Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

Finns want fighters

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I agree. IMHO, either the smaller NATO states need to come together and jointly run an air force, allowing them combined to put together the logistical capabilities and ancillaries, or they need to accept a very small but generally capable air force.

    Option 1: Pooling together, countries conspire to provide a combined Air Force that includes multi-role fighters, AWACs, Transport, and refueling missions.

    Option 2: Buy a low end AWACs bird, like an E2, and also buy a cargo bird that can pull double duty as refueling, like the KC130.

    For a country to basically demand that a contractor provide them with IFR capabilities is IMHO kind of cheesy.
    Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

    Comment


    • #47
      It might be hard for the various small countries to agree on who gets what. I remember when NATO had AWACS.

      Pruitt
      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

      Comment


      • #48
        The NATO AWACs are under some kind of sharing-scheme already iirc. So is heavy airlift capabilities.

        That's one thing Sweden so far has foregone to do for itself — it's also part of the NATO heavy-airlift thing. (Sweden does do airborne radar for itself (the Eyrie Eye and Global Eye systems), and air-refueling, precisely using its C-130 "Herkules" machines for it.)

        Comment


        • #49
          It's clearly a buyer's market right now. There are too many companies pushing their machines, so now they have to offer very attractive deals, and not only on price, but all kinds of supplemental services it seems.
          Indeed; through-life support and training is nothing new but the IP aspect is. OEMs now have to invest in target markets to a far higher degree and sacrifice much more. As I mentioned, see Brazil and the proposed Indian light fighter programmes with complete ToT and production in-country. The US retains the advantage of critical mass and support guarantee that others find it hard to match, though Sweden is better than most.

          SAAB just withdrew its bid for the Belgian procurement of new fighters. It seems the Belgians have made it a condition that IF you get to sell them these fighters, you are also contractually obliged to service them anywhere in the world, should Belgium chose to go to war there — including handling what air-refueling the Belgian air-force might need.
          You have to provide through-life support and that includes [overseas] servicing, but that is so common now as to be irrelevant. I suspect Saab feel the F-35 will win and therefore it is not worth the investment.

          The NATO AWACs are under some kind of sharing-scheme already iirc. So is heavy airlift capabilities.
          True, but in the case of AWACs they still belong to particular air forces; the sharing is the availability and the recompense. They are registered to a particular operator. It has been suggested that the Nordics or Baltics (and GCC) undertake something similar for various capabilities.
          History is not tragedy; to understand historical reality, it is sometimes better to not know the end of the story.

          Pierre Vidal-Naquet

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Bluenose View Post
            True, but in the case of AWACs they still belong to particular air forces; the sharing is the availability and the recompense. They are registered to a particular operator. It has been suggested that the Nordics or Baltics (and GCC) undertake something similar for various capabilities.
            Sweden does for itself in that respect. Defense cooperation with Finland would make it available to the Finns as well.

            Denmark, Norway and the Baltic states are NATO so that's a different kettle of fish. Though if they want an affordable airborne radar system, Sweden is selling.

            Comment


            • #51
              Sweden does for itself in that respect. Defense cooperation with Finland would make it available to the Finns as well.
              Expensive to buy and operate; sharing with neighbours would help ameliorate the financials and provide mutually useful benefits to all.

              Denmark, Norway and the Baltic states are NATO so that's a different kettle of fish.
              But there is the potential to cooperate and co-use aircraft given the similarities of local concern. Indeed, the Erieye and GlobalEye are ideally suited for non-deploying, sophisticated states concerned primarily with multi-level security concerns, which is much of North / East Europe

              Though if they want an affordable airborne radar system, Sweden is selling.
              The GlobalEye costs a small fortune, as do all of these things. You are looking at $300-400m each (you probably need 3 to be useful) and that does not cover the long-term running or support infrastructure.
              History is not tragedy; to understand historical reality, it is sometimes better to not know the end of the story.

              Pierre Vidal-Naquet

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X