Operations "Cope India 2004" USAF v IAF

[Rolex]

'That woman' sold them off years ago...

[Gixer]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No more in service fighters in your air force?

Nope,

Stupid liberal PM decided she could save a few million by getting rid of our fighter squadrons. Shame since those squadrons had a long history, not to mention the loss of skilled airmen/women and engineers etc. Though most of the pilots went to the Aussie Airforce, good for them obtaining a bunch of highly trained and experienced pilots for free. Bad for us since the cost in the long run of re-establishing the fighter squadrons at a later date strongly out weighs the short term savings.

Nothing more then short sighted stupidity.



...-Gixer

[Gixer]

Cpxxx,

You got it in one and the reson for the post in the first place. Nothing at all to do with being anti US all about the reasoning for supporting the next generation of fighters and further development.



...-Gixer

[cpxxx]

Skyhawks weren't strictly fighters but at least you had something potent for a while.   The last fighter we had was the Spitfire. Even they were two seaters.  The last proper fighter the Air Corps had was the Seafire III.

Now they have PC-9's, advanced trainers  
Advanced training for what????

[Heater]

Also,

They left out that the F-15's were not allowed to use the ECM pods, and the Radar was limited to 40 NM.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Gixer
Nope,

Stupid liberal PM decided she could save a few million by getting rid of our fighter squadrons. Shame since those squadrons had a long history, not to mention the loss of skilled airmen/women and engineers etc. Though most of the pilots went to the Aussie Airforce, good for them obtaining a bunch of highly trained and experienced pilots for free. Bad for us since the cost in the long run of re-establishing the fighter squadrons at a later date strongly out weighs the short term savings.

Nothing more then short sighted stupidity.



...-Gixer

Man Gixer, unwilling to provide adequate defense for yourselves and yet you still bash the one government most likely to come to your aid in war. What's wrong with you guys?

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by straffo
you think we still have fighter ?
how uninformed you are ...

You take me post serious?
how silly you are    .....

(was that understandable enough for you?)

[Bluedog]

Originally posted by AKIron
Man Gixer, unwilling to provide adequate defense for yourselves and yet you still bash the one government most likely to come to your aid in war. What's wrong with you guys?

Didn't the ANZUS treaty fall apart at the seams when the Kiwis refused to allow US nuclear warships into their waters like twenty years ago or something?
I dont know that the US would exactly leap to NZs aid without a damn good reason these days.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by AKIron
Man Gixer, unwilling to provide adequate defense for yourselves and yet you still bash the one government most likely to come to your aid in war. What's wrong with you guys?

I beg your scuse me?  War with who?


Edit: You know what, nevermind with who.  I find that statement incredibly disprespectful to a whole host of nations that would back the Kiwis up.

[hawker238]

Gixer, you're taking this with respectful good humor.  Sorry about some of these guys.

[Cobra412]

Gixer I'm just curious but what kind of intimate knowledge do you have of the US and their F-15 avionics systems usage during country vs country training excersizes?

I can bet the only thing you have is what you read in a news article.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Cobra412
Gixer I'm just curious but what kind of intimate knowledge do you have of the US and their F-15 avionics systems usage during country vs country training excersizes?

I can bet the only thing you have is what you read in a news article.

So if my only knowledge is from news articles and released operations report does that then mean I can't comment on them or have an opinion by your rules?

I assume you have no experience at all first hand of air combat,flight models,aviation other then what you have read yet you discuss those subjects all the time? How about helicopters? Any intimate knowledge there?



...-Gixer

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Bluedog
Didn't the ANZUS treaty fall apart at the seams when the Kiwis refused to allow US nuclear warships into their waters like twenty years ago or something?
I dont know that the US would exactly leap to NZs aid without a damn good reason these days.

Yes it all fell apart because the govt at the time wanted to get some greeny votes at the time. I was totally against it and still am, think it's pointless stand against nuclear warships and ruined a good relationship with one of our closest allies. Not forgetting it also pi**ed off the Brits as well since we wouldn't allow their nuclear ships here either.

As for NZ and US relations I think both have agreed to disagree and still work together militarily. Though obviously not at the same kind of level as US and Aussie relations,



...-Gixer

[Cobra412]

Gixer you specifically said this when asked about their avionics systems.

None, they just didn't have they're usual AWAC's support.

I can tell you first hand that we do limit the use of our systems.  How would I know that?  Maybe because I'am an avionics systems technician on the F-15 and I'm the one disabling those systems.  The crews are briefed on what they can and can't use.  They are also briefed on what systems have capability limits (range, modes, ect...).

As far as air combat.  No I have no first hand experience other than the books I read and seeing the videos of air combat that our pilots have done.  

I have never discussed capabilities of a certain flight models.  I have also never discussed any capabilities of helicopters either. Simple fact is by just limiting AWACS you have already disabled atleast half of one systems capabilities.

[Torque]

Awacs is great when you're fighting a third world rival but up against an Air Force with modern day technology isn't it just one big fat target?