Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

 

The US has defense obligations with several different nations in the Western Pacific,

That's a choice, and it can be changed.

 

This is weird about modern alliances; people pretend that they're eternal and kind of law of nature. Same with NATO.

Gone the times of changing alliances (save for maybe Turkey) - heck, Italians even changed sides during both world wars!

To treat non-self evident things as self-evident may lead to very stupid policies.

 

U.S: and PRC do not need to be rivals or opposing each other, and the U.S. doesn't need to prepare for war against the PRC.

It's all about choices.

 

silly statement altogether.

 

We could wake up tomorrow and be allied with Russia and China instead, but it aint happening.

 

and unless the U.S. wants to cede all influence in the area to China, then those alliances will remain and be honored.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

The US has defense obligations with several different nations in the Western Pacific,

That's a choice, and it can be changed.

 

This is weird about modern alliances; people pretend that they're eternal and kind of law of nature. Same with NATO.

Gone the times of changing alliances (save for maybe Turkey) - heck, Italians even changed sides during both world wars!

To treat non-self evident things as self-evident may lead to very stupid policies.

 

U.S: and PRC do not need to be rivals or opposing each other, and the U.S. doesn't need to prepare for war against the PRC.

It's all about choices.

 

Leaving those alliances would throw all US alliances into question and be tantamount to leaving the entire global stage and accepting whatever world Russia and China make as the new normal. That will not be happening inside the lifetime of the F-22 or likely even the Su-57, regardless of your personal desires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The US has defense obligations with several different nations in the Western Pacific,

 

That's a choice, and it can be changed.

 

This is weird about modern alliances; people pretend that they're eternal and kind of law of nature. Same with NATO.

Gone the times of changing alliances (save for maybe Turkey) - heck, Italians even changed sides during both world wars!

To treat non-self evident things as self-evident may lead to very stupid policies.

 

U.S: and PRC do not need to be rivals or opposing each other, and the U.S. doesn't need to prepare for war against the PRC.

It's all about choices.

 

 

During the Belle Epoque when there were several leading world powers, each of comparable strength, a certain amount of shifting alliances made sense. The various nations would jockey for position, but the others were quick to ally against any single nation that became strong enough to disrupt the overall balance of power.

 

Things are different now. Can you guess how? I give you one hint:

 

yxBtZ0d.jpg

 

The United States is a world-spanning empire and dominant superpower. The second place is so far distant that it doesn't even matter. The United States' foreign policy is to contain any possible rival powers. Right now that means Russia and China, but India is on notice as well. One instrument for this containment is the creation of armed states friendly to the USA adjacent to any potential rivals to keep them bottled in. Unfortunately, the Russians have a habit of calling Sam's bluff on this game (see: Ukraine), so in order for this strategy to work, the US proxies actually need to be armed.

 

Until the global order of powers changes or plate tectonics moves South Korea further away from China, there is no reason to ever change these alliances. US territory is not de jure threatened by a Chinese invasion of Japan, but it is de facto, unless you're silly enough to think that Japan isn't a US territory in all meaningful ways.

 

There are all sorts of invective names you can call this foreign policy; imperialism, neo-colonialism, jingoism, etc. Nobody cares. The American Empire will endure for a thousand years, irrespective of the whining of peasants. The nonsense in Syria is a minor setback caused by Trotskyite wreckers who are being purged as we speak. Dehumanize yourself and face to Trump. Hail Satan!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh Leaving those alliances would throw all US alliances into question and be tantamount to leaving the entire global stage and accepting whatever world Russia and China make as the new normal

 

 

Alliances have advantages and disadvantages. Take Russia for example. When it had allies it collapsed because allies can be dependents that draw resources and give little in exchange. Then, when it had none (except Syria), its fortunes revived and its now back on the world stage. For the US, when interests are in harmony its alliances work well. But when interests get disharmonious, it’s not so clear an alliance is an advantage. Turkey, for example. That’s what LD is talking about, that alliances have a life span, are not permanent fixtures of the universe. But, like all life forms, some alliances will live longer than others. With respect to South Korea and Japan, the less the alliances are seriously tested, the better.

 

Loopy Crank . The United States is a world-spanning empire and dominant superpower. The second place is so far distant that it doesn't even matter.

 

 

The United States can’t even beat the Taliban.

Edited by glenn239
Link to post
Share on other sites

Take Russia for example. When it had allies it collapsed because allies can be dependents that draw resources and give little in exchange.

WTF? The U.S.S.R. MILKED its Eastern European allies, it drained them through COMECON to sustain its own insane warlike military spending for decades.

And on top of that they added substantial numbers of forces and technical/scientific work.

 

The only USSR "allies" that got more out of the relationship than the USSR were the unofficial allies ovserseas, especially Cuba.

 

 

Leaving those alliances would throw all US alliances into question and be tantamount to leaving the entire global stage and accepting whatever world Russia and China make as the new normal. That will not be happening inside the lifetime of the F-22 or likely even the Su-57

See? That's what I mean when I say that people have grown to think of alliances as eternal and self-evident. It's this kind of thinking.

 

I strongly suppose if the U.S: announced it would leave a certain alliance relationship in five years there would be some diplomatic activity, some changes in military forces, some changes of strategy - the same stuff that happened all the time when a great power changed its alliance network in the 19th or 18th centuries. People who didn't pay much attention to such world history don't seem to be able to imagine, much less expect, that.

 

Americans from the U.S. seem to be particularly limited in this, as they tend to focus their attention on history on American history; War of independence, war of 1812/13, ACW, WW1, WW2, Cold War. I see them hardly ever referencing intra-European relations of the 19th or 18th century save for very rarely Napoleonic Wars..

Edited by lastdingo
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bigger issue about when what military effort is necessary in peacetime and when it's not.

 

It's technically not about Su-57, but in a sense it's more important than any aircraft project and also most important regarding what Su-57 means to the West if it ever gets introduced into service in relevant quantities.

 

We didn't arrive there yet. Once we are I'm going to point out the differences between fighting for air superiority above blue, grey and red territory and how having the super fighter among the own ranks isn't all that necessary for defensive air warfare nowadays. And super fighters are even less important for offensive air warfare (except with long standoff munitions) because the deck can be stacked totally in favour of the defence.

But again, we're not there yet.

 

Do you prefer pictures, videos and tech talk?

Link to post
Share on other sites
WTF? The U.S.S.R. MILKED its Eastern European allies, it drained them through COMECON to sustain its own insane warlike military spending for decades.

 

If that would have been the case the quality of life of the USSR would have been higher, which was not the case. Life in Hungary, East Germany or Czechoslovakia was way better than in USSR, especially Republics in Caucasus and Central Asia. In the link below there are many statistics on housing, GDP per capita and so on.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Leaving those alliances would throw all US alliances into question and be tantamount to leaving the entire global stage and accepting whatever world Russia and China make as the new normal. That will not be happening inside the lifetime of the F-22 or likely even the Su-57

See? That's what I mean when I say that people have grown to think of alliances as eternal and self-evident. It's this kind of thinking.

 

I strongly suppose if the U.S: announced it would leave a certain alliance relationship in five years there would be some diplomatic activity, some changes in military forces, some changes of strategy - the same stuff that happened all the time when a great power changed its alliance network in the 19th or 18th centuries. People who didn't pay much attention to such world history don't seem to be able to imagine, much less expect, that.

 

Americans from the U.S. seem to be particularly limited in this, as they tend to focus their attention on history on American history; War of independence, war of 1812/13, ACW, WW1, WW2, Cold War. I see them hardly ever referencing intra-European relations of the 19th or 18th century save for very rarely Napoleonic Wars..

 

If thirty years from now the US has radically realigned its alliances, I owe you a coke. I'm not telling you what I want to happen, I'm telling you what will most likely happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chinese "5th gen" fighters are not going to reach Hawaii in anything but very rare stunts, so they are no threat to the United States.

 

If anything, their existence points at the stupidity of outlawing F-22 export to Japan and not providing Taiwan and South Korea with much better air defence systems (which the USAF itself doesn't have itself).

 

I oppose the tone that implies that the U.S. has to be involved in East Asian wars of the future. It doesn't need to be involved. Alliances are supposed to benefit all members, and the U.S. is not being threatened in East Asia. Guam is negligible. It could be demilitarised like the East Aegean and would not be one iota less safe (it's rather indefensible anyway).

 

Although a ban on anything could be changed in time. The ban was made in 2009ish. If there was a mistake, it was cancelling the F-22 line altogether. The line closed in 2011ish. And too many people had their heads in the "give China a chance for middle income so they can naturally become a democracy, rainbows, and butterflies". So I suspect F-22 sales might have been seen as excessive, particulalry with a Japan defense budget that was still on a slight decline in those years. If the line was still open today, in today's geopolitical situation, the US probably would really be considering selling F-22s to Japan right now. Although that would of course hurt the F-35 program. Probably part of the reason why the F-22 line was closed, to save cost for the sake of the F-35 program. Japan wouldn't have enough money to buy both F-22s and F-35As.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm damn curious whom the Russians will be able to convince to buy SU-57s when J-31s are an option. I guess we'll have to see what the final specs are on each bird, but the J-31 looks a hell of a lot stealthier. Or if MiG comes out with a mini-SU-57 or something.

No such thing as 'J-31'. There is FC-31, a private venture of Shenyang. It's basically a technology demonstrator with no engines or avionics set available to make it an operational fighter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm damn curious whom the Russians will be able to convince to buy SU-57s when J-31s are an option. I guess we'll have to see what the final specs are on each bird, but the J-31 looks a hell of a lot stealthier. Or if MiG comes out with a mini-SU-57 or something.

It is on the works, in co-operation with UAE:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-20/u-a-e-to-build-russian-warplane-as-iran-stokes-mideast-tensions

Edited by Yama
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm damn curious whom the Russians will be able to convince to buy SU-57s when J-31s are an option. I guess we'll have to see what the final specs are on each bird, but the J-31 looks a hell of a lot stealthier. Or if MiG comes out with a mini-SU-57 or something.

No such thing as 'J-31'. There is FC-31, a private venture of Shenyang. It's basically a technology demonstrator with no engines or avionics set available to make it an operational fighter.
Still anything is better than what those pesky russkies can do. And didn't you knew that stealth is one and single thing that defines aircraft effectiveness?
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Loopycrank And why is that? Is it because the Taliban command a stronger military than the United States?

 

 

 

You said the US could whump China or Russia and dominate Eurasia for a thousand years. Historical tidbit – when in the sales brochure it says “thousand years”, in the fine print you’ll notice said empire only come with 12 year warranty. The US can’t even beat the Taliban. They’re going to beat the Chinese in Asia? I don’t think so.

 

 

Josh If thirty years from now the US has radically realigned its alliances, I owe you a coke.

 

 

 

I think you meant that, if thirty years from now the South Koreans or Japanese have realigned their alliances, then you’ll owe him a coke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The entirety of air combat history is that the plane which is not seen kills the plane that is seen 4:1 or more, yet you doubt stealth's central importance?

I doubt that slight superiority on stealth(which is just argued, not hard-known) with inferiority in other systems would grant victory. Complicated array of AESA plates with max range more than 400km on 0,4m^2 RCS fighter would see 0,2m^2 RCS fighter with (let's speculate) 300km range radar sooner that this 0,2m^2 fighter would see anything. Edited by GARGEAN
Link to post
Share on other sites

The entirety of air combat history is that the plane which is not seen kills the plane that is seen 4:1 or more, yet you doubt stealth's central importance?

Agreed.

 

The vast majority of the Red Barons kills were against aircraft that never saw him. He only got in a dogfight a handful of times in his career. The first time he did, he spent half an hour manoeuvring for a kill in his Albatross against a clapped out DH2. The second time, he was shot down and killed.

 

So yes basically. Killing your opponent without being seen, would appear to have more value than going all Maverick on an enemy you are already engaged with. The F15's success supports that idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Josh If thirty years from now the US has radically realigned its alliances, I owe you a coke.

 

I think you meant that, if thirty years from now the South Koreans or Japanese have realigned their alliances, then you’ll owe him a coke.

 

Either or. But yes, much more likely to come from the allies side than the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems a little early to be talking about the marketability of aircraft that haven't entered service with their respect manufacturing countries.

 

It is safe to say that anyone with access to F-35 will buy that before FC-31 or Su-57, if only because it's a mature airframe and the US will eat all of the upgrade development costs and ensure that there is a steady parts supply available by nature of the size of its own fleet. The flyaway costs of F-35 are almost competitive with 4.5 generation fighters already; the US is eating the staggering development cost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...