111–120 of 332 posts
As long as our global society puts this much carbon in the atmosphere for "defence" purposes, we have no chance of maintaining a human-friendly climate on Earth in 20-30 years.
Defence is c. 2% of the world economy and probably something similar for carbon emissions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Boeing 787 needs 2.8km of high-quality concrete for a runway. A F-35 is known to have low maintenance stealth coatings, so you don't need extensive overhaul every flight. If you're fighting other countries from Czechia, the most likely countries to fight are either Russia, or it's minion Belarus. In which case you're probably not worrying about the politics of using civilian infrastructure.
Or you are part of a NATO operation against Serbia. Mentioning it, because the conflict in Kosovo is not resolved yet.
35 years ago we would fight Germany. F-35 are supposed to last until 2050!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The British army has more horses than operational Challenger tanks
So what? So does the Dutch police. But that still doesn't mean you're about to ride your horses in quantity into war. Especially not as long as the opposition has (1) tanks and (2) operational machine guns.
But the cavalry regiments (who use tanks but ride horses ceremonially) would get very upset if the state of their horses was so parlous. They must be one of the few modern organisations that actually has a career path for farriers and other horse-related trades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what? So does the Dutch police. But that still doesn't mean you're about to ride your horses in quantity into war. Especially not as long as the opposition has (1) tanks and (2) operational machine guns.
I know. My comment was really a somewhat cynical view of the state of the UK's armoured vehicle capability. Our primary infantry fighting vehicle (Warrior) is about 40 years old now, and its upgrade programme has recently been canned after it proved impossible to fit modern turrets onto the antique hulls. But the cavalry regiments (who use tanks but ride horses ceremonially) would get very upset if the state of their…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's vertical landing, not vertical take off. It's still a short rolling take off. I actually wouldn't be suprised to find they do a short rolling landing too (rather than go full hover, use the lift fan to allow them to land at lower than normal stall speed would be). They've tested the rolling landing on board the HMS QE And yes, for full maintenance, you do need need a proper airport and hangars. But for a quick r…
From what I know, we only have single military airport capable of supporting F-35. Fully loaded F35 needs 2.5 km of high quality concrete. It also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating. There is no "quick refual/arm" with stealth, it is more like operating Space Shuttle! There are also civilian airports, but we would propably run out of those very soon. And using civilian infrastruct…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I know, we only have single military airport capable of supporting F-35. Fully loaded F35 needs 2.5 km of high quality concrete. It also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating. There is no "quick refual/arm" with stealth, it is more like operating Space Shuttle! There are also civilian airports, but we would propably run out of those very soon. And using civilian infrastruct…
>It also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating. There is no "quick refual/arm" with stealth, it is more like operating Space Shuttle! I don't know where you heard that but it's completely untrue. Some older radar absorbent material required intensive maintenance but the F-35 is not like that. It's not that much more difficult to maintain than a previous generation fighter. It would b…
>It would be completely impractical to operate if you needed to completely overhaul it every flight.
And? Maybe it is every 2nd or 10th flight, that does not make it much more practical. Cost for operating F35 is astronomical. Old Soviet airplanes we had could take of from grassy fields!
Cold-War West Germany had about 30 "Emergency Airstrips", about 3km long Autobahn sections that could be converted to airports for military use. Complete with parking lots designed for aircraft parking, mobile air control towers, etc. Large enough that we landed C-130 Hercules on them. Similar strips exist in Finland, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland. Though most of the German locations are now retired and removed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure "controversy" killed biological weapons and most use of nuclear (thankfully). They're even trying to get rid of certain cluster munitions.
We have enough nuclear weapons to kill off humanity. They have not been used because of fear of retaliation, the number has been reduced because of costs. But the US with it's largest conventional military would benefit from a removal of all nuclear weapons. We'll see if Russia uses a tactical nuke when Ukraine enters Crimea. Biological weapons have been killed because they are hard to be used operationally. You don'…
Humanity yes, mankind I'm not so sure. Earth is huge. There are a lot of humans. Some will survive winter. Some will survive mutations. Some will continue to reproduce.
Cold-War West Germany had about 30 "Emergency Airstrips", about 3km long Autobahn sections that could be converted to airports for military use. Complete with parking lots designed for aircraft parking, mobile air control towers, etc. Large enough that we landed C-130 Hercules on them. Similar strips exist in Finland, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland. Though most of the German locations are now retired and removed.
This is true in the US and Canada as well.
The Ukrainian Air Force has found a new clever way to keep using normal air bases. After a hangar got bombed by cruise/ballistic missiles they would print a 1:1 aerial/satellite picture of the rubble, hang it over the actual rubble and then clean up under the print. It took quite a few weeks for the Russians to understand this ruse.
The doctrine of always having air superiority in NATO (and thus not needing makeshift runways) is so far rather justified given the hilarious level of incompetence shown by the VKS. Although the RAF seems to be more anxious about it, they definitely know much more than me. We do need a lot more air defense though, it's clear that before the next NATO-Russia confrontation they will have a rich arsenal of flying trashcans like the Shahed, as well as some decent missiles.