Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 11:52:18 am »
The picture you posted perhaps reveals another deeper motivation, all those countries have regular military parades and nothing looks more impressive than having a leader basking in glory as a convoy of multi-wheeled missile launchers rumbles past in plain sight of your population.

Ensiloed missiles typically have wheeled transporter erectors; the Russians used to
roll those around the parade routes.

Yep.  Don't need mobile ICBMs to parade ICBMs through Red Square.
2
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by marauder2048 on Today at 11:44:37 am »
The picture you posted perhaps reveals another deeper motivation, all those countries have regular military parades and nothing looks more impressive than having a leader basking in glory as a convoy of multi-wheeled missile launchers rumbles past in plain sight of your population.

Ensiloed missiles typically have wheeled transporter erectors; the Russians used to
roll those around the parade routes.

A few holes in the ground are much less easy to show off to your neighbours and tax-paying population.

Which is funny given that one of the (sometimes unstated) reasons for retaining silo-based ICBMs
is the economic dislocation that would be caused by the decommissioning of an ICBM wing.
3
The Bar / Re: Belgium's quest to replace their F-16 fleet
« Last post by kitnut617 on Today at 10:17:42 am »
It didn't hurt that the 747 was originally designed as military freighter (lost to the C-5 Galaxy), hence the swing-up nose and raised flight deck.

Erm! the Boeing offering to the XC-X was this below, nothing like the 747 configuration
4
The Bar / Re: Belgium's quest to replace their F-16 fleet
« Last post by Michel Van on Today at 10:15:57 am »

The Walloon mobster (socialist)... The Flemish Mobster

If you always refer to socialist parties SP-A & PS as "The Mafia /Mob"...
...Maybe keep to the point of the F-16 replacement in this topic and leave politics aside?

Sorry, but how you can call a Political party, that was involve in every corruption scandal of Kingdom, commit Murder and escape criminal prosecution ?
Special, if they are the one who responsible to buy the stuff for Military in over 30 years...
oh i not even mention Vanden Boeynants in that history !

We can discuss technology, the benefit of the model, advantages & disadvantages, pro and contras.
But let face it, in the F-16 replacement, play only one thing a important role: POLITICS 
why you think this in "The Bar" Section ?

Welkom to harsh reality called Belgium 



5
The Bar / Re: Belgium's quest to replace their F-16 fleet
« Last post by TomcatViP on Today at 09:36:12 am »
The greatest irony is that Dassault will benefits from a Belgian buy of F-35 (even if  Typhoon win - there is always something to learn). So Dassault and other industrial traditionally associated  with  Fr will gain some knowledge, just like what they did when they lost against the F-16, inheriting radar tech and others for example.
So, obviously a loss won't taste as good as a direct order of a French branded product for most, but in the end, many realist will see this as a good opportunity for the industry to rebound in a better position...
6
Aerospace / Re: USAF spells out F-16 upgrade program
« Last post by TomS on Today at 09:22:10 am »
Would you count the Mitsubishi F-2?  That's 98 airframes based pretty directly on the F-16.
7
The Bar / Re: Belgium's quest to replace their F-16 fleet
« Last post by Archibald on Today at 09:10:44 am »
Listen, I say this as Frenchman and Dassault enthusiast (lucid, however)

Screw politics,
Screw Rafale,
Screw Typhoon
Screw F-35 flaws and qualities,

Belgium is a free country, free of its choice, so if they want F-35 for their Air Force, then I'm fine with it.

LET IT GO, Belgium, LET IT GO. assume yourself and your choices.



Let it gooooooooo, let it gooooooo...
8
Aerospace / Re: USAF spells out F-16 upgrade program
« Last post by Moose on Today at 08:12:56 am »
Will the F-16 beat the 5000th mark, and the Phantom production run ?
5000 seems like an outside shot but possible, 5200 seems pretty unlikely.
9
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 08:02:22 am »
Are you serious?  You think mobility has been the holy grail since day once because they look good in parades?   ::)

I think its a psychological factor that shouldn't be overlooked, its a common denominator for all those nations. I'm not saying its a military factor but its a bonus feature of having a mobile deterrent. You can show it off easily when you need to and hide it when you don't. I'm not questioning the obvious fact that mobility imparts a high-degree of survivability and is therefore desirable in itself. Also, wheeled transports are generally cheaper when you haven't got an aviation and/or submarine shipyard capability to give you other mobile options (I don't count the sole North Korean SSB).

The "psychological", "parade value" is, at best, a happy coincidence.  Mobility has been desired from the outset and the lessons of Desert Storm only magnified its benefits.
10
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 07:59:28 am »
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5708271444001/?#sp=show-clips

Two minute clip, interesting but there should be entire shows that discuss the current debate and explicitly discuss WHY the US is doing what they're doing in the face of massive Russian/Chinese nuke programs.


"massive" is hardly the correct word when describing the Chinese nuke program. Their warhead count has a mere three digits.

"Massive" is correct.  Two types of new ICBM, a new SLBM, numerous types of sub-ICBM ballistic missiles, most of which are nuclear capable, and all of which are mobile.  New nuclear capable cruise missiles.  They aren't pulling the warheads off old DF-5s and putting them on cruise missiles.   China is well on it's way to a "Prompt Global Strike" system the US merely talks about.  It ALREADY has such a system regionally.  Between the DF-11/15/16/17/21/26 it can reach out to 2,200 miles in a matter of minutes.  The US doesn't even have that kind of control over the Gulf of Mexico.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10