India Pakistan
I am on phone, so this isn’t going to be the OP it should be. But seems like things popping off and the rest of t
Assuming he had a material impact in brokering peace then good job trump but I have doubts.
Neither side wants full scale war. Pakistan isn’t backing the extremists and India lost 3 jets in one day
The USA give money to both countries for various reasons so in theory they should be able to tell both "you either stop or we stop giving you both money".
But details can make this messy
Assuming he had a material impact in brokering peace then good job trump but I have doubts.
Neither side wants full scale war. Pakistan isn’t backing the extremists and India lost 3 jets in one day
This was an easy one for Trump compared to Russia/Ukraine. He should have got it done (I.e nearly 3 years of war before he got into office as opposed to a couple of weeks of conflict). I don't think it deserves that much congratulations
Lol at thinking there can ever be a robust cease fire/peace deal between these countries. Both sides already reporting violations after afterwords. Good job, good effort USA.
The USA give money to both countries for various reasons so in theory they should be able to tell both "you either stop or we stop giving you both money".
But details can make this messy
Pakistan is increasingly turning towards China for loans, as the rest of the international community is increasingly critical of them for their corruption and poor monetary policy. And China is going to encourage them to be hostile towards India, although they probably dont want full blown war either.
An unfortunate effect of a multi polar world is there is no coalition that can force nations to behave. If Pakistan or India wont play ball with the West, than they can just turn to actors like China or Russia.
Assuming he had a material impact in brokering peace then good job trump but I have doubts.
Neither side wants full scale war. Pakistan isn’t backing the extremists and India lost 3 jets in one day
Wonder how the Indians feel now about going with Rafele's instead of F-18's?
Probably pretty dumb. I know Boeing supports India with some of their platforms, like P8, and Boeing also farms out a lot of its innovation to India so it would certainly make sense to extend that partnership to other platforms. Especially ones with such extensive pedigree like the F-18s
There's only evidence of one Rafale shot down. Social-media pictures of other supposed shootdowns were repurposed from old reports of other, unrelated incidents, which suggests the Pakistani / Chinese claims are exaggerated if not fabricated. The Indian air force has not denied losses but has not specifically admitted them. The US government only confirms from its own sources that Pak AF Chinese J-10s fired air-to-air missiles at Indian jets. The one seemingly genuine shootdown was by a Chinese PL-15 missile whose partial debris was identified at the scene, only a few miles from the Rafales' home runway, indicating that the Indian pilot was caught napping on approach, possibly with his defensive systems switched off, and the Indians hadn't put up enough air-superiority fighters to cover the strike aircraft, hadn't detected and countered the Pakistani intruders and basically weren't paying sufficient attention. The loss may not have been due to a failing in the Rafale but in the way the Indians used it. The French manufacturer's shares have taken a dive anyway, though I think they've since recovered a bit.
https://observers.france24.com/en/asia-p...
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2545249/los...
https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/...
The Indian air force's 36 Rafales were not bought in preference over the F-18 but over the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Rafale was selected on price, on technology-sharing and on the larger number of weapons already integrated with the platform at the time, including nuclear weapons. It was possibly the wrong decision and Typhoon has since gained in capability anyway, though it certainly doesn't have a nuclear fit. The F-18 was instead competing, more recently, with the Rafale M (Marine) for a 26-jet contract for Indian navy carrier aircraft. The F-18 is an ancient legacy platform (giving way to the F-35C in the US Navy) and will now go out of production. The India bid was just to try and keep the production line running a bit longer. The Rafale M contract has only just been signed and the aircraft are some way from delivery.
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/gro...
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/sup...
The Indians couldn't put their air-launched tactical nuclear missiles on F-18s and the F-18 also can't carry the Rafale's (and Typhoon's) long-range Meteor air-to-air missile, although, given India's apparent failure to exploit the Rafale's capability in the recent operation, and the apparent shootdown of a Rafale by a Chinese Meteor equivalent, you do wonder if they know what they're doing.
So... American jets beat Russian jets.
Russia missile defense beat Chinese missiles.
Chinese jets beat French jets.
USA #1 and French last place participation prize?
In all seriousness, some things that we know so far.
IAF sensors were probably jammed (Pakistani claim but IAF not disputing)
IAF didn't seem to be carrying long range missiles (per reports of the wreckage) whereas debris of Chinees made long range PL-15E missiles were found
IAF didn't seem to have fired a shot
Pakistan was using the complete Chinese kit, including ground EWAR support
IAF Rafales were known to have integration issues with India's mixed ground support kit (Israeli+Russian+American)
Rafales and J-10Cs, by modern standards, have massive radar signatures
I think the lesson here is air battles between conventional jets are battles of range, electronics, and IT integration. The Indians lost the fight, probably, not because the Rafales are inherently inferior; they lost the fight because sent out their Rafales underarmed and undersupported, probably.
So... American jets beat Russian jets.Russia missile defense beat Chinese missiles.Chinese jets beat French jets.USA #1 and French last place participation prize?In all seriousness, some things that we know so far.IAF sensors were probably jammed (Pakistani claim but IAF not disputing)IAF didn't seem to be carrying long range missiles (per reports of the wreckage) whereas debri
This. Pakistan appears to have better combat integration of information sources like AWACs. It’s not the plane or the pilot if your system gets you target information much faster.
And Pakistan also is much better at informational warfare, better and faster at making (sometimes false) claims of success and countering other claims with manufactured evidence:
This. Pakistan appears to have better combat integration of information sources like AWACs. It's not the plane or the pilot if your system gets you target information much faster.
And Pakistan also is much better at informational warfare, better and faster at making (sometimes false) claims of success and countering other claims with manufactured evidence:
I think it's going to be incredibly interesting when 5th gen stealth fighters finally enter the fray for real.
Right now, the only real combat scenario data point we have is F-22 basically had free reign over Syrian (at the time modern Russian kits basically) air defenses.
The F-22s basically bombed anything/everything the Air Force wanted it to.
Interestingly enough, during the Syrian war, the F-22s often flew "escort" for the F-18 "Super" hornets, which had significantly larger weapons carrying capacity but didn't have the stealth/AWACs capabilities of the F-22s. Basically, the F-22, albeit originally designed as an air superiority fighter, has taken on the roles of being a stealth bomber and an EWAR platform for more traditional weapons platforms with more firepower.
I think it's going to be incredibly interesting when 5th gen stealth fighters finally enter the fray for real.Right now, the only real combat scenario data point we have is F-22 basically had free reign over Syrian (at the time modern Russian kits basically) air defenses. The F-22s basically bombed anything/everything the Air Force wanted it to.Interestingly enough, during the
India has dropped out of the Russian Su-57 programme and seemingly doesn't fancy the F-35, because of operating costs and American technical ownership, so they presently favour their own domestic AMCA (Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft), but for that they need a foreign engine partner, with the US and the Europeans competing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjyyd...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_AMCA
In any case, with the Indian air force down on numbers lately and much of it ageing, while Pakistan is mainlining new Chinese tech, the Indians may feel they need to field a 5-gen stealth fighter quite soon -- though we still don't know if they really lost any jets in the recent confrontation, or, if so, how many.
US kit is the best kit, demonstrated by 40 year old Bradley versions smashing best Russian tanks in Ukraine.
But it’s not clear the extra performance of the latest versions is worth the immense costs, as demonstrated by 40 year-old Bradleys, Abrams, javelins, Patriots, etc. smashing the best Russian kit in Ukraine.
The SU 57 will never be produced in any significant numbers without wealthy customers as Russia is too impoverished to support advanced military programs anymore. Proof being it’s only made a handful of. SU 57s and Armada thanks in the last decade since they were ready.
If India can produce much more affordable fighters on their own that are 80% as effective as the best US fighters seems like a bargain.
its weird that the Bradleys are smashing Russian tanks but Russia keeps taking territory and the US is begging for a ceasefire.
its weird that the Bradleys are smashing Russian tanks but Russia keeps taking territory and the US is begging for a ceasefire.
It’s almost like Ukraine is 1/5th the size of Russia and Trump cut off their key military aid. And it’s year 4 of the Three Day Special operation and lines are mostly static, outside of Ukrainian gains in Kursk. And the remnants of the Russian Black Sea fleet are in hiding.
Bradleys have been Russian tank killers for over 30 years, kill counts over a thousand with a tiny fraction of that in losses. Russians conscripts fight because they are forced to, Ukrainians fight because their freedom requires it.
If Biden hadn’t dribbled out military aid for years, Russia already would have retreated back to their own territory. We still haven’t given them 40 year old F-16s that are better than anything the Russians fly, and only a handful of Abrams.
Dont mind Victor. He fancies himself an "antifascist," yet somehow always finds himself with Putin's nuts in his mouth. I believe Orwell had a term for this, doublethink.
Regardless, if Putin wasn't playing nuclear blackmail with the world, and Xi hadn't made it clear that Putin is his bottom bitch and the the rest of the world needs to keep their hands off, Ukrainian tanks would probably be rolling though Moscow right now, and the Russian people would be cheering them on.
US kit is the best kit, demonstrated by 40 year old Bradley versions smashing best Russian tanks in Ukraine. But it's not clear the extra performance of the latest versions is worth the immense costs, as demonstrated by 40 year-old Bradleys, Abrams, javelins, Patriots, etc. smashing the best Russian kit in Ukraine.
Su-57 is practically still in the prototype stage. The rush to production had a lot more to do with pride and deadline meeting than with actual production readiness. Unless Russia agrees to share all the tech with China in exchange for manufacturing help, Su-57 programme is dead.
And China has at times indicated they were approached for such an exchange but found the Su-57 wanting relative to their own planes, which are designed to be LESS advanced than American counterparts but to compensate for deficiencies with operational flexibility and cost effectiveness.
US kit is the best kit, demonstrated by 40 year old Bradley versions smashing best Russian tanks in Ukraine.
But it's not clear the extra performance of the latest versions is worth the immense costs, as demonstrated by 40 year-old Bradleys, Abrams, javelins, Patriots, etc. smashing the best Russian kit in Ukraine.
162 of a reported 300 Bradleys in Ukraine have been lost at the last count. They are claimed to have disabled two Russian T-72 tanks and one T-90. 17 of 31 Abrams have been lost at the last count and Biden's outgoing National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan concluded in December that they were 'not useful to Ukraine'. Their maintenance characteristics and serviceability are poor and their topside armour does not appear to stop Russian drone munitions.
Ukraine has made only three claims for Russian tanks destroyed or disabled by Bradleys. The vehicle is an armoured personnel carrier. It is not designed to engage big-gun main battle tanks on equal terms. For defence it has anti-tank missile launchers, and a cannon which can disrupt a tank's suspension and running gear (or turret traverse, with a lucky hit on the turret ring), but it is vulnerable when confronted with an MBT and would have to rely on manoeuvrability and use of terrain and position. The high loss rate for Bradleys in Ukraine should tell you something, and the usual neurotically rah-rah suggestions by US media can be discounted.
Has it ever occured to you that such kills (direct or contributory) could be so common the Ukrainians stopped reporting on them?
Bradley was designed to be relatively affordable (by American standards) disposable pieces. High loss rates are to be expected in Ukraine. Russian tanks aren't doing better, if at all, at surviving that environment.
