Ah, the H-9 still exists at Globaldefense? The guy who thought out that hoax definately has a lot of fun for his ancient post at CMF.
Kopp is a nutter. Glenn, isn’t there any way you can publicly counter-Kopp in his blurred strategic worldview? I think a little polemic Down Under should be a good idea.
I could do that with the pen, or I could just get lazy with some spray paint one night, and do this:
:p
Pretty soft R-rated pics… But nice nonetheless.
Oh well, will try something a bit more obscure next time. Nice one Flood. 🙂
Won’t work considering that much of China’s oil is increasingly coming through Siberian and Asian pipelines. Not to mention it has oil reserves of its own and is capable of synthesizing them from coal.
Not just oil, but general commodities and trade by sea would be affected. Plus pipelines can be forced shut if the right kind of international political muscle is applied, or through covert interdiction Ops, which ever is more effective.
Found this interesting.
Hope it will be at Avalon in 2005. 🙂
Hollywood had the MiG-28 too if you remember Top Gun. :b
9.25 according to ACIG.
Yes but is Thailand a large country that needs a fighter with long endurance and range? Not like they will need them to travel hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of kilometres to attack an enemy.
And the same can be said about Malaysia! Go figure. 🙂
GDL, its better to have a good radar even if your stick (SAM) is short. atleast you can maintain information dominance over a wide swathe of sea/air. other assets can be cued in if need be.
a big western 3D air search radar on a redesigned rear mast.
for a 3500t ship its armament is very light.
It is purley a patrol corvette, despite the size. And the main radar fitted I believe is South African made (it looks a bit like SMART-S). So perhaps there is a reason why they don’t have anything larger on the main mast. A larger more powerful radar is not only going to cost more, but it will require a better combat system to support it. And as for cuing other assets, again you will need additional control chanels, either built in to a multi-function 3D air/surface search set, or in seperate fire control radars. More expense. I am not sure what room has been left in the SAN MEKOs for growth, but clearly, as least for now, they didn’t intend to field anything more capable. And I suspect cost was the main reason.
Weird, this picture:
[IMG]Does not show a Delta III, but a Delta II, yet it’s posted there… Also, the Ryazan in the title, can’t mean it’s the Ryazan, because that’s the name of a Delta IV SSBN…
And the Delta II’s are scrapped from the active list some time ago… So, that is certainly an old picture.
It’s a DELTA I actually. Note the stepped turtle back. From the DELTA II~IV that turtle back was a smooth gentle slope. Ryazan could where the photo was taken perhaps?
Me too. 🙂
Except we are talking aobut the US here… if you control ground nearby then send some F-16s.
Viable airstrip nearby – yes. Otherwise, no.
The Indonesians had BADGER and BEAGLE decades ago. Their force structure and budget was a lot better back then too. The reality today is very different. Short of an economic miracle, or a military coup, in the medium term, I don’t see a country that struggles to spend a mere USD$1.5 billion p.a. on defence to support a 305,000-strong total active man power force operating large bombers again. Especially not a large force of them.
even in Australian Dollar that still alot,at the current exchange rate….
It is about $700 million in US$. You do the math per unit. As always though, the cost involves a number of inclusions.