The seeker-head of the AIM-9X does give the answer. 😉

And new countermeasures have never been brought out to deal with a new kind of seeker before.

The Mig31 is no match for an F22 1-on-1, but if say an AWACS spotted on F22 on its screens at a reasonably large distance, it could then vector in fighters to try and kill it. In which case the Mig31’s speed would make it one of, if not the best suited platforms for the job.

Well thats what happens when you squeeze out a dictator and replace him with a democratically elected government – the government suddenly need to take notice of what the people want/believe/feel and respond to that.

Like it or not, the majority feeling in Pakistan is not as pro-American as some seem to think/wish, and when American military forces violate Pakistani sovereignty to attack targets in Pakistan, no democratically elected government can afford to be seen as treating the matter lightly.

After all, back in the days of the ‘troubles’ in N. Ireland, a lot of American citizens all but overtly fund raised and supplied weapons to the IRA – a recognized terrorist organization, as well as providing training facilities and safe havens in America. I wonder what American public opinion would have been like if the British had sent a few Valkans over to drop a few thousand kilos of HE on an American city or village targeting IRA members and their active supporters.

Does that mean Pakistani troops are likely to shoot American soldiers on sight? No. Its not in Pakistan’s national interest, and no government can be so stupid. This is just a message to the Americans to cool it and to go through proper channels if they want to target things in Pakistan, as it should be. Pakistan might turn a blind eye if American forces chased some insurgents and only caught up with them across the boarder, but pre-planned attacks in populated areas without prior notification cannot be acceptable in anyone’s books. Especially given America’s track records regarding faulty intell and civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

Thats the problem with reverse engineering and making your own derivatives. Not the problem with JV’s where both side contribute technology and respect each other’s IP. Given the turnover in tech development nowadays, it makes more sense to codevelop certain items (and if you are truly concerned about the scenario where you need to make every nut and bolt on your own, pay license fees), rather than reverse engineering obsolete gear and then trying to make something better out of it. Not to mention that its also the ethical business practise and the right thing to do, and builds a long term relationship. Otherwise, each side is out to gouge the other, and it makes ample sense for the “other guy” to withhold as much tech as possible.

Oh please, I think you might want to take a look at the real world. By your deliberately restrictive and derogatory interpretation of what ‘reverse engineering’ entails, if might not make much sense, but thats not how things work in the real world.

For one, modern day ‘reverse engineering’, certainly for the likes of China and big multinational corporations, does not involve a bunch of techs breaking a piece of machinery into nuts and bolts so they can make molds of them and copy them exactly, its about concepts and ideas. Since big business often use the same suppliers for their components, (and more often then not these days, those suppliers are in China) its how those components are put together that is key to innovation. Examples are plentifully, just walk into any auto-dealer, electronics store or mobile phone shop and you will see that a huge range of different products from different companies have pretty much the same list of features, most of them are even blatant copies of others, like the something that looks and operates exactly like the ipod scowlwheel turning up on some Samsung mobile phones.

When big firms and countries with comprehensive advanced manufacturing industries ‘copy’, they copy the ideas and principles and make something with the same function using tech they are familiar with. Sometimes they would also need to copy key technologies (good example being single-crystal engine fanblade materials tech), but that always boost their domestic or ‘in-house’ knowledge base and can then be used as a stepping stone to develop a whole new range of products.

Once you are at a certain tech level, copying something is far cheaper and quicker then developing it yourself, and in the process of copying it, you are also learning key skills and technologies that will help you to push the technological envelope outwards independently. Real world examples are everywhere and some people just refuse to see it. Japanese and South Korean companies, now hailed as centers of innovation and the source of much of the world’s new hi-tech innovations started off like Chinese firms by first reverse engineering, then adapting and refining existing designs until they were at a stage where they could produce world-beating innovative products and technologies themselves. China is following their approach, but are adapting it to best suit China instead of blindly following it step for step. And that is the key difference between dead-end reverse engineering and learning.

Regarding join-ventures, well how many unequal join-ventures resulted in the firm with the lower technological base coming out of the deal better off compared to the one with the superior tech? Unless its a JV between two partners with comparable capabilities, then one side (the one with the better tech) will always have the upper hand in negotiations. Not only will they use this to maximise their own benefits, but there are certain principles in JVs that everyone complies with, as it makes no sense not to. One of these principles is that key technologies are never shared. Unless you can buy the firm owning the tech outright, they will never give you their best and most valued tech, because the future of that firm depends of that tech, and in the case of defence equipment, there will also be government regulations that would prevent a firm from releasing certain proscribed tech even if they wanted to. Civilian JVs between unequal partners are a compromise for the weaker firm, and JVs in defence will do nothing but ensure the tech receiving nation will never get enough tech to independently develop or produce an up-to-date product.

JVs can be very useful in obtaining some key technologies. But it would be stupid to assume you would get the whole package unless it is has long since became obsolete. Thus, to rely solely on JVs will do nothing but lock you into a perpetual dependency cycle, which, surprisingly enough, is in the best interest of the tech supplying side.

A rule of thumb is that countries, like firms, will only be generous with those who they do not seem as being in any position to be able to strong enough to become a possible threat. Once you are powerful enough to start to look like a real competitor, you are treated as such. Just look at all the fierce competition between rival firms of even the same country (Boeing V LockMart for example) to see how far trust extends. Real rivals know-off each others’ tech all the time in the real world. The only difference is that they change the designs only so much as to make a lawsuit impossible or prohibitively expensive, although lawsuits still happen nonetheless.

Its by no means a walk in the park, but having a successful ramjet missile development under your belt would be of great benefit with developing ramjet BVRAAMs, should they choose to go down that path.

As for what the US folks want, well please, half of those who think Taiwan isn’t doing enough won’t be pleased short of Taiwan rubber stamping every stupidly inflated bit of arms the US wants to unload on the island and then asking for more. Not only is Taiwan a pawn for the US to try and contain China, but the US doesn’t feel its getting a good enough deal that the pawn is paying through the nose for arms, it want them to do so for things they don’t need.

From memory, China side with Russia on the US/Poland/Czech ABM controversy. AFAIK, China is the only country openly supports Russia on that ABM controversy.

That was because China has a tiny ICBM force, and the ABM shield, together with US B2 stealth bombers and SSGNs pose a serious threat to the Chinese second strike nuclear deterrent. Why else do you suppose China is spamming 094 SSBNs and pushing the DF31A so hard recently?

Looks like a mini S300 round, but without the pressurised air canister. Would this suggest that this missile is hot launched?

Damn! I was going to suggest some late model radar equipped Harriers or Sea Harriers, but I see Jonesy has beaten me to the punch.

Harriers would be perfect for Georgia, but the production lines have closed and all existing airframes are nearing the end of their useful service lives. Beside, even harriers would be able to do little when faced with such overwhelming odds.

The only plane that might stand a chance would be the F35B. Its STOVL capabilities would give it the advantages of a harrier, and its stealth should help them to stay alive and conduct hit and hide missions against Russian air, ground and sea targets to slow down any Russian advance and buy Georgia some more time to try and negotiate a settlement.

However, the obvious flaw with the F35 would be that their presence in Georgia alone might be reason enough for the Russians to start another war so they can get their hands on a few examples.

Since contesting air superiority with the Russians would just be stupid, they might as well just not try and instead think of what else they can do with their air forces instead. One area that has not yet been suggested is UCAVs like the predator. American can ‘sell’ Georgia a commsat or two so they can set the control stations up in a save third country. All the people on the ground need to do is keep the UAVs hidden and periodically send a few birds up, so they can do mordern day Kamikaze attacks on Russian ground forces with their hellfires and LGBs. If the Russians shoot them down, then its no big loss, and any that comes back would be a bonus.