There is a version of the AV-8 with radar & AMRAAM. Operated by the USMC, & Italian & Spanish navies. But Taiwan has never shown any interest in it.

I have only taken a passing interest in the AV8 programme (and even then mostly because they look so damn cool 😎 ), but IIRC, it was only the AV8B+ planes that were AMRAAM capable. The standard AV8B didn’t have a radar and was just a ground attack ac. Can’t remember when the radar capable versons became available, but I seem to recall it being after the Taiwan F16 deal. That was the time period that my post was aimed at, when they were choosing their next ‘core’ fighter and when brand new AV8s were still on offer.

I do remember the recent USMC harrier deal, and I remember being purplexed at the time as to why Taiwan was only showing an interest then, when the only planes available were old and most likely overused already.

Oh, I don’t know about that…………while it mite not be likley at this very moment. Conflict often happens when one Country misjudges another. If, for example Tawian declare independence……………..War would be a given! 🙁

More reason NOT to suppy Taiwan with top-end weapons. China does not want war over Taiwan, and more importantly, it does not see war as necessary in order for it to regain control of the island. As long as China’s economy continues to grow and its world status keep improving, then it is entirely probably that one day in the not too distant future, the people of Taiwan will want to reunit with China of its own accord.

The only likely scenario that might bring war to the Taiwan straits is if Taiwan’s leaders decide to push for independence. Now, the only way Taiwan’s leaders might push for independence is if either they believe unequivicably that the US would send its sons and daughters to die for the sake of a name change, or that they beleive that Taiwan’s military is strong enough to withstand a PLA assault.

Now, do you think it more or less likely for war to break out with the PLAAF being stronger or the ROCAF?

As for F15s, well IIRC, those things need miles of runway to take off and land. Considering the fact that the first targets to be hit in a war between the straits would be the ROCAF airfields, all of them, F15s are not that great an idea. You could only reasonably expect to use them for one sortie at best, and then its bath time or a one way trip to Japan or Guam for any that survives the fight with the PLAAF and maybe also the new air defence ships of the PLAN.

With F16s, at least you have a far better chance of a long enough piece of runway or highway surviving for them to land on, but really, thats pinning a hell of a lot on good luck. A STOVAL bird would be the idea choice for the ROCAF, and if it not for politcal reasons, I could have seen retired RN sea harriers heading towards Taiwan. Still, I have always wondered why Taiwan never tried to get the Americans to build a verson of the AV8 with radar and is AMRRAM capable. Guess they never thought it possible for the PLAAF to have the capacity it does today when they opted for F16s (not unreasonable considering the fact that the PLA did not treat its air force seriously until after the first gulf war). And when it did become clear that the PLAAF would be able to devastate any and all airfields on Taiwan almost at will, the boat had sail on the AV8s since America had shut the line.

Anyhow, I think even the new F16s are just a stop-gap measure intended to boost the fleet to bide their time till the F35B is available, thus introducing a new platform now was never even on the cards. I think Taiwan will be a great deal more keen on taking up American arms packages when it includes stuff they actually want and need. And the goose lays another golden egg for corporate America. :rolleyes:

Lol, man. Look on the globe. Find Russia. Now tell me HOW US CAN PLACE NMD SO IT AFFECTS RUSSIAN ICBM’s??? It’s just not possible.

What? Did you just forget what we were discussing for the last few days? :rolleyes:

NMD is designed to shoot down incoming ICBMs, and that will affect Russian MAD capacity visa vi the US. Honestly, who else do you think Russians might be targeting with its ICBMs? The moon?

Moreover, the most obvious place to launch missiles for russian SSBN’s (and where they actually are 90% of the time) is North Polar Sea, near North Pole.

That was in the old days of the cold war when the Russian subs were in serious danger of being wiped out if they venture far from home since they make so much noice anyone with an underwater microphone can find one. And also when the top priority was to launch missiles as close to the US as practical. The new gen Russian subs are going to have a real chance of surviving in the open oceans on their own. That opens the door to all kinds of new tactics.

Now, launching the missiles from the half russian territory give the same trajectory for missiles as from these SSBN’s.

Not if the SSBN is sitting off the coast of florida or washinton.

And btw, contrary to your believe a missile from SSBN fly EXACTLY as much time as missile from homeland. And, however illogical it sounds, ICBM fly 2000 km just as much time as 20000 km.

Care to explain that one professor. Please enlighten us as to how a missile traveling 1000km will reach a target the same time as a missile traveling 10000km that was launched at the same time.

More to that matter, unless russians desperately planning first-strike it doesnt matter how long it takes for ICBM to reach target in US.

You seriously think that NMD will have the same chance of intercepting an ICBM fired from 200km off the US coast as one that if flying from siberia over the North Pole?

Well, the quality of US missiles is indeed better than 30 years ago. But the very same argument can be said about russian missiles. Moreover, it still doesnt matter a slightest if US missile have CEP of 300m or 100m. Both are more than enouth.

A CEP of 100m or less makes it far more likely to take out hardened silos or deep underground facilities, and we are not even talking about the improvement in MRV tech which allows the same number of missiles to deliver many times more warheads.

Sure, they have some old SRBM’s in stocks, but it cost nothing to let them rust where they are… why pay money to scrap them?)

Because allowing ballistic missiles to merely rust away is an incredible stupid thing to do since they have a nasty habbit of leaking highly toxic material and exploding when treated as such.

Ballistic missiles, like all weapons systems have a use by date. Weapons that have been kept for longer then that period are dangerous to store without overhauls (which cost money), and will start to loose their value pretty quickly as their systems start to fail, rendering them useless. What is the point in keeping weapons that can’t be used and is in fact a threat to your own men and facilities?

but i fail to see reasons why russian should scrap new Iskander. Contrary, they are planning to aquire more.

And who said they are to scrap them? i was refering only to old weapons left from the hieght of the cold war era.

Huh, you just dont understand logic behind all nuclear things in the current world. Its not about the cost now. Its about START threaty – thats why russians put more missiles on SSBN allthought it would be cheaper to field 5x as much mobile missiles. Now whats the logic behind pulling off IRBM’s treaty? Its NOT the cost saving as you suggest. The cost of developing and fielding totally new IRBM is far greater than cost of addiditional 200-300 Topol-M missiles. Now, why IRBM/SRBM then? Its pretty simply: US-Russia balance. More Topol-M would mean more Minutemans on the USA site. More IRBMs wouldnt force US to do such move. There is also secondary reason to pull off IRBM treaty: mid-range non-nuclear cruise/balistic/semi-balistic missiles. Something like bigger Iskander or Tomahawk. This also includes future types of AShMs.

I assume you do realise that the world has moved on from the one-up-menship of the cold war. The Russians are no long building things just for the sake of outdoing the US in any way possible. They need to be PRACTICAL in deciding what they buy. What is the point in building more IRBMs without cutting back on their SRBMs? Those missiles have no practical use and is a pointless drain of resources. With its past design expertise in BMs of all sizes, the Russians should find the task of designing a new IRBM fairly quick and cheap task. While percuring those missiles might cost more in the short-run, in the medium and long run, they will save a hell of a lot of money by replacing thousands of SRBMs with a couple hundred of advanced IRBMs, and also gain a material capacity improved. It makes zero sense for the Russians to just add more IRBMs without making any cutbacks on their short and medium ranged missile inventory.

Although the restrictions of longer ranged cruise missiles might also be a powerful factor in their decision making process.

As for the SSBN question, well isn’t the answer obvious? NMD.

SSBNs can launch their missiles far from their homeland, and they can launch them from any direction at the US. This will force the US to have to deploy NMD everywhere instead of being able to concerntrate their assets in Alaska (as would be the case against only land-based missiles), thus making intercept of missiles far more unlikely while drastically increasing the costs needed to deploy a comprehensive NMD to protect CONUS. The ability of SSBNs to launch their missiles from the middle of the oceans also greatly cuts down on missile flight time, making it harder still to intercept them.

P.S. Just to add, SSBNs can also by-pass the sea based TMD the US is developing as well as land based TMD that the US is likely to ‘persuade’ regional allies like Japan and SK to buy. Thus, it is plain to see that SLBMs are far more likely to defeat US missile defences then land based missiles, especially if the two types of missiles have similar performance.

Thats what they are spending all that extra money to buy.

Go back and read the posts (like you should have the first time) it’s been in bold at least twice.

The lines you highlighted doesn’t say anything like what you are claiming. Surely you can still read. :rolleyes:

All that fast responce require litterally trembling fingers on launch buttons. I woulnt like to live in such world. Any minor accident can lead to full-scale nuclear war just cuz its for 1 minute APPEARS as someone leading nuclear attack. You just dont have any time to check if its true as you dont have second-strike capability.

No offence intended, but thats just rubbish.

No-one can launch a full nuclear strike at a minutes notice, nor would anyone be stupid enough to do so even if they could.

If a single missile launch is detected, governments would almost certainly hold off on the counter strike, or at the most fire one or two missiles back in response. It would take many munites for a ballistic missile launch to be detected and brought to the attention of the leader of a country. During this time, the nation’s strategic nuclear forces would most likely be put on maximum alert automatically, meaning that the silos would start preparing for missile launch and designated mobile launchers would start setting up to ready for launch. All this time the missile would be tracked and its target ploted.

When a national leader has been notified of a launch, his first act should be to get in touch with the country that fired the missile and demand to know what the hell is going on. Only after all those steps would a reprisal launch be ordered.

That whole process can take anywhere between 10 minutes to an hour plus. With missile flight times varying anywhere from a matter of minutes to hours.

During any time that process can be short-circuited if it is blatently obvious that it was no accident (like hundreds of launches intead of one), or if there is no other possible target (Russias seeing Chinese missiles heading north, or vice versa). Similarly, a simple phone call may clear any confusion and avert second launch. Even if a reprisal launch were to take place, it is widely beleived that the missiles could be ordered to self destruct.

The point is that no one can say for certain how long it will take for reprisal launches to take place. However, in the vast majority of cases, wiping out an opponent’s entire strategic missile force in the first strike before any missiles can be launched in response is extremely unlikely. Especially against large countries like China, Russia and the US etc, who would widely disperse their nuclear facilities so that not all of them can be hit at the same time.

Remember that Russia is significantly closer to China then the US, and so they have far more to worry about then China’s handful of liquid fuels silo based ICBMs.

The exact number of Chinese SRBMs and IRBMs are classified, but its safe to assume at least 100, probably more. Many will be on moblie launchers that are, for all intense and purposes, impossible for another country to locate and track all of them (GWI and Saddam’s scuds in the desert anyone?). There is also the Xia (though it is not certain if she still carries her missiles), new 094 SSBNs and hundreds if not thousands of nuclear capable LACMs the PLA almost certainly has fielded. So China is pretty much garenteed a very power second strike against someone like Russia.

Now, Russia of course need only 2000 nukes to balance 2000 nukes from China. BUT Russia need also some nukes to balance another 2000 nukes from USA. So… either Russia need more than 2000 ICBM’s or Russia need to field some IRBM’s to balance chinese nukes.

And Russia needs another 1,000 to balance the nukes of France, Britian, India, Pakitan and Israel. And the US needs another 1,000 as well cos the Russians now have 3,000 missiles instead of 2,000…

Thats circular reasoning and rather a naft one at that. You don’t need anywhere close two 2,000 ICBMs to achieve MAD with anyone as thats enough firepower to cover the earth several times over. Also, if someone has just lobbed 2,000 nukes at you and you lobbed 2,000 back,you won’t need to have any left in case anyone else attacks as there will only be radioactive glass left anyways.

Simply as that. Given the 20 century history Russia wouldnt accept less than assured MAD for EVERY country on the globe. Call it paranoic if you wish but i see USA following same pattern.

What Russia wants is not necessarily what Russia is going to get. Same goes with anyone else. The Russian economy might be recovering, but its nowhere near strong enough to support another nuclear arms race on the scale of the cold war. Also, the Russians are not stupid and do learn. The collaps of the USSR was an extremely painful lesson, and I don’t see many Russians keen on re-inacting it.

Most of these “mobile” DF31’s will be busted by first strike.

Based on what exactly? The only recent example where there was an attempt to hunt for mobile BM launchers was during GWI, where the coalition failed miserably to find them in the DESSERT dispite air dominance, most of the spysats in the world and SF teams on the ground. And they tried for WEEKS without much joy.

Nukes have a rather larger blast radius then LGBs, but you still need to know the approx location of your intended target, and the coalition didn’t even achieve that for even a majority of the scud launchers, never mind all of them.

Few others what are managed to launch most likely will be taked out by russian ABM.

Based on what? And it won’t be the odd one or two missiles either, but dozens if not hundreds. Anyhow, unlike the US NMD based in Alaska, any nukes the Russians shoot down are going to fall on Russia.

And even if some lone missile explode in the middle of the Moscow, the losses will be still neglible as most peoples will be surery evacuated – after all its russian who first-strike.

And no-one is going to notice all those millions of people leaving the city. :rolleyes:

All this sounds like it came out of some ameture action flick that’ll never get published. You can seriously beleive it. 😮

You know, where are no dispute between Russia and USA what will warrant even 1 nuke – still both counties have at least 20000 in they arsenal.

Err, ‘Cold War’ ring any bells? :confused:

Nope, MAD is the only sure way. You never know what maniac come to power in foreign country. Hell, look at Bush with his Iraq WMD…

Haha, I like people who can poke fun at their own expense. Its a good point, but MAD is NOT the only sure way to be safe. Often the mere threat of force is more effective then actually doing the act. Look at Bush and NK.

I think you’ll agree with me that there are few things Bush would enjoy more then to smear Kim’s behind all over his palace walls with a nice big fat LGB. But why is NK not even being ranted at all that much despite them going out of their way to try and stick a thorn in uncle Sam’s paw at every opportunity? Because the US is not willing to even risk eating a nuke.

MAD is all well and good, but currently, there are very few nations and peoples who hate each other enough, or has such a major clash of interests that is worth even eating one nuke to resolve. MAD is a tool of total war, and only useful in such, it is overkill and a frightful drain on a nation’s defense budget to maintain, let alone assemble in the current, and all likely future, world climate.

The costs from achieving MAD capacity outweights the gains (which don’t currently exist) overwhelmingly. Having a credible nuclear second strike capcaity is more then enough. China has this against everyone bar the US. The DF31 and 094 SSBNs are a step to try and address this gaping whole in its defences.

Russia have MAD against USA now – thats the whole reason to maintain such large nuclear forces. All this talks about downsizing come from START threaties – yes, Russia downsize its strategic arsenal becouse USA do it also.

Russia hasn’t had enough money to properly maintain all those missiles since the fall of the USSR, and its widely speculated that a large number of missiles are non-operational. Even as it is, its strategic forces are unbalanced and far too costly to maintain. Russia was going to downsize anyways, and getting the Americans to go along would have been a good bonus. The same is almost certainly true for the Americans. The agreement was as much an act of mutaul domestic political capital building as a real trust break through.

Russia won’t want to start scrapping its ICBMs capable of hitting the US in a hurry because of the threat from NMD. But it has a vast SRBM inventory originally aimed at Europe and China that is now utterly useless and is in need of scrapping if for no other reason then age. To replace them, a new IRBM would be a pretty useful toy to have to deal with TMD that the US might be pushing to allies at a fraction of the current maintainence costs. Thats money that can then be used on the other branches of the military that desperately needs the funds.

Thats the whole reason of the START threaties. Look at released plans of russian MOD’s: Russia have 2200-2500 warheads NOW and will have same number in 10 years. Usa have around 2500 NOW and will have about same number in 10 years. Russia plan to build at least 6 new SSBN untill 2015. What downsizing you speak? What LESS maintainance cost you speak? Each SSBN missile cost 10 times as much as mobile Topol-M missile. Speak about cost reducing….

OTTOMH, both Russia and the US have a great many more missiles then that. Don’t remember the exact number because it irrelevent.

And all those Topols and SSBNs are aimed at who exactly? :rolleyes:

As I have pointed out before, the Russian nuclear missile force is ill-balanced. The bulk of their missiles are SRBMs that now have little or no purpose. If they really want all those Topols and SSBNs, then they will HAVE to downsize their SRBM force considerably in order to squeeze enough funds for them (none of the other branches of the military have enough ‘fat’ to squeeze and they can’t afford to raise the defence budget enough to get all those toys with just new money). The Russians have been in need of a major force re-structuring for quite a while now, its about time they got down to it.

How ’bout taking off the rose-colored glasses? Or is it simply a weak attempt at diversion on your part?

“”It’s not a matter of how big Taiwan is, but for China, one inch of the territory is more valuable than the life of our people. We will never concede on that.” “

And? Or are you going to start calling American loonies cos they are willing to fight and die to defend their homeland?

I don’t recall Washington ever threatening to nuke China if China tries to steal Taiwan. China however HAS said it would nuke the US if it tried to prevent China from stealing Taiwan.

You can’t steal something that belongs to you in the first place. And when has China threatened to nuke the US? :rolleyes:

Where did I say China would have to nuke Russia? China is willing to toss it’s citizens on the fire to further the government’s goals. Is Russia?

How ’bout we drop the pointless posturing BS? :rolleyes: As if US governments has never ignored the best interests of its people to further its own goals before.

Say China just uses conventional forces to invade BFE Russia and uses numbers that Russia cannot handle without using nukes.

There is zero reason for China to do that. You can’t analyse real world events based on your own day dreams. Nor can you arm up for every remote possibility. Thats about as logical as suggesting we should all invest in tin hats in case aliens invade. Most people use common sense to focus their attention on the likely eventualities and discard the ridiculous flights of fancy.

Then China says “you nuke our troops you loose Moscow”. Is Russia willing to trade Moscow for Siberia? No? Then Russia is forced to fight the Chinese conventionally and maybe they lose.

Are you using your brain there? In such a situtation, the Russians would say, ‘back off or we carpet nuke you.’ What, you think the Russians are the only ones who can weight up the pros and cons of such things? :rolleyes:

Anyhow, are you suggesting that its ok to resort to using nukes if you think you might loose in a conventional fight? :rolleyes: