You are welcome Aspis, you can find more photos from this joint exercise “Brave Heart South 2008” here.

p.s. And let’s keep this thread clean of politics, no need to ruin the fun from aviation 🙂

Thanks and i apologize, i get carried away and it’s that i see the weapons only as means of pursuing a political target, just like war. To me they are interconnected.

So, i cleaned up my “political” part, i load enough the HAF thread with it. 😀

Airbuster, thanks for the photos, i ‘ve never seen them before!

And what happens to all the Afghans who face the Taliban brutality, like that kid who got her nose chopped off? Throwing the Afghan people to the wolves surely is not a good scenario.

It’s a good scenario for the coalition in order to disengage. I don’t think it’s easy, that’s why i didn’t put it as the more probable. But politics have their weird ways, so theoretically, maybe they could agree on some provinces under the Taliban influence, a mixed goverment maybe with more moderation…

It’s not good scenario for the Afghans, but it’s a half-victory for the coalition… After all, if after the Iraq withrawal the Kurds proclaim independent state in the north and the shias another in the south, will this be good for the Iraquis? No. IF it goes on peacefully, it will just mean that some Iraquis will be even poorer, since their oil wells will end up in other countries. If this doesn’t happen peacefully, they are in for a civil war. Do you remember the US withdrawal from Vietnam? Well it wasn’t good for the south vietnamese, especially those who had been friendly for the Americans, but when you have to go, you have to go…

The problem is this. Starting a war is easy. Finishing it is the difficult part. And unless i have missed something, in neither Baghdad nor in Kabul there has been a mass demonstration saying “thank you dear foreigners”, like you could see in liberated Europe after WWII. So i can’t help to ask myself how one can expect that the main concern is their good. The very purpose of the war was Bin Laden (or the nearby pipeline in the worst case). Not the welfare of Afghans. That’s something good to take care of while you ‘re there in order to win some local support or tollerance, but, once you have to go… I also think that democracy is the most difficult of political systems and that not all societies are ready to embrace it to the point that will be ready to defend it if necessary. Same for western values. For example i wouldn’t be surprised if after the US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan they both go into internal destabilization with some new dictator or mullah appearing.

But, hey, maybe the 1st scenario will happen (the perfect one) ! I just don’t believe that a military purely victory is possible in Afghanistan for as long as they can have ammunition. The local support is guaranteed, because you can’t kill the civillians from the Taliban clans. After all, the Talibans don’t have some public opinion back home growing tiresome for the money spent. They live there… All they have to do is wait and do a bit of attrition war, just to keep the westerners at bay. And wait… Just what they did with the Russians.

excuse me? War is not a money making investment:mad:

Sorry, i disagree. I have been maybe fan of Thucydides for far too long, but i agree with him. War, at the highest political level is made for power, profit or glory with an asterisk when it comes to being simply invaded. Glory nowdays isn’t popular. The difference is, that this isn’t what’s it’s told to the simple infrantryman. Since ancient times till now, the political elite, sells a more “moral” version to the soldier. The asterisk, is that, even in a case you get invaded, individuals will fight for their homes and liberty. But in a higher political level, being invaded, means, that you as an establishment and as a country, lose power. You lose control over your resources, you lose the power of decision on your soil, etc.

For example, back to Thucydides, when Spartan leaders were speaking to their assembly, they didn’t say “Listen, Greece is too small for both us and Athens. Athens is spreading her influence quickly, if we don’t stop it, we will end up yet another of their sidekicks”. No. They said “Vote in favour of war, as such a vote is more proper for a Spartan and his tradition. And vote in favour, because the Athenians have made us injustice many times”. Pride and sense of justice, what better! Let’s go kill and be killed…

australia is the largest non-NATO army contingent in Afghanistan

Yes, you are there for a small part of the power and because you have special ties with the anglosaxon world. We are also there with a very small contingent, for the same reason (except the anglosaxon thing). It is a UN mission, so if you want the UN to maintain a minimum power, we need to make it seem that it does have power, because time may come that we may need something in exchange.

It’s like Athens’ or Sparta’s allied-cities during the Athens-Sparta war. Nobody really remembers them. They didn’t gain something really either. They got into it because they prefered being in an alliance rather than not. Often they were actually being burnt to the ground for simple fact that they were pro-this or pro-that (you have troops in Afghanistan, so i blow up your home european city). Part was also because being allied with Athens or Sparta was seen as precaution in case of some new enemy appearance (like the Persians). So they were in for the power, although the biggest beneficiaries were the 2 powers.

And since when can a guerilla force not be defeated? Malaya, Borneo, Oman come to mind.

Let me be more clear. Often the term “guerilla” is used for just about any armed insurgency which is not the govermental or occupying army, but there are differences in nature. A guerilla can’t be defeated, when it has support from locals and access to money that can guarantee weaponry and its aim isn’t to fight to hold territory or make a coup. If “guerillas” are intended as revolutionaries or anti-govermental groups that seek to take the capital, yes they can be defeated, because sooner or later they will be out in the open against tactical army and will have to do conventional warfare, where they can lose. I mean the type of “guerillas” like the “resistance” in Europe during WWII. Attrition war. The Talibans aren’t 250 men and Afghanistan isn’t some kind of island. As long as they get ammunition from the other borders, they ‘re fine. And they have plenty of relatives that will seek revenge. The Talibans won’t come out to conventional field of battle and try to take Kabul. They are happy with doing “resistance”, meaning a war of “attrition”.

Why do you think the Russians got tired at the end?

Why do you think that Turkey has been battling against the PKK since 1985 in their OWN country, but even in cases of expeditions where they employed 120.000 men with airforce support against tops 10.000 men, they only managed to make them shift their main base inside Iraq?

Borneo is an island, you can run, but eventually you can’t hide and supply control is easy. Oman, was a minor rebellion, which ended with no local support and supplies for the losers, hence they lost. Malaysia, has again only a small land border for supplies and the only support was from a minority within the ethnic chinese, who themselves were a minority amongst the Malayans, who didn’t support the communists. And part of the local support to the insurgents was cut off, by giving voting rights to the ethnic chinese.

I think you do see the difference. In Greece, after WWII we had 4 years of bloody civil war. The majority of population didn’t support the communists. It is common understanding, that if it wasn’t for the fact that under (soviet) pressure Tito was forced to stop the resupply to them, we ‘d probably be still fighting.

The war WILL be won, as long as nay sayers dont pull us out before we get the chance to win:(

But can’t you see??? The purpose of a guerilla (or resistance to be more exact) isn’t to kill all the soldiers up to the last man and the take the country. The purpose of a guerilla is to wear down the enemy, specially when he is a foreigner. Eventually, the “nay sayers” will prevail or the coalition, will have to reach a political deal with the Talibans, where they will share local power. You think that the coalition will kill the Talibans to the last man? You kill a Taliban? His son will come to kill you out of simple revenge. Unlike the foreigners, the Afghans have to live in their country…

And the taliban doesnt have the support of the majority of people in afghanistan.ever been there? didnt think so

The majority is something relative. The Kurds in Turkey that support PKK aren’t the majority either, but they ‘re still giving a headache to the turkish army inside its home after 25 years. Another question is more relative. Are the Afghans so much in favour of the coalition, as to wage was themselves against the Talibans? And how many of the foreign troops are there ready to die like heroes for … glory…? Not so many i ‘d guess.

But i probably did underestimate the situation, probably there is some profit in it too.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18119

No, i haven’t been in Afghanistan. But history tends to repeat itself. And Greece is sinking from the high number of Afghans refugees that are tired from both the Talibans and the coalition and when they come to Greece nobody says “hurray for the coalition!”. They say “my country has war, i got tired of war, i left”.

Perfect Afghan scenario: Pakistan seals its borders and the Talibans can’t find other source to pass their ammunition from.

Good scenario: The Coalition cuts a deal for power sharing with the Talibans.

Bad scenario and IMHO most probable scenario: The coalition gets tired, countries get tired and withdraw their troops with the first chance they find for an exit with dignity. What will happen next to Afghanistan, will be the Afghanis’ fault. Like in Iraq. If once withdrawn the US troops from there, Iraq is carved to pieces (Kurdistan is already in practice autonomous in the north), it won’t be of concern for the US anymore.

I somehow doubt that the F-35 pilots are going to allow themselves to be set up like that, given their levels of situational awareness from both onboard and offboard sensors. Additionally, until they’re detected, how would you know where 30 degrees off their nose is? As for WVR, the AIM-120 has a minimum range of 2km, and the D models have good HOBS capabilities.

What i see in EADS claim, is that in order to work this well, you have to use more Typhoons. At the end, the F35 pilots, can’t avoid being intercepted from different angles if you have 3 or 4 Typhoons closing simultaneously at different angles. Inevitably, some of the F35s will have to expose themselves in “bad” angles. Another thing the Typhoons can do, if they know where to go, is use their better characteristics for high altitude flight, to also change altitude faster than the F35. This will further ruin the perfect 0 degree RCS, because the perfect RCS is 0 degrees at the same level with you. If you outclimb and out-accelerate your target, his RCS isn’t the perfect one even at 0 degrees from the nose, because your radar will now be illuminating him also on his top part.

Detection is of course requested in order to make this tactic. The Typhoons will have to rely on their radar, IRST, ground radars and possibly AWACS if on friendly territory. If none of those can pick up the F35, it’s obvious that the Typhoon will be put on the defensive and will have to accept the first shot from the F35. If the Typhoon does get aware of the position of the F35, it does have one advantage, that it can reposition itself in space faster than the F35 can. The 30 degrees after all isn’t obligatory. More than 30 are even better. Simply 30 is the figure that EADS considers as the first good enough to take full advantage of Typhoon’s weaponry.

Anyway, this sounds to me tricky so it will require good trainning to get proper coordination between Typhoons.

P.S.: Yes, the Amraam will allow for some self-protection at WVR, but if does come down to that, i think a Typhoon with proper HOBS IR missile, will have the upper hand. Of course, it will also depend from what the casualties were in the BVR. Because, if for example, the F35s largely prevail in BVR, inevitably, the Typhoons will be outnumbered in WVR.

The Royal Air Police.
What a fall!

If this “six sqn” thingy goes ahead, the RAF will (roughly) have the same number of fast jets that the RAAF or the Spanish Air Force.
With a bigger budget than the other two combined…
Gosh

Yes, but neither Spain nor Australia have spent over 20 bln £ in Afghanistan and Iraq like Britain has, as i just found out with a quick search…

And ok, in Iraq let’s say that Britain will get her money back, since BP has taken the rights for oil extraction in one oil field. What’s the gain from Afghanistan? Unfortunately Britain has drawn the short stick in the alliance with USA. Now RAF will be sacrificed in order to maintain the presence in a lost cause.

Aspis,

I think it is a cliché for the price of the weapons. It is true in sense but you have to look at it more closely to be relevant in your analysis. OK there is the expensive (but unmatched in its category) Hammer/AASM. There is the SCALP but again quite unique with the TAURUS and there I doubt a smaller american JASSM (half the military load) would be cheap as well.

But you can use GBU-12, 49, 22, 24 if you want to diminish the costs its also compatible with the rafale.

In the end it might be more expensive but you get some capabilities that doesn’t necessarily exist (MICA IR, HAMMER, heavy recce AEROS pod…) and are perhaps worth the cost.

About price the issue is two fold in my opinion :

1) The exchange rate of the Euro/dollar. As said by dassault a rafale costs less than a SH but its price is higher due to the unfavorable exchange rate.

2) The price of the spare parts (exchange rate and less economy of scale than american competitors)

I don’t have any objection at all about the capabilities. I have actually argued many times that in our case, the french gave us much needed alternatives that the US wasn’t willing to do. It’s not entirely french fault either. It’s like a vicious circle. F16s sell more, you have large scale economy and even other countries with capable defence industry which produce weapons that fit the F16 (Israel for example).

I also think that the MICA IR, for western standards is almost an innovative idea. The MICA EM on the other hand, i think it can’t justify its cost.

But, still, if you look at how many ammunition exist for the F16, you will see that there is more choice about cost-effectiveness. The SCALP is in deed in a class of its own that USA isn’t willing to sell. But, how many countries are actually interested in such a weapon and how many can they buy if they are… The AASM, is again, a brilliant IMHO weapon. But there may be cases that it could be “overkill”. LGBs are also good, but they do have some limitations. It’s not that you can’t do it, it’s just that you may spend more money for the same results. For example, the F16 you can find JDAM/Longshot kits/israeli SPICE. For antinaval, you can use Harpoon for bigger targets, Penguins for shorter range and smaller targets, Maverick for even shorter range and smaller targets. The JSOW i think is sold for about 60% of the price of the SCALP. It’s not the same class, but for some missions it may be more cost-effective.

It does make perfect sens.

2003 -> 1€=0.85$ -> 60M€=51M$
2010 -> 1€=1.40$ -> 60M€=84M$

Congrats to the BCE by the way…

Exactly… When in 2002 (?) the greek goverment had announced the Typhoon as first choice, the price didn’t seem too steep compared to US alternatives, taking into consideration the performance of the aircrafts. Now it does…

The BCE (and EU) are ran by Germany. We may as well call it “Germany’s Monetary Union”. As long as Germany doesn’t have problem to export, the BCE will leave the euro going up, no matter if all the other main players either print money to weaken their own currency (USA) or intentionally don’t want to appreciate theirs to a level they should (China).

The vertical columns here are “Country”, “Exports”, “Imports”, “Balance 2009”, “Balance 2008”. Figures in bln euros.

First country is Germany with balance of + 177 bln . Bottom five are in order: Portugal, Greece, Spain, France, Great Britain. Most EU countries have negative balance. Germany has accumulated almost all the trade surplus of the eurozone (thanks to dumping), so why worry about the euro going up…

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/8693/isozygio.jpg

It’s like as if USA was handling the dollar according to the needs of Maryland and the rest of the US states can go to hell. Or “Oklahoma, Utah and Alabama are asked to kindly leave the dollar if they don’t like it Maryland’s way”. That’s the difference between an economic union (USA) and a pseudo-economic union (in reality monetary), such as the EU.

Good luck then trying to sell the Rafale against american aircrafts.

Anyway, either the EU will integrate more and soon, or inevitably, there will be 2 “euro-zones”, possibly with a currency of their own, a “weaker euro”, because if the Americans continue to print money and we will have to wait for when Germany will see her exports shrink, the euro will have arrived to 1.70 to the dollar and the periphery of the euro-zone, which amongst other things have to compete in exports with non-euro currencies, will get tired of doing austerity forever just to cope. The main advantage for the periphery of Europe in the euro, was that banks could get low interest loans through the ECB and pour it in the economy. Cheap money. Now, this is gone, the markets are scared and the spreads vary widely. In addition, the euro was a strong currency, but now it has become “too strong” for the weaker economies to prosper. Nuriel Rubini was in Greece last week and he said the very simple thing: that the easiest way for european countries of the periphery to get out of their trouble, is if the ECB decided to print more euros and bring thus the euro closer to dollar. Exports will boost, growth will go up, debts will be paid easier. Of course the Germans don’t like it when one after the other the periphery economies pop one after the other either… And one will have to see, just for how long the populations of the periphery countries will believe that it’s worth to go on like this, living in austerity year after year, struggling to export and to have growth.

Anyway, maybe the EU will simply disintegrate and then you will be back to the franc and will be able to sell Rafales to competitive prices.