/mil/

>>66480782
Everything is ok

File: Milestones.jpg (126KB, 1218x914px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1218x914px

>>66480813
That's great news.

This slide from RIAT 2016 shows UK aircraft carrier milestones

bamp

The French army is supposed to replace the FAMAS but I'm not sure if they've chosen what it'll be yet

>>66480947

Where did you find this wonderful graph?

File: T45.jpg (89KB, 1000x757px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1000x757px

>>66485285
https://www.scribd.com/document/323337141/RIAT-2016-briefing-on-QE-class-and-CEPP-plans#from_embed

>>66480782
that picture is scary

is europe+us dead?

>>66485503

Thank you

File: type 26 back.jpg (917KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 2500x2500px

>>66485818
You mean the red? It's an old picture from 2014. Red means military spending was being cut in that period

If they made a new one today, it would be green for UK and probably France too

File: 6-d05d54924f.jpg (291KB, 904x678px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 904x678px

The future soon

File: A-18F-Super-Hornet-Mt-Mitchell.jpg (76KB, 1008x792px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1008x792px

>>66487701
>Canada

Good chance they go Super Hornet desu.

>>66487941

Nah, I've hear contrary to that. iirc, there was a document published a while ago with Canada doing a costing and the F-35 came out on top.

>>66488010
Was there? There was a report by the National Defense Committee a few weeks ago, but mostly what it did is confirm that flying an American fighter is the only real option (also discussed getting back into the missile defense game with the US, I don't see it as very likely though). So it basically eliminated the Eurocanards from the competition, but the Super Hornet may still be an option.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP8406082/421_NDDN_Rpt02_PDF/421_NDDN_Rpt02-e.pdf

>>66488317

Yeah, it was a fair while ago. Really, I think they'll politically be able to bite the bullet.

They pretty much doomed themselves to the F-35 once they brought it back into the competition.

File: 800px-Merkava-2-latrun-2.jpg (103KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 800x535px

>>66480782
>Share the latest and future happenings

Not so long ago the most iconic Israeli tank Merkava Mark II was finally put to rest. All active battalions have gotten the new Mark IV Merkavas.

Thank you for your service, steel lad!

>>66489341
They're turning them into APCs aren't they?

>>66487701
>selling f35 to the turkcroaches

nice job usa

>>66480782
>still to far to the right
>US wants to bully us into spending more on military
well it could be better. but compared to other states, we are doing fine.

File: image002.jpg (71KB, 650x407px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 650x407px

>>66489853
Yeah sort of.

They'll be used as command vehicles.

Mexico

Lo siento, chavo.

>>66489997

You don't think we keep a spare set of keys?

>>66490015
>but compared to other states, we are doing fine.

Compared to comparable states, you're not

2bh

>>66488317
While they're spending so little on defence it really is the only option

>>66493330
Australia spends a similar amount though and can afford F-35s.

If they really can't afford it at all, a mixed fleet of Super Hornets and F-35s like the Aussies might be workable.

File: headinhands.jpg (65KB, 500x333px)

65KB, 500x333px

>>66489425
>british people

>>66489425

Ivan, how many times will you post this like it actually proves something?

>>66480782
We've been developing some nice missiles for the last couple or years and reforming the army to not be shit. That's about it.

>>66493807
>Australia spends a similar amount though and can afford F-35s.

No what I meant was, they're spending so little so buying American is the only option. It works out cheaper because the American jets are being bought in such large numbers that they can take advantage of those economies of scale, but more than that is how their lack of military spending (0.9% GDP IIRC) makes them so reliant on the USA that their real options are very limited. Also Australia spends approximately $6 billion more on the military ($26b compared to $20b for Canada) per year.

Still strikes me as a bit weird, the concept of procuring *only* the F-35 for defence of home airspace when the F-35 was built from the ground up as the consummate attacking strike fighter, the primary reason of its existence being to get through enemy defences to drop bombs on the enemy. I understand that the stealth helps you get the missile lock on the enemy fighter first but it's still strange. I suppose all these countries buying the F-35A are doing to to keep coalition warfare as an option, but in that case they should be getting more

>>66495048
I agree to a certain extent. Denmark for instance replacing it's F-16s with only 27 F-35s is silly. The F-35 is more capable than the F-16, but you still need a certain minimum number of aircraft. 27 is probably barely enough, but it doesn't cover accidents and training needs. Though I suppose they're a small enough nation that they don't need to cover very much air space.

Canada also has a similar problem, where they only planned to order 65. They have a shitload of air space to cover and I don't really think that's enough. If they were planning to use the cost savings from the F-35 compared to the Super Hornet to order more aircraft I might agree with their decision, but if they're going to order 65 Super Hornets then it's just a silly waste.

>>66497288
I agree, 65 is nowhere enough.

It's a couple of squadrons + training/replenishment fleet and spares. If they every go into a coalition effort abroad they'll be very reliant on the USAF to defend their own airspace. This is already the accepted reality via NORAD

>>66480782
>dat Oman

>colUmbia
DELETE THIS