It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

War: Can China take Russia with 200 million men?

page: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Complete BS, why build old DF_5's whent ehy have teh DF-31 solid propellant missile. I think you should do some more reading.


No, DF-31s aren't even meant to replace the DF-5s, they are designed for different purposes. The DF-5s are meant to be replaced by DF-41s, but due to some difficulties, the DF-41s will NOT be ready any time soon, so DF-5As will still remain effective.
one of the difficulties was with the transportation/launching of the DF-41. Because it's too big, it become nearly impossible to be carried around, so silos have to be used.


and plz don't talk to me don't you clearly have no clue of what's going on.
I feel it's a complete waste of my time explaining




posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by warset
I feel it's a complete waste of my time explaining


hear hear



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by warset

Originally posted by rogue1
Complete BS, why build old DF_5's whent ehy have teh DF-31 solid propellant missile. I think you should do some more reading.


No, DF-31s aren't even meant to replace the DF-5s, they are designed for different purposes. The DF-5s are meant to be replaced by DF-41s, but due to some difficulties, the DF-41s will NOT be ready any time soon, so DF-5As will still remain effective.
one of the difficulties was with the transportation/launching of the DF-41. Because it's too big, it become nearly impossible to be carried around, so silos have to be used.


and plz don't talk to me don't you clearly have no clue of what's going on.
I feel it's a complete waste of my time explaining



GAwd, typical, you throw in complete BS, get called on it and then throw a tantrum
This is what happens when parents let their kids n the internet, a complete lack of rational discussion.

I've already shown you completel wrong on all your points, teh most glaring of course that the Soviets barely supplied anythng for the PLAAF in the Korean War, when in fact they created yur air force from nothing.

AS I said about the DF-5 or CSS-4, they are ancient junk and weren't that modern when they came into service, all the other nuclear poweres dispensed with liquid fuel by teh 80's, yet China was still producing the DF-5, which became operational in 1986, 20 years ago !!. SSo much for your modern missile.

But wait there's more .


The CSS-4 entered development in 1965. The first flight test occurred in 1971, with the first silo launch occurring in 1979. The missile is believed to have entered service in 1981 and was initially deployed in hardened silos in central China. The CSS-4A entered service in 1986. The similarity between PRC space launch vehicles and the CSS-4/-4A result in conflicting estimates of between 20 and 50 CSS-4/-4A missiles deployed. The missiles are expected to begin being replaced by the CSS-X-10 in 2005

missilethreat.com...


The CSS-X-10 is the DF-41, like I said junior do some reading, you're an amateur.

It's interesting that even these brand new DF-41's don't approach anywhere tnear the lethality and payload of the US Peacekeeper missile, which was deployed in 1986.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by warset

Originally posted by rogue1
Complete BS, why build old DF_5's whent ehy have teh DF-31 solid propellant missile. I think you should do some more reading.


No, DF-31s aren't even meant to replace the DF-5s, they are designed for different purposes. The DF-5s are meant to be replaced by DF-41s, but due to some difficulties, the DF-41s will NOT be ready any time soon, so DF-5As will still remain effective.
one of the difficulties was with the transportation/launching of the DF-41. Because it's too big, it become nearly impossible to be carried around, so silos have to be used.


and plz don't talk to me don't you clearly have no clue of what's going on.
I feel it's a complete waste of my time explaining



GAwd, typical, you throw in complete BS, get called on it and then throw a tantrum
This is what happens when parents let their kids n the internet, a complete lack of rational discussion.

I've already shown you completel wrong on all your points, teh most glaring of course that the Soviets barely supplied anythng for the PLAAF in the Korean War, when in fact they created yur air force from nothing.

AS I said about the DF-5 or CSS-4, they are ancient junk and weren't that modern when they came into service, all the other nuclear poweres dispensed with liquid fuel by teh 80's, yet China was still producing the DF-5, which became operational in 1986, 20 years ago !!. SSo much for your modern missile.

But wait there's more .


The CSS-4 entered development in 1965. The first flight test occurred in 1971, with the first silo launch occurring in 1979. The missile is believed to have entered service in 1981 and was initially deployed in hardened silos in central China. The CSS-4A entered service in 1986. The similarity between PRC space launch vehicles and the CSS-4/-4A result in conflicting estimates of between 20 and 50 CSS-4/-4A missiles deployed. The missiles are expected to begin being replaced by the CSS-X-10 in 2005

missilethreat.com...


The CSS-X-10 is the DF-41, like I said junior do some reading, you're an amateur.

It's interesting that even these brand new DF-41's don't approach anywhere tnear the lethality and payload of the US Peacekeeper missile, which was deployed in 1986.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by rogue1]


plz read those ariticles carefully, I really don't like to teach ppl english

beside, how do you know what the DF-41s are like? There is no DF-41. It's a future model, it is only planned to replace the DF-5 and some sugget it will be an oversized DF-31, but since there isn't any DF-41 exist, u can't really say how is it going to be like.
DF-41 is pretty much like the legendary J-14, for now, it's dosen't exist, so there's no point discussing it.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by warset]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by warset
plz read those ariticles carefully, I really don't like to teach ppl english

beside, how do you know what the DF-41s are like? There is no DF-41. It's a future model, it is only planned to replace the DF-5 and some sugget it will be an oversized DF-31, but since there isn't any DF-41 exist, u can't really say how is it going to be like.
DF-41 is pretty much like the legendary J-14, for now, it's dosen't exist, so there's no point discussing it.


How the hell do you know if teh DF-41 has been produced or a similar missile, I suggest you brush up on your english. As I said, teh DF-5 is an old liquid fuleed missile, you have produced nothing to disiss this. Kinda funny watching you back pedal


LOL, legendary J-14, it ws obvious to anyone it didn't exist, CHina doesn't have the technology, haha.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1


The missiles are expected to begin being replaced by the CSS-X-10 in 2005



Kiddo,

It says expected not is going to. Two different words



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1


The missiles are expected to begin being replaced by the CSS-X-10 in 2005



Kiddo,

It says expected not is going to. Two different words


Ok, where is your information that it isn't ? Come on post something, Half of your posts are just snipes, with no information.
I assume then you obviously don't think China has the technology.

PS. The whole argument was about whether the DF-5 was a modern missile and in production. It isn't modern and it hasn't been in production for a while. It's throw weight as a proportion of it's size is somewhere near where the Americans and the Soviets were in teh 1960's. It's a crappy missile and the US BMD shield would find it easy shooting it down, so would the Russians.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   
China has the man power but not the tech. My comrades would run over there tanks and China not use to the winters here so like all wars the cold would slow them down and we have the advantage there. But with men deserting are army it makes us varabule to an acttack.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Come on post something, Half of your posts are just snipes, with no information.


deja vou?

Thats my exact opinion about your post


The whole argument was about whether the DF-5 was a modern missile and in production.


We are having a different "argument". You said the DF-31 will repalce the DF-5 which i disagree.

The DF-31 was designed as a regional missile to replace the DF-4 and the DF-41 WAS going to replace the DF-5. But development stopped or got deplyed because there was no need for the missle since the cold war ended

Apart from the fact that the DF-5 has been improved with new boasters and possibly new warheads. I wouldn't think it would be such a worthless missile. The old DF-5 had a refuelling time of a hour while the new one was suppose to have been cut in half according to internet chatter. But then again, why would two missiles of the saem dimensions have much different ranges



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Apart from the fact that the DF-5 has been improved with new boasters and possibly new warheads. I wouldn't think it would be such a worthless missile. The old DF-5 had a refuelling time of a hour while the new one was suppose to have been cut in half according to internet chatter. But then again, why would two missiles of the saem dimensions have much different ranges


Erm right, care to post any links to this interenet chatter. The fact remains that liquid fuel was discarded by the US, USSR, UK and France decades ago. For one simple reason, you have to fuel the missile before you launch it.
If any of these powers so chose to attack CHina tomorrow, the DF-5's would be destroyed long before they could be fuelled.
As I said before for their size their throw weight is complete crap.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Erm right, care to post any links to this interenet chatter.


Warsky.com
Sinodefence.com
China-defense


The fact remains that liquid fuel was discarded by the US, USSR, UK and France decades ago.


The soviets deployed their first solid fuel ICBMs in 1987.

The SS-18/19 are still the backbone of the russian missile forces, and you might of guessed, it's liquid fueled


If any of these powers so chose to attack CHina tomorrow, the DF-5's would be destroyed long before they could be fuelled.


Highly unlikey,

There are at least 30,000 miles of underground silo bases, under three mountain ranges in china for the DF-5 and DF-5. To move a mountain you need at least a few megaton missiles hitting the exact same spot to actually cause some damage. This gives chinese forces enough time to re-fuel and lanuch



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
Erm right, care to post any links to this interenet chatter.


Warsky.com
Sinodefence.com
China-defense


Argh, post the links to the information, I'm not going to spend days going through the site. I know your tricks.



The soviets deployed their first solid fuel ICBMs in 1987.


Completely wrong. how surprising. The first Soviet slid fuel ICBM was hte SS-13 deployed in 1969. Also all modern SOviet ( now Russian ) ICBM's are solid fuels such as the SS-24, SS-25, SS-27




The SS-18/19 are still the backbone of the russian missile forces, and you might of guessed, it's liquid fueled


Wrong again the SS-25 is deployed in more numbers than teh SS-19 and SS-18 combined.



There are at least 30,000 miles of underground silo bases, under three mountain ranges in china for the DF-5 and DF-5. To move a mountain you need at least a few megaton missiles hitting the exact same spot to actually cause some damage. This gives chinese forces enough time to re-fuel and lanuch


COmpletel BS, provide a link to these 30 000 miles of tunnels, LOL. Also the DF-5 ARE NOT mobile, they sit in silo's which are well known to the Western powers and Russia. As I said, they would be wiped out without ever being fuelled, in a surprise attack.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
But then again, why would two missiles of the saem dimensions have much different ranges


Why would two engines of the same capacity have different BHP outputs?

Fuel type for one thing, engine design for another.

If I put my IRBM 2,000 metres higher than yours, how much further will it go?

Why is my Honda CB 750F Custom slower than my mate's Honda CBX 750 Bol d'Or? Both of them run 4-cylinder, 4-Carb 748cc engines. Both of them are CB-series engines.

Why is a Lotus Espirit tubo faster than a 2.2? They are the same chassis with the same dimensions...



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why would two engines of the same capacity have different BHP outputs?


Because it was the missiles that were the same and not the engines. *hint* *hint*



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Argh, post the links to the information, I'm not going to spend days going through the site. I know your tricks.


So i'm meant to document internet rumours and keep records where they were?.

Like you said "I'm not going to spend days going through the site"


Completely wrong. how surprising. The first Soviet slid fuel ICBM was hte SS-13 deployed in 1969. Also all modern SOviet ( now Russian ) ICBM's are solid fuels such as the SS-24, SS-25, SS-27


And why side track this from your original reply?

"The fact remains that liquid fuel was discarded by the US, USSR, UK and France decades ago."

Completely wrong. how surprising. Proven wrong and try to sidetrack the question


Wrong again the SS-25 is deployed in more numbers than teh SS-19 and SS-18 combined.


You might like to add a source to your BS


COmpletel BS, provide a link to these 30 000 miles of tunnels, LOL. Also the DF-5 ARE NOT mobile, they sit in silo's which are well known to the Western powers and Russia. As I said, they would be wiped out without ever being fuelled, in a surprise attack.


Why do you wish to prove yourself a adult with every second reply having BS in it

This is a more important site so i bookmark it


Early 1995, China's media reported that a Great Wall project for China's strategic missile force was completed after 10 years of construction in a "famous" mountain range in North China. Look at the topographic maps and read the news reports caref ully, it can be deduced that the underground tunnel network is in the famous Tai-Hai Mountain Range between Hebei and Shanxi provinces. According to the news reports, "tens of thousands" of Army engineers spent over 10 years there digging tunnels.

Normally, a company of soldiers (about 100 men) can dig about 100 meters of tunnel per month (based on the news reports about railroad tunnel construction) without using any advanced tunnel drilling machinery. So the "tens of thousands" of Army engineers (= hundreds of companies) over the 10-year period would have constructed an underground tunnel network of thousands of kilometers inside the Tai-Hei Mountain Range to hide some of China's strategic missiles. I guess it was called the "Great Wall" projec t not without a reason for the Great Wall is at least 5,000 kilometers long.

Like other known mountain ranges housing underground tunnel networks for China's strategic missiles, the Tai-Hei Mountain Range has many steep cliffs and canyons with large big elevation changes over a short distance between 1,000 and 2,000 meters. So yo u can easily dig tunnel networks with over one kilometer thick earth-cover in mountain ranges.

A typical 500-kiloton nuclear warhead in U.S. or Russian arsenals can `dig' a big hole 70m deep and 300m wide on the ground, and that is more than enough to destroy a missile silo or even an airport. If specially hardened for the earth-penetration purpos e, it may create a huge crater sphere 200 meters in diameter underground. Taken into account of the rupture zone around the crater and the likely penetration depth of warheads, at least three 500-kiloton warheads will have to land on the same spot sequen tially in order to penetrate the 1-kilometer thick earth cover and destroy the tunnel underneath. Even with the monster 20-megeton warhead on Russia's single-warhead SS-18, at least two warheads have to land on the same spot.

Moreover, one would destroy less than 300 meters of a tunnel using three warheads. Assuming the underground tunnel network under the Tai-Hei Mountain Range is only 1,000 kilometer long, one would need to use 10,000 (ten thousand) 500-kiloton warheads in order to make sure the tunnel network is completely destroyed. This is the VERY unlikely case in which you know the exact layout of the entire tunnel network. AND this is just one of several missile sites in China.

China has been digging underground tunnels in the mountains since the mid-1960s. There is no hi-tech needed to dig tunnels - just dynamite and concrete, plus enthusiastic young soldiers who are never in the short supply. China happens to have many huge mountain ranges everywhere. So there are other underground tunnel networks for the strategic missile force in the central and southern China's mountain ranges.

www.kimsoft.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Why would two engines of the same capacity have different BHP outputs?


Because it was the missiles that were the same and not the engines. *hint* *hint*


*hint, hint*

Chinawhite, work out what your answer is before you ask your question. If I put different fuel mix through the same engine I get different performance. If I put a different engine in the same body I get different performance.

If I change the fuel inside my missile without changing the outer dimensions, I change the range of the missile.

Why would two missiles of the same dimensions have such different ranges?

Because only the dimensions are the same.

The 2.2 Lotus and the turbo share the same dimensions.

Dimensions = what it measures in distance, nothing more. Its length, width and circumference.

If you're trying to make a point about someone's erroneous information, then make sure the dimensions of the two missiles are clearly posted, then ask your question in reference to the clearly posted info.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Well, I haven't posted in a long time but here are my two cents: Russians will fight for their motherland, they will drive out the invaders. If china were to invade, Russia would kick up the industry, people would volunteer to go and defend their country. Plus russia is the second largest exporter of oil, china depends on russian oil.


PS. Don't underestimate the russian will to fight for motherland.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   

If I change the fuel inside my missile without changing the outer dimensions, I change the range of the missile.


your factoring in a new fuel which gives better range. Im talking about a new boaster which is more efficient and reliable instead of new chemical compounds


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
If you're trying to make a point about someone's erroneous information, then make sure the dimensions of the two missiles are clearly posted, then ask your question in reference to the clearly posted info.


Because i am talking to rogue1 instead of you and that im assuming he already has that information. I wasn't taking into account the third wheel since we were talking about both the different missle versions in question.I was trying to prove a point but a different point to your line of thought



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
Argh, post the links to the information, I'm not going to spend days going through the site. I know your tricks.


So i'm meant to document internet rumours and keep records where they were?.

Like you said "I'm not going to spend days going through the site"


Well when you try and allude to them as fact, yes you should. People might be inclined to beleive you're4 making things up




Completely wrong. how surprising. The first Soviet slid fuel ICBM was hte SS-13 deployed in 1969. Also all modern SOviet ( now Russian ) ICBM's are solid fuels such as the SS-24, SS-25, SS-27


And why side track this from your original reply?

"The fact remains that liquid fuel was discarded by the US, USSR, UK and France decades ago."

Completely wrong. how surprising. Proven wrong and try to sidetrack the question


Erm, yes you are wrong, these missile were developed in the 1970's, decades ago, you can count can't you
The Russians haven't produced any liquid fuelld ICBM's since the 1980's.



Wrong again the SS-25 is deployed in more numbers than teh SS-19 and SS-18 combined.


You might like to add a source to your BS


Sure very easy, you could hvae course just googled the information and you would hvae found any number of sites confirming what I said
But if I must ....for teh brain dead.

www.nrdc.org...

Now lets see as of 2002 ( which emans their would be even less SS-18's and 19's deployed in 2006 ) there were 144 SS-18's and 137 SS-19's for grand total of 281 missiles. Oh but wait there are 360 SS-25's deployed.




COmpletel BS, provide a link to these 30 000 miles of tunnels, LOL. Also the DF-5 ARE NOT mobile, they sit in silo's which are well known to the Western powers and Russia. As I said, they would be wiped out without ever being fuelled, in a surprise attack.


Why do you wish to prove yourself a adult with every second reply having BS in it

This is a more important site so i bookmark it.


So it is completel BS, obviously you hvae nothing to back it up as usual, just the wild rantings of a child. Back yourslef up. You do this all the time, make incredulous claims then whine when people ask where's the proof. Nowhere does it say 30 000 miles of tunnels, another one of your make believe claims. It doesn't even make a claim to how long the network is

It will be a old day in hell, when you actually produce facts to back yourself up



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Well when you try and allude to them as fact, yes you should.


Really as fact now?

"""while the new one was suppose to have been cut in half according to internet chatter."""

Where did i say it was factual information


[Erm, yes you are wrong, these missile were developed in the 1970's, decades ago, you can count can't you
The Russians haven't produced any liquid fuelld ICBM's since the 1980's.


That would imply that liquid fueled missiles were discarded from service which i have proven you wrong

"The fact remains that liquid fuel was discarded by the US, USSR, UK and France decades ago."





Sure very easy, you could hvae course just googled the information and you would hvae found any number of sites confirming what I said
But if I must ....for teh brain dead.


I went to that very same site to find out which liquid fueled missiles in russian service. That site gives a guessimate according to START II treaties on how much missiles in russian service. You would also find out if you look up more that the SS-18 and SS-19 missiles have been put in reserve while the SS-25 missiles were decommisoned

One good thing about liquid fuel rockets is they dont keep the fuel inside the body until they are lanuched while solid fueled rockets are normally already fueled which gives liquid fueled rockets a longer service life. And if you did some research the russians are planning to recommison/already done so some more SS-19 in service



So it is completel BS, obviously you hvae nothing to back it up as usual, just the wild rantings of a child. Back yourslef up.


Kiddo,

One thing you learn is to look between the lines. So they dont mention the range so its not there?. There are numerous sources about the PLA 2nd artillery, you can see the size of each district and see where one entrance starts and the other finishes. Simple maths for me

And if you want to calulate the amount of tunnels linking PLA bases together, ill to give you a clue that the great majority of PLA bases have a underground conponent left behind from the mao era.

Tunnels where a big part of peoples war in china during the cultural revolution and throughout the begining of the PRC to 1979. 30,000 miles of tunnels is a small estimate


The Bejing Underground City

Longer than the Great Wall of China. Stretches to five cities in China: Beijing, Shanghai, Xian, Tianjin and Nanjing. Room to house 300,000 people. Contains a cinema, two hospitals, a silk factory, a school, a library, vehicular access and cell phone access 80m below the surface. Secret, underground access to key sites around Beijing: Temple of Heaven, Tiananmen Square, Forbidden City, and Beijing Capital International Airport. An advanced ventilation system to protect against chemical attack, and allows for fresh air for seniors suffering from rheumatism and asthma. Large metal doors are also part of the protection against floods or attacks from the enemy.

Yes, all this and more! Although you, a card-carrying member of democracy will never see all of the Beijing Underground City. In 1969, Chairman Mao was faced with the military threat resulting from the Sino-Soviet Split. He enlisted thousands of workers to build a labyrinth of tunnels to be used as bomb shelters under the city of Beijing. It was completed in 1979 (3 years after Mao's death), and opened to the public in 2000. The portion open to tourists is minuscule compared to the network that spreads throughout China, my guide Mr. Yee tells me.

Link


If you ever get the chance to go to beijing you should have a look there. I've only seen the xiamen section in fujian


It will be a old day in hell, when you actually produce facts to back yourself up


Like how you change course everything you been proven wrong. Like your original comment

"""If any of these powers so chose to attack CHina tomorrow, the DF-5's would be destroyed long before they could be fuelled.""""""

Which my source proved wrong

Moreover, one would destroy less than 300 meters of a tunnel using three warheads. Assuming the underground tunnel network under the Tai-Hei Mountain Range is only 1,000 kilometer long, one would need to use 10,000 (ten thousand) 500-kiloton warheads in order to make sure the tunnel network is completely destroyed. This is the VERY unlikely case in which you know the exact layout of the entire tunnel network. AND this is just one of several missile sites in China.




top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join