What's new

France could deploy Fremm frigates and Rafale jets to Greece

. . . . . .
After ATMACA missile with 220 km + range and with data link Agean is a killing zone for any surface vessels. With S 400, Hisar SAM family and Siper high altitude air to surface missile again Agean and EM are a killing zone for air breathing targets.
 
.
After ATMACA missile with 220 km + range and with data link Agean is a killing zone for any surface vessels. With S 400, Hisar SAM family and Siper high altitude air to surface missile again Agean and EM are a killing zone for air breathing targets.

Have in mind that theaters like the Aegean sea make the theoretical maximum attributes of almost all types of weapons academic. The Aegean is a literal electronic emissions soup sprinkled with radar dead zones and plowed by many thousands of vessels.

There is no such thing as a kill-box in the dense littoral. ;)
 
.
The last moments of the French battleship Bouvet, 18 March 1915:
300px-Bouvet_sinking_March_18_1915.jpg
 
. .
Have in mind that theaters like the Aegean sea make the theoretical maximum attributes of almost all types of weapons academic. The Aegean is a literal electronic emissions soup sprinkled with radar dead zones and plowed by many thousands of vessels.

There is no such thing as a kill-box in the dense littoral. ;)

In some ways I agree yet any constraint possed by a theater like Aegean sea can be compansated and/or minimized! ATMACA or any coming new anti ship missiles or any single platform carrying these missiles are not the main factor as you better know from most of us but Genesis Advent, Kement or platforms Like Peace Eagle, ATR-72 or even UAVs are . Therefore I still maintain that Agean is defintly a killing zone for a Fremm
 
.
The presence of France wouldn't change a thing in this conflict. As much as I believe that France would support Greece wholeheartedly during a war against Turkey, I just cannot see the French navy engaging in a battle for Greece against us Turks.

Not even Franc National would risk the pictures of hundreds of dead French bodies floating in the Aegean sea.

Paris would rather seek a united European response, preferably sanctioning the Turkish economy.
 
.
Have in mind that theaters like the Aegean sea make the theoretical maximum attributes of almost all types of weapons academic. The Aegean is a literal electronic emissions soup sprinkled with radar dead zones and plowed by many thousands of vessels.

There is no such thing as a kill-box in the dense littoral. ;)

True. The closest parellel we can draw might be the island hoping strategy of the US in WWII but even that is wholefully out of date and useless. If there was such a thing as an Aegean theater then it would be a different form of warfare. Each island can serve as a base and defensable position. Would be quite interesting to see how such a thing would work out but lets hope it never comes to that.
 
.
True. The closest parellel we can draw might be the island hoping strategy of the US in WWII but even that is wholefully out of date and useless. If there was such a thing as an Aegean theater then it would be a different form of warfare. Each island can serve as a base and defensable position. Would be quite interesting to see how such a thing would work out but lets hope it never comes to that.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

If anyone is interested in the subject at hand, Professor Vego of the USN NWC wrote some years ago a pretty extensive/complete declassified review of modern naval warfare strategy on the littoral, complete with historical references.

It is a very good read in my honest opinion.
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=nwc-review
 
.
Your nuclear program was financed by the Sauds.

Oil was far more important in the 80s and the 90s. The US was able to establish bases in the Gulf region (thanks to the 1991 gulf war) right as the USSR collapsed, this promoted them to superpower over the energy supply as well. They had far more interest in having control over the Gulf region than Pakistan. This is why then Iraq took Kuwait in 1991 it prompted the entire western world to act. This meant far more than you taking a mountain in Kashmir or Turkey taking half of Cyprus which is an irrelevant island. None challenged the west.

@12:09 Ronald Raegan outlining US importance to control the Gulf region, or the Soviets will. And you tell me they were more focused on Pakistan.

The time frame u mentioned is no doubt important for arabs and US wanted to control ME and its oil. What i me tioned was post this era, where arabs already bevmcame rich (some of them) and Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons. The attention diverted to pak afghan region and US wanted to dismantle Pakistan. The focus is now in the pacific and on china but unfortunately Pakistan is involved with china too and would face issues again in future.
What i am saying is arabs have given in to west totally, relying on them. Even iran managed to be strong in sanctions and arabs remain weak after wealth. I see though now they r waking up but again mostly relying on western weapons instead of indigenization. Something Turkey is doing far better than arabs and Pakistan.
Thinhs would be very different if arab dictators stopped hating islamic democratic and political movements like MB and instead worked to democratize the arab world in an islamic way. I hope the arabs stop hating turks n other muslims and focus on real enemy israel.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom