Trump Slams NATO, Floats Russia Nuke Deal in European Interview

[Skroe]

I got it. Skroe is a Sales Manager working for US Military, or more like one of these pesky door-to-door salesmen who try to talk you into buying things you don't need. That would explain his persistence!

Not really. Frankly, if I had a time machine, I'd go back to 2002 and pull the plug on the F-35 program. The problems - well one of the big ones anyway - with the F-35 can be best explained in comparison to its predessor the F-16.

The F-15 predated the F-16. When the F-16 came along, it took F-15 technology, modestly improved upon it, (full fly-by-wire, side stick, bubble canopy, better avionics), and put it in a single engine aircraft. They're cousins.

The F-35 started as a derivative of the F-22. But it grew into something very, very far from the F-22. It's almost entirely different. There were some good reasons for that. The F-22's Cray Supercomputer is notoriously difficult to program for, highly insecure, poorly documented, and not at all suited for a "plug and play" open architecture that was desired for the F-35. But putting aside the airframe compromises made by the Marine's inclusion, the F-35, the first real information age fighter, was just too far removed from the F-22 compared to the relationship of its predecessor. Had it been largely an F-22 in a single engine, smaller package, the program would have been in full scale production years ago. Instead, they basically tried to do a sixth generation fighter with fifth generation technology. The Air Force, Navy and Marines presented a wishlist, and Lockheed didn't really say "no".

In that alternate world, where the F-35 is significantly less advanced, but also wholly replaced the F-16 years ago, than the US would probably be flying F-22 successor aircrafts now. Instead, because of protracted development, the key question is, if the US restarts F-22 production, to just start making old F-22A's or integrate as much F-35 tech as possible on the F-22 and make an F-22C. It's a pretty shit situation overall.

It's too late to abandon the F-35. But the F-35 also is a real quantum leap forward in many respects. We can only just hope to do better next time.

[caervek]

How do you shoot their planes down when they go after your extremely limited number of Air Refueling craft, jammers, and AWACs?

Just as well as you do if they don't, because you don't actually need those things when operating in your own airspace.

their success rate does NOT have to be high

Wasting planes trying to down infrastructure the enemy doesn't actually need, when you are at a near 1:3 disadvantage is pretty stupid.

HFor the record, I'm applying the US thought process versus China, over the Pacific

Well yeah but surely you can understand how the US fighting China over the sea isn't directly comparable to the EU fighting Russia over ther EU.

So me saying the Tornado successor should be a flying wing is basically me saying, it should adopt the most aerodynamically efficient design possible for a strike aircraft, rather than a fighter-like one.

In fairness the Tornado would have probably been delta wing like it's predecessor and French equivalent, had it not been for the requirement for a fighter variant. With the Eurofighter now filling that role it's most likely that the Tornado replacement will be designed as you say (assuming they don't decide just to make it's replacement a drone as some have called for).

[Skroe]

Please do remember geography. Europe doesn't have an ocean between them and Russia they have land borders with Russia. Since Europe doesnt' need to invade Russia proper they don't need Air refueling craft, jammers and AWACs. All they need is air superiority over Europe.

Wanna know why the US and has so many bases in Europe (and had so many more during the Cold War)? Because they're all big fat stationary targets for conventional warhead armed ballistic missiles from Russia. The US realized that it could probably get a lot of gets off the ground, but it wouldn't necessarily be able to land them all, or fly them again, when Russia hit the run ways, fuel depots and aircraft shelters.

The issue at hand here is endurance in a conflict. Russia will try to take away Europe's ability to fight. We have, on a pamphlet, 400+ Typhoons. How many realistically will get off the ground before their runway / shelter is destroyed? How many realistically will be able to land again? Numbers offer defense in depth. That's why even in Europe the US is seeking to shave down post-Cold War superbases, and distributed itself to a large number of more spartan, but highly distributed, smaller facilities. European defense minus the US would have to do the same. Instead of keeping those 400 Eurofighters on 30 bases (making up a number here), keep them on 120. And have a way to quickly repair the runway.

- - - Updated - - -

In fairness the Tornado would have probably been delta wing like it's predecessor and French equivalent, had it not been for the requirement for a fighter variant. With the Eurofighter now filling that role it's most likely that the Tornado replacement will be designed as you say (assuming they don't decide just to make it's replacement a drone as some have called for).

The other alternative is to make the replacement a modified Eurofighter variant, to keep the production line open, since orders are winding down. That would be a cheaper, short term solution though. A flying wing design wouldn't enter service until well after 2030 if it started like, now and be considerably more difficult / expensive to manufacture.

The entire thing may be pointless though, and the future can be in munitions. The US is undecided as to that. It's building the B-21 Raider bomber to replace the B-52 and B-1, but the B-52 will also be modified into the Arsenal Plane role at the exact same time, leverage ultra long range weapons and network centric warfare. Presumably, the B-21 would eventually take up that role too. And then by extension, as a new, modern stealth aircraft, it would be desirable to put an air combat suite on it, and all of a sudden it becomes very much like the "Missiler" concept that was an F-22 option in the 1980s.

If air to air and air to bomb missiles start incorporation decision making AI, and down the road, air launched ones start reaching 500+ mile ranges, you wouldn't necessarily need anything exotic. Just something medium or big that could fly high for long time and network really well. "Fighters" as a means to air superiority and "bombers" for for attack, could be obsolete conceptually, in the place of the universal smart networked missiler.

[Shadowferal]

I got it. Skroe is a Sales Manager working for US Military, or more like one of these pesky door-to-door salesmen who try to talk you into buying things you don't need. That would explain his persistence!

He's been consistently wrong on just about everything....just/ignore

However, I suspect that if sanctions are dropped, Russia may come to test the waters within the year.

[Elim Garak]

The issue at hand here is endurance in a conflict. Russia will try to take away Europe's ability to fight.

Russia not going to invade Europe anyway. Never did. Plenty of other ways around though in history.

[Skroe]

He's been consistently wrong on just about everything....just/ignore

However, I suspect that if sanctions are dropped, Russia may come to test the waters within the year.

Basically everything? Like what exactly? That Trump wouldn't win?
Good golly good gosh that means EVERYTHING!



It's funny you say that, because Russia issues are an area I've been particularly right on. I called Russia's aggression against Europe and the US on this forum, years before it actually happened. Hell its even funny you mention sanctions. When Russia invaded Ukraine, I described that sectoral sanctions would come within a year. Lots of the pro-Russian people were all 'no way Skro' 'you're crazy' 'Europe will NEVER AGREE! They're too economically connected to Russia!'. All sorts of excuse making because people didn't fully appreciate the importance (that should have been obvious) that countries place on their security over making some money.

Well that was three years ago, and the largest threat to the perpetuation of sectoral sanctions is Donald Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

Russia not going to invade Europe anyway. Never did. Plenty of other ways around though in history.

Russia also was going to perpetually respect Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for it giving up its ex-Soviet-inherited nuclear weapons.

And look what that got them.

CFE. INF. NewSTART. So on and so forth.

Never trust Russia or Russians. Period.

[Skroe]

The irony of Skroe telling us it's not US propaganda that we need them

Okay. Fly your existing F-16s for another 30 years. See what happens when they hit the ripe old age of 65. But don't come crying to us when your pilots die.

One of the key rationales of making the F-35 an international program from the start, rather than the US buying it and exporting it later (as was the case with the F-16), is because all those F-16s that Europe and other allies bought in the 1980s and 1990s are all aging out at the same time. Beyond a certain service life they, like anything else, become unsafe to use.

You guys gotta buy something. It's that simple. It doesn't necessarily have to be an F-35. But that was the key programmic rationale: so that in the mid 2020s when Lockheed is making 100+ F-35s a year, you folks can junk your legacy aircraft at the rate the US has been, and replace them with a ready-to-go-replacement. Of course the F-35 makes the most sense because it is the only export fifth-generation fighter on the market and no other for-sale aircraft has its capabilities. But that is an entirely different choice really.

Fundamentally, you gotta buy something. Because if you don't, you'll be flying true antiques before you know it.

[Mormolyce]

Russia not going to invade Europe anyway. Never did. Plenty of other ways around though in history.

Not the cool parts of Europe, you mean.

[Shalcker]

Not the cool parts of Europe, you mean.

We have gas and oil to pay for European goods, why would we need to invade them?

"They hate our freedom!" is dumb, after all.

Now, we would prefer you sell more high-tech manufacturing stuff to us, but we don't want it enough to seek military solutions; and there are others that might become much more accommodating once US pressure subsides, like Japan.

[caervek]

You guys gotta buy something. It's that simple.

Please no, we've only just managed to stop Greece blowing all their bailouts on new F-16s XD

[Sorshen]

You guys gotta buy something. It's that simple.

Saab will present their Gripen NG on 14th-18th of feb.

[Elim Garak]

Russia also was going to perpetually respect Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for it giving up its ex-Soviet-inherited nuclear weapons.

First of all Ukrainian territorial integrity is intact as long as Russia is concerned.
Secondly those nuclear weapons were never Ukrainian to begin with. They belonged to USSR -> Russia and the whole issue was about Ukraine not letting Russia take them to Russia, and Russia not wanting to leave them in Ukraine and pay for their safekeeping. It was extortion.

And look what that got them.

Whatever they made happen to themselves.

[Deleted]

I can see Europeans scaring to shitless already. Time to grow a pair folks because if this guy does what he says, you are on your own. This direction USA taking might create suitability for some sort of Central European super-state.

France doesn't give a shit.

[Kellhound]

Please do remember geography. Europe doesn't have an ocean between them and Russia they have land borders with Russia. Since Europe doesnt' need to invade Russia proper they don't need Air refueling craft, jammers and AWACs. All they need is air superiority over Europe.

AWACS and ECM aircraft are vital to any air combat situation, especially if you are seeking air superiority.

- - - Updated - - -

Just as well as you do if they don't, because you don't actually need those things when operating in your own airspace.



Wasting planes trying to down infrastructure the enemy doesn't actually need, when you are at a near 1:3 disadvantage is pretty stupid.



Well yeah but surely you can understand how the US fighting China over the sea isn't directly comparable to the EU fighting Russia over ther EU.



In fairness the Tornado would have probably been delta wing like it's predecessor and French equivalent, had it not been for the requirement for a fighter variant. With the Eurofighter now filling that role it's most likely that the Tornado replacement will be designed as you say (assuming they don't decide just to make it's replacement a drone as some have called for).

AWACS and ECM are vital even in defense. AWACS is FAR more effective in airspace management than ground bases radar. ECM is needed to roll back the effectiveness of the opposition's radars and to reduce the effectiveness of long range SAMs. There is a reason NATO owns 17 E-3s, the UK 7 and France 4 (compared to 32 in the USAF). ECM is lacking though, big time.

- - - Updated - - -

The irony of Skroe telling us it's not US propaganda that we need them

You need something to replace your 61 remaining A model F-16s.

- - - Updated - - -

We have gas and oil to pay for European goods, why would we need to invade them?

"They hate our freedom!" is dumb, after all.

Now, we would prefer you sell more high-tech manufacturing stuff to us, but we don't want it enough to seek military solutions; and there are others that might become much more accommodating once US pressure subsides, like Japan.

Because you get butthurt about how ethnic Russians get treated in other countries. <cough> Ukraine <cough>

- - - Updated - - -

First of all Ukrainian territorial integrity is intact as long as Russia is concerned.
Secondly those nuclear weapons were never Ukrainian to begin with. They belonged to USSR -> Russia and the whole issue was about Ukraine not letting Russia take them to Russia, and Russia not wanting to leave them in Ukraine and pay for their safekeeping. It was extortion.

Whatever they made happen to themselves.

Upon the death of the USSR, the weapons inside the territory of the newly independent countries became theirs, including the nukes.

[Shalcker]

Because you get butthurt about how ethnic Russians get treated in other countries. <cough> Ukraine <cough>

By this logic NATO is going to invade Russia because their countries get butthurt about how Russia treats gays! :P

[May90]

By this logic NATO is going to invade Russia because their countries get butthurt about how Russia treats gays! :P

Well, I'd say, it's been long overdue! Of the "totalitarian triumvirate" (Germany, Japan and Russia), only one hasn't been dealt with - and now everyone is paying the price. But the error can always be fixed in the future.

[Kellhound]

By this logic NATO is going to invade Russia because their countries get butthurt about how Russia treats gays! :P

Gays are not as popular to general Western populations as ethnic Russians are to Russia.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I'd say, it's been long overdue! Of the "totalitarian triumvirate" (Germany, Japan and Russia), only one hasn't been dealt with - and now everyone is paying the price. But the error can always be fixed in the future.

Russia has one major advantage, its huge. Hard to overrun it, and its not really worth having.

[May90]

Russia has one major advantage, its huge. Hard to overrun it, and its not really worth having.

Given how corrupt Russia is, I don't think even fighting it is needed. Destroying the current government isn't hard with appropriately applied definitive sanctions, and the new government can be, like in Japan or West Germany, forced to behave.

But that requires someone like McCain in charge of the Western world, someone who understands what Russian government is like. With Obamas and Trumps - not going to happen.

[Kellhound]

Given how corrupt Russia is, I don't think even fighting it is needed. Destroying the current government isn't hard with appropriately applied definitive sanctions, and the new government can be, like in Japan or West Germany, forced to behave.

But that requires someone like McCain in charge of the Western world, someone who understands what Russian government is like. With Obamas and Trumps - not going to happen.

The issue is Putin is a big enough sore loser to take the entire world with him.

[May90]

The issue is Putin is a big enough sore loser to take the entire world with him.

I seeeeeeriously doubt that. KGB has always been about manipulating people for its gain, not about some high ideas of self-sacrifice.