Hang some Patriot missiles or AIM-120Ds onto an E-3 AWACS or wedgetail – and you’d have all the avionics and endurance you’ll ever need in a ‘fighter’. Save on resources too (one aircraft type doing the job of two).;)

Bring back the gun turrets! 😀

B-1R? Missile mother ship against the imaginary massed PLAAF fighters? a bad idea thought up to go against an imaginary threat. :rolleyes:

This reminds me one other concept I have heard in the chinese circles.

some one actually proposed to cluster-arm a SRBM with may be a dozen LR-AAMs, with home-on-jam capability (already exist in SD-10/PL-12), and may be dual seeker (IR) heads, and some data link capability.

also to clear the sky, except targeting your airborne support assets in orbit.
Intel/JSTAR/AWACS/Tankers. which are slow and lumbering beasts.

this IMHO would be a more interesting idea and more useful.

OK, if some over eagered think tanker grab this idea and imagined this up as another “Chinese threat” useful to con $$$ out of the bankrupt federal budget (which is partially financed by China anyways), please be more kind and state that this is just some old fevered imagination of some over eagered chiinese internet users.

The sad truth is that international law is bended and “interpreted” each time according to the will of those that have more power…And on a case per case scenario. Theoretically, only the UN Security Council has legitimacy to order attack against another state. The “humanitarian” argument was born for cases where the Security Council doesn’t agree…

Always on paper, the respect of foreign sovereignty isn’t just a law, but it’s fundamental in the UN Charter, which is the essential text of the international law, as all UN members recognize it.

..

I agree with your view on the sad state of affairs of international law. That’s why one needs to be especially careful when treading into other people’s business. follow the golden rule, if you will. all religion and philosophies seems to have a version of it. it is as good a rule as any.

As to UN, I think about it this way, UN is a vast improvement to its feeble forefather the league of nations. and before that…age of empires and colonies and might-makes-right.

at least UN has shown to have some restraint on actions of its members. the power to make war legitmate is a very potent force not seen since the days when papal authority rules european princes.

Sorry for my lack of English.. Here we go again;
With a short range missile the missiles seeker has to see and lock-on(clear view) on the enemy fighter..right?
In the F-22 case, it has special constructed weapons bay door which it can see through or something..

On the Pak-Fa its different.
They constructed a ‘quick bay’ which in turn arming the missiles, they jettison the comformal covers hidding the missiles under each wing.
The short range missiles are semi- locked into the wing structure just like the R-33 missiles is on the Mig-31 underneath, just that they are not covered.

I thought F22’s wb door just pops open and a scissor jack type thing with the missiles rails pops out. no?

quick bay is a nice idea, a bit like the RCS reducing payload poaches some proposed sometimes back.

a better idea would be to have missile just pop out the bay and acquire while in flight. slaving the aircraft sensors to the missile’s seeker with a data link or something. imaging the possibilities, salvo firing short range missiles targeting multipile targets.

If you consider such use of force too much may be we need to revisit 1989…

on the contrary I think use of force in and by itself is not too much (or too little) the metric has to tie to circumstances.

Use of a forces to active intervene in what essentially a country’s internal civil war, deserve more care and thought than your naiveish lust calling for war to uphold “Humanitarian Law”, sovereignty be damned.

judging from the scale of time, I think it would not be foolish to argue that if 89 hasn’t gone down the same road as it happened in history. then china would prob not on the same developement path it had. judging from a purely utilitarian point of view: how many more people would suffer in the ensuing chaos if Chinese gov’t was to crumble? taking in from the Eastern European experience, too much.

such is the cruelty of the world.

1989.

Humanitarian law comes before soverignity.

If Humanitarian law (or utilitarian argument of how many people’s lives will be saved) really comes before soverignty then Britain was right to subjugate India. More people were killed in the Indian partition then there ever was under the British Raj.

You should write for movies.

If you want to draw parallels to Avatar, its the colonization of South America.

I marvel at your utter lack of empathetic abilities.