EdLawFlex: you missed my point – I was saying that trying to hit a small factory was pointless (the miss distances being far too great), and thus there was a switch to bombing area targets (i.e. cities with industrial relevance mostly). As for the destruction of individual cities, both sides did it, it is just that the allies had more aircraft, and were better at it by the end. I do not consider it accidental, that is exactly the point, it was deliberate, but necessary.
EdLawThe only bombing which was truly decisive was the bombing of the oil production facilities. Aircraft and tank production could be moved into a cave, so bombing factories made things more difficult, but fuel production could not be moved, and eliminating the enemy’s fuel supply was absolutely devastating.
As for bombing of civilian targets, the problem was that aerial bombing could barely target an area target, let alone a small factory. Both sides hit civilian areas, it was part of total war, and both sides did it, so accusing one side of not playing fair is ridiculous.
EdLawI do not think it is an issue of not considering the Typhoon or Rafale, more that the lower cost does not allow for more aircraft to be purchased, since the biggest limitation is the number of pilots. That is why one of the alternatives would be to buy ~100 Typhoons, and a further ~100 UCAVs, which would not need any more pilots than the JSF option, and would probably cost about the same.
As for fancy talk, they are genuinely investing in airpower – new tankers, new AEW aircraft, new fighters – compare that with the UK, where it is just cuts (even the new tankers, for which 9-14 A-330s are to replace ~30 tankers!).
EdLawHow about the Rhino, but with thrust vectoring? The USN looked at fitting it, but chose not to for funding reasons – they were apparently given the choice between funding the thrust vectoring, or fitting them with helmet mounted sights, and chose the latter. The RAAF could buy them to replace all the current Pigs and Bugs – and have enough money left over to buy some UCAVs (to carry out the stealth attack role).
EdLawThis thread is now getting silly, GarryB is not going to change his anti-Americanism, and this makes further discussion somewhat repetitive! The fact that some people cannot see a difference between nations, thinking that Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela are paragons of virtue, and that any nation has the right to have any weapons they like.
Some nations have weapons for self defence, some nations have weapons to defend others as well, and some nations buy weapons to intimidate others. The simple facts remain – the US is a democracy, but Iran is a theocracy, North Korea is an autocracy, and Venezuela is bordering on autocracy with Chavez’s suppression of political opposition. If you do not draw a distinction, then you are either not looking, or are choosing not to see one (and we all know the Burke quote – all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing).
As for military contributions, without the US, WW2 could probably not have been won – no, the US did not win the war by itself, but to say that its choosing not to enter the war in ’39 was wrong is, in itself, wrong. The US did not need or want a war, it entered the war when it became clear that its interests were at stake as well, this is called being prudent. Other nations made important contributions as well, particularly Poland, but getting into a ‘my nation contributed more than yours’ contest is not very mature!
Just as an aside, calling the Korean war a civil war really is stretching credibility too far – the North and South were very different countries (for various historical reasons, going back much further than ww2). North Korea has many systemic problems, and the US is not responsible for these, any more than it is responsible for the rain falling! North Korea has a despicable government, and has run the country into the ground, in an attempt to preserve a status quo that cannot survive.
EdLawOkay, time for a new defence budget:
2.0% GDP for maintaining defence forces
0.75% GDP for new equipment purchasing
0.75% GDP for operations
This would end the current ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ mentality – it would also allow the forces to actually buy what they need, not have to sign up for odd PFI deals (under which you actually pay much more, it is just financed differently). The UK needs to spend enough to give all the services what they need, and stop the treasury from robbing the armed forces every time. It would also speed up a lot of projects – a lot of cost increases in projects have come about due to purchasing being stalled (meaning that what would cost £x in FY05 will not cost £x in FY10, the price will have risen dramatically).
As for a military coup, not sure that is such a terrible idea – someone in government needs to actually respect the armed forces, including providing them with what they need. The UK military is a victim of their own ‘can-do’ attitude, by always making do with what they are given, they never get what they want. It would probably help by having the budgets ‘ringfenced’, whereby the RAF cannot get money by RN cuts, so will stop pushing for them.
EdLawIt was also intended to provide the Saudis with the WS-70s, under the Al-Yamamah arms deals in the early ’90s, but they did not go through with the deal.
EdLawHow about 40 more Merlins, and 80 militarised AW-139s? (It is now the AW, not AB, Bell being keen to get some 412 and 210 sales) – it would probably cost less than the Lynx helicopters!
EdLawA pity they are going for more Lynx – the NH-90 would have offered a lot more capability, though somewhat less manouverable. The Lynx was originally needed to perform the anti-tank role, both carrying missiles and carrying missile teams, but nowadays this can be left to the Apaches (well, once enough are in service). I would like to see them genuinely offering a competition, not just buying the Lynx as is – the AgustaWestland A-149 would be a possibility. Also, 70 helicopters is not enough, they need at least 100 or more.
EdLawWell, it is interesting, I have seen odd quotes, seeming to be suggesting somewhere between 70 and 250 seats, which I would generally interpret as meaning something like the Airbus A330, fitted with a 70-seat VIP interior. The problem is that a lot of sources seem to be suggesting a 737, though I would like to see them just buying the 777 that he currently uses, having it maintained as if it were still part of the BA fleet.
EdLawI agree, it was actually quite sick suggesting that where it is a nice predictable trip, he should fly commercial! Just think about the possibilities for terrorist groups!
EdLawLarge paper-weight? It would look good on the Secretary of Defense’s desk! :diablo:
EdLawThe reference to terrorist training is because Chavez is training a large army of irregulars, for use in the wider region, i.e. they are terrorists to be sent to neighbouring countries that do not follow Chavez’s ‘vision’. They cannot possibly be argued to be freedom fighters, since they are a government run militia, for use in neighbouring countries. It is terrorism to go to another country to carry out attacks against either the population or the government, particularly when you are sent there as an agent of a foreign power!
It has nothing to do with US foreign policy, the concern is that Chavez is getting involved in the politics of other countries – look at Peru, where he tried to help the leftist candidate (thankfully, the Peruvian people rejected his interference). It is easy to dismiss any American concerns as being purely on behalf of national or economical interests, but it is not very constructive to do so. It is not naive or left-wing to question US policy, but it is very naive and indeed left-wing to simply dismiss everything the US does as being the result of self-interest!
EdLawAlso, when talking of exporting to India and China the MTCR does not really apply, since both of those nations can simply demonstrate that they already know how to exceed that range. Basically, as long as you could build it yourself, they are not so worried about you importing – Venezuela on the other hand would be very different.
Basically, Chavez is trying to paint himself as the ‘hero’ of S. America, trying to eliminate US influence in the area, but the reality is very different. The real problem is that Chavez seems to be trying to live in the ’50s or early ’60s, (a la Cuba), despite the fact that few of his neighbours actually want him meddling in their affairs. A few Flankers are very little to worry about, the much bigger threat is his ‘bolivarian militia’, i.e. a bunch of terrorists he is training up, most likely for use against his neighbours!
EdLawSferrin is right, Tomahawks are not ‘easily shot down with ground defences’, they are not extremely fast, but they fly very low. The proposal that they were easy to shoot down was in large part based on the first Gulf War, where the Tomahawks had to fly certain routes, since pre-GPS, the missiles followed landmarks (in Iraq, featureless terrain limited ingress options). Shooting down the missiles would be very difficult, and require ship-type defences, which is not practical for land defences.
Defending the Falklands against the Argentine forces would not be all that difficult, and any Venezuelan involvement would be suicide for Argentina – if they managed to hit a high value target, then the UK would respond by striking the Argentine mainland. What many forget is that nowadays, the UK could put cruise missiles into Argentine airbases, both Tomahawks from subs, and Storm Shadows from aircraft. In addition, though the UK currently uses only the unitary warhead version of the Storm Shadow, the Apache weapons dispenser could be used as well, destroying runways. Basically, even assuming the Argentines decided to try to take the islands, the chances of holding them would be low, and no number of Venezuelan Flankers would change that!
Sign In
