ABM and such is probably the most stupid waste of money politicians could think of to pour taxpayer’s hard earned money into the pockets of their friends (namely the militaro-industrial complex).

Everybody knows they’re never going to be used, because it would mean the end of the world as we know it.

Does someone in his right mind figure that Russia, China or India is going to launch a strike against the US? Or vice versa?

Gvts like to scare the people so they more gladly pay for that usueless stuff, because those who build them pay those who make decisions. Period.

The current stuff was never really designed to counter the big powers. It comes from the belief that rogue regional powers will pursue regional capability with WMD and associated delivery systems, thats why allot of it is very deployable. GBI is basically an anti North Korea weapon that comes from the idea that a country may aquire a long range capability. Unfortunately NK blew its load on that one when its nuke did not work properly and its missile exploded. So to an extent you have a point with regard NMD. The other systems, THAAD, KEI, SM-3 etc probably do have some utility for in theater deployments, the Iran model if you like.

In short No

For a longer answer define your threat. If you are talking about a hypothetical North Korean force of a few doubled up Scuds then maybe, if you are talking about Russia or by then China then probably not (absolute best case answer) to no chance (most likely answer).

Oh, it’s a joke…and I’m not getting it.
India. Did you not say once that you’d been? The health education in India is the worst in the world. Apart from a few select areas in the major cities. Hygiene in India is worse than “Deep” Africa. And I’ve worked in both places.
Singapore and Malaya, still a lot of human rights issues there, but is improving more so than others. Probably because of massive British involvement in that development.
South Africa. Right, that has got to be the most ridiculous place you could have mentioned. The place is going backwards as fast as China is expanding.

It’s the yank empire now, it’s their turn in the barrel.
I wonder if the subjects of that empire would prefer the brits to be in charge. They need to be lead because most of these places could not rummage an education system good enough to produce a governing body without the help of the west.
Mind you, nor can GB, given that maybe one or two of the 647 MP’s have an ounce of decency or honesty.

Oh dear.

Prove your sources are reliable, then we will talk.

We have been through this before, you have to prove that the facts they present are unreliable.

How is it a stopgap weapon? The Russians don’t need another SS-18 to annihilate American nuclear silo.

I never said it was.

It’s a larger ICBM that’s being designed as a staple for the future, and primarily with defeating any defenses in mind. :confused:

Well that is the general purpose of a ballistic missile.

You are a tool sir. Please stop posting. You are making a fuss about the letters E and F (right next to each other on a keyboard, by the way), so please stop your little girl tantrum now.

It was not a typo it was a case of you not knowing what you are talking about, which is always the case when you talk about Russian military equipment, you are completely ignorant on the subject.

Provide what sources? Are you a broken record Laurence?

Sources to back up your claim that the Zhuk-MF was offered on the Mig-29SMT.

I was asking Flex how a F-16 Block 50/52 was any better than a MiG-29SMT with a Zhuk-M or F radar (or AE, now it seems, assuming the “F” PESA project is totally canceled, which is NOT clear, OR RELEVANT).

It is highly relevent, how can one use a Mig-29 equipped with a Zhuk-MF and say it is better than another aircraft is such a comibination has never been offered to a customer? Furthermore I see no reason whatsoever for them to continue the Zhuk-MF project now that there is a dedicated Mig-29 version of the Zhuk-AE and knowbody has procured the Zhuk-MF to warrant any upgrade work.

So please, stop being an idiot, and stop posting.

Seeing as I actually know about Russian weapons and you do not I think I will keep posting.

We do know two major changes, that of the wingtip clearance (from 50 feet to 25 feet), and the weight requirements of the airfields.

And? What was the time scale, how long had the RFP been out before this change was made and realistically how much difference did this make to the final decision? Would the 777 have fitted within the new requirements? Was the A-330 outside of the original requirements?

All key questions that need answering before we can even speculate as to why the change was made.

Ok, The USAF put out an RFP…stating what it REQUIRED for the replacement of its KC-135s.

The USAF shouldn’t give a crap about who can and who can not enter a competition…it should be worried about the mission. That original RFP was what the USAF wanted and needed. Nothing that Airbus had could have met that RFP, so they complained and threatened to never offer another plane to the US again…

so, should the USAF bend over backwards for any company? No!
If the Original RFP was written and it happened that Airbus was the only one that could have possibly won without a totally new design by Boeing…then so be it.
When you write the mission out of the requirements, and throw out of the picture where these thing will be parked…just so that the competition looked fair to the whole world, then that is just wrong.

I will say it again… I do not care that Airbus won. I really do not care, what I care about is the USAF letting companies dictate what they buy and from who with out the mission in mind to seem like they are fair.

You clearly do care that Airbus won or you would not have spent the last few pages trying to use long out of production airframes and Boeing products to prove that Boeing does not have the potential for monopoly in the US without international competition.:rolleyes:

We dont even know the exactl details of the change, it could very well have been (and given the time scale probably more likely) that Airbus had already all but won and the airforce just wanted to cement it. There is absolutely no evidence that the USAF ‘bent over backwards’. The USAF was obviously worried about the mission as they chose the best plane for it.:p

Name one that’s improved since throwing us out. Genuinly improved, in morals, education, health etc. Do not count business growth, money has no flag and will go where the labour is cheapest so naturally poor countries will financially grow but as a nation, may not.

Go and argue the virture of imperialism with the subjects of it, otherwise,

India
Singapore
Malaya
South Africa