@Corran

I am surprised you are objecting to my statements on Poland, since from your statements above one would have to assume that you like the idea of discussing the finances of other countries. I take from your most recent comment then that actually you prefer for you to make negative statements about Britain, but you want us to remain silent on anything which might show Poland in a negative light, such as aid to Poland? 🙂 I really don’t think the Polish are in a position to look down their noses at Britain 😉

There is also the possibility for buddy refueling to take some of the strain from the tankers, since only a small part of the air force will actually be in the strike packages.

How could they stage something close to a aerial campaign other than a couple of missions, if they have to cross Jordanian and/or irakian, lebanese, syrian, saudi, turkish airspace to get to Iran?!?
Abraços

Two simultaneous missions could take out two targets, this would stall Iran’s programme for a very long period. Several of such missions could effectively wipe out the programme, though everyone has their own opinion on how much needs to be destroyed to reach each threshold!

@PLA-MKII
Thats true, but I think taking over an airfield would be a step too far, and probably unnecessary. They may overfly Iraq, but I don’t expect anything more than that.

@19K11
They do!

Indeed it is strange how that works. I shoot here in the UK and I noticed a video posted by an American about among other things British gun controls. By in large they were wrong and I posted some corrections in the comment section. What surprised me was the number of comments from British people who didn’t know how the law around shooting works in the UK. For example pistols were not banned in 1997 they were restricted beyond the means of the normal public to have a good reason to own them. You can have Black powder, cartridge for humane dispatch and historic cartridge (section 7.3 for research and testing – something the anti gun lobby haven’t noticed) if you can prove good reason.

That really is just nit picking. The pistol ban was publicly discussed as “the handgun ban”, and effectively was just that. It’s more than just a “good reason”. Pistol target shooting is a “good reason”, (good enough for a rifle licence!), yet those who had pistols for that purpose had them taken away. Actually the only other group that got to keep them were armed robbers and drug dealers. People cannot be expected to know every small aspect of every law!

The AMCA is not the PAKFA derivative.

I was refering to FGFA 🙂

The Indian one doesn’t really count as it’s essentially the PAKFA…

Could they do a updated Typhoon with extra stealth feature similar to the silent eagle?

Typhoon is as stealthy as is feasible. Be better off designing a new stealthy airframe but with Typhoon’s internals. Why don’t they do this? The current Typhoon is plenty capable, and there isn’t a need for anything else and which anyone is willing to pay for. If there were a new airframe, higher prioirities on my list would be things like longer airframe life so we can invest more into it and wait longer to replace it!

Get this into your mindsets:- the ADF will NOT buy Japanese. Japan wont ecport its military technology. We can buy/creatre better anyway.

To compare Fukuishima, a tragedy caused buy a horrific natural disaster, and operation of a nuclear submarine is ridiculous.

On your first point I think you are incorrect, as has been shown by some members above, Japan may actually be willing to export them, or do some kind of joint programme.

As for Fukushima, nobody is saying that the safety of one is related to the safety another. What is being said is that nuclear has now got a worse public image in Aus, whether it is justified or not is irrelevant, and that conventional submarines would face far less opposition, and so are the most likely to be chosen.