irtuskfinal RFP supposedly out tomorrow:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/23/war-not-time-to-change-dont-ask-tanker-rfp-out-tomorrow/
Finally, Donley told the committee that the final tanker RFP would be released Wednesday.
irtuskThe 767 is another matter, as Boeing is offering a model significantly different from existing KC-767s.
That was last time with the ‘frankentanker’.
This time with the higher emphasis on cost, they have said they won’t be taking that approach (ie it will be based off an existing model)
irtuskAnd its British flagged with *paying* customers. How long do you think it would take to create authentic looking “paper trails” for 2,600 passengers? Does Argentina have any large cruise liners? Would it look suspicious for a Cruise liner with 2,600 all male passengers of military age? :rolleyes:
the point wasn’t that particular cruise ship, it was about the SIZE of ships that could dock
however looking up more info, it appears cruise ships anchor in the sound and use tenders to shuttle back and forth to the port
still, get a large ship there, it doesn’t take much imagination (admittedly more than the very limited imaginations on display here) to see it getting enough troops ashore to make things VERY interesting
irtuskok, found the answer to my own question
irtuskI could respond to every item point by point, but i won’t bore you with details (plus i’ve already been warned about one-liners :dev2:)
regardless, you all see ‘impossibilities’, i see ‘interesting challenges’
the key problem for the falklands is that you can put more SOLDIERS on one ship than there are PEOPLE on all the islands combined
if the ship even starts to unload and establishes a ‘beachhead’, who is going to stop them? As you mentioned, the total population of the city is only a couple thousand.
Against 5,000 heavily armed soldiers?
irtuskAre you joking? You think it’d be possible to find even one official in the Falklands who could be bribed for that?
You don’t tell them what exactly you’re offloading obviously!
Surely drugs get into the Falklands somehow. Let him think you got a drug shipment coming in, tell him to go take a walk for a couple hours
Maybe not drugs, but there are plenty of other plausible excuses you could give
And like I said, if all else fails, a few silenced weapons and no more problem
And even if you could, 1) how do you secretly offload all those people in a small harbour where everyone can see everything, & 2) where do you hide them? Think, man, think! Tell us now – where in the islands can you hide enough soldiers for your scenario?
Discretely set up ‘barriers’ around the ship so that people can’t see exactly what is going on.
Do it at night and use infrared lights so it’s not obvious how many people are there
Offload a few at a time and shuttle them to a couple remote assembly points
There’s a million and one ways to tackle such a problem, there’s nothing impossible about it
You haven’t thought this through at all. You have no idea of the local mindset. You have no idea of the physical environment. You know nothing of the geography, the vegetation, the built environment & its extent – nothing. You know nothing of port procedures, the layout of harbours, their locations, the road system – nothing.
Fortunately I wouldn’t be the one in charge of planning it.
I’m sure the Argentinian forces DO have an idea about what it is like
You know nothing of any of the factors which need to be assessed before having any idea of the feasibility of your notion. You are talking in purely hypothetical terms – and in real life, that would get your notional invasion force captured or killed very quickly.
You put 5,000 armed troops ready for battle on the ground, they will NOT be captured or killed very quickly
One thing that history has shown is that there is no such thing as an ‘impregnable defense’
That sort of arrogant “there’s no way they could possibly do that” thinking is exactly what makes such things possible.
Only by treating the opponent with respect and carefully considering all possiblities can you hope to avert disaster
irtuskWithout specialised amphibious shipping (which loses the surprise you seek), any ship will either have to offload at a port, or over the side into boats. The Falkland Islands do not have many ports. Stanley is the only real (but very small!) one, plus a few small harbours.
I think you answered your own question . . .
The waters around the Falklands are patrolled by ships & aircraft, both UK & Falkland Islands Government. There is a high risk of being spotted, & unidentified cargo ships will be treated with deep suspicion (I’m sure they remember 1982).
Why would it be unexpected? There’s no reason it couldn’t be a perfectly ‘legitimate’ ship
Landing at a harbour means your arrival is known, & as soon as you start trying to offload troops it will be spotted.
Not necessarily. There are ways of camouflaging such things
You will then either have to seize civilian vehicles, or offload your own onto the quay, & then drive along a single road, with the airfield warned that you’re coming. Expect your ship to be attacked from the air rather quickly, & possibly your troops machine-gunned while they’re offloading.
Going through Stanley risks having to fight through most of the FIDF, & even if you manage to get through before it mobilises, leaves it behind you when you encounter the troops at MPA – or rather, their air support blasting you on the 50 km of road between Stanley & MPA.
The ship will NOT be attacked from the air quickly simply because of the time it takes to mobilize the planes and because of concerns over civilian casualties.
As far as ‘air support blasting you’, how many planes do you think they have? They simply can’t carry enough enough bombs and regenerate quickly enough to make a difference.
What are they going to do? Strafe the road? Doubt it, that would just be asking to get killed by MANPADs.
(Oh wait, they don’t have functional guns anyways . . .)
All of your objections pose certain difficulties, but none of them can’t be overcome.
irtuskThe previous go-round, Boeing gave more booms per dollar because its plane cost less
Not true. The KC-30 burns more fuel per hour and had higher infrastructure costs, but even accounting for those, the lifecycle costs between the two was practically identical.
This means the acquisition cost of the KC-30 was LESS than the KC-767
irtuskwithout the 1000 odd British troops realising and responding
A few bribes to the right officials, or possibly more ‘direct action’, and you can be fairly discreet about offloading a lot of people and keeping them hidden until ready.
However, even if it’s not quite so subtle and it gets reported immediately, how long is it going to take for
1. a EF to get off the ground with A2G ordnance
2. get clearance to strike so close to CIVILIANS
if the Argentinians are prepared for quick disembarkation, they easily can have thousands of troops on the ground before the EFs even come into play, and by then it’s game over
By the time they manage that i’d think the first SSN would be being retasked to come and show the Argentinians whats what.
Unless said SSN happens to be stationed there at the time, it’s going to take days for them to respond, more than enough time to take the airfields and have the supply ships (which are loitering just over the horizon) dock
the supply lines would be easier to cut than before. 1 or 2 SSNs ends all shipping attempts, then they use Tomahawks to hit Argentine airstrips long enough for a carrier and airgroup to rock up and enforce an air blockade (which will be stronger than last time with F35’s).
1. F-35s are still a few years out
2. How long can Britain sustain a blockade? As far as food and water, the islands are self-sufficient. If they aren’t actually trying to land, they have no need to expend ammo. Argentinian forces could last YEARS without resupply. Intermix civilians with the army and the Brits would have to be darn careful about any strikes.
irtuskYou guys need to think more creatively.
Britain’s strongest asset is their air superiority
Argentina’s strongest asset is their greater number of troops (locally)
Never take on your enemy’s strongest point directly.
How could Argentina neutralize Britain’s air advantage?
Well, by not fighting in the air for one.
Secretly load a cargo ship with troops and weapons, land and take the airfield by ‘surprise’. Once you have neutralized the airfield, ship over thousands of more troops and artillery before Britain has a chance to respond.
Turn the island into a fortress, and Britain is unlikely to have the resources or stomach for an opposed landing.
Argentina’s great mistake last time was not putting enough forces with enough support on the islands.
irtuskNew finance offer to save A400M plane ‘not enough’
http://www.france24.com/en/20100217-new-finance-offer-save-a400m-plane-not-enough
Aerospace giant EADS said on Wednesday that a new finance offer from partner governments to try to rescue the troubled A400M military transport plane was “an important stage” but did not go far enough.
The offer “certainly constitutes an important stage towards a point of convergence, but does not yet represent a project for a deal,” it said in a statement, adding that it needed “clarification” on several points.
if we’re getting to the ‘clarification’ stage, i think the deal must be just about locked up
but wait, there’s more
EADS Said to Rebuff $4.8 Billion Aid Offer for A400M
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601209&sid=aJ1Wgsdv0FB0
European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. plans to turn down an offer of 3.5 billion euros ($4.8 billion) in emergency aid for its A400M transport plane as not sufficient to rescue Europe’s largest defense program, two people familiar with the negotiations said.
EADS, owner of Airbus SAS, will send a letter today telling the governments involved that their proposal remains 900 million euros short of bridging a financing gap, said the people, who declined be identified because negotiations are continuing.
If they do that, it’s time for the governments to call EADS’ bluff. EADS no choice but to continue the program as canceling it would be even more costly, both fiscally and reputationaly.
Still, EADS said earlier today that the proposals from the governments are “definitely an important step towards convergence,” and Roehl said the two side are ultimately likely to reach an agreement.
Yeah that sounds much more likely. It’s clear that something is going to happen and soon, but EADS keeps bluffing trying to get a better deal
irtuskAirbus May Build Simpler A400M to Speed Introduction, FTD Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aeuKbHBmc9SM
Airbus SAS is set to build a simpler version of the A400M military transport and initially seek only civil certification of the plane as part of an agreement with the governments involved in the program
irtuskActually, how the KC-30’s life cycle costs were calculated was one of the major bones of contention in the original selection and subsequent protest.
If you look at the protest, the main issue was that originally the AF calculated the lifecycle costs of the KC-30 to be slightly lower than the KC-767, but minor errors in their calculations meant it should have been slightly higher.
But slightly lower or slightly higher, the big picture is that it was basically the same.
The KC-777 isn’t even be in the same ballpark
irtuskOf course, the KC-777 is probably more expensive to acquire (I don’t know about operation), as the KC-30 apparently is relative to the KC-767.
Actually the KC-30 and KC-767 are VERY close in lifecycle costs, which is what makes the KC-30 a no-brainer (more capability for free)
The KC-777 would be significantly more, so while the KC-777 would perform better, we couldn’t afford enough of them.
If the KC-777 were in the same range as the KC-30 and KC-767, I would be all over that.
But it’s not.
irtuskMy Lord that won me over!!!!! It was the “boeing kool-aid drinker” comment that did it! VERY nice! LOVE it when Airbus kool-aid drinkers accuse Boeing supporter of the exact same thing they themselves are doing! Way to argue a point!
One side argues that being more capable is a good thing.
Another side argues that being more capable is a BAD thing.
Tell me which side is drinking the kool-aid?
Sign In
