AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

«‹›7 »

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

This is a neat thread here, but curiously, while lots of pictures of the TU-95 and TU-22 have been posted, none have been posted of the first Soviet jet bomber, the Myasishchev M-4.

The Patriot chat earlier in the thread has got me thinking. The public perception right now might be overly optimistic about the capabilities of air forces, because there hasn't been any recent conflicts where a modern air force has faced off against an enemy well equipped with modern SAMs.

What is the current "state of the art" as it were, on this subject? In other words, if a moderately wealthy regional power like Iran or Venezuela got really serious about making their airspace impregnable to attack from the air, and instead of buying up a token squadron of Mig-29s or whatever instead went the ground based route and imported the latest in Russian missile tech, properly trained their crews, etc, how far will this get them? Can they successfully put up enough lead in the air to essentially keep western air forces out, or are the super duper American stealth bombers so far ahead in terms of technology that they can still operate with impunity?

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jul 12, 2011

# ¿ Jul 12, 2011 02:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:12

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Can cruise missiles not be shot down by radar guided guns like the CIWS mounted on ships?

# ¿ Jul 12, 2011 03:25

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

mlmp08 posted:

They could, but if you're talking about a country with enough money to have a pile of SHORAD, a pile of Patriot, and a bunch of modified CIWS defending each Patriot site, then it starts to get a bit ridiculous, because they'd likely have enough money for both a decent SAM network AND a decent Air Force.

If terrain was flat and I ran a country with little or no air force, I'd opt for giving Patriot operators free reign to shoot pretty much anything and everything before trying to figure a way to defend them from cruise missiles using SHORAD systems or CIWS.

What I didn't mention is Patriot's vulnerability to rotary-wing craft or low-flying UAVs, but that's because SHORAD can pretty well take care of that, and Patriot can care for itself for the most part if the ground is flat.

You mentioned that the Patriot would be able to take care of a cruise missile by itself if it was coming in high, but won't be able to cover all air avenues in hilly or complex terrain. I was thinking by the same token, the battery commander could look at the terrain and position his truck mounted CIWS units in likely avenues of approach to intercept cruise missiles (or anything else) some distance away, but I suppose the range of a 30mm cannon is probably too short to effectively cover likely approaches.

The other thing is that I suppose the Americans can probably put more cruise missiles in the air at once than the total number of SAMs a small country could even stockpile and overwhelm them with sheer numbers.

What got me thinking was that if I were in charge of a small country and feared western bombing, it would be an absolute monumental task to build up an air force that could hope to fight the Americans or Europeans in the air. Besides, if I made the air force too good, what's to stop them from turning their planes around and bombing the presidential palace if they suddenly decided to turn week-kneed, or the air marshal decided he wanted to be el presidente? Can't happen with SAM batteries. It seems to me that instead of dumping money into a small number of obsolete Russian planes that are all going to just either flee the country or get buried when the Americans come, anti-air defence would be a better use for the money.

EDIT: Also, I'm under the impression that planes and pilots are pretty expensive to buy and maintain compared to SAMs.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2011 03:54

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

So going with the rock/paper/scissors analogy. There's nothing I can use from the ground to shoot down American bombers that doesn't involve radar. As soon as I turn the radar on, the Americans will know where the radar is and send cruise missiles after it.

There's nothing that can be done to counter the cruise missiles? The SAM launcher itself can't shoot/scan the sky while moving, I assume. I've thought of the mobile truck mounted CIWS. What about the Tunguska and other mobile radar guided point defence weapons?

# ¿ Jul 12, 2011 04:19

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

mlmp08 posted:

well... there are systems that shoot quite high, don't need radar running constantly, and could relocate before cruise missiles come in. Their bigger threat is more conventional air-to-ground munitions or an ARM. In addition to those, Patriot can shoot down cruise missiles, but it's no guaranteed plan of action.

How will you know where the enemy airplanes are without the radar running?

# ¿ Jul 12, 2011 04:42

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

karoshi posted:

IIRC there was some research done on tracking aircraft based on radio reflection from commercial sources (TV, Radio, ...). It was an article I read in the 90s, no idea about capabilities or commercial products. It offers the possibility to passively keep an eye on your airspace as long as your neighbours dont turn off all TV stations. The screenshot I remember was tracking commercial airliners.

I read about it in the late 90s too, but never heard anything more about it since. I suppose if the enemy knew you had such a system, they would send missiles at all the TV and cellphone control stations they can find anyway.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2011 12:58

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Veins McGee posted:

The conclusion to be drawn is: If your country is a possible target for NATO and a modern air force of a great enough scale is economically impossible then you need both the highest quality AD systems you can get AND highly motivated, intelligent and professional officers/SNCOs.

I have no idea how it is in other forces, but in America ADA/LAAD postings tend to not be highly sought after. Likely because we have no real air threat that wont be destroyed on the ground or shortly after in a lopsided air battle. Perhaps in other nations, and I don't find this very likely, AD postings are of greater prestige than in American forces.

edit: Essentially, Col. Zoltan was likely an outlier amongst AD officers. Moreover, his successes were as much the result of his own actions as well as the failings of NATO planners.

I think another thing that was learned through the Yugoslavian experience is that fairly low tech stuff like simply having lots of decoys and mocked up vehicles contributed a great deal towards most of the JNA emerging from the fracas intact. A cruise missile that hits an empty building is just as good as a cruise missile shot down. One can expect that the hypothetical competent air defence will include at least 3 fake SAM sites or other targets for every real one.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2011 04:53

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

On a trip to China last year I had dinner with a Chinese colonel and the topic drifted to the 2006 Y-8 crash.

Basically China is trying to come up with an locally produced AWACS platform, the whole crew and development team got aboard the one plane they had as a testbed and it flew into a mountain. The whole AWACS development project is set back years. Every single officer in the chain of command up to the commander of the military region had a very bad year.

I guess it was mildly amusing hearing all this stuff from someone who might be in the know.

# ¿ Jul 15, 2011 07:28

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Stroh M.D. posted:

Let us remember the brave men of the Aggressor Forces who fought in a factitious war, held factitious beliefs and died factitious deaths, all so that American forces could be better prepared in a less factitious potential world war with the Soviet Union!

And thanks again to Burning Beard, who put me on the trail.

Of all the wonders of the US military T think this is the most under appreciated. Every officer from a non-US country I've ever communicated with who have visited NTC cannot stop raving about how impressed they are with the effort put into this kind of realistic training.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2011 17:57

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Also the BOMARC is a missile from the 1950s? Let's also "modernize" some Mig-19s to back them up.

If Canada wanted drones or SAMs they would go for modern ones, I think, although I don't know if there are currently any UAVs in service that cruise at jet fighter speeds?

# ¿ Nov 18, 2011 08:21

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Yeah, how many motor rifle regiments are they up against in the "drug war"? I would probably rather have the additional weight in the form of armour protection instead of rockets and guns, because a bunch of civilians who might have a few light arms probably isn't something that needs to be subjected to all day strafing.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2011 19:23

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

English Russia is pretty cool.

http://englishrussia.com/2011/11/23/where-is-abandoned-rotor-driven-equipment-stored/

http://englishrussia.com/2011/11/23/a-glimpse-of-the-history-of-the-soviet-aircraft/

quote:

The Yakovlev Yak-40 (NATO reporting name: Codling) is a small, three-engined airliner that is often called the first regional jet transport aircraft. It was introduced in September 1968 with Aeroflot. By January 1 2008 about 92 planes were lost and 841 people were dead.

# ¿ Nov 24, 2011 19:28

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Do ekranoplanes work on open oceans with waves, or bad weather? I would have thought that's the reason why there are no trans-oceanic ekranoplane liners.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2011 22:17

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Snowdens Secret posted:

How much more dangerous and less detectable could this be than a more conventional bomber riding the deck with a belly and/or wing pylons full of cruise missiles? According to Wikipedia the Moskits can be launched from Su-33s, which perversely have longer range (not sure if this is with Moskit-incompatible droptanks.) Even factoring in the Lun's absurdly low altitude, it's so large that the Sukhoi may still be harder to detect, and hiding over the horizon would negate what appears to be its main advantage of carrying ship-sized active search and guidance radars.

What really blows my mind is that this was a plane put into service in '87 that had a tailgunner position. And at least one more dorsal turret under the front launchers. Here's some pics.

This thing kinda strikes me as more of 'really badass replacement for a small missile frigate' than a genuinely effective aircraft. Which may be why only one was made.

The Sukhoi's quoted range also isn't the range skimming at sea level, presumably.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2011 17:31

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Hey guys let's talk about Russian AAMs

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html#mozTocId276821

# ¿ Dec 6, 2011 20:39

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

priznat posted:

One of the missions I've heard mentioned for the possible Canadian amphibious ships (either licensing the Mistral design or building our own) is disaster relief missions like in Haiti after the earthquake.

I don't know if this is a real valid reason to build them, but it's a sell tactic to the public anyway.

And what do you do when that squadron of Haitian Su-30s come roaring over the horizon? Shoot them down with helicopters? :haw:

# ¿ Dec 15, 2011 00:09

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

India has an actual carrier air arm that has been used to great effect in multiple wars against a major American ally. There are like a billion people in India and their economy is growing. Wrap it up USAilures, better start learning Hindi.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2011 20:14

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

iyaayas01 posted:

To add to what Cyrano said, all of which I agree with, just one or two aircraft carriers (and the ability to actually employ them, which is the whole point of the training gained from the Shi Lang/Varyag) completely changes the discussion in China's backyard, as far as Taiwan, the Spratlys, interaction with Japan, and a whole host of other issues. That alone is a pretty big loving deal, seeing as how the East/Southeast/South Asian region is probably the one that will be the most geopolitically important to the U.S. over the next few decades.

Regardless of what Jane's Fighting Ships thinks, it's pretty unlikely to me that the ship will be named Shi Lang, because generally speaking the Chinese do not name ships after people. No Chinese warship, communist, nationalist or imperial, has ever been named after a person (maybe with one exception).

# ¿ Dec 16, 2011 08:02

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Flanker posted:

hence my screen name since I was 12 or something.

In other news, I will no longer defend the F35. gently caress it. We should have starting drawing up our own hilarious little contraption ten years ago.

My solution: license the PAK-FA from Russia and build it it Canada. (please kill me)

The new Lib platform should be

1)Legalize marijuana
2)350 Su-34s instead of 65 F-35s. Literally have more Su-27 variants than the Russians do.
3)"Canada's contribution to the new NATO mission to (lovely country)?" "Oh, not much, we'll just blot out the sun with Sukhois" :smug:

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jan 17, 2012

# ¿ Jan 17, 2012 17:05

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

So what's the state of the art on ballistic missile defence? Can they actually destroy ballistic missiles now or is it still just knock them off target?

# ¿ Jan 18, 2012 08:38

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

I read that the first time you posted but missed the part about 7 warhead kills in Iraq.

What makes an incoming missile harder to intercept? Speed? Radar signature?

# ¿ Jan 19, 2012 08:22

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Are there actually ballistic missiles that manoeuvres and release chaff? I would think that altering the radar cross section of a warhead would be difficult too, since they kind of have a specific shape and I don't think any radar absorbing coatings would survive the high speeds at the terminal phase.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2012 01:42

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

VikingSkull posted:

So, in the conspiracy thread there was a post about how the Khmer Rouge wasn't violent and the Killing Fields was a CIA backed plot to paint communism as evil.

Or something.

That's not why I'm posting, though. I'm more posting because my knowledge of the greater Sino/Soviet split and the multiple facets of it are woefully inadequate. At various times the Khmer Rouge was sponsored by ASEAN nations, North Korea, European powers, and the US. This was targeted at weakening Vietnamese and Russian influence in the region.

Related to this is the Chinese invasion of Vietnam, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, and the Sino/Soviet border clashes.

Seeing as how this thread focuses mainly on the US/USSR aspect of the Cold War, I figured I'd maybe get a discussion going on the communist in-fighting of the era, and maybe some of the brush wars like India and Pakistan, China and India, and the things I mentioned above. Anyone have any info, theories or interesting stories relating to this? I have a pretty basic understanding of most of it, but it's an aspect of the Cold War that doesn't get talked about much and as I've been going through Wikipedia there's some interesting stuff out there.

I mean, how many people know that the US supported Pol Pot in a roundabout way? Or that after the Vietnamese invasion the UN recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia?

Crossposting from the other thread.

quote:

The US and China were more or less cooperating on the foreign policy front for most of the 1980s up to 1989, with Tiananmen and the collapse of the USSR. The American documentary Red Dawn makes reference to this. Americans purchased Chinese weapons through Pakistan to supply the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, including (if some books on this are to be believed) supplying captured Russian shoulder launched SAMs and other weapons to the Chinese in order to copy and send back to Afghanistan. American Stingers were later supplied due to the Russian SA-7s being...not very good. The US and China also supported Jonas Savimbi's UNITA against the Warsaw Pact backed MPLA and Cuba (whole units of Cuba regular forces were deployed to Angloa )in the Angolan civil war. Savimbi himslef was trained in China.

In the late 80s there were plans for the US to massively upgrade the Chinese Air Force and Navy with American equipment. For example the Super 7 project, to upgrade Chinese Mig-21 derivatives with American engines and avionics. Unfortunately TAM put a stop to most of those plans. Notable survivors include the American supplied GE LM2500 engines, which power most American non-nuclear surface warships also powering some Chinese warships and the Chinese fleet of S-70 Blackhawks which were flown as recently as the 2008 earthquake.

The Blackhawks were notable for their superior high-altitude performance compared to anything else available to the Chinese and heavily deployed in Tibet. Thanks Uncle Reagan!

# ¿ Jan 21, 2012 04:04

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

iyaayas01 posted:

a) strike solely with Tomahawks and JASSMs (prohibitively expensive)

Oh no!

# ¿ Jan 23, 2012 02:54

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Speaking of crazy anglefire pages, I was an F35 hater who wanted to go back to bolt action rifles back in the 10th grade. :smugdog:

In all seriousness most things on that site are much less insane and I thought his comments on camoflague are actually pretty insightful and somewhat prescient.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2012 16:35

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

A UH-1 is basically just an Econoline van that can fly awkwardly for a bit. They don't have radars do they? How would they even find a jet until the jet flew over their heads, unless the jet knew where it was specifically and was sent to get the helicopter? It sounds like you could have achieved the same result if you had 5 men with stingers and a machine gun in an Econoline van under a tarp somewhere waiting for a jet to fly by.

Can the radars in Apaches and what not be used for BVR air combat?

# ¿ Jan 28, 2012 17:01

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Advocating tracked IFVs instead of the wheeled Stryker doesn't sound all that insane to me? What don't you like about it?

# ¿ Jan 28, 2012 21:25

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

But as far as I can tell he's advocating for the enlarged, modernized "MTVL" variant, not bringing original M113s out of Vietnam war stocks.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2012 21:39

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Who were the favourites to win? I thought it was the F-15K/SG, or some other plane and not the Rafale?

Also about the front canards increasing radar cross section, could you not make them fold flush with the body when LO is needed, and extend them when needed on take off or during dog fights or whatever?

# ¿ Jan 31, 2012 15:49

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

movax posted:

Typhoon or Rafale. The only two American contenders were the Hornet and Falcon, and they were out probably a month or more ago. I don't remember how long the Gripen or MiG-35 were in contention for. I don't think the Hornet or Falcon really stood a chance; great pricing, but since our foreign policy when it comes to India is apparently written by complete retards, India was probably concerned about tech transfer/availability of parts or something. Boeing had promised to setup an assembly line in India though, so

Yeah I'm just reading the article now. How did Saudi Arabia end up with the Typhoon? They've always been Real Friends of America like Israel, you would think they would be getting F22s, or at least be on board with the F35.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2012 16:00

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Oxford Comma posted:

I absolutely agree with what you're saying. And it explains why the A-10 will be replaced while the AH-64, which is probably less survivable than its fixed wing counterpart, will remain in service.

AH-64s don't need runways to take off. That's sort of A Thing for the army.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2012 23:00

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Some stuff from English russia

# ¿ Feb 1, 2012 04:55

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Smiling Jack posted:

Plus, don't doubt that China is taking a very long view on this whole thing and has an eye on that naval base. Thirty, forty years from now, Syria could be a Chinese ally state, not a Russian one.

Edit: What happened to the Russian base in Vietnam? No way the Chinese are getting their hands on that one.

The Chinese and the Vietnamese hate each other and were still literally shooting at each other across the border 20 years ago? I wouldn't be surprised if Vietnam will be inviting American "advisors" back to Cam Ranh Bay soon to poke the Chinese in the eye.

quote:

Well, with China I suspect it has more to do with their long view on human rights, period. They have a VERY long history of vetoing anything that's done on the basis of human rights violations in general, and crackdowns on anti-government protest specifically.

Basically, don't be too surprised when the country that still has "Tiennamen square was totally justified" as a talking point refuses to allow criticism of smaller countries who drive tanks in on crowds of government protesters.

China always opposes any kind of foreign intervention in domestic affairs at the UN on principle.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2012 18:49

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Shot down a bunch of Ryan Model 147Hs in the 1970s, put one back together, copied it, deployed against the Vietnamese in the 1980s.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2012 19:33

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

iyaayas01 posted:

: WHOOOOO AWWW YEAH!!! THAT'S U.N. APPROVAL SON!!! REGIME CHANGE TIME BITCHES And then the international coalition proceeded to bomb the poo poo out of Libya while providing arms to the rebels and putting advisors on the ground, arguably in direct contravention of 1973 depending on which tortured interpretation of it you listened to (these would be the same legal geniuses that somehow argued that the War Powers Act didn't really apply to U.S. forces because it wasn't technically "war" since we weren't getting shot at, just doing the shooting), and certainly against the spirit of the resolution.

Is this really true? What weapons did NATO supply to the Libyan opposition? I know the Qataris and the other Gulf monarchs were doing it on the down-lo but didn't think the west was doing it. I'm not asking for a source, I don't know that much about it either way, just if you are sure about it.

I think the fact that it was so multi-lateral was what helped Libya get through, much like Afghanista post 9/11. I mean if Denmark and Norway are on board, who can really be against it? The French and the Germans in particular are pretty cozy diplomatically and economically with Russia and China, I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians and Chinese let Libya go just as a personal favour to Sarkozy.

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Feb 14, 2012

# ¿ Feb 14, 2012 04:28

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Phanatic posted:

You think Germany and the US don't make things anymore? I can tell you for a fact that the new Chinooks coming off the lines have frames that are milled from solid billets of aluminum, just like the above poster was talking about, rather than forged.

Pretty sure the Chinese would rather buy American Chinooks too, if given the chance.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2012 22:29

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

slidebite posted:

I think you're more right than we would like to think. We in the west like to think of China as a land where they have 9 year old boys and girls handcuffed to a dirt floor factory making stuff. And that almost certainly still happens. Unfortunately, it also happens that their cutting edge is by and large our cutting edge and we cannot look down at them anymore and I think that scares the poo poo out of many of us.

I draw parallels to the Japanese in the 70s. I (and I suspect most of us now) view most Japanese products as superior in many regards even compared to North American. I know I do with cars for sure.

The truth is that it was for a several years before we even realized or admitted it. I kind of view China in 2012 (or have for quite a few years actually) in the same way. In another 10 years or so, it won't even be a question other than biggots that'll never trust them.

I already posted this in the AI thread so here it is again. Look at it from the angle of the entrepreneur or manager: If I wanted to make a bunch of terrible poo poo to sell to the absolute lowest bidder, and clearly there is money in this line of work or else why do people do it, where do I do it? You think I should build the factory in Switzerland and staff it with the UAW? A lot of terrible crap is made in China because everything is made in China, not because the Chinese are specially good at making crap.

If you want something pretty high quality and are willing to pay a bit for it, you get iPhones. Otherwise you get what you pay for. It's not really any different than anywhere else. Maybe if more Americans made a living actually making things instead of selling houses to each other they would understand this. :smug:

The comparison to Japan is really terrible because Japan has been a huge industrial power since the late 1800s. The Japanese navy was a match for any Western country and sailed the largest aircraft carriers and battleships in the world, so I don't know why people are so shocked that a company like Toyota with literally centuries of history as a manufacturing firm can turn out a pretty good economy car.

China from about the 1800s to about 30 years ago was in worse shape than Haiti and the Chinese head of state could barely afford to fly himself to the US for a state visit without bankrupting the treasury. It's really not a good comparison at all.

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Feb 15, 2012

# ¿ Feb 15, 2012 05:27

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

slidebite posted:

Duh. Me math good.

It does slide it back somewhat, but I still think the Haiti is a stretch.

Certainly not a powerhouse like today but it has been a mass manufacturer of goods for many decades.

It's not an exaggeration at all. China had been in a state of virtually non-stop civil war or foreign occupation from the 1860s to 1976. The anecdote is from the book Red Capitalism. When Deng Xiao Ping was to lead a delegation to the UN in 1974, they literally had to empty out all the vaults of all the banks in Beijing because the sum total of China's foreign exchange reserves amounted to $38,000.

These are all good reasons why Chinese private sector companies to this day tend to be small and fly-by-night. Industrial "champion" companies that care about brand reputation or intellectual property only exist in places like Japan with stable political institutions and traditions of the rule of law. The Chinese won't be anywhere near the Japan of the 1970s for a long time.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2012 06:03

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Slamburger posted:

When labor costs eventually rise in China and India, won't we just move our factories somewhere else with poor people (Africa or something I dunno) before coming back to NA?

Well a couple of things. The cost of doing business is more than just labour, for one thing. Right now manufacturers are pretty reluctant to move from China to poorer India just because India's infrastructure for things like power and transport is terrible and they can't keep the lights on or the deliveries on time. Otherwise, they would have already moved there.

The other thing is that when you say "labor costs eventually rise", what you are suggesting is that consumers in China become richer relative to Americans, and they'll demand more goods and services from places like the US.

It will all play out in the relative values of the currencies. I'll give you a few examples. If you post in AI you'll notice that people generally get the feeling that Japanese cars were much better than American cars 30, 20, or maybe even 10 years ago, but today, people are increasingly feeling that American cars have "caught up" or otherwise reversed things, and are better than Japanese cars in many cases. It's a nice "Rocky" style narrative of how American manufacturing lost its way for a bit, but are now bouncing back, like all good American protagonists do. Except if you look at the relative values of the Yen and USD, it's not really that hard to figure out that 25 years ago a Dollar was worth 200 Yen and today a Dollar is worth 78 Yen. So given that both America and Japan, both 25 years ago and today, are rich, developed countries with reasonably educated workforces, is it really a surprise that the American car makers have managed to come back? All it took was for currency appreciation to double your competitor's costs and cut his profit on each car by half.

A counter example is Britain. Remember when the British use to make cars? Well they're starting it up again with a vengeance after the Pound devalued by about 50% in 2008. Jaguar/Land Rover after being stuck pigs for decades is now rolling in profit and are actually building more plants in Britain to keep up with demand for British cars in China. Britain is already in a manufacturing renaissance.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2012 07:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:12

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

slidebite posted:

There isn't enough people in Africa IMHO to make it a worthwhile thing to do in the short run.

You'd be surprised. Africa is doing a lot better than anyone expected. A large percentage of Mercedes C-class and BMW 3 series cars sold in North America are imported from South Africa, for example. I would bet stuff like that will get more and more common.

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Feb 15, 2012

# ¿ Feb 15, 2012 07:19

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > AIRPOWER/Cold War - Its literally the first two lines of their hymn

«‹›7 »