About 13km, IIRC, but that’s not not much difference.

You have to read what I wrote in context. It was a response to the comment about landing craft with 120mm mortars. If you want that sort of close-in fire support (a different beastie from offshore fire support from a long-range naval gun), then a combination of CB90 (or a similar boat, e.g. the Finnish one whose name escapes me for the moment) with a rapid-fire mortar is probably superior to an ad-hoc fitting of mortars onto landing craft. IF.

I wasn’t proposing it as an alternative. It has advantages, but also disadvantages. In some circumstances, it may be a better option, in others inferior. A supplement, not a replacement.

Certainly a combination of CB90 variants would offer a nice initial landing and commando capability able to provide its own short range fire support capability.

Well to take it a little further what gives them a “legal” right to nuclear weapons? Why should France or the UK be any more entitled to them than Iran?

That would be the weird historical anomaly that is the UN. Of course the idea is that those five should be working towards giving up their weapons as well, but this is not an ideal world. Of course the question could also be asked what gives the P5 the right to veto when nobody else has it.;)

There is nothing like looking under the hood of a plane like the rafale to see how it is put together and how all the sensor fusion takes place etc. I dont think you can get that from piecemeal collaborative development of a platform that you are already familiar with.

No but could get it from engaging in a collaborative project over a true 5th generation fighter, with Russia for instance. The advantage there would be you get a better aircraft that is better tailored to Indias needs and Industry would likely get more out of it than they will about the MMRCA contract.

Speaking of offsets, on http://www.gripen.com Saab claims that 93% of the hungarian offset agreements have been achieved so far.

As for the rest of this discussion; Poland bought the solution they wanted. An american fighter.

That pretty much sums the discussion up.

Come on now. Where have you been for the past few months. Isarel was sending such signals (peace talks) for months, and then suddenly this attack. Why? Is it possible that Israel wants peace talks but wants to warn Syria in advance about ‘who the daddy is’? I am not accusing Israel/Syria of anything. I was simply laying down more possibilities alongside those that we have seen in newspapers. My point was that though these journalist probably don’t have a shred of evidence for any of those theories besides probably some ‘anonymous sources’ and ‘expert opinion’ they simply love speculating instead of asking the real hard questions.

Ok.
So it was mixture of half truths and fabrications. Does this mean we should believe them now??? Now Janes has run this story which appeared in JP. Where is the evidence???

You have just giiven the main reason why this is nothing like what the buildup to Iraq was. That was a case of states providing large amounts of material to justifie conflict, here the states are providing nothing.:rolleyes:

Well, between the Shalab 3 missile (estimated 1,250 mile range) and the Su-24 the possibility for a strike exists. A couple here and there might get through, but perhaps that is all that is needed.

OTOH, with Patriots and Arrows, plus an extensive Israeli air defense system, I sincerely doubt any strike would be nearly as successful as the Iranians would hope.

And honestly, I hope neither side is stupid enough to try anything because things could escalate quite quickly. 🙁

Any Iranian strike would be limited to Ballistic missiles and a small number of Su-24’s. For both systems it would probably be a one way trip. The other aspect is how much impact a coordinated Hezbollah/Hamas operation might have. However the ensuing malestrom would ensure that Iran would come of alot worse.

Can you actually provide a valid link that has him clarifying saying that its the Israeli people he wants wiped off, because that was a gross mis-interpretation from many sources iv read. But lets play the devils advocate, read my second paragraph above.

I think the issue is abit larger than that, something along the lines of the persecution and unjust apartheid acts by Israel of the Palestinians.

I dont need to provide a link, its common knowledge. I have no doubt that many people are upset about the way in which the Palestinians are treated but if that was the case they would support the two state solution not the elimination of Israel, which is one of the primary goals of that oh so pleasant organisation created and funded by Iran that operates in Lebanon.

The problem with the above assertion is, although Ahmadinejad said to wipe Israel of the map, he was refering to Zionism and the Israeli government itself, abit like the US calling for regime change in Iraq. But lets go on the premise of Ahmadinejad saying to wipe israel of the map, most arab countries quietly would want the same, him being politically incorrect is what is playing in the media. I dont think even Ahmadinejad would be that insane to actually carry out any kind of mass WMD attack on Israel. Israel hosts holy sites to Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism, another side note it also has millions of arab muslims living there as well. This whole notion of wiping israel of the map is just being playing constantly in right wing media outlets to start those war drums.

No country would carry such an attack out knowing the retaliation would see its end. The real reason behind this Irani nuke scare by the west is, the west is scared if Iran go’s the nuclear way rest of the arab countries in the persian gulf region will follow.

No he was refering to Israel and its people. The issue is with ‘infidels’ being in the land of the believer.