What should be the new Aircraft Greece will buy ?

[scy12]

Sandbags.

Unfortunately to be effective the balloon has to take off from enemy territory.

Well the Japanese used it (WW2) so it must be very high tech. For around 50 F35 i bet we could have a million of those balloons instead ....

 

[Loki130]

I wonder what kind of ammunition that thing uses ....

Just have it carry a giant wooden horse, that'll scare off the Turks.

 

[scy12]

Just have it carry a giant wooden horse, that'll scare off the Turks.

And we can offer to them it as a gift to their government ... Only there would be inside it . Commandos.! They would seize control of their government by Kidnapping the members of their goverment....

Our only hope is that the Turks don't read Homer ....

ON a second thought Quildavyr knows about it .

Damn it our plans have been revealed !

 

[Quildavyr]

And we can offer to them it as a gift to their government ... Only there would be inside it . Commandos.! They would seize control of their government by Kidnapping the members of their goverment....

Our only hope is that the Turks don't read Homer ....

ON a second thought Quildavyr knows about it .

Damn it our plans have been revealed !

You should fill the horse with planes etc..

Seriously,Greece would never attack again,neither we would...

 

[scy12]

You should fill the horse with planes etc..

Seriously,Greece would never attack again,neither we would...

You should fill the horse with planes etc..

Planes ? I think ground vehicles are more appropriate. Or do you mean vehicles that can hover ...

Seriously,Greece would never attack again,

True and i don't want to.

neither we would...

I don't know whether it is the truth but i would be mad to not want that.

One of the reasons neither side attacks is because both sides are so damn prepared.

One of the reasons why Turkey does dispute the control of the Aegean sea by Greece is because it is not prepared enough. That is because Turkey has the geographic advantage in addition to other advantages it's military has , in relevance with the Agean. There many , many islands that are very near Turkey and are small enough so the aggressor has the advantage. In fact it would be bloody easy to take them.

Really if a quick not total (and even not blood) war would erupt Turkey would be the winners. If a total war would erupt both would be the losers.

If war would not erupt but Turkey still claimed some islands for it self , Greece would still be able to do little.

Then their is the issue with Cyprus which is Turkey's ace in the hole . I imagine you know what i mean.

Being prepared = one less reason for both sides to go to war into , and to have aggressive ambitions.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

There are three things i think most have forgotten somethings here other than the quality of the aircraf.. A) Cost B) What are the future available updates of a plane. All planes get updated to become more efficient and to use better systems by time. C) How much the maintenance costs in both money and time And D) What is the will and ability of the supplier to provide these updates , and other support having to do with the aircraft.

The thing is , i do think those are criteria we have to take in mind when one makes a decision but , i don't know much about whether each different offer fulfills them.

If these were the most important aspects of the decision, no plane would beat the Gripen - it's clearly the cheapest alternative for what it offers both to buy and maintain. The Next Generation Gripen is being offered to Norway and Denmark now. There's also no conflict of interests involved, but of course there are other aspects that talk against Gripen.

 

[DNK]

Yeah, but problem rises when you start to upgrade older models or call something like 4.5 generation. I guess next one is 4.75 then.

Let alone comparing the planes isn't that easy, example in some cases certain models might have edge over newer planes in specific things.

It really puts spin to things that simply isn't necessary for anybody but for the most simplified comparisons.

I agree that it's not that important, and any real comparison between aircraft need to be far, far more detailed than comparing "generations" but it helps to quantify something this is otherwise very difficult to do: overall capabilities and technological advancement.

To say that the F-35 is the general equivalent of an F-16 is ridiculous, and not even the F-16 fanboys would agree remotely with that, and is what is being suggested by saying the F-35 is the same gen as the F-16. And I'm not sure where the 6.5 generation figure came in at, so that was more a questioning of the source/scale than anything else.

Regardless, this is about the EF, F-22, Rafale, and the F-35 (and the sukhois), not the F-16/18 and the F-35, so generation arguments shouldn't be an issue. I just wanted clarification on the definitions being used.

 

[Civfan333]

EUROFIGHTER'S FTW!

seriously though, the eurofighter looks WAY cooler than the F-16's and 35's

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

A Swedish multirole that really is just a souped up 4th generation rehash economy job.

So? Maybe that is what a lot of countries need.

 

[Verbose]

really is just a souped up 4th generation rehash economy job.

Because it's the oldest of these machines being discussed. They all start to age as soon as the design is fixed and you actually start building the damn things.

A bunch of the "souped up" features didn't even exist yet when the design process started in the 1970's. Whole chunks of technology had to be invented as they went along (and it hit a couple of bottlenecks the Swedish engineers eventually had to go to the Americans to sort out).

It is otoh cheap as dirt in relation to what it can still do.

It's not going to tie you over into... the 22nd century... which the F-22 might (yes, I'd say it's that expensive, and was designed for overkill to hopefully discourage competitors from even trying to match it). But since the cost of the "Gripen" is manageable even for small nations, that's not too much of a problem. Get some newer, relatively cheaper machine suitable for your needs in 10-20 years time.

I know you have this US military mindset where cost-effectiveness is a total non-issue of course. Others don't have the luxury of living in that kind of financial fantasy-land and tend to get what it needs, foregoing "massive overkill" as the default setting.

You also seem to have a US mindset which implicitly assumes your machines will always be taking off and landing in situations where you have local air-superiority. Even F-22s, and their bases, would be vulnerable on take-off and landing, if the enemy controls the skies.

Since the "Gripen" was designed to be operable fighting a surprise attack of the 3000 bombers, and supporting fighters in parity with them, of the Soviet Air Armies located in the Baltic region in the late 1980's, it is to be integrated in an air-defence system not enjoying such advantages. (Kiss all your airfields and bases goodbye in the first half hour of conflict for starters.)

The Swedish strategic assumption has always realistically been that: "If the Soviets/Russians deploy in force, we're toast, so lets force them to wager as much as possible, lose as late as possible, and cost them as much as possible." It's hardly the American way, but small nations must plan on losing wars, because that's the only realistic outcome if it gets jumped by a great power. How it loses matters. There's as little point in having a couple of F-22's bombed on the ground as any other type of machine.

I.e., while not directly integrated in the machine itself, it's a nifty feature for a small nation, hard up on cash for F-22 derivatives, expecting the next war it will be fighting to be one for national survival against an opponent superior in strength. Since you're going to lose the machines anyway, it might make sense not to put too much into each individual piece. The US doctrine is to try to build and fight in such a manner that no machines and no pilots are lost, which is nice if you can get it, but unrealistic for small nations. If you have to fight the Soviets, or the US, you will all die, that's a given. The trick is to make it difficult enough to make them think twice in the first place, and fight them as well as possible under the circumstances anyway if they come. (Otherwise the logical step is to have no airforce, but expect the US ally to fight for you — which sovereign nations tend not to want, and neither does the US.)

It's of course not an issue for the US, but the observation that Greece, or anywhere else for that matter, isn't the US is mind-numbingly trivial in any case.

Is the expectation on Greece that it will be fighting an air-war against an inferior opponent (in which all these machines are fine, get something cheap), or that it will simply be sending their machines to a common NATO pool (go with the best integrated, most versatile one), or that it will be used in a desperate first line defense against a superior opponent, while possibly waiting for the US to fly those F-22s and stuff in to help out?

Different strokes for different folks, and the real question is: "What does Greece need at a pricetag it can afford?"

 

[bhsup]

I'd just like to point out, Verbose, that I (an American) was the first one in this thread to suggest the Gripen.

 

[Azkonus]

Greece is going to get seventh plane from the left-hand side

Beautiful picture isn't it?

 

[Grisu]

btw, Switzerland is evaluating a new figher as well, to replace the ancient fleet of F-5s....though presonally I'd prefer they'd just scrap the F-5s and save the money...

IIRC, the remaining candidates are the Gripen, the Eurofighter and the Rafale...

 

[scy12]

btw, Switzerland is evaluating a new figher as well, to replace the ancient fleet of F-5s....though presonally I'd prefer they'd just scrap the F-5s and save the money...

IIRC, the remaining candidates are the Gripen, the Eurofighter and the Rafale...

Yes but who Will Switzerland (aka Neutraland ) fight ? Even if there was WW3 they will likely not need an army. Swizz banks are your army.

 

[Grisu]

well, there's Liechtenstein and there desire for Lebensraum

 

[Godwynn]

well, there's Liechtenstein and there desire for Lebensraum

Bleh, all German speaking areas should just unite.

 

[Winner]

EUROFIGHTER'S FTW!

seriously though, the eurofighter looks WAY cooler than the F-16's and 35's

That's a pretty good observation, and very relevant.

You see, Greek Air Force is for show only, like the air forces of other European countries. For this reason, the planes should look good

More seriously, if the Greeks buy French Rafales, they'll get rather obsolete and underpowered planes for OK price, but they'll also further undermine the effort to harmonize European defence procurement. If they buy F-35s, they'll make some friends in the US, but alienate their European allies. Eurofighter is the best choice, politically speaking, for a small European country.

Normally I'd recommend Gripen, but since the Turks want F-35s, Eurofighter (equipped with the latest technology and weapons) should be an adequate answer.

 

[DNK]

Beautiful picture isn't it?

Well, beautiful photoshop at least.

 

[philippe]

Just tell greece to quit working on conventional arms and just buy some tzar bomba's from Russia. I think any invading country will think twice before invading greece.

 

[SharpMango]

The Eurofighter is an excellent aircraft and would offer good inter-operability with other nearby European forces. However, it is quite an expensive aircraft, and i do not believe that it is suitable for Greece's needs. In any war, the greek airforce would be outnumbered, and it must act accordingly. A reasonably cheap aircraft such as the Gripen, which is capable of holding its own with the right missile platform is more than adequate for greek needs. In areas of localised air superiority, the gripen can carry out quick in and out bombing raids too. Combined with a decent SAM network (which greece currently lacks for) of later generation S-300s and greece will more than able to be hold its own. Lets not forget, airwars, aren't just fought in the air. It's silly to point out but its true, Advanced SAM sites are devasting to enemy aircraft, and just as importantly SAM batteries are considerably cheaper than any squadron of aircraft.

All this is dependent on when Greece actually makes the decision of course, European governments have a tendency to delay and delay, and delay, till they end up with obsolete airforces and have to rely on the americans for help.