Jump to content


Photo

Poland Officially Requests F-35's


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#21 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,655 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 0132 AM

You're saying Poland should store its entire air force with zee Germans on a permanent basis? I can think of a couple historical reasons why they wouldn't be keen to do that. Or rely on any foreign power at all, really. But it does seem like they would benefit from a very robust hardening and decoy program along with a rapid dispersal plan in times of conflict and tension. I've never looked at their airbases but I presume they are ex Soviet era and probably came fairly hardened after the WP breakup. They also might invest in whatever the US builds to replace ATACMS. It wouldn't have the range or speed of Iskander but it would allow for a persistent mobile response to targets near their border. Both contract competitors indicate they can extend the range requirement now that INF is gone; initial testing is due I think in January.

 

No, im saying in time of crisis they can park at least some of the fleet in Germany and Denmark. Its nothing more than dispersal, and they wouldnt have to move the entire fleet abroad. Just enough to ensure its not all destroyed.

 

Hardening isnt going to do anything. As long ago as the 1980's the Soviets were experimenting with terminally guided Scud missiles. Ive no idea of the accuracy of Kalibr, but a HAS wouldnt do anything for them.

 

 

 

Just pointing out, its not specifying what variant. I could see buying B models might be a good idea here. Its not as if there is much in the way of airbases in Northeast Poland anyway.

"Poland has requested to buy thirty-two (32) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) Aircraft and thirty-three (33) Pratt & Whitney F-135 Engines."

 

Oh, is that in there? Im sorry, I must have missed that.


  • 0

#22 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,130 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 0258 AM

With Aegis ashore and multiple Patriot batteries it's going to take a whole lot of ballistic missiles to put an airfield out of action permanently. Unless you go nuclear that is.

Patriot and AEGIS Ashore are both ill-suited for Iskander interception. For first one it's too fast and for second too low flying.
  • 0

#23 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,130 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 0301 AM

They also might invest in whatever the US builds to replace ATACMS. It wouldn't have the range or speed of Iskander...


Why do you think so? If speed can be argued (it is really a fast boi), range is by far not something special, especially with US playing victim and going all-in on IRBMs or LBCMs.
  • 0

#24 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,325 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 0424 AM

With Aegis ashore and multiple Patriot batteries it's going to take a whole lot of ballistic missiles to put an airfield out of action permanently. Unless you go nuclear that is.

Patriot and AEGIS Ashore are both ill-suited for Iskander interception. For first one it's too fast and for second too low flying.
SM-3 and PAC-3 are specifically there to kill ballistic missiles. I'm pretty sure they were designed with missiles more capable than the Scud in mind.

Edited by JW Collins, 13 September 2019 - 0425 AM.

  • 0

#25 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,130 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 0523 AM

SM-3 and PAC-3 are specifically there to kill ballistic missiles. I'm pretty sure they were designed with missiles more capable than the Scud in mind.


SM-3 is exoatmospheric. Lower working alt for it us triple of max height of trajectory for Iskander. Patriot doesn't reach both alt and speed, so only semipossibility for it is to intercept missile at descent where it starts to smow down to a degree. But even then window of opportunity is extremely small, battery should be placed very close to targeted area and speed still may be over max possible.
  • 0

#26 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,598 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 0548 AM

They also might invest in whatever the US builds to replace ATACMS. It wouldn't have the range or speed of Iskander...

Why do you think so? If speed can be argued (it is really a fast boi), range is by far not something special, especially with US playing victim and going all-in on IRBMs or LBCMs.

It probably will have its range extended now that INF is gone, but the size of the launcher will dictate how energetic it can be. The replacement is two per pod, so it wont be that large. The much faster, far longer ranges system will be LRHW which will adopt the USN CPGS round - a much larger missile. But the next precision fires missiles would still hold Russian targets at risk at Islander-ish ranges.
  • 0

#27 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,282 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 0816 AM

Pointless.

Pretty much the whole of Poland is in range of Kaliningrad Oblast-based Iskander missiles.

The handful high value targets would be destroyed in the first minutes of hot conflict.

 

Seems like the US-Polish axis is becoming more important inside NATO than US-German relations.   


  • 0

#28 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,865 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 1030 AM

very good, that.


  • 0

#29 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,017 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 1042 AM

In addition to the prestige factor, another reason for Poland's purchase may simply have been because Germany did not.

 

How Germany will respond to a Poland carving out its place in the European world will be interesting, and hopefully different from the last time.


  • 0

#30 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,937 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 1259 PM

You don't have to hit 30 locations on an airfield in Poland with your initial missile strike. To render the F-35s there useless you just have to render the runway(s) unusable. If you take down the runways and any deployed PATRIOT batteries, you can, if you wish to, take out the other 28 aim points with much cheaper satellite guided munitions. For Poland, the F-35 is a colossal waste of money as is their entire Navy.
  • 0

#31 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,760 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 1308 PM

 

With Aegis ashore and multiple Patriot batteries it's going to take a whole lot of ballistic missiles to put an airfield out of action permanently. Unless you go nuclear that is.

Patriot and AEGIS Ashore are both ill-suited for Iskander interception. For first one it's too fast and for second too low flying.

 

Some Patriot missile types are meant to deal with Iskander-ish missiles. The speed isn't the issue, but no-one knows how well Iskander does the evasive manoeuvres.

Readiness and footprint are the real issues with Patriot vs. Iskander.


  • 0

#32 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,130 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 1421 PM

The speed isn't the issue

Why so? Do you have good info about target speed limits exceeding 2km/s for any types of missiles? (hint - common PAC-3 is way below that).


  • 0

#33 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,015 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 1619 PM

NATO is not going to attack


It is the job of the General Staff to not assume that, and certainly not to depend on it.
  • 0

#34 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,760 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 1747 PM

 

NATO is not going to attack


It is the job of the General Staff to not assume that, and certainly not to depend on it.

 

 

It is the job of any NATO HQ to act according to the North Atlantic Treaty.

 

You should read it.

 

It's illegal for NATO members to attack without UN permission.


  • 0

#35 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,015 posts

Posted 13 September 2019 - 2025 PM

It is the job of any NATO HQ to act according to the North Atlantic Treaty.
 
You should read it.
 
It's illegal for NATO members to attack without UN permission.


If that were sufficient, we could just pass an international law making war illegal and disband all of our militaries forever.

A General Staff which depended on NATO members not attacking without UN permission would not be doing their jobs.

More generally, depending on one's enemy to only make choices favorable to you is bad tactics. Contingencies cover possibilities, not legalities.
  • 0

#36 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,130 posts

Posted 14 September 2019 - 0139 AM

It's illegal for NATO members to attack without UN permission.

So there was permission for every and single war dropped in by US since NATO establishment?
  • 0

#37 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,937 posts

Posted 14 September 2019 - 0147 AM

Poland can into da club of Fthirty5s! Finland got em too :) Ally Eurobirds to be in zee Balitics. Lotsa stuff. If Russia drinken much too vodka an attack, first big concentration needs, だから Polish an allies can be in air or other 準備 stuff in time.


Finland chose the F-35? I wasn't aware that decision had been made.
  • 0

#38 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,655 posts

Posted 14 September 2019 - 0223 AM

 

It's illegal for NATO members to attack without UN permission.

So there was permission for every and single war dropped in by US since NATO establishment?

 

 

As far as the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

https://researchbrie...340/SN05340.pdf

The military campaign in Afghanistan was not specifically mandated by the UN, but was widely (although not universally) perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defence under the UN Charter. The ISAF force, of which British forces in Afghanistan form a part, is fully mandated by the UN.

 

As far as the Former Yugoslavia, there was this, which Russia also voted for.

https://en.wikipedia...Resolution_1199

There was also a UN condemnation of the Racak massacre.

https://en.wikipedia...Račak_massacre

 

Which goes a LONG way short from agreeing military action, but leaves unspecified what should happen if the terms of the resolution were violated.


  • 0

#39 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,937 posts

Posted 14 September 2019 - 0238 AM

If NATO intended to attack Russia I would expect to see many and widespread preparations for a global general conventional and chemical/biological war. Those preparations would be taking place throughout our economies and societies. The lack of such preparations leaves us even more vulnerable to simple and inexpensive retaliatory strategies.
  • 0

#40 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,760 posts

Posted 14 September 2019 - 0258 AM

 

It's illegal for NATO members to attack without UN permission.

So there was permission for every and single war dropped in by US since NATO establishment?

 

No, the U.S. is the worst treaty-violating member of NATO.

It's habitually violating the treaty and has zero moral authority to demand any treaty adherence or even adherence to letters of intent regarding NATO.

 

That's a fact out there that the media ignores (or isn't made aware of), and even if it didn't ignore the fact in Europe, the U.S. media certainly would.

BTW, every single piece of 'cruise missile diplomacy' is illegal under U.S. law because not only the North Atlantic Treaty, but also other in-effect treaties outlaw such behaviour.

Treaties become federal laws of the United States by the constitution once ratified.


  • 0