"Let me be perfectly clear...make no mistake about it": Syria Edition

[Hauldren Collider]

You couldn't sustain aerial combat over a 3rd world nation that is directly on your backdoor. Hence, not enough capability for an air war.

[Dinner]

Sadly, it seems Obama is doing exactly what Reagan did for Saddam when he used chemical weapons (both during the war and later on civilians). The only difference is Obama is not supply arms and giving loans to Syria while Reagan kept doing both to Iraq. There is just not much we can do especially in light of how the rebels aren't really all that great either so if we help them then we end up in a position of becoming responsible for them. At best I can see some limited strikes on Syrian strategic targets but that is also frought with peril as Iran has an alliance with Syria and has repeatedly said it will view and attack on Syria as an attack on Iran.

Do we really want to go to war with Iran just for ****s and giggles?

[regexcellent]

I'm still waiting for some evidence to backup this myth about Europe not having the logistics to support an air war. As I already pointed out to HC, we keep military capabilities that match our needs, which include a number of other permanent assignments. The whole point of being part of a military coalition is to ensure that each country doesn't need to maintain a wildly unrealistic level of military spending. The fact that the US does it anyway says more about you guys than it does about us.

Let's start with the fact that it was an epic undertaking requiring the entire resources of the RAF to drop one ****ing bomb on the Falklands in the 1980s, when the RAF was in a much better position and possessed long range bombers.

Today the RAF has 14 tankers, 4 of which barely fly. It has, I believe, 5 working AWACS planes. Its equivalent to the USAF E-8, the Sentinel R1, is due to be withdrawn because the UK doesn't have the money to fly it. The RAF also has a whopping 10 UAVs. Amazing.

The mainstay of the combat fleet is 100 multirole Typhoons. Britain long ago withdrew its medium and long range bombers from service without replacement.

[Dinner]

You couldn't sustain aerial combat over a 3rd world nation that is directly on your backdoor. Hence, not enough capability for an air war.

The big problems will start to happen when planes get shot down and pilots end up on TV not to mention if Iran honors it's alliance (which it reaffirmed just one month ago specifically saying any attack on Syria would be viewed as an attack upon it) and closes the straights of ormuz with mines. My understanding is the navy now has exactly one wooden hulled mine sweeper left on active service so it will take a good long while to sweep the mines while Iran has thousands of them they can dump there very easily using small boats.

[kentonio]

You couldn't sustain aerial combat over a 3rd world nation that is directly on your backdoor. Hence, not enough capability for an air war.

I don't understand why you're struggling so hard with the difference between can't do it alone and don't currently need to. It's not complicated. If Europe needs to carry out a military campaign alone then it will marshal it's forces and do exactly that. The idea that we should pull resources back from other commitments rather than form a coalition with allies is kind of nonsensical when the only apparent reason to do it would be some ridiculous display of showing off.

[kentonio]

Let's start with the fact that it was an epic undertaking requiring the entire resources of the RAF to drop one ****ing bomb on the Falklands in the 1980s, when the RAF was in a much better position and possessed long range bombers.

Today the RAF has 14 tankers, 4 of which barely fly. It has, I believe, 5 working AWACS planes. Its equivalent to the USAF E-8, the Sentinel R1, is due to be withdrawn because the UK doesn't have the money to fly it. The RAF also has a whopping 10 UAVs. Amazing.

The mainstay of the combat fleet is 100 multirole Typhoons. Britain long ago withdrew its medium and long range bombers from service without replacement.

If you genuinely think the UK had more capability in the 80's than it does now, then there's little point in continuing this conversation. It's just too stupid for words. You also need to stop relying on stupid right wing news for your information. The idea that we don't have the money to fly certain planes is just moronic.

Incidentally when did this crap about UAV's become even vaguely relevant?

[DinoDoc]

Do we really want to go to war with Iran just for ****s and giggles?

Obama is the one that laid down the marker. Syria just seems to have called his bluff.

[Hauldren Collider]

The big problems will start to happen when planes get shot down and pilots end up on TV not to mention if Iran honors it's alliance (which it reaffirmed just one month ago specifically saying any attack on Syria would be viewed as an attack upon it) and closes the straights of ormuz with mines. My understanding is the navy now has exactly one wooden hulled mine sweeper left on active service so it will take a good long while to sweep the mines while Iran has thousands of them they can dump there very easily using small boats.

...What does this have to do with iran?

Also, we sweep mines with helicopters now.

[regexcellent]

If you genuinely think the UK had more capability in the 80's than it does now, then there's little point in continuing this conversation. It's just too stupid for words. You also need to stop relying on stupid right wing news for your information. The idea that we don't have the money to fly certain planes is just moronic.

Incidentally when did this crap about UAV's become even vaguely relevant?

I know you don't have enough money to fly the Sentinels because they're getting axed as part of your last defense review. The only reason they're still in service now is because of Afghanistan and Mali. The plan is to retire them as soon as Afghanistan is over.

UAVs are used to find targets. That quote HC posted-

And maybe we aren't flying the bulk of combat sorties anymore, but the U.S. is now providing nearly 80 percent of all air refueling, almost 75 percent of aerial surveillance hours and 100 percent of all electronic warfare missions.

80% of air refueling-because we have enough tankers.
75% of aerial surveillance-that means UAVs and JSTARS
100% electronic warfare-because we are literally the ONLY ONES who have electronic warfare aircraft (EA-6B, EA-18G, EC-130H, F-16CJ)

EW is particularly crucial in the opening stages of a conflict or when establishing a no fly zone when enemy air defenses need to be taken out.

In Mali we are flying the cargo missions, aerial surveillance, and air refueling missions.

[PLATO]

I ask you this you right-wingers, say Romney was in the White House right now, how exactly would you want him to deal with the Syria crisis? You're all tripping over yourselves to attack Obama on his strategy, so please inform us of a better one.

Okay, I'll bite.

1.) Identify pro U.S. Rebels
2.) Arm pro U.S. rebels with real weapons
3.) Designate "safe areas" for civilians in pro U.S. rebels area of control
4.) Establish a "no fly-no enter" zone around "safe areas". Agressively attack regime forces entering or flying in "Safe areas" using air power
5.) Airdrop tons of food and medicine wherever there is a need
6.) Introduce UN resolution calling for UN take over of "safe areas" once regime forces in area are neutralized.
7.) Do not put boots on the ground unless chemical weapons sites seem likely to be compromised. Organize international force (including Russian troops) to be on stand by to secure chemical weapons. Introduce UN resolution to authorize force for this purpose alone.

How's that?

[kentonio]

I know you don't have enough money to fly the Sentinels because they're getting axed as part of your last defense review. The only reason they're still in service now is because of Afghanistan and Mali. The plan is to retire them as soon as Afghanistan is over.

The point of military spending reviews is to ensure that the military are focused on the areas most likely to be relevant for any future conflict we're likely to confront. If a weapon is discontinued, it's because we don't think we're likely to need it, not because we can't afford to fly it.

UAVs are used to find targets. That quote HC posted-

75% of aerial surveillance-that means UAVs and JSTARS

Since when the hell were UAV's the only way to do aerial surveillance? Useful sure, which is why we also have some. For nations that are primarily concerned with defense not offense however vast fleets of the things are probably unnecessary.

100% electronic warfare-because we are literally the ONLY ONES who have electronic warfare aircraft (EA-6B, EA-18G, EC-130H, F-16CJ)

EW is particularly crucial in the opening stages of a conflict or when establishing a no fly zone when enemy air defenses need to be taken out.

You mean other than the Tornado ECW, An-12BK-PPS and Mi-8PP?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...rfare_aircraft

[kentonio]

Okay, I'll bite.

1.) Identify pro U.S. Rebels
2.) Arm pro U.S. rebels with real weapons
3.) Designate "safe areas" for civilians in pro U.S. rebels area of control
4.) Establish a "no fly-no enter" zone around "safe areas". Agressively attack regime forces entering or flying in "Safe areas" using air power
5.) Airdrop tons of food and medicine wherever there is a need
6.) Introduce UN resolution calling for UN take over of "safe areas" once regime forces in area are neutralized.
7.) Do not put boots on the ground unless chemical weapons sites seem likely to be compromised. Organize international force (including Russian troops) to be on stand by to secure chemical weapons. Introduce UN resolution to authorize force for this purpose alone.

How's that?

The US are definitely already doing 1 and probably doing 2. As for the rest, what do you do when Russia veto's your UN resolution and refuses to accept a US no fly zone over one of their allies?

[Dinner]

Obama is the one that laid down the marker. Syria just seems to have called his bluff.

Yes, he did but then Iran countered by saying it would go to war with anyone who attacked Syria so that kind of changed the math, didn't it?

Is it worth a two front war especially since no one even knows who set off the gas to begin with? It could have been the government or it could have been rebels with captured canisters. We don't know and short of proof positive as to who did it, well, it seems a bit premature to launch a multifront war, doesn't it?

[PLATO]

The US are definitely already doing 1 and probably doing 2. As for the rest, what do you do when Russia veto's your UN resolution and refuses to accept a US no fly zone over one of their allies?

No..look at the order of things. Establish the reality on the ground first and then the UN resolution will easily follow. Look to Iraq for the example.

[regexcellent]

The point of military spending reviews is to ensure that the military are focused on the areas most likely to be relevant for any future conflict we're likely to confront. If a weapon is discontinued, it's because we don't think we're likely to need it, not because we can't afford to fly it.

It's getting cut because the only way the MoD can avoid going broke is by cutting key programs. There is no other reason that you would be cutting an aircraft that is absolutely essential to ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Africa.

Since when the hell were UAV's the only way to do aerial surveillance? Useful sure, which is why we also have some. For nations that are primarily concerned with defense not offense however vast fleets of the things are probably unnecessary.

UAVs are a game-changer in aerial surveillance because they have very, very long loiter time.

You mean other than the Tornado ECW, An-12BK-PPS and Mi-8PP?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...rfare_aircraft

Russians have EW too, I'm talking about in NATO, where the capability gap between the aging Tornadoes and our aircraft is huge. Note that they weren't used in Libya.