The difference is that often for peacekeeping missions, you can simply fly your troops into the neighbouring countries on a normal airline. Similarly, most of the equipment can be moved by commercial shipping (e.g. container and RoRo ships).

On the other hand, the UK needs to fly troops and equipment into combat zones, and in the case of Afghanistan, without easy access to commercial flights.

As for the C-17s, the UK is logical, France could be a good option, or even Germany (perhaps a lease pending A-400Ms). It seems highly likely that the UK will go for at least two more, even with the current budget crunch. The delays in the A-400M project might make it worthwhile for Boeing to offer to lease C-17s to the various countries. A number of countries might be tempted to lease C-17s if available, which would help Boeing a lot!

If memory serves, its main limitation was in terms of defensive aids and hardpoints, meaning that in later life combat missions necessitated carriage of chaff/flare and ECM pods on the two wing hardpoints. This meant that the centerline hardpoint was the only one available on some missions. I suspect the slim fuselage caused some of these difficulties, i.e. not providing room for the added equipment.

Performance wise, however, it was a very good aircraft, albeit limited by its Atar engine, where something more modern like the Spey would have been a benefit. Add in room for the ECM gear and chaff/flare dispensers, and you have an excellent fighter.

The problem is that the Army Lynx is not to be used as an anti-tank bird anymore – the need is for a troop lift and medevac helo. This means that the small Lynx cabin is a major limitation, and frankly the fact that the Lynx was chosen without a competition is pretty troubling as well. A better bet would have been for the UK to fund a transplant – put the Super Lynx avionics into the AW-149, and switch to RTM-322s (for commonality with the Apache and Merlin). This would have given the UK a genuinely modern, exportable helicopter again, and in a more popular size class to the Lynx. The naval Lynx was particularly popular twenty years ago, due in part to navies using them off smaller ships (e.g. enlarged Corvettes and converted old destroyers that had limited helo facilities). Nowadays, navies are buying ships that are fully capable of carrying larger helos, but many struggle to buy expensive helos like the Seahawk, Merlin or NH90.

Basically, I am all for cancelling Lynx, it is too small for the genuine requirements. As long as we switch to a different AgustaWestland product, the UK shouldn’t lose out – an AW149 production line would most likely be in the UK anyway!

The problem with that is the Russian part – it is certainly arguable that the Abkhazians might have a right to shoot down a drone, but whether or not Russia has such a right is far less clear. The problem is that whether or not Abkhazia deserves independence or not (which is not the issue), but that the interference of Russia is legally very questionable. As it is, Georgia does have a prima facie case for arguing that this act constitutes a hostile act against the state of Georgia. Okay, Russia is hardly worried about the Georgians retaliating by invading Moscow, but still, it could well legally constitute an act of war, even though Georgia cannot really take this up…

My problem with all this is that it would appear to be a case of the Russians not just providing assistance to the Abkhazians (which can be argued to either be a moral duty or wholly illegal), but actually conducting combat operations on their behalf. Whatever Russia’s feelings about Abkhazia, the sensible approach is to go to the UN, and raise the issues there, and get a legitimate mandate to support Abkhazia. In the absense, the Russians are treading on very thin ice – and in particular, conducting combat operations on behalf of them is completely wrong. Do not get me wrong, I am trying not to express any opinion over the background issue of Abkhazia’s existence, merely over the merits or otherwise of what the Russians may or may not have done.

It has to be asked whether the UK would have been better going for larger numbers of the mid-range MQ-1C Sky Warrior (i.e. the Army’s beefed up Predator), perhaps on a UK production license. The US Army are getting a pretty good deal on their aircraft, and it would hopefully have sped up the induction of the aircraft for the RAF. The sad thing is that for once the RAF have actually stated on record that they want more, and funding doesn’t even seem to be a real barrier this time, and yet General Atomics simply aren’t able to build them in time!

The other possibility in the next few years would be the acquisition of the Hermes 900, which is basically an enlarged Hermes 450, which of course the British Army is meant to be getting. The details on the -900 seem a little fuzzy, but it would appear to be capable of carrying a proper EO/SAR payload and a pair of Hellfire class weapons. It begs the question as to whether Project Watchkeeper could be expanded to cover acquisition of the Hermes 900, either for the Army or the RAF…

To follow in the academic style that this thread is following, take a look at:

John B. Hattendorf, Naval Policy and Strategy in the Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future, published by Taylor & Francis, 2000, p.206

This passage talks about Italy’s ambitions to field a fleet (their ambition was for no fewer than 12-15!) of modest sized warships, each carrying four or six missiles. This was, of course, too expensive, but as Storch mentions, Guissepe Garibaldi (the cruiser) was modified for tests of Polaris, and Vittorio Veneto was actually built to carry Polaris missiles.

It is interesting to note that this was similar to the situation in the US, where the USS Long Beach (CGN-9) was fitted with space for four Polaris missile tubes. The fact that this never actually materialised is not a great surprise, especially for the Americans, since they had plenty of ballistic missile submarines, and the Italians didn’t get the missiles. The other major factor in thinking must presumably have been the concern for the vulnerability of surface warships. A ballistic missile sub basically sits on the bottom of the ocean, avoiding detection, and only accepts the risk of detection when necessary. In contrast, a surface ship can be tracked at all times with the right equipment, and thus could be neutralised pre-emptively.

The recent report in AFM with regard to the Su-30 vs F-15 engagement was suggesting that the BVR missiles would be launched at max range, without too much hope of success, but to distract. The theory being that the BVR missiles force the F-15 to deal with the incoming missiles, even though they aren’t necessarily as much of a threat as they might be. While dealing with the incoming missiles, the F-15 is less likely to be able to launch its own BVR missiles, thus negating its advantage in that area. At this point, the Su-30 can theoretically get into WVR range, and hopefully get its missiles off quickly enough to win the engagement.

Unfortunately, this theory is a little over optimistic, and basically assumes that the F-15 pilot would panic when fired upon, allowing the crafty Flanker pilot to win the day. Not necessarily realistic…

The best bet would probably have been to look for more Kfirs, just as Colombia has done; and probably some other cheap kit too.

– Buy some proper airbase defences, preferably something like the ZSU-23-4 from Russia/India or M-163 Vulcan from the US (though less capable).

– Build proper shelters, as already said, simple roofed revetments would be more than enough to do the job.

– Buy cheap light strike aircraft, by which I mean something like the Pilatus PC-9 or Embraer ALX, able to stay aloft for a long time, and carry modest loads.

– Replace the King Air based HISAR system.

The problem, as usual is budget, or lack thereof; the solution, in part, is to mitigate your losses, and this means making it more difficult for the bad guys to hit you on the ground. Good revetments and airbase defences would go a long way towards this goal, otherwise, as JBritchford said, you may as well paint bullseyes on the new aircraft.