Jump to content
tanknet.org

Poland Officially Requests F-35's


Recommended Posts

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05340/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.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1199

There was also a UN condemnation of the Racak massacre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C4%8Dak_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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Forget the enemies and their missiles/cms for a moment, the low rate of combat ready without constraint F-35 in US service is not a too big problem for a frontline country?

 

While I'm sure Poland will do everything to keep them at 100% readiness, they have much less monetary support, and the repair crew pool is shallow (maybe Brexit helps a little here)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The roles the F-35 will fulfil for Poland are as follows:

 

1. Reinforce Poland's perception of itself as a Tier 1 technological nation.

2. Help secure continued US commitment by showing willing to purchase expensive US equipment for its own defence, and by

3. Enabling active participation in US led coalitions fighting in various largely irrelevant parts of the World.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The roles the F-35 will fulfil for Poland are as follows:

 

1. Reinforce Poland's perception of itself as a Tier 1 technological nation.

2. Help secure continued US commitment by showing willing to purchase expensive US equipment for its own defence, and by

3. Enabling active participation in US led coalitions fighting in various largely irrelevant parts of the World.

(4) Looks quite nice on Lockheed Martin's quarterly report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The roles the F-35 will fulfil for Poland are as follows:

 

1. Reinforce Poland's perception of itself as a Tier 1 technological nation.

2. Help secure continued US commitment by showing willing to purchase expensive US equipment for its own defence, and by

3. Enabling active participation in US led coalitions fighting in various largely irrelevant parts of the World.

The fly away cost of an F-35 is fairly competitive now, while providing capability other aircraft cant duplicate. Are you suggesting another a/c would be preferable or that any a/c purchase is pointless?

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 Forcing Russia to embark on yet another arms race that it cant afford, forcing the collapse of the Putin Regime.

 

Its just win win win all round.

It does have the benefit of having been successful in the past. I suppose it is also a better choice than purchasing LCS things for the Polish Navy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The roles the F-35 will fulfil for Poland are as follows:

 

1. Reinforce Poland's perception of itself as a Tier 1 technological nation.

2. Help secure continued US commitment by showing willing to purchase expensive US equipment for its own defence, and by

3. Enabling active participation in US led coalitions fighting in various largely irrelevant parts of the World.

The fly away cost of an F-35 is fairly competitive now, while providing capability other aircraft cant duplicate. Are you suggesting another a/c would be preferable or that any a/c purchase is pointless?

 

 

The latter. A limited number of F-16s (and they have a respectable quantity of very good, low mileage examples already) is fine for airspace policing and bombing insurgents in US-led bunfights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 Forcing Russia to embark on yet another arms race that it cant afford, forcing the collapse of the Putin Regime.

 

Its just win win win all round.

 

If you listen to the commentary coming out of Russia, they are all about negating enemy capabilities assymetrically, and always have been. They don't have to buy a Gen 5 fighter plane for every one Poland buys when they can easily nagate them by other, vastly cheaper and safer means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...