Europe and 5th generation aircraft

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chrom

New Member
YOU REALLY WOULD LEARN A LOT BY STUDYING OPERATION DESERT STORM. Especially the first 5 days of the air war.
What should i learn from that? What superior 1st world airforce with all its gooddies > degraded, for 15 years embargoed and bombed to death 3rd world army? For all we know USAF could use Cessnas with about some excellent outcome...

What if I asked you to purchase a car but didn't tell you anything about the conditions you would need to use it in? Do you think you could make a wise purchase? This is just what you and others who keep on about this silly SAM debate are doing and you are seriously lowering the quality and intelligence of the debate. Why don't you just ask sincere questions as opposed to these loaded ignorant questions and then we can try to explain it to you or figure out things together? Grow up.


-DA
Somehow, it is you who avoid conditions. What good would be, say, large airforce for Iran or Syria? What good was airforce for Iraq? At least SAM's will force any attacker to prepare and gather 3x times more forces...

What good will be extra 100 F-15 for USA? Whereas 300 Patriots actually greatly add to battle flexibility...

P.S. I see, you didnt answered my direct and simply questions.Instead, you began personal insults. I understand why - i forced you to directly compare SAM's and fighters from the same-user point of view. With such direct question - "what should i buy and why?" - it is almost impossible to hide behind your beloved examples of superior modern lucky airforce vs WW2 old SAM's.
 

locutus

New Member
Question

What good would be, say, large airforce for Iran or Syria? What good was airforce for Iraq? At least SAM's will force any attacker to prepare and gather 3x times more forces...
Substitute the US for any of the above countries. Given this comment and earlier comments posted by Feanor and Chrom, this begs the question "Why isn't the US being bombed or why hasn't it been bombed?" We have no IADS. You don't see Patriots, THAAD, or any other system currently deployed around bases here in the US, around major cities, or critical infrastructure.

Perhaps those systems DA and GF speak of and our large airforce are pretty effective.

Ultimately, I think the question is whether one thinks it is better to have a defensive vs offensive posture during war. I say offensive is far better. I'd rather have my enemy reacting to me than the other way around. I don't think you can win by playing defense all the time.
 

Chrom

New Member
Substitute the US for any of the above countries. Given this comment and earlier comments posted by Feanor and Chrom, this begs the question "Why isn't the US being bombed or why hasn't it been bombed?" We have no IADS. You don't see Patriots, THAAD, or any other system currently deployed around bases here in the US, around major cities, or critical infrastructure.

Perhaps those systems DA and GF speak of and our large airforce are pretty effective.

Ultimately, I think the question is whether one thinks it is better to have a defensive vs offensive posture during war. I say offensive is far better. I'd rather have my enemy reacting to me than the other way around. I don't think you can win by playing defense all the time.
1. USA is not bombed because it have strongest military in the world (nvm a-bomb). It's territory also in unique position - there are no enemies nearby. It have nothing to do with SAM's. However, in more distant places, where someone MIGHT actually give a try - USA happily employ SAM's.

2. Noone bombed Russia. Russia have strongest SAM's IAD network in world. According to your logic, this proves SAM's are useful (although according to MY logic SAM's have nothing to do with it).

3. SAM's or not SAM's have exactly zero relation to offensive vs defensive strategy. As every single SAM on ground frees 5-10 aircrafts to actually strike enemy. IF enemy have such strong airforce what he can reliable defeat both your SAM's and your airforce, and YOUR airforce cant attack - then it is game over for you.

Then you hadnt any chance to begin with, and this had nothing to do with SAM's or fighters. In that case absence of SAM's and presence of few extra fighters or bombers would not matter in the slightest - except may be actually easing your enemies job and provoke them to attack at even lower stakes for even fewer reasons.

I'm at the place of, lets assume it, Syrian general. What you advise me to acquire for AD - 45 MIG-29 or 30 Mig-29 + 15 S-300? Keep in mind, both options will do squat vs USA. But second one will actually force USA to bring 2 CVBG instead of just 1 and take some time and effort to scout my position. And even then without any guarantee of not losing several aircrafts in the process...

I'm at place, lets assume it, USA general. Yes, i'm 90% sure i will detect suicide Iranian Mig-25 take off and approach. But there is 10% chance i wont, and then my ground forces will be defenseless - because it is night to impossible to maintain 24/7 friendly fighters presence everywhere.

Well, i dont know what you would choose - but real USA generals brought Patriots.
 

guppy

New Member
Chrom,

Somehow,I feel that a more appropriate way of discussing the effectiveness of SAMs vs fighters would be assess what kind of options, perhaps Iran has, in preparation against air bombardement from the US. ie what can it best do from the SAMS/fighters perspective, to achieve a certain objective,eg to preserve forces and alleged nuclear assets for XX days until they manage to get the Russians involve. Should it focus on beefing up its SAMs or fighters? But that would meanwe should change the name of the thread.

DA,

the max theoretical detection range (for non "wave bending" radars due to radar horizon) of a 200 ft agl target depends on altitude of radar antenna and terrain among other things :). I could calculate it if you really want to, but I got to go find one of my old crusty books. By the way, having fighters don't really help unless, they are airborne all the time. It is more useful to have early warning a/c in this case. You still can't shoot wthout PID unless we have a quite liberal ROE.

cheers

guppy
 

Chrom

New Member
It would be really useful if mods split the SAM vs fighters thread from 5th gen thread. They have little in common.
 

Chrom

New Member
Chrom,

Somehow,I feel that a more appropriate way of discussing the effectiveness of SAMs vs fighters would be assess what kind of options, perhaps Iran has, in preparation against air bombardement from the US. ie what can it best do from the SAMS/fighters perspective, to achieve a certain objective,eg to preserve forces and alleged nuclear assets for XX days until they manage to get the Russians involve.
I think, this is even more fantasy scenario than some others suggested.

Besides, if USA know Iranian forces and russian involvement possibility , they can certainly amass enough resources to literally obliterate Iranian defense in a matter of days. No sane amount of SAM's / Fighters will save Iran - USA always will be able to bring order of magnitude more, supported by much better and much more developed infrastructure.

The only reason for Iran in conflict with USA to look at improving conventional defense is to force USA bring more resources, severely increasing the cost of operation and forces required. Which is, of course, good for Iran and might justify the cost of additional SAM's and fighters.
 

guppy

New Member
I think, this is even more fantasy scenario than some others suggested.

Besides, if USA know Iranian forces and russian involvement possibility , they can certainly amass enough resources to literally obliterate Iranian defense in a matter of days. No sane amount of SAM's / Fighters will save Iran - USA always will be able to bring order of magnitude more, supported by much better and much more developed infrastructure.

The only reason for Iran in conflict with USA to look at improving conventional defense is to force USA bring more resources, severely increasing the cost of operation and forces required. Which is, of course, good for Iran and might justify the cost of additional SAM's and fighters.
There you have it...it doesn't matter if the scenario is fantasy based because politicians have their own type of logic. Delete the reference to Russia for all you want, but there needs to have a clear specific objective.

cheers

guppy
 

Chrom

New Member
Ok, clear specific objective:

1. Be able to defend against "smaller" countries like Israel, especially be able to successfully act during and after they first strike - if they act only on they own of course. Remember, due to much lower training and worse infrastructure Iran need much greater number of aircrafts in direct combat to be successful.

2. Deny USA (and everyone else) the ability to overfly Iran in "low-intensity" and "rogue" manner like it was done with f.e. Iraq between GW1 and GW2.

3. Force USA (and everyone else) to amass as much forces as possible if they actually decide to carry direct offensive operation against Iran.

4. Make them pay as much as possible during such operation.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Ok, clear specific objective:

1. Be able to defend against "smaller" countries like Israel, especially be able to successfully act during and after they first strike - if they act only on they own of course. Remember, due to much lower training and worse infrastructure Iran need much greater number of aircrafts in direct combat to be successful.

2. Deny USA (and everyone else) the ability to overfly Iran in "low-intensity" and "rogue" manner like it was done with f.e. Iraq between GW1 and GW2.

3. Force USA (and everyone else) to amass as much forces as possible if they actually decide to carry direct offensive operation against Iran.

4. Make them pay as much as possible during such operation.
Kind of national Darwinism since all 4 choices end with their destruction.

-DA
 

Chrom

New Member
With those methods, ultimately, yes. It's like agreeing to play chess and you start off in check mate. Which is why threat nations focus their strategies elsewhere.

-DA
So far, history proved you are wrong. There were countless examples when much stronger country either did not attack or even retreated during attack against weaker country - due to efforts and resources required being not worth the win.

Few examples: Vietnam, Afghanistan, NK, China, Syria and even Iran now.

Of course, that said, if USA really decides going up crazy and full force - than nothing will save Iran. But is not it you who rely on sane behavior of american president and congress?
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
So far, history proved you are wrong. There were countless examples when much stronger country either did not attack or even retreated during attack against weaker country - due to efforts and resources required being not worth the win.

Few examples: Vietnam, Afghanistan, NK, China, Syria and even Iran now.

Of course, that said, if USA really decides going up crazy and full force - than nothing will save Iran. But is not it you who rely on sane behavior of american president and congress?
Chrom,

You need to stop looking at this in the vacuum of USA vs Iran. It isn't that way. It's a coalition effort that includes most of the modern world. The US may do most of the heavy lifting in terms of military response but that is only part of it. The consequences of a nuclear Iran could affect the entire planet. Millions could die if the flow of oil is seriously disrupted. That makes this situation much more serious than the limited conflicts of the past. 17 million barrels of oil times $140 USD each daily through the strait of Hormuz. Do you have any ideal how much money that is? That's worth it and any response to a threat to that is not crazy. The higher prices go, the more people can't afford energy to cook, stay warm, drive to work, be driven to work, use lights, xport food and a whole lot of other things. People will start to die at some point Chrom. That dying starts in poorer countries. The poorer you are the faster it affects you. By dying I mean MEGADEATH. The USA is the most secure from this since it is the most wealthy nation. So when you use words like "sane" or "crazy" in this situation without the kind of context I just provided you aren't being objective. This isn't about sane or crazy, its about survival and there are 5.5 billion people in line before the 300 million Americans. Many of those people depend on Americans to ensure their survival. So this is clearly a military/humanitarian/economic situation rather than an issue of sanity. This is the global situation.

Locally, Israel being a very densely packed society with little strategic depth cannot survive nuclear attacks PERIOD. Iran would be in a huge position of advantage. Put into some context for you Chrom, Israel has a population of only ~7 million. Those 7 million have only 4 ports and very few cities. only a small portion of their land is arable. Water supplies are equally limited. They don't have the mass or depth to withstand even a minor nuclear war. It would be the end of their society as we know it.

So there is no question that this is "worth it". When you look at it this way, it's rather clear what means nations would resort to in the absence of options. Personally I question if Iran is even seriously after weapons or instead just using the threat of getting them to get concessions from the rest of the world. They have to know what the consequences are. The only other alternative is that their government is fanatical.

-DA
 

Sintra

New Member
"Fanatical" or scared to death...
I do imagine that more than half of the Iranian "mullahs" had some sleepless nights after watching "thunder run" on CNN, and the images of Saddam Hussein "dancing" on a rope might have been a merry sight for Iranians but their leadership had some mixed feelings about it (the "I am not going to end like SH" type of feelings). And the only military threat/leverage that any small/medium nation can hope to use against the USA his a "guerrila" threat and THE BOMB (mushroom type).
Now imagine yourself on their shoes, to the South the massive US Navy fleets, to the West Iraq and 140 thousand American troops, to the East Afganistan and several thousands of GI´s, Marines and NATO brigades, to the North Turkey...
And before someone starts "throwing rocks" i am not suporting an Atomic Persia, that´s a nightmare that must be stoped at all costs.

What doesn´t get out of my mind his that the Middle East without the oil "crux" would have the political importance of... Sub Sahara Africa...
High time to substitute oil for some other kind of energy.



I am going to reprimand myself :eek:fftopic

Now back to Europe and fifth generation fighters
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
What doesn´t get out of my mind his that the Middle East without the oil "crux" would have the political importance of... Sub Sahara Africa...
High time to substitute oil for some other kind of energy.



I am going to reprimand myself :eek:fftopic

Now back to Europe and fifth generation fighters
That would condemn so many millions of them to slow deaths, just like Africans. That would be a tragedy IMHO. Now back to European 5th Gens...:)

-DA
 

Chrom

New Member
Chrom,

You need to stop looking at this in the vacuum of USA vs Iran. It isn't that way. It's a coalition effort that includes most of the modern world. The US may do most of the heavy lifting in terms of military response but that is only part of it. The consequences of a nuclear Iran could affect the entire planet. Millions could die if the flow of oil is seriously disrupted.
Oh really? Millions deaths didn't stopped USA (or coalition, doesnt matter) from invading Iraq, and didnt stopped everyone else denying "unfriendly" nations access to oil, food or any other resources. Embargo, do you know this word? Why Iran should prefer foreign national interest to his own? Then all other nations do exactly opposite? As i said, Iran have all right to do everything with its own oil.

That makes this situation much more serious than the limited conflicts of the past. 17 million barrels of oil times $140 USD each daily through the strait of Hormuz. Do you have any ideal how much money that is? That's worth it and any response to a threat to that is not crazy. The higher prices go, the more people can't afford energy to cook, stay warm, drive to work, be driven to work, use lights, xport food and a whole lot of other things. People will start to die at some point Chrom.
Dont be childish, this is pure propaganda. Why USA (and everyone else) can deny and embargo other countries even more vital wares - food, medicaments , iron, microchips, even oil - but Iran cant do the same? Besides, even middle-term, 140$ barrel is not depended from Iran in the slightest. China, India, and other 3rd world countries increasing oil consumption by far outweighs any amount of Oil Iran could deliver.

The age of cheap oil is gone, the age of cheap food is gone. Get other it.

That dying starts in poorer countries. The poorer you are the faster it affects you. By dying I mean MEGADEATH. The USA is the most secure from this since it is the most wealthy nation. So when you use words like "sane" or "crazy" in this situation without the kind of context I just provided you aren't being objective. This isn't about sane or crazy, its about survival and there are 5.5 billion people in line before the 300 million Americans. Many of those people depend on Americans to ensure their survival. So this is clearly a military/humanitarian/economic situation rather than an issue of sanity. This is the global situation.
As i said, this is pure propaganda. It have no relation to Iran, and certainly not in the such long perspective when Iran get A-bomb.

Locally, Israel being a very densely packed society with little strategic depth cannot survive nuclear attacks PERIOD. Iran would be in a huge position of advantage. Put into some context for you Chrom, Israel has a population of only ~7 million. Those 7 million have only 4 ports and very few cities. only a small portion of their land is arable. Water supplies are equally limited. They don't have the mass or depth to withstand even a minor nuclear war. It would be the end of their society as we know it.
Again, childish. Iran is not THAT large, and anyway - does the size matter that much in current world? With current modern weapon and against modern army? Iran is exactly in some boat as Israel. Hell, everyone in our planet in the same boat - there is no other defense against bullying other than a-bomb currently.

So there is no question that this is "worth it". When you look at it this way, it's rather clear what means nations would resort to in the absence of options. Personally I question if Iran is even seriously after weapons or instead just using the threat of getting them to get concessions from the rest of the world. They have to know what the consequences are. The only other alternative is that their government is fanatical.

-DA
I dont see it. Right now only USA and its, lets say it mildly, close allies are willing to bomb Iran. EU, Russia, China, India and 4/5 of the rest world are against. No matter what - even if Iran actually acquire such bomb.

For most of these countries USA restrict access to oil and is guilty in high oil prices 2 orders of magnitude more already than Iran could ever be in the future, even by most pessimistic scenatio.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Chrom, thanks for clearing all this up for me. I was so wrong. Now I'll be discussing European 5th Generation fighters from this point.


-DA
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Thread closed.

If people can't control themselves then don't post.

Chrom you've been on here long enough to know better

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top