ImpiQuite right. My prediction is that within 10 years we’ll have the technology to counter CO2 release that’ll make Kyoto and similar moves obsolete.
ImpiCanpark, you’re assuming that all Vietnamese would have chosen to live under Communist rule. While the regime in South Vietnam was hardly perfect, I have yet to see evidence of significant (and voluntary) support amongst the South Vietnamese population for the VC. Hence the VC need to use fear-inducing tactics, such as torturing and mutilating village headmen and their families.
With continued American aid, who is to say South Vietnam wouldn’t have charted a parallel course to South Korea? The Vietnamese are creative people, as their efforts under the stifling rule of Communism (thankfully beginning to lift) will attest. There’s a lot of time to make up for though.
Ultimately, people make a huge mistake when they look at the Vietnam War in isolation. It was a proxy conflict of the Cold War and as such the Cold War’s geopolitical considerations, tensions and limits all affected it. The Vietnamese people didn’t defeat America any more than the Mujaheddin alone defeated the Soviets – other factors came into play.
ImpiIt’s tricky to do a direct comparison. Vietnam was fought in the midst of the Cold War, and so the geopolitical considerations of that era were what most determined what was possible and what wasn’t. The US fought a defensive war, limiting its bombardment of the North and declining to go into Cambodia and Laos in force because it did not want to provoke the USSR and China. Absent the overarching Cold War threat, the US might have had a lot more strategic freedom.
But again, this is never easy. Technically, the US could severely harm the insurgency in Iraq by attacking Iran and Syria and drying up the supply of weapons and personnel into Iraq. But this presents a whole new set of problems, and it’s an escalation which would require the sort of manpower and tactics that the US is not ready to either raise or use. So it’s stuck with trying to destroy the insurgency inside Iraq and interdict the supply lines from Syria and Iran, which can work but is much more difficult.
So, considering that the problem is not technological (though modern technology would make the US more effective, it’s not an automatic war winner), but geopolitical and domestic, I think the question we’re really asking here is: Could Vietnam have been won? Personally, I think the with absolute strategic freedom the answer would be yes, but that freedom never existed.
Yet on another level, Vietnam *was* won, at least for a brief period of time. The VC were utterly smashed in 1968, and after Vietnamization the South was doing an admirable job of holding the NVA at bay (with US aid of course). It was only when the US Congress, in one of the most ill-considered actions it has ever taken, decided to withdraw all aid for South Vietnam that the south fell. So it’s certainly possible that with continued aid the south would have held out for a number of years, and even decades, longer.
This does come with a proviso though, “What if” scenarios are inherently iffy because there are so many unforseen circumstances and external conditions that make any attempt to redraw history incredibly inaccurate and ultimately flawed. This is fun as an intellectual exercise, but nothing more.
ImpiLook, I’m not saying guardian coups are necessarily a good thing. All I’m saying is that it’s neither unprecedented nor impossible for such a coup to actually lead to a more democratic state. It has happened before, and it could very well happen again in this case. Indeed, the reverence with which the Thai military regards the King means they’re probably not going to try retain control.
That said, guardian coups, while arguably sometimes necessary, are a sign that the ordinary political process in a country has failed. Countries with proper constitutions, checks on power and robust civil societies do not need the military to step in and fix things every time there’s a political crisis.
From everything I know about Thailand and the personalities involved in this coup (especially Gen. Sonthi), I firmly believe this will be one of those coups that turn out well. But a future coup might not be so benevolent, and so it’s up to the Thai people to join together in fixing that country’s political process and modifying the constitution as necessary to prevent this sort of political crisis from forming again.
ImpiNot really. Most coups occur either because the military supports a revolutionary movement, or because the top military commanders are convinced that they could do a better job of ruling the country than any civilian ruler. These of course bring the country no closer to democracy than it was before the coup.
But guardian coups are something different. For one, they require the existence of a professional and politically-neutral military and they are generally led by the senior officers in the military, rather than the younger officers who tend to lead more radical coups. They are also incomparably rarer than other types of coups, with only a few coups in a limited number of countries qualifying as guardian coups.
But as I said, while everything might *not* go to plan, all the signs so far are that this is a guardian coup which has the support (tacit, if not overt) of the King.
ImpiThe Thai coup is not necessarily a bad thing, nor will it necessarily lead to a military government. Indeed, if all goes to plan, Thailand will be more democratic in a year’s time than it was a week ago.
The thing to remember is that not all coups follow the same pattern. The recent coup in Thailand is best described as a “Guardian Coup”, similar to those which Turkey has from time to time, in which the military intervenes to restore order or democracy and then steps back when its job is done. These don’t always work out as planned, but it’s the intent that matters at the moment.
The thing is, Prime Minister Thaksin has turned into quite a rogue of late. His corruption has become legendary in Thailand, and it has turned him into quite a hated figure. Worse yet, for the past year at least, Thailand has been a democracy in name only. After receiving increasing criticism about his corrupt ways from the country’s legislature, he just disbanded it and assumed the position of acting PM. He then held snap elections which were so flawed that Thailand’s courts declared them illegal and void. In the intervening period, Thaksin has tried to pull the wool over the country’s eyes, claiming at once to have resigned, and then to still be ruling, and so on. The King (hugely revered amongst most Thais) then persuaded him to hold new elections in October, but few people I know believed these would be any better than the previous elections, especially as all three members of the Thaksin-appointed electoral commission were found guilty of fraud last month. The Thai military reasoned that its duty was to defend the people of Thailand, and that ordinarly means submitting to the government as the representative of the Thai people. But when the government can no longer be considered as fairly representing the people, as Thaksin could no longer really claim, what does the military’s duty become? In Thailand’s case, the answer was that the military remains loyal to the king and the people, and so they’ve orchestrated this coup in the name of re-establishing democratic rule in the country.
That the coup leader is a Muslim is of no real significance. He has already made clear that the country’s foreign policy obligations and positions will remain unchanged, and he has set a two-week deadline to return the country to civilian control, albeit with an acting PM of his choosing. Nevertheless, an election date will be set for October 2007 at the latest, presumably to be enforced by the Thai king.
What will the world’s response be? Providing the military hands over control to a credible and effective Prime Minister and the country doesn’t do anything too radical, I think the international community will look the other way. There will be the usual condemnations and calls for a return to democratic rule, but so long as the country does actually return to democratic rule by Oct 2007 I don’t think you’ll see any serious measures against Thailand.
I also don’t see the country’s foreign policy changing. It will become neither more pro-US nor more anti-US. Despite Thaksin’s attempts, the US is not perceived as being on his side any more than it’s on the side of any Thai government, and so the relationship will probably continue unchanged.
ImpiYeah, SASOL’s the world-leader in this stuff, and it has been involved in past tests of this nature with parts of the US military. It might even be a partner in this set of tests, though I can’t confirm that.
The process itself is economical and reliable, and around 40% of South Africa’s automobile fuel is still manufactured from coal using the process which SASOL perfected. In addition, every aircraft leaving from Johannesburg International (and other major S.African airports) has a 50/50 blend of synthetic/natural fuel in its wings. Pending certification, this will soon be upped to 100% synthetic, if indeed it hasn’t been already. The nice thing about SASOL’s synthetic fuel is that it’s actually better for jet engines than ordinary fuels, as it results in less wear and tear over time.
Considering the US’s coal reserves and the high price of oil, it makes a ton of sense for the USAF to be going this route.
ImpiPhantomII, the SAAF’s C-47s were converted by the SAAF under licence from AMI. As such, they have PT6A-65AR engines rather than the PT6A-67s of Basler-converted C-47s. The way to tell the two apart is that on the AMI conversion the exhausts deflect to the sides of the engines (as with normal PT6As) whereas on Basler conversions they exit upwards. I explained some of the background in the C-47 thread you were involved in.
Milton, interesting. I’m guessing they were probably still with Armscor. Anyway, it’ll be nice to see some of the old birds back in action.
ImpiWell, the SAAF no longer operates any unconverted C-47s, all were transferred to Armscor (the defence procurement and sales agency) years ago. So do you have any info on where exactly they’re to be purchased from? Are they buying them from Armscor or from a private dealer selling ex-SAAF airframes?
ImpiYou bring up some valid points yet I am not sold? First, the Lightning will be purchased in far greater numbers than the Gripen could ever hope for thereby providing much to share with fellow F-35 Operators. Second, modern military aircraft can have a life span of 30-40 easy and with the F-35 clearly being way more advance. Which, type would you want in 15-20 years from today! Let alone 30-40 years from now…………..Regardless, the F-35 will offer way more capability. Further, if Norway did decide to stay with a 4-4.5 Generation Fighter. The current F-16 Blk 50/60 is clearly superior to the Gripen and Norway already operates F-16’s!
I wasn’t aiming to convince anybody, I was merely pointing out why I would prefer Norway to purchase Gripens. Quite frankly, trying to convince anybody on a forum such as this would most often be an exercise in futility, as some have their pet planes and they’ll back them no matter what.
Yes, the F-35A is a fantastic aircraft, and it is more advanced than the Gripen (even the -N), but there are downsides. For one, the F-35A is quite significantly more expensive than the Gripen, both in terms of the initial purchase price and in maintenance and support, and Norway will have nowhere near the same level of control over the final product as they will have with the Gripen N.
There’s a compromise to be made, and quite frankly I don’t believe the F-35A’s additional cost is worth it in Norway’s case. The Gripen is a great design with massive room for growth, and it will have no problem with remaining a front-line fighter for a few decades. Arguably, Norway doesn’t need the additional stealthiness of the F-35A (any conceivable operations it would undertake would almost certainly be spearheaded by other nations such as the US), and so it makes sense to opt for the lower price and cheaper running cost of the Gripen.
Lastly, as I’m sure you realise, there’s a fairly significant difference between Block 50 and Block 60 F-16s. There’s just no way the Block 50 is better than even the current Gripen, the latter is just far more advanced. And while the Block 60 is a superb aircraft and capable of holding its own against even the Gripen N, it’s worth noting that it carries a purchase price of somewhere between $80-100 million, making it significantly costlier than the Gripen. What’s more, it’s a far older airframe, and it doesn’t have nearly the same future growth capability of the Gripen. Not worth the money, IMHO.
The decision for Norway is not to get the very best (it might as well get F-22s in that case), but rather to choose an aircraft type which best fits Norway’s current and future defense posture and its intended spending. It’s my opinion that the Gripen slots perfectly into that requirement.
ImpiLike PhantomII and others, I find myself angling towards the Gripen-N on this, as it seems to provide the best bang-for-buck of the group while Norway’s proximity to Sweden will greatly ease the required support infrastructure.
Those claiming that the Gripen-N is merely a proposal are somewhat right, but they’re missing the bigger picture. All the contenders in this competition are essentially proposals, as they all refer to aircraft which have not yet flown. The F-35A has yet to fly in production form, the Eurofighter being offered is an upgrade or two from the current flying model and the Gripen N represents an upgrade over the current JAS-39C/D. Yet I think it’s fair to say that the Gripen-N represents a minimal risk in terms of its development. Saab has played its cards well with the Gripen, as a result of which most of the initial design and development work for the upgrade has already been completed. It’s certainly further ahead (in terms of entering service) than the F-35 is at this point in time.
The point about the F-35A being able to slot into the existing logistical structure of US forces deployed in theatre is a valid one, but I’m unconvinced that it’s a deal-maker. The Gripen, after all, was designed to have a very, very small logistical footprint, making it a lot easier to deploy than comparable fighters. As a result, its inability to slot directly into a USAF logistical support structure is not nearly as much of a factor as it would be with other designs.
On a more selfish note, it’s good for South Africa if Norway decides to go for the Gripen-N. Any upgrades developed as part of the -N program would become cheaper and more easily available for South Africa to purchase when the SAAF decides to upgrade its Gripens at some point in the future. As we lack the budget to fund those improvements on our own, it would be great to have the development work funded by somebody else.
Plus, it’ll be good for SA’s industries. Grintek provides the communications control sub-system for all export Gripens, while Denel both has the contract to build landing-gear sections for all Gripens and was commissioned to both design and build the aircraft’s NATO-compatible pylons. Presumably these contracts would extend to the Gripen-N, and Denel might even get some design contracts for it.
ImpiYes, by attaching load-carrying “wings” you’re able to equip the A109 LUH with quite a lot of weaponry, including 70mm rocket launchers, 12.7mm and 20mm cannon pods, Hellfires, TOWs, HOTs, Mistrals or Stingers. Presumably, this would require a fair bit of extra modifications in order to install targetting and sighting systems, but the important bit is that it can be done if necessary.
Still, I don’t think either the Swedish Air Force or SA Air Force will be arming their A109 LUHs anytime soon.
ImpiSo far as I know, the SAAF’s conversions were done under licence from AMI (due to sanctions and all that), and as such use PT6A-65ARs. The main reason they’re not Basler conversions (aside from the sanctions) is that the Basler BT-67 only rolled out after the SAAF’s C-47TP conversion process had already begun.
Incidentally, one way to tell the difference between a Basler conversion and others is that the engines on Basler’s aircraft have exhausts that exit upwards. Other conversions, such as the SAAF’s C-47TPs, retain the PT6A’s side exhaust positioning.
Details of who else operates C-47s are a bit sketchy, but El Salvador is reported to have one AC-47T (Basler), which replaced its older AC-47s, and Honduras is believed to operate at least one AC-47D with radial engines.
Other C-47 operators include: Bolivia (1 BT-67 transport), Greece, Guatamala (4 C-47s and 3 BT-67s), Honduras (5 BT-67s), Thailand (9 BT-67s), Mali (3 BT-67s), Mauritania (1 BT-67), Paraguay (1 C-47) and possibly Madagascar (1 C-47).
ImpiI’ve got to admit, my knowledge on them is limited. What I do know is that the aircraft is called the Fantasma (Phantom) in FAC service and that six have been converted to BT-67 (Basler) standard with FLIRs, night-vision compatible cockpits and an Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Device (EGPWS). They’re fitted with not two but three .50 machine guns, though I cannot confirm whether these are GAU-19s or not.
Reportedly, the FLIR is the Star SAFIRE II. I can’t confirm this either, but it’s virtually certain that if the AC-47Ts are not using the SAFIRE then they’re using one of the other FLIR products in FLIR Systems’s line-up.
Incidentally, South Africa is known to have operated at least one of its C-47s with a 20mm cannon sticking out the cargo door, calling it the “Dragon” (as in Puff the Magic Dragon). This variant definitely saw combat, but I have no other information aside from that. Anybody else able to help here?
Staying on the topic of the South African Air Force, it too is still an operator of Daks. 35 Squadron in Cape Town has eleven C-47TP “TurboDaks” on strength: Five for maritime patrol (in a rather nice all-grey scheme), four for transport, an aerial photography aircraft and an electronic warfare bird. For all intents and purposes, these aircraft are identical to BT-67 conversions, even though the conversions were done in-house by the SAAF. It is expected that these aircraft will be replaced from around 2015 onwards, probably with C-295s.
ImpiWell, the Beluga was Airbus’s version of the Super Guppy. So I suppose you could say this is the Boeing version of the Beluga version of the Guppy.
Sign In
