plawolfWell, it might make North Korea or China think twice abotu sending a weapon Japan’s way in a time of conflict. There is something to be said for deterrence. Also, I am a supporter of the idea of using ICBMs to deliver PGMs as quick-response weapons. Would the argument here be different if Japan were developing this sort of capability as opposed to nuclear armed missiles?
well, first off, if NK ever send anything with more radiation then an x-ray at japan, the US would glass NK in retaliation. so the detterrence is already there and any japanese nuclear capacity is just redendent.
as for china. well, aside from china’s none-nuclear first strike promise. there is still the possible US detterance factor to consider. but in general, dispite the widespread dislike for japanese amounst chinese, the only likely conflict between the two would be a limited war, over island disputes. it is extremely unlikely that such a conflict would ever escelate into a full scale war, never mind a nuclear one.
as for using ICBMs to deliver PGMs, well, apart from the obvious problem of there being no such technology at present. there is also the incredably big probablity for misinterpretating such a move.
if u are only using PGMs, u would need to fire off quite a few of them to make any sort of meaningful impact (even with MRVs). but what is the other guy going to think looking at dosens of ICBMs coming his way on radar? and would would be his likely response (hint: what are u going to think if u see dozens of chinese ICBMs coming at america)?
with such a capacity, its quite likely that japan might shoot a couple of PGMs at airfeilds only to find all its cities destroyed in response. and the world community is likely to see it only as a tragic misinterpritation of motive, and may even be secretly glad that it didnt lead to WWIII and a global nuclear war. hell, if japan really did develop such a PGM delivery capacity, its concivable that others might try to manipulate it into giving them a chance to nuke japan without consequence. 😮
theres also the cost involved. using ICBMs to fire PGMs would be extremely expensive. so its more cost effective to develop cruise missiles.
You know, that’s a good point. I didn’t really look at it from that angle. Maybe they want a nuclear deterrent to hang over Moscow’s head as a bargaining chip for the Sakhalin Island (I think that’s the right chain) dispute? Just an off the wall thought. I’m good at those 😀
hmm, might also want to look the other direction. :dev2: as the old saying goes, ‘ there are no eternal friends or enemies, only interest is eternal.’
PS, so am i. 😀
Perhaps that’s exactly the kind of response we’d want to be thrown about in diplomatic circles. It might serve to rid the area of nuclear arms entirely, although I don’t think China would ever agree to something like that.
well, china would probably welcome such a move if the US, russia, UK, france, india, pakistan and israel all agreed to get rid of all their nukes as well. would save china a fortune years to come as then it would not need to develop a true MAD capacity against the US in the future. :diablo:
Were China to retaliate, it’s also possible that the USA would impose similar sanctions on China. You can also bet on an NMD facility being erected in Japan were this to happen.
possible but unlikely. the US would be just as unhappy to see a nuclear japan as china. it did nuke japan after all. so chances are, the US is likely to stand with china on this and threaten economic consquences if japan went nuclear.
as for NMD, well japan is already a member of the TMD, which is just a big NMD covering half the globe as opposed to just the US as the case of NMD. so little change there.
actually, if japan did go nuclear, chances are the US would kick it out of TMD. as i doubt the US would like to see anyone with the ability to both shoot nukes at it and also to detroy retaliating US nukes. even more so if the other guy is using US tech to do it all. 😀
SK having nuclear arms isn’t out of the equation entirely…didn’t they admit to working on uranium enrichment or something like that recently? I do find it interesting though that one side of the potential conflict in the region (China and NK) are allowed to possess nuclear arms, but Japan is not. Certainly nobody could blame SK for pursuing WMDs, especially given the large quantity in NK hands, predominantly pointed south.
again, forgeting the US. the US is in effect japan’s nuclear umbrella against NK.
as for china, see above.
the other side of the coin is that of the two sides of the potential conflict in the region, one side (japan) is allowed to buy far more advanced conventional weapons (which are far far more likely to actually be used as opposed to nukes) from the US, while china and NK arent. isnt this kinda making the nuclear option look more attractive to them? 😀 😉
You do make good points there.
as do u. 🙂
Well again, it’s all about deterrence. Whether it would spark a massive arms race is another story. I don’t necessarily think it would come to that. Regardless, even if you only consider the NK nuclear threat, Japan should be allowed to possess an equatable deterrent of their own, if only to retaliate in kind.
well, take guns for example. everyone in the US has one (statistically speaking), extremely few ppl have them in western europe. which area has the bigger gun murder rate?
there is the basic mathematical theory that as long as there is a chance of something happening, the more times u try, the more lilely that it will happen. if that something involves nuclear weapons, be it misfirings, accidents etc, then i’d like to keep the odd as low as possible.
japan has the US to deter NK nuclear aggression just as well as japanese nukes. the possibility of a chinese nuclear attack are about as remote as me winning the lottery this week.
weighing the possible risks and costs against the gains, it just dont add up. unless u factor in a ‘little’ something called nationalism, and/or imperialist aspirations (same principle as the chinese nuclear first strike example, might not be government policy, but there will be ppl in high places who support it). :rolleyes:
plawolfI think you’re spot on with that comparison. Throughout history, military planners always calculated what would be acceptable losses to achieve a certain goal. Today modern armies accept only very low casualty rates, in WW1 those figures were far higher. If you are ready for accepting losses close to 100% to achieve your goal, you might just as well make sure that your target goes down together with your own troops. That way you’ll get at least some value for your investment (which in this case would be indoctrination rather than a sum of money). If you can get the psychology thing worked out, it’s your best cheap equivalent to a PGM.
Probably the most effective (from a military point of view) kamikaze attacks were those by Vietcong sappers at US airbases during the Tet offensive. While those guys didn’t blow themselves up with their targets, their attack (intruding an airbase, run past the flightline while throwing satchel charges at parked aircraft) definately was suicidal. They knew that. I think they combined the cheap and improvised nature of modern day suicide attacks (including 9/11) with the accuracy and saturation of, for example, the Japanese kamikaze attacks. While Al Quaida is pretty creative in thinking of targets and methods of attack, i think they are pretty optimistic with their one target=one weapon approach. It would obviously be harder to organise a more complex attack that way, but i think that a lot more damage could be done.
I personally think that if current-day terrorists would be able to combine their creativity in thinking of suicide attacks with some sort of saturation (20 speedboats against a USN destroyer rather than one), their effect would be far more devastating and defending against it would be a lot more difficult. think Steve’s right in comparing the attack on the USS Cole to a single Exocet. A modern-day admiral would attack an enemy fleet by launching a whole bunch of AShM’s in order to cripple or sink one ship. Why not organise a suicide attack along similar lines?
i think its mostly due to money and timing.
Al-Q might be well funded, but they still cant afford to really splash out (9/11 cost them something like $100,000). also, in order to throw off money trackers, Al-Q splintered its financial assets into numourus small banking accounts or turned it into hard currency to be carried by agents. as such, it would be very difficult to get the amount of money needed to the right ppl in a short period of time (as almost all counter-terrorist agencies closely monitor suspicious currency movements), but the longer it takes to set up an opt, the greater the chance of it being detected and stopped.
the timing element is that the more complex an attack, the longer it will take to plan and propair, and chances are, the more ppl will need to be involved. hence the chances of detection rises in relation to the complexity of the planned attack.
there is also the training factor. moder soilders spend many years or their whole lives training to do their duties, Al-Q operatives might get a few months if they are lucky, and a few weeks if not. so u cant really expect them to be that able to carry out complex and well timed assaults.
The falkland war, as rightly said, could have been won through kamikaze, but sacrificing one’s life for a small island with no other major gain seems unlikely motivation for a kamikaze attack. Even if endorsed by the govt, i doubt interest on any individual’s part.
well, it really depends on how much u want the victory i supose. the old saying, ‘victory goes to those who want it the most’ still ring true today.
plawolfthe last two pics are definately HQ7s. as for the ‘FM60’, shame its so smokey. 🙁
here are two pics of an unidentified chinese SAM after it has crashed after test firing.
might be a tor, but im not sure.
plawolfGermany doesn’t need to develop nuclear weapons. If war would have broken out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, for example, US tactical nuclear bombs would have been made available to German Tornado units. For Germany, the option was there.
Japan, on the other hand, faces a nuclear threat from both North Korea and China. Now, I have no issues with China having nuclear arms. We have them, and at times haven’t been exactly on speaking terms with the Chinese. There have been times when Russia has also been at odds with China, and they have a whole mess of nuclear weapons. North Korea is another story-they did agree after all not to develop them in exchange for certain things during the Clinton Administration. But that’s beside the point. If China and North Korea point nuclear missiles towards Japan, why should they be denied an equatable deterrent capability?
Granted, certain elements in Japan are against nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons. But if possessing a limited nuclear deterrent would make China or North Korea think twice about starting with them, it would be in the interests of the safety of their citizens to develop such a capability.
im affraid u just dont understand the level of suspicion, anger and hatrid that still lives in almost all asian nations that were occupied or invaded by japan in WWII.
do u think the chinese, south koreans etc will be all hunky doory about japan developing a nuclear first strike capacity? (the only use for ICBMs is if to deliver a nuclear tip).
also, dont u find it interesting that japan was planning an ICBM instead of an IRBM? u dont need an ICBM to hit NK, and pretty much all of china’s population centres are on the eastern seaboard – also overkill for ICBMs. hint, hint. :diablo:
i dont know about the others, but i know for a fact that if japan starts an ICBM project, there will be a large number of high ranking military and civilian officials in china who will be demanding action to stop it, and there will be ppl who will suggest carpet nuking japan before they have an ICBM! 😮
thats not saying that will be china’s response, just an extreme example of the lengths some ppl might be willing to go to prevent japan becoming a nuclear threat.
china’s response will most likely be economic related, maybe going as far as stopping or threatening to stop trade with japan altogether. but there will also be a military elemint. what china is currently spending on defence will look like pocket change in comparison to what it will be spending then. and the no nuclear first strike promise will almost certainly go.
even if japan ignores all that and goes nuclear, pretty soon SK will also follow suit, and start developing ICBMs etc. then taiwan, then anyone else that has a nuclear reactor, and u have a regon wide nuclear arms race.
so, if japan makes an ICBM, instead of having possibly NK pointing one or two nukes at it (china has promised not to use nukes first or on none nuclear countries), it will also have china, SK, taiwan and anyone else with the ability pointing hundreds of nuclear tipped IRBMs and ICBMs at it. in addition, the JDF will be facing far better equipped counterparts. and this is not considering the economic consiquences and the dangers of disposal years down the line.
and this is supposed to make japan safer did u say? :rolleyes:
plawolfdont we alreay have a couple of threads on this?
as to the question of why we dont have pics. as pinko said, all chinese nuclear boats are built at huludao, which is a remote island, which only have a handful of civilians living on it, and is in the middle of nowhere. its not like all the other chinese shipyards which are build along china’s rivers. there is no shipping line going anywhere near the huludao shipyard; there are no bridges overlooking it; there is nowhere for ‘planespotters’ to sit and take shots from long range…
the only way any of us is going to see a pic coming out of there is if it was officially released, or if an employee took a pic and leaked it. neither are even remotely likely.
personnally, i would expect the employees to be searched before and after work, and i seriously doubt many ppl working at the shipyard will have a mobile never mind an internet connection. in fact, i wouldnt be suprised if they needed to ask for special permission and have a minder with them if they wanted to leave the island. 😮
just look at how wrong the pentegon got the timing. the boat was in the water nearly a whole year ahead of when they expected it. based on that, i doubt even they will have any pics of the thing.
plawolfKamikaze attacks are actually far more common then u might think. suicide bomb attacks can be classed as a form of Kamikaze, especially if a vehical is also involved. this is, and will likely be the most common form we would see today and in the future.
as for fighters, well, today it is pretty much impossible and/or irrelevent. with missiles so common nowadays, its pretty unlikely that any fighter would be attacking a warship without an AShM, nor would many warships be wondering around without SAMs (and CIWS). so in most air to surface engagements, the fight is over long before the attacking fighter passes over the target ship, with either the fighter shot down or the ship sunk by anti-ship missiles.
however, if we look back into recent history, there was a conflict in which, had Kamikaze tactics been employed, victory would almost certainly have been assured.
if u havent guessed it already, it was the falklands.
during the latter part of that conflict, as the british were landing troops, their radar were blinded by the surrounding terrin, and argintinian fighters (mostly A4s) were able to get close enough to attack them with free fall iron bombs (many of which didnt even go off!). had the attacking pilots slammed their fighters into the troop ships and escorting warships, the war would have been won.
with large losses of troops and/or with insefficient warships to protect the carriers, the british would most likely have withdrawn. had they stayed on to fight, their chances would not have been good, especially if the argintinians were willing to repeat their Kamikaze tactics.
based on that, i would think that the most likely future scenario where Kamikaze tactics using fighters against warships might occure in some african conflict, as most of those nations are still using ‘hand-me-downs’ of warships and fighters similar in capacity to the weapons used by both sides during teh falklands.
an US-Iran conflict might also see Kamikaze tactics attempted, but i doubt they will be very successful.
plawolfLike?! :confused:
a spin-off of the MKK, not the MK2.
plawolf‘502’ is one of the PLAAF’s MKKs retained by russian for testing and development of the MK2. the PLANAF is the only customer of the MK2, so there is only one package, so i dont know here this ‘one possibility’ theory comes from.
plawolfjust had a funny idea. 😀
cant the PLAAF given the MKKs LGB capacity without the SAPSAN-E by adding a laser designatior unfuntion onto the plane’s IRST?
the MKK can use GPS to go to the target area, then fly upsidedown (or on its side seeing how the IRST is to the side on MKKs as opposed to at the centre as with the Su27s) to use the IRST to look for the target, flip to drop the LGB and then flip back to guide the thing.
not a very comfy ride, but at least u can use LGBs this way.
what are the problems with this idea then?
plawolfpics of alleged MK2 with laser (SAPSAN-E (?))and nav pods (amounst other things).
plawolfThat is true that Su-30MKK still cannot carry C-803.
But in China/PLA, the distinction to carry antiship missiles or to strike sea targets belong to the jurisdiction of the PLANAF (Naval Air Force), while the distinction to strike targets on land belong to the PLAAF. It seems strange but that is the way things operate.
That is why Su-30MKK in the PLAAF cannot carry any antiship missiles, even if they have the technical capability to.
And that is why Su-30MK2 in the PLANAF cannot carry or use anti ground weapons like LGBs, even if they have the technical capability to do so.
That is why JH-7A with the PLANAF will only be tasked with anti ship strike (AshMs). But duties involving ground strike (LGBs, LACMs, ARMs, etc,.) will have to be conducted by PLAAF planes, which in this case would be the PLAAF JH-7As.
It will be the same way with the J-10s.
are u sure about that? because of the pics of allged MK2s, there were laser pods and low level nav pods much more useful for ground attack then anti-shipping missions.
the PLA is also working hard on inter-forces co-operation and joint ops, so it would seem very straige that they are still so infelxable in their approach as to not allow the navy and air force to be able to assist or take over from each other even if the technical capacity is there.
my belief is that the current diversion is more technical and finacially motivated then tactical. with the MKKs unable to carry chinese AShMs and unable to use capable russian ones, there never was the option of them taking on anti-shipping roles, and an upgrade to give the MKKs a decent AShM capacity would be too expansive and only offer poor value for money seeing how the PLAAF will be using them for AA and AG anyways.
however, with the MK2’s apparent AG ability (or at least planned ability) and the laser pods on the JH7, the trend seem to suggest that the PLA high command is trying moving towards true inter-force capabilities.
even the MK2’s current AShM armourment is pretty limited and of little use against the kind of threats the PLAN might encounter, so the JH7 has always been the primary AShM platform. the MK2s’ role look more likely to be CAP and mini-awacs, and maybe also ground attack.
PLAAF’s current fleets are either too small to carry decent AShMs or are limited by the same russian radar intergration issues like the MKKs. but that may change with the J10 and/or J11Bs (100% chinese built Su27s).
based on all the above factors, i now have a new theory which might explain the PLAAF’s JH7 interest.
with all the limitations of the su30, the lack of any word on further purchases and the discontinuation of further J11 licencing (the hopeful signs of the EU lifting its arms ban might also be a major factor). it would seem, that the PLA might have reach a point where russian kit offers little if any significant advantages over domestic ones to warrent further purchases (unless more advanced russian equipment is realeased for export). as such, the chinese are turning to domestic products. in other word, the PLA migh feel that the J10, J11B and JH7A (or maybe even just the J10 and J11B, with the JH7A as a stop-gap) together are as good if not better then as the J11/Mkk combo.
taking a conservative estimate, the J10 and the J11B might only have ABVRAAM (PL12/SD10) ability as of now, with LGBs still some way off. and with the SAPSAN-E nowhere in sight, that leaves a huge gaping hole in the PLA’s overal combat capabilities at a time when tentions are high (although it seems to be cooling down a little lately).
the JH7A purchase might be aimed to fill that hole. the JH7As will give the PLAAF LGB capability, and can also double up to help the PLANAF out in ASh missions is needed (however, this assessment will have to be changed if the PLAAF is taking deliveries of large numbers of JH7As).
as the J10 and J11Bs’ numbers and capabilities build with time, these JH7As might be transfered to the PLANAF to replace their old JH7s, or they might be offered up for export at reduced price (most likely to pakistan). but i would only expect them to be kept on if tensions are still very high in the region at that time.
On the other hand, I’m not sure if JH-7/JH-7A is capable of delivery of TV guided weapons (e.g. Kh-29T, KAB500kr, KAB1500kr, C-701, YJ-8X LACM). I have not seen any yet.
It is beginning to look to me that MKK is being fitted for TV guided weapons, while the JH-7A is being fitted for laser guided weapons (KAB500L, LGB250, KAB1500L, etc,.)
interesting. but there dont seem to be any great technical bottlenecks to the the JH7 carrying TV guided weapons (there are two crew memebers at least, and the JH7 can carry the Kh-39P (?) HARM). also, the JH7 might be the only ac capable of carrying chinese TV guided weapons and LACMs at the moment (unless the russians are allowing intergration onto the MKK). this might also be another influentual factor in the PLAAF’s JH7A selection.
plawolfthe chinese is already in the process of building a military GPS system – the beidou IIRC – and the first sats are alreay on station and is providing a regional ‘GPS’ capacity for the PLA.
plawolfwell, looks like JH7As for the PLAAF seems to be gaining credibility fast. but why? :confused:
if the MKKs are having issues with LBGs, are these issues so hard to fix that they are willing to buy another ac type to do the job?! and what are the PLAAF doing with them in the meanwhile? surely they dont need close to 80 SEAD ac. 😮
as for the artilce, its saying that a certain domestic combat ac has successfully started polit conversion flights.
the regimental commander is saying that this type of ac is in service because of an unprecedented ‘advance delivery and use’ policy. meaning that the regiment has taken delivery of ac before it has been fully certified, with certain areas still in need of final improvement and adjustments.
as a result, the reg has old and new ac of the same type, with the older ones being upgraded in batches.
then he goes on about how this is difficult to standardise traing, and how they are dealing with it etc.
the ac in question could be the JH7 or the J10. however, i’d say that the chances are they are talking about the J10.
this would fit in with my theory that some of the J10 ‘prototypes’ (namely the light blue ones with four digit cerials) were in fact delivery ac for pilot convertion as opposed to merely test ac.
plawolfsuperior, even (at least in ground attack). 😮 but thats the first i’ve heard of that (everything up to this has been pointing to the PLAAF not even giving the JH7 a second look!), so i’d addives caution, especially given western publications’ past record in regard to china.
plawolfjust had a glance at the newest AFM mag which had a section on zhuhai04.
somre brief points:
– it appears that the stroies about the J7MF first flight were indeed correct according to CAC officals at the show. they claim that the MF is just as capable as the FC1, but flight tests were suspended after 20 hours so that they can concerntrate on the FC1.
– the Q5 twin seat verson appears to be more then a mere cocept, with officals at the show stating that a prototype is underconstruction with first flight expected in 05. this has led AFM is speculating that china might be seeking to upgrade or produce new, vastky improved Q5s to perform the kind of CAS ops that the Su25 does, but for a lower cost. it is also speculated that the twin seater may be a dedicated attack ac as opposed to merely a trainer.
– officals at the show confired that there are two JH7 regs operational (one testing and one combat). with the PLANAF taking deliveries of more. it is also stating that the PLAAF is also taking deliveries.
on a related note, officals are comfirming that the JH7A is powered by the ‘qinling’ – a 100% domestically produced sprey turbofan.
Sign In
