fireblade
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:13 am

Airforce Or Airdefence

Fri Jul 27, 2001 8:17 pm

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
 
Guest

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Fri Jul 27, 2001 11:29 pm

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.
 
Guest

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Sat Jul 28, 2001 7:14 am

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!!!!!!!

 
Whistler
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:12 am

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Sat Jul 28, 2001 1:23 pm

I'd go for the 60 Migs or the 40 F-16s.
 
FlyBoeing
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 2:08 am

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Sat Jul 28, 2001 2:15 pm

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.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Sat Jul 28, 2001 8:14 pm

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.
 
fireblade
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:13 am

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Sun Jul 29, 2001 12:04 am

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
 
Whistler
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:12 am

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Sun Jul 29, 2001 1:49 am

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.
 
Alexander
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:24 pm

RE: Whistler

Mon Jul 30, 2001 1:45 am

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
 
Alexander
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:24 pm

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Mon Jul 30, 2001 1:50 am

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
 
redskin
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:29 pm

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Mon Jul 30, 2001 1:52 pm

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
 
Guest

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Mon Jul 30, 2001 3:48 pm

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.



 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Mon Jul 30, 2001 4:17 pm

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
 
fireblade
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:13 am

RE: Jwenting

Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:26 am

that's actually what our goverment done before
but not in south america they choose florida
 
fireblade
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:13 am

RE: Alexander

Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:31 am

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
 
Alexander
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:24 pm

RE: Alexander

Tue Jul 31, 2001 2:28 am

i don't say that we don't need an army don't put words in my mouth i never said
 
redskin
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:29 pm

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Tue Jul 31, 2001 11:47 am

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.
 
redskin
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:29 pm

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Tue Jul 31, 2001 11:49 am

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
 
fireblade
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:13 am

RE: Redskin

Wed Aug 01, 2001 2:56 am

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
 
redskin
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:29 pm

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Wed Aug 01, 2001 12:50 pm

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.
 
Guest

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Mon Aug 13, 2001 1:17 am

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
 
Foxbat
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:01 am

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Wed Aug 22, 2001 7:43 pm

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.
 
Foxbat
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:01 am

RE: Fireblade

Wed Aug 22, 2001 7:50 pm

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 .
 
fireblade
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:13 am

RE: Foxbat

Thu Aug 23, 2001 6:15 am

hey foxbat could you please find me some pics about our ka-52 i need them for my site about macedonian af
blade
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Thu Aug 23, 2001 6:34 am

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
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Airforce Or Airdefence

Fri Aug 24, 2001 12:53 am

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 States, until I could build up 4 squadrons of F-22 Raptors and 4 Squadrons of JSFs.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Foxbat
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:01 am

RE: Foxbat

Sun Aug 26, 2001 11:04 pm

I'll try to but they are still not in use and nato is putting a lot of pressure to sell them.
 
fireblade
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:13 am

CX747

Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:54 pm

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 states (range doesn't mean a lot if you don't want to bomb any body{see the rule neutral}).So just a lot of cheap jsf and one triumf system that's defense of the dreams .
slobodan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ozair and 13 guests