8billion USD doesn’t sound like enough for half the plans people are throwing around in here – clearly a huge chunk of that money is going to be spent on training, spares and other after sales services… That cuts down your shiny-new-comat-jet budget people – spend wisely.

SOC,

Surely a Su-30MK(?) would be better if you’re planning for both air combat and anti-shipping missions… The Su-34 being rather disadvantaged in the air combat mission by its intake setup.

Anyway, how about second-hand (but upgraded) FENCERs for the strike and anti-shipping role and second-hand (but upgraded) FLANKERs for the air combat roles. Also upgrade the servicable F-5s and keep them for point defense (and restructure the squadrons to get rid of the airframes that can’t function properly anymore.

Otherwise (assuming good relations with the US), don’t buy and combat aircraft or any new military kit – upgrade everything in the inventory through US firms and play the victim. Liberalise the economy and offer to host US bases or to take part in US adventures abroad. Exaggerate incidents of enemy attacks to make them seem like atrocities and employ a PR company to pump the US media with these stories and with striking pictures of dead people and blood-stained stuffed-toys (don’t forget to lobby US senators as well). Wait a couple of years and the USAF will be doing your job for you – no need for expensive new jets until your enemy has been obliterated by Tomahawks which is when you splash out on whatever you want.

I’m not intimately accquainted with the Cuban Missile Crisis so I hope those of you who are will forgive this question and its basis.

I recently watched a film about the Crisis (the one with Kevin Costner – what was it called again?) which I thought was very good. Now, in the film the US is portrayed as backing down but not really backing down on the Jupiter missiles in Turkey. Kennedy finally agrees to their non-public removal because they are ‘becoming obsolete anyway’. How true is this? Were the missiles really becoming obsolete and, if they were, what does that actually signify? Does it mean that they were getting past their shelf-life and couldn’t be used again or simply that they weren’t as advanced as they could be given the technology of the time?

The reason I ask is that, in the film, their removal (and the backing down that implies) was given very little real siginificance – because they were obsolete – and I’m curious to know just how much this really was a climb down by the US.

Sorry for going so off-topic with that question.

Arthur,

Flex, a short lesson in creating a conspiracy:
-1-
Create confusion. Doubt any well-known fact part of the event involved, no matter how stupid it may sound: (“Was it actually the WTC in New York, or was it actually in Philadelphia?”). Don’t be bothered too much by facts here: the amount of sh!t you will use to support the confusion you’ve created with, will totally overwhelm any attempts to fact-check the info. Except for weird people on internet fora, of course Overwhelm the reader with irrelevant info, or plain disinformation. In the confusion you leave behind, add all the nonsense you can think of.
-2-
Totally overblow some obscure detail (“No pieces of wreckage in the Pentagon 9/11 debris”) and use it as a coat-hanger to attach all other bits of conspiracy-snippets to.
-3-
Come up with a few far-fetched connections with already known ‘obscure’ organisations: the CIA, Freemasons, the Mossad, the Military Industrial Complex, a secret World Government, the Main Stream Media, the oil industry… Anything vague and nondescript will do.
-4-
Show you’ve looked around to find a solid denial for a connection between the Freemasons and 9/11, but can’t find such a denial. Conclusion: it must be true!

The Gulfst and 737 are a nice combination between point -1- (disinformation) and -3- (adding a Vague and Nondescript Organisation Pulling The Strings In The Background).

Conspiracies are great, great, great fun. It’s the modern form of ancient mythology: a little bit of might-actually-be-truth, with lots of saucy bits to make a catchy story for the uninformed masses.

The US went to war with Iraq on a lot less. :diablo: 😀 😀 😀

For those of you who might think that this was an attempt to start a flame war, relax, it was just a joke.

Meat,

Those fixed sites will be clouds of dust. Every last one of them.

I think you’re gonna have to rethink this. More on that below.

And that proves what, exactly? The Iraqis used to track and lock-up Allied aircraft every day. Does that mean they were ever a serious threat to Allied operations?

Well to me it proves that in a concentrated, coordinated 78 day air campaign the forces of NATO couldn’t destroy all of the air defenses of a small (physical size) country whose air defense forces were equipped with, what can best be described as, dangerously obsolete equipment We’re talking Soviet radars from the 60s (the 60s were 40+ years ago by the way). If they had the same concentration of aircraft per km2 over Russia (not something I beleive is possible) they would still be facing a greater number of targets all of which are much more sophisticated. Even the most conservative guesstimate should be ‘at least 78 days’. As for a threat to ‘allied’ aircraft, how late in to Allied Force was the F-16 shot down?

I’d be happy to factor that in, if you will be also be willing to factor in the fact that the Americans have at their disposal technology that is generations ahead of that of Voyska PVO (is that still what it’s called?). Something tells me you won’t grant that, however.

Quite possibly they do. They certainly had technology generations ahead of the Yugoslav PVO – still took 78 days and they didn’t finish the job.

No, I think I shall stand by it. In a conventional conflict, the majority of Russian air defenses will be knocked out in the first 24 hours with cruise missile strikes, B-2 strikes, and conventional aircraft employing standoff weapons. Raptors, supplemented with Eagles will establish air supremacy within a few days at most, allowing Wild Weasel aircraft to go after the surviving mobile AD units that dare to activate their radars. They will claim their share of American aircraft, but likely won’t live long enough to brag about their kills.

I’m sorry, I hope that you won’t take this as rudeness on my part but I think that your claims are best described by this one word; ‘delusional’. Just think how many sorties and cruise missiles would have to be launched in those first 24 hours… Does the US even have enough platforms to launch all those cruise missiles in that short space of time (without even thinking about actually getting those platforms into range)?

American technology is sufficiently ahead of Russian tech to guarantee a complete victory in an air campaign.

I am very very glad that people who plan foreign policy and military campaigns in the US don’t think like you otherwise who knows what they’d be tempted to try. I suggest you do some reading on Russian air defense technology – a good place to start might be the S-300 series of air defense missiles but don’t stop there, you’ve got a lot of catching up to do.

cinciboy,

Well, I asked about bombers because thats what this thread is about but more importantly they’re big bulky, maintainence+training intensive hunks of metal that you wouldn’t want just sitting around on air fields waiting for the IDF/AF to bomb them… Or not… Apparently… :confused: