Logistics nightmare
I'm allergic to this words
lol, it's amazing how we hear that same line over and over and over without anyone ever providing actual, solid, articulable and certifiable proof that the Egyptian Air Force commanders and generals along with President Sisi who was a high ranking military man himself and served as the Intelligence director under Morsi and was the head of SCAF etc., etc., etc. don't know what they're doing and don't have a strategy and not only that, but they don't even explain "logistics" in detail as it pertains to having different fighter jets. What is the "logistical" aspect they're referring to? They never mention any detail except blurp out that same line over again simply because it seems to be a common theme without any shred of proof to its actual meaning!? It boggles the mind.
Order one or two main platforms to base the airforce around. If you're worried about American interference, then base the force around Russian airframes. Varying your suppliers is not a bad strategy but having FIVE different airframes form your fighter squadrons is a logistic nightmare.
Why? Please explain in detail since "logistic" nightmare is a vague term. It doesn't explain exactly what you're referring about. Are you referring to different weapons and that there would be more variety to deal with? Are you referring to....oh let's say the size of the hangers? Needing different hitches for the different front landing gears to tow aircraft around? Are you referring to the fact that you would need to train more maintenance personnel? Or are you referring to compatibility with one another? Please explain in detail so we can squash this whole "logistical nightmare" once and for all because frankly we're getting tired of hearing it. Also, we have all the answers for all those questions and more.
If you're talking about data sharing? Already figured out and answered. Weapons? Big deal, once trained, it's like riding a bicycle.
Communications? There is an entire new system that Egypt works under will unify all aircraft (once they are all integrated) and so that is not an issue at all. The only problem is that the ones besides the F-16s, Rafales and E-2Cs won't be able to share rapid data under link 16 or link 11 ONLY with foreign aircraft such as the US or Greece etc. They would have a tougher time linking with Saudi Arabia and the UAE if performing joint missions since both of those countries operate under link 16 and also have other advanced comms that don't work well with the EAF's new RECS2.
Other than that, there is nothing that makes this a "logistical" nightmare. unless your definition of "logistic' is something other than what it actually means. I'm happy to discuss this since you brought it up because we've been through this in great detail including comms from ground to satellite to rapid data sharing amongst not only all airborne aircraft, but naval assets as well as the EADS and JTCS for close air support and much much more. It all started out with the Protivnik-GE high definition and Rezonance NE HD radars with the 1,100km range that
@The SC posted the pic of in post 7,525 above. That radar system is tied in to a series of ground networks all connected to sending out communication at real time to ALL military assets in the field of operations.
Now, once you go back to just the fighter jets, you can see how small that issue is compared to what degree they've gone to in that much bigger asset. That's why I've been advocating for them to hopefully add the 24 Typhoons in the Italian mega deal to replace the old tired Mirage 2000 and keep the legacy of a special operations fighter jet squadrons going like they have been.
1) 200 +/- F-16
2) 52/100 MiG-29M/35
3) 54/72/100 Rafale
5) 30/64 Su-35SE
6) 8-15 Mirage 2000
7) 36 Mirage V (probably ready to be sent to Pakistan at some point)
8) 30 Alpha jets
Quite a few others have been put away in storage as part of their early retirement period. Where's the "logistical nightmare" and why conform to what others are doing?
