Answer is simple, come over and count the graves of over 800 Irishmen & women of the UDR, RIR & RUC loyal to the BRITISH CROWN murdered by american funded criminals between’70 &’97, freed by English politicians & still we got over kick Iraqi, & Afghan arses cause we’re BRITISH.

Funded by individual Americans or by the American government? Just as I’m sure there are some British citizens helping to fund, either financially or with intelligence, operations against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

IIRC, the US government recognized most of the Irish terror groups as just that, terror groups.

Given the plans to have one each in the Northern and Pacific Fleets, with one rotating through servicing/repair/refit/trials/workup at any given time, I think that this is no longer viewed as necessary. Until they can get major infrastructure going in the Black Sea to replace the Ukrainian bases there’s no way they’d be looking to deploy a carrier to the Mediterranean in a combat capacity anyway, and even then, it’d be much easier to let the VVS and missile cruisers do the work in southern Europe and concentrate on naval aviation further from home. I actually can’t help but wonder about their force structure for the future, as they’re still planning to modernise the Kirovs and keep them running for some time (a decision I fully support) but they seem to have relatively little use in a carrier-dominated fleet. Perhaps a Kirov will shift to the Black Sea Fleet when they have the South Ossetian bases up and running if the naval PAK FAs become the new major anti-ship strike platform?
I suspect that they won’t be able to produce more than two or three at best unless the downturn in the global economic situation lasts far shorter than I imagine it will, and I would think almost certainly not before ~2025, but after that I don’t really see any reason why they can’t. By that time they should have refreshed their reactor design and construction experience and have the aircraft necessary, at which point it becomes a question of the hull; and as Obi-Wan Russell has already said, they are getting back into shape slowly, though sadly by making a plethora of mistakes along the way.

My point was that the missiles were originally added solely to claim the ship wasn’t “just” a CV, but an “aircraft carrying cruiser” or some such BS nomenclature. Because they probably won’t be built in the Crimea, it’s no longer necessary to try and maintain a charade.

[QUOTE=Scooter;1371945]

ahh, another lovely testament of the american ‘great BS’ education , read any book on ww2 by historian whether american or russian , states that 80%-85% of the fascist forces were destroyed in the Eastern front

ok,heres the contribution is here ,

pretty significant contribution , atleast in terms of land battles .

by the way , Atomic bombings was totally unnecessary

The Soviet invasion of the Japanese holdings on China forced the Japanese to sign a surrender lest they not only lose their last formed army but allow their mainland to be invaded by a country that not only had the means but also the willpower to take their island from them.

The war with Japan were over long before that and if the US offered the same terms in June than they did AFTER the dropped the nukes the Japanese would have signed it. Fact is the US administration actually compromised on their initial peace terms to ensure that the Japanese did not surrender to the USSR instead of the US. The nuclear weapons no more ended the war against Japan than the massed strategic bombing campaigns against either Japan and Germany forced them to surrender

Well, like your own source claims the Russian totally overwhelmed the Japanese in numeral superiority. Also, lets not forget that the Japanese Troops in question. Were likely not the best available. As most were returned to Japan to fight the expected US Invasion. Also, while the Russian Invasion was just another nail in the coffin. With the advent of the Atomic Bomb. The War would have been over in short order. So, really its the Russian Invasion that was not needed……..Its also worth noting that Russia to this day has not returned some of the lands it occupied after the Invasion in 1945. Which, is still a extremely touchy point between Russia and Japan to this very day……………..:(

Personally, I really enjoy your take on WWII History. As besides Russia winning the European Conflict almost Singlehandedly. They also were the main cause for Japan Surrender………Clearly, a Russian view with little bases in fact.;)

I understand it reads better in its original Klingon… :p

Scooter,

Bill Sweetman has been awarded the ‘Aviation Journalist of the Year’ award more often than anyone else, and for good reason.

A dedicated truth-seeker, with a brain the size of a planet, great contacts and an unusual degree of personal charm in what is an often charmless business, Bill’s move from Jane’s to Av Week was a disaster for one organisation and a triumph for the other.

Comparing him to Dr Kopp just shows how very little discernment and judgement you have.

He might know his aircraft, but he doesn’t know his ships…the “Ticonderoga” class CGs in his slide show were old Spruances with the VLS mod. To me, that sort of blunder undermines credibility. Not saying he’s not a nice and knowledgeable guy, but little things like that don’t inspire the most confidence in the message for me.

F 16IN cockpit

This gives me a flashback to the old Mack Maloney “Wingman” series of books…

Sorry, the Bronco is much less agile and could hardly absorb a small fraction of the punishment that the mighty A-10 could take………:diablo:

Since it’s a Boeing product, use the front part of the fuselage of the AH-64 and the fire control of the Longbow and use it to replace the central pod. Push the turbines out to the booms and add some more armor as you’ve got plenty of horsepower now.

It would look like the mutant offspring of an Apache and Bronco, but it would be a tough and scrappy little SOB.

We are down to debating ww2.

The war In Europe could have been won by the Russians alone if you ask me. By D day they were already pushing Germans back big time.

The Soviets were able to do so because the Allies kept them supplied during the early part of the war, the US and British bombed the guts of the German industrial base, the US, British, and Free French stormed across North Africa and destroyed the Africa Corps along with destroying a sizable amount of the German transport and supply effort, and in 1943, opened a second front by invading Italy and the Italians switching sides.

By mid 1944, the Invasion of France was well underway.

All of these Allied actions helped bleed off men and material from the German efforts on the Eastern front. Saying the Soviets could have won WW2 on their own is denying the bigger picture and only looking at the outcomes of the battles, not *why* the battles turned out the way they did.

Had the Germans added the forces tied down in North Africa to Barbarossa, things would likely have been quite different. Had the Allies not tied down other German forces and gutted the industrial base, things would have been quite different.