F/A-22 purchase to be cut from 277 to 160

[Chmee]

The US has something of a longstanding commitment and national interest in the security of Taiwan (which produces a lot of military electronics components among other things). That isn't the case of China and Cuba.

While true, I'm a wee bit apprehensive about all the checks that are written in the name of the American taxpayer to maintain government structures far FAR from home and not necessarily in our national interest. Did we get some vote when the Kuomintang, not exactly the most democratic of political institutions, annexed Formosa as their new seat of power? Yet now we're committed to spending how much to keep their successors in place?

I'm all in favor of promoting democracy, but at any cost in American resources and ... more importantly ... lives? At some point we have to quit being a meddleocracy, meddling in the regional affairs of every quarter of the globe. It's just too expensive and we have better things to do with the money. Have you seen Detroit's freeways? ::shiver::

[Sea Skimmer]

While true, I'm a wee bit apprehensive about all the checks that are written in the name of the American taxpayer to maintain government structures far FAR from home and not necessarily in our national interest. Did we get some vote when the Kuomintang, not exactly the most democratic of political institutions, annexed Formosa as their new seat of power? Yet now we're committed to spending how much to keep their successors in place?

We aren't specifically spending much of anything at all to protect Taiwan, though we have sold them billions of dollars in weapons, which is always good for the US economy. Its just one of the issues that the people who figure out our future requirements must take into account. Even if Taiwan didn't exist, we'd still need to consider all those Chinese fighters for other reasons, like say the oil under the South China Sea, the ownership of which may well be decided by force.

I'm all in favor of promoting democracy, but at any cost in American resources and ... more importantly ... lives?

Technology and money is what keeps US losses low. That's probably most apparent then anywhere in air warfare.

At some point we have to quit being a meddleocracy, meddling in the regional affairs of every quarter of the globe. It's just too expensive and we have better things to do with the money. Have you seen Detroit's freeways? ::shiver::

For all it costs, the US defend spending is still low (espically if you consider more then discretionary spending, social security unlike the military, holds a key to bankrupting the entire country ) and for every conflict the US gets involved in you can find several which we could probably find a very good reason to screw with.

[Vympel]

Are any of those Sukhois being deployed in significant numbers in anything but a pure local air-defense role? By anybody with something remotely like AWACS C&C capability?

Both India's Su-30MKIs and China's Su-30MKK/Su-30MK2s are strike capable, though to suggest that the Su is a "local air defense" aircraft is simply untrue- it's range is far too great. It was an interceptor in the Soviet Union, but that's only because of the huge expanses of territory it was meant to defend, and it also served in the VVS (Frontal Aviation- i.e. winning air superiority), not just the PVO. India is getting Israeli Phalcon AWACS and China is developing its own AWACS based on the Il-76 airframe.

In addition, China's considerable number of Su-27SKs can be upgraded to Su-27SKM standard, also making them strike capable and improving their capabilities across the board, while they're moving over to domestic-built components for their domestic built Su-27SKs (J-11).

Then there are all those other countries with not so huge numbers of -27s, -30s and -30MKs as well.

I don't mean to underestimate the competition, the Russkies still make some damned fine aircraft, but I'll go back to the Iraq experience ... the best MiGs and Mirages in the world didn't do them a bit of good. I'd rather spend the money on keeping our pilots trained to the edge of their skills, which is what we're kicking people's asses with.

That's because their training was shit. You can't rely on that sort of thing to be true of all cases, and certainly not with China, who trains their Flanker pilots incessantly over their hordes of J-7 and J-8 pilots (the fodder).

[Ma Deuce]

Has Nitram is aware, my paranoidia is already operating at 90% and climbing on this. I get jumpy when I find the airforce has plenty of money for psyhics but not enough for Jets. Didn't the CIA pour enough money into mental powers studies in the Cold War anyways?

Don't forget the money spent on development of unnecessary pork weapon programs like the XM8 rifle, the Stryker, and the LCS, while such promising programs as the Crusader and Buford AGS are killed, and others (like the F-22) are scaled back.

[Chmee]

Even if Taiwan didn't exist, we'd still need to consider all those Chinese fighters for other reasons, like say the oil under the South China Sea, the ownership of which may well be decided by force.

If one American life is lost fighting for oil in the South China Sea, I'm going to be one unhappy camper.

But as we know ...... it won't be about the oil!

[Chmee]

That's because their training was shit. You can't rely on that sort of thing to be true of all cases, and certainly not with China, who trains their Flanker pilots incessantly over their hordes of J-7 and J-8 pilots (the fodder).

Still working on getting enough training to avoid running into EP-3's, apparently ....

[Sea Skimmer]

If one American life is lost fighting for oil in the South China Sea, I'm going to be one unhappy camper.

If we cease to have any oil or even have a real shortage, I suspect you will also be very unhappy. I will be at least.

But as we know ...... it won't be about the oil!

There really are reasons besides the oil its self for the US to get involved in a conflict in the South China Sea (If it turned into a shooting war), specifically relating to freedom of the seas and economic exclusion zones, two issues which are very important to the US, espically the former. Plus the fact that any shooting war would probably be blatant Chinese aggression against such mighty military powers as the Philippines and Malaysia.[/quote]

[Chmee]

If we cease to have any oil or even have a real shortage, I suspect you will also be very unhappy. I will be at least.

I'm not the kind of selfish SOB who's going to ask a 19 year old Marine to die so I can drive an Expedition .... I'd rather walk.

[Vympel]

Just found this out: China suspends Su-27SK production license.

After building 95 of a planned 200 kits of the Su-27SK, China has stopped production, as the Su-27SK no longer meets their requirements. This is not surprising, since the Su-27SK is just an export version of the original Su-27 (Russia began upgrading its Su-27 fleet to Su-27SM standard at the end of 2003- which is similar to Su-30MK2/Su-30MK3 in capability).

China still has it's Su-30MKK & Su-30MK2 deliveries from Russia on-going, however. Whether they'll get a tentative "Su-30MK3" batch is unknown, but probable.

There's also their indigenous "J-10" fighter to think about in the future.

[Sea Skimmer]

Still working on getting enough training to avoid running into EP-3's, apparently ....

Never underestimate the effectiveness of a Fox Four

[Vympel]

Still working on getting enough training to avoid running into EP-3's, apparently ....

That was a J-8 pilot, not one of the Flanker units.

[Chmee]

If we wanted to cripple China, buying more F-anything's is the most expensive way to do it. The cheapest way to do it would be banning Chinese imports .... they wouldn't be able to afford recycled MiG 19's if we didn't buy billions of dollars of crap from them.

I'm not advocating it, I'm pointing out that China is very dependent on the global economy. They don't have any national interest in being expansionist or screwing things up.

Not that great powers don't suddenly pull major bonehead moves that are completely against self interest ... lord knows we do.

[Sea Skimmer]

If we wanted to cripple China, buying more F-anything's is the most expensive way to do it. The cheapest way to do it would be banning Chinese imports .... they wouldn't be able to afford recycled MiG 19's if we didn't buy billions of dollars of crap from them.

That'd also spark off a global trade war which will probuabbly do not good things to the US economy. Dispite the US's huge trade deficit with China for example, the Chiense still do import tens of billions worth of US goods each year and the amount is rising.

I'm not advocating it, I'm pointing out that China is very dependent on the global economy. They don't have any national interest in being expansionist or screwing things up.

Everyone is very dependent on the global economy. I don't think trusting our safety and security on the issue is a good idea though, we already basically do that with an awful lot of nations.

Not that great powers don't suddenly pull major bonehead moves that are completely against self interest ... lord knows we do.

Exactly. So let the Raptors soar high.

[Chmee]

Everyone is very dependent on the global economy. I don't think trusting our safety and security on the issue is a good idea though, we already basically do that with an awful lot of nations.

All I'm saying is that if China containment is our biggest security priority for force-need projections, Japan and India and Russia better be kicking in a higher percentage of GDP on defense than we are ... 'cause it's their back yard, not ours.

[phongn]

All I'm saying is that if China containment is our biggest security priority for force-need projections, Japan and India and Russia better be kicking in a higher percentage of GDP on defense than we are ... 'cause it's their back yard, not ours.

The best Russian forces are in the Far East, the JMSDF is the second most powerful navy in the world and the Indians are expanding their military. What more do you want?

The JSDF cannot spend more than a certain percentage of GDP by law and Russia's economy is not in the greatest of shape. India is not really in a position to deal with something happening in the Pacific.

[Chmee]

The JSDF cannot spend more than a certain percentage of GDP by law and Russia's economy is not in the greatest of shape. India is not really in a position to deal with something happening in the Pacific.

What I'm getting at is that, when we look at China's military, we should remember that they're a relatively paranoid nation with very real historic threats on their borders, powerfully armed neighbors that they have to build their force structure to deal with.

What are we guarding against locally, Canada and Mexico? We have it made. I don't want to build a military to go toe to toe with China on their doorstep, because I'm with Eisenhower, that is a CRAZY idea.

[phongn]

What I'm getting at is that, when we look at China's military, we should remember that they're a relatively paranoid nation with very real historic threats on their borders, powerfully armed neighbors that they have to build their force structure to deal with.

And vice versa. Your point remains unclear, however. You seem to be bouncing around without any clear purpose or aim in this debate since it has moved into China.

What are we guarding against locally, Canada and Mexico? We have it made. I don't want to build a military to go toe to toe with China on their doorstep, because I'm with Eisenhower, that is a CRAZY idea.

Do you even understand the Eisenhower Doctrine?

[Chmee]

Do you even understand the Eisenhower Doctrine?

This one?

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

[phongn]

That was not the Eisenhower Doctrine. He happened to have quite a large military -- but a small Army.

[MKSheppard]

That was not the Eisenhower Doctrine. He happened to have quite a large military -- but a small Army.

USAAF OOB in 1957

4 heavy bomb wings with 127 B-36,
7 heavy bomb wings with 243 B-52
28 Medium bomb wings with 1,285 B-47s
4 strategic recon wings with 216 RB-47s
5 heavy air refuelling squadrons with 24 KC-135
35 air refuelling squadrons with 742 KC-97
3 Atlas-D squadrons with 18 missiles (marginally operational)
5 units with 16 Regulus-1 missiles.

[Chmee]

That was not the Eisenhower Doctrine. He happened to have quite a large military -- but a small Army.

USAAF OOB in 1957

4 heavy bomb wings with 127 B-36,
7 heavy bomb wings with 243 B-52
28 Medium bomb wings with 1,285 B-47s
4 strategic recon wings with 216 RB-47s
5 heavy air refuelling squadrons with 24 KC-135
35 air refuelling squadrons with 742 KC-97
3 Atlas-D squadrons with 18 missiles (marginally operational)
5 units with 16 Regulus-1 missiles.

That looks like SAC only.

[phongn]

That is indeed SAC. The listing is referring to strategic forces. Those strategic forces (and their defensive counterparts) cost a pretty penny. That money came from stripping the Army to the bone.