Just to get some perspective back on the argument i was having with Reno... I don't know what the greatest and latest MIG costs compared to the bloated priced F35, but lets - for arguments sake - say that the MIG costs 1/5 th of the price of the F35. That means that Australia could purchase 5 of the latest MIGs for every 1 F35 purchased. Now my point was - i dont care if the F35 is superior to the latest MIG - hell it probably is! But what i am saying is that common sense dictates that 1 F35 aint gonna take down 5 of these MIGS ... it may take down one or two (or maybe 3 if its very lucky) but by that time one of those other 5 MIGS are sure as hell gonna plant a missile up the F35's ass! So point is - in the face of overwhelming odds (being outnumbered) the F35 will not stand a chance against a group of the latest MIGs... => Our air force would get much more bang for buck (literally) by purchasing the latest MIGs SAVVVVIE??? :lol: PS: Of course if the price differential is more - say 10:1 then it's even more absurd to buy the F35 as opposed to the MIG!
Sorry, but I know for a fact that these kinds of terrorists are commonly referred to as 'guarillas' ... so not sure why a similar term would be offensive - especially since i was referring to a group of murderous criminals. Nonetheless - i withdraw my comment unreservedly and apologise hereby to the forum members for the comment.
No i'm not forgetting about the quality of the pilots. On the contrary - i just refuse to believe that Russia (or even China)'s top guns are in any way inferior to US pilots. In Korea they certainly proved that they were not inferior!
^ I said "value" not "quality". Value of two trapped Beaconsfield miners for example (albeit in a different industry).
History lesson: It's "Guerrilla" which is a diminutive of the Spanish word "Guerra" (which means war) and refers to certain types of soldiers. "Gorilla" is derived from the Greek "Gorillai" as used by the Carthaginian Hanno meaning "Tribe of hairy women". So roughly the difference between calling someone a "Soldier" versus a "Hairy woman". Refer to Tacrezod's signature. See Post #84. It's in response to your BOTE calcs. It's not simply cost of 5 planes vs 1 plane.
I'll say it again you're not considering layered defence. If you care to read up on air combat exercises today, you may be interested to note that the F15 still outperforms its' international peers in any characteristic of combat you can think of. I think you're getting caught up in the word 'fighter' that makes up part of Joint Strike Fighter - JSF. The F117, called the Stealth Fighter, will never engage in direct air combat. If the F35 with its' 2nd generation stealth characteristics lives up to its' design, it will not ever have to engage in direct air combat either. That's what the F15/F18/F22 is for anyway!
If you have to choose between 100 excellent planes or 300 good planes, better to choose the 300 good planes. I'm willing to bet the cost of maintaining a Russian squadron of SU-35s is much cheaper than the F-22 equivalent. And while I can't vouch for mechanical reliability, I would hazard to guess the SU-35s would have less problems over a prolonged period of time. While people compare the performance of individual aircraft in a hypothetical match-up, the reality is in a prolonged conflict, a nation will want to keep as many of its planes in the air for as long as it can. If the maintenance costs of the good aircraft is cheaper than the excellent one and/or it is much cheaper to replace them when they are destroyed, then you have the advantage of numbers on your side. Of course, your planes may have a poor to middling combat record against the excellent enemy plane, but you can be in more places at once and when the enemy starts feeling the attrition of prolonged combat, the odds may swing to your favour. If you look at WW2, the Germans obviously had technical superiority in the Panther tanks and in the Me-262 jet. While the allies would often come off second best in many encounters, the problem the Germans had was that they just didn't have enough equipment to turn back the enemy. While the Soviet T-34 tank was not as good as the German V and VI tanks, it was good enough, it had the numbers and was easy to maintain. In a theoretical combat scenario, it may be the case where the US would lose more F-22s than it could replace and the vast bulk of its airpower would be the F-16 and the F-15. Even if the US only used the F-22 selectively, the F-16 and the F-15 would have to do most of the work, and if you have squadrons of Su-35s to go against them, you're not looking so bad.
thanks - ive certainly learnt something today. And here i was thinking that these kinds of terrorists were called gorillas because they were primitive and inhuman... Perhaps if id checked out the spelling i would have realised the mistake of that long-entrenched belief of mine. Regarding the value of the pilots... yes i see where youre coming from. However I still maintain that equipping our air force with a very small number of F35s (due to their prohibitive cost) as against equipping them with a much higher number of the latest and greatest MIGs is hardly going to save lives! In fact - in the event of a war i believe the exact opposite will occur - having a weaker air force will cost many more Australian lives! So i believe your point is incorrect.
I believe you are grossly underestimating the stealth- and indirect/long distance capabiliites of the latest generation MIGs...
Militarilly the Vietnam War was not won by either side. Politically the US never had the stomach to send the US Army or Republic of South Vietnam Army north over the border to actually take the initiative and destroy the supply lines of the North Vietnamese. The whole war had to be fought defensively which to use a metaphor was like fighting with one hand behind their back. Are you familiar with the ground campaign of the Korean War. General MacArthur refused to follow the order to stop short well clear of the Korean/Chinese border, and made it clear he would roll right up to the border. This threatened the Chinese who entered the war after about a year and drove the conflict on for 2 more years. It is my contention that the refusal to let American/allied forces enter North Vietnam was due to fear of China entering the conflict in the same manner. So due to this political fear, and fear of a 3 year total war situation, the result was a 12+ year war instead. The war was fought with no US will to properly train or even discipline the soldiers on the ground and had totally unprepared generals. Eventually the US lost interest due to their own political failures. That part is not disputed. Militarilly the US and our own contingent bested the Viet Cong or NVA most times they chose to engage. The Tet Offensive that seems to have some hollowed ground status for some people was a decisive failure for the Viet Cong. They were destroyed as a fighting force (destroyed as in unable to take to the field, rearm, reinforce or replace lost soldiers) and took no part in large scale fighting for the rest of the war. For anyone with a greater understanding of the Vietnam War, I suggest reading "Steel My Soldiers Hearts" and "About Face" by Col. David Hackworth, and anything by Australian Gary McKay, especially "In Good Company". Only knowing what happened there through "Platoon" or Oliver Stone's biased lenses limits your knowledge.
It is for this very reason that the US (and by imlication Australia) lost the Vietnam war. Just like theyve lost the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Any future war fought will be lost for the very same reasons... the US is a declining power and will never win another war in my opinion.
Well then you throw our entire military history on its' head. A small number of excellent Longbow archers decimating the good French knights at Agincourt. Fewer excellent well armed ships under Drake bested the thousands of good (and poor) quality vessels of the Spanish Armada. The Australian Corp at Mont Saint Quentin vs the combined might of the Imperial German Marines and Prussian regiments (we smashed them good!). A few dozen squadrons of excellent Spitfires vs the Lutfwaffe's overwhelming odds in the Battle of Britain. One well disciplined Australian infantry Company in Long Tan vs a combat effective Viet Cong Regiment, local regiment and North Vietnamese Battalion combined. One US mechanised brigade driving up a highway to Baghdad vs most of the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard (Thunder Run, by David Zucchino). One team of excellently trained Delta soldiers even after their helicopter crashed vs unknown numbers of Taliban (Roberts Ridge) You may as well use the Russian operating ratio of 8:1 if you just want more numbers for your reasons, and resort to mass wave attacks of untrained peasants with AK47s. Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-American military history is filled with successes when using well developed tactics, well trained small units and up to date technology. Plenty of failures too (Isandlwana, Western Front stalemate, response to Blitzkrieg etc) often because of ignoring tactics or not using up to date technology.
Yes it was - it was won by the North Vietnamese. It's ridiculous that historical revisionists overlook the blindingly obvious in an attempt to make the Vietnam War seem a "draw". If you look at terms of the Paris Peace Accords, it clearly shows the North Vietnamese were bargaining from a position of power and got the better of the deal. All the US wanted to do was get out and it showed - the North Vietnamese showed little respect for the agreement and kept on advancing south in the intervening years. A truce is not a peace and North Vietnam quite decisively swept aside South Vietnam in 1975. You can go on about all the political and military obstacles that were in America's way during the conduct of that war but the end result is that North Vietnam finally achieved their decades long goal of winning its independence and unifying the country. Saying America didn't lose that war is like saying your football team didn't lose because it was leading all the way until it quit the field before the full time siren sounded.
I choose my words carefully. Militarilly the US did not lose. Politically, Washington lost it very early on and handed victory to the north 10 years later.
No, it's because the Vietnamese people didn't want them there. Just like the Iraqi and Aghani people don't. When you have the common people against you, the only way you can win is by killing them all. Vietnam recovered after the Americans had been chased out. Foreign invaders aren't good for business. When are people going to get over this idea of we just have to blow enough stuff up in other people's countries and we'll win? Win what exactly? And what then? Leave anyway after? After you've left one or more countries as smouldering craters. What's the point? It's just all about military contracts. It sure doesn't make any sense otherwise.
