AspisHellenic Air Force is flying both Mirage 2000’s and F-16’s and they decided to continue with F-16 after 2009….
1) In Greece, as in most countries that have some trouble, virtually all weapons purchases, have political ramifications.
2) In 2009, even if the greek goverment wanted to buy Mirage, the production line was closed.
3) Apart the various gossip, where everyone says whatever comes out of his head passing it for official truth, the only point in which most journalistic sources agree, is that HAF was angry with Dassault pricing. Nobody has written that HAF considers the Mirage inferior. Actually, if we want to follow your logic, the greek goverment would have no reason at all to buy 15 more Mirage2000-5 mk2, while it was by now obvious that the F16 was superior. We could have just upgraded the existing, not adding more “dead weight” in the fleet. Why buy an inferior and more costly aircraft in so small numbers? Just to please France? France has much less political weight than US and in greek-turkish matters France can have no role as political mediator. And there are other items of lesser importance that we could have chosen…
4) HAF never considered the use the Mirage in A-G, up until the arrival of the SCALP. This alone, made mandatory to buy more F16, which are more versatile.
2- The US delivered them fighters with restrictions so they needed a second independent source of supply..Taiwan, Greece ect . Not because they thought Mirage would be a better fighter in any way.
The US didn’t put restrictions in the sale of the F16. Simply, both the sale of F16 and Mirage2000, had their own political explanation. To which i will explain later.
Who the hell you think you are to tell me what to do?? Greece decided to buy the Viper at a time when Dassault was begging to sell them more Mirage’s , namely the year 2005 when they were looking for alternative to Eurofighters . The acceptance of the last 15 new Mirage 2000-5 MK2 the HAF ordered in 2000 had been postponed for years due to ICMS EW problems. Not to mention the serious RDM problems the HAF had to deal with when they first received their M 2000’s..
Just for the history, the ASPIS II EW system, of the first batch of B52+, has still not been accepted, because of problems with CW radars. It should make test again soon. Some more F16 issues (solved as some point):
– Canopy reflections up the B50 that in night and bad weather can disorientate the pilot.
– Water leaking into access panels during rain. (first batch of B52+)
– Condensation inside the EW compartment in the 2 seated latest B52.
The reasons that Greece bought the Mirage 2000 were mainly political they had just been accepted in the European Union and France excepted from them some kind of a commitment for the support !
While the reasons that Greece was buying American like mad weren’t? 😀
Let me tell you the story.
HAF wanted 120 aircrafts of 1 type in the 80s. HAF had actually put the F-18 as her favourite.
BOTH the Mirage and F16 were politically influenced decisions.
– Greece didn’t buy Mirage because of “political gratitude to France for entering the ECC”. At least, this is one of the rumours that i have never heard before. But rumours are like opinions. Everyone has one. The most common view is that the greek PM of the time, Papandreou, wanted a 2nd, independent supplier, because of the fear that the US could ground the greek fleet in case of greek-turkish war and his political relation with USA weren’t the most warm.
– Let me now tell you why Greece was buying american:
1) Because the US was the only one capable to topple balances in the greek turkish relations.
2) Because Greece was hoping to US intervention for a solution for Cyprus (before every US election, every US president was gathering the greek americans, saying that he will work hard for a just solution and so on).
3) Because Greece was getting free military aid (second handed, but still…) in 7:10 proportion compared to Turkey. And Greece wanted to maintain the 7:10.
4) Because at the time, the NATO was the only “friendly” organization that could help you defend against the comunist countries.
Or, to continue with politics, but in another level, as defencenet has written, LM, gives even free scholarships to children of HAF pilots (it must be because education is the primary concern of LM).
As a result, at the end, the greek PM of the time ordered 40 Mirage and 40 F16s (probably the LM lobby was better than the Boeing’s one). From that point on, all HAF could do, was to see where to use what. So Mirage went directly to air defence and F16 as multirole.
This comes from a turkish poster
Turks and Greeks are engaged in competitive dogfights over the aegean sea since more than 10 years….I know since I am from Turkey that the Greeks are deploying more and more F-16 ‘s to intercept the Turkish F-16’s and no more M 2000. The Turkish fighting falcons have been outperforming the Greek M2000’s all the time..
This reminds of other urban legends that you hear in the forum of either sides. Ok, let me tell you the greek urban legend, after i all, i am from Greece, i should know. “Turkish pilots when encountering Mirage, were often being intercepted in the radio channel shouting at each other under stress “Mirage! Mirage!”, while they were much cooler every time they encountered F16″. There. What other proof is needed?
Back to being more serious, there is an old post in this forum, from an english speaking magazine that visited a greek F16 squadron and spoke with the squadron leader. He says that the Mirage is a better dogfighter , but the F16 is better multirole. I think the magazine was actually AFM. I am bothered to try and find it, i had found it my luck one day, it’s here alright. This doesn’t mean that the F16 can’t win. Aircrafts don’t fly alone. Someone is flying them.
Or, in 3:07, a greek Mirage pilot is pretty happy with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TovGtnlEVLc&feature=related
“The Mirage2000, as everyone else in Tanagra we love it very much, it’s certainly something unique, this is something that we know and also those on the other side (the Turks) of course, we appreciate it and respect it as we should and from that point on, we try to take advantage of it at the full of its capabilities, so that we can bring the best results”.
It’s also interested, what a greek forum member who serves in an F16 B52 + HAF squadron (not sure if flying) said to the same question “I have repeatedly said that i won’t reply to silly questions. Besides, 1 vs 1 comparison is irrelevant”.
If you consider that pilots usually are afflicted by an ego about their aircraft, both what he said and what the greek squadron leader said in the magazine, complicate things as to easy conclusions of the type “F16s eat Mirage for breakfast”.
Also, speaking of “i am Greek, so i should know, there is the rumour that in last “Top Gun” HAF class, the Mirage2000-5mk2 got the most kills. Is it true? I don’t know. I am not a pilot and tend not to trust the stories of “a friend of mind who is a pilot told me”. But just to show how rumours work.
It is also interesting, about the presumed vast superiority of the F16, the account of the mid air collision between greek Mirage and F16 in 1992.
(in greek)
http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13935&Itemid=99999999
The exercize altitude was 10.000-12.000 ft. The F16 pilot , managed to get to advantageous position against the Mirage2000 (note: the F16 pilot was of higher rank and is rumoured to have been one of the best dogfighting pilots in HAF. His reputation is legendary). The problem was that the separation was too small, not allowing for missile shot, so he had to go with guns. As the article said, the Mirage attempted a hard break to avoid coming into the F16’s guns firing solution. The higher STR, combined with the delta wing, act as a huge airbrake, making the F16 likely to overshoot, because it can’t follow the Mirage’s turn. The F16 pilot however, managed to stay in the turn, but the Mirage speed was being cut so fast, that in his attempt to maintain the turn, his canopy hit the Mirage’s rudder and the pilot was killed. The Mirage pilot ejected successfully.
perhaps its because they are sending their M2000s for anti-shipping duties that their F-16’s are doing more air defense? Do Greek F-16s regularly use harpoons? I know they were tested in the US before delivery. Do the Harpoons have more restrictions on its use than Exocet? especially in the event of using it on a Turkish ship?
No, the explanation is much simpler and actually obvious for anyone using common sense. When Greece first got 3rd gen fighters, they were 40 Mirage and 40 F16. The Mirage were actually getting a lot of load of the interceptions, because of the geographical position of their base and the fact that they were 1:1 in numbers with the F16s.
As years passed, the F16s outnumbered heavily the Mirage (before the -5mk2 order, 33 Mirage were left). So, isn’t it logical to send more F16s? What are the F16 pilots supposed to do all day? Play poker while the Mirage run everywhere? Nowdays for example, even Crete has F16s. If you want to intercept someone in Rhodes, what will you send? F16 from Crete or Mirage from Tanagra or Skyros? F16 of course! When Crete had only A7, then yes, it made more sense to send Mirage from Tanagra. It’s called common sense. Fuel doesn’t rain from the sky for free.
– HAF has no Harpoons.
– The fact that the Mirage EGM have now TASMO as primary role, doesn’t change anything. All HAF squadrons deploy regularly readiness aircrafts (in some advanced bases they go on turns), regardless of their primary mission (for example also F16 SEAD specialised squadron is also regularly trainning for air combat and sends readiness aircrafts).
There is one point where all agree: The French charge an eye for spare parts and weapons. And the F-16 can do everything cheaper.
As for which is the best in A2A, if i ‘d have to visit both Tanagra and Larissa and interview a statistically significant number of pilots to arrive to some plausible result. Until then, the rumours have only the value of a rumour.
* According to defencenet (which isn’t pro-french at all, it’s pro-EADS), in the reviewed procurement program, the modernization of the Mirage is 1 rank higher than the F16. Again, for mysterious reasons, HAF insists on throwing money onto an inferior aircraft… Why not just get rid of them? Of course this is something the politicians might prefer.
AspisI understood your point – I just seriously doubt that anything short of the Army and Air force raising up against the Republican Guard is going to bring down the Iranian Government (after all that is what the Republican Guard is for, to prevent an armed uprising)- and in that sort of fight I can see nukes being used (just like Iraq used chemical weapons to deal with similar problems)
Well, certainly a coup like that could work, but usually, in regimes that have an iron hand on things, the ones who command the army are chosen to be loyal.
Personally i believe, that if a radical change in Iran ever happens, it will not come by the armed forces, but either by elections or by uprising of the civillians.
Iran has electoral system, so it’s not technically a dictatorship, but the ruling is quite oppressive and harsh against those who don’t do things as prefered by the Revolution. History has shown that such regimes, usually fall violently and by the hand of the people. What triggers that is some unusual event. If you look at most dictatorships in Latin America for example, they fell without the army doing starting the action against the goverment.
Here’s also how Causescu fell, by the people leading the way and once the tide was big enough, simply the army followed or ceased to follow orders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989
Anyway, as far as i am concerned, the whole issue leaves me indifferent. But i do understand why the Israelis have problem with it. When someone says that he wants to wipe you from the map and in addition he would think of it probably as following God’s will and doing a good deed, you have reasons to worry.
AspisWould it not make more sense for the loyalist fanatics to use any nuclear weapons they have to neutralise the uprising?
Sorry, english isn’t my native language, i must have not written it clearly. I mean, an uprising inside Iran, by Iranians (like the student protest a couple of years ago) who are more open to reforms and the west and they don’t agree with the way the revolution runs things. In that case, nuking your own country wouldn’t be an option, i think, even for a fanatic islamist. Taking down Israel however, as you last act, could be an option. Because you can’t “neutralize” your uprising by nuking your own capital for example. On the contrary, giving to a population in unrest an external enemy, might rally the people.
AspisWe can point out a country far worse than Iran on every issue you have mentioned above, but invading those countries is not in the strategic interest of US.
When they have to hammer a country to submission they cherry pick the criteria and arguments to suit their needs.
Yes, because in order to be “worthy” of being bombed, you must fulfill one of the following criteria:
1) Be enemy of the US.
2) Be enemy of Israel.
3) Be an obstacle to the energy plans of the US in the region.
4) Be at a geographically important point, which influences US strategic interests.
If you don’t fall under these categories, you are left alone.
Unfortunately there is no international law. What is called international law, is just a a paper drawn by the powerful of the planet, which , can use, when possible, as justification of their actions and to protect their own property.
If you don’t have the power to enforce the same laws for your case, then nobody will bother to come and help you do it, just because “the law is with you”.
AspisDefencenet put some photos of the JF-17 (copyright Giannis Rigopulos).
(IR and laser pod)
http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13389&Itemid=139
AspisIranians being Persians have a different culture. Iran may hate the U.S after the revolution but their cultural roots mean that majority of the population do not hate western culture, movies etc. like many fundamentalists in the Arab world does. The people of Iran also have more freedoms than those of Saudi Arabia. And it is also very clear they do not harbor terror like Arab counties (against the will of their governments). Actually Iran itself suffers from terrorism who has their bases across their Pakistan border.
Iran basically wants its cut in the geo-politics of the region. It want to be recogonized as a major player in the middle east and want to further exert its influence. I think in the long term Iranians will be a stabilizing force.
A Middle East with a powerful Iran and Israel along with Turkey calling the shots will be better than what we have now.
Yes, Iran wants more influence in the region. Already there is a power void over there, from the collapse of Iraq and this will become more evident once the Americans leave. Iran also managed to become popular in the arab world public opinion, despite being shia, in the period of the Israeli attack on Lebanon. It’s no secret that Nasrallah was aided by Iran.
The problem of letting nuclear weapons to proliferate, is that once this is done, there is no turning back. I am not saying that one country has more right to have than another. That’s another story. The reality is that those who already have them, don’t like newcomers that they regard as unfriendly towards them.
There are several issues to consider:
1) How do you ensure that the nuclear weapons will be procured only by the countries that “please” you? If for example Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Syria, decide that in order to maintain their own share of power, they must get nuclear weapons too, who’s gonna stop them?
2) Middle East has a history of instability. Of serious nature. Not talking about a goverment being unpopular and leaving office prematurly. Even if you do think that now the new holders of nuclear weapons are “stable”, who can guarantee you what the future will bring? Imagine, that Iran was the only foreign country, to which US had so much trust to give F14 and the Phoenix missile. And see how things are now. Similar things can be said about Iraq being good when attacked Iran, but later bad, the Afghanis were good against the Russians, now they use the tactics learnt by the CIA back then to do guerilla warfare against US troops etc. And it’s not just your “crazy” leader that can come up and decide to do a pre-emptive strike against a neighbour of him. There are also the options of giving material to terrorist groups and make small or dirty bombs, of which you can then deny any responsibility.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, all western secret services had their hands full trying to track down all soviet nuclear material, worrying that it could make its way to the black market and from there to some terrorists. Imagine more such “panic cases”, if more nuclear holding nations would come into turmoil. A hypothetical scenario: Saudi Arabia decides to procure such weapons. At some point Wahhabism collapses and there is chaos in the country. You will have again all secret services tearing their hair apart for the fear that some extremist group or terrorist may lay hands on them and decide it’s time to “change things”.
Or, what if the iranian regime gets nuclear weapons, but at some point, there is a violent uprising against the regime and some loyalist fanatics of the republican guard, decide that before they go down they will strike Israel?
To me, these scenarios, make little difference and they are just hypothetical scenarios, the probability of which, is something subjective. To Israel however and the US , these scenarios bring serious preoccupation.
AspisUnless they already have hidden Nuclear programs it will be hard for the Arab states to go Nuclear. Unless a certain muslim nation with dubious proliferation record helps them.
They won’t go nuclear overnight. Iran doesn’t have reason to threat the Arabs any time soon (although there are pending differences about some small islands i think in the persian gulf with the emirates). But, i think their will to get nukes will increase. And the Arabs have the money to buy the cooperation of say, Pakistan, fellow muslim state.
One thing is to the have Israel nuclear in the region. Israel is a pretty stable politically state, with a fixed strategy since its birth. The nuclear there is used for defence.
Iran, is the white elephant amongst the muslims in the Middle East, shia between sunni muslims, non Arab, has had war with Arabs in the past and pending territorial disputes in the persian gulf as well as a will to have more control over the sea traffic in the gulf. Also, history has shown that is capable of going overnight from the most western-like, pro-US country in the region, to the most anti-american, islam-oriented country.
The Arab geopolitical position would be downgraded seriously. 2 nuclear powers in the region and none of them a traditional “friend of the Arabs” (although this is exactly the spot that Erdogan’s goverment will try to fit and is why the turkish policy against Israel has worsened much in the last few years, where the Iranian issue seems growing. Erdogan was in power before too, but his relations with Israel weren’t so bad, in fact Turkey was hosting Israeli aircrafts and buying weapons up to a 3-4 years ago). If i had the money the Arabs have, i know i wouldn’t stay with my hands crossed watching as a bystander.
AspisThe situation is very complicated. The current circumstances aren’t the ideal for the US to open a new front against Iran (and probably terrorism as retaliation). Israel who is the directly interested in the region, has a geographical issue to solve. With bad relations for Turkey currently, there is no “friendly” air corridor towards Iran. Israel had contacts after the Gaza incident trying to mend bonds with Turkey, but with no success. Ideally for the Israelis, the solution can only be given by the Americans. In the worst of cases, Tomahawks and US carriers will do the job, even if we suppose that Iraqi and Afghani goverments will prohibit use of their bases.
The whole issue with Iran, is that it will start most likely a domino. The Middle East will turn nuclear. There are only 2 non arab countries in there, Iran and Turkey (which is why Turkey is so important to Israel and Israel will do its best to re-establish the alliance with Turkey, something rather easy if Erdogan loses the next elections). While Iran may have with the arab countries the anti-israelism as uniting factor, the situation stays that the Arabs won’t like a nuclear Iran.
Here’s a reading from a US think tank:
http://www.kalami.net/2010/cosmos/NUCLEAR_TURKEY.pdf
Basically, Turkey will go nuclear (about this, i am sure that it was bound to happen regardless of Iran. Iran will act only as alibi.) and then you will have to see how the Arab states will deal with this situation. Most likely there will be several nuclear powers in there after a couple of decades.
The article does one error though, there can be no strategic alliance between Greece and Israel. Greece is simply “aiding” Israel to play the “jelousy” game against Turkey, probably because the US asked so to our PM. Greece is too far away from the region of Israel’s interest to be of any use to Israel and as soon as the Kemalists win the next elections, ties between Israel and Turkey will be restored. Turkey is of unique value to Israel, exactly because it’s the only non arab state in the region, except for Iran. The Israelis are just using Greece to make Turkey worry, by saying “we don’t need you, we will partner with your rival”. But it’s just a bluff. Israel can have an alliance only with Turkey.
As for Greece,the article is too “kind”, but also uses outdated information and preconceptions. It still thinks that the greek policy is the same as before 2000. They haven’t grasped the new greek appeasement policy. Greeece is not “distracted”, it’s simply “game over”. Basically, in these days, we have a carbon copy of this crisis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sismik_incident
Back then,after almost going to war, the PMs of the 2 parties, agreed in Davos, Switzerland, to refrain for further oil and gas searches in the continental shelf outside national waters, until the continental shelf was delimitated.
Of course, now Turkey brought again out not 1 , but 2 (one of which being the same one used in 1987, for symbolical reasons and on July 20, anniversary of Cyprus invasion) research vessels in 2 points of the disputed continental shelf, in violation of the “gentlemens agreement” of then and the only thing the greek gov did is send a coast guard vessel to watch and the usual blabbering about international law. One of the 2 research vessels is out for a 2nd sortie as we speak. It took Turkey 23 years of patience, but finally they will conclude the oil charting they wanted to do in 1987. This is what you call serious and cynical foreign policy, not the amateurish greek one. That’s why Turkey is a good ally for Israel to have. Serious states have long term goals.
The greek politicians after 2000 have invented the new way of maintaining peace: “Conceed and pray”. (You conceed your rights and pray that this will be enough for the other side to leave you alone for a while, up until the next elections at least.).
Even if Greece was closer geographically to Israel, it would be more of “strategic entertainer-clown” for Israel, than a “strategic partner”.
The whole situation in the Middle East right now, is “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. Oh and Israel couldn’t ask for a worse moment for the islamists to be on power in Turkey. Israel should be awarded the “unluckiest foreign policy of the decade” award for this. They ‘ve forged an alliance since 1995 more or less and now that more than ever could use a friendly passage from turkish airspace, this is not an option.
I believe that if Iran does go nuclear, at least 1 of the Arab states, will also go nuclear (as minimum representative for the Arabs).
AspisThe only ones i could find are… after retirement (they were dismantled as per CFE treaty).
http://img135.imageshack.us/i/98520605.jpg/
http://img137.imageshack.us/i/16990505.jpg/
http://img210.imageshack.us/i/78827025.jpg/
http://img185.imageshack.us/i/38316080.jpg/
http://img196.imageshack.us/i/52566341.jpg/
http://img683.imageshack.us/i/18567160.jpg/
Aspis@Aspis: The US Army has always believed in ballistic protection as a total concept. And your post on the Apache seems to confirm that thinking.
On a more jovial note, the US Army provides gear with 9mm ballistic protection to its soldiers. For ex: the US Army produces standard face masks with 9mm ballistic protection. Just send in a few heavily protected soldiers to rob that bank. 😉 An apache will be overkill. 🙂
Well, for body armour, a 9mm could make some sense. Usually it’s normal for police personnel. Could be useful for an army too for peacekeeping/policing duty. But in the situations where US soldiers are sent usually, the opponents usually don’t use neither pistols, nor 9mm submachine guns. They usually have the all-purpose Kalashnikov in its variants. And a 9mm vest may reduce the penetration, but won’t avoid the penetration of a 7.62 FMJ round. Maybe only in extreme distances, when the round will have lost most part of its energy. Of course better than nothing, and a 9mm vest must be lighter to wear. Unless, the US army vests cover against 7.62, in which case, they also cover against 9mm just fine.
But for a helicopter, anything less 7.62 makes absolutely no sense. It’s not just your lucky, hidden Taliban that can come out of a cave and fire an entire clip through your window (even if it’s relatively inaccurate, chances are one of the pilots will be hit). All that it would take, would be a Taliban with a Dragunov sniper rifle (which also uses 7.62 round, albeit bigger caliber), which is much more precise, to start going “Apache pilot hunting” from 1 km away.
Especially in the early Apache versions and the early Hellfires, like it or not, the helicopter had to keep the TADS exposed towards the target, until the Hellfire could reach its target, because the Hellfire required to “ride the beam”. Unless there was someone else doing the designation for you (like SF). This required a pop up attack with the Apache hovering with the nose a bit above a treeline. A perfect sniper target if the glass is simply… glass. And of course, even worse for AAA fire.
That’s why later the longbow radar was installed and RF versions of the Hellfire.
It makes absolutely no sense, to build a helicopter that costs as much as an F16 and leave such an obvious vulnerability. If we take Boeing’s word, the 12,7mm also makes sense for a military attack helicopter, because that is a common heavy machine gun caliber (0.50 caliber). And machine guns, having large ammo capacity and rapid fire, don’t need much precision. So if your cockpit is “glass” and a simple infantry man with a machine gun sees you hovering above a tree guiding your Hellfire, he can spray you with rapid fire and chances are he will get the front pilot at least.
AspisI have not seen any ballistic chart of light weapon ammunition, but i really doubt the Apache is that well armored.
I have seen (from pictures) the glass broken, and it does not seem to be armored glass, also is not really thick, is just plexiglas, i think.
A lot of electronic boards are housed in these big hubs side by side the cockpit, the access doors does not seem to be armored either.
I don’t know about the engines armor levels, but IMO is very likely a light gun fire could disable that helicopter
Well, in the above Apache the cockpit seems intact, so it wasn’t shot down because the cockpit glass was penetrated.
In any case, since the 60s, all NATO mimimum ballistic protection, is against 7.62mm , because that was the standard Warsaw pact assault rifle caliber (7.62×39). So, i would be really surprised if the Apache, which claims one of the highest ballistic protections for helicopters, was to be shot down by 7.62. I mean, if you don’t provide against 7.62mm then why bother to provide ballistic protection at all? Against 5.56? That’s only popular within NATO. Against 9mm? It’s not like the Apache will go to rob a bank and face a policeman with his handgun.
Just a quick search:
The Apache is heavily armored on all sides. Some areas are also surrounded by Kevlar soft armor for extra protection. The cockpit is protected by layers of reinforced armor and bulletproof glass. According to Boeing, every part of the helicopter can survive 12.7-mm rounds, and vital engine and rotor components can withstand 23-mm fire.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/apache-helicopter.htm/printable
Consider that nowdays, protection against 7.62mm is available even for limousine windows.
The russian Kamov claims also 55mm buletproof glass for the cockpit. I don’t see why the Americans would leave it just like that or what’s the point in withstanding up to 23mm rounds and simply get killed by any assault rifle by killing the crew…
Even though, personally, i wouldn’t feel comfortable in being hit by 12.7mm on the cockpit.
Aspis…shoot that down with your tor-m1
Don’t worry, by the time that this will constitute an immediate military threat, the Russians will have the TOR-M20 out there, capable of shooting it down. 😀
AspisThe Apache shootdown pictured was not by an AKM, but the result of poor training.
I know… It was a joke. The Apache armor can withstand bigger caliber fire than 7.62…
AspisRussia actually has pretty massive numbers of S-300 systems. SOC’s guide kind of shows that. S-300PS and S-300PM systems are highly mobile, and as such can be moved around if necessary.
Don’t worry, i trust your word on that. Well, i would be surprised if Russia hadn’t retained a large SAM force. After all, they are the masters of SAMs.
The whole WW3 Russia is attacked on all borders scenario is non-sense. Any small, near the border conflict with a big power would mean that the best assets would be moved around if necessary, probably within 1-3 days start to finish.
Yes, if Russia never lacked something, it’s strategic depth.
Slightly “old” Tunguska, TOR-M1 and BUK systems are far far far from “incapable” – in fact, quite the opposite.
Oh, i don’t doubt it. Speaking of “old”, if you have more “old” TOR or BUK, send them this way! (We still have SA-8Bs on certain islands . Not to mention that by the end of year the Hawks expire and we ‘ve exhausted all NATO upgrade programs, they are mummies-missiles now). Throw away your garbage Tunguskas, TOR and BUK to us! Any rusty Pantsyrs yet? 😀
What throws success into further doubt for the US is that they have never faced advanced SAMs and enemy air forces in such great numbers.
Are you kidding? Saddam had the ultimate SAM. The Kala-SAM:
The most compact manpad ever! Fires 7,62mm missiles with IR seeker. Setup time: 5 seconds. Reaction time: 5 seconds. Kill probability: ask the Apache pilots. Trainning requirement: virtually none. Any peasant can learn to operate it within 5 minutes. Detection range: human vision range.
AspisIt’s not exactly like that. All you can do with the S-300 is to kill enemy aircrafts. With the F-16 you can also kill enemy aircrafts but you can also kill tanks, support your troops, do the recon, bomb enemy targets and much more. So, I don’t think we should do direct dollar vs dollar (spent on each system) comparison.
Yes, but the thing is, that no “magic weapon” exists. According to the enemy you want to fight, you need to have a minimum of resources. Comparing different kind of weapons systems, is something subjective. So when you must compare apples to oranges, the only way i can think of to a somewhat fair solution, is to buy the same money of apples and oranges…
They are different systems. The aircrafts provide more flexibility and the prospect of retaliation. On the other hand, SAMs are specialized in job, have less mobility, are defensive, but also have some positive sides, like being more free of bases (they don’t need to return to an airforce base), they can hide easily, they have low operation, trainning and maintenance costs.
As in all systems though, in order to make the job properly, you need also numbers. Just like 2 F16 won’t survive an attack against S300. Or, you can take the best howitzer in the world and start firing with it against an enemy regiment. Well, you will fail to stop its advance. Because you may have the best howitzer, but 1 firing unit alone isn’t enough to pin down a regiment. It’s that simple.
It’s the same principle illustrated in the RAND report about the F22. However good it may be, once heavily outnumbered, it can’t survive. This doesn’t mean it’s not the best aircraft out there. Simply, there is a limit to everything. You can’t ask from a weapons system to perform a miracle. That’s what churches are for. 😀
Back to the SAMs, especially against US Coalition, there is one more advantage learnt. You have more chances in inflicting casualties to the Coalition forces by SAMs (even if you don’t have the latest models), than with your airforce.
The problem, is that neither Saddam nor Milosevic had ever suspected that they would become target of a US attack. If they had known 10 years earlier, they would have probably invested in more SAMs than aircrafts.
Even those who do know that they may end up in US’ list, like Iran today, fail to equip properly. A few TORs won’t save anything. Layers of different range is the only proper way to set up a missile defence, even if you don’t have the means to buy many systems. One layer supports the other, takes some workload off its shoulders, gives time to reload, allows for traps, etc. Having in a site only S300 or only TOR or only BUK, is exploitable by exploiting the weakness of each systems individually. You can fly above a TOR. You can approach low an S300 for as long as you can. But what if you have put a TOR ahead of the probable route towards the S300? Then suddenly you fall into the TOR trap, because you fly low, using the S300 as bait. If you try to gain altitude to avoid the TOR, you fall into the sights of S300 or BUK. That’s the proper way to do it.
The best thing is to have enough money to have both aircrafts and many SAMs. When you can’t afford it, IMHO, it is still better to invest to some SAMs, even if in moderate number, but for locations of strategic interest and in layers. Even if you can’t put many in the same area. It’s an added strategical headache. One thing is to worry only about enemy airforce, another is to worry at the same time about enemy airforce and a SAM that might suddenly start tracking you.
Sign In
