Admiral Beez
Major
Can't Taiwan produce comparable fighters instead of waiting for Vipers? Their AIDC F1 Ching-kuo looks sharp, as does the new T5 trainer.
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Can't Taiwan produce comparable fighters instead of waiting for Vipers? Their AIDC F1 Ching-kuo looks sharp, as does the new T5 trainer.Long-time customer Taiwan finds itself in the queue alongside Bahrain, Bulgaria, Greece, Jordan and Slovakia, and likely Ukraine soon. The island's air force is a major operator of the airframe, but its pilots and aging fleet continue to be strained by Chinese warplane maneuvers in its surrounding airspace.
Can't Taiwan produce comparable fighters instead of waiting for Vipers? Their AIDC F1 Ching-kuo looks sharp, as does the new T5 trainer.
View attachment 776081
View attachment 776080
To be fair, while the exact number is classified, in 2022 the US officially had "over 10,000,000" 155 rounds in ready-use inventory. The actual number is a lot higher. While I agree that the US and other countries - really any country serious about producing armaments for self defense or support of other countries - should have significant and easily uprated production capacities, there are practical limits. For countries with smaller economies than the US it becomes a matter of economically sustainable (or unsustainable) practices rather than potential production capacity. Also, remember that the inventory has to be rotated and reworked on a regular basis. If you already have such a huge inventory that you have to spend more time on rework than would be required for new production, then either there is no point in such a large inventory or there is no point in continuing volume production beyond what is required for peacetime training expenditure.Before the war the US was apparently producing about 10k 155mm shells per month. Now the US is producing about ten times that number.
The Russians are smart here, knowing they have perhaps two weeks before the UAF has the ammunition to resist them and Ukraine so far having a demonstrably limited ability to retake territory, the Russians are pushing forward with all they have.Ukraine retreats from Donetsk villages, citing lack of ammo
President Zelenskyy calls on Kyiv’s allies to speed up promised weapons deliveries as Russia continues offensive.www.politico.eu
I wonder how long until we see a drone dropping flechettes on the trenches?World War I Tactics Make A Comeback As A Ukrainian Gunner In The Back Of A Propeller Plane Shoots Down A Russian Drone
The first aerial dogfights during World War I were slow, almost comical affairs. So was last week's mid-air skirmish pitting a Ukrainian Yak-52 training plane against a Russian Orlan drone.www.forbes.com
Dont think the Abrams were designed for a sitting war nor for killer drones in the masses now seen on the front. I think they are more a breach tank : Punch through fan out destroy.
Further more i do not think they will be shipped back. I think to big of an asset to be destroyed in a fight it was not designed for.
Israeli Merkava MBTs have their Trophy system. Can these systems counter drones?Dont think the Abrams were designed for a sitting war nor for killer drones in the masses now seen on the front.
Did the doctrine account for swarms of drones. Think not.The Abrams was primarily designed for the battlefields of Northern Europe of the early to mid 1970s, intended to fit in with the 'Active Defense' doctrine of the time, which was primarily a defensive doctrone.
The concern was that weapons lethality had grown so much - particularly ground/air launched ATGMs, tank cannon and cluster munitions - that an attacker needed at least 3:1 superiority to overcome prepared defenses (and potentially as much as 6:1).
From my reading of the doctrine, the idea for the XM-1 was for a tank that could sit in prepared and well sighted fighting positions and work as part of a combined mechanised arms team to slow/destroy mass armoured waves of Warsaw Pact forces. Once one wave had been disrupted, then the force could rapidly reposition to the next set of prepared positions.
Hopefully, you got got to rinse and repeat this until the Warsaw Pact forces lost momentum, or you retreated into the Rhine and/or supporting forces arrived from CONUS.
Offensive action was only to be taken if there was an opportunity to cause overwhelming losses on the enemy. The idea was a narrow front assault leading to penetration in depth and breakthrough into enermy rear areas. The chief killing arm of the Warsaw Pact was seen as massed artillery, so the intent would have been to break through deep enough to disrupt/destroy that.
In the mid/late 1970s, the Active Defense doctrine was replaced by the more offensively oriented AirLand Battle. This was due to a bunch or reasons, including the increasing mobility of firepower (particularly wider Western adoption of MLRS, SPGs and IFVs, along with air launched PGMs) and Soviet doctrinal shifts away from the WW2 style massed armour attack with equally large follow on waves.