Forums | MacLife

I always find the amount of time listed for the Iraq War very misleading.  If you look at the decade of "No Fly Zone" military operations for what they were, we've really been at war with Iraq now for 19 years, 2 months, 28 days.

I'd also like to see an aggregate amount of what that's all cost.

Last edited by bedstuy (2009-10-30 9:33 am)

Flying costs can be huge for High performance machines. You're probably looking in the order of $4000 to $9000 per hour, not including replacement costs. The life of a fighter jet is in the order of 6000 to 10,000 hours. 

It's a real boon for the military aviation industry if it can find nations willing to fork over that kind of money.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2009-10-30 10:20 am)

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

I'm not sure that shapshot is really accurate.
We still have troops in Germany and Korea.

Do we have troops engaging in combat operations in either Germany or Korea?

No. The war is definiatiively over in Germany. While hostilities are not on going in Korea, there is a truce.

And up to 1980, or so, one could still earn a Combat Infantry Badge in Korea. That required that you be under hostile fire.

bedstuy wrote:

I always find the amount of time listed for the Iraq War very misleading.  If you look at the decade of "No Fly Zone" military operations for what they were, we've really been at war with Iraq now for 19 years, 2 months, 28 days.

I'd also like to see an aggregate amount of what that's all cost.

In the almost 100 years since oil was discovered in Iraq, Britain has been at war with, or occupying it, for 50.

But it's not about oil, oh no.

sturner wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

sturner wrote:

No. The war is definiatiively over in Germany. While hostilities are not on going in Korea, there is a truce.

And up to 1980, or so, one could still earn a Combat Infantry Badge in Korea. That required that you be under hostile fire.

I was under the impression from classmates that around that time there was still the occasional shot from NK towards the border guys.

It could be more than an occasional shot. I worked with another Captain in Germany, who as a Lieutenant, took a foot patrol out into the DMZ to replace a set of mines. They passed an NK foot patrol on a dyke. About 5 minutes later they received intensive small arms fire which required them to seek cover, No casualties. Though they all received the CIB for the incident. Oh, and upon return to friendly lines, he spent the next day and a half in debriefings.

So did you ask him what was worse: the NK fire or the debriefings?

Ribtorus wrote:

Flying costs can be huge for High performance machines. You're probably looking in the order of $4000 to $9000 per hour, not including replacement costs. The life of a fighter jet is in the order of 6000 to 10,000 hours. 

It's a real boon for the military aviation industry if it can find nations willing to fork over that kind of money.

Maybe you can even get nations to sign contracts for aircraft they don't need and can't afford. If they're lucky, when times get tight they might even find an out clause.

Those nations don't even need to be the US.

Ribtorus wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

I always find the amount of time listed for the Iraq War very misleading.  If you look at the decade of "No Fly Zone" military operations for what they were, we've really been at war with Iraq now for 19 years, 2 months, 28 days.

I'd also like to see an aggregate amount of what that's all cost.

In the almost 100 years since oil was discovered in Iraq, Britain has been at war with, or occupying it, for 50.

But it's not about oil, oh no.

:whistle:

...and they might even find themselves converting an aircraft carrier to a 'Commando carrier' before it's even built.

Analysis The British press is full of reports today that the Royal Navy has agreed to "give up" one of its planned two aircraft carriers - or, more accurately, to give up one of the planned air-groups of F-35 stealth fighters which are intended to fly from them.

The revelations stem from a story in the Times, which claims that a firm plan has been agreed under which Britain would buy just 50 F-35 jets. Rough plans thus far had called for a buy of more than a hundred of the F-35 B version, which is a short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) jumpjet. The F-35Bs would replace the current force of Harriers run by the Royal Navy and the RAF, which can operate from shore bases or from a cheap carrier lacking catapults and arrester wires.

Under the plan as laid out in the Times, the Ministry of Defence would still buy the two planned new carriers, to be dubbed HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. However the Prince of Wales would not be operated as a strike carrier with a force of jets; instead she would be a "commando carrier", a floating forward-mounting airbase full of marines, helicopters and drones. This would mean no need to replace HMS Ocean, the navy's current helicopters'n'marines ship - which would, according to the Thunderer, cost £600m in the 20-teens. (That seems pretty steep as Ocean herself only cost £150m in the mid '90s).

It's not all us, Rob.

In this long night of the soul, it makes one almost pine for that alleged and so-called 'second coming'. Just to stop the bullsmurf.

Horsehead's in bed.