Ukrainian monastery cares for the war's forgotten felines
A monastery in the Ukrainian city of Odesa opens its doors to hundreds of cats abandoned or injured amid the war with Russia.
www.abc.net.au
"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter XBe02Drvr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
www.abc.net.au
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Yeah, I'm not sure how much Lockheed can spool up the production line much faster, perhaps
FLYBOYJ
has some insight? Is the Gripen compatible with current NATO missiles? If so, and being the more-affordable of the two, I'd imagine it would seem a fair alternative though obviously less capable.RogerdeLluria
Staff Sergeant
- 1,325
- Jul 5, 2015
Some NATO countries already use GripenYeah, I'm not sure how much Lockheed can spool up the production line much faster, perhaps
Why Gripen is an Ideal Choice for NATO Missions | Stories | Saab
The most important requirement for a NATO mission fighter is the ability to perform Quick Reaction Alert missions.
www.saab.com
It has been integrated with AIM-120, AIM-9, IRIS-T or Meteor
For air to ground Brimstone AGM-65 or Taurus are some examples
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The JAS 39C is fully NATO interopretative.
But we need to keep in mind, that the Gripen is a multi-role fighter, where the F-35 is a multi-role combat platform.
The F-35 is often referred to as a "fighter" or a "multi-role" fighter, but it's capabilities (and designed function) go well beyond those labels.
The Gripen would be able to perform the air superiority role (like the F-22) in operations, allowing the F-35 to conduct it's strike missions, so that is definately a plus, but I don't expect the Gripen to be able to "replace" the F-35's mission profile.
But we need to keep in mind, that the Gripen is a multi-role fighter, where the F-35 is a multi-role combat platform.
The F-35 is often referred to as a "fighter" or a "multi-role" fighter, but it's capabilities (and designed function) go well beyond those labels.
The Gripen would be able to perform the air superiority role (like the F-22) in operations, allowing the F-35 to conduct it's strike missions, so that is definately a plus, but I don't expect the Gripen to be able to "replace" the F-35's mission profile.
They have applied to join NATO, they have not been admitted.
Most likely they certainly will be, but its not a done deal yet.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,515
- Mar 26, 2007
Ohh there is more then enough natural gas in the east. Libia i.g. Oil fields very very rich in Suriname. Takes some time but it is there. Europe took suprisinly the easy way. Not anymore i think.
A total of 28, all leased from Sweden.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Some NATO countries already use Gripen
Gripen uses the same 27mm canon than Eurofighter.Why Gripen is an Ideal Choice for NATO Missions | Stories | Saab
The most important requirement for a NATO mission fighter is the ability to perform Quick Reaction Alert missions.
It has been integrated with AIM-120, AIM-9, IRIS-T or Meteor
For air to ground Brimstone AGM-65 or Taurus are some examples
Thanks for the info, and forgive my ignorance.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
The big thing the F-35 brings to the table, to my thinking, is its ability to act as an AWACS as well as its active combat roles. But for some countries in NATO perhaps they can rely upon allies and don't need the extra capability.
LM is putting out about 150 F-35s a year right now, compared to the 270+ total Gripen production.Yeah, I'm not sure how much Lockheed can spool up the production line much faster, perhaps
Yes
What makes you think Gripen is more affordable?
F-35 cheaper than the Gripen?
The Royal Thai Air Force is considering the acquisition of new fighter aircraft, and favors the Lockheed Martin F-35. Among the arguments, in addition to its ad
www.aviacionline.com
There's a lot more than that - I don't think people realise just how far ahead the F-35 is especially when it comes to the sensors, sensor fusion, data sharing etc. I sometimes use the analogy of comparing a 1980s walkman vs a iPhone. Sure both can play music but for the iPhone there's a hell of a lot more that wasn't even considered when the walkman was in use.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
What makes you think Gripen is more affordable?
F-35 cheaper than the Gripen?
The Royal Thai Air Force is considering the acquisition of new fighter aircraft, and favors the Lockheed Martin F-35. Among the arguments, in addition to its ad
I had assumed that the materials and unit cost of a stealth aircraft would be more expensive. I'm surprised the Gripen is that costly.
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
I think you guys are a bit harsh in regards to syscom3 post. I don't see him being a Russian apologetic for stating his concern or personal opinion on this matter.
1.As I had mentioned already many times - anyone who has studied Putin, is fully aware about his Czarist agenda/policy. (meaning that Putin will not refrain from war options in
order to persue his agenda).
2. For Putin this "special operation" is not just about the Czar's empire but also the result of a confrontation between a supporter/believer of an autocratic system contra democracy
and a war about ideologies bear's the significant risk of a wider spreading war right down to nuclear weapons.
3. Ukraine and NATO have been "in touch" since 1991 and have steadily increased their cooperation since then - not just since 2014/15
4. Putin attacked/occupied Crimea, since according to his point of view it was "given" as an "honor-award" from the Soviet-union to the former Soviet-republic of Ukraine, and therefore does not constitute a natural/historic part of the former Soviet-republic Ukraine - but is a territorial gain of czarist Russia during it's expansion in the 18th century.
Since his annexation of Crimea, there was ample time to institute hard and crippling sanctions against Russia and to convey this issue to the UN (That is what the UN is for, not just to
decide upon who resides in what UN council)
5. Putin "operated" in the e.g. Donbass and Luhansk regions just as the USA did in Honduras, Nicaragua, Columbia, etc. etc. right up to the failed Bay of pigs, to Allende in Chile to Iran
and so on.... (so I believe no one needs to point fingers at each other in the messy regions of covert and supporting revolutions etc. business)
6. NATO was clearly aware about Putin's stance towards the already progressing NATO eastward expansion.
Having said that, there were two options for NATO and the Ukraine latest since 2019, a clever diplomatic one, or a rather stupid/arrogant one - unfortunately NATO and Ukraine opted for the latter one.
And now since February 2022 we have to deal with the result of their preferred option. - the only question that remains to me is: up to what extend?
A strategic window of opportunity is opening for Ukraine
Depending on the short-term decisions of the Ukrainian President and his military high command, we may witness a significant turning point in the war in the coming weeks, writes Mick Ryan.
www.abc.net.au
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I'm not being harsh on him. I'm asking him for his historical perspective, with backing, and pointing out that his "arguments", paltry as they are, echo Kremlin apologetics. Russia invaded Ukraine before Ukraine abandoned neutrality. This is a fact.
That is not harsh. That's plain-spoken. He has every opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding I might be experiencing, and I'll look forward to him doing so.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
We better pull our forces out of Northern California so as not to upset anyone.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
And leave all that Humboldt to depredating invaders?!
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
What time line, or which "invasion" are you referring to?
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
Erdogan stated:
"First of all, we would not say 'yes' to those who impose sanctions on Turkey joining NATO, which is a security organization. Because then NATO would not remain a security organization anymore, it becomes a place where representatives of the terror concentrate," Erdogan said.
I am right now laughing my head off - what on earth could wish Putin more for, then such a statement?
"First of all, we would not say 'yes' to those who impose sanctions on Turkey joining NATO, which is a security organization. Because then NATO would not remain a security organization anymore, it becomes a place where representatives of the terror concentrate," Erdogan said.
I am right now laughing my head off - what on earth could wish Putin more for, then such a statement?
