The Boeing (& Boeing backers in Congress) argument is that Airbus in general receives subsidies for its civilian airliners, not its military projects. Subsidies on military deals? Boeing & its bought congressmen really, really don’t want to go there. :p So far, the average Airbus military contract has been done below cost. The A400M loss wipes out any profit on the A310 & A330 tanker sales before the KC-45 deal.

Can you offset negative subsidies? :diablo:

If Airbus does or did receive subsidies for its A330-200 MRTT, the American taxpayer can be grateful as that directly caused him to pay less (if the A330-200 MRTT through some contractual back door does not become much more expensive than planned, which actually all military projects became, although all people always promised that there are no contractual back doors for cost increase … ).

I’m with the bigger tanker. Note that even “small fighters” in the U.S. military will need more fuel to top-off than in the past. Super Hornet E has over 14k of gas vs a legacy Hornets 10k or so (not counting drop tanks).

JSF USN will be doing close to 20k of gas. Where USAF tankers support a lot of USN carrier ops.

JSF CTOL will be doing around 18k of gas which is still way more than an F-16 with drop tanks.

JSF STOVL vs. Harrier etc etc…

Plus I’ll take more palleted cargo and personnel if given a choice.

I would have been happy with either as I was more afraid the decision would get delayed again, however the Northrop/EADS deal should give USAF/U.S. military some extra airlift/tanking ability that will be welcome.

Interesting. I always assumed an average offload per tactical aircraft of 3t. The USAF should consider to equip part of its fighter fleet with hoses to utilize the two wing stations better.

Columbia and Venezuela can have a board war and the US would not care unless it affects them some way, and even then it will have to be a major threat to US interests (like Chavez trying to take over Columbia) for them to get directly involved in a shooting war. Which is not going to happen.

If it was just a pointless boarder war, then the most like outcome would be the US just stays out of it and urges both sides to quite, maybe threaten to slap some sanctions on Venezuela if they don’t call it quites. But in this day and age of an already over-extended US military and skyrocketing fuel prices, the last thing America would want is to get involved in some pointless war so close to home that will seriously destablise the region and dispute much needed oil supplies.

My opinion is pretty much the same. This potential war neither has objectives nor any possible winners, except for some distant propaganda coup. An infantry fight will be inconclusive. Chavez needs to be very stupid to drag himself into something like that.

Hell, its very likely tht any clash will just be a highly symbolic air battle. Clean, low body count, easy to stop and extremely embaressing for the loosing side, far more glamorus then killing a few score of enemy grunts in some muddy forest this is likely to yield a high body count for yourself, and could easily drag on and boil over into something neither side wants.

Interesting theory.
But two small air forces might encounter the problem that they don’t find each other for hostilities. See South Africa versus Cuba.

Someone mentioned Su-30s (BTW, it wasn’t me so your remark about My adored shiny Su-30s is pretty much danebengeschossen) and it got you immediately started up. Take the Russian design, quickly find some flaw or deficiency and build up a whole strategy on it with one single possible result – worthless, inferior, useless.. Job done, fanboy’s heart is pleased…

I actually didn’t hinge my argument on the particular capabilities of an aircraft. Supersonic aircraft are generally not useful for such a conflict.

You don’t even have to be slow enough to realize that your conclusions are hypothetical. The aircraft useful to attack tank or truck convoy is the one you got.. F-16 or Su-30? Then be it… If you got three platoons of your soldiers in an ambush, it is as good as anything else, even if overkill for a mission like that. Overkill does not mean incapable rather than too precious to risk for few vehicles. The necessity to use PGMs for that is strange as no one would use a KAB-500 on few Humvees which are three/four times cheaper than the bomb.

You mistake is that you think on a aircraft basis. But when you consider sortie rates and all that stuff you’ll see that your claim above is weak at best. Close air support was traditionally delivered low-level at day time. Losses were always high. With MANPADS at hand the risk is too high. Plenty of examples from Afghanistan, Iran-Irak, … pretty much all conflicts.

For past seventy years mankind was capable of attacking convouys using dumb bombs and cannons and later rockets and now suddenly, at the beginning of 21st century we need a laser guidance to hit something? Maybe here are the roots of the reason why everything produced today must se so damn oversophisticated and overengineered – loss of the grip to reality.

Once again you miss the mark and especially miss to give reasons. In previous conflicts aircraft went in low, were generally aircraft able to loiter and and carry comparably high weapons load (compared to size). Loss rates were high and accuracy was limited. In the end only few armys demonstrated the ability for good air support. A major prerequisite is presence of predictable targets. A Suchoi cannot fly to a road crossing and loiter for half an hour waiting for a truck. The concentration of troops is too low for random strikes, and I guess the pilot will have a hard time to identify targets.
Short: it doesn’t work and even if it works a bit, it is not significant.
A supersonic aircraft indeed needs technology to have the same hitting power, especially to keep the risk of loss low.

It depends, you still need something to protect your soldiers against the raids of Colombian Kfirs, AT-27s, Arpias or (how strange) Mi-17s with.

The Colombian fighter bombers will be equally useless. They will not slow down a determined enemy with good leadership. For the other systems a good old 20mm Flak does the job for a fraction of the cost. The ability to deliver 20 500lbs a day does not change the outcome of a limited war, except if that hitting power is turned against civilian targets to produce something for CNN (a temptation many air forces have fallen to in the last 50 years).

A theory sucked from your finger. You know sh!t about when USA kick in or if at all. The foreign policy is much more complicated than this childish black/n/white thinking you have just shown. Yourself thinking like an uneducated pupil you tell me to grow up.. :confused:

You yourself seem to take time to make your style more aggressive, but you cut the time to give any arguments/facts/conclusion, short anything besides flaming. Your posts actually become more and more destructive. I haven’t read anything useful yet.

I would LOVE to hear your rhetoric on this if Colombia bought F-15Es or Typhoons. Let me guess, suddenly they would turn into *the most valuable asset capable to shift the balance in the region* or something like this. 😎

Have your non-sense day today? I try on sober arguementing and you start the bickering right away. Relax, drink a tea. And please: Do not dispute my statements without giving a proper argument. Behave like a grown up!

In you last sentence you have clearly said that [let me quote]*operations against major targets like the capital are “off limits” for political reasons.* but funny, in the very next sentence you are already sending B-2As on all Venezuelan installations. Must be the first *border skirmish* I have ever heard of that takes using strategic bombers into account. 😉 Why not rain bombs from Tu-160s on Bogota, then? Yeah, let us start WWIII because of one stupid leftist gringo and a clan of drug smugglers from Cala..

While I don’t deny the size of Colombian Army being greater than the one of their neighbor, what makes you think that Russia would not want to send a dozen of crates with newest anti-tank weapons to Chavez as a retribution?

I make slow for you.
A border skirmish is the maximum any side would want. Few conscripts lost, still some headlines, a few heros, no real damage.
In that case your highly adored shiny Suchoi 30 will be of little value. It is not the aircraft to bomb convoy of trucks on a dirty road. The F-16 isn’t either. You can do it, but that requires very good intelligence and probably smart weapons, something the Venezuelians don’t have or could not afford in useful numbers. A “fighter cover” might be possible, but what for? In such a conflict with no side having real air to ground assets air superiority becomes a rather academical thing.

Hitting targets of strategical value may be more promising with Suchoi 30, but would mean an escalation and increase the chance of a participation of the USA in favor of Colombia. Still, strategic relevant strikes are hardly possible with 5 operational aircraft and the same number of crews. Those most likely not qualified for air 2 ground. In conclusion:

That’s when the USA kicks in and you can continue with the B-2.

I hope that was slow enough.

I guess we’ll see large drop outs of B767 and B757 in the next ten years. Some might go into freighter conversion, but some might be converted into tankers. The B757-200 is a useful platform, too. It resembles the KC-135 in size and load.

What the article doesn’t say is that the Chinese are getting the oil at a reduced rate and Venezuela is paying all the extra shipping cost for having the tankers at sea for far longer.

That is the really interesting question. They can either use large tankers and make a several thousand mile detour around South America, or they use rather small tankers that fit the Panama channel (which is USA controlled). For China Venezuela is somehow a useful allie with its socialistic attitude, however, China does not show any system preference when picking its allies (different than the Soviet Union during Cold War). China must consider that in case of a major crisis with the USA, the oil shipments from Venezuela are the first to stop (cause they are so easy to interdict by the USN).

Sure. Just after the Su-30 whiped out the whole Columbian air force in a few hours, Mr Chavez will surrender.:p

You mean the 5 aircraft and probably 5 air crews? I guess that aircraft haven’t attained operational status yet.
Anyways, operations against major targets like the capital are “off limits” for political reasons. And the Suchoi are not exactly useful for close air support. With the Su-30, Venezuela has the least useful weapon for a border skirmish with Columbia.

You act as if your military actually was capable to conduct another operation. But we all know it ain’t.. Opening a third frontline would be exactly as stupid, Bush doesn’t get enough soldiers even for Iraq.

The USA does not need to invade Venezuela. A military conflict would see only one looser: Venezuela, which has an army only one third the size of Columbia’s. The USA would “help” with dropping some smart bombs on high value targets like air defense, navy and air force installations. Actually, a force of five B-2 can level all useful air defense assets (including the Su-30) in one night.

BTW: The tanks of Venezuela are old AMX-30, and they haven’t got much of them. A container full of state-of-the-art man portable anti-tank missiles from big brother USA would more or less cancel their operational usefulness.