I agree about tax being the price of accessing the market. In that respect higher VAT and lower corporation-tax would seem to be the way to go (and has been the policy in the United Kingdom in recent years).

Well we are where we are but corporation tax definitely needs to be paid rather than avoided.

I can because we live in one now.

Where do you imagine all these corporations that you’re going to tax get their money from? Apart from cross-border transactions virtually every penny of a corporstion’s profit, by one route or another, comes from their customers who pay for that corporation’s goods and services in the country that they live in; cross-border transactions are really no different except that the profits are generated from customers who live abroad (which, for domestic corporations, is to be encouraged, of course).

You want more punitive corporation tax, fine, but don’t expect the cost of your coffee or your Amazon order not to go up accordingly. And expect that corporation to move its headquarters to a country that has a lower corporation-tax rate if you push the tax rate too high.

Depends what you define as management of an economy. A 4.4% of GDP deficit (9.5% for Scotland) with no signs of abating is not economic management.

I don’t want more punitive corporation tax, I simply want them to pay it. Like I said, the rate can probably even be cut once the aforementioned actually happens.

It shouldn’t matter where they have their headquarters, that’s the point, that’s the loophole, or one of them. Plenty have a broom cupboard on some sh!tty island as their tax HQ, corporation tax should be paid according to sales per country as a price for accessing the market of that country.

yes, well done again. It is not at all possible that the Arab/Persian/Sunni/Shia history is complicated enough (I know I have missed off some Syrian groups alone), but it has to be the world wide Jewish conspiracy at it again eh?

Russia want’s to hold on to Syria at any cost and the West is typically divided (although how different would things have been if Ed Milliband hadn’t blocked Cameron/Obama from weakening Assad?)

Even without Assad there’d still be war there. Too many different interests, even without US/Russia. Shia, Hezbollah, IS, Al-Asham, Kurds, Army of Conquest, Al-Nusra etc. Getting rid of Assad will not solve any problem wrt that country.

No, 760 nm combat radius with warload is for fat kids

you are confusing C with E, its like confusing F-102 with F-106, two different types

http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-ng/technical-brochure-gripen-ng-english-ver.2-jan-2015_low.pdf

so there you have it: 800 nm + 30 min+ on station with A2A combat radius,
or 800 nm with A2G combat radius

That figure is with DTs though. Sub-30% fuel fraction says it all. 3400/11400.

http://prokcssmedia.blob.core.windows.net/sys-master-images/h10/h59/8902959497246/Technical%20brochure,%20Gripen%20NG,%20English.pdf

Again 800nm combat radius is with DTs. So it’s apples to oranges and 4000km is the ferry range with 3 DTs – 2 x 450gal (1800L) + 1x300gal (1200L).

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/09/asd_09_25_2014_jas7.pdf

This is where the 800nm figure comes, from, 6 AAMs and 3 DTs.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131103202954/http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENPRESSBRIEFAug08.pdf

So this is the radius when the aircraft is carrying more external fuel than it has internal fuel and weighs >35,603lbs (ignoring DT weight) with its 22,000lbf engine. That’s going to fly well isn’t it. What’s the accumulative cost of ditching all those drop tanks every mission in a war? From what I’ve heard, ditching them without a very good excuse is a court-martial offence, so probably not cheap.

The operating cost of $4,700/hr is also optimistic at best.

Are you sure? Oil prices crashed to about $48/barrel in December 2008, less than they are now, and demand for refining fell drastically too. It isn’t quite as simple an equation as oil price = fuel price.

At the time in question it was $78/bbl.

no, that comparison was apples to apples

So the Gripen NG can perform a 760nm combat radius clean? The Gripen has longer clean range than an Su-30?

the people who work in defence firms are generally not as free movers. I saw pics of Putin with Pogosyin in 1999 MAKS airshow.

trading partner? that’s why US fines all the EU based banks and firms for billions. just the VW/BP fines will be worth $100b. and US does not allow Airbus sales without its permission as it has more than 10% US parts.
US has big competitive advantage with its utilization of Asian/Hispanic labor on much larger scale. Only Chinese can afford Buicks/GMs on larger scale than US.

the problem is you don’t have any ownership of industry that can take advantage of pound downfall. Its completely import based economics. the more Russia invest in defence the greater will be its high tech exports, investements and bigger the extraction contracts. the world operates on might is right principle.

We have plenty of engineering talent here, but it’s political difficult to justify spending much more than 2% of GDP on defence, whereas Russia spend about 4 times that %.

Us also fines its own banks and usually there should be people going to prison instead, or as well as.

All imports eh? Ballocks.

http://people.defensenews.com/top-100/

It’s a two way thing, the strong £ has previously held up exports.

How is that different to other fighters except F-22 and maybe EF? Hey, it’s called turn and burn for a reason.

That’s kind of the point. They’re the only 2 with true supercruise.