Explain to me how your theory is correct, you totally overlooked the fact the Type54 frigate is expensive for Pakistan and China dont have enough for themselfs, so why would they or any other country offer them for export. The offer for the J-10 to Pakistan did not say we will sell you the J-10 as it is right now, its likly when Pakistan does, if it does induct the J-10 it would be in its most advance state.

I’m afraid you are contradicting yourself there. You say Pakistan did not CHOOSE to buy 054/054A FFGs and ZTZ99 MBTs because they are too expensive, yet in the same breath you are claiming that Pakistan will only buy the most advanced J10 version, which surely isn’t going to come cheap either.

Also, note that the Al-khalid is not just the next price grade down from a Type98/99, its a newly designed tank that, while drawing heavily from the Type98/99 design, is not a version that the PLA fields at all. Its the same case with the SD10 v PL12; PL8 v PL9 etc. One of the main reasons the FC1/JF17 was designed at all was because the PLA top brass didn’t want CAC selling J10s to everyone.

Fact of the matter is that Pakistan has very good relationships with both Beijing and Washington. While this situation is yeilding Pakistan great benefits, it also comes with the cost that neither China or America totally trusts Pakistan not to give the other any senstive technology they might sell to Pakistan, hence why both sides tend to be reluctent to give Pakistan access to their newest toys. Its nothing personal, just politics.

broken missile control regimes exporting Balastic missiles

Actually, China never broke any treaties even if it did aid Pakistan with its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. China never signed up to the missile control regime (which is only a volentary, non-binding committment anyways), and any alleged transfer to nuclear tech would have been before China signed up to the NPT. Not very ‘sportmanlike’ behaviour if that was the case, but not illegal either.

As for the rest of that paragraph. Well take it easy mate. Even the US doesn’t trust the UK enough to allow them full access to the F35 tech (big caffufle on this very forum about it not long back), so is it that unreasonable that China would have some limitations on what they are prepared to sell to Pakistan?

Another perfectly good thread down the crapper.

Lets have a big round of applause for all those who have worked so hard to make this happen. :rolleyes:

I see one considerable difference between those two examples. Without foreign help, Israel would be crawling, simply because they are mere 7 millions of them with the economy hardly being larger than the one of Singapore. OTOH, India with its 10 times larger economy would wipe off Pakistan even if Indians only were armed with baseball caps.

I don’t think the size of the economy would matter when you start lobbing nukes around. In terms of nuclear forces, India’s lead over Pakistan is far slimmer.

Ok i don’t understand one thing. China’s cruise missile program seems to be really advanced. Even if you go by the ranges of missiles involved it’s beyond 1500 kms in some cases.

If you look at Pakistan’s program they have been struggling around 500km and now bumped it up to 700km.(boastings for home audience aside) If China can completely transfer M-11s and get away with it why not Hong nia??

Firstly, what makes you so sure China wants to share its most advanced technology with Pakistan? China and Pakistan have a very ‘special relationship’, but even special treatment only goes so far. China has always been a little reluctant to give Pakistan access to its most advanced technologies for fear of the US getting their hands on them. Thats why the PL12 ARHAAM, Type98 MBT etc were never sold to Pakistan directly, and instead a different version was designed specifically for export. Its the same with all other weapons systems China has sold to Pakistan (and all other countries). This is somewhat ironic as the US has the same reservations about sell Pakistan advanced equipment, which purhaps shows that there are positive and negatives to playing all sides, but I digress.

Secondly, although China has not signed up to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), thus it can export missiles with ranges exceeding the 300km cap imposed by that treaty, but it would be diplomatically unwise for China to do so, as they are offensive weapons, especially since China is trying to improve relations with India.

Someone want to explain to me what role the preds were serving wrt enforcing the NO FLY ZONE?

Does it not strike anyone else as odd that the US would be using ground surveillance aircraft to enforce a no fly zone?

It is possible that they were used to scope out ground threats to coalition ac. However, sending low-flying slow-moving UAVs unsupported to check out SAM and AAA sites that are itching to shoot down anything on a regular and predictable basis would seem like a remarkably silly thing to do, would it not? And given the fact that the Iraqis seemed to know where these UAVs were and had to resort to using fighters to engage them would also make it unlikely that their task was to spot ground threats as the preds have relatively short ranged sensor kit, and if the Iraqis can see them, then they can shoot at them with SAMs and AAA if the preds were trying to get a peek at the air defence sites.

Given what we are finding out now about the Bush administrations long held determination to go to war with Iraq, and the speed at which the invasion was launched, it seems almost certain that the US has exploited its role of enforcing the NFZ by conduction surveillance and recon in preporation for the ground invasion.

If that was the case, then it would not be hard to mount a credible defence for Iarq’s attacks on these UAVs as they were not there to perform the UN mandate and was instead on a completely seperate mission of aggression that threatened the sovereignty and safety of Iraq, and any nation in Iraq’s position had a right to take measures to defend itself.

The second issue of concern is the nature of this ‘baiting’ incident. Those of you who ridicule others for not being able to digest the contents of that video might want to take some time read the associated press release by Lilly.

It was quite obvious that the Americans baited the Iraqis into intercepting this particular UAV with previous flights, the nature of which are undisclosed. While some of you may find nothing wrong with it per se, it really makes one wonder how many incidents of ‘aggression’ encountered by US forces over Iraq were also ‘encouraged’ in such a fashion to justify retalitory strikes and also to build an image of Iraq as an aggressive power in the eyes of Americans.

Hello everyone!

Have long range IR-missiles been developed?

When I think of AMRAAM and Phoenix, they both use inflight datalink to update target information. Why wasn’t that done with terminal IR guidance. Advantage: less costly and completely passive, the attacked aircraft wouldn’ have a clue it is attacked. The missile is still useful for closer ranges (with limitations of course).

Does anybody have input?

One of the major limitations in the past is that in order to give an IR missile a credible BVR capacity, you would have to be able to give it guidence until it can get within its own seeker range. Thus you can see the problem this represents: in order to provide mid-course guidence, you need to know where the target this, this means tracking it with your airplane’s own radar, which in turn would give the game away.

However, with the advent and gradual widespread deployment of AESA radars, it would now be possible to make your vision reality, and I would be very suprised if such weapons are not already in development. Although that is not to say that ARH BVRAAMs are going to become extinct anytime soon. The current trend for ARHAAMs seems to be speed, with new ramjet versions of old favourates being developed by all the major players in the field. The heat generated by ramjet power missiles may render IR seekers useless, so radar may be the only option for such missiles.

It would not be hard to imagine a bit of a split in design philosophies for the next gen BVRAAM, with speed pitched against stealth. It would be interesting to see which faction gains sway in which countries.

It will be exceptionally stupid for the US to attack Iran for a huge number of reasons ranging from practicality to politics at home. However, it is entirely possible for the White House and/or Pentagon to engineer a war if they so wished, with or without congressional support.

For example, a few years back a number of British soilders were taken prisoner by Iran while patroling the disputed water boarder between Iran and Iraq. It would not be too difficult for the US to engineer a similar situation where they are confronted by Iran in disputed territory, but instead of doing the sensible thing and backing away from a firefight, they can try to provok one or even start it. The tension in the area is so high that such a spark could easily start a chain reaction that Iran would be hard pressed to be able to reverse. It is remarkably difficult to avoid a war if the other side really wants it.

They are any number of similar scenarios that I can think off that would present Congress with no choice but to sanction war or else be labled cowards and trators, especially if Americans start dying in any number.

The key issue is not how but why. It would be a hard ask to find a good reason to get into a scrap with Iran when the US is already hard pressed in Iraq, and I personally doubt that a war would take place. However, one must not forget the kind of person GWB has shown himself to be. He, and purhaps more critically, those who had any sway over him, are all fairly arrogent people who do not like to beleive that they can be wrong. Bush has also shown himself to be a bit of a risk loving person who would bet a great deal if he thinks he is right about something. They also believe completely in the rightness of their cause, which makes them fanatics of a sort. Another thing to consider is that Bush would be wanting to salvage something good from his Presidency that he can be proud to be remembered for. All this makes for a pretty dangerous mix of personality traits. If Bush is honest in his belief that Iran is the source of all of America’s woes in Iraq and the middle east at large, then the temptation to defy common consensus and go into Iran to prove his critics wrong and revive his visions for the middle-east could be great indeed. It is not a very likely course of action, but it certainly cannot be ruled out beyound reasonable doubt either.

It was said that the Feb. 2 attack was especially disturbing to the U.S. military, because when 2 Apaches came under attack, one promptly left, the other one turned back to confront the attackers. The one that went back to fight was subsequently shot down.

None of the insurgents camouflage themselves in the videos. I would camouflage myself well if I wanted to ambush someone in such an open space.

Camouflage would be a bit superfluous when you are out hunting attack helos. It would have nigh on impossible to spot and ID human sized targets with the eye at most altertudes helos would be cruising at unless the people in question are wearing bright pink or orange. Camo would not be much use if the helo was out looking for you as its FLIR would easily spot people no matter what they are wearing. Thus not only would camo not offer you much in the way of protection, it would be far more liable to mark you out as a fighter to US and Iraqi security forces, which IMO is a far more realistic threat to insurgents than the helos themselves.