Seems to me that the topics are basically inseparable unless it is stipulated for the discussion that Argentina has renounced its claim to the Falklands. So long as that isn’t the case, the ability to retake the Falklands will remain a key objective guiding any military development program. That’s why the military exists, after all — to execute the political will of the state.
And this all assumes that it would remain a limited conflict between the UK and Argentina. After the vote of the Falklanders expressing their clear desire to be British and considering the recent defence agreements between France and the UK as well as the USA and the UK, this is a dangerous bet. Do you not think, that it might sound good to the US and/or France to sent a CBG in exchange for the exploitation rights of some of the oil fields…
France isn’t going to alienate South America for the sake of the UK — there goes the French spaceport, for one. And for its part the UK is more of an obstruction for France than anything else on European matters.
i just heared the news on the radio here.
[URL=”http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4386617,00.html“[SIZE=3]Russia to supply MIG-29M/M2 to Syria[/URL]
according to the Belgian Radio, delivery is anticipated Q4 2013.
I think this is what’s known as ‘doubling down’.
37 airframes? I guess that works out to three more years of work for MiG at 12 airframes per year?
I think you’re essentially talking a whole lot of nonsense so as to have an excuse to rant but in the interests of fairness I think we should let djcross clarify his comments should he want to.
Suits me.
You do understand that djcross was talking about RCS and nothing to do with kinematics don’t you.
No, he wasn’t. There’s a broader context here. In dismissing the advantages KF-X (with conformal carriage alone) would offer over Super Hornet, djcross is carrying on the American narrative that (a) acknowledges no shortcomings in F-35 design and (b) refuses to acknowledge the advantages Eurocans (and J-10) offer over legacy 4th gen. Both items are, of course, rubbish, which is why nobody on the planet plans to follow the United States in producing a 21st century aircraft that offers no kinematic improvements over 1970s designs. djcross and his ilk would have it that Super Hornet and F-35 are what they are because the United States has recognised new truths of aerial warfare in the 21st century. Of course the real reason for the sub-par kinematic performance of Super Hornet and F-35 is that the former was a limited development of an existing platform (and a laudable one — Super Hornet was and is an excellent program) whilst the latter is simply a terribly conceived aircraft whose basic design is compromised by the STOVL variant.
You know what would have happen if Russia invades the Batlic state:
Germany: Will you keep the gas flowing?
Russia: Yes, you can have a discount if you do not intervene.
Germany: Go ahead.
Forget the Baltics … if Germany ever gets its balls back it’ll be Kaliningrad where it all goes down. The Iron Kingdom reborn!
China should build a Hexagon — the Pentagon +1
Seriously, America is going to be running this tune for decades, might as well run with it.
I’ve always found it ironic that right-wing culture warriors are determined to see the most admirable facet of western culture — its open intellectual ferment — crushed before a narrative of blind, unquestioning triumphalism. Those ‘self-hating leftists’ are WHY the west, for all its flaws, can claim to be the leading light of human civilisation. The right-wing culture warriors, in contrast, repeat a cultural archetype utterly unexceptional in human affairs, an archetype repeated around the globe, and most predominant in those regions the west considers most barbarous. The difference between American right wingers and the Taliban is that the former have long been subjected to the civilising influence of those whom they detest, a process which they have opposed every step of the way.
Whatever else might be said of Marx, he was at least correct that nationality, ethnicity, religion, and so forth are not the fundamental cleavages between persons, rather the fundamental cleavage is psychological, largely a byproduct of parenting style and childhood experience, and in the latter aspect Marx was correct to identify economic structures and realities as of paramount importance in determining the social consciousness. Ironically, right-wingers will readily agree to this, but only when it is phrased in certain ways — as, for example, the notion of ‘decadant coastals’ found everywhere from America to Saudi Arabia.
What are the SK concerns re: FTA?
Fedaykin — thanks for these details. Actually I think France should have bought Hornet for MN, which is not to exclude Rafale for MN also.
I agree that the French desire for a carrier-capable design should have been accepted by the other countries. The French insistence for Dassault to have design leadership was not legitimate.
The Brits certainly should’ve backed the French desire for a carrier capable version, then there would’ve been no need for F-35 and UK would be in the same position as France with a single manned combat aircraft going forward. And of course the whole program would’ve been far more robust as a result.
‘Russia sends arms to Syria to discourage other nations from meddling….by sending arms to Syria’
Yeah, I’m sure those S-300s are going to come in real handy against Hezbollah. Better ship some F-35s over to redress the balance.
Not true. Eurofighter replaces Phantom and Tornado IDS in German service. So far no decision on the replacement of Recce and ECR Tornadoes. We are talking about 36-40 aircraft.
What prospects do you see here?
Missile Delivery Prevents Foreign Meddling in Syria – Russia
Israel threatens Russia over missile shipments to Syria
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217080[/ATTACH]
Meh…
KF-X without internal weapons has no advantage over F/A-18E/F.
Just because yet another nation has joined Russia, China, India and Sweden in rejecting the foolish American notion that agility and kinematic performance are irrelevant in the 21st century doesn’t mean you have to sulk about it. :rolleyes:
Anyone care to wager whom Turkey will follow with TF-X?
P-8 has a surface search radar, so it kinda makes too much sense to use P-8 instead,
along with that it is cheaper to operate.
But P-8 doesn’t have the range, endurance, or payload of B-52. If you’re hunting around for e.g. a Chinese CVBG, finding it is one part of the puzzle — to which P-8 could contribute — but the P-8s are unlikely to be shooters in that scenario, although the mental image of glorified 737s swarming a CVBG has some appeal. In contrast to the P-8s with their limited endurance and payload, however, a brace of B-52s could remain in a holding pattern until ISR assets have located and identified the threat, before unleashing dozens of Harpoons (or LRASMs or whatever).