European Politics Thread.

[Baff1]

So you think that would be cheaper and more feasible than staying with the F-35? An aircraft is built around it's systems, you cant just rip out everything and replace it with other stuff. It would not work.

Yes I more or less think anything imaginable would be cheaper than the F35 at this point. Especially considering some of the systems you describe aren't available for it yet and a running massive cost overruns. I would suggest to you that any off the shelf option from America or Russia would come in at around 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost and provide the same capability.

We have sod all frigates and destroyers. Ships that we use day in and day out. Woot that we are buying carrier we intend to mothball right out of the dock and another which we will have no planes for.

SAMS have demonstrated themselves exceptionally well in history.
They took out the Israeli airforce which was using the same planes Argentina currently has at the time.

SAMS are superior to airborne launched misiles in that they are larger so they can have a greater engagement range.

While a surprise engagement could happen anywhere, where could it happen that we don't have aceess to land based airstrips exactly?
What intrests do we have that need a fleet arm to protect?
I understand that the capability is wanted, but there are other capabilities that are more wanted.
You might note that the Navy's SAM ship program costing the same as the carrier program was chosen in preference to it. SAMS are more wanted than an air arm.

Nimrod is the plane that lets our ICBM subs know that they have not been shadowed before going deep. There is quite simply no aircraft more vital to our national defence than this one was.

Repeat about the F35 as often as you like. It's bloody expensive. It's by no means the only airframe capable of being navalised in the world. That they have tried to make the airframe fit 3 different purposes is having precisely the same sort of issues we would expect in anyother such adaptation.
As previously noted, the Germans had no trouble adapting Russian airframes. I can't take the idea that we would be unable to do so very seriously.

I don't want the UK to place any future orders with this company. There is no need and it doesn't help the long term UK defence industry either.
Fairness has nothing to do with it. If it did they wouldn't be attaching F22 design costs to the aircraft. We can legally default if we like. They aren't coming in on time or on budget. Everyone else is dropping orders and we should do the same.

[PELHAM]

Yes I more or less think anything imaginable would be cheaper than the F35 at this point. Especially considering some of the systems you describe aren't available for it yet and a running massive cost overruns.

I haven't described any F-35 systems? What I was saying is you can't take an Su-33 or Mig-29K, remove all the systems and replace them with equivalent western compnents cheaply. It would take years of design work and would be like building an aircraft twice over. It doesn't work which is why the Nimrod was scrapped, it's too expensive.
BTW did you know the Russians only have 19 Su-33's and are replacing the type as it's obsolete. Yet you recommended it for the UK?

What intrests do we have that need a fleet arm to protect?

These aircraft are not for the fleet air arm - it's a JV between the NAVY and RAF? It's called the "Joint Combat Aircraft" in the UK as it will be operated as a joint RAF Navy force. It's replacing the Harrier and Tornado. What interests will it protect - all of them. You can read this yourself here:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35j...ikefighter.cfm

SAMS have demonstrated themselves exceptionally well in history.
They took out the Israeli airforce which was using the same planes Argentina currently has at the time.

That was in the 1960's when modern SAMS were used for the 1st time. The Israelis had no defence against them. Look at the wars in the last 30 years - they didn't do so well. Without air cover in the Falklands for example the SAM cover would not have been enough.

SAMS are superior to airborne launched misiles in that they are larger so they can have a greater engagement range.

Untrue, on many different levels. Think about it and look it up. Once again look at conflicts over the past 30 years and look at the success rate and the ease with which SAM sites were destroyed.

That they have tried to make the airframe fit 3 different purposes is having precisely the same sort of issues we would expect in anyother such adaptation.

Are you ever going to do some research on this? I repeat again, it's called the Joint Strike fighter because it's a joint service project to produce common designs to replace an array of aircraft.

They designed 3 different aircraft around as many common parts as possible to reduce costs rather than have each service develop it's own jet. It's 3 different aircraft - always was, that WAS the idea. The F-35C is not an after thought, it's a different aircraft from the other 2 and was designed that way from scratch.

The JAST program office was established on 27 January 1994 to develop aircraft, weapons, and sensor technology with the aim of replacing several disparate US and UK aircraft with a single family of aircraft;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_S...ighter_program

As previously noted, the Germans had no trouble adapting Russian airframes. I can't take the idea that we would be unable to do so very seriously.

As has been put to you before, how many Russian Aircraft do the Germans have now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...itary_aircraft
Answer - 0. If they were good enough why didn't they order more? Why did India refuse the SU-33, already gave you the reason. (Outdated, no viable manufacturing base.)

I don't want the UK to place any future orders with this company. There is no need and it doesn't help the long term UK defence industry either.

It shows once again that you don't know anything about the project. In my previous post I pointed out the 1000's of UK employees working on the project at BAE and the major role the UK is taking in building it. Rolls Royce are producing the lifting fan for the F-35B. As a level 1 partner we also get a technology transfer which no one else will get. In what way does that not benefit the UK economy, defence industry and future?

It involves around 130 firms across the country and is projected to increase UK GDP by £28.7bn over the period between 2009 and 2036.

[Prydain]

Why can't the UK just buy Russia hardware off the shelf? I do.

But I bet you aren't buying military hardware you crackhead.

The UK cannot buy Russian equipment off the shelf for three reasons.
1. Politically we cannot. It isn't just that we are in the USA's sphere of influence and our own diplomatic relations with Russia are at an all time low, the issue is more complex than that. Russia wouldn't really want to sell us anything that they consider advanced, it isn't going to be worth it to their government in terms of internal politics either.
2. Compatibility. Why buy a piece of hardware if your going to have to refit it anyway? Every piece of Russian hardware will be a HC.3 nightmare all over again except this time you have to redo anything with a computer in it. Since we have a requirement to standardise with the rest of NATO too there would be issues with using any Russian munition.
Basically if we purchased something like an aircraft we would have to strip the whole thing and rebuild it with new computers, new weaponry and a whole host of other things.
3. Effectiveness. No doubt that Russia has a great deal of equipment that I, personally would have loved to see picked up by the British military but from AK-103 to MiG-35 what would be an improvement over the equipment we already have to warrant investment? I would wager that finding a gem in Russian equipment, something that is far and a way better to the point of being noticeably more advanced/efficient, isn't out there. A lot of western 'kit' has been used in conflicts in the past 20 years, not to say that Russian equipment hasn't, but tried and tested kit is what procurement agencies will opt for.

As far as the navalised Typhoon goes, if you think something is navalised just because you put a hook on it then it just shows how far you are from knowing anything about what you are talking about. Just get this into your noggin: IT CANNOT AND WILL NOT HAPPEN.

[Baff1]

I haven't described any F-35 systems? What I was saying is you can't take an Su-33 or Mig-29K, remove all the systems and replace them with equivalent western compnents cheaply. It would take years of design work and would be like building an aircraft twice over. It doesn't work which is why the Nimrod was scrapped, it's too expensive.
BTW did you know the Russians only have 19 Su-33's and are replacing the type as it's obsolete. Yet you recommended it for the UK?


These aircraft are not for the fleet air arm - it's a JV between the NAVY and RAF? It's called the "Joint Combat Aircraft" in the UK as it will be operated as a joint RAF Navy force. It's replacing the Harrier and Tornado. What interests will it protect - all of them. You can read this yourself here:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35j...ikefighter.cfm


That was in the 1960's when modern SAMS were used for the 1st time. The Israelis had no defence against them. Look at the wars in the last 30 years - they didn't do so well. Without air cover in the Falklands for example the SAM cover would not have been enough.

Untrue, on many different levels. Think about it and look it up. Once again look at conflicts over the past 30 years and look at the success rate and the ease with which SAM sites were destroyed.

Are you ever going to do some research on this? I repeat again, it's called the Joint Strike fighter because it's a joint service project to produce common designs to replace an array of aircraft.

They designed 3 different aircraft around as many common parts as possible to reduce costs rather than have each service develop it's own jet. It's 3 different aircraft - always was, that WAS the idea. The F-35C is not an after thought, it's a different aircraft from the other 2 and was designed that way from scratch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_S...ighter_program

As has been put to you before, how many Russian Aircraft do the Germans have now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...itary_aircraft
Answer - 0. If they were good enough why didn't they order more? Why did India refuse the SU-33, already gave you the reason. (Outdated, no viable manufacturing base.)

It shows once again that you don't know anything about the project. In my previous post I pointed out the 1000's of UK employees working on the project at BAE and the major role the UK is taking in building it. Rolls Royce are producing the lifting fan for the F-35B. As a level 1 partner we also get a technology transfer which no one else will get. In what way does that not benefit the UK economy, defence industry and future?

It involves around 130 firms across the country and is projected to increase UK GDP by £28.7bn over the period between 2009 and 2036.

And how much is the F35 program expected to cost us?
I suspect we'll make a profit on Eurofighter over that time and a loss on F35.


As I understand it in the wars fo the last 30 years, SAMS have been very difficult to defeat indeed.
In Iraq they needed to develop a secret Stealth bomber to defeat them over at great expense and over a period of decades, and in Iraq 2 they had to fly NAP and attack with Apaches before the planes could get in.
I don't think we have much to worry about on either fronts in any naval engagement.





I don't care what the Indians and Germans want to buy. I'm neither Indian nor German.
The Russians only have limited fleet air arm. I don't expect them to have vast numbers of such planes.

Asking me to look things up isn't helping you any.
The things I read simply don't agree with you.
I'm not professing to be any great expert on the F35 project. But the more you tell me to look things up, the more I am aware that you are no great expert either. So please stop breaking my balls until you are.




I was reading today over at militaryphotoes, that predicted F35C full production date is now 2027. This depends on the US order which they have deferred for 5 more years.
I think that's why the government is suggesting switching to the F 35 B, whose production cycle is dependant on the USMC order due to come in years earlier.

So production timeline really isn't a criteria we have any control of in the F35 program.

---------- Post added at 17:35 ---------- Previous post was at 17:24 ----------

But I bet you aren't buying military hardware you crackhead..

They make the best NV old son.
I swear by it.


Russia will be happy to sell us an export variant airframe. They love money and they know we can buy elsewhere.
They routinely sell combat airframes to NATO countries.

We have to refit all the hardware we buy. Par for the course.

Russian airframes are highly effective. All they need to do is get from A to B with a load of weapons onboard.
To be the white van of the skies.
I'm not intrested in vanity planes to inspire the wrists of teenage boys. I just want something cheap that does the job.

[nettrucker]

Hi everybody

this is a very interesting documentary. I can only recommend everyone to watch.








http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZwMI...feature=relmfu

Please watch the last part on youtube. At the end of part 4 there is a short advertisement for another documentary which might be against the forum rules therefore I didn't embed the last part.

I personally be expecting the next stock exchange crash within the end of 2013 at the latest . . . most probably earlier. And the next one is going to be a lot worse.
The people got to wake up because we are running out of time.

[PELHAM]

Hi everybody
this is a very interesting documentary. I can only recommend everyone to watch.

I personally be expecting the next stock exchange crash within the end of 2013 at the latest . . . most probably earlier. And the next one is going to be a lot worse.
The people got to wake up because we are running out of time.

So the next stock exchange crash will happen in 2013 and will be larger, based on what evidence? I doubt that as there isn't that much left to crash lol and everyone is managing debt more carefully. Anything is possible though, it would take some sort of disaster or conflict not related to the financial world to do what you say. Nothing in the video apart from a re-run of past history and known facts.

[nettrucker]

Well that's my personal opinion.

Was there evidence of the crash in 2008?

You want evidence. Man look at all the corruption and the fraud. Especially financial fraud is encouraged in our current system. They get away with it. They have the best lawyers money can buy.

In any case take a look at this article

http://moneymorning.com/2011/10/12/d...et-to-explode/

Big banks and finacial istitutions know that they'll get bailed out also in the future. It's a win - win situation for them.

If we let the "too big to fail" banks file for bankruptcy the stock markets are going to crash immediately. The debt crisis is spiraling out of control worldwide. With the current bailouts we increase our debt even more.

- The dollar is going to crash also due to the constant wars which adds huge debt on nations. To counter the debt crisis the fed injects more money into circulation which will lead to unavoidable inflation.

I really don't know what more evidence you need and if so, I stongly suggest you do some research on what the financial experts say. You gotta research on your own, I can't do that for you. You are free to believe whatever you want.

It's a matter of time and I personally believe that we're running short of it.

[mrcash2009]

So the next stock exchange crash will happen in 2013 and will be larger, based on what evidence? I doubt that as there isn't that much left to crash lol and everyone is managing debt more carefully.

No evidence of direct timing, but no evidence at all? And your saying we have not much to crash (even more easily done then) and people are managing debt? Any evidence that this will keep things a float based on the fact that its not everyone who started this ball rolling in the first instance, just trying to deal with it while it gets piled on with "measures".

Anything is possible though, it would take some sort of disaster or conflict not related to the financial world to do what you say.

I agree with this, and looking at current geopolitical situations on the earth, and the flimsy financial world in many areas, its not something to cast off without cast iron evidence, I think the evidence is mainly all around right now, esp in the sticky area of Iran and its potential domino effect. Here's hoping that it isn't the case, but it looks like a strong one.

You have to remember that it doesn't take allot for the dominoes to fall, we have lots of unemployed console fighting youth right now ripe for free work schemes or military, so that's also an interesting aspect.

You then have UK being told to panic buy (well almost told) ... and that's all hanging in the balance, fuel & its it use for transportation and food basics is super flimsy, let alone any price hikes or stoppages due to external conflict issues.

But as you said "Anything is possible" well, the gates are wide open at the moment on many levels & scenarios.

If the world situation right now was a game of simcity "World edition", we would have the ultimate scoreboard leader currently, covering most aspects and potential outcomes

Or should that smiley be ...

[PELHAM]

Was there evidence of the crash in 2008?

I predicted the 2008 crash as early as 2004 before most of you even knew what one looked like. If you look up my posts from a year ago (occupy debate) I relate the tale about how I cautioned everyone at a business dinner about excessive borrowing and they all had a joke by waving their credit cards at me. I calmly sold all my shares and investments and battened down the hatches, took out a small mortgage despite being offered one several times larger and laughed inwardly when the panic started. The evidence was there then, 80-100% mortgages lol, what more evidence do you need that something is wrong with the system. If there was any evidence now I would be crowing about it as loud as you.

Funny that predicting financial doom only becomes fashionable after the fact. I predict 5 years of financial monotony before they lose their heads and start lending in a ridiculous manner again. (Unless there is war or massive natural disaster it will be reasonably stable for the next 5 years.)

In any case take a look at this article
http://moneymorning.com/2011/10/12/d...et-to-explode/

That backs up what I have just said. He is saying there will be a massive disaster if Germany and France fail the same way as Greece, but that will not happen. Greece is a special case. Their borrowing to fund their ridiculous public sector and lax tax system was criticised for decades. I can't understand why anyone let them into the Eurozone or lent them any money. That disaster has been waiting to happen for 30 years, long before the Euro was even thought of. I remember walking through the overgrown remnants of an Olympic training village in the 1990's and thinking to myself that the country looked more like a mismanaged 3rd world African nation than anywhere else I had seen in Europe! (the structure was built for the 1996 bid and then abandoned)


All I can say is if things start looking too good to be true, get rid of your debt, and when the crash happens buy some cheap shares in something that can't fail like a utility. The profit will double in 2 years and it's easy money. The phrase that signalled the inevitability of the coming doom to me was, "No return to boom and bust". When I heard that I knew the wheels had truly come off. I didn't realise the banks would fail though - that was the surprise for me. I could not believe just how crazy they had been.

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

You then have UK being told to panic buy (well almost told) ... and that's all hanging in the balance, fuel & its it use for transportation and food basics is super flimsy, let alone any price hikes or stoppages due to external conflict issues.

See the big picture for once...... do you not realise that was done on purpose?

[mrcash2009]

I predicted the 2008 crash as early as 2004 before most of you even knew what one looked like.

Funny that predicting financial doom only becomes fashionable after the fact.

Such as shame that in other areas you cant see anything for toffee and use tin foil comments

See the big picture for once...... do you not realise that was done on purpose?

Wow this really is a role reversal, on purpose? Tin foil hat? .... I did that so you know how that feels like Yes on purpose to who's gain? I notice costs went up as a result in places, and no actual strike happened, although looks like that might change soon, quick ... panic buy again, its best for the country! ... dear me.

I want to see Pelham's tin foil-a-LOL-meter and find out where the meter readings go after a months worth of reading, is it up ... will it be down ...

Question: Do people think we are in:

1. Credit crunch
2. Recession
3. Global Depression