Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Article: Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’
- This topic has 185 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
wannabe2077.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 15, 2009 at 5:50 PM #400654May 15, 2009 at 5:58 PM #399978
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=Eugene][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The “new” MiG 35 Fulcrum-F (which is a MiG 29 Fulcrum derivative) is actually a pretty good fighter plane and it incorporates look down AESA radar and improved avionics, including OLS (optical locator system). Russia has already approached China regarding selling them the Fulcrum-F design for licensed manufacture (as reported by Jane’s Defence).[/quote]Not too long ago I saw some articles by Russian designers of aircraft radars. They appeared to be designing their radars based on the assumption that their primary competitors’ (F-22 and F-35) radar cross sections were on the order of -5 dbsm. (The actual figures are classified, but all western sources agree that F-22 is below -30.) The difference between -5 and -30 is 5x the range.
Russians are quite a bit behind in terms of technology (stealth & such). And if that’s not bad enough, the amount of stupidity and corruption in Russian Army is quite staggering. Rather than acknowledge that their stealth sucks and try to deal with it, they instead invent a convenient RCS number for F-22.
At this point, rather than depend on Russians, Chinese should probably steal the design of F/A-18E or F-22, reverse engineer and learn to make their own.[/quote]
Eugene: I don’t doubt that the Chinese will do exactly that (steal American or Euro designs and reverse engineer them). There was some chatter regarding some of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) plans going missing.
The MiG-29 is a very flyable aircraft and has actually outperformed the F/A-18 in simulations. During the Korean War, the much-derided MiG-15 actually outperformed the USAF F-86 on a regular basis. During the Vietnam War, the Soviet made MiG-19s and MiG-21s the North Vietnamese were using outflew the USAF and USN F-105s and F-4s. This shoddy performance was the rationale behind the creation of the Navy’s “Top Gun” program at Miramar and the USAF “Red Flag” school at Nellis.
My uncle was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII and the Korean War and he told me about all the propaganda surrounding Japanese pilots in WWII (poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, etc). He said that, contrary to that nonsense, Japanese pilots were very good up till about late 1943, early 1944, when attrition took out most of the better pilots. I’ve heard the same sort of thing about Chinese pilots from USAF fighter jocks (the Chinese don’t invest enough money in their pilot training programs, their aircraft are junk, etc).
I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.
May 15, 2009 at 5:58 PM #400224Participant[quote=Eugene][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The “new” MiG 35 Fulcrum-F (which is a MiG 29 Fulcrum derivative) is actually a pretty good fighter plane and it incorporates look down AESA radar and improved avionics, including OLS (optical locator system). Russia has already approached China regarding selling them the Fulcrum-F design for licensed manufacture (as reported by Jane’s Defence).[/quote]Not too long ago I saw some articles by Russian designers of aircraft radars. They appeared to be designing their radars based on the assumption that their primary competitors’ (F-22 and F-35) radar cross sections were on the order of -5 dbsm. (The actual figures are classified, but all western sources agree that F-22 is below -30.) The difference between -5 and -30 is 5x the range.
Russians are quite a bit behind in terms of technology (stealth & such). And if that’s not bad enough, the amount of stupidity and corruption in Russian Army is quite staggering. Rather than acknowledge that their stealth sucks and try to deal with it, they instead invent a convenient RCS number for F-22.
At this point, rather than depend on Russians, Chinese should probably steal the design of F/A-18E or F-22, reverse engineer and learn to make their own.[/quote]
Eugene: I don’t doubt that the Chinese will do exactly that (steal American or Euro designs and reverse engineer them). There was some chatter regarding some of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) plans going missing.
The MiG-29 is a very flyable aircraft and has actually outperformed the F/A-18 in simulations. During the Korean War, the much-derided MiG-15 actually outperformed the USAF F-86 on a regular basis. During the Vietnam War, the Soviet made MiG-19s and MiG-21s the North Vietnamese were using outflew the USAF and USN F-105s and F-4s. This shoddy performance was the rationale behind the creation of the Navy’s “Top Gun” program at Miramar and the USAF “Red Flag” school at Nellis.
My uncle was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII and the Korean War and he told me about all the propaganda surrounding Japanese pilots in WWII (poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, etc). He said that, contrary to that nonsense, Japanese pilots were very good up till about late 1943, early 1944, when attrition took out most of the better pilots. I’ve heard the same sort of thing about Chinese pilots from USAF fighter jocks (the Chinese don’t invest enough money in their pilot training programs, their aircraft are junk, etc).
I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.
May 15, 2009 at 5:58 PM #400456Participant[quote=Eugene][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The “new” MiG 35 Fulcrum-F (which is a MiG 29 Fulcrum derivative) is actually a pretty good fighter plane and it incorporates look down AESA radar and improved avionics, including OLS (optical locator system). Russia has already approached China regarding selling them the Fulcrum-F design for licensed manufacture (as reported by Jane’s Defence).[/quote]Not too long ago I saw some articles by Russian designers of aircraft radars. They appeared to be designing their radars based on the assumption that their primary competitors’ (F-22 and F-35) radar cross sections were on the order of -5 dbsm. (The actual figures are classified, but all western sources agree that F-22 is below -30.) The difference between -5 and -30 is 5x the range.
Russians are quite a bit behind in terms of technology (stealth & such). And if that’s not bad enough, the amount of stupidity and corruption in Russian Army is quite staggering. Rather than acknowledge that their stealth sucks and try to deal with it, they instead invent a convenient RCS number for F-22.
At this point, rather than depend on Russians, Chinese should probably steal the design of F/A-18E or F-22, reverse engineer and learn to make their own.[/quote]
Eugene: I don’t doubt that the Chinese will do exactly that (steal American or Euro designs and reverse engineer them). There was some chatter regarding some of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) plans going missing.
The MiG-29 is a very flyable aircraft and has actually outperformed the F/A-18 in simulations. During the Korean War, the much-derided MiG-15 actually outperformed the USAF F-86 on a regular basis. During the Vietnam War, the Soviet made MiG-19s and MiG-21s the North Vietnamese were using outflew the USAF and USN F-105s and F-4s. This shoddy performance was the rationale behind the creation of the Navy’s “Top Gun” program at Miramar and the USAF “Red Flag” school at Nellis.
My uncle was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII and the Korean War and he told me about all the propaganda surrounding Japanese pilots in WWII (poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, etc). He said that, contrary to that nonsense, Japanese pilots were very good up till about late 1943, early 1944, when attrition took out most of the better pilots. I’ve heard the same sort of thing about Chinese pilots from USAF fighter jocks (the Chinese don’t invest enough money in their pilot training programs, their aircraft are junk, etc).
I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.
May 15, 2009 at 5:58 PM #400511Participant[quote=Eugene][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The “new” MiG 35 Fulcrum-F (which is a MiG 29 Fulcrum derivative) is actually a pretty good fighter plane and it incorporates look down AESA radar and improved avionics, including OLS (optical locator system). Russia has already approached China regarding selling them the Fulcrum-F design for licensed manufacture (as reported by Jane’s Defence).[/quote]Not too long ago I saw some articles by Russian designers of aircraft radars. They appeared to be designing their radars based on the assumption that their primary competitors’ (F-22 and F-35) radar cross sections were on the order of -5 dbsm. (The actual figures are classified, but all western sources agree that F-22 is below -30.) The difference between -5 and -30 is 5x the range.
Russians are quite a bit behind in terms of technology (stealth & such). And if that’s not bad enough, the amount of stupidity and corruption in Russian Army is quite staggering. Rather than acknowledge that their stealth sucks and try to deal with it, they instead invent a convenient RCS number for F-22.
At this point, rather than depend on Russians, Chinese should probably steal the design of F/A-18E or F-22, reverse engineer and learn to make their own.[/quote]
Eugene: I don’t doubt that the Chinese will do exactly that (steal American or Euro designs and reverse engineer them). There was some chatter regarding some of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) plans going missing.
The MiG-29 is a very flyable aircraft and has actually outperformed the F/A-18 in simulations. During the Korean War, the much-derided MiG-15 actually outperformed the USAF F-86 on a regular basis. During the Vietnam War, the Soviet made MiG-19s and MiG-21s the North Vietnamese were using outflew the USAF and USN F-105s and F-4s. This shoddy performance was the rationale behind the creation of the Navy’s “Top Gun” program at Miramar and the USAF “Red Flag” school at Nellis.
My uncle was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII and the Korean War and he told me about all the propaganda surrounding Japanese pilots in WWII (poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, etc). He said that, contrary to that nonsense, Japanese pilots were very good up till about late 1943, early 1944, when attrition took out most of the better pilots. I’ve heard the same sort of thing about Chinese pilots from USAF fighter jocks (the Chinese don’t invest enough money in their pilot training programs, their aircraft are junk, etc).
I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.
May 15, 2009 at 5:58 PM #400659Participant[quote=Eugene][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The “new” MiG 35 Fulcrum-F (which is a MiG 29 Fulcrum derivative) is actually a pretty good fighter plane and it incorporates look down AESA radar and improved avionics, including OLS (optical locator system). Russia has already approached China regarding selling them the Fulcrum-F design for licensed manufacture (as reported by Jane’s Defence).[/quote]Not too long ago I saw some articles by Russian designers of aircraft radars. They appeared to be designing their radars based on the assumption that their primary competitors’ (F-22 and F-35) radar cross sections were on the order of -5 dbsm. (The actual figures are classified, but all western sources agree that F-22 is below -30.) The difference between -5 and -30 is 5x the range.
Russians are quite a bit behind in terms of technology (stealth & such). And if that’s not bad enough, the amount of stupidity and corruption in Russian Army is quite staggering. Rather than acknowledge that their stealth sucks and try to deal with it, they instead invent a convenient RCS number for F-22.
At this point, rather than depend on Russians, Chinese should probably steal the design of F/A-18E or F-22, reverse engineer and learn to make their own.[/quote]
Eugene: I don’t doubt that the Chinese will do exactly that (steal American or Euro designs and reverse engineer them). There was some chatter regarding some of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) plans going missing.
The MiG-29 is a very flyable aircraft and has actually outperformed the F/A-18 in simulations. During the Korean War, the much-derided MiG-15 actually outperformed the USAF F-86 on a regular basis. During the Vietnam War, the Soviet made MiG-19s and MiG-21s the North Vietnamese were using outflew the USAF and USN F-105s and F-4s. This shoddy performance was the rationale behind the creation of the Navy’s “Top Gun” program at Miramar and the USAF “Red Flag” school at Nellis.
My uncle was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII and the Korean War and he told me about all the propaganda surrounding Japanese pilots in WWII (poor eyesight, poor hand-eye coordination, etc). He said that, contrary to that nonsense, Japanese pilots were very good up till about late 1943, early 1944, when attrition took out most of the better pilots. I’ve heard the same sort of thing about Chinese pilots from USAF fighter jocks (the Chinese don’t invest enough money in their pilot training programs, their aircraft are junk, etc).
I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.
May 15, 2009 at 6:32 PM #399993Anonymous
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
May 15, 2009 at 6:32 PM #400242Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
May 15, 2009 at 6:32 PM #400473Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
May 15, 2009 at 6:32 PM #400530Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
May 15, 2009 at 6:32 PM #400676Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
May 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM #399998Arraya
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
[/quote]
China needs Russia for energy. They just set up oil contract usurping the market. So, they are strategic alliances out of necessity.
May 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM #400247Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
[/quote]
China needs Russia for energy. They just set up oil contract usurping the market. So, they are strategic alliances out of necessity.
May 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM #400478Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
[/quote]
China needs Russia for energy. They just set up oil contract usurping the market. So, they are strategic alliances out of necessity.
May 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM #400535Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I think we should be very careful and keep a close on both the Chinese and Russians. Those two getting together is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Look at the charts that afx114 posted. Add China and Russia together and they are still insignificant. And the two don’t exactly get along – so there would not be much synergy even if they combined their forces.
The US military is focused in China because they need a “big” enemy to justify the big budgets, the big weapons systems, and the big contracts. All those generals want to be sure that they have a cushy consulting job in some program office when they retire.
[/quote]
China needs Russia for energy. They just set up oil contract usurping the market. So, they are strategic alliances out of necessity.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.