It says on the 22nd, a North Korean military delegation made a visit to China’s National Defense Department (there’s probably a better name for this). They came to check out the aircraft for the purpose of possibly buying the new J-10. The picture is model J-10 being assembled at a car plant in Beijing.

More like asking for J10s for free. At this point or anytime in the forseeable future, I think North Korea would be extremely luckly to get basic JF17s. J10s are completely out of the question since CAC is barely building them fast enough for the PLAAF, and there are already a few foreign countries expressing interest who are far more suitable buyers politically, and who are willing to pay good money for the planes.

No, I can’t see North Korea getting J10s short of them trading in their nukes for them, which isn’t going to happen.

I was responding to Crobato’s post on how the MiG-21s would slow down MKIs.

those were part of the tactics that the IAF used to surprise the USAF..also, they were dealing with a very capable fleet of F-15s that were manned by pilots very competent in BVR..that represented just one scenario where a large bunch of strikers needed to be inserted and had the Bisons as integral escorts with Su-30Ks clearing the way of defenders.

And you do not see the obvious contradiction in your line of reasoning as we change from subject from subject?

When we were talking about Bisons V J7s, you were insisting that the battle would be over in BVR and that the J7s would never get a chance to get into WVR. Yet in explaining the eagle ‘kills’ made by Bisons, you go into depth about how tactics and suprise were used by the Bisons to overcome the F15’s superior specs even in the hands of first class pliots.

So, on the one hand, Bison pilots are infallible and can always win at BVR so WVR is irrelevent. While on the other, Eagle pilots have been shown to be fallible and have suffered ‘losses’ to far inferior flatforms even though they should have won the BVR battle hands down. And you seem to see no problem with that.

as for latest J-7s, they dont have BVR because its too expensive to incorporate for the kinds of air forces that operate them and most of them lack the kind of training capabilities that are required to be proficient in it.its not because they want to retain their strengths in the WVR arena as if thats some great virtue when they are totally vulnerable to any BVR capable fighter.

That just sums up the condescending, superior and poorly informed attitude of some here. The latest J7Gs were designed for the PLAAF, who fit none of those criteria. If the PLAAF wanted BVR missiles on J7s, they would have it. Hell, its been meantioned several times now that there is even a radar option that would allow the J7 to have rudimentry BVR capabilities like the Bison. But it was a consious choices not to do that was it was deemed to not be cost effective. There is a radar option ready to be put into the J7s if anyone wants the option, and so far there have been plenty of J7 sales, but no takers on the BVR option.

And all this repetiton of ‘J7s being totally vulnerable’ to BVR is starting to take on the quality of a mantra chanted by those who believe that repeating it enough times will make it come true.

for instance, the PAF could definitely get a significant boost if its F-7PGs were SD-10 equipped with a radar like the Kopyo.

And the PAF chose not to have the upgrade.

and the topic of discussion was Bisons vs J-7s, not other BVR fighters like F-15s or MKIs..of course the MiG-21 airframe has its limitations, especially in the radar that can be fit in, but its adequate to deal with older J-7s and is a threat even to older F-16As. even now, the Bison provides the IAF with a platform that can deal with the bulk of the PAF’s fleet, except for the newer F-16s. its potent for its size and cost and almost everyone here agrees with that.

You need to read the title of the tread again then. Its ‘who made the best Mig21’, and ‘best’ does not mean who can win at BVR. Being the ‘best’ means being the most suitable for the AF that buys it. I have said from the start and I will say again here, the J7 and Bison have different strengths in different departments. Which set of strengths is better depends on the beholder.

No one disputes that the Bison is a decent plane and that it made sense for the IAF at the time. The only issue here is that some people got their heads in the clouds and think everything the IAF touches becomes gold. Thats why they have such a hard time accepting the simple and blindingly obvious fact that the J7 is beyound doubt superior in WVR. No no! The Bison has to be best at everything! Talk about having issues. :rolleyes:

Bison carrying BVR is not a bad idea considering the fact that most BVR fights are meant to take place just beyond WVR arena. IFF is still probably the biggest headache in BVR engagement, and I personally find it a little difficult to digest that Bisons were receiving all their info through some sort of secure data linking from MKI, and using that to engage red forces. Having said this, considering Ind/Pak/China geography most BVR engagements are likely to take place within 15 to 30 Km zone, and lthough a bigger fighter with a better range, acceleration, climb rate etc will have a bigger impact in BVRAAM battles, Bison upgrade was not a bad idea at all back in 1990s. Missile is ingreasingly becoming more important than the carrier platform with recent advances in technology where an AWACS will be able to guide the missile after launch…making it truly fire and forget. If so, in future we can hope to further advances in missile ranges, NEZ, carrier’s ability to supercruise at increasing speed and so on.

My question was regarding the benefit of spending milllions per plane to fit a new radar that was more beneficial to have been left turned off in mock air battles.

As you say, if AWACS could now be used to guide BVRAAMs after launch, provided you have the AWACS, a cheap and simple datalink upgrade would give planes like the J7 better BVR capability then the Bison.

I agree with your assessment that the upgrade was a good idea for the IAF at the time, but times have changed since then, and I doubt even the IAF would opt for such an upgrade now.

The Bison upgrade is good to boost BVR capable platforms fast and especially useful in a BVR-free combat environment, provided of course that you have the support to allow them to make the most of the missiles. However, as soon as real BVR capable planes enter the field, the Bison’s BVR limitations really start to show. As such, I do not see anyone who is operating in a BVR enabled environment to go for a Bison like upgrade unless they are especially desperate (for cash or planes).

My views is that the latest J7s are focused in what they want to be and are uncompramising in being the best they can at that role. The Bison, on the other hand, tries to be two things at the same time, and because of the limitaions of the airframe itself, it is able to do neither especially well.

Two J8s collide in mid air and crash in inhabited areas. Both pilots ejected and are safe.

Interesting that Xinhua broke the news so quickly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7472973.stm

who said that a fighter had to be maneuvering at its limits at all times??..however, just because a fighter is refurbished does’nt mean that its not capable of pulling its max Gs during combat..and yes, as the fighter ages, its maintenance becomes a hassle, but nevertheless, none of that matters when it comes down to combat, except to reduce the turnaround time/sortie generation rate.

Sigh, guess I really need to spell everything out to some people.

Fighters are rated with XXX hours flight time based on complicated equations, and one of the key factors is how many Gs the airframe has pulled and for how long. You can wear out an airframe hundreds of hours before its service life is supposed to be up by pushing the airframe too hard for too long. And the consequence of that is lower G limits and a high and ever increasing liklihood of major structural failure when pushing the plane to its limits.

Refurbishments are all well and good, but being refurbished does not equal new built. They patch up and beef up some key areas but by no means all the areas, most of the plane, especially the airframe, is still the same as before. The planes will not break in half ever time you make a hard turn, but there is a chance that it will. Just look at the recent F15 break up in flight thread for a vivid example of the limitations of airframe evaluation methods and the impact long service lives can have on airframes, even after refurbishment.

What more, it is far from unheard off for pilots and air forces to ‘save’ aging airframes by not training as hard with them for fear of accidents and damage to the planes. That is going to affect combat effectives.

You might dismissing these factors out of hand as a minor problem, but to the pilots flying those planes, that can be a major psychological factor. Which could easily have a negative impact of their performance.

the scenario you’re describing assumes that the Bison pilot ALLOWED the J-7 to enter into WVR and then the Bison pilot got into a turning fight..considering the loadout of the Bison with 1 centerline fuel tank (which allows for adequate range anyway for a point defence fighter), 4X R-77s or 1 centerline fuel tank and 2 X R-77s and 2 X R-73Es, the fight would most likely be over before the J-7 would even know what happened.

Yes, and the J7 pilot is only trained to fly head-on at the Bison without any attempts to evade detection and hope for the best. :rolleyes:

Mordern air combat is a lot more complicated then your computer game insipired fantacies. Hell, a good example would be the Cope India excerises you fanboys love to meantion so much. Going by pure paper numbers, USAF F15s should have been splashing Bisons all day long for fun without the Bison even knowing the Eagles were in the area. Was that the case?

Also, what would be the range of the Bison with only one tank and 4 missiles? And that would place its base how close to the front line to be able to operate with such a warload?

the detection range of the Kopyo M for a J-7 sized target would be anywhere around 50-60 kms out, and tracking would be a shade lesser, but more than enough for the Bison to be able to engage the J-7 with its Adders.

Sources please.

do J-7s carry any EW equipment ? the Bison does, the Elta 8222 SPJ, none on the J-7 that we’ve heard of.

Yes, read the J7 link I posted before.

going by your arguments, its absolutely useless to have BVR weapons at all..just get fighters with fancy maneuvering and you have it all..:D

Typically transparent attempt at disinformation. If the arguement is hard to counter, take it to the extreme and then try and use that silly conclusion to discredit the orginal arguement. Not even close to fooling anyone.

If you have paid any attention, you would realise that I am not questioning BVR combat, but rather the BVR credantials of the Bison against small RCS targets.

of course brand new builds are better than refurbished airframes when it comes down to heavy usage and reduced maintenance..but this is not a big factor when it comes down to combat..

Go ask any fighter jock if he would rather go into combat in a refurbished fighter build 25 years ago or a brand new one of the same make and with the same equipment and you will have your answer.

as to the personal stuff, the mods can deal with that.

What, pointing out that you are blinded by nationalism is considered a personal attack now? :rolleyes:

so what if the J-7 turns faster or has slightly better performance in WVR? it would be a lucky J-7 pilot who’d even get into a WVR combat scenario with a Bison..

Anyone who thinks ‘35% imporvement in take-off distance, 33% improvement in turn rate at 5000 feet, 50% and 66 % improvements in turn rate at 10000 and 20000 feet, respectively…in fact its turn rate at med to high altitudes was close to that of F-16. In addition, there was at least 25-33% reduction in the safe speed required for low speed loop (likely to be even better at lower altitudes), 50% improvement in spool up time
and 25% improvement in time for acceleration (500Km/h to 1100Km/h) and climb speed’ (vikasrehman) is only ‘slightly’ better flight performance is clearly lacking in objectivity. And thats against the original F7P btw, which was based on a more agile airframe then the bis of the Bison, so the difference between the latest J7s and Bisons are going to be even greater then those figures show.

All this talk of ‘luck’ is meaningless without reliable specs on the track range of the koypo-m against J7 sized targets. But even with the max possible track range of 60km against a J7 as you claim, assuming a combined head-on airspeed of 500m/s, the J7 would be able to close that distance in 2 minutes. And thats to physically touch the Bison. If the J7 was pushing it at full speed and using its missile in a head-on attack, that time can be cut to as little as 33 seconds or less depending on the speed of the Bison.

That number will only drop with the tracking range of the radar.

What more, the J7 pilots will know the shortcomings of their planes and come up with tactics and strategies to compansate. Technology can also greatly help increase the chance of the J7 getting into WVR. Having a dedicated EW plane flying cover or having fighters with active jamming pods tagging along would help.

In a real fight, you are almost certain to have heavy hitters covering the J7s. You can quite easily give the Bisons a hard time by having your true BVR platforms fire BVR missiles at the Bisons from max missile range while your J7s race in. That gives the Bisons the choice of either flying like sitting ducks to get off their own BVR shots and risk getting splashed before the J7s are in missile seeker range, or taking evasive action and give the J7s the chance to get close and personal.

This equation would change little if the Bisons have true BVR capable support, as the J7s would be doing the same thing anyways. The only difference would be that the real BVR platforms would be trading BVR shots at each other at optimal missile range as well, and the Bison’s support would have to decide if they are to focus their fire on the enemy heavy hitters or to divert some missiles against the J7s. The side using the J7 is at an advantage either way. If the hostile heavies fire at the J7s, then that means fewer BVR missiles against your more capable and expensive platforms, which equals greater chance of fewer losses. If they ignore the J7s, then they face a challenging dogfight later, and your own heavies can go in for the kill fresh while the enemy would have used up a lot of fuel and missiles, and probably also planes, tangoing with the J7s.

and even if he does, the Sura HMS + R-73E combo would be hard to defeat. that is a universally accepted fact.

Again, what is the operational range of a Bison would 4 missiles and only one tank? If the Bison is attacking, it likely won’t have the legs to get to the fight with that loadout. If it is defending, the enemy could easily force it to take tanks by attacking at a point beyound the max range of the Bison without wing tanks.

That is the problem with putting BVR on such a small fighter – its load capacity and range means it is not going to make much use of that capacity without sacraficing other key capablities. Its the same with the ground attack ability. Looks nice on paper, but not a whole lot of use in practice.

a Bison with a centerline fuel tank and 4 R-77s or 2 R-77s and 2 R-73s has more than adequate range to deal with equally short ranged J-7s. its not like the J-7s range is double the original MiG-21s. anyway, BVR is not hinged upon range.

Yet more pearls of wisdom from Mr Objective I see. :rolleyes:

If you truely do not realise the difference in range and endurance 2 wing tanks can make to the short-legged Mig21, then I am wasting my time with someone living in lala land.

Oh, just fyi, BVR is hinged on fuel load. To take full advanatge of your missile you need to be high and fast when you fire to give the missile the most range and energy. Although that might not be an issue with the Bison since its radar is so short ranged.

if anything, it is WVR which requires fuel reserves to allow for a few minutes of hard turning combat. so, Chinese buddy, it is the J-7 which should be worried about being short legged. 😎

So the Bison is going to fly nice and slow and not make any turns in WVR combat then? This just goes to prove how much use the 2 R77 and 2 R73 combo really is – without extra tanks and the burden of the 2 extra missiles, the Bison can’t afford to do much manouvering or else it wont have the fuel to get home even if it does win.

So, lets sum it up. The Bison is considerably less agile, has an old airframe far more liable to break in intense combat, it is unlikely to be carrying WVR missiles at all on most missiles where it carries BVR, and in the event t carries both the pilot can’t afford to fly as hard in combat because of a lack fuel. The odds are stacked against your Bison in WVR, there is just no denying that.

BVR is any day far better than WVR..the IAF learnt it the hard way when the French AF Mirages spanked IAF Mirages during exercises, ending most engagements before they ever got into WVR range. for the few of the fights that were conducted at WVR, IAF pilots stood out over Adl’A pilots, but the point was learnt by the IAF- BVR is the way to go.

Again, not questioning the vaiblity of BVR, but rather the BVR capabilities of the Bison.

the track range for a J-7 size fighter (even if its as low as 50 km) would be more than adequate for the Bison to deal with the deaf and blind Chinese fighter.

Since I have already pointed you repeatedly to a link on the specs of the J7, this could only be willful ignarence of the fact that the J7 has EW and RWR gear as standard. Now we are in denial as well as trying to distort facts. Moving up the ladder fast I see.

that poor sod would’nt know what hit him..:cool: since you’re not the one doing any flying, its obviously easier for you to sit on your rear and spout how the J-7 would rip apart a Bison in WVR..if you were to be the one flying, you’d be darn scared and praying hard that you could slip in close to the Bison. :dev2:

And now we are in wet dream land. Wonderful.

the fact is that, if WVR was all that was required, all Chinese fighters would be TVC equipped and there’d be no need for SD-10s..why bother developing those missiles with “the wonder of BVR” ?:rolleyes: hypocrisy on your part, Chinese buddy..

Yet more illogical ramblings. Or is it just a really bad attempt at spin?

For the Nth time. Im not disputing the benefits of BVR, but rather questioning whether the Bison has enough radar range to truely exploit those expansive missiles. And what’s with all this ‘chinese buddy’ meantionings? You think the nationality of the poster has any baring on the validity of his arguments? That might be true on some racist forums, but bring up race will earn you no browny points here, buddy.

oh so you question the BVR capability of the Bison despite praises from the USAF in official documents, and who is more credible ? you ?! 😀 thats right, Chinese buddy, close those eyes of yours and just keep repeating that the Bison fires duds at BVR range and the J-7 rapes Bisons at WVR for fun and it’ll all come true. 😀

Oh yes, Cope India had no political dimention at all. Those USA flyboys went to India to kick ass and put the Indians in their place. :rolleyes:

its not like the Bison is dealing with a Su-30MKI..the moment the R-77s are fired, the J-7 is on the defensive. if its not already toast, its using up its precious fuel reserves to try to outmaneuver the Adders (which could mean dropping precious fuel tanks to allow it to pull more Gs). in the meantime, the Bison can, whenever it wants to, simply turn back and there’s NOTHING that the J-7 can do because it does’nt have fuel reserves that will allow it to chase it down and no weapon that can go long range in a tail chase mode.

Yes, in your dreamy steralised secnario totally removed from real world conditions designed to maximise the Bison’s only saving grace it is unbeatable. But the more realistic factors you add to the equation, the less clear-cut the Bison’s BVR advantage becomes.

Only a fool would expose his own plane’s weakness and allow the enemy to exploit their own advanatges to the max.

the only strength the J-7PG has is better maneuverability, other than that, it lags behind the Bison in all spheres. no BVR, no SPJ, no EW equipment, no real PGM capability. the J-7 is good for nations that are either too poor to afford anything better or are just looking for a token air force.

Yet more willful ignarence and distortions to try and change reality. The J7 has EW suit and RWR, and the PGM capability of the Bison is little more then a token guesture and has little real world potential. And as I have already demonstrated, there are significant question marks on the effectiveness of its BVR capability against J7 sized targets and even more so in real combat situtations.

The J7 is a deadly little dogfighter, and no amount of spin you heap on it will change that fact.

look who’s talking..nationalistic bias indeed ! the only reason you’re even engaging in this discussion is because the J-7 is Chinese and it hurts your pride that its being considered second to an IAF MiG-21 variant..so obviously, if its incapable of BVR combat, BVR suddenly becomes not so important. :rolleyes:

So you are a mind reader now? A bad one at that. I came to this thread for the same reason most people joined this forum – because I am interested in military aviation. But I guess its only natural for people to assume that others joined the forum for the same reason as they did.

and no, neutral observers (like Flex and Hyperwarp) have clearly stated which fighter they believe is better. you’re the one twisting the truth.

Well, seeing as how I have not deliberately ommitted facts that are inconvenient to my point of view; have not tried to gloss over the advantages of a plane I don’t like by claiming its considerably better flight performance to be only ‘slightly better’; have not deliberately twisted someone’s arguement out of context in a bid to try and discredit it; have not used the nationality of someone as a means to try and discredit his arguements and have not misrepresented the views of others (I have yet to see Hyperwarp state clearly that he thinks the Bison is better, he merely pointed out that the specs for the Bison’s radar is better and have been asking for specs to missiles – clearly someone trying to form an informed option, but I guess that concept is alien to you).

I have given sources to all my arguments, have given detail explainations and examples for all my points and have kept my posts clear of emotion.

Of course I’m the one twisting the truth and you, who have done all I have not and none that I have, is the very example of objectivity and rationality.

its only Chinese supporters and those whose nations operate J-7 (except Hyperwarp, he’s Sri Lankan) who claim that the J-7 variants are the best MiG-21 of all.

Well, I guess thats news to qwerty, distaller and Arthur.

And I guess you also have issues with bring_it_on and lancer dude who also question the effectiveness of the Bison upgrade in real world conditions.

And please, just for poops and giggles, can you actually give an example where a real Chinese poster have stated that the J7 variants ‘are the best Mig21s of all’?

even if the airframes are old, they’re refurbished and have adequate hours on them, so there is no difference whether these are old or new in combat- they can both pull the same Gs anyway

Well you are the only person who thinks that. Go ask that to anyone in the industry in any country and you would get the same answer – no way.

Planes, and especially fighters, might have thousands of hours of flight time on their airframes, but that does not mean they are designed to fly all that time pulling max G. That is why you hear stories of planes being ‘overstressed’ or ‘overused’ and degrade the airframe. Because thats what years of flying does – it degrades the materials the plane is built from because of all the stress and strain. Its basic physics and chemistry.

A refurbished planes is the same as a refurbished car in most ways. It might have the same specs as a new built model, but the older the refurbished car, the less likely it is to reach those specs and the greater the chances of break downs.

Besides, G-limit is only on factor, the more important indicator of flight charaterisics of turn and roll rates favour the J7 overwhelmingly.

Bisons are also multirole, although A2G is not their main role..it can carry PGMs like the KAB series bombs, and in their main role of point defence fighters, 4X R-77s or 4 X R-73Es + centerline fuel tank. add the Sura HMS to the R-73E and there is no real WVR superiority left to even talk of for the J-7.:rolleyes:

If you have been paying attention, you would realised that the latest J7s also have HMS and HOBS missiles in the form of PL8s and PL9s. When both have HMS and HOBS missiles, that pretty much cancels each other out.

And just a point to all those ‘HMS is pure win’ folks out there, HMS gives you a bigger cone of engagement, but that does not mean the flight charateristics of your ride is totally irrelevent. a 180 degree engagement zone is still no use if the hostile is behind you and popping AAMs up your tail pipe.

the fact that someone actually talks of dogfighters like the J-7 with mostly day capability as being superior to fighters with BVR and WVR capability like the Bison’s, just because they’re new build, shows that they’re blinded by nationalistic fervour.

The only one who is blinded by nationalism here is you buddy. Not only do you dispute universally accepted facts such as brand new build airframes are better then refurbished, but you also ommit facts that are inconvenient to your POV, such as the fact that the lastest J7s have the option of HMS and HOBS missiles etc. Your nationalistic pride kicks in the second someone dares to utter that something might be better then your precious Bison in any field and precieves that as a slight against India itself. :rolleyes:

The only thing I have done is stressed throughout that the J7 is superior in WVR combat and so far, not one of those who seem to have problems with my posts have disputed that with much conviction. Its mostly, ‘well Bison have HMS so it has to be a draw, Now can we stop talking about WVR and spend all our time marvelling at the wonder of BVR please?’

Besides, the Mig21 is short legged enough as it is. If you are arming it with 2 R77s, then you would need to ditch the two underwing drop tanks to give it any WVR missiles. That is going to majorily limit the range of the Bisons.

the fact is that the Bison pilot can CHOOSE not to enter WVR combat, whereas the J-7 pilots ONLY HOPE is to enter WVR combat..if you’re not blinded by national pride, you’d choose to be the pilot who can finish combat in BVR and go back home safely.

Well that is an amusing spin you try to put on things. By the same virtue, you can just as easily argue that BVR is the Bison’s only hope.

The Bison is nowhere near the level of capability needed to be able to ‘choose’ whether to engage or not at will. With a search range of 80km is only against 5m^2 targets (http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/airf0rces_cataloque.html), the detection range for J7 sized targets is going to be a lot less, the track range even more so.

What is the track range for the kopyo-m btw? Because that is the true range at which a BVR shot can be made. The fact that it is not listed is telling in itself.

The fact of the matter is that the Bison’s BVR capability, especially against the small J7s, is highly questionable. Even more so in real world conditions where both sides are likely to be guided by GCI and/or AWACS and the pure carry capability limitations of the mig21 airframe means that the Bison is going to have to choose between range/endurance or weapons.

The typical BVR load of a Bison is just two R77s plus tanks. If its BVR shot misses or if it doesn’t get to take the shot, then it will get raped by the J7 at WVR on account of better airframe performance and HMS+HOBS missile combo. If it takes R77s plus R73s, then its going to be low on fuel and can’t afford to use the AB as much or stay in a fight as long as the J7, if it could get to the fight at all, that is.

As I have said from the start, both planes have their own strengths and weaknesses in different areas, which could be used to beat each other depending on the scenario and mission. The difference is not that great, and anyone who thinks otherwise either, a) knows something nobody else here does, b) have not studied both planes enough, or c) is blinded by other factors.

as to advice on taking chill pills, keep it to yourself. you’re the one bringing nationalism into the equation when technical arguments alone would be enough to convince a neutral observer about what the better solution is.

So pointing out the nationalistic bias in others is bringing nationalism into the equation now is it?

Its also funny you should meantion neutral observers, since they have pretty much all concluded that they would prefer the J7, while it is only the Indian supports who seem to think the Bison wins hands down in every department.

I find it amusing that some people would find the obvious so difficult to swollow, a touch of national pride at play maybe?

All I have said is that the latest J7s are superior to the Bilson in WVR, and not a comment on which is better overall, so some people need to read more carefully and take a chill pill.

The latest J7s have HOTAS and HMS+HOB missile options plus RWR and countermeasures since the start. With its far superior handling, better cockpit visibility and brand new airframe, only someone blinded by nationalistic fever would choose a Bilson over it in WVR combat.

The question of which plane is better overal is a very complicated one and depends largely on what mission you want the planes to fly, and the situation at hand.

The Bilson might have BVR, but thats all it has. If you already have the airframes, then the upgrade thats a nice boost to your overall capabilities at a reasonable cost, but it will only ever do a moderate job of any task you set it. That is the cost of having BVR. The latest J7s otoh are uncompramising dogfighters. Get them into WVR combat and they will give even the latest fighters a good run for their money. On their own, that might be a big ask, but if used as part of a well balanced fighter force, then they can allow you to win battles with much smaller losses to your best fighters.

So the question really is, do you want a jack of all trades or a pure-bred dogfighter? Different people will have different answers depending on their preferences and strategies.

IF that were the case Wolf I think it fairly obvious that the Chinese would declare an EEZ or airspace incursion a ‘red line’. The onus would be on them to put something credible up as a strategic threat to hold at risk more targets in the CONUS than they can do currently or with a few early generation SSBN’s. See Libya, Col. Qadaffi, ‘Line of Death’ and ELDORADO CANYON for illustration!

Well, actually airspace incursion is a red line that if crossed, will lead to military conflict. 😉

However, just because two sides are at war does not mean that all rules go out the window, especially in the modern again of ‘limited warfare’ where the objective is some military or political objective as opposed to the total defeat and destruction of governments and countries.

And as I have already said, the PLA does not need to be able to strike at the CONUS to hurt the US. It can be quite legitmately argued that US military bases in South Korea, Japan etc are part of the US war effort against China that provides US combat forces with staging areas and supplies, and thus would be legitimate targets. Now all those thousands of miles ranged cruise missiles the PLA is developing and fielding suddenly makes a lot more sense.

The list of what can be considered ‘legitmate’ targets is very subjective and it can be shaped to include almost any military or civilian target, so the scope for expanding the conflict is almost unlimited. That is why rules are important, as without them, it is all to easy for things to spiral out of control and turn from a limited conflict to all out war.

In a word yes. The RAF was over-extending itself, by some margin, generating the Black Buck sorties of one Vulcan over target every few days and keeping a couple of Nimrods and the odd Hercules flying over the South Atlantic. A Black Buck mission could’ve been diverted to an Argentine mainland target, but, for the effect one bombload would have on any significant military target its was judged unwise. Especially with the risk of having a Vulcan brought down, thereby undoing all the propaganda of the ‘boys-own heroes’ socking it to the enemy even in obsolescent, but iconic, aircraft.

It has been quite some years since I last read about the Falklands, so my memory may be a little hazy, but I still have the feeling that I read somewhere that it was a political decision. However, it is a minor point, so lets just stop it here instead of risk bringing the discussion off the rails with a large argument about a side issue.