Some fresh IL-476 pictures.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?99988-Russian-Photos-(updated-on-regular-basis)&p=6627651&viewfull=1#post6627651

Nose aside, Il-476 is quite the looker. Narrow bodies 4eva! :p

USA vs USSR analogy doesn’t work in China vs Everybody else situations.

The USA and USSR didn’t have territorial disputes nor was there any historical animosities.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say there were no historical animosities: the paranoia of the Soviet Union was fairly well justified not only in terms of the immediate difficulties regarding the disposition of Germany but also in light of the intervention by incl. American forces attempting to suppress the Russian revolution. Note here I am thinking of the origin of the Cold War rather than the forces that sustained it once in motion.

But I agree that there was ultimately little impetus for conflict between the two blocs and that this is not the case with US+allies vs. China for precisely the reasons you mention, in addition to those I raised earlier.

And I agree that the unreconstructed nationalisms throughout Asia are a problem, particularly insofar as smaller nations might be emboldened by promise of American support into forcing confrontations that would not otherwise arise. The United States must walk a fine line between supporting its allies against Chinese pressure, whilst dampening any bellicosity amongst those same allies.

The biggest economy circa 2040s is projected to be India and not China. It is even doubtful that China could surpass the US in economy size based on two factors.

Err, what projections are you looking at? I’m looking at those from Goldman Sachs and PriceWaterhouseCoopers, which have China’s GDP in 2050 between 150-175% of the United States’, and India’s between 80-95% of the United States’.

For an A2A fighter you aren’t limited to a big bay that takes up enormous room in the fuselage. You can run much smaller bays along the sides of the fuselage like Typhoon conformal carriage, but enclosed. Another option would be to have CWB-style bays but internal to airframe, sized to house 2-3 missiles each. Many things are possible with only AAM-sized munitions to consider.

The appropriate analogy is to Europe before World War I. All the major powers had absorbed the lessons from Prussia’s victories in the 19th century that stressed speed of mobilisation, the primacy of the offensive, and the promise of quick, decisive victories, and were utterly unprepared for the stalemate and carnage that actually eventuated on account of the technological evolutions (i.e. the machine gun) made since. Clausewitz never had to face a Maxim gun. :p

Full scale war between two nuclear armed opponents seems impossible.

I think it is very dangerous to draw this conclusion. The real reason the US and USSR never went to war is because there was never any compelling reason for them to do so — merely local flashpoints occasioned by the friction at the boundaries.

It is likely that future relations between the United States and China will broadly resemble this model, but there are important differences: the push/pull factors exerted by America’s ‘allies’ in the region (see: historical examples of periphery influencing centre) and the fact that the overall balance of power is evolving significantly, from overwhelming American dominance in the current period, to a period of increasing instability from mid-2020s to mid-2030s to increasing levels of Chinese superiority looking further afield; contrast this to the Cold War where the United States was always the dominant power. Also there are the future push/pull factors occasioned by impending resource shortages and climate change to consider.

JSF wont be doing recon behind “the enemy lines”, doesnt have the range for that.

Depends upon where those lines are at the time. :diablo:

As both Norway and Denmark operate the F16, a late mark of the same aircraft makes more sense, especially as they are allies of the USA, more than Sweden.

Problems:

(1) Idea of an ‘interim’ acquisition (other than lease of Gripen C) makes no sense in the first place.
(2) Lockheed Martin doesn’t want to compete against Lockheed Martin.

But of course if the winds look to have swung decisively against F-35 one can expect LockMart to come in late with F-16V offer.

Loke, you’ve just started and ended a thread with one post. Weldone. 😀

LOL! :p

Good writeup re: USN and F-35C over at InformationDissemination.net:

In public statements, it has become very common to hear Admirals say the Navy ‘needs the F-35C,’ but it has become uncommon to hear any Admiral praise the aircraft. Why the Navy needs the F-35C is never addressed in context, primarily because the well documented problems of the F-35C make it clear that the Navy needs are not yet met by the F-35C at this time

[….]

LT. General Christopher C. Bogdan is emphasizing the multinational partnership of the program for a good reason, and the reason is specific to bringing down the cost of the F-35A. Stable funding across all 3 models of the Joint Strike Fighter is required if the F-35A price is going to have any chance to drop to $90M per aircraft. That means the Navy must stay completely invested in the R&D of F-35C, and must – at least initially – buy F-35C aircraft at the scheduled rate to maintain stability in the production schedule. When Adm. Jonathan Greenert mentions the Navy still hasn’t determined how many F-35Cs the Navy will purchase, the implication is the CNO is looking for the bare minimum threshold the Navy must spend to stay invested in the program.