dark light

EdLaw

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 706 through 720 (of 1,259 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Eurofighters at Malvinas #2541397
    EdLaw
    Participant

    I agree, the reality is that, yes, some capabilities have gone, but some other capabilties have been added. The UK may not have the carrier-borne fighters, but it has long range strike assets, and AEW capability. It would be a lot harder for the Argentines to take the islands – this time they would be facing air defences, more troops, fighters etc… In addition, even if they were to manage to take the islands, keeping them would be very difficult.

    The fact that Chavez is so supportive, far from helping Argentina, would serve to practically ensure the US intervening on the UK’s behalf. Even without direct US assistance, the UK would be able to strike Argentine airbases and naval bases, and carry out maritime interdiction. Without shipping to support a force on the islands, then Argentina would need to rely on air support, which limits the logistics massively. Even with just Harrier GR-9s, the UK would still be able to perform some air to air missions, possibly even using offboard targetting (i.e. firing AMRAAMs using AWACS assets for targetting). Improvisation is something the UK still does very well!

    in reply to: Merry Xmas and Happy New Year #2541413
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Feliz Navidad, happy christmas and all that!

    in reply to: Customize your own F-35! #2542648
    EdLaw
    Participant

    …and a portion of fries and onion rings? :diablo:

    in reply to: 5th C-17 At Last!! #2542951
    EdLaw
    Participant

    The problem is the lack of a market for outsize airlift – until the end of the cold war, most nations with sufficient budget were focussed on a static war scenario. The UK and France both had a semi-expeditionary requirement, but that wouldn’t have resulted in more than a few dozen airframes. For the US, it was worthwhile, since they needed to be able to fly troops and equipment around the globe, and needed a few hundred aircraft, but they would only ever have bought an American type. If memory serves, the RAF actually wanted to get C-5 Galaxies back in the ’70s, but for budgetary reasons, this was vetoed.

    The principle problem at the moment is the defence budget meltdown in the UK – the budget hasn’t increased in real terms since the ’90s, despite the wartime operational tempo. Gordon Brown has basically decided that he wants the military to be run into the ground, hence every operation has to be ‘zero cost’. Look at ops in Afghanistan, where they were going to have to withdraw even the tiny detachment of 6 Harriers to save money, just as the current ops started! It was only when the press got wind of this that they agreed to allow them to stay – but again, this meant cutting money from elsewhere in the budget. More C-130s and C-17s are needed, more armoured vehicles are needed, more troops, etc etc… Sadly, until the military actually get funded, then nothing will happen. 🙁

    EdLaw
    Participant

    I don’t think there is anything wrong with the way the thread has been worded, it expressed concerns many of us (I assume) share. It is sad when any member, especially someone who has provided so many excellent photos, feels forced to leave. He will certainly be missed by myself, and probably many others!

    in reply to: F-35C weapons carriage !! #2543671
    EdLaw
    Participant

    If they could fit four AIM-120 and two AIM-9X, that would be a sensible option – I always felt the JSF was a bit ‘light’ with just two of each.

    in reply to: Adios, I'm leaving this site along with all my pics I posted #2543853
    EdLaw
    Participant

    I think the location part gives everyone the option of saying where, so it doesn’t do any harm. The most important thing is to ensure that members who routinely ruin threads are warned quickly, and booted when needed.

    The really sad thing is that some good threads have gone downhill simply because of two posters misunderstanding the comments of each other!

    in reply to: Eurofighters at Malvinas #2544208
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Another thing to think about is the fact that the UK could counter-attack, using Storm Shadows – any force they land would be under attack very quickly. In addition, their airbases on the mainland would be under attack, potentially round the clock, which would serve to occupy a lot of aircraft. Personally, I have serious doubts that Argentina could afford this sort of fleetwide replacement, even if Russia helps with the financing (a la Indonesia).

    in reply to: JAS-39 Vs. F-16 #2544641
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Given the arrangement with the Mig 21 upgrade in Romania, perhaps Croatia could join together with the Romanian fighter procurement, or simply buy ex-IDF/AF F-16s. Though they would be far from new, they would probably be able to serve through to around 2020, when Croatia should be able to afford brand new fighters.

    in reply to: Adios, I'm leaving this site along with all my pics I posted #2544646
    EdLaw
    Participant

    A great pity, Level, you will be sorely missed, you posted some really great pics, and gave great insight!

    in reply to: JAS-39 Vs. F-16 #2545690
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Perhaps the question should be whether the L-159As that are now becoming surplus would be sufficient? They could be modified to be BVR capable without too much difficulty – pick up a dozen or so, and buy ~50 each of the Python 4/5 and Derby, and that would probably suffice for air defence.

    in reply to: Other CVF Partners? #2071942
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Perhaps the best thing would have simply been to have the UK go alone on developing the actual aircraft, with Italy and possibly Spain contributing to development. Most of the delays and major problems came from the German government refusing to agree to put it into production phase. It could have entered service in the mid ’90s if it were developed as a UK product, even allowing for joint development with the Italians. If the Germans wanted to buy some, then they simply buy a license to produce them, and pay for some of the development costs. Though at first it would have seemed more expensive, the reality is that the program would probably have been almost a decade further along!

    in reply to: JAS-39 Vs. F-16 #2545784
    EdLaw
    Participant

    I think both types would be good choices – it all depends on what Croatia wants to do with their aircraft. If Croatia is looking for an expeditionary aircraft, to act as part of a NATO force, then the F-16 may be the best option, but if they are looking purely for an air defence fighter, like the Czech Republic, then Gripens are probably a good choice. I have nothing against either type, but the F-16 is probably better for A2G, but the Gripen is more nimble and cheaper to run.

    in reply to: Freedom LCS 1 Christened #2072584
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Well, the USN is looking to increase its overall ship numbers and its cheaper with LCS than big fleet units……………

    Good point, a more capable version of the LCS, possibly with a single Mk41 and a cheap radar (like the Aussie CEAFAR), would be a good way to boost overall fleet size. If the unit cost can be kept under control, then the USN might be able to get a good number in service.

    in reply to: Freedom LCS 1 Christened #2072666
    EdLaw
    Participant

    There was talk of a more conventional frigate version of the LCS being mooted. The Israelis seemed quite interested, and some other nations might have jumped aboard – it would have a Mk41 VLS, 3D phased array radar (an Israeli design) and all the usual extras. A batch of them might be useful for both the US and Australia. As for the US getting 50, I would be somewhat surprised, though 30 is probably realistic.

Viewing 15 posts - 706 through 720 (of 1,259 total)