In the UK over 75% of fuel cost is tax (dont have exact figure to hand) and since no government has sorted public transport out we are forced to use cars,unless you live in a city or live near fast rail links of course.

Thats the one. Not only is UK public transport a joke but unless you are trying to get round London on a long term basis it is also very expensive. The UK government could lower the petrol price anytime it wanted but poor fiscal policy over the last decade and a lack of will means it will not happen.

One alternative opinion is that of Colonel-General Viktor Yesin, the former chief of the Main Staff of the Strategic Rocket Forces. “If the flight trajectory [of a conventional-warhead strategic missile] will be near our territory or, God forbid, over our territory, a response strike by our nuclear forces would be unavoidable.”

While it might be possible to assign conventionally armed US ICBMs to specific, geographically distinct launch sites and to allow Russia to verify such deployments – measures that have been proposed by the USAF – such an approach would be completely unworkable for submarine-launched missiles.

There is also concern in Russia that the target set for US conventional-warhead strategic missiles might include Russian ICBM silos and command and control centres.

Well the Russians do currently have a nuclear obsession, its unfortunate but time will tell how long it lasts. My own opinion is that the perception of nuclear threat will wain.

Started off using it as an information source, I began posting questions and as time went by I started to answer them too. If you think Modern Military Aviation is bad now you should have seen it when I first joined, the nationally orientated b**ch fests were well out of control. The problem with that particular forum is that its subject matter will naturally attract younger people and people with strong national pride (even if it is not their nationality) however I do feel that the bear pit nature helps to insure an exceptionally high level of discussion both in detail and accuracy, falsehoods are not allowed to stand and the truth usually outs itself.

I have used most of the sections here in the past and I am constantly astonished by the breadth of knowledge and experience present and I regard Key Publishing Forums as a monument to the information age.

Exept that the Amur class in question was about 40 years old (when its Ok to be grumpy with your engines) And build in poland;) So not so clever there Jon, migth do beter research next time…

As for Dionis claim that Russians are pouring hulls like in soviet days, I have to say that its not true – and oh, dear, Im now on lawrence’s side:eek: – to my knowlidge, the Russians launched only one major surface combatant, that was the pr.2238 class patrol ship, aka small frigate type and the Borey and (I migth be wrong with this one) One lada or Amur class diesel sub…

And when this comes from such “fanboy” like I am to russian/soviet navy (and artillery), can we leave this matter?

We dont disagree that often do we Gollevainen!;) I would certainly not call you a fan boy, you are usually very well informed and highly generous with your information and experiences on this forum (as demonstrated with the above post) as well as being a very rational poster. We may disagree from time to time but I certainly have respect for you. Dionis on the other hand is none of those things.:(

Ahd who in their right minds would ever consider such a thing? The world economy is so intergrated these days that in the event of war between the major powers, causing long-term economic devastation would be about the last thing anyone wants to see, since that would hurt your own economy and people as well as the opponents’. In your example, China or Russia would devastate their own economies along with America’s even if the Americans don’t respond at all. Seldomly before had there been a better example of a pyrrhic victory.

If there is a war, it will either be total, with every nuclear tipped missile able to lift off doing so and ending the world, or it will be a ultra-high intensity limited war with very clear and specific political objectives, where the object is to destroy the opposing side’s military forces, or cause sufficent military losses for the other side to want to call it quites. One of the main goals would be to minimise the overall economic disruption of the war, since none but the loonies really want to go back to the standard of living of WWII.

Another thing to consider would be the long term implications of such an attack. The Americans have shown that they will try to get even if they feel they been wronged by a sneak attack, and I don’t see the Chinese or Russians being in much of a forgiving mood if someone erased all the hard won economic development they had achieved in the last few decades. It would be all too easy to have many such wars over a course of years and decades as the wronged power try to get even and seek vengence/justice depending on your point of view. And it would not take a big leap of imagination to forecast a major ‘security breach’ at key nuclear installations and for some conveniently small nukes to go walkies from the defeated power, which just might end up in the hands of certain fanatical groups on a holy war against the victor.

Quite simply, the course of action you are suggestion would be a sure fire way of totally destroying the current world order and shatter the fragile peace between the major powers, and sweep away all the certainties, comforts and safety you and I have now become so accustomed to. And every world leader worth their salt will know that as they will have legions of advisors screaming this at them at the first meantion of such a course of action, and generals who would body tackle them to the ground to stop such madness from taking place.

It might be fine and dandy for second rate fictional writers to dream up such scenarios and only glamorise the shock and awe of devastation on such epic scale, but here in the real world, where people will have to live with the aftermath and the consequences, no-one in their right mind would consider this. And if someone mad enough to approve this manages to get into power somehow and tries to pull it off, there are checks and balances to prevent him from doing so, and plenty of generals willing to commit high treason to stop them, because the consequences are just that grave if it was allowed to happen.

A good example of how wars between the major world powers might be fought would be the Falkland’s war, where two ‘near peer’ powers came to blows. There was concious acknowledgement of the need to trade and cooperate with the opponent after the dispute has been settled, thus the British showed restraint and didn’t turn the conflict into a blood fued like it is in the Middle East now.

Why would anybody use nuclear weapons when the outcome is so absolute? That is the very simple question. MAD is still very much in place between Russia and the US as it is and China is well on the way to towards reaching the same level with India bringing up the rear. Information and power generation targets produce very little ‘devastation’ just massive economic damage.

As for integrated economies, well exactly the same thing was said about Europe prior to WW1. But as I said it is a very big if.

Good news for the new super-FLANKER?

Very interesting, at least in terms of combat aircraft I see few other alternatives than the Su-35, I wonder if the figure includes transport, support and other aircraft though?:confused:

Obviously there is the Su-34 as well and now they are restarting Tu-160 production they might be able to squeeze one of them out.

Just something to chew on, lets use the US as an example and disregard existing capabilities (for this example the US is playing the role of victim so please do not get upset).

Someone, hypothetically China or Russia, twenty years from now decides on a sudden and massive attack. They do this by launching a mass of cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, they use a combination of conventional warheads and EMP (add as you like but no NCB) to destroy non hardened computers, power generation and distribution and points of major infrastructure (airports and ports). Simultaneously ASAT weapons takeout communications, early warning, recon and navigation satellites, just think of the economic damage, it would be epic in proportion. Sure the US could strike back but its war fighting capabilities would be massively reduced. This could all be done in a matter of hours.

Thoughts?

That video really does show exactly how big the TSR-2 was, the thing was not far short of being in the same league as the Tu-22M, a not very good analogy is that the Tu-22M uses 50% of the power plant of a Tu-144 whilst TSR-2 would use 50% of a concorde power plant (roughly/hypothetically) add to that that this was a single role aircraft and it is abundantly clear why the UK could not afford it or the wider doctrine behind it.