dark light

Rii

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,801 through 1,815 (of 3,311 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Chinese carrier operations #1999788
    Rii
    Participant

    US Navy LSO’s are chosen from experienced carrier pilots. With no experienced cadre to chose from I wonder how the PLAN is selecting theirs?

    Perhaps they should hire Americans out of retirement.

    in reply to: Luftwaffe Phantom Phinale! #2244866
    Rii
    Participant

    The more I look at it, the more I love the ‘Norm 72’ scheme. It’s just got such a retro, vintage NATO look to it.

    +1

    in reply to: what new air trainer should France get? #2245566
    Rii
    Participant

    HAL AJT build as intermediate-advanced trainer. For LIFT Indian already choose HAWK. Point is, the prototype uses French engine, and choosing it can be used as leverage to secure Rafale’s largest deal outside French ever. Thus it can be used as alternate for PC-21 and can take some of training sylabus on present Alpha Jet.

    After all choosing M-346 or HAWK or KAI T-50 will not provide any leverage for future Rafale market, this one can.

    France doesn’t need any additional leverage in India.

    in reply to: USAF to retire A-10 fleet or the B-1B fleet? #2246440
    Rii
    Participant

    It comes down to what kind of wars the US will likely fight in the future. I think it’s pretty obvious the kind of large scale COIN war we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan are unlikely to occure in the future simply because it would be madness for any American President to fight a major land war. There’s no political will for it.

    Times change. The turnaround from Vietnam to Reagan was a little over a decade and, psychologically speaking, one followed from the other. Personally I expect the Republicans to return to the White House in either 2020 or 2024, and to pursue an aggressive foreign policy coupled with military expansionism. The single largest factor driving this is the rise of China to near-peer status. Far from causing the United States to back down, this transitional period in the great power balance will occasion increased belligerence and inflexibility on the part of the United States.

    Secondary factors reinforcing this structural tendency include the aforementioned period of relative — very relative, only in the sense of ‘no boots on the ground’ — quiescence under Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the fading of Afghanistan and Iraq from political consciousness. Additionally, given the demographic transition in the nation, this period will likely represent the last chance for Republicans to rapidly advance their economic agenda, an objective that will be greatly enhanced by directing the attention of the American people abroad whilst their society is disassembled from under them.

    It is likely that the mid-late 2020s will see American militarism reach heights not seen since the 1950s.

    in reply to: what new air trainer should France get? #2246801
    Rii
    Participant

    So I’m leaning towards a combination of PC-21 and a joint M346 arrangement with Singapore and Belgium … see if can persuade the Germans to come along too: Euro solidarity and all that.

    All the more reason why it’s short sighted to go STOVL even if there are marginal gains in the short term.

    The UK has piled one short-sighted decision on top of another going back I don’t know how long now…

    in reply to: No fly zone in Syria #2246840
    Rii
    Participant

    Realistically it would probably be 2020 before Russia could comfortably mount a sustained Syria intervention of the kind discussed here. But one would be foolish to ignore the rapid progress being made across the board: 2013 is a long way from even 2008, let alone the 1998 that Subishi seems to inhabit.

    It’s all nonsense in any case. It isn’t a matter of whether Russian forces deployed to Syria could actually hold off a NATO intervention, but whether NATO would really be willing to pick a fight with Russia over Syria. And the answer to that question is ‘no’. Of course it’s also unlikely that Russia is actually that committed to Syria in the first place.

    in reply to: USAF to retire A-10 fleet or the B-1B fleet? #2246843
    Rii
    Participant

    From memory about 100 transporters are scheduled to go (C-27, C-5A, older C-130)

    USAF could always replace C-5s with An-124-300s when that line restarts at some point. 😎

    in reply to: Amazing Weapons Loads – Yak-38 Forger #2246851
    Rii
    Participant

    You’re joking, aren’t you?

    Trolling would be more accurate.

    in reply to: USAF to retire A-10 fleet or the B-1B fleet? #2247680
    Rii
    Participant

    I think America could engage in such a conflict for the same reason as in WW2: a long way from anywhere and nobody has the (non-nuclear) ability to cause widespread and sustained disruption to its industrial base, not now or in the foreseeable future. The inverse is otherwise: the United States could wreak havoc on the industrial base of just about any other nation by virtue of four-digit Tomahawk bombardments followed up by JASSMs, etc. That’s what LRS-B is about too — moving beyond the B-2 ‘silver bullet’ force to a much larger survivable bomber force able to conduct sustained operations against the only nation that might be able to weather the cruise missile storm: China.

    in reply to: USAF to retire A-10 fleet or the B-1B fleet? #2247748
    Rii
    Participant

    As for PGMs, I think they’re fire for limited expeditionary warfare against limited opponents. Like so much Western equipment, I don’t have much faith that the industrial complex can support sophisticated weapons in a general war setting.

    Maybe, but I’d expect the planes to stop working before the PGMs do!

    I agree that unguided munitions still have a role to play, but I suspect Russia’s relative under-investment in PGMs has more to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the anemic 15 years thereafter than with some kind of doctrinal commitment to unguided munitions.

    in reply to: USAF to retire A-10 fleet or the B-1B fleet? #2247761
    Rii
    Participant

    This is like the UK Typhoon data where CPFH is total annual cost incurred in operating the type divided by number of flight hours, rather than the cost of adding one more flight hour. The increase in CPFH between 2009 and 2011 likely reflects simply that fewer hours were recorded on that type in 2011.

    PGMs is not a good solution for constantly changing battlefield conditions, not to mention the cost and availability of PGMs. Take Georgian war; Su-25s are perfectly capable of using most PGMs in russian inventory, but they relied upon FAB bombs and rockets. Why? They are practical: pilot sees an enemy convoy, fires his rockets, withstand the all punishment enemy can bring, and move away.

    PGMs are cheaper and more effective than unguided munitions on a per-sortie, per-target basis, that’s why they were developed. Russia is just behind the curve.

    in reply to: USAF to retire A-10 fleet or the B-1B fleet? #2247771
    Rii
    Participant

    Also not many nations can justify a niche aircraft like A-10.

    (Or JH-7, Su-34, MiG-31…)

    in reply to: No fly zone in Syria #2248744
    Rii
    Participant

    David has the American flag so far up his rear all he sees is the Stars and Stripes.

    lol, I’ll have to remember that one.

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2248763
    Rii
    Participant

    PS : I thought this is a quite nice Hellduck pic.
    http://russianplanes.net/id110542

    I prefer the other Su-34 pic currently gracing the front page. 🙂

    in reply to: KC-390 latest #2248952
    Rii
    Participant

    For a minute there I thought it was something important. :p

    I assume one of the unnamed Middle Eastern countries is Saudi Arabia.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,801 through 1,815 (of 3,311 total)