thobbes80? I’m surprised there’s that many.
To be honest so am I.
Not sure how they calculated it and from what figures. It could be they were going from older figures when RAF operated a large Tristar/Viscount fleet and then assumed all aircraft are tankers.
From what I see:
UK: assume 14 Voyager (though aren’t 2 only fitted for but not equipped as tankers?)
France: 14 KC-135
Turkey: 7 KC-135R
Italy: 6 KC-130J, 4 KC-767
Netherlands: 2 x KDC-10
TOTAL: 47 a/c
thobbesThe question is whether they still need those capabilities and what new capabilities are required?
Just cause one operated a carrier in 1982 doesn’t mean one is required in 2013 (and remember a number countries have scrapped carrier capability due to changing requirements – Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Japan (something to do with WWII :p)).
Just stating 40 JF-17 or 50 Mirage F1 is irrelevant. Numbers of aircraft or specific function squadrons should be based on some sort of needs analysis.
So of course if you want to tangle with Britain, you need tons of combat and support aircraft and ships.
But if your main objectives are defence from conventional threats, humanitarian/disaster relief, and protection of economic interests than different fleet mix is required.
thobbesNot sure what the parameters of the analysis were, but it pointed to inadequate capability.
E.g. from memory it was estimated that Europe needs 200+ aerial refuelling tankers to meet operational requirements, yet only 80 were available (excluding US assets).
thobbesI would agree.
They really need to streamline their inventory, which is what I was alluding to very early in the thread.
I too can’t realistically see a carrier in service again, unless they go joint development with Brazil in a decade or longer, or whenever the Sao Paulo finally goes.
Even then, that would be quite a stretch methinks.
I think the issue here is Argentina has not reduced its expectations to meet its financial or even political reality.
thobbesSybolism is irrelevant. No-one cares about symbolism in the real world. Especially the Abu Sayaf and other Mindanao extremist groups and corrupt politicians that run private armies (currently listed at about 60 and many better equipped than Philippines army units) and butcher anyone who gets in their way.
And spending scarce resources on a token military force is poor decision making when the main threat is counter insurgency and terrorism, all of which are exacerbated by extreme poverty.
If Philippines was serious on defence, they would spend more money on COIN/counter terrorism/policing. Instead the critical OV-10 and UH-1 fleets are barely operational and up to recently there was virtually no operational tactical transports.
As for nation building, military expenditure is generally bad for poor countries as they use up scarce resources (e.g. foreign currency reserves) to fund them. In a lot of cases they end up being funded through debt which again is bad for poor countries as it’s non-productive debt and will again see currency reserves flow out of the country.
Most countries around the world do not operate super sonic fighters. Many that have them listed on the books don’t actually fly them (e.g. Malinese AF MiG-21s which are listed on various AF websites but which are rotting away).
Philippines has Uncle Sam’s defence guarantee.
If they were smart they’d use that to ensure they fix their own problems before looking at military toys.
thobbesThey probably need to bolster the NATO strategic airlift fleet at Papa, Hungary.
NATO secretary Anders Rasmussen just recently provided an analysis of NATO European capabilities (i.e. excludes US resources) and there was not a single spot where capability was adequate and in most cases was completely inadequate.
Strategic transport was one of these areas.
thobbesThis is daft.
The comparison is my neighbour has 20 tanks, 20 warships, 20 flankers and some thermonuclear weapons and I have a good rifle. As if my neighbour would give a #$#$ about my rifle.
Anyone who thinks 12 F/A-50s or even 100 F/A-50s deters a super power is smoking crack.
After all those Iraqis had some very shiny toys in 1991 ala Mirage F1EQ, Roland, much-vaunted MiG-29, chemical weapons, SCUDS and the Republic Guard.
That didn’t deter the USA from annihilating them.
Those 100 Hornet with effective armed forces (even smaller than Indonesia in this scenario) will give massage that Australia is a tough cookies to chew. It will give the Indonesian fanatics President time to think.
No it won’t.
Again Kuwait had 50 combat aircraft and it didn’t stop Iraq from pulping them.
The French had the biggest army in Western Europe and the Germans smashed them in 5 weeks! USSR had an even bigger army and most of it was annihilated by a far smaller German force (lucky for General Winter and Russian stamina when it comes to suffering).
Britain had one of the biggest militaries on the planet and the daft Argies still went to war over the Falklands.
Point is, those that want war will wage war.
There are 2 types of effective deterrence in the 21st century:
1. Nuclear weapons (how things have become pacified on Indian subcontinent and no-one really threatens North Korea anymore).
2. If you can’t have the above, chum up with Uncle Sam.
thobbesWe can speculate what-ifs, but the truth is SEATO was a relatively irrelevant organisation when it was formed and it never took off in the same way NATO did. It also never achieved anything.
The US also helped make SEATO irrelevant with unilateral action in SE Asia.
thobbesIf I’m living in poverty with no access to medical treatment, water, sewerage, jobs, education or there’s the risk of some Islamist rebel coming to my village and gunning me and my family down, then why I am I concerned with a Tom Clancy-esque Chinese invasion, especially over some rocks I’ve never seen and which won’t bring any benefits to me due to extremely corrupt nature of my government?
Oh and 100 F/A-18s aren’t going to stop China/Indonesia/Scary Nuclear Super power if they want to come and take over my small fry little country.
So isn’t it better to improve the economic and security of local population rather than buy some shiny toys so air force guys can whizz around pretending to be Tom Cruise in Top Gun and el Presidente can say “look I’ve just brought 12 planes with tax payers dollars so I can defend you from a nuclear super power with 1,000s of planes and hundreds of warships”?
I remember watching a documentary about India’s nuclear program where they were asking Indians about it. To the middle classes the nukes were necessary to protect them from Pakistan. The impoverished lower classes couldn’t care less and in some instances were worried about nuclear mines and facilities leaking radiation into their already polluted drinking water.
Point is while middle/upper classes worry about imaginary threats from elsewhere, the large lower classes worry about real problem of having enough to eat.
So why spend money on pointless military equipment when there’s teeming millions to feed, to educate and to provide some sort of futures for?
thobbes“a fig leaf for the nakedness of American policy”, citing the Manila Pact as a “zoo of paper tigers”.
Your overestimating impact of Indonesia on SEATO.
Indonesia by 1965 was Western aligned. SEATO continued to exist to 1977.
And USA was heavily committed to anti-Communist containment in Vietnam and was increasing it’s commitment.
In fact SEATO was still around whilst mini-domino collapse was happening with whole of Indochina going over to Communists (this led to Russian naval base being installed in Vietnam).
One would think that such a major event would’ve resulted in Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia signing up to it to prevent further Communist expansion southwards.
In reality SEATO was mainly a colonial invention with little relevance to South East Asia.
And unlike NATO, SEATO treaty was vague, lacked a joint command structure and lacked joint forces.
And when US wanted to use SEATO in Indochina in 1960s, French and British opposed it.
Any British commitment to it collapsed with the 1968 policy to pull back all forces “east of the Suez.” And the French commitment post 1954 was purely on paper as well.
It was a purely political treaty with no military relevance. Even when it was formed in 1954, it was described as a “a fig leaf for the nakedness of American policy”, citing the Manila Pact as a “zoo of paper tigers”.
Interesting enough Asia has never been big on collective action – look at APEC and it’s failure to do anything meaningful in 1999 economic crisis.
thobbesi didnot link yahoo story for GDP. it is regarding declining popularity survey desipite distributing walfare. Real GDP is much lower than what statistics is showing. how much lower it is difficult to estimate.
Those forecasts have consistenly proven wrong except for one odd ball years and that entirely due to debt created GDP or raw material sale to China.
Complete dependence on US dollar from loans to foreign expertize/machinery. costs linked to dollar.
General forecasts I’ve seen since 1990s when I was at Uni have generally been accurate, especially regarding increase in global power of China, India and decline of West. Brazil was mentioned as a rising power especially once Mercosur came on line.
Those who have 6 children also have low life expectancy on avg. so the total population dont increase that much.
Load of tosh.
Look at World Bank stats:
Population Growth: 0.90%
Birth rate per 1,000: 15 (Australia is 13)
Death rate per 1,000: 6 (Australia is 7)
thobbesBulgaria defers fighter procurement
It mentions MiG-21s still in service, but according to other sources last 3 were retired in December 2012. This leaves about 16 MiG-29s in service. Su-25s are grounded.
thobbesWith regards to Japan, it could end up a similar fiasco as AH-64D procurement where only 10-13 airframes out of 60+ required were acquired.
While Japanese MoD is committed to 42 airframes, another part of the article references that Ministry of Finance may only authorise first 10 and then be “reluctant to purchase planes” if price is still higher:
The MoD has committed to purchasing the first 10 units in tranches of four, two and four, he said. After that, “if the price is still higher, the Ministry of Finance will be relatively reluctant to purchase the planes. We can’t change the basic plan for the first two or three tranches,” so the changes will come later, he said.
thobbesthobbesJSR you state ” no one can rely on their statistics” yet then just spout some yahoo news story?
Sheesh.
The IMF/World Bank/Merill Lynch/United Nations etc forecasts are based on long term forecasts and data. There are blips in the forecasts (one year GDP goes up and maybe next year it goes down) but overall the forecast remains.
After all the forecast is dealing with 20-50 years and not 1-2 years.
As for population growth rates, these are also relatively easily obtainable as most countries keep registers of these things, especially a relatively advanced country ala Brazil.
Globally population growth is slowing down in a lot of developing countries. The problem is places like India, Middle East and SubSaharan Africa where population growth is high and in some instances out of control (e.g. average of 6 children per couple in some African countries)
People should stick to discussing airplanes and airforces.
Sign In
