Sean, that’s your point of view. NATO bombing campaign was to succeed with or without SEAD. I saw no substantive benefits from launching lots of ARM (most of them lost or decoyed). I can accept that they could have saved a few planes, but the end would have been exactly the same with or without those hundreds HARMS. That saved most planes from SA fire was … just to fly high enough.

That’s not exactly my point of view, that’s how it is in fact viewed by the USAF. That’s why we do differentiate between a SEAD campaign and a DEAD campaign (what the D stands for should be obvious!). The air campaign may have done just fine without SEAD, but the SEAD operations did produce the desired result, and from a doctrinal point of view they were therefore effective.

Also, a lot of the HARMs that missed were older models lacking GPS. They had issues with hitting radars that powered down…and if the HARM shot forced the radar to power down, that is still a success even if the missile goes on a rocket-powered romp through the countryside oblivious to SAM radar targeting.

Of course if you delay it, you end up with the type of retreat (when it finally comes) like the US in Vietnam.

Which, going back to one of my previous points about how we don’t seem to learn our lessons insofar as warfare are concerned, is precisely the same type of wthdrawl we’re going to face leaving Iraq!

That’s ridiculous. We can’t legally re-export US technology we don’t own. We’re obliged by treaty to apply whatever restrictions the US imposes.

One of the arguments used by Henry Hyde to make the case against an ITAR waiver was the lack of British legislation preventing arms transfers from Britain to third parties.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uk-warns-usa-over-itar-arms-restrictions-01549/

1) The ‘sources’ I’m referring to know a whole lot more than you or I about the content of the original agreement and the recent ‘solution’. I take their concerns seriously, certainly more than I take notice of bland reassurances from politicians, which rarely count as ‘tangible factual information’ in my experience.

The problem is that you are saying that your people have concerns that issues may not have been dealt with. That is pretty black and white, meaning that they have no idea what the real deal that was worked out was either. If they don’t know what it was, and you don’t know what it was, then I see no reason to discount the statements made by people who do know what it was. Granted they are business people and politicians and as such may well be pulling a fast one, but since nobody else knows what is in the agreement, we cannot dismiss their claims out of hand simply because some people are concerned. Are their concerns valid? Of course, and I’d think that enough concern should provide a good impetus to get to the bottom of this and find a straight answer, provided we haven’t gotten one already and just don’t realize it.

Good god, even the contracts and agreements and whatnot are stealth, perhaps this is just some elaborate ruse to justify the increasing price tag?

2) The main practical objections to the invasion of Iraq were that it failed to remove an immediate WMD threat (there was no such immediate threat), it has cost us dear in lives and cash, it has resulted in massive casualties among innocent civilians, it has destabilised the region, it has diminished the USA’s international standing and reputation and it has only exacerbated the Islamist threat to US/UK interests.

Ok, you took that from an entirely different context than I did, so all I’ll say is that apart from the WMD issue I do not disagree with what you’ve said there.

3) Putting aside the tired and barely concealed anti-British sniping that I’m coming to expect (is it the Irish American in you, Sean?) I fail to see any evidence of any ‘reneging’ on undertakings by the British in Basra.

First off, if you want to bring my Irish background into this, then I shall have no choice but to expound upon the historical impact of a certain character named Cornwallis and jump to the conclusion that this all stems from some sort of inferiority issue engrained into the British psyche since 1781.

That, people, was called sarcasm, before a few of you go nuts.

Secondly, the issue with the Brits in Basrah is that they didn’t leave the city in an overly secure fashion when they left the palace to retreat to the airport. They effectively allowed Basra to become rather unsafe and in the end had to leave the area. That doesn’t sound like a recipe for success on the part of the Iraqis taking over the area, and it is very likely we’ll be back down there cleaning up Basra before too long. So yes, the UK was given the area to stabilize, and in this case clearly messed up and left without solving the problems they were sent there to prevent in the first place.

In any case, as I said, even if the UK Government were to renege on an agreement, that would not excuse the USA doing so. The USA should surely be able to set its own moral compass, which should be absolute, not relative.

And both compasses should be keyed to each nation’s self interests first. In this case, the government changed here, and the new President wasn’t keen on Slick Willie’s policies. Neither were some of the members of Congress. That’s what happens when you deal with a nation whose government can turn over every four years, and one where the President doesn’t really have any kind of power to enforce any such agreements he might see fit to make, making him a little irrelevant in this context.

To go all the way back to my original comment that set you off in the first place, it was not intended as a derogatory remark against the British servicemen in Iraq. I was illustrating that the political reality is that our relationship, politically speaking, is not what it once was. As the UK will be the next major partner to exit Iraq, and as Iraq is currently our major issue until somebody finds an asinine reason to bomb Iran, why should we bend over backwards to give the UK special treatment? Bear in mind that it is my position that changing governments should not be held accountable to word-of-mouth type agreements set down by their predecessors, if you missed that part then ok, I guess it could seem like a more callous remark. Now, if you, Phil Foster, or anyone else was offended by the wording of the remark, then I do apologize, but I am not going to back down from the intent of the remark, as I find nothing wrong with it.

Note the advanced serpentine ducts reducing frontal radar cross section :diablo: 😀

Much like another single-engine fighter that claims low-RCS due to a different engine intake design, the nature of the design is such that the RCS will still be pretty large. Draken is a very cool aircraft, yes, but you will be able to find it.

No. It didn’t.

Yes, it did. Effective SEAD does not mean you physically eliminate the entire air defense network, it means you curtail it to the point that you can fulfill your mission. Were NATO bombing runs still conducted? Yes. Ergo, the SEAD campaign succeeded.

Serbs were more or less well aware of the situation during the whole period. Many downed Tomahawk indicate this.

Tomahawks are fired in enough numbers to account for some shot down. Plus, they are slow, cooperative targets, and not that hard to shoot down.

Also many ARM were succesfully decoyed. Apache inactivity also shows fear to low flying missiles and MANPADS.

Apache inactivity was also due in large part to maintenance issues and the lack of a real mission requiring their presence.

Bottom line: every single SAM system and radar site could have survived the war, but if they were rendered ineffective and not able to function as part of the defensive network, then the SEAD campaign is a success. SEAD does not require anything to blow up to be successful.

I haven’t read the agreement. Nor have you. But I do speak to JSF programme insiders from both industry and the UK customer, and there is clearly real concern among senior officers and industry folk here that the underlying issues have not been addressed, and that this may be a political, face-saving band aid.

The operative phrase there being “may be”, as in your “sources” know as much as you or I do in this case. Having concerns and knowing the facts are entirely different.

You clearly place far too much faith in the press releases about this and are clearly not cognizant of the real workings of the inter-Governmental agreements and processes.

:p :dev2:

Since press releases are no longer reliable, none of the European nations have a leg to stand in when it comes to complaining about a reduced-capability JSF then, right? That was revealed in a press release, after all.

On the other hand, I am at least focusing on some sort of tangible factual information, while you are relying on the unproven concerns of others.

NB: Legal and practical objections.

The main practical issues were 1) the lack of a two-front war to more effectively contain certain elements, and 2) a complete misunderstanding of the Iraqi mindset. The fact that the USA constantly insists on carelessly restraining itself on the battlefield never helps matters either.

Re Basra: We still have some forces in place, but have handed over responsibility to Iraqi forces as agreed, and as we were required to do. I fail to see any evidence of the UK reneging on any commitment re Basra, nor of our failing to abide by any agreement.

Insofar as the time and date of the handover was a judgement call, I suspect that our judgement was flawed, and that we were over-optimistic in our assessment of the fitness of local forces to take over, though my understanding is that the Iraqis (whose ultimate decision it was) were not keen to delay the hand over.

So the security situation in and around Basra has not worsened one bit? Was that not the main area of responsibility for the Britsh forces? I’m not exactly referring to the transfer either, think about it for a few minutes.

80 tons is not a big deal for IL-76 built with modern manufacturing

That was my point, that you can’t just retrofit new engines and expect a larger payload capacity. Something internal will probably have to be different.