…Look, every nation has a right to its own territorial sovereignty, including Pakistan…

Yes they do, but when the country in question does not do the job of ensuring that attacks launched from its territory go across a sovereign border then to a point they lose the sovereignty argument.

if Pakistan was serious about its sovereignty it would ensure that it’s tribal areas were not being used in this way. You can’t have it both ways.

The Canadian order for Naval versions is in serious trouble.

The contractor and the feds in Canada are at loggerheads over price and delivery timetables. I also hear that the actual equipment fit for the choppers is still up in the air.

The numbers for Duma and the Upper House are correct, but your comment is very much out of place. After 9/11 there was no objections from either Senate or Congress into Afganistan war. When nations feel hurt provoked and insulted you will find that all sides of politics will stand united. Oh there was pretty much no objections from either senate or congress on recognising Kosovo… and Serbia is not right on US border last time i checked, so in a way Russian actions are more understandable than that of US/NATO.

Like it or not Russia is a democracy.. and you can talk to Russians on the street, and you will see that numbers dont lie 80% of them are hell bent on suporting Medvedev/Putin.. to me if 80% of population votes for the “strong man” that is still democracy.. and Western inuendos at SSSR and Cold Ware, are quite frankly laughable. To Americans definition of democratic country is, “they elect their leaders freely, as long they agree with Washington foreign policy” .. if not then we will remove those elected leaders and stick in our own puppets.. or even dictators like Shah.

With due respect there is a flaw in your logic here DJ. The assumption you are making is that if the leader of a nation is popular then they must be democratic and not authoritarian. Yes Putin and Medvedev are popular. That does not mean they are not authoritarian as they clearly are.

Only Trident warheads are left in the inventory. They have an approximate yield of about 100kt each.

One of the old “Grapple” tests I believe had a yield of about 3 megatons but the largest weapon yield wise in actual British service was the Red Snow weapon. It had a yield of approximately 1 megaton.

The lack of decent information on all aspects of military operations (by both sides) seems to be the reason why every thread about the subject degenerates into a political debate from the second or third post.

Personally, I’m not interested in the politics of the situation as much as the military aspects of it.

The question about FENCERs that kicked off this thread was a good one – I’m curious about anything to do with RuAF sorties over Georgia – we know so little.

I agree with you fully. I personally would like tohear more about the status of the Georgian SU-25 fleet. Did any of them make it through the conflict intact?

a crude justification would be the need for US err .. “Coalition” troops still being in Iraq and Afghanistan maybe ?

The value seems to be of National interest. Somewhere down the line,I think,people tend to believe that national interest is the sole preserve of the “west” .. and other countries acting in their own isn’t quite treated/viewed as acting in National interest.

With due respect, moral relativism is a pretty weak argument. Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with this conflict (perhaps other than the fact that Georgians are in Iraq). Either Russia believes what it is saying publicly about the situation on the ground in Georgia or it does not. It is saying that it has gone back to the disputed areas. In reality it has not and probably has no intent to.

Deeds speak louder than words in a situation like this, especially when the deeds do not match the words.

Could not a “fly off” of sorts be held with one of the KC-30 tankers Australia just purchased against one of the KC-767’s that Italy or Japan has? Are these two planes significantly different in specification than what the RFP here is asking for?

Would that not be the easiest way to see in the real world which of the two planes best mets the requirement?

Not sure about why the US Marine Corps chose not to use the
Blackhawk, but I read that they chose a Cobra variant because
of the smaller frontal area, agility, and its supposed ease of
maintenance in comparison to the Apache.

Perhaps the two were chosen for commonality issues?
Otherwise, I have not a clue…….. :confused:

I am guessing that commonality with the UH-1 and the fact that it is an already navalized helo may have had something to do with the decision. However I do know that the UK’s AAC have qualified Apaches for deployment on British carriers and amphibs, so I am not sure how much of a difference the “navalized” aspect actually made.