An added complication is the Type-21s have some very advanced EW equipment and weapons that have be retrofitted on them that the PN cannot put on the OHPs and F-22s

How come? Especially considering the F22P can be built in Pakistan.

Presumably a 2nd batch of F22 would be an evolved design with VLS among other features.

“JSR waffles about stuff he doesn’t understand”

Blah Blah Blah, can’t be bothered.

Interesting points. May I ask:

1. why do you say the newly built H-6 variant is a success? Is it because it is in fact a new build with modern electronic? This basically serves as non stealthy flying platform for launching air to sea missiles. Probably a test bed for many new systems for next build indigenous bomber.

To clarify, more that it is success making use of an elderly type as a cruise missile carrier among other things.

2. Why would they need flying wing? Simplicity and proven effective stealth design? I would think they need something in 1.5-1.9Mach range for quicker reach and fast retreat.

Yes a flying or blended wing as it is a good basic design for a stealth platform.

As for needing a large supersonic bomber I refer you back to my earlier point, is the investment worth it when they a range of very effective SRBM and IRBM?

3. If they are going to go for subsonic strike bomber, why do they need new advanced engine to be developed. Why not use something already built. Why design new engine unless you need to push the performance capabilities such as speed for super cruise.

Because what they already have in mass production is very much behind the curve when it comes to performance and reliability. Their most advanced fighter engine in service the WS-10 is at best similar in performance and reliability to an early 80’s US fighter engine. When it comes to large engines pretty much everything is still on the drawing board or early prototype stages. Hence nearly every major aircraft program so far in China is still making use of foreign engines.

China could certainly put a large supersonic strike bomber on the drawing board but engines would still be the Achilles heel.

On the other hand those F16 would be rather handy at the moment and not for the reason that everybody has been getting so hung up over on this forum. The precision strike capability those F-16 offer is far more useful currently then what air to air missiles they carry!

I think we also need to factor in a couple of other areas that has probably affected Chinas thinking around replacement heavy bomber programs. Firstly the recent success with upgraded H-6 variants. As a subsonic platform with new engines and avionics the H-6 is proving to be a useful type.

Secondly the success in their SRBM and IRBM programs, why invest in a large supersonic penetration strike bomber when they have so many increasingly advanced SRBM and IRBM missiles.

I wold think any future Chinese developments in large strike bombers will be along the lines of blended wing or flying wing stealth platforms not dissimilar to the B2.

Of course it is the age old problem for China their airframe and avionics developments are ahead of engines currently which does rather restrict them when it comes to developing new aircraft.

Considering the SNP defence policy document was clearly written on the back of a thousand fag packets I would think getting the base closed down prior to a Yes vote would be rather handy to Salmond and his cronies!

They get to howl and complain about a distant Westminster hurting Scotland (that despite the fact that in a parliamentary democracy the capital has to be somewhere and Scottish MP’s are not barred from sitting or legislating in it) but not have to fund keeping the base open along with all the other fantasies in that document!

Yes, “facts,” while ignoring the fact that in order to use a short range weapon you have to survive until you reach short range. I would be willing to bet that in the US Civil War the percentage of kills per stab of bayonets greatly exceeded the percentage of kills per shot of a rifle. Using his logic it would be advisable to discard the rifle itself and focus on making spears… (don’t go thinking I am making a ridiculous analogy, there was a school of thought in the day that advocated exactly that, watch the video here if you are curious: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/archive/200301A32.html )

He also seems to struggle with the fact of the F-15’s incredible success as a fighter despite being exactly the type of aircraft he has spent his whole life campaigning against…

Times and technology change. Sprey is the equivalent of those advocating the production of spears in the day of rifles. He is correct about the attributes that created an effective dogfighter in the 50s and 60s, but just doesn’t seem to grasp that we have long since moved on from that era. Recent conflicts have demonstrated beyond any doubt that modern missiles are more than sufficiently lethal and now make up the vast majority of air to air kills.

Of the combatant casualties during the American Civil war only 1% was accounted to Bayonets. This was unlike the Napoleonic where the figure was approximately 30%. Of 250,000 wounded Union soldiers in hospitals only 922 had bayonet injuries, improvements in technology in particular the cap and ball rifle musket rendered the bayonet virtually useless beyond the shock value.

This argument is OT and tiresome. You’re comparing a 50% heavier twin-engine plane redesigned in the past five years against an airframe using a single engine that has been virtually frozen in design for a decade.

If the ISIS/ISIL threat divides Iraq into three states then it will predictably lead to Kurdish North, Sunni West-Central, and Shia South. The Kurds will not get anything more than the F-16IQ or it would threaten Turkey. Good luck delivering them in, because the Turks wouldn’t entertain fly overs. The Sunni dominated section may just opt for J-10’s, but it won’t have the oil production to pay for them and to maintain a state. It would have to take equipment from someone like China on sweetened terms, which would make the NATO friendly countries unhappy. I just don’t see Russia comfortable with ISIS/ISIL becoming strong. Deliveries would presumably have to arrive through Syria. J-10’s for the Sunnis would be interesting. (I could not believe they would go JF-17 in this scenario.) The Shia also would be restricted to something like F-16IQ.

Going on current trends it is way too early to draw any conclusions about what any future split states operate. I think the F-16IQ deal will very soon be in limbo with the current airframes that are in build or finished being sent to the Bone yard for storage much the same as the Pakistani examples in the 90’s.

What I find staggering is just how much the regular army has folded. My earlier confidence that they would get themselves sorted is rather less now then a few days ago. Apparently Iran has dispatched a general to help coordinate the Iraqi army which in itself is a rather shocking indictment of the state of the Iraqi general staff.