A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

asymetric warfare



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 18th 03, 04:22 AM
phil hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default asymetric warfare

What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost
cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all
very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system.
Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be
made cheaply.

LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and
supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself
approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors
to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect).
This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance
system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image
recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost
could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a
vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and
simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target
(useful intel for the missile controllers).

Another target for LCCMs would be surface ships. Telling tghe
difference between a ship and water is easier than detecting land
vehicles (detecting what sort of ship it is would also be quite
easy, I imagine). Anti ship missiles would probably want ot have a
bigger warhead than anti-land force missiles (or a 'swarm' option
could be used).

Another application would be to make it re-usable, i.e. a UAV rather
than a CM. Mount a machine gun in it, and let it roam around over
the battlefield taking pot-shots at anything that moves. Or use it
to give targetting data for artillery.

Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).


  #3  
Old December 18th 03, 05:10 AM
raymond o'hara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost
cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all
very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system.
Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be
made cheaply.

LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and
supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself
approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors
to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect).
This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance
system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image
recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost
could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a
vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and
simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target
(useful intel for the missile controllers).

Another target for LCCMs would be surface ships. Telling tghe
difference between a ship and water is easier than detecting land
vehicles (detecting what sort of ship it is would also be quite
easy, I imagine). Anti ship missiles would probably want ot have a
bigger warhead than anti-land force missiles (or a 'swarm' option
could be used).

Another application would be to make it re-usable, i.e. a UAV rather
than a CM. Mount a machine gun in it, and let it roam around over
the battlefield taking pot-shots at anything that moves. Or use it
to give targetting data for artillery.

Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).



cheap dirty nukes . if you got 'em use 'em


  #4  
Old December 18th 03, 05:15 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost
cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all
very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system.
Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be
made cheaply.

LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and
supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself
approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors
to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect).
This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance
system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image
recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost
could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a
vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and
simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target
(useful intel for the missile controllers).


This is really not as simple as you make it out to be. The US military
services are still wrestling with ways to compress the sensor/shooter cycle,
and with fielding weapons capable of handling mobile/time-sensitive targets.
In view of that, the likelihood of any likely foe developing a similar
capability in the near terms (and that really is the next ten years, if not
longer) is remote.


Another target for LCCMs would be surface ships. Telling tghe
difference between a ship and water is easier than detecting land
vehicles (detecting what sort of ship it is would also be quite
easy, I imagine). Anti ship missiles would probably want ot have a
bigger warhead than anti-land force missiles (or a 'swarm' option
could be used).

Another application would be to make it re-usable, i.e. a UAV rather
than a CM. Mount a machine gun in it, and let it roam around over
the battlefield taking pot-shots at anything that moves. Or use it
to give targetting data for artillery.

Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.


Then one wonders why those very same nations usually end up trying to buy
the products produced by those "slow-moving, bloated" western defense
contractors.

Brooks


  #5  
Old December 18th 03, 05:34 AM
phil hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:15:51 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and
supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself
approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors
to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect).
This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance
system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image
recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost
could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a
vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and
simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target
(useful intel for the missile controllers).


This is really not as simple as you make it out to be. The US military
services are still wrestling with ways to compress the sensor/shooter cycle,
and with fielding weapons capable of handling mobile/time-sensitive targets.
In view of that, the likelihood of any likely foe developing a similar
capability in the near terms (and that really is the next ten years, if not
longer) is remote.


I think there are two issues here. The first is when the sensor is
attached to the weapon, as it is in a sensor in a missile. Here,
there is no sensor/shooter cycle, unless you choose to have a human
involved in the decision to fire.

The second is when the sensor is in one place, and the shooter
somewhere else; in those situations, what problems have the USA
encountered, and how have they gone about solving them?

Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.


Then one wonders why those very same nations usually end up trying to buy
the products produced by those "slow-moving, bloated" western defense
contractors.


Because they are more technologically advanced. Some technologies,
for example high performance jet engines, require a large industrial
base to make. The sort of technologies I'm talking about are ones
that can potentially be produced a lot more cheaply, for example by
adapting mass-produced (but nevertheless highly sophisticated)
consumer products. Any medium-sized power should be able to produce
embedded computer control systems.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).


  #6  
Old December 18th 03, 05:40 AM
phil hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:54:46 GMT, Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
(phil hunt) nattered on
.org:

What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?


Orbital laser satellites, preferably mind-control lasers.


Crewed by Alien Space Bats, presumably?


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).


  #7  
Old December 18th 03, 06:18 AM
Erik Max Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

phil hunt wrote:

What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?


Something you don't bring up, but which is very important in being able
to analyze your question, is exactly what goal the opponent would have.
Would it be to invade the USA (taking the USA as the obvious archetype
of the scenario)? Would it be to thwart USA forces engaged in some
existing conflict on your soil until the war becomes so unpopular at
home that they are forced to withdraw? Would it be to goad them into a
conflict to do the same? What is the smaller force trying to
accomplish?

--
__ Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
\__/ He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.
-- George Bernard Shaw
  #8  
Old December 18th 03, 06:26 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:15:51 GMT, Kevin Brooks

wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and
supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself
approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors
to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect).
This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance
system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image
recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost
could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a
vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and
simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target
(useful intel for the missile controllers).


This is really not as simple as you make it out to be. The US military
services are still wrestling with ways to compress the sensor/shooter

cycle,
and with fielding weapons capable of handling mobile/time-sensitive

targets.
In view of that, the likelihood of any likely foe developing a similar
capability in the near terms (and that really is the next ten years, if

not
longer) is remote.


I think there are two issues here. The first is when the sensor is
attached to the weapon, as it is in a sensor in a missile. Here,
there is no sensor/shooter cycle, unless you choose to have a human
involved in the decision to fire.


That is way beyond even our capabilities. You are talking autonomous combat
systems. The closest thing we have to that in service are the intelligent
antiarmor submunitions, which are already in service in cluter munitions to
include WCMD dispensers, and will soon be available as a warhead option for
the Army's ATACMS missiles. But they still require a sensor in the loop,
because you can't just fire them "in that direction, more or less", and hit
anything--you have to have a pretty narrow determination of where the target
is right at the time the weapon arrives. Now if you want to send a flock of
CM's out and about to go on a hunter-killer mission, you have some real
problems to confront, like: (a) How do you prevent fratricide or targeting
of the local version of the Sanford garbage truck (remember that not every
enemy is going to be able to discount collateral damage like the insurgents
we are no facing in Iraq do)? (b) Are you going to send it in low, where it
MIGHT have a chance at surviving, but its field of view is extremely
limited, so it is that much more likely to not find any target to hit, but
which also requires oodles of (very accurate, and likely unavailable to most
potential foes) digital topographic data to be uploaded and a complex
navigation system) or up high where the view is better, but also where it
becomes easy meat for the layers of Patriots and Avengers fielded by the
resident duckhunters, along with any covering Aegis controlled Standards in
the littoral zone, and the ubiquitous F-15/F-22 CAP? and, (c) Development of
a reliable, compact, onboard sensor suite that provides enough resolution to
find likely targets, and a darned intelligent software package to handle
target discrimination (from background clutter, earlier posited garbage
truck, etc.), and can also recognize an entire range of potential targets
and select the one you would want hit from amongst all of them. Sorry, but I
don't see ANY potential foes we might face in your near term overcoming one,
much less all, of those hurdles, and I am sure I have missed a few more.


The second is when the sensor is in one place, and the shooter
somewhere else; in those situations, what problems have the USA
encountered, and how have they gone about solving them?


Then you have to have a good secure datalink, and as it stands now the only
folks that are likely to have those during the near-term are us and our good
friends. The best currently fielded US system of this nature is the SLAM-ER,
with ATA--think of an extended range Harpoon with an ability to send its
sensor images back to either a launch aircraft or another suitable platform,
and which responds to that platform's commands to acheive retargeting or to
allow more discriminative targeting. IIRC the new Tactical Tomahawk will
also offer an inflight retargeting capability. You will note that the
current trend in the US, which is the undeniable leader ins such
capabilities, is to retain the man-in-the-loop at present, and that will not
significantly change during the period you have set forth, so I seriously
doubt Underwhatsistan is going to be able to do any better.


Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.


Then one wonders why those very same nations usually end up trying to buy
the products produced by those "slow-moving, bloated" western defense
contractors.


Because they are more technologically advanced. Some technologies,
for example high performance jet engines, require a large industrial
base to make. The sort of technologies I'm talking about are ones
that can potentially be produced a lot more cheaply, for example by
adapting mass-produced (but nevertheless highly sophisticated)
consumer products. Any medium-sized power should be able to produce
embedded computer control systems.


If it was that easy, others would be doing so already--they are not. Heck,
look at the Storm Shadow ALCM--a good system, but in no way is it verging on
the system brilliance you envision for this asymetric uber-weapon, and Storm
Shadow is the best that is offered by our European allies, who are, while
generally a bit behind the US power curve in this area, light years ahead of
the rest-of-the-world (possible exception of Israel, but if you take the
Popeyes we got lynched into buying from them as an example, not too great
either). Sorm Shadow/Scalp are already enjoying export success because the
rest of the world can't do a better job on their own--the only way they get
any capability like what you refer to is by buying from those western
industries you rather prematurely wrote off.

Brooks


  #9  
Old December 18th 03, 06:57 AM
phil hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:18:19 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
phil hunt wrote:

What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?


Something you don't bring up, but which is very important in being able
to analyze your question, is exactly what goal the opponent would have.
Would it be to invade the USA (taking the USA as the obvious archetype
of the scenario)? Would it be to thwart USA forces engaged in some
existing conflict on your soil until the war becomes so unpopular at
home that they are forced to withdraw? Would it be to goad them into a
conflict to do the same? What is the smaller force trying to
accomplish?


This is a good question, as what you're trying to do affects what
you need to do to do it.

Let's consider possible adversaries, and what their aims might be.

Iran.
- deter US invasion of their country
- prevent US or Israeli air raids against their country (LCCMs won't
really do this, but other asymetric techniques might be able to)
- in the event of US military action, be able to inflict
unacceptable losses on US warships in the area
- deter Israeli air raids by the ability to strike back against
Israeli cities (updated V1 idea; modern V1s would be much more
accurate and could e.g. hit targets of opportunity)


Saudi Arabia.
- same as Iran, really


China.
- ability to cow other regional powers by superior force
- ability to successfully launch a land invasion against North
Korea, Russia/Siberia, Kazakhstan, or Vietnam
- naval invasion against Taiwan
- ability to destroy hostile (either regional power or US) shipping
in seas near China
- ability to intimidate Japan or other reasonable powers with
V1-style weapons


India and Pakistan
- use against each other; western powers might conceivably join in
- V1-type city bombing


Algeria or Libya
- attack Europe or Israel with V1-type weapons; use threat of the
above to prevent the west interferihng in their countries
- control Mediterranean


South Africa
Is not likely to attack anyone, but might want to maintain force
dominance compared to a coalition of regional powers against it
(e.g. Zimbabwe + Libya + Angola). ZA also has a largish weapons
industry with a record of making decent wepaons on a tight budget,
so may well manufacture LCCMs for export.


Indonesia
- war with Australia, whicvh inevitably would have a naval
component, so anti-shipping use. Also maybe anti-city use


Singapore
- to maintain a defense posture of "we're not going to attack
anyone, but if you attack us..."


Taiwan
- aerial bombardment of China. How many people would die if the
3 Gorges Dam was destroyed?


South Korea
- to deter China. Also for export.


Other countries that might develop LCCMs might include Brasil,
Argentina, Chile (balance of power against each other), and Thailand
and Malaysia (BoP). In all these countries cases, becasue they're
fun toys to play with that are cheap. (More formally: because the
general staffs and defence ministers of these nations will gain
status by being involved in developing what are seen as cutting-edge
high technology weapons, and it won't put too big a hole in the
defense budget to do it).


Russia and Ukraine might develop them for export potential.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).


  #10  
Old December 18th 03, 07:33 AM
Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost
cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all
very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system.
Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be
made cheaply.

LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and
supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself
approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors
to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect).
This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance
system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image
recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost
could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a
vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and
simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target
(useful intel for the missile controllers).


Without getting much into the technical end of this discussion (which other
posts have already done), it is safe to say that pretty much any cruise
missile system built 'on the cheap' (especially by second and third-world
standards) would be so obsolete at the time of its deployment that existing
and near-future US countermeasure systems will easily detect and deter their
success. Do you think that you are the only one who thought of this? The DoD
is very much aware of the cruise missile threat.


Another target for LCCMs would be surface ships. Telling tghe
difference between a ship and water is easier than detecting land
vehicles (detecting what sort of ship it is would also be quite
easy, I imagine). Anti ship missiles would probably want ot have a
bigger warhead than anti-land force missiles (or a 'swarm' option
could be used).


While 'swarming' ships with cruise missiles could possibly overwhelm their
anti-missile systems, it is still not a feasible plan for an effective
weapon system. Think about it; how many missiles would be needed to get
through the anti-missile defenses and still cause major damage? 75? 100?
More? Per ship? Where are all of these missiles going to be set up and
launched from, and how are you going to keep them from being destroyed by a
B-2 in the first 10 seconds of the war?

You see, US weapons platforms are not designed purely as stand-alone
systems; each has specific mission parameters towards accomplishing an
overall goal. US surface ships can't defend against 100 cruise missiles
because because they dont have to; other missions and branches of the
service ensure that. Which is why it would be futile to set up a base and
launch system to send of hundereds of these missiles at once; it would
easily become target #1 on the hit list. (which is probably also why nobody
has done it)

Of course, unless they planned to use this strictly as a one-time only sneak
attack method for starting a war; then the tactic could meet some success.
But they would be hard pressed to not tip their hand prematurely, and wind
up with a visit from the B-2 before the facilities were even completed. And
even if by chance thy managed to pull something like that off, it would be a
suicide mission on a national scale, as the country who launched the attack
would become a parking lot within 48 hours.


Another application would be to make it re-usable, i.e. a UAV rather
than a CM. Mount a machine gun in it, and let it roam around over
the battlefield taking pot-shots at anything that moves. Or use it
to give targetting data for artillery.


It would be detected and shot down before it got a single shot off. Or it
would take one shot, then get shot down. The reason US UAVs don't get shot
down is because they either, 1) utilize low-observable (stealth) technology
(which is way beyond the capabilities and budget you've set), or 2) operate
in an environment in which we've gained air dominance, set up jamming, and
largely eliminated the surface-to-air threats (none of which is likely to
happen against the US). And even after all of that we still lose a few. So
what chance would anyone else have?


Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.


During Gulf War I we approved, designed from scratch, tested, certifiied,
manufactured and fielded the GBU-28 in under a month to counter a specific
target. When a job needs to get done, it's surprising how fast we make
things happen.

Aside from that, US technology is literally quantum leaps beyond anything
that a potential adversary could acquire in the near-term, especially on the
cheap, as you are suggesting. There would have to be a massive technological
infrastructure to simply get to where we are, much less "get inside the
decision curve" of the US military. It just isn't feasible... and thats
exactly how we want it.

From a warfighting standpoint, there really is no way to take us on
directly, regardless of anything you've postulated in this post. The best
way to go about any kind of counter-strike against our forces is to get
about 10,000 guys, give them each some kind of RPG or shoulder-launched AT
missile, and let them scatter all over the place and make random attacks. It
still won't stop us, but it is the only hope of at least inflicting some
damage occasionally.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
New York City



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! John Cook Military Aviation 35 November 11th 03 12:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.