With sufficient investment Aircraft carrier is much easier trian than what was in 1960s. Aircrafts have TVC, excess thrust, fuel and can deliver bomb in all weather conditions within meters of targets from very high altitude. navigation, optical and communiction systems are very precise. Carrier landing and takeoff should not be a big problem. similar is the case with simulator technology with all its software and processor speed. It is the best time for making aircraft carriers as steel prices have considerably gone done and construction machinery has sufficiently advanced for large ships.

TVC, excess thrust/fuel, precision bombing, are all nice things to have, but not particularly relevant to operating from a carrier. Even experienced naval aviators will tell you that the most stressful thing they do(to include flying into harm’s way), is a night carrier landing(especially in bad weather). Flight simulator’s can help, but there’s no substitute for the real thing, much like watching porn isn’t a guarantee that you’ll be a ladies man.:cool:

Are we talking about head-on engagement figures here?
Got that source?
Thanks

The figure I’ve seen is for head on.

I’ve already booked the Belgians for that. They have dozens of great beers, Czechs only have the one, the original Bud. (The one the Americans stole, but never managed to make it properly)
Women, I did a deal with the Romanian Guvmint 2 years ago, the Romanian girls are outstandingly good looking.

There’s considerably more than 1 good beer in the Czech Republic.

Well, I would rather have McCain or Carter vs Obama or Palin. Which, is not to say that Obama or Palin couldn’t be good Presidents. As a matter of fact either of the last two would be better Vice Presidents……..Otherwise, we mite as well elect MIT grads that excel in Political Debate.

Well if we’re going with hypotheticals, I’d rather have Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.

Mainland Europe rejoices.

Large defense budget cuts. Big increases in social spending. Nationalized health care. Tax increase providing short term revenue increase, but longer term economic turmoil and increasing unemployment.

International agenda foresaken in favor of a domestic agenda. Allies confused and aggressors emboldened. Israel?

Strategic withdrawal from the Middle East.

I don’t see any way for the F-22, JSF, C-17, C-5 RERP, KC-45, and new UAV’s to all survive.

All just MHO.

Not to mention potential Supreme Court nominees, etc…:eek:

Not in every country and not every base. 😀

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menwith_Hill

Are those nutjobs the actual neighbors of the base, or just idealogues that are opposed to any military base? That article didn’t mention what the neighboring communities thought about the base, or the ramifications to their economy were it to close.

Mi hypothesis is not unreal, yours is, you lack any real historical and political evidence.

All the great powers have built and do build their own weapons and when they sell their weapons only sell mostly downgraded versions, and economically and technologically they want to remain as the only manufactures of high tech aircraft and they will try to keep a market for their own, Boeing will try always to remain as top seller as Sukhoi will, Russia took most of the weapon manufacturing capability from the former Soviet republics and the US will do the same even to England, Israel or Japan since an F-2 is more expensive than an original F-16 despite it is not very different than it, no F-22 has been offered to England or Israel and the F-35 has export restrictions and has some limits to tech transfers.

International lead programs do exist though but only as a way to perpetuate militarism and make more affordable weapons for the international markets, although still some technologies won`t be transfered

Examples:The US policy to Latin America always limited technology transfers and avoided selling high tech weapons.

Russia sold mostly downgraded weapons to the former Warsaw pact states and left the former Soviet republics without the bulk of the weapons manufacturing capability.

Most aircraft manufactures have tech restrictions when they export weapons

The USSR mostly sold very downgraded weapons to the african and middle eastern countries.

The US has kept Japan buying american aircraft and limiting the domestic Japanese military industries.

The US is unwilling to sell priority technologies even to England in the JSF program.

Russia did not sell the most advanced Su-27 version to China.

The Tu-22M was not exported or offered when it was new only when it has become almost obsolte it has been offered for the market.

France pull out of the Eurofighter program just to remain capable of making its own weapons in the form of the Rafale
Simply by economics the main porpuse of an air force is to have its own weapons and do not allow potential enemies build their own weapons first because this ensures a market and a less capable enemy than their own.

So with this you can see the great powers do try to control where air wars do happen and what weapons are available when they happen

You still haven’t addressed the qualitative differences in the operators though. A highly competent/disciplined force can overcome a numerically superior(and better equipped) force, that is incompetent/undisciplined.