Aircraft Vs Thread 5

[Ghost Train]

Ripped off design 1 and Ripped off design 2

lol, don't they all start with F- ? Farmer, Flogger, Foxbat, Fulcrum?

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I always thought NATO reporting names are not classified. Thats why I am curious they have not received any yet. Given how some of the Soviet fighters received them before operational status.

BTW, what did the JF-17 rip off? Is it based on an upgraded Mig-21 with F-20 design elements powered by a Mig-29 engine?

Edited April 8, 2009 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[edwin3060]

BTW, looks like early reports were flawed-- Gates is cutting both the F-22 and the C-17... which is not a smart move IMO.

[Evil Porkchop]

Gates is an idiot, you can only cut the military so much until it becomes ineffective and they are treading dangerously close to that line. The reason the F-22 is being cut, is that the "experts" are unable to envision a war where it will be needed. The same experts that 40 some odd years ago that said fighters don't need guns. Also a C-17 doesn't equal a C-5. As far as I knew when I was at HQ/AMC is that the C-17 was more of a replacement for the aging C-141 fleet. I won't argue the fact that the USAF needs more C-17's to replace aging C-5's though. What the USAF really needs is a new tanker... the ones in my unit are all over 45 years old.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Evil Porkchop

[F-ZeroOne]

lol, don't they all start with F- ? Farmer, Flogger, Foxbat, Fulcrum?

Fighters, or aircraft assumed to be fighters (sometimes one-off prototypes etc get labelled with "F" names) start with "F", Bombers with "B", helicopters with "H", transports with "C" and "M" for "er, we're not quite sure what this thing does yet" (okay, usually other roles like photo or ELINT).

[Coota0]

Gates is an idiot, you can only cut the military so much until it becomes ineffective and they are treading dangerously close to that line. The reason the F-22 is being cut, is that the "experts" are unable to envision a war where it will be needed. The same experts that 40 some odd years ago that said fighters don't need guns. Also a C-17 doesn't equal a C-5. As far as I knew when I was at HQ/AMC is that the C-17 was more of a replacement for the aging C-141 fleet. I won't argue the fact that the USAF needs more C-17's to replace aging C-5's though. What the USAF really needs is a new tanker... the ones in my unit are all over 45 years old.

No, you work with the amount of money alloted by the current government, he took the budget that was to be given to the DOD and made it work for the two wars we're in now, to keep people alive now, not to fund the USAF's wet dream for a war in 20 years.

[Graham]

The problem as I see it (as an armchair theorist), is that if and when the US does eventually get into an air war with a foe that has a credible air-to-air capability, whether it be 10 or even 20 years from now, the US will no longer enjoy the necessary assets to fight from a position of either numerical or technological superiority.

While I agree, that a large part of the current US defence budget, should go to funding the two wars presently being fought and making sure the troops on the ground have enough of the right type of equipment, an eye also needs to be kept to the future.

This is especially true given the typical long lead times for developing new warfighting equipment.

Just my two cents as a Brit.

Heh, perhaps the US will end up buying Typhoons in the future to make up the shortfall in their air to air capability.

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

This pic: http://www.sukhoi.org/img/gallery/wallpape...7_04_09_848.JPG

Yet another new Su-35 pic, but just due to where it's flying and the colors, it really looks amazingly like an Ace Combat 6 promo shot or something. And everything's so monochrome you'd think the pic was black and white--but it's not. You have to admit, that's VERY effective camo over snow. My current PC wallpaper.

[hobbes221]

...

Heh, perhaps the US will end up buying Typhoons in the future to make up the shortfall in their air to air capability.

Graham

I would like to see us pick up the new Gripen NG, I feel that it would fit well with the Marines and the way in which they use airpower. Also I've always wondered about just how hard it would be to mod for carrier ops. It's already fitted for hard landing and the landing gears almost look carrier ready as is. With it's small wing span I don't thing that you would need folding wings, much like the old A-4s.

Anyways, just a off topic rant - sorry

-edit- Man David couldn't you find a BIGGER pic - JK, you find/take/have some of the best stuff I've come across, thanks for sharing!

Edited April 9, 2009 by hobbes221

[Noyhauser]

I think it might be helpful to realize the situation Gates is in right now. Coota is right, basically he's prioritizing fighting the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq over a possible threat in 10, 15 years. Right now China is not a threat, and it will take them a decade to delink themselves from the American economy based on its currency holdings alone. They are tied in heavily to the international system and don't want to upset the international system because that is its path to prosperity. For any other threat, the projected numbers of F-22s/F-35s will be sufficient.

Second it is not clear if the F-22 is the right fighter for the future and neither is the F-35. The implications of the UAV revolution is unclear; we don't know what the nature of Airforces will look like in 10 years. In the last 10 years we've seen a complete revolution in the use of UAVs and its quite likely that its going to grow. Why would they invest in 100 million Dollar F-22 when in maybe 10 years a 20 million dollar UAV will appear to do its job? So I believe there is significant hesitance to commit to manned aircraft. Notice this line:

"We will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology."

Yet funding for the Predator was increased as well as for new "ISR" capabilities, which are seen as a stepping stone towards UCAVs. And the F-35 increase can always be rolled back if need be in the future. So they are hedging their bets right now, and aren't going to invest heavily in capabilities until there is a clear need for the fighters and the right technology for it.

If you want a historical parallel, think about British warship building at the turn of the last century. Between 1890 and 1905 The british invested heavily in conventional battleships, having more of them than more than the two and third powers combined (the two power standards.) Yet it in 1906 it introduced the Dreadnought, which was so revolutionary that it made all the battleships before it completely obsolete. The United States is in a position right now where its can predict that the aerial dreadnought of its time is coming and its not facing a serious threat to its pre-eminent position right now. In Gates' calculation it doesn't make much sense in blowing a tens of billions on capabilities that are likely to become obsolete in the near future.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

What Noyhauser said.

And for the record, I don't believe that hype about the threat from across the pacific. China's military tech and doctrine is in many ways decades behind the US.

[Graham]

I don't understand why so many Americans seem to view China as a military threat. China has never had expansionist tendencies, except for Taiwan, which it views (rightly or wrongly), as it's own anyway.

As Noyhauser said, the Chinese and American economies are too closely linked.

Graham

[eugimon]

I don't understand why so many Americans seem to view China as a military threat. China has never had expansionist tendencies, except for Taiwan, which it views (rightly or wrongly), as it's own anyway.

As Noyhauser said, the Chinese and American economies are too closely linked.

Graham

I get the general statement regarding China's expansionist tendencies or lack thereof, but I can think of at least 2 cultures in modern China that would disagree pretty vehemently with that. And I'd say that americans are historically programmed to think of china (and asians in general) as either threats or pawns. For example, I've been to some BIG churches where they talk about the Boxer rebellion as some sort of evil anti-western/anti-christian movement... which is a pretty damn jingoistic way to look at it. Anyways, except for that bit about the chinese throwing planks of wood in front of that one naval ship a couple weeks back most of the hand waving is over North Korea right now.

[Graham]

I know this is veering into politics and away from aircraft, so we probably shouldn't go there, but over the last few years on a lot of US-centric tactical, military & firearms forums that I visit, I've noticed an increasing trend of Americans viewing China as the next big military threat to the US. And this bothers me.

Sorry, as somebody who has lived in this part of the world for the past 22 years, I just don't see China as wanting to engage in armed conflict with the US....ever, except possibly over Taiwan and there I think China has the patience to wait for peaceful reunification, which I see eventually happening within the next 20 years or so.

Yes, China is an emerging Super Power, yes, they are modernising their military and making it into a more professional force, but beyond protecting their borders and territory they see as being theirs, I don't see them engaging in a take over of neigbouring states as the Soviets did post WWII.

China isn't and shouldn't be viewed as a Cold War Era Russia in terms of threat. China is pretty much Communist in name only and is actually fast becoming an extremely capitalist society.

Yes, they still have aways to go in terms of human rights, but there have been huge improvements in freedoms an openess in China in the last 15-20 years. Lots of extremely wealthy nouveau riche in china now.

What I do see China doing is exerting their influence politically and economically (but not militarily) more and more on the international stage in the coming decades as they gain in power.

Graham

[eugimon]

I agree that the idea of China as a military threat to the United States is pretty far fetched. Especially now when they're so dependent on the US not just to buy their goods but to sell them rice, soy and corn. I'm just saying there are people who have justifiable fears of a modernized chinese military.

I'm just saying there's more to the red china scare than actual strategic thinking. A lot of it is the war industry trying to create a new threat to justify their cold war programs and a lot of it has to do with how poorly americans think of asians in general. Don't forget that the democratic party and many labor unions got their start here as anti-chinese movements. And the right wingers like Lou Dobbs, still use ching-chong language as part of their rhetoric with casual disdain. One of our local news stations here in the Bay Area makes it a point to point out any asian connections... when the tanker spilled oil out over the bay, they would continually say, "the KOREAN tank, costco busan..." when the only thing korean about it was that's where the ship was made. And I can rattle off a bunch of recent anti-asian laws passed all over this country.

America has a long tradition of demonizing and marginalizing asians. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the hawks are setting up china as the next Big Bad.

[Evil Porkchop]

No, you work with the amount of money alloted by the current government, he took the budget that was to be given to the DOD and made it work for the two wars we're in now, to keep people alive now, not to fund the USAF's wet dream for a war in 20 years.

I will not argue the fact that you need to fund the current wars that the U.S. is involved in, and at present those 2 wars are a low-tech counter-insurgency/guerilla warfare type of conflict. But you can not count that the next war will be the same kind of war. If history teaches us anything it is that those that plan to fight the previous war usually loses. For all we know the next war could be a counter-insurgency like the current wars or it could end up being a war with a well-equipped foe with technical parity. Whether it is funding the Army, Navy or the Air Force, you need to have a vision of the future that does not pigeon hole your forces into fighting one type of war.

[Vifam7]

I will not argue the fact that you need to fund the current wars that the U.S. is involved in, and at present those 2 wars are a low-tech counter-insurgency/guerilla warfare type of conflict. But you can not count that the next war will be the same kind of war. If history teaches us anything it is that those that plan to fight the previous war usually loses. For all we know the next war could be a counter-insurgency like the current wars or it could end up being a war with a well-equipped foe with technical parity. Whether it is funding the Army, Navy or the Air Force, you need to have a vision of the future that does not pigeon hole your forces into fighting one type of war.

Agreed. You just never know what might happen in the future.

A change in regime or a bad incident or two can quickly spiral into animosity. No matter how good or important the relationship today, tomorrow it could be a different story. And once a side believes it can win a "quick victory" because the opposition is seen to be weak, use of military force becomes likely.

That said, the cancellation of the F-22 does make sense in the current realm of fiscal matters.

What's troubling to me is that the future of the US airforces are now all in the basket of the F-35 - an aircraft whose capabilities are increasingly becoming suspect. If the F-35 is as advertised, then everything is fine. But if the F-35 turns out to be a turkey, it could mean bad things.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Vifam7

[Noyhauser]

Agreed. You just never know what might happen in the future.

A change in regime or a bad incident or two can quickly spiral into animosity. No matter how good or important the relationship today, tomorrow it could be a different story. And once a side believes it can win a "quick victory" because the opposition is seen to be weak, use of military force becomes likely.

That said, the cancellation of the F-22 does make sense in the current realm of fiscal matters.

What's troubling to me is that the future of the US airforces are now all in the basket of the F-35 - an aircraft whose capabilities are increasingly becoming suspect. If the F-35 is as advertised, then everything is fine. But if the F-35 turns out to be a turkey, it could mean bad things.

Well "regime change" in China is a really remote possibility, which you wouldn't make a strategy around. Second I think alot of people don't realize how interlinked our economies are. The Chinese own 800 billion dollars of the U.S.'s debt, which is critical for its strategy to keep the Yuan propped up. China's growth heavily dependent on exports, and its the driver of the middle classes' wealth. To keep them happy it needs to maintain its export industries and foreign investment and it can't do that by starting wars. Its really unlikely to change dramatically in the next decade, as the Chinese response to the recent economic depression seems to indicate.

And even so, the US military's air dominance won't be challenged in the next 10 to 15 years anyway given its present size and capabilities. The US still has 200 F-22s and 10 carrier groups, and thousands of other fighters as well as the best C4ISR capabilities in the world bar none. Finally, I don't think the Airforce thinks the F-35 is the future, and it certainly doesn't think the F-22 is either. They're gaming on the UAV revolution.

[miles316]

sorry (not ghost train).

Edited April 11, 2009 by miles316

[Noyhauser]

Don't forget the threat they pose to the purity and essence of our bodily fluids.

In anycase I think I made my comments on this clear. Anymore news on the A400M?

Edited April 9, 2009 by Noyhauser

[Vifam7]

Well "regime change" in China is a really remote possibility, which you wouldn't make a strategy around. Second I think alot of people don't realize how interlinked our economies are. The Chinese own 800 billion dollars of the U.S.'s debt, which is critical for its strategy to keep the Yuan propped up. China's growth heavily dependent on exports, and its the driver of the middle classes' wealth. To keep them happy it needs to maintain its export industries and foreign investment and it can't do that by starting wars. Its really unlikely to change dramatically in the next decade, as the Chinese response to the recent economic depression seems to indicate.

I was thinking more of Russia than China.

And even so, the US military's air dominance won't be challenged in the next 10 to 15 years anyway given its present size and capabilities. The US still has 200 F-22s and 10 carrier groups, and thousands of other fighters as well as the best C4ISR capabilities in the world bar none. Finally, I don't think the Airforce thinks the F-35 is the future, and it certainly doesn't think the F-22 is either. They're gaming on the UAV revolution.

No matter how advanced UAVs get tomorrow, I think you're still going to need just as many pilots in airplanes as today.

[Ghost Train]

The Communist Government is a Fascist because they are Communist in name only, and have sold their people to the highest bider in order to keep their power, for they have become the very thing they say they despise a capitalist nation and the very worst type of Capitalist at that, FASCISM.

The reason there is no widespread rebellion in China is that, despite all of the inadequacies of their government, their policies from Deng Xiao Ping onward did result in bringing 100+ Million people out of poverty, which is no small feat in a nation that prior to 1980 had essentially a 19th century infrastructure. I suggest you visit China sometime and make your own judgment on how the Chinese people think of their own government.

We have a right to deter aggression through are power be it soft or hard power.

If one day China attempts to force a branch of are government of the hole Government in general; that is a threat to Me, and any one that today says that China/Gov is a not a threat is a threat to me (Metaphorically) for you are a Commie apologist.

China protectionist policy's and its abuse of the WTO, Favored nation status, trading weapons to nations Hostile to the US, (Iran, Venezuela,Sudan, talabanised/Pakistan) US debt is a threat to Me.

Although I do agree that some policies like artificially keeping the value of the RMB low to boost the monetary value of their exports can be construed as a violation, your statement about the weapons trade is not accurate.

The Pakistan Air Force's main fighters are the F-16 and an assortment of Mirage III's. Then by your logic, aren't the French and US defense industries guilty of supporting a "Talibanized Pakistan"? I don't think bringing the arms trade into this discussion helps prove anything about any country, as most major powers have been at some point in time guilty of giving the wrong the weapons to the wrong people at the wrong time. The US funded and trained the guerillas in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion of that country... guess who these guerillas are fighting now?

One day the people will bring down this Commie/Fascist oligarchy; though this day will not come soon enough for Me, but this will come not some fictional US lead Colonial invasion But from the people feed up of overbearing corrupt government bureaucrats, and Compulsory Abortions and Disappearances, Torture.

Is is true that China has a long ways to go in the whole path towards civil rights and treating its minorities ethically, but by your logic we should just cut ties with any nation that does not behave up to our standard in this regard? How about lets cut ties with Singapore - which has essentially been a one party state since its inception and is our ally, or Saudi Arabia (our biggest ally in the ME) where women have no rights and beheading is the preferred form of execution... we still have diplomatic ties with countries whose standards of civic equity are not the same as ours because there are still a few reasonable people in the State Department (that somehow survived the Bush administration) that believe we can show other nations what our vision of "civil rights" are hope that the better traits of our nature rub off on them. That is the true definition of how effective "Soft Power" is, when compared against the Shock & Awe approach against lolIraq.

And democratic development is an evolution, not a switch you flip. The media loves to paint Taiwan vs. PRC as a classic case of a small democratic nation vs a fascist giant, but always forgets to mention that Taiwan was in a state of martial law with no free election all the way until the 1990's, same with South Korea.

Our own US history is replete with mistreatment of individuals. Considering first that we basically reduced hundreds of Native American civilizations to rubble, and African Americans were second class citizens almost a century after the end of the Civil War. The fact is that governments in general do nasty things do their people irrespective of what they say they stand for. I am hopeful that we have learned from our mistakes, and also confident that because of the international criticism of China, that it will as well eventually.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Ghost Train

[Phyrox]

I know this is veering into politics and away from aircraft, so we probably shouldn't go there, but over the last few years on a lot of US-centric tactical, military & firearms forums that I visit, I've noticed an increasing trend of Americans viewing China as the next big military threat to the US. And this bothers me.

Sorry, as somebody who has lived in this part of the world for the past 22 years, I just don't see China as wanting to engage in armed conflict with the US....ever, except possibly over Taiwan and there I think China has the patience to wait for peaceful reunification, which I see eventually happening within the next 20 years or so.

Yes, China is an emerging Super Power, yes, they are modernising their military and making it into a more professional force, but beyond protecting their borders and territory they see as being theirs, I don't see them engaging in a take over of neigbouring states as the Soviets did post WWII.

China isn't and shouldn't be viewed as a Cold War Era Russia in terms of threat. China is pretty much Communist in name only and is actually fast becoming an extremely capitalist society.

Yes, they still have aways to go in terms of human rights, but there have been huge improvements in freedoms an openess in China in the last 15-20 years. Lots of extremely wealthy nouveau riche in china now.

What I do see China doing is exerting their influence politically and economically (but not militarily) more and more on the international stage in the coming decades as they gain in power.

Graham

From my experiance, the majority of individuals I have talked to who think of China as a possible military threat only seem to do so to justify their own belief that the US should continue to spend so much money on building up its military. I don't think most educated Americans are afraid of China, or see China as representing a military threat to the West. It's going to be a powerful economic and social mover and shaker, that's obvious...maybe it'll eclipse the USA the way we eclipsed the UK, but I think (or rather hope) that this impression of yours is colored by the type of forums you've been reading, rather than general sentiment.

Although people (Americans and otherwise) tend to be stupid, and will fear anyone if you give them an excuse.

All that said, I will return to the aircraft discussion with this unorthodox statement:

coolest interwar attack aircraft: Curtiss A-8/A-12

[eugimon]

I am hopeful that we have learned from our mistakes, and also confident that because of the international criticism of China, that it will as well eventually.

there's a law maker in Texas who wants asians to adopt "easier" names for "americans"... we haven't learned sh!t.

Because, you know, "kim" is so much harder to pronounce than "vujacic"

[Ghost Train]

there's a law maker in Texas who wants asians to adopt "easier" names for "americans"... we haven't learned sh!t.

Because, you know, "kim" is so much harder to pronounce than "vujacic"

lol... so true.

[David Hingtgen]

Yeah, this thread became very political in just an hour or two...

[Coota0]

I will not argue the fact that you need to fund the current wars that the U.S. is involved in, and at present those 2 wars are a low-tech counter-insurgency/guerilla warfare type of conflict. But you can not count that the next war will be the same kind of war. If history teaches us anything it is that those that plan to fight the previous war usually loses. For all we know the next war could be a counter-insurgency like the current wars or it could end up being a war with a well-equipped foe with technical parity. Whether it is funding the Army, Navy or the Air Force, you need to have a vision of the future that does not pigeon hole your forces into fighting one type of war.

It's great to plan for the next war, but if your military is in pieces from the last one, you have no one to fight the next war with. You may have people, but the xperience to fight the new war with is gone.

[miles316]

sorry

Edited April 11, 2009 by miles316

[Evil Porkchop]

It's great to plan for the next war, but if your military is in pieces from the last one, you have no one to fight the next war with. You may have people, but the xperience to fight the new war with is gone.

And the way to keep your military from falling to pieces is to make sure it is constantly (relatively speaking) supplied with the best equipment and people to do the job. Ask anyone what the Air Force's problem is right now and they will tell you that the aircraft are old, so old that if they were cars many of them would have antique/classic plates on them. At some point it's not so much the design of the equipment but the age and wear and tear that is associated with fighting a war. And yes I am in the Air Force so that is where most of my knowledge is. To me people arguing against a new fighter or tanker would be like people telling the Army that the M-60 Patton tank was good enough so the M1 Abrams wasn't needed. By your argument, why does the Army needs tanks then. They serve no real purpose in a counter-insurgency type war either.

[miles316]

My opinion is that Counter insurgency wars for the US is a fluke (Afghanistan/Waserastan,Iraq).

A parallel would be with the believed supremacy of calvary over infantry after the fall of the Roman empire.

[Bri]

I don't think it's wise to go into politics that much in a thread about aircraft. As we were discussing the end of the production of the Raptor here is my two cents:

The number of F-22s in service is not as important compared to the fact that it exists. The F22 project has not been cancelled nor is the plane taken out of service. If anything crazy were to happen like the rise of a highly advanced hostile airforce then I'm sure the production lines can be openened again even if it takes time. I doubt Lockheed will destroy all the blue prints. The lessons learned in developing that fighter will be used for the F-35 and other future projects do nothing is lost.

[miles316]

I don't think it's wise to go into politics that much in a thread about aircraft. As we were discussing the end of the production of the Raptor here is my two cents:

The number of F-22s in service is not as important compared to the fact that it exists. The F22 project has not been cancelled nor is the plane taken out of service. If anything crazy were to happen like the rise of a highly advanced hostile airforce then I'm sure the production lines can be openened again even if it takes time. I doubt Lockheed will destroy all the blue prints. The lessons learned in developing that fighter will be used for the F-35 and other future projects do nothing is lost.

Lets hope when that happens that we can hole out like in Vietnam.

[Ghost Train]

I used the term talabanised Pakistan to describe what they might become if the tentative democracy that it is to day falls, and China will most likely continue to sell to them which will still be a threat sorry I should not have put that in with Iran, Chavez.

I don't refute are past with minorities and native americans which was just as bad if not worse, but no minority has a chance of pulling off a Civil-right crusade in todays China not with out having a lot of dead body's at the end.

Taiwan and South Korea did throw off the shackles of right wind extremism, and become a representative democracy's and when China does become one I might go and visit, but today they might arrest and deport me for asking to many questions about their policy's.

In conclusion we must be able to protect are selves through power both soft and hard keeping the ability to deter China, Russia, Chavez.

The Cold War was started by Russia.

Oh, but you have to remember, both South Korea and the exiled Chinese government in Taiwan were our allies a long time before they became democracies. Marriage of convenience because of the cold war? Perhaps. But I think we chose to assist and ally ourselves with these 2 factions because we saw some "friendship" potential in them.

I'm not too keen on South Korean history but in the case of China - the US had a long standing relationship with Chiang Kai Shek and was well aware that in terms of morality this guy was only slightly better than Mao. In fact, he is well known for his brutal crackdown of communist disenters prior to WWII. So we chose to be friends with the lesser of two evils. It is of course not known if this ultimately helped foster democracy on the island considering the US switched

recognition to the People'S republic in 1973 - but in my opinion, the relationship did have a profound effect.

Even looking at this case, opening up relations with China since the Nixon era was absolutely the correct choice, I don't think anyone with a sane mind would argue that it would be better if we had Cold War II with China now that the USSR is gone, and despite China's imperfections and annoyances the world is much better off in this semi-friendly state, than with 2 superpowers pointing nukes at each other.

We did not fund Bin laden he funded himself thought with Oil money from his family business.

He played only a small part in that conflict. US assistance to the Afghan mujahadeen is well known and documented. Stinger missiles anyone? And it is a fact that a lot of the people our government trained fell into the service of the Taliban.

I am happy for the Hundred million Chines, but what of the nine hundred million remaining chines no one talks about them. I wont coddle a Fascist regime even if their country is economically in trouble, and it has been sixty years since china has been ocupied by a foreign power.

This is progress nonetheless. They can't transform their country's standards of civil justice overnight, but at least less people are starving. That is the fundamental problem with the West's understanding of China.

If your only source of data is CNN and Tom Clancy, the only conclusion you will reach is that China is a hegemonic monster trying to conquer the whole world, which couldn't be farther from the truth. For every negative China story in the media, people will not mention the aspects of progress. For example, we are well aware of China's crackdown of Tibetan protesters, but the western media never mentioned that:

1) The whole affair started when in the spring of last year, Tibetan gangs roamed the streets in an ethnic progrom,

killing ethnic Chinese living in the area. China had to send troops to restore order, but the media only turned

on its camera when the troops arrived.

2) The assertiont that Tibet was an ideal paradise prior to 1950 contrasts with the actual history, which is that the llamas ran a theocratic serfdom in which people had no rights and could be sold like objects.

3) Today Tibet has a basic infrastructure, basic rights to an education, and the ABOLISHMENT of serfdom.

Now, the fact that dissenters are treated harshly is unforgivable, but playing it by the numbers, they have it much better under the communists than under the llamas.

Ok now back to the defense cuts, and how it affects our deterrence. A few less F-22's is not going to affect this at all. At present we have the most sophisticated, best trained, and experienced fighting force in the world. Yet despite this, countries without a chance of harming the US or its allies have been getting on their soapboxes to preach their anti-america bs. What does this say about hard power? In today's world, it means very little. It is because of of the Bush administration's excessive use of the proverbial stick that we have lost much of the respect we had and has allowed people like Chavez to make a career out of pointing out how evil we supposedly are.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Ghost Train

[Roy Focker]

Yeah, this thread became very political in just an hour or two...

[David Hingtgen]

Note that "no politics" is one of the few rules at MW that's in bolded RED letters. And it's the very first one listed above all others. http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=23944