Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

China’s multi-warhead DF-41 ICBM likely to enter service next year

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 20, 2014


142074.439nuclear_explosion

China has recently (on Dec. 13th) tested its newest ICBM, the DF-41, a missile capable of carrying up to 10 independently-targetable warheads. This was, of course, hardly the first test of this missile type. Deploying even small numbers of it will greatly increase the nuclear striking power of China’s Second Artillery Corps (SAC), the PRC’s strategic missile force.

According to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s report, released just a few weeks ago, the DF-41 may enter service next year:

“The DF-41, which could be deployed as early as 2015, may carry up to 10 MIRVs, and have a maximum range as far as 7,456 miles, allowing it to target the entire continental United States.”

When the DF-41 enters service – whatever time that may be – it won’t be a single missile launcher entering service, but rather, at least half a dozen – enough for a full missile regiment, which in the PLA’s SAC is usually equipped with 6 operationally deployed missile launchers.

Which means that, when the DF-41 is declared operational, at least 6 missile launchers will have been deployed. A missile is not considered “operationally deployed” unless at least one fully equipped unit has been deployed.

Therefore, if the DF-41 ICBM does enter service next year, it means Beijing will deploy at least 6 DF-41s – each armed with up to 10 warheads. This means that next year China will deploy at least an additional 60 warheads deliverable to the Continental US – not counting the warheads on any new DF-31 and JL-2 missiles it may deploy next year.

In effect, this means a total, embarrassing failure of the unilateral disarmament policy being implemented by the Obama Administration and advocated by American far-left, pro-unilateral-disarmament organizations such as the Arms Control Association and the Council for a Livable World.

As the IASC’s China expert Richard Fisher rightly says:

“The Chinese have not and likely will not disclose their nuclear warhead buildup plans, Russia is modernizing its nuclear forces across the board and violating the INF treaty with new classes of missiles, so it would be suicidal for the Washington to pursue a new round of nuclear reductions as is this administration’s preference. China may deploy a combination of single-warhead and multiple warhead DF-41s, with the single warhead version carrying a huge “city buster” multi-megaton bombs.

The beginning of China’s move toward multiple warhead-armed nuclear missiles is proof that today, arms control is failing to increase the security of Americans. Instead, it is time to be rebuilding U.S. nuclear warfighting capabilities, to include new mobile ICBMs, new medium range missiles and new tactical nuclear missile systems.”

And as the Washington Free Beacon reports:

Larry Wortzel, a former military intelligence official who specialized on China, said the Chinese military has been working on a MIRV-modified DF-41 for a number of years.

Wortzel said Chinese military research literature has documented work on the DF-41 but the Pentagon “has been reluctant to discuss or confirm these developments.”

“The United States is now threatened with a more deadly and survivable nuclear force that makes our weak ballistic missile defenses less effective,” Wortzel said. “We need to improve our own defenses and modernize our own deterrent force as the Chinese are doing.” (…)

Georgetown University Professor Phillip Karber has studied China’s nuclear forces and believes its arsenal is far larger than the U.S. intelligence estimate of 240.

“The Chinese development of the DF-41 has been a long term, methodical process,” Karber said. “However, if as we suspect they are going to put a MIRVed version of the missile on both rail and road-mobile launchers, the number of reentry vehicles could grow quite rapidly depending on the number of warheads they end up putting on the missiles.”

Earlier this year, I estimated that there was only a handful of DF-41 ICBMs deployed – perhaps just one. But because the Review Commission has reported that the DF-41 may be operationally deployed as early as next year – which is only 12 days away – I will update that estimate.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

What languages should you learn?

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 16, 2014


I hardly need to explain how important it is to learn foreign languages. It’s necessary if you want to have a decent, well-paying job of the non-cookie-cutter variety, to travel, and to discover and understand foreign countries, cultures, and individuals.

However, there are about 3,000 languages spoken in the world today, and obviously, you’ll never have enough time to learn them all. Which begs the question: What languages should you study? Doing so is a commitment requiring an enormous amount of time and at least some money (if not lots of it), so you should consider carefully where to invest your time and money for the maximum possible return.

The answer is that, unless you live and will continue living, for the foreseeable future, in an area where speaking the neighboring are’s/country’s language is a must (e.g. to get a decent job), you should only study languages that are spoken by hundreds of millions of people around the world. You should NOT waste your time on languages that are spoken in only one country with a mid-szed or small population (e.g. Italy, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Finland). Those countries, to put it bluntly, don’t matter except as holiday destinations – and most people in those countries already speak English better than you do (unless you’r a native English speaker).

I’ve been learning French for a few years now and I’m improving everyday. I’m already wondering what language to study after I learn French to a highly-advanced, nearly-fluent level. I’ve considered two: Spanish and German.

Germany is Europe’s largest economy and the most important member of the European Union. But it has no influence beyond the EU. Germany is of little importance on a global scale. It has only 90 million native speakers, all of whom reside in one of the five contigous Western European countries where it’s the official language: Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg. (It’s also official in South Tirol, a part of Italy bordering Austria.)

That’s it. German is sparsely spoken anywhere else.

By contrast, Spanish has 470 million native speakers who live on four different continents: Europe, North America, South America, and Africa (a few African nations have Spanish as their official language). In fact, Mexico alone has more native Hispanohablantes (Spanish speakers) than there are German native speakers in total around the world! Espanol is also more popular as a second language than German. It’s the official language of every South American country except Brazil and French Guiana (an overseas territory of France), most of Central America, and increasingly widespread as the first language in the US, especially in the border states, because of uncontrolled immigration into the US from Latin America. It’s also one of the five official languages of the UN, whereas German is not.

In the future, the importance of Spanish will only grow, while that of German will only shrink. Latin American countries are now experiencing a demographic boom. Here are the total fertility rates of some of the world’s largest Hispanohablante nations and of Germany (child per woman):

Germany, 1.43; Colombia, 2.07; Argentina, 2.25; Ecuador, 2.29; Mexico, 2.29; Venezuela, 2.35.

The German people are simply dying out; the Colombians, the Argentines, the Ecuadorians, the Mexicans, the Venezuelans, and Hispanic Americans are multiplying.

A few graphs will illustrate the point. Here is Germany’s population structure graph (credit: CIA World Factbook):

GM_popgraph 2014

 

As you can see, the largest demographic groups in Germany are people aged between 45 and 49, 50-54, 60-64, and 65-69. Within the next 20 years, those people will be dead or retired and living in assisted living homes because there aren’t enough children in Germany to take care of them. Does it really make sense to learn their language? Or would it be wiser to learn the language of growing Hispanic populations in the New World?

Below is Argentina’s demographic pyramid (credit: CIA World Factbook):

AR_popgraph 2014

This is a true pyramid. In Argentina, children vastly outnumber the elderly. The three largest groups in Argentina’s population are little children aged 0-4, 5-9, and 10-14. They comprise a full 24.9% of the populace. Youngsters aged 15-24 comprise another 15.7%. So over 40% of Argentina’s population is under 25 years of age!

But Argentina is not the most populous Hispanohablante country. Mexico is – and its population is booming, as the below graph, again courtesy of the CIA WF, shows:

MX_popgraph 2014

Like Argentina, Mexico has a true demographic pyramid. The biggest demographic groups in Mexico by age are thopse aged 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15-19 in that order. In Mexico, the younger the demographic group, the larger it is.

27.9% of Mexicans are under 15; another 18.1% are aged between 15 and 24. Which means that a full 46% of the entire population of Mexico is under 25 years of age!

The Germans are dying out (and being replaced by Turks). Latin Americans, especially Mexicans, are multiplying.

German is a language of the past. Spanish is one of the languages of the future.

Not only that, but Latin America is also home to thousands if not millions of amazingly beautiful, sexy, feminine women who would make for a great marriage material. By contrast, Germany has only a handful of beautiful women and is one of the most leftist, political-correctness-infested, and feminism-infested countries in the world. (Which helps explain why Latin America is experiencing a demographic boom, while Germany is dying out.)

No wonder why Latin American women routinely win global beauty pageants (that includes the reigning Miss Universe). How many beauty crowns has Germany won?

So if you were wondering what language to study, there’s the answer.

Every man, in addition to learning English, needs to master the other Big Three European languages: French, Spanish, and Russian. Being able to speak all three will immediately give you access to over 1.06 billion native speakers and every multinational organization around the world. And if that ain’t enough, it will also make it easier to learn other languages from the same families: Romance and Slavic.

Forget about German. It’s a dying language – just like Germany is a dying country.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Newest Defense and Geopolitical News

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 15, 2014


When it comes to defense and geopolitical issues, the last two months of this year have been very interesting! For example:

  • China has tested, for the third time this year, a hypersonic gliding vehicle that will be able to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.
  • The Middle Kingdom also became the world’s largest economy by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), overtaking the US and thus ending America’s reign ushered in in 1872, when the US overtook Britain. The decline of the US as the world’s leading power is an undisputable fact.
  • Russia announced it would build its first hypersonic missile, and field a new rail-mobile ICBM, before 2020.
  • The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission released a report on China’s nuclear arsenal which, although understating its size, takes into account the likelihood that it is far larger than what the DOD and arms control advocates claim and acknowledges independent studies done on the subject. The Commission also warns that Beijing’s atomic arsenal is being quickly modernized and expanded.
  • Chuck Hagel, a man who was never qualified to be Defense Secretary, resigned because he could no longer stand the White House’s micromanagement of the Pentagon. Dr. Ashton Carter, the man whom Barack Obama should’ve nominated in the first place in 2013, has been nominated to succeed him.
  • The House and the Senate have already passed the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act – by huge, bipartisan margins – and have done so by mid-December. The two Houses of Congress have also agreed on a CR/CRomnibus that will keep the Federal Government open for at least the next 3 months.
  • The French Defense Ministry and Air Force have announced they’re studying what to replace the current airborne component of the French nuclear deterrent with when the current airborne force, composed of Mirage 2000N and Rafale aircraft armed with ASMP-A missiles, retires in the 2030s-2040s. Two options are being studied: a stealthy or a hypersonic missile. If the latter is chosen, it might be a large aircraft, and not a fighter like the Rafale, that will carry it.
  • France has also announced a comprehensive modernization of its Army, including the replacement of its APCs, IFVs, and recon vehicles, which are nearing the end of their service lives.
  • France is also developing a naval version of the SCALP NG/Storm Shadow land attack cruise missile, intended for surface ships and submarines (i.e. a Tomahawk equivalent).
  • Highly-ranked fficials from Qatar and Egypt are in serious talks with France’s Dassault Aviation to buy the Rafale fighter, and India has pledged to finalize its negotiations with France over the Rafale by March 31st. However, as Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group notes, while Dassault is very good at STARTING talks, it has a poor record of finalizing them and sealing the deal when it comes to the Rafale. Yet, the entire multi-year French defense budget for 2014-2019 is based on the completely hypothetical and speculative notion that India and Qatar will buy the Rafale in quantities sufficient to keep the Rafale production line open at the (very meagre) rate of 11 aircraft per year. The French Government has essentially bet that the Rafale will win lots of foreign orders, enough to keep the production line open, even though it has not won a SINGLE export order so far!
  • France indefinitely delayed the delivery of Mistral class LPDs to Russia, throwing its credibility as an arms vendor in doubt.
  • OTOH, France did promise a full transfer of technology, and a production license, to Canada if Ottawa picks the Rafale in lieu of the F-35 – a realistic possibility given that the issue won’t be resolved until after the next general election… which will likely be won by the anti-F-35 Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (the son of Pierre Trudeau).
  • BAE announced that the Eurofighter Typhoon would finally get an AESA radar… many years after its competitors did. Bravo!
  • It has been revealed that the French National Front party has received a loan from a Russian bank. No wonder why they’re so fanatically pro-Russian. They’re simply saying what their paymaster, Vladimir Putin, tells them to. And by accepting funding from a foreign principal, that party has committed treason against France.
  • The anti-defense crowd’s calls for a “minimal deterrence” arsenal have recently grown more vocal, now that even the Obama administration has rejected them – and have been utterly refuted by experts such as Dr. Keith Payne and by yours truly.

Posted in Air combat, Nuclear deterrence | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rebuttal of James Caroll’s Blatant Lies About Nukes

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 12, 2014


If you ever needed proof that the leftist, anti-nuclear, pro-unilateral disarmament movement is still at work and still hasn’t learned anything, look no further than this new screed published in the TomDispatch.

In his ridiculous screed recently published by the TomDispatch, the extremely-leftist columnist James Carroll makes a lengthy but idiotic tirade against nuclear weapons.

I won’t even bother to respond to all of his blatant lies, just to the ones made about today’s situation.

Lie #1:

“In order to get the votes of Senate Republicans to ratify the START treaty, Obama made what turned out to be a devil’s bargain.  He agreed to lay the groundwork for a vast “modernization” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which, in the name of updating an aged system, is already morphing into a full-blown reinvention of the arms cache at an estimated future cost of more than a trillion dollars.”

That is a blatant lie being spread by the Monterey Institute, a far-left organization advocating America’s nuclear disarmament (like Carroll himself), and by the NY Slimes, which advocates the same.

Lie #2:

“In fact, in response to budget constraints, legal obligations under a jeopardized non-proliferation treaty, and the most urgent moral mandate facing the country, America’s nuclear strategy could shift without wrenching difficulty, at the very least, to one of “minimal deterrence.” Hardcore national security mavens tell us this. Such a shift would involve a reduction in both the deployed and stored nuclear arsenal to something like 500 warheads. Even if that goal were pursued unilaterally, it would leave more than enough weaponry to deter any conceivable state-based nuclear threat, including Russia’s, no matter what Putin may do.”

FALSE. There is no serious national security analyst who advocates cutting down the nuke deterrent to the low hundreds and a shift to “minimal deterrence” – because all the serious national security analysts out there know it would be national suicide.

And the “hardcore security mavens” whom Carroll claims advocate minimal deterrence? They’re actually strident anti-nuclear, pro-disarmament activists: Robert Gard and Greg Tarryn of the “Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation”, a far-left group in DC advocating America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament and deep cuts in the US defense budget in general. Hardly “hardcore national security mavens.”

A small nuclear arsenal, composed of only a few hundred (e.g. 500) warheads, would be woefully insignificant to deter Russia or even China, as it would be completely unable to survive a Russian or Chinese nuclear first strike on the US. Why? Because of its small size: it would be far, far easier for Russia or China to destroy a few dozen ICBMs and a handful of USN submarines and USAF bombers, carrying just a few hundred warheads, than to destroy the current US arsenal of 400 ICBMs, 76 bombers, and 14 ballistic missile submarines.

Destroying a few dozen (or even 100) ICBMs, plus shooting down a few dozen bombers and sinking a handful of submarines, is a much easier task.

Russia is more than sufficiently capable of destroying such a small nuclear arsenal. It currently has almost 400 ICBMs capable of collectively delivering well over 1,200 warheads to the Continental US; a submarine force capable of delivering even more warheads; and a bomber fleet capable of delivering over 700.

All these figures are now increasing, and will continue to increase, because Russia is now building up all three legs of its nuclear triad.

The US and its allies have enjoyed almost 70 years of peace and security from nuclear and conventional attack – but it is only because, throughout that whole time, the US has maintained a large nuclear arsenal able to withstand even a massive Russian first strike. THAT is what has deterred the Russians from conducting it in the first place.

With a small arsenal, however, this will be impossible – it will be an easy target for the Russians and even the Chinese.

Furthermore, a “minimal deterrence” arsenal consisting of just a few hundred warheads would be utterly unable to execute an effective, painful retaliation against the aggressor, even if it could survive an enemy first strike (which it could never do). That’s because Russia has so many missile siloes and nuclear force bases and facilities (plus other targets of strategic importance) that a few hundred warheads would be woefully insufficient to take them out. In fact, 500 warheads wouldn’t even be enough to take out Russia’s hardened missile siloes, let alone other targets.

Pentagon planners know, and have known for decades, that executing an effective retaliation against Russia – even the Russia of today – requires thousands, not a mere few hundred, of nuclear warheads.

And let’s not ignore the fact that all those who advocate “minimum deterrence” – including Carroll, Gard, and Tarryn – stridently oppose nuclear deterrence completely and do not believe in it at all. They believe in peace through weakness and unilateral disarmament. For them, cutting down the US nuclear arsenal to the mere hundreds – to a “minimum deterrence” level – is a mere step towards their ultimate goal: disarming the US unilaterally and completely while leaving America’s enemies free to grow their nuclear arsenals. This is treason.

Lie #3:

“There is, of course, no sign that the president intends to do such a thing any longer, but if a commander-in-chief were to order nuclear reductions into the hundreds, the result might actually be a transformation of the American political conscience. In the process, the global dream of a nuclear-free world could be resuscitated and the commitment of non-nuclear states (including Iran) to refrain from nuclear-weapons development could be rescued. Most crucially, there would no longer be any rationale for the large-scale reinvention of the American nuclear arsenal, a deadly project this nation is even now preparing to launch.”

That is also a blatant lie. The pipedream of a world without nuclear weapons was NEVER realistic in the first instance; it was always a pie-in-the-sky fantasy with zero chance of being accomplished. And the claim that drastic cuts in the US nuclear deterrent would somehow encourage Iran to refrain from developing nukes is downright laughable. It’s one of the classic lies of the unilateral disarmament movement: “If we disarm, others will be nice and disarm, too – or refrain from obtaining nuclear weapons if they don’t have them yet.”

In reality, drastic cuts in the US arsenal would only ENCOURAGE rogue states all around the world to develop nuclear weapons, because only a few hundred of them would now be needed to match the US.

In sum, Carroll’s anti-nuclear diatribe is a litany of blatant lies – just like everything else disarmament advocates write. For an excellent rebuttal of minimum deterrence advocates’ claims, please read this and this.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175933/tomgram%3A_james_carroll%2C_the_pentagon_as_president_obama%27s_great_white_whale/#more

Posted in Nuclear deterrence | Leave a Comment »

Russian, Chinese, North Korean nuclear threats growing rapidly

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on November 26, 2014


The developments of the past few weeks prove unequivocally that the nuclear threat posed by Russia, China, and North Korea – and thus the need for a large, multi-legged US nuclear deterrent – is growing.

The year 2014 hasn’t ended, but NATO fighters have already been scrambled 400 times this year alone to intercept Russian nuclear-armed Tu-95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M bombers flying close to NATO members’ airspace and probing NATO fighters’ response times. Russia is also quickly developing hypersonic strike weapons – which will be able to carry nuclear warheads – and will deploy them in 2020.

Russia is also militarizing the illegally-conquered-and-annexed Crimean Peninsula fast, at a rate alarming to NATO’s top commander in Europe. Among other things, Russia has now stationed nuclear-armed Iskander SRBMs/GCLMs and Tu-22M strategic bombers there.

The Chinese nuclear threat is also growing fast. Last week, the congressionally-sponsored US-China Economic and Security Review Commission released a report which warns that the size of China’s arsenal, and the scope of its modernization and expansion, is greater than the DOD recognizes.  Among other things, it warns of China’s ICBMs and SLBMs’ capability to strike the Continental US and recognizes the likelihood that China may very well have far more than just a few hundred warheads – which is what it had in the early 1980s. Yet, the DOD STILL refuses to recognize the real size of China’s arsenal and still clings to its three-decades-old, utterly obsolete estimate.

Meanwhile, North Korea conducted the first ejection test of a ballistic missile out of a missile tube, the first serious step towards developing and building a ballistic missile submarine – a program the Washington Free Beacon was the first to write about in August. Which means that, in several years, North Korea will have a ballistic missile submarine – like the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, and Israel do.

On October 26th, Gen. Curtis Scaparotti, the top US commander in South Korea, confirmed that North Korea – contrary to the denials of American arms control afficionados – has mastered the art of miniaturizing nuclear warheads for them to fit atop ballistic missiles.

All of which proves that the Russian, Chinese, and North Korean nuclear threat to US, allied, and global security is growing, not shrinking as the advocates of Western unilateral disarmament would have us believe.

Accordingly, this proves that the need for a large, modern, and multi-legged US nuclear arsenal is growing, not vanishing as Western unilateral disarmament advocates falsely claim.

Thus, WaPo’s Walter Pincus’ claims that relying on nuclear weapons for national security is “old thinking”; that 500 nuclear warheads would suffice to protect the US; and that the fear of a preemptive nuclear first strike by Russia is “insane” are blatant lies.

These are the gravest threats to US, allied, and global security which will have to be addressed by whoever succeeds Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. More broadly, the nation-state threat posed by Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran will have to be countered. Fortunately, if Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work is to be believed, the Pentagon is working right now to do just that.

 

Posted in Media lies, Nuclear deterrence, Threat environment | 1 Comment »

Contre les mensonges de Peterson Institute

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on November 12, 2014


Le think-tank americain “Peterson Institute” vient de publier une etude qui accuse la France d’avoir une “monarchie” elective et qui appelle a la France d’abolir son systeme semi-presidentiel et d’adopter un systeme parlamentaire, ou le parlement serait le vrai centre des decisions et le gouvernement serait seulement un executeur de la volonte de la majorite parlementaire.

L’Institut Peterson nous dit que ceci faciliterait la mise en oeuvre des reformes dont la France a besoin et une creation des institutions que les Francais pourraient respecter, au lieu du President Hollande deteste par la grande plupart des Francais, et donnerait plus de “democratie” a la France au lieu de sa “monarchie” supposee. Pour mettre en oeuvre les reformes dont la France a besoin, l’Institut Peterson recommande « une coalition des partis modérés ».

Mais tout ce que l’Institut Peterson ecrit, ce sont des mensonges.

D’abord, la France n’a pas du tout de monarchie. Elle a un systeme semi-presidentiel. Le President de la Republique peut dissoudre l’Assemblee, il nomme le premier ministre, et est chef des armees – mais il n’est pas omnipotent. Il n’a pas de droit de veto comme son homologue americain, n’est pas personellement chef du gouvernement comme le president americain, et ne conduit directement la politique du pays comme le president americain.

S’il y a un pays qui a une monarchie, c’est les USA!

Le probleme de la France, ce n’est pas un president trop fort. C’est simplement que depuis 1981, les Francais elisent les mauvais personnes a la Presidence de la Republique. Il faut simplement elire la bonne personne, et les problemes du pays seront dissouts. Par contre, si les Francais continuent d’elire des imbeciles et des enarques a la Presidence de la Republique, aucun systeme politique ne peut pas sauver la France et son peuple. James Madison, le pere de la Constitution americaine, avait observe que il faut elire de bonnes hommes a la fonction publique, et sinon, les USA seront dans une situation desastreuse.

En fait, il faut que le President de la Republique ait PLUS de pouvoirs.

Le regime semi-presidentiel a ete installe en France pour une bonne raison: parce que la soi-disante “democratie parlamentaire”, c’est en fait une dictature des partis politiques, pas une vraie democratie, et cela mene directement a la pauvrete, l’instabilite, la faiblesse du pays, et des crises de pouvoir chroniques – comme c’etait le cas nonstop pendant 12 ans sous la IVeme Republique en France (1946-1958). Sous ce systeme instable, le gouvernement se changeait tous les quelques mois en France! Le pays manquait d’un vrai gouvernment stable, capable de gouverner le pays et veiller a sa prosperite et sa securite. La France etait a l’epoque dans une crise politique permanente.

Elle n’avait a l’epoque de vraie democratie – elle avait un regime des partis qui se battaient pour le pouvoir et les pieces de l’Etat (les ministeres, les entreprises publiques, etc.).

C’est le general de Gaulle et l’institution du systeme semi-presidentiel en France qui a mis fin a tout cela. Depuis 1958, la France est devenue la quatrieme puissance nucleaire au monde, la troisieme puissance spatiale, l’une des 7 plus grandes puissances economiques au monde, et le pays europeen le plus stable.

Parce que SEULEMENT un fort executif peut mener un pays habilement et competentement, mettre en oeuvre les reformes necessaires, et defendre le pays contre les menaces exterieures. Les parlements ne peuvent que voter, debater, et proposer des milliers des lois et amendements inutiles. Les parlements du monde, dont le Congres americain, sont meme toujours INCAPABLES de voter une loi, parce que les elus aux parlements ne peuvent pas arriver a un accord. Les partis aux parlements se bloquent souvent (comme les republicains et les democrates au Congres americain), et voila – aucun budget, aucune reforme necessaire, bloquage permanent. Comme c’est le cas aux USA aujourd’hui, un pays ou aucune reforme importante, sauf Obamacare, n’a pas etre mise en oeuvre pendant 8 ans.

Si l’Institut Peterson n’aime pas l’hostilite permanente entre la droite et la gauche en France d’aujourd’hui, “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet”, comme les disent les Americains. Sous un regime parlementaire, cette hostilite permamente serait meme plus fierce, parce qu’il ouvrirait une occassion pour les partis pour s’emparer des institutions diverses de l’Etat.

La France n’a pas de besoin d’aucune lecon des Americains. Il faut qu’ils nettoient devant leur propre porte. Comme demande le commentateur “Origine” sur lefigaro.fr:

“Qu’est-ce que l’on observe chez eux?

• Un système polarisé empêchant tout compromis
• Un système dysfonctionnel où le blocage entre le président et les chambres a menacé de fermer les administrations, faute de financement.
• Un Système qui affaiblit le président, en l’empêchant de participer à un sommet asiatique au plus grand bénéfice de la Chine.
• Un système où les primaires font que la principale crainte des candidates des deux partis et d’être évincé par un candidat plus extrémiste « Tea Party »
• Un système où les élections de renouvèlement de la chambre se font, pour certain candidats, sans aucune opposition
• Un système présidentiel et parlementaire où aucune reforme importante, taxation immigration, etc. n’a été votée en 8 ans
• Enfin un système parlementaire que l’ensemble des citoyens américain juge leur représentants incompétents et leur donne un taux de satisfaction de 8%.
Généralement, lorsqu’on donne des leçons, l’on se réfère à un modèle performant ! ;)

Comme le disent les autres commentateurs sur lefigaro.fr:

“Ah, si seulement les Américains pouvaient supprimer la démocratie directe en France et la mettre aux mains de la logique des partis, ça en ferait un meilleur petit soldat. En attendant, le taux de confiance des Américains dans leur congrès est de… 7%, leur presse écrite 22% et leur télévision, 18%. Et on parle d’un pays dont les services publics ont été paralysés pendant des mois. Qu’ils réfléchissent plutôt sur eux-même, entre Bruxelles, Berlin et maintenant les USA, on a assez reçu de leçons comme ça, merci.”

“Ils conseillent simplement de retirer la capacité de défense nucléaire à la France.
Les américains ont un président fort pour user de l’arme atomique, les russes ont un président fort pour user de l’arme atomique, les anglais n’ont pas de président, donc leur arme atomique dépend des américains, quand aux chinois, ayant un politburo en guise de direction, c’est donc l’armée qui décide de l’arme nucléaire sur le plan tactique et non stratégique.
Et oui, il faut y penser à cela. qui a la légitimité pour appuyer sur le bouton rouge ?”

“Même si toute son analyse n’est pas totalement dénué d’objectivité et de vérité, il est est difficile pour une pays aussi inégalitaire que les USA, pays démocratique qui incarcère le plus au Monde(même les enfants), pays ou les morts par arme à feu sont des plus fréquentes, ou la pauvreté ne cesse de croître, pays vivant à crédit depuis des générations, pays ou le seul Dieu, reste l’argent etc etc On a du mal à trouver pertinente et crédible cette magnifique leçon. Sans parler de ce clivage républicain démocrate qui agit de la même façon que notre clivage gauche droite. Un coup on choisit les premiers, ensuite on est déçu et après on choisit les autres et ensuite on est déçu à nouveau. Et qu’est-ce qui change, rien. Il y a bien longtemps que ce sont les lobbys, le vrai pouvoir. Le président est juste une marionnette. Il y a d’autre modèles plus intéressant ailleurs, on devrait s’en inspirait.”

La France en a assez de l’arrogance et des lecons des Americains. Qu’ils s’occupent de son propre pays!

http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/insolites/2014/11/10/25007-20141110ARTFIG00182-un-think-tank-americain-preconise-la-fin-du-regime-presidentiel.php

Posted in Constitutions, Economic affairs, Elections | Leave a Comment »

What the LA Times got right – and wrong – about nuclear modernization

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on November 11, 2014


The Los Angeles Times has recently published an article on the upcoming modernization of the US nuclear arsenal, which is long overdue since the US hasn’t fielded any nuclear-capable delivery systems or warheads since the early 1990s, and the arsenal the US currently has is aging and nearing the end of its service life. Therefore, nuclear modernization is of utmost priority.

The LA Times – despite being a leftist newspaper – invokes many arguments for nuclear modernization. But it also gets four things badly wrong:

  1. It repeats the utterly false claim of the far-left nuclear disarmament advocate Jeffrey Lewis that nuclear modernization will cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years. His figure is a gross exaggeration designed to scare the public and policymakers into thinking that it’s unaffordable.
  2. It falsely claims that next year China will deploy missiles capable of hitting the Continental US for the first time. This is clearly false; China deployed the first such missiles, the multi-warhead DF-5 ICBMs, in 1981, over three decades ago! Not only that, but since then, China has also deployed the DF-31A and DF-31B, which can also hit all of the CONUS, and has already deployed JL-2 SLBMs (capable of hitting at least a part of the CONUS if launched just east of Japan) on its Jin-class ballistic missile submarines. (See the map below.)
  3. It falsely claims that the most common security threats are insurgencies in distant lands and domestic terrorist attacks. This is completely false. BY FAR the biggest threats to America’s and its allies’ security are the nuclear and ballistic/cruise missile arsenals of Russia, China, and North Korea. Nothing, ESPECIALLY not insurgents in faraway lands or even domestic terrorist attacks, comes even CLOSE to being as grave a threat as Moscow’s, Beijing’s, and Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile arsenals. North Korea, with its small arsenal, could still kill millions of Americans and devastate part of US soil. Russia and China could both nuke all of the US and kill everyone in the US with their large nuclear arsenals.
  4. Finally, it wrongly claims that Russia’s newest submarine-launched ballistic missile, the RSM-56 Bulava, can deliver an “unprecedented” 10 warheads. It can deliver 10 warheads to the CONUS alright, but it’s hardly unprecendented: since the 1960s, Russia deploys land-based ICBMs that can deliver that many warheads (plus penetration aids) to the CONUS; and since 2012, it also deploys Liner SLBMs that can deliver even more (12) warheads to the Continental US. It’s hardly “unprecedented.” The simple fact is that Russia can deliver many thousands of warheads to the Continental US, and is expanding that capability still further.

PLA_ballistic_missiles_range

All in all, by LA Times standards, this is a good article, as it nicely underlines the nuclear threats the US is facing, and thus the need for modernization of the US nuclear arsenal.

Posted in Media lies, Nuclear deterrence, Threat environment | Leave a Comment »

Bad news for the US: China’s Military Is Getting Stronger Every Day

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on November 10, 2014


Two new articles recently cross-posted by the MissileThreat website further document China’s rapid military buildup and ascent to military parity with – on track to become military superiority over – the US. These articles are available here and here.

The first article briefly narrates China’s recent development and (in most cases) introduction of many high-quality aerial, naval, and ground weapon platforms, from the J-20 and J-31 stealth fighters (still in development) to its ballistic missile submarines.

The second article focuses squarely on Chinese airpower. While it understates it – especially China’s aircraft engine supplies and development – it still contains some useful information. For example, it informs us that:

  • The H-6K bomber’s nuclear-capable land attack cruise missiles can reach targets as far away as Hawaii, thus posing a direct threat to all US assets based in that state;
  • The PLA Naval Air Force has 14 additional H-6 bombers on top of the 120 owned by the PLA Air Force;
  • The PLA Air Force has 200 J-10 Sinocanards and 300 J-11/Su-27 Flankers; and
  • Its fleet of third generation fighters has shrank to just 388 J-7s and 96 J-8s due to aircraft retirements. It is therefore highly unlikely that US and allied pilots would encounter such aircraft in case of future war with China, especially since the J-7’s combat radius is small. By contrast, the J-10 Sinocanard has an unrefueled combat radius of over 900 km, and the Su-27’s/J-11’s is 1,852 km.
  • The J-31 may very well serve aboard China’s planned fleet of aircraft carriers. If that happens, China will be the only country in the world, other than the US, to operate stealth fighters from aircraft carriers – except that the J-31 will be decisively superior to the F-35.
  • China has cyber-penetrated the F-22 and F-35 programs so deeply that it probably knows everything there is to know about these two aircraft types.

In short, these two articles demonstrate that the Chinese military threat is real, huge, and growing – thus completely belying the claims of ignorant people such as “Professor” John Mearsheimer that China’s military is completely outclassed by that of the US. The PLA, in fact, is not inferior to the US military in anything except the number of nuclear weapons – and even that is changing quickly.

UPDATE ON NOVEMBER 11TH: Here’s a video of Oriana Mastro explaining why China WILL BE a global military power faster than almost anyone in the US realizes: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Video/Detail/?lng=en&id=184862

Posted in Air combat, Naval affairs, Threat environment | Leave a Comment »

The REAL causes of the fall of the Berlin Wall

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on November 8, 2014


peacethroughstrength

Tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. On that evening, on November 9th, the East German government permitted its citizens to cross the border with West Berlin freely, and they began doing so in huge numbers.

These days, the media around the world propagate the claim that it was the citizens of East and West Germany, as well as Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms and the West German government’s policy, that brought the Berlin Wall down, while Ronald Reagan had little or nothing to do with it. When the world media covers the anniversary and its celebrations this week, you will hardly find or hear any mention of Ronald Reagan in the media or in the city of Berlin itself.

But the truth is that it was Ronald Reagan and his tough policy of exerting maximum pressure on the Soviet Union, especially on European, economic and human rights issues, that brought the Berlin Wall down. Throughout the entire 1980s, the US exerted enormous economic, military, and moral pressure on the Soviet Union and its satellite regimes, and THAT is what brought the Berlin Wall and the entire Soviet empire down. Furthermore, the West German government (and other Western European governments) NEVER had ANY intention whatsoever of dismantling the Berlin Wall and the Soviet empire – and had these European governments had their way, the Soviet empire would’ve still existed to this very day. This article will prove this with facts.

West German Subsidies For the Evil Empire

Throughout the Cold War, and especially since the early 1970s, Western European countries and companies were doing lucrative business with the Soviet Union… lucrative at least for Moscow and for European companies – similarly to how they do today. Western European governments were also loaning lots of money to the Soviet regime, as well as paying the East German government for releasing dissidents from jail.

And just like today, Western European countries were steadily increasing their oil and gas imports from the Soviet Union – and in 1980, they consented to the construction of a new gas pipeline that would increase Soviet gas exports to Europe (and Europe’s dependence on that supply source) still further.

Had that pipeline been built on time and on the proposed scale, the Soviet empire and the Berlin Wall would likely have not collapsed at all.

The story begins in late 1979, when the Kremlin informed the West German government and business leaders that it wished to build a new gas pipeline from the Yamal Peninsula to West Germany, with the goal of significantly increasing Soviet gas exports to Europe. The Ruhrgas AG was to be the direct recipient of the gas, Mannesman AG was to deliver the equipment to build and operate the pipeline, while the Deutsche Bank was destined to finance the construction. After the West German government’s initial okay, secret talks began at Deutsche Bank’s HQ in Dusseldorf. These were so secret that no interpreters were hired – one of Deutsche Bank’s high-ranking employees speaking Russian served as the translator.

The initial talks were successful and were continued in December 1979 by Deutsche Bank personnel in Moscow; with the support from the Soviet and West German governments, the talks were speedily advanced, with the West German business leaders knowing they’d be spending 10 billion West German marks – a huge sum of money – on building a pipeline that would immensely profit the Soviet Union.

With the Soviet and West German government’s support, an initial agreement was soon reached, and a Deutsche Bank branch was soon opened in Moscow to coordinate the project. When then West German chancellor Helmut Schmidt personally discussed the project with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on the phone, the talks were greatly sped up.

On June 30th, 1980, Schmidt arrived in Moscow and, despite the Soviet regime’s aggressive designs and its aggression against Afghanistan (which he didn’t care about), he signed a long-term economic cooperation agreement with Moscow that paved the way for the pipeline’s construction. Two weeks later – on the day the Moscow Olympic Games began – Deutsche Bank and the Soviet government began official negotiations on its pipeline, and a final was struck in Leningrad in 1983. This was AFTER Helmut Kohl and his CDU party came to power in 1982 – because the Kohl government, like the Schmidt cabinet, ALSO supported the pipeline’s construction and continued subsidies to the Soviet regime.

Ronald Reagan Strikes Back

But even before the deal was finally signed, Ronald Reagan counterattacked. Knowing the Soviet Union’s deep economic problems and the fact that destroying the Soviet economy was key to bringing the Soviet empire down, he imposed a slew of sanctions against the USSR in December 1981 after Moscow’s puppet regime in Poland implemented martial law to preserve communism there and crack down on Lech Walesa’s Solidarity.

Among the sanctions imposed on the USSR was a ban on exporting any pipeline machinery as well as machines used to extract oil and gas. This was intended to strike at the USSR’s Achilles heel – its dependence on oil and gas revenue. Western European companies were building such machinery based on American export licenses, but President Reagan revoked these. His sanctions were toughened still in September 1983 after the Russians shot down a civilian Korean airliner (KAL Flight 007).

Furthermore, President Reagan pressured the West German government and business leaders to cancel the pipeline’s construction. He did not succeed completely in that regard, but under his pressure, the pipeline’s scope was reduced from two lines to just one, and the whole project was delayed by many years – so much so that it wasn’t completed until 1999, eight years after the Soviet Union’s collapse.

This huge delay and reduction in scope of the project proved fatal to the Soviet Union. Making matters even worse for them, President Reagan deregulated the oil industry in the US and convinced Saudi Arabia to dramatically increase oil production. This brought about the oil glut of the late 1980s: in November 1985, a barrel of oil cost $30 (in 1985 dollars); by April 1986, it cost only $12. Moscow lost $10 bn (again, in 1985’s terms) in just five months as a result.

It was all downhill for the USSR from then on. That very month, in April 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear powerplant exploded, causing damage costing hundreds of billions of dollars. The war in Afghanistan dragged on – partially because of the Reagan Administration’s covert support for the Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviets.

And the Reagan Administration also dramatically toughened the arms race with the USSR by greatly increasing US defense spending and investing it in new, cutting-edge weapon platforms such as the B-2 stealth bomber (first flown in 1989, introduced in 1993), the MX Peacekeeper rail-mobile ICBM that could carry 10 nuclear warheads, nuclear-armed cruise missiles launched from air, naval, and ground platforms (including the BGM-109A Tomahawk A, scrapped unilaterally by Barack Obama), the Pershing intermediate range missiles that countered Soviet SS-20 missiles in Europe, the Ohio class of ballistic missile submarines (carrying 24 missiles each, more than any Soviet submarine could), the Trident missiles deployed on these submarines, the tank-killing Apache helicopter capable of obliterating the massed Soviet tank armies in Europe; the Aegis class of surface combatants; and many more.

Most importantly, the Reagan Administration initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program, dubbed the Star Wars, against which the Soviet Union wasn’t capable of mounting any effective response due to its technological backwardness. In the 1980s, the US, and especially its military, was quickly being computerized – computers became an integral part of everything and made life and military operations easier. The Soviet Union, by contrast, was as short on computers as on human rights. Even the Soviet Chief of the General Staff, Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, admitted that the USSR was being overtaken by the US because of the revolution ushered in by computers.

Gorbachev tried his best to negotiate the SDI away, but Ronald Reagan held firm.

Moral Pressure Added to Economic and Military Pressure

Fully confident of its massive economic and military strength rebuilt by President Reagan, the US exerted increasing moral pressure on the USSR. That pressure culminated in the late 1980s.

President Reagan’s goal was nothing short of dismantling the Iron Curtain and the Soviet empire. As he said himself, his goal in the Cold War was to ensure that “we win, they lose.”  His Administration’s goal was to change the Soviet regime, and that goal was enshrined in Reagan’s National Security Decision Directive 75, signed by him in 1983. More importantly, that goal was actively sought (and ultimately achieved).

Like nobody else in the world, President Reagan exerted enormous pressure on the Soviet Union throughout his presidency. Only he had the courage to utter these memorable words in Berlin on June 12th, 1987:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev — Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Not only that, but he confidently predicted, “Yes, this wall will fall.” He didn’t just say he demanded that it be dismantled – he predicted that it WOULD BE. And it was. For, as President Reagan said:

As long as this gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.

This rhetoric was opposed by many in his administration (including Howard Baker and Colin Powell) and by all Western European governments except Margaret Thatcher’s. President Reagan’s advisors repeatedly attempted to delete those words from the speech, but Reagan personally overruled them.

Yes, to deliver these remarks, President Reagan had to face down many people even in his own administration.

Helmut Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev: False Heroes Who Tried To Preserve the Soviet Empire

And of course, Western European governments, especially that of West Germany led by Helmut Kohl, still tried to save the Soviet Union with  subsidies, low-interest loans, and debt write-offs. In 1988 alone, West Germany lent the USSR 3 billion Deutschmarks. All told, from 1985 to 1991, Western European governments lent the USSR the equivalent of 15 billion dollars.

Fortunately, that proved to be woefully inadequate for the USSR to survive, thanks to Ronald Reagan’s skillful use of the economic lever. The ongoing war in Afghanistan and the costs of maintaining a global Communist empire and a huge state bureaucracy added to the USSR’s economic woes.

Nor did Gorbachev try, or even intend, to dismantle the Berlin Wall and the Soviet empire. On the contrary, he wanted to preserve and strengthen that empire. That was the goal of his reforms – perestroika and glasnost. His reforms were intended to STRENGTHEN the Soviet Union and the Communist system without touching their very nature. He believed that through half-measures such as less interference in state-owned enterprises’ affairs, he could revive and strengthen the Soviet economy.

This was no different from Tsar Alexander II’s and Tsar Nikolai II’s half-hearted “reforms” in the 1860s and 1900s, respectively: to change something so that nothing would really change.

Gorbachev’s reforms failed to strengthen the USSR – just like those Tsars’ pseudo-reforms failed completely – because you can’t save a rotten, totally failing, broken system by reforming it timidly and too late. If a system is completely broke and failing, the only right thing to do is to scrap it completely and start anew – which Gorbachev was completely unwilling to do.

Nor did Gorbachev want to dismantle the Soviet empire and free captive nations, despite his promise to give Eastern European nations the right of self-determination. He did not use force to stave off the Soviet empire’s demise – because he wasn’t able to. By 1989, the Soviet Union’s economic problems were so deep, the USSR – freshly booted out of Afghanistan by sandal-shod mujahedeen – was in no position to intervene militarily in East Germany, Poland, or Hungary. The fiscal costs alone would’ve been prohibitive, and those countries’ populations would’ve certainly resisted.

Gorbachev is not a hero; he’s just a flake who couldn’t keep the Soviet empire from collapsing. And today, he supports the murderous, criminal, illegal neo-Soviet dictator of Russia, Vladimir Putin, who is trying to restore the Soviet empire. This proves what an immoral person Gorbachev is.

Ronald Reagan Is The Real Hero

The real architect of the Berlin Wall’s and the USSR’s collapse was Ronald Reagan. As Professor Robert Kaufman rightly observed in 2011:

It is hard to see (…) how Gorbachev and a policy of conciliation deserve more credit for ending the Cold War in America’s favor than Reagan and his policy of vigilance. The restoration of American power under Ronald Reagan gave the Soviet Union little choice but to take the risk of choosing a reformer such as Gorbachev, who recognized that the Soviet Union could no longer compete against a rejuvenated, self-confident United States unless it liberalized at home and pursued a more conciliatory policy abroad.

Nor was Gorbachev a genuine democrat. He aimed only to reform Communism, not to abolish it. His regime began to implode under the cumulative effect of decades of U.S. containment, Reagan’s confrontational policies intensifying American pressure at a critical moment, and the mortal contradictions inherent in the Soviet system. Whereas Gorbachev did not intend the breathtaking collapse of Communism that his domestic reforms unwittingly unleashed, Ronald Reagan expected and dedicated his political life to achieving this outcome.

When the free world celebrates the 25th anniversary of the Berlin Wall today, don’t forget to honor the real architect of that event – President Ronald Reagan.

POSTSCRIPT:

Below: a video of the key part of Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech.

And below is a video of Sam Donaldson interviewing Ronald Reagan on the night the Berlin Wall began to be dismantled and giving President Reagan a lot of credit for the outcome:

Posted in Media lies, World affairs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why the F-35 is DECISIVELY inferior to all competitor fighters

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on November 4, 2014


Even though F-35 program cost overruns continue to mount and its numerous flaws are manifest, Lockheed Martin’s PR wing continues to spew propaganda in its defense. If BS were currency, they could pay down America’s national debt by themselves!

So let us recount why the F-35 is the worst fighterplane currently on the market.

The F-35 is, in short, totally unsuited for A2A, A2G, or CAS missions. In this article, I will focus only on the former type of mission.

Success in A2A combat is determined not by “stealthiness” and not by fancy gizmos, but by four factors which have been true throughout aviation history – with Mach 2. jetfighters as much as with WW1-era biplanes:

1) SURPRISE: Throughout aviation history, 65-80% of all fighter aircraft shot down went down without their pilots knowing what hit’em. It is therefore crucial to detect the enemy before he can detect us. Thus, the bigger and hotter an aircraft is, the more chance it stands of being detected by the enemy. Using one’s radar increases the risk of being detected to 100%, because American and Russian radar operate at totally different frequencies and pulse rates, and if you lock a radar-guided missile onto an enemy, he’ll know it thanks to his RWR and duck it (or launch countermeasures). Leaving smoke, like the F-4, F-15, and F-16 do, or contrails like the F-35 does, is an even deadlier giveaway.

2) NUMBERS: While a nation should not procure cheap but decisively inferior aircraft, being able to significantly outnumber the enemy is a great advantage. In WW2, 2,000 Allied prop fighters defeated 200-400 German jet-powered Me-262s. The F-35 is by far the most expensive fighter in the world, costs more to buy and operate than any other, and spends more time in maintenance than any other (50 hours for every hour flown – even more than the Rafale). Thus, even with a larger US military budget (which will only be cut, not increased, in the years to come), fewer aircraft can be bought and flown compared to competitor aircraft. The Rafale spends only 8 hours in maintenance for every hour flown; the Gripen, 9 hours; the Typhoon, 10 hours.

3) MANEUVERABILITY: The F-35 sorely lacks it, Michael’s false claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Even at 50% fuel + ammo, the F-35A has a mediocre (by today’s standards) thrust/weight ratio (1.07:1) and a very high wing loading ratio (526 kg/sq m, or 107.7 lb/sq ft – far higher than ANY other fighterplane on the market!)

At full fuel and ammo, the F-35A’s thrust/weight ratio drops down to a pathetic 0.87:1, and its wing loading ratio climbs to an absurdly high 745 kg/sq m!

ALL competitor aircraft, and all contemporary US fighters, have a MUCH lower WL ratio at full fuel than the F-35A does at 50% fuel + ammo! The wing loading ratios for these aircraft at full fuel are:
Rafale: 305 kg/sq m
F-16: 431 kg/sq m
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: 459 kg/sq m
Su-27: 444.61 kg/sq m
Su-30: 468 kg/sq m
Sukhoi PAK FA: 444 kg/sq m
Chengdu J-10: 381 kg/sq m
MiG-29: 403 kg/sq m

All these aircraft have MUCH lower W/L ratios at FULL fuel than the F-35 does at 50% fuel!

Thrust/weight ratios:
a) At 50% fuel +ammo:
F-22 Raptor: 1.26:1
Rafale: 1.12:1
F-16C: 1.095:1
Chengdu J-10 (with the WS-10A engine): 1.095:1
MiG-29: 1.09:1
F-35A: 1.07:1

b) At full fuel + ammo:
Rafale: 0.988:1
F-35A: 0.87:1

No figures yet for the Shenyang J-31 – the future Chinese stealth fighter – but because it doesn’t have a STOVL fan, isn’t even designed for one, and doesn’t have room for one, we should assume it’s much lighter and much more maneuverable than the F-35.

Please note these are figures for the F-35A variant; the figures for the B and C variants are even worse.

A lower wing loading ratio, coupled with a higher T/W ratio, enables an aircraft to turn faster and easier. F-35 marketers’ claim that the F-35’s body generates lift is utter nonsense and only shows they know NOTHING about aircraft. In aviation, aircraft need LIFT to fly, and lift can ONLY be efficiently generated by wings – that’s why aircraft (and birds) have them.

To see how the above-mentioned fighters can easily outturn the F-35, one doesn’t have to be an aviation expert. A lay person can see that after watching these aircraft maneuver and compare them to the clumsily-turning F-35 turkey.

4) TRANSIENT MANEUVERING: The fourth key factor is transient maneuvering, that is, the ability to transition quickly from one maneuver to another. This is determined primarily by an aircraft’s raw weight. The heavier the aircraft, the harder it is for it to execute. The F-35 being one of the heaviest aircraft on the market, it is utterly uncompetitive in that regard.

Regarding LF radar, F-35 supporters are utterly wrong to claim that it’s inaccurate and doesn’t know where the F-35 is or how it’s flying, and he’s also utterly wrong to claim it can easily be jammed. Modern (and even late Cold War era) Russian and Chinese radar is VERY difficult to jam – and was explicitily built to be tough to jam. This is true even of their LF radar, but even more so of their HF and VHF counter-stealth radar, which can easily detect and track down an F-35 (and even an F-22, but the Raptor is fast enough to avoid being shot down by simply running away fast; the slow F-35 turkey doesn’t have that option).

F-35 supporters are also dead wrong when he claims the F-35 is stealthy in many frequencies and from all directions. It isn’t. It was never even designed or intended to be. It’s stealthy ONLY in the frontal section, and only in the X, and to a lesser extent the S and K/Ku, radar bands. It’s absolutely not stealthy in any radar band – or even in those radar bands from any aspect but the front.

An aircraft’s stealthiness (low observability to radar) is determined in 95% by shaping and only in 5% by radar-absorbent materials. An aircraft has to be shaped properly to be stealthy – no bumps, no fat bellies, no radar-reflecting curves. The F-35 has a round donut-shaped engine exhaust nozzle and a deeply-sculpted belly – perfect radar return points. By contrast, the F-117, the B-2, and the F-22 all have flat underbellies and slit engine exhaust nozzles.

Claims that the F-35’s engine exhaust nozzle is somehow stealthy are utterly false. No matter the fuel flow system and the materials, it still “exhales” a HUGE amount of heat produced by the engine and is NOT LO to radar because of its shape – a perfect radar wave returner. This only increases the F-35’s already huge thermal signature resulting from its size, energy consumption, and all the heavy, exquisite gizmos it carries (the APG-81 radar, the EOTS, etc.)

And no, the F-35’s critics are not all laypeople. Among them are fighter pilots like John Stillion, Scott Perdue, and WGCR Chris Mills. As for Dr Carlo Kopp, whom the F-35 lobby has attacked here ad hominem, he’s a world-recognized expert on Russian fighters and air defense systems, and his knowledge of these is encyclopaedic.

Last but certainly not least, it is idiotic to spend $400 bn on a short-ranged tactical aircraft that can barely carry 4 small bombs internally when ALL US forward bases are within easy range of enemy ballistic and cruise missiles, as are carriers in the Persian Gulf and within at least 1,700 kms of China’s shore. That money would be better invested developing and procuring the Long Range Strike Bomber, the Virginia class of submarines with the Virginia Payload Module, laser missile defense systems, Prompt Global Strike weapons, the UCLASS drone, and hardening American and allied bases.

Posted in Air combat | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 443 other followers