Raptor vs Eagle

In article ,
Martin Hotze wrote:

and what are you (the USA) going to do with it?

Advance/upgrade. Status quo leads to stagnation. Plus, this
aircraft will allow for better survivability of the pilot. I don't
know about you, but I like the idea of the pilot having improved
odds of surviving a mission.

you already can have world domination with the military arsenal
you currently have.

World domination isn't the purpose/mssion of the US military.

There is no logic reason for even more military power.

see above.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 07:29:48 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

and what are you (the USA) going to do with it?

Advance/upgrade. Status quo leads to stagnation. Plus, this
aircraft will allow for better survivability of the pilot. I don't
know about you, but I like the idea of the pilot having improved
odds of surviving a mission.


almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
now.

you already can have world domination with the military arsenal
you currently have.

World domination isn't the purpose/mssion of the US military.

no, not of your military.

There is no logic reason for even more military power.

see above.

my point stays: there is no LOGIC reason. are your F22 (?) pilots falling
out of the sky without any good reason? Or are they losing air combats (too
often)?

IMHO it is useless waste of money. but this is your money, not mine.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

In article ,
Martin Hotze wrote:

almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
now.

"almost nobody" isn't the same as "nobody". So your conclusion is incorrect.
Also, even if nobody else improved their weapon systems, the fact remains
that the F-22 is more survivable than the F-15. Since you claimed that
there is no logical reason for the F-22, and I presented one of the reasons
for the F-22, your claim is incorrect.

There is no logic reason for even more military power.

see above.

my point stays:

if you say so, not.

there is no LOGIC reason. are your F22 (?) pilots falling
out of the sky without any good reason? Or are they losing air combats (too
often)?

You need to think about future threats, not just current ones.

IMHO it is useless waste of money.

There are useful waste of money? ;-)

but this is your money, not mine.

Well, you got something right.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article , Martin Hotze wrote:

almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
now.

Almost... "Red Chinese Military Buildup Aimed at U.S." One of a few
hundred links: http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2.../27/120722.txt

I suppose the response will be that the peaceful Chinese are just
defending themselves against the U.S. imperialist running dogs

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:54:04 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:

I suppose the response will be that the peaceful Chinese are just
defending themselves against the U.S. imperialist running dogs

I won't say that the Chinese are the best people on the world, but I also
won't say this about Americans. And we here aren't Saints, too.

hm, they (China) spend only 1% more than the USA.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2034rank.html

China as seen in the CIA Factbook:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ch.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2067rank.html
Rank Order - Military expenditures - dollar figure
Rank 1 United States $ 370,700,000,000 date: March 2003
Rank 2 China $ 67,490,000,000 date: 2004

compared to a per capita expense .. well :-)
you must be afraid of something.

The money is better spent on other items in your household.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

Martin Hotze opined

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:54:04 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:

I suppose the response will be that the peaceful Chinese are just
defending themselves against the U.S. imperialist running dogs

I won't say that the Chinese are the best people on the world, but I also
won't say this about Americans. And we here aren't Saints, too.

hm, they (China) spend only 1% more than the USA.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2034rank.html

China as seen in the CIA Factbook:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ch.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2067rank.html
Rank Order - Military expenditures - dollar figure
Rank 1 United States $ 370,700,000,000 date: March 2003
Rank 2 China $ 67,490,000,000 date: 2004

compared to a per capita expense .. well :-)
you must be afraid of something.

China is getting rapidly wealthier. Chinese military spending is rising
rapidly. The quality of the Chinese military is rising even faster.

China is pursuing a noisy and aggresively expansive foreign policy.

In a generation the Pacific rim will be a very dangerous place.

The money is better spent on other items in your household.

Like, say, defending Europe?


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

Ash Wyllie wrote:

In a generation the Pacific rim will be a very dangerous place.

The Atlantic carried a story a month or two back on this. One of our military
experts was quoted as saying "Getting into a war with China is easy. I can think
of several trigger points; Taiwan, for instance. The question is, how do get
yourself *out* of a war with China?"

Some points the article made -- 1) China is a nuclear power. 2) Their sub force
is increasing rapidly and could control most of the Pacific in ten years or so
if they maintain the current build rate. 3) They have a small carrier force and
are working hard at developing it. Carriers give you offensive capabilities that
nothing else will provide.

In short, in ten to twenty years, China will have offensive capacity which will
allow them to do pretty much anything they want in the Pacific and they will be
able to easily sink any surface forces we deploy against them. What they do with
this remains to be seen, of course.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:VLaOe.1126$N22.942@trndny07...
Ash Wyllie wrote:

In a generation the Pacific rim will be a very dangerous place.

The Atlantic carried a story a month or two back on this. One of our
military
experts was quoted as saying "Getting into a war with China is easy. I can
think
of several trigger points; Taiwan, for instance. The question is, how do
get
yourself *out* of a war with China?"


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3400-7322r.htm

Chinese military buildup reaches beyond Taiwan
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 20, 2005



China is rapidly building up its military forces and weapons systems to
project power beyond Taiwan, according to a Pentagon report made public
yesterday.
Chinese military leaders "have expressed the view that control of Taiwan
would enable the [People's Liberation Army's] Navy to move its maritime
defensive perimeter further seaward and improve Beijing's ability to
influence regional sea lines of communication," said the annual report,
required by Congress.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters that China's economy
and defense spending are growing "and they have been purchasing substantial
numbers of modern weapons from a variety of countries, including Russia."
"They have been deploying additional capabilities," he said.
China's efforts, the report said, are shifting the balance of power
across the Taiwan Strait in Beijing's favor.
"The cross-Strait military balance appears to be shifting toward Beijing
as a result of China's sustained economic growth, growing diplomatic
leverage and improvements in the PLA's military capabilities," the report
said.
For the first time since the report was produced in 2000, the Pentagon
presented several assessments showing China may not evolve as a peaceful
international power.
China's growing nationalism, an expanding military that proliferates
arms to rogue states and a government that is still adapting to stronger
roles give it the potential to be a threatening power.
"In the future, as China's military power grows, China's leaders may be
tempted to resort to force or coercion more quickly to press diplomatic
advantage, advance security interests, or resolve disputes," the report
said.
The report stated that the U.S. intelligence community estimates it will
take China until 2010 to be ready to confront a medium-sized power.
However, the report noted that Chinese military secrecy has resulted in
"incomplete data" about its arms.
For example, U.S. intelligence agencies were taken by surprise by
China's development of the Yuan class of attack submarine that has new
underwater propulsion capabilities.




Some points the article made -- 1) China is a nuclear power. 2) Their sub
force
is increasing rapidly and could control most of the Pacific in ten years
or so
if they maintain the current build rate. 3) They have a small carrier
force and
are working hard at developing it. Carriers give you offensive
capabilities that
nothing else will provide.

In short, in ten to twenty years, China will have offensive capacity which
will
allow them to do pretty much anything they want in the Pacific and they
will be
able to easily sink any surface forces we deploy against them. What they
do with
this remains to be seen, of course.


China is NOT a benevolent power in any sense.

"George Patterson" wrote:

The Atlantic carried a story a month or two back on this. One of our
military experts was quoted as saying "Getting into a war with China
is easy. I can think of several trigger points; Taiwan, for instance.
The question is, how do get yourself *out* of a war with China?"

Indeed, the U. S. may be faced with the unsavory alternatives of war
with China or abandoning its closest allies in the region--Taiwan,
Japan, The Philippines, S. Korea--to Chinese domination.

China is the elephant in the room of American foreign policy. With its
Chamber of Commerce mentality, the Bush. administration, like the
Clinton administration before it, appears to believe that trade
entanglements will restrain Chinese aggression indefinitely. This
policy is helping China develop an economic engine powerful and
sophisticated enough to produce a military mega-power.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

George Patterson opined

Ash Wyllie wrote:

In a generation the Pacific rim will be a very dangerous place.

The Atlantic carried a story a month or two back on this. One of our military
experts was quoted as saying "Getting into a war with China is easy. I can
think of several trigger points; Taiwan, for instance. The question is, how
do get yourself *out* of a war with China?"

Some points the article made -- 1) China is a nuclear power. 2) Their sub
force is increasing rapidly and could control most of the Pacific in ten
years or so if they maintain the current build rate. 3) They have a small
carrier force and are working hard at developing it. Carriers give you
offensive capabilities that nothing else will provide.

In short, in ten to twenty years, China will have offensive capacity which
will allow them to do pretty much anything they want in the Pacific and they
will be able to easily sink any surface forces we deploy against them. What
they do with this remains to be seen, of course.

Very true. Our best hope is that a middle class democratic revolution occurs
and then behaves in a much less aggrexive manner.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?