F6?! you mean drones (aerial target) in China lake? 🙂

Yes, but they do not exist in isolation.

You are right but also you are somewhat inclined here to think in an out of date type of thinking. The frame of use of Mil hve changed.

Volatility of political will (not related to individuals but to the will of the nations at war), asymmetric warfare where the perception of objectives tends to be more related to the behavior of a few warlords than the willingness of a nation of enmy, cultural difference affecting the endurance of NATO involvement (public support), High reliance on technology that tend to rend the war on ground more difficult to grasp as a reality for the citizen (on one side, video game like images are displayed (with bright greenish explosions seen trough IR lens) while on the other the flow of mutilated veterans displayed on TV show an uncomfortable sens of touchable reality), and last but not least, for some nations at least, the lack of public involvement seen trough the end of conscription, all those factors tends to isolate the assigned initial objectives from a real, determined and enduring political mandate.

In front of the images in the media, the morphing response of the enmy that force Mil-planners in a constant re-adaptation of their response but also a more closely involvement of the political will (what do we agree to do we leaders, gov individuals, house representatives etc…) , the horrors displayed senselessly and endlessly trough Citizens direct access media like simple commercials interrupting the public debate (think of the youth that now hve to grow with the same horrors in mind as children born in a war-torn country – where are we going there? To a PTSD epidemics seen as a normality with the random surge of emotionless behavior?! ), it’s hard for a peaceful nation to stand under the strain as a block long enough in front of all the new scenarii.

What is important then is the decoupling of Mil effectiveness to the political ground. Both are in needs of that. The armies fight for their credibility seen as a more maneuverable branch of their strategic forces, allowing politics to brand a deterrent fist in the chaos of a world changing.

This is not grand-strategy, where both are suited to act in concert to achieve their objectives (at least not as viewed as in a per conflict basis) This is not cold war. Nor WWII. No. In that kind of warfare, Mil forces are “simply” job tasked. Stand on readiness, go, fight, achieve, survive and come back. This is all abt containment, the time a new world emerge, not a desperate search for achievements.

So, yes, in that sens (only) they do exist in isolation (only to quote you).

😉

Agreed, no more Warsaw Pact/USSR = no more threat & the Netherlands decision on F 35 numbers has more to do with political commitments than defence requirements.

The decision to participate in future front line NATO action bombing some unfortunate country back to the stone age is a political choice first & as you have stated above the F 35 is the obvious choice & by extension of that numbers of F 35 to be procured by NATO countries so that makes the political commentary on NATO relevant.
Think of it this way the more NATO achieves the military objectives without leaving the subject countries with an obviously improved future makes it harder for NATO member countries to justify the expense of going on those expeditions & that includes procurements including aircraft.

On the contrary, being able to do something effectively without really having tochange things (and assume the consequences on the long term), is an invaluable assets for the politicians you are pointing at.

The 35 is a tool. Whatever you decide to follow a coalition or not, you need that tool to grant your decision makers with such possibility, which is all about international politic. The decision lye on political grounds not on the assets.

On the contrary, with an ill-suited asset the “magnitude” of your choice decay increasingly faster with the obsolescence of your weapon system. NL does not want to make fighter procurement a budgetary constraint to deal with every that and then. By buying from the nation that will presumably dictate the rules of engagement on a technically point of view for the next decades, NL is more or less granted to have an adequate tool for the job.

That this tool can generate direct savings like, reducing the war foot print (nbr of supporting assets for ex.), increasing the variety of scenario in which the NL forces would be projected, tasked and their capability perhaps acknowledged uniquely, is the very “synergetic” bonus of that plane.

Who cares about what would be the end result of an operation if the assigned objectives have been dully fulfilled? In your example, failed politics are what makes an engagement viable or not, not the assets.

It would be interesting to see if the Iranian nuclear talks keeps being vetoed meanwhile…

Poor Syrians, the end of the bloodshed (of civilians) might be some further steps away again :apologetic:

The Kfir 60 might hve reached the end of it’s service life as credible A2A platform (especially in Sth Am with Su fighters flying in Venez ). The recent Tu160 story raised all doubt for me.

You hve to understand that the only thing that is plaguing the raise of Colombia’s economy is its security concerns. They hve worked hard to go where they are now. They certainly don’t want to see this ventilated away by the gesticulations of others around.

So, it’s liable to expect an healthy budget for the buy (relegating the 20M$ offer on the low end of the envelope). I don’t expect 70M$ per bolt but something btw migght do the trick if compensated by striking investment (striking as the local public is still a sensible one).

Ok enough of bartender’s like grand-lessons on economy (sry abt tht if you’d ever managed to reach that line!)

Brazil could choose an under development fifth generation type just to put off spending money for as long as possible.

Well… When strategic bombers start to fly around (in a peaceful manner though but still there they are closeby… and all about the military is the art of the possible 😉 ) it’s largely time to take action.

Who said recently that there is no vacuum in military affairs ?! :rolleyes:

Not sure if you are countering my point here, or just elaborating on the advantage of high wing loading in its mission. My only point was that around the landing pattern, a jet with the aerodynamics of the -104 is going to be a handful, not to mention land really “hot”. Agreed about buffeting…..my aircraft has pretty high wing loading as well, and I very rarely notice turbulence, even down at a couple hundred feet and 500+ knots.

For sure the 104 wld hve made a poor carrier-based aircraft 😉 But the brake at a rather high speed was there only to get out of the AoA limit while still bleeding E at the most favorable rate.