Well a quick trip to your favourite search engine should turn up the MTCR info page to explain what is being talked about. Now neither the PRC or Iran are signatories to the MTCR accords but it has agreed to abide them at various times over the years. Talks have been a bit on again off again wrt to China joining as a partner nation for the MTCR.

Unless China has formally signed up to it, then China is not legally bound by it. The MTCR or any international treaty does not have any right to decide who they apply to, only sovereign nations can choose to be bound by such treaties by signing up to them. Its one of the most basic principles in international relations.

No one said obliterate China, SOC said one factory in China. I doubt its a very likely course of action for the US to take but if they wanted to they could. Hell I reckon Australia could do it if we really wanted to. The problem would not be that one initial target, rather it would dealing with the fallout from the strike or trying to repeat the feat.

Daniel

Well China can take out any factory in the US, does that make it remotely likely that China would? Technically having the right (via dubious reasoning) does not make it likely to happen in reality. Using SOC’s logic, China would have just as much, if not more, justification to start taking out factories in the USA for illegally supplying weapons to Taiwan.

As for Australia, please. Even with tankers, they would only be able to physically reach targets close to the coast. Without any stealth platforms, they would have to try and punch through the entire PLAAF and PLA SAM and AAA networks to hit targets on the mainland. Even if you send in the entirety of the RAAF on one mission it would still be mission impossible, and chances are not many, if any of those planes would be coming back.

It is apparent that China regard ASAT warfare as being of very significant importance- who remembers last years reports of a high powered laser being used to ‘dazzle’ a US intelligence satellite?:eek:

That, if anything was a far more important development as it is a far more ‘useable’ ‘weapon’. It will take a great deal of political will to authorise the use of weapons that would damage or destroy sats from other nations and would almost certainly result in retalitory strikes against your own sats, it would kinda be like MAD in space, with the added problem of all that space debris zipping around to smash into replacement sats you put up.

Although it is still a very powerful weapon, both political and real, that would weigh heavily on the cost/benefit and success rate projections of the pentagon for getting involved in any fight over Taiwan.

Luoyang really is on fire lately. I think the sexiest stuff the PLAAF uses mostly comes from there. That new HUD is damn nice! Not quite as good as the one shown in the lab, but still a major improvement over what they been using up to now.

The difference looks a little too dramatic to be caused merely by ‘fisheye’, and besides, that HUD looks a little too like this one, which was posted quite some time ago. 😉

Edit: Ok, seems there is some kind of new anal restriction on how many pictures each member can post on this forum?!!! Not wanting to remove effectively all of the pictures I have posted before, I am a little stuck about how to post this pic I have on my hard drive without having to trawl through god knows how many pages to find where it was posted first to link it.

Any suggestions? Or can you remember the pic I am refering to?

Yet again, 8 targets attacked for planar array… doesnt matter which fancy generation it is – downright lie.

When did anyone here other then you say anything about 8 engagements? Crobato already told you that it just KANWA crap. :rolleyes:

And if you want to suggest what chinese somehow building AESA… well, thats another wishfull disinformation.

Might be time for a reality check then. 052Cs, KJ200 and KJ2000 AWACS, more ground based ESA radars then I can list ottomh, and the list goes on. Suddenly fighter born AESA doesn’t sound so unlikely. If its not in operation already, its only a matter of time (a few years max) before it is.

P.S. But, without a doubt, J-10 is a big step in Chinese aircraft buildings. Its on-par with most widespread aircraft types in other 1st rate airforces which posses F-16, F-18, F-15, Mig-29, Su-27, etc. The only problem what these airforces have these types for almost 20 years in stock, and Chinese only started to produce something comparable. Another note what J-10 cant be named as fully indigenius as it use the engine of russian origin, and weapons partially are also of russian origin.

So 1980s F16s had ARHAAMs, HOTAS, HMS with high off-broadside IRAAMs, multiple touchscreen colour MFDs, all aspect RWR, IFR etc? :rolleyes:

People only willingly exaggerate things when they have an agenda.

SOC did a Jew or otherwise Israeli citizen pee in your Wheaties one morning. I’ve never seen someone (except Flex perhaps) with such strong anti-Israeli views…..

P.S. I agree with Scooter that if Israel did attack, they would not likely use nuclear weapons. In reality, their Air Force is so potent at conventional warfare, that they likely wouldn’t need to. They can deal with most threats in the region without resorting to nuclear arms.

How is anything he said even remotely anti-simetic? :rolleyes: It is so incredibly pathetic that as soon as someone does not express anything short of absolute approval of anything Israeli they are labled a jew-hater. People should grow up. :rolleyes:

And if anyone asks where tphuang got the 10:1 figure from, its from the PLA daily. In 4 seperate 2 J-10 vs 4 Su-27 encounters, J-10 managed to look first shoot first in all encounters, and managed a combined total of 1:13.

Do you have a link to that article? Would be interested in reading it.

Cheers.

I always find it amusing that folk would cheerfully talk about jamming or taking out Soviet GCI while on the other hand list western AWACS as an advanatge for NATO. AWACS controllers do exactly what Soviet GCI controllers do, and if ground based communications can be taken out or jammed, what makes airborn immune?

Also, remember that the Soviets are not just going to sit back and take it up the backside while NATO whittleds it away or throw its forces into meatgrinders peicemeal. Soviet military equipment (up to that point) was designed with WWII style Soviet tactics in mind. In WWII, T34s, while outclassed by the German Tigers in terms of firepower and protection did consistently and conclusively destroy all German Panzers that tried to oppose them. The reason is numbers.

One on one, NATO kit had a clear advanatge after the early 1980s, but how many can the Soviets make for every one NATO could field? Western pilots might be better trained, but after a few months of hard and intensive fighting, with the initial core of already trained pilots depleated, NATO may well find the quality of its pilots dropping sharply, again, as demonstrated in WWII by the Germans. Factor in the extra training needed to master more complex weapons and tactics and you can see the numbers favouring the Soviets more over time. On the other hand, if NATO started to rush pilots into combat with shortened training periods, they may not be able to take full advanatage of all the extra features and capabilities those complex and expensive (in terms of materials and time) planes are offering.

In war, everyone ‘plays’ to maximise their own advantages while trying to minimise those of its opponents. Its not like sport where the more skillful team wins most of the time.