sealordlawrenceI, too, would be desperate to befriend the US if their army was standing 100 miles away from my palace. 😉 Care to explain the morale which made the US to stop at the gates of Baghdad and leave the evil dictator just like that, then?
The point is, that Saddam was willing to cooperate but demanded shares. Big time. And he demanded cash returns in a currency that he could really use (read EUR) because being paid in dollars and subsequently having trouble ordering even a toothbrush from eBay makes no sense at all. And suddenly, Bush and his clique learned that dealing with Saddam would require more than just calling Rockefeller to print out another suitcase of green papers.. And that is where the whole circus started..
Talkingh about morale of the United States foreign policy might be suitable for your Fox-News watching neighbors, sealord, but the rest of the world knows something different. And yes, French morale ain’t much better, we know that, too. But they don’t even pretend to have any, that is what I like about them.
1990, war is funded by Japan, invade Iraq it all gets very messy and expensive with no certainty that Japan will continue to cascade money on the operation with Kuwait safe and Middle Eastern oil safe.
Saddams desire to make friends with America goes right back to the mid nineties. It probably had more to do with internal regime survival than external threats. Most of the regimes income was spent on internal security forces (hence no WMD) or duel purpose forces.
2003: After 9/11 the US is looking for a golden bullet solution to the Islamic terrorism problem. Afghanistan just aint it, it is too fractured, too backward and too deficient in natural resources to get where it needs to get (why is opium the biggest export?;) ). Why does this matter? Well simple really, the idea is to create a liberal, secular, capitalist democracy in the middle east (Turkey does not count, it used to be the Ottoman empire and for some reason that does not sit well with Arabs.;) ). To a certain extent this is ideologocal imperialism, but certainly not the land grabbing sort of which all (US included) were guilty of up to and after WW1. Iraq fits the bill perfectly, militarily weak, Internationally isolated, massive natural resources (so huge sums to spend on reconstruction and ultimate Dubai style prosperity) and as a bonus decades of enforced secularism. Thus it all looks wonderful……….
…….then the Pentagon gets involved alongside some especially stupid administration cronies. As a result we then get 3-4 years that can only be described as an orgy of incompetence so epic in proportion that it is almost indescribable. It took until 2003 and some very brave new people (The likes Lt Colonel John Nagl and General David Patreus deserve special mention) turned up and started trying to sort the anarchy out, what happens next is anybodies guess but the original goal that could have been easily achieved in a couple of decades will likely now take more than a generation. If you want to know the exact reasons why it all went wrong then please open a thread somewhere (GD might be most appropriate) as there are some very important doctrinal and political issues involved and if you want to b*tch about the Pentagon this is the subject to use.
How is this moral? Well the theory is (partly proven) that the vast majority of the support for the radicals in the middle east is the US support for Tyrannical regimes that cause poverty and misery etc, thus the idea is to create a Liberal democratic prosperous country in the very heart of the middle east. This is moral becouse the intention is to bring freedom and prosperity to the oppressed and impoverished people of Iraq, whilst making a grand strategic move in the war on terror. Had it have worked (there is a very small chance that it still could) it would have all but ended the war on terror in a generation.
sealordlawrenceI may be wrong, but I suspect both designs will be much more conservative mono-hulls than the BMT F5 or VT trimaran proposals, despite a lot of hype the relative merits of mono vs. multi is still a contentious topic and such a high risk solution would probably be more than the MoD or RN would accept, even given the favourable results obtained from RV Triton. A shame as I’d love to see the F5 built. A Type 45 derivative certainly has a lot of merit, and I still think the idea of a high end T45 land attack derivative retaining PAAMS whilst not being cheap would be able to leverage the R&D costs already sunk into the T45 and take advantage of the lower unit cost with hulls ordered curve and give the RN a truly outstanding combatant, with a much more austere C2 suitable for escort, and that should be ASW optimised.
Like I said the F5 idea is pure fantasy.;) Between you and Phelgan you have managed to raise my primary concern about the lower tier option, the need for ASW capability, a helicopter (or 2?) could well end up with a concept not far short of a T23 when the intention seems to be to avoid that at all costs. With the development of the 155mm it might be time to move away from the 4.5inch and maybe adopt a smaller caliber, maybe the 57mm Bofors (IIRC BAe now owns Bofors so it would be keeping it in the family) gun as used on the Visby and the DDG1000. I suspect that it would offer better self defence capability, but at the same time it would also likely lose some land attack potential………76mm maybe?
I must admit that with the very capable amphibious force the RN has achieved it would probably seem sensible to keep the upper tier ship as conventional DDG type with land attack capability, in that sense a reconfigured T45 would be a good option.
It is worth noting that the RN has looked at this sort of two tier system before with the Type-82 and Type-19 (never built) of course back then the RN also maintained a large escort force. With the exception of the escort force and the SSK’s the fleet structure planned around/with the CVA-01 is actually very similar to what the RN now has/is pursuing.
sealordlawrenceSealord I respect your opinion on many things and I know your not the only one but I am fed up with people saying that a Liberal Democrat government will be a disaster for the armed forces! As a paid up member of that party I do find it VERY insulting!
Aside from the nuclear issue where I do not agree with the party line (and even then the official policy states that the deterrant should be retained at the moment) where is the evidance that the party will be a disaster for the armed forces?!
I can’t find any policy statement from the party saying its going to destroy our armed forces but I can find plenty of official statements criticising defence cuts!
This is an exert from the official Liberal Democrat manifesto on defence for the 2005 election:
Britain’s armed forces protect the
country and are a force for good
in the world. But with increasing
overseas commitments, they are
overstretched. The Government
should not be cutting the size
of the armed forces while at the
same time asking them to take
on ever more difficult tasks.I would think that most people here would agree with that sentiment and I don’t see how it fits in with the idea of the Lib Dems being a disaster for defence!
Rather then making offensive sweeping statements about the Liberal Democrats wouldn’t it be a good idea to actually check what the parties defence policy is.
Frankly I find it small minded and childish.
😡
Manifestos say a lot of things, especially from a party that knows it has no immediate prospect of power and that qoute is so generic and meaningless it is not funny. It leaves both more cuts and more deployments open as opportunities, it is a criticism not a policy. I take my views on the Lib Dems from the ‘small minded and childish’ remarks I have heard many of their MP’s using regarding a number of major UK defence procurements, notably Typhoon and Trident.
I have no intention of arguing with you over UK politics and I have the up-most respect for your political views but I have yet to hear a single positive specific remark regarding defence from a Liberal Democrat.
sealordlawrenceLet’s see the MoD spend their existing budget efficiently and effectively and then see where we are. And we aren’t responsible for defending the world, if we pull our weight in NATO (and we still spend more than a lot of other NATO members and unlike many NATO members are doing our bit in Afghanistan, so actually it’d be more accurate to desire most of the rest of NATO matching our own stance), the Commonwealth isn’t a military alliance and the Falklands is best defended by an effective garrison than spending billions on a blue water expeditionary navy for a couple of thousand people 8000 miles away. Personally i do want to see the continuation of an effective RN, but we have to make a real choice, either pay the money, or withdraw from pretending to be some sort of world power.
Very well said.:)
sealordlawrenceGo away for a few days and miss the fun threads 🙁
“A few less Typhoons” is exactly the problem. Its often a case of a few less this and that, and you find that you’ve loss a significant proportion of you’re capability. DOn’t know about the nationality but are you sure you’re not a politician?
Quite the contrary the Typhoon has been a lot of the problem. The contract has it so tied up that cancelling any of them is near impossible, hence why the RN has sustained a lot of the recent cuts. Note that the RAF Typhoon buy is only 18 aircraft behind the original cold war order/requirment……compare that to what has happened to Germanys Typhoon plans.;)
sealordlawrenceI think that depends on the situation. I, for one, would hate anyone blowing himself up in my country for any ideology. But in the peculiar case US or Russians would find my country worth invading, a couple of Polish and Hungarian terrorists blowing themselves up in order to take some invaders with them would be a rather welcomed addition to otherwise dull occupation days.
The point is, they don’t have to. Even if you leveled Bushehr, Teheran International and Bandar Abbas in one single attack, how would that help remove Iranian regime? Or do you think that the few F-14s are the last obstacle that prevents another Iranian revolution from happening?
Who said anything about revolution? Jut making Iran toothless as a regional power would do.
sealordlawrencethe point that I was making is because someone said that the SHornet has’nt won a single open competition, whereas the Typhoon has’nt won a single open competition thanks to its technical merits either. the Austrian competition itself has come under the scanner, and in 2 other competitions in SKorea and Singapore, it was’nt the winner in technical terms either. it has’nt been able to convince Greece, Turkey, Norway or Denmark to purchase any, despite desperate sales efforts.
none of that means that the Typhoon is’nt an impressive fighter, as was being hinted about the SHornet because it has’nt won open competitions. the truth is that fighter procurement is about a host of factors, political being one of the most major.
SHornet and Strike Eagle, both American, politics not important.
sealordlawrenceI think that was exactly the original idea when US suddenly backed off in 1991 and left Saddam keep the power and freely do his revenge on Shi’a and Kurds who aided allied forces during the Gulf War I.
Unfortunately, the little prick made continuous attempts to engangle himself with those French and other European b!tches and hell, even dared to stick his filthy fingers into something that would later call itself euro-based oil market, completely obliterating need of Greenspan’s inflated green papers noone really wanted anymore. He refused to get obeyant, turn to American side and make Iraq another Bolivia so he had to be removed.
That was the true concept of the OIF, not 9/11, Al-Qaeda, war on terror (cough cough) or WMDs, only a state-supported racketeering business on large scale.
Wrong, various documents and interviews with regime individuals lifted after the war revealed that Saddam was actually pretty desperate to befriend America, it just turned out that the US had slightly more morals than France.
sealordlawrencethe IAF needs to have that much confidence in HAL/ADA to scrap the MRCA and say that it’d want more Tejas’ and to give the go-ahead to the MCA..I for one am not sure that the IAF needs any more MKIs..230 is a very large number. a smaller twin-engined fighter (lower attrition rates for sure than a single-engined one) with AESA allows the IAF to put its eggs in more than one basket. it will increase the logistical headache, but that does’nt seem to be a very big issue in the IAF.
Maybe, but I would like to hear more on the price issue. By all accounts the MKI is very cheap for what it is, of the MMRCA contenders none (with the possible but still unlikely exceptions of the Mig-35 and the Gripen) are likely to come in much under $100 million a piece. As for maintenance, I dont have figures but I do wonder whether the cost of yet another type, especially if twin engined, may be little cheaper than the MKI.
As for the LCA, well it might be time to show a bit of confidence it it.;)
sealordlawrenceIf you loby the current government then yes I think withdrawal is more likely than a budget increase but governments come and go and its not clear whether GB swings more to the EU than he does to the trans Atlantic alliance. I’d say he is trying to strike a balance between the two.
Of course governments change and although it can be argued that a Conservative government would differ little with regard to foreign policy and defence spending (John Knot and Options For Change spring to mind here) they are more, (how should I put this?) traditionally pro-armed forces, pro-interventionist than the Labour Party. Where Labour would be more inclined to withdrawal I think that a Conservative government would swing slightly in the oposite direction which again makes the question hypothetical. Its a tough one is all I’m saying. I can’t predict the future and I don’t know which scenario to work with first.
I used to be indecisive but now I’m not so sure.
?????????????????????????????????????????:confused: :confused:
To be perfectly honest I dont think that a change of government would make that much difference. Under Michael Howard the conservatives suggested a freeze on defence spending, only to be lambasted by labour (truly ironic considering their 1984 manifesto), I would suggest that the urge to cut taxes may prevail over any remaining (if indeed there is any) pro-armed forces sentiment. One thing is for certain and that is that a Liberal Democrat government would be apocalyptic for the UK armed forces.
sealordlawrenceA quick note maybe controversial point regarding TSR-2 exporting and Tornadoes. The Tornado was/is in roughly the same class as the Buccaneer, the TSR-2 was a different beast altogether (maybe part of its problem) it was an all out theater bomber, thus one may have had a hard time selling it to NATO allies. I suspect that Australia my have been the only buyer.
The V-Bombers probably depend on UK nuclear strategy, if the plan remains V-Bombers into the Soviet Union then they stay, if they do not have that role anymore they go.
sealordlawrenceI’m well aware of how it started and what exactly happened..the IAF wanted to setup a Strategic Strike Command that would be responsible for the nuclear strike role..the Mirage-2000 having proved itself during Kargil and during IAF ops was the obvious choice and the IAF’s very high regard for this type is very well known. the IAF was lukewarm about the Tejas at that time, and thought that the Mirage would fulfill its role instead, that of replacing the MiG-21s.
but the Congress govt., which had the Bofors scandal still fresh in its mind, decided to avoid a single-vendor situation and make it an open contest..as the Govt. kept dragging its feet, the economic size of the deal just balooned from what was initially thought of as a $ 5-6 billion deal to nearly $10 billion..its a case of total mismanagement, but thats just how Govt. procurements are in India..there are lots of other cases too (IA’s Cheetah/Chetak replacement fiasco, IA’s self-propelled artillery fiasco, etc.) are also cases where one govt. goes, the other comes and wants a new competition, irrespective of how crucial the need is to have the system in service.
Since then, the IAF has realised that it has an opportunity to make the IAF a 3-4 fighter force eventually, which would mean getting Tejas’ (cheap to procure, cheap to operate, and indigenous with all of the capabilities that the IAF needs from a light fighter like the Bison, of which the IAF has 125), MRCAs (costly to procure, easy maintenance and in numbers large enough to replace most of the MiG-27s and Jags, of which the IAF has a cumulative of nearly 200) and keep the MKI as its top-end fighter (230 MKIs fully delivered by 2015).
since all of this wont happen in one shot, the Mirages, Fulcrums, MiG-27s that are upgraded and new-build Jags will be around till all the Tejas’ and MRCAs get in full numbers by 2022-23.
towards 2017-18, the IAF will be looking to get the gold-plated PAK-FAs in small numbers, to give it complete different qualitative edge. THAT is when the squadron numbers will start going up. their numbers will be absorbed faster once the MRCA and Tejas are fully delivered (by when the IAF should have a couple of PAK-FA squadrons, similar to the pioneer MKI squadrons No. 24 and No.20, for building operational tactics and doctrines, manuals, etc.)for those who harp on the fact that the MKI can do what the MRCA needs to do, keep one thing in mind- the IAF needs some diversity in its fleet, both from a vendor point of view and from an operational cost pov..it cannot be a 400-500 Flanker force..they’re big beasts that are expensive to fly and the IAF needs a somewhat smaller airframe. hence, the F-18 is in the competition, not the F-15, and no Flanker variant is involved (Su-35).
Also, a substantial number of the MRCAs will be single seaters (80 single seaters out of 126- the IAF did not even have a dedicated WSO/navigator role till some years ago, after the MKI was introduced), and that reduces the burden on training and intake of pilots/WSOs.Its the same logic that the USAF applies when it goes for a mixed fleet of F-15s, F-16s and now a mix of F-22s and F-35s. the F-15s are superior to the F-16 and can do whatever it does, and better as well, but its not economical to operate a fleet of 2000 F-15s or 1000-1500 F-22s alone.
Which is why the suggestion to split the MMRCA between the LCA and the MKI. Nobody is supporting a single tier structure, just a two tier one.;)
I maintain that a better approach would be to kill the MMRCA and split it between the LCA and the MKI, then develop the MCA as a replacement for the Mig-27’s and the Jaguars and the Pakfa to replace the Fulcrums and Mirages, allowing both projects to feed of each other in terms of technology and development. The end result would be an IAF that was very capable, highly indigenised, and with only 4 combat aircraft types.
sealordlawrenceI think this question is hypothetical especially seeing as I think the government will not withdraw from anywhere anytime soon and so, as I have argued but from a different angle to PerfectG that the defence budget should be increased.
Do we assume that we will remain committed to the South Atlantic Dependancies which of course includes the Falkland Islands? Do we also assume that we remain committed to NATO, the UN and the Commonwealth?
The thing is that if we remain committed to all of the above then there is still (IMHO) an argument for increased defence spending? Sorry to ask for clarification but I am willing to take a stab at it. I just want to know exactly what we would be withdrawing from and to.
Quite the contrary, the Brown government has already made it clear that the Iraq venture is over for the UK (shattering the reputation of the UK armed forces in process) and he certainly lacks the liberal interventionist streak, in the military sense, of his predecessor so do not be at all surprised to see further withdrawals. Indeed it may be easier to argue (with the government) for further withdrawals than it is for an increased defence budget, especially given the economic outlook and the national mood following the surrender in Iraq. Of course the irony is that the abandonment of Iraq and the consolidation of operations in Afghanistan may ease the overstretch issue. Of course even the extent to which the UK armed forces are overstretched can be debated, for instance compare how long and how frequent the tours of duty are for US troops to those of UK troops.
The commonwealth is not really a mutual defence exercise and is largely meaningless here, most of the countries in it are perfectly able to look after themselves, come under other peoples umbrellas or would never really bother the UK anyway. NATO is more than powerful enough to see of any potential aggressor and the current budget is easily sufficient to insure the safety of the South Atlantic territories. If you think the UK armed forces are underfunded take a look at Argentinas.;)
Phil, the difference between you and perfectgeneral is stark, he has ranted about Tom Clancy style nightmares without backing them up in any way. You on the other hand have recognised that this is a matter of choice and have made your own decision regarding that choice and for that I have the up most respect.
sealordlawrenceJust a little side note on the FM engine series, it can be fitted with a 3D TVC nozzle of the same sort used by the RD-33 on the Mig-29OVT. To the best of my knowledge this option has yet to be taken up by anyone but it is certainly an interesting option/development.
Another comparable aircraft would be the Su-30MK2
sealordlawrenceBy accepting the status quo as a fact of life that cannot be altered we are making the decision not to do anything about it or to even try.
Shortly after Gordon Brown took over as PM I had an unexpected phonecall from the local Labour Party office asking me what I thought could be done better. Taken aback I knew that the list would a big one and I didn’t really know where to start. More police on the local streets would be nice and traffic calming measures that were announced for our area years before but never implemented should be taken up ASAP. But I also argued that a decision needed to be made about the future of the British armed forces. Either fund them adequately or withdraw from the world stage and stop fighting other peoples wars.
So as I see it the government has a choice; fund or don’t fund and if they don’t fund then don’t commit. Non-committal seems to be anathema but unfortunately so does adequate funding. I don’t see how we can have it both ways but assuming the stance that we can’t do anything about it implies apathy. If we are apathetic then the government will not change a thing.
What would you like to see happen?
At last, perfectgeneral has typed reams and reams of utter nonsense and failed to come close to this. I congratulate you Phil you have hit the crux of the matter.
Frankly I dont care which happens but it has to be one or the other, as you very correctly say. The UK does not face any imminent threat that requires increased defence spending, it does however feel the need to engage in every military operation that presents itself. If that is what you want to do then fund it. If you dont want to fund it dont do it.
An interesting question for you, if the budget level was maintained at its current level, but the UK withdrew from the largest part of its overseas commitments, what would the UK armed forces be able to fund then in terms of troop numbers and equipment?:confused: 😉
Sign In
