A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

European military prowess



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old November 1st 03, 10:49 PM
Chris Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: Alan Minyard

f course we would not be stupid enough to fight the PRC in a "ground
war". We would utterly destroy their command and control, their
air force etc.


Interesting article on the Chinese air forces in issue 119 of Policy Review.
Excerpt:

"China now has the second largest defense budget in the world, with
expenditures to boost its intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal and
acquire nuclear submarines and destroyers. Yet the Chinese air force remains
very weak, with capabilities dramatically inferior to the U.S.’s. The
arsenals of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (plaaf) and Naval Air
Force (planaf) consist mostly of fighter planes (used primarily for defensive
purposes) imported from Russia. The scarcity of bombers (used for offensive
purposes) and China’s continued reliance on foreign planes pose a puzzle to
U.S. defense planners. Apparently content to rely on missiles to project power,
China’s doctrine contrasts sharply with American ideas about the importance
of air superiority.

"Following the successful air campaigns of the 1991 Gulf War, Chinese defense
analysts tuned in to the American debate over the possibility of relying on air
power alone and the connection between the use of air power and avoiding
friendly military and foreign civilian casualties. In recent publications,
generals from China’s military academies have treated air power-related
themes — including what America’s strategic air advantage consists in and
how it might be mitigated or neutralized — at length. Chinese observers also
noted how the wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan confirmed American faith in the
increasing efficacy of air power in light of dramatic technological advances."

Complete article at:

http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/newmyer.html


Chris Mark
  #62  
Old November 2nd 03, 11:12 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The scarcity of bombers (used for offensive
purposes) and China’s continued reliance on foreign planes pose a puzzle to
U.S. defense planners.


Well, I suppose it's possible that here is a nation with no offensive
intentions! (And apart from Taiwan, I suppose that's true.)

Let's face it: China has been very good at getting what it wants,
short of war. The only significant combat it's fought outside its
borders, the Korean War, began a result of a significant threat to its
borders.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #63  
Old November 2nd 03, 02:17 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yeah I guess facts are rather silly... but I aint the inventor of
those facts...


That's obvious, you just make up your "facts".

Have you ever worked together with U.S. troops? They must always have
bodyguards from other countries when going from place A to place B.


Hogwash. The only time I've been protected by other than US forces was at
Fairford where British MoD forces guarded the perimeter and US forces the
interior. This arrangement was required because US forces have no arrest
authority outside of the fence. The same arrangement is in place throughout
the world, its a legal matter genius.

Do you know that the U.S. sends U.N. observers to some places?


That would be interesting since the US, nor any single country, has the
authority to "send" UN forces anywhere.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #64  
Old November 2nd 03, 02:20 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes, that one would have come in handy on several occasions. Of course our
desire to complete the mission would have ended up with us being court
martialed
for violating it :-)


Yeah, but if you going to violate a military regulation, I always found it
useful to know exactly which one you were "bending"


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #66  
Old November 2nd 03, 08:33 PM
WaltBJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mentioning grooming standards reminded me of that superior officer who
made the Special Forces guys shave their beards and cut their hair in
Afghanistan, immediately blowing their cover. Another example of a
careerist 'garritrooper'.
Bet he never ever left the compound except to go home to the ZI.
Walt BJ
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
04 Oct 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 October 4th 03 07:51 PM
B Nice war - here's the bill Alan Minyard Military Aviation 32 September 20th 03 06:36 AM
18 Sep 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 19th 03 03:47 AM
04 Sep 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 5th 03 02:57 AM
07 Aug 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 August 8th 03 02:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.