believe what you want…. I mean, why would a retired Iraqi general, the Australian SAS and australia’s best defence writer lie? I mean if it was learnt that the US had supplied them, how dumb would it look. and these munitions were supplied in the 80’s dont forget

Call it an agenda. And by the both the US and the UN did not find anything. That’s a fact. Do you have problems with the facts?

I am not saying anybody will get a waterdowned version of the F-35. Yet, it would be naive to believe every customer will have total unrestricted access either. That is something to be negotiated between the US and its export customer. Clearly, the US needs to feel its technology is protected…………..as do every country that exports highly advance technology.

Wow, talk about convenient self contradiction.

Sigh, there is nothing to believe.

The official report.

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041006185059.6eqctmf1.html

WASHINGTON (AFP) Oct 06, 2004
Iraq had no active chemical, biological or nuclear programs at the time of the US-led invasion in 2003 having given up its weapons of mass destruction in 1991, the chief US weapons inspector concluded in a report released Wednesday.

“This led him to give up stockpiled weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ultimately the programs, the official said.”

“In terms of getting rid of weapons, by the end of 1991 they had gotten rid of just about everything,” said the official, who briefed reporters before Duelfer’s testified to Congress on Wednesday.”

The support Iraq gained on the UN Security Council vanished and “the erosion stopped,” the official said, suggesting that even as the United States was moving towards war the sanctions regime had tightened.

The US search for weapons after the war found no stockpiles of weapons, no sign chemical weapons had been produced after 1991, no civilian facilities that could be rapidly converted to chemical agent production, and no plans to restart them, the official said.

The few chemical munitions found were made before 1991, and were decaying.

“We found some laboratories under the control of the Mukhabarat,” the official said. “It appears they were producing small amounts of poison not as military weapons but for the purposes of assassination. These were laboratories not declared to the UN, which were concealed.”

Funny, the Chinese Supporter of the Forum seem to have no problem speculating on the two PLAN Carriers. With virtually no facts to support there size, shape, design, purpose, etc. etc. etc. Yet, I can’t even throw out a hypothetical counter from Japan or South Korea???

As if they don’t have at least three Russian made carriers already on their ports to study.

As for containing China…………its hard to feel China is being open and honest about its intentions. When it gets a Carrier from Ukrainian by flat out lying about its purpose. Unless you really believe they planned on making a Casino out of it in the first place! Really, its just like the old Cold War / Communist Days of years gone by………Just more secrets and deception!:eek:

With all do respect…………If, there is any paranoia in the West. It is of Chinese Origin.

Yeah right, as if lying doesn’t go both ways. Like one country invading a country for WMDs that weren’t there.

My my, how scary the thought of mighty China failing to get a trivial catapult working… 😮

So why are you bothering to reply? Or are you the one actually scared China would get it working.

Let’s see if they are successful then… 😉 6 more years to the answer.

Let the engineers decide on that, not some guy in the Internet. And let them decide on the time table, not because some reporter said so (Asahi Shinbun is a good newspaper but no means this article is officially represents the PRC).

most articles describing apar and sampson pointing out the limited range of apar compared to sampson but apar has to be seen as one part of the apar/smart-l combo. from my point of view this X/L-band combo is more interesting than a S/L-band combo. i do not need two radars which are both capable of doing long range volume search. if i decide to use two radars why not using one frequency band for long range detection and one for high resolution tracking and medium range horizontal search?

S-band is actually a very sweet spot for a naval SAM radar because it is a good balance of range and tracking qualities. Remember, the SPY-1 can continually track using S-Band and has enough tracking resolution to feed missile midphase updates. At the same time, frequency isn’t too short for all the weather phenomenon and small useless things like birds to show up on radar as it does on X-band.

i don’t know if Silicon Carbide is the first choice in future but afaik right now there is also no S-band radar using it. if there will be such a radar ready to be fielded in the future perhaps we will compare it to the others.

Lockheed Martin is trying to develop a SiCa based array.

Simply because there is no suitable diesel or Gas turbine solution for powering carriers. Commercial marine diesel currently available are designed to run at only 16kts and are too massive in size.
Btw a carriers will always need boilers for fresh water. It makes sense to reduce redundancy.

And for the steam catapults?