radiosilence
jints
Metro said:
The wording of the quote seems to mean something different than cutting off the maintenance supply chain and technical support.
Arab Air Forces
- Thread starter T-95
- Start date
The wording of the quote seems to mean something different than cutting off the maintenance supply chain and technical support.
No, I understand what you're asking from my post. It's my bad, I didn't catch the wording coming off in the way it can be read/interpreted (as you rightfully pointed out), I didn't mean for it to come off as anything more than surface deep. Same to T95, my fault for not being clear on that point!
I should have simply said that we can turn on and off the the supply line that Egypt has heavily invested in over the years. Our equipment doesn't last very long in that region/climate, when heavily used (training or otherwise) without a lot of supplies and maintenance. A small upgrade to systems in one military vs. (a) small -slow or quick-- downgrades in another military will almost definitely lead to slow bleeding that will quickly spiral downward for the latter military, if we cut all aid/supplies/etc off (i.e. an increasingly large gap in the balance of power will occur). e.g. does Egypt spend its own money to maintain what it has invested in, and spend good money to keep the equipment in a "ready state," or do they let everything go and try to rebuild a completely new military (or something in between)? Very costly, either way.
That's why I was pointing out that, IMO, the threat from us is, stay away from Iran and/or a similar threat to anyone who might want to cause trouble in succession.
The GCCs, SA, and Jordan, have for the most part stayed with the west (including: "a regional missile shield"), while Iran and Syria (I'm not sure what will happen in Lebanon) have gone the other way. I don't see it being in our interest to "cut Egypt off," nor do I see it being in their ultimate interest to "let that happen."
JMO
-As for the question about us being able to "literally, turn the power off" in certain systems, I have no clue about how our encryption and such works:unknown
-As for Russia, I've read in the last few days that Russia is having money problems and "can't fund/finnish Iran's Reactor." Could be COMPLETE BS out of Russia or Iran to take pressure off of both of them. On the other hand, Putin did just meet with Bush, and who knows if some agreement was made??? Might also mean a big slow down on weapons/aircraft to the ME??
I can post an article if interested...
I should have simply said that we can turn on and off the the supply line that Egypt has heavily invested in over the years. Our equipment doesn't last very long in that region/climate, when heavily used (training or otherwise) without a lot of supplies and maintenance. A small upgrade to systems in one military vs. (a) small -slow or quick-- downgrades in another military will almost definitely lead to slow bleeding that will quickly spiral downward for the latter military, if we cut all aid/supplies/etc off (i.e. an increasingly large gap in the balance of power will occur). e.g. does Egypt spend its own money to maintain what it has invested in, and spend good money to keep the equipment in a "ready state," or do they let everything go and try to rebuild a completely new military (or something in between)? Very costly, either way.
That's why I was pointing out that, IMO, the threat from us is, stay away from Iran and/or a similar threat to anyone who might want to cause trouble in succession.
The GCCs, SA, and Jordan, have for the most part stayed with the west (including: "a regional missile shield"), while Iran and Syria (I'm not sure what will happen in Lebanon) have gone the other way. I don't see it being in our interest to "cut Egypt off," nor do I see it being in their ultimate interest to "let that happen."
JMO
-As for the question about us being able to "literally, turn the power off" in certain systems, I have no clue about how our encryption and such works:unknown
-As for Russia, I've read in the last few days that Russia is having money problems and "can't fund/finnish Iran's Reactor." Could be COMPLETE BS out of Russia or Iran to take pressure off of both of them. On the other hand, Putin did just meet with Bush, and who knows if some agreement was made??? Might also mean a big slow down on weapons/aircraft to the ME??
I can post an article if interested...
Russia having money problems? Look at state reserves. Russia has the money in the bank to pay for a few dozen such reactors, & a positive cash flow.
In any case, the reactor is being paid for by Iran. Any problems finishing it are political, the Russians putting pressure on Iran. Russia doesn't like the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran any more than Western countries do.
Algeria.
Sudan.
I know, just the messenger!
It's actually Iran complaining nicely that Russia is BSing,
I agree here too.
A while ago, Russia said Iran wasn't paying on time and withdrew many of its workers. I think Iran started to pay more (as "construction costs are always mistakenly too low")... but half a reactor isn't very helpful, so you pay.
I can't read Putin, but as you said, I've never been able to figure out why why Russia would supply the missile technology and Reactors to Iran that reaches right back to Russia. My only answer, except that perhaps Putin really did lose his mind, is milk Iran for the money and then, "sorry, we are stuck."
But who knows if its total BS or not?
Here are 2 articles posted one after the other (Mods, I have 2 c/p as it comes from a PWP site...: but citation is at bottom)
Jane's: Iran missiles can reach central Europe
LONDON — Iran has extended the range of its ballistic missile fleet if not the accuracy.
Analysts said Iranian ballistic missiles, particularly the Shihab-3 could strike Eastern, Central and southern Europe. The analysts said the enhanced Shihab could also hit targets in southern Russia.
"We think that their Shihab-3 has got a range about 1,300 kilometers, while it's improved the version of Shihab-3A," Doug Richardson, editor of the London-based magazine Jane's Missiles and Rockets, said. "It's stretched its length to get some more fuel into the tanks and they've cut the weight of the warhead by more than half."
Richardson said the Shihab-3A, unable to accommodate a nuclear warhead, could achieve a range of 1,800 kilometers. He said this would enable Iran to strike Athens and Bucharest.
The analysts said Iran was developing missiles that could reach Italy, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. Richardson cited the Shihab-3B, with a reported range of 2,500 kilometers.
"We know they are doing a lot of rocket development work," Richardson said. "Two thousand five hundred would not quite get you to Rome. It would probably get you to Zagreb, Budapest. You'd get most of Slovakia, it would get you a bit into the Czech Republic [and] up to Warsaw, Minsk, and not quite St. Petersburg."
Richardson said North Korea has aided Iran in the development of long-range missiles. He said Pyongyang's assistance could have been relayed through Pakistan.
"[Iran] needed help to get started with the Shihab, so they worked in conjunction with the North Koreans, who were working on their No-Dong missile program," Richardson said. "But [Iran] has probably got enough expertise now to be able to do most of this themselves."
Kenneth Katzman, an analyst at the Congressional Research Service, said the United States does not regard Iranian missiles as a near-term threat. Katzman said Iran's Shihab-3 missile, despite Teheran's claims of successful launches, remained inadequate.
"The problem is, Iran announced the weapon as operational and in production in 2003, I believe," Katzman said. "But there's still questions about the reliability and the accuracy. Some of the tests are known to have been big failures. So I'm in the camp that's a little less alarmed about Iran's [missile] capabilities than others."
Prospect of Russia completing Bushehr reactor 'not good'
NICOSIA — Iran has concluded that Russia would be unable to complete the nuclear energy reactor at Bushehr.
Officials said the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has assessed that Russia's state-owned Atomstroiexport was incapable of completing the 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor at Bushehr. The officials said Atomstroiexport has been hampered by lack of finances and effective management.
"The prospect that Atomstroiexport would fulfill its latest promise is not good," an Iranian government source said. "They have not kept pace and are not responsive."
Moscow has pledged to complete the $1 billion project by November 2007. But Atomstroiexport missed a March 2007 deadline to provide the first shipment of nuclear fuel for Bushehr.
On June 26, an Iranian source deemed "informed," said Atomstroiexport was unable to fulfill its commitment to complete Bushehr. The source said Bushehr has been delayed five times since the Russian contractor began the project in 1995.
"Based on the schedule, the Bushehr nuclear power plant was to have begun tentative operations in September 2007 and full operations in November," the source was quoted as saying to the official Iranian news agency Irna.
"However due to certain technical and financial problems arising from the Russian party, it was delayed. The Russian party failed in the scheduled shipment of [nuclear] fuel by March."
Geostrategy-Direct, www.geostrategy-direct.com, July 11, 2007
http://www.geostrategy-direct.com/geostrategy-direct/secure/2007/07_11/1.asp
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #147
We produce our own spare parts and have trained maintenance personnel for almost every plane we have, including the F-16's and Mirage 2000's. This won't be like an Iranian F-14 case.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #148
First of all it's not Russia that's selling the missile tech it's North Korea. Second of all even if the Russians sold them missile tech the Russians have the AD(S-300/S-400) to stop any missile whether SRBM and IRBM (including all western ones). Not to mention the capability to blow Iran's ass(and many western countries) off the map. Nobody messes with Russia in the ballistics missiles arena.
Antey-2500 can stop any missile with a range of 2,500km's (hence the name) S-400 can stop any missile(including stealth cruise missiles) with a range of 4,000km's
hey, i don't want to argue, but Russia has been working with Iran on advanced missile technology since at least 1993-95. It's not up for debate, Russia "didn't understand export controls" and Clinton, who wouldn't place sanctions on the continued sales/cooperation/work was just as guilty (against US law). Again, Russia and the US played the game, "I know and You know, But we'll pretend like none of us know."
You can go to www.globalsecurity.com and read through the congressional records... most of it is there.
Yes NK has definitely been working with Iran more recently on Missile Tech. IMO, Russia is starting to have to deal with what they built.
S300/S400- I take your word, I don't claim to know what would happen.:unknown
radiosilence
jints
I thought you might have been refering to somthing along the lines of what you wrote above. I don't know how practical that would be which is why i asked.
radiosilence
jints
No anti-missile system has 100 percent kill ratio currently.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #152
Yes, but I think the Russian ones have 70% kill ratio. I think against NK/Iran tech it would probably rise dramatically.
Not at all! I imagine something like that can only work by switching up encryption, IFF codes, and stuff like that (communications)... but it's sci-fi to me. I don't know how all the systems can be integrated or "restricted."
What I do know is Verizon knows exactly how to turn off my cell for no reason (making a call from canada w/o telling them I'm there--well they knew exactly where I was, they could have called)... those faulkers:nutkick
Your phone working or not is a completely different thing from weapons working or not because of encryption.
They don't switch off your phone, they tell the network to ignore it, or rather, ask the Canadians to tell their network to ignore it. The Canadian networks computers will be programmed to act on a Verizon request, since if they let you make calls after Verizon has asked them not to, they won't get any money for those calls.
It's done automatically. Phoning you would cost them money. The cost of leaving it all to the computers is trivial.
When you switch on your phone, it announces its presence. Any local network of the same type detects that & replies with the network ID, if your phones ID is from a company with which it has a reciprocal agreement. If not, it ignores you. The local network then sends a message to your home network, saying "phone so-and-so roaming here". Usually, the response is almost immediate: it'll say either "OK, accept it", or "Ignore it", depending on your contract terms, credit balance, etc. If the reply is delayed, you may be able to use your phone for a while before you're shut out. Or maybe you have a credit limit (daily, monthly . . .) & by calling at international rates you go over it, in which case your home network will note the fact, & get you shut out.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #155
Thank you both for explaining to us how your phone company cuts off you service it was enlightening
. Please let us get back to the topic. This isn't EAF vs. IAF it's about the best air force in the Arab world. IMO it's the EAF not the RSAF even though I might be biased. Complete self-sufficiency is much more important that the type of plane you use. The EAF produces it's own spare parts for every single one of their planes, have their own ground crews,much less dependent on US sourced spare parts, have better training (we have our own little Red Flag every two years with tons of dissimilar aircraft), generally speaking get a good amount of flight time (RSAF has better), pilots are well educated and our experience from previous wars that almost revolved around air battles (war of attrition) would make us a superior air power. The RSAF IMO has better educated pilots, get more flight but the ground crews are almost always Americans and other foreigners. A good amount of their pilots are foreigners and I think their AWACS planes are operated exclusively by American crews. Their AF commanders and pilots have absolutely no combat experience what so ever as compared with EAF's 30 years of extensive air battles against one of the best air forces in the world (gun camera footage of 70+ planes shot down).
Generally agree with most of your points in the last thread, but the one above is a slightly dubious comment at best.
Egypt is far from self-sufficient - they certainly don't have the capacity to produce (or depot-level overhaul for that matter) advanced propulsion systems for instance. Egypt building airframe structual parts is one thing, advanced propulsion and avionic technology are something else. Egypt is in the same boat as the rest of the Arab world in these areas I'm afraid. If memory serves also, the US never gave full ITAR access to Egypt for its F-16s - if someone can confirm that I would be grateful. Such access is IMO a must for anyone to claim self sufficiency.
I also agree, Egypt does have more experienced and generally better skilled ground maintenance staff than most other Arab air forces - but I am certain Lockheed's presence in Egypt for instance, still measures in the low hundreds. I honestly doubt the EAF could operate its viper fleet without their direct input - just like every other F-16 operator I should add.
I really do thus have to doubt any claim to "self-sufficiency". Sorry.
Gulf War I?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #157
1) Maybe you're right that Egypt can't claim full self-suffciency but IMO it's a lot more self-sufficient than most Arab AF's in terms of spare parts, pilots and ground crews.
2)As for the RSAF experiences in the first Gulf War I doubt that F-15C's or Tornado's from Saudi ever participated in the air war against Saddam. I think during the Gulf War the Saudis shot down two Iraqi Mirage F1's who violated Saudi airspace with their F-15C's, other than that I think there are two more Iranian planes-F-4's if I remember correctly- that were shot down but after that I don't think RSAF scored any other A2A killes other than the ones mentioned. And IMO their opponentes were always flying obsolet planes compared to the F-15C's they were flying which even today are considered ultra-advanced.
Saudi Tornados flew quite a few strikes. I don't know how effectively.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #159
Really?! I never knew that. But still flying against a mostly obsolete air force that had been choked with the arms embargo and bad training.