Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: fdiron on May 05, 2002, 10:12:19 PM
-
What would Iraq need to do in order to withstand another conventional war against the U.S.? Heres how I rate Iraqs needs:
(1) A sucessful anti-aircraft system. Advanced Surface-to-Air missles would be a top priority.
(2) An anti-tank platform capable of destroying an M1A1 or equivalent (Leopard II, etc).
(3) Dispersed military headquarters and mobile command quarters.
-
Miracle ?
-
They don't stand an ice cube's chance in hell.
-
If they try a stand up fight like last time they don't have a prayer. Not sure what other types of tactics would work in that terrain...
-
Tactical nukes? Biological warfare?
Terrorist attacks on the US mainland so the people lose their will to fight?
-
We won't be able to attack Iraq because nobody will let us use their land to do it from.
I think this whole idea of the USA preparing to wage war on Iraq is stupid myself. I don't even know if we Americans are willing to do it.
I would prefer to make an ulimatium to the other Arab neihbors of Iraq. Either get in with us, or we're leaving.
Hans.
-
Originally posted by fdiron
What would Iraq need to do in order to withstand another conventional war against the U.S.? Heres how I rate Iraqs needs:
(1) A sucessful anti-aircraft system. Advanced Surface-to-Air missles would be a top priority.
(2) An anti-tank platform capable of destroying an M1A1 or equivalent (Leopard II, etc).
(3) Dispersed military headquarters and mobile command quarters.
You missed one:
(4) A credible nuclear deterrent. Seems pretty effective at keeping countries from violating our borders, could do the same for Iraq.
Isn't it ironic how United States maintains that it is a crime for Iraq to seek nuclear weapons as a means to impose its will on the world?
Iraq has proven to be our enemy and as such it is in our interest to ensure that it does not ever have enough power to hurt us or more importantly the precious oil in that area. But I will never accept claims that it is a crime for another country to seek the same power and prestige nuclear weapons have brought to this country. It is arrogant for us to think that only our country and those we approve of are entitled to the blanket of security provided by a nuclear arsenal.
Would Sadam Hussein use nuclear weapons or at least use them as bargaining chips? Possibly, but the record to date shows that of all the countries that have operational nuclear weapons, only one had ever used them on populated areas.
Pakistan has been about as friendly to us as Iraq. In fact, Pakistan openly backed the Taliban and may still be helping them behind our back. Why didn't we take actions to prevent Pakistan from developing a nuclear arsenal? Not one strike on possible weapons plants. Not one UN inspection team.
Why the inconsistency? O I L and M O N E Y
-
GM Autonomy (http://www.edmunds.com/news/conceptcarspotlight/articles/48581/article.html)
"The engineers and designers responsible for the Autonomy concept believe mass production of the vehicle or one like it is possible within 10 years."
Chrysler unveils fuel-cell minivan (http://www.autonews.com/news.cms?newsId=1146)
"The Natrium goes 300 miles on a 54-gallon tank of water and sodium borate, reaches 60 mph in about 16 seconds and gets the equivalent of 30 mpg of gasoline, said Thomas Moore, vice president of DaimlerChrysler's technical affairs and engineering technologies."
Saddam, "Do Not Ask For Whom the Bell Tolls, It Tolls For Thee."
:D
It will take a while.. but it will come. And when it does they can go back to eating sand. :)
-
streakeagle wants to fight a "fair" war ...........do we have "timeouts" and "offsides" also??...........yeah , whatever
-
The US wont "invade" Iraq, it will just beat the toejam out of it, install a new government of their liking and leave... making a tidy profit of reduced oil prices and reconstruction contracts.
Arab neighbors not allowing it? Last time I checked the US was the main buyer of their oil. Sure, they can "embargo" against the US.. but theyd lose so much money in the end it'd hurt them a lot more. Plus theres always other sources of oil from ALLIED nations.. like south american and russian oil fields that are blooming all the sudden.
What Iraq can do to withstand conventional war vs US?
Nothing. They only thing that might help them is to set those oil fields ablaze again, to deny use of tech gadgets by the US (IR vision, navigation, etc). But that wont help them for more than a day. And it wont be conventional war either. Saddamn knows he's gonna lose and he'll either RUN and seek asylum somewhere or he'll order use of chemical weapons against Israel with his scuds and then against US forces. Which will of course result in his bellybutton getting nuked to hell. But face it, he's a nutcase, he dont have nothing to lose, he'll do it. Heck he may even believe that his arab neighbors and the international community will prevent him from getting nuked.. you know, UN/US forces being the good guys plus needing to keep good relations with arabs in the future and such.
Methinks the crapola will end up irradiated. Taco Bell will finally sell the "Hussein Burrito" .. microwavable in 5 minutes!
-
Whats the build up in Kuwait for then?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Telegraph
December 20, 2001
US build-up in the Middle East
By Peter Green in Prague and Michael Smith
MORE than 20,000 American troops have been moved into Qatar and Kuwait
amid repeated suggestions that Washington is preparing to move the war
on terrorism into Iraq, defence sources said yesterday.
The United States moved the headquarters of its 3rd Army to Qatar two
weeks ago and defence analysts have reported large numbers of troops
being moved into the region since.
The 3rd Army is the ground component of the US Central Command, which
oversees America's military operations in the Middle East and
Afghanistan and was in charge of coalition forces during the Gulf war.
The Pentagon has insisted that it is merely rotating troops but defence
analysts say that about 24,000 troops have been moved in with barely a
brigade, around 4,000, moving out.
The Czech Republic inadvertently confirmed yesterday the military
build-up in the region by suggesting that up to 400 troops it has
committed to the US-led war on terrorism might be sent to Kuwait.
Miroslav Titz, the deputy chairman of the Czech parliament's defence and
security committee, said an anti-chemical warfare unit and a field
hospital could be deployed at an American military base in the Gulf
state.
"A joint contingent is being considered," he said. "It might be deployed
at a US base in Kuwait where it would have logistics support." Czech
chemical defence units and a field hospital were based in Kuwait during
the Gulf war.
The deployment of so many troops may be designed to intimidate Saddam
Hussein. American officials admitted that a State Department team, led
by Ryan Crocker, the deputy assistant secretary of state for Near
Eastern Affairs, was surreptitiously sent into northern Iraq recently to
meet Kurdish leaders.
The visit was intended to make Baghdad jittery and to encourage the
Kurdish leaders to unite to provide opposition to Saddam. President Bush
and his top advisers are said to have decided against launching an
attack on Iraq and favour encouraging opposition forces to overthrow
Saddam from within.
Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, is devising a long-term plan
aimed at forcing Iraq to readmit United Nations weapons inspectors and
co-operate with a set of economic sanctions. Officials say if the Iraqi
leader refuses they do not rule out using military force.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Sandman,
An icecube's chance in hell?
Surely you jest.
You're being much too generous.
I'd say that Iraq has less than a snowflake's chance in hell of standing against the USA.:p
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'A right-wing cabal is pulling America to war'
By Conn Hallinan
Sometime this fall, probably before the mid-term elections, the U.S. will probably be at war with Iraq.But why are we headed to war in the Mideast? Not because Iraq is engaged in terrorism. According to the CIA, it isn't. Not because Iraqi arms threaten our security. According to most arms inspectors, Iraq is essentially disarmed.
No, it will happen because more than a decade ago a small cabal of political heavyweights in the administration of George Bush the First, who now also run the foreign and defense policy of George Bush II, sat down and drew up a blueprint to rule the world. X-Files fantasies?
Their names should be familiar: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff. Their goal is to "shape" the world to "preclude the rise of another global rival for the indefinite future," in the words of one of the group's leading thinkers, Zalmay Khalizad (now special envoy to Afghanistan).
The tone of these people is chilling. Our allies are cast as a bunch of spineless whiners, international agreements are dismissed as straitjackets, and the "enemy" portrayed as a mob of wogs, easily scattered by a show of cold steel. In his briefing of senior White House staff on the Mideast, Bernard Lewis of Princeton (another "team" member) argued that "in that part of the world, nothing matters more than resolute force and will."
Homework was undoubtedly the collected works of Cecil Rhodes and Rudyard Kipling.
When Bush addressed the nation Sept. 20, he called on the American people and our allies to join a "war on terrorism." But in the intervening six months, the goals of that war have changed drastically. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told Lemann that the policy was not just to go after terrorists, but to prevent the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction in "the hands of irresponsible states."
This is a handy little distinction, because on Feb. 5 the CIA said there was no evidence that Iraq has engaged in any terrorism directed at the United States or its allies. And while the administration has trumpeted that Iraq blocked all arms inspections three years ago, few people outside of Washington (except British Prime Minister Tony Blair) actually think that Iraq has such weapons.
As Scott Ritter, former head of the UN Special Commission on Concealment says, "It was possible as early as 1997 to determine that, strictly from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq had been disarmed."
Would it make a difference if Iraq agreed to inspections? Nope. When asked that question by CNN, Powell replied that "even then the United States believes the Iraqi people would be better served with a new kind of leadership."
The latest rationale for invasion is that Iraq has ties with al Qaeda, a charge based more on tortured logic than intelligence. CIA Director George Tenet recently told Congress that, while there was no evidence that such ties exist, the "mutual antipathy" that the two had for the United States "suggests that tactical cooperation between the two is possible." If one can find two flimsier words than "suggests" and "possible" to launch a war, it would be great to hear them.
The lack of evidence linking Iraq to terrorism is deeply disturbing to our allies. Even America's strongest ally, Britain, is split on an invasion. More than 122 Labor members of Parliament have signed a petition opposing any attack. By shifting the target from terrorism to weapons that might fall into the hands of terrorists, virtually any country becomes a target. The administration has already lined up Syria, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan once Iraq is toppled. That invading any of these countries would violate international law and the UN charter doesn't faze these people.
U.S. foreign policy has been hijacked by a group of unelected unilateralists who seem determined to drag America into an endless morass of brushfire wars to achieve the goal of unrestrained power. They are doing this without consulting with Congress or the American people, and unless citizens act now to hold them accountable, our world is going to get a lot more dangerous than it already is.
Conn Hallinan writes for Foreign Policy In Focus http://www.fpif.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chimpy already "hit the trifecta", I guess he doesn't feel his chances of re-election are good enough without commiting troops to take down saddam, or is it "short man complex" ruling his thought process?
-
Originally posted by Toad
GM Autonomy (http://www.edmunds.com/news/conceptcarspotlight/articles/48581/article.html)
"The engineers and designers responsible for the Autonomy concept believe mass production of the vehicle or one like it is possible within 10 years."
Chrysler unveils fuel-cell minivan (http://www.autonews.com/news.cms?newsId=1146)
"The Natrium goes 300 miles on a 54-gallon tank of water and sodium borate, reaches 60 mph in about 16 seconds and gets the equivalent of 30 mpg of gasoline, said Thomas Moore, vice president of DaimlerChrysler's technical affairs and engineering technologies."
Saddam, "Do Not Ask For Whom the Bell Tolls, It Tolls For Thee."
:D
It will take a while.. but it will come. And when it does they can go back to eating sand. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chimpys energy/environment policy to date: (http://www.house.gov/science_democrats/archive/budget03.htm)
* Cut the Environmental Protection Agency budget by $500 million.
* Taken corporate polluters off the hook for cleaning up the toxic messes they leave behind, making John Q. Taxpayer foot the bill.
* Suspended rules denying government contracts to companies that violate government regulations, including environmental and workplace safety rules.
* Suspended rules that require hard-rock mines to clean up their pollution on public lands.
* Rescinded a proposal to give the public information about public health and safety consequences of chemical plant accidents.
Specifically for his oil/gas industry and buddies, Bush has:
* Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28 percent.
* Canceled the 2004 deadline for automakers to develop high-mileage prototypes.
* Abandoned his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide levels.
* Rescinded rules mandating energy efficiency regulations for air conditioners and heat pumps.
* Cut funding of renewable energy source research by 50 percent.
The Bush administrations move to cut by 50% funding for research into renewable energy sources is more than just a gift to the oil refining industry for big campaign finance checks. The above fact coupled with the American Petroleum Institutes own reports in and of themselves virtually proves that the Bush administration is making policy decisions with serious long term ramifications solely at the request of the petroleum industry without any consideration for the long term effects of these decisions.
The American Petroleum Institute's own documents state that "proved" US oil reserves would last only ten years at current production levels. In fact recent estimates state that with known reserves coupled with accelerated efforts to locate oil fields not yet discovered would last 40 to 80 years at current production levels.
Chimpy has his head up his ass, and his hands in the oil/gas industries pockets. :mad:
-
Originally posted by fdiron
What would Iraq need to do in order to withstand another conventional war against the U.S.? Heres how I rate Iraqs needs:
(1) A sucessful anti-aircraft system. Advanced Surface-to-Air missles would be a top priority.
(2) An anti-tank platform capable of destroying an M1A1 or equivalent (Leopard II, etc).
(3) Dispersed military headquarters and mobile command quarters.
1) There is no SAM that can defeat stealth technology, and the B-2 or F-117 would be the first planes to strike Iraqi air-defense installations, just like our prior war with them. Yugoslavia had the most advanced air-defense network in the world until we started bombing them. Hundreds of days of bombing and we lost one plane.
2) Iraq has no access to an anti-tank platform that could destroy an M1A1. Even if they did, it wouldn't matter. Our Air Force would destroy that Division on the first day of the air war. Can anyone say JSOW?
3) They already use that. They used it in the first war we had with them. We defeated it then and we can defeat it now.
Iraq stands no chance at all against an attack by the US. In fact, no country in the world could stop a direct attack from the US.
-
Only way to beat the US is to get air superiority. That means fighters.
-
B2s and F117s can be detected by radar. Its only at mid to long ranges that they appear 'invisible'. But speaking of fighters...what if Saddam focused on a strong airforce? Perhaps 100 Mig-29s and highly trained pilots. In modern war, air superiority is everything. Most analyst agree that the Mig29 is a better plane than the F16, perhaps even better than the aging F15 also.
What would it take for the U.S. to be too demoralized to fight Iraq? Maybe a few transport planes full of soldiers shot down? I'm sure that a flight of Mig29s could carry enough ordinance to destroy a cargo ship or two.
That brings up the question of the airfield facilities these Migs would be using. Perhaps underground bunkers near major highways would prove to be best. The Mig29 is designed to take-off from rough runways and such, so that would be no problem for it.
-
Perhaps the Mig-29 is a better fighter on paper. It doesnt matter one bit though. The US has missiles that will take down those Mig-29s three times the distance of the Mig-29s can even hope to fire any of their own missiles.
And pilot quality? Forgetaboutit.
-
What is Iraq ?
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Only way to beat the US is to get air superiority. That means fighters.
I disagree.
The only way to beat the US is to win the PR war. Somalia is a good example of this.
The US has the best military in the world, but she is incredibly weak when it comes to public opinion. For some reason, it would seem that the US public doesnt have the stomache for war.
-
Originally posted by fdiron
B2s and F117s can be detected by radar. Its only at mid to long ranges that they appear 'invisible'.
ha ha ha
your stealths arent invisible since 1995 i think ... so keep fairy tales for someone else :D
http://www.aeronautics.ru/tamara02.htm
this is old version new version is called Vera and its produced by private company in Czech
-
For some reason, it would seem that the US public doesnt have the stomache for war.
I doubt most Western democracies have the stomach for war. In fact, Western Europe has never had this attribute - it's just that some countries didn't have much sand to bury their respective heads in and had to knuckle down.
-
1 more http://216.26.163.62/2002/me_iraq_1_14.html
you still reading only about older version developed by army
dont forget that there exist new version produced by private company
Ahhhh finaly here is developer :)
http://www.era.cz
-
1) There is no SAM that can defeat stealth technology, and the B-2 or F-117 would be the first planes to strike Iraqi air-defense installations, just like our prior war with them. Yugoslavia had the most advanced air-defense network in the world until we started bombing them. Hundreds of days of bombing and we lost one plane.
2) Iraq has no access to an anti-tank platform that could destroy an M1A1. Even if they did, it wouldn't matter. Our Air Force would destroy that Division on the first day of the air war. Can anyone say JSOW?
3) They already use that. They used it in the first war we had with them. We defeated it then and we can defeat it now.
8Ball, please quit making stuff up. I know for a fact that the Russians possess a shoulder fired anti-tank missle which is capable of burning through 750mm of steel. This ought to be more than enough to kill an M1A1. And yes, I know the M1 has composite armor and reactive armor. However, armor almost always lags behind weapondry.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Perhaps the Mig-29 is a better fighter on paper. It doesnt matter one bit though. The US has missiles that will take down those Mig-29s three times the distance of the Mig-29s can even hope to fire any of their own missiles.
And pilot quality? Forgetaboutit.
hehe i guess that with point of view like that you were realy
shock by 11 sep
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/suchoj/Su_37/su37.mpeg
-
Now I could be wrong on this, but I think the last BVR (beyond visual range) missle kill by a U.S. fighter was by an F4 Phantom which shot down 2 F105 Thunderchiefs during the Vietnam war. Since then, there have been serious restrictions on BVR missle launches during combat (if any at all).
-
A bunch of liberals protesting the war at home, turning America onto itself ...
That is the only way we can lose - by beating ourselves...
-
I've seen alot of replies that say that protesters would cause America to pull out of the war. To me, protesters are not the cause of losing a war, they are a symptom. Vietnam for example- That was a very mismanaged war. As a result, U.S. soldiers started comming home in body bags. People didnt like this. If the war had been managed right, there would have been far fewer casualties. That is why there were protesters.
-
Originally posted by fdiron
8Ball, please quit making stuff up. I know for a fact that the Russians possess a shoulder fired anti-tank missle which is capable of burning through 750mm of steel. This ought to be more than enough to kill an M1A1. And yes, I know the M1 has composite armor and reactive armor. However, armor almost always lags behind weapondry.
Uh..?
Are you sure about the M1A1s having reactive armor? I thought they didnt. In fact, I thought that neither the LeoII, Challenger or M1A1-2 had reactive armor. That there was no need for reactive armor because of the composite armor those tanks have are just as effective (or even more effective) against HEAT projectiles.
Basically, reactive armor is nothing but a bunch of explosives on the outside of the tank's armor. Designed to disrupt or divert the explosive force from a shape-charged detonation (please excuse any mistakes due to my crappy english here). Most modern AT missiles have ways to defeat reactive armor though. Most of these missiles use a combination of overhead attack and double-punch.
Basically the AT missile is set to fly approx 1 meter above the target and detonate when it is directly above it. (Overhead attack). The missile then has two shape-charged warheads. One in the front of the missile and one in the rear. These are timed so that the front warhead detonates a millisecond (or something like that) before the aft warhead. Both are angled so that they will hit the same area. What happens is that the reactive armor "reacts" to the first detonation, and neutralize that warhead. But the second warhead then arrives at the now-empty patch of armor, and only has to defeat the top armor of the tank.
The composite armor of the modern western tanks use armor with several layers of different material. Some of these layers are excellent heat absorbers, others are hardened steel, etc etc. With that kind of armor, there is no need for reactive armor, since the missile detonation will be absorbed by some of the layers (ceramics, amongst others).
-
That illustrates my point of armor lagging behind weapondry. Reactive armor is not a permanent thing. It can be added or removed. I have also heard that it damages the sighting system on the M1 if applied to the turret. I have seen video footage of reactive armor on M1s on the history channel. These M1s were painted in euro-green, so they probably pre-dated the Gulf War.
-
Weazel, your current jihad against the present President notwithstanding, the hydrogen powered autos are coming.
It's simply going to be "good business" and good profits. That's all you need to for it to happen.
Smile.. unclench yer ulcer. The sun will come up tomorrow. :D
-
I am in the RV (Recreational Vehicle) business, and the Government just gave an $80 million grant to Onan generators to develope a fuel cell for RV's. I think this technology is right around the relative corner.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
A bunch of liberals protesting the war at home, turning America onto itself ...
That is the only way we can lose - by beating ourselves...
A bunch of conservatives shutting down free speech would be much worse than any anti-war protest. What the heck are we fighting for anyway? Conservative values, or American values?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Weazel, your current jihad against the present President notwithstanding, the hydrogen powered autos are coming.
It's simply going to be "good business" and good profits. That's all you need to for it to happen.
Smile.. unclench yer ulcer. The sun will come up tomorrow. :D
Then I'll shut up. :D
-
Hey, that looks a lot like our CINC!
-
Weazel,
To combine the image of President Bush with that of a chimpanzee goes beyond the boundries of good taste and decency. You owe that chimp an immediate apology for insulting him in such a manner.
-
"You owe that chimp an immediate apology "
*SNORK* ROFTLMAO :D :D
-
He has "Chuckys" eyes in addition to the chimp features? :D
No chimps were harmed in the making of this picture.
-
To assault any nation directly with the intent to control that nation completly requires a tripod.. air, sea and land superiority and control.
We have the potential to project and control all three legs of the tripod over iraq... I am aware of no weapons systems that can effictively cancel our ability to dominate the combat area short of two things..
attrition... and weapons of mass destruction.
Should saddam be able to effectively kick out one of the legs of the tripod, say by nuking a CVBG or by gassing our ground forces enmasse.. then the nature of the game changes. The US will suddenly be entirely un-interested in merely controlling the battle field, and will no doubt switch the goal to something a little more practical under the circumstances... and use weapons of mass destruction of its own.
...and Iraq will be uninhabitable for a few thousand years.
I rather suspect the scenario will never get a chance to play out... if the US satisfactorily erects it's 'tripod' over iraq again, saddam will be snuffed by an iraqi.. the generals know without question what would happen to them if they lost a second time to us.. and THEY know they cannot win.
-
Originally posted by fdiron
Now I could be wrong on this, but I think the last BVR (beyond visual range) missle kill by a U.S. fighter was by an F4 Phantom which shot down 2 F105 Thunderchiefs during the Vietnam war. Since then, there have been serious restrictions on BVR missle launches during combat (if any at all).
Umm... most of the kills in Desert Storm were BVR by Eagles with Sparrows. AWACS does wonderful things for IFF. When you see where the aircraft takes off from, you pretty much know whether its friendly or enemy.
As it was, the USAF staged one successful BVR in Vietnam in May of 1972, though the flight leader, Major Robert Lodge, was shot down by MiG-19s while trying to finish off a MiG-21 that survived the BVR attack.
Neither the MiG-29 or Su-27 has yet to demonstrate the ability to shoot down a US fighter BVR. MiG-29s have definitely been falling to our missiles.
-
I dont feel like getting into this US vs Iraq argument right now, but I will provide some facts relating to previous posts in this thread:
1. M-1s do not currently use reactive armour. We did use some M-60 MBTs in Desert storm that had reactive armour though.
2. Stealth is relative. Stealth planes arent invisible to radar, they just have much reduced radar signature, meaning that they show on radar only at very short ranges.
3. Many BVR kills were recorded in Vietnam and since by the US. There were free fire zones in Vietnam where fighters could use their long range missiles BVR, and in Desert Storm, AWACs and much improved IFF allowed the ROE to be modified to allow some BVR shooting. We also have something now called NCTR, the way it works is classified, but suffice it to say that it can tell what kind of plane the radar is looking at by using some cool gee-whiz computer trickery.
4. Most experts would agree that between the original F-16 and Mig-29, the Fulcrum was better in many ways. However, the current block Viper is WAY ahead of the latest model Fulcrums. The original F-16s couldnt carry long range A-A missiles, had inferior radar, and were less powerful than they are today. Current F-16s are more reliable, have vastly more capable radar systems, and carry the awesome AMRAAM missile. The Mig-29 hasnt been improved that much in the past 20 years. The Mig-29M finally got some improved avionics, and a glass cockpit but it still lags way behind the F-16 in almost every way. The F-15 is superior to them both in every respect except ultimate manouverability in a close in fight. The best Russian fighter isnt the Fulcrum though, its the Su-27 Flanker (not including prototypes such as the Mig-142 which will probably never be built, and the Su-35, which isnt operational yet). The Flanker is superior in many repects even to a new F-16, and even in some ways to the F-15. Pilot skill and tactics are the main thing in air combat though, as we all well know from AH. Besides, even if Iraq had 100 really good Mig-29 pilots and he was somehow able to get 100 Fulcrums into the air, we have 1,381 F-16s, and 737 F-15s (not to mention all the USN and USMC Hornets and Tomcats). Soon we will have the F-22 which is light years beyond any current fighter.
Saddam would be stupid to even try to counter the might of the US head on. He would be better served by using assymetric tactics to try to counter some of our weaker areas in which he may have some relative strength. Fortunately, we are aware that this is exactly what he will probably try to do, and we will be extra vigilant in countering the few strengths that he has. It is critical that he does not acquire nuclear weapons however. This would provide him with a weapon that we really cannot counter at this point, although he wouldnt have the means to deliver it to the US. His most likely target would be Israel. I dont know if he is really irrational enough to use nuclear weapons against Israel, but I do know that if he gets nuclear weapons, the Israelis will probably not sit around and play waiting games. A scenario where Israel launches a preemptive war against Iraq could be disastrous in the powder-keg of the Middle East and might result in a full scale war in the region. We would most almost certainly side with Israel in such a case, and many of the other Middle Eastern nations would possibly side with Iraq. I dont think there is any doubt about who would win in the end, but such a war would be a tremendous disaster in terms of human life lost, and material cost.
Hopefully the Arab nations will realize that Saddam is a loose cannon, and cooperate with our efforts to remove him from power. A short, wellplanned campaign, using good intelligence, special operations, and airpower might succeed in rapidly toppling Saddam. Contrary to what you might think, Saddam would probably be easier to find than Osama has been, due to the larger train that he is forced to carry around with him. With real-time intelligence literally getting better by the day, we wait until we know where he is, launch a rapid strike to take him out, and have a plan ready as to how to fill the vacuum created. This is all much easier said than done (if it was easy it would have already been done), but a bad situation is brewing on down the road if he develops WMD beyond what he already has. Hopefully the bugger will just die a natural death soon, and somebody more reasonable will take his place.
By the way, I disagree with the assertion that armour always lags behind weaponry. The race between arms and armour goes back and forth. First one will be ahead, then the other, as engineers and designers work to overcome new technologies. Want an example? Stealth again provides us with one. It was practically invincible when it first was used, setting engineers worldwide scrambling to find a way to defeat it. Now there are at least 5 technologies that offer a way to counter stealth at least to a large degree. However, stealth technology isnt static either. Large advances have been made in this field as well, negating many of the efforts that have been made against it. The B-2 is many times larger than the F-117 yet it has almost the same radar signature (actually it has a slightly smaller signature).
Wow, this wasnt supposed to be a long post, and I wasnt supposed to get into this argument. Oh well, I like a good debate too much to be able to stay out of one. :)
-
Umm... most of the kills in Desert Storm were BVR by Eagles with Sparrows. AWACS does wonderful things for IFF. When you see where the aircraft takes off from, you pretty much know whether its friendly or enemy
The Sparrow is barely a BVR missle. It has a max range of ~15 miles doesnt it?
-
Depends on the conditions, but I will not say the exact range here since its classified, but lets say you are right and the range of the Sparrow is 15 miles. Fifteen miles is well beyond visual range. You can barely see a fighter plane at 5-7 miles under perfect conditions. Anything beyond that and there is no way. If you dont believe that, think how hard it is to see a airliner, which is much larger than a fighter, at 35,000 feet from the ground. You mainly spot the airliner from its contrails, but the plane itself is just a speck and thats at between 6 and 7 miles against a blue background.
-
Originally posted by 8ball
1) There is no SAM that can defeat stealth technology, and the B-2 or F-117 would be the first planes to strike Iraqi air-defense installations, just like our prior war with them. Yugoslavia had the most advanced air-defense network in the world until we started bombing them. Hundreds of days of bombing and we lost one plane.
2) no country in the world could stop a direct attack from the US.
1) I think you should rethink that statement. Yugoslavia had very toejamy air-defense network with Soviet made “expired” missiles. (Missiles motors do have to be replaced, they don’t last forever) They did had very few S-300 systems and US never showed face in that location.
2) If country has nuclear weapons US will be stopped, and very quickly.
There isn’t a point of arguing about this, US will attack and Iraq will try to defend it self with what ever means necessary, may it be nukes or Cam war.
-
Originally posted by fdiron
The Sparrow is barely a BVR missle. It has a max range of ~15 miles doesnt it?
Depends greatly on target aspect, alt, and speed and launching aircraft's alt and speed. A headon shot at medium range and subsonic speeds is typically fired inside of 20 miles, 10 to 15 being the norm from the accounts I have read.
The accounts I read from desert storm indicated that the pilots didn't even get to see the missiles hit, they had to close the range to look for chutes and wreckage to confirm the hits/kills. The majority of the kills scored in desert storm were Sparrow kills, and the majority of Sparrow kills were BVR.
At higher alts and speeds, the Sparrow can be fired when the target is over 60 miles away.
A MiG-21, the type engaged in the Vietnam BVR of Oyster flight, is barely visible at 2 miles from head on. Oyster flight fired from outside of 8 miles (older sparrows) and got close enough to see the detonations as they occurred, eliminating 2 of the 4 MiG-21s in the target flight. Future Vietnam ace Capt. Steve Ritchie was part of Oyster flight and killed one of the 2 remaining MiG-21s with a stern shot. Major Lodge was too close to fire and was trying to open range when a flight of MiG-19s ripped up his F-4D with cannon fire. Net score: 3 MiG-21s for 1 F-4D thanks to the BVR capability. Of the 4 F-4Ds, one had a radar malfunction, so the actual odds were 3 F-4Ds versus 8 MiGs. If Major Lodge had heeded the warning of his wingman, he might not have died :( Target fixation... it would have been his 2nd kill of the day and his 4th overall... he wanted to be the first Vietnam ace so bad that it killed him. His WSO bailed successfully and was captured. Don't know why Major Lodge never bailed since he was flying the plane when his WSO ejected.
-
Originally posted by Durr
Depends on the conditions, but I will not say the exact range here since its classified, but lets say you are right and the range of the Sparrow is 15 miles. Fifteen miles is well beyond visual range. You can barely see a fighter plane at 5-7 miles under perfect conditions. Anything beyond that and there is no way
lol you lame what do you think about Iraq army ?
that they fly LA-8 and Yak 10 U ? wake up mate.. USA isnt only 1 country with a radar :D :D
(look on the end of page, there is list of AA rckts)http://www.military.cz/russia/air/default_cz.htm
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/weapons/future.htm
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/suchoj/video/cobra.mpeg
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/suchoj/video/testpilots_su_27.mpeg
btw if you understand nothing on those pages, thats no problem
hehe its funny to listen those nonsense about super US army :D :D
btw I never saw Bush w/o make up WTG :)
-
Originally posted by Russian
1) I think you should rethink that statement. Yugoslavia had very toejamy air-defense network with Soviet made “expired” missiles. (Missiles motors do have to be replaced, they don’t last forever) They did had very few S-300 systems and US never showed face in that location.
yeah Yugoslavia`s AA defense were as funny as our
-
hehe 1 more link for your infomation
http://www.digitalfact.co.jp/missile/missile-data/jiten.htm
-
Get a grip Orel. Do you know who you are talking to here? I'll give you a hint, look at the names of some of their home cities.
I love it when people compare combat ready US stuff in the field to Russian prototypes with no customers...
Like Iraq has any of that toejam LOL!!!
http://www.orbat.com/site/data/iraq/aviation.html
-
well funked if anyone want to live with idea, that US is only 1 super cool army and theothers still throwing rocks, i have no problem with it ..... :D
-
btw mig 21 rulez we have 2 of them ... and we waiting when they will crash :cool:
then we will have no fighters :D
-
lol
-
they were invisible for 15 years.
doncha wonder what yer not seeing now? :D
those 117's were *so* 80's anyway ;)
Kanthy
Originally posted by Eaglecz
ha ha ha
your stealths arent invisible since 1995 i think ... so keep fairy tales for someone else :D
http://www.aeronautics.ru/tamara02.htm
this is old version new version is called Vera and its produced by private company in Czech