Posted on 03/21/2010 9:56:23 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
An Islamist parliamentary bloc in Kuwait on Sunday warned the government against the planned purchase of French-made Rafale warplanes, saying the deal was "suspicious." "The bloc reiterates its firm rejection of this suspicious deal, especially following information that the latest technical reports have recommended the rejection of the deal," said a statement by the Reform and Development Bloc.
The written statement did not say why the deal was deemed suspicious, and there has been no official word that Kuwait was reconsidering the purchase.
But last November some opposition MPs had claimed the proposed contract was over-inflated. A technical defence ministry team has been assessing the deal, but its findings have not been publicised.
"We warn the government against squandering public funds on suspicious deals," said the bloc's spokesman, MP Waleed al-Tabtabai.
The political grouping comprises four Islamist MPs who have been campaigning against several proposed arms deals, especially the deal for up to 28 Rafale combat aircraft.
(Excerpt) Read more at spacewar.com ...
French warplanes have had a good reputation. Even during WWII, it wasn’t the quality of their planes (or tanks) which caused their defeat. It was the way they were used.
I just recently saw a military history show in which it was pointed out that the French had better and more tanks than the Germans when the war began. They just didn’t use them properly.
You have got to be kidding. During the Battle For France their tanks kept breaking down in the middle of the fighting with the Germans. See “The World At War:Battle for France”
Google Maginot Line, and extrapolate that to the rest of the French plan of battle to deter the German invasion of France...how and how long did it work.
The Nieuport and Spad were good against the Huns...but that was in WW1, French bicycles couldn’t fly in WWII.
The Maginot line was a good idea but it stopped 300 miles short. The French were using a 1914 tactics while the Germans were using the tactics of 1940.
Attack and maneuver, maneuver, maneuver...buh bye Maginot Line, and all those front line French aircraft???. If someone breaches your defenses ( Maginot Line) like crap through a goose, how can you say the breached defenses were a “good idea”?
It was not propery utilized. First, the Maginot line stopped 300 miles short of the channel because the King of Belgium declared neutrality. Secondly,the French were using outmoded 1914 thinking unlike the Germans. The French philosophy was purely defensive. They devoted page after page of the First World War but did not heed Hitler’s warning that the Second World War would be completely different and they did not read the book “Achtung Panzer”.
On top of that, you had very incompetent generals on the French side who were between the ages of 60s-80s and they stifled new modes up thinking from younger upstarts. You can blame the French collapse on one person: General Maurice Gameline and the defeatists in the French Government
Fixed emplacements against a maneuvering army are doomed, and how can those emplacements defend against air attacks. read some history
If those fixed emplacements did something it would have worked. At this time, the Wechmarcht was in Poland and the French and the British had the advantage.
Patton would beg to differ...and win, uh won. The only fixed fortifications that really vexed the allies post Jun. 6 was the “bocage/hedgerow”...mother nature and property lines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.