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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... Eh? You think there is some kind of rule that says, "OK, if the PRC gets in the first blow, the USAF is NOT allowed to take the fight "downtown" back in the PRC--no B-2 strikes against C4I targets, no cruise missile strikes against airfields and IADS..."? Strange idea of modern combat you have there... Of course: I said so at least 400 times so far on this NG. Haven't you read any of my previous posts indicating this before? Strange as it may seem, many of us do not hang upon your every word--I can only go off what you say *now*, and that was, to quote: "...the first blow in such a scenario would obviously be delivered by the Chinese; and in that case the USAF would not be in offensive, but on defensive right from the start..." You have yet to conclusively show where "hundreds of Flankers and AWACS" will be a problem in the forseeable future--heck, the PRC is still awaiting delivery of their first fully functional AWACS (the US having quashed the Israeli plans to sell them Phalcon a few years ago). Kevin, after posting the current OrBat of the PLAAF/PLANAF Flanker-units, it is definitely obvious that I'm completely clueless about this topic. Considering that your numbers, not to mention your conclusions, contradict what many other sources indicate, including the latest DoD report, which indicates that the PLAAF *might* be capable of taking on a joint USAF/ROCAF force sometime after 2010: "The PLAAF's primary strength remains its size--approximately 3,000 combat-capable aircraft. Also, the PLAAF and PLANAF are undergoing significant upgrades, whichinclude acquiring fourth-generation aircraft, air defense systems, advanced munitions, and C4ISR equipment. These upgrades eventually will improve the PLAAF's capability to conduct both offensive and defensive operations. In addition, air combat tactics continue to evolve, and training is becoming more advanced, though both remain behind Western standards. By 2010-15, the PLAAF will have made additional progress toward becoming a modern air force and will be equipped with modern weapons that most likelywill enable the PLA to execute the regional combat operations its current military doctrine envisions." That is a far cry from what you have been braying about, and it would be hard to point to the DoD's accessment as being overly optimistic--this is after all one of the foundation documents trotted out when budgeting comes to the table. So, I must wonder: how do you actually come to the idea to ask me for any kind of "conclusive" evidence to this topic? Because you have a habit of tossing out unspupported "facts" that do not jive with other available sources. I mean, seriously: you have posted all the possible sources - and plenty of them - indicating something completely different. So, who am I to tell you anything else? An idiot, perhaps? But then again, you remain firmly convinced your version of reality is quite different from that portrayed by folks like the DoD, right? Al has brilliantly explained it: I'm not qualified. So, don't bother to ask. Apparently he hit the nail on the head in this case--anyone claiming that the PLAAF would field 300 J-10/FC-1 aircraft over the next 12 to 18 months, as you have, is obviously a bit lacking in qualifications, namely common sense. Yeah, go simplistic...*that's* gonna really make your point! The fact is that the ROCAF is going to be fighting the PLAAF at the same time and in the same area that this postulated US response would be occuring in--sorry you can't seem to grasp that little fact. Agreed: I'm a stupid. Must be the reason I still wonder how haven't you seen this coming? I am guessing english is not your first language-- that last question makes no sense whatsoever. Your numbers vary quite widely from those reported in other sources: Yes. The reason is simple: they are right and I am wrong - because I'm anti-US and not qualified. From what I have seen thus far, only the latter really applies here. There is a similar problem here like in the case of the F-22: what is reported is long since not current. The plane has obviously flown earlier (perhaps only "few months" earlier than reported, but nevertheless), then it was not only flown by Pakistani pilots already in 2003 (reports in the specialized press indicate it was flown by the Pakistanis for the first time only in April this year), but also by Iranians (in October last year). Provide proof. See above: wouldn't you agree it's pretty silly to ask somebody anti-US - like me - even for the way to the next shopping mal? So, another unsupported "fact" you have trotted out--figures. Your dedication to the practice of snipping all of that stuff you don't like from the conversation, even though it is still the subject of debate, is another little trait of your's that gets a bit tiresome, though since you have a demonstrable tendency of denying your own previous statements it is probably understandable--why make it easy for your opponent to zing those direct quotes back at you, eh? And you ask me for proofs for what I'm talking about? Ts, ts, ts.... It's namely impossible that there could be anybody who is not dependent on Jane's and similar institutions: all the people that do not copy-paste from them but research on their own are simply lying and phantasising - and anti-US (that's most important here), not qualified, and twisting electrons. Ask Alistair and Al: they can confirm it if you still don't believe. Consequently, you can't ask me any such questions any more. Actually, you seem to fit quite well into the mold of "New Journalism"--the facts be damned, your personal views and "hidden sources" are paramount. You might want to drop a resume off at the New York Times--they have demonstrated a recent propensity to like journalists with that kind of philosophy. Brooks Heh, but I'll proudly add these nick-names as attributes to the existing list (excerpt see bellow), some even on the first place. :8 Cheers, Tom Cooper Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian Unqualified Imperialist Text-writter, Communist Dog, anti-US/Israel/Moslems/Arabs..., Russo-fob, (etc., etc.: list available on demand) Vienna, Austria ************************************************* Author: Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988: http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875 Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585 African MiGs http://www.acig.org/afmig/ Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM ************************************************* |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
what is good sound proofing for interior?!?! | Rick | Home Built | 12 | May 13th 04 02:29 AM |
How Aircraft Stay In The Air | Sarah Hotdesking | Military Aviation | 145 | March 25th 04 05:13 PM |
Pulse jet active sound attentuation | Jay | Home Built | 32 | March 19th 04 05:57 AM |
The sound of survival: Huey's distinctive 'whop-whop' will be heard again locally, By Ian Thompson/McNaughton Newspapers | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 19th 04 12:01 AM |
F-86 and sound barrier | VH | Military Aviation | 43 | September 26th 03 02:53 AM |