church/in-crowd influence) and fight if necessary for sovereign dignity.
As for the future, and why should you continue to spend, you face the Balkans, Mahgreb, Danube Basin -“close to the action” historically, invasion routes not only for your neighbours but by more distant enemies with maps. Your elected Leaders must judge if that is to consume 1%, or 2% or 3% of your wealth.
thanks for Your answer, I relly appreciate it.
ACCIPITERAre you sure? Rivolto was nevere used as homebase of AMX.
It’s the homebase of PAN if you have seen 3 amx on rivolto they were here only as fwd deploy.
On the other hand i agree that the budget of italian air force is really low (but this year it will be a small increase) but it’s not an unarmed forced.
For example in 1999 we dropped more than 2000 bombs/missile on kosovo.
I am sure, the 2 stormo moved from Treviso Sant Angelo to Rivolto with 14th squadron based on AMX in the 90′ and remained there until the 14th was disbanded.
ACCIPITERCiao guys, and whot abaut mai inglish?
ACCIPITERAnd you expect that ‘plan’ to materialize with Italy’s current budgetary situation and economic and demographic prospects?
In the best case there will bee funds for a three airforce sqdn and a navy one; anyway that is not the main problem, because the biggest problem is the low availability of aircraft per day, mainly due to wrong spare parts supply policy in the past years, not to mention the not so high level of flying hours.
I remember that during a visit to Rivolto AB in 1996, for all the day long there were only the same 3 AMX which flow all the missions of that day.
Sud American rates…
ACCIPITERwell I see that the target of this tread has been hit: is something like starting talk about apple pie and finishing talking about Corvette…..
happy succhions to everyone
😮 😡 :rolleyes: 😉 :p 😎 😮 😀 :dev2: 🙂 🙁 :confused:
ACCIPITERI disagree; the R-27 entered in production phase in 1986 and became operative in 1987.
Greetings
tomorrow i am under Calvoons home at 7:35.
Greetings Admiral of my coglions
ACCIPITEREveryone who’s not a fool knows that vodka greatly improves a pilot’s dogfighting ability. That’s why Arab pilots did so badly i 1982, and Iraqis in 91, and Pakistan in 1967/71, their religion doesn’t allow them to drink. Serbian pilots took a flask with them on every mission, that’s why they were able to accomplish amazing feats like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUhfo_NVLRM
Excuse me , you are right i did not remember all that poor NATO pilots downed in dogfight by serbians during 1999 war.
I recently read that after all that shotdowns at Fallon, starting from Y 2000 Top Gun class, the Navy started evaluating a new drink which could improve combat effectiveness of their pilots.
Three main drinks were choosen:
-Manhattan
-Margarida
-Italian Grappa
After all in 2001 thanks to new relationship between US government and Berlusconi italian leader, the Italian Grappa was choosen.
Effectiveness increased greatly, the only collateral problem was the growing of pilots singing all mission long the songs of the peoples which lives on Italian Alps were the Grappa il produced.
Prosit
🙂
ACCIPITER😮 😮
Well it didn’t improve mine…Last time when I enjoyed this wonderdrink, I tryed to start up a frenzy dogfight against my rottwailer but I crumbled, stumbled and fell to the ground while making attempt to ampush her and the dog just walked away…so is it me, or was my ammount of the dozing wrong?:confused: :confused:
GREAT:D
ACCIPITERThe Soviets certainly had capable PGMs in the 1980s, but they had very little experience in using them. In the Soviet-Afghan war, which lasted 9 years and cost the Soviets almost 15,000 fatalities, the Soviet air force fired a grand total of 139 Kh-29 (AS-14) missiles against the Mujahadeen, despite the fact that the Soviets actually dropped hundreds of thousands of tonnes of munitions during this war. KAB-500L and KAB-1500L LGMs were dropped from Su-24s in a few instances, but the pilots had problems with the guidance systems while flying through the mountains and soon gave up on the idea. However, the Indian air force never had that problem in 1999 when dropping Paveway LGBs from Mirage 2000s among the Himalayas, and I don’t think it’s a problem for the air forces using PGMs in Afghanistan today.
No doubt true, but the Soviets certainly had very strange priorities in the Cold war!
Why would it matter what type of short range AAM you’re using when the only aircraft that PVO Su-27s could possibly be intercepting are B-52s and B-1Bs (and the cruise missiles) The all-aspect seeker and HMS system on the R-73 are hardly going to provide any significant advantage against those targets when the R-60 AAM would have been adequate enough. :confused: :confused:
would have been Better to fit the R-73 to aircraft that would have being facing against F-16s and such, I would have thought.
I might agree with you there. At the time of Operation DESERT STORM the Italians had something like 50 or a 100 PGMs in their air force arsenal, if I faintly recall. Many of the other NATO air forces participating in DESERT STORM were no better stocked either.
During Desert Storm we italians didn’t have pgm ammunitions in our inventory excluding Kormorans missiles and 12 GBU 16 used for evaluations, but italian unluky defense sistem is not representative of NATo standards
ACCIPITERhehheh..
and think that i started talking about objectiveness and aerial combat..
ACCIPITERYour figures are WAY off. The were only two squadrons of F-15’s in Europe in the 80’s, not 500. The number of F-16’s was also pretty small and they carried only the AIM-9L. The WP on the other hand had hundreds of Mig-29’s operational by then, all carrying BVR missiles.
THe part about western superiority in AWACS is correct, but let’s not kid ourselves, these would’ve been easy prey for the Mig-31 which the west had no way to stop.
At this time, there were only dozens, not hundreds, of NATO aircraft in Europe carrying PGM’s. All these planes that carry them today, like F-16, Tornado, etc, these did not have them in the 80’s, they would’ve used only iron bombs. This is in contrast to something like 3500 Mig-23’s, Su-17’s, Su-24’s, and Su-25’s all of which were equipped with guided missiles and laser guided bombs from the get-go. Not to mention Tu-16’s and Tu-22’s which also carried them.
The NATO had the advantage from WWII until about the early 60’s, then they were equal up until abotu the 70’s, by which time the tide was turning in favor of the WP and by the mid 80’s the WP’s advantage was never greater, especially in the air.
Dear Slobo I don’t think 160 Belgian , 240 Ducht, 72 Danish,72 Norvegian plus at least 200 Us F16 are a small amount, anyway your conclusion is as objective as mine, since I am convinced that the majority of Mig 29 (but also 21 23 25) pilots were drunk of wodka .
dasvidania
ACCIPITERWalker was caught in 1986, he had been passing info to the Soviets since 1968 and the y were already aware of how noisy their SSN and SSBN were. The Victor III were in service, which were waaay quieter than earlier classes.
There were 3 in service by 1985 – Ticonderoga, Yorktown and Vicennes.
Battlefield distances in central Europe were mainly under 1700 m, so it wouldn’t have made a difference.
The MLRS had entered service in 1983 with US Army, and with NATO in 1989 – numbers would have been low in 1989.
8:1! Cannot be stuffed looking up numbers but the USSR had many Mi-24 Hind. The AH-64A entered service in July 1986. The US Army had day-only AH-1 in service, with other NATO countries even worse off. The Pact had many air defense systems which could out-range the TOW missile.
A-10 are brilliant, but proved vulnerable during GW1 to heavy ground fire.
Major problem that Frontal Aviation faced in 1970s were the manufacturing deficiencies of the MiG-23M -this limited agaility to 5G. As a result frontal aviation pilots had limited experience in dogfighting. These problems were solved in 1977 – with training much imporved in the 1980s. The much improved MiG-23ML and MiG-23MLD were in service – these would be better than the F-4 in service with NATO, had a BVR missile unlike the F-16 (at the time)
In the attack realm the USSR wasn’t too far behind NATO and ahead in other areas – the MiG-27, Su-17, Su-24 were superior to NATO aircraft in many ways with all capable of using PGM (compared with limited in NATO), ARM, etc.
MiG-23 were never fitted with inflight refuelling capability.
Alamo is considered as good as AIM-7 family. Fair call on AIM-9, AA-11 Archer would only be available in low numbers.
NATO had 18 delivered by May 1985 – France and UK came later. The USAF had 32 E-3A with around 27 available – 3 based in Alaska, 2 Japan – leaving 22 for global operations (Middle East, home defence, Korea, etc). WP had excellent GCI ground coverage. Passive tracking systems such as Ramona were entering service as well.
Soviet union also had ground based jammers to degrade the E-3.
All ground based jammers would have been destroyed by my uncle and his sister
ACCIPITERthe thred was intended to talk about skills of pilots in the 80′, we are talking about a too vaste discussion , cazzoni maledetti.
can we retun to the main discussion?
Anyway i have realized that is not possible have an objective discussion on this argoument.
“There only a good way to do the right thing, trying from behind” -Sir Oliver Skardy
ACCIPITERI always find it amusing that folk would cheerfully talk about jamming or taking out Soviet GCI while on the other hand list western AWACS as an advanatge for NATO. AWACS controllers do exactly what Soviet GCI controllers do, and if ground based communications can be taken out or jammed, what makes airborn immune?
Also, remember that the Soviets are not just going to sit back and take it up the backside while NATO whittleds it away or throw its forces into meatgrinders peicemeal. Soviet military equipment (up to that point) was designed with WWII style Soviet tactics in mind. In WWII, T34s, while outclassed by the German Tigers in terms of firepower and protection did consistently and conclusively destroy all German Panzers that tried to oppose them. The reason is numbers.
One on one, NATO kit had a clear advanatge after the early 1980s, but how many can the Soviets make for every one NATO could field? Western pilots might be better trained, but after a few months of hard and intensive fighting, with the initial core of already trained pilots depleated, NATO may well find the quality of its pilots dropping sharply, again, as demonstrated in WWII by the Germans. Factor in the extra training needed to master more complex weapons and tactics and you can see the numbers favouring the Soviets more over time. On the other hand, if NATO started to rush pilots into combat with shortened training periods, they may not be able to take full advanatage of all the extra features and capabilities those complex and expensive (in terms of materials and time) planes are offering.
In war, everyone ‘plays’ to maximise their own advantages while trying to minimise those of its opponents. Its not like sport where the more skillful team wins most of the time.
That is absolutely right….but i dont’ think that with modern weapons there would have been (talking about a confrontation between major countries) all the time needed during WWII to soviets to learn from mistakes and arrive to Berlin.
The goodness of a the first strategy would have been determinant (I am not saying tha the right one is NATO one)
Sign In
