Nice pictures, but why do Greek F-16s, even the new Block 52+ advanced versions, always look really dirty on the outside?
Is this envoironmental conditions?
Spot on Swerve!
OK, so guess all the UK press and Strategic Defence Reviews are wrong?
As for the source, think I will file this along with other great “stories” such as India getting the JFK Carrier from the US…..
Not to mention the UK having trashed its reputation at being good at insurgency, if not its military reputation in general over the last 7 years. For various reasons there is a feeling that the UK military, especially the army, has lost its way and is being pretty badly led of late. The “can do” – “lap dog” attitude that many army big wigs have taken towards cabinet have been a disaster. I think (and hope) one of the biggest lessons of the last few years is that Ministers should not implicitly trust military top brass about what can be acheived.
So in summary, no Afghan will be “the last war” for a long while, barring martian invasion….
Good point, for the first time the Yanks have not been too impressed with British efforts. Managed to lose around 50 US Minimis too!
India is not being offered a UK carrier. It has been made very clear.
One invite to see a warship launch and we come up with this hypothesis!?
All for keeping it on topic and for respect, but you allow post 337 to stand?
:confused:
well may be it does but you are too stuck up with how britain goes about its job to spare a thought how it may (or as is more likely, may not) apply to India’s case ?
perhaps if you actually tried and understand how India’s scenario is not same as that of britian (gee, it’s not THAT hard) you could get it by yourself ? britian’s deterrence force itself is more for prestige and show than for any real utility, hardly the same as India’s needs.it just takes a tiny bit of thinking to see that aircraft based deterrence offers much more flexibility and possibility of improvised responses to the commanders. for that matter I do not believe that there will be squadrons formally earmarked for this job and put in one base with a neon sign saying ‘nuclear fighter base’ on it but aircraft based deterrence will definitely be there and for good reason.
well great job building up a giant strawman and demolishing it with your proverbial logical prowess.
the report clearly mentions fighter class aircrafts already in service for the role, which clearly can’t have very long missions. nowhere has a need for 24/7 flying bombs been mentioned and neither is IAF or SNC said to be interested in bombers. and yet you go on and on about how 24/7 flying bombs is not feasible with India’s current assets when it is not even a targeted capability.
FYI, the navy’s deterrence is expected to be sub-based, not MPA based.
You really have no idea. Britain’s Trident system if perhaps one of the most robust and effective nuclear detterents out there.
It would very VERY difficult finding the sub,let alone taking it out.
India’s massive air bases on the overhand present great targets
“she was advised not to say that she was American mainly because the vendors were majority Muslims and had a poor opinion of the US”
and we wonder why threads go downhill…..
Have to see, I massively disagree with some of the above, so will leave it at that
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?231517
I warmly invite you to read this article i found this morning, from Pakistani press, before you laugh of the “Torygraph”.
And i also remind you how everyone laughed when in the 1981 diplomatic sources warned the Uk that the Argentine junta was likely to invade the Falklands.
Foreign policy is not easy. Future is hard to tell. And it is never laughable.
Liger, the link you posted was about evacuation of embassy staff in a potential crisis, it has not relation to the Telegraph fictional scenario.
If you are trying to prove something make it relevant please.
Also, I cannot find a page long enough to tell you of predicted scenarios that never happened.
As for Telegraph on defence, I will continue to laugh at them, I actually worked there for a few years so forgive me if I make that call….
I understand the scenario, I guess my point was in such a case, the country would be united. I dont think the Pakistan army would turn on itself. It would be a full scale war. “lobbing one or two missiles” would simply noty happen. It would be the entire inventory or nothing.
But what do I know…..
I hate to break this to you, but if you are fighting the Pakistan Armed Forces, technically that means you are at war with Pakistan. Please let me know if I missed something out here. Supplying troops in Afghanistan would be the LAST of your worries. Just below full scale conventional war with one of the largest militaries in the world, hostile population and possible nuclear war.
Other then that, see no problem with Pakistani Rangers letting the supply convoys through.
The above story probably explains why no one takes The Torygraph seriously anymore….
The West goes to war with Pakistan!?
Oh great! I thought we had it bad with match-fixing, Taliban and Floods. Better add “Invasion by worlds leading powers” to the bottom of the list! :rolleyes:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621204575488361149625050.html
The Obama administration is set to notify Congress of plans to offer advanced aircraft to Saudi Arabia worth up to $60 billion, the largest U.S. arms deal ever, and is in talks with the kingdom about potential naval and missile-defense upgrades that could be worth tens of billions of dollars more.
View Full Image
Associated Press
Blackhawk UH-60 helicopters, such as these flown in South Korean military exercises last winter, are part of a proposed arms sale to Saudi Arabia.
The administration plans to tout the $60 billion package as a major job creator—supporting at least 75,000 jobs, according to company estimates—and sees the sale of advanced fighter jets and military helicopters to key Middle Eastern ally Riyadh as part of a broader policy aimed at shoring up Arab allies against Iran.
Earlier
August 14, 2010: U.S.-Saudi Arms Plan Grows to Record Size
The talks between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been widely known for months, but many new details are only now coming into focus. These include the number and type of aircraft involved, how much the Saudis intend to spend in an initial installment, and the ongoing negotiations to also upgrade the kingdom’s navy and missile defenses.
The $60 billion in fighter jets and helicopters is the top-line amount requested by the Saudis, even though the kingdom is likely to commit initially to buying only about half that amount.
In a notification to Congress, expected to be submitted this week or next, the administration will authorize the Saudis to buy as many as 84 new F-15 fighters, upgrade 70 more, and purchase three types of helicopters—70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks and 36 Little Birds, officials said.
The notification triggers a congressional review. Lawmakers could push for changes or seek to impose conditions, and potentially block the deal, though that is not expected.
On top of the $60 billion package of fighter jets and helicopters, U.S. officials are discussing a potential $30 billion package to upgrade Saudi Arabia’s naval forces. An official described these as “discreet, bilateral conversations” in which no agreement has yet been reached. That deal could include littoral combat ships, surface vessels intended for operations close to shore, the official said.
Talks are also underway to expand Saudi Arabia’s ballistic-missile defenses. The U.S. is encouraging the Saudis to buy systems known as THAAD—Terminal High Altitude Defense—and to upgrade its Patriot missiles to reduce the threat from Iranian rockets. U.S. officials said it was unclear how much this package would be worth.
Made on Main St.
Companies that produce systems or key components in the proposed Saudi arms sale:
AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter
Boeing (Mesa, Ariz.)
Northrop Grumman (Linthicum, Md.)
Lockheed Martin (Oswego, N.Y.)
UH-60 Black Hawk
United Technologies (Stratford, Conn.)
General Electric (Lynn, Mass.)
F-15
Boeing (St. Louis, Mo.)
U.S. Army; Boeing fact sheet
The U.S. has sought to build up missile defense across the region, and the Saudi package could be similar to one in the United Arab Emirates, officials said. THAAD is built by Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co. supplies the system’s radar. THAAD is the first system designed to defend against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles both inside and outside the Earth’s atmosphere. It complements the lower-aimed Patriot missile defense system, providing a layered defense.
Lockheed officials have stated that they see serious export potential for the system in the Middle East, where a major concern exists about Iran’s ballistic missile development.
The prospect for job growth could help build support in Congress for the $60 billion package, officials said. “It’s a big economic sale for the U.S. and the argument is that it is better to create jobs here than in Europe,” said one person close to the talks.
EXPERIENCE WSJ PROFESSIONALEditors’ Deep Dive: Tech Advances Lift Defense Firms
AVIONICS
Jammer Next
LOS ANGELES TIMES
Combat by Camera
INSIDE THE AIR FORCE
JSTARs Could Save Air Force Billions
Access thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More
Boeing Co., which makes the F-15s, the Apaches and the Little Birds, believes the Saudi package would directly or indirectly support 77,000 jobs across 44 states. It is unclear how many jobs, if any, would be supported by the Saudi purchase of Black Hawks, made by Sikorsky. Production levels are already high at Sikorsky, which is owned by United Technologies Co.
The Saudis in recent years have broadened their acquisitions to include more European- and Russian-made weaponry. That thinking was partially behind Riyadh’s 2007 deal to purchase dozens of Eurofighter fighter planes from BAE Systems PLC, Saudi officials said.
Pro-Israel lawmakers have voiced concerns in the past about arms sales to Saudi Arabia that they say may undercut Israel’s military edge and provide support to a government with a poor human rights record.
U.S. officials say the Israelis are increasingly comfortable with the Saudi sale because the planes won’t have certain long-range weapons systems. Also, the Israelis are in line to buy a more advanced fighter, the F-35, and should begin to receive them around the same time the Saudis are expected to start getting the F-15s. “We appreciate the administration’s efforts to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge, and we expect to continue to discuss our concerns with the administration about the issues,” said Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S.
The senior U.S. defense official said it was unclear what pieces of equipment in the $60 billion package the Saudis may decide not to purchase, but he described the F-15s as a priority item. “It’s conceivable that the Saudis could come back for the whole $60 billion,” the official said, but added, “They’re balancing their own defense priorities.”
The $60 billion deal will be stretched out over five to 10 years, depending on production schedules, training, and infrastructure improvements, officials said.
Anthony Cordesman, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the deal is so large and so complex, that changes are inevitable.
“The actual contract often is renegotiated because the Saudis are always going to push, we’re always going to push, the Congress is going to push, the manufacturer is going to push. This is not the kind of negotiation where you’ve really agreed on the final details until you actually have put the final contract out,” he said
Let me get this right, India will have strike fighters not under Air Force command?
If not, what about weapons, pilot training, spares, tactics, integration in overall combat force?
Surely just makes sense to dedicate these two more squadrons into the regular IAF?