C5 galaxies?Acerider wrote:
Good load, great range, decent speed, relatively cheap, reliable.JohnG@lt wrote:
60 years old.Acerider wrote:
Agreed. C-130's are quite efficient though. Good load, great range, decent speed, relatively cheap, reliable.
They don't need to.Acerider wrote:
C-130's aren't the most conventional warplanes. Yeah they can drop troops, but China won't have enough sufficient numbers. Besides, the US isn't stupid, they'll only give china as much as they think they can defend against. Besides, china has tons of attack aircraft and H-6 tupolev Tu-16 badger copies ready for bombing.Commie Killer wrote:
...News Flash...Acerider wrote:
Yeah. Firstly the embargo isn't cripling china, they're pretty self sufficient, and secondly, why stop all arms trade to China when the USA isn;t gonna give em any deadly weapos anyways? It's good to lift the embargo, the USA can sell tons of military equipment that china can't hurt anyone with. Besides... trading is good capitalism.
A cargo plane can be used to support military equipment and soldiers. Hell, it can even drop a bomb.
Though china will probably copy the US engines and/or airframe of the c-130.
And just what resources are we "wasting" enforcing the embargo?Turquoise wrote:
Well, more than anything else, it seems much more asinine to waste resources on enforcing a useless embargo.FEOS wrote:
It would add to the other tourism they already have. From every other country in the world. That's all. Sure, there would be an initial "ooh! I can go to Cuba!" bow-wave, but it wouldn't be sustainable, or enough to make much of a difference, tbh.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I think US tourism to Cuba would explode, and that would definitely impact their economy.
I don't have an issue with lifting the embargo. I have an issue with the asinine arguments for why the embargo should be lifted.
That the KJ-200?FEOS wrote:
They don't need to.Acerider wrote:
C-130's aren't the most conventional warplanes. Yeah they can drop troops, but China won't have enough sufficient numbers. Besides, the US isn't stupid, they'll only give china as much as they think they can defend against. Besides, china has tons of attack aircraft and H-6 tupolev Tu-16 badger copies ready for bombing.Commie Killer wrote:
...News Flash...
A cargo plane can be used to support military equipment and soldiers. Hell, it can even drop a bomb.
Though china will probably copy the US engines and/or airframe of the c-130.
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii30 … /y-9-3.jpg
Click the first link.Acerider wrote:
That the KJ-200?FEOS wrote:
They don't need to.Acerider wrote:
C-130's aren't the most conventional warplanes. Yeah they can drop troops, but China won't have enough sufficient numbers. Besides, the US isn't stupid, they'll only give china as much as they think they can defend against. Besides, china has tons of attack aircraft and H-6 tupolev Tu-16 badger copies ready for bombing.
Though china will probably copy the US engines and/or airframe of the c-130.
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii30 … /y-9-3.jpg
Missed marketing opportunities, tax on cigar imports etc etc.FEOS wrote:
And just what resources are we "wasting" enforcing the embargo?
Those aren't wasted resources. Those are opportunity costs. Two different cost concepts.Dilbert_X wrote:
Missed marketing opportunities, tax on cigar imports etc etc.FEOS wrote:
And just what resources are we "wasting" enforcing the embargo?
Sauce?Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes I know.
I guess the wasted resources would be in the CIA still working to destabilise the Cuban govt.
I guess a galaxy works but it aint cheap and needs maintenance. China has enough resources to support Galaxies for sure, I think. Actually, you're right, China doesn't really need the C-130's. Maybe this deal is just a peace offering that Obama wants to make for China in preperation for larger deals in the future. Obama seems to be trying to get on the good side of every country in the world.Trotskygrad wrote:
C5 galaxies?Acerider wrote:
Good load, great range, decent speed, relatively cheap, reliable.JohnG@lt wrote:
60 years old.
I don't know WHY china would buy a C-130 anyways.
Probably some detente bullshit or something like that
We don't build C-5s any more, so they would be buying old, maintenance-intensive airframes out of mothball storage. Airframes whose counterparts we've already invested millions/billions in upgrading to extend their service life. Makes no operational or economic sense. Especially when they can just buy Antonovs from Russia.Acerider wrote:
I guess a galaxy works but it aint cheap and needs maintenance. China has enough resources to support Galaxies for sure, I think. Actually, you're right, China doesn't really need the C-130's. Maybe this deal is just a peace offering that Obama wants to make for China in preperation for larger deals in the future. Obama seems to be trying to get on the good side of every country in the world.Trotskygrad wrote:
C5 galaxies?Acerider wrote:
Good load, great range, decent speed, relatively cheap, reliable.
I don't know WHY china would buy a C-130 anyways.
Probably some detente bullshit or something like that
I'm very suspicious of China, and now this trade deals looks very... suspicious. Well, yeah, C-5's are a pain to maintain, but China could afford a few, even though they'd be better off using more modern jet powered transports. China probably has enough data to copy the Antonov's, so they wouldn't need to buy em. China should start making indigenous stuff soon or they'll be in trouble. Their tactic of copying everyone elses stuff and adding a few modifications means that they'll always be years behind other countries. Like, China has a huge airforce, but the majority of heir planes are J-6's, JH-7's, J-8's, J-7's, and Q-5's, planes so old that they'll be almost useless in combat against countries with more modern aircraft. Even though they also have more advanced aircraft like JF-17's and J-10's and J-11's, those are pretty inferior to most fourth generation aircraft. Wanna bet the 5th generation J-XX is based on studying the raptor?FEOS wrote:
We don't build C-5s any more, so they would be buying old, maintenance-intensive airframes out of mothball storage. Airframes whose counterparts we've already invested millions/billions in upgrading to extend their service life. Makes no operational or economic sense. Especially when they can just buy Antonovs from Russia.Acerider wrote:
I guess a galaxy works but it aint cheap and needs maintenance. China has enough resources to support Galaxies for sure, I think. Actually, you're right, China doesn't really need the C-130's. Maybe this deal is just a peace offering that Obama wants to make for China in preperation for larger deals in the future. Obama seems to be trying to get on the good side of every country in the world.Trotskygrad wrote:
C5 galaxies?
I don't know WHY china would buy a C-130 anyways.
Probably some detente bullshit or something like that
For strategic airlift, we'd have to sell them C-17s. But they are already developing their own version--probably based on pilfered data--so why would they buy ours?
Last edited by Acerider (2010-10-16 07:01:22)
Acerider wrote:
they'd be better off using more modern jet powered transports.
They build 4th and 4.5 gen fighters under license from Russia. They're not really "copying". And they're transferring that tech to their own R&D houses, cutting years off their own development efforts--putting them years ahead of where they would be otherwise.Acerider wrote:
China probably has enough data to copy the Antonov's, so they wouldn't need to buy em. China should start making indigenous stuff soon or they'll be in trouble. Their tactic of copying everyone elses stuff and adding a few modifications means that they'll always be years behind other countries.
They are. Multiple links have shown you just that.Acerider wrote:
My point is, China needs new crap, so why are they buying old crap that they both don't really need and could just as easily make themselves?
This. Except, if you read the article, it's not about transporting troops, either.Acerider wrote:
This deal is probably about restoring relations more than just transporting a few troops.
Of course, I'm not really sure how that limitation will be monitored or enforced. That's a pretty low probability of use to justify the expense of purchase.article wrote:
Obama stressed in his letter that C-130 cargo aircraft are to be deployed in response to oil spills at sea.
JohnG@lt wrote:
No one gives a fuck about this topic except you Pace.
No one gives a fuck about you not giving a fuck about it.UnkleRukus wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
No one gives a fuck about this topic except you Pace.
AUGH. No no no, I knew the C-5 is jet powered. I was reffering to the C-130 having turboprops and agreeing with people on how china needs new stuff.FEOS wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 0J-002.jpgAcerider wrote:
they'd be better off using more modern jet powered transports.
What do you think those things are hanging off the wings of that C-5?
They would be jet engines. Used to power the transport plane. What on earth made you think the C-5 wasn't jet-powered?
And if for some reason you were talking about the C-130 and just worded it poorly, the C-130 is actually jet-powered. That's what a turboprop is: a jet engine turning a propeller.
In fact, the newest cargo plane in development, the A400M, uses the turboprop:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … M-1969.jpgThey build 4th and 4.5 gen fighters under license from Russia. They're not really "copying". And they're transferring that tech to their own R&D houses, cutting years off their own development efforts--putting them years ahead of where they would be otherwise.Acerider wrote:
China probably has enough data to copy the Antonov's, so they wouldn't need to buy em. China should start making indigenous stuff soon or they'll be in trouble. Their tactic of copying everyone elses stuff and adding a few modifications means that they'll always be years behind other countries.They are. Multiple links have shown you just that.Acerider wrote:
My point is, China needs new crap, so why are they buying old crap that they both don't really need and could just as easily make themselves?This. Except, if you read the article, it's not about transporting troops, either.Acerider wrote:
This deal is probably about restoring relations more than just transporting a few troops.Of course, I'm not really sure how that limitation will be monitored or enforced. That's a pretty low probability of use to justify the expense of purchase.article wrote:
Obama stressed in his letter that C-130 cargo aircraft are to be deployed in response to oil spills at sea.
historically china has never ever had a great military expansion nor tried to expand their empire.jord wrote:
I'm sure China has better qualified people to determine what they need militarily.
just filling the gap the soviets left after the they collapsed. china wants to waive its dick around in asia and especially africa.jord wrote:
They don't need to now either.
That's still a good reason to end the embargo.FEOS wrote:
Those aren't wasted resources. Those are opportunity costs. Two different cost concepts.Dilbert_X wrote:
Missed marketing opportunities, tax on cigar imports etc etc.FEOS wrote:
And just what resources are we "wasting" enforcing the embargo?
I already said above that I have no issues with lifting the embargo. It's the stupid, illogical arguments against the embargo that I take issue with.Turquoise wrote:
That's still a good reason to end the embargo.FEOS wrote:
Those aren't wasted resources. Those are opportunity costs. Two different cost concepts.Dilbert_X wrote:
Missed marketing opportunities, tax on cigar imports etc etc.
Honestly, I never thought I'd be the one defending free trade against you.
