EU Heavy Bomber ideas?

.

France has done especially well in African messes. We tend to forget
how many of these there have been (French military adventures, not
messes) because American media resolutely ignore anything that doesn't
have an American angle. Before the U.S. bombed Gaddafi, for example,
the French had a small army in Chad (was it Chad? oh God I can't
remember) that whupped Gaddafi's invasion.





You are right...It was Chad, and there always French military people there..

=20


I don't think that they'd have to be all that large, as the white flags =
and
rose petals they'd be designed to dispense tend to not take up as much r=
oom
as bombs.


=20

Quel sac d'=E2neries issues des Foax News...

Henry J Cobb wrote:

Actually the EU member states have carefully studied the relative effectiveness
of the USN and USAF and most have concluded that the correct platforms for power
projection in the future will be carriers and submarines. ;-)

Well, the Royal Navy attacked a target or three in Afghanistan by
submarine not so long back - and the battle damage assessment may have
been done by an old Canberra PR9.

DunxC wrote:

And what heavy bombers does the RAF have exactly?

We still have one - and we used it across the Channel the other week.

Henry J Cobb wrote:
David E. Powell wrote:
If the EU is looking for more reach without carriers, how about heavy
bombers? Certainly something on the order of B-1B as far as airframe
might be a goal, or something less radical. It depends on their
budget and requirements, I guess. From bases in Europe they could
cover much of Africa, the Middle East, etc.

Of course if they wanted to go somewhere with fighters they might
need escort, etc.

Actually the EU member states have carefully studied the relative
effectiveness of the USN and USAF and most have concluded that the
correct platforms for power projection in the future will be carriers
and submarines. ;-)

....and in a typical EU way of thinking the French vetoed the subs, the Brits
vetoed the carriers and the whole thing went to a vote. The net result is
that a committee came up with the conclusion that combining both roles would
be best so we'll shortly be announcing carrier subs as the new EU
peacekeeping fleet, to be manned by the Austrian navy.


--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

In article ,
James Hart wrote:
peacekeeping fleet, to be manned by the Austrian navy.

Glad to see the quality of (probably) the second-best navy of the first
half of the last century recognised. The Austrian navy in Big Mistake
One were /bloody/ good. They saw the back of the RN in a serious
amd fairly equal cruiser action, which IIRC no-one else managed for
100-odd years before (and never since).
Also the first navy to use organic ASW air for convoy escort (1915,
I believe). The Austrian navy was a serious force. Just be glad the
german navy never matched its quality.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 01:44:07 GMT, David E. Powell wrote:
If the EU is looking for more reach without carriers, how about heavy
bombers? Certainly something on the order of B-1B as far as airframe might
be a goal, or something less radical. It depends on their budget and
requirements, I guess. From bases in Europe they could cover much of Africa,
the Middle East, etc.

A Tornado, Typhoon or Rafale with droptanks and Storm Shadow
missiles could probably reach quite far.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:01:59 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

1. The USA will protect them. They claim they don't like that, but it
speaks volumes that they have all (except for the UK) let their military
budgets and capabilities decline to ludicrous levels.

Actually, that also applies for the UK. It is accepted as a part
of UK policy that the Royal Navy will not (be able to) operate
without US support; hence the willingness to withdraw the Sea
Harrier from the fleet and do without air cover -- at least until
new 'big' carriers are declared operational, some considerable
distance in the future.

But it isn't quite true that the EU is without carriers. France
is committed to keep conventional carriers in service, and
besides the UK, Spain and Italy operate small STOVL carriers.

As for the US moaning about the inability of European nations
to defend themselves, every time the EU does try to do something
about it the USA declares that this is a threat to NATO (read to
unchallenged US supremacy) and should be stopped. No politician
ever died of hypocrisy...

2. Even if they had them, they'd never use them.

What use would they be, anyway? These days heavy bombers
appear to be used mostly for tactical air support, which
suggests that they are a comparative luxury. Almost everything
else has a higher priority: Modern fighters and strike aircraft,
reconnaissance platforms, strategic transport aircraft, tactical
transport and attack helicopters, ...

Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters" or
strike aircraft. They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft and
no usable attack helos. Of course the UK has some Apaches, and
may get some C-17's.

Al Minyard

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:05:18 -0500, Alan Minyard
wrote:

Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters" or
strike aircraft.

Then neither does the US since there are large numbers of F-16s in the
EU, which after the MLU program are comparable to Block 50.
Some might think the Tornados are relatively capable strike aircraft
as well, espcecially the GR.4 that the RAF has been using in anger.

They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft and
no usable attack helos. Of course the UK has some Apaches, and
may get some C-17's.

So the Dutch Apaches (D model IIRC but without the radar) that have
been deployed in the Balkans don't count, nor do the Italian
Mangustas, nor do the C-17s that the UK already has? And strategic
lift in general is recognised as a weakness, hence the A-400 orders.

Peter Kemp

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

I never said they did, only that the UK has a military that actually
works.

To be entirely fair, so does France.

They do? When did they last actually DO anything with it?

France has done especially well in African messes.

So has Belgium. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Before the U.S. bombed Gaddafi, for example,
the French had a small army in Chad (was it Chad? oh God I can't
remember) that whupped Gaddafi's invasion.

Yes, and as I recall, the US had a large hand in getting the French there
and then supporting them.