JFC FullerThere are two problems with that mate:
1. BAE are loosing out to the megacorp of Europe “EADS”, even now they admit that EADS is basically driving the aerospace business today.
2. Britain doesn’t want to be like the US, they want the capabilities but retain a different function as opposed to that of the US. Personally I feel that Britain should just stop being silly and join the EU that way they are assured of economic survival! BAE and Westland won’t die under the EADS umbrella, Casa hasn’t nor has any of the other major european aerospace firms.
Westland is already part of Finmeccanica and seems to be doing just fine and BAE is now one of the largest Defence Companies in the world and a look at its UAV programme suggests it is also not dying.
JFC Fullerwhat do I want from the FM400?
I want an ASW based design with the following. 4 x Harpoon tubes, 1 x RAM (aa).
Not looking for Land attack or serious AAW.
Well you have plenty of choices for sonars.;)
JFC FullerIm thinking about switching my Multi purpose frigate from the Formidable class to the FM400 but im struggling to find prices – even rough ones.
I would be looking for 12 hulls with them all fitted for ASW – land attack can be handled by the F-100
Any one have any info on likely costs.
Depends which FM400 variant you want, everything about the design is bespoke, a customer can not only choose what weapons/sensor combinations he wants but even which propulsion configuration he desires. At a guess, anywhere from $200 million to $600 million
JFC Fullerto replace those F-15? are y kidding? maybe Silent eagle or eurofighter.
They want a 2 engine fast jet optimised for Air to Air… maybe some F-35 for complement..
No to replace the F-4, that is the current Japanese fighter aircraft procurement programme. However I grant that the Silent Eagle is an option.
JFC FullerThey will buy the F-35.
JFC FullerI’d love to see you try to explain that.
Country A invades a neighbour of Country B (policed by Country B’s peacekeepers) just before dawn one summery day in a turbulent region. Country B clearly has the initiative there. Isn’t it obvious?!?! :rolleyes:
Nope, Country B has just exercised exactly the required response, the exercise has resulted in the pre-deployment of Country-B’s troops and associated fuel, water, food and ammunition stocks as well as standing orders that can easily be adapted. Country A has the best troops in its Army in Iraq (only to return long after country B has attained absolute battlefield superiority), has a very weak command structure, no security assurances and few if any clearly defined objectives. Country A may have started the war but it did so in such a stumbling and incompetent fashion and against an extremely well prepared opponent thus it never had ‘the initiative’.
JFC Fullerhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1999/jul/01/nuclear-policy 1 July,1999:
“Lord Gilbert: In conducting the Strategic Defence Review, the Government concluded that a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons would be incompatible with our and NATO’s doctrine of deterrence, and that it would not further nuclear disarmament. The Strategic Defence Review confirmed that, in addition to its strategic deterrent role, Trident would also perform the sub-strategic nuclear role formerly assigned to RAF Tornado aircraft. A sub-strategic element is an essential component of a nuclear deterrent policy. In extreme circumstances of self defence, a capability for the more limited use of nuclear weapons would allow us to signal to an aggressor that he has miscalculated our resolve, without using the full destructive power that Trident offers”.SIPRI has reported that one tube in each deployed SSBN has a bunker-buster, yield-constrained warhead. Greenpeace is convinced that Lakenheath retains a stock of B61s. UK has no other nukes, and permits Russia, and others, to exercise their Open Skies Treaty Rights to verify that.
In short the UK does not foresee nuclear weapons use by anybody other than a crazed rogue state and even that is highly unlikely. No need to rely on the Americans as there is nothing to rely on them for: the UK does not need tactical nuclear weapons at the moment.
JFC FullerBut you cannot deny that they also have an exercise “war”. Maybe you chose to forget that.
I did not choose to ignore anything, the simple fact is that the Georgian exercises were of little relevence to the conflict they then embarked upon, the Russian ones were virtually a dress rehearsal.
Give me one name. One country that Russia can be at war and will not be able to win with conventional weapons. But please don’t bring fiction and fantasies.
Pretty much every country except the Caucasian and central Asian neighbours.
Quite an upgrade. And maybe you forgot who started with Grad shelling and begin full scale assault. If this is not a definition of initiative, give me another.
That certainly is not ‘the iniative’ that is rather silly mistake.
JFC FullerSo by your logic the Georgians too exercised the war in Immediate Response 2008?
No where near the same scale.
Ill-equipped for what? They are perfectly able to deal with regional enemy like Georgia. For others there are nukes.
War against a competent opponent.
All tanks were properly maintained and with ERA blocks on them. Against enemy like Georgia they were enough. The fact is that they smashed enemy with greater numbers that attacked first and had the initiative.
Ooooooooh big upgrade! The Georgians certainly did not have ‘the iniative’ or ‘greater numbers’.
JFC FullerHardly the same as the real thing, is it?
And no direct evidence that the excercise was aimed at Georgia prior to the conflict.
Armys DO train, have execise in regular fashion!
And exercising scenarios almost identical to the real one just a week before the real one about as prepared as one can get on Russian funds; it is a monument to Shakashvillis stupidity that he struck when he did.
Then perhaps the should have waited their sweet turn and procuring/importing UAV and so on?
Not going to happen, there wasn’t time.
They responded to a dynamic situation, some would say a provocation..
Which is why one procures in advance……like the Georgians did. The lack of intel assets, especially UAV’s, is indicative of the near total lack of procurement undertaken by the Russian Armed Forces since the end of the cold war and is revealing of how ill-equipped they now are by western standards.
Well true they use several high profile/high alert units, but hardly all units!
After all its the most unstable border/region of whole Russia due to many reason historical, etnics etc etc.
The primary units deployed against Georgeia had been amongst the first to be proffesionalised and had been in the Caucasus, including combat operations, since then. In terms of troop quality they were the best the Russians have to offer.
But there have been many reports of Russian equipment braking down cause it old/lacking support and maintanance..
Witch partly reason beeing poor preperation prior to the conflict on Russias table..
See previous comment; A complete lack of modern equipment, soldiers relied on 20+ year old equipment that had had virtually no money spent on it in its life time.
JFC FullerThere is only so much bandwidth in the system and its divied up according to priority. This has been a limitation since the beginning.
The systems I was talking about dont use satellites, they are direct links.
JFC FullerBah..
Here we go again..:rolleyes:
The Russian launch at Georgia wasn’t planned in advance like in other earlier conflicts.
Yes it was, it was effectively exercised about a week before hand in Kavkaz 08.
They did’t have sufficiant Intel of enemy deployments.
Which is an inherent part of the multitude of problems in the Russian armed forces and one that they have admitted to.
Russia didn’t have the all the fancy orbital satelittes capabillities like US/NATO and no UAV eighter..
Exactly, they are lacking a host of key enabling systems.
Another thing to consider is what units(type & numbers) Russia should have used in the conflict,
but didn’t cause it wasn’t deployd in time or stationed too far away to deploy in Georgia to help matters/improve their capabillities?
The land units deployed in Georgia were the most proffessional and combat experienced in the Russian Armed forces whilst air units were moved in rapidly to support the land offensive.
So again your point is moot..
No, his point is incredibly valid, the Russian performance was not at all impressive.
JFC FullerRather than supporting divers I would suggest that the real motivation would be the desire to engage helicopters (just like SLAM) for which the Germans are now acquiring a torpedo launched Iris-T variant.
JFC FullerThere are hard limits to it, though. If the Taliban started launching coordinated attacks at the same time every day it would strain the bandwidth of the satellites to such an extent all the high tech goodies would roughly be set back to their same limitations from twenty years ago.
What?
JFC Fullerhttp://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090723/155598994.html
Seems they letting in Makeyev sort out Bulava problems.However it says that personnel is aged 55-65
A problem across the Russian defence industry and military officer corps. The fact is that nobody has been properly trained since the end of the cold war and institutions have bleed talent.
Sign In
