Russian Bomber Fly By Activity

[Jet]

The JSF is NOT in active service today. So forget it! It is not part of the USA's military capability. You are talking about a currently imaginary force. It's a bit hard to shoot down even Mig21's with an imaginary aircraft.

Do you actually get the idea that the F-35 is not flying in active service? It is NOT JSF's or even large numbers of Raptors that your military will fight with at the moment but F/A-18's, Superhornets, F-16's and F-15's. Hence my comparison of the F-14 AND THE AIRCRAFT THAT REPLACED IT - the Superhornet. Whether the JSF replaces the Superhornet in the future is something that has yet to be realised.

Seriously Billy, if we're lucky it'll be 5+ years before we see any significant numbers in fleet service, so I'm not sure why you keep harping on it. They were all talking about the superbugs in the mid 90's and it's just been recently that the Tomcat squadrons have made the transition. Most of the pilots/RIOs would have been happier if they'd have stuck more into the D upgrades for the F-14 but maintenance costs were crippling the program.

[BillyB]

The C-27J is based on an existing Italian aircraft, the Alenia (formerly FIAT) G-222, which first flew in 1970 http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/spartan/)

I don't think deccie would consider a 1970's style airframe an upgrade for the Hercules. But if it does it's job and does it well, then why not buy it?

It seems the Italians and Americans have been doing business with each other when it comes to planes. The Italians have bought Boeing 767 converted tankers and is making many parts to the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner.


Jet, deccie was harping for an upgrade for the F-14 and I gave him an example. The F-35 is it and will be the second best fighter in the world behind the F-22 which is already in operation. Since the F-22 is in operation, I could care less if the F-35 came out in 5 or 10 years. The F-35 has cutting edge technology similar to the F-22 that Europe would like to get their hands on. It's better if the technology leaks out later than sooner. Unlike the F-22, this plane we will sell to our allies. Our allies have invested a considerable amount of $ on the development of the plane to have the right to purchase it. The free World will get more powerful to preserve it's way of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35

[deccie]

I don't think deccie would consider a 1970's style airframe an upgrade for the Hercules. But if it does it's job and does it well, then why not buy it?

The answer to that is "it depends". Some of the factors it depends on are whether they are new build airframes or rebuilds of existing airframes. The complications that arise in each conversion can be different. . If the replacement  has less limitations than the existing Herc design then I would be all for it.

 

Jet, deccie was harping for an upgrade for the F-14 and I gave him an example.

Billy, can you not grasp the concept that I was talking "capability" which has NOTHING to do with the actual airframe itself. Point out ANYWHERE in this whole discussion where I said anything like "Hey, we should have spent a whole pile of $$$ upgrading those old F-14 airframes!" You can't. Because I didn't.

[SANDRO43]

The answer to that is "it depends". Some of the factors it depends on are whether they are new build airframes or rebuilds of existing airframes.

My quote said:
C-27J SPARTAN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The aircraft design is based on the proven G-222 airframe...

[deccie]

My quote said:
C-27J SPARTAN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The aircraft design is based on the proven G-222 airframe...

And what's your point Sandro? My post had nothing to do with your quote.

[BillyB]

deccie, you have complained many times there are no upgrades or replacements for current model ships or individual military hardware and I have shown you links for tanks, ships and planes. I even showed you a link that told you the overall "capabilities" of the Navy is superior than in the past. The books you're reading is old if you're still harping for more frigates.

[SANDRO43]

And what's your point Sandro? My post had nothing to do with your quote.

It had to do with BillyB's post which, in turn, referred to mine. Therefore I thought you might not have read mine in detail. If, on the other hand, yours was a general, unspecific statement, I apologise for my unnecessary clarification .

[deccie]

deccie, you have complained many times there are no upgrades or replacements for current model ships or individual military hardware and I have shown you links for tanks, ships and planes. I even showed you a link that told you the overall "capabilities" of the Navy is superior than in the past. The books you're reading is old if you're still harping for more frigates.

I am in Dubai airport right now and last night internet services in the hotel did not perform how I would have hoped. So I will post my reply tomorrow.

[WmGO]

Interesting route my Russian bomber thread has taken. Not exactly what I was trying to provoke, but interesting. Hopefully the hardware debate will cease and more relevant to RW aspects of American-Russian relations will ensue.

I agree with Wm3rd that Russia's latest policy decisions and rhetoric are only a natural response to American policy such as anti missile radar sites, ABM treaty withdrawal, attempting to make permanent the temporary Central Asian bases etc... I tend to agree with Patrick Buchanon's views on the mattter - if we want to claim Russia as our friend our foreign policy needs to more reflect that desire. I also agree with Gator that it would be better politically, strategically and economically if the U.S.  acted more through NATO than unilaterally (we can't borrow money from China et al. forever). To avoid misunderstanding - I don't approve of Putin's autocratism.

More relevant: how will deteriorating relations with America affect RW-AM relations? Will the revived Russian nationalism spell the doom of the RW marriage agency in Russia? Or will there always be a market given economic and social realities?  Will/is a WM relationship with a RW more difficult/become more difficult than one with a UW or other FSUW because of changing realities? Will RW seeking marriage abroad become social outcasts in their country? Will Putin outlaw that kind of emigration?

On another note, someone mentioned the phenom of WM discussing Soviet or WWII history around FSUW. I have also seen this. It is quite embarrasing and tactless. Most FSUW do not like to hear or have these kinds of conversations especially the way in which WM are having them (sympathetic type conv. is ok)so a word to the wise is in order.........be careful how you talk about the Soviet era and WWII if you feel compelled to bring it up............

[BillyB]

I agree with Wm3rd that Russia's latest policy decisions and rhetoric are only a natural response to American policy such as anti missile radar sites, ABM treaty withdrawal, attempting to make permanent the temporary Central Asian bases etc... I tend to agree with Patrick Buchanon's views on the mattter - if we want to claim Russia as our friend our foreign policy needs to more reflect that desire. I also agree with Gator that it would be better politically, strategically and economically if the U.S.  acted more through NATO than unilaterally (we can't borrow money from China et al. forever). To avoid misunderstanding - I don't approve of Putin's autocratism.

Placing anti missle shields in Europe to protect Europe is not acting unilaterally. Certainly the shield is what Europe and Nato wants but we're not going to place cutting edge technology in Nato's hands to operate. It will not happen so suggesting it to be a team player is out of the question.

Patrick Buchanon's views only state one side of the story or his views are politically motivated.

We have done lots for Russia by buying their nuke material and burying it on our land and cleaning their biological and chemical programs. Their lack of funding prevents them from adequately storing that crap. They have superior quantanties of that stuff over what the US has developed. We don't want the stuff to get into the wrong hands or create a disaster at a human or environmental cost.

We've given Russia a billion dollars in economic aid. We continue to give aid to other countries whether it be direct or through the World bank and International Monetary Fund in which we have majority control because America has the most money to loan.

http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2064.html

Buying peace or friendship with Russia is cheaper than another arms race. But we should always be protecting ourselves and friends and missles shields are a good idea. Russia isn't the main threat to Western civilization at the moment or in the near future. It's a matter of time before Iran and North Korea become serious threats. They'll play nice for a while and they will again develop their nuke programs to a certain extent and repeat until they have what they really want. These lastest negotiations/deals with Iran and North Korean isn't the first time it's happened and certainly won't be the last.

[Mir]

Buying peace or friendship with Russia is cheaper than another arms race

Yes but there are many powerful interest groups in US who need an arms race as that is the only way they can prosper.
If there was no Russia and no MIGs and SUs what will be the need for the F22 and F35? They are not needed to fight Taliban and Al Qaida who have no airforce.
Still the expenditure on arms will go on as it is the only way to keep certain people in power, to line the pockets of some and to fleece the US taxpayers.
As for Iran and Korea, they can never become a threat to US.

[groovlstk]

We've given Russia a billion dollars in economic aid.

Most of the "aid" that went to Russia after the collapse of the SU came with a stipulation that the $$ be used to pay high-priced Western consultants like Burston Marsteller, who in turn called for massive layoffs that included doctors and teachers throughout Russia. Many Russian workers went months, even years without being paid, all so that Biff and Jody could earn six-figure salaries while proseltyzing about the wonders of democracy to starving Russians.

[BillyB]

If there was no Russia and no MIGs and SUs what will be the need for the F22 and F35?

The F-22 is being bought in smaller quantities than originally planned and the added air superiority isn't necessary. Same may happen with the F-35. To please interest groups, I'm sure military funding is going to defensive measures like the antimissile missiles. The bottom line is do we need the protection? It doesn't hurt unless you think it will start up another arms race. Russia is smart enough to know we don't have plans to take them over so and it would look bad if they bankrupted themselves again getting into another arms race.

As for Iran and Korea, they can never become a threat to US.

No World leader would ever say such a statement. It'll be a bad day for a US President when a Iranian/ N Korean nuke strikes a US city on their watch. It's not only the responsibility of a good government to protect it's citizens with an adequate military force, but it's their responsibility to preserve it's people's way of life and one can only do that by thinking ahead of the governments who want to take you down.

Groove, if you look at the list on CIA Factbook of the recipients of economic aid, most those governments aren't trustworthy. Your not giving our government enough credit. Our government knows many of these governments will not make good use of the money and much of it will end up in corrupt politicians hands but we are buying their friendship so they will behave. Give a hungry dog a bone and he will like you, give him nothing and he may attempt to eat you. Giving money is cheaper than war or another arms race. I think giving a Billion $ to Russia is a good investment.

[groovlstk]

Billy, I don't give our govt. at that time any credit. After decades of sweating bullets, we finally won the cold war and could have set Russia on a path to Westernization. Instead we allowed a bunch of morons to experiment with their wacky economic theories (remember how "shock therapy" was supposed to revitalize the economy and instead spelled starvation for tens of thousands?) while turning a blind eye to the thieves who overnight became billionaires during the privatization joke. Any good will we had w/Russian people evaporated long ago, it's no surprise that our relations today are tenuous.

[timothe]

Billy, I don't give our govt. at that time any credit. After decades of sweating bullets, we finally won the cold war and could have set Russia on a path to Westernization. Instead we allowed a bunch of morons to experiment with their wacky economic theories (remember how "shock therapy" was supposed to revitalize the economy and instead spelled starvation for tens of thousands?) while turning a blind eye to the thieves who overnight became billionaires during the privatization joke. Any good will we had w/Russian people evaporated long ago, it's no surprise that our relations today are tenuous.

I agree with Groov that perhaps our most fatal mistake in foreign policy in the last 50 years has been our reluctance to help the Russian government transition into a democratic society.  There are so many aspects of our democracy that we learned through experience and could have passed on to the FSU.  Concepts of labor unions, state's rights, the balance of individual liberty and the rule of law, the necessity of regulation without control...all of these ideas were foreign to the Russians. 

I'm a little young to remember exactly what happened during this time of transition...but it seems like we were more concerned with congratulating ourselves for winning the cold war than with helping a country in shambles. 

[BillyB]

timothe, groove, I can't blame the US government for Russia's failed attempt to transform to democracy like ours. Unlike Germany and Japan at the end of WW2 where the USA had more control and the people were willing, Russia is a different animal and the USA couldn't have more hands on control without taking power within Russia itself. Also the Russian people have to be willing to embrace democracy as did the Germans and Japanese. As with what happened with Germany and Japan, Russia can't expect to be economic powers overnight, they need patience. Russia has the population, the land and the resources to become something special but first good people must run the country and  Russians must demand a more ethical government and law enforcement.

Regardless if Russia ever makes it to true democracy, America has more money in our pocket due to the Cold War and arms race being over. Maybe it's better they don't become and economic power and competitor. Maybe that's what our government wants and doing a good job to make that happen.

[Mir]

No World leader would ever say such a statement. It'll be a bad day for a US President when a Iranian/ N Korean nuke strikes a US city on their watch. It's not only the responsibility of a good government to protect it's citizens with an adequate military force, but it's their responsibility to preserve it's people's way of life and one can only do that by thinking ahead of the governments who want to take you down.

I am a bit surprised that despite all your knowledge about military technology and your ability to win top prizes when at university you still believe the lies fed to you by your politicians and the militry-industrial complex that finances them.
Do you really believe Iran or Korea can develop a delivery system that will be able to launch a nuclear strike on a US city?
The only threat US might face will be internal (9/11 planes took off from US airports remember?).
Spending trillions on arms will do nothing to prevent such threats.
Just today there was another shooting in a US city, such events happen much more regularly in US then anywhere else. What if one day one of these crazies is in a position to detonate a nuke?
People in US should look at what is wrong in their country considering that despite being the best place to live in the world it breeds men who go on such murderous rampages.The cause might be different but such men are compareable to suicide bomber as the end result is death of innocents.

[BillyB]

Do you really believe Iran or Korea can develop a delivery system that will be able to launch a nuclear strike on a US city?

Yes, they may be decades behind us in technology but they are not stupid forever and certainly the nations that are willing to sell them the technology for nukes are not stupid either. A few posters earlier implied it's foolish to underestimate your opponent. I'm thankful the US government does not underestimate.

[timothe]

I am a bit surprised that despite all your knowledge about military technology and your ability to win top prizes when at university you still believe the lies fed to you by your politicians and the militry-industrial complex that finances them.

Mir, it takes just as much blind faith to believe many and varied conspiracy theories about the US government and its so called lies as it does to blindly believe the US government is making the best decisions possible to look out for its people's interest.

I choose to blindly believe my government because there are too many checks and balances written into our laws to ensure that no governmental conspiracy remains uncovered in perpetuity.  I back up that belief by reading as much as I possibly can about my government from sources ranging from the far left to the far right.

You are a knowledgeable guy, Mir.  If you want to have a lengthy and intelligent discussion about all that is the US government under the Bush administration, I'll be glad to do so in a separate thread.  I enjoy spirited debate and can go back and forth for as long as you would like.  (as long as we can start with some type of agreed upon premise.  If your belief system allows for something silly like "Bush blew up Tower 7", then we really don't have much to talk about)     

[SANDRO43]

Unlike Germany and Japan at the end of WW2 where the USA had more control and the people were willing

BillyB, please don't wax romantic, Germany and Japan were defeated and occupied nations, so they had no other choice but to bow to their winners' dictums, the Allied being in total control. Granted that they liked it afterwards, but I'd say they were initially resigned, rather than 'willing', or more probably oblivious, since they had much more urgent problems to cope with (survival).

[Mir]

Mir, it takes just as much blind faith to believe many and varied conspiracy theories about the US government and its so called lies as it does to blindly believe the US government is making the best decisions possible to look out for its people's interest.

I choose to blindly believe my government because there are too many checks and balances written into our laws to ensure that no governmental conspiracy remains uncovered in perpetuity.  I back up that belief by reading as much as I possibly can about my government from sources ranging from the far left to the far right.

You are a knowledgeable guy, Mir.  If you want to have a lengthy and intelligent discussion about all that is the US government under the Bush administration, I'll be glad to do so in a separate thread.  I enjoy spirited debate and can go back and forth for as long as you would like.  (as long as we can start with some type of agreed upon premise.  If your belief system allows for something silly like "Bush blew up Tower 7", then we really don't have much to talk about)

I don't blindly believe anyone. That is the only way one can be near the truth although the truth might still evade us.
I don't believe in things like Tower 7 was a controlled demolition or that there were no Jews in WTC.
You have admitted that you blindly believe your government, I doubt it is possible to have an unbiased openion after a blind belief so any discusion/debate will lead nowhere.

[timothe]

I don't blindly believe anyone. That is the only way one can be near the truth although the truth might still evade us.
I don't believe in things like Tower 7 was a controlled demolition or that there were no Jews in WTC.
You have admitted that you blindly believe your government, I doubt it is possible to have an unbiased openion after a blind belief so any discusion/debate will lead nowhere.

When you say that the US Government lied about this or the US Government lied about that, you are blindly believing somebody.  You don't have firsthand knowledge and no one has provided enough proof to prosecute anyone from the current administration.

[William3rd]

Maybe not enough evidence to a CRIMINAL standard but there is more than enough evidence out there for a reasonable person to reach a conclusion that there is quite alot of prevarication in the White House and that there is a serious doubt as to this political party's ability to lead.

[Mir]

Just as William says, one can never know the whole truth but one can be nearer to the truth provided one does not blindly believe in something.
This is the reason why religious fanatics are so difficult to convince where they are wrong, cause they have decided to blindly believe in something.
If you want to only believe in things about which you have first hand information then you will be left with a handful of historical facts, for example you might decide to deny Holocaust ever hapend since you never lived through it yourself.

[timothe]

Just as William says, one can never know the whole truth but one can be nearer to the truth provided one does not blindly believe in something.
This is the reason why religious fanatics are so difficult to convince where they are wrong, cause they have decided to blindly believe in something.
If you want to only believe in things about which you have first hand information then you will be left with a handful of historical facts, for example you might decide to deny Holocaust ever hapend since you never lived through it yourself.

You've pretty much made my point for me, Mir.  No one wants to be considered as "blindly" following anything.  But if you get down to brass tacks about where you received the information about "Bush lied..people died" and other rhetoric, you'll have to admit to yourself that you are indeed accepting information as true when in fact you are simply believing it to be true. 

I challenge you to find one "Bush lie" that doesn't contain an ounce of blind faith.