Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airforce Or Airdefence  
User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 1283 times:

imagine your self as a country leader which is
<1> neutral
<2>peacefull you don't wan't to bomb anybody
what would you choose for your defence: fighters or missile systemes if you could spent 1.2 billions $?
for example
<1> 2 s-300 systems (600 millions each)
<2>1 patriot system (1.2 bil.)
<3>60 MIG-29SMT (20 mil. each)
<4>40 f-16 (30 mil each)
<5>34 su-30/35/37 (35 mil)
<6>27 f-15 (43 mil each)
<7> saabs ( i don't know how much they cost)
etc
please explein your choice

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 months 10 hours ago) and read 1068 times:

If a missile defense system could perform flawlessly (highly unlikely), I would choose it over having a group of fighters. Why? Well, to begin with, missiles decrease the loss-of-life potential for the home nation -- all it takes are two guys (out of harms way) to push buttons. Secondly, I would say that this type of system would cost less in the long term because maintenance costs would be lower and the system would likely have a longer lifespan. Finally, the missiles would require no aerial training budget.

User currently offlineMezza From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 3 months 2 hours ago) and read 1043 times:

What happens when the missiles misses through electronic countermeaures etc.

I would like to have a someone up there with a gun platform thanks and of course suitable AAM.

Air Defence can't rely on one form of deterent.

Although the use of mass AA & SAMS did a good job in Vietnam!!!!!!!



User currently offlineWhistler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1034 times:

I'd go for the 60 Migs or the 40 F-16s.

User currently offlineFlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1032 times:

I'd only buy 25 F-16s divided into two squadrons. That way I'd have a flexible air defense system where my aircraft could not only shoot down enemy aircraft but bomb their tanks too. I'd get gravel kits for the F-16s so they could operate off highways. The ground crews would be trained to disperse and recover aircraft at different locations so as to deny the enemy fixed bases. All of my F-16s would have the full LANTIRN system plus the new Raytheon Airborne Electronically Scanned Radar. This ensures reliability and all-weather capability so my forces could strike at night and during the day. Of course, I'd try to maintain 3 pilots for 2 aircraft in order to keep the bombs falling on the enemy.

The extra 1.5 billion I'd have would be spent on Avenger and HUMRAAM (AMRAAM missiles mounted on a M998 Hummer) vehicles placed at point targets for extra protection. The Avenger/HUMRAAM system would protect my forces in the field and be much more mobile than the S-300 or Patriot battery, which would probably be destroyed on the first day of the war. Even if the Patriot battery didn't get destroyed, it'd only be in one place which might involve too many compromises that a decentralized system could avoid.

If there was money left, I'd also definitely invest in a few Tactical High Energy Laser systems (one per forward battalion) in order to protect my forward troops from artillery and rocket fire.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1031 times:

You cannot intercept unknown radar contacts with missiles, what if it is an off-course civil aircraft in trouble. In a time of tension, missiles cannot fire warning shots.
I'd go for the SAAB Gripen, modern, designed from the start to be dispersed and for ease of maintenance.


User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1024 times:

well if i have to make that decision for my country (macedonia) i'll must choose missiles
reason
macedonia has a very smaLL AIR space so every take of a supersonic plane means air incident
P.S. macedonia has a 4 Su-25 and i think that there are unsuitable for my country


User currently offlineWhistler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1019 times:

I think the Su-25 is exactly what Macedonia needs. It is a small, sub sonic, ground attack plane like the A-10. It's perfect for getting all those Albanian rebels Big grin.

User currently offlineAlexander From Russia, joined Jul 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1015 times:

you are right about su's (from a military view ) but we
don't need them from a political reasons :
a: we couldn't use them because
1 this is not a real war this is a bad deal with a mandatory of nato & eu
2terrorists could use their weapons but we can't because they have only perconal armament according to osce we cann't use our heavy arms (it might sound silly to you but itr's true)
3 kfor is supplying terrorists with weapons
http://www.ok.mk/news/story.asp?id=1863
b macedonia is trying to join nato and su's are cis planes


User currently offlineAlexander From Russia, joined Jul 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1011 times:

generally i'll choose 30 mig-29 and a s-300
p.s.well fireblade if you're speaking of macedonia we don't need airdefence at all from reasons probably quite famigliar with you


User currently offlineRedskin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1007 times:

Well if it's that small i wouldn't be wasting all that money on lots of fixed wing aircraft. Nor would i be purchasing state of the art Equipement from the west. ( never thought that i would say that one ).

Rotary wing is the go , A mix of attack, transport and Heavy lift. Spend some bucks on SA10, types and 20mm radar directed gear. I would perhaps purchase 10 fixed wing birds and i would start looking at the RAFF retiring Tornados or the upgraded F4's that will be retired. The attack choppers would most likely be the longbow and blackhawks for the transport role. Chinooks for heavy lift. With the cash left over i'd be buying Mortars etc and air deployable/ Man portable heavy weapons for deployement with the roterheads. Keep the force small and highly effecient but heavily armed. The airmobile additions gives them added firepower and mobility


User currently offlineMezza From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 999 times:

Redskin

Say good bye to your rotary force, you would be destroyed very quickly.

To have a effective air mobile unit, top cover would be essential 10 old tornado's or F4 will not provide the cover required, nor would they be able to effectively ix it up with more modern dog fighters.

Your ground based SAMS and AA may provide some cover but not enough to ensure that your force would not be destoryed, either on the ground or in the air.





User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1004 times:

best spend half the budget on buying of your neighbours until the next election and use the rest to buyn an estate in South America... That way your successor gets blamed for the lack of defenses when the country gets invaded while you are sipping tequilla...


I wish I were flying
User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 990 times:

that's actually what our goverment done before
but not in south america they choose florida


User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 993 times:

so we do not need an army is that what you are saying .
should i have to remind of aracinovo solana gives a two days to get the terrorists but we failed because we don't had a special forces and enaphe snipers.
political reasons stand but having unequiped army is one of the mistakes


User currently offlineAlexander From Russia, joined Jul 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 986 times:

i don't say that we don't need an army don't put words in my mouth i never said

User currently offlineRedskin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 984 times:

gentlemen, i did not see anything that said that they( we ) would be up against front line units from our neighbours, rather it was to protect the air space in a STANDARD ENVIRONMENT and chase terrs etc in country. Bear in mind that there is a budget and you must ROUND OUT all you forces. Blowing the whole BLOODY lot on CAP fighters is not any good and extremely short sighted. I would include in the mix fire finder radar units as well, and in case nobody though of it buy the trime insurgents or the bad guys or whatever you want to call them fire there fisrt mortar round or arty and then start to pack up ,the rapid reaction units are on there way. I'll bet none of you would stand around and fight a RRF if it camoes in with. F3 Tornadoes CAP , ( even if they are old) AH64's , say 4 units, and a dozen blackhawks loaded for bear WITH TROOPS. Kinda make you NOT WANT to shoot bombs.

User currently offlineRedskin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 981 times:

Oh yeah i forgot to mention in THE VERY FIRST PART of this TOPIC it says............NEUTRAL etc etc etc. And you will want to suport your units from that budget as well. Shit if i wanted to buy something sexy spend the lot on .....1 ONE...that B1 BONE and equipement and have a YEA HAh time

User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 977 times:

we want to buy some f-4 from turkey but usa doesn't allow turkey to sell them to us
and tornados hm well i don't know they are interceptors not very agile very fast so i don't think that they are suitable
by the way how much they cost


User currently offlineRedskin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 973 times:

Sorry, i can tell you the cost.? The Tornado has a F3 variant wich is Amraam capable etc and given it's low level capabilities it's sort of dual role. Like you said very quick, and they have a great loiter time, At 2/3rd throttle say 700 to 750 knh you're talking ranges equal to F111's for long range strike. Possible with the exception of current generation fighters there are non with a greater loiter time. Given they will be mainly for I'ding unknowns etc and maybee the odd incursion they will be fairly well suited.

User currently offlineBorislav From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 907 times:

sixty fulcrums for macedonia what do you intend to do bobi start 3th balcan war bulgaria is 5 times bigger and we don't have no mig-29 for macedonia modernised fishbeds and buk will be enaphe or you could buy some mig-29 a it cost 10 or 12 mil $
see you in university in october if the school year star
borislav
p.s. bobi read sometime tour mail please


User currently offlineFoxbat From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 869 times:

You don't give me enaphe information about the country who want to make the purchase .For example large country will need long range fighters like su27 (vietnam keys) and a small country will need smaller aircrafts . But generally i would choose s-300 and 30 mig-29 or 20 f-16.Aircrafts could be used in attacs also and a missile systemes harder to destroy.

User currently offlineFoxbat From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 872 times:

Slobodan
Borislav is right Macedonia doesn't need supersonic aircrafts (even su-25 are unsuitable for us ) so if i was in position to choose aircrafts for our air force i'd choose this:
ka-52 (nightcapable avionics included),
ka-60 ,huey & predators .


User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 859 times:

hey foxbat could you please find me some pics about our ka-52 i need them for my site about macedonian af
blade


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 862 times:

I would purchase the best Air Defence Fighter on the market. That would have been the F-15C. Quite possible I would now purchase a mixture of F-16Cs and F-15Es. They are both superb fighters, and can hit ground targets that may invade the country.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
25 CX747 : Can we look at future generation aircraft, and assume that the United States would let us purchase them? If so, I would lease F-16s from the United St
26 Foxbat : I'll try to but they are still not in use and nato is putting a lot of pressure to sell them.
27 Fireblade : I agree about jsf and would like to have them too but f-22 is to expensive 130 mil and is not so important for the protection especially of the small
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airforce Or Airdefence
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Man Or Robot? posted Sun Mar 18 2007 23:14:57 by Blackbird1331
Better Bomber: B17 Or B24 posted Fri Feb 23 2007 05:45:37 by Dandy_don
B1 A Copy Of TU-160 Or Vice Versa? posted Mon Feb 5 2007 05:23:05 by ElpinDAB
US Airforce B747-E4B posted Tue Jan 23 2007 18:23:33 by B737700doctor
Cannon Or Machine Gun? posted Sat Jan 6 2007 04:51:54 by Dandy_don
Air Force Or Navy Training At Fort Irwin? posted Tue Jan 2 2007 14:02:46 by STT757
Croatian Airforce 15th Anniversary Video posted Sat Dec 30 2006 17:05:00 by TripleDelta
Joining The US Airforce posted Sun Nov 12 2006 22:14:53 by Turpentyine
Airforce 2 At LHR! posted Fri Oct 6 2006 20:20:10 by Bigpappa
L-188 Or P-3 Awacs posted Fri Sep 15 2006 01:37:07 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format