MickThe Russians themselves gave the losses of a Su-25 and a Tu-22.
The size of the wreckage parts do point to a Su-25. Where is the question?There are footages of the Su-25s and Mi-24s in ground attacks and no national markings to spot in that to distinguish between Georgian or Russian examples.
I thought, there was no shortage of modern manpads and trained personal to use that?! “Useless” flares are fired during such attacks footages, when we did learn from some “experts” in another topic about the “outdated” flares. 😮
I’m not disputing the shooting downs, clearly given Georgia’s claims followed by Russian confirmation, a Su-25 and a Tu-22 were shot down. I was just trying to work out what part of the aircraft (would have to be Su-25 given that a single dead pilot was shown on TV) that the BBC reporter claimed was the wreckage was. Looking further up the thread (which I should have read before I posted), Teej couldn’t work it out either. And there is also that piece to the left, which while it is Su-25 “sized”, there seems to be no outer part on the Su-25 that I could identify from photographs that resembles either piece.
MickThe strange thing about the rest of that footage is that apart from the one engine, the body of a Russian pilot (on the original TV footage), everything else is unrecognisable. Iv’e been looking closely at photographs of a complete Su-25 and cannot make out that large chunk of metal that Teej posted up. Anyone else recognise it?
MickIn regards to the shooting down of Russian jets, the BBC had footage allegedly taken of the wreckage one of the aircraft on tonight’s news. The link for the web version is below with the footage of the plane shown at 02.16.
MickIt would not presently be that simple as splitting up the UK armed forces as the way described. This is not Slovakia and the Czech Republic splitting in the 1990s. And there could be alot of arguments if an independent Scotland was being too over ambitious to what it actually would require based on the kind of international and domestic commitments it would have once independent.
Unless the SNP sort their defence policy out, particularly in regards to NATO membership, splitting the current UK armed forces so that Scotland has its fair share would be a complete waste of money (for Scotland that is) and unneccessary for a country that would, according to current SNP policy, place at the heart of its defence policy homeland defence — other than involvement in UN and EU missions. While it would not be neutral as such, its armed forces strength and equipment would probably be along the lines of the Republic of Ireland, probably slightly larger. A small scale rapid reaction force (eg. 1,000 troops) would be suffice for participation in UN or EU ops with small regular and reserves available for domestic defence. A special forces battalion enough for counter-terrorism operations. While the air force would only require, as previously mentioned, a small fleet of transport and maritime patrol aircraft as well as helicopters. Same with a small naval fleet largely tasked with fisheries protection and patrolling Scottish territorial waters.
As a result, such things as Mastiffs, Bulldogs, Watchkeeper or even armed UAVs and the like would not be neccessary, unless the SNP has ambitions of an independent Scotland leading EU or UN missions or deploying significant numbers of troops in an Afghan Helmand province-type operation, which I severely doubt. UN or EU missions currently don’t cover those type of operations. These would be too niche capabilities that would take up resources for other important areas.
Scottish troops may well be currently sharing their burden as part of the UK armed forces at that moment, but that might not be the case with an independent Scottish armed forces. Salmond himself has pointed towards larger countries like Finland, Norway and Sweden as examples that a Scottish armed forces could be like. Countries that currently contribute very little in terms of manpower to UN or EU operations. While Norway is already a member of NATO, Finland and Sweden aren’t that far off from joining, despite their so-called military neutrality. And most of their current contributions are to a NATO-led operation (Afghanistan).
There is also the question of air defence of its territorial waters, particularly with the kind of strategic value and significant impact that Scottish oil fields would have on Scottish defence policy, but the UK’s current responsibilty for the northern QRA also comes under commitments as being part of NATO. Salmond has ruled out NATO membership (as well as rejected a debate on the matter) because of his outdated view of the organisation’s Cold War role. Undertaking the northern QRA with a couple of Scottish Typhoon squadrons based at Leuchars would mean that it would be partly providing frontline air defence on behalf of NATO. The only way round that would be to give up territorial waters/airspace to a NATO member like Norway or allow the UK RAF to do it.
MickAn independent Scotland trying to barter with London over dividing up UK defence resources… It’d be like Stoneybridge Town Council trying to organise the 1996 Olympics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqheysKKvDc
I agree with Rob L on the formation of a Scottish Air Force in regards to having to have air defence cover provided by the remainder of the UK. I seriously doubt that London would agree to give an independent Scotland much of the RAF’s current fleet. The SNP’s defence policy looks pretty ill-thought out and no way reflects current UK defence policy in terms of international commitments or anything else. They still haven’t reviewed their position on NATO membership (currently a big no).
A few previously stored Tucanos and a few helos is probably all they’d get with the SNP’s current plans. Anything else they’d have to buy new. But then, Salmond proposes to re-establish historic Scottish regiments, build-up counter-terrorism units and maintain existing bases in the region (including HMNB Clyde even though the subs would have moved south along with the English defence companies) and of course find the trained regular and reserve manpower from its ageing 5 million population to field an armed forces that would mean increased defence spending in the early years of independence as it builds up its forces from scratch. All this with with some notion that Scottish troops would sit at their bases within their own borders twiddling their thumbs until a few hundred might get to deploy on UN or EU missions.
MickA rather worrying development and one that could escalate. Hopefully, Russia will refrain from serious military action (eg. invading Georgia as a whole or taking some kind of major military action against Tblisi). The last thing that is needed is some kind of full-on war between Georgia and Russia, especially with the recent deterioration in relations between the West and Russia.
MickYeah a claim of a base closure might be an important issue, but the news report was poorly presented. To introduce a news item as “Reports from America suggest that tactical nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from RAF Lakenheath” and then covering three quarters of an item on that matter with quotes from a Lakenheath spokesman along the lines of “maybe, maybe not, maybe we have no nukes, maybe we have” before changing tact to “What if Lakenheath closed and loads of local people lost their jobs” is pretty poor journalism by BBC standards and had no relevance the original story. It did not even mention the other issues like the closure of the truck maintenance depot (this was where the rumours had begun to circulate in local newspapers). Had the story tackled rumours of the base closure from the onset and used the nuke story as the side issue, possibly as an example that the USAF were scaling back its presence at Lakenheath, then fine, but it didn’t.
MickDon’t bother listening to BBC Look East news reports on military matters. The BBC per se can be pretty bad, but Look East is dreadful. If I recall several months ago they tried to cover the claims from the Federation of American Scientists (I think) that B61 tactical nukes had been withdrawn from Lakenheath by turning the story into about how local people employed at the base would suffer if Lakenheath closed based on rumours circulated in a local rag and some USAF truck maintenance depot shutting down. Had no relevance whatsoever to the original nuke story.
MickI don’t know perhaps they work a bit of overtime on Saturday too!
MickThe “one a day” reference is what was recently quoted by Lockheed Martin in regards to production at Fort Worth. They claim it would actually be 21 aircraft per month.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/July/F-35fact.htm
MickYeah that’s what I thought too. BAE Systems originally wanted to do assembly, but it seems unlikely now with UK orders assembled in the US by Lockheed Martin. BAE Systems is currently responsible for the aft fuselage plus components (mostly at Samlesbury) with other workshare commitments undertaken in the States (mostly at Nashua).
http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/autoGen_106920103850.html
Mickhi and thanks for ur comments and opinions!!
DO YOU THINK THE RAF WILL USE THE NEW F-35’S THE SAME AS THE HARRIERS BUT WITH AIR TO AIR CAPABILITY BUT ALSO HELP OUT IN QUICK REACTION ALERT with the typhoons?
AND WILL IT BE STEALTH (FIRST RAF STEALTH FIGHTER)
WHERE WILL THEY BE BASED
I SAY
RAF COTTESMORE, WITTERING CN U THINK OF OTHERS?
Current plans are for the F-35s to be based at Lossiemouth with a possible secondary base yet to be selected (maybe Cottesmore). The CVFs will be based at Portsmouth. I think one of the main assets for the F-35 will be its versatility, combining such roles as strike, air defence or ISR tasks as well as the obvious capability we’ll get from being able to deploy it at sea. It will be a massive leap of technology compared to the Harrier.
MickDoes anyone know how long the JUMP programme is due to last because I would have thought that would have taken a significant number of Harriers out of service at the moment.
MickWell that moreorless confirms it. L-3’s CEO saying it’s dead and BAE Systems (who is a partner in the consortium working on Helix) saying it will be too expensive to maintain the Nimrod R1 or retrofit the MRA4 with Helix. Of course the UK Ministry of Defence would probably deny it as it is a classified project, although it is pretty obvious now. Surprised though that Flight Global put that as a blog rather than a main story (but I suppose it was overheard conversation rather than a comment made to Trimble).
MickCheers Jackonicko. That’s what I thought and I suppose acquistion and conversion rather than lease means that they are not a stop-gap solution, but once in service they will be around for a long while so the chance for anything else (other than when the Americans proceed with a RC-135 replacement) is zilch. I still wonder if they will be operated as pooled joint force with the Americans. Otherwise, I would have thought that we’ll have to train up alot of crew to man the things.
Sign In
