dark light

EdLaw

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,171 through 1,185 (of 1,259 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: USAF to trial GBU-43/B MOAB as anti-hurricane weapon #1818047
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Actually, if done early enough in the development of the storm system, it might actually be able to disperse the storm. Once the storm is big enough to be named, there is little chance of it making any real difference. Also, I can think of more deserving tasks for a MOAB…

    in reply to: which contreys could fight a falkland style war #2573421
    EdLaw
    Participant

    It is all an issue of logistics – if the small islands are within ~500 miles, quite a few countries could; if within ~2000 miles, against an Argentine-style force, probably Italy, Spain, India, (France obviously), Australia perhaps. If at Falklands type distances, it probably drops to France and India (and I am being quite generous including India, who lack some force enablers).

    in reply to: Could the Dutch defend their Caribbean Islands? #2574316
    EdLaw
    Participant

    In terms of the Netherlands not being able to do it without UN help is a little mistaken -as mentioned, any attack on Dutch islands would elicit a response from the joint UK/Netherlands amphibious forces. This would mean two carriers, probably three or four battalions of Marines, and probably a sizeable number of aircraft (Tristars, KDC-10s, F-16s, Tornados, Harriers, Nimrods, E-3s, ASTOR, and a whole load more types).

    in reply to: Could the Dutch defend their Caribbean Islands? #2575045
    EdLaw
    Participant

    The real question is: is Chazev trying to be macho (i.e. talking big, but will not walk the walk), or is he stupid (i.e. stupid enough to try it). If he really does it, then he will rapidly learn to regret it – if you attack the Netherlands, then you are attacking the UK (and not just in the NATO sense).

    in reply to: Could the Dutch defend their Caribbean Islands? #2575318
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Even if the US did not intervene, the UK would, and the UK would bring a lot to the table – probably Ocean and Illustious/Ark Royal, and some Marines. The UK could also provide tankers, transports, subs and special forces. The Anglo-Dutch relationship is very strong, and Venezuela would be very foolish to think that the Dutch would just roll over and let them invade!

    in reply to: Kabul military airport + aircraft pictures #2578053
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Not to dampen the enthusiasm, but it might be an idea to delay publishing each pic by a day or two – you never know what might not be right for public consumption.

    in reply to: Building a small airforce #2585415
    EdLaw
    Participant

    I would go for:

    Pilatus PC-9 or similar for air support
    Mil Mi-17s for transport of cargo and troops
    Antonov An-26 or similar to transport aid and cargo
    Pilatus PC-6 for patrol and troop resupply

    As a small state, you do not need much, but you need to be able to afford to keep it all operational!

    in reply to: Oldest Serving Aircraft #2589508
    EdLaw
    Participant

    C-47/Dakotas are still in very widespread service, and first flew in the mid-’30s, which would make them the oldest aircraft in service as far as I can think of.

    in reply to: F-15N Sea Eagle #2591164
    EdLaw
    Participant

    A waiver is, well, a waiver – you waive the application of a restriction or rule. The ITAR restrictions were introduced to limit the flow of sensitive military information (okay, a slight oversimplification, but hey). When the US introduced the ITAR restrictions, the Clinton administration promised the UK and Australia a waiver – i.e. technology transfer with those two countries would not be subject to the bureaucratic nightmares currently faced.

    When Bush came in, no waiver was issued, and so technology transfer is a nightmare – just about everything needs state dept approval.

    Basically, the US promised that the UK would not be subject to these insanely strict rules, but they never came through on the promise. The result is that, for instance, BAE North America cannot speak freely to BAE UK, same with Rolls.

    in reply to: F-15N Sea Eagle #2591307
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Sea Typhoon is a possibility – one of the deciding factors will be the developing situations with regard to the ITAR restrictions – the Americans had promised the UK a waiver, but the Bush administration and congress have refused to actually give one. It has seriously hurt the UK/US cooperation, and things may get worse if a waiver is not forthcoming.

    The sad truth is that the Typhoon is the better fighter (in A2A terms), since the JSF is basically a fighter bomber that has A2A modes, and sacrifices manouvreability for stealth. The stealth aspect is proving to be less of an advantage than some first believed. If UCAV developments materialise, then we may well see the CVFs embarking a mixture of Sea Typhoons and UCAVs.

    in reply to: UK ships seize £350m cocaine haul #2064124
    EdLaw
    Participant

    Just think if the RN could sell those drugs on – the two hauls together would nearly buy an extra Type 45!

    EdLaw
    Participant

    Trident: The idea with going for the 777 is that it allows for transport of cargo, in large amounts, unlike the 767, which is quite narrow. The principle disadvantage of the A330 was that it is perceived as a French product, which makes the US buying it highly unlikely.

    The advantage of the 737 tanker is price – it is likely to cost under $100m, which means that they can afford to replace KC-135s on a one-for-one basis. You are right, refurbished 707s are being used quite widely as tankers, but these are showing their age, hence the need to replace them.

    Basically, the 777 is likely to become the high end part of a high-low mix, perhaps with c. 200 KC-777s and 200-400 KC-737s, allowing complete fleet replacement. As for the KC-10s, it has to be remembered that they are coming on 25 years old, and thus in ten years will similarly need replacement.

    in reply to: Alfa and Soviet underwater Bastian Strategy Cold War #2064816
    EdLaw
    Participant

    From what I have heard, when the Alfa boats put their foot down, they could be detected from over a thousand nautical miles. Basically, the Russians pursued speed at the expense of silencing, where the Americans went for silence over speed – both have advantages and disadvantages. As for keeping an Alfa in the baffles of an American sub for long, I would suspect this to be a somewhat tall tale…

    in reply to: F15 Beatup!!! #2600345
    EdLaw
    Participant

    A few years back, I was directly under a B-1B Lancer flying very low level (as in close enough to read numbers from the ground….), and that was a truly earth-shaking experience!

    in reply to: CVF Will It Be Built #2065370
    EdLaw
    Participant

    The RAF are interested in the -C version, since it has a much longer range (the bigger wing holds more fuel), and would offer commonality with a RN fleet of F-35Cs. As for navalisation, it is actually not such a bad idea, given how much it rains…

Viewing 15 posts - 1,171 through 1,185 (of 1,259 total)