That tells us all we need to know about the “potential” for the US to supply Iraq with AMRAAMs… i.e. zilch at the moment). However, once Iraq acquires some R77s with russian aircraft… I can see the US “softening its stance” since the “cat would be out of the bag” and maybe offer them AMRAAMs… in a mirror of the situation regarding the Ah-64 apaches that the Iraqis have been trying to get since 2009 (US categorically refusing) – Iraqis went to Russia last year and bought a batch of Mi28NE helos… and lo and behold… US agrees to sell the Iraqis 24 Ah-64 apaches this year.

How badly the U.S. got burned when it stuck its nose into Afghanistan when the Soviets were there has not been forgotten, despite the political bs one hears from supposed talking-head experts.

Putting advanced tech. in an area where it could easily be acquired by serious enemies, is NOT a matter that is even close to be taken lightly, no matter what financial concerns are.
Thousands of dead U.S. citizens and allies due to the result of the moronic Afghan deal is still a sore matter here if one over here makes serious inquiries.

Slow down there, cowboy, this isn’t 1979 when soviet-china tensions were on breaking point.
While I agree while a chinese mining campaign could conceivably sink a russian ship, unless the russians have an active interest in getting into the scrap, they’d either get their ships out of there as the tension mounts, or make clear to china that they won’t accept the sinking of russian ships, and china would just leave the base in question alone, probably with the caveat that the vietnamese dont’ use it as a military asset.—-Russia does what is good for Russia and for Russia to let one of its customers to go to hell, or to let anyone tell them to whom they may or may not do anything, is not going to happen.
Putin is more like the Soviet Union that went to war with China in 1969, than his predecessor.

Yes, but the accuracy of hundreds of thousand of dumb bombs dropped at high altitude versus a modern precision guided bombing campaign is different, no? — Accuracy has nothing to do with it, it is the massive destruction that heavy bombing brings that affects an opponents opinion.
Not a hole in the ground here or there.
When a massive area looks like a moon-scape, that affected, effects opinons.

Wait, you’re not saying the US bombing campaign in the vietnam war was more successful than iraq, surely? — It was a totally different war but then as Vietnam did not involve an invasion, yes it was far more effective.
You are forgetting B-52s were used in Iraq also.

“Human wave tactics” is generally the equivalent of the godwin’s law for PLA discussions I think. So I think we’ll terminate here.

Without them, China got its ass kicked by a war weary N. Vietnam.
The N. Viets have fought in a long term war post-Korea, China has not.
Vietnam has an idea how modern weapons work and how they are used, first hand.
End of story.

But during the vietnam war USAF did not have access to today’s PGMs and ISR technology. Today you don’t need a flight of B-52s to carpet bomb a single target because a single multirole strike fighter with a couple of LGBs, and a FLIR pod can do the job. Or better yet, a modern strike fighter with a stand off land attack missile, or even better again, a satellite guided terrain hugging cruise missile launched from over a thousand kilometers away, which, without a decent look down AEW&C integrated into IADS will be difficult to intercept until the terminal phase by point defense.

Not to mention what the advent of AEW&C, high endurance UAVs, and perhaps most importantly, reliable BVR missiles will do to a vietnam war era VPAF.
Just a fraction of the coalition airpower that was used against iraq in the gulf war could probably deliver a crushing blow to a good part of the modern VPAF.

They have what, 200 Mig-21s, 150 Su-22s and 30ish Su-27/Su-30s combined? Without AEW&C, and only having 30 BVR capable aircraft how long could they survive?

I’m not sure what kind of air sorties PLAAF can muster up into the theater, and I’m not going to make any numerical claims that I can’t back up, but the total PLAAF numbers for BVR capable aircraft, precision and stand off capable strike fighters, AEW&C, and EW aircraft are telling, even if they can only send in a fraction of them. Precision SRBM and LACM strikes at fighter bases (and other facilities such as SAM sites) closer to the border will also hinder VPAF operations, if PLA has the foresight to use their weapons in such a way.

What kind of supply line will russia be supplying to vietnam in this conflict? :confused: weapons? soldiers?
Is this scenario a conflcit between china and vietnam mono on mono or are there other players involved? What’s the geopolitical situation, are other powers abstaining from intefering?

If it’s just PLA vs VPA, then all bets are off.

What exactly would china risk by mining vietnamese harbours if they decided to? It’s not like VPN can exactly retaliate, unless they manage to slip a couple of kilos out.

Mining the harbor?
Sink one Russian supply ship and Russia has all the reasons it needs, if it even needed one, to ramp-up its support to what ever level it desires.

Plus, the U.S. had the ability to mine the harbor, the Chinese do not.

If you think the x hundred pound warhead of any missile or even multiple missiles can equal the dozens to hundreds to thousands of warheads delivered by heavy bombing you have been reading too many fiction war books.
What the U.S. did in Iraq was nothing compared to what it destroyed, and had to destroy, in ‘Nam to get the N. Viets attention.

A greatly depleted N. Viet force gave the Chinese a bloody nose in the seventies.
Unless the Chinese resorted to human wave attacks, the results would be the same.

What a stupid post.

Typical, take away any credit from actual Soviet/Russian fighting.

Then again this is to be expected from someone who thinks Vietnam wasn’t a defeat for the US, lol.

Wow, you just said all the military historians, as well as military persons who take weather into account while planning operations, with Napoleon’s and Hitler’s cluster-fu-ks into Russia being the examples most often mentioned (Although the Mongols getting their butts drowned while trying to invade Japan are also mentioned) are stupid, but then your rhetoric is quite similar to a PeeWee Herman movies so it is to be expected.

Without the weather the Russian Army would have been eradicated, period.(which for Russian soldiers and generals might have been a God-send as in Stalin’s Army you were as likely to be killed by the government as the enemy.)
You can ignore history but that just makes you appear as ignorant as you may actually be.

You must be popping way too many illegal pills as that size comparison with the Bearcat is pure bs.

The Bearcat is much larger than that, especially as the pilots feet are where some piston would be but with your lets pretend world I imagine the Bearcat is powered by a Briggs & Stratton lawn-mower engine and it will still do 500 mph.

Hi, Can you be more specific RpR, I thought if you were blind, you couldn’t see anything. And even if partialy blind, I don’t honestly think they should be allowed to own a gun of any sort.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Once one’s vision is impaired to a certain degree, such as with some who can still reading with special glasses, they are legally blind; which means that they may be eligible for some government benefits.

Legally blind in the U.S. does not mean one cannot see anything.

I would not believe how times can change. Some five years ago one would hardly believe that the once fierce F-22 supporters will be bashing the same concept of supersonic cruise+long range+reduced RCS once it is connected with something else than the latest product of LM. :confused:

Interesting times we live in.

An aircraft that can carry its weapon load while flying clean has a distinct advantage over one that cannot in both speed and range.
The U.S. Air Force forgot that when the built the F-15 as the Six it replaced could fly far, far longer and or farther without performance hampering external stores (its drop tanks were mach 2 plus rated and pilots said they for all purposes did not change anything except making its long range and duration even greater.)

I think Russia learned this lesson better than the U.S. as, as good as the F-22 is, had they made it a little larger it could go faster longer.
When you are not worrying about finding a tanker and your opponent is, you win.