Sens,
Mate, I’m not really sure what you mean. The time line you posted for first flights etc was correct. Bit the first flight is only the culimination of many man years of work etc. The companies decision to produce an all jet transport A/C had the lucrative airline industry as it’s major target. The USAF changed that.
In regards to the Mirage, what do you mean get serious. I fail to see what relevance the amount built by CAC has. ASTA built only 73 Hornets. Surely you don’t think we still source spare parts from them.
Spares for the Mirage were sourced through the OEM and regardless of the reasons rumoured, the French did use the supply of such as leverage.

Well I do not know about being one eyed. Being an Australian I have no real allegiance to either side.
That being said, you cannot argue that the history of European collaboration in major projects (either system or infrastructure) is anything but a wasteland of failed projects or projects that delivered grossly overcost and even more grossly overtime.
Of course you are all correct when you point out the corporate welfare large American primes receive and I reckon Phil Condit should have trouble sleeping at night claiming Airbus gets it all and Boeing gets nothing, but taken in degrees Airbus is well ahead. The refueling tanker project notwithstanding, awarded contracts do not count as welfare because the Europeans have not made anything better than the yanks can so why wouldn’t they award the contract to an American prime.
So getting back to the thread’s origins, if Gallileo is on time I for one will be mightily surprised. reckon the only way it will succeed is if the German and French government agencies are kept as far away from it as possible.
Check the history of the 707. That was a Boeing funded project for the first successful airliner. The KC 135 grew out of IT not the other way around.

I’m not really sure why the US is that worried. The chances of Europe putting together a complicated project like this anywhere near on time, on budget and at the required level of sophistication is next to zero. They have never managed it before and are unlikely to do so now.
Assuming of course a miracle occurs and Europe manages to act to together AND IF they field a system which China subscribes to AND IF US and China enter into a confict AND IF the system is of military use to China AND IF the owners refuse to downgrade it’s effectiveness AND IF the US has a capacity to actually damage it AND the political will to do (anyone remember Haiphong harbour) then I suppose they can do what they want. A lot of bloody “ifs” in that lot though.
Mind you, the chances of China and the US engaging in conflict get greater every year.
China has imperialist ambitions in quite a large area of Asia and north. It is a totalitarian regime ruled by a group of power hungry old men who honestly believe they have the right to order areas outside their country as they see fit. Military actions are not really available to then at the moment but no other country studies asymetric warfare harder and no other country studies how to use the freedom of democracies against themselves harder.

America is a country obsessed with creating a world market economy so it can sell to it. It is run by a group of power hungry people who honestly believe the world wants that. Military options are available to it, but it has no real conception of how to wield that power in conjunction with political power.
The unfortunate thing about it all is the rest of us are going to have to choose sides at some point.

[QUOTE=GDL]The defence of our nation is still important, I don’t see this ever changing. The threat that doesn’t exist, is the one the Kopp continues to manufacture out of near fantasy. He does this to try and justify the need for platforms that would be sheer overkill in the context of our strategic situation. We do need capable weapons, and we need enough of them, but within reason and within budgets, this has to be achieved.

OK that makes sense. So in that context Mr Kopp has as much right to comment on what is reasonable both in terms of cost and capability as any other Australian does. Don’t get me wrong, I reckon a lot of his ideas a reaching but some have technical merit and deserve further study. But the vitriol poured out against Mr Kopp personally have no place in a reasoned debate on defence cost and capability trade offs. Along those lines of course Kopp’s assertion that the CAF and CDF are just plain lying is not warranted either. If you want overkill, check out the RAN’s plan for it’s 27000 ton helicopter ships. I remember the Poms calling the Harrier carriers “through deck cruisers” in order to get a carrier fleet back on line without calling them carriers (the press at the time dubbed them “see through cruisers”).

Anti American before all else

Well GarryB you have certainly made your anti american feelings felt in this thread and many others beside. I am beginning to feel you would be an apologist for the Devil himself regardless of what he did so long as you could have a stab at the USA somewhere. I notice you keep coming back with the ” Why now” argument then tail off into a some oil conspiracy theory. Well I would like to know “why now” as well. Why has the world stood by like spectators at a mugging and let Saddam go on for so long. Perhaps it is because the moral cowards were running the show for so long.
As for oil, well the USA over the last few years has reduced it’s dependancy on ME oil to quite a low level. Even an American controlled Iraq is not going to produce lower or more stable oil prices than what we had before the war drums started beating.

I am not altogether convinced that the USA is acting with 100% altruistic goals in mind, but I am 100% damn sure that the removal of Saddam and his cronies will be a GOOD thing for Iraq and the world. So my view is do not follow blindly but conversly do not criticise blindly based on perosnal hang ups.

As for the UN , well have they ever really been relevant when every decision is based on immediate gain for members. To those who think the French and Germans actually give a damn about international law I suppose you would believe the cheque is in the mail as well. They are behaving totally 100% in their own interest. It just happens that interest is against removal a murdering thug. This does not make them the good guys, it means they have weighed up the good having Saddam going missing against the gain they will make foiling the yanks and have found that giving a whole country another chance does not outweigh short term political gain.

Is your concept of “enough experience of world events” really a valid point? Many of the men and women now involved in the actions in the Gulf will be between the ages of 18 and 25. I trust you believe that those troops have the experience and emotional maturity to cope with the momentous events they are involved in. Strange then that you should think the average eighteen year old who is against the war does not.

As to historical perspective, Belgium has been occupied twice in the last 100 years and the land fought over fiercely. I would imagine ‘historical perspective’ is ingrained into Geforce and his fellow Belgians.

Regards,

kev35

Well I did not want to degenerate into a slanging match, but on this forum and others you can generally guess the age group of participants by there responses. The individual in question has not contributed anything but rhetoric and swearing. Pro war individuals of this age group also do the same (yes they do exist) trotting out slogans about kicking butt etc. Like I said they certainly have a right to an opinion, but when they just trot out tired old slogans or catch phrases (pro or against) because that is all they know then why would anyone take them seriously.
I would have thought that given the reason Belgium was overun the second time was because a maniac was continually appeased and in the end thought everyone was too scared to stop him at the start, would be good enough reason to understand that sometimes diplomacy does not work.

I have seen the old “why now” argument floated today as well. I would ask the same question, but from another angle. Why has it taken so long for someone to mobilise against Saddam the thug. Surely his behaviour over just the past 10 years alone has been enough to warrant efforts to remove him from the world stage. Unforunately the moral cowards and profiteers are running the UN so all kinds of abominations are allowed to take place. In Australia the opposition leader has claimed the decision to commit Australian forces was wrong as it makes us more of a target. That is exactly the kind of cowardness that allows people like Saddam to prosper. He would the kind of person who would walk past someone being mugged and not do anything because of fear of the consequences.

Interesting the hammering GEFORCE was given due to his age and the equally strident response in his defence. Surely though nobody suggested he has no right to an opinion, what was debated was his ability to have experienced enough of world events to allow him to formulate an opinion based on current knowledge and historical perspective. That is a valid point. The gentleman in question may indeed be able to do just that, but then again most 18y/o do not.
In regards to the world wide peace protests, I find it interesting that they have the almost evangelical belief that there opinions are 100% correct and any who disagree are nothing but blundering neanderthals drooling for the chance to taste blood. Somewhat ironic considering this extreme polarisation in belief is one of the main accusations they hurl at supporters of the war. They have that horrible “holier than thou” sanctimony about them that leaves little room for rational debate.
Here in Australia the population is more or less evenly split on the issue. Interestingly when you delve into the figures, in the under 25 age group anti war sentiment is astoundingly high. Above that age group support begins to increase. Surprisingly the biggest support seems (I say seems as getting data is difficult) to come from the middle socioeconomic group. The person most likely to support the war effort is:
Male
30 to 50 y/o
Married
Earning Au$40k to Au$75k.

Personally I would be interested to see how long the majority of people who vehemently oppose the war would be able to live under a regime such as Saddam has ruled over before they were begging another power to come to there aid. Although I suspect these would be the ones who would sell there soul to a people smuggler to leave the country and claim refuge status rather than put any effort into achieving a change.

RE: the war for gas

One thing to keep in mind is that there is no overiding policy guiding where and when intervention takes place. Iraq in Kuwait was a bit of a no-brainer. Not going would have driven oil rices through the roof. But other reactions to other events are driven by what is politic at the time and which faction has the loudest voice. The reason it appears as though USA is stumbling along like a drunk, not quite knowing where to go, is because it is. Back this lack of direction up with a vague sense of wanting to appear to be doing good, and you have a recipe for incoherence. Added to this is an Armed Forces run by uniformed politicians who see active service as the only way to get ahead and you start to see why they intervene in the first place and why they generally cock it up when they do.