By: swerve
- 30th January 2014 at 11:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Absolutely right.
Which is why the basic premise of this thread is flawed. It concentrates on increasing numbers in, & eliminating US platforms from, an area (front line combat aircraft) where numbers are adequate & the nationality of the platforms is not critically important.
It ignores communications (both platforms & the technologies), sensors, jamming, transport, tankers, munitions stocks, & everything else where Europe does not have adequate independent provision.
By: Vnomad
- 30th January 2014 at 15:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for your pertinent reply Swerve. I can think of several alternatives to your conundrum, for instance why can't the Rafale-M be used on QE as STOBAR? If it will need more power to efficiently operate that way, then the 9 ton M-88 engine is already in existence. More power is always good anyway. I see no problem for Rafale-M to be fitted with those engine, yes it will cost some money, but put in balance even so it will end cheaper than an F-35B. And even if it will actually be slightly over F-35 (extremely unlikely, just saying) the advantages of full control over it (no CISMOA and other crap there) and again the benefit of billions invested in local jobs outweigh any disadvantages (like an increase in cost of the ship to fit it with arresting gear). One can hope the EMCAT would be ready for Prince of Wales if the interest and the investment is there, if not she can be used as a STOBAR too.
The UK has a non-refundable $4 billion+ invested in the JCA project while reaping revenues of at least $30 billion over next two decades. Switching to Rafale will not only require the integration of catapults and be a blow to the Eurofighter's standing in the export market, but also lead to a net loss of thousands of jobs.
First of all you speak for yourself, not for the UK people. Go and ask on the street how much they like working with, or rather, FOR a foreign power, ask them if they really want to go to war for them and bring misery and death to MILLIONS, to be spied by them, hell to be threatened to be thrown in one of THEIR jails, and their own politicians who they elected to serve THEM, they abandon THEM for the interests of this foreign country (isn't that called treason?), even if they never set foot in thatr country and never broke any laws, ever! Like i said to the above poster, if one has such a big hard-on for the US, with all due respect, but the airport is that way. Leave the rest of us be.
The British people don't want to see their country playing a perpetual second fiddle to the US, but that doesn't imply that they wanted to be governed from Brussels either. They're unlikely to ahead with the a withdrawal from the EU, but public opinion is certainly trending that way.
And while the UK might be among the most Eurosceptic of the EU members, the sentiment isn't restricted to Britain. Its peaking in Greece and Spain, and on the rise in Italy and Germany. Denmark and Sweden have kept one foot out of the door and Norway has held firm on maintaining its status as a non-member.
I can never for the life of me understand this group of peoples who are are so loathful and arrogant toward their very own neighbours, with who we have so much in common and are exploding in anger whenever someone mentions about working together, striving for a better, independent Europe, a better life for all, yet they are so enthusiastic in support of a foreign, violent, hegemonic power 5000 miles away, whole only interest is to keep us under their boot, and who culturally is light years away different from us. Either they're nuts, or i am.
For the record, culturally the UK has more in common with the US (and other parts of the Anglosphere) than it does with countries in mainland Europe.
What you're suggesting goes far beyond just EU membership or participation in the Eurozone. Creating a common foreign and military policy would require true European integration or a United States of Europe. And a United States of Europe cannot come around without its members ceding a far greater degree of sovereignty to Brussels than do at present.
What you seem unaware of, or unwilling to accept is that the European identity has remained a weak concept for its citizens. Unlike the United States of Europe, the United States of America actually has a strong national identity. Its citizens may be Californian or Texan, but first and foremost they identify as Americans. There's no substantial dispute between Georgia and Oregon on US foreign policy (though even they do quibble over taxation and federal budget sharing).
Its naive to expect people in Europe belonging to nation-states with centuries-old histories, to sacrifice their sovereignty and national identity, and start identifying as 'European' instead. Its all well and good to say that they can be both, but if you want to create a counterpart (or counterweight) to the USA, that is what it'll take.
You may believe the other side is 'nuts' but it doesn't change the fact that you're in a minority. Unfortunately, anti-Americanism isn't quite the unifying factor that you might have hoped it would be. The actual state of the European project can be summed up by the turnout in the European parliamentary elections which have gone down every cycle, from 63% in the 1979 to 43% in 2009, with the figure expected to fall below 40% come May this year.
By: John Green
- 30th January 2014 at 18:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 43
Vnomad
An excellent summary. Here is the 'killer punch': The EU is broke. The larder is bare. Most of the member nations are contemplating huge budget deficits. Borrowing to repay borrowing is no longer an option. The sheer size of national financial burdens is almost beyond comprehension. The eurozone still faces extinction and if the Chinese lose faith in the value and security of their eurobond holdings.........!
Given that Brussels is always eager to expand its empire by any means, a unified system of defence and offence has its undoubted attractions but, is hopelessly unrealistic when asking the question; how will we pay ?
By: mack8
- 30th January 2014 at 22:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It ignores communications (both platforms & the technologies), sensors, jamming, transport, tankers, munitions stocks, & everything else where Europe does not have adequate independent provision.
No i don't ignore that, i simply do not have enough information and expertise in that area, i keep saying it over and over, the situation is the way its is now BECAUSE we're dominated by the US, and the corrupt in charge eager to satisfy the US interests are not interested in our independence! If we are to become truly independent , yes we will need to build those, we will need Galileo GPS but like said before, we don't need the damn things on US scale, we're not going at their shores. But pretty much EVERYTHING needed to build those platforms, airframes , the know-how, the building facilities, is still here. Right now, it appears only UK, France Spain and Italy have a number of AEW, tankers and special purpose aircraft, but even so in the short them they will be adequate enough for defensive purposes. Things can't happen over night, the premise that EUAF should have all those capabilities from day one in order to be a viable force is unrealistic. This UEAF will start from what we have now, and build from there!
Let's have a constructive analysis, how many and what kinds of special purpose platforms we will need for an adequate capability? How much it would cost, how to best use available platforms and local technology to build these aircraft?
As for the attention to frontline aircraft, well afterall they do the actual defending, not replacing as quickly as possible the US types would be a grave weakness, we wouldn't control the radar, the codes etc. and the AMRAAM and many other munitions. They will be useless from an independence standpoint.
The UK has a non-refundable $4 billion+ invested in the JCA project while reaping revenues of at least $30 billion over next two decades. Switching to Rafale will not only require the integration of catapults and be a blow to the Eurofighter's standing in the export market, but also lead to a net loss of thousands of jobs.
That's nonsense, in an independent Europe there will be hundreds more orders for Typhoons, replacing the F-35. Again, you analyze any drawback from the perspective of ONE country and ONE manufacturer. In UE, the advantages and disadvantages and supporting local industry and creating jobs should and must be balanced so that EVERYBODY wins, that should be at the core of the decision making process. The creation of Typhoon and Rafale went how it went (disagreements on it's production, configuration and role i mean), but that's history, it will be of course a nonsense and waste to ditch one or the other, you have the Typhoon that will equip the air forces of at least 4 nations, potentially well over 600 to 650 of them, and the Rafale who will equip FAF and cater for carrier based fighter needs, well over 300 and more like 350 of them in total being needed, plus of course the 400-450 Gripen or more for the smaller countries who would be best served by a cheaper platform. There can be increasing integration of contractors and subcontractors, for instance in the UK one can built assemblies for Rafale-M, in addition to Gripen and of course full production of Typhoon. I don't see how that will hurt Typhoon on the export market, the export customer can choose between Typhoon or Rafale for it's needs just like today and if he needs a carrier fighter, then there is Rafale. How many carrier based Typhoon (or Rafale) are you expecting to be sold anyway? Not many by the looks of it.
The British people don't want to see their country playing a perpetual second fiddle to the US, but that doesn't imply that they wanted to be governed from Brussels either. They're unlikely to ahead with the a withdrawal from the EU, but public opinion is certainly trending that way.
Again, i keep saying that, the US have no interests in a strong EU, it certainly has no interests in a United Europe, it IS the foreign power that has our politicians in our (i mean us europeans) pockets and are actively manipulating and deceiving the public for their own interests, and are FORCING us to take part in initiative that serves ONLY their pockets and interests, and result in human tragedy, death for MILLIONS and destruction and suffering that are wholly incompatible with european values (this is why we oppose their wars). It's the same like in Warpac f.e. , except the yanks are smarter, they don't use open violence, but keep the illusion of "freedom" and such, and use manipulation instead.
For the record, culturally the UK has more in common with the US (and other parts of the Anglosphere) than it does with countries in mainland Europe.
First, you probably mean the other way around, secondly, that simply is not true. The values and level of civilization will be familiar and known to anyone traveling from UK in at least western Europe, and vice-versa. How can you compare western Europe with a country with 200 million guns on the streets, all kind of crazy uneducated bible wavers, cops shooting hundreds of innocent peoples yearly, huge levels of violence and injustice, racism, xenophobia and so on? What the hell do we have in common with them ?!
Its naive to expect people in Europe belonging to nation-states with centuries-old histories, to sacrifice their sovereignty and national identity, and start identifying as 'European' instead. Its all well and good to say that they can be both, but if you want to create a counterpart (or counterweight) to the USA, that is what it'll take.
How is better to sacrifice far more than that for a FOREIGN power 5000 miles away, instead of doing only a fraction of same (i never mentioned and will not even support the US model you present, it's not about creating an european nation, it's about an independent european ALLIANCE) for our own and our lands, helping our own selves, for our own future?
Anyway, i know some are very eager to shut this thread because it's not on their "liking" (i'm even trolled in PM by some losers- pathetic), so aside the above discussion which could be pursued better elsewhere, i've compiled a few facts showing just how can be saved on procurement by several countries if we will be independent and ditch that F-35 thing (still cracks, still doesn't work properly etc.).
Italy has plans to buy 75-90 F-35A/B. As i mentioned elsewhere i don't see why they will need VTOLs as that role will be taken by full carrier airwings on the 4 big UE carriers or more, so replacing the order with 75-90 Typhoons in addition to those already in service will not only generate savings in aquisition and operation (there is no way Typhoon is more expensive to buy and operate than F-35, i'd say it will be less, maybe 3/4 overall, maybe even less), but also by operating a single type, with all the advantages of such.
Netherlands plans 37 F-35 to replace 74 F-16MLU. With the very same money, they can either get say 65-70 Gripen-NGs, or they can the same number (37) but with a whooping LESS THAN HALF aquisition and operating price!
Denmark plans 30 F-35, getting say 36 Gripens again costs HALF to buy and to operate.
Norway wants 52 F-35, again they can get either say 90-100 (!) Gripens for the same money, or 52 saving more than HALF the costs. etc. etc.
So, there are potential tens of billions in savings across the board. That money could for instance be directed to the special mission platforms that we lack, or just outright saved, while at the same time it creates and maintains tens of thousands of local jobs, and maintains local know-how, more than any of this F-35 "cooperation" will ever do, no way the $30 billion vehiculated is realistic, they're never going to build 3000 of those. Not to mention of course the inestimable value of independence.
By: EELightning
- 30th January 2014 at 22:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How can you compare western Europe with a country with 200 million guns on the streets, all kind of crazy uneducated bible wavers, cops shooting hundreds of innocent peoples yearly, huge levels of violence and injustice, racism, xenophobia and so on? What the hell do we have in common with them ?!
Are you for real? Well no, obviously not because you have no idea how f*cked up and corrupt Europe really is. Today, Europe do the most unimaginable, despicable and sickening things that would sink it to the most awful depths capable of matching that of the US, Russia, China or any other country, both "civilised" and 3rd world. Why don't you go educate yourself on these simple un-reported matters then maybe you'd just wake up and end up in the real world. Do that small thing instead of insulting other people's intelligence!
Your other points (dreams) are even worth replying to. Get real!
By: mack8
- 30th January 2014 at 22:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah i knew you're going to post here sooner or later something like this... but if you don't like this topic, with all due respect why do you post here then? Don't you have some UKIP rally to attend to or something...jeez
"Today, Europe do the most unimaginable, despicable and sickening things that would sink it to the most awful depths capable of matching that of the US, Russia, China or any other country, both "civilised" and 3rd world"...load of billhooks, why don't you open a topic in General about "these simple unreported" matters huh, let's see what "truths" you got?
PS: All trolls are ignored. If anyone doesn't like this thread, don't post in it, don't read it, you can add ME to your ignore list, i don't care ...just stay away.
By: RpR
- 30th January 2014 at 22:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How can you compare western Europe with a country with 200 million guns on the streets, all kind of crazy uneducated bible wavers, cops shooting hundreds of innocent peoples yearly, huge levels of violence and injustice, racism, xenophobia and so on? What the hell do we have in common with them ?!
Well before this i thought it was just a jealous insecure little kid speaking like one but after this bit of hateful imbecilic rhetoric, he has proven he is just another self-righteous invidious repugnant troll.
By: Vnomad
- 30th January 2014 at 23:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's nonsense, in an independent Europe there will be hundreds more orders for Typhoons, replacing the F-35.
No one's guaranteeing the British govt hundreds of Eurofighter orders.
Again, you analyze any drawback from the perspective of ONE country and ONE manufacturer.
And that is how the UK govt and people look at it. And how the French look at their industry. And the Italians their's and so on.
In UE, the advantages and disadvantages and supporting local industry and creating jobs should and must be balanced so that EVERYBODY wins, that should be at the core of the decision making process.
The UE doesn't exist.
The creation of Typhoon and Rafale went how it went (disagreements on it's production, configuration and role i mean), but that's history, it will be of course a nonsense and waste to ditch one or the other, you have the Typhoon that will equip the air forces of at least 4 nations, potentially well over 600 to 650 of them, and the Rafale who will equip FAF and cater for carrier based fighter needs, well over 300 and more like 350 of them in total being needed, plus of course the 400-450 Gripen or more for the smaller countries who would be best served by a cheaper platform.
Nobody in Europe is buying any more EFs. The T3Bs been cancelled and T1s are being retired to save money. Same with Rafales - orders cut by 60 units.
There can be increasing integration of contractors and subcontractors, for instance in the UK one can built assemblies for Rafale-M, in addition to Gripen and of course full production of Typhoon.
Wishful thinking. Its prohibitively expensive to set up infrastructure to build just 40-50 aircraft. And the UK isn't getting any reciprocal orders from France.
I don't see how that will hurt Typhoon on the export market, the export customer can choose between Typhoon or Rafale for it's needs just like today and if he needs a carrier fighter, then there is Rafale. How many carrier based Typhoon (or Rafale) are you expecting to be sold anyway? Not many by the looks of it.
An RAF/RN operating the Rafale is bad PR for the Eurofighter.
First, you probably mean the other way around, secondly, that simply is not true. The values and level of civilization will be familiar and known to anyone traveling from UK in at least western Europe, and vice-versa. How can you compare western Europe with a country with 200 million guns on the streets, all kind of crazy uneducated bible wavers, cops shooting hundreds of innocent peoples yearly, huge levels of violence and injustice, racism, xenophobia and so on? What the hell do we have in common with them ?!
No I don't mean the other way round. I won't comment on your opinion about the US, save to say, its not shared by the average Brit (or the average European for that matter).
How is better to sacrifice far more than that for a FOREIGN power 5000 miles away, instead of doing only a fraction of same (i never mentioned and will not even support the US model you present, it's not about creating an european nation, it's about an independent european ALLIANCE) for our own and our lands, helping our own selves, for our own future?
The NATO was formed when Europe needed alliance. No one (except for a few such as yourself) feel the need for any new alliance. Europe faces no significant military threat, least of all from the US.
Anyway, i know some are very eager to shut this thread because it's not on their "liking" (i'm even trolled in PM by some losers- pathetic), so aside the above discussion which could be pursued better elsewhere, i've compiled a few facts showing just how can be saved on procurement by several countries if we will be independent and ditch that F-35 thing (still cracks, still doesn't work properly etc.).
Clearly you're not getting the point. There is no 'us'. You may wish you spoke on behalf of the European people, but the cold hard reality is that Europe isn't united. And there are no barbarians on the horizon that would cause them to set aside their national interests or identities and put up a united front.
Italy has plans to buy 75-90 F-35A/B. As i mentioned elsewhere i don't see why they will need VTOLs as that role will be taken by full carrier airwings on the 4 big UE carriers or more, so replacing the order with 75-90 Typhoons in addition to those already in service will not only generate savings in aquisition and operation (there is no way Typhoon is more expensive to buy and operate than F-35, i'd say it will be less, maybe 3/4 overall, maybe even less), but also by operating a single type, with all the advantages of such.
And I'm sure the Italians will tell you that they have no intention of giving up fixed wing carrier aviation, regardless of what the UK or France are operating.
Netherlands plans 37 F-35 to replace 74 F-16MLU. With the very same money, they can either get say 65-70 Gripen-NGs, or they can the same number (37) but with a whooping LESS THAN HALF aquisition and operating price!
Denmark plans 30 F-35, getting say 36 Gripens again costs HALF to buy and to operate.
Norway wants 52 F-35, again they can get either say 90-100 (!) Gripens for the same money, or 52 saving more than HALF the costs. etc. etc.
All three can replace the Gripens with AJTs and save billions more. Or retire their air forces and keep all their money.
So, there are potential tens of billions in savings across the board. That money could for instance be directed to the special mission platforms that we lack, or just outright saved, while at the same time it creates and maintains tens of thousands of local jobs, and maintains local know-how, more than any of this F-35 "cooperation" will ever do, no way the $30 billion vehiculated is realistic, they're never going to build 3000 of those.
2450 for the US. Easily 550+ plus for others. Even if the US cuts back orders to 2000, the total production will still cross 3000. With the UK building at least 10% of each (the official figure is 15%), the revenue is $30 billion+.
Not to mention of course the inestimable value of independence.
NSA scandals, Julian Assange aside, no one's particularly concerned about the US at the moment. However, EU regulations, debt, unemployment and bailouts in the Eurozone, immigration are clear and present concerns. And there's a vocal and growing section of people who want independence from Brussels as well.
By: EELightning
- 30th January 2014 at 23:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah i knew you're going to post here sooner or later something like this... but if you don't like this topic, with all due respect why do you post here then? Don't you have some UKIP rally to attend to or something...jeez
Ah yes, the same old chestnut when you have sod all worth countering with. Your thinking is limited, I see. It's also funny, and hypocritical of you to bring that up after your comments on the US.
load of billhooks, why don't you open a topic in General about "these simple unreported" matters huh, let's see what "truths" you got?
Firstly, work out the differences between Military Aviation and Political Debate, then work out which categories, thus figure out which areas of the forum they belong in. Secondly, take some lessons on world History and Current Affairs. Dreams have no place in the world, why? Because the majority are awake.
PS: Anyone that not in my demented world are ignored. If anyone doesn't like this thread, don't post in it, don't read it, you can add ME to your ignore list, i don't care ...just stay away.
Fixed that for you.
You should also start to threaten consequences for your 'Ideal Europe', you know sort of what like that guy with the Charlie Chaplin Moustache did.
By: haavarla
- 30th January 2014 at 23:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I so agree!
Let me chip in my point of view as well. As a Norwegian citizen i hate everything the EU stands for, the hopless corruption and sentrilized Brussel, buracrisy. Why would any sane people let Brussel tell you what to do! No EU can stay in ther own mud and mess. Leave Norway out of this :)
We are fine with Nato and our close ties to US
By: Aurel
- 31st January 2014 at 00:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seriously mack8, I don't think you have an idea about the investments it would take to merge European militaries and get self sufficient in key technological and opsec relevant areas. And your idea about everbody winning is totally off. The UK for example has considerable workshare in the JSF, while just taking a hand full of airframes themselves. Some more Gripen and Typhoon orders can't make up for the loss.
But, let's just dream a little bit, and say all the Europeans (and increasing numbers of non Europeans within our borders) start to love each other. Then we would have probably only two design houses left in aviation. Dassault and Saab, maybe BAE. Cassidian (or is it now Airbus defence something) would be as dead as a company can be. While I wouldn't mind them going out of buiseness, German and especially Bavarian politicians would cry bloody murder. You can expect similar consolidation processes for land and naval system suppliers. Do you really think the French will accept the European Army get's it armored vehicles from KMW and BAE Hägglunds while state owned Nexter goes bust ?
What you would have to replace/or create: All European C4I systems, including software and large parts of the hardware (ground radars, comm equipment, space based assets ...) Creating a joint staff-currently WEU has no own command structures. European elements of the NATO staff are supposed to fill that role. I guess you want to dissolve NATO, otherwise you have a problem. The highest ranking European NATO Officer is per definition American.
Then identify and replace all the hardware which threatens OpSec... And the list goes on. Who would be able to pay for all this ? Certainly not the latin countries and east Europeans. Not much left then, eh ?
By: mupp
- 31st January 2014 at 09:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
While being a Eurowussie myself and kind of agreeing with Mack8 at the most basic point I think this should be shut down...it's just a potential banfield of heightened emotions.
By: mack8
- 31st January 2014 at 12:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good to know Mupp, well the peoples with "heightened emotions" should stay out then, they are not forced by anyone to read or post here. Some of them didn't even touch the subject of aviation, just plain trolling or going on about their "oh i know it better" and ultra-nationalistic crap. I don't have more time now for a longer reply to some of the stuff posted above (aviation wise), maybe tonight.
Just as there are plenty of topics out there regarding all kinds of hypothetical airforce evolution or what-ifs, this is also is one of them. If it "strikes a chord" with some characters, that doesn't mean because of their "sensitivity" it should be closed. Why? Shutting peoples with different opinions, is this what we do now? For the last time, anyone who doesn't like this theme, just STAY AWAY!
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 30th January 2014 at 11:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Absolutely right.
Which is why the basic premise of this thread is flawed. It concentrates on increasing numbers in, & eliminating US platforms from, an area (front line combat aircraft) where numbers are adequate & the nationality of the platforms is not critically important.
It ignores communications (both platforms & the technologies), sensors, jamming, transport, tankers, munitions stocks, & everything else where Europe does not have adequate independent provision.
Posts: 2,661
By: Vnomad - 30th January 2014 at 15:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The UK has a non-refundable $4 billion+ invested in the JCA project while reaping revenues of at least $30 billion over next two decades. Switching to Rafale will not only require the integration of catapults and be a blow to the Eurofighter's standing in the export market, but also lead to a net loss of thousands of jobs.
The opinion of 'the UK people' can be seen here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union#2013
The British people don't want to see their country playing a perpetual second fiddle to the US, but that doesn't imply that they wanted to be governed from Brussels either. They're unlikely to ahead with the a withdrawal from the EU, but public opinion is certainly trending that way.
And while the UK might be among the most Eurosceptic of the EU members, the sentiment isn't restricted to Britain. Its peaking in Greece and Spain, and on the rise in Italy and Germany. Denmark and Sweden have kept one foot out of the door and Norway has held firm on maintaining its status as a non-member.
For the record, culturally the UK has more in common with the US (and other parts of the Anglosphere) than it does with countries in mainland Europe.
What you're suggesting goes far beyond just EU membership or participation in the Eurozone. Creating a common foreign and military policy would require true European integration or a United States of Europe. And a United States of Europe cannot come around without its members ceding a far greater degree of sovereignty to Brussels than do at present.
What you seem unaware of, or unwilling to accept is that the European identity has remained a weak concept for its citizens. Unlike the United States of Europe, the United States of America actually has a strong national identity. Its citizens may be Californian or Texan, but first and foremost they identify as Americans. There's no substantial dispute between Georgia and Oregon on US foreign policy (though even they do quibble over taxation and federal budget sharing).
Its naive to expect people in Europe belonging to nation-states with centuries-old histories, to sacrifice their sovereignty and national identity, and start identifying as 'European' instead. Its all well and good to say that they can be both, but if you want to create a counterpart (or counterweight) to the USA, that is what it'll take.
You may believe the other side is 'nuts' but it doesn't change the fact that you're in a minority. Unfortunately, anti-Americanism isn't quite the unifying factor that you might have hoped it would be. The actual state of the European project can be summed up by the turnout in the European parliamentary elections which have gone down every cycle, from 63% in the 1979 to 43% in 2009, with the figure expected to fall below 40% come May this year.
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 30th January 2014 at 18:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 43
Vnomad
An excellent summary. Here is the 'killer punch': The EU is broke. The larder is bare. Most of the member nations are contemplating huge budget deficits. Borrowing to repay borrowing is no longer an option. The sheer size of national financial burdens is almost beyond comprehension. The eurozone still faces extinction and if the Chinese lose faith in the value and security of their eurobond holdings.........!
Given that Brussels is always eager to expand its empire by any means, a unified system of defence and offence has its undoubted attractions but, is hopelessly unrealistic when asking the question; how will we pay ?
Posts: 2,114
By: mack8 - 30th January 2014 at 22:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No i don't ignore that, i simply do not have enough information and expertise in that area, i keep saying it over and over, the situation is the way its is now BECAUSE we're dominated by the US, and the corrupt in charge eager to satisfy the US interests are not interested in our independence! If we are to become truly independent , yes we will need to build those, we will need Galileo GPS but like said before, we don't need the damn things on US scale, we're not going at their shores. But pretty much EVERYTHING needed to build those platforms, airframes , the know-how, the building facilities, is still here. Right now, it appears only UK, France Spain and Italy have a number of AEW, tankers and special purpose aircraft, but even so in the short them they will be adequate enough for defensive purposes. Things can't happen over night, the premise that EUAF should have all those capabilities from day one in order to be a viable force is unrealistic. This UEAF will start from what we have now, and build from there!
Let's have a constructive analysis, how many and what kinds of special purpose platforms we will need for an adequate capability? How much it would cost, how to best use available platforms and local technology to build these aircraft?
As for the attention to frontline aircraft, well afterall they do the actual defending, not replacing as quickly as possible the US types would be a grave weakness, we wouldn't control the radar, the codes etc. and the AMRAAM and many other munitions. They will be useless from an independence standpoint.
That's nonsense, in an independent Europe there will be hundreds more orders for Typhoons, replacing the F-35. Again, you analyze any drawback from the perspective of ONE country and ONE manufacturer. In UE, the advantages and disadvantages and supporting local industry and creating jobs should and must be balanced so that EVERYBODY wins, that should be at the core of the decision making process. The creation of Typhoon and Rafale went how it went (disagreements on it's production, configuration and role i mean), but that's history, it will be of course a nonsense and waste to ditch one or the other, you have the Typhoon that will equip the air forces of at least 4 nations, potentially well over 600 to 650 of them, and the Rafale who will equip FAF and cater for carrier based fighter needs, well over 300 and more like 350 of them in total being needed, plus of course the 400-450 Gripen or more for the smaller countries who would be best served by a cheaper platform. There can be increasing integration of contractors and subcontractors, for instance in the UK one can built assemblies for Rafale-M, in addition to Gripen and of course full production of Typhoon. I don't see how that will hurt Typhoon on the export market, the export customer can choose between Typhoon or Rafale for it's needs just like today and if he needs a carrier fighter, then there is Rafale. How many carrier based Typhoon (or Rafale) are you expecting to be sold anyway? Not many by the looks of it.
Again, i keep saying that, the US have no interests in a strong EU, it certainly has no interests in a United Europe, it IS the foreign power that has our politicians in our (i mean us europeans) pockets and are actively manipulating and deceiving the public for their own interests, and are FORCING us to take part in initiative that serves ONLY their pockets and interests, and result in human tragedy, death for MILLIONS and destruction and suffering that are wholly incompatible with european values (this is why we oppose their wars). It's the same like in Warpac f.e. , except the yanks are smarter, they don't use open violence, but keep the illusion of "freedom" and such, and use manipulation instead.
First, you probably mean the other way around, secondly, that simply is not true. The values and level of civilization will be familiar and known to anyone traveling from UK in at least western Europe, and vice-versa. How can you compare western Europe with a country with 200 million guns on the streets, all kind of crazy uneducated bible wavers, cops shooting hundreds of innocent peoples yearly, huge levels of violence and injustice, racism, xenophobia and so on? What the hell do we have in common with them ?!
How is better to sacrifice far more than that for a FOREIGN power 5000 miles away, instead of doing only a fraction of same (i never mentioned and will not even support the US model you present, it's not about creating an european nation, it's about an independent european ALLIANCE) for our own and our lands, helping our own selves, for our own future?
Anyway, i know some are very eager to shut this thread because it's not on their "liking" (i'm even trolled in PM by some losers- pathetic), so aside the above discussion which could be pursued better elsewhere, i've compiled a few facts showing just how can be saved on procurement by several countries if we will be independent and ditch that F-35 thing (still cracks, still doesn't work properly etc.).
Italy has plans to buy 75-90 F-35A/B. As i mentioned elsewhere i don't see why they will need VTOLs as that role will be taken by full carrier airwings on the 4 big UE carriers or more, so replacing the order with 75-90 Typhoons in addition to those already in service will not only generate savings in aquisition and operation (there is no way Typhoon is more expensive to buy and operate than F-35, i'd say it will be less, maybe 3/4 overall, maybe even less), but also by operating a single type, with all the advantages of such.
Netherlands plans 37 F-35 to replace 74 F-16MLU. With the very same money, they can either get say 65-70 Gripen-NGs, or they can the same number (37) but with a whooping LESS THAN HALF aquisition and operating price!
Denmark plans 30 F-35, getting say 36 Gripens again costs HALF to buy and to operate.
Norway wants 52 F-35, again they can get either say 90-100 (!) Gripens for the same money, or 52 saving more than HALF the costs. etc. etc.
So, there are potential tens of billions in savings across the board. That money could for instance be directed to the special mission platforms that we lack, or just outright saved, while at the same time it creates and maintains tens of thousands of local jobs, and maintains local know-how, more than any of this F-35 "cooperation" will ever do, no way the $30 billion vehiculated is realistic, they're never going to build 3000 of those. Not to mention of course the inestimable value of independence.
Posts: 1,190
By: hawkdriver05 - 30th January 2014 at 22:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You need to make this happen before the US invades Europe and makes everyone of you go out and buy a handgun and eat at Mcdonalds thrice a week!
Posts: 2,631
By: EELightning - 30th January 2014 at 22:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you for real? Well no, obviously not because you have no idea how f*cked up and corrupt Europe really is. Today, Europe do the most unimaginable, despicable and sickening things that would sink it to the most awful depths capable of matching that of the US, Russia, China or any other country, both "civilised" and 3rd world. Why don't you go educate yourself on these simple un-reported matters then maybe you'd just wake up and end up in the real world. Do that small thing instead of insulting other people's intelligence!Your other points (dreams) are even worth replying to. Get real!
Posts: 2,114
By: mack8 - 30th January 2014 at 22:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah i knew you're going to post here sooner or later something like this... but if you don't like this topic, with all due respect why do you post here then? Don't you have some UKIP rally to attend to or something...jeez
"Today, Europe do the most unimaginable, despicable and sickening things that would sink it to the most awful depths capable of matching that of the US, Russia, China or any other country, both "civilised" and 3rd world"...load of billhooks, why don't you open a topic in General about "these simple unreported" matters huh, let's see what "truths" you got?
PS: All trolls are ignored. If anyone doesn't like this thread, don't post in it, don't read it, you can add ME to your ignore list, i don't care ...just stay away.
Posts: 1,059
By: RpR - 30th January 2014 at 22:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well before this i thought it was just a jealous insecure little kid speaking like one but after this bit of hateful imbecilic rhetoric, he has proven he is just another self-righteous invidious repugnant troll.Way to go Mack8, BRILLIANT!
Posts: 2,661
By: Vnomad - 30th January 2014 at 23:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No one's guaranteeing the British govt hundreds of Eurofighter orders.
And that is how the UK govt and people look at it. And how the French look at their industry. And the Italians their's and so on.
The UE doesn't exist.
Nobody in Europe is buying any more EFs. The T3Bs been cancelled and T1s are being retired to save money. Same with Rafales - orders cut by 60 units.
Wishful thinking. Its prohibitively expensive to set up infrastructure to build just 40-50 aircraft. And the UK isn't getting any reciprocal orders from France.
An RAF/RN operating the Rafale is bad PR for the Eurofighter.
No I don't mean the other way round. I won't comment on your opinion about the US, save to say, its not shared by the average Brit (or the average European for that matter).
The NATO was formed when Europe needed alliance. No one (except for a few such as yourself) feel the need for any new alliance. Europe faces no significant military threat, least of all from the US.
Clearly you're not getting the point. There is no 'us'. You may wish you spoke on behalf of the European people, but the cold hard reality is that Europe isn't united. And there are no barbarians on the horizon that would cause them to set aside their national interests or identities and put up a united front.
And I'm sure the Italians will tell you that they have no intention of giving up fixed wing carrier aviation, regardless of what the UK or France are operating.
All three can replace the Gripens with AJTs and save billions more. Or retire their air forces and keep all their money.
2450 for the US. Easily 550+ plus for others. Even if the US cuts back orders to 2000, the total production will still cross 3000. With the UK building at least 10% of each (the official figure is 15%), the revenue is $30 billion+.
NSA scandals, Julian Assange aside, no one's particularly concerned about the US at the moment. However, EU regulations, debt, unemployment and bailouts in the Eurozone, immigration are clear and present concerns. And there's a vocal and growing section of people who want independence from Brussels as well.
Posts: 2,631
By: EELightning - 30th January 2014 at 23:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah yes, the same old chestnut when you have sod all worth countering with. Your thinking is limited, I see. It's also funny, and hypocritical of you to bring that up after your comments on the US. Firstly, work out the differences between Military Aviation and Political Debate, then work out which categories, thus figure out which areas of the forum they belong in. Secondly, take some lessons on world History and Current Affairs. Dreams have no place in the world, why? Because the majority are awake. Fixed that for you.You should also start to threaten consequences for your 'Ideal Europe', you know sort of what like that guy with the Charlie Chaplin Moustache did.
Ta-ta, Troll.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 30th January 2014 at 23:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I so agree!
Let me chip in my point of view as well. As a Norwegian citizen i hate everything the EU stands for, the hopless corruption and sentrilized Brussel, buracrisy. Why would any sane people let Brussel tell you what to do! No EU can stay in ther own mud and mess. Leave Norway out of this :)
We are fine with Nato and our close ties to US
Posts: 770
By: 19kilo10 - 30th January 2014 at 23:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nice one Lightning.:applause:
Posts: 1,050
By: Aurel - 31st January 2014 at 00:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seriously mack8, I don't think you have an idea about the investments it would take to merge European militaries and get self sufficient in key technological and opsec relevant areas. And your idea about everbody winning is totally off. The UK for example has considerable workshare in the JSF, while just taking a hand full of airframes themselves. Some more Gripen and Typhoon orders can't make up for the loss.
But, let's just dream a little bit, and say all the Europeans (and increasing numbers of non Europeans within our borders) start to love each other. Then we would have probably only two design houses left in aviation. Dassault and Saab, maybe BAE. Cassidian (or is it now Airbus defence something) would be as dead as a company can be. While I wouldn't mind them going out of buiseness, German and especially Bavarian politicians would cry bloody murder. You can expect similar consolidation processes for land and naval system suppliers. Do you really think the French will accept the European Army get's it armored vehicles from KMW and BAE Hägglunds while state owned Nexter goes bust ?
What you would have to replace/or create: All European C4I systems, including software and large parts of the hardware (ground radars, comm equipment, space based assets ...) Creating a joint staff-currently WEU has no own command structures. European elements of the NATO staff are supposed to fill that role. I guess you want to dissolve NATO, otherwise you have a problem. The highest ranking European NATO Officer is per definition American.
Then identify and replace all the hardware which threatens OpSec... And the list goes on. Who would be able to pay for all this ? Certainly not the latin countries and east Europeans. Not much left then, eh ?
Posts: 770
By: 19kilo10 - 31st January 2014 at 00:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where would Canada fit into all this?
Posts: 265
By: mupp - 31st January 2014 at 09:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
While being a Eurowussie myself and kind of agreeing with Mack8 at the most basic point I think this should be shut down...it's just a potential banfield of heightened emotions.
Posts: 2,114
By: mack8 - 31st January 2014 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good to know Mupp, well the peoples with "heightened emotions" should stay out then, they are not forced by anyone to read or post here. Some of them didn't even touch the subject of aviation, just plain trolling or going on about their "oh i know it better" and ultra-nationalistic crap. I don't have more time now for a longer reply to some of the stuff posted above (aviation wise), maybe tonight.
Just as there are plenty of topics out there regarding all kinds of hypothetical airforce evolution or what-ifs, this is also is one of them. If it "strikes a chord" with some characters, that doesn't mean because of their "sensitivity" it should be closed. Why? Shutting peoples with different opinions, is this what we do now? For the last time, anyone who doesn't like this theme, just STAY AWAY!
Posts: 1,190
By: hawkdriver05 - 31st January 2014 at 13:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I assume the Jews have no room in your vision of "Uber Europa"?
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 31st January 2014 at 15:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kinda surprised that you bring this up because current Jewish population of Europe is estimated below 0.3%.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 31st January 2014 at 15:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ha. Easy
Several billion hot air balloons and airships.
The bags being filled from the hot air of the politicans and the engines on the airships run from the methane gathered off the bullsh|t they speak.
Posts: 1,059
By: RpR - 31st January 2014 at 19:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
YES, Macky posts another grade school -- "I'm rubber, you're glue... diatribe.They say one's rhetoric shows one's intellect, his rhetoric say much about his little world.