Schorschand after Polish border?. unless u have airsuperioty over the battlefield. even ragtag army with modern ATGM can hold up the armour and cuff of fuel supply lines.
and BMW/Volkswagen factories are also within the range of standoff Russian missiles. be it from air or ground. with all the consequences of joblossess and stock market collapse.
Use cruise missiles to create job loss?
You have a serious lack of credibility and — … I better stop now. :diablo:
Schorsch350 million vs `140million does not even matter in this game nor that ecoomic strenght (that needs outside legs). the point is who can make life more miserable so other side will never pick up a fight. UK/France/Germany has no capacity to transport huge armies and sustain in outside theater (when there economic strenght will melt with energy/trade freeze). u need very different kind of military capability
The Polisch eastern border is clearly within range of a Leopard II.
SchorschEurope can defend without US? Is it a big joke. Without US. Russia can bring entire EU brought into its knees within A day. just blocking energy from Middleast , Central asia and complete asian trade. ur not even capable of fighting taliban/Iran type countries let alone Russia. and in coming decades this thing will be proven. just few visits of Backfire/BlackJacks are enough to shut the North Sea Oil.
Compare army strength, economical power and the shear number of peope (~350 million versus ~140 million). If necessary Europe can compete on nuclear weapons, too, with some time needed to build necessary facilities. France and UK are actual nuclear powers, Germany has the ability to be one.
SchorschFar be it from me to not have my head in the sand. As for missiles on Poland you’d have to ask Poland about that. They’re the ones asking for defenses.
Another move I would rate rather political. Poland’s government under the Kaczyński brothers tried hard to position their country closer to USA. This is reflected in defense procurement decision as well as in its involvement in Iraq. If this changes with the current government can be expected to some extent. Having clear support and “strategical partnership” is something that will be on the agenda of all Polish governments. Consider Polish history and I think it isn’t surprising that Poland would never rely solely on its EU partners, which betrayed (and worse: invaded) it once. France and especially Germany are not up to change their position towards Russia due to some dependencies.
The paralleles to Western Germany’s policy with the USA during the Cold War are existent.
SchorschROTFLMAO.. Sferrin, you as a voter are a dream of every presidental candidate. Not only you jump on every sh!t they tell you, you even carry it on and make your own, even more stupid constructions.. Thumbs up! 😀 😀
So, when exactly should we expect Iranian missiles raining on Poland? You know, I live just next door and am starting to get REALLY afraid, especially given the precision of Iranian-made guidance system one of them could easily end up in my garden! 🙂
And given the support by North Korea for their nuclear program the bomb might well not explode. Possession of weapon-grade Plutonium might be politically damaging for your government, so dispose it secretely.
Schorsch…, the border later shifting a bit to the East when East Germany was anschlussed into the BRD.
😀
I like hidden irony. Would be interesting how many people understand.
SchorschWhy is it the Bison don’t have Küchemann carrots when contemporaries like the Tu-16, Tu-22, and Tu-95 all use them without exception?
Tricky question. I checked several other designs and you are right that many used them. But I think that may be due to design bureau experience (all Tupolev designs) and possibly specific requirements. Other transonic aircraft like B-52 didn’t use them either. Normally jet aircraft cruise short of the drag divergence (DD) Mach number, which is the Mach number where strong supersonic airflow occurs on the wing. The Küchemann carrots allow to reduce the severity of these shock waves, allowing the aircraft to cruise in areas behind drag divergence with less drag. More efficiently however would be to cruise short of it.
The B-52 for example is given with a top speed of Mach 0.86. It will, however, cruise at Mach 0.8, which is before transonic drag increase. Depending on profile, sweep and thickness the drag divergence can be pressed above the cruise speed requirement.
Today’s aircraft have significantly improved in this issue. A380 and B787 fly at Mach number of M0.85 more efficiently than A300/B767 5 to 7 counts lower. Guess what the B747-8 gets for its second re-birth?
SchorschDid much of the equipment the US shipped to the Gulf for Desert Storm ever make it back to Europe? Roughly what is the US presence in Europe now vs say, 1985? 10%? 50%? Anybody?
I think the present US troops (primarily in Germany) are for political and logistical reasons here. However, the USA has reduced its footprint in Europe but still is clearly engaged (and has reserves to increase presence). If military pressure from Russia builds the EU has the power to counter that with ease. There is no point for Russia in engaging in a conventional arms race, not even with EU.
SchorschI don’t see that it matters much as NATO countries have not even ratified it yet… how important can it be?
It has become a joke now anyway… it was at first a way of keeping a numerical balance between two military blocks. Now it is Independant states and NATO vs Russia it seems.
It original purpose was to prevent problems on the fringes of Europe with teh withdrawl of men and equipment from central Europe perhaps causing problems on the flanks. Considering the so called flanks are part of NATO, so NATO is obliged to help them if they are attacked this reason always seemed rather tenuous to me anyway.
You entirely miss the point here. Of course it is not due to military needs. And Russia is not in a position to militarily threaten NATO, not with conventional arms. And that won’t happen in 10 years, either, even if the PAK-FA turns out to be the super-duper fighter every Flanker fanboy expects.
It is (like often) political messaging. And like often with Putin it is a mix of message directing inwards and outwards. It is not a sign of cooperation if you quit a conventional arms treaty.
I don’t see any direct threat towards Europe. Clearly Russia is a bit sorry for loosing all its influence in Eastern Europe, is trying hard to retain it on the Caucasus and Ukrain. Guess why every country west of Russia wanted to join NATO and EU. They want anything but being under Russian domination. Rather be ruled by Brussel bureaucrats than Russian imperialists.
But as I said, no arms race in sight. Given today’s balance of power, Europe can defend* against Russia without the help of USA, which it basically couldn’t after WW2. USA will shift its attention more to Middle East and Asia, anyways.
*defend in the sense of balancing power
SchorschIn what ways different than a normal airplane?
Here in Hamburg aircraft can take off and land in conditions where you don’t want to be anywhere near the waterfront. Going through gusty wind at sea level for prolonged times sounds a bit challenging.
SchorschThere seems to be a lot of gun camera footage from your countrymen that dispute that!😀
German “Fighter Command” (Jägerleitstelle) directed the aircraft so that the fighters normally closed in from frontal positions. When the fighters and bombers merged there were lots of opportunities from rearward attacks. But rarely fighters flew prolonged time to pass the bombers.
So I think a faster bomber would deny repeated attacks as the fighters have no speed advantage any more. But the more interesting effect of a jet engine is the higher altitude.
SchorschAccording to Bill Gunston, ‘Roy Chadwick wanted to put four Nenes in a Lancaster which would have been almost immune to intercption or flak’.
Fighters rarely attacked bombers from behind. A faster bomber would still be attacked, but it becomes more tricky for the fighter. The speed advantage for a pure retrofit is limited. Critical Mach number would be somewhere close to M0.65. Even the Me262 enjoyed only a small speed advantage.
SchorschI did a sim in january with a loss of all flight controls. We landed back onto 31L at JFK with no damage using back up only (A340-600). Just to prove it wasn’t a fluke the sim was reset and we did it again, also without damage. Since the Sioux City incident we tend to look into things like this to a greater degree. For example, prior to that incident Airbus operators used to look at flying in back up mode was just something you would have to do until you could reset enough systems to regain conventional control however nowadays we see flight in back up through to its conclusion.
The A340-600 has the great advantage of a back-up yaw damper (independent). Without it things may become tricky.
With differential thrust one can change direction (very gently) and with overall thrust one can control pitch.
The A380 was built with experience in those accidents in mind. Minimum flight controls often suffice when crew is experienced and conditions are OK. You can land an Airbus 320 in backup mode (just trim and rudder).
SchorschThe Sioux City DC10, with 1 engine out, could be and was flown by throttle. So was DHL A300. Both managed to reach a runway, though they then came to grief – DC10 just before touchdown, A300 ran out of runway side afterwards. B747 could be flown by throttle, too.
A B747, as well as a DC10 with central engine operative, would have one more degree of freedom when flown by throttle, compared to 2-engine A300 or DC10.
Aha. How many people were killed in these accidents?
The DHL A300 pilots were clearly above average. Try the same in a loaden A300 with average pilots and prepare bodybags.
Check your information again!
An airliner with thrust only is hardly controllable, not manageable by average pilots. It is no comparison to the A380, which retains full control authority even with severe damage.
SchorschWhat should one do with such an aircraft?
It is very weather dependent.
Sign In
