<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Apr 19 2005, 09:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Apr 19 2005, 09:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That they buy obsolete (from our PoV) military equipment is because their budget is limited at the given time. They cannot afford complete development of owns systems and they dont have to. They take them apart, rebuild it, improve it. And they are quick about this. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They lack the technical know how to develop their own SSN (which means they lack clever enough people in certain fields) so they buy obsolite Soviet subs, what makes you think they would be able to improve on an obsolite Sovite sub when they lack the technical know how to even build one in the first place?
Aside from copying the reactor and the hull design and maybe streamlining it a bit they arn't going to improve on it much, if they want to compete with NATO they are going to need to develop some very advanced sensors for their submarines not to mention a quiet reactor (the Akula class is horribly noisy and noise = death in the submarine world).
The US spent hundreds of billions of $$ over the course of 50 years developing the quiet reactor plants that they use for their subs. By the time the chinese develop something on a par with what we have now NATO will be using magneto hydrodynamic propulsion drives for their subs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The officially announced budget -- 185.3 billion RMB in 2003 (about $22 billion) -- most likely substantially underreports total expenditures on defense, to include off-budget funding for foreign weapon system imports. <b>The US Defense Department estimated total defense-related expenditures for 2003, counting the large but difficult-to-calculate off-budget financing, could be between $50 billion and $70 billion, making China the third largest defense spender in the world.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note the increase of 17.7% in 2001 and another 17.6% the following year.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In March 2005 it was announced that China's military budget will rise 12.6 percent, to 247.7 billion yuan ($29.9 billion). China has announced double-digit increases in military spending nearly every year for more than a decade.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See the trend? Note that the article states that most analysts suggest that the official numbers should be trippled in order to see the full extend of military spendings.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They lack the technical know how to develop their own SSN (which means they lack clever enough people in certain fields) so they buy obsolite Soviet subs, what makes you think they would be able to improve on an obsolite Sovite sub when they lack the technical know how to even build one in the first place? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They buy foreing weapon systems because it is cheaper than developing them themselves. They obtain licenses to produce foreing technology. They do not sign any treaties without special terms that allow them to produce their own version once they further developed it.
A few years ago they bought production liceses of the Transrapid system. (a very advanced magnetic train) In a few years they have enough experience with it to construct their own version and BOOM: they will start to compete with the original transrapid on the open market. The same happens in terms of weapon systems.
By the way:
are you aware that most of the US military equipment dates back to desings of the 60's and 70's? F-14, F-15, F-16, the supercobra, the submarines, the Aegis cruisers, the carriers, the infamous Abrams ... Everything exept the recent expedition into the technological blind alley of stealth technology is at least 30 years old. The difference lies in constant development of modern computer systems.The advantage lies in more capable guidiance and communication systems. Logistsics, software, money .... To give the child a name, its all a matter of cleverly utilized IT technology. Nothing more. With the nessesary fundings, you can bring any "second hand sovjet fighter" to the same eye level with NATO equipment.
Why do you think the F-14 is still in use? Because it is such a sophisticated plane? No, because its avionics allow to track and identify multiple targets at great range and attack them simultaneusly with BVR missles.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aside from copying the reactor and the hull design and maybe streamlining it a bit they arn't going to improve on it much, if they want to compete with NATO they are going to need to develop some very advanced sensors for their submarines not to mention a quiet reactor (the kilo class is horribly noisy and noise = death in the submarine world).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did you hear that?? first of all, the Kilo class is a conventional vessel powered by diesel electric propulsion. No nuclear reactor.
Also, the Kilo is exeptional silent when underwater <b>because</b> of the battery propulsion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Type 636 submarine is considered to be to be one of the quietest diesel submarines in the world. It is said to be capable of detecting an enemy submarine at a range three to four times greater than it can be detected itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course this limits the maximum operational diving range, but extended diving range is not the priority for an attack submarine. Reactor propulsed submarines are by far louder than conventional subs, also, they emit much more heat which can be tracked by sattelites.
What you are referring to are submarines classified as Hunter/Killer subs, like the US Los Angeles class subs. The Kilo is an attack submarine. Attack subs are developed to patrol a given target area unnoticed and engage targets or gather recon data. They are very suitable for these tasks because they are extremly difficult to detect. Nearly the only possibility to find a conventional sub is during the time it needs to stay close to the surface and run the disel to reload the batteries. They excell at naval defense or supply interdiction missions. They move into position unnoticed and wait for targets.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Subsequent developments have led to the current production versions, the Type 877EKM and most recently, Type 636. A successor, the Amur, which incorporates an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system also designed by Rubin, is being developed. The AIP system could also be available for retrofit to the other versions. The submarine was originally built at the Komsomolsk shipyard, but is now constructed at the Admiralty Shipyard in St Petersburg. China has two Type 636 submarines.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is eliminates the weakness of conventional subs that they have to surface in order to reload the batteries with their diesels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->China has two Type 636 submarines.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Know why they only bought two? Because the only need two to test them, take them apart, improve and produce them. And, like I said before, they are damn good in doing this! As soon as they aquire an AIP sytem (either the sovjet one or the Simens Hydrogen Fuel cells for the german 212/214 subs) they have an effective multi purpose submarine with extended underwater operation range and the capability to lounch anti-ship missles. The first thing they will do is develope a tactical nuclear device for these missles.
Ack my bad on the kilo bit, I ment to say the Akula as that was the sub mentioned in the link; China has bough Kilos int he past but the Akulas have been bought more recently.
Many of the US planes etc that you mentioned may have the roots of their design in the 60s and 70s but it took decades of R&D to produce planes of that quality. The F-15 is still the worlds premier air superiority fighter but even so it's being phased out for the F-22, if the cold war was still rumbling on it would have been phased out in the 90s. F-14 is being phased out in favour of the F-18, the tomcat just eats up fuel like it's going out of fashion.
You can't take any old soviet fighter kit it out with more up to date electronics then expect it to go toe to toe with a modern NATO fighter, I'm sorry but your just plain kidding yourself on that one. Some of their later fighters such as the Mig 25, Mig 27 perhaps or almost certainly the Mig 29 but the likes of the Mig-19 or 17 no way.
Comparing a train to something as sophisticated as an SSN just doesn't wash, there's dozens of things about an SSN to consider compared to a train that runs on magents.
Reactor plants are noisy in general but not on the US and British SSNs/SSBNs they arn't as I said before the US spent hundreds of billions of $$ over the last 50 years developing quiet reactor plants becuse noise = death for a submarine; the quest for quietness on NATO subs goes beyond a joke at times snoring is not allowed for example lol. US and British SSNs know no equals in the submarine world about the closest any other submarine comes is the Akula 2 and that is still regarded to be over a decade off the NATO SSNs.
Sure their spending tons of money on their military but how much of that is wasted on their enormous standing army and airforce? This is money that could be better spent on R&D but is just being chewed up feeding, training and equiping their enormous military....Vast increases are still needed in this budget to close the gap (which you hint they are likely to get) but as long as NATO continues to spend they way it does then can you honestly say that they could close such a gap in they next 50 years? 100 years? the latter is a possability perhaps.
I'm sorry, but a magnetically suspended train is on par with any SSN, when it comes to complexities. You need to have advanced degrees in physics to even consider making such a train possible, let alone the IT support that would be needed.
I'd say China has a very good chance of producing something equal to NATO standards in 5 to 10 years.
They are like Japan, but were plaqued by their brutalish government. So they didn't enjoy the same advances, albiet Japan has no standing army. (Which is why they are so good at other things.)
<a href='http://www.transrapid-usa.com' target='_blank'>Transrapid home page</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 20 2005, 12:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 20 2005, 12:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sorry, but a magnetically suspended train is on par with any SSN, when it comes to complexities. You need to have advanced degrees in physics to even consider making such a train possible, let alone the IT support that would be needed.
I'd say China has a very good chance of producing something equal to NATO standards in 5 to 10 years.
They are like Japan, but were plaqued by their brutalish government. So they didn't enjoy the same advances, albiet Japan has no standing army. (Which is why they are so good at other things.)
<a href='http://www.transrapidusa.com' target='_blank'>Transrapid home page</a>
In case you wanted technical speficications. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Link doesn't work....
The technologies incorperated into the Astute or the Sea Wolf class go a bit beyond a train that runs on magnets both in the cost to develop the said technologies they use and to even design and build them.
The computers that operate the passive sonar arrays alone costs billions! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I beg to differ, those computers that run the magnetically powered trains cost just as much as the subs, due to the precise calculations needed to maintain the perfect super conductor suspension.
In addition, subs are just refined tech from the 1940s, and there were iron submarines back in the civil war days. This train is a completely different technology and has to be researched from scratch. I'd say it cost just as much. :-)
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 20 2005, 02:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 20 2005, 02:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I beg to differ, those computers that run the magnetically powered trains cost just as much as the subs, due to the precise calculations needed to maintain the perfect super conductor suspension.
In addition, subs are just refined tech from the 1940s, and there were iron submarines back in the civil war days. This train is a completely different technology and has to be researched from scratch. I'd say it cost just as much. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well you can beg all you want but your wrong, I did some digging on this train and the bulk of the cost is in building the infrastructure ie the track. Mile for mile this kind of train is cheaper to build and run than a conventional train. The only real expense in this was developing the technology in the first place and if you try and compare that with what the US has spent on research for SSNs it won't come close.
Subs of the 1940s were designed to run on the surface (the exception being the XXI U-boat) and attack submerged only if necessary.
Todays submarines are designed specifically to operate submerged and can do so for as long as their food supplies hold out. The technologies they use that are unique and developed specifically for them include such things as the scrubbers for turning the carbon dioxide back to oxygen, the computers and their software to operate the sonar arrays (passive and active), the torpedoes and their fire control systems there are plently more
I'm just saying that in a few years the chinese have pretty much perfected the train, and it will be the same for their "outdated" technologies. As the poster above me has illustrated. :-)
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 20 2005, 04:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 20 2005, 04:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm just saying that in a few years the chinese have pretty much perfected the train, and it will be the same for their "outdated" technologies. As the poster above me has illustrated. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> From what I've read this train was perfected anyway before the chinese got hold of it, all they did was buy the right to build their own one in Shanghi.
btw it's not their outdated technologies it's somebody elses (Russians) it's out dated to us but state of the art to the Chinese if you can't figure out what that means then pfft. I would quite happily bet anyone £1000 that the Chinese military will still be at least a decade behind the NATO militaries in 10 years.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->albiet Japan has no standing army<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
on paper my friend, only on paper <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> just google a bit about Japanese SDF, you will be surprised <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You can't take any old soviet fighter kit it out with more up to date electronics then expect it to go toe to toe with a modern NATO fighter, I'm sorry but your just plain kidding yourself on that one. Some of their later fighters such as the Mig 25, Mig 27 perhaps or almost certainly the Mig 29 but the likes of the Mig-19 or 17 no way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No i'm not. The third generation jetfighters of Sovjet construction (MiG 29 and especialy the SU 27) are equal in terms of flight charakteristics. The Su 27 is the standard by which modern jetfighters are measured by NATO experts. They lack sophisitcated avionics however.
The US superiority over Iraqi fighters was because of 3 factors:
1: Superior air surveillance. AWACS makes the difference my friend. 2: Superior weapon guidiance. US fighters are able to fire BVR missles (beyond visual range). These missles are, unlike most of their sovjet counterparts, selfguided(fire and forget) 3: Better trained Pilots
These factors translate into following situation. The enemy is tracked by AWACS practically everywhere in the target area. The enemy has no comparable large scale surveilance. Friendly Air superiority fighters are in the area. They are guided by AWACS to intercept the targets which are way outside their own sensor range. Moreso, they do not even need to activate their own sensors which would warn the enemy of their presence. They close in in BVR range. The enemy has no clue about that. The Friendlys activate sensors and track the enemy. Missles are lounched. Enemy is warned and starts evasive maneuvers.
Now: If the enemy is able to fire BVR weapons himself, it can fight back. But ONLY if those weapons are selfguided(avtive radar homing). If they are semi active, the pilot has to "aim" at the enemy several minutes to guide the weapon with their planes own sensors. This means they cannot evade the incoming missle, while the attacker can safely break the target lock and shake the incoming counterattack, while his own missle is still on target.
Get it? Modern planes are constrcted with spaces desinged to hold certain systems. The jets, the computers, the sensors. Those systems are desinged for these specific point is specific planes. Newer versions are constantly developed and replace older versions. So If you have the money, you can upgrade the MiG 29s radar guiding system for a new active radar BVR missle. ok? It is possible. Thats what the US are doing since 40 years with all of their weapon systems.
When Germany was reunited, we "inherited" several Mig 29 from former NVA stock. It was considered to establish the Mig 29 as new interim fighter to replace the old F-4 phantom until the Eurofighter project would finally replace all old planes. They decided otherwhise because the MiG 29 proved inferior even to the old F-4 from Vietnam times, simply because its BVR capabilities have been continiusly developed and were thus superior to sovjet standard. You see, even such an old sucker as the F-4 is lethal if you mount better missles on it and build in a radar that can guide them. As for the F-14, yes it was supposed to be phased out by the F-18, but hey ... that was supposed to happen in the 90's ... The F-14 will remain in service, because there is no other plane that can match his capabilities as long range air-to-air missle carrier. That plane is built a round a radar that guides phoenix missles. And there is no plane that is better at this. It will remain in service until they fall apart, believe me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ack my bad on the kilo bit, I ment to say the Akula as that was the sub mentioned in the link; China has bough Kilos int he past but the Akulas have been bought more recently.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The very low acoustic signature has been achieved by incremental design improvements to minimise noise generation and transmission – for example, the installation of active noise cancellation techniques.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While it is know that sovjet sensoric systems are rather obsolete both on naval as well as on airplanes, the hardware is definately worth a closer look.
While you mentioned the Sea wolf class submarine: <a href='http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/seawolf/' target='_blank'>http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/seawolf/</a>
it has been cancelled due to excessive cost. One has been delivered so far, no more will follow. The smaller virginia class will probably replace the good old Los Angeles someday but I find that doubtful atm, considering the political situation.
I guess the Los Angeles will have to do for quite some time. And, yes both the Seawolf and the Virginia have lower sound signatures than the improved Akula due to new isolation techniques. They do cost some bit more than an Akula however. Yet both are a disco compared to this baby <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <a href='http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/' target='_blank'>http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/</a>
GG not reading what I posted about upgrading Soviet fightes <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I was agreeing with you yet you still rambled on about ugrading the Mig-29.
I know what an AWAC is and how it works, I also know that the tactics around using one would be VERY difficult to defeat unless you removed the sentry some how or had an equally powerful one that you could use to direct your fighters. Radar is a game of skill, power and technology. The Chinese have no such aircraft in service atm although they recently brought a few Russian Mainstays.
The Mainstay while an improvement over the Moss is still inferior to the E-3 or the E-2. Again you would say they will take it to bits and make it better but that's simply not true, they lack the knowledge to make one themselves so instead they buy one. The arn't going to rebuild it and suddenly have something to compete with the E-3, what the will end up with will still be inferior to the E-3 and E-2.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> GG not reading what I posted about upgrading Soviet fightes confused-fix.gif I was agreeing with you yet you still rambled on about ugrading the Mig-29.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I <i>did</i> read what you wrote about old fighters. Hence the little story about the F-4 ...
that is a damn old plane. Yet equiped with modern avionics and weapons it can shoot down anything you put up against it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again you would say they will take it to bits and make it better but that's simply not true, they lack the knowledge to make one themselves so instead they buy one. The arn't going to rebuild it and suddenly have something to compete with the E-3, what the will end up with will still be inferior to the E-3 and E-2.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup... thats what the russians though about the japanese. That what everybody though about the japanese. They even thought so before WW2. they though they are down on the floor after WW2. Then again they rolled over us, this time economically. Do not underestimate them. Ignorance kills my friend. I said it before:
The Japanese managed to reform their agricultural feudal society to a colonial power that defeated the Russian Navy <b>within less than 50 years! </b> From sword and musket to a modern industry and military force in half a century. That is the impressive display of asian resolve. China is about to make a similar leap within the next 50 years.
ur animation aint too bad but could improve, its called 3d oh and in storyline ur 4getting the internal espionage + all the chinese dudes in america would buy guns, cos its legal there and kill/storm/go on a rampage, and try 2 kill the president etc... and 2008 being china's olympic games.. u cant b tht stupid??!!! they would wait till after because olympics = gud 4 the economy +WTH happened 2 the rest of the world, it aint WW3, is its only lyk china vs US... so inaccurate china invade NK. theyre lyk allies... btw 3hrs 2 win a war, aint tht a lil short, and more lyk a game than reality... + what was the purpose of this clip?? was it to show that china is a likely threat?? i doubt it cos of its probs wif in the country +its telling us americans(well the politicans etc.. r esp>> george.w BUSH) are total ****, theyre going crazy about iraq and their weapons of mass destruction, which havent been found, and yet they have their personal arsenal of nukes etc.. WTH next time when u try 2 make a clip dont choose such topics unless talk 2 sum1 hu knows a lil bout the stuff <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ur animation aint too bad but could improve, its called 3d oh and in storyline ur 4getting the internal espionage + all the chinese dudes in america would buy guns, cos its legal there and kill/storm/go on a rampage, and try 2 kill the president etc... and 2008 being china's olympic games.. u cant b tht stupid??!!! they would wait till after because olympics = gud 4 the economy +WTH happened 2 the rest of the world, it aint WW3, is its only lyk china vs US... so inaccurate china invade NK. theyre lyk allies... btw 3hrs 2 win a war, aint tht a lil short, and more lyk a game than reality... + what was the purpose of this clip?? was it to show that china is a likely threat?? i doubt it cos of its probs wif in the country +its telling us americans(well the politicans etc.. r esp>> george.w BUSH) are total ****, theyre going crazy about iraq and their weapons of mass destruction, which havent been found, and yet they have their personal arsenal of nukes etc.. WTH next time when u try 2 make a clip dont choose such topics unless talk 2 sum1 hu knows a lil bout the stuff <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The internet is priceless. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> that made my day!
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Apr 20 2005, 03:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Apr 20 2005, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> GG not reading what I posted about upgrading Soviet fightes confused-fix.gif I was agreeing with you yet you still rambled on about ugrading the Mig-29.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I <i>did</i> read what you wrote about old fighters. Hence the little story about the F-4 ...
that is a damn old plane. Yet equiped with modern avionics and weapons it can shoot down anything you put up against it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again you would say they will take it to bits and make it better but that's simply not true, they lack the knowledge to make one themselves so instead they buy one. The arn't going to rebuild it and suddenly have something to compete with the E-3, what the will end up with will still be inferior to the E-3 and E-2.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup... thats what the russians though about the japanese. That what everybody though about the japanese. They even thought so before WW2. they though they are down on the floor after WW2. Then again they rolled over us, this time economically. Do not underestimate them. Ignorance kills my friend. I said it before:
The Japanese managed to reform their agricultural feudal society to a colonial power that defeated the Russian Navy <b>within less than 50 years! </b> From sword and musket to a modern industry and military force in half a century. That is the impressive display of asian resolve. China is about to make a similar leap within the next 50 years. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Old fighters ie the migs 17 and 19 not the mig 29, I clearly said that the likes of the Mig 29 could be upgraded.
Japans rise to power at the start of the 20th century is a completly different situation the one China is in atm. The western powers at the start of the 20th century were scaling down their armed forces due to the costs of running them and because they believed there wouldn't be another war add that to the fact that the econcomies of everyone in the west were in ruin (wall street crash and the cost of WW1) about the time Japan was building up.
Just cos we were stupid enough to let Japan become a threat to us in the early 20th century doesn't mean we will allow China to become a threat to us. You Assume to much, do you think NATO will suddenly stop spending on weapons research just so china can catch up? There's other things to consider as well, all the wars that have been fought by NATO over the last 50 years have taught us many things about battle tactics and most importantly air combat. It's enabled us to test weapons systems and ideas under combat conditions, these are things that cannot be researched.
Not gonna be able to reply for a bit now unfortunatly as I'm off to magalluf in a few hours and am in the middle of packing <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->. I'll try an find the thread in about a week whe I get back tho lol
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Old fighters ie the migs 17 and 19 not the mig 29, I clearly said that the likes of the Mig 29 could be upgraded.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I told you about the 40 year old F-4 phantom II of the Bundewehr Luftwaffe, which was prefered over the NVA Mig 29 which were sold for peanuts to turkey... So yes the mig 17 and 19 are really no match nd upgrading them would be a waste of efford, but why do you think they would try anyway?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Japans rise to power at the start of the 20th century is a completly different situation the one China is in atm. The western powers at the start of the 20th century were scaling down their armed forces due to the costs of running them and because they believed there wouldn't be another war add that to the fact that the econcomies of everyone in the west were in ruin (wall street crash and the cost of WW1) about the time Japan was building up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lol? you are aware that there was the First World War at the start of the 20th century right? You know? that one your grand-grand dad remembers as "the Great War". That war wasn't exactly a surprise for its participants you know? There have been tensions and wars during the whole 19th century. If anything happened at this time, it was surely not reduction of armed forces. The japanese did participate in that war themselves and they got out as one of those profiting from it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just cos we were stupid enough to let Japan become a threat to us in the early 20th century doesn't mean we will allow China to become a threat to us. You Assume to much, do you think NATO will suddenly stop spending on weapons research just so china can catch up? There's other things to consider as well, all the wars that have been fought by NATO over the last 50 years have taught us many things about battle tactics and most importantly air combat. It's enabled us to test weapons systems and ideas under combat conditions, these are things that cannot be researched. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again lol. We did not exactly "let them" become strong out of stupidity. We basically <b>fed</b> them with everything they needed. Japan was considered another asian colony when it was opened by Admiral Perrys fleet. Yet they cleverly used foreing investors and technologies to fortify their own industry. They understood that the key to independance is a strong industry and a strong military.
They invited experts from all over the world. Engineers from England, preussian military strategists and drill instructors, naval experts from France....
The forced opening of their market to the world after 200 years of quite rigid isolationism was deeply humiliating for the japanese. It was burned into their conciousness. Perrys fleet became knows ans the Black Fleet. The leaders decided that they never wanted to be humiliated again. After the lost WW2, they came back on the economical battlefield. The tactic was the same, buying technologies whose potential was underestimated, improve and produce it. This way they took over the high tech market.
China is treated and acting the exact same way. We practically crouch to them on our knees to make buisness with them, selling them out technologies and thus producing our own future competitors. They buy foreing experts, they develope their industry, they refine our technology, they buy US national debts ....
ur animation aint too bad but could improve, its called 3d oh and in storyline ur 4getting the internal espionage + all the chinese dudes in america would buy guns, cos its legal there and kill/storm/go on a rampage, and try 2 kill the president etc... and 2008 being china's olympic games.. u cant b tht stupid??!!! they would wait till after because olympics = gud 4 the economy +WTH happened 2 the rest of the world, it aint WW3, is its only lyk china vs US... so inaccurate china invade NK. theyre lyk allies... btw 3hrs 2 win a war, aint tht a lil short, and more lyk a game than reality... + what was the purpose of this clip?? was it to show that china is a likely threat?? i doubt it cos of its probs wif in the country +its telling us americans(well the politicans etc.. r esp>> george.w BUSH) are total ****, theyre going crazy about iraq and their weapons of mass destruction, which havent been found, and yet they have their personal arsenal of nukes etc.. WTH next time when u try 2 make a clip dont choose such topics unless talk 2 sum1 hu knows a lil bout the stuff <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The internet is priceless. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> that made my day! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Permission to remove myself from my generation, captain? <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
They lack the technical know how to develop their own SSN (which means they lack clever enough people in certain fields) so they buy obsolite Soviet subs, what makes you think they would be able to improve on an obsolite Sovite sub when they lack the technical know how to even build one in the first place?
Aside from copying the reactor and the hull design and maybe streamlining it a bit they arn't going to improve on it much, if they want to compete with NATO they are going to need to develop some very advanced sensors for their submarines not to mention a quiet reactor (the Akula class is horribly noisy and noise = death in the submarine world).
The US spent hundreds of billions of $$ over the course of 50 years developing the quiet reactor plants that they use for their subs. By the time the chinese develop something on a par with what we have now NATO will be using magneto hydrodynamic propulsion drives for their subs.
<a href='http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...hina/budget.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The officially announced budget -- 185.3 billion RMB in 2003 (about $22 billion) -- most likely substantially underreports total expenditures on defense, to include off-budget funding for foreign weapon system imports. <b>The US Defense Department estimated total defense-related expenditures for 2003, counting the large but difficult-to-calculate off-budget financing, could be between $50 billion and $70 billion, making China the third largest defense spender in the world.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note the increase of 17.7% in 2001 and another 17.6% the following year.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In March 2005 it was announced that China's military budget will rise 12.6 percent, to 247.7 billion yuan ($29.9 billion). China has announced double-digit increases in military spending nearly every year for more than a decade.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See the trend? Note that the article states that most analysts suggest that the official numbers should be trippled in order to see the full extend of military spendings.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
They lack the technical know how to develop their own SSN (which means they lack clever enough people in certain fields) so they buy obsolite Soviet subs, what makes you think they would be able to improve on an obsolite Sovite sub when they lack the technical know how to even build one in the first place?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They buy foreing weapon systems because it is cheaper than developing them themselves. They obtain licenses to produce foreing technology. They do not sign any treaties without special terms that allow them to produce their own version once they further developed it.
A few years ago they bought production liceses of the Transrapid system. (a very advanced magnetic train) In a few years they have enough experience with it to construct their own version and BOOM: they will start to compete with the original transrapid on the open market. The same happens in terms of weapon systems.
By the way:
are you aware that most of the US military equipment dates back to desings of the 60's and 70's?
F-14, F-15, F-16, the supercobra, the submarines, the Aegis cruisers, the carriers, the infamous Abrams ...
Everything exept the recent expedition into the technological blind alley of stealth technology is at least 30 years old. The difference lies in constant development of modern computer systems.The advantage lies in more capable guidiance and communication systems. Logistsics, software, money .... To give the child a name, its all a matter of cleverly utilized IT technology. Nothing more. With the nessesary fundings, you can bring any "second hand sovjet fighter" to the same eye level with NATO equipment.
Why do you think the F-14 is still in use? Because it is such a sophisticated plane? No, because its avionics allow to track and identify multiple targets at great range and attack them simultaneusly with BVR missles.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aside from copying the reactor and the hull design and maybe streamlining it a bit they arn't going to improve on it much, if they want to compete with NATO they are going to need to develop some very advanced sensors for their submarines not to mention a quiet reactor (the kilo class is horribly noisy and noise = death in the submarine world).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did you hear that?? first of all, the Kilo class is a conventional vessel powered by diesel electric propulsion. No nuclear reactor.
<a href='http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo/' target='_blank'>http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo/</a>
Also, the Kilo is exeptional silent when underwater <b>because</b> of the battery propulsion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Type 636 submarine is considered to be to be one of the quietest diesel submarines in the world. It is said to be capable of detecting an enemy submarine at a range three to four times greater than it can be detected itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course this limits the maximum operational diving range, but extended
diving range is not the priority for an attack submarine. Reactor propulsed submarines are by far louder than conventional subs, also, they emit much more heat which can be tracked by sattelites.
What you are referring to are submarines classified as Hunter/Killer subs, like the US Los Angeles class subs.
The Kilo is an attack submarine. Attack subs are developed to patrol a given target area unnoticed and engage targets or gather recon data.
They are very suitable for these tasks because they are extremly difficult to detect. Nearly the only possibility to find a conventional sub is during the time it needs to stay close to the surface and run the disel to reload the batteries. They excell at naval defense or supply interdiction missions. They move into position unnoticed and wait for targets.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Subsequent developments have led to the current production versions, the Type 877EKM and most recently, Type 636. A successor, the Amur, which incorporates an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system also designed by Rubin, is being developed. The AIP system could also be available for retrofit to the other versions. The submarine was originally built at the Komsomolsk shipyard, but is now constructed at the Admiralty Shipyard in St Petersburg. China has two Type 636 submarines.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is eliminates the weakness of conventional subs that they have to surface in order to reload the batteries with their diesels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->China has two Type 636 submarines.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Know why they only bought two? Because the only need two to test them, take them apart, improve and produce them. And, like I said before, they are damn good in doing this!
As soon as they aquire an AIP sytem (either the sovjet one or the Simens Hydrogen Fuel cells for the german 212/214 subs) they have an effective multi purpose submarine with extended underwater operation range and the capability to lounch anti-ship missles. The first thing they will do is develope a tactical nuclear device for these missles.
Many of the US planes etc that you mentioned may have the roots of their design in the 60s and 70s but it took decades of R&D to produce planes of that quality. The F-15 is still the worlds premier air superiority fighter but even so it's being phased out for the F-22, if the cold war was still rumbling on it would have been phased out in the 90s. F-14 is being phased out in favour of the F-18, the tomcat just eats up fuel like it's going out of fashion.
You can't take any old soviet fighter kit it out with more up to date electronics then expect it to go toe to toe with a modern NATO fighter, I'm sorry but your just plain kidding yourself on that one. Some of their later fighters such as the Mig 25, Mig 27 perhaps or almost certainly the Mig 29 but the likes of the Mig-19 or 17 no way.
Comparing a train to something as sophisticated as an SSN just doesn't wash, there's dozens of things about an SSN to consider compared to a train that runs on magents.
Reactor plants are noisy in general but not on the US and British SSNs/SSBNs they arn't as I said before the US spent hundreds of billions of $$ over the last 50 years developing quiet reactor plants becuse noise = death for a submarine; the quest for quietness on NATO subs goes beyond a joke at times snoring is not allowed for example lol. US and British SSNs know no equals in the submarine world about the closest any other submarine comes is the Akula 2 and that is still regarded to be over a decade off the NATO SSNs.
Sure their spending tons of money on their military but how much of that is wasted on their enormous standing army and airforce? This is money that could be better spent on R&D but is just being chewed up feeding, training and equiping their enormous military....Vast increases are still needed in this budget to close the gap (which you hint they are likely to get) but as long as NATO continues to spend they way it does then can you honestly say that they could close such a gap in they next 50 years? 100 years? the latter is a possability perhaps.
I'd say China has a very good chance of producing something equal to NATO standards in 5 to 10 years.
They are like Japan, but were plaqued by their brutalish government. So they didn't enjoy the same advances, albiet Japan has no standing army. (Which is why they are so good at other things.)
<a href='http://www.transrapid-usa.com' target='_blank'>Transrapid home page</a>
In case you wanted technical speficications.
*edit* fixed link
I'd say China has a very good chance of producing something equal to NATO standards in 5 to 10 years.
They are like Japan, but were plaqued by their brutalish government. So they didn't enjoy the same advances, albiet Japan has no standing army. (Which is why they are so good at other things.)
<a href='http://www.transrapidusa.com' target='_blank'>Transrapid home page</a>
In case you wanted technical speficications. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Link doesn't work....
The technologies incorperated into the Astute or the Sea Wolf class go a bit beyond a train that runs on magnets both in the cost to develop the said technologies they use and to even design and build them.
The computers that operate the passive sonar arrays alone costs billions! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In addition, subs are just refined tech from the 1940s, and there were iron submarines back in the civil war days. This train is a completely different technology and has to be researched from scratch. I'd say it cost just as much. :-)
In addition, subs are just refined tech from the 1940s, and there were iron submarines back in the civil war days. This train is a completely different technology and has to be researched from scratch. I'd say it cost just as much. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you can beg all you want but your wrong, I did some digging on this train and the bulk of the cost is in building the infrastructure ie the track. Mile for mile this kind of train is cheaper to build and run than a conventional train. The only real expense in this was developing the technology in the first place and if you try and compare that with what the US has spent on research for SSNs it won't come close.
Subs of the 1940s were designed to run on the surface (the exception being the XXI U-boat) and attack submerged only if necessary.
Todays submarines are designed specifically to operate submerged and can do so for as long as their food supplies hold out. The technologies they use that are unique and developed specifically for them include such things as the scrubbers for turning the carbon dioxide back to oxygen, the computers and their software to operate the sonar arrays (passive and active), the torpedoes and their fire control systems there are plently more
From what I've read this train was perfected anyway before the chinese got hold of it, all they did was buy the right to build their own one in Shanghi.
btw it's not their outdated technologies it's somebody elses (Russians) it's out dated to us but state of the art to the Chinese if you can't figure out what that means then pfft. I would quite happily bet anyone £1000 that the Chinese military will still be at least a decade behind the NATO militaries in 10 years.
on paper my friend, only on paper <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> just google a bit about Japanese SDF, you will be surprised <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You can't take any old soviet fighter kit it out with more up to date electronics then expect it to go toe to toe with a modern NATO fighter, I'm sorry but your just plain kidding yourself on that one. Some of their later fighters such as the Mig 25, Mig 27 perhaps or almost certainly the Mig 29 but the likes of the Mig-19 or 17 no way.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No i'm not. The third generation jetfighters of Sovjet construction (MiG 29 and especialy the SU 27) are equal in terms of flight charakteristics. The Su 27 is the standard by which modern jetfighters are measured by NATO experts. They lack sophisitcated avionics however.
The US superiority over Iraqi fighters was because of 3 factors:
1: Superior air surveillance. AWACS makes the difference my friend.
2: Superior weapon guidiance. US fighters are able to fire BVR missles (beyond visual range). These missles are, unlike most of their sovjet counterparts, selfguided(fire and forget)
3: Better trained Pilots
These factors translate into following situation. The enemy is tracked by AWACS practically everywhere in the target area. The enemy has no comparable large scale surveilance. Friendly Air superiority fighters are in the area. They are guided by AWACS to intercept the targets which are way outside their own sensor range. Moreso, they do not even need to activate their own sensors which would warn the enemy of their presence. They close in in BVR range. The enemy has no clue about that. The Friendlys activate sensors and track the enemy. Missles are lounched. Enemy is warned and starts evasive maneuvers.
Now: If the enemy is able to fire BVR weapons himself, it can fight back. But ONLY if those weapons are selfguided(avtive radar homing). If they are semi active, the pilot has to "aim" at the enemy several minutes to guide the weapon with their planes own sensors. This means they cannot evade the incoming missle, while the attacker can safely break the target lock and shake the incoming counterattack, while his own missle is still on target.
Get it? Modern planes are constrcted with spaces desinged to hold certain systems. The jets, the computers, the sensors. Those systems are desinged for these specific point is specific planes. Newer versions are constantly developed and replace older versions. So If you have the money, you can upgrade the MiG 29s radar guiding system for a new active radar BVR missle. ok? It is possible. Thats what the US are doing since 40 years with all of their weapon systems.
When Germany was reunited, we "inherited" several Mig 29 from former NVA stock. It was considered to establish the Mig 29 as new interim fighter to replace the old F-4 phantom until the Eurofighter project would finally replace all old planes. They decided otherwhise because the MiG 29 proved inferior even to the old F-4 from Vietnam times, simply because its BVR capabilities have been continiusly developed and were thus superior to sovjet standard. You see, even such an old sucker as the F-4 is lethal if you mount better missles on it and build in a radar that can guide them.
As for the F-14, yes it was supposed to be phased out by the F-18, but hey ... that was supposed to happen in the 90's ... The F-14 will remain in service, because there is no other plane that can match his capabilities as long range air-to-air missle carrier. That plane is built a round a radar that guides phoenix missles. And there is no plane that is better at this. It will remain in service until they fall apart, believe me.
Well then some data about the akula:
<a href='http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/akula/' target='_blank'>http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/akula/</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The very low acoustic signature has been achieved by incremental design improvements to minimise noise generation and transmission – for example, the installation of active noise cancellation techniques.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While it is know that sovjet sensoric systems are rather obsolete both on naval as well as on airplanes, the hardware is definately worth a closer look.
While you mentioned the Sea wolf class submarine:
<a href='http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/seawolf/' target='_blank'>http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/seawolf/</a>
it has been cancelled due to excessive cost. One has been delivered so far, no more will follow. The smaller virginia class will probably replace the good old Los Angeles someday but I find that doubtful atm, considering the political situation.
<a href='http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nssn/' target='_blank'>http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nssn/</a>
I guess the Los Angeles will have to do for quite some time.
And, yes both the Seawolf and the Virginia have lower sound signatures than the improved Akula due to new isolation techniques. They do cost some bit more than an Akula however.
Yet both are a disco compared to this baby <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/' target='_blank'>http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/</a>
I know what an AWAC is and how it works, I also know that the tactics around using one would be VERY difficult to defeat unless you removed the sentry some how or had an equally powerful one that you could use to direct your fighters. Radar is a game of skill, power and technology. The Chinese have no such aircraft in service atm although they recently brought a few Russian Mainstays.
The Mainstay while an improvement over the Moss is still inferior to the E-3 or the E-2. Again you would say they will take it to bits and make it better but that's simply not true, they lack the knowledge to make one themselves so instead they buy one. The arn't going to rebuild it and suddenly have something to compete with the E-3, what the will end up with will still be inferior to the E-3 and E-2.
I <i>did</i> read what you wrote about old fighters. Hence the little story about the F-4 ...
<a href='http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/' target='_blank'>http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/</a>
that is a damn old plane. Yet equiped with modern avionics and weapons it can shoot down anything you put up against it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again you would say they will take it to bits and make it better but that's simply not true, they lack the knowledge to make one themselves so instead they buy one. The arn't going to rebuild it and suddenly have something to compete with the E-3, what the will end up with will still be inferior to the E-3 and E-2.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup... thats what the russians though about the japanese. That what everybody though about the japanese. They even thought so before WW2. they though they are down on the floor after WW2. Then again they rolled over us, this time economically. Do not underestimate them. Ignorance kills my friend. I said it before:
The Japanese managed to reform their agricultural feudal society to a colonial power that defeated the Russian Navy <b>within less than 50 years!
</b>
From sword and musket to a modern industry and military force in half a century.
That is the impressive display of asian resolve. China is about to make a similar leap within the next 50 years.
Reviewed by: 3p1t0m3 Overall Score: 2
ur animation aint too bad but could improve, its called 3d
oh and in storyline ur 4getting the internal espionage
+ all the chinese dudes in america would buy guns, cos its legal there and kill/storm/go on a rampage, and try 2 kill the president etc...
and 2008 being china's olympic games.. u cant b tht stupid??!!! they would wait till after because olympics = gud 4 the economy
+WTH happened 2 the rest of the world, it aint WW3, is its only lyk china vs US... so inaccurate china invade NK. theyre lyk allies...
btw 3hrs 2 win a war, aint tht a lil short, and more lyk a game than reality...
+ what was the purpose of this clip?? was it to show that china is a likely threat?? i doubt it cos of its probs wif in the country
+its telling us americans(well the politicans etc.. r esp>> george.w BUSH) are total ****, theyre going crazy about iraq and their weapons of mass destruction, which havent been found, and yet they have their personal arsenal of nukes etc.. WTH
next time when u try 2 make a clip dont choose such topics unless talk 2 sum1 hu knows a lil bout the stuff <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The internet is priceless.
Reviewed by: 3p1t0m3 Overall Score: 2
ur animation aint too bad but could improve, its called 3d
oh and in storyline ur 4getting the internal espionage
+ all the chinese dudes in america would buy guns, cos its legal there and kill/storm/go on a rampage, and try 2 kill the president etc...
and 2008 being china's olympic games.. u cant b tht stupid??!!! they would wait till after because olympics = gud 4 the economy
+WTH happened 2 the rest of the world, it aint WW3, is its only lyk china vs US... so inaccurate china invade NK. theyre lyk allies...
btw 3hrs 2 win a war, aint tht a lil short, and more lyk a game than reality...
+ what was the purpose of this clip?? was it to show that china is a likely threat?? i doubt it cos of its probs wif in the country
+its telling us americans(well the politicans etc.. r esp>> george.w BUSH) are total ****, theyre going crazy about iraq and their weapons of mass destruction, which havent been found, and yet they have their personal arsenal of nukes etc.. WTH
next time when u try 2 make a clip dont choose such topics unless talk 2 sum1 hu knows a lil bout the stuff <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The internet is priceless. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> that made my day!
I <i>did</i> read what you wrote about old fighters. Hence the little story about the F-4 ...
<a href='http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/' target='_blank'>http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/</a>
that is a damn old plane. Yet equiped with modern avionics and weapons it can shoot down anything you put up against it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again you would say they will take it to bits and make it better but that's simply not true, they lack the knowledge to make one themselves so instead they buy one. The arn't going to rebuild it and suddenly have something to compete with the E-3, what the will end up with will still be inferior to the E-3 and E-2.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup... thats what the russians though about the japanese. That what everybody though about the japanese. They even thought so before WW2. they though they are down on the floor after WW2. Then again they rolled over us, this time economically. Do not underestimate them. Ignorance kills my friend. I said it before:
The Japanese managed to reform their agricultural feudal society to a colonial power that defeated the Russian Navy <b>within less than 50 years!
</b>
From sword and musket to a modern industry and military force in half a century.
That is the impressive display of asian resolve. China is about to make a similar leap within the next 50 years. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Old fighters ie the migs 17 and 19 not the mig 29, I clearly said that the likes of the Mig 29 could be upgraded.
Japans rise to power at the start of the 20th century is a completly different situation the one China is in atm. The western powers at the start of the 20th century were scaling down their armed forces due to the costs of running them and because they believed there wouldn't be another war add that to the fact that the econcomies of everyone in the west were in ruin (wall street crash and the cost of WW1) about the time Japan was building up.
Just cos we were stupid enough to let Japan become a threat to us in the early 20th century doesn't mean we will allow China to become a threat to us. You Assume to much, do you think NATO will suddenly stop spending on weapons research just so china can catch up? There's other things to consider as well, all the wars that have been fought by NATO over the last 50 years have taught us many things about battle tactics and most importantly air combat. It's enabled us to test weapons systems and ideas under combat conditions, these are things that cannot be researched.
Not gonna be able to reply for a bit now unfortunatly as I'm off to magalluf in a few hours and am in the middle of packing <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->. I'll try an find the thread in about a week whe I get back tho lol
And I told you about the 40 year old F-4 phantom II of the Bundewehr Luftwaffe, which was prefered over the NVA Mig 29 which were sold for peanuts to turkey...
So yes the mig 17 and 19 are really no match nd upgrading them would be a waste of efford, but why do you think they would try anyway?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Japans rise to power at the start of the 20th century is a completly different situation the one China is in atm. The western powers at the start of the 20th century were scaling down their armed forces due to the costs of running them and because they believed there wouldn't be another war add that to the fact that the econcomies of everyone in the west were in ruin (wall street crash and the cost of WW1) about the time Japan was building up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lol? you are aware that there was the First World War at the start of the 20th century right? You know? that one your grand-grand dad remembers as "the Great War".
That war wasn't exactly a surprise for its participants you know? There have been tensions and wars during the whole 19th century. If anything happened at this time, it was surely not reduction of armed forces. The japanese did participate in that war themselves and they got out as one of those profiting from it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just cos we were stupid enough to let Japan become a threat to us in the early 20th century doesn't mean we will allow China to become a threat to us. You Assume to much, do you think NATO will suddenly stop spending on weapons research just so china can catch up? There's other things to consider as well, all the wars that have been fought by NATO over the last 50 years have taught us many things about battle tactics and most importantly air combat. It's enabled us to test weapons systems and ideas under combat conditions, these are things that cannot be researched.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again lol. We did not exactly "let them" become strong out of stupidity. We basically <b>fed</b> them with everything they needed. Japan was considered another asian colony when it was opened by Admiral Perrys fleet. Yet they cleverly used foreing investors and technologies to fortify their own industry. They understood that the key to independance is a strong industry and a strong military.
They invited experts from all over the world. Engineers from England, preussian military strategists and drill instructors, naval experts from France....
The forced opening of their market to the world after 200 years of quite rigid isolationism was deeply humiliating for the japanese. It was burned into their conciousness. Perrys fleet became knows ans the Black Fleet. The leaders decided that they never wanted to be humiliated again.
After the lost WW2, they came back on the economical battlefield. The tactic was the same, buying technologies whose potential was underestimated, improve and produce it. This way they took over the high tech market.
China is treated and acting the exact same way. We practically crouch to them on our knees to make buisness with them, selling them out technologies and thus producing our own future competitors.
They buy foreing experts, they develope their industry, they refine our technology, they buy US national debts ....
Reviewed by: 3p1t0m3 Overall Score: 2
ur animation aint too bad but could improve, its called 3d
oh and in storyline ur 4getting the internal espionage
+ all the chinese dudes in america would buy guns, cos its legal there and kill/storm/go on a rampage, and try 2 kill the president etc...
and 2008 being china's olympic games.. u cant b tht stupid??!!! they would wait till after because olympics = gud 4 the economy
+WTH happened 2 the rest of the world, it aint WW3, is its only lyk china vs US... so inaccurate china invade NK. theyre lyk allies...
btw 3hrs 2 win a war, aint tht a lil short, and more lyk a game than reality...
+ what was the purpose of this clip?? was it to show that china is a likely threat?? i doubt it cos of its probs wif in the country
+its telling us americans(well the politicans etc.. r esp>> george.w BUSH) are total ****, theyre going crazy about iraq and their weapons of mass destruction, which havent been found, and yet they have their personal arsenal of nukes etc.. WTH
next time when u try 2 make a clip dont choose such topics unless talk 2 sum1 hu knows a lil bout the stuff <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The internet is priceless. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> that made my day! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Permission to remove myself from my generation, captain? <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->