If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

[DeltaV]

The Russia-China Friendship and Cooperation Treaty: A Strategic Shift in Eurasia? (2001 by Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.)

Putin boasts new jet fighter better than U.S. plane

China shamelessly steals fighter jet technology from Russia [Right... heh heh]

China denies military exercise aimed at U.S. [Right... heh heh]

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

Its six full members account for 60% of the land mass of Eurasia and its population is a quarter of the world’s. With observer states included, its affiliates account for half of the human race.

At its fifth and watershed summit in the capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, in June 2005, when representatives of India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan attended an SCO summit for the first time, the president of the country hosting the summit, Nursultan Nazarbayev, greeted the guests in words that had never before been used in any context: “The leaders of the states sitting at this negotiation table are representatives of half of humanity.”

The SCO has served as a platform for larger military announcements by members. During the 2007 war games in Russia, with leaders of SCO member states in attendance including Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin used the occasion to take advantage of a "captive" audience: Russian strategic bombers, he said, would resume regular long-range patrols for the first time since the Cold War. "Starting today, such tours of duty will be conducted regularly and on the strategic scale," Putin said. "Our pilots have been grounded for too long. They are happy to start a new life."

Chinese troops pay attention to coordination with friendly forces -- commander

[TallDave]

Fukuyama was right: history is over.

I disagree. Just like stocks have reached a permanently high level? Real estate values will never decline?

More like: Communism isn't coming back. Neither is the Ottoman Empire. Those aren't trends that are going to reverse.

I won't say war is dead. A limited conflict over the status of Taiwan is still possible (though increasingly unlikely), Russia gets possessive over its former satellites, and there are enough crazy Muslims who want to bring back the Caliphate to cause a lot of trouble across the Mideast, some already with various degrees of state control.

But there's a dynamic over the whole of human history that Ray Kurzweil has identified pretty convincingly: productivity gains are cumulative, exponential, and pervasive. Rich liberal societies go to war only very reluctantly, and all societies are continuing to become richer and more liberal because of productivity gains. The next 20 years should see conflict in most of Asia become as unthinkable as a major state war in Western Europe or North America is today.

[djolds1]

More like: Communism isn't coming back. Neither is the Ottoman Empire. Those aren't trends that are going to reverse.

Not so sure about the Ottomans. The Turks are the most dynamic and advanced economy in Islam, and they are rising. They have rejected Kemalism and embraced Islamism, which gives them credibility across the Muslim World. The Turks could well reassert their role as the imperial core of Islam.

But there's a dynamic over the whole of human history that Ray Kurzweil has identified pretty convincingly: productivity gains are cumulative, exponential, and pervasive. Rich liberal societies go to war only very reluctantly, and all societies are continuing to become richer and more liberal because of productivity gains. The next 20 years should see conflict in most of Asia become as unthinkable as a major state war in Western Europe or North America is today.

Our Great-Grandfathers, the original devotees of Progress (NOT Progressivism) thought exactly the same. Right up until Germany and its largest trading partner (France) went to war with each other in 1914. Every generation thinks it has escaped history, discovered the "new way" or "new economy" that will work forever, thinks it has come to Francis Fukuyama's End of History. And every generation is identically deluded.

I would advise you not to stand with the delusionals.

[GIThruster]

I have to agree. Besides, we have only begun to see how Africa can war on itself. Congo. Somalia. Uganda. Darfur. Numbers of dead that will dwarf those in the rest of the world's great wars, and we sit back and declare war and history are over?

There is more piracy than at any other time in recorded history.

And what about Southeast Asia? Did someone above say they were going to stop fighting? Indonesia has been having daily civil war for more than fifteen years. We don't get much of that news in the US but it's not as if it isn't happening. Mexico is falling into drug lord run chaos--even the press has given up and agreed to stop telling the people what's happening.

Oh yeah, end of wars and history--you gotta have your head in the sand. The only place that hasn't been fighting lately is Europe, but the elites in Russia have been stealing so badly from its people for more than a a decade, that the relative peace can only last for just so much longer.

Face it--war is mankind's natural function. It won't end until mankind is utterly transformed. History is certainly not over.

[rjaypeters]

Netizens: The debate continues over in "Is History Over?"

[TallDave]

The Turks could well reassert their role as the imperial core of Islam.

Muslims are generally opposed to Islamism. They seem to prefer an Islamic flavor of liberal democracy: less liberal in some respects. These will probably evolve to become more liberal over time.

Our Great-Grandfathers, the original devotees of Progress (NOT Progressivism) thought exactly the same.

Well, no, they thought they had achieved lasting peace, not an end to the great question of how societies should organize -- in fact that debate was more active than ever (fascism, nazism, communism), in a way it is definitely not today.

Congo. Somalia. Uganda. Darfur. Numbers of dead that will dwarf those in the rest of the world's great wars, and we sit back and declare war and history are over?

Again, not saying war is over, just history. Those aren't conflicts over organizational principles, like WW II and the Cold War, they're localized ethno-religious conflicts.

Circling back to the original point -- the end of history means there aren't strategic enemies anymore; from that standpoint we don't particularly care if the Hutus are killing the Tutsis or vice-versa, and we don't need next-gen fighters to deter either of them. They'll either become liberal democrats and stop fighting, or remain too poor to matter.

And what about Southeast Asia? Did someone above say they were going to stop fighting? Indonesia has been having daily civil war for more than fifteen years.

Very small-scale stuff. The point is we are not going to see large-scale conflicts such as they've experienced historically, from the beginning of human civilization through the end of the Cold War, because from Vietnam to Laos to China to Thailand to Cambodia, the large majority of societies are liberalizing (with laggards in Burma and some Islamic communities) and will eventually be rich liberal democracies like the ones in Taiwan and South Korea. Why is this happening? Because everyone now pretty much agrees that liberal democracy is the best way to order a society. And once that happens, conflicts gradually dissipate. History is over, we're just running out the clock.

[DeltaV]

You are forgetting about the coming war(s) for control of near-Earth space and the Moon (the unsinkable mass-driver carrier; see Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress").

Yes, this final totalitarian power grab can be avoided if Russia and China really do become liberal democracies, but the old school will fight tooth and nail to retain power by whatever means. They know that whoever takes the high ground wins. The outcome is by no means certain.

[DeltaV]

Like I said... 187 is not enough.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ssing.html

[AcesHigh]

US air superiority in jeopardy???




fearmongering to justify the absurdity that Pentagon spends, and to request more money to spend in other unnecessary projects.

[DeltaV]

Remember Pearl Harbor.

[DeltaV]

PLAAF's 6th Gen Fighter?
Edit: AWST moved the link. Fixed it. Twice.

Don't worry, Brazil is safe, for now. You should, however, begin moving air defense units towards the border with Venezuela.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Lies-Old-Anat ... 0945001134
http://www.amazon.com/Through-Eyes-Enem ... 0895263904

[krenshala]

Personally, I think its ridiculous that the F22 run was cut short. They were meant to replace the F15, and from all I've read and heard they do so quite well. I left the USAF four months before the first F22s arrived at the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley AFB (where I spent most of my 10 years).

Why replace the F15? Well, it is a fighter selected in 1967 and first put into service in 1976. That means we've been using them for more than 30 years now. I've read that a large number of them need serious work on the main structural members due to the stresses of decades of flight (and a number of recent crashes have been directly attributed to those stress induced fractures).

Also, the F22 was meant to replace the F15 ... the JSF was mean to replace the F16. Two similar but completely different roles in air combat.

[AcesHigh]

Remember Pearl Harbor.

yes, exactly the same situation uh??

just compare the US vs other countries numbers from 1940 to US vs other countries numbers from 2010.

[DeltaV]

Yes. Exactly the same situation.





(Edit - fixed dead links)

[AcesHigh]

Yes. Exactly the same situation.

what are you trying to show with these pics???


That you have less airplanes? Well, so do every other country. At the start of WW2 the US didnt have the largest airforce in the world and it didnt have the most modern combat planes.

Today, you have BOTH the largest air force and the most advanced one.

Oh, and most important, lets not forget that Japan had the largest fleet of aircraft carriers in the world in WW2. That allowed them to attack Pearl Harbour.

Nowadays?? The US has 11 active aircraft carrier and 6 in reserve, for a total of 17.

Other countries?? England has 2. Italy has 2. India, Russia, France, Brazil, Thailand, China and Spain, each one has ONLY 1.

Thus, none of these countries has the capability of launching an air attack at the US. Even if they have long range bombers, they wont have capability to escort those bombers with fighters.


So, again, to use Pearl Harbour as an excuse to justify the US spending even more on its airforce today is laughable.