Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't have any quibble with anything in the article because as far as I know, it's all true. It's just that it seems like it was written by a Lockheed-Martin lobbyist. I'm all for keeping Turkey from getting any of them and kicking them out of NATO at this point. We need to find a way (or the way) to cut Pakistan loose and work with India, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Interesting article on CNBC about how the Iranian junta feels about the F-35.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/f-35-has-freaked-out-iran-and-changed-everything-in-the-middle-east.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

You mean the Israeli purchase of the F-35? I'm sure you were joking about Turkey being a stalwart ally. But with our current president, it's hard to keep track of who exactly our allies are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961



It most likely was written by a L-M lobbyists. CNBC, Faux News, NBC, ABC, NYT, LAT are all propaganda pieces for the Pentagon and State Department as well as the CIA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

You mean the Israeli purchase of the F-35? I'm sure you were joking about Turkey being a stalwart ally. But with our current president, it's hard to keep track of who exactly our allies are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Interesting article on CNBC about how the Iranian junta feels about the F-35.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/f-35-has-freaked-out-iran-and-changed-everything-in-the-middle-east.html

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I'm sure moderators will do something about this sort of thing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timotheus

truth hurts

quote:

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

Kicking TR out of the Nato ... who will benefit from it ?

Also, IIRC Turkey wanted tech transfer to produce Pat's but was declined. I think Loramid was a replacement project. I dont want to go into politics but from the military strategy aspect TR needed something to cover and there was no viable option, F35 was late ( IIRC it was presented as solution for the AAW defense solution ) to be the "alternative option" against cruise/ballistic missiles.

One must imagine the frustration from the Turkish side during the 90s and 2000s as they asked help from NATO for SAM defense and it was never a full commitment. At one time there were Dutch and German Patriot batteries near the Iraqi and Syrian border but their withdrawals and eventual exit probably led tot this result.

I found this https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/netherlands-to-withdraw-patriot-batteries-from-turkey - just to give u an idea.

anyways - as I said from a strategic perspective, s400s were ready and F35 was not and there was no third way it seems.

Now I present my own question - is there actually any performance by S400s in any conflict at all ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

Kicking TR out of the Nato ... who will benefit from it ?

Also, IIRC Turkey wanted tech transfer to produce Pat's but was declined. I think Loramid was a replacement project. I dont want to go into politics but from the military strategy aspect TR needed something to cover and there was no viable option, F35 was late ( IIRC it was presented as solution for the AAW defense solution ) to be the "alternative option" against cruise/ballistic missiles.

One must imagine the frustration from the Turkish side during the 90s and 2000s as they asked help from NATO for SAM defense and it was never a full commitment. At one time there were Dutch and German Patriot batteries near the Iraqi and Syrian border but their withdrawals and eventual exit probably led tot this result.

I found this https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/netherlands-to-withdraw-patriot-batteries-from-turkey - just to give u an idea.

anyways - as I said from a strategic perspective, s400s were ready and F35 was not and there was no third way it seems.

Now I present my own question - is there actually any performance by S400s in any conflict at all ?

Well I can't say if the S400 has seen combat, but the Saudis have a lot of combat experience with the Patriot and they are disappointed with it's performance to the point they want and have bought the S400.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

Kicking TR out of the Nato ... who will benefit from it ?

Also, IIRC Turkey wanted tech transfer to produce Pat's but was declined. I think Loramid was a replacement project. I dont want to go into politics but from the military strategy aspect TR needed something to cover and there was no viable option, F35 was late ( IIRC it was presented as solution for the AAW defense solution ) to be the "alternative option" against cruise/ballistic missiles.

One must imagine the frustration from the Turkish side during the 90s and 2000s as they asked help from NATO for SAM defense and it was never a full commitment. At one time there were Dutch and German Patriot batteries near the Iraqi and Syrian border but their withdrawals and eventual exit probably led tot this result.

I found this https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/netherlands-to-withdraw-patriot-batteries-from-turkey - just to give u an idea.

anyways - as I said from a strategic perspective, s400s were ready and F35 was not and there was no third way it seems.

Now I present my own question - is there actually any performance by S400s in any conflict at all ?

Well I can't say if the S400 has seen combat, but the Saudis have a lot of combat experience with the Patriot and they are disappointed with it's performance to the point they want and have bought the S400.

Respectfully I wish to see reports on this sire ? One knowledgeable soul once told me it was Rapier with long legs, deadly upwards of a very large gull.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Interesting article on CNBC about how the Iranian junta feels about the F-35.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/f-35-has-freaked-out-iran-and-changed-everything-in-the-middle-east.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: ushakov

It's not impossible, and obviously there's no proof either way, but this is raising too many red flags for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

Kicking TR out of the Nato ... who will benefit from it ?

Also, IIRC Turkey wanted tech transfer to produce Pat's but was declined. I think Loramid was a replacement project. I dont want to go into politics but from the military strategy aspect TR needed something to cover and there was no viable option, F35 was late ( IIRC it was presented as solution for the AAW defense solution ) to be the "alternative option" against cruise/ballistic missiles.

One must imagine the frustration from the Turkish side during the 90s and 2000s as they asked help from NATO for SAM defense and it was never a full commitment. At one time there were Dutch and German Patriot batteries near the Iraqi and Syrian border but their withdrawals and eventual exit probably led tot this result.

I found this https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/netherlands-to-withdraw-patriot-batteries-from-turkey - just to give u an idea.

anyways - as I said from a strategic perspective, s400s were ready and F35 was not and there was no third way it seems.

Now I present my own question - is there actually any performance by S400s in any conflict at all ?

Well I can't say if the S400 has seen combat, but the Saudis have a lot of combat experience with the Patriot and they are disappointed with it's performance to the point they want and have bought the S400.

Respectfully I wish to see reports on this sire ? One knowledgeable soul once told me it was Rapier with long legs, deadly upwards of a very large gull.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: ushakov

It's not impossible, and obviously there's no proof either way, but this is raising too many red flags for me.

You're entirely right. But I posted this mostly as a juxtaposition to ongoing posts from a particular forumite that decries everything NATO-produced (particularly American) is rubbish. And that every bit of kit from Russia is par excellance and inherently superior.

It's worth positing the hypothesis that maybe, just maybe, this airframe, this program, all these member countries that are in line for it aren't off their nut. And that maybe, just maybe, it may perform as or better than advertised.

So permit me my counter-post or counter-position articles. They may be specious or unlikely to withstand peer review journalistic integrity, but they're at least as possible as some of the other alternatives espoused elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

I am uncertain if the love / hate / extreme differences in views on certain military systems or weapons is politically motivated or not ?

Using my most balanced tone:

1) Never assume that other nations weapons or systems work when NATO / American systems are noted to have flaws, gaps, or require potential improvements.

Since the 1940's

2) They very lessons of this game are forgotten. The Japanese Zero was a superior dog fighting aircraft with a better climb rate and turning radius than every American fighter through 1945. It had its own gaps which in the end doomed it; including progressive thinking in tactics to take advantage of its gaps.

2) Growing up as a young man 1970/80's - I was assured by many knowledgeable sources reporting the USSR had superior missile tech to NATO. They could plant an ICBM in Yankee stadium if fired at home base. Subsequent proofs over the years have demonstrated this to be false; Soviet missiles were as likely to hit Moscow as New York. This was recently displayed once more during the fight verses ISIS where Russian Cruise Missiles launched against anti Governmental Syrian forces (pro American) failed spectacularly.

I need not mention the Russian Aircraft carrier issues demonstrated.

3) The history of the F18 Hornet / Super Hornet is enlighting. Too big, too slow, to many design issues in 1979 .... and up until very recently it commanded air superiority in any and every theater it was engaged.

The lessons are:

* No systems / weapons are perfect as launched by any nation. We are perhaps more aware of Nato/American gaps because of Freedom of the Press.

* It takes sustained investment in development / improvement and tactics to project force far from the home front

* While many Nations have "good" weapons or systems on an individual basis - unless sustained investment to project that force exists (as above) they are only good for the home front / defense

* While many Nations have large military systems - they lack the sustained logistics to support any action far from the home front compared to America and her Nato Allies - to this day.

* If one uses a reasonable proxy to compare Nations ability to afford sustained investment - i.e. GDP per capita - one would see despite growth or size of economies America and her Nato Allies are the only Nations that can sustain such investment.

This may be even more true of the future where "demographics" suggest significant challenges for China / Russia ...but NOT for India / Turkey