It might just be me but I find the second pic rather intriguing. Most of the aircraft looks dirty and faded but the nose cone looks immaculate, its also a kind of ‘modern’ grey color.

Anybody else notice this?:confused:

Ah, that wasnt an assumption, that was a poor choice of words, for this I appollogise, I let sarcasm get in the way of sensible response to his “assumption”, thank you for point out my error.

As for the goat, shall we agree to disagree? 😀 Bex

I think I can live with that on this occasion.;)

Ok point taken about the authority of the ASPCA / RSPCA. However last time I check, the Taliban werent recruiting goats.

As for your last statement, could you please explain this so called “assumption” you seem to think Ive made, coz I dont think Ive made any assumptions, just comments and or opinions. Bex

Thats why they only frightened the goat rather than kill it.:D

You made assumptions about djcross not having been near loud noises.

the goat does not die. It just gets a little bit scared by a very small explosion. Secondly its a goat

Interesting view for animal cruelty, the courts might disagree, and Im pretty sure both the RSPCA & the ASPCA would too. Just a thought.

Next bit then:

Those same posters would probably be brought to tears if someone popped a toy helium balloon in their presence.

Hmm ever had a 5.56mm blank fired at point blank range into your ear? Guess not, ever had a thunderflash explode 6 inches from your hand? Guess not. Given the choice Id rather someone had popped a toy helium balloon instead but it wasnt to be.

But ask yourself this? What had that goat done to those US soldiers? Probably naff all.

Bex

Last time I checked neither the ASPCA or the RSPCA had any authority in Afghanistan. But seeing as you raised the issue I wonder how such organisations would feel to witness said goat later be slaughtered with a blunt knife in order to provide food for its owner- welcome to Afghanistan, it happens.

You realy should not make assumptions about people on the internet as you have no idea who you are talking to- just a bit of advice for the future.;)

In a true battle, both the MKI and EF would keep the Bars and Captor switched off till the last moment and rely on AWACS feed. The Bars & Captor would be put on, only to guide the missile in! And both the Bars and Captor can do that vs the EF or MKI respectively.

Tactics, tactics, tactics and tactics. Thats what counts between fighters of a similar class and performance pros and cons which tend to even out. 😎

I was about to post in this thread when I read the above, as it pretty much sums what I was going to say I will leave it with this,

+1 on that.

Most of you seem to have not watched the clip properly, the goat does not die. It just gets a little bit scared by a very small explosion. Secondly its a goat, seriously its not like they were blowing up underground trains or something.:rolleyes:

If the Chinese have set their mind on something, they will build ships like the way McDonald’s cracks outs Big Macs. Notice the rate they have been building some of their warships.

The only ships that the chinese have been building in substantial numbers and with any speed are the FAC,s. There is a very big difference between an FAC and a 50,000 ton+ aircraft carrier. Take for example Frigate numbers, the number of modern vessels of this class constructed (using both the terms modern and constructed very broadly as it includes both the Jiangwei’s some of the reconstructed older destroyers) is less than 30. Personally I also like to include the 051B and 052B class vessels as frigates too (despite their official designation as DDG’s) due to their comparatively limited capabilities, this still leaves the number below 30 and means that China has only procured 10 destroyers in the last 11 years, in the form of,

4 Sovremennys
2 052B
2 052C
2 051C

That means DDG procurement for the past decade stands at less than 1 a year, hardly impressive and significantly less than the number of Big Macs McDonalds has sold in the same period.

However this brings me to the next point. I noticed that Swerve made a rather blanket statement that ‘China cannot afford a carrier fleet like the US has’. Indeed at the moment this is true, however it must also be taken into account that even if China could afford to build 12 Nimitzs now, the time and material resources to do so would make such a simultaneous immediate construction program very difficult if not impossible. The issue to note is that what we are seeing in the PLAN at the moment is embryonic. Small classes of warships are being built (in the case of DDG’s no more than two in each), each with progressively more advanced systems and capabilities than the next. What is apparent is that current PLAN procurement is focused upon the development of technology rather than the creation of a massive naval force. This fits with the assertion of the latest Chinese defense whit paper which states 2050 as a sort of conclusion date for the completion of Chinese military modernisation, I doubt it is a coincidence that it is just prior to that date that the Chinese economy is expected to over take that of the United States. Furthermore the current president has stated that the creation of a powerful navy is a top priority.

Further motivation is seen in the oversees exploits of the PLA in recent years, of the five permanent members of the security council China is now the largest force contributor to UN peace keeping operations. The recently launched 071 LPD clearly has power projection in mind and we should not be surprised to see a carrier built for a similar role.

In conclusion, with Chinas economy set to overtake that of the United States in the 2040s, increasing over seas commitment and a reliance on sea borne trade we should not at all surprised to see the PLAN develop into something not unlike the UN today in the next few decades.

Ps. PLAN procurement does seem to be balanced with surface forces, submarines and the sea based Nuclear forces all enjoying reasonably consistent procurement.