Phantoms numbers look to be consistent with what I have seen in the past.

To me the KC-135 and C-5M re-engining programs have always been very interesting due to the fact that the engine upgrade pays for itself over time through fuel savings.

Of course, the C-5M has a long way to go to reach that point since only 2 airplanes are flying and I believe they are involved in the test program.

I wonder when the break even point on the KC-135R program was? I would imagine someone in some progam office in the friendly USAF has that info somewhere.

I’m out.

As mentioned above, criticism of language is simply a demonstration of the weakness of your argument. Resorting to such pointless criticism is pathetic.

Strategic defense against Russia requires alot more than just TBM. Even the US NMD program would be insufficient. The level of expenditure required would be vast.

So tell us why Russia is a clear and present threat, thus far when you have been asked to provide details on this you have just dissapeared or resorted to vague phrases about ‘being prepared’.

I wasn’t criticising the language, but your argument: you do not speak for all.

WRT, your “pathetic” comment, well that is just name calling….when you don’t want to address the arguments, throw stones!

Russia is a clear and present danger because they possess nuclear weapons and vast offensive capabilities. Yes, the west out numbers them in many key areas, but that does not negate their offensive capabilites.

In an earlier post you asserted that “military procurement is irrelevant without intention as intention inspires it,” and then later admitted that this applies to China. You, apparently, can devine the intentions of China, and Russia, and others (witness your comments about my “attitude”). Yet, you won’t address the central question: Why is China increasingly acquiring offensive weapons if not to eventually use them?

You have apparently determined that their intentions are peaceful, which does not square with their actions (investing in the weapons in the first place). It is enough for me to know they have capabilites, and are “intent” on expanding them. All the rest of your blather is just, to quote Admiral Spruance, “words, words, words.”

An example: Some people here have falsely argued that Russia represents a clear and present threat.

Because you are not convinced does not mean the argument is false. Who made you final the arbiter of right and wrong?

However to prepare for that the UK would need to develop the most advanced strategic defence system the world has yet seen.

Certain elements of the defence system have already been successfully tested by allies (TBM defense by U.S./Japanese navies)

So in conclusion, unless you can enlighten us as to what the UK actually has to defend against, do not even bother posting your list as without a genuine threat scenario it will be just as meaningless as the 3% figure.

Once again, who is “us?” You do not speak for me, nor do I suspect many others on this board. Please do not assume that you do.

To call “mainland Europe” socialist is a bit far from the truth, I’m afraid. I have a hard time understanding where that idea comes from. I guess you’re not aware that California has stricter rules on CO2-emissions from cars than the EU. This idea that “mainland Europe” are a bunch of “socialists” while the Brits are supposedly are in a completely different world of capitalism, well I find it somewhat amusing. Talking of “mainland Europe” as if it were a monoculture is also incorrect.

I guess I was thinking of the “cradle to grave” package of social benefits, highly progressive income tax structure, unbelievable highly taxed fuel, direct governmental control/ownership of industry, governmental regulation and oversight of housing, extreme environmental control by government, to name just a few, in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and the low countries. I think Rummy referred to this bloc as “old Europe.” I believe he was referring to the socialist bloc, as opposed to the newly freed former Iron Curtain countries that are hungry for western investment and, well, capitalism.

I never meant to imply GB wasn’t overly governmentally controlled (socialistic) in it’s own right, just that it was slightly less than those on the continent. I still draw the distinction sometimes btwn Europe and the noble race on the Island. BTW, hasn’t the Irish economy exploded since they drastically cut taxes 8 or 10 years ago?

California is not now, nor has it ever been, representative of the U.S. as a whole. IMHO, California and New York are the most screwed up states in the U.S. because of the extent to which they have embraced government regulation and control. Investment is flowing to the south, from Phoenix and Las Vegas all the way through Texas to the Carolinas…..reason: low taxes and non-union labor.

That was not naming calling, the remark was descriptive of your attitude and your response was rather demonstrative of that point.

Prepared for what? You have yet to give a single example of what ‘we’ need to be prepared for. Current defence spending perfectly adequate (if not excessive) for achieving western policy objectives and insuring the continued supremacy of western military force for the next two decades.

We, the west, in the general sense. But you knew that.

I have provided at least some data to support my point in the chart above. U.S. defense spending in 1962 = 12% of GDP, social spending 3%. 45 years later, the ratio is reversed. How many billion will it take to “lift” the poor out of poverty when they won’t even help themselves by steering clear of self imposed obstacles (drugs, booze, pregnancies)?

You, on the other hand, have yet to provide any data at all. You keep saying how secure “we” are, but you cannot provide anything at all to substantiate your point other than repeated statements that our defenses are adequate. In spite of thousands of years of history, from Sun Tzu to the present, regarding the value of preparedness, you claim everything is just hunky-dory. Why? Please provide something other than your feelings.

I have a family member who spent about 15 years flying the six shooter, and he estimates approximately: 16L x 4.5W x 3D. (dimensions in feet).

He is fairly confident that is close, but hasn’t found any documentation to verify. He achieved at those dimensions by estimating in a way similar to those above….ie., knowing the size of the weapons and how many of those weapons it could carry.

Didn’t the number of uniformed military in France actually out number the Germans on Sept. 1, 1939?

Technology is a critical lever that has increased the pace of everything. An earlier post said that ships took years to build and fleets took decades. A modern conflict could well be over in hours, before the attackee even realized they were under attack. Economies, however, do appear to still take decades to build up.

At the same time the speed of development is picking up, distance is decreasing due to more and more direct air service, and to better communications. Population continues to explode. Many countries in the mostly Christian (at least culturally), mostly educated, West have shrinking popluations growth rates, while the mostly uneducated, mostly poor, mostly Muslim countries have exploding populations. I picture them as a seething mass which blames the West (and Jews, as always, sigh) for their problems.

The West is seemingly in conflict on every front: direct economic assault by China, cultural conflict with radical Islam, conflict on several fronts from a supposedly re-energised Russia, internal dissent by supposed “allies” like the self-destructive French, internal social conflict by leftist ostriches who only want ever more social spending (that actual practice has shown does not solve the problems for which it was intended (anecdotal evidence indicates many social problems may actually be exacerbated by increased spending))

Those potentially on the front lines of the most direct military threat by China, namely Japan and Australia, seem to me to have a little more intense interest in protecting themselves than those encased in myopic, socialistic, mainland Europe. To say that Europe, or Japan and Australia, or the U.S., or indeed any of the west, does not face real (clear and present danger) threats appears to me to be, well, ridiculous.