Once again we forget Iran has 1 friend and that is China so if we are to thump them we need to get them on board or thump them also. Not a good scenario either way.
631 Billion dollars for military and thats a cut????
- Thread starter zeeblofowl_1969
- Start date
Mayhem
Banned
I was Regular Army. During D esert Storm and the period around that I was in 1/37 AR, 1st Armored Division. There's a book by Gen. Tommie Franks and Tom Clancy called Into The Storm where we were one of the units profiled. And, until D esert Storm got in the way, it was 1/37 AR that was selected that year for the Canadian Armored Trophy competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Army_Trophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Army_Trophy#CAT_.2791
So no, we were a frontline, worldwide deployable unit.
Again, I remember AAR after AAR where the the 113s and 577s were an ongoing joke. And during the war, I had to carry two ten-gallon cans of oil just to feel safe. Every time we stopped, I had to add anywhere from 2 to 5 quarts of oil, that was blowing out the exhaust (a common problem I was to find out) and drain the blown oil out through drainage valves on the bottom of the vehicle. Anywhere else, disposal would have been a huge problem, but since this was the Saudia/Iraqi desert, I just let it pour onto the ground.
If you look at a pic of a 113, look at the front "sprocket" of the drive wheels. The mechanism inside the engine compartment that runs them is called the "final drive". These were always springing leaks and needed to be completely replaced (expensively). No repair, just replace them. Same with the engines themselves. There was very little to fix. If you had a problem, replace the engine (expensively). My predecessor had to change the engine 4 times before he shipped out. I saw the writing on the wall and just dealt with what I had. Greasing the road wheels and road wheel arms was a nightmare of blown out seals. The list goes on and on of the bullshit involved in operating these pieces of shit.
We had no armor on ours. I took the "track skirts" (for amphibious operations) and wrapped and tied them around my drivers compartment to help with small arms fire. I still can't believe they let me get away with it, because it looked like shit....but they did. And in terms of "amphibious operations", I know of no one who trusted theirs to not capsize in deep water. I wouldn't have done it, regardless of my orders. Ever.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I was thinking of flying a strike package in. You could fly in with wild weasels in the first wave, backed up by F15s and 16s for air defense, then with B52s following up, launching cruise missiles to take out enemy runways, maybe even SAM sites from beyond their own attack range.
I didn't know the B2 was the only one to use the MOAB, I don't understand why B52 can't use it?
I'm sorry, but I don't see the need for the F22 in that role; the USAF has existing proven electronic warfare assets that could just as easily (but more cheaply) do the job.
You're right; both aircraft should easily be able to overpower Iran's forces. I believe B52s, F16s, F15s and wild weasel aircraft currently in the USAF arsenal can also overpower the Iranians. So why spend more?
I lump the F22 and Eurofighter together; both cost a pretty penny and have no combat record.
Now we Brits actually DO need a new fighter as we're still using a swing wing (read heavy) air supremacy version of the Tornado.
As regards BVR combat, it's been a fact of war since before Vietnam that air combat always degenerates into dogfights. If you wanna believe the hype, do so, but remember what they said about the F4 and how they never gave it a gun. All you need to do is upgrade a Su27's radar and suddenly all that money making the F22 stealth is wasted.
Now I admit that a supplier can choose not to supply, but given the incredible costs of doing your own research, it's often better to buy.
Put it this way; half the world bought the F16.
We Brits thought about buying it but opted for the Eurofighter.
The Eurofighter has no combat record and failed to intercept a TU 160 not so long ago.
Not only that, but in some ways, it's STILL being developed.
Or if you REALLY want an example of it being better to buy abroad than develop your own, look at the Arjun; you can spend more to develop your own weapons and end up with something just bloody awful. Buy a combat proven weapon and, providing you test it to make sure you're not being given monkey models, you get a combat proven weapon.
But if I'd had a deciding hand in the american military I'd have taken the radars off the F14s when they were retired, strapped one on each end, then strapped Aim154 Phoneix's, HARM anti-sam site missiles and Aim 9s on the wings.
Not perfect, but you've got range, defensive capability and internal bombload all in one combat proven aircraft.
Why? Will China REALLY join battle with the yanks to defend the Iranians? They were busily selling (pisspoor) tanks to BOTH sides in the Iran Iraq war.
They are busily provoking the americans right now, what with economic warfare, military tensions and espionage, so if they were willing to go military, they'd already have done so, but they won't because they know from past experience that militarily, they are weak, which is WHY they prefer economic warfare. You want good relations with China? Aint gonna happen.
The Soviets learnt that with the Sino-Soviet split.
The Russian's learnt that when they copied their Su27.
OK.
Then frankly, I don't understand; I hear so much shit about the Stryker, so little bad about the M113 and none of the issues you mentioned.
Since it's so widely used and I heard so little bad about it, I thought it was ok.
I thought the basic M113 hull was proof against .50 over frontal and 7.62 elsewhere? I'm assuming you mean no applique or cage armour.
Well, that was a revelation (never heard of any of those issues before)and I don't know what to say to it, but thanks for the info.
My bad the B52 will carry the MOP. B52 is a great plane, but Vietnam showed us its weaknesses. The MOP is a different bomb from the MOAP. And again the B2 combat record is basically flawless. We don't know what type of SAMs the Iranians have in their arsenal, so we need to be careful. Even a few S300s would be a problem for a non stealth strike. If the F22 was integrated with HARM and had a laser designator, no one could make a valid argument, about not including it on a potential Iran raid. I have heard theses two quoted sentences in many articles "The Raptor's very high sustained cruise speed and operational altitude add significantly to the effective range of both air-to-air and air-to-surface munitions. This gives it a 40% greater employment range for air to air missiles than the F-35." Our main goal is to have a successful mission, along with bringing our pilots back safely. The B2 and F22 is easily the best strike package for the job.
None of our SSBN classes have combat records. If they did we probably would not be here, so don't use that excuse. You do know TU 160 is a Mach 2 bomber, and Typhoon wasn't trying to shoot it down. The perfect example of losing technical know how is the Charles de Gaulle carrier; it had been almost 40 years since France built a carrier. There were many problems during its construction and early service, but they've been fixed. India has never developed a main battle tank before the Arjun.
Mayhem,
I apologize for my comments, about your militiary service record in one of my old posts. I was being a troll
I apologize for my comments, about your militiary service record in one of my old posts. I was being a troll
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by combat weaknesses of the B52.
As far as I'm concerned B52 has two problems:
1: It's too heavy (for it's undercarriage), disallowing it's use from rough airfields and aircraft dispersal in the event of an enemy attack, and
2: It hasn't been produced in enough variants given the inherant flexibility in it's design; the Tu95 operated as maritime patrol aircraft, refueller, bomber, AWACs, civilian transport and maybe more (and it did so from rough Russian airfields). I see no reason why B52 couldn't have been adapted to those roles for the sake of the economy of parts commonality.
But combat? What weaknesses does she have there?
From what I know of S300 it also constitutes a problem for a stealth strike, so why not just use wild weasels along with cruise missiles on all suspected s300 sites? :dunno:
I can make a valid argument about using an F22 equipped in that manner on a raid; a number of other aircraft with the same or similar equipment could do the same job - but cheaper.
While the F22's altitude advantage is indeed an advantage, so what? You're still capable of doing the job with other assets, just cheaper.
Given the maintenance needs, cost and reliability demonstrated by B2 and F22 I would rather go with conventional aircraft.
I'm beginning to suspect we're both making the same points and counter-points and simply never going to agree (I say existing assets can do the job cheaper and more reliably and be upgraded to continue doing so in future, you say that the new assets give advantages) and we will simply have to agree to differ.
I'm not sure where we were getting into the combat records of SSBNs...
But for the record I believe sub-launched cruise missiles striking key targets could be an essential part of an assault. I'd much rather throw a missile into hostile airspace than an airspace penetrating aircraft.
I know Tu 160 is Mach 2 capable and I do know that the Typhoons weren't going weapons hot, but my point is that aircraft have been intercepted without fire before and the Typhoon FAILED to do that.
Now the Typhoon costs either half or a 3rd as much as an F22 and for that cash I expect it not just to be capable of intercepting a Tu160, but intercepting at the very least any subsonic cruise missiles it may launch and preferably supersonic ones as well (The Russians and Indians have supersonic cruise missiles which the yanks lack, I just can't remember if the Tu160 carries them or not off the top of my head.)
India hadn't developed an MBT before the Arjun.
Instead she took her time developing it, buying not one but TWO lots of interim T72s.
Now she has it, over-time and over-budget.
And it sucks. It's practically a metephor for F22 and Typhoon.
Despite being briefly aquainted with a French lady who told me about playing basketball on the decks of the Charles De Gaul I'm afraid I know almost nothing of that ship, so :dunno:
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by combat weaknesses of the B52.
As far as I'm concerned B52 has two problems:
1: It's too heavy (for it's undercarriage), disallowing it's use from rough airfields and aircraft dispersal in the event of an enemy attack, and
2: It hasn't been produced in enough variants given the inherant flexibility in it's design; the Tu95 operated as maritime patrol aircraft, refueller, bomber, AWACs, civilian transport and maybe more (and it did so from rough Russian airfields). I see no reason why B52 couldn't have been adapted to those roles for the sake of the economy of parts commonality.
But combat? What weaknesses does she have there?
From what I know of S300 it also constitutes a problem for a stealth strike, so why not just use wild weasels along with cruise missiles on all suspected s300 sites? :dunno:
I can make a valid argument about using an F22 equipped in that manner on a raid; a number of other aircraft with the same or similar equipment could do the same job - but cheaper.
While the F22's altitude advantage is indeed an advantage, so what? You're still capable of doing the job with other assets, just cheaper.
Given the maintenance needs, cost and reliability demonstrated by B2 and F22 I would rather go with conventional aircraft.
I'm beginning to suspect we're both making the same points and counter-points and simply never going to agree (I say existing assets can do the job cheaper and more reliably and be upgraded to continue doing so in future, you say that the new assets give advantages) and we will simply have to agree to differ.
I'm not sure where we were getting into the combat records of SSBNs...
But for the record I believe sub-launched cruise missiles striking key targets could be an essential part of an assault. I'd much rather throw a missile into hostile airspace than an airspace penetrating aircraft.
I know Tu 160 is Mach 2 capable and I do know that the Typhoons weren't going weapons hot, but my point is that aircraft have been intercepted without fire before and the Typhoon FAILED to do that.
Now the Typhoon costs either half or a 3rd as much as an F22 and for that cash I expect it not just to be capable of intercepting a Tu160, but intercepting at the very least any subsonic cruise missiles it may launch and preferably supersonic ones as well (The Russians and Indians have supersonic cruise missiles which the yanks lack, I just can't remember if the Tu160 carries them or not off the top of my head.)
India hadn't developed an MBT before the Arjun.
Instead she took her time developing it, buying not one but TWO lots of interim T72s.
Now she has it, over-time and over-budget.
And it sucks. It's practically a metephor for F22 and Typhoon.
Despite being briefly aquainted with a French lady who told me about playing basketball on the decks of the Charles De Gaul I'm afraid I know almost nothing of that ship, so :dunno:
During Operation Linbacker II, 15 B52s were shot down in 12 days. Its an ok over areas with built up air defenses. We don't know all types of SAMs the Iranians operate. Yeah ALCM and SLCM will be used against static SAMs, but cruise missile strikes will not get all the mobile launchers. Yeah, S300s are risk to stealth aircraft. But they're much bigger risk to non stealth aircraft ,because they shoot down them at their max kill range. The attitude advantage is big. F22s extend the range, of munitions they carry by a very good margin. With the small diameter bomb, they should able to stay out of the detection ranges, of any potential Iranian S300s. I could see some wild weasels with F22s and B2s, but I just don't see a strike without them.
You are the one who harps on combat records. Every system doesn't need combat usage; inorder, to prove its worth. A good example of that is all of our SSBN classes. Its almost impossible for fighters to intercept subsonic or supersonic cruise missiles; they use low level flight paths and are terrain following weapons. You have to deny them any lanch capability. by destroying your enemy's cruise missle launch systems.
China and India are using the US model, they're developing two 5 gen stealth fighters. India and Russia will most likely team up again on a F35 type aircraft.
CdG has had many problems; all of that is behind the carrier now. Its the second most powerful class of surface warships in the world.
Mayhem
Banned
It's all good. We were both having an off day. It happens around here.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
That's what wild weasel aircraft and jammers are for; first take out EADS, then send in the bombers.
Or just launch ALCMs from outside the range of the enemy EADS.
Fuck the small diameter bomb, when it comes to SAM sites you wanna use HARMs.
Forget SHOULD be able to stay out of detection range, look at electronic warfare aircraft jamming the sites while wild weasels launch harms from definately outside missiles range.
We've seen succesfull strikes in the past and will see more in the future. Since you can't see a succesful strike without them, I guess we'll just have to differ on this point, though I'm sure we can agree on much (eg A10 is a good plane).
If you don't use combat usage to prove worth you end up spending much on equipment that ultimately turns out to be useless or harmful.
I stand by my emphasis on combat records.
You yourself said that the last thing we'd want is a combat record for your SSBNs.
I agree with your evaluation of cruise missiles; so use them instead of stealthy penetrators. Much more cost effective.
So what if China and India are chasing stealth; would you take it as proof of the viability of stealth if I told you North Korea and Somalia were chasing stealth?
India's already pursued Arjun and china isn't a great military power and their type 89 APC and type 69 tank (Fuck I hope I'm remembering those designation right) both sucked more balls than Zdenka.
India and Russia are currently involved in the Pak Fa project.
Incidently, India has little if any experience manufacturing combat aircraft and Pa Fa is the 3rd stealth aircraft developed by Russia.
Su47 cost a pretty penny to produce the demonstrator aircraft, but never went into production.
MiG 1.44 cost a VERY pretty penny (plasma stealth and all) and never went into production.
Pak Fa costs a pretty penny... Wanna bet when it will be cancelled?
As concerns CDG; I don't know, so I'll take your word for it.
Social entitlement programs cost a fuck of a lot more then that, how do you think your lord and dick suck obuba drove the debt up by over six trillion dollars in just four years.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Figures, statistics and proof please.
We will never agree with eachother on this matter. The F22 and B2 do not need any jamming aircraft; there AESAs can jam Iranian radars, but even Iran's older SAMS can takeout the wild weasels using HARM. Some of them have longer effective range then the HARM. The U. S. government is botching the F22 and F35 programs. We're is spilting money between the two programs; instead, of making one a complete weapons system. I would put most of money betwwen the F22s since its the better fighter. We should've developed, a dual use SEAD/BVR missile for the F22 and F35, or at least integrate both with HARM. The F35 wild be our future SEAD aircraft. The best option for a attack would sending in ACLMs, and SLCMs simultaneously with B2s and F22s.
I get what you are saying, but our defense industry has a good track record, of producing great equipment. The M1, Apache, Bradley IFV, and A10 were called flops before the first Gulf War. I do get that the Iraqi T72 were no match for them, but they're as good as any tank in the world. SAM has really progressed over the last decade. Thrust vectoring missiles like the Aster, is going to make it much harder for the older jets. Yes, most systems need battle testing to work out buds, but just shouldn't be any major program fallers like in the past. For example, ittakes 5-6 years of testing and evaulation, before any new weapons systems are put into service with the Army.
Neither Somalia or North Korea have the money or the science base to construct stealth fighters. India is a democracy country and a friend, but China is friendenemy, so we can't fall behind them.
Those projects were startedin the begin of the last decade. Now the Russian government has tax money coming in from petroleum. The offical line is that 35% of Russian federal budget comes form tax revenue from oil and gas. Some experts think its as high as 50% percent. Putin sells himself, as the man who made Russia strong again, so the PAK-FA will go into production. The three amigos Putin, Dmitry Medvedev, and Sergei Ivanov are the main players in that country. The've vastly increased defense spending over the last decade, and started a massive new procurement program.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
If they can be spotted on radar (and they can) they need jamming aircraft.
What makes you so sure they can take out wild weasels?
The high low system works well. It worked well in the creation of the F15 and F16, also MiG29 and Su27.
I have to admit though that the F22 is less of a dogs dinner than the F35.
The M1 great? Really? I think not.
From what I heard they had to ground most Apaches in the world to canibalise them for parts to keep the ones used in Iraq flying.
BTW our Apaches (which have more thrust and better counter-measures than yours) cost a whopping $20,000 per flight hour.
Surely it would be cheaper to just have an armoured piston-engined rocket armed aircraft loitering over troop positions in Afghan 24/7?
The Bradley? Really? It's bigger than a tank and it's 25mm autocannon (sorry; chaingun) doesn't compare to the weapons on a lot of IFVs.
Now the A10 has proven itself.
The Iraqi T72s as good as any tank in the world? You can't be serious?!
With so many of the world's richer countries pursuing stealth, it was kind of hard to give examples from the first world.
The PAK-FA will go into production because Putin sees himself as the next man of steel.
They may have increased defense spending and procured new stuff, but remember that defense spending was slashed incredibly and that many of the designs they already had were old .
Well, it all depends on what range can the Iranian radars detect the F22 and B2. I can ensure you thats at a mucher short range then with the older aircraft. There's a much higher chance, they takeout a wild weasel than a stealth aircraft.
Your changes to the design of your Apaches has much do with that per flight hour amount.The Bradley was a very good ifv, but it needs replacing,
I meant to say the M1 was one of the best tanks in the world, but its designs should've put a diesel in it. M1's jet turbine does lower its range much when compare it to other modern tanks.
Like you said, stealth fighters are becoming the new battleship for some countries; he also has to keep his military and the massive Russian defense industry happy. Plus, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries would buy it. Since I doubt Congress will let them but the F35. The biggest chunks of the U. S. military' budget is Operations and Maintenance (wars, world deployments), and salaries of militay personnel. Russia has a military that's a defensive force. There're not at war at the moment and they don't deploy there like the of Soviet Union. And Russia still has a mostly conscript military; they get paid much less then professional soldiers. One of Economics teachers use to joke that the Soviet made weapons before they made bread. That statement has alot validity behind it, since Russia has second most powerful military in the world. Even the U.S. Military would get beat badly, if we put put ground troops in Russia. Russia has the second biggest Air force in the World, and a totally integrated air defense network that is unrivalled. Its Ground Forces has much old equipment, but very good equipment.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I agree that stealth aircraft can delay detection, but my argument is that it's cheaper and more reliable to simply strike from further away and develop weapons which strike from further away when the enemy increases the range of his EADS than to use stealth.
Wether or not that is the case, america still had to ground half her apache fleet to keep many flying over Iraq. Bearing in mind that the Apache can't resist GPMG fire at close range while A10, Su25 and (double chec this 'cos I aint sure) Mi28 Havoc will take 50 cal. in their stride, I remain unimpressed with any nation's Apache.
How was the Bradley a good IFV? It's not amphibious, it lacks firepower as concerns it's cannon. Although I must admit that the TOW is a nasty piece of work.
It would certainly be better with a diesel piston engine like Leopard 2's 1500hp model, but even so, it's massive, not entirely reliable, so heavy it has fallen through bridges...
Honestly, I think what makes a lot of american equipment look good is the troops using it doing a good job, rather than the equipment itself.
Frankly, I agree with much, if not all of your final paragraph, so :dunno:
I see your point, but the price complete long range strike munitions would increase greatly.
I like Ka52 Alligator and Mi28 Havoc better then the Apache D.
Our soldiers are well trained, but we haven't faced a commader like Gen Vo Nguyen Giap over the last decade either. He knew his forces were going to lose every najor battle against the U.S. military. But he also knew, that daily U.S. media war coverage showing American troop losts, would evaporate American oublic support for the war.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Maybe the price would increase, but I believe it would still be cheaper to deploy and maintain such weapons (and more reliable) than stealth aircraft.
Is Ka52 in production?
Yeah, Afghanistan isn't Vietnam; we're only fighting an insurgency there, not an insurgency and a conventional army.
Yes, the Ka52 is in production, but Mi28N will be pocured in greater numbers.
I was talking about Iraq.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Not sure how wise it is to fund two helicopters. After all, given how (comparatively) good the Cobra is, why do the americans need the Apache as well, why not just use the Apache money to buy more cobras? :dunno:
Especially given the weird "people carrier but not" capability of the Mi28.
They are funding three helicopters the Mi28, Ka52, and Mi35. The Ka52 will be navalised and used on the Russian Mistrals, along with use by Russian Special Operations, and Regular Aviation units. The Mi28 will be the main design replacing the Mi24. I guess the Russian pilots loved the Mi24 and, so they're buying Mi35s modernized Mi24s. All three are very different designs unlike the Apache and Supercobra.
Similar threads
