The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:33:02 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
wrote:

On May 11, 4:37Â*pm, PaPaPeng wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson

wrote:
High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
scenario China will never overcome.

That's one big pile of empty rocks. Â*You can pound that to kingdom
come and all you will do is move them rocks around. Â*From that
direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
of hostile defended territory. Â*Lots of opportunity to take out
intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
fuel.

An attack from the East Coast? Â*How many planes can you launch from a
Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. Â*How do you protect
a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?

I agree that the US can not take out China. But the reason is only a
nuclear first strike.

I was born on this world of the nuclear weapons. And the degree of
carange on this creators world shall diminish.

You like many dislike free people. And the equation to eliminate
freedom is clear in the government of China.

I once allow a harsh hand on those who denied freedom to the Chinese
people. You were once a class world to be reorganized like Russia. BUt
you went astray.

You fought for only political reason not freedom. China went astray
and the coal mine queen to be line up and shot on sight was only a
passing evil. SO your country is dictated.

Here we are like dictated and have only to throw out like coal mine
queens.

So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator only
lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER

====================================

Buddy, if you believe in that kind of childish freedom crap no wonder
the Chicoms find it so easy to eat your lunch.

Now before anyone gets all riled up about American manhood hear this.
China has no intention in getting into an arms race or becoming a
global military giant like the US. It ruins one's own country and
wins no friends. The Chicom strategy is to have enough assets to
prevent the US from doing an Iraq to China. I believe China is
already there. The evidence is the modest but steady pace of defense
upgrades. Weapons systems will continue to be developed and improved
to a level comparable with the rest of the world. But there will not
be any crash program and there will not be any accelerated strive for
technical superiority. This is because conventional weapons have
already reach the limit of their design parameters. There are no
technical breakthroughs worth the billions of dollars in effort.

Once more. A war with China is a war of attrition. It's a numbers
game not one of technical superiority.

Planes do need to be larger, engines more powerful and efficient.
This is necessary to carry more ordnance, go further or stay aloft
longer and to quickly get out of trouble. Otherwise everything else
is done near sonic speeds. An emphasis on one aspect of design, eg.
stealth, requires major trade-off in other areas.
This closing sentence is telling http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117a.htm

[To summarize the F-117A's attack capability: the aircraft relies on
optical targeting and its effectiveness, as experience in Yugoslavia
showed, can be severely undermined by bad weather. The aircraft's
maximum weapons-carrying capacity of two bombs makes it a decent
diversionary tool but a less-then effective bomber in medium- to
large-scale armed conflicts. ]

Same thing with surface ships. The PLAN won't use a naval ship to
fight off a USN ship. That's a misuse of an asset. It is aircraft and
missiles against the USN intruder. Even the 40 knot maximum claimed on
some smaller USN ships that cannot outrun an antiship missile or a
frighter plane.

Same thing with an aircraft carrier. By common consent 300 km range
is the limit for tactical missiles.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
[ Called the SSN-X-26 Yakhont, the supersonic cruise missile can be
launched from the coast and hit sea-borne targets up to 300 kilometers
away. The missile carries a 200-kilogram warhead and flies a
meter-and-a-half above sea level, making it extremely difficult to
intercept. Its closest Western counterpart is the US-made Tomahawk and
Harpoon. ]

That obliges the CVBG has to be at least 310km or more out. That
means the CV's air strike force will have to fly over 600 km of open
water in any mission. There will be more distance to cover to hit an
inland target. Any Chinese general will opt for max effort to take
out the CVBG first for by then the strike force won't have an intact
CVBG to come back to. Go figure out the risks to the CVBG and to the
air strike force.

Now if the US does not have the option to threaten China with a
conventional strike then what are you maintaining a 12 carrier fleet
for? A navy the size of the RN or IN is more than enough for the
piddling threats the USN had to deal with so far and in the
foreseeable future. Perhaps a 3 carrier inventory is about all you
will need if you want to hang on to carriers.

I don't believe there will be any scenario where the US will threaten
China with nukes. So let's not go there.

On May 11, 8:21*pm, PaPaPeng wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:33:02 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson





wrote:
On May 11, 4:37*pm, PaPaPeng wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson

wrote:
High land to the west of china makes attack from that direction a
scenario China will never overcome.

That's one big pile of empty rocks. *You can pound that to kingdom
come and all you will do is move them rocks around. *From that
direction to get to the populated areas is a couple of thousand miles
of hostile defended territory. *Lots of opportunity to take out
intruders in that shooting gallery including something as cost free as
bothering and distracting them long enough for them to run out of
fuel.

An attack from the East Coast? *How many planes can you launch from a
Carrier battle Group that will make an impression. *How do you protect
a CVBG from land based anti-ship missiles and from airborne ones?

I agree that the US can not take out China. *But the reason is only a
nuclear first strike.

I was born on this world of the nuclear weapons. And the degree of
carange on this creators world shall diminish.

You like many dislike free people. *And the equation to eliminate
freedom is clear in the government of China.

I once allow a harsh hand on those who denied freedom to the Chinese
people. You were once a class world to be reorganized like Russia. BUt
you went astray.

You fought for only political reason not freedom. China went astray
and the coal mine queen to be line up and shot on sight was only a
passing evil. *SO your country is dictated.

Here we are like dictated and have only to throw out like coal mine
queens.

So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator only
lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER

====================================

Buddy, if you believe in that kind of childish freedom crap no wonder
the Chicoms find it so easy to eat your lunch.

Now before anyone gets all riled up about American manhood hear this.
China has no intention in getting into an arms race or becoming a
global military giant like the US. *It ruins one's own country and
wins no friends. The Chicom strategy is to have enough assets to
prevent the US from doing an Iraq to China. *I believe China is
already there. *The evidence is the modest but steady pace of defense
upgrades. *Weapons systems will continue to be developed and improved
to a level comparable with the rest of the world. *But there will not
be any crash program and there will not be any accelerated strive for
technical superiority. *This is because conventional weapons have
already reach the limit of their design parameters. There are no
technical breakthroughs worth the billions of dollars in effort. *

Once more. *A war with China is a war of attrition. *It's a numbers
game not one of technical superiority.

Planes do need to be larger, engines more powerful and efficient.
This is necessary to carry more ordnance, go further or stay aloft
longer and to quickly get out of trouble. *Otherwise everything else
is done near sonic speeds. *An emphasis on one aspect of design, eg.
stealth, requires major trade-off in other areas.
This closing sentence is telling *http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117a.htm

[To summarize the F-117A's attack capability: the aircraft relies on
optical targeting and its effectiveness, as experience in Yugoslavia
showed, can be severely undermined by bad weather. The aircraft's
maximum weapons-carrying capacity of two bombs makes it a decent
diversionary tool but a less-then effective bomber in medium- to
large-scale armed conflicts. ]

Same thing with surface ships. *The PLAN won't use a naval ship to
fight off a USN ship. *That's a misuse of an asset. It is aircraft and
missiles against the USN intruder. Even the 40 knot maximum claimed on
some smaller USN ships that cannot outrun an antiship missile or a
frighter plane. *

Same thing with an aircraft carrier. *By common consent 300 km *range
is the limit for tactical missiles. *

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...7&pagename=JPo....
[ Called the SSN-X-26 Yakhont, the supersonic cruise missile can be
launched from the coast and hit sea-borne targets up to 300 kilometers
away. The missile carries a 200-kilogram warhead and flies a
meter-and-a-half above sea level, making it extremely difficult to
intercept. Its closest Western counterpart is the US-made Tomahawk and
Harpoon. ]

That obliges the CVBG has to be at least 310km or more out. *That
means the CV's air strike force will have to fly over 600 km of open
water in any mission. *There will be more distance to cover to hit an
inland target. *Any Chinese general will opt for max effort to take
out the CVBG first for by then the strike force won't have an intact
CVBG to come back to. *Go figure out the risks to the CVBG and to the
air strike force.

Now if the US does not have the option to threaten China with a
conventional strike then what are you maintaining a 12 carrier fleet
for? *A navy the size of the RN or IN is more than enough for the
piddling threats the USN had to deal with so far and in the
foreseeable future. *Perhaps a 3 carrier inventory is about all you
will need if you want to hang on to carriers.

I don't believe there will be any scenario where the US will threaten
China with nukes. *So let's not go there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
A Lord allows the usage of nuclear weapons, a war ethic is demanded
and the concept as a rule was always to begin to weigh the regime
against the allowance for acts of evil to continue. All police
systems in general have acts of evil committed against the people, but
the degree determine the Lords allowance for nuclear usage.

You will not have trouble in heaven as a rule because the evil acts
demanded a good to act against it.

It all comes down to minimizing the innocents lost. A smaller weapon
to act when available must be chosen. So so-called “bunker buster”
nukes are required to attack in the eyes of the Lord. A program is in
place to allow small usage.

As a rule the regime of China is on notice for violating and being
evil. Evil means to commit wrongs as judged by a good man.

SO the meaning of mistakes was the relation of Hiroshima to the war
act of good nuclear weapons usage. A first mistake was made and the
target was an innocent people, almost.

A next usage would entail a correct targeting. Military
infrastructure as a rule is allowed to be nuclear attacked.

Ethics in nuclear warfare are evaluated as only a powerful weapon that
can be miss-targeted, easily. It has a mistaken image as a disallowed
weapon because of the first mistake.

When you attack civilians because the whole nation is assisting the
enemy you have a severe problem with the innocent children. How do you
prevent their evil destruction with your powerful weapons?

Civilian targeting is the issue with the Lord. And the correct usage
allows all US commanders to sleep well and know their justice was a
good attack. Precision attack with correctly sized nuclear weapons is
allowable.

So when the US has to act on China, all the scenarios demand a good to
win. Attack and a loss is not allowable. Making the nuclear option
almost assuredly the chosen tactic.

China will be struck by nicely designed weapons. And the issue is to
always win, causing the US tactic as a nation to reply with the
question. If attacked nicely would China then announce their evil
intention to attack US continental civilians?

Would the nuclear stalemate, be to always kill innocents in reply to a
small nuclear attack? And so we understand the reply method of the
China liker. He believes in nuclear stratagem of only acting to
destroy innocents to prevent a good nuclear attack.

It is a misguided belief that evil would be allowed to proceed with
second strikes.