|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 13, 2024 13:03:56 GMT
There's going to be a strategic defence review with regards to boosting our military.
So, proposal: 3-4 squadrons of F16s, to boost our air defence.
Over the UK we don't need stealth aircraft. We need fast fighters that can get up to altitude and fire missiles.
And if Trump gets in in the USA, we give a squadron to Ukraine and we help them take out the invaders infrastructure, warehouses, rail depots and airfields.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 13, 2024 13:36:43 GMT
There's going to be a strategic defence review with regards to boosting our military. So, proposal: 3-4 squadrons of F16s, to boost our air defence. Over the UK we don't need stealth aircraft. We need fast fighters that can get up to altitude and fire missiles. And if Trump gets in in the USA, we give a squadron to Ukraine and we help them take out the invaders infrastructure, warehouses, rail depots and airfields. There is a guy on Youtube who left his job as trainer for military jets. He goes to some length to explain why he left his job. The bottom line is the institution has gone mad woke and are discriminating against British people and trying to make it more equal, so you have blacks in charge of these things who have been positively discriminated and he says that is fucking mad and extremely dangerous, hence why he left.
Edit:
here, I found the link to his channel in case anyone disbelieves it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 13, 2024 14:26:54 GMT
There's going to be a strategic defence review with regards to boosting our military. So, proposal: 3-4 squadrons of F16s, to boost our air defence. Over the UK we don't need stealth aircraft. We need fast fighters that can get up to altitude and fire missiles. And if Trump gets in in the USA, we give a squadron to Ukraine and we help them take out the invaders infrastructure, warehouses, rail depots and airfields. I'm slightly suspicious. In my experience 'Strategic Defence Review' is political speak for defence cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 13, 2024 14:41:54 GMT
What nonsense is this? - we had a Defence Review in 2021, we then had a Defence Review 'Refresh' in 2023 and now Starmer is talking about yet another?.
Sounds like its a smokescreen to do fuck all and prevent any extra spending..
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 13, 2024 15:59:40 GMT
There's going to be a strategic defence review with regards to boosting our military. So, proposal: 3-4 squadrons of F16s, to boost our air defence. Over the UK we don't need stealth aircraft. We need fast fighters that can get up to altitude and fire missiles. And if Trump gets in in the USA, we give a squadron to Ukraine and we help them take out the invaders infrastructure, warehouses, rail depots and airfields. I'm slightly suspicious. In my experience 'Strategic Defence Review' is political speak for defence cuts. How do you reverse defence cuts? Start with a review. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 13, 2024 16:32:44 GMT
I'm slightly suspicious. In my experience 'Strategic Defence Review' is political speak for defence cuts. How do you reverse defence cuts? Start with a review. Yes I agree but when the coffers are empty, as they are, increased defence spending which I accept we desperately need, means cuts to some other departments budget. Can you see a Labour government cutting the budgets of the big spending departments, health, welfare, education? I cant. Which is why Starmer refuses to commit to 2.5% and in spite of his grandstanding at NATO I'll be surprised if Labour stick to current defence spending. This review will for some reason take a year, why? Labour have been in shadow government for years and shadow ministers are kept in the loop, they know exactly what the situation is so why is it taking a year? It seems to me that Starmer has put all his eggs in one basket, the basket marked 'economic growth' and many economists say growth will not be nearly enough for this governments plans. Green energy superpower, 300,000 homes built every year for five years, defence spending increased to 2.5%... Not a snowballs chance in hell. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 13, 2024 18:07:47 GMT
I think it means more borrowing and higher taxes sadly.
But if they were to see sense and scrap all the diversity bollocks their party put in, back in the 2000's, that might save a couple of billion a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 15, 2024 21:21:29 GMT
Thinking about the suggestion of F16's for the RAF - I think they need something a bit more modern. After all I was working on F16's in the RAF (and I just worked this out 😱) 41 years ago...
Good aircraft - just not that good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2024 21:29:26 GMT
Thinking about the suggestion of F16's for the RAF - I think they need something a bit more modern. After all I was working on F16's in the RAF (and I just worked this out 😱) 41 years ago...Good aircraft - just not that good. F16's are indeed good aircraft and have a good reputation, but as you say they may be a bit long in the tooth. So what would you go for Pacifico? What would be your aircraft of choice... |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 15, 2024 21:45:26 GMT
Thinking about the suggestion of F16's for the RAF - I think they need something a bit more modern. After all I was working on F16's in the RAF (and I just worked this out 😱) 41 years ago...Good aircraft - just not that good. F16's are indeed good aircraft and have a good reputation, but as you say they may be a bit long in the tooth. So what would you go for Pacifico? What would be your aircraft of choice... if you want an aircraft in production that is going to be combat effective and relatively cheap then the F-15EX would be the ideal choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2024 23:57:39 GMT
F16's are indeed good aircraft and have a good reputation, but as you say they may be a bit long in the tooth. So what would you go for Pacifico? What would be your aircraft of choice... if you want an aircraft in production that is going to be combat effective and relatively cheap then the F-15EX would be the ideal choice. Yes just what I was thinking... lol. Mach 2.5, it must be said that's fairly brisk. $80 million per unit, jeez defence is an expensive business. Yes I know you're going to tell me it's cheaper than the alternatives. Defence is still an expensive business. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 16, 2024 4:27:37 GMT
Latest variant of the F16 $63 million per unit.
Even now, it's still a great weapon platform.
Extremely good value for boosting air defence over the UK whilst allowing the Typhoon and F35s to be used offensively.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 16, 2024 6:49:17 GMT
Latest variant of the F16 $63 million per unit. Even now, it's still a great weapon platform. Extremely good value for boosting air defence over the UK whilst allowing the Typhoon and F35s to be used offensively. Against who?
Let me guess...
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 16, 2024 8:47:48 GMT
F16's can do this more cheaply than Eurofighter Typhoons.   As the F16 has a single engine, it uses less fuel. It's cheaper than the Typhoon and the F35 but can carry the same missiles.
Missiles are the key as they can take out enemy aircraft from beyond visual range.
So, as the launch platform for a lot of missiles, having F16s presents better value than the alternatives.
They don't need to be stealthy when operating above the UK.
They can be flown below radar if needs be.
They're an excellent multi role aircraft even now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 16, 2024 9:12:19 GMT
So we need F16s to 'take out' 50s and 60s era 'enemy aircraft' do we.
What about hypersonic sub-launched cruise missiles, will F16s take them out too?
Like all armchair generals you're obsessed with fighting the last war usually against largely imaginary 'enemies'.
|
|
