Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Europe And Their Militaries  
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2572 times:

Europe and their respective militaries: What purpose do many of them serve?

I am not attempting to disparage the soldiers of Europe, nor am I calling them incompetent. I've worked and flown with British, German, Swedish and Italian pilots, and all of them were top notch.

What I'm asking is, where do they see themselves in 25 years and what role do they see themselves playing?

None of them face direct threats from any of their neighbors, so internal defense is not a priority. None of them, individually, hold the power to project massive power abroad. (The Brits, perhaps, they proved so with the Falklands). What seems more likely is small engagements where they are tasked with maintaining the status quo/police actions, or with humanitarian relief efforts. So with this in mine, why maintain expensive carriers (France), why purchase fleets of expensive /high-tech airplanes, why maintain armies that are better suited for the plains of Europe against an a Soviet invasion? Does France and England really need to maintain their nuclear arms? How can a unified European fighting force ever come to fruition if they cannot even agree on whether or not to support the effort in Iraq?

In another thread, we are talking about submarines, and someone spoke about German subs - diesel boats, designed for coastal defense... but against who? Why not invest more heavily in smaller, cheaper, more mobile forces that are better suited for responding to another tsunami, or responding to another Liberia type flare up?

-UH60

52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2556 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
What I'm asking is, where do they see themselves in 25 years and what role do they see themselves playing?

out of a job or in a Russian labour camp.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
None of them face direct threats from any of their neighbors

Neither did they in 1935...



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2540 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
German subs - diesel boats, designed for coastal defense... but against who

Our old subs were diesel engined boats for costal defense but if you are refereing to our new boats of the class 212A they have a hybrid engine of a diesel engine and fuel cells.
They were designed for costal defence but their purpose has changed, they will mainly used as reconnaisance boats now, for special ops etc.....



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7211 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

UH60

If we had followed your suggestion then Iraq/Afghan would be solely US operations.

Also you could argue that the only external threat to the US is Russia and station all of the army in Alaska, (think of all that empty real estate).

If you were being radical, you might wonder why the US needs such a large military, (including nuclear).

Good questions all.


User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2486 times:

The Type 212 boats have the ability to spend weeks submerged - exactly the shift needed away from coastal defence to a more international mission.

Anyway, eventually Europe will have to get closer together military-wise, otherwise no one will be able to afford a strong military anymore.


User currently offlinePKK From Denmark, joined Apr 2003, 184 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2483 times:

This is the Danish view:

TRANSFORMATION IS KEY TO ARMED FORCES’ RELEVANCE
By GEN H.J. HELSØ, Chief of Defence Denmark

The dynamics of the international system and the ever changing expectations to modern armed forces require an iterative process of fundamental transformation in order for the armed forces to stay relevant, adaptive and credible as a political tool.

Please read on at:
http://forsvaret.dk/FKO/eng/Chief+of+Defence/Transformation/

It's long but very relevant to the question asked and gives a good answer. In my opinion at least  Smile

Cheers
Peter


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2476 times:

Euro bureaucratese: 'iterative process of fundamental transformation'
Normal English: phased drawdown



I wish I were flying
User currently offlinePKK From Denmark, joined Apr 2003, 184 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2455 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 6):
Euro bureaucratese: 'iterative process of fundamental transformation'
Normal English: phased drawdown

Hmmm Jwenting, try to read the whole thing. Then I am sure you will see it's not such a drawdown.....  Smile

Peter


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2424 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe that the European militaries serve to deter any possible overt aggression against European territories and interests. The political merging of Europe was preceded by the military merging, under NATO, and played a key role in preventing Soviet expansion past WARPAC.

I think that the idea is they, like us, must defend their territory. They are not well suited to overseas operations, although they are seeking to change that so they can participate in such ops as a cooperative force, but their main purpose is to defend their sovereign territory.

I'm much happier with the European approach to self defence, i.e. participating in NATO and spending a mandatory minimum, while maintaining creditable combined naval and air elements (6 carriers (surface control ships and medium deck carriers), 8 or 9 amphibs, a large frigate force and a combined nuclear and long reaching SSK force....then the airforces that are modernizing and furthering their cooperative abilities) than I am with say New Zealand, which has fundamentally said that they will not bother with self-defence since it's being assured by the US anyway....

Another thing I like about Europes military is that it's not likely to become a unified offensive force anytime soon. They can immediately defend their territory, but they aren't set up to go elsewhere in large numbers without help from the US. That should make their neighbors both comfortable and cautious.

They serve their purpose and do so fairly well.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13047 posts, RR: 78
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2392 times:

In the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, the UK MoD set the tone.
Most resources into 'expeditionary operations', which covers everything from disaster relief, UN peacekeeping, UK only ops like Sierra Leone in 2000, to full scale, all arms warfare.

However, there is no great desire for greatly increased defence spending, (most UK voters, unlike Jwenting, realise the Russians are no longer a direct threat, only potentially in nuclear arms, which are deterred by US, UK and French nuclear forces).

Out of the SDR, came the two 60,000 ton CVF carriers, not a vague idea of eventually buying, maybe, up to three 30,000 ton vessels.
This high cost project is politically maybe vunerable, however the fact that major parts of it will be built in yards in and around Chancellor and future PM Gordon Brown's neck of the woods, has been a shrewd move.

One idea, by former Defence Minister Geoff Hoon, was to position the MoD as an 'essential public service'.
Since Brown's largesse was going into previously underfunded Health, education etc, a bit of it could flow into Defence, as a 'public service'.
In a minor way, it worked, though (as always) the MoD has cash problems, Defence spending has risen a bit since 1999, for the first time since 1987.
Iraq is largely funded from the separate 'Contingency Fund'.

France suffered, like the UK, from defence stagnation in the 1990's, but since 2001/2, they've been increasing too.

An interesting article in this months Air International, about non US forces in Afghanistan, the choppers, transports, F-16's from rotations from Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark.
As well as the UK Harrier G.7 component.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2386 times:

Quoting PKK (Reply 7):
Then I am sure you will see it's not such a drawdown.....

That's what the "reallignment" plans for the Dutch armed forces also never call it.
Forces get "realligned to new threats" by scrapping this, closing down that, cancelling such, and reducing so.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3822 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2374 times:

I believe that currently the nations that have the highest defensive needs, unlike the Cold War, are the countries around the Med (including Portugal, even though technically we are not a Mediterranean country), the reason being the proximity to North Africa. Currently they are relatively stable, mostly to repressive dictatorships, but there are no guarantees the situation will remain the same, specially after Saudi Arabia erupts (more a matter of when than a matter of if).

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
So with this in mine, why maintain expensive carriers (France)

Sooner or later the need may arise to kick someone's ass around in North Africa and I don't think the Mirages and Rafales have enough range from bases in Southern France (the Armée de l'Air's air-to-air refuelling capabilities aren't that high).

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
How can a unified European fighting force ever come to fruition if they cannot even agree on whether or not to support the effort in Iraq?

That is a political issue, not a military one. You can bet if any European country was seriously threatened all the others, including those that do not belong to NATO, would help out.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3675 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2296 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
So with this in mine, why maintain expensive carriers (France)

France has only 1 carrier, and will have a second one in a few years.
The country has still overseas territories, and also many citizens in foreign countries.
The carrier is not necessarily useless.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13047 posts, RR: 78
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2224 times:

France demands, no matter what the effect on other parts of the armed services, a degree of independence.
In nuclear arms.
In maintaining a least some expeditionary capability, in the form of the carrier (the highly expensive, long time to fix glitches, CDG, will now it seems be joined by an adapted RN CVF, larger than CDG, conventional power, CTOL ops).
But CDG was France's first nuclear surface vessel, first carrier in 35 years.

In 1991, France sent a carrier to the Gulf, since a massive (including French) land based air component was in theatre, the carrier instead served as a base for French Marines and lots of choppers.
French carrier based modernized Super Etendards carried out strikes and recce against Serb forces in 1995.
Also in Lebanon in 1983, the quite old Etendard IVR's had more of a recce capability than a US carrier at the time!

France is also building, like the UK recently did, two new amphibious assault vessels.

A French weakness is an air transport component based mostly on C.160's and some C-130H/H-30's.
But A400M should redress that.

The Dutch have an amphibious vessel carry their highly regarded Marines.

Italy has a Harrier Carrier, will replace it with an F-35B capable vessel.
Spain has a Harrier Carrier too, which might be replaced eventually.

So you do have the means to eventually provide a good amphibious/carrier capability, the RN CVF's will have F-35B airgroups of 18 (peacetime/training and/or complemented by a large chopper component, including CH-47's/EH-101's and AH-64D's), less choppers and 30 F-35B, or maxing out at 36 F-35B's.

The usual US criticism of Europe relying too much on US military help, is a fair one, some European nations both understand it and are taking steps, within tight budgets, to redress this.

As for policy arguments, well look at Suez in 1956, the US badly soured relations with the UK, France (who've not forgotten) and believe it or not, Israel.
What those three was doing was not a good move in moral terms, a bit too imperial throwback, but the US soon came to regret putting a stop to it, as Nasser became closer to the USSR, emboldened to continue the conflict with Israel.

But the UK and certainly Israel, got over it, the UK regained the promised in WW2 access to atomic technology, broken at war's end, by starting a national programme, culminating in H-Bomb tests at Christmas Island in the late 50's, US observers were invited (flying in on a Pan Am 377 Stratocruiser).
On seeing an advanced, fully capable programme, as well as Ike being been to regain full military ties with the UK, they relented.

They got over it, so will rows within Europe.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

IMO, there is no external military threat to Europe at this time, and their militaries are sized appropriately. As the thread starter noted, none of the EU countries can project power "massively" but the UK and France have a credible power projection capability. Likewise the Italians, Spanish, and Germans, but to a lesser extent. France has shown its willingness to use that capability in Hati and Africa, and the addition of the 2nd carrier will ensure that it always has at least one available.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8):
Another thing I like about Europes military is that it's not likely to become a unified offensive force anytime soon. They can immediately defend their territory, but they aren't set up to go elsewhere in large numbers without help from the US. That should make their neighbors both comfortable and cautious.

Agreed. I hope their neighbors stay "cautious".

Quoting DL021 (Reply 8):
They serve their purpose and do so fairly well.

Again, I agree. However threats are always evolving. Could the EU militaries react to a rapidly changing situation? For example, and solely as a point of discussion, what if Russia were to revert to its "bad old ways"--even more than shutting off gas supplies to its neighbors? Just one scenario (however unlikely). Is the political will extent in the EU to react?



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineWrenchBender From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1779 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2173 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 14):
For example, and solely as a point of discussion, what if Russia were to revert to its "bad old ways"--even more than shutting off gas supplies to its neighbors? Just one scenario (however unlikely).

Then we have a resumption of the cold war and a reemergance of NATO forces redployed to Europe.
Canada used to have 3 sqn's of CF18's and a light armoured brigade (1 battalion Leopard tanks, 1 battalion Light [mech] Inf, 1 battalion Arty, 1 loach helo sqn). Plus Reforger designated units back home designated for Norway and Germany. [Can we have our bases at Lahr and Baden Soellingen back please ?]

WrenchBender



Silly Pilot, Tricks are for kids.......
User currently offlineKSYR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

What is wrong with being prepared? No one knows what will happen in 20 years...we could have WWIII approaching. Not too likely given the smaller and more regional nature of today's wars, as well as the presence of deterrent nuclear weapons, but still possible. Better to be prepared than to be caught with their pants down.

Same logic applies to us. If you believe that we need more nukes (see your Non-Av topic), then shouldn't you also support Europeans wanting to be prepared as well?


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2144 times:

Quoting KSYR (Reply 16):
What is wrong with being prepared?

I certainly didn't suggest Europe disarm and wave goodbye to their respective militaries. On the contrary, I only questioned their current structure. The Army calls it "The Way We Fight" - basically how we intend to take on predicted threats. I don't think you understood what I was saying. Europe still has a role in the future, but is that role one of major combat operations - tank on tank, top-of-the-line fighter against top-of-the-line fighter, sub against sub? Why not taylor your forces to fight the battles they're likely to fight - small, regional, urban wars... most likely acting as a peacekeeper or support force.

Quoting KSYR (Reply 16):
Same logic applies to us. If you believe that we need more nukes (see your Non-Av topic), then shouldn't you also support Europeans wanting to be prepared as well?

Does France have a larger arsenal of nukes pointed at them? I don't know... that's why I asked the question of whether they still need nukes. I support more nukes, b/c the current op tempo with our nuclear force is hurting their strategic capabilities. Does France need to maintain expensive SSBNs if they don't have credible threats, again, I don't know.

-UH60


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2126 times:

Quoting KSYR (Reply 16):
What is wrong with being prepared? No one knows what will happen in 20 years...we could have WWIII approaching.

Correct. Last time (most of) Europe disarmed we had WWII 10 years later.

Quoting WrenchBender (Reply 15):
Then we have a resumption of the cold war and a reemergance of NATO forces redployed to Europe.

Unlikely in the extreme. Canada is even worse off than most of Europe, the US can barely maintain its commitments in the Gulf and Afghanistan while still keeping a viable continental defense force at home.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 14):
Could the EU militaries react to a rapidly changing situation?

No. They've drawn down too far for that, would need at least a decade and more likely 2 to rearm and retrain.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7211 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

Some people apparently see the need for massive arms building to ensure that if there is a threat in 20 years that we will be ready.

Where is this threat coming from?.

Furthermore if Russia, (or anyone else) was going to build up a force to threaten us, this will take them just as long as it would take us. In fact, unless they are already more powerful, they have got to match us even before thinking about moving ahead.

As for nukes, if they guarantee peace and deter aggression, would it best if every country had them.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2073 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 19):
As for nukes, if they guarantee peace and deter aggression, would it best if every country had them.

They've worked quite well over the last 60 years  Smile

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 19):
Some people apparently see the need for massive arms building to ensure that if there is a threat in 20 years that we will be ready.

No, to ensure that that threat never develops. If you're weak you're bullied and overrun.
If you're strong you're left alone.

This has been proven time and again over the centuries, and has never changed.
It's not changing now.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7211 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2038 times:

So you think that all countries having nukes would be a good idea.

Besides strength is relative. If everyone gets bigger guns then the relative position remains the same. What you are advocating is an escalating arms race.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13047 posts, RR: 78
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2012 times:

Whatever problems Europe's militaries have, they are minor compared to Russia.
Mass obsolescence, hardly any modernisation, poor training, many social problems from society within the ranks, pilots get a fraction of the flying time NATO forces enjoy.
The navy is much more about tied up, rusting vessels, than the occasional power projection demonstrations.
The army has performed badly in chechen operations.

Even if, an unlikely new strong man takes power after a coup, he would inherit this further denuded military, which in any case will have it's hands full suppressing internal dissent.

Besides, much of the former 'buffer zone' of the Warsaw Pact, are now NATO nations, so liable for NATO projection.

The UK, at relatively short notice, put together a powerful land, air and sea deployment to the Gulf in early 2003, the 'go' order only coming a short time before.
Had French policy been different, they would have done the same.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2008 times:

The USSR has a massive military program. It's just well enough hidden that you don't see a lot of it.
Fulcrum and Flanker production lines are open, T90s are coming online, BMP4 as well I believe, and that's just a few types.
I believe 2 new classes of mobile ICBM are being fielded to replace old units (in contravention of international treaties).

What you see is the old junk that was kept in operational storage from the 1950s being discarded at last, now that they've finally come to the conclusion that it's useless in a modern war after seeing what the US did to even 1970s and 1980s Iraqi equipment during Dessert Storm.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1996 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 23):
The USSR has a massive military program.

You confused about which decade you're in?



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
25 UH60FtRucker : While he referred to them by the old name - don't over look his point. Jwenting is absolutely correct. Russia will be boosting military spending an a
26 Lumberton : Within 5-10 years, we'll certainly know more. We've hoped Iran would "implode" democratically for years; hasn't happened. Same with China. Taiwan wil
27 UH60FtRucker : Not at all. In fact some European countries, France and Germany particularly, have openly expressed their desire to see a stronger China. Some believ
28 NoUFO : Never heard of that. China will continue to first and foremost buying Russian equipment, no matter what Mr Schroeder said, who, btw, was heavily crit
29 Atmx2000 : If they could guanrantee the safety and control of their entire arsenal, possibly. But given the state of a great many countries, I wouldn't count on
30 Jwenting : Certainly not, but having lived at their proverbial doorstep all my life I don't trust them now that they've changed their name... Remember that Vlad
31 Pyrex : You only figured that out now? That makes it what? 5% of the US Department of Defense budget? The only reason they are trying to lift the embargo is
32 Jwenting : Russia had contracts with Russia which Russia reneged on. That's wrong no matter how you look at it. Maybe the contracts were not based on market pri
33 Pyrex : Actually it was the Ukraine that broke the contracts with Russia (silly thing to do, as they were highly beneficial to the Ukraine). The only thing R
34 A342 : Ask yourself who broke some treaties first.
35 GDB : Think Russia could hide 'massive military programmes'? There is a massive effort, to try and revive/keep the current military anything like operationa
36 UH60FtRucker : Jacque Chirac... replacing America's status as the sole superpower with multipolar areas of global influence... a stronger China to replace America a
37 NoUFO : Ahem, sorry, that's the professors opinion and nothing more. He doesn't even back it up nor does he say that the exports mentioned base on contracts t
38 Alessandro : Surely many are downsizing, but quality is important than size in many cases, Sweden has rented out submarines with crews to the US for training, wher
39 NoUFO : The transformation of Bundeswehr is in fact modelled on the Swedish forces: Comparatively small but modern, assertive and deployable. So far, Germany
40 SCEagle : China's not the only one building a military... Check out India. They are shopping at Russia like kids in a candy store... buying aircraft, ships, any
41 Jwenting : Yes, fully expect India to start trying to show muscle in the region soon. They tried before but didn't have the power to do it then, when they get th
42 TheSonntag : Interesting discussion taking place here... I can only speak of Germany, my father is a Lt.Col in the German army, and during the last 15 years, virtu
43 GDB : The highly competent German military can bring a lot to international operations. If they are asked that is, Germany offered their mountain warfare tr
44 SCEagle : Was recently in India... and nothing galls them much more than having permission from the US Navy for Indian Naval vessels to transit the Indian ocea
45 UH60FtRucker : Yes, some of them trained with American SpecOps here at Ft Campbell with a certain special ops aviation unit. From the Germans I've worked along side
46 UH60FtRucker : NoUFO, should the event that China stood on the verge of invading the free nation of Taiwan, how do you believe Europe would react? I agree that the
47 NoUFO : That's of course a very hypothetical question, but I assume, Europe would at least impose a total embargo. A military intervention is unlikely. German
48 Stoney : Europe and their respective militaries: What purpose do many of them serve? Well, I can only talk for Switzerland: The main purpose of the airforce (j
49 Stoney : Just came over an article in a newspaper about our military: It would take about 8 years and 40 billion sFr. to get it functioning as a fully working
50 TheSonntag : Don't forget, the key of military power lies in prevention of its use. Otherwise, the USA would use their military power all the time for their intere
51 Pyrex : That would bring the European economy to its knees, while doing little to nothing to the chinese economy... 9,8% growth in 2005!
52 TheSonntag : Debatable. But if the US AND the EU impose an embargo on China, it would more than hurt them. China needs the export.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Europe And Their Militaries
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Israeli Airforce VS Syria (and Their Airforce) posted Tue Jul 18 2006 00:39:27 by AislepathLight
22 C-17s And Lots Of Other Goodies! posted Wed Oct 18 2006 18:13:23 by Galaxy5007
Politics And The KC330 posted Sun Oct 1 2006 02:18:41 by EBJ1248650
Photos And Video Of First SA Gripen posted Thu Sep 21 2006 01:13:58 by DEVILFISH
Osan AB And Space A posted Sun Sep 3 2006 08:38:01 by Hawaiianhobo
Air Superiority Over Europe In The Early 1980s posted Mon Aug 28 2006 15:58:34 by AislepathLight
Indian Army And The HAL Dhruv posted Thu Aug 17 2006 18:51:03 by RAPCON
Aviation Traditions And KC-135's posted Thu Aug 17 2006 02:53:36 by Army15P
Blue Angels And Thunderbirds Ever Flown Together? posted Sun Aug 13 2006 16:48:28 by Dl757md
Coast Guard And Officer Training posted Sun Aug 13 2006 02:55:33 by Jalto27R

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format