Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Specification of F-16, SU-27 (I)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:57:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.183159.12917@linus.mitre.org> 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:
>In article <92Sep14.133112edt.139@orasis.vis.toronto.edu>,
>liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Sep14.150013.3639@linus.mitre.org> 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:
>> >
>> >> >>   PROC(Mainland)
>> >> >>     1). purchased about 24 SU-27 fighters last year.
>> >> >>     2). bought 72 SU-27 and 24 MIG-31 interceptors early this year.
>> >> >>     3). acquired the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
>> >> > 
>> >> >Why they want to acquire the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
>> >> >instead of MiG-29 or Su-27??  MiG-31 is not an air-superiority fighter.  It
>> >> >is only a interceptor with surveillance cappability. 
>> >> > 
>> >> 
>> >> For defence, if you believe that. 
>> >> c.q.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Sure, I believe it.  Even A-bomb, H-bomb, and chemical weapon are also for
>> >"defense."  You can find a lot of "defense" magzines; you can not find a
>> 
>> A-bomb and H-bomb are deterence weapons.  When a country has it
>> so it can say "don't mess with me, if you nuke me I will nuke you too"
>> to its hostile rivals.  
>> 
>> >"offense" magzine.  But, where is the beef? I still can not find the
>> >answer.  Why the ratio between MiG-31 and Su-27(or MiG-29) is 224+ : 96. 
>> >This ratio is not a good combination to me and I think they should either
>> >lower the MiG-31's number or raise the air-superiority fighter's (MiG-29 or
>> >Su-27) number to balance this
>> >ratio.
>> 
>> 
>> Not if they don't want to attack a lot of people, than they need a lot
>> of interceptors to patrol its airspace.  
>> 
>> 
>Well, what I can say?!  My suggestion to you is that read some books about
>military science. AW & SP is a good magzine to start if you real want to
>know some military science, especially in airplane
>field.


yeah, yeah, obviously you are much more knowledgable than me.
but I do know this, the Soviet system is always inferiors to the US ones,
for a long time the main force in the Soviet systems is interceptor-fighters,
to intercept and shot down invading enemy fighter/bomber, spyplanes, along
with their ground SAM networks.  not until recently the Soviets comes
up their new ultra-gizzmo fighter like mig-29, su-27, all the previous
fighters pretty much concentrated on high altitude high speed but not
so manuverable flying coffins.  The US system always has lots of
planes do fighter/bomber sorties, so most US aircrafts are all-purpose
planes from ground support to dog fights to high altitude interceptions.
while the Soviet trained forces mainly use tube-artillery to do bombardment,
and not really had all-purpose high tech toys planes to play with until now.  

so, what I am saying is, the Chinese Air force in its great soviet
tradition, mainly has a "defensive" type of air force, uses lots of
interceptors and SAMs to shoot down U2 spy planes, etc.  That is of course,
strange to the western system of thinking.   

like you said, I know nothing about military science, and I could be
very wrong.  

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.japan