I won’t be opposed to Taiwan buying Mexico.

😀

Why did they paint it like that? Objectively speaking that’s the ugliest paintjob I’ve ever seen on a missile. It’s almost like some prankster vandalized it with spraypaint.

Anyway aesthetics aside it has impressive capability. I hope Mutual Assured Destruction ushers in an age of peace on the subcontinent like it was between the superpowers during the Cold War.

I would ask myself:

1. Is my neighbor hostile and am I his only enemy?

2. Can I afford the arms race?

3. How relevant is the air force in a conflict with this neighbor?

For example having a superior airforce does not mean he can beat me on the ground. USAF translated air victory to ground victory in Iraq, but not in Yugoslavia. No other country besides US and Israel has demonstrated bigger and better airforce can win wars.

If my neighbor’s military bases and industrial center is close to my border I would only need a superior ground force plus capability for temporary air stalemate to overrun him.

In the cenario you provided your neighbor has little to no offensive airpower. I am not worried his air force is an immediate danger to me.

Never mind I see someone else beat me to it.

Well this thread really went south in a hurry.

To get back on topic. I’m surprised the analysts here think PLAAF planned one engine per jet. It just opens itself to all sorts of handicaps and exploitable vulnerabilities.

It seems to me the J-10 estimate should be smaller. We can’t assume the number of Russian engines delivered translate to the number of aircraft in production. At least half the engines will probably be held in reserve.

I am under the impression that to get the high sortie rate required by modern wars you need multiple engines to keep the fighter flying. Doing a 60 hour maintnence does not bode well for 30 minute turn around times.

Do you realize if the Taiwanese sent a sniper team with .50 cal rifles they can put an entire squadron out of the war with one disabling shot to the engine a piece?

Republicans like southern politicians because that’s where their spiritual base is. It’s relatively harder to rise in the ranks of the party if you’re not part of the southern network. Northern and western conservatives would be considered moderates or even Democrats in the south.

The Democrats In recent years have looked to southern candidates (Clinton, Gore, Clark, Edwards) because they want to appeal to traditional conservative strongholds. If a northerner like Kerry is nominated the party will match him with a southern vice presidential running mate.

Republicans use the ideological approach to elections, Democrats use mass apeal. Dean tried to use the ideological approach and got nowhere.