Aircraft Carriers II

Originally Posted by TerraN_EmpirE

I have too correct my self A while back I made an Argument with AFB in which I used Thailand as an example of a nation who I thought operated Harriers I was wrong they do not have any. They failed too get an Export Agreement.
Although my argument still stands my example was erroneous.
That there are still nations who will continue too operate Harriers because they do not have and agreement on the F35B or C. Like Spain.

Thanks TerraN and point received, I don't dislike the Harrier, but it is a handfull, and I realize there are many who simply will not be able to afford the F-35.

Originally Posted by asif iqbal

SAM is lazy and incompetant persons air defence

best way to engage a enemy fighter is to use your own fighter to engage

Depending on who your opponent is, just an honorable way to die?

Originally Posted by asif iqbal

SAM is lazy and incompetant persons air defence

best way to engage a enemy fighter is to use your own fighter to engage

Not necessarily.

SAMs are an important part of a layered defense on land or at sea.

If you have enough fighters to assure that you can always take down evey attacking aircraft, that is one thing. But given the various methods of attacking (ie. coordinated attacks from different points on the compass and/or at varying altitudes, including very low level) you cannot be sure that no attacking aircraft will get near the target (be it a base, a vessel, a research facility, etc.).

So, you poistion various types of SAMs at various locations and establish SAM zones where your defending aircraft allow the enemy...if they get that far...to proceed into and then the SAMs do their job at various ranges depending on the SAM.

In such a scenario, an effect SAM layer of defense is neither lazy or incompetent. It can be very effective in saving the bacon if the attacking enemies get that far.

Under such circumstances SAM is good but many country's have fell into the trap of using SAM network to substitute their airforces lack of quality which has been disastrous

Iraq was one of them, they had more than 10,000 air defence systems to close the gaps the air force had and still they never managed it

Plus anyone making a sweep over SAM users electronic jamming, counter measures and many other types of suppression aircraft to lock down SAMs then take them out, Bekav Valley 1982

Many Arab country's established massive SAM networks covering huge areas in essence substituting their air force rather than complimenting it, well we all know what was the outcome of such a endeavour

For this reason I say it's best to have a highly trained squadron of fighters rather than a battalion of SAM battery's

In naval scenario the situation however is different

Originally Posted by asif iqbal

Under such circumstances SAM is good but many country's have fell into the trap of using SAM network to substitute their airforces lack of quality which has been disastrous

Iraq was one of them, they had more than 10,000 air defence systems to close the gaps the air force had and still they never managed it

Plus anyone making a sweep over SAM users electronic jamming, counter measures and many other types of suppression aircraft to lock down SAMs then take them out, Bekav Valley 1982

Many Arab country's established massive SAM networks covering huge areas in essence substituting their air force rather than complimenting it, well we all know what was the outcome of such a endeavour

For this reason I say it's best to have a highly trained squadron of fighters rather than a battalion of SAM battery's

In naval scenario the situation however is different

True, but to begin with Iraq did not have much of a radar systems of networks to coincide with their SAMs capability. If one has a good network radar, tracking, and communication systems working together as a unit, any SAMs, fighter squadron, or even drones can intercept the threat and eliminate it.

Originally Posted by asif iqbal

Under such circumstances SAM is good but many country's have fell into the trap of using SAM network to substitute their airforces lack of quality which has been disastrous

Many Arab country's established massive SAM networks covering huge areas in essence substituting their air force rather than complimenting it, well we all know what was the outcome of such a endeavour

In naval scenario the situation however is different

Both are required on land and at sea for the strongest defense. The SAMS alone cannot replace the necessary aircraft...and the aircraft alone cannot replace the job the SAMs do in the event of enemy aircraft overwhelming, or getting past your aircraft.

That means that a nation employing them must also exercise, train, and use them both...and be prepared to do so. Iraq, when attacked by the US was unable to do either, though they had decent physical assets in both regards. The results were disasterous and loed to complete air supremacy for the US and her allies.

I personally believe we would see a very similar situation develop with Iran if it were ever seriously attacked as Iraq was.

Originally Posted by Equation

True, but to begin with Iraq did not have much of a radar systems of networks to coincide with their SAMs capability. If one has a good network radar, tracking, and communication systems working together as a unit, any SAMs, fighter squadron, or even drones can intercept the threat and eliminate it.

A good thought, but pilotless aircraft are a very poor match against manned fighters in my own experience, but asif, in order to meet the enemy fighters mano a mano, you will have to be good, and most folks never get to that level, and their equipment is poorly maintained and second string to begin with. You're dead meat before you get off the ground.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

Iraq, when attacked by the US was unable to do either, though they had decent physical assets in both regards. The results were disasterous and loed to complete air supremacy for the US and her allies.

I personally believe we would see a very similar situation develop with Iran if it were ever seriously attacked as Iraq was.

It is very true, Iraq was really a disaster and an example on how not to fight wars, I think if Allies had Iraq’s equipment and Iraq had all of the allied equipment the result of the war would be the same

Mirage 5 and Mig-29 are not bad aircraft and neither is the T-72, Serbs managed to down F-117 using same equipment Iraq had, anyhow that was then this is now

And for Iran they won’t even go there, which is why Iran never spends billions on air force, because whether it does or it doesn’t result will still be the same, it will lose, this is why they have changed war doctrine to go unconventional and come up with radical change of tactics to impose maximum casualties on any attacking force, similar to Imperial Japanese during WWII

That downing should always include mention of a a fail in command as regard to tactics, The F117 was flying the same entry routs over and over again. Keep running the same path over and over again and some one is going too picket there.

I am aware of how it was downed, regardless it was downed that is what counts

Originally Posted by Air Force Brat

Thanks TerraN and point received, I don't dislike the Harrier, but it is a handfull, and I realize there are many who simply will not be able to afford the F-35.

On the World's Carrier topic, here's a great PIC popeye posted on another thread showing the water decon system on the Indian's new carrier, the Virkamaditya.

It's a nice high-res pic of the carrier itself from the aft.

INS Vikramaditya exercising Decon System during Trials

Very nice picture indeed, however i have been looking at the Vikramaditya for some time and i can't seem to find CIWS systems on this ship. Can anyone see the 8 Kashtan CIWS that is supposedly be on board or any other CIWS systems ?

Originally Posted by jackliu

Ok, Jeff so far you are the one that keep bring up Indian carrier into this trend.

Uh...actually, no, Jackliu. Look back at the start of this new thread and you will actually see a picture of the Vikram that was placed on this thread and I did not put it there. A whole discussion of the IN carrier and the Liaoling and their respective sprinkler systems (which was and is a good discussion to have) developed from it. Get your own facts straight before you make such accusations.

I leave it at that regarging it and will disucuss the Russian response on the other thread...those negotiations I suspect will and should continue.

As to the Liaoling, as I have stated numberous times over the many years I have been on this forum, having started and continued the Varyag/Chinese Carrier threads to begin with...what the PLAN has accomplished is an amaxing and good thing for the PRC and the PLAN. They are building their own blue water fleet and they are doing so rapidly. Closing the gap between themselves and other nations very quickly and producing world-class vessels.

That does not change the fact that to date, the J-15 is just not ready for show time. They have not built them in production numbers yet. If they had, we would already, I am sure, see numerous of them on the deck of the Liaoling. They will get there soon enough, and when they do, we will know it becuase we will begin seeing a lot more J-15s at land bases and we will being seeing actual photos on their decks as opposed to the PS's (like the one above which I called as probably being an SU-33 on the Kuznetsov).

Once those things actually do happen and we have the real photos, there will simply be no need to PS them. Now, I understand PS'ing them because for years I have done so myself in an attempt to show others what the Liaoling wouuld look like...but when I did, I made sure people understood it was exactly that, a depiction of what might be as opposed to what is. I think I did pretty well with such pictures too.

Soon enough the Chinese Carrier will have its aircraft and begin in ernest the training and testing necessary to make it a truly operatonal STOBAR aircraft carrier...and it will be a nice one too when that happens.

Originally Posted by Jovian

I think Jeff is just trying to describe the professionalism (required?) for each nation's service. There is nothing wrong in my mind in mentioning other nations' carrier development program.

Personally, I've been looking for photos on not just the Liaoning or the Vikramaditya. Been looking for photos and videos of the Queen Elizabeth, the Gerard Ford, the Juan Carlos, etc. I don't mind comparing them all on how each nation have chosen to approach their carrier development. Gone as far as checking Google Earth for update on the new J-15 training airbase at one point, hoping to see some development; but the Google Earth image is still stuck in 2010

Thanks, Jovian.

I do the same and try to keep all of them updated on ,y:

World-wide Aircraft Carriers Site

I have both phtos and some videos there as I find them and make sure they are the real thing.

Also, if you acytually purchase an upgraded verison of Google Earth, they used give you access to later sat pictures in one of their options. Not real time, but much more current.

In the new PLAN thread I posted a photo of the IN CV washdown system to show the Russian method of washdown Vs the US and Chinese method. Not for comparison between the PLAN & IN..

Do not respond or quote this post.

bd popeye super moderator