I don’t remember seeing so much scorn about the cobra in a recent threat that claimed a raptor did it. :rolleyes:

The cobra and other airshow ‘stunts’ are just that, special tricks to woo the crowds. However, they are nothing to sneer at either because such manuvers gives a pretty good indication as to the general agility and strengths of the aircraft in question. Most planes can’t do a cobra no matter much many modifications are made to them, and some can only manage it with full 3d TVC, that says something about the design of the flanker.

Back on topic.

As has already been pointed out, it would need a very unexpected situation to have any realistic possibility of seeing the RAAF go up against the PLAAF in a shooting war, purhaps that was the reason for choosing this match up, but whatever the reason for choosing the sides, I think it would be a bit unrealistic to assume a similar number of planes on both sides in this hyperthetical engagement don’t you think?

The PLAAF is spreading its budget over a much larger fighter fleet, so consequently it can’t afford to spend as much on each plane. That is the sacrific they chose to make so they can have more planes in the air come war time, and it would seem highly unrealistic and biased to take away that advanatge from the PLAAF when considering the outcome of possible match ups.

Also, without a more clearly defined scenario (ie, who is attacking and who is defending) people can simple dream up situations which would so benefit one side or the other as to make the outcome a forgone conclusion irrespective of what planes either side are using.

Star49’s some arguments are very wellly done

When you write so much with so little focus, its not unlikely to stumble upon a few ‘jems’ by sheer luck.

As of Pentagon making some statements, is it so easy for peoples here to believe pentagon like that specially when us-china relation are on dire straits on bed [though they are friends in field].

No idea what you are trying to say mate. Care to rephrase that?

Saying J10 better than Typhoon is funny.Nothing more than like cope-india exercises to ask congress “give me more money! i have to feed my honey!.”

And who exactly said the J10 is better then the Typhoon? :rolleyes:

1> Its definitely not “totally indigenous” even Mig acted as consultant for Fc-1 Let alone J10.

The J10 uses a Russian engine at present, so its definately not 100% indiginously built, but that doesn’t stop it from being an indigiously designed ac. And no, having foreign consultants working on a project does not automatically make it a foreign design, it depends on the extent of the help provided.

Didn’t the UK try something along similar lines right before (and arguably helped to cause) the Falklands war? I have always beleived that a nation cuts its defence potential at its own perral, and all too often pay a heavy price in blood later because of it.

Given the British tendency to ‘go it alone’ with ill-advised American wars, I would think that such a move would be particularly rash for the RN unless the UK finally gets a PM with some backbone and integrity in their GB.

Alas, if the bean counters demand a sacrific, then I would think the best course of action in choosing a replacement for NATO’s warfighting FFGs would be to aquire several different omi-role ship classes instead of trying to have one much smaller and cheaper type trying to fill the shoes of much larger and more capable ship.

So, in essense, what I am proposing is that intead of wrapping ASh, ASu, AA into one ship type, you have one ship type that is specifically designed to do each. So you have one corvette with a massive complement of AShMs at the cost of not having any medium and long range SAMs or much in terms of ASuW capacity, have one type with a TAS and extra large hanger as well as all the other ASuW essentials, have one type with as many medium range SAMs as you can squeeze onto it at the expense of all other cpacities etc. All three types would be able to happily undertake policing and other non-combat duties independently, but in times of war, you would be able to datalink them all with the sensors from your few existing war fighters and have about the same firepower as if your have a large fleet of ‘overspecced’ FFGs.

That, with a healthy SSN force should allow the RN to maintain if not advance its current warfighting capacity while being able to more effectively undertake peacetime ops.

What about the French?

Top notch planes and pilots with almost all of its kit fully home made. Thats a major leg up in a real combat scenario as they can resupply their forces with spears, munitions and new planes almost indefinately whereas all of the others meantioned thus far will be fighting with an ever shrinking stock of spears, weapons and planes.

About war with China. It would not be “all-out-war”, China will not have that capability for the next 20 years. I’m talking about a decapitation strike with ballistic missiles against the nuclear capabilities of a country, e.g. China.
NMD-like systems play no role here, they are so far not designed for MIRVs, and they could easily be saturated, as long as we don’t go back to Reagan’s orbital Star Wars ideas. In a nuclear decapitation strike there is no retaliatory strike (at least not within a couple of years …).
I don’t wish the U.S. to go to war with China, but there are fine differences between tactical and strategic strikes, or strikes in a naval-dominated scenario. When I write about a warning shot, a shot across the bow, it could in certain situations (like a new Formosa crises or certain steps China takes) be a missile aimed at the South China sea to draw a hard line. The most realistic war scenarion US vs China I guess is a deep economic crises of the US and parallel a rapid rise of China. That might lead some circles in the US to seek a quick strike against China at a certain point to keep the supremacy in the Pacific and southeast Asia. And what are weapons good for if you don’t use them? Going under silently like the Soviet Empire? Hardly an option. Anyway.

And that UK want a piece of this because? I think you are taking the ‘poodle’ mentality of some in the UK way past any measure of reality.

It is one thing for the UK to go it alone with the US to invade a seemingly push-over country led by a tin-pot like Iraq (even a repeat of such a commitment would seem extremely unlikely given the fierce hostility of the vast majority of the British population to the idea and the bitter fight being fought there now), it is something on another plain of existence for any British government to be willing or able to commit to a nuclear first strike against another nuclear power (a superpower most likely for what you are suggesting to be remotely likely) for the sole reason of trying to allow the US to cling onto its top dog position.

Such a base motivation for war and utter disregard for all the morals and values the west seem to hold dear is almost enough reason for a democracy like the UK (assuming it is still a democracy then) to go to war AGAINST the US.

PS, regarding MRVs, well remember the nuclear deterent is meant to last for several decades at least. In that time, it is entirely possible that NMD style systems will have matured and proliferated.

Who says that the Trident system is a retaliatory weapon?

I never said it is, I said it should be. Any nation that hold nuclear weapons with a view of actually using them in an offensive manner is unfit to have such weapons.

Even in the ‘good old days’ of the cold war, only a few loonies on either side seriously considered using nukes offensively, the defence strategies of both sides were dominated by parania that the other side would attack at the first sign of weakness and so both sides were arming up to be able to deliver a killing blow to the opposition even in the event of a completely successful surprise first strike by the enemy.

Strategic nuclear weapons are offensive weapons if ever there were some. Offensive is their only capability.

And how many weapons systems are really only defensive in nature? A weapon is designed to kill, its how they are used that determine if they are offensive or defensive.

Its charm lies in the fact that an enemy can’t be sure if and when they are launched.

That is only the case with a very small strike. A massive, comprehensive nuclear attack will become blindingly obvious within moments of its commencement (to the major nuclear powers at least, and thats all that really matters).

“Retaliatory” is primarily a political statement, from the military standpoint the question of a retaliatory strike is only to increase the chance of survival of large enough parts of your capabilities in case of a suprise (strategic) nuclear attack (by means of numbers, dislocation, stealth, response time, early warning, …) to hit back against the enemy’s centers of population.

I do not understand what you are saying. Retalitory strikes have zero baring on the chances of anything you have surviving because a retalitory strike, by its very definition is a second strike, thus your opponent has already fired all the missiles they are going/able to. The only scenario where what you are suggestion would make any sense is in the case of a pre-emptive attack against an imminent first strike by your opponent.

But no one plans for a retaliatory capability, it only determines your minimum force level. (Your maximum force level is determined by a 99.999% chance to take out the enemy weapons in a single strike. Aiming at population centers only becomes neccessary when you can’t be sure of that percentage, to increase the price).

Everyone except the US and Russia only plans for a retalitory capacity. Everyone bar China (there are India, Pakistan and NK of course, but they don’t count here) has stopped making weapons. Some say China has stopped as well, but even if they haven’t, it is only because they don’t have enough weapons to have a reliable and survivable second strike capacity against the US. There is nothing that suggestion any current or future nuclear power has any plans to aquire the kind of capacity you are talking about.

I really can’t see a realistic option other than Trident boats for the UK strategic nuclear forces. Cruise missiles are too slow. The ballistic missile is the only current weapon fast enough to launch a preemptive attack in case of an imminent enemy strike with ICBMs.

A good, solid reason for Trident at last! I was begining to dispair that anyone was going to come up with one.

However, the problem with that argument is that such a scenario is extremely remote. To be able to find out about a nuclear attack in the nick of time. Very James Bond, but not very reaslistic.

Also, even in the event of such a discovery, it would be extremely unlikely for any government to order a pre-emptive attack. If the enemy is readying their birds to fly, then its extremely unlikely your birds will be able to hit all their silos and mobile launchers (assuming you can find them all) before the attack is notice and they launch everything they have right back at you. In such an event, the most likely thing that would happen is for your and their birds to pass each other as they annialate everything.

No, what would happen in the light of such a discovery is for your leader to give the order to move all your strategic forces to maximum alert and scream at the other leader over a hotline or any means of communication. Knowledge that they have lost the element of suprise would take away any motivation to attack as the only result would be MAD.

Enemy SSBNs have to covered by some of your SSN all the time to prevent a launch.

And the chances of being able to cover all of them at all times for the next several decades is?

One more remark: That was all calculated over and over again during the Cold War. Nothing changed in nuclear war gaming. Just the numbers are a little lower currently.

And the cold war never turned hot because every calculation anyone competant ever did said that the odds against being able to successfully take out the opposing side’s nukes before enough of them are lobbed at you to make such an attack prohibitive are astronomically small. As you said, nothing changed.

Oh come on! You know it’s about power in the international kindergarten sandbox. Against blackmailing and for blackmailing. Saying ‘I can throw you a bomb on your head, so you better behave!’. Do you think the UK’s international status would remain the same w/o the bomb? As a side effect a couple of hundred rocket and nuclear specialists living on tax-payers money are educated and remain in country. If you think in terms of the nation-state a sovereign state can’t do without the bomb plus gloabl delivery system. The bomb is the strongest political symbol in todays game.

That is the reason for having the bomb, I was asking for the kind of foe people here think you would need Trident to counter. All of the above would still be valid if the UK gave up SLBMs but still retains nuclear weapons and some other sort of reliable global delivery system (like a similar if not greater number stealthy/hypersonic cruise missiles deployed in a larger SSN force and/or some sort of air launched weapon system).

There is no alternative to the SLBM. An air launched ICBM or IRBM system is a one-missile system, cause you can’t pack more than one missile per C-17 (for weight and survivability reasons).

And can you think of a likely situation where more then one missile would be needed per plane? Even if additional missiles are needed, can you think of a likely situation where the C17s would not have anywhere left to land and refuel/rearm? Seems to me that in a situation where all your dispersal bases had been taken out and all your own standby weapons had been launched, it becomes a somewhat academic question as to who had ‘won’, and all this talk about having to rearm is akin to the soviet idea of reloading SSBNs out at sea.

And before anyone starts, I am not arguing for any delivery system in particular, I actually prefer the SSBN approach. I am just pointing out the flaw in the logic of some of the arguements thus far.

All academic discussions!!!
The only way to see the goodness or originality of chinese hardware would be…let’s see… 6 complete battle groups or cold war days ( not those s..t of Strike groups of now days) off chinese coasts launching 400 planes and cruises missiles…..
If they stop the Navy they are better!!
Simple:dev2:

What kind of pointless benchmark is that? :rolleyes: How does being able to face down six CVG battlegroups show the origninality of weapons design exactly?