Seda enam on kummaline, et Luftwaffe 216 lennukist on toimivad vaid 69...
Tegelik seis on selline:
https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/wp-co ... ountry.pdf
Ma pakun, et prantslased ja sakslased vaikselt lihtsalt asendavad vanemad lennukid (Mirage ja Tornado) uuematega ja sellest tulenevalt neid vanemaid lihtsalt ei kasutata ega hooldata ja seetõttu pole ka aktiivkasutusse loetud. Ma ei tea kuidas neil tehnika reservi arvamine käib ja ma ei tea mida sinu viidatud lingis toodud numbrid täpselt tähendavad või sisaldavad (teenistuskõlblikud? hooldatud? relvastatud? mehitatud?) ning kust kohast nad saadud on. Prantslased igatahes plaanivad järgmisest aastast vist USA lennukikandjatelt Rafale'sid ISISe vastu lennutama hakata.
Ma pakun, et kui teatud moodi lugeda, siis oleks soomlastel kah "katastroofiliselt" väike protsent tehnikat aktiivkasutuses. Mis tegelikkuses ei ütleks suurt midagi.
See lugu ei ole nii lihtne kui sellest pisikesest artiklist jääb mulje.
Ühe asjaosalise enda kirjeldus olukorrast:
Kernan: I'll tell you one of the things it taught us with a blinding flash of the obvious after the fact. But we had the battle fleet. And of course, it goes back to live versus simulation and what we were doing. There are very prescriptive lanes in which we are able to conduct sea training and amphibious operations, and those are very -- obviously, because of commercial shipping and a lot of other things, just like our air lanes. The ships that we used for the amphibious operations, we brought them in because they had to comply with those lanes. Didn't even think about it.
What it did was it immediately juxtaposed all the simulation icons over to where the live ships were. Now you've got basically, instead of being over the horizon like the Navy would normally fight, and at stand-off ranges that would enable their protective systems to be employed, now they're right sitting off the shore where you're looking at them. I mean, the models and simulation that we put together, it couldn't make a distinction. And we didn't either until all of a sudden, whoops, there they are. And that's about the time he attacked. You know?
Of course, the Navy was just bludgeoning me dearly because, of course, they would say, "We never fight this way." Fair enough. Okay. We didn't mean to do it. We didn't put you in harms way purposely. I mean, it just -- it happened. And it's unfortunate. So those are one of the things that we learned in modeling and simulation.
The simulation systems were designed for the services. Another one, for instance, is the defensive mechanisms, the self-defense systems that are on board all the ships. The JSAF [Joint Semi-Automated Forces] model, which was designed for conventional warfare out on the seas for the Navy, didn't allow for an environment much like we subjected it to, where you had commercial air, commercial shipping, friendly and everything else. And guess what was happening as soon as we turned it on? All the defensive systems were, you know, were attacking the commercial systems and everything else. Well, that wouldn't happen. So we had to shut that piece of it off.
http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/ ... iptID=3653
Lühidalt võttes - õppus tuli korraldada kooskõlas tsiviilreeglite ja organiseerimisega, mis tähendas, et nende õppus toimus muidu ebarealistlikes tingimustes. Iseenesest ei olnud see nii tähtis, sest peamiselt sooviti testida lahinguhaldussüsteeme, relvade simulatsioon oli täiesti teisejärguline. Samas tekitas see imeliku olukorra, kus nende sõjalaevad pidid opereerima kaldalt visuaalulatuses (mida nad kunagi ei teeks) ning nende vastased olid otse nende nina all ja ebasobivas laskeulatuses. Kuna see kõik toimus tsiviilliikluse keskel, siis kaitsesüsteemid võtsid sihikule absoluutselt kõik mida nad nägid ja seetõttu tuli nad lihtsalt välja lülitada.
