"Discussion" is not a confirmed, "Hey, assholes, we're coming in." I figure this is more of a "let's see the reaction" sort of political statement. It's also not something we'd want to telegraph. Macron (and, undoubtably, other leaders) are just gauging the western reaction to the idea. Whether or not it's worth doing depends on whether or not you think Putin will stop with taking Ukraine.
Ukraine - Russia Conflict
- Thread starter pardus
- Start date
Devildoc
Verified Military
Macron can talk the talk, but he can't walk the walk. All he is going to do is have other countries distance themselves from him/France.
France going to be the lead nation?
Remember years ago when France jumped into Mali? Don't get me wrong, I loved to see it and thought it was great, but there was one little problem.
Most of their logistics was supplied by the USAF. Tankers, cargo planes, whatever else.
France intervening in the Ukraine, despite the land bridge, only happens with US participation. Not "hey, you can go do this", but "here's a bunch of C-17's and C-5's to help you do this".
Most of their logistics was supplied by the USAF. Tankers, cargo planes, whatever else.
France intervening in the Ukraine, despite the land bridge, only happens with US participation. Not "hey, you can go do this", but "here's a bunch of C-17's and C-5's to help you do this".
No one other than Ukraine is going to directly fight Russia on the ground in Ukraine without the US leading the way.
Everyone makes fun of Russia for their shitty logistics and sustainment going into Ukraine, but I wonder how much better anyone else would do, going into Mali or anywhere else, without US logistics, intel, and money.
Box
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,334
Why would anyone really want to "win" a war anymore?
Seriously.
Why would anyone in the corporate defense sector really want to win a war under the current global paradigm?
Why would politicians that are profiting from investing in an industry that they regulate want to end the war?
Why would world leaders that don't have to worry about their own privileged children having their blood shed when they are essentially insulated from heart break and loss?
Ukraine is shooting thousands of artillery shells per day.
Somebody is making those shells and somebody else is getting rich selling them.
Win the war?
Put an end to the "selling artillery shells" industry?
Nonsense.
Maybe it works like this:
The US government relentlessly taxes the US citizens.
The US government then gives BILLIONS of those tax dollars to Ukraine as military aid.
Selected government officials then invest heavily in the defense industry.
Ukraine uses that US taxpayer funded military aid to buy artillery from the US defense industry.
Investors in the defense industry put that money in off shore accounts and other tax shelters.
The US government then has to take more tax money from US citizens.
The US government then gives billions MORE of those tax dollars to Ukraine.
Ukraine continues to buy artillery rounds from the US defense industry.
What fucking booger eating moron would ever try to stop a profit cycle like that ???
Profit bitches - victory is bad for business.
Seriously.
Why would anyone in the corporate defense sector really want to win a war under the current global paradigm?
Why would politicians that are profiting from investing in an industry that they regulate want to end the war?
Why would world leaders that don't have to worry about their own privileged children having their blood shed when they are essentially insulated from heart break and loss?
Ukraine is shooting thousands of artillery shells per day.
Somebody is making those shells and somebody else is getting rich selling them.
Win the war?
Put an end to the "selling artillery shells" industry?
Nonsense.
Maybe it works like this:
The US government relentlessly taxes the US citizens.
The US government then gives BILLIONS of those tax dollars to Ukraine as military aid.
Selected government officials then invest heavily in the defense industry.
Ukraine uses that US taxpayer funded military aid to buy artillery from the US defense industry.
Investors in the defense industry put that money in off shore accounts and other tax shelters.
The US government then has to take more tax money from US citizens.
The US government then gives billions MORE of those tax dollars to Ukraine.
Ukraine continues to buy artillery rounds from the US defense industry.
What fucking booger eating moron would ever try to stop a profit cycle like that ???
Profit bitches - victory is bad for business.
Raytheon self-reports a backlog--BACKLOG--as in, orders people want to pay them for but they can't fulfill--of nearly $200 million.
LOL sorry, I meant $200 ***BILLION***
RTX Reports 2023 Results and Announces 2024 Outlook
My youngest is an engineer with a defense contractor in FL. He says they’re operating around the clock. They make filters and other components for tanks and helicopters.
Last edited:
I am not a moron!
You want unlimited IEDs? Because this how you have unlimited IEDs.
Good news for South Korea though.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
So you see, Airplanes and Ships, and tanks specifically, you have to keep the production lines open. The Army, unlike the Navy and the Air Force keeps the production lines going for its shit. We may only produce 20 tanks a year and then send 100 in for refurb and upgrade. But at least an Abrams can come off the line. Same thing with Apaches and Blackhawks...but the only things coming off the line for the Navy is a Burke Flight III. We suck at Small Arms acquisition and trucks are cheap. Let's talk about airframes. The plant for the C-5 and C-17 are all gone. The plant for F-22 is now a movie studio. Tooling is gone. Literally impossible to bring these things back to life. And literally impossible to scale production.
Weirdly though, the Air Force keeps buying F-15s. A design that is older than the F-16...both original designs are over 50 years old.
Last edited:
Because it has to.
The F-15EX is a pretty big step up from the original F-15E's, the same with the F-16V compared to the F-16C. Depending upon your sources, both are running about 20 million-ish dollars less per copy than the F-35A with a lower cost per flight hour than the F-35A. Maintenance isn't as intensive and it takes less time to spin up -15/-16 maintainers than -35 folks. The F-15EX is a bomb truck, I'd have to look up the loadout differences between it and the -35, but it is massive.
So, you need aircraft, better aircraft than what you have, and the -35 is more costly and in some respects less capable than a modernized 4th gen fighter.
This whole F-35 debacle, that's what it is, has forced the Navy and AF to rethink their Wing compositions. A few years ago the Navy claimed the entire FA-18E/F force would be gone by 2035. That's not happening, though the last F-18 will roll off the line in 2025.
Everyone knows 6th gen a/c are being tested, 5th gen is running way over budget which drives down acquisition numbers, so you need something to bridge the gap until the 6th gen stuff comes online. Upgrades and service life extensions are the only way to make that happen.
What did y'all buy? 20 pre-production test models with 30k flights hours each?
The -EX payload is about 30K, the -35A is about 20K. Varies (of course) with fuel and mission requirements.
Totally off on a tangent for this thread, but new and cutting-edge fighter aircraft capabilities come from new avionics, communications, COMSEC, securable network that works while airborne while tooling around in ECM-heavy environments, new engines, airframes, maintenance equipment, software to tie it all together. training for the crews and maintenance cats. It has to be integrated together to make it useable outside someone's lab somewhere. It all has to work while pulling 9Gs. All while surviving politicians looking to fund drug addicts in Seattle.
I sincerely hope all the money dumped into these airframes is completely wasted. I don't think it will be.
To get that 20k though, it has to use external stores, right? Now you're breaking your low observable footprint for 2/3 the payload and a higher cost per flight hour. I mention it because some of our members may not connect the dots.
I'm with you.
Keeps buying?
This is the first US F-15 purchase in decades.
We're buying new 130's too, a design that's 50+ years old, and massively upgrading the B-52.
The EX is light years ahead of what's being replaced, and the original selling point was using it as a F-15C replacement in the CONUS Air Defense Mission.
The EX can carry 12+ A2A missiles, the F-35A block 1.x carries 4. The F-35A block 2.x and 3.x carry 6.
Which plane do you want flying against inbound cruise missiles?
Hypersonics are the future, we have two planes that can carry those planned missiles, B-52's under the wing, and F-15's under the belly.
