back to article Raptor and Eurofighter go head to head

There were a lot of things on show today at Farnborough, but probably if they were honest there was only one event which absolutely everyone here was determined not to miss. That was the first ever overseas (public) appearance of the F-22 Raptor, the latest, most unbelievably expensive uberfighter from the USA. In a scheduling …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Those costs.

Much as I enjoyed the Ladybird book of Military Procurement the £175M per aircraft flying is a seriously disingenuous figure. I presume that ignoring the hypothetical attrition spares is done just to give a bigger number? Surely the point of them is to take the place of aircraft that get wrecked so the fleet doesn't reduce with age? The idea that in the next 20 odd years no one will right off a Typhoon and those attrition spares will sit pristene and untouched is frankly stupid.

Also, doesn't the Typhoon cost include the ground installations, supply chain, maintenance, technical support and repair? This inservice support is easily the most expensive element of an aircraft through it's life and is unlikely to be factored into the cost of the F22 as I don't think they have a contractor support solution planned.

Many of the points are quite valid, just let down by exaggerating the numbers for effect.

0
0
Black Helicopters

easy prey

there's no fighter alive john McClaine can take out!

0
0
DS

In reply to:

Original comment in ""

"Someone further up was asking about the Tornado F3. So, the reason the F3 is so badly derided is because it was designed for intercepting Soviet fast bombers."

It was not really 'designed' but rather hacked together. And it should not be derided, overall the F3 served its function. People seem not really to understand its operations.

"The supersonic bombers that threatened the northern flank of NATO are a huge threat, and the F3 was designed to just be a very fast interceptor. Also, the dual use airframe was first designed as the ground attack variant, which it is far better at really. Basically the F3 has the turning circle of a cruise liner. Now, in the last few years of the F3 I saw it do very well against the US aircraft simply because the avionics had been so massively improved - especially things like JTIDS. These days, turning and burning is much less important than top notch avionics. In most "dogfights" in this day and age you expect to engage way before the turn and burn stage."

It was in principle meant to be a stand off platform, with a fall back to close in fighting with sidewinders. One has to remember, the all aspect sidewinders in the era reached a stage where they mattered rather more than the agility of the plane carrying them. As part of the air defences of the UK, a mish-mash was built, including the Hawk being used as a point defense platform. The F14 Tomkat was in some ways similar to the F3, it was not a great close in fighter, and its stand off design worked. If you get the Missiles right on such platforms, and in both cases I believe that was roughly correct, the platform works, and works well most of the time.

"Now I come onto Lewis' article. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with his sentiment that things like Eurofighter and Raptor are useless."

Indeed. They are fine aircraft. I believe Lewis is arguing about what the can be used for rather than purely attacking their existence. His attacks are of some value, however, he does not really account for the large picture that exists. The UK's largest failings are political in nature. Not funding enough, and badly thought out and considered strategies where everything you want to do relies on third parties. Afganistan is showing how frail such planning can be. Europe has 3000 + choppers, yet hardly any lift cap is available in a NATO op. In the meantime, the UK gov continues to play off and meddle in EU/NATO affairs, instead of telling the EU to go get stuffed. The EU military nonsense is screwing with NATO, and making a mess of any defense planning, and that's bad enough as it is with the mess NATO is today.

The Largest problem we have is a patch piece quilt defence idea, where an assumed coverage is provided by third parties. This leads to serious reduction in capability and capacity, industrially, politically, actual, and real. Someone else will provide the ships. Someone else will provide the men. Someone else will provide the tanks. Someone else will provide the fighters. Someone else will provide the bombers. Someone else will provide the helicopters. And this nonsense, because that's what it is, is squarely why we are losing in Afganistan. And it runs deeper, because this is even why as someone said, you go to a supplier, and they can't give you some Chinooks (example). They are either fully booked on capacity, or have stopped making the gear. For YEARS in the UK, we followed this. So in Afganistan we have not enough air, not enough choppers, and still drive round in snatch Landrovers. We built tiny production runs of top line gear, because *everyone* will pitch in. Only they don't. And our price per unit costs the earth. And as with Chinooks and other equipment, because the whole NATO thing is like this, its very hard to rustle up equipment to order. Its years rather than weeks, and the whole thing is a shambolic mess.

You can bet your bottom dollar, that in we were to follow Lewis's theory of purchase, the time you would go to the US needing a number of something, they would actually be flat out producing it for their own force, probably first.

It is not like Lewis's ideas have not been used previously. Its how the RAF and Government wrecked TSR2, and went off to buy cheaper 'F111' bombers.

Personally, if I were going to bitch about something it would be the F35. I'd have never started that damn thing, and would have continued developing the Harrier program, and Harrier joint strike force. The Harrier has some flaws, but its a seriously proven battlefield design and simply works. I frankly dread to think what a mess the F35 may end up being.

"The reality of it is, we have gone up against major air forces in recent times. The Argentineans had an extremely capable air force during the Falklands, and Saddam had a top air force during the first Gulf War."

I have to take issue with this. The Argentines were poorly trained, but brave. And their equipment of Skyhawks, Mirages, Super Etendards, and a mixture of other stuff paid a really heavy price in a situation where in most cases they had a strategic and tactical advantage. And anyone doing serious evaluation would question the idea that they could class as major, or capable.

Saddam's 'air force' had fancy aircraft, and little else.

"Fortunately, in the latter case he decided not to use it, but we did expect significant losses had he flown his air force anywhere except Iran. Now, the key part which will win any future air superiority battle in the future is better avionics than the opposition. The old fighters (like the F3) are an absolute nightmare to retrofit avionics into, usually requiring very expensive projects to do so. And in many cases there just isn't space in the airframe for the new avionics (try retrofitting a new radar for example). What the Typhoon and F22 both provide is a highly capable avionics platform. The turning and burning is an aside, and in reality is only a small part of the development cost."

Air warfare will always, always have variables that have to be considered. Avionics are for sure, one key area. So are weapons systems, platforms, service availability, and performance in all flight envelopes, and pilot training. The US went to Vietnam and despite having a technical advantage on paper, it came out the other side having to reshape its *entire* training system. It had bet the farm on missiles and got it all wrong.

"In my opinion there is a good chance that the Typhoon or F22 will see real operational service in their lifetimes. Of course, getting rid of the maintenance burden that the F3 has become will be great, and it will be nice having a quick jet like Typhoon on QRA both in the UK and down on the Falklands."

In *any* theatre apart from bottom end ones like Afganistan, you will need air capability. Period. Its an absolute requirement. So I think you are right, it will see action, and we'll need the capability.

0
0
Black Helicopters

The Chinese threat...

A lot of momentum has been building up over the Chinese threat in the context of a World Super Power.

It's been posited in numerous recent games (like Battlefield 2) and books (the tin foil wearer in me sees this as civilian indoctrination).

People in this thread are mentioning it too.

One thing though. How many Aircraft carriers does China have? How many do the USA have? (ok, that was two things!)

China only has one and that's a bit of a shaky claim ("Shichang Multi-Role Aviation Ship is one of the largest vessels in the People's Liberarion Army Navy fleet, it would be a bit of a stretch to class this ship as an aircraft carrier." globalsecurity.org)

The USA has 24.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

One in every Sea of importance. Yes, Sea, not Ocean.

Aircraft carriers are all about projection of power.

And the USA has a fleet (gotta protect that aircraft carrier baby!), in every major sea from the Arabian gulf, to the Indian, to the Mediterranean etc.

So whilst China is an Economic power, I'm not sure about the World power. Definitely an East Asian power, but World threatening?

0
0
b
Thumb Up

ready for the chinese?!

everything that's said i agree with.

these things are monstrously expensive and borne of questionable reasoning, but world geo politics is not stationary, so despite the long lead times for development, we cannot really blame anyone for the end of the cold war. (but don't get me started on the galactic wastes of money world militaries are, for mankind!)

but what of the future?

what if the chinese "communist" (i.e. fascist) mafioso start building factories which can churn out mig-copies for peanuts?

individually, as stated would not be much of a threat, but what if china could put up thousands upon thousands of average air assets?

the development has been done, even if we don't produce them en masse, there may come a time when we will be grateful for the development of these beasts!

cheers,

bill

http://www.eupeople.net/forum

0
0

@Lee

No, it's not just about airplanes.

Lewis' articles routinely discuss the negative effect that overspending on "prestige" projects has on the rest of the armed forces. And since a lot of posters here are not discussing this article in isolation, but are referring the Lewis' entire posting history, I felt it fair to do so myself. So I brought up the subject of foot-soldiers, which I used to represent *all* non-pilot, low-ranking and underpaid servicemen and women. (Geez, don't be so literal!)

And yes, air support / air dominance is vital. But I don't see anyone advocating going back to Sopwith Camels here, just a bunch of people reacting as if that were the topic at hand. There are other options besides "buy whatever crap Boeing makes" and "buy whatever crap EADS makes." If you don't like Lewis' suggestions, try coming up with others!

Lewis explained the bit about "minimal losses" versus "no losses". By overspending on planes, there's less money for everybody else, which means that personnel in less glamorous arms are going to die. And those lives are not less valuable, in a human sense, than those of pilots. It's right there in TFA.

And soldiers *are* dieing right now because of the lack of appropriate gear, as has been highlighted in the other articles in this series.

As I said before, any military budget will be finite. (The Cold War arms race nearly bankrupted *both* superpowers). So there needs to be a careful apportionment of funds between "super-weapons" and "grunts" (who remain vital to this day.)

And there needs to be a balance between current needs and future threats. A lot of posters here have bleated about the need to be prepared for a possible war with China or a resurgent Russia. But the Brits and Yanks are *also* are fighting wars right-frigging-now, and those fighters need support, too.

And there also needs to be more focus on the actual needs of the armed forces (present and predicted) rather than the profiteering of the suppliers, and the higher ranks' own obsession with bigger and better toys.

Of course, a better solution, instead of pacifism on the one side, and over-expenditure on the other, would be to elect leaders who don't think with their dicks, and don't start unnecessary wars at the same time as they are already fighting arguably-necessary ones.

And I admit I went over-the-top with the masturbation quips. (Please don't call it 'onanism' - Onan was struck dead by God for another reason entirely. Only one ancient and agenda-driven exegesis claims he was masturbating at all.)

I was just annoyed at the number of posters who refused to see the bigger picture, and who seemed to blinded by the gee-wiz technology. So I lashed out inappropriately. (OTOH, is there such a thing as "inappropriate" on The Register comments pages? ;-)

I'm a computer geek myself - I like gee-wiz technology, too. But I also get angry at the blatant waste of *my* tax money. My country is also spending mega-bucks (compared to our tiny economy) on weapons that are a gross overkill given our potential enemies. And two people have already gone to jail because of blatant corruption, committed in collusion with European (esp. French) companies.

And in the meantime, our infrastructure, health-care, housing and education all crumble.

0
0
Boffin

The currency of Fighter Planes?

I thought due to the prevalence of the F16 in exports, it was the de facto currency of air forces (sorry Lewis, Chinooks lose to the air superiority that the fighters provide). Wikipedia tallys 6000+ built and about 25 "operators". LOL, does anyone else think of Fork Lift Trucks when that term is used?

Seems that the F16 cost is about 25m USD (from Singapore exports) but I'm not sure if that includes contract costs for the spares for X years.

So getting back to the topic, my literature from the F22 game from DID posited that the F22 cost two F16s, whereas the Eurofighter cost one F16. But that was pre 2000.

The issue here is whether that cost for the Eurofighter remained static. Wikipedia lists the F22 flyaway cost as 161m USD (from US Forces aircraft procurement 2009 cost estimates) and the Eurofighter at 122.5m USD (based on sales to Saudi).

So is that flyaway cost the budget overrun, or the "on the road" equivalent in cars :-)

0
0

Godwin's Law

Woo hoo, anyone spot us reaching 1 back there? Good, we can stop now then.

0
0
Joke

Proposal For New El Reg Units

I hereby propose a new El Reg unit. The Chinook. Used for measuring the cost of fighter planes and other similar government project with a tendency to cost overruns. Example: "You could buy 20 Chinooks for the cost of one Eurofighter!

Other suggested units are the Eurofighter, NHS IT Project, and London Olympics.

A rough conversion table:

1 London Olympics = 5 NHS IT projects

1 NHS IT project = 200 Eurofighters

1 Eurofighter = 20 Chinooks

0
0

To all the folk worrying about Russia and China

Why do we always assume someone else will be the aggressor?

Russia are more likely to be invaded by us for their gas and oil resources (and China aren't going to attack anyone as long as they can sell us stuff). So on reflection, we probably do need those Eurofighters after all.

0
0
Alert

@ bill

>what if the chinese "communist" (i.e. fascist) mafioso start building factories which >can churn out mig-copies for peanuts?

They've been doing this for decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-7

etc. etc.

0
0

How about...

We see just how good value they really are, and we chuck the EF and F22 up against a current Russian plane... The SU37. We even have some in NATO thanks to our continual expansion eastwards.

0
0

Sitting in your safe UK armchair...

"It is true that Western air forces might conceivably have to fight developing-world air forces equipped with exported Russian machines; but it's hardly the likeliest of missions for them."

Written from the safety of the UK. You'd have an entirely different view of affairs from Australia, sitting at the edge of SE Asia with developing-world nations stocking up on cheap MIG-35 and Su-27. We're feeling the lack of an exportable F-22 and the lack of any F-35 somewhat keenly. At the northern end of SE Asia, Japan has similar concerns.

Australia almost came to blows with Indonesia over its army's destruction of East Timor after the UN-sponsored vote for East Timor's independence. Australian airpower, and thus control of shipping to the island, was a major factor in Indonesia's determination that it should conceed to the UN's wishes. Airpower was the major protection against heavy equipment for the lightly armoured UN (predominately Australian) force. As you can see, an edge in airpower over emerging nations can determine the course of a conflict.

The MIG-35 and Su-27 threat have lead Australia, Japan and Singapore to spend large sums on money on interim aircraft prior to the availability of the F-35 for moderate (but hopefully sufficient) enhancements in air combat capabilities.

If the F-35 is a dud then there will be a serious change in the balance of military power in SE Asia.

0
0
Black Helicopters

@bill

It doesn't matter on a Global scale if China has lots of airplanes.

It needs aircraft carriers to project it's power into the rest of Asia and the world to become Global Enemy Number One.

Yes, there is mid air refuelling, but doing something like the Vulcan 5000 mile refuelling exercise is not something future world dictators want to do....

So unless some giant laser is installed on the moon, China will remain locked in Asia (which is probably their plan anyway). This only conflicts with the US on the Taiwan front (which funnily enough has lots of F16s) and there are regular US Naval exercises in or near the Taiwan Straits (except when they don't know where the Chinese submarines are - purportedly)

Note to self:Don't mention the Chinese plans to put a manned laser on the moon.

0
0

Stupid old losers

See how they live in the past, pathetic. The bang bang zoom whoosh machines of the stone age are a joke. All that needs to be done these days is for China to halt exports to a country for a couple of weeks. No need for rockets or knuckledraggers with guns or stupid expensive flying machines. All the WWII types are dead so the only clowns still interested in this kind of bullshit are victims of too much Victor and Battle Action as children. And of course the american criminals who make money from fear, an apparently endless resource in the failed ex-colonies.

0
0
DS

STOP WITH THE CHINOOK Price comparisons dammit

If the UK Gov wanted Chinooks, it could go out and get them. Just like if they *really* wanted to, they could abandon the use of snatch landrovers.

And yes, Money will always be finite, but the peace budget being used in wartime, has a deeper effect, than merely not buying a modern air superiority fighter and instead buying a bunch of chinooks.

The failures in theatres like Iraq and Afganistan are really quite easily solved. The problem is a lack of desire to actually do so, in case it costs a few bob. These two theatre's in terms of the UK are not vastly huge, and getting a few things down pat is not beyond the wit of men. Get the troops the base equipment, body armour, personal weapons, replace the snatch landrover, and buy some second hand chinooks, or lease, or borrow similar. Add in a serious increase in available air power care of Harriers.

We fight these wars on the cheap, and cutting projects like carriers, or EF, or subs is just another nasty cheap method.

In the meantime, morale in all three forces is sinking, and is already seriously low, we're going to lose a much larger chunk of good people in the near future, and despite what is being said about Navy and Air Force, their morale is lower than the Army. Its the worst political leadership in modern times over the forces and it shows absolutely everywhere.

What is worse than all of that, is that Iraq might long term turn out ok. But the situation in Afganistan is dire, and getting worse each day. That too is a symtom of the diabolically poor political leadership this country has had overlong now.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Proposal For New El Reg Units

You missed out..

1 Chinook = 150 Dead squaddies.

I'm not sure that one is even a joke though.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

@DS

> The failures in theatres like Iraq and Afganistan are really quite easily solved.

The USSR also thought they could solve the problem, once... Spent many more times the budget in money in human lives, too.

The problem is not invading the country, the problem is holding it.

0
0
Unhappy

@JonB

You're missing the point. We're only talking about jets here. Don't mention anything else. Anyway, we NEED super-jets to preserve our Way Of Life! Any talk of soldier's lives is cheap moralistic "think of the children" dramatics and not relevant here. So get with the program!

At least, that's what they tell me.

0
0

Human life value

If you ask them, the human value is the replacement value, and a pilot is VERY expensive.

0
0
DS

re ratbox:

I said failures in theatre. ie equipment failings and generic stupidity.

Winning in AFGANISTAN is a different subject altogether.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@DS and the rest of the Arm Chair CDPs

"The problem is a lack of desire to actually do so, in case it costs a few bob."

We are currently spending about £4B per year maintaining and enhancing UK military forces in Iraq and the 'Stan. Want more money spent? Ask for tax increases. Please don't imagine buying a fleet of armoured vehicles, body armour, etc is like buying yourself a Dell Computer, if you think you can do better, please apply at MOD Abbey Wood, we need more confused blow hards (sorry Lewis, not you personally).

"These two theatre's in terms of the UK are not vastly huge"

Please feel free to hop on the regular train services in Helmand, or just call a cab in dowtown Bsara. In fact after you have got your job at Abbey Wood apply to go onto operations and work in Basra like I did for the last 6 months. You'll never whinge about the UK again.

"getting a few things down pat is not beyond the wit of men"

Less typing more action please. Clearly an organisational genius like yourself is wasting themselves in the UK. Head to the 'Stan and you can have it all fixed in a few days.

And in general to all you arm chair generals (and those Junior Officers I tried to teach but were too self important to listen), when you next run a high tech military system production contract, or try to take a cold war army to war in the desert, spare athought those who have gone before.

0
0

@The currency of Fighter Planes

Well the $161m quoted for the F22 (and £61.5m for Typhoon) are basically the unit procurement cost (i.e. based on latest production order of the aircraft and generally excluding the R&D and other ancillary costs) and is basically the marginal cost of additional aircraft.

Depending on what you are trying to illustrate, a generally more useful benchmark number is one that includes the whole program (program unit cost) - i.e. R&D, spares, support etc. all included and then divided by the entire production run number; that is where you see the cost of F22 really starts ramping up in comparison to Typhoon.

A study by defence-aerospace in 2006 estimated program unit cost for Typhoon at $143.8m compared with $338.8m for Raptor.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

All cost comparisons of this nature are invariably inaccurate however as you can never compare like with like and there is plenty of "creative accounting" involved when it comes to presenting the various figures for these things. Also exchange rates have of course gone a bit crazy in the past couple of years which throws things somewhat.

They are both certainly very capable aircraft however, and I have no doubt that both will no doubt see frontline action at some point.

0
0

@Glenn Turner

Oh dear, you'd put a short-range strike fighter with the Achilles' Heel of needing airtankers to go any serious distance - the F-35 -, up against a long-range air-superiority/strike fighter armed with HARMs - the Su-30?

I have suggested at least once, to the Australian and New Zealand governments, that ANZAC needs the Su-30. And that given the minor geographical details surrounding Australia and New Zealand - the Ocean Moat - it would make more sense to standardize on a cheap long-range strike fighter family - the Sukhoi S-30, Su-33UB, and the Su-34 - and manufacture it in Australia. Then once manufacturing had settled down, buy development rights to the airframe and turn it into a stealth strike fighter. It's already a strike fighter, a strike bomber-shturmovik, a carrier-borne naval defense fighter, and goodness knows what next it can be, so why not turn it into a stealth fighter.

Neither Canberra nor Wellington were impressed - mostly because it meant not buying USAmerican. Religious, in other words, not rational - like vi versus emacs.

0
0

@ A good Use (AC)

"China is next on the radar. They are not really going to try anything for a while, at least until they can come up with something to beat the Typhoon or Raptor (or even Raphale). The benefit of the delay is still a benefit."

The J-10 is fairly contemporary with the Typhoon and the Raphale.

0
0
DS

Response

@DS and the rest of the Arm Chair CDPs

By Anonymous Coward

Posted Wednesday 16th July 2008 01:02 GMT comments in ""

"We are currently spending about £4B per year maintaining and enhancing UK military forces in Iraq and the 'Stan. Want more money spent? Ask for tax increases."

You don't need tax increases. All you need to do is trim some stupid fat in the worst government we have had in decades. Not hard when you spend your time infesting our streets with parking wardens who get more money than soldiers. 4£ Billion per year spread across two full theatres of war, and an armed forces stretched to breaking point. And yes, bottom line I want more money for it. If thjese buffoons put people - presumably people like yourself in harms way, I want you to get looked after. I am sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

"Please don't imagine buying a fleet of armoured vehicles, body armour, etc is like buying yourself a Dell Computer, if you think you can do better, please apply at MOD Abbey Wood, we need more confused blow hards (sorry Lewis, not you personally)."

If you'd bother to read anything I have said, I stated its exactly not like buying a Dell computer, and we make damn sure we can't do it with current methods. However, THAT is no frigging excuse seeing as they have for example still got snatch Landrovers and have had YEARS to replace it with something viable. Again, whining at me with your arm chair bluster is pointless.

"These two theatre's in terms of the UK are not vastly huge"

"Please feel free to hop on the regular train services in Helmand, or just call a cab in dowtown Bsara. In fact after you have got your job at Abbey Wood apply to go onto operations and work in Basra like I did for the last 6 months. You'll never whinge about the UK again."

Fine, YOU give me the job and the authority and funding and I WILL fix the issues. But we know that's a fantasy. In Iraq at this time we have 4,000 troops. Equipping 4000 people by a country like the UK is beyond us is it? Its 8,000 in Afganistan. 8000 men properly equipped is beyond us. Historically and by many a measure, that's a small operation that we should be able to equip and run properly. Again, I am so sorry its so mortally offended you that I feel you should be equipped fully and properly, have proper air cover, lift and the rest. We are at war in two theatre's, 4 Billion is peanuts.

"Less typing more action please. Clearly an organisational genius like yourself is wasting themselves in the UK. Head to the 'Stan and you can have it all fixed in a few days."

Its not going to be fixed, because the Politicians here have no stomach for fixing it. They prefer people like you die, than find the funds and money.

"And in general to all you arm chair generals (and those Junior Officers I tried to teach but were too self important to listen), when you next run a high tech military system production contract, or try to take a cold war army to war in the desert, spare athought those who have gone before."

We have been in the desert for years. Apparently, years is still too short a time for a modern, industrially capable nation to actually build, make, pay for and equip people properly. Again, I am so sorry you feel offended that someone should call it how it is.

0
0
Happy

@glen

@glen surely you jest about East Timor , for real history tells us a totally different take on both the events of the year 1975 and that of which you inferred about in 1999 and sadly you have forgotten much about what really happened in those two or more particular years of some very world shattering events which shaped peoples and countries reactions as well !

Now post 1945 WW2 , the US has maintained and operated two very powerful Naval Nuclear Armed and Equipped Battle groups in both the Indian Ocean and the South China Seas or better known as Indonesia's front and back doors respectively . They have always since independence from the Dutch in 1945 influenced either directly or indirectly much of what happens in the country in question since then !

Now let us add a few dates like August 9th 1974 the day Tricky Dicky fell on his own sword , a year of continuing massive stagflation in the US , add April 30th 1975 , the day Saigon fell creating massive numbers refugees who could only seek comfort mostly in the US or Oz as every other country slammed doors in their face ,! After the fall of Tricky Dicky the out going US foreign interventionist/domino theory was discredited and thrown into the waste paper basket due to a small problem as it had been proven as more fiction then fact and out of control stagflation was now a real killer , so thus the country went into a form of comatose sleep and became introverted as they had a lot of internal problems to fix awaiting the arrival of fixit now not later ,a man called Jimmy Carter !

Next in July 1997, Asia went into total economic melt down , and then in Indonesia which was for intents and purposes absolutely bankrupt at every level of it's society an evil dictator who had personally organized the East Timor grand larceny scheme and was responsible for ordering the deaths of untold thousands was tossed out of his own office on May 21st , 1998 and finally who supported and championed the East Timor UN resolution but one US El Presidente called Bill Clinton who also had the keys to biggest loaded arsenal known to man !

As always rose coloured glasses tend to cloud ones view of real events in real time ,looking back in hindsight is good though !

As for the Oz military having absolutely no ability to guard or protect even it's own coastline and absolutely minimal offensive capability past a maximum of seven days on a ten square mile area , man what brand of interesting pills do you use ? , may I have some too please !

For the others the words they have forgotten in this debate is "Mutually Assured Destruction Absolutely To The Point Of No Return !" , for those so equipped with "Oppenheimer's Toys ! "

As W.O.P.R. or Joshua would say "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." . Or Stephen Falken "The whole point was to find a way to practice nuclear war without destroying ourselves. To get the computers to learn from mistakes we couldn't afford to make. Except, I never could get Joshua to learn the most important lesson." or "Futility. That there's a time when you should just give up."!

Have a nice day you all !

0
0

Lewis Chambelain

Surrender Minkey and Western Civilisation self loather from the land where noone can have guns and end up slaughtering each other with knives. Obama '08.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017