Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by Kadija_Man on Today at 07:28:31 pm »
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/japan-could-have-icbm-less-year-says-expert-24183

I don't think we solve the N. Korean problem until China tells them to disarm and that doesn't happen IMHO until S. Korea and Japan declare their intentions to have an independent nuclear arsenal with advanced delivery systems.

I believe that the Koreans have memories of Japanese rule from 1910 to 1945 and that the Chinese have memories of the Second Sino-Japanese War from 1937 to 1945, so I doubt that the People's Republic of China would tell North Korea to disarm if Japan were to acquire an independent nuclear arsenal with or without advanced delivery systems. I also doubt that North Korea would abandon its nuclear weapons if United States forces were to withdraw from South Korea.

China finds a nuclear armed DPRK useful.   The DPRK finds being nuclear armed gives them an added guarantee against "regime change" from the PRC/Russia/USA/Japan/ROK.   Only the US appears overly alarmed about the DPRK having nuclear weapons for some obscure reason.   Neither Japan or ROK are overly alarmed.  It just adds a further complication to an already complicated relationship.   The US Government's view that Kim Jung=Un is unreliable and "manic" is one based on the fact that he won't do what they dictate and he has the means to prevent them from enforcing it on them, except by economic means.
2
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by Triton on Today at 06:30:14 pm »
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/japan-could-have-icbm-less-year-says-expert-24183

I don't think we solve the N. Korean problem until China tells them to disarm and that doesn't happen IMHO until S. Korea and Japan declare their intentions to have an independent nuclear arsenal with advanced delivery systems.

I believe that the Koreans have memories of Japanese rule from 1910 to 1945 and that the Chinese have memories of the Second Sino-Japanese War from 1937 to 1945, so I doubt that the People's Republic of China would tell North Korea to disarm if Japan were to acquire an independent nuclear arsenal with or without advanced delivery systems. I also doubt that North Korea would abandon its nuclear weapons if United States forces were to withdraw from South Korea.
3
Aerospace / Re: USAF spells out F-16 upgrade program
« Last post by Airplane on Today at 06:01:34 pm »
Will the F-16 beat the 5000th mark, and the Phantom production run ?

Amazing if it does. During the Phantom heyday there wasn't much else out there as there is today with the Saab, Rafael, Typhoon. Personally I loved the phantom the first time laid eyes on it, and then I saw it fly a demo... Wow! Wow! Would be nice if the phantom remains undefeated by the 16. A totally modern phantom with engines and avionics and of course missiles would still be a tough cookie today. Still the most beautiful USAF fighter ever (and USMC)
4
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Last post by Sundog on Today at 05:17:51 pm »
Can you do that and still call the result an F-22.  Surely naming a kit after an existing product, means the design should be the same?
What are the existing laws ref product description and kit naming?

Given the number of model kits that have been produced with a number of inaccuracies; Yeah, no problem.
5
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Last post by Sundog on Today at 05:16:08 pm »
Still better than the YF-22.  Those tails were HUGE.

Definitely.
6
Military / Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Last post by Pioneer on Today at 04:46:27 pm »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/csa-miiley-bets-on-radical-tech-promises-no-more-fcs/

Based on this article, the US Army is in for another wasted decade of developmental stagnation. At some point, the entire futuristic thinking staff from all the US services should be summarily dismissed.

I Agree DrRansom
I often wondering what fairies and boogiemen the Pentagon are perceiving and chasing  :-\
One need only look at the U.S. Army's decades of wasted time & $$$$ spent on the 'on again/off again' 'Air Deployable Light Tank' programs  :o, to name but one!



Regards
Pioneer
7
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 03:56:27 pm »
Or that their militarization of the SCS is the USs fault.
8
God help them if they were forced to make a decision.  I mean it's not like they've never considered these questions before.  I swear to baby Jesus they must think if they just talk about it enough it will magically appear in the cells of ships.  One can't help but wonder where they'd be if they hadn't thrown in the towel on RATTLRS, Fasthawk, or HyFly.  As I recall they quit LRASM-B almost before the ink was dry on the announcement.

9
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 03:14:20 pm »
F-35B Lightning II Test Vertical Landing On Sloped Surface

10
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 02:59:21 pm »
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/japan-could-have-icbm-less-year-says-expert-24183

I don't think we solve the N. Korean problem until China tells them to disarm and that doesn't happen IMHO until S. Korea and Japan declare their intentions to have an independent nuclear arsenal with advanced delivery systems.

You'll love this.  Know how North Korea got their TELs?  China sold them to "move trees".  I challenge anybody to find pictures of these things actually moving lumber in either North Korea or China.

"The TELs are thought to be based on WS-51200 frames made by Wanshan Special Vehicle in China,[6][10] possibly using technology from Minsk Automobile Plant.[7][14] UN investigators have concluded that the TELs were Chinese WS51200 trucks exported to North Korea for lumber transport. The North Koreans converted them into TELs by installing hydraulic gear and controls to erect a missile. Despite being converted to fire a missile, the truck would not be likely to survive damage from the rocket exhaust like a purpose-built TEL, making it a single-use launcher.[15]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KN-08
https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/us-treasury-designates-chinese-firm-that-transferred-icbm-toting-heavy-trucks-to-north-korea/
http://www.truckinginfo.com/blog/trailer-talk/story/2017/04/where-did-the-north-koreans-get-those-missile-toting-trucks.aspx

And while the very first ones might have had that issue (single use) it won't stay that way.   That's right up there with China claiming they were purchasing Varyag to make a casino.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10