Not the rest of the world. Squadrons are commonly anything from 12 to 24. Moroccan Mirage F-1 squadrons have nowhere near 24 aircraft: about 12-15, IIRC.nfloorl: I don't know about in Morocco but here in Egypt(and I think the rest of the world) a squadron is 24 planes....
Royal Saudi Air Force
- Thread starter SNIPER-15
- Start date
Except that Morocco has no need to deter Spain. Spain isn't going to attack Morocco (for what?), so there will only be a war if Morocco is crazy enough to start one, in which case Morocco is at war with as much of NATO as Spain cares to accept help from, or, if Spain chooses not to invoke the Atlantic Alliance, as many WEU members as Spain cares to accept help from. Hence the universal amusement over here. You can't fight a war with Spain in Europe without finding yourself at war with all Western Europe, & perhaps the USA & Canada. Deter that lot with a couple of dozen Rafales?
nfloorl:
Dude 1st of all, how many times did we quote each other in past few hours? lol. I feel like we are at warExcept that Morocco has no need to deter Spain. Spain isn't going to attack Morocco (for what?), so there will only be a war if Morocco is crazy enough to start one, in which case Morocco is at war with as much of NATO as Spain cares to accept help from, or, if Spain chooses not to invoke the Atlantic Alliance, as many WEU members as Spain cares to accept help from. Hence the universal amusement over here. You can't fight a war with Spain in Europe without finding yourself at war with all Western Europe, & perhaps the USA & Canada. Deter that lot with a couple of dozen Rafales?
You answered much of ur question in ur first 2 sentences than completely ruined it. A deterrent side never attacks (thats kind of a rule) so Morocco has no need to attack either - nor does Spain. But my mind just keeps going onto those Spanish controlled Island Invasions by Morocco few years back (Spanish Navy pushed Moroccons back).
Well I would have to agree on that Morocco would not want NATO against it & the funny thing is NATO it self was designed for "Deterrence" (in post cold war many countries may require deterrence against NATO). However, to deter attack on its home land, Morocco needs not threaten entire NATO band, it would only need to threaten a single front/line - again lets say Spain. If some how they are capable of threatening any of Spain's beating nerves than even NATO would stay at bey. It wouldnt want Spain to lose anything. They'll come to diplomacy. But we dont see any Morocco vs Spain scenario in near future so take it just as hypothetical.
Did you mean anything from 12 to 24 planes or either 12 or 24 planes in a squadron?
Just a note: the US is looking to move "Africom" ASAP from Europe to Africa. Morocco has requested many times for Morocco to host the US. IMO, the US is 99% settled on moving "Africom" to Morocco.Dude 1st of all, how many times did we quote each other in past few hours? lol. I feel like we are at war
You answered much of ur question in ur first 2 sentences than completely ruined it. A deterrent side never attacks (thats kind of a rule) so Morocco has no need to attack either - nor does Spain. But my mind just keeps going onto those Spanish controlled Island Invasions by Morocco few years back (Spanish Navy pushed Moroccons back).
Well I would have to agree on that Morocco would not want NATO against it & the funny thing is NATO it self was designed for "Deterrence" (in post cold war many countries may require deterrence against NATO). However, to deter attack on its home land, Morocco needs not threaten entire NATO band, it would only need to threaten a single front/line - again lets say Spain. If some how they are capable of threatening any of Spain's beating nerves than even NATO would stay at bey. It wouldnt want Spain to lose anything. They'll come to diplomacy. But we dont see any Morocco vs Spain scenario in near future so take it just as hypothetical.
With that, I think Morroco & Spain will be able to sleep easier knowing a war's not going to take place.
radiosilence
jints
According to this article Morocco has not offically ask to host Africom.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062301318.html
thanks for that link1
Hmmm, it's sort of confusing because almost everything I've heard and read has Morocco cosensus top pick. I don't know what to make from all the "Doble talk," but I'm guessig a lot has to do with the "always fun game" of speaking; a king's more private wishes conveyed to our admin. and what must be conveyed back home for public consumtion (i.e. symantics).
There are definitely those who don't want to leave Europe for Africa but that area has oil, fighting, and several quasi-states bringing the other down with them...
Before going into this more i'll try to look/ask more about it.
I posted this link before (actually had to C/P it to this site, as geo-strat is subscription based & PWP). I find it to be as accurate as it can get especially regarding the ME region (vis-a-vis and US).
i think you have to scroll down, almost all the way to the bottom of the page for the post (sorry i don't know how to directly link an earlier post, just the page it's on).
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6129&page=3&highlight=
take it easy, happy 4th!
What I said.
Do you mean thing from 12-24 (as in like 18 as a possible number) or either 12 or 24 (as in 12 and 24 are the only possible number)?
I said "anything from 12 to 24". You asked me if I meant "anything from 12 to 24" (i.e. what I said) or "either 12 or 24". I said, "What I said", & I meant exactly that.
I can't see any way to make it clearer, especially as I'd mentioned Morocco having squadrons with intermediate numbers.
radiosilence
jints
I was of the opinion that that Mocorrco was the leading contender to host Africom until i read the article. I think networking the command from several sites in Africa is not a bad idea. They can respond to a crisis more quickly if need be.
Happy 4th to you too!
Incognito129
Banned Member
The recent Lebanese/Israeli war say otherwise.
That's asymmetric warfare where cowards use women and children as well as civilian infrastructure to hide. I'm pretty sure the Iranians aren't about to launch rockets out of apartment buildings. I also believe that IAF was also going on "revenge killing" rampage in Lebanon to deter future rocket attacks (and it worked) so it may have shifted their focus for a while. It's hard to believe that 7,000 air strikes using JDAM equipped F-16I's that were supposed to disarm Hizbollah didn't do so unless most of the air strikes were intended for Lebanese civilian infrastructure to bring down support for Hizbollah and make the militia group think twice before doing what it did again.
So with the question about air-superiority being absolutely crucial for any military victory to be made the RSAF should have no problem gaining air-superiority in an air war with Iran and using it to slaughter the Iranian Armed Forces and it's infrastructure. I'm also pretty sure the RSN outstrips its Iranian rival in terms of technology and training. Assuming the PAC-3 works the way it should, the Saudis wouldn't be able to invade but to strike and destroy infrastructure US style (but to a lesser degree
) and secure a clear and decisive victory no problem.sashikanth
New Member
The saudis are lucky guys, oil rich, and hence an option to get themselves some mean russian machines and at the same time a multi million dollar arms deals from the united states as a result of good relations.
Now what facinates me is, can the saudi arabia gice isreal a good run for its money in case of a conflict????
Just curious.
Now what facinates me is, can the saudi arabia gice isreal a good run for its money in case of a conflict????
Just curious.
In an air war maybe. They have E-3C's, F-15A/B/C/D/S (mostly C/D/S), Tornados and in the furture possible Typhoons. And from what's being said here their training is on par with NATO countries and their facilities are unmatch in the Middle East. They should give the Israelis quite a run for their money but I don't think they will win in the end. Israelis had kill raitio on the USAF 200+ to 1 before in simulations.
As for the Saudis buying Russian equipment I don't think that's likley. I actually think they should start buying from Russia (Su-30, S-400 ect.). They don't rob you for your money and their weapons, when used in professional manner, are much more effective.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Really. Care to provide some evidence of this? Even anecdotal will do.
No not at all, but evidence on what?
Perhaps the claim that Russian equipment is "much more effective" than some other (did you mean American?) equipment, when handled professionally.
The way you worded it it sounds like you think Russian weapons systems to be superior in general. Did you perhaps mean to say that they offer better value for money, i.e. a better price-performance ratio?
The way you worded it it sounds like you think Russian weapons systems to be superior in general. Did you perhaps mean to say that they offer better value for money, i.e. a better price-performance ratio?
I meant everything I said and I did mean American. The Americans charge way too much money for things that aren't the very best. Some them have the highest price tag but not the highest performance like the F-15E or F-15S in Saudi's case. IIRC they cost $75-100 million, with price tag like that you'd think you'd be getting the best plane around. Such a plane had been given a chance to prove it's more than a ground attack plane and that it maintained all of it's A2A capabilities (as advertised) yet the only A2A kill it had is droping a bomb on helicopter taking off. And keep in mind Saudi got a downgraded one. If they had spent $45-50 million on something like an Su-30 like the MKI or MKM and fitted it with European avionics wouldn't that be a better deal? And since there are no restrictions on how many you can buy (or what you can buy) you can order as much as twice as many planes if you had ordered the Su-30 than you would have when you bought the F-15E and you would be buying (for the most part) a better plane. Another example is the PAC-3 systems they have. I'm not sure about the price tag but I think it's higher than a late model S-300 (not S-400), correct me if I'm wrong. Why would you pay more for something that's literally a copy of the other more capable system (or even if it is the same price)? Have you ever paid more money for a knock-off than you did an original. Of course some of the US equipment the Saudis have can't be replaced and are truley top notch. But the only system that comes to mind at the moment is the E-3C AWACS they have. Nobody seems to be willing to buy the A-50 Mainstay and maybe with good reason. Anyways i shouldn't have been as general as I was in the post. But you can't deny some of the equippment the US sells have the highest price but not the highest performance (F-16 Block 60/62 being a shining example at $100 million).