Was it a mistake to retire the F-14 Tomcat??...

[SYDCBRWOD]

Just realized it's been years since I've seen the word ameliorate.

You're welcome.

[Curtis Malone]

The question was about American sovereignty being threatened, maybe it was just a gambling chip played, maybe it wasn't, the point was America was threatened and took action to ameliorate that threat. If it hadn't been for the ability to enforce the blockade, achieved by conventional forces, not nuc's the standoff may not have been resolved. You know, conventional weapons such as all the expensive aircraft carriers, B52 and B47's, the Dragon lady's that took the aerial photographs that confirmed the existence of the missiles. If the US only had 2 stages to resolve the conflict, diplomatic posturing and all out nuclear war, do you think it would have ended differently?

Just realized it's been years since I've seen the word ameliorate.

[Luka]

You clearly haven't spoken to anybody in Pakistan or India concerning the use of nukes. And as if Iran or North Korea or China or Israel even cared how the world sees them. In my opinion, the threat of a nuclear war (even if it is not global but only limited to the Middle East, South Asia or the Far East) has never been as great as it is today.

- Man has continually shot himself in the foot, using technology that he simply isn't mature enough to weild. The Middle East isn't yet mature enough to have these types of weapons ("Death to America!") hmmm....
The ENTIRE middle east and surrounds SHOULD be made a nuclear free zone...Yes that would mean countries like India, Pakistan and ISRAEL would need to give up their weapons...and leave IRAN sitting in the corner looking sheepish. That region is way too nuclear! And once one gets one they all want one...and don't think a place like IRAN wouldn't supply them. The entire region needs a bloody big broom put through it in terms of weapons. Its like a neighbourhood with a bunch of uneducated louts packed to the rafters with knives, poles, chains and a chip on their shoulder!

[SYDCBRWOD]

You clearly haven't spoken to anybody in Pakistan or India concerning the use of nukes.

Do tell. Is the policy first use?

And as if Iran or North Korea or China or Israel even cared how the world sees them.

No, they don't. But using a nuc is like throwing a grenade at someone standing 3 meters from you, sure you'll get the other person, but you probably end up dead yourself. If for no other reason than self preservation I cannot see nukes being used unless the existencde of the nation is threatened - after all, if you are about to lose your country, you have nothing to lose. So, warfare will still continue to be waged by conventional forces, with 'The Bomb' being used as the final solution. Pakistan, China and India clearly don't believe that having nuc's makes conventional forces redundant, China is rearming at a rapid rate, India has just signed an order for 300 Fifth gen fighters, Aircraft carriers, and even nuclear submarines.

In my opinion, the threat of a nuclear war (even if it is not global but only limited to the Middle East, South Asia or the Far East) has never been as great as it is today.

Agree.

[SYDCBRWOD]

Come off it the Soviets/Cubans were never going to use the proposed missile base in Cuba to challenge US sovereingty. That's just a ridiculous suggestion.

They were aware that there were nuclear missiles positioned in Europe (under de-facto US control) that could hit the Soviet Union. They had no equivalent land based missiles at the time which could reach the US (except maybe Alaska). Not unreasonably they wanted some to counter-balance the European based nukes. And not surprisingly the Yanks weren't keen on the idea.

At no stage in history did the Soviets ever hold any Military superiority over the US which would have given them even the slightest chance of challenging US sovereignty. Their best case scenario was a "draw" in a Nuclear War. In that sense the ending of the Cold War hasn't changed anything much - Russia still could not achieve anything useful in a conventional war with the US but could (probably) still achieve mutual destruction in an atomic war (if that can be considered an achievement).

The question was about American sovereignty being threatened, maybe it was just a gambling chip played, maybe it wasn't, the point was America was threatened and took action to ameliorate that threat. If it hadn't been for the ability to enforce the blockade, achieved by conventional forces, not nuc's the standoff may not have been resolved. You know, conventional weapons such as all the expensive aircraft carriers, B52 and B47's, the Dragon lady's that took the aerial photographs that confirmed the existence of the missiles. If the US only had 2 stages to resolve the conflict, diplomatic posturing and all out nuclear war, do you think it would have ended differently?

[Peter Kesternich]

(...) All nuclear weapons do is make sure no one else uses them against you...insurance if you like. Countries will STILL go to war conventionally, knowing that they won't be used. (Can you imagine the outcry and how the offending country will become an instant pariar, shunned by the rest of the world...Nuclear war will never happen whilst calm, intelligent heads are at the helm (can't last forever). (...)

You clearly haven't spoken to anybody in Pakistan or India concerning the use of nukes. And as if Iran or North Korea or China or Israel even cared how the world sees them. In my opinion, the threat of a nuclear war (even if it is not global but only limited to the Middle East, South Asia or the Far East) has never been as great as it is today.

[Curtis Malone]

It only exists just fine because of its geographic location and the fact that Australia and the US would come to its aid. Poor choice of example. Even the neutral swiss have a defence force with main battle tanks, moder fighter aircraft and artillery.

Ah yes, the mighty Swiss, how did I forget them?

[Luka]

Airpower remains at the APEX of the military triad. If will never be redundant. Missiles ARE the future of warfare, whether it be launched from ground, sea or from the air. An aircraft delivers that weapon to an area where it can be targeted and reach given the propellant. Missiles can be shot out of the sky or jammed, so a more sophisticated delivery system is needed to be certain of the weapon reaching the target...only an aircraft can do that. The next step is high energy weapons, where, apart from space still cannot be "fired" over the horizon, and will still need an aircraft.
The sophistication of the aircraft is all about survivability. The ability to get to and from a target quickly. The ability to fight other aircraft. The ability to fly unseen are ALL about target delivery and survivability...the level of sophistication in the F-14 illustrates this beautifully. As technologies increase to PREVENT this happening, the MORE sophisticated and expensive the aircraft has to be.
Spend a billion on aircraft and save 100 billion and thousands of lives in a war!

All nuclear weapons do is make sure no one else uses them against you...insurance if you like. Countries will STILL go to war conventionally, knowing that they won't be used. (Can you imagine the outcry and how the offending country will become an instant pariar, shunned by the rest of the world...Nuclear war will never happen whilst calm, intelligent heads are at the helm (can't last forever).
Conventional wars are STILL the number one game. SYDCBRWOD - is spot on when he says the military "TRY" to guess the next war, the threats that might come out of that country and the existing technology available. To do anything else would be reprehensible!
Some men build their bodies up so that they "don't have to fight"...A large military does the same thing....it "prevents" untold wars...we'll never know how many will we?

[tsv]

Cuban missile crisis mean nothing to you?

Come off it the Soviets/Cubans were never going to use the proposed missile base in Cuba to challenge US sovereingty. That's just a ridiculous suggestion.

They were aware that there were nuclear missiles positioned in Europe (under de-facto US control) that could hit the Soviet Union. They had no equivalent land based missiles at the time which could reach the US (except maybe Alaska). Not unreasonably they wanted some to counter-balance the European based nukes. And not surprisingly the Yanks weren't keen on the idea.

At no stage in history did the Soviets ever hold any Military superiority over the US which would have given them even the slightest chance of challenging US sovereignty. Their best case scenario was a "draw" in a Nuclear War. In that sense the ending of the Cold War hasn't changed anything much - Russia still could not achieve anything useful in a conventional war with the US but could (probably) still achieve mutual destruction in an atomic war (if that can be considered an achievement).

[SYDCBRWOD]

I would ask "Was it a mistake to build the F-14". The US had no credible threat to it's Sovereignty before, during or after the arrival of the F-14.

Cuban missile crisis mean nothing to you?

[SYDCBRWOD]

Reading suggestion: Commander 'Sharkey' Ward Sea Harrier over the Falklands

The Sea Harrier could easily outfly even F-15s in the 1980s... and it's not like technology has stood still for the Harrier ever since.

The harrier has in fact gone backwards. The most capable variant, and only Harrier to have a smidge of a chance against an F15 was the FA2 fitted with the Blue Vixen radar and AIM 120, and that has been retired. With any other variant the F15 would stand off outside the sidewinder range and drop the harrier with an AIM 120. In close combat the Harrier would be the more manoureable any decent F15 driver would know that and not get into a furball - he'd use his much superior speed, endurance and weapon load to engage when the situation suits him. (such as waiting until the harrier was at bingo fuel and pinging him up the tailpipes). I have already read Sharkey's book and in certain circumstances the Harrier was and is unbeatable - VIFFing will allow the harrier to out turn any adversary. Pity combat these days is mostly Beyond Visual Range (BVR). Incidentally the F-15 hasn't stood still either, google the "Golden Eagle" with the AESA, and the "Silent Eagle".

But actually that was not my point. My opinion is that a direct conflict with a nation able to field a fith-generation fighter will quickly develop into something where there is no need for a fifth-generation fighter.

Then why do every nuclear armed nation have massive conventional armies as well as the nuc's? Answer because nuc's are not the answer in 95% of situations. Where is your evidence that this is the case? Why do the Russians, the Europeans and Americans spend billions of dollars trying to outdo each outer in the conventional field if you can just whip the covers off a nuc?

The conflicts in Vietnam and Afghanistan during the Cold War were NOT conflicts between the super powers. The Russians and the USA carefully avoided direct confrontation exactly to prevent a major escalation.[/quote]

Never mentioned Afghanistan. But Vietnam was a proxy war - SA2 guideline missiles were supplied directly from soviet factories to shoot down American aircraft in vietnam. Also, your assertation that any conflict between the nuclear club will quickly go nuclear is a show stopper is also wrong. Even after a limited nuclear exchange is launched, the weapons and soldiers manning them will still be fighting. I can still recall the NBCD training we given. Armoured vehicles are fitted with filtration and overpressure systems so the mechanised troops can still fight.

Final point - what if a non nuclear armed state buys the T50 - the US needs its 5th gen designs to counter this threat. I think the world and the major nuclear powers are very aware that when you let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, we will all be toast. Any victory will be a phyrric victory over a glowing cinder formerly know as earth. Because of that awareness I can very well see a major confrontation of conventional forces on the Korean peninsular or over Taiwan without nuc's being used. The stakes are too high to use the nuclear weapons under any other circumstances than the survival of your nation. A scenario involving an attack on Taiwan being beaten back by the US, Japan and Taiwanese forces without nucs is VERY possible.

[Peter Kesternich]

(...) How do you think a Harrier would fare today versus Su30's or Mig 29's? Answer- a flaming heap of twisted metal. The Harrier was a fine if compromised aircraft in its day - today it would be mince meat.

Reading suggestion: Commander 'Sharkey' Ward Sea Harrier over the Falklands

The Sea Harrier could easily outfly even F-15s in the 1980s... and it's not like technology has stood still for the Harrier ever since.

But actually that was not my point. My opinion is that a direct conflict with a nation able to field a fith-generation fighter will quickly develop into something where there is no need for a fifth-generation fighter. The conflicts in Vietnam and Afghanistan during the Cold War were NOT conflicts between the super powers. The Russians and the USA carefully avoided direct confrontation exactly to prevent a major escalation.

[SYDCBRWOD]

Well it depends on what equipment your enemy has. India has just ordered 300 Sukhoi T-50's which are fifth generation fighters.

So if anyone plans to get into an aerial scrap with them in about 10 years time having F-22's will not be overkill.

Whether India (or anyone else) needs 300 Fifth Generation fighters is another matter entirely. I certainly agree with you that far too much money is wasted on military equipment. I think many Countries could look at a nation like New Zealand which exists just fine with a pretty basic Defence Force.

It only exists just fine because of its geographic location and the fact that Australia and the US would come to its aid. Poor choice of example. Even the neutral swiss have a defence force with main battle tanks, moder fighter aircraft and artillery.

[SYDCBRWOD]

On that I beg to differ... slightly... The air superiority the UK was able to establish definitely helped in getting the Falklands back in the way and timeframe that eventually unfolded. But on the UK side it was fought with Sea Harriers and if that was enough, then an F-22 would most certainly have been over-kill...

Of course it would have been. The Argentinians were fielding Mirage III's and A4 Skyhawks. F-22's disn't exist back in 1982.

How do you think a Harrier would fare today versus Su30's or Mig 29's? Answer- a flaming heap of twisted metal. The Harrier was a fine if compromised aircraft in its day - today it would be mince meat.

[SYDCBRWOD]

I don't think the Taiwan scenario will be much of a high-intensity conflict, but now that you mention it, I don't think the Faulklands mishap was decided on air superiority.

Cruise missiles, aircraft combat, air to surface weapon strikes, ships engaging each other... what would you call it?

The Falklands was ALL about air superiority. Admiral Sandy Woodward stated that had the Argentinian's managed to sink one of the carriers, it would have been pack up go home concede defeat. The Argentinian navy wasn't a threat - the only real threat to the task force was from the Argy aircraft - if it hadn't been for the Harriers, gaining and maintaining air superiority would have meant failure.