troungIf an A-10 of PhAF takes off and begins to drop bombs on the capital can the Presidental Guard shoot it down seeing as they have no MANPADs (and thank God for that)? That’s what matters… 😉
The air force is inducting more UH-1Hs, planning to upgrade them after they have a sizeable number of airframes in service and they are reported to be looking into a new attack helicopter (either used Cobras or extra MD-520s).
What they need are more helicopters, more vests/helmets, modern radios, trucks, patrol boats, cargo planes, maritime patrol planes and ammunition of all sizes.
troungArguing/debating with SD-10/H-177/Hi-77/FC-1/star49/what ever he calls himself now is like competing in the special Olympics… maybe food for thought for a few people here… :dev2:
troungThat is what the CIA is for. Deniable funding source. Invisible paper trail. To a non superpower it might have been successful, but the Soviets had plenty of Humint in the US and knew what was happening.
But it was the Pakistanis. Say it with me… I-S-I… :p
The taliban is basically what the Pakistanis wanted for afghanistan. Strict sharia law. Whether they took power in 95 or 85 that is what the afghans were going to get from pakistan
The Taliban were more strict and radical then Hezb-i Islami which was Pakistans horse. After it was clear Hezb-i Islami was never going to take Kabul they switched horses.
Wait a minute… you said before that the US didn’t stop funding the “Resistance” when the Soviets left.
When communism was done the USA was done. The Taliban jumped on the scene later.
The life expectancy of the average Afghan is pretty low anyway
Umm ok…
By now they would probably have given up communism and become a democracy and not be the basket case they currently are.
Or they would be a Communist basket case.
You can say what you like about communism, but for turning a country from a peasant state to a space age state it has its advantages.
Leaving millions dead, create man made famines, etc…
Never heard much about that. The Mujahedeen might have captured some of these from the Soviet supplied Communist Afghan army or from whomever but their usage must have been fairly limited. Lugging a ZSU-57 up and down the Afghan valleys would have been a bit much for a classic guerilla army, which for the most part relied upon mobility and hit and run tactics, wouldn’t it?. But feel free to tell us more about it. I’m always open to new information. Where did the Mujahedeen get them from?
By the end of the war the Mujahideen had tanks and tube artillery.
troungStop dodging the point. It doesn’t matter which side of the fence you live on Communism under Gorbachev was nothing like communism under Stalin. What did they get? The Taleban. They might as well have asked to be sent back to the stone age.
The Taliban showed up only later thanks to Pakistan. And by the fighting it was pretty clear the Afghani population didn’t want Communism. The Taliban was imposed on Afghanistan as was Communism.
It upsets me that so many people had to die, which is why I ask Americans every chance I get… was it worth it?
The Soviet’s and their proxy army killed Afghans. You are not upset that people the Soviets killed people you are mad the people stood up and fought the Soviets.
So things were improving… so why did Pakistan and the US and later Iran interfere and get the whole ball rolling? Perhaps it was a fear that if Pakistanis or Iranians saw that Afghanistan could be a nice place they might demand the same reforms in their own countries.
With Pakistan it was over the Durand Line and returning the favor for Pakistan sending aid to the Pashtun tribesmen.
The Pakistanis financed by the US started to destabilise and the Soviets reacted
The Pakistanis started it on their own in 1975. The Mujahideen did not start recieving popular support until the Communists took over. The Communists took power in 1978 and then hell broke loose as the army mutined.
And what the Soviets did was kill a million, make millions homeless and help in the popular imganition hasten their own downfall.
The Pakistanis directed all the funds to the Taleban… 4 wheel drives and walkie talkies
The Taliban showed up after Communism fell and took part in the post war ethnic civil war. They didn’t fight the reds. Pakistanis couldn’t direct all American funds as American funding was over. What the Pakistanis did was play the black market, use what remained of the stocks which was not being used in the Kashmir, and help the Taliban capture equipment from groups Pakistan used to support (far larger source of equipment), oh yeah and dig up ex Communist technocrats to help out the Taliban.
Hahahahahahaha… you are comparing a straight winged bomber that can carry less bombload than a Su-25 and aircraft capable of carpet bombing!!!
So what? What matters is the results and of course the intentions.
troungYou care more about the proxy war between communism and democracy than you do about the plight of the afghan people
Pot calling the kettle black.
I am sure you sleep very well at night knowing the millions that died in afghanistan, and those that continue to suffer because of the war and lawlessness, or worse those that suffered under sharia law that arrived afterwards did so to keep the reds out.
How well do you sleep seeing as the Soviets killed a million people and turned millions others into refugees?
whether they were actually better off being red and getting educated and having access to medications and having reasonable prospects for their children, whether they are born male or female is unimportant.
All of that started under Daoud. Hell all of that started in the 1950s.
What is really important is how long it takes them to learn the Quaran off by heart by wrote learning… the boys that is… the girls are not allowed outside the family home and get no education at all.
Women did have jobs and were allowed out in different parts even after the Mujahideen took over Afghanistan. It was the more radical factions and later the Taliban who outlawed it.
revenge. As soon as Soviet troops withdrew US support disappeared overnight. US support had nothing to do with the Afghan people and everything to do with hurting a superpower rival. In comparison Soviet support in Cuba and Vietnam continued after the end of hostilities.
No it actually didn’t. America kept supplying after the Soviets left.
Carpet bombed? Before the Soviets even entered Afghanistan? I doubt it. Where is your proof. Major bombing operations by Tu-22Ms and Tu-16s didn’t occur before 1985, so which aircraft did they “carpet bomb” with?
IL-28s.
They were trying to prevent a neighbour have its government subverted by the US and Pakistan.
Actually the major discourse came from actions by the Afghan government. The Communists pushed people into the field. The first Mujahideen were actually turned on by locals in 1975. So what changed?
So these brutal, foolish reforms still managed to lead to improvements… yeah, they must have been really brutal and really foolish…
The point was they led to problems. Badly planned and excuted. Pissed off even the people it was supposed to help.
troungThe soviets never cared whether Afghanistan was communist or not. It was in the early 70s when the CIA started pumping in money and trying to make the country anti Soviet that the Soviets started to notice. Up until the 70s the Afghan army was largely armed with exsoviet weapons and was relatively friendly to the Soviets.
Once again the ISI… Pakistan didn’t want an unfriendly Afghanistan on their border. It was Pakistan which sent in the first Mujahideen over the issue of the Durand Line. And they didn’t gain much local support until the Communists took power. And the Soviet’s didn’t need help to make the locals hate them.
Yes, fighting will do that. If the US had butted out then the fighting would have ended about 84-85 and in the peace that followed the country could have been improved and brought into the 20th century.
ahahahhaha… yeah the locals would have had no choice but to take part in the workers paradise… and it is the USAs fault the workers paradise was instead turned into a fuedal state… well actually more of Pakistan’s fault seeing as all the USA did was supply the guns.
And you don’t think that if the war had ended that the improvements in the North could have been greater and extended to the south as well? Most of the population never had the vote… but if they had an education and access to healthcare perhaps they would actually be a lot better off.
Things improving in the north were more by accident… Communist “reforms” on issues of land and debts were badly planned, rushed and done without popular support in the countryside. The Communist government attempted to take the role of khans and tribal elite and failed. Ending debts owed by peasants to tribal elites simply blocked peasants from getting loans for seed and animals. Oh yeah and brutally imposing reforms does help push people into shooting.
War mongering revenge. A proxy war where Americans were happy to spend the money to let someone else fight their fight for them. They could care less about the situation they created. It wasn’t about helping the Afghans, it was about hurting the Soviets.
Capitalism, getting guns from one group of godless communists to put into the hands of religous zealots to kill other group of godless communists.
And the Soviets didn’t enter Afghanistan to help the locals, so whats the point of America not doing to same?
We spent money to arm the never ending flow of Afghanis who were pissed off at the Soviets. The Soviets were their own worst enemies in Afghanistan. Creating the refugees who filled out the mobile Mujahideen units.
They only levelled the country because of the externally supported resistance. If there was no outside help they wouldn’t have bombed it and mined it so much.
Herat was carpet bombed in 1979.
troungReally? Afghanistan was a country inside the Soviet Sphere. It hadn’t been invaded by the Soviets before but was an ally till the CIA started interfering in the early 70s.
ISI operations aimed at punishing Daoud for his support of Pakistani guerillas and of course the Durand Line. The radical Islamists entered in 1975 to start a revolt.
When the Soviets went into Afghanistan and imposed Communism the situation for most Afghans actually improved. Better health and education for everyone. Women were allowed out of their houses and were able to go to work and get an education. They didn’t get a vote, but then when have the Afghans ever had a full fair election anyway.
Social reforms started under Daoud back in the 1950s. Communists who BTW lacked popular support or legitimacy conducted a coup in 1978 and took power. The Communists then were faced with a full scale revolt not just from the Islamist guerillas but from within the army.
Under the Soviet occupation millions of people became refugees. Conditions in the north got better true but the large scale civilian losses and refugee crisis prevents someone objective from saying things in the country got better. And a large part of the population lived out of the control of the government.
And when you peel back that sticker you will find that the Soviet weapons used against the Soviets weren’t made in the Soviet Union, they will either have “Made for or by some Arab country, captured by Israel, sent to the US and passed on via the CIA to the Afghans, of it will say made in China sold to the CIA and passed on to the Afghans”.
Capitalism baby. Buying guns from Communists to kill other Communists.
Even late in the war Afghans were still using 303 bolt action rifles. If they were using captured weapons how could they get 303 ammo… the Soviets didn’t use it… The reality is that the US supplied more ammo and weapons than the Afghans could use.
Well the whole building of SMLEs in the tribal zones you know the tribal metal workers can and do build rifles… :p
Of course we supplied thousands of SMLEs from all over the world, even from Soviet allies.
Now they pretend they are the good guys, but they still don’t care much for the plight of the average Afghan… this is all about revenge against the Taleban and nothing to do with peace or democracy.
And the Soviet’s invaded to prop up Communism in Afghanistan which was ready to fall.
US interference had nothing to do with the Afghan people and their well being. It was a political war by proxy that killed a lot of Afghans for no reason. It kept the country poor and war torn for how many decades, and despite US forces being there now there is no peace in sight outside the major cities.
And leveling the country in the 1980s to keep them good Soviet puppets didn’t make them rich.
troung50-70?! You mean to tell me that my tax dollars are helping to pay for them to get that many F-16’s??? That’s crazy…….there are so many other places I can think of that I’d rather have F-16’s go…..
Same here, but I thought you supported the President… :p
But seriously “we” want to keep Lockmart building planes ever if we the taxpayers get the honor of footing the bill… 😉
troungHow does the price of the Hawk compare with the AMX strike fighter? That seems to be much tougher and harder-hitting.
Cheaper then the Hawk 200 but more then the Hawk 100.
Can the Hawk carry guided ATG munitions, like the AGM-65 perhaps? If not, than I think a better alternative might be the L-159.
You know I posted 2 pictures already of Indonesian Hawk 209s with the AGM-65G… so yes…
—
Off hand but I hate when people post big pictures and don’t attach them but link them from the site…
troungWhat? Are we comparing JF-17 with Hawk?
Well India is buying Hawks and Pakistan will get the J-17/F-17. I bet if a poll was made between the Hawk 110 and the FC-1 it would be close… 😉
Maybe K-8 vs. Hawk would get some people to show up… :p
Well, there is the maintenance question, though.
Yeah the Alpha Jet doesn’t seem fun to keep flying….
Hawks 100 were offered to Slovakia some 3-4 years ago, for $18mil each, Hawk 200 went slightly over $21mil. Another contender was AMX-T which was (pricewise) placed somewhere between these two.
Prices seem about right.
These aircraft were evaluated as very expensive compared to their capabilities and the offer was rejected, but richer nations might have different opinion.
I guess it depends on need. If an air force wants an subsonic ground attacker, but the Hawk 200 is of course based on the Hawk 100 making parts issues easier…
troungEven if the Pakistanis get some F-16’s are they new build?
Yes.
Pakistan isn’t exactly overloaded with money,
Our tax dollars at work…
It’s not like a few F-16’s is going to make much of a difference when compared with the IAF anyway.
Actually it seems like they will get a lot. Well like 50-70 according to their papers…
troungI don’t see why they don’t put AIM-7’s on it. May not be supersonic but with that -66 radar, you still have a useful point defense fighter, especially when operating in conjunction with Hornets and Fulcrums.
They don’t put the AIM-7M on it most likely because its role is not to fight other planes.
One thing you have to remember about the 200 is that the intent is not to provide something that will serve as your only fighter.
It is offered as a “light fighter” which of course is for marketing.
It’s got a good avionics set, good available weapons, and a decent range for such a small airplane.
Never said it didn’t have those.
I looked up some prices, and 20 million is too much for the 200. It’s probably somewhere around 15 mil. USD.
Put in parts and kickbacks and you are looking at 30 million…
When you get an A-4 out of storage, rebuild it to fly, upgrade it with all the necessary things (digital databus, modern glass cockpit, HUD, RWR, countermeasures, modern weapon certifications, plumb it for IFR, etc.), it will be somewhat more expensive…probably not quite as much as the Hawk, but then again it won’t have the new car “smell” to it. The 200 is still overpriced, but compared to much more expensive jets depending on your situation it could be useful.
All I’m saying is the refrebed A-4 might be a better investment provided oine goes through the work to make it run right. Using the same APG-66, 2 30mm DEFAs, modern avoinics and such and you have pretty much similar if not better ability then the Hawk…
Still the Hawk 200 does its CAS/armed flight role pretty well.
Now I know some kid will post about the Su-25… :rolleyes:
troungYeah there is pretty much no chance of extra Mirage 2000-5EI/DIs to the ROCAF…
troungMaybe its usefulness is pretty limited and it isn’t cheap either. I don’t like the idea of the external gunpod waste a of hardpoint that could be used for other more useful stores.
It is rather limited and isn’t that cheap which is one of the reasons it hasn’t caught on too well. Indonesia does actually employ their’s as multi role planes and conducted air defense missions (with AIM-9P-4s) on their border with East Timor, but for around 20 million a subsonic airframe…
Compared to modern fighters it’s a cheap aircraft, and it’s comes readlily available with a modern range of weapons, so theres no upgrading really necessary like there would be with say an F-5 or MiG-21.
It isn’t that cheap…
Granted, the F-5 and MiG-21 have better performance, but they will be more expensive to operate, and in the case of Malaysia you already have better performing fighters (F/A-18 and MiG-29) that will be operating in conjunction with your Hawks, so the Hawks subsonic performance isn’t such a big deal.
The Hawk 200 costs a lot for what it brings.
The gun pod isn’t such a handicap because the centerline hardpoint is only used for a very small array of stores, which include a recce pod or single bombs (the wings are where twin ejector racks are carried). So you have your gun pod, two tanks, two wingtip AIM-9’s, and four Mk-82’s……not a bad load, and with the tanks you’ll get a decent range with which to complete your mission.
Referbing and zeroing an A-4 would get you similar for less…
It’s not an F-16, but I think the Hawk 200 is a bit more useful than people are giving it credit for.
It is actually pretty expensive for its limited role… Indonesia paid something like 20 million a piece for the Hawk 209s it seems…
It does the CAS and armed persuation flights pretty well seeing as in Indonesia the guerillas lack any sort of AD systems. It has a nice combat range with a nice payload and can be IFRed. And among the Indonesian combat jet fleet it is probably in the best (minus the new and unarmed Flankers) shape due to sanctions/sanction jumping.
But as for the light fighter role which it is supposed to fill, it can’t do that very well. Granted they didn’t plan to use them as “fighters” but as a low end mud mover with the F-16s as the fighters but things changed with sanctions.
It’s a nice plane to look at and read about its service but it is what it is a converted trainer trying to play fighter…
For what it is fitting bombs to the two seaters might just be the better investment then buying a single seater… Still I do like the Hawk 200 family even though the fleets will probably not be expanded…
troungMalaysian Hawks one time got used to scare some PhAF OV-10s. The Hawks were totally unarmed but gave the OV-10s quite a scare and chased them home. Looking at Malaysia I would not be shocked for one moment if the Hawks are taken out of service in the next 5-10 years. Of course no plans to do so are around at the moment.
Indonesian Hawks have seen plenty of action dealing with internal rebel groups. Indonesian Hawk 209s use the AIM-9P-2/P-4, dumb bombs/rockets and can use the AGM-65G. Granted they have not had to fire a AGM-65 in anger as none of the rebel groups warrant one.
All the contraversy around the Indonesian Hawk fleet just shows they really work… 😉
Sign In
