Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

The definitive MiG-29 v. F-16 thread.

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 08 Jun 2009, 11:09
Look at the list of countries involved. If that large of a coalition emerged secretely, held inter-operability exercises, and successfully invaded the Falklands, would the US go to war with them? I rather doubt it.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Jun 2009, 11:54
To be honest, if China could take back Hongkong without firing a shot, I am sure Argentina can take back Falkland through peaceful means.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 08 Jun 2009, 18:43
Interesting. Would you mind elaborating?
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 09 Jun 2009, 03:03
First you cant really compare Falklands and Hong Kong. China is an emerging military power, where as the Uk is and has been a decaying power. THe UK and the US cant fight a war against China, logistically first its a nightmare secondly there is a whole manpower issue. Diplomacy hasnt resolved the contested Spartly Islands between Vietnam, China, and the Phillipines. Nor has it resolved the Taiwan and China affair.

Ok I left some points out in my scenario let me clarify these. I wasnt referring to an F-22 powered by Unicorn piss and hopes and dreams, merely an F-22 enforcing a no fly Zone from Panamma or Peru against SAMC's airspace not all the way to the Falklands. Secondly I was limiting the CBG to one under the premise of possible NATO intervention over Georgia. ANd US intervention sometimes is horribly understrenghted. Look at Pancho Villa affair, Intervention in the USSR in 1919, Nicragua in the 30s, Haiti mulitple times, Somilia, the Boxer rebellion, OIF should have had a larger contingent from the start of the conflict aswell as Afgahnistan. The Phillipines when we where hunting Abu Siaf. Secondly im really fluent in Airforce tactics and doctrine, so I assumed the bombers would be deployed like Vietnam, and that some B-52 where configured for electronic warfare like in the Stratcom days. I also believe that the B1-B was designed to come in at low level under the radar so to speak, and they have an nice Elint package. I was asking mainly how would the UKs subs factor into the equation against BR's new ASW, and what effect would Br's Kilo have on say an American group or the British taskforce. ALso when I created Br's helo squadron I wanted a chopper capable to handle lifting of artillery pieces or other equpment in a sling, like the Ch-53.
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 09 Jun 2009, 03:09
Since I painted such a far fetched secnario let me change one thing, tel mel witch option sounds more realistic. Br takes the cruiser battlegroup centered on the Ernesto (formerly moskva and I know cruisers are not tradionally named after people) and attacks several locks in the Panama Canal Zone after the UN announced sanctions and a no fly zone. Or in total Isreali fashion Br's heroic avaitors fly low level and attack several locks destroying them and sinking several ships on the canal limiting Bristish and American forces transit time to FI.

This is will be last crazy theory in this thread
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 09 Jun 2009, 03:53
To specify I'd honestly say anything pre-Gulf War I is too old to still be used as realistic scenarios. The problem is that the RMA undergone in the late 80s early 90s was just too drastic. And it's not even fully over yet. Now my naval warfare is a weak point, but I'd say that the British subs would probably be a major issue in terms of keeping the sea lanes open. Your Kilos might do a decent job if your intel manages to identify where the Blue team naval assets will strike. You don't have maritime patrol aircraft, or much AEW but you're a large coalition. You should be able to patrol the airspace. At least around the Falklands. I'd go for the air strike. Your naval group will not get there undetected. I'd also go for stand-off munitions, and make sure you have at least double redundancy in terms of payload to allow for casualties.

I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just trying to fit your theory into some real practical set ups. The problem with the US is that they won't go to war unless they're sure that they can mop the floor with you. If the US doesn't get involved then the Br assets alone are enough to deal with the British forces.

And to address the original point of this thread, it can be summed up like this: the MiG-29 is currently barely in low-rate production.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 09 Jun 2009, 14:51
Quote:
Interesting. Would you mind elaborating?

==Like Hongkong, Falkland would be a case of a third world nation reclaiming land taken away by colonial power, it's very easy to get international support for it, economic leverages, if available can also be applied.

Quote:
China is an emerging military power, where as the Uk is and has been a decaying power.

==And South America is now an emerging power and UK is still decaying, given that UK has been hit pretty hard by the recent economic crisis, it wouldn't be too hard to work out some deal.

Quote:
THe UK and the US cant fight a war against China, logistically first its a nightmare secondly there is a whole manpower issue.

==Logistically, UK and US can use all well establised military bases in Hawaii, Midway, Guam, Japan, and South Korea, no such bases exist in the South Atlantic, and while China is pretty much sealed in by the islands of Japan, Taiwan the Philipines and Malaysia, South American countries face the open ocean. As to manpower, in a limited, local air and naval war, the manpower in a country doesn't really matter.

Quote:
Diplomacy hasnt resolved the contested Spartly Islands between Vietnam, China, and the Phillipines. Nor has it resolved the Taiwan and China affair.

==Both Hongkong and Falklands are the remanents of colonialism, while Spratley island is an ordinary border dispute, and Taiwan issue is a continuation of the Chinese civil war, when the sovereignty of multiple nations and the legitimacy of states are in question, the problems are a lot harder to solve.

If you really have to use force, Falkland itself is lightly defended, taking it shouldn't be too hard, but you must establish early warning radar stations and expand the airfield at Mount Pleasant to allow for the take off and landing of Su-30's and maritime patrol aircraft on the island in less than two weeks. In fact, have the runways and the radar stations pre-fabricated into large blocks and assemble them on the island. Commit 3 battalions of infantry to guard the radar stations and the air field, or the SAS will take them out. Air defence assets suggested by TRL can go on to the island the same time.

To defend the island, you need a least 20,000 men, basically 10 infantry battalions with supporting troops. Because you don't know where the enemy is going to land you might have to distribute your forces some what thinly. Because the island is mountanous, there is no point bringing in too much armour, just one mechanised battalion combat group. But artillery is a must, since your forces are thinly distributed and you won't be able to move them around quickly, you will have to move your fire around. You will need at least 3 battalions of 105mm guns, 3 battalions of 155mm guns, and 1 battallion of rocket artillery, each infantry company should have a 81 mm mortar battery, and each infantry battalion should have a 120 mm battery, and probably reinforced with one battery of the 105mm guns. Get as many artillery forward observers as possible on the island to control all the artillery assets.

On the East Falkland, deploy 2 battalions around Port San Carlos, 2 battalions around Port Stanley, and 2 battalions around Darwin-Goosegreen, place one artillery group of two 155mm batteries and one MRL battery on the north west side of Mount Usbourne to cover the northern coast of the island and the Northern entrance to Falkland sound, place another such group on the south eastside to protect Darwin-Goosegreen, and another such group on Mount Kent to protect Port Stanley, hold the mechanised battalion and an air-mobile infantry battalion as reserve.

On the west Falkland, deply one battalion around Fox bay, mainly to protect the air field and defend against possible air and heli-borne attacks, they can be supported by a 155mm battery on the hill north of Fox bay. The other two battalions can be distributed around the island to defend against heli-borne attacks, and then one 155mm battery on the southern part of Hornby mountains to control the southern entrance to Falkland sound and the flat ground in the centre of the island, and another 155mm battery on Mount Adam to protect the north western part of the island.

Since the Royal navy has sent their Trafalgar subs, you must make sure that at least two weeks of supplies are on the island, 20 kg of supplies per person pre day, 200 rounds per gun per day for 105mm guns and 82mm mortars, 120 rounds per gun per day for 155mm guns and 120 mm mortars. So basically, a minimum of 16000 tonnes of supply for the ground forces. And you also need to ship in all the air defence assets, the ammunition, fuel and spare parts for the aircraft, and the pre-fabricated runways and radar stations. Along with all the men and materiel, you are probably looking at something like 30000 tonnes of stuff. And you have 10 days to ship all of them across, and deploy them on the island.

So yeah, you need to start working on a convoy plan, loading and unloading schedule, and a plan of movement for the men and materiel now.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 09 Jun 2009, 19:11
Well actually you don't need to defend the entire islands. You just need to defend your airbase on them. From that airbase you can do enoguh damage with a squadron or two of Flankers, that they will have no choice but to come to you, or withdraw altogether. The other question is how many troops can the UK realistically deploy?

I'm curious, you count 10 infantry btlns as 20 000 men. 2000 man btlns? Sound more like regiments or small brigades. Or does this involve brigade and divisional level support assets and crews? Another question, why 105mm? They're pretty much unnecessary, and all 105mm platforms tend to be outdated. Why not just 6 btlns of 155(152)mm?
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 10 Jun 2009, 00:40
Really you dont need MLRS, they are some what complex to operate and are designed to shoot and move which you cant really do on the Falklands. Additionally there heavy and would take up vital shipping space. Rocket assisted munitions for the 155's with time on target capabilites would be exetremely effective. You can sling the guns underneath the helos to get them there.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 10 Jun 2009, 03:01
Well blanket area coverage would be useful in some scenarios but in general I agree. You don't need them for the same reason you don't need any SP assets. Ideally you need heavy infantry on those islands. IFVs, plenty of crew-served heavy weapons, and enough boots to cover the important basing point for the Flankers.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Jun 2009, 03:31
Quote:
Well actually you don't need to defend the entire islands. You just need to defend your airbase on them. From that airbase you can do enoguh damage with a squadron or two of Flankers, that they will have no choice but to come to you, or withdraw altogether.

==I believe that you are overly optimistic.

You won't have enough time to construct hardened aircraft shelters on the island, so it's not a good idea to station your planes there permanently, since you are looking at 5 years into the future, JSF will become available to the British, and the carrier Queen Elizabeth will also likely to be completed. Although the three Invincible class carriers would be retired by then, judging by the British performance in the last Falkland war, it is possible for them to be reactivated within days, and you will possibly face up to 60 JSF's, and if the British could upgrade the airfield in Georgia, Typhoon fighter can also participated the air war with the support of aerial refueling. Personally, I would not rely on two squadrons of Su-30's to repel a possible landing.

Quote:
The other question is how many troops can the UK realistically deploy?

==In the last Falkland war, the British army deployed 9000 troops in two months, with the improved sea lift capability over the years, I believe an invasion force of over 10000 is likely. Remember, UK is not like any other country, its military is at a permenant state of high readiness, it still has the mobilisation mechanism from the days when it was a global empire, the mechant fleet can be converted for military use in a short notice.

As a military planner, you have to prepare for the worst, in case that the British gain total control over the sea and air, you will not be able to supply and reinforce your troops, and the British can choose where they want to land, and easily manoeuvre by the sea.

Quote:
I'm curious, you count 10 infantry btlns as 20 000 men. 2000 man btlns? Sound more like regiments or small brigades. Or does this involve brigade and divisional level support assets and crews?

==Yes, all support assest up to the division level, it's basically an infantry division.

Quote:
Another question, why 105mm? They're pretty much unnecessary, and all 105mm platforms tend to be outdated. Why not just 6 btlns of 155(152)mm?

==105mm guns are attached to the infantry battalions for direct and semi-indirect fire, used against enemy firing points and landing vessels, 155mm guns are too large for that purpose.

Quote:
Really you dont need MLRS, they are some what complex to operate and are designed to shoot and move which you cant really do on the Falklands. Additionally there heavy and would take up vital shipping space. Rocket assisted munitions for the 155's with time on target capabilites would be exetremely effective. You can sling the guns underneath the helos to get them there.

==It doesn't have to be the American M270, something simpler will suffice, their job will be to saturate the beachhead when the enemy lands.

As about shipping, you will need to make sure the the island can hold out for 3 months without being resupplied, the 30000 tonne I mentioned previously would only be the inital deployment, which have to get onto the island with in three days, and you will have to mobilise civilian shipping and ferry a further 300,000 tonnes material on to the island.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 10 Jun 2009, 03:55
The JSF will not be available. The IOC for the JSF is 2013 with the US. The Brits will take longer, and full interoperability (as opposed to initial) with the Royal Navy will be even longer. I don't expect the JSF to be ready. The Invincible class could be put out again, but no aircraft. Finally we're talking about a war well within coastal flight range. If the Brits do show up, nothing should stop you from throwing 24-48 Flankers in a saturation strike with high degree of success.

How the Typhoon would make it to the Falklands from Georgia is beyond me.

10000 troops. So you want a 2-1 number advantange over the British forces? I guess that would be a safe margin.

Arty for direct fire? Is it necessary? Just use IFVs. They're better at it, and more mobile. Of course we don't know what Br is operating. Or what their acquisition budget is for the Marines. If they can afford to throw 25 billion into big ticket purchases for the airforce... I'm sure they can find a couple of billion to get some decent IFVs.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Jun 2009, 04:58
The UK will have F-35B's in 2014, it is possible for the British to rush them into battle without achieving full operability, in the last Falkland war, Argentina was able to sink HMS Sheffield months after they have recieved their Super Etendard's and Exocet missiles. Although the planes won't reach their full potential and reliability will be poor, at least it's something in the air.

South Georgia is not significantly further to the Falkland than the Argentinean mainland, and has an air strip that can allow the take off and landing of jet fighters and refueling aircraft once strengthened.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 10 Jun 2009, 08:26
What is South Georgia?
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Jun 2009, 13:32
You do not fill me with confidence I must say, South Georgia
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 10 Jun 2009, 21:10
I'm sorry but I know little of British military bases. However on a map it appears to be about twice as far away as Argentinian mainland. It looks like over 1000 kms. With a 2900 km max range, empty, combat radius is more like 500-600 km. I don't see how it can operate effectively over the Fanklands from South Georgia.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 11 Jun 2009, 02:58
Well the first go around S. Georgia was occupied by Argetnia, I would assume that this operation would proably take the S. Georgia. Maybe place some AA batteries, and if there any Surface to Surface missiles in BR's or SAMC's armory capable to hit Naval Assets. The UK used the ascension Islands as a base to stage bomber strikes from. However they retired the AVROS so I dont know if they have that capability anymore.
105 for a direct fire weapon this is not Vietnam with bee hive rounds, but hey who am I to judege since I concocted this Falklands scenario anyway. I still think MLRS is a bad idea, they generally fire sub muntion rounds. When the UK forces are repulsed, think of all the demining for un exploded ordance we would have to go through. But from a tactical point of view depending on the system used the more fire power the better.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Jun 2009, 15:01
I studied Falkland on Google earth, and it appears that the main roads on the island are pretty good, so I think it is feasible to replace the 3 battalions of 105mm guns with a battalion of light tanks or wheeled assault guns.

The combat radius of Typhoon is around 600km, so it will need to be refueled twice in the air, and loiter time around the island will be very limited, that's when the defenders with their Su-30's will have a big advantage, but if British have carriers with F-35's, it will get a lot trickier. Even though the British no longer has Avro Vulcans, both Trafalgar class and the newer Astute class can carry Tomahawk missiles, so it is possible for them to attack targets through out south America. But the good thing is that British won't have more than 200 Tomahawk missiles by then, so the damage they can do to air bases on South American mainland is limited.

The British subs will be a huge concern, in 5 years time, at least 4 of the Astute class will become operational, so the British will be able to send 4 Trafalgar class + 4 Astute class, they can easily send the Banana navy to the bottom of the oceam, eventhough Brazil, Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela can assemble sizable fleet, I am not sure how effective they will be in hunting the British subs so the best thing you can do is to use those ships to escort transports and merchant ships.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 13 Jun 2009, 00:44
I'm not sure what aerial refueling assets the Brits have, or how many the South Georgian bases can handle,but you would have to do very many things to get the Typhoons there in the first place, along with the supplies and fuel. All of this would take significant time, and be subject to Red team interdiction.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 13 Jun 2009, 20:59
Check out this months Popular Mechanics there is a short paragraph about Boeing making the F-15 silent eagle, a lower cost alternative to the f-22, F-35 platforms, and its avaible for export. I dont know if this old news, but its the first I heard about it.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.