Hardly proof positive, that is a bit naieve imagination. Israel needs enemies, otherwise American military aid would lose any sense. 24 J-10s in IRIAF hands might be a ridiculous threat for Israel, but surely it’s a good opportunity to start another round of whining in order to get F-35s..

And that sound pretty paranoid. It is stretching plausability that Israel would help China with a fighter project in the early 1980s so that they can use the appearance of that fighter in Iranian hands in 2007+ to try and leverage F35s from the US. Especially since they are almost certainly getting F35s anyways.

It is also naieve to think that Israel would be so short sighted as to not take serious steps to make sure the J10 never enters the ME even if they had nothing to do with it. If they played any part in the project, it would be very stupid of them not to get assurances.

On the other hand, if China did make an obligation to Israel and is now breaking it, even if it is not enforceable in international law, it will fundermentally undermine Chinese-Israeli relations. Not only is China not know for that kind of bridge burning behaviour, it would simply be extremely unlikely that China would do so for mere money, as the value of any fighter contract really is just pocket change to the Chinese government. For China to do that would be akin to trading a cow for beans, and not the magic veriaty.

You raised some good points, but things are not so black and white. The same logic could be applied for India and Russia, where Russia should fear a boycott of aviation products from India in case they supply things to their enemies. Yet we still see Mi-17s in PAF service, RD-93s mounted in FC-1s, Su-30MKKs in PLAAF inventory or Al-31F on J-10s without any devastating blows for Russian aviation industry.

Come on, you cannot seriously believe that to be true. The Indians have far less power over the Russians then the fanboys would like to believe and insist. That is proven by facts (JF17 anyone?).

Although Schorsch is also wrong about the effects of a US boycott of Chinese aviation. Firstly, the US has never bought much aviation products from China or invested much in China, nor is it forecast to in the future, so where is the threat from stopping the order of a few composit parts per plane? The Chinese aviation industry is self-sustaining in both military and commercial fields, it is domestic investment and demand that is critical to Chinese aviation, not the US market, which is already mature and has very limited growth potential.

If anything, the US avaition industry is far more dependent on Chinese orders that vice versa. Boeing is basically banking its future on China, and even chose the name for their dreamliner to best suit Chinese tastes (787, 8is considered lucky in China).

US would not risk tensions with China for some meaningless two squadrons of fighters for IRIAF, unless they shift the balance of power (which they don’t).

Military deals have always been more symbolic then merely practical. If China sells advanced offensive weapons to Iran now, it will be viewed in Washington as some kind of message to them about Chinese intent and positioning. It will be viewed as China putting tensions on Sino-US relations, and thus any US action would be reactionary and so required or else that will be taken as a signal in Beijing of US weakness…

Thats the problem with geopolitics – there are so many ways for someone to interpret an act that even people who devlote their lives to reading such subtle signals can expect to be wrong a lot of the time.

You have a bit unrealistic view on Sino-American relations – you tend to overexaggerate US influence while underestimating their dependance

True both ways.

I say we put a naval blockade on Iran, and make them pay economically if they want nukes.

Lovely, as if oil prices aren’t high enough already. :rolleyes:

Besides, do you honestly think the Russians, Chinese or even EU would allow that to get through a UN vote? Without UN backing, any such blockade would have serious legality problems. What happens if a Russian Tanker runs the blockade? The USN is going to board or sink a Russian ship in international waters because the ship crossed an imaginary line no one else recognises?

Nice to see the lessons of 62 have not been forgotten so soon. :rolleyes:

If nukes are so important to them, then they can have them……but you can bet it won’t be easy on the economy or the people…….a starving populace will eventually get tired of the nutjobs who run that place…….

Yes, because that worked ever so well with Iraq, NK, Iran (last time round) and just about every other country the US has imposed sanctions on. What is worse is the fact that people like you would apply the sanctions even if you knew full well it would ultimately fail. Its just petty spite, and it will cause untold suffering and death just so you can nurse your brused ego at not being able to make everyone dance ot your tune. It is one of the worst qualities of humanity and it is beyound pathetic. :rolleyes:

Even if the blockade is effective, how many do you think will have to die before the people would get desperate enough to even try and overthrow the government? And how many would die trying? But then they are only Iranians I supose. :rolleyes:

I can guarantee you that if part of the U.S. Navy is put into the Persian Gulf, that Iranians will have no way of breaking that blockade…..not a chance.

So they won’t, the Iranians would use the roads and railways instead.

Of course Iran can still get supplies from other sources and in other directions, but it will make it that much more difficult for them to.

So whats the point? Do you honestly think a blockade is going to disuade Iran from getting a nuke or sprun them on as they look to NK’s example of what happens when you do get nukes and the means to deliver them?

I think the President of Iran thinks he can incite world opposition to the United States in light of the Iraq ordeal and in reality I’d say most countries probably don’t like America. That’s not going to stop us from putting up a naval blockade in the Persian Gulf and making the Iranian economy pay for their “need” for nukes though…..

And you think just because Iran can’t get at the navy ships they are just going to bend over and take it?

If Iran gets motivated enough, they can declare open season on US forces in Iraq and Afganistan. Those of you blaming Iran for all the ills in Iraq now are going to look back at the present casaulty rates with fond longing if that happens.

The only way that will give you a reasonably high chance of getting Iran to give up its nukes would be if Israel got rid of its nukes as well.

Presented with such a prize, no Iranian leader could possibly resist it. You can leverage as a bullet-proof verification and monitoring regime as you like by simply applying the same measures to both parties. The Iranians would want to be 100% sure they are not being taken for a ride, and so would the US and friends, thus it is in everyone’s interests to go for the harshest monitoring option imaginable.

The Israelis can have the same nuclear umbrella as Japan, the F35 and maybe even some F22s for free as well as a huge bag of economic and political goodies that even the Russians and Chinese would be more then happy to chip in for to as a reward for getting rid of its nukes. If they play hardball, the US alone has enough leverage to give the Israelis no choice but to comply, and if that happens, all the goodies can help take the sting out of things.

The Iranians are happy; the Israelis can live with it; everyone else in the ME would be over the moon; US image in the ME and world would go through the roof, and recruitment for terror organisations would fall hugely; with Iranian help (or even lack of meddling), things can get a lot better in Iraq; the ME would be free of nukes and the NPT would get a boost for once; oil prices fall for a change; the US president who get this done would forever be remembered in the history books as a leader in the same league as the likes of Churchill and Gandi who has done humanity a great survice(hint hint Bush ;))…

The list goes on and on, hell, you might even be able to get lasting peace in the ME ultimately. All it would take is for someone to be willing to risk being labled as a nazi jew hater by a minute fraction of Jewish community.

A small price to pay in my book for such a vast list of rewards. Just a shame the American election system would make it all but impossible for anyone who dares to harbour such ambitions to become president.:(

because they are too heavy for hot and high ops, not because we don’t need Longbow. There are plenty of targets for Hellfire, but even when rockets are the weapon of choice, Longbow gives useful NTISR capabilities.

What you said about weight may be true, but that was not the reason given in the article, since I was recapping what I read, I would not knowingly change things.

Besides, I never said Longbow is useless, just seldomly used. It is still a very useful tool and that is why not all D models had their Longbows removed.

In time, I suspect even the WAHs will remove most of their Longbows even with its up-powered enigines, as doing so would saving money (and we all know how cash strapped the Mod is :() and also extend the operating range and time or the gunships. Thats a good trade-off in my book at least.

Actually Gollevainen, I think you are mistaken a dividing board of some kind with the building in the background. If you look closely you can see that the sail of the second sub actually extends beyound the blue ‘background’ at the top, meaning the blue thing is actually in front of the sail as opposed to behind it, thus it is obscuring part of the sub and creating the illusion that it has a smaller hump.

As for needing SSBNs, well keep in mind that SSBNs are not designed and built overnight, at the time the 094 project was started the PRC faced a serious threat to its nuclear deterrence capacity.

Firstly it only has a very small nuclear arsenal, its SSBNs were next to useless because they were so noisy, and what ICBMs it did have were mostly in fixed silos and liquid fueled. If the US really wanted to, there was a very good probability that it could be able to completely destroy all Chinese missiles capable of hitting CONUS without the Chinese being able to fire off any in response. Add to that the US NMD and TMD programmes and China’s leaders would have found themselves facing an unacceptable position. The DF31As and 094s are China’s response to that.

China has never been interested in getting into a pi$$ing contest with the US over nuclear arms and it never will do because thats one of the areas where the Soviets went wrong, and China has no intention of repeating that mistake.

China has always had a below par nuclear force, and this is merely a much overdue shake up. It is far less of Great Power ego trip then the British SSBN programme.

Although you may be correct in the assumption that the PLAN would, at this moment in time, value its SSNs more then its SSBNs, because the PLAN SSNs would be far more likely to be called into active operations then its SSBNs, thus making the 093s less expendable for experimental testing of new tech.

Besides, there is little downside to using the 094s for testing. For one, they can complele their intended mission from Chinese waters with a swarm of SSKs protecting them so even if the tests gots horribly wrong, its not going to make the boat completely useless; for another, you should never need more then 2 of them for minimum nuclear deterrent, so if the PLAN have three or more, using one for testing is not that big an issue. Whereas the 093s would need to go out into the deep alone and in as great numbers as the PLAN can muster in the event of war, so loosing one would be a major blow, especially if it was a self-inflicted ‘loss’.

Very true……….Yet, why doesn’t Iran start by building a Russian/Chinese Type under license followed by a co-developed design. Which, is the usual route taken.:rolleyes:

Timing.

All the talk of possible US military action against Iran puts the likely dates somewhere this year if it is to happen at all under Bush. However, it can easily take many years for a new fight type to reach combat readiness. If Iran started buying expansive fighters now, then they would arrive just in time to be bombed by the Americans if a war does break out. Hardly makes sense for Iran.

It is my beleif that Iran is going to stick with what it already has in place and rely on assymetric warfare, politics, Iraq etc to try and deter US military action instead of a mad dash to transplant some military musle at this late stage. If the US does attack, they would tough it out with what they have and rebuild once the Americans get bored and go home. If the Americans don’t attack, then so much the better.

Iran may start signing big contracts with Russian and/or China once Bush leave office, or they might not bother as the threat of US military attack would drastically fall once Bush stop calling the shots in Washington.

Unless there is some kind of quantum leap in battery design, you will not get a laser weapon on a fighter sized platform for a very long time. To try would either produce a one-shot wonder or a weapon that need to charge for an age between shots.

If laser weapons are to be made airborne, they will likely remain much the same as the airborne laser testbed. But such platforms would be very explansive and could probably be countered with stealthy fighters and missiles.

To be honest, I don’t really see the Harrier as that good a CAS plane anyways. Were’t there some reports a while back which said that the British troops on the ground prefered to call in American CAS because the A10 is just so much better then the harrier?

If I was in charge, I’d drop the lot of them and bring in artillary. Since the British are essentially fighting a defensive battle in Iraq, range and reaction time would not be an issue (if anything, reaction time would probably be quicker). For offensive ops in Iraq or Afganistan, some self-propelled howitzers would do the fire support job far better and cheaper then any amount of harriers. With some apaches as rapid response and you have a powerful, mobile and above all, cheap firebase to give the troops some proper fire support.

Its not even like the Army would need to buy much new kit for this, and any additional costs would be more then made up for by the cost savings from reduced or even canceled harrier operations.

The army ditches the harriers for SP howitzers and more field guns, and hopefully find some pilots for its apaches, while the navy could get their sea harriers back to keep the fleet safe. Everyone is happy without needing to spend much more money.

Anyone see anything I missed that would make this impractical other then petty inter-branch politics? :confused: