kalvasflam

My whole point on this is that it's better not to name ships after politicians. Had Bush Sr not become a president, there would've been no carrier named after him. Ike would've had a ship name not due to politics, but due to his distinguished military record. Likewise for Washington, and Abe and if they ever name another ship after FDR, are both deserving because they were war time leaders - so I can overlook the political side on those. The point being that the distinction should be due to military career, not political ones. Other ships that were worth while... Shugart and Gordon. Good mentions. I'm hoping for an Enterprise. The navy needs a new one. Oh, and the navy needs a ship named England too. I don't think there is one by that name these days.

I haven't seen it yet, but it sounds good so far. Only question is was this equal to the first six episodes of GSD? If so, then it's a good sign so far.

I can't stand these people naming warships after politicians. Stennis, Vinson, etc, geez, I can understand if they name it for a real war hero, and might make exception for one or two politicians, Ike, GW, and Abe comes to mind. But that's about it. Jimmy Carter? I don't care if he was in the navy, it's a disgrace to name a fighting ship after someone like him, same for Reagan, and Bush. I want warships named after famous battles... or respectable people, i.e. Nimitz was deserving, and they really should've named a carrier after Spruance, and possibly even Halsey, definitely Mitscher. But sadly, that was not to be....

Interesting question. Ok, I'm gonna look at this backwards, by eliminating non-contenders first. Jaguar was replaced by the Tornado, so it's out. The SU-24 has short combat legs under full load, but carries a nice loadout. So, short legs eliminate it. Tornado is slightly newer, better legs, and heavier loadout, but still not that great. So, it's out. The final contenders are tough. The F-111F, can carry heavier load, but not quite the range of the A-6E. A-6E can't carry the load, but the load it does carry is more versatile. Not as fast as the F-111F though. Hmmm, I guess if I had to pick for pure land attack missions, F-111F, but for all purpose attack, where maritime attack comes in, well, the F-111F just don't carry harpoons, and that's a crying shame.

Scary, I remember that they used to name battle ships after states, now we're naming bombers, just goes to show how little a dollar can buy these days.

I suggest going to court. In the bay area, you go to court, if the cop doesn't show up, your case is just dismissed. It's half a day. Worst case scenario is if the judge thinks you're going just to see if the cop is going to show up. So, have a care, and prepare a story. In your case, the story ought to be, I was going along as fast as the other cars, when I looked down, I realized I was going a little faster than the speed limit, so I slowed down immediately, the cars around me were still going, I think I was around 60 or so mph at the time, at least that's what I remembered, thinking back. I know I wasn't going as fast as some of the other cars, but I was still over the speed limit. Gear it to admitting your guilt, and asking for leniency. Remember, worst case is you go to traffic school anyway. DO NOT go out of your way to contest what the radar was saying. You could I suppose, but it would piss off the judge. Not something you'd want. You might also want to point out other things like your clean record for the last ten years.

Too bad, I think neither th -22 or the -35 deserve the name Lightning. in fact, given the cost overruns and the long lead times, they should've been named: "never shoulda been" and "never will be"

How that guy wasn't stripped of his rank and kicked into the janitorial staff is beyond me. The guys who wrote his fitreps ought to be court martialed.

I don't know, Transformers... I can't imagine Megatron and Soundwave as anything other than P-38 and cassette player. I wonderwhat are the alternate modes going to be.

Rear visibilty on that thing looks non-existant. Graham 411700[/snapback] Very 'VF-1' like don't you think? 411791[/snapback] Reminds me of the older Migs, and I think the first flight SU-27s. I think.... but isn't this more a no-trans-fat version of the F-35? heh heh

Not the only problem Airbus is having... they just lost an order for 20 planes with an option for 20 more for Singapore airline to 787. There are a lot of people who are wondering what's going on with Airbus these days. While the A380 sounds cool, personally, and there are a lot of other people who are wondering how realistic is it to have such a gigantic jumbo jet. Everyone seem to think that the 787 model is the right one for the airline industry. And I also wonder just how many airports now have cleared the A380.

Because no politician will risk his neck like that. If one of those planes shot down a US fighter because some politician authorised the sale of new seat covers for the Alicats, you can bet they'll never hear the end of it. 404889[/snapback] That was of course a bit of a rhetorical question in the first place. But the reality of the situation ends up being that the Iranians are gonna get their black market parts anyway. In the grand scheme of things, ignoring the idiot politics involved, the strategy is about keeping your enemies close to you. You know their capabilities, so that when the time comes, you can ream them. It's always a battle between the known and the unknown. But of course, politics tend to throw everything out of whack.

I wonder why the US doesn't just sell older parts to the Iranians openly... heh heh. Politics aside, it will be a nice move. Heck, even with politics it'll be a nice move. Let's face it, it will mean exactly one thing: Money for whichever corporation is selling the parts and retrofits. If there was ever a war, those Alicats are toast. The technology such as it is in those Alicats will be at least a generation old. It'll be fun to watch those things.

Saw X-3... well, it was not very good. The first two had better stories. I think one of the main problem with X-3 was just too many characters, aside from the aforementioned useless appearence of Angel, the actual team was a joke. Comprised of newbies, and the we could've just called X-3, Wolverine 1. Now I like Wolverine as much as anyone else, but this was overkill. And not even close to the true form of the comic. But if X-4 comes about, I guess it'll probably be a clone of something or other, may be bring in Apocolypse, why not, they've already milked this Magneto thing for too long.

What a nightmare the JSF is.... I doubt if they'll even get 250 planes into full production at the end of the day for the US armed forces. The US need to provide an export verision of the JSF and leave it alone. It's roundly stupid to think they can just provide the plane and hope people don't modify it afterwards. I predict if this goes on for too long, the JSF will just turn into another debacle like the -22s. Although I suppose in the case of the Israelis, it's not too likely that they'll source their weapons from someone else.

I'm going to have to just echo what Noyhauser said earlier on the geopolitical side. In terms of capabilities, I'd stick with China. After all, what can India and Australia offer you in terms of power projection capabilities anyway... at least compared to China or Russia? More importantly, why does ROS need to power project in the first place? It's like saying the Kuwaitis need to project power far beyond their shores. It isn't needed. The only reason you have to have maritime strike in this case is because part of your territoy is stretched some hundreds of miles away from your mainland. By the way, in your last sentence, are you trying to imply that ROS is going to need other troops to help you protect your territory? Is that way you'd think about inviting in India and Australia as partners?

The issue though ends up being any attack by Russia will probably be launched after a build up period. Under those conditions, Russians should probably end up dominating in the air. This is all getting a bit too theoretical, but I just don't see the ROS air force surviving as an effective organization after the first week if the Russians decide to go in. If nothing else, that air force will get overwhelmed by mass. The Russians can probably do better than 4 to 1 ratio in terms of fighters, and that'll wear the ROS down logistically. Once that happens, paratroopers can probably take and hold territory if they have sufficient support from the Russian air force. Phibs are nice, but not an absolute necessity for the Russians. With China, it's more difficult to tell. But for this theoretical state, it is not likely that they'll be attacked by either their gigantic neighbors, in both cases, it will invite an inevitable response by the other neighbor. Unless of course the Chinese and the Russians collude, in which case, the ROS is doomed anyway.

Short term defense? To me, the course should be a short ranged defensive capabilities with no power projection capacity. Thus, the focus on maritime patrol, and surperior air defense systems. I liked the upgrade Mig-21 idea. If nothing else, they could be used to patrol coast lines. I agree with scenario I as well, and likely what will have to happen is strong ground force emplacements around key economic targets (i.e. oil fields). It would be very difficult to dislodge such a force with what the regional competitors have. The air defense is only in place to reduce the amount of damage that can be done to the infrastructure and the ground forces. Outright seizure of oil fields will be difficult for regional opponents, but not the destruction of such fields, which really benefits no one in the region.

Wrong assumption, Noyhauser. I like your reasoning on why you need to arm, but then that's why I piped up with my choices, otherwise, I wouldn't bother. Good analytical points though, it is a bit wasted trying to preach to the choir, but would be useful for others. ROS in this case has to have a military, there is no doubt there. But the military has to be balanced toward the most likely foe. In this scenario, it was Japan and NK initially, I agree with a majority of your assessments. I think alliance with all the major powers doesn't hurt. ROS need to be essentially like Kuwait, yes, their neighbor could and did crush them, but they had so many allies, it didn't matter in the long run. Having an alliance with the current big boy (US) is a good idea, but with an eye toward the long run, China must also be a big ally.

Strategic and economy value of the islands and the surrounding area is almost to important to let go without getting something in return for them. Best bet is probably to do business with both sides and thus everyone benefits in some way. 401773[/snapback] Ha ha, ok, that's easy then. We'll give basing rights to both the Russians and the Japanese, and then toss in the Americans to boot. We'll then colocate our own base with the Americans and have them train our new fighter force. In addition to placating other parties, we will have the benefit of having bases supporting the local economy. But what economic value is there to the Kurile? I can see strategic value, but economic? Please elaborate.

Japan is almost certainly willing to bend over backwards (nonmilitarily) and then some to get the Kuriles back, but Russia is almost certainly willing to bend over backwards (nonmilitarily) to keep you from giving, selling or trading the islands to them. 401733[/snapback] How funny, tell them to feel free to have a battle royale. We don't want it, we vacate it, feel free to take it. Let them fight it out... or better yet. Auction it off on Ebay. ha ha ha ha

Nice choices, hmmm, I guess what I would've loved to have found out is the costs on the planes before going for them. JSTARS, are they the E-8s? I didn't know they were sold internationally. The questions though are in both political and practical terms. If you go with all western, the downsides are longer training time, possibly more maintanence needed on equipment. To be effective, you really have to train like there is no tomorrow. But if you do that well, you'll have a very effective force and streamlined logistics. The political question is tougher, with the Russians, there is already some degree of familiarity with their equipment, so faster training, but long term, if you can't streamline the logistics, things are much easier to fall apart.

Yep, FA.2 The range is not that much of a consideration. Unrefueled range is approximately 600 miles. Easily allowing you to hop from Kurile to Sakhalin and control the seas below if you had adequate CAP. Combat radius is 300 miles, more than enough for maritime strikes if needed. Sea Eagles are respectable, may be you could adapt AV-8Bs to fire them or harpoons if you had to. The Mig-29s aren't really the best choice, since both the F-16 and the SU-27 will have longer combat range. But the problem is price. How much could you really afford once you start counting training and logistics? It's very nice to have a show air force that just sits on the tarmac, but I would want an air force that flew regularly and had combat abilities. Ok, the problem is not so difficult. The problem again are the objectives. 1. Where is the oil fields. The north means it's on the Sakhalin itself. So, that's where the primary defenses are. Against Japan, defense in depth, so you have patrols of E-2Cs backed up with CAP. Then you have SAMs involved. 2. In terms of the Kuriles, if you have to have it to ensure your SLOC (sea lanes of communications), I would not put an aggressive stance there, since I consider that an exposed position. Probably older Mig-21s based out of a strip there backed with a ground radar station. Occasionally put in the Mig-29s with E-2Cs just to show I care, but I would not have a very aggressive stance there if there is nothing serious to protect. The Harriers would be the best aircraft I would consider permanently basing there in that situation. b) addendum: if however, the Kuriles is vital to national security. I would do defense in layer arrangement. E-2C will shuttle between Kuriles and Sakhalins daily. With another one operating out of the northern most island, backed by the Mig-21s. Mig-29s are held back on the Sahkalins in any case. The ground situation has to be sorted out. Rough strips for operating Harriers, and at least two good strips to forward deploy Mig-29s to in case of shooting war. 3. In fact, depending on what is actually worth my time in the Kuriles, I might even negotiate with Japan to return that territory.

Interesting... ten years to enact the plan... Hmm, nice set of problems. The limiting factor is money. Ok, consider geography first, we're an island nation rich in oil. The primary operating grounds will be coastal waters probably extending out no more than 100 miles, much less in some instances. The primary things we'd have to protect: a) oil fields b) oil terminals where tankers load c) sea lanes of communications where tankers will traverse Ideally, we'd have to have an integrated air defence system, and a very limited maritime anti-ship capability to guard against surface incrusions. That gives me a pretty good basis for setting up my defense capabilities, I'll go a little further than just what fighter/bomber type to procure. Given my primary interest is protection against air strikes and ballistic missiles. The latter threat the air force cannot do much about, but the former threat includes: a) cruise missiles of various types from submarines, air launch platforms, and ships b) attack aircraft with LGBs, smart munitions, and cruise missiles c) possible stealth aircraft in the worst case Who are the primary enemies: a) Japanese: they are primarily geared toward air superiority with AEW and F-15s, limited strike capabilities with some capable anti-air platforms for their navy. b) NK: ballistic missiles: not much we can do about this c) Russia/China/US: Not real threats because - Any of them could completely crush us - But none of them could do it readily because others will keep them in check - Two of these could get oil from us and sell weapons Assuming the defense ministry is on the ball, I assume that ground sites will be adequately located for SAMs, and ground radar installations. The air fields need to be widely dispersed because we cannot afford to have a majority of air power caught on the ground, considering the flight time from nearest enemies. Here is what I would consider for the infrastructure first: - Several airfields (at least two good military ones) and the international airport to be colocated with a major military base. (Think Hickam and Honolulu International) - Then some rough field capable strips with sufficient mobile logistics. By mobile logistics, I mean large trucks loaded with weapons, technicians, and replacement parts. (rough field strips to be provided with underground fuel tanks, should be easy here) - Dispersed ground control stations. Aircraft choices: I. AEW: E-2C or equivalent. We'll need at least four of them, preferably six or more. Have two up on the major threat axis orienting toward Japan and monitor. Reasoning: These will be your aerial quarterbacks in case of major air to air combat. But will provide maritime monitoring capabilities and air control capabilities. These will be supplemented with ground radar sites. They are the eyes to see incomings. Downside: training and maintenance. E-2C willhave lots of expensive parts, some from the US which cannot be easily replaced if relationships went sour. II. Maritime strike: Harrier. (purchased from US or UK) Reasoning: Harrier is a low performance aircraft with easy dispersal capabilities in event of conflict. They can carry low level anti-ship missiles, and still be used in a limited AA role. They are reasonably non-threatening in long range offensive capabilities, but would be a nightmare to anyone who tried to find them. Downside: training and maintanence. Harriers are notoriously difficult to operate, and have a high accident rate. III. Two choices here: The considerations are both political and practical. Choice 1: Air defense: Mig-29 or Su-27. (purchased from Russia) Reasoning: High performance aircraft, should be able to operate well with current pilots who have training in Russian equipment. Easier to train with Russians than Americans. Downside: Maintanence, and non-uniformity in terms of ordinance used. You can't easily put sidewinders and AMRAAMs on these things without major modifications. Choice 2: Air defense: F-16s (if Harriers from UK) Reasoning: High performance aircraft, should be able to operate well with common set of logistics. Same ordinance, and probably a lot of the same electronics packages. Aircraft is widely used, and simpler to operate. Downside: Not as easy in terms of familiarization with pilots. There are practical considerations in both choices, if I had to go with integration of air force, I would probably choose western, because in the long run, common set of logistics are better than wider set. It does place all of the eggs in one basket if things went sour with the Americans though. But I think politically, the nation is a fence sitter, and needs to placate others more than a uniformed set of weapons systems, which would be useless in a wide conflict since the major powers would crush it. So, the better choice on fighters will be the Russians, and then just try my best to deal with the logistical issues. Key issues for the new air force is not equipment. The actual issues are: - training with AEW and anti-air capability - streamlining logistics to reduce cost and maximize survivability - wide dispersal of air fields so that some military capabilities survive in case of a surprise attack (remember, hostile neighbor has a history of such in spite of current non-aggressive stance)

Hello Mr. Bauer, this is how we say hello in China... *five guys come in and beat the crap out of Jack*