If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Krztalizer" wrote in message ... Didn't we all know what the outcome would be and just thanked God it didn't seem likely to happen? The CW from the mid-80s was that we would *eventually* win the sea battles, after the Soviets melted a few of our HVUs down to slag. Maybe after they caught John Walker and provided they didn't have any other spies with their paws in our commo. From the SSN standpoint alone, a squadron of six ASW helos (of which 1-2 were always being worked on in the hangar deck) was not going to be enough to counter a Soviet SSN tour de force against Mother. I think we both know how useless the VS assets always seemed to be at real inner-zone ASW, but even if you throw in a bone for them, we all pretty much agreed we wouldn't have a place to land if the real **** happened. My VS duty was with VS-31 on Ike - we re-made our squadron patch in 1981 to reflect the fact that we had gone one entire year without submarine contact. It was one of the real reasons that I went into helicopters; the other main reason was that the VS AWs were just plain snobs - something I have never heard anyone say about us "knuckledragging SAR swimmer" AWHs. Its hard to be full of yourself when you are ****ing in your wetsuit to keep from freezing. Of course, I'm sure you'll agree we knew us AW's would make damn sure a lot of VMF (Voyenno Morskoj Flot) sailors went to ocean floor in the process. Like I said, it would have been glorious -- at least for a little while ) Later, Mike. v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Krztalizer" wrote in message ... My VS duty was with VS-31 on Ike - we re-made our squadron patch in 1981 to reflect the fact that we had gone one entire year without submarine contact. Er, isn't that bad. Can you tell us more? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Thomas J. Paladino Jr. writes http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ina/tu-22m.htm Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would they end up with? Say rather, "How many could they support"? Second, what does this mean to the the US? Backfires are a viable threat to the carrier group, Only in sufficient numbers and with good targeting. And good training and with the F-14/Phoenix weapons systems getting phased out with no real comparable replacement, I can't help but think that the US carrier groups may find themselves in an uncomfortably vulnerable position sometime in the near future. The USSR policy was to send several regiments of Backfires against a located US CVBG and try to overwhelm it. AEGIS was the answer and remains in US service. The F-14 and Phoenix missile were designed specifically to counter the long range bomber threat, and when this threat was thought to have disappeared, the AAAM (Phoenix replacement) and the Super-Tomcat upgrades were cancelled. As others have said, if you need a long-range AAM then buy into Meteor. The F-18 can carry a decent number of them, and the E-2 can detect Backfires at long range, and the AEGIS/SM-2 remains the best shipborne AAW in the world. (Type 45 may be better but is yet to appear, and then AEGIS will get an update...) Although there is basically no chance for the F-14 to be brought back to life, should we now possibly be concerned with developing a new long-range missile system for the F-18 and JSF, or do these aircraft already have the capability to defeat the long-range bomber using stealth and smaller, medium range weapons? The enemy has to reliably locate the US carrier. The enemy has to get that data back to HQ. The strike must be authorised. The strikers must take off, form up, and get into launch range without being disrupted by anything from comms jamming to fighter attack. The missiles must reliably tell chaff, floating decoys and offboard jammers from real ships: then tell real escorts from real HVUs: then survive the hardkill defences: then defeat the softkill: and finally inflict mission-lethal damage on the carrier. This is not an easy chain to follow, and if any link breaks the whole thing falls down. If China bought MiG-23s would you panic? The Backfire and its weapons are of the same vintage. The fundamental problem remains that you can only mass a strike against a known target. -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ina/tu-22m.htm Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would they end up with? Irrelevant Second, what does this mean to the the US? Bugger all ! China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with. That's how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus. Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields. The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the Russians too. They just don't like to admit it much. The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ? Graham - who has actually visited the PRC on business. p.s where do you think most consumer goods are manufactured these days ? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote in
: "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ina/tu-22m.htm Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would they end up with? Irrelevant Second, what does this mean to the the US? Bugger all ! China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with. That's how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus. Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields. The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the Russians too. They just don't like to admit it much. The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ? Graham - who has actually visited the PRC on business. p.s where do you think most consumer goods are manufactured these days ? you seem to not believe that the mainland Chinese are going to attack Taiwan sooner or later to being them back under Communist control,and that the US would not use it's carrier groups to oppose that move. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote in : "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ina/tu-22m.htm Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would they end up with? Irrelevant Second, what does this mean to the the US? Bugger all ! China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with. That's how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus. Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields. The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the Russians too. They just don't like to admit it much. The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ? Graham - who has actually visited the PRC on business. p.s where do you think most consumer goods are manufactured these days ? you seem to not believe that the mainland Chinese are going to attack Taiwan sooner or later to being them back under Communist control,and that the US would not use it's carrier groups to oppose that move. There's too much to lose in an actual 'shooting war'. Posturing is another matter. Hong Kong hasn't become or been forced to be 'Communist' btw since becoming a special administrative region. Graham |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote in
: Jim Yanik wrote: Pooh Bear wrote in : "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ina/tu-22m.htm Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would they end up with? Irrelevant Second, what does this mean to the the US? Bugger all ! China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with. That's how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus. Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields. The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the Russians too. They just don't like to admit it much. The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ? Graham - who has actually visited the PRC on business. p.s where do you think most consumer goods are manufactured these days ? you seem to not believe that the mainland Chinese are going to attack Taiwan sooner or later to being them back under Communist control,and that the US would not use it's carrier groups to oppose that move. There's too much to lose in an actual 'shooting war'. At some point in China's modernization,they may decide they can go it alone or just trade with counties such as France and Germany. Posturing is another matter. Who wants to gamble on it being 'posturing'? They've STATED they intend to retake Taiwan,and their actions in modernizing their military support this. Hong Kong hasn't become or been forced to be 'Communist' btw since becoming a special administrative region. HK is slowly being converted.(the 'boil the frog' concept) You need to keep up with the news. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote: Pooh Bear wrote in : There's too much to lose in an actual 'shooting war'. At some point in China's modernization,they may decide they can go it alone or just trade with counties such as France and Germany. With regard to that specific point, don't forget that France and Germany are in the EU. Selective trade with certain EU members only would attract the attention of the European Comission which would embargo such a stance ( assuming that France and Germany for example were even dumb enought to go along with such a situation in the first place ). Also there is free trade in the EU. It makes as much sense as suggesting that you could trade with Texas and California but not the rest of the USA. Graham |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Pooh Bear wrote: Two part question; first, do you think that China will actually succeed in it's acquisition attempts regarding the Backfire, and if so, how many would they end up with? Irrelevant Second, what does this mean to the the US? Bugger all ! China needs the USA ( and the rest of the western world ) to trade with. China needs the USA to have someplace to dump its cheap quality products. That's how they are modernising their country via a significant trade surplus. Otherwise it's back to the paddy fields. The Chinese have essentially become capitalists today. Just like the Russians too. They just don't like to admit it much. Thieving capitalists who invent nothing and simply copy/counterfeit what the rest of the world creates. The Cold War is over - or did someone forget to mention it to you ? Somebody needs to tell that to the USN VQ-1 EP-3 crew who were held prisoner by the Chinese military several days before being allowed to even speak with the outside world. --Mike |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CAAC in China had approved below 116kg aircraft sold in China without airworthiness cetificate | Luo Zheng | Home Built | 0 | June 27th 04 03:50 AM |
"Boeing sale to China skirts ban on technology transfer" | Mike | Military Aviation | 1 | February 6th 04 04:57 AM |
China to buy Eurofighters? | phil hunt | Military Aviation | 90 | December 29th 03 05:16 PM |
Vietnam, any US planes lost in China ? | Mike | Military Aviation | 7 | November 4th 03 11:44 PM |
RUSSIAN WAR PLANES IN ASIA | James | Military Aviation | 2 | October 1st 03 11:25 PM |