www.militaar.net

Lemet kirjutas:

Tegelikult on NATO ju leboaastatest hoolimata venelastest pea igas kategoorias üle.

Oli siin alles hiljaaegu lugeda NATO-riikide õhujõudude tegelikust lahinguvalmidusest. Üpris masendav lugemine oli. Samas on venelased sel aastal saanud ainuüksi uusi Su-34sid mitu tükki? Palju Luftwaffe sel aastal uusi lahingulennukeid sai? RAF? Prantsuse õhujõud???

Lemet kirjutas:Mmm...ja mitu F-35 siis Euroopa NATO riikide lennuväüksustes lahinguvalmis on? Ja kuidas on ikkagi nende neljanda generatsiooni lahingukõlbulike lennukitaga?

Lemet kirjutas:Aga ma toon sulle parem teabe, mitu Tornadot ja Eurofighterit Luftwaffel nipsust välja on panna- 216 masinast 69. Happy?

http://www.ttu.fr/bundeswehr-armements-operationnels/

Ma ei isu, et venelased selles osas väga maha jäävad...

Lemet kirjutas:Et siis usk NATO võimekusse on igati ilus ja auväärne, aga usk sellesse, et selles võivad lüngad olla, on saatanast...nu-nu. Lihtsalt silmade avanemine saab olema ebameeldiv.

mart2 kirjutas:Mis on nagu selle pideva NATO mahategemise point?

Lihtsalt huvi pärast teadmiseks, miks USAl pole vaja rohkem toota.
World Air Power 2015

Top 10 of global military fleet

Country Active fleet Share
1 USA 13,902 27%
2 Russia 3,429 7%
3 China 2,860 6%
4 India 1,905 4%
5 Japan 1,612 3%
6 South Korea 1,412 3%
7 France 1,264 2%
8 Egypt 1,107 2%
9 Turkey 1,020 2%
10 North Korea 940 2%

COMBAT AIRCRAFT

Country Active fleet Share
1 USA 2,785 19%
2 China 1,528 11%
3 Russia 1,438 10%
4 India 809 6%
5 North Korea 572 4%
6 Egypt 427 3%
7 South Korea 426 3%
8 Pakistan 394 3%
9 Taiwan 287 2%
10 Japan 287 2%
Other 5,599 37%
TOTAL 14,552 100%

Oli siin alles hiljaaegu lugeda NATO-riikide õhujõudude tegelikust lahinguvalmidusest. Üpris masendav lugemine oli. Samas on venelased sel aastal saanud ainuüksi uusi Su-34sid mitu tükki? Palju Luftwaffe sel aastal uusi lahingulennukeid sai? RAF? Prantsuse õhujõud???

Ikka sinu ja laiemalt seltskonna kohta, kes näikse olevat arvamusel, et Venemaa on endiselt 90ndate lõpu tasemel ja NATO käib neist vasaku käega vabal ajal suvalises asendis üle. Vaenlast alahinnata on üpris loll tegu.

Borja kirjutas:Seda enam, et kogu selle "miinijahtimise" pulli paarikümneaasta-tagune täiesti juhuslik tekkelugu siin Baltimaades (niisama ka kogu selle "võimekuse" lausmõttetus meie tänases kontekstis) on siin läbi erinevate teemade ikka juba suht üheselt selgeks saanud

Mis jama sa siin ajad?
Nii Saksamaale kui ka Prantsusmaale tarnitakse jätkuvalt uusi lennukeid

Seda enam on kummaline, et Luftwaffe 216 lennukist on toimivad vaid 69...

Kapten Trumm kirjutas:Minu absoluutne lemmik antud teemal tänapäevast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

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.