wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:39 am

I was just curious and I know in the 80's great britan had long range bombers why them and France have never invested in any heavy bomber fleets. Now granted they dont need anything close to the size of the US and even the Russian fleets. I can understand Germany not having any them being more of a hands off on foriegn policy and not getting as involved as most, but France and Great Britan have alot of interests with may require a long range bombing campaign if none of the neighboring countries let them use their air strips. I doubt the US would have shared the technology on the B-2's but I think they would have probably sold them some B-1's if they were asked. If not I am sure they could have designed their own. Just was woundering why they never persude that option.

[Edited 2007-11-02 19:41:22]
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:01 am

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Thread starter):
I doubt the US would have shared the technology on the B-2's but I think they would have probably sold them some B-1's if they were asked.

It might have changed, but for a long time the vast majority of supersonic hours had been flown by one aircraft type, Concorde. So with supercruise and a few other things the Anglo French might have just about managed to build a bomber. So it might just be that the reason they did not build on was that they did not see any particular need to go bombing far distant places.  Confused

If they wish to demolish somewhere distant, they would likely not use a bomb (or if Peter Sellars was running the French effort a berm) but send a missile, likely from a sub. An Astute idea they now think. Sorry about the awful pun, could not resist it, and I know he is off a.net for a while.  angel 
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:34 am

The French had a medium range bomber in the Mirage IV. It was far reaching enough to reach Eastern Europe, including Russia, and had the speed and payload needed.

The British flew their V-Bombers until the 90s in one form or another, and those were traditional long ranged bombers.

European planners were readying their nations for a European war, and did not, nor do most now, see a need for long range power projection with bombers.

That said....several European nations have aircraft carriers and can project air power with those carriers (especially France and the UK).
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13075
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:13 am

Was there even the need for a long range bomber in a NATO member other than the US back in the days of the Cold War? I mean, in the case the USSR had attacked, it's still more easily accesible for NATO forces in Europe than it is for the US.
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:31 am

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Thread starter):
If not I am sure they could have designed their own. Just was woundering why they never persude that option.

Because the potential front was at our door step. Further more the Tornado used in its original role could hit targets as far away as Kiev. The front at the doorstep was also the reason for a lot of more short-ranged things and strategies we used like the F-4F (less fuel, no BVR weapons in the beginning, originally no AAR planned, additional slats for better maneuverability etc.) and the F-104 (Germany being the largest user.) The entire doctrine was aimed at just holding up the Russian for a couple of days so that the allies could get ready. As bombers were primarily offensive weapons and our doctrine a purely defensive one there was no need for long-range bombers. Despite the Cold War the US, France and Great Britain had partially offensive doctrines.
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:19 am

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Thread starter):
If not I am sure they could have designed their own.

Look at Concorde, Mirage IV, V-bombers etc...they definitely could build them but did not need them for the reasons mentoined above.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:34 am

During the Cold war the British had the Vulcan did'nt they ? Thats a bomber is'nt it ?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4100
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:58 am

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 6):
During the Cold war the British had the Vulcan did'nt they ? Thats a bomber is'nt it ?

The UK actually had quite a few bombers during the cold war, firstly the 'V-Bombers' as noted above:

Valiant - EIS 1955, Retired 1965
Vulcan - EIS 1956, Retired 1984
Victor - EIS 1957, Retired 1993 (as a tanker)


Also you had:

Blackburn Buccaneer, a subsonic nuclear bomber with the range to hit the USSR - EIS 1962, Retired 1993.

EE Canberra, a light bomber that in some variants could hit the USSR - EIS 1951, Retired 2006.

Quite simply, these pretty much became unnecessary when the UK moved its nuclear deterrent to RN submarines, and that is why heavy bombers fell out of favour with the UK and all of the above aircraft took on different roles until their retirements (apart from the Valiant, which was only ever destined to be a short lived, temporary bridging aircraft).
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:06 am

The RAFs last Vulcan (XH558) displaying at Wroughton, UK, 19th Sept.1992.:





Vulcan at Finningley 1992:

 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:12 am

Moo nailed it, remember that the RAF V force, (conceived just after WW2), was mainly about carrying nuclear weapons to the USSR.
It turned out that this role ended in 1969, with Polaris taking over, so two of them, Vulcan and Victor, became better known as respectively, NATO assigned strike aircraft operating at low level (Vulcan), in the case of Victor, a tanker aircraft.
Both would see combat use, Vulcan with it's amazing long range attacks, just before it's retirement, in the Falklands, heavily supported by Victors, which also served as tankers in the first Gulf War.
(The RAF did maintain one Vulcan for display until 1993, which has recently been made airborne again privately).

France needed a medium ranged bomber as the first element in their planned nuclear deterrent, something bigger and grander than the Mirage IVA was planned, but they needed something quicker into service, so the IVA it was.
Again, it's time as the sole carrier of the French bomb was brief, IRBM's and SSBN's taking over in the early 70's, Mirage IVA did carry on like the Vulcan, in the intermediate strike role, and for longer ranged recce, in the latter role a few served served until 2005.

No other European NATO nations had these requirements, they had large tactical air forces.
So no other bombers, in the larger, more than twin engined form, as understood by Soviet and US designs.
 
McG1967
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:36 am

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:38 pm

Get the book Vulcan 607, which details the Vulcan bombing raids during the Falklands conflict. Until the B2 sorties from Whiteman to the Middle East, this was the longest bombing run in history.

The Nimrod has a limited dumb bomb capability.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4100
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:11 pm

Quoting McG1967 (Reply 10):
The Nimrod has a limited dumb bomb capability.

The current Nimrods also have the ability to drop torpedoes, and the MRA4 will be capable of deploying smart bombs and the Storm Shadow cruise missile.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:27 pm

Quoting McG1967 (Reply 10):
Get the book Vulcan 607, which details the Vulcan bombing raids during the Falklands conflict. Until the B2 sorties from Whiteman to the Middle East, this was the longest bombing run in history.

Wel, not exactly. The RAF Vulcan 1982 missions were the longest bomber missions until the 1991 B-52G missions from BAD during Desert Storm. Then those mission lengths were exceeded in 2001 by the 509th BW B-2A missions against Afghanistan.

The Europeans have had long and medium range bombers during the cold war. The British V Bombers have been talked about, the French flew the Mirage IV, and the Germans had the F-4F. Later many European Nations flew the Tornado Bomber versions. All this changed when the EU came along.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:39 pm

I don't see how the EU had any bearing, also, can we really call a tactical aircraft like the F-4F, a bomber ?
To me, a bomber was an aircraft purpose designed for that role, at least since the 1950's, it's an out of date term now really, save for aircraft subsequently built for SAC and the Soviet AF Long Range Aviation.

Agree on the book Vulcan 607, if you are interested in military aviation, it's a must, bulging with facts yet written like a thriller, each one you buy, some of the proceeds going to the Vulcan XH558 group, now that will help keep it flying.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6345
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:24 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 1):
An Astute idea they now think. Sorry about the awful pun, could not resist it, and I know he is off a.net for a while.

Hah! You never know who's listening in......  biggrin 

Quoting Baroque (Reply 1):
If they wish to demolish somewhere distant, they would likely not use a bomb (or if Peter Sellars was running the French effort a berm) but send a missile, likely from a sub

This would appear to me to be the party line at the moment...

Regards
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:04 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 14):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 1):
An Astute idea they now think. Sorry about the awful pun, could not resist it, and I know he is off a.net for a while.

Hah! You never know who's listening in...

Bloody hell where did that come from? Just shows how stealthy these new nuclear subs are. Not a thing was showing on my passive sonars! Welcome back.  Wow!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13465
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:32 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
All this changed when the EU came along.

You're going to have to explain this one.

The EU currently has no control over the defence policy of member states, so how has the EU changed anything in the defence realm? Yes, there has been some alignment of thinking, but if France decided it needed a fleet of long-range bombers there is nothing the EU could or would do to stop it.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:06 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
All this changed when the EU came along.

how do you mean? The EU has existed in other forms for decades.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:37 pm

My comment on the EU only has to do with the reduction of defense spending (as a percentage of each countries GDP), by the member states, since the formal formation of the EU in 1993.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 17):
how do you mean? The EU has existed in other forms for decades.

Well,. yes and no. Prior to about 1990, when the concept of the EU really seemed to get going, there were disputes in Europe about what the EU would look like. IIRC, the concept of the Euro as the standard European currency was a huge issue, and still is to an extent as the UK does not use it, they stayed with the Pound Sterling.

But you are correct, the basic concept of the EU had been talked about since at least the 1960s. Much like the concept of a North American Union is now talked about (informally) between Canada, Mexico, and the US is today. Most Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans seem to be against it right now.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4100
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:26 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
My comment on the EU only has to do with the reduction of defense spending (as a percentage of each countries GDP), by the member states, since the formal formation of the EU in 1993.

It still doesn't make sense, as the RAF had retired its independent bomber force well before 1993, with the Buccaneer the last to go in 1993. The French retired the Mirage IV in 1996, with its role being replaced by the Mirage 2000D and 2000N, which are both still in service.

The real reason that there are no dedicated bomber fleets left in the EU is that they cost too much to maintain - you can develop, maintain and operate dual role or swing role aircraft for the same money, and have the added benefit of those aircrafts other roles which means a smaller, leaner and more versatile air force.

For smaller countries, the benefits of not maintaining a bomber force outweigh the negatives of not maintaining a bomber force.
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:40 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
and the Germans had the F-4F. Later many European Nations flew the Tornado Bomber versions. All this changed when the EU came along.

Ehmm our F-4F are/were primarily used as fighters and for CAS. Tornadoes were used for Interdiction during the cold war and now more in the broader strike role. We never flew anything that could be categorized as a real bomber. Also the importance that the Vulcan or Mirage IV had to the British or French military strategy was never as dominant as the B-52, B-2, B1- etc was significant to the US doctrine. It was always more about having this last-chance nuclear deep-strike weapon ... they originate from times where the UK and France did not have ICBMs.

And now what has the EU to do with that?

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 16):
The EU currently has no control over the defence policy of member states,

It does have, but with a lower importance to mutual defense as compared to NATO. The EU has taken the lead from NATO over the operations ins Bosnia. The Congo mission last year was also an EU mission. There are also EU-battlegroups formed by neighboring countries, primarily for joint missions outside Europe. There was a lot of political pressure on the EU, because NATO feared that its importance could be compromised when the EU sets up military formation with a clearly defensive mission. That is why they have been called BATTLE-groups, otherwise the use of such offensive designations is unusual in EU-related wording.

On the very long run I believe (and hope) that the EU will become the primary sponsor of mutual security on (at least) continental Europe. There is a lot of lobbying taking place at the moment from the French side towards the German side to set up the nucleus of what could later be a joint EU military. I am a bit skeptic about such a proceeding because a lot of smaller EU countries could feel disturbed, alienated or even threatened by such a "nucleus", which in turn would be counterproductive. So we need something more comprehensive and scalable, I guess.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:58 pm

I'd have thought that the reductions in defence spending after 1990, had more to do with the collapse of what the armed forces concerned, had been built to oppose.
For most NATO European nations, defending against the USSR/Warsaw Pact was their sole mission for decades.

Even ones with extra NATO commitments, had only token forces for this, in the UK's case much reduced since the mid 1960's as the political/economic reality dawned and to try and implement the then new 'Flexible Response' doctrine.
(In 1964, the UK had more servicemen based East Of Suez than in Germany, within 7 years that has totally changed).

So even the UK, by the mid 1970's, had armed forces almost totally dedicated to NATO in Europe.
The ending of that threat was always going to have profound effects on defence spending.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:16 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 21):
I'd have thought that the reductions in defence spending after 1990, had more to do with the collapse of what the armed forces concerned, had been built to oppose.
For most NATO European nations, defending against the USSR/Warsaw Pact was their sole mission for decades.

 checkmark 

This is indeed the reason. The Transformation of the EEG to EU is a different topic, somehow related to the collaps of the Soviet Union perhaps, but no way directly connected to shrinking Europe's defence forces.
 
bilgerat
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:43 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:46 am

As has been said earlier, most if not all European militaries were geared towards fighting WW3 in Germany.

I would argue that the only two European nations with significant overseas interests and a desire to project power over long distances were/are the UK and France. At the height of the Cold War the UK operated the V-Bombers and France had the Mirage IVA which formed integral parts of their strategic deterrants. As has been said already, these aircraft have been superceded by submarines...

...and given the political and economic realities in both these countries developing and maintaining a fleet of ballistic missile submarines AND a fleet of strategic bombers is out of the question. It's incredibly expensive, so much so that only two countries were ever able to do this, and since the end of the Cold War NOBODY has developed a new class of ballistic missile submarine or strategic bomber.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:09 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 13):
Agree on the book Vulcan 607, if you are interested in military aviation, it's a must, bulging with facts yet written like a thriller, each one you buy, some of the proceeds going to the Vulcan XH558 group, now that will help keep it flying.

Just read it - absolutely gripping. I had no idea just how badly fate conspired against them on that first run and how much of a knife-edge they were on for most of the time.

You'll be pleased to know I bought it when doing the tour of Concorde at East Fortune.  Smile

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
But you are correct, the basic concept of the EU had been talked about since at least the 1960s. Much like the concept of a North American Union is now talked about (informally) between Canada, Mexico, and the US is today.

As mentioned above, the EU didn't appear out of nowhere. It was an evolution of something that had existed for decades.

Quoting GDB (Reply 21):
I'd have thought that the reductions in defence spending after 1990, had more to do with the collapse of what the armed forces concerned, had been built to oppose.

 checkmark 
 
BladeLWS
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:41 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:50 pm

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 23):
and since the end of the Cold War NOBODY has developed a new class of ballistic missile submarine or strategic bomber.

Not so fast...

The Russians started building the Borei class in 1996, was launched this year and expected in service next years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borei_class

Here displacement figures put her as larger than the US Ohio class, although she only has 16 missile tubes compared to the Ohio's 24. (And I'll bet good money that she'll be not even half was quite as an Ohio. Also she'll probably be tracked by our Seawolf/Virgina class subs as she leaves port for her trial runs.)

[Edited 2007-11-05 04:51:10]
 
bilgerat
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:43 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:32 pm

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 25):
The Russians started building the Borei class in 1996

I stand corrected  Smile
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:04 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 24):
As mentioned above, the EU didn't appear out of nowhere. It was an evolution of something that had existed for decades.

Is this the cue for me to make my usual contrib, "hooray for Coal and Steel"? And the US really can claim some sort of parenthood for that organization!
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:16 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 27):
Is this the cue for me to make my usual contrib, "hooray for Coal and Steel"?

Um... I don't know.  confused   biggrin 

I was thinking of the EEC and the EC.
 
OlegShv
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:22 am

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:19 pm

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 25):
Here displacement figures put her as larger than the US Ohio class, although she only has 16 missile tubes compared to the Ohio's 24. (And I'll bet good money that she'll be not even half was quite as an Ohio. Also she'll probably be tracked by our Seawolf/Virgina class subs as she leaves port for her trial runs.)

Well, I wouldn't be so optimistic about Ohio being quiter. Ohio boats were deployed in the 1980s, this one is a decade younger. Read what defense analyst had to say about the state of submarine quieting technology:

Quote:

... While we are told that the SEAWOLF is the quietest submarine in the world, one wonders if we have "all" the data needed to evaluate the acoustic signature of the Akula II, and the potential noise level of the Russian SEVERODVINSK, now on the building ways. If the past is any guide to the future, it is likely that the SEVERODVINSK will be significantly quieter than the Akula series--and quieter than the SEAWOLF, which was designed several years before the SEVERODVINSK. Discussions that I have had with senior officials of Russia's Rubin and Malachite design bureaus reinforce the view that future Russian submarines will be quieter and have significantly improved performance.

True, the size of the Russian submarine force has been cut in half; relatively few submarines are going to sea; and the construction of new submarines is proceeding at a sluggish rate. But the Russian submarine force remains, in the words of the U.S. Director of Naval Intelligence, the "technological pacing challenge."



source: http://www.fas.org/man/congress/1997/h970318n.htm
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:51 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 27):
Is this the cue for me to make my usual contrib, "hooray for Coal and Steel"? And the US really can claim some sort of parenthood for that organization!

Indeed and don't forget to mention the ill fated EDC.

pelican
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:35 am

Quoting David L (Reply 28):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 27):
Is this the cue for me to make my usual contrib, "hooray for Coal and Steel"?

Um... I don't know. confused biggrin

I was thinking of the EEC and the EC.

Arguably they are all the offspring of the Coal and Steel Community, which interestingly did not include the UK - say no more, nudge nudge! So when an argument develops over the EU, the EC the EEC, you need to go back to the ECSC. One of the curious realities that continues is that the ECSC (and therefore Europe) has responsibility for standards in relation to coal, and not the UN as is the case for many/most other similar materials. So here in Aus, we have these damned Europeans insisting that ISO standards be written around European coals and not a world wide selection - although I have to admit that this has changed as Europe now uses more imported coals than locally produced coals, and even more significantly, has noticed this fact!!!  Wow!  Wow!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community
"The Treaty of Paris entered into force on 23 July 1952, and unlike the Treaty establishing the European Community, provided for a limited duration of only 50 years. Thus, the Treaty of Paris ceased to exist on 23 July 2002, and its responsibilities and assets (excepting research funds, see below) were then assumed by the EC. (This assumption was provided for by a protocol to the Treaty of Nice, but as Member States failed to ratify the Treaty in time, a separate Council Decision (2002/596/EC) with provisions for the end of the ECSC was passed.
.....
The ECSC served as the foundation for the later development of the European Economic Community (later renamed the European Community by the Maastricht Treaty), and then the European Union.

Not all ECSC activity ceased after July 2002. "
 
astuteman
Posts: 6345
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:13 am

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 25):
The Russians started building the Borei class in 1996, was launched this year and expected in service next years...

Also, as far as I understand, the UK government has committed to a UK Trident Replacement, somewhat controversially (as it always is...)

Quoting OlegShv (Reply 29):
While we are told that the SEAWOLF is the quietest submarine in the world

"Told" being the operative word...  biggrin 

Regards
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:02 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 32):
Quoting OlegShv (Reply 29):
While we are told that the SEAWOLF is the quietest submarine in the world

"Told" being the operative word...

I suppose that your post is the answer you cannot give to the question I should not ask!!
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:41 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 27):
And the US really can claim some sort of parenthood for that organization!

not so fast. The first step towards European integration was made by the smaller countries!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelux
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:38 pm

Glad you enjoyed the book David, as well as G-BOAA (I'll have to get up there, what with it's interior being the 1993-2001 fit, the best we ever had as well as reminding of happy times).

The UK made a massive economic/strategic error with it's refusal of an offer of entry to what would become the EEC/EU in the mid 50's.
Indeed, the same people who largely had refused, realised this within a few years, but by then CDG was French president, with all his resentments and paranoia against the Anglo Saxons.
Once he was gone and his body cold, UK entrance was accepted, of course by then, we lost much of our ability to have far greater influence.
Earlier exposure to the EU market, might well have made UK industry more competitive a lot sooner with a lot less pain, though competitive really often meant 'less complacent'.

But I remain puzzled at arguments about EU membership 'losing British sovereignty', since most saying this never had a problem with NATO membership, except for the long term opponents, on the far left and right fringes.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:30 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 31):
Arguably they are all the offspring of the Coal and Steel Community,

Ah, I did not know that. Before my time... just.  Smile

Quoting GDB (Reply 35):
I'll have to get up there, what with it's interior being the 1993-2001 fit, the best we ever had as well as reminding of happy times

Perfect for me as I flew in it in 1999. Give me a shout if you do and time permits.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6345
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:31 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
I suppose that your post is the answer you cannot give to the question I should not ask!!

You can think that if you want - I couldn't possibly comment..  Wink

Regards
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 34):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 27):
And the US really can claim some sort of parenthood for that organization!

not so fast. The first step towards European integration was made by the smaller countries!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelux

All origins are complex, and Benelux goes back a long way, but your op cit has the following line"
"Its [Benelux] founding contributed to the founding of the European Union (EU), though the immediate precursors to the EU were founded later (the ECSC in 1951 and the EEC in 1957)."

So what you write is certainly true. And I suppose you could also attribute the ECSC origins to Russia as they frightened the US into promoting the ECSC as the west "needed" more steel. What an irony!

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 37):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
I suppose that your post is the answer you cannot give to the question I should not ask!!

You can think that if you want - I couldn't possibly comment..

Why do I hear the tones of Ian Richardson ringing in my ears?  Big grin
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:52 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 38):
All origins are complex, and Benelux goes back a long way, but your op cit has the following line"
"Its [Benelux] founding contributed to the founding of the European Union (EU), though the immediate precursors to the EU were founded later (the ECSC in 1951 and the EEC in 1957)."

well, the larger countries obviously tend to think it was their idea  Wink
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:35 am

good answers well other than I dont know how we got on the subject of submarines..lol but I understand how things tend to get off topic sometimes. Anyway I probably should have made myself clear I know about the old projects I was woundering why no new projects were on the line. Some european countries seems to be distancing themselves out of the US military shadow (and thats ok not knocking it) saying a situation happenes in europe like on 9-11 (And I hope it never does but remember the Radio Free Europe building was the original target that day) but if it does the US may be un-willing or maybe tied up in another conflict and unable to assist with long range bombing whats going to happen if its out of the range of your fighters and small group of aircraft carriers and no fields are availible that was the question I was wanting to ask "again sorry I should have made it more clear.
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:39 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 32):
"Told" being the operative word...

Probably the quietest Nuclear Sub but I think the Germans have a Desiel sub that is probably quieter but not nearly as large and doesnt need to be. And weather anyone wants to admit it or not the Seawolfe Class subs are a force to be reckoned with so I wouldnt discard them. The Russians may be able to match its quietness but its doubtfull they will beat it like every product you can only do so much with it they are kind of like manned aircraft youc an only make them as manueverable as the human body can take...you can only may a Nuclear sub so quiet.

[Edited 2007-11-10 23:41:11]

[Edited 2007-11-10 23:44:31]
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:15 am

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 40):
but if it does the US may be un-willing or maybe tied up in another conflict and unable to assist

I would like to refer to Article 5 of the NATO treaty

Quote:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

which is why also European based AWACS with European crews flew over the US after 9-11
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:58 pm

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 41):
Probably the quietest Nuclear Sub but I think the Germans have a Desiel sub that is probably quieter but not nearly as large and doesnt need to be

I
The U212A class is that silent not because of the diesel, but because it has a hydrogen fuel cell as its main source of energy. The diesel just acts as an alternative generator that charges the batteries if silent propulsion is not necessary or when the hydrogen is exhausted (after a couple of weeks). Propulsion is solely electrical.

But the fuel cell is just the public-made strong point of that sub. Its real cutting edge is something else ... the U206 predecessor was probably just as silent propulsion-wise.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:52 pm

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 40):
if it does the US may be un-willing or maybe tied up in another conflict and unable to assist with long range bombing whats going to happen if its out of the range of your fighters and small group of aircraft carriers and no fields are availible that was the question I was wanting to ask "again sorry I should have made it more clear.

That is how the submarines crept stealthily into the thread, so you answered your own question Wvsuperhornet.

And your username reminds me have you heard of the recent 4 corners program on the Aus ABC that examined the interim F18 purchase Australia has committed itself to?
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2070484.htm
Not a very favourable treatment, either of the plane or of our "decision" making process, process, hmmmmm!! Basically, the view was that we would be better off with F111s until the F35 arrives. That is, of course, assuming we have a great wish to bomb Jakarta - which I rather hope we do not.
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:11 am

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 43):
The U212A class is that silent not because of the diesel, but because it has a hydrogen fuel cell as its main source of energy. The diesel just acts as an alternative generator that charges the batteries if silent propulsion is not necessary or when the hydrogen is exhausted (after a couple of weeks). Propulsion is solely electrical.

But the fuel cell is just the public-made strong point of that sub. Its real cutting edge is something else ... the U206 predecessor was probably just as silent propulsion-wise

Yeah I saw it on our military channel and it was pretty impressive a cudo's goes out to who even designed it.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 44):
That is how the submarines crept stealthily into the thread, so you answered your own question Wvsuperhornet.

And your username reminds me have you heard of the recent 4 corners program on the Aus ABC that examined the interim F18 purchase Australia has committed itself to?
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2070484.htm
Not a very favourable treatment, either of the plane or of our "decision" making process, process, hmmmmm!! Basically, the view was that we would be better off with F111s until the F35 arrives. That is, of course, assuming we have a great wish to bomb Jakarta - which I rather hope we do not.

everyone is entitled to their opinion on it. The superhornet is either one of the fighters you like or you really hate it there isnt any in between. As long as it gets the job done and so far it has its works for me. My opinion if they dont like then dont buy it.

[Edited 2007-11-11 21:13:17]
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:22 am

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 45):
everyone is entitled to their opinion on it.

Very true, but I think the whole episode was a rant session by the F-111 Mafia and did not offer any real alternatives to the F-18F or F-35 apart from their somewhat nostalgic attachment to a 40y/o airframe that is getting harder to maintain and operate by the year!

Regards
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:47 am



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 46):
Very true, but I think the whole episode was a rant session by the F-111 Mafia and did not offer any real alternatives to the F-18F or F-35 apart from their somewhat nostalgic attachment to a 40y/o airframe that is getting harder to maintain and operate by the year!

Regards

To be honest whne the aircraft first came out I didnt care for it too much also but the aircraft did prove its self in combat and has been a very stable aircraft. The F-15 has some range on it but weapons wise they are both compatable so I dont see where Australia made any mistakes. The F-111 was a good aircraft but I owuld be afraid of how it would fair against a country with modern air defenses and that is equiped with upgraded MIGS and Flankers. I dont think they would fair very well. That and I plan on retiring to Australia so I want it as safe and well defended as possible you wont hear me complain about them buying modern aircraft.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:29 pm



Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 47):
The F-15 has some range on it but weapons wise they are both compatible so I dont see where Australia made any mistakes. The F-111 was a good aircraft but I would be afraid of how it would fair against a country with modern air defenses and that is equipped with upgraded MIGS and Flankers. I dont think they would fair very well.

FWIW the suggestions were the pig would be faster, lower, higher bomb load and with its range would expose the refuelling planes less to those nasty Sukhois.

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 47):
That and I plan on retiring to Australia so I want it as safe and well defended as possible you wont hear me complain about them buying modern aircraft.

Not offering to bomb Jakarta as a major part of defense plans would be a great start to our security!  Wow!

The best line in security against Indonesia is probably the plan to have easier work visas for Indonesian being proposed by DEPLU and their Minister for For Affairs. Potentially much better than Sukhois, Hornets, Pigs and even Raptors and all put together.
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers?

Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:35 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 48):
FWIW the suggestions were the pig would be faster, lower, higher bomb load and with its range would expose the refuelling planes less to those nasty Sukhois.

Yea I can see that but to my knowledge the Tankers very rarely fly in combat without an armed escort those flankers would probably get a superise if they tried to sneak up on one. I know your airforce shadowed our tankers in the last Iraq war in close formations so they would make an enemy think they were alone, so the refueling is no big deal granted it costs a little more but the Superhornet is capable of handling the job.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 48):
The best line in security against Indonesia is probably the plan to have easier work visas for Indonesian being proposed by DEPLU and their Minister for For Affairs. Potentially much better than Sukhois, Hornets, Pigs and even Raptors and all put together

Yea probably that and as far as I know the Raptors arent even an option right now. Also you need to keep in mind the F-15's that Korea and Singapore odered with all the advancements on them from our F-15's they were acually more expensive than the F-35.

And with your well trained and advanced Navy your neighbors would be very foolish to try anything.

[Edited 2007-11-16 19:36:55]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests