It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mexican Navy to buy SU-27s

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
3 in maintanance, 4 used for training and PR, 2 flying 2 in reserve... need i say more? if so, let's just say that a plane alone doesn't amount to much, missiles is where it's at and i doubt they can afford to buy and regularly update the latest and greatest. if they could, i doubt the Russians would be willing to indirectly sell their cool stuff to an US agency.




posted on May, 13 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
they ought to take that money they are blowing on those su-27's and redistribute it to their citizenry. mexico has way too many other problems to waste money on this stuff. too bad we have to live on the border of such a country that would rather see a mass exodus of its own citizenry rather than fix the obvious problems of poverty and corruption which is what is driving them out. id like 5 minutes with vinny fox to give him a piece of my mind. why mexicans are so loyal to that government ill never understand. as feisty as they are here in the US i would think by now they would have revolted against the nobles in their own country and taken it back for themselves.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The Mexican Navy is supposed to buy 10 SU-27 Flankers to agument their coastal patrols.

This could make the airspace over the Southwest border of the US very interesting.


I doubt it, and I am happy that Mexico is getting some quality air power. Mexico is geographically important to the defense of the United States. They lack the forces to threaten the United States, lack the motive to threaten the United States (US dollars sent across the border from heavily latino areas are a major economic boon to Mexico), and although they do not always take the hard line we would like, they are not generally friendly with avowed enemies of the US.

Improved Mexican air power only represents the improved capacity for Mexico to mount an initial defense pending US reinforcement if some unforseen eventuality in the coming decades should cause someone to get frisky with a nation which is key to the strategic security of the US.

Picture it. The year is 2025. Oil is at a premium- maybe 150 a barrel. The major players on the world stage are starting proxy-wars for control of oilbearing regions. Russia and China have decided to make a move somewhere, but they need to know the US won't get involved because they know that they don't have the support capabilities to trade punches with us. US forces deploy faster and are combat efficient; we'd cut their supply lines and kill them almost anywhere off their own turf. So they've gotta tie us up.

They arm Venezuela, Cuba, and Brazil and send them after Southern Mexico. The Mexican navy, with a few well-placed invesments in aircraft and small vessels, manages to bloody the nose of the invading force though, US aircraft back them up, and because Mexico was able to keep our shared enemies from gaining a foothold, the diversion action that was supposed to tie us up is resolved very quickly.

Of course it will never happen, but that is what defense planning is for. Being ready for things that will never happen. They'll never happen because you're ready.

And don't worry about the numbers. What did you expect? A purchase of 400 aircraft while Mexico has no experienced pilots or ground crews for them?
I figure they'll try em out, train instructors and crews, then buy another 20-50, depending on finances, possibly subsidized by the US on a black budget.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by AntiHero]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Sweet. Russian Aircraft in North America? Sounds great.

Bout time there were some aircraft here sexier than the Super Hornets



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Sweet. Russian Aircraft in North America? Sounds great.


There have been Soviet/Russian aircraft in North America for some time now, usually they’re flown by US pilots for training and testing purposes.


[edit on 13-5-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Escrotumus
they ought to take that money they are blowing on those su-27's and redistribute it to their citizenry. mexico has way too many other problems to waste money on this stuff. too bad we have to live on the border of such a country that would rather see a mass exodus of its own citizenry rather than fix the obvious problems of poverty and corruption which is what is driving them out. id like 5 minutes with vinny fox to give him a piece of my mind. why mexicans are so loyal to that government ill never understand. as feisty as they are here in the US i would think by now they would have revolted against the nobles in their own country and taken it back for themselves.


I agree, who is going to attack Mexico? I can't think of a single threat that they face. Their biggest security threat are drug lords, but you don't need SU-27 to fight them...



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
On the otherhand using Su-27's to shoot drug smuggling planes could send a pretty powerful message to the people financing those planes. Or they might be hoping to gain some tourist dollars from aircraft enthusiasts. Just think, challenge the USAF to a few exercises over Mexican airspace, and it would be just like watching Red Flag exercises. Only minus the security arresting you for sneaking onto Nellis AFB property.

Plus wasn't it a Mexican Airforce plane a while ago that spotted and recorded a UFO? Perhaps the Mexican Navy is hoping for a good plane so they'll get to see a few also.

Of course now that the F-14 is being retired in the USN, this leaves the Mexican Navy as being the only naval force in North America with a good interceptor.

[edit on 5/14/2006 by cyberdude78]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
The Mexican government has annual revenues of $181 Billion US. What does a Flanker go for? 40 mil? 50 mil?

Mexico could buy another 20 a year for the next 5 years barely miss the money, especially considering that developing military capabilities would give Mexico a card to play in diplomacy with the US down the road when the US is looking for a coalition partner against Hugo Chavez, who traded barbs with Vicente Fox a while back anyway.

Mexico's economy actually is not irrecoverable. They were very close before the the unforunate events of late '94. They were in a bubble, doing very well, 3 pesos to the dollar in fact, and still climbing, but they were spending to do it, running a 7% defecit, so they started issuing loans that paid in USD, betting that further appreciation would make that a winning bet, even though the Peso was already overvalued. It might have worked, maybe, except the leading candidate for President was assassinated and then the Zapatistas declared war on the government. Investors panicked and sold their bonds for US Dollars, causing a serious bank crisis. That's how we got to the Mexico that we all know and love today.

The thing is, they can't just fix it because they've got six parties, two rival leftists parties control more than half of the lower house of the legislature (where budgets must originate) and a conservative is the president. On top of that they are losing perhaps 9% of their GDP to corruption, and maybe 25% of it isn't taxed because its in the black market.
In my humble opinion, Fox is in a position to manipulate the vote from abroad in this July's election, allowing the PAN to gain significant ground, not to mention what the recent uproar over US immigration laws will do for Fox's pro-emigration stance.

If by some Miracle (Capital M) the PAN can gain enough seats to put together a strong coalition in the Chamber of Deputies (lower house), they may be able to start pushing a far more coherent economic agenda and post more significant growth. That will make this little expenditure on the aircraft (and needed subsequent investment in troop training, police support, etc for the correction of Mexico's many problems and advancement of their future interests) very palletable.

That being said, I wouldn't turn my back on a well armed Mexico. We gained a lot of land at the expense of their ego, and we'd better dang well keep their egos subservient to their knowledge that we are better off as friends than enemies.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Of course now that the F-14 is being retired in the USN, this leaves the Mexican Navy as being the only naval force in North America with a good interceptor.


Really? Did you forget the fact that these ten Su-27’s will be land based. The fact that they aren’t the latest version which means they won't be equipped with the latest weaponry. The fact that it takes a lot more than just the plane to make a good interceptor. And the fact that besides the named role of the Su-27, any operated by the Mexican navy would be surpassed in capably and effectiveness in the interceptor role by current USN fighters, let alone ground based USAF fighters.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, a weapon race is about to start in Latin America sponsored by the US.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Although not the latest version Su-27's aren't a plane to be taken lightly. With some decent pilots at the helm (which aren't exclusive to NATO members) I could imagine them having a decent chance at taking on F-18's in an air to air battle. The F-18 might be better as an attack plane, but at the moment the USN doesn't have a good interceptor. This means that in theory a Mexican Su-27 could have some success against the USN in a wargame exercise. Even though they will be land based they would probably be the first planes used to counter a threat coming from the coast, such as a carrier based attack.

However the main thing to keep in mind is that it is extremely unlikely that those Su-27's are ever going to see any actual combat. Nations that know they won't be in any wars any time soon buy interceptors in the same way that superpowers build nuclear weapons. They know they'll never use them, they buy them for political reasons. The whole idea of buying the Su-27 is probably to tell the world that Mexico isn't just some little space on the game of Risk.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
AntiHero I just curious why you believe any nation in South America, yes including Venezuela, would assist China or Russia in attacking their closest allies? Brazil is now completely dependant of foreign fuels, therefore has absolutely no reason to get involved in anyones affairs, and so they haven't.

Venezeula is too small a nation, and the current leader does not care about overthrowing the Us, he just wants the US to leave him the # alone so he can focus on helping his own citizens. And Cuba? Yea sorry buddy once Castro dies, which I am betting will be before 2025, the ensueing power struggle from within will kill of most of the die-hard communists. CIA will plant their capitalist agents and propoganda and Cuba will become a capitalist nation. Who knows the ensueing civil strife from Castro's death will probably justify an American presence and construction of annother Naval/Air Force base.

Does anyone think that perhaps these SU-27's may be utilized by the corrupt government to actually guide drug planes across the gulf in the interest of "protecting Mexican citizens and assets" ?



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
The F-18 might be better as an attack plane, but at the moment the USN doesn't have a good interceptor. This means that in theory a Mexican Su-27 could have some success against the USN in a wargame exercise.


You think the Su-27’s apparently being bought by Mexico are better then the latest Super Hornets? Ask yourself this, who has the better sensors and weapons, who has numerical advantage, who is likely to have the better pilots, and who has better support systems such as an AWACS.
The Su-27 is a good plane but lets be serious here, even though a Super Hornet might not be a true interceptor it will still outperform the Su-27’s that will be flown by the Mexican navy in the interceptor role.


[edit on 14-5-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
AntiHero I just curious why you believe any nation in South America, yes including Venezuela, would assist China or Russia in attacking their closest allies?


Because that's what small nations do: choose sides when the bigger nations decide its time to fight. What beef did the Cubans have in Angola, Ethiopia, or Yemen? The Soviets needed a proxy, the Cubans needed to be cozy with a large powerful nation that could protect them from America, and next thing you know Cubans are the front-line warriors of international communism.

Same here. South American leftists need protection from the United States. China and Russia are eventually going to draw a line in the sand against the US PNAC-inspired policies, China is going to need a lock on some oil as demand and prices continue to rise, and Russia, with its huge oil supply, has a vested interest in keeping Venezuela from being attacked by the US and destablizing other oil producers, including Mexico.

IF, and I say again IF there was going to be a major series of conflicts related to the world's mounting energy crisis, Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela are natural allies. Getting Venezuela gets you Cuba too. Remains to be seen whether or not other leftist governments in S. America would go with, but its not impossible by any stretch.

Natural targets in such a war are Iraq, Indonesia, Mexico, and in the worst case scenario, Alaska (attacking Alaska demands diversionary actions in Mexico to divide US efforts.)

Like I said the first time, it's out there- way out there, but that's what militaries are for- being ready for the way-out-there contingencies so that they won't happen. Mexico occupies a tenuous position. In 1994 some people thought they were about to be a first world nation. Just a couple of years later, Casper Weinberger was writing that the failure of the Mexican state and a consequent border war with America was one of the five most likely conflicts America would face in the 21st century. They would be wise to plan for contingencies, and that means having at least some weaponry to insulate them from outside interfence if things should ever take a turn for the worse. Su-22's are a part of that strategy, because of their potential effectiveness against naval threats.


Venezeula is too small a nation, and the current leader does not care about overthrowing the Us, he just wants the US to leave him the # alone so he can focus on helping his own citizens.

Israel is too small of a nation. So much for that argument. And the US isn't going to leave him the F alone, and he knows that. If he's offered the means and the opportunity, and told that if he doesn't take it he's on his own against us, bet your bottom dollar he'll fight.


And Cuba? Yea sorry buddy once Castro dies, which I am betting will be before 2025, the ensueing power struggle from within will kill of most of the die-hard communists.

Selling Cuba short has been a fixture of US policy since my father was in school. Now far be it from me to second-guess this incredibly successful policy, but you might want to check the track record before you invest in that. Castro is one man. There is a machinery of control beneath him, and whoever it is loyal to will rule. A power struggle could ensue just as easily with Castro alive if that were not the case.
President Bakr's failing health did not culmintate in the fall of Iraqi Ba'athism- one man stepped up with the machinery behind him and Ba'athism continued under Saddam.
Stop putting so much stock in the old pass-the-buck line of American intelligence, which is so mired in politics that it somehow missed the fact that the largest nation on Earth was coming apart at the seems at the end of the cold war.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
AntiHero, have you actually ever questioned whether there could be a peaceful solution to the global energy crisis rather than build-up scenarios for the wars that would be fought to gain total control? Like starting an international consortium for the research and development of alternative fuels, energy systems, and new materials to make it easier for them to become reality? Kind of like the International Space Station project, except for energy. Those are the things that get results much quicker, and help alot more people. Wars cause unnecessary suffering for greed. Peace and cooperation do not, in fact they bring down the level of suffering already existing in the world.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
AntiHero, have you actually ever questioned whether there could be a peaceful solution to the global energy crisis rather than build-up scenarios for the wars that would be fought to gain total control? Like starting an international consortium for the research and development of alternative fuels, energy systems, and new materials to make it easier for them to become reality? Kind of like the International Space Station project, except for energy. Those are the things that get results much quicker, and help alot more people. Wars cause unnecessary suffering for greed. Peace and cooperation do not, in fact they bring down the level of suffering already existing in the world.


what you say is true, but when have we ever seen this happened in human history, AFTER A BIG WAR, I find antihero scenario a lot more plausible then everybody just going holding hands and singing in the rain, the status quo and the engine of greed that profits from our current energy crisis wont be too incline to come up with something new until it may very well be too late, and they will sideline or discredited any viable alternative to oil right now, I mean look at all the problems we are having now and the oil companies are just making record profits, and the worst it gets the more they make, which line the pockets of the most influential and powerful people in this planet, given them even less incentive to change the system, “the spice must flow”


PS,
Antihero, you got my WATS



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zeratul
Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, a weapon race is about to start in Latin America sponsored by the US.


Who said anything about the US paying for these aircraft ? Who said anything about an arms race in South America?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
AntiHero, have you actually ever questioned whether there could be a peaceful solution to the global energy crisis rather than build-up scenarios for the wars that would be fought to gain total control?


Of course I thought about it. Now all you've got to do is put me in charge and I'll make sure it happens. Meanwhile, the world is not run by people who think up peaceful sollutions. The world is run by people who think up the Iraq war, the nuclearization of Iran, the coup attempt against Chavez, etc etc etc.


Like starting an international consortium for the research and development of alternative fuels, energy systems, and new materials to make it easier for them to become reality?

The only nations who will want to do that are the nations who can't pay for it themselves, monopolize the technology, and become the economic gods of the next century. That means America, China, and possibly Russia and the EU are not going to make a serious effort to that end.
It would serve those 4 nations right if Africa pooled its resources and beat them to the technology, but don't hold your breath.


Kind of like the International Space Station project, except for energy. Those are the things that get results much quicker, and help alot more people


Quicker? Wasn't Russia like 10 years late getting its contribution up there?

Look, I'm just saying that history dictates that there will probably be a war. I never said it was a good idea. I just think it's bright to be prepared to defend yourself in such cases.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I guess there will noly be war as long as people allow their leaders to continue their actions. I personally do not support any of it. Many leaders of this world do not either. I guess I will just focus on becomign wealthier and making sure I do not get arrested in the meantime eh?

I still think Mexico is going to use these to escort drug planes, not shoot them down. They just legalized some damn hardcore drugs you know. Perhaps it will only be a matter of time before they make a legitamte business in their country out of it.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
I still think Mexico is going to use these to escort drug planes, not shoot them down. They just legalized some damn hardcore drugs you know. Perhaps it will only be a matter of time before they make a legitamte business in their country out of it.


Would that they would. I'd jump for joy if the Mexican military dared to cross blades with the US in such a manner. Not because it would result in violence but because it would make a popular, front-burner issue out of shutting down the international drug trade. That's where a lot of our domestic crime ultimately comes from, and that is where funding for a lot of things that ought not be is coming from.

If it takes a tussel with Mexico's new fighter jocks to get the American people to demand action against one of the major threats to our society (the drug trade) then so be it.

As for the rest of what you said, bingo. If the people who are in power in several nations continue to hold power and use it as they currently do, there is a good chance of war. This is regretable



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join