Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 996
    Points : 1163
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon May 25, 2020 11:26 pm

    JohninMK wrote:As well as all these missiles coming from the east, the UK in particular, with its air tanker/AWACS bases, will be under assault from the west as well, with missiles rising out of the sea.

    Attacks don't even need to disable their runways, although that would be an objective, once the over/under ground fuel tanks are gone or seriously reduced its game over.

    The UK and most of Europe took the 'peace dividend' and cut significantly the number of military airfields, I think from the top of my head that we only have 10 now. Although many did turn into civilian airfields so can still probably refuel AWACS at least.

    They say that Generals fight the last war but in this aspect, blinding the enemy air defences, the lesson of the Luftwaffe not destroying the UK's radar stations and airfields, has been well learnt.


    England would be the last target of the operations previously named because the primary targets would be obviously continental western air bases.

    AS explained previously forward OTAN bases, most near to the Federation's borders or first line of its Ground Forces - those forward OTAN air bases would be those capable to generate the greater rate of mission sortie and to unique that would be capable react to the evolution of the situation on the ground at the level of the first and second echelons - would be attacked by few high speed theatre missiles, cruise or ballistic.

    The reason is that you would not need to directly destroy the aircraft, hangars ,weapon depots in those OTAN theatre level airfields, that would require a very high number of those high cost weapons, but merely the paralization of its works fot the time necessary, also with repeated small attacks if useful, to mount offensive operations of Ground Forces or Airborne Forces in theirs direction an event that would obligate OTAN to evacuate those bases leaving behind the Greater the bulk of equipment present.

    In the Soviet times this concept, that obviously today employ new technical solutions, was contained ,with a semplification, by the famous sentence :"The best air defence is our tanks at each of theris airfields" Very Happy

    The attacks toward deep OTAN bases ,instead, will see the massive employment of the bulk of the long range munitions and will not be directed against runways, fuel storage and flight command but directly against the AWACS, tankers, advanced 5th generation tactical aircraft and air-launched cruise missiles and PGM in the airfield's weapon depots

    Air bases in the United Kingdom will not be a primary targets because the center of actions on the continent would happen much more to the South; the situation moreover would be significantly different from WWII also for technical reasons : just for example today some MRLS could reach London area from North France

    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7809
    Points : 7892
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  JohninMK on Tue May 26, 2020 1:20 am

    Mindstorm wrote:

    The attacks toward deep OTAN bases ,instead, will see the massive employment of the bulk of the long range munitions and will not be directed against runways, fuel storage and flight command but directly against the AWACS, tankers, advanced  5th generation tactical aircraft and air-launched cruise missiles and PGM in the airfield's weapon depots  

    Air bases in the United Kingdom will not be a primary targets because the center of actions on the continent would happen much more to the South; the situation moreover would be significantly different from WWII also for technical reasons : just for example today some MRLS could reach London area from North France  

    The major NATO air tanker base is Mildenhall and I suspect that Waddington would be the AWACS base as neither function could be performed out of Germany. That would I suggest make them primary targets.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7809
    Points : 7892
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  JohninMK on Tue May 26, 2020 1:26 am

    dino00 wrote:What I think is absent in the discussion is the F-15 EX with JASSM-XR, that because of the combat radius of the carrier and the range of the weapon could target Russian sites in less forward positions.
    The F-15EX are single seat interceptor replacements for the end of life F-15C/D. Although it will have a dual seat capability that functionality has not been purchased yet, the USAF regarding the current F-15E as still sufficient.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 26, 2020 11:25 am

    It is true that USAF / NATO has many more aircraft. So they have an advantage in aviation. Strategic aviation also has no chance for any action in Russian airspace?

    AWACS is more than just a flying radar... it is airborne command and control... it is effectively their IADS.

    When US led forces took down Iraq in 1990 they didn't just shoot down all their planes.... what they did was use cruise missiles and stealth bombers and even attack helicopters to hit main radar sites, HQs, command and control centres, communication centres... effectively what they did was take down there command and control and communications of their forces... they didn't need to kill their leaders and commanders... just destroy their commanders ability to communicate with their forces... essentially turning the fight into a mop up operation where each enemy unit is on its own against your entire team...

    Shooting down HATOs AWACS and JSTARS planes makes the job for HATO much much harder because they will need to use their own radar to determine the air situation and they will only see what their radar can see... and also they don't have anyone at a higher level managing their moves...

    AWACS was developed with an air war like that in Vietnam in mind.

    AEW aircraft are old, and have evolved and developed over time. Over time features like command and control were added to improve the on the fly performance of air power.

    With todays 40N6 and R-37M missiles the best way to use an AWACS is to try to guard your own airspace against an attack = defensive. Which is a loss for NATO.

    Soviet and Russian development of long range weapons to defeat AWACS and JSTARS is mainly because they are so effective in coordinating and managing an attack of air power.

    The value of the aircraft means that the suspicion of long range weapons designed to engage them will directly impact on their effectiveness because they will be held back more and this alone will make them less effective...

    They say that Generals fight the last war but in this aspect, blinding the enemy air defences, the lesson of the Luftwaffe not destroying the UK's radar stations and airfields, has been well learnt.

    Ironically it could possibly be because of western assessments of Russian air power being rather biased.... they think the MiG-29 and subsequent aircraft are mediocre, and don't really rate other aircraft very highly either.... I mean when Sweden describes a Gripen as an Su-35 killer and most western experts don't just openly laugh in their faces suggests a real lack of respect.

    And their biggest problem is that Russia recognises that the west focusses on air power more than anything else... Europes primary defence from cruise missile attack is their air power... apart from new radars for Americas ABM system you really don't seem to have proper coordinated radars networked to work together...

    What I think is absent in the discussion is the F-15 EX with JASSM-XR, that because of the combat radius of the carrier and the range of the weapon could target Russian sites in less forward positions.

    The problem there is that F-15EX with external weapon loads is not going to be stealthy, and if F-35s can be detected and tracked then the chances of sneaky attacks by stealthy aircraft and weapons when the aircraft are not actually stealthy becomes interesting. Russian air defences are layered so to reach targets behind the front line they will have to pass over multiple areas defended by various systems... the IADS will detect such an attack relatively early and while it might not be clear as to the actual target the weapons are trying to reach... every little bubble these weapons pass over will be a chance for interception and for rather long range missiles like JASSM-XR you would probably have the time to launch interceptor aircraft to shoot it down with an R-73...

    The E-3 AWACS can also be Refueled in Flight:

    Refuelling aircraft will be as high a priority as AWACS aircraft and JSTARs... they will likely be either shot down or withdrawn too...

    They would be used closer to/over enemy territory only after massive missile strikes to degrade the IAD & destroy airfields, to help achieve air superiority & clean the skies of any remaining defending fighters.

    As the Serbs showed in the conflict in Kosovo... even with air domination... which they are not likely to get with Russia... even after a month of hitting target after target... or should I say decoy after target... the Serbian air defence was still a real threat without having the mobile systems modern Russia has that makes them rather more of a danger.... in fact I would say that even if you grounded every Russian aircraft HATO still couldn't operate over Russia because the air defence would be too strong.

    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 908
    Points : 1017
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  jhelb on Tue May 26, 2020 11:55 am

    GarryB wrote:Soviet and Russian development of long range weapons to defeat AWACS and JSTARS is mainly because they are so effective in coordinating and managing an attack of air power
    AWACS, JSTARS are not effective against Russia. And against third world countries that the West generally fights against you don't need AWACS. They barely have anything called air defence.

    Long range air2air missiles are not always successful because you are giving the enemy enough time to detect it and adopt evasive maneuvres.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4455
    Points : 4451
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue May 26, 2020 7:26 pm

    Refuelling aircraft will be as high a priority as AWACS aircraft and JSTARs... they will likely be either shot down or withdrawn too...
    They can also receive fuel mid air &, if withdrawn, could support E-3s/JSTARs from 2-3x farther away, while being escorted by fighters.
    https://www.flightglobal.com/systems-and-interiors/boeing-tankers-refuel-each-other-in-kc-46-milestone-test/127613.article

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-editor%252F1580513046389-kc-10-kc-135.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=js-1.4
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7809
    Points : 7892
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  JohninMK on Tue May 26, 2020 11:52 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Refuelling aircraft will be as high a priority as AWACS aircraft and JSTARs... they will likely be either shot down or withdrawn too...
    They can also receive fuel mid air &, if withdrawn, could support E-3s/JSTARs from 2-3x farther away, while being escorted by fighters.
    The tankers have the same bases as the E-3 so if one can't get gas neither can the other. The will probably have to rely on civilian airports. One the tankers have run out of UK refueling that's it, 2-3x farther away is the middle of the Atlantic.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4455
    Points : 4451
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed May 27, 2020 12:17 am

    They could use bases/airports in France, Spain, Portugal, & Iceland.
    The E-2Ds off CVNs &/ land bases can also contribute to NATO situational awareness.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW0N_9YOqQ4
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14945
    Points : 15444
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  George1 on Wed May 27, 2020 12:48 am

    i took the initiative for a new topic Twisted Evil
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 27, 2020 8:59 am

    I was thinking the same.... thanks...
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14945
    Points : 15444
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  George1 on Wed May 27, 2020 11:42 pm

    GarryB wrote:I was thinking the same.... thanks...

    Now that i created a new topic the discussion stopped..Strange.. It seems members of RDM have a trend to off-topic discussion Very Happy
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 28, 2020 8:30 am

    And if we have a talk about that then are we not just confirming it to be true by going off topic ourselves.... Shocked
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 996
    Points : 1163
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat May 30, 2020 3:57 pm


    JohninMK wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:

    The attacks toward deep OTAN bases ,instead, will see the massive employment of the bulk of the long range munitions and will not be directed against runways, fuel storage and flight command but directly against the AWACS, tankers, advanced  5th generation tactical aircraft and air-launched cruise missiles and PGM in the airfield's weapon depots  

    Air bases in the United Kingdom will not be a primary targets because the center of actions on the continent would happen much more to the South; the situation moreover would be significantly different from WWII also for technical reasons : just for example today some MRLS could reach London area from North France  

    The major NATO air tanker base is Mildenhall and I suspect that Waddington would be the AWACS base as neither function could be performed out of Germany. That would I suggest make them primary targets.




    I was sure that Mildenhall AB was closed since a while and that all the US Forces here was, since a while, already transfered to Ramstein AB in Germany, but now i've found out that the base will be closed in 2027.

    In 2015 the survey on the European basing by part of USAREUR, officially with the excuse of money saving measures, deliberated the closure of several bases in the UK and the transference to positions (continental ones) more useful to the new OTAN posture centered around active resistance to potential Federation's Forces directly in the Baltic.

    Also, or above all, the structure and the basing of the OTAN's Air Forces was reconceived to support a greater sortie rate in the eastern sectors of the alliance, for the 100th Air Refueling Wing the transference to Ramstein Air Base would assure an average reduction in distance to the eastern front from 400 to 600 km therefore from 800 to 1200 km smaller mission distance.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 31, 2020 8:49 am

    Hahahaha... moving everything east but Russia is not the threat... it is Iran and North Korea...
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7809
    Points : 7892
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  JohninMK on Sun May 31, 2020 4:13 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    JohninMK wrote:
    The major NATO air tanker base is Mildenhall and I suspect that Waddington would be the AWACS base as neither function could be performed out of Germany. That would I suggest make them primary targets.
    I was sure that Mildenhall AB was closed since a while and that all the US Forces here was, since a while, already transfered to Ramstein AB in Germany, but now i've found out that the base will be closed in 2027.

    In 2015 the survey on the European basing by part of USAREUR, officially with the excuse of money saving measures, deliberated the closure of several bases in the UK and the transference to positions (continental ones) more useful to the new OTAN posture centered around active resistance to potential Federation's Forces directly in the Baltic.

    Also, or above all, the structure and the basing of the OTAN's Air Forces was reconceived to support a greater sortie rate in the eastern sectors of the alliance, for the 100th Air Refueling Wing the transference to Ramstein Air Base would assure an average reduction in distance to the eastern front from 400 to 600 km therefore from 800 to 1200 km smaller mission distance.
    Not only is Mildenhall fully operational but so is Lakenheath still full of F-15C/D and F-15E. Any move of the latter will be due to the crap range of the F-35 compared to the F-15s. Then there is Fairford regularly hosting B1/2/52 missions. I somehow doubt that in 2028 there will be any move of US assets from here in the UK to Germany.

    If the USAF thinks that in the time of war that they will be operating tankers any further east than the North Sea side of Denmark to cover the Baltic they must be delusional. If the Baltic is a 'hot' zone they won't be operating over Germany either.

    The only plans of moving assets east would be, as Garry says, when there is no risk of an actual conflict in Europe as opposed to just poking the bear. Now of course Europe is waking up to the risks of US nuke bombs being stationed where they always have been but that politically hidden from the public ants nest has been poked by the US insistence that Luftwaffe aircraft carrying them must be US and not Tornadoes. Big mistake waking that sleeping dog!

    Given the financial pressures heading our way NATO might be history by then anyway.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:28 am

    AWACS, JSTARS are not effective against Russia. And against third world countries that the West generally fights against you don't need AWACS. They barely have anything called air defence.

    That is not true at all... when the opponents choose not to engage them or can't reach them because they lack the suitable aircraft or weapons to do so JSTARS and AWACS are the best choice for a fight over someone elses territory... the Russian Navy plan to use the same setup for their future forces with AWACS type aircraft monitoring the airspace around them and aircraft filling the role of interceptor to defend the airspace around their ships, but unlike HATO even in this case these AWACS aircraft and fighter planes will be linked into an IADS that include those ships and their rather formidable air defence missiles and guns and jammers and decoys etc etc... a Russian carrier based AWACS could operate above a radar silent Cruiser like an upgraded Kirov or a brand new design with S-400 and S-500 based SAMs so any attempt by an opponent to shoot down the Russian navys AWACS platforms will have to get passed a solid air defence network that can shoot down incoming missiles... S-350 in the larger missile can reach 140km and hit targets at 30km altitude... even if the Russians go for an enormous airship for their AWACS platform with enormous radars including proper 20m square L band low frequency radars which together with other higher frequency sets also mounted inside the enormous shell of the airship could track any sort of stealth platform you like at very long range... they could have it operating at 30km altitude which is the equivalent of putting your forces at the top of a mountain making any attacks difficult already... many AAMs wont even reach it and long range ground launched SAMs would struggle too, yet at its altitude all the ships below it would see even a sea skimming missile hiding below the horizon 30km before it got anywhere near the airship and the airship itself could warn the ships operating with it of targets out to thousands of kilometres down to sea level.

    You could fill the airship with nitrogen between the bags of hydrogen so even armour piercing missiles that penetrate and explode inside the airship wont start any fires... and in the very thin air at 30km altitude the blast of a HE warhead wont be very effective at all.

    Being part of an IADS makes AWACS platforms more useful and more capable and actually safer...

    Against third world countries the AWACS is critical to HATO tactics... even if the enemy has shit planes having an AWACS to look everywhere at once... locate all enemy threats including radar and comm centres is very useful and being able to then direct fighters to the ideal launch position to shoot down those planes so those planes are facing the wrong way and never even see what hits them... the AWACS uses its radar so HATO fighters don't have to... so they never give away their presence except when enemy aircraft start blowing up when hit by missiles. The AWACS can also locate enemy radar emissions so they can direct ground attack aircraft with ARMs to take those out too... the AWACS effectively managed the destruction of the enemy defences and is critical... without it each group of fighters would be on their own with their much more limited fighter aircraft radar that only sees where it looks... you would need thousands of more flight hours and patrols to watch the skies 24/7 to see when and where the enemy uses their aircraft from fighters to helicopters and today drones... the AWACS makes everything much much easier.... which is why Russia has adapted its AAMs for shooting down bombers to also shoot down AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft and JSTARS aircraft.

    Long range air2air missiles are not always successful because you are giving the enemy enough time to detect it and adopt evasive maneuvres.

    Against a fighter yes you are absolutely correct... after travelling 300km and coming down in a slashing attack the missile gets one go at you, so if you keep changing direction and altitude it needs to continually change course to different locations to intercept you... after a few changes it is going to get to the point where it doens't have enough fuel or energy to get to the new intercept point and you are safe.

    With an AWACS plane that simply is not going to happy because you are huge and your ability to change speed and direction are vastly more limited and when it comes down in a slashing attack there is no chance to dodge. Even as it is the R-37M can hit targets pulling 8g and the size and weight of its warhead is designed to bring down very large aircraft so for a fighter you can probably dodge better but its proximity fused warhead is most likely going to come down nearly vertical on you and rip you a new one before you even know you are under attack...

    A lot of the time my money would be on a smaller fighter that is modern having a reasonable chance of escaping after some serious manouvering, but they are not going to waste these huge long range missiles on fighter sized targets... they want to take down the inflight refuelling planes and AWACS and JSTARS... effectively they are doing what HATO does to third world countries... they are taking down their comms and HQs and IADS... and then that is probably it... a broken fragmented HATO air force is no longer a threat to Russia.... any aircraft try to enter Russian airspace or interfere with Russian aircraft outside of Russian airspace and they will shoot them down but otherwise it will most likely be nukes hitting their airfields that take down their planes...

    They can also receive fuel mid air &, if withdrawn, could support E-3s/JSTARs from 2-3x farther away, while being escorted by fighters.

    Fighter escorts wont do much good to protect AWACS and JSTARS... they don't intend to fly up and shoot them down with cannon fire... why would it be any different for inflight refuelling planes?

    Besides long range cruise missiles attacking major HATO airfields will be just as much of a problem... HATO fighters will be busy trying to chase those down anyway...

    They could use bases/airports in France, Spain, Portugal, & Iceland.

    They could but extended range Iskanders will now be able to target them there too.

    New longer ranged manouvering hypersonic cruise missiles are on their way too..

    The only plans of moving assets east would be, as Garry says, when there is no risk of an actual conflict in Europe as opposed to just poking the bear. Now of course Europe is waking up to the risks of US nuke bombs being stationed where they always have been but that politically hidden from the public ants nest has been poked by the US insistence that Luftwaffe aircraft carrying them must be US and not Tornadoes. Big mistake waking that sleeping dog!

    Given the financial pressures heading our way NATO might be history by then anyway.

    Personally I think the Russians should be rather more proactive and openly state that now that the US has walked out of the INF treaty... a treaty that Russia honoured and adhered to, that Russia will now build new weapons enabling Russia to defend itself by directly targeting all European countries with American nuclear weapons, French nuclear weapons, and British nuclear weapons and any bases for US troops in Europe. Soviet troops left Eastern European bases last century and it is pure aggression that the US moved forces east instead of out of europe. New Russian intermediate range missiles will target US bases in Europe and also all nuclear weapons held by America and Europe to make Russia safe from HATO aggression.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 996
    Points : 1163
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:10 pm


    JohninMK wrote:If the USAF thinks that in the time of war that they will be operating tankers any further east than the North Sea side of Denmark to cover the Baltic they must be delusional. If the Baltic is a 'hot' zone they won't be operating over Germany either.


    If you will ever get the chance to see an US representation model of similar conflict's simulation you will remain shocked by the sheer amount of over-optimistic assumptions at theirs basis.

    Delusional will immediately appear as an euphemistic term.

    US planners reason in terms of numbers of platforms at given dinstance required to execute a particular task in this sector, simple like that !!! The enourmous amount of shifting variables (in particular those entirely depending on the opponent's action and capabilities), all capable to change drammatically or overturn the outcomes, are not even taken into consideration; it can appear absurd but is exactly how US military thinkers approach to the complexities of military thought.

    Usually the enormous quantitative and qualitative gap with theirs opponents allow similar simplicistic methodology to anyhow let US Forces to achieve the wanted results ,even if in a way totally disfunctional.

    The problem is that against a peer opponent this habit can become a risk for the entire world: i have not doubts that, contrarely to commonly shared opinions, even in a relatively limited conflict against a likely major opponent the first nuclear weapons to be used will not be Russian or Chinese ones ,but those belonging to USA ,very likely after a false flag attack with a tactical nuclear weapons against theris allies (to justify the nuclear employement) when the US Command will begin to realize how much reality, on the field, differ drammatically from theirs ridicule projections and from this point on a potentially catastrophic escalation can well happen.....

    This US habit obviously do not limit to the simulations of strategic basing and system's interaction but extend also to simulations and validation of theirs weapon development programs.

    Noticeable examples are those related to the JSF - F-35 - program; in any other nations the closed informations about the way the JSF program simulate OPFOR systems would lead to direct detention of the perpetrators and sudden exit from the joint program (but it seem that the enormous money flow amply benefy more than a pocket in western MIC); from time to time details from those hidden scandal permeate also in the public domain : i provide an example of that from Submissions to Australian Committees on Defence :

    Pag 2, n 35, submission by Lt.Col Anker Sorensen (Rtd)

    https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Joint_fighter/Submissions

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3139
    Points : 3139
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Hole on Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:57 pm

    Reminds my of a Story I once read. Back in the 70´s, as the F-15 was being developed, one guy from the company claimed that the new jet combined with an new missile that was also in development (but never got into the air) would win 5.000+ fights before being lost. The General in charge smiled and said: "If I believed that shit we would need 3 planes, one in Asia, one in Europe and one back home for training."

    Sponsored content

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF - Page 2 Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:07 pm