Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:Vietnam isn't a very meaningful ally militarily. China could take them and there's little we could do to stop it short of taking the fight into mainland china with bombing campaigns.

You know, I vaguely recall someone saying that just before they humbled the last foreign army to fight in their country...

No, they couldn't stop China from occupying the country. But unless China was willing to totally wipe out the Vietnamese, they would make that occupation every bit as bloody and pointless as the Vietnam was was for America.

The only thing even remotely involving Vietnam that would be worth China undertaking a military action over are the Spratly Islands... and that would only involve a naval battle, assuming the Vietnamese naval forces decided to commit suicide by PLAN. China wouldn't even have to touch the Vietnamese mainland.

Of course, since about five other nations ALSO claim the Spratlys, that would open a major can of worms that I don't see China doing right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:It's my personal opinion that the RN should look backwards rather than forward when looking for fighters to put on their new carriers. Having stealth multirole fighters sounds great until you hang a 300M USD price tag on them(that's the cost assosiated with RandD not just flyaway). Even at 140M thats excessive, the Eurofighter joins that crowd @ 197M USD BEFORE being navalized, The Rafale M isn't much better at 120(ish)M USD.
There's nothing stopping BAE (or someone else) from forming a partnership with NG or MD to initiate domestic (British) production of a next generation F-14 or domestic navalized variants of the F-15 (including the STOL/MTD variant merged with the Silent Eagle to introduce a sort of 4.75G fighter). The 1998 costs of those respective airplanes less any further development and adjusted for inflation was 50.57M and 41.39M respectively. Gain the designs, develop for CATOBAR navalization(F-15) or simple modernization (F-14) and have the MoD impose a cap of 75M USD (48ishM GBP) voila a capable naval fighter at less than half the flyaway cost of the F-35C. I'm a genius...if only it were that simple.

Navalizing an existing design is harder than you might think. It requires massive structural reinforcement at all points, especially the landing gear and weapon/fuel hardpoints.

Landing an aircraft on a carrier is essentially a controled crash. The shock loads are considerable.

Modernizing F-14s are all fine and good, assuming you plan new construction and not just refurbishing existing planes. The ones built back in the 70s were used hard, and likely have significant metal fatigue in the frames. Just... hope you never face a Soviet 5G figher, or a Eurofighter, in a hostile situation.

Vulcan wrote:

AustonT wrote:It's my personal opinion that the RN should look backwards rather than forward when looking for fighters to put on their new carriers. Having stealth multirole fighters sounds great until you hang a 300M USD price tag on them(that's the cost assosiated with RandD not just flyaway). Even at 140M thats excessive, the Eurofighter joins that crowd @ 197M USD BEFORE being navalized, The Rafale M isn't much better at 120(ish)M USD.
There's nothing stopping BAE (or someone else) from forming a partnership with NG or MD to initiate domestic (British) production of a next generation F-14 or domestic navalized variants of the F-15 (including the STOL/MTD variant merged with the Silent Eagle to introduce a sort of 4.75G fighter). The 1998 costs of those respective airplanes less any further development and adjusted for inflation was 50.57M and 41.39M respectively. Gain the designs, develop for CATOBAR navalization(F-15) or simple modernization (F-14) and have the MoD impose a cap of 75M USD (48ishM GBP) voila a capable naval fighter at less than half the flyaway cost of the F-35C. I'm a genius...if only it were that simple.

Navalizing an existing design is harder than you might think. It requires massive structural reinforcement at all points, especially the landing gear and weapon/fuel hardpoints.

Landing an aircraft on a carrier is essentially a controled crash. The shock loads are considerable.

Modernizing F-14s are all fine and good, assuming you plan new construction and not just refurbishing existing planes. The ones built back in the 70s were used hard, and likely have significant metal fatigue in the frames. Just... hope you never face a Soviet 5G figher, or a Eurofighter, in a hostile situation.

How many nations are going to be fielding 5G fighters in the near...and not so near future? Follow on question, how many of them have even a remote potential to go to war with the UK?

I'm well aware of the cost and design requirements of Navalizing existing airplanes. Luckily a design study for navalzing F-15s already exists, although I'm fairly certain none were built. Of the 5G naval fighters currently available all are navalized variants of land based parent aircraft. You'd also have to fly an alternate reality where the Soviet Union still existed when 5G fighters were introduced.

I had thought that I made it clear I was talking about a British company taking ownership of either design and producing new aircraft domestically. Allowing the MoD to dictate costs and control overruns, and to provide jobs to British citizens rather than Americans. In any case production couldn't start tomorrow, the fire control and avionics of a new model F-14 updated to modern standards would take months to put into even low rate production, and a navalized F-15 would require protyping in the real world. Either solution is suboptimal...which conventionality also describes the F-18. The difference is that a domestic "Super Tomcat" or "Sea Eagle" could be built by Britain FOR Britain by utilizing designs that the US has passed up in favor of costly dreams.

Vulcan wrote:You know, I vaguely recall someone saying that just before they humbled the last foreign army to fight in their country...

Correct me if I am wrong, but alot of that was politics in war. "Take that land!" "Now that you've taken it, fall back!" "The Vietnamese have taken it back, TAKE BACK THAT LAND!" "Now that you have it, FALL BACK!", all while the fighting got bloodier and bloodier. Probably didn't help our situation at all, any way.


Also, What do you guys think the odds are that, assuming we barricaded China, we would pull out of debt? I'm not too sure of everything we get from them, but of the stuff I do know.... it's not exactly stuff we need to exist....

It would also force companies to produce things in non-Chinese areas in order to sell to the USA, which would I think be a plus for those other countries.

Perhaps it'd help Africa or South America develop a bigger industrial base, for instance.

Not saying it's definitely a good idea, but that it would actually benefit many groups to have China be hurt like that.

Slarg232 wrote:

Vulcan wrote:You know, I vaguely recall someone saying that just before they humbled the last foreign army to fight in their country...

Correct me if I am wrong, but alot of that was politics in war. "Take that land!" "Now that you've taken it, fall back!" "The Vietnamese have taken it back, TAKE BACK THAT LAND!" "Now that you have it, FALL BACK!", all while the fighting got bloodier and bloodier. Probably didn't help our situation at all, any way.


Also, What do you guys think the odds are that, assuming we barricaded China, we would pull out of debt? I'm not too sure of everything we get from them, but of the stuff I do know.... it's not exactly stuff we need to exist....

I'm fairly sure he was referring to the Sino-Vietnamese war.

Frazzled wrote:But they do build armies to kick other people's asses in general.

Maybe, in some cases. Depending on what you want your army to do, which in turn is dependant on your strategic needs.

There's really no need for China to occupy its neighbours, or do anything to change the current situation. It's already winning the peace, why would it bother starting a war?

It's really more about overseas deployment to secure resources supply lines. So, like I said in my example, China stepping in to resolve the Tamil situation in Sri Lanka. Except now you look to Africa, and China stepping in there to ensure stability and keep the resources pouring into China.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:I would genuinely be interested to see the Chinese go to war with the Russians. Does this make me a bad person?

It happened in the 1960s. The Chinese acquitted themselves pretty well, but was a pretty boring war, for the most part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Oddly enough, Vietnam likes the US more despite our mutual history, because the US is a far more kind trading partner than China is.

It's one of those bizarre bits of forgotten history, but Vietnam and China have fought a war since the conclusion of the Vietnam War. So it isn't so much despite US and Vietnam having fought a war, as much Vietnam has fought wars against damn near everyone, and developed a national character that figures they might as well just let bygones be bygones, because they can't hate everyone that turned up on their border with an army, else they'd hate the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but alot of that was politics in war. "Take that land!" "Now that you've taken it, fall back!" "The Vietnamese have taken it back, TAKE BACK THAT LAND!" "Now that you have it, FALL BACK!", all while the fighting got bloodier and bloodier. Probably didn't help our situation at all, any way.

Not really. Basically the US was faced with an enemy that they utterly dominated in direct engagement, but who didn't have key bases of operation in the area of engagement (they were in North Vietnam, and some in Cambodia). So instead the US deployed troops into the field on search and destroy missions, asttempting to identify and then eradicate enemy positions. It's basically all you can do when you get locked in to a war with an enemy who isn't holding traditional strongpoints in contested ground.

Search and Destroy operations were pretty successful, they inflicted pretty horrible casualties on the Viet Cong and NVA. It's just that ultimately it wasn't enough to stop the North Vietnamese from continuing the fight.

Also, What do you guys think the odds are that, assuming we barricaded China, we would pull out of debt? I'm not too sure of everything we get from them, but of the stuff I do know.... it's not exactly stuff we need to exist....

It's fairly important to remember most manufacturing is beyond the little trinkets you see with 'made in China' stamped on the bottom of them. China is also a major consumer of US goods, particularly service goods and education. Basically anything that severed the trade relationship between the two countries would collapse both economies overnight.

Slarg232 wrote:

Vulcan wrote:You know, I vaguely recall someone saying that just before they humbled the last foreign army to fight in their country...

Correct me if I am wrong, but alot of that was politics in war. "Take that land!" "Now that you've taken it, fall back!" "The Vietnamese have taken it back, TAKE BACK THAT LAND!" "Now that you have it, FALL BACK!", all while the fighting got bloodier and bloodier. Probably didn't help our situation at all, any way.


Also, What do you guys think the odds are that, assuming we barricaded China, we would pull out of debt? I'm not too sure of everything we get from them, but of the stuff I do know.... it's not exactly stuff we need to exist....

There is that, of course. The generals were fighting a war of attrition against the VC... not realizing that a) the war was being shown to the people of America for the first time ever, and b) how stupid it made them look, taking the same ground over and over again.

The politicians involved were also suffering from a cranial-rectal inversion, the way they kept interfering in the war...

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:But they do build armies to kick other people's asses in general.

Maybe, in some cases. Depending on what you want your army to do, which in turn is dependant on your strategic needs.

There's really no need for China to occupy its neighbours, or do anything to change the current situation. It's already winning the peace, why would it bother starting a war?

It's really more about overseas deployment to secure resources supply lines. So, like I said in my example, China stepping in to resolve the Tamil situation in Sri Lanka. Except now you look to Africa, and China stepping in there to ensure stability and keep the resources pouring into China.

It's fairly important to remember most manufacturing is beyond the little trinkets you see with 'made in China' stamped on the bottom of them. China is also a major consumer of US goods, particularly service goods and education. Basically anything that severed the trade relationship between the two countries would collapse both economies overnight.

Completely agree with this. The danger will come from China (much like we are seeing now with the US) when that wealth begins to recede, and they start to lash out to keep hold of it.

I think it's also helpful that, at present, China doesn't have the military-industrial complex which would act to influence its government and foreign policy directly.

Personally, I think the real 'war' between the West and China will be scientific and technological in nature. The government there is plowing a tremendous amount of money into a variety of sciences and development of new technologies. To be honest, it is a similar situation to the rest of Northern Asia.

I lived in S Korea for a couple of years, and while the UK is investing money in its aircraft carriers and new Nuclear Submarines, the S Korean government was subsidising new industries to the tune of billions every year - namely biotechnology, robotics and satellite/space technology. Money is fed directly into research at university, and then in the subsidy of companies that are moving these concepts into Industry. The communications satellites being launched now from Korea are regarded as being some of the most advanced in the world, some of their cars are breaking new ground with hydrogen fuel cells, and they are at the forefront of robotics technology. And this is just the tip of the ice-berg. I spoke to a researcher at a University about it, and the reason he gave was that Korea had missed the benefit of the previous technological revolutions, and the wealth they generated. They want to be at the forefront of the next one.

I would say all of the potential hot-spots in the world today, China and Northern Asia is perhaps the least likely to have any kind of conflict develop.

AustonT wrote:The US probably would fight for Taiwan, I'd have to check but I'm fairly sure we are obligated by treaty to defend them, otherwise China would have already taken the island over.
We have feth all interest in Vietnam's freedom, anymore.

I don't think we do, I'm not even sure if we officially recognize them as a nation...we just give them guns, lots and lots of guns, which makes it not worth the effort for the chinese to invade(the island will fall into their hands sooner or later)...and as for Vietnam, they're on the 'to nuke' list

On page 1 of this discussion, Frazz said that China is not our natural enemy. Nobody blinked an eyelid! Has the forum gone asleep!!!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:On page 1 of this discussion, Frazz said that China is not our natural enemy. Nobody blinked an eyelid! Has the forum gone asleep!!!

Not really, if I recall correctly his general sentiment toward in foreign affairs is that of isolationism; trade with others, but don't get to involved in their chicanery.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:On page 1 of this discussion, Frazz said that China is not our natural enemy. Nobody blinked an eyelid! Has the forum gone asleep!!!

So, who is the "natural" enemy of The US? How about the UK? New Zealand?

This is worse than I thought...

Easy E wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:On page 1 of this discussion, Frazz said that China is not our natural enemy. Nobody blinked an eyelid! Has the forum gone asleep!!!

So, who is the "natural" enemy of The US? How about the UK? New Zealand?

*Leichtenstein
*The Isle of Man
*Michael Moore
*Space Nazis on the Moon
*Catalonia (because it has "cat" in the name).

Easy E wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:On page 1 of this discussion, Frazz said that China is not our natural enemy. Nobody blinked an eyelid! Has the forum gone asleep!!!

So, who is the "natural" enemy of The US? How about the UK? New Zealand?

It's got to be Canada.

Coolyo294 wrote:

Easy E wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:On page 1 of this discussion, Frazz said that China is not our natural enemy. Nobody blinked an eyelid! Has the forum gone asleep!!!

So, who is the "natural" enemy of The US? How about the UK? New Zealand?

It's got to be Canada.

No thats the natural enemy of South Dakota, vs. North Dakota, which is the natural enemy of Pago Pago.

Huffy wrote:

AustonT wrote:The US probably would fight for Taiwan, I'd have to check but I'm fairly sure we are obligated by treaty to defend them, otherwise China would have already taken the island over.
We have feth all interest in Vietnam's freedom, anymore.

I don't think we do, I'm not even sure if we officially recognize them as a nation...we just give them guns, lots and lots of guns, which makes it not worth the effort for the chinese to invade(the island will fall into their hands sooner or later)...and as for Vietnam, they're on the 'to nuke' list

We did, I had to go back and look. We also had a mutual defense treaty. Both of which ended under Carter (fething surprise surprise) under somewhat questionable constitutionality issues that were unresolved because the Senate failed to oppose him...even if to just vote down the treaty themselves.
I knew there was something there, just not if it was still in effect.

Easy E wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:On page 1 of this discussion, Frazz said that China is not our natural enemy. Nobody blinked an eyelid! Has the forum gone asleep!!!

So, who is the "natural" enemy of The US? How about the UK? New Zealand?

France. Anyone who speaks French. Portugal, Greece, and anyone else swarthy.

Melissia wrote:It would also force companies to produce things in non-Chinese areas in order to sell to the USA, which would I think be a plus for those other countries.

Perhaps it'd help Africa or South America develop a bigger industrial base, for instance.

Not saying it's definitely a good idea, but that it would actually benefit many groups to have China be hurt like that.

Plus, the need for serving men and women would go up, which promotes jobs over here, as well as civilian contractors and manufacturing personnel. I'm not necessarily pro-war, but war seems to be exactly what the world needs to get through this global recession thing.

Also, I don't see why Vietnam would be on any "nuke" list. They stay to themselves and seem to run themselves alright.