Even regarding the fact that Brasil maybe has higher costs for labour (on the other hand they don’t have to heat up the buildings), I cannot see how all these investments (nuw sub, fighters, tanks, PAK-FA or whatever) should be financed with this little money.

Quite easily with efficient research I would imagine. The Soviet-Russian research principles were quite streamlined, there was little wastage.

Here in the west, we do loads of ‘theoretical’ research, all very nice phds – but for real world end product? Alot of them are completely and utterly useless. The USAF procurement methods for instance is well known as being farcical.

For instance the prior to the JSF, what was the last common Navy/Marines/Air force project?

“Unstable?”

How do you figure that?

The United States is a model of stability.

Sorry, yes, I should have been more precise.

Internally its extremely stable.

However, as far as its relationship with other countries go… unstable/unpredictable, at best.

I imagine the trouble of the US Navy if a F18 E/F was shot down by an Iranian Tomcat… 😮 😡

It would serve as a good lesson for those putting politics ahead of performance. (Although to be fair, it wouldn’t be a very tough lesson on them, harder on the poor bas_ards in the cockpits though). 😡

I think most are worried over what exactly “concern” means in US diplo-speak these days…

is it: Well, we’ll talk to them to see if its no big deal

or is it: Where are the carriers and the marines, gimme my rifle – yeeee haaaawwww

Whether you guys like it or not, I’d reckon the US is considered one of the more unstable countries in the world these days.

Where did I ever rant against Russians?

It is obvious in the make-up of alot of your posts 😉

Obviously though the designers of cold launched system have already though of this stuff and designed thier products in such a way as to make the whole “falling back to deck” scenario rather unlikely.

Daniel

At last, something sensible is posted.

Do some of you people really think the Russians/Chinese etc haven’t thought of this already? :rolleyes:

Oh, wait, I bet RIGHT NOW, they are browsing the forum, reading this, and have started sh_tting themselves ‘cos they’ve just realised all their missiles might blow up their own boats :diablo:

Well no, Russia has a 100 ABMs and you don’t see us wasting money on maneuvering RVs.

You don’t see it… but how do you know its not included in a design?

Are the Russian ABMs centred around Moscow only?

I must laugh about this.I think this is russian propaganda.They cannot build such missiles because if they could they would not talk about this.What is the purpose of this if anybody know that russia has such missiles? I know russian mentality.They hate USA and west in general.If they had such missiles they would not talk about this and they would then provoke western counrties to attack Russia and then they would launch their missiles well knowing that they would hit their targets.But so they say this because they don’t have them.

WHAT?!?!?

Get a grip would you, and think before posting.

The whole concept of ICBMs is one of deterrence – therefore the Russians would be thinking along the lines of: ‘The US must know that our missiles are still as effective as theirs’ – a.k.a the balance of power still remains, and hasn’t tilted dramatically to one side.