Sorry but I hate to say it
But who in their right mind believe the rubbish about the Varyag, being acquired by a Macao tourism firm in 1998 for all these years?
Well hats of to the PRC for their sticking to the use of Sun Tzu’s teachings of the Art of War –
‘All war is based on deception’

The world has been had by an expert (China)!
And when it doesn’t, China will use the old excuse of ‘Saving Face’!

Well maybe now the U.S will wake up to the fact that the sleeping dragon has not been so deep in sleep after all!
One would hope that they (the U.S) will wake up to their useless war in Iraq and their national and political obsession with the ‘War on Terrorism’, and start to see that the post Cold War holiday ended a couple of years ago!!!
(the writing being on the wall when they brought down and held that EP-3 and its crew in the PRC)

Regards
Pioneer

Replacing two platforms with one has to be a better solution than replacing two platforms with none, as happened historically. The only silly number of carriers to have in your fleet is zero, because then you have a coast guard, not a navy.

As an Infantryman, I do not claim to know much about you sea lovers and your ways

But my interest in all things military – including the sad day that the ADF (RAN) lost its carrier capability goes down as one of the stupidest things that our politicians have done to save a dollar!

I do agree with Obi Wan Russell and what you say

Plus I would like to add –
And you would lose the expertise and skills of both carrier flight and deck crews!
Which I was once told by an ex-HMAS Melbourne officer over a beer on an ANZAC day about six-years ago-
‘It would take about 10-years to retrain and develop the skills and expertise of proficient carrier ops, if we were to purchase another aircraft carrier’!

Regards
Pioneer

Description: An AV-8B Harrier II takes off from the flight deck of Spanish aircraft carrier SPS (Strategic Protection Ship) Principe de Asturias (R 11) during an air defense exercise as part of NATO Exercise Brilliant Midas 2006
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=39850

hi-res: http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/061007-N-3888C-001.jpg

Great pic

I never realized the AV-8B Harrier II was so smoky!!

Regards
Pioneer

The YC-14 unfortunatly a lost opertunity and capability for the U.S military as a whole!!

Regards
Pioneer

I would have liked to have seen the US Army purchase an off-the-shelf scout/recon helicopter the likes of A-129 Mangusta International, as a replacement for the venerable Kiowa series.

-Combat survivability (armour, IR suppression, crash survivability)
-Proven design concept
-Self-defence capability (cannon, rockets and missiles)
-Cheap (for a combat helicopter)

After all, the American’s advertises the importance and contributing capability of their scout/recon helicopters in targeting/supporting their Apache/Cobra’s (and once their Copperhead PGM artillery rounds)!
The Soviets, and know the Russians/Chinese know that the scout/recon helicopter in US Army inventory will be of the highest priority in killing.
Hence I think it some what unfair for the skilled pilots of the U.S Army to be put in harms way with the likes of the Kiowa / ARH-70.
Saying this, I also think the US Army has to get through its head that their scout/recon helicopters are not to be equipped/armed and used as poor-man Apache/Cobra’s, as they have at times tried to do with the Kiowa’s.
There is no argument here from me that you must be able and willing to fight for information on the battlefield!
But it has to be remembered that the enemy is going to want to stop you from doing this.
For all the talk and hype about modern man-portable, shoulder-launched SAM on the modern battlefield, an individual soldier with an AK-47 or M16 assault rifle is able to bring down an unarmoured, cheap modified civilian designed helicopter that was chosen and purchased on cost grounds first and foremost!!

Hence survivability is crucial, and the crews given a fair chance to survive.

It would be most interesting to see the statistics of how many modified civilian-type helicopters have been shot-down in wars/conflicts since WWII by
-small arms fire
– AAA
-SAM’s

And just how many of these could have returned home if they had of been purpose designed and built combat scout/recon helicopters

P.S. I would like to add, that my preference for an off-the-self helicopter the likes of the A-129 is partly due to the fact, that like that of the Comanche program (and most American programs!!) they continually get more advanced and sophisticated, and much much more is asked of the weapons platform as the program continues development.
Hence the predictable high cost blow outs, smaller numbers procured than originally needed and in to many cases after years (decades) of work and R&D, the program is cancelled at the 11-hour (or is it the 11-year?)

Regards
Pioneer

Well it’s been a few years since this incident has happened.

For my 20-cents worth, I would like to state –
1/ The US Navy EP-3 was in international aerospace, when intercepted!
As it is allowed to be under international law!

2/ what this argument and root about spying?
The EP-3, as everyone is well aware is an ELINT bird, which has been carrying out its
mission of electronic reconnaissance / surveillance.
This role and mission is not new. These type of flights / missions have been going on
since 1945 (and in some cases earlier!!), by the likes of British, Soviets / Russians,
Israel, Sweden, French, America and the People Republic of China, and many other
Countries.
It is thanks to the nature of radio frequencies / signals and the power and band-widths
that allows for them to be monitored, analyzed and collected from almost the other side
of the world, so hence ELINT aircraft!

3/ has the likes of NATO / Britain, America, Sweden attempted to down the likes of
Soviet /Warsaw Pact or PRC aircraft that are obviously ELINT aircraft carrying out
ELINT roles / missions, whilst flying in international aerospace?
No – Instead they shadow, monitor, take happy snaps of the ELINT aircraft, and even
in cases give them the finger (‘the bird’).

4/ I can only see the PAAF’s F-8 collision with the EP-3 as being caused by either way of
two things –
A/ the PAAF F-8 pilot was too cocky / carelessness / unskilled or unprofessional.
Or
B/ The collision was deliberately staged by the PRC, to allow for the political situation
that followed.

Why would one say that I think that in the case of ‘B’ the collision was deliberate?
The nature of the speed in which the PRC political system kicked in was way too quick.
The way in which the chain-of-command works within the PLA/PLAAF and the Polite Bureau was way to fast, calm and concise.
The so-called missing PLAAF’s bereaved wife, the media’s information was all too quick for an unsuspecting accident.
On top of this the PRC’s Government demands again were way too orchestrated, calculated and calm.

This Chinese notion of ‘Saving face’ is and has been a political tool that the Chinese have wheeled for decades, when it suits it!!

No the way in which I personally view this whole incident (especially a few years after the incident has happened!), with the fall of the Soviet Union and the demise of its once mighty and feared military.

The PRC had benefited from political and economic reforms, which had overnight transformed both its political and military might.
For far to long the painful thorn in its side – ‘The Taiwanese issue’ had been exasperated by its internal problems, antiquated and ill equipped military that had been checked by the economic and military power of the United States.
The political and economic embargos brought upon the PRC by the United States for its brutal actions in crushing protest in Tiananmen Square in 1989
But the PRC’s opportunities continued to flower and grow, for with the end of the cold war, came the scaling down in both political and military presents of the United States in the Pacific reign.
The reduction in both size and presents (including nuclear weapons) in the Pacific area by the United States, with the end of the Cold War.
The careful and meticulous studying of the U.S war fight capability during Desert Storm, by the PRC made the Chinese not so much fear and be in ore of the U.S’s power, but to learn and adapt from it.
On top of all this, the United States leading role in the long overdue intervention in the former Yugoslavia (to which the PRC’s embassy in Belgrade had been struck and damaged by U.S cruise missile attacks, killing three-Chinese citizens, made the PRC’s Government decide that with a new and wet behind the ears U.S President (George. W. Bush), that the time was right to test the waters as a fledgling ‘superpower’ against that of the one true and remaining superpower, the United States of America.
The PRC had gained the whole worlds attention, with the incident (Phase 1 a complete success!!).
It had both the American plane and its crew (and most importantly some of the crew consisted of female types!) on PRC’s sovereign territory. (20th century history had clearly shown that the worst political damaged that anyone could do to an American political administration was to hold its citizens/servicemen as hostages – Vietnam War, Iranian Revolution, Lebanon etc…..)
Its state-control of the media indorsed and encourages civil protest within the PRC, for the benefit of the camera’s and for all the worlds audience to see. (for at any other time, this type of civil unrest would have been crushed
I am sure the PRC (military and intelligence) took full advantage of the advanced technology aboard the EP-3 (hell the American’s did the same with the defecting Soviet MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’ to Japan!!).
But the primary goal of the PRC was to have the United States to be seen by the entire world to be apologizing to the PRC, its government and its people.
In doing this the world was to witness the so-called only superpower submitting to the new and up and coming superpower the Peoples Republic of China.

Do not get me wrong, the United States was not happy or comfortable about all this or the idea of submitting to the PRC’s want of having the United States submitting.
China used its historic card ‘Saving Face’ when the U.S Government fumbled and tried to meet the PRC half way in the form of a globally viewed apology.
But it did do so
The Chinese were grinning
A lot of the world began to grovel to the newly recognized superpower, for as the wise and famous ancient Chinese General Sun Tzu had both preached and been taught in China for thousands of years after his death – The PRC had stared down the ultimate superpower, at the right calculated time and place of their choosing and had won.

The only regrettable thing that was to dampen and overshadow this Chinese political and military victory, and the United States embarrassment, would be the terrorist attacks of September 2004 on the United States.

In the mean time whilst the United States (and most of the Western World) focuses on the War on Terror and the stupid Iraqi invasion and occupation, the PRC has spread its sphere of influence and control on more countries than it could ever dream of!
It has utilized its spy / intelligence / espionage organizations to gain more and more advanced civil and military technology, to develop / reverse-engineer some of the most sophisticated and powerful weapons systems.
It has and is willing to side with the reemerging Russia for both military technology and weapons systems, and alliance thanks to its powerful economy.
Its political stasis has increased further with its hosting of the 2008 Olympic Games.
It’s fast growing and successful space program adds to its esteem as a superpower.

No sorry the PLAAF F-8 vs. USN EP-3 incident was like all post-WWII Chinese incidents and actions – a well calculated and executed operation, with the purpose of an end goal.:rolleyes:
What will be next?????????????????????????????

Sorry I think thats 40-cents worth:D

Regards
Pioneer

I have always thought of this A-7 vs. A-10 fly off as being somewhat ironic.
This is partly to do with the fact that the USAF ‘hates’-
 Any slow (non supersonic!!) aircraft.
 any aircraft that is designed for mud moving
 any aircraft that has been forced upon it by another rival service or politicians
i.e. the ‘Attack Experimental’ (AX) / A-10 program was primarily designed, built and fielded due to U.S Army demands for a dedicated CAS/Anti-tank aircraft, or it threatened to field its own fixed wing aircraft (tested G.91, A-4 Skyhawk and Kestrel) and advanced rotary-wing attack aircraft (AH-56 Cheyenne)

Ironically though, the A-7, itself was forced upon it by politics.
The A-7’s primary down falls in the eyes of the USAF brass was –
 It was a naval designed aircraft (full stop!!)
 It was not supersonic
 It was simple (not full of advanced, costly and temperamental electronics).

At the end of the day, there has been few aircraft that has been so purposefully studied, designed and built for its given role and survival over the battlefield, as that of the A-10 Thunderbolt II.
The USAF has at every turn and opportunity tried to off-load its A-10’s.
Lucky for the Army and Marines on the ground, that each time the USAF top brass have seemed just about convinced the politician, to either scrap or replace the A-10’s (weather it be by a run of the mill A-7D, or a souped-up supersonic variant of the A-7 (the YA-7F) Along came a few wars (Gulf War1), where the A-10 was to prove its metal in combat for the first time.
It did not just excel in its intended role of close-air support and anti-armour, but it also did excellent work in the role of interdiction, hunting and killing ‘Scud’ SSM’s and giving support to CSAR.
Again it did not take long for the USAF to forget what the A-10 was capable of and what it done and achieved in the Gulf.
This time the USAF tried to kill the A-10 by proposing and strongly pushing a so-called dedicated variant of the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon – the A-16.
But then came the war in Afghanistan and then the invasion of Iraq – and again the A-10 was called upon by ground forces to give valuable and feared CAS and anti-armour support to their operations.
So after all its excellent combat service and its proof of concept and role, is the USAF happy with the A-10 now??
They are upgrading some of them to A-10C standards!
Ask the Iraqi soldiers which aircraft they feared the most (after the B-52’s and their carpet bombing that is!):eek:
Ask a Taliban fighter which aircraft he fears and respects most of all in the mountains of Afghanistan?:eek:

My opinion is that if the USAF is still not wanting of the mighty A-10 Thunderbolt II, I say give them to the service that will both love, respect, appreciates and utilizes them!
The USAF should stop its bitching and inter-service rivalry and bickering, and hand its A-10’s and the close-air support role to the U.S Army!
(And maybe, just may be thirty or so of them to the Royal Australian Air Force!!!!!!!!!:D:D:D)

P.S. back to topic
I believe from sources I have read, that it was a U.S Senator/Congressman:dev2:, who came from the same State that LTV/Vought was located, that pushed and lobbied hard for the A-7/A-10 fly-off, in the hope to keep production of the A-7 going.

Regards
Pioneer

Sorry I should add
That one should remember that the Fairchild A-10 meet all the requirement that was asked and tasked by it.
The A-10 was and is a product of the specifications set by the USAF (and to some degree the US Army) and its ‘fresh combat experience’ of the Vietnam War!
So any so-called short falls of the A-10 design (and role) are those of the USAF’s own doing, with the specification it put out to the aviation industry of the time.
Remember the AX specifications stipulated
– ‘Simplicity’,
– Clear-weather / day operations,
– Primary weapon being the powerful and purpose designed GAU-8 cannon!,
– Speeds that allowed positive ID and engagement of targets, whilst friendly’s are incontact with enemy
-Survivability

Regards
Pioneer