DIA on China's new fighter

[mike]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/security/ (Inside the Ring - Bill
Gertz)

New China fighter

A Chinese general is boasting that the People's Liberation Army Air
Force will soon fly a new advanced fighter that U.S. intelligence
projections had said would not be ready for 10 years. The new fifth-
generation Chinese fighter could be deployed as early as 2017 -- years
earlier than announced by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in
explaining his cancellation of the U.S. version of the fifth-
generation fighter, the F-22.

Gen. Ho Weirong, the deputy commander of the Chinese air force, told
Chinese state-run media on Monday that China's fifth-generation
fighter has been under intense development and will enter service in
the next eight to 10 years. Characteristics of this type of jet
include radar-evading stealth, supersonic cruise, super
maneuverability and the capability for short takeoffs.

The comments by the Chinese general represent an unusual disclosure by
the Chinese military, which rarely mentions future weapons systems.

The disclosure will likely fuel further debate in the United States
over the F-22, which was canceled in favor of the F-35 by Mr. Gates
earlier this year.

Mr. Gates said in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago July 16
that the F-22 was canceled as part of considerations for the proper
mix of warplanes needed for a potential of "state-to-state conflict."

The F-35, despite development problems, was chosen over the F-22 for
cost reasons, but he noted that it was "clearly a capability that we
do need."

Mr. Gates stated in the speech that the F-22 was not needed because
China's air force would not have a comparable jet by 2020.

"Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly
2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds," he said. "Of those, nearly
1,100 will be the most advanced fifth-generation F-35s and F-22s.
China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth-generation aircraft
by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens."

As a result, the United States would have about 1,700 advanced fifth-
generation fighters "versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the
Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to
America's national security," Mr. Gates said.

A Pentagon spokesman did not reply to e-mails or telephone calls
seeking comment on the issue. A Defense Intelligence Agency spokesman
also did not respond to e-mails.

Richard Fisher, a China military-affairs specialist, said the reports
on a Chinese advanced fighter reflected "unprecedented transparency"
by China.

"One has to assume they have some confidence in their projections in
order to make them public," said Mr. Fisher, of the International
Assessment and Strategy Center. "So what is the Obama administration
going to do, ignore this and proceed with F-22 production termination,
to the detriment of U.S. security interests in Asia and beyond?"

According to defense specialists, the F-35 is comparable in some ways
to the F-22 but lacks what is called "supercruise" capability, a
feature that enables it to penetrate deep into enemy airspace, launch
its weapons and exit without using up all its fuel.

Mr. Fisher said he thinks that canceling F-22 production without a
better warplane in the pipeline is tantamount to unilateral
disarmament. "In Asia, this means a decline in American military
credibility and an increase in regional instability," he said.

Mr. Fisher also called on U.S. intelligence agencies to explain "what
appears to be a significant underestimation of Chinese capability."

"The PLA does not make it easy to read their future, but after
spending $40 billion a year on intelligence, it would be a real
scandal if they got this one wrong," he said.


DIA on China's new fighter

The Defense Intelligence Agency is sticking by its estimates of when
China will deploy a fifth-generation jet fighter after recent remarks
by a Chinese general that Beijing's most advanced jet could be fielded
by 2017 - years earlier than U.S. intelligence projections.

"We believe that first flight of a Chinese fifth-generation fighter
will occur in the next few years; however, we also believe it will
take about 10 years before the [People's Liberation Army] begins to
operationally deploy a fifth-generation fighter in meaningful
numbers," DIA spokesman Donald Black told Inside the Ring.

As reported in this space last week, Gen. He Weirong, the deputy
commander of the Chinese air force, told Chinese state-run media that
the new advanced jet would fly soon despite U.S. intelligence
projections that it will not be ready for combat for at least 10
years. (Gen. He was incorrectly identified as Gen. Ho Weirong last
week.)

Gen. He said the first jet could be deployed by 2017, and his remarks
have sparked renewed debate over whether to continue production of the
Pentagon's most advanced jet, the F-22. Production of the jet, beyond
187 more planes already in the pipeline, was effectively canceled by
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates earlier this year.

If deployed by 2017, the new advanced warplane would make China's jet
force more advanced than those of Britain, France and other Western
European statesaccording to military analysts.

Asked if U.S. projections about the new Chinese jet were incorrect,
Mr. Black said "the intelligence community has been warning of the
development of a Chinese fifth-generation fighter for several years."

"Intelligence estimates typically provide a range of dates associated
with operational deployment," he said. "Gen. He's comments are
generally consistent with these intelligence community estimates of
Chinese fifth-generation fighter operational deployment."

The United States is deploying large numbers of F-35 jets, which lack
some fifth-generation capabilities of the F-22, such as supercruise, a
propulsion system that allows the jet to fly longer distances, fire
its long-range weapons, and then exit without running out of fuel.

Mr. Gates said in July that U.S. projections of when China would
deploy its new fifth-generation jet, dubbed J-XX by some analysts,
indicate that the F-22 was not needed in large numbers because China
will not have large numbers of fifth-generation fighters by 2020.
Despite large numbers of F-35s and some F-22s, "China, by contrast, is
projected to have no fifth-generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025,
the gap only widens," Mr. Gates said.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he did not see "any
inconsistency in what the SecDef has said and the DIA assessment."

"In both cases, we don't see any significant fifth generation Chinese
fighter capability for next 10 years or so," Mr. Whitman said.

Richard Fisher, a China military-affairs specialist with the
International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the DIA's response
to the Chinese general's remarks were comforting.

"But one has to suspect that there is now light between recent DIA
assessments and what Secretary Gates said on July 16," Mr. Fisher
said. "Secretary Gates basically said that a Chinese fifth generation
fighter threat would not materialize well into the 2020s, while the
DIA seems to imply that their 'range' of assessments could accept this
happening closer to 2020."

For Mr. Fisher, the most important issue is not the quality of U.S.
intelligence analysis on Chinese weapons developments, but U.S.
leadership.

"The Obama administration convinced the Congress to deny U.S. forces a
critical capability, the F-22, in some part due to its assessment of
Chinese next-generation fighter capabilities, an assessment that may
not have been the 'consensus' within the intelligence community," he
said.

"Democracies require informed debate in order to survive. It is
appearing that the debate over the termination of F-22 production was
not sufficiently informed regarding emerging Chinese capabilities."

Mr. Fisher said some evidence indicates China may have several fifth-
generation fighter programs in train and could augment less capable
jets with upgrades and advances.

"I doubt that the Chinese are going to limit their force to 187 fifth-
generation air-superiority fighters," he said, referring to the
Pentagon's limited buy of F-22s.

A U.S. Air Force official involved in the F-35 development program
told Aviation Week that the Chinese will "have a difficult road if
their design is tied to the J-10," China's indigenous fourth-
generation fighter.

The officer said that significantly reducing the new aircraft's radar
cross-section will require more than stealth outer coatings. New
integrated design and shaping as well as coatings are needed, the
officer was quoted as saying in the magazine's Nov. 13 article on the
new Chinese jet.

A Chinese Embassy spokesman did not respond to an e-mail seeking
comment on the new jet.

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/security/ (Inside the Ring - Bill
> Gertz)
>
> New China fighter
>
> A Chinese general is boasting that the People's Liberation Army Air
> Force will soon fly a new advanced fighter that U.S. intelligence
> projections had said would not be ready for 10 years. The new fifth-
> generation Chinese fighter could be deployed as early as 2017 -- years
> earlier than announced by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in
> explaining his cancellation of the U.S. version of the fifth-
> generation fighter, the F-22.
>
> Gen. Ho Weirong, the deputy commander of the Chinese air force, told
> Chinese state-run media on Monday that China's fifth-generation
> fighter has been under intense development and will enter service in
> the next eight to 10 years. Characteristics of this type of jet
> include radar-evading stealth, supersonic cruise, super
> maneuverability and the capability for short takeoffs.
>
> The comments by the Chinese general represent an unusual disclosure by
> the Chinese military, which rarely mentions future weapons systems.
>
> The disclosure will likely fuel further debate in the United States
> over the F-22, which was canceled in favor of the F-35 by Mr. Gates
> earlier this year.
>
> Mr. Gates said in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago July 16
> that the F-22 was canceled as part of considerations for the proper
> mix of warplanes needed for a potential of "state-to-state conflict."
>
> The F-35, despite development problems, was chosen over the F-22 for
> cost reasons, but he noted that it was "clearly a capability that we
> do need."
>
> Mr. Gates stated in the speech that the F-22 was not needed because
> China's air force would not have a comparable jet by 2020.
>
> "Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly
> 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds," he said. "Of those, nearly
> 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth-generation F-35s and F-22s.
> China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth-generation aircraft
> by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens."
>
> As a result, the United States would have about 1,700 advanced fifth-
> generation fighters "versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the
> Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to
> America's national security," Mr. Gates said.
>
> A Pentagon spokesman did not reply to e-mails or telephone calls
> seeking comment on the issue. A Defense Intelligence Agency spokesman
> also did not respond to e-mails.
>
> Richard Fisher, a China military-affairs specialist, said the reports
> on a Chinese advanced fighter reflected "unprecedented transparency"
> by China.
>
> "One has to assume they have some confidence in their projections in
> order to make them public," said Mr. Fisher, of the International
> Assessment and Strategy Center. "So what is the Obama administration
> going to do, ignore this and proceed with F-22 production termination,
> to the detriment of U.S. security interests in Asia and beyond?"
>
> According to defense specialists, the F-35 is comparable in some ways
> to the F-22 but lacks what is called "supercruise" capability, a
> feature that enables it to penetrate deep into enemy airspace, launch
> its weapons and exit without using up all its fuel.
>
> Mr. Fisher said he thinks that canceling F-22 production without a
> better warplane in the pipeline is tantamount to unilateral
> disarmament. "In Asia, this means a decline in American military
> credibility and an increase in regional instability," he said.
>
> Mr. Fisher also called on U.S. intelligence agencies to explain "what
> appears to be a significant underestimation of Chinese capability."
>
> "The PLA does not make it easy to read their future, but after
> spending $40 billion a year on intelligence, it would be a real
> scandal if they got this one wrong," he said.
>
>
> DIA on China's new fighter
>
> The Defense Intelligence Agency is sticking by its estimates of when
> China will deploy a fifth-generation jet fighter after recent remarks
> by a Chinese general that Beijing's most advanced jet could be fielded
> by 2017 - years earlier than U.S. intelligence projections.
>
> "We believe that first flight of a Chinese fifth-generation fighter
> will occur in the next few years; however, we also believe it will
> take about 10 years before the [People's Liberation Army] begins to
> operationally deploy a fifth-generation fighter in meaningful
> numbers," DIA spokesman Donald Black told Inside the Ring.
>
> As reported in this space last week, Gen. He Weirong, the deputy
> commander of the Chinese air force, told Chinese state-run media that
> the new advanced jet would fly soon despite U.S. intelligence
> projections that it will not be ready for combat for at least 10
> years. (Gen. He was incorrectly identified as Gen. Ho Weirong last
> week.)
>
> Gen. He said the first jet could be deployed by 2017, and his remarks
> have sparked renewed debate over whether to continue production of the
> Pentagon's most advanced jet, the F-22. Production of the jet, beyond
> 187 more planes already in the pipeline, was effectively canceled by
> Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates earlier this year.
>
> If deployed by 2017, the new advanced warplane would make China's jet
> force more advanced than those of Britain, France and other Western
> European statesaccording to military analysts.
>
> Asked if U.S. projections about the new Chinese jet were incorrect,
> Mr. Black said "the intelligence community has been warning of the
> development of a Chinese fifth-generation fighter for several years."
>
> "Intelligence estimates typically provide a range of dates associated
> with operational deployment," he said. "Gen. He's comments are
> generally consistent with these intelligence community estimates of
> Chinese fifth-generation fighter operational deployment."
>
> The United States is deploying large numbers of F-35 jets, which lack
> some fifth-generation capabilities of the F-22, such as supercruise, a
> propulsion system that allows the jet to fly longer distances, fire
> its long-range weapons, and then exit without running out of fuel.
>
> Mr. Gates said in July that U.S. projections of when China would
> deploy its new fifth-generation jet, dubbed J-XX by some analysts,
> indicate that the F-22 was not needed in large numbers because China
> will not have large numbers of fifth-generation fighters by 2020.
> Despite large numbers of F-35s and some F-22s, "China, by contrast, is
> projected to have no fifth-generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025,
> the gap only widens," Mr. Gates said.
>
> Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he did not see "any
> inconsistency in what the SecDef has said and the DIA assessment."
>
> "In both cases, we don't see any significant fifth generation Chinese
> fighter capability for next 10 years or so," Mr. Whitman said.
>
> Richard Fisher, a China military-affairs specialist with the
> International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the DIA's response
> to the Chinese general's remarks were comforting.
>
> "But one has to suspect that there is now light between recent DIA
> assessments and what Secretary Gates said on July 16," Mr. Fisher
> said. "Secretary Gates basically said that a Chinese fifth generation
> fighter threat would not materialize well into the 2020s, while the
> DIA seems to imply that their 'range' of assessments could accept this
> happening closer to 2020."
>
> For Mr. Fisher, the most important issue is not the quality of U.S.
> intelligence analysis on Chinese weapons developments, but U.S.
> leadership.
>
> "The Obama administration convinced the Congress to deny U.S. forces a
> critical capability, the F-22, in some part due to its assessment of
> Chinese next-generation fighter capabilities, an assessment that may
> not have been the 'consensus' within the intelligence community," he
> said.
>
> "Democracies require informed debate in order to survive. It is
> appearing that the debate over the termination of F-22 production was
> not sufficiently informed regarding emerging Chinese capabilities."
>
> Mr. Fisher said some evidence indicates China may have several fifth-
> generation fighter programs in train and could augment less capable
> jets with upgrades and advances.
>
> "I doubt that the Chinese are going to limit their force to 187 fifth-
> generation air-superiority fighters," he said, referring to the
> Pentagon's limited buy of F-22s.
>
> A U.S. Air Force official involved in the F-35 development program
> told Aviation Week that the Chinese will "have a difficult road if
> their design is tied to the J-10," China's indigenous fourth-
> generation fighter.
>
> The officer said that significantly reducing the new aircraft's radar
> cross-section will require more than stealth outer coatings. New
> integrated design and shaping as well as coatings are needed, the
> officer was quoted as saying in the magazine's Nov. 13 article on the
> new Chinese jet.
>
> A Chinese Embassy spokesman did not respond to an e-mail seeking
> comment on the new jet.


8 to 10 years? that's close to the 2020 estimate, and whenever has an
advanced weapon delivered on time?

it's just talk until a prototype actually flies.

[PaPa Peng]

> The officer said that significantly reducing the new aircraft's radar
> cross-section will require more than stealth outer coatings. New
> integrated design and shaping as well as coatings are needed, the
> officer was quoted as saying in the magazine's Nov. 13 article on the
> new Chinese jet.

Been away from this group for some time. Question. Dogfighting has
no place in modern aerial combat. Presumably long before the enemy
comes within visual range onboard sensors would have decteted the
opponent and high performance guided missiles fired. No one gets near
enough to fire his guns. So what is the advantage in super
maneuverability in the design specs of the plane? In all the videos I
have seen where the pilot tries to demonstrate the superior
performance of his aircraft nothing the pilot had done could possibly
escape a locked-on missile.

The second question is on stealth. Again you don't want to come
within shooting range of the enemy. Dive bombing a well defenced
target is sucidal. Against defenseless third world countries any old
ordinary plane can do the job. So against a well defended target one
tries to launch the munition from as far away as possible. Once the
munition is launched the plane reveals it location and has to scramble
out of the way. Its pointless to hang around anyway since the mission
is already (launch the munition) and you don't want to risk a
multimillion dollar plane and the pilot.

Therefore what critical advantages do stealth and high maneuverablity
confer to 5th generation aircraft to justify the cost, long
development times and technical complexity.

[frank]

On Nov 19, 9:07*pm, PaPa Peng > wrote:
> > The officer said that significantly reducing the new aircraft's radar
> > cross-section will require more than stealth outer coatings. New
> > integrated design and shaping as well as coatings are needed, the
> > officer was quoted as saying in the magazine's Nov. 13 article on the
> > new Chinese jet.
>
> Been away from this group for some time. *Question. *Dogfighting has
> no place in modern aerial combat. * Presumably long before the enemy
> comes within visual range onboard sensors would have decteted the
> opponent and high performance guided missiles fired. *No one gets near
> enough to fire his guns. *So what is the advantage in super
> maneuverability in the design specs of the plane? *In all the videos I
> have seen where the pilot tries to demonstrate the superior
> performance of his aircraft nothing the pilot had done could possibly
> escape a locked-on missile.
>
> The second question is on stealth. *Again you don't want to come
> within shooting range of the enemy. *Dive bombing a well defenced
> target is sucidal. *Against defenseless third world countries any old
> ordinary plane can do the job. So against a well defended target one
> tries to launch the munition from as far away as possible. *Once the
> munition is launched the plane reveals it location and has to scramble
> out of the way. *Its pointless to hang around anyway since the mission
> is already (launch the munition) and you don't want to risk a
> multimillion dollar plane and the pilot.
>
> Therefore what critical advantages do stealth and high maneuverablity
> confer to 5th generation aircraft to justify the cost, long
> development times and technical complexity.

Ever think their probable adversary would have US supplied weapons?
Like to dogfight, have stealth and turn inside your turn? Start saying
you don't need to dogfight and people like Yeager and any hot fighter
pilot are going to turn you into a smoking hole in the ground.

Do some reading. ECM does wonders against a missile lock on.

The key in air combat is not only a great set of technology and tools
but a lot of training and knowledge about your adversary and how to
beat their weaknesses. They can't handle 2v1? That's how you hit them.
Can't fight down in the dirt? Get them there. Have a problem at high
altitude you can go after, get them there. Tend to rely on ground
control or high tech gadgets? That's a weakness. Use the same tactics
day after day at the same time? They're toast. You get the drift. You
force them to go where they're weak.

[eatfastnoodle]

On Nov 19, 9:07*pm, PaPa Peng > wrote:
> > The officer said that significantly reducing the new aircraft's radar
> > cross-section will require more than stealth outer coatings. New
> > integrated design and shaping as well as coatings are needed, the
> > officer was quoted as saying in the magazine's Nov. 13 article on the
> > new Chinese jet.
>
> Been away from this group for some time. *Question. *Dogfighting has
> no place in modern aerial combat. * Presumably long before the enemy
> comes within visual range onboard sensors would have decteted the
> opponent and high performance guided missiles fired. *No one gets near
> enough to fire his guns. *So what is the advantage in super
> maneuverability in the design specs of the plane? *In all the videos I
> have seen where the pilot tries to demonstrate the superior
> performance of his aircraft nothing the pilot had done could possibly
> escape a locked-on missile.
>
> The second question is on stealth. *Again you don't want to come
> within shooting range of the enemy. *Dive bombing a well defenced
> target is sucidal. *Against defenseless third world countries any old
> ordinary plane can do the job. So against a well defended target one
> tries to launch the munition from as far away as possible. *Once the
> munition is launched the plane reveals it location and has to scramble
> out of the way. *Its pointless to hang around anyway since the mission
> is already (launch the munition) and you don't want to risk a
> multimillion dollar plane and the pilot.
>
> Therefore what critical advantages do stealth and high maneuverablity
> confer to 5th generation aircraft to justify the cost, long
> development times and technical complexity.

The whole "kill'em before they can reach" sounds really interesting in
theory and probably will eventually work in practice. But I just don't
think it's gonna be an smooth ride just like gun and powder didn't
replace sword and spear overnight, we all know, at the initial stage,
rudimentary musket was no match for arrow and bow. Anyway, the bottom
line is this theory has never really been seriously tested in real
combat. So before jumping with your two feet into it, it'd be prudent
to hedge your bet by maintaining skills proven to be needed.

[Roger Conroy[_3_]]

"PaPa Peng" > wrote in message
...
>
>> The officer said that significantly reducing the new aircraft's radar
>> cross-section will require more than stealth outer coatings. New
>> integrated design and shaping as well as coatings are needed, the
>> officer was quoted as saying in the magazine's Nov. 13 article on the
>> new Chinese jet.
>
> Dogfighting has no place in modern aerial combat.

Where we've heard that before?

[Roger Conroy[_3_]]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PaPa Peng" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> The officer said that significantly reducing the new aircraft's radar
>>> cross-section will require more than stealth outer coatings. New
>>> integrated design and shaping as well as coatings are needed, the
>>> officer was quoted as saying in the magazine's Nov. 13 article on the
>>> new Chinese jet.
>>
>> Dogfighting has no place in modern aerial combat.
>
> Where we've heard that before?
Sorry for the typo! Should be:
Where have we heard that before?

[William Black[_1_]]

Roger Conroy wrote:
> "PaPa Peng" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> The officer said that significantly reducing the new aircraft's radar
>>> cross-section will require more than stealth outer coatings. New
>>> integrated design and shaping as well as coatings are needed, the
>>> officer was quoted as saying in the magazine's Nov. 13 article on the
>>> new Chinese jet.
>> Dogfighting has no place in modern aerial combat.
>
> Where we've heard that before?
>
>

Last time?

Just before the Falkland's nonsense...

--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

[Dan[_9_]]

William Black wrote:
> Roger Conroy wrote:
>> "PaPa Peng" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> The officer said that significantly reducing the new aircraft's radar
>>>> cross-section will require more than stealth outer coatings. New
>>>> integrated design and shaping as well as coatings are needed, the
>>>> officer was quoted as saying in the magazine's Nov. 13 article on the
>>>> new Chinese jet.
>>> Dogfighting has no place in modern aerial combat.
>>
>> Where we've heard that before?
>>
>
> Last time?
>
> Just before the Falkland's nonsense...
>

Problem is, except in the rare all out war (two in the history of the
race), you need to close to visual to confirm targets, and then...

Dan

[dott.Piergiorgio]

eatfastnoodle ha scritto:

> Anyway, the bottom
> line is this theory has never really been seriously tested in real
> combat. So before jumping with your two feet into it, it'd be prudent
> to hedge your bet by maintaining skills proven to be needed.

'Nam doesn't count ?

Long-range AAM has done a not exactly stellar prestation, and all show
was done by Sidewinders, Atolls, and, indeed, guns...

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message >,
dott.Piergiorgio > writes
>'Nam doesn't count ?
>
>Long-range AAM has done a not exactly stellar prestation, and all show
>was done by Sidewinders, Atolls, and, indeed, guns...

Sparrow did poorly on reliability and training grounds, but has improved
since; certainly BVRAAMs remain a key armament for modern fighters.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message >, William Black
> writes
>Last time?
>
>Just before the Falkland's nonsense...

Where there wasn't any dogfighting... (well, unless trying and failing
to shoot down a prop-driven trainer with a Sea Harrier counts)

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

[PaPa Peng]

> Where have we heard that before?

Brings back a lot of memories of past arguments in this group. I
won't want to revisit them except for these last words.

1. There was once a History Channel series on the best fighters...
(WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam era and post Vietnam.) Every pilot who
ever flew a combat plane invariably praised his plane model as the
best. There were no lemons. I think it was two Tornado pilots who
said modern warfare is pretty much what I had wrote in my original
post. All the years of training and experience doesn't give much of
an advantage in aerial combat. The rookie who is first in a good
position to press the fire button has as good a chance to score as a
twenty year pilot. The other comment was, in a modern mission, once
you have dumped your bombs as per mission you get the hell out fast.
Its suicidal to hang around and search for targets of opportunity.

2. The Russians in WWII had adequate planes that were tough, cheap
and easy to build. Their pilots had to fight straight out of a very
elementary course in flying school. The Russians relied on numbers to
overwhelm the mighty German war machine and they took out even their
most experienced German fighter pilots. Bombers were shot out of the
sky. The Russian losses were enormous. But they had the manpower and
production capacity to replace their losses. The Germans couldn't and
lost the war. In mass battles numbers win every time over skill,
technical superiority, tactical superiority, etc. (provided we are
not pitching bows and arrows against a maxim.)

This is also a good place to remind all that the Germans lost over 85
per cent of their manpower and materiel in Russia. By the times the
Allies invaded France the Germans were essentially defeated. It is
remarkable the Germans managed to keep fighting on for almost another
year.

The unsaid assumption on discussions of fifth generation US aircraft
is that China is the only possible opponent. For any other enemy
third generation aircraft will be more than adequate.

China has too big a land mass and her war production facilities mostly
out of reach of conventional attack from outside China's borders. You
cannot knock out a city of one million with any number of conventional
strikes and there are more than 200 cities with more than a million
population in China. Terror bomb attacks won't work. China has the
materiel in surface based antiaircraft and anti shipping missiles to
defend herself. Her air force's tactic (my recommendation) will be to
harass any attacking planes but keep out of range, then close in when
the attackers are forced to return to base as they run low on fuel.
No one has learned how to defeat the law of gravity yet. This way
numbers count more than technical or skillset superiority. The US ace
may shoot down one or two Chinese defenders. PLAF number three and
four will get him anyway. Combat in any form means higher fuel
consumption. That's a mighty big ocean below even if no one shot him
down.

[Dean]

On Nov 20, 2:45*pm, PaPa Peng > wrote:
> > Where have we heard that before?
>
> Brings back a lot of memories of past arguments in this group. *I
> won't want to revisit them except for these last words.
>
> 1. *There was once a History Channel series on the best fighters...
> (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam era and post Vietnam.) *Every pilot who
> ever flew a combat plane invariably praised his plane model as the
> best. *There were no lemons. *I think it was two Tornado pilots who
> said modern warfare is pretty much what I had wrote in my original
> post. *All the years of training and experience doesn't give much of
> an advantage in aerial combat. *The rookie who is first in a good
> position to press the fire button has as good a chance to score as a
> twenty year pilot. *The other comment was, in a modern mission, once
> you have dumped your bombs as per mission you get the hell out fast.
> Its suicidal to hang around and search for targets of opportunity.

Referencing History Channel isn't exactly a glowing recommendation.
>
> 2. *The Russians in WWII had adequate planes that were tough, cheap
> and easy to build. *Their pilots had to fight straight out of a very
> elementary course in flying school. *The Russians relied on numbers to
> overwhelm the mighty German war machine and they took out even their
> most experienced German fighter pilots. *Bombers were shot out of the
> sky. The Russian losses were enormous. *But they had the manpower and
> production capacity to replace their losses. *The Germans couldn't and
> lost the war. * In mass battles numbers win every time over skill,
> technical superiority, tactical superiority, etc. *(provided we are
> not pitching bows and arrows against a maxim.)

And did not the Germans almost defeat them? Germany's mistake was
taking on too many enemies at once. In the early parts of the Eastern
War, inferior (numbers) German forces repeatedly routed the Russians.
>
> This is also a good place to remind all that the Germans lost over 85
> per cent of their manpower and materiel in Russia. *By the times the
> Allies invaded France the Germans were essentially defeated. *It is
> remarkable the Germans managed to keep fighting on for almost another
> year.

Yeah, yeah, the Russians pretty much won WW2 single handed. Never
mind all that lend-lease.
>
> The unsaid assumption on discussions of fifth generation US aircraft
> is that China is the only possible opponent. *For any other enemy
> third generation aircraft will be more than adequate.

Where was it unsaid? (kidding). I don't think China is the only
opponent. The Russians aren't exactly a democracy. Who knows how
Pakistan will end up and they have nukes. So do the North Koreans.
In a few years, the Japanese may even be seen as potential enemies.
>
> China has too big a land mass and her war production facilities mostly
> out of reach of conventional attack from outside China's borders. *You
> cannot knock out a city of one million with any number of conventional
> strikes and there are more than 200 cities with more than a million
> population in China. *Terror bomb attacks won't work. China has the
> materiel in surface based antiaircraft and anti shipping missiles to
> defend herself. *Her air force's tactic (my recommendation) will be to
> harass any attacking planes but keep out of range, then close in *when
> the attackers are forced to return to base as they run low on fuel.
> No one has learned how to defeat the law of gravity yet. This way
> numbers count more than technical or skillset superiority. *The US ace
> may shoot down one or two Chinese defenders. *PLAF number three and
> four will get him anyway. *Combat in any form means higher fuel
> consumption. *That's a mighty big ocean below even if no one shot him
> down.

China too big? That's a poor argument. Most of China's industry and
population live within 200 miles of the coastline. China is extremely
vulnerable in it's shipping lanes. All that oil needs to pass by
India, you know? Do you really think the Chinese plan is to draw US
pilots so far out that they run out of fuel? You think a lot like
that guy who used to run Iraq....ummm Saddam something?

Dean

[Jack Linthicum]

On Nov 20, 3:10*pm, Dean > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2:45*pm, PaPa Peng > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Where have we heard that before?
>
> > Brings back a lot of memories of past arguments in this group. *I
> > won't want to revisit them except for these last words.
>
> > 1. *There was once a History Channel series on the best fighters...
> > (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam era and post Vietnam.) *Every pilot who
> > ever flew a combat plane invariably praised his plane model as the
> > best. *There were no lemons. *I think it was two Tornado pilots who
> > said modern warfare is pretty much what I had wrote in my original
> > post. *All the years of training and experience doesn't give much of
> > an advantage in aerial combat. *The rookie who is first in a good
> > position to press the fire button has as good a chance to score as a
> > twenty year pilot. *The other comment was, in a modern mission, once
> > you have dumped your bombs as per mission you get the hell out fast.
> > Its suicidal to hang around and search for targets of opportunity.
>
> Referencing History Channel isn't exactly a glowing recommendation.
>
>
>
> > 2. *The Russians in WWII had adequate planes that were tough, cheap
> > and easy to build. *Their pilots had to fight straight out of a very
> > elementary course in flying school. *The Russians relied on numbers to
> > overwhelm the mighty German war machine and they took out even their
> > most experienced German fighter pilots. *Bombers were shot out of the
> > sky. The Russian losses were enormous. *But they had the manpower and
> > production capacity to replace their losses. *The Germans couldn't and
> > lost the war. * In mass battles numbers win every time over skill,
> > technical superiority, tactical superiority, etc. *(provided we are
> > not pitching bows and arrows against a maxim.)
>
> And did not the Germans almost defeat them? *Germany's mistake was
> taking on too many enemies at once. *In the early parts of the Eastern
> War, inferior (numbers) German forces repeatedly routed the Russians.
>
>
>
> > This is also a good place to remind all that the Germans lost over 85
> > per cent of their manpower and materiel in Russia. *By the times the
> > Allies invaded France the Germans were essentially defeated. *It is
> > remarkable the Germans managed to keep fighting on for almost another
> > year.
>
> Yeah, yeah, the Russians pretty much won WW2 single handed. *Never
> mind all that lend-lease.
>
>
>
> > The unsaid assumption on discussions of fifth generation US aircraft
> > is that China is the only possible opponent. *For any other enemy
> > third generation aircraft will be more than adequate.
>
> Where was it unsaid? *(kidding). *I don't think China is the only
> opponent. *The Russians aren't exactly a democracy. *Who knows how
> Pakistan will end up and they have nukes. *So do the North Koreans.
> In a few years, the Japanese may even be seen as potential enemies.
>
>
>
>
>
> > China has too big a land mass and her war production facilities mostly
> > out of reach of conventional attack from outside China's borders. *You
> > cannot knock out a city of one million with any number of conventional
> > strikes and there are more than 200 cities with more than a million
> > population in China. *Terror bomb attacks won't work. China has the
> > materiel in surface based antiaircraft and anti shipping missiles to
> > defend herself. *Her air force's tactic (my recommendation) will be to
> > harass any attacking planes but keep out of range, then close in *when
> > the attackers are forced to return to base as they run low on fuel.
> > No one has learned how to defeat the law of gravity yet. This way
> > numbers count more than technical or skillset superiority. *The US ace
> > may shoot down one or two Chinese defenders. *PLAF number three and
> > four will get him anyway. *Combat in any form means higher fuel
> > consumption. *That's a mighty big ocean below even if no one shot him
> > down.
>
> China too big? *That's a poor argument. *Most of China's industry and
> population live within 200 miles of the coastline. *China is extremely
> vulnerable in it's shipping lanes. *All that oil needs to pass by
> India, you know? *Do you really think the Chinese plan is to draw US
> pilots so far out that they run out of fuel? *You think a lot like
> that guy who used to run Iraq....ummm Saddam something?
>
> Dean

Also remember the Chinese have had the opportunity to start wars
several times since 1948 and except for the border stuff with India
and Vietnam have not done much. I think they realize that fifty or so
U.S. ICBMs and they are back in the 15th Century.

[hcobb]

On Nov 19, 7:07*pm, PaPa Peng > wrote:
> Therefore what critical advantages do stealth and high maneuverablity
> confer to 5th generation aircraft to justify the cost, long
> development times and technical complexity.

The JSF does not try to out-maneuver Chinese 4.5ish Gen fighters like
the J-xx of the 2020s.

Instead the F-35 sees the Chinese target first from any direction and
uses HOBS to send the Chinese pilot off to meet Lt. Cdr. Wang Wei.

-HJC

[PaPa Peng]

hcobb wrote:
> On Nov 19, 7:07*pm, PaPa Peng > wrote:
> > Therefore what critical advantages do stealth and high maneuverablity
> > confer to 5th generation aircraft to justify the cost, long
> > development times and technical complexity.
>
> The JSF does not try to out-maneuver Chinese 4.5ish Gen fighters like
> the J-xx of the 2020s.
>
> Instead the F-35 sees the Chinese target first from any direction and
> uses HOBS to send the Chinese pilot off to meet Lt. Cdr. Wang Wei.
>
> -HJC

[PaPa Peng]

I am still not used to posting procedures.

Anyway two points I want to make.

1. The US wouldn't dream of threatening China by sailing of a carrier
group in the Taiwan Straits or in "International waters" close to
China at this stage of the game. The political fallout wouldn't be
worth whatever that show of force is supposed to achieve. The
political atmosphere will really have to be rotten before the US tries
rattling sabers on China. No chance of that happening any time
soon.

2. The US cannot threaten China with nuclear weapons. Say the worst
case scenario does happen and there is a nuclear exchange. Both
countries will be damaged severely. The consequence will be the world
will be really freaked out. The unintended consequence is that Russia
remains intact and has a huge nuclear arsenal. She can now call all
the shots and gets to dictate to the world. With Russia as the
world's hagemon there is no one who will be able to challenge her
leadership for a long long time.

As the strategic balance of power now stands China is secure against
being invaded or have to fight a war inside China against a foreign
force. All of China's neighbors are significantly weaker and do not
pose a threat. None will be foolish enough to allow the US to form a
military alliance with them to confront China. Russia is in strategic
balance with China. Russia's population is too small and she shares a
long land border with China. China has no cause to invade Russia as
Russian lands are thinly populated for a good reason. They are
unsuitable for agriculture., landlocked and too cold most of the year
to be economically viable.

China's competitive strategy will therefore remain what she is doing
today. This is to prosper through manufacturing and through trade.
This is what the US and the rest of the world has to compete against.
The US and the rest of the world may fear China's rise enough to gang
up against her. That's something China will have to deal with but it
won't be a shooting war. China will continue developing her defense
capabilities. This is to maintain a credible deterrence against an
outside power, aka the US since only the US harbours ambitions for
military dominance. The costs and effort to maintain defense is a lot
easier and cheaper on national resources. The US won't be able to
spur China into a ruinous arms race and bankrupt her.

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"PaPa Peng" > wrote in message
...
>I am still not used to posting procedures.
>
> Anyway two points I want to make.
>
> 1. The US wouldn't dream of threatening China by sailing of a carrier
> group in the Taiwan Straits or in "International waters" close to
> China at this stage of the game. The political fallout wouldn't be
> worth whatever that show of force is supposed to achieve. The
> political atmosphere will really have to be rotten before the US tries
> rattling sabers on China. No chance of that happening any time
> soon.
>
> 2. The US cannot threaten China with nuclear weapons. Say the worst
> case scenario does happen and there is a nuclear exchange. Both
> countries will be damaged severely. The consequence will be the world
> will be really freaked out. The unintended consequence is that Russia
> remains intact and has a huge nuclear arsenal. She can now call all
> the shots and gets to dictate to the world. With Russia as the
> world's hagemon there is no one who will be able to challenge her
> leadership for a long long time.
>
> As the strategic balance of power now stands China is secure against
> being invaded or have to fight a war inside China against a foreign
> force. All of China's neighbors are significantly weaker and do not
> pose a threat. None will be foolish enough to allow the US to form a
> military alliance with them to confront China. Russia is in strategic
> balance with China. Russia's population is too small and she shares a
> long land border with China. China has no cause to invade Russia as
> Russian lands are thinly populated for a good reason. They are
> unsuitable for agriculture., landlocked and too cold most of the year
> to be economically viable.
>
> China's competitive strategy will therefore remain what she is doing
> today. This is to prosper through manufacturing and through trade.
> This is what the US and the rest of the world has to compete against.
> The US and the rest of the world may fear China's rise enough to gang
> up against her. That's something China will have to deal with but it
> won't be a shooting war. China will continue developing her defense
> capabilities. This is to maintain a credible deterrence against an
> outside power, aka the US since only the US harbours ambitions for
> military dominance. The costs and effort to maintain defense is a lot
> easier and cheaper on national resources. The US won't be able to
> spur China into a ruinous arms race and bankrupt her.


China is a long way from militarily being able to threaten the U.S. a nuke
exchamnge would be bad for the U.S. annhiliation for china.
also the spirit of Tianemen Sq is lurking just below the surface, bodies
start coming home, only son bodies at that and its curtins for the Party.

[PaPa Peng]

>
> China is a long way from militarily being able to threaten the U.S. a nuke
> exchamnge would be bad for the U.S. annhiliation for china.


Grow up Ray. No one is interested in threatening the US. China's
build-up is to neutralize the US's ability to act bullyboy. Read the
most recent post in SMN....."CHINA'S NAVY MAKES "IMPRESSIVE" STRIDES,
SAYS ONI
from [link], "

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"PaPa Peng" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> China is a long way from militarily being able to threaten the U.S. a
>> nuke
>> exchamnge would be bad for the U.S. annhiliation for china.
>
>
> Grow up Ray. No one is interested in threatening the US. China's
> build-up is to neutralize the US's ability to act bullyboy. Read the
> most recent post in SMN....."CHINA'S NAVY MAKES "IMPRESSIVE" STRIDES,
> SAYS ONI
> from [link], "


China's build up is to threaten Taiwan. any attack on Taiwan will be met
with force by the U.S..

[American Eagle]

Ray O'Hara wrote:
> "PaPa Peng" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> China is a long way from militarily being able to threaten the U.S. a
>>> nuke
>>> exchamnge would be bad for the U.S. annhiliation for china.
>>
>> Grow up Ray. No one is interested in threatening the US. China's
>> build-up is to neutralize the US's ability to act bullyboy. Read the
>> most recent post in SMN....."CHINA'S NAVY MAKES "IMPRESSIVE" STRIDES,
>> SAYS ONI
>> from [link], "
>
>
> China's build up is to threaten Taiwan. any attack on Taiwan will be met
> with force by the U.S..

Bush was chicken****ting out on that promise and Obama is remaining mum
on it.
>
>
>

[Eunometic]

On Nov 21, 5:48*am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
> eatfastnoodle ha scritto:
>
> > Anyway, the bottom
> > line is this theory has never really been seriously tested in real
> > combat. So before jumping with your two feet into it, it'd be prudent
> > to hedge your bet by maintaining skills proven to be needed.
>
> 'Nam doesn't count ?
>
> Long-range AAM has done a not exactly stellar prestation, and all show
> was done by Sidewinders, Atolls, and, indeed, guns...

Nam was 40-50 years ago. Electronics has improved a lot since then
(Just in case you haven't noticed). Today even the gyroscopes and
accelerometers are integrated into Integrated circuits.

[eatfastnoodle]

On Nov 21, 10:11*pm, PaPa Peng > wrote:
> > China is a long way from militarily being able to threaten the U.S. a nuke
> > exchamnge would be bad for the U.S. annhiliation for china.
>
> Grow up Ray. *No one is interested in threatening the US. * China's
> build-up is to neutralize the US's ability to act bullyboy. *Read the
> most recent post in SMN....."CHINA'S NAVY MAKES "IMPRESSIVE" STRIDES,
> SAYS ONI
> * from [link], "

You guys are making much ado about nothing. Comparing to the US, China
still has to deal with much more serious domestic problem, especially
now China has reached or about to reach the limit on export-led growth
and Chinese domestic infrastructure is already upgraded to the point
where room for further infrastructure investment led growth is also
limited, not to mention the cap placed on China's future growth by
natural resource and what's bound to be serious conflict on trade with
major Chinese trading partners, starting with the US. In sum, China
and Chinese leadership know the biggest problem facing them: how to
untie the ugly messy knot of domestic employment vs limit on resource
vs massive unsustainable trade surplus without tipping the balance
underpinning China's growth: largely stable domestic political
environment and essentially enemyless external environment. Pushing
for urbanization, establishing nation-wide health care system, massive
international scourging for resources, massive investment in
alternative energy and R&D are all taken either to buy more time or as
means to, hopefully, untie the unsustainable path China is trekking on
right now.

The whole process is fraught with risk and is by now means assured of
success, any external instability poses risk to the plan, even
assuming everything goes well and every plan works out as intended,
it'd take decades at the very least to rebalance domestic Chinese
environment and domestic Chinese economy to the point that China is in
a position to assume the risk of engaging in major confrontation
against other major powers. China's political move internationally
since the end of cold war is very clear: do whatever it can to avoid
conflict, do whatever it can to avoid instability that China must deal
with at all cost. For politically reasons, Taiwan is the only place
where if certain turn of event really occurs, China'd have to
intervene whether it's ready or not. For all the political provocation
and push for independence during the 8 years when pro-independence
party was in power in Taiwan, China didn't make any really serious
move against Taiwan, economic exchange went on without much
interruption; lots of acrimonious back and forth, but nothing of any
consequence actually happened; militarily, yeah, China is upgrading
its military, clearly to prepare to fight a war against Taiwan and the
US, but I firmly believe it's more a defensive move, a prepare-for-the-
worst move, it's a measure taken to ensure that if Chinese political
leadership were to be pushed into the corner in the even of formal
declaration of independence by Taiwan, Chinese military'd be at least
somewhat prepared.

For the foreseeable future, China would not do anything to disrupt the
status quo across the Taiwan strait because they're fully aware of the
enormity, severity and potential risk of massive economic, political,
social, regional of in China. China as a country, Chinese government
as a government, Chinese leadership for their own political legacy and
survival, can't afford any distraction. In the foreseeable future,
the ball is in Taiwan's court, as long as Taiwan refrains from formal
declaration of independence, there would be no break out of
hostilities across Taiwan street. China's hands are too full to risk
an external war which even if China wins, would ruin the equilibrium
China must have to move forward.

[PaPa Peng]

>For the foreseeable future, China would not do anything to disrupt the
>status quo across the Taiwan strait because they're fully aware of the
>enormity, severity and potential risk of massive economic, political,
>social, regional of in China.

Thank you for your concerns, Currently Taiwan is a non issue between
the PRC and the ROC. There is no Taiwan Independence movement nor any
possibility of Taiwan rattling sabers over anything. The US has been
trying to sell more advanced arms to Taiwan for years. Taiwan does
need to replace her ageing military equipment but is in no hurry to do
so. Although permission to sell had been approved by Congress many
times Taiwan is not biting. Taiwan is quite happy to receive all the
technical details of your macho toys though. You know that and can
never appraise them of or try to sell Taiwan your latest and best
stuff. No F-22s for example nor the latest Aegis systems. Taiwan
balks at buying expensive systems that are past their best-by-date.
The chances are when they do need to replace time expired equipment it
will be a token purchase to sop your concerns not a serious effort to
put up a fighting force. You don't have leverage. You cannot use
Taiwan as a proxy for your schemes.

As for threatening China with all sorts of dire consequences if she
does not toe your "bastion of democracy" line what else is new that
you had not already threatened since 1949 up till today. When you
fire blanks once too often all it says is that you have a pretty noise
maker. Do read up on sources other than neocon friendly US
publications. Events are racing past you faster than you can
imagine. The Big Game today is for the resource exploitation of whole
continents - Asia, Africa, South America. Economic exploitation means
developing economic bonds and politico-cultural relationships that
gravitate to one's country. You are not winning. Brandishing
military power is counter productive. The EU and Japan are drawing
away from you least they stumble into a (own) country destroying
political mess though your strategic blunders. India is reassessing
her very recent and once rosy Bush II initiated alliance with the US.
for the same reason. Pres. Obama's recent trip to Asia is telling. He
is genuinely respected and liked by all Asians. But he came away
empty handed. No one in the places he visited is unduly concerned
that the US will not play a lead role in Asia in the days to come.

[Mark Test[_2_]]

"American Eagle" > wrote in message
...
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> "PaPa Peng" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> China is a long way from militarily being able to threaten the U.S. a
>>>> nuke
>>>> exchamnge would be bad for the U.S. annhiliation for china.
>>>
>>> Grow up Ray. No one is interested in threatening the US. China's
>>> build-up is to neutralize the US's ability to act bullyboy. Read the
>>> most recent post in SMN....."CHINA'S NAVY MAKES "IMPRESSIVE" STRIDES,
>>> SAYS ONI
>>> from [link], "
>>
>>
>> China's build up is to threaten Taiwan. any attack on Taiwan will be met
>> with force by the U.S..
>
> Bush was chicken****ting out on that promise and Obama is remaining mum on
> it.

Where is this "Taiwan" you speak of? They are not a UN member....Are you
certain the US would defend a "non-nation"?

Mark

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"Mark Test" > wrote in message
...
>
> "American Eagle" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> "PaPa Peng" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> China is a long way from militarily being able to threaten the U.S. a
>>>>> nuke
>>>>> exchamnge would be bad for the U.S. annhiliation for china.
>>>>
>>>> Grow up Ray. No one is interested in threatening the US. China's
>>>> build-up is to neutralize the US's ability to act bullyboy. Read the
>>>> most recent post in SMN....."CHINA'S NAVY MAKES "IMPRESSIVE" STRIDES,
>>>> SAYS ONI
>>>> from [link], "
>>>
>>>
>>> China's build up is to threaten Taiwan. any attack on Taiwan will be met
>>> with force by the U.S..
>>
>> Bush was chicken****ting out on that promise and Obama is remaining mum
>> on it.
>
> Where is this "Taiwan" you speak of? They are not a UN member....Are you
> certain the US would defend a "non-nation"?

Yes.

[Ray O'Hara[_3_]]

"American Eagle" > wrote in message
...
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> "PaPa Peng" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> China is a long way from militarily being able to threaten the U.S. a
>>>> nuke
>>>> exchamnge would be bad for the U.S. annhiliation for china.
>>>
>>> Grow up Ray. No one is interested in threatening the US. China's
>>> build-up is to neutralize the US's ability to act bullyboy. Read the
>>> most recent post in SMN....."CHINA'S NAVY MAKES "IMPRESSIVE" STRIDES,
>>> SAYS ONI
>>> from [link], "
>>
>>
>> China's build up is to threaten Taiwan. any attack on Taiwan will be met
>> with force by the U.S..
>
> Bush was chicken****ting out on that promise and Obama is remaining mum on
> it.

ambiguity has been the official U.S. policy since Nixon was taken to the
cleaners by the Chicoms during his infamous trip.

[hcobb]

On Nov 22, 7:15*am, "Mark Test" > wrote:
> Where is this "Taiwan" you speak of? *They are not a UN member....Are you
> certain the US would defend a "non-nation"?
>
> Mark

The policy of the United States is to defend China against itself so
that mainland Chinese can continue working for Taiwanese managers as
their wages (and other freedoms) are depressed by the Chinese
Communist Party.

The two main threats America uses to hold China in line are:

"Fine, then we won't trade with you."

and

"We can use those aircraft carriers to chop off your lines of supply
thousands of miles from your shores."

-HJC