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.

 

China Release New Fighter. The J-10.

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 12:09 PM
link   
over the last 15 years all air combat has occured at beyond visual range, so what good is having extremly good manuverbillity when you can't get close enough to use it, if the US ever picked a fight with china on CHINA'S TURF it would lose, the US can't field the kind of numbers of aircraft that china can, and as good as the F-22 is it can't handle a swarm of enemy fighters, the chinese can afford to sacrafice aircraft in war cause it can manufacture them faster than any other country, the US can't, it would run its supply lines to thin




posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pearly
over the last 15 years all air combat has occured at beyond visual range, so what good is having extremly good manuverbillity when you can't get close enough to use it, if the US ever picked a fight with china on CHINA'S TURF it would lose, the US can't field the kind of numbers of aircraft that china can, and as good as the F-22 is it can't handle a swarm of enemy fighters, the chinese can afford to sacrafice aircraft in war cause it can manufacture them faster than any other country, the US can't, it would run its supply lines to thin


Well China could only produce more if its imdustrial capacity were untouched. However in a major shooting war China's military industrial base would be hit early and very hard. Therefore once they have lost aircraft it would be much harder to replace them, as well as the pilots.



posted on Jul, 10 2003 @ 02:43 PM
link   


Well China could only produce more if its imdustrial capacity were untouched. However in a major shooting war China's military industrial base would be hit early and very hard. Therefore once they have lost aircraft it would be much harder to replace them, as well as the pilots.


for the US to start a war it needs to build up its assets which usually take 4-6 months, you don't need to be a professional spook to figure out the US is gearing for war, just look for where they are moving all their assets. in those 4-6 months you could easily tool up your factories to build more military equipment, plus move things around so you don't have all your eggs in one basket, as for loseing pilots and aircraft, even in its current form the chi air force is twice that of the US, and the US never sends more the 33% of it total assets out of the country, so the chi airfroce would outnumber it even more



posted on Jul, 11 2003 @ 11:43 AM
link   
china could kick our ass and that is a fact there is no question have u ever looked up how many people the chinese could put in there amry if they needed to it's around 360 million people thats more than the entire population of the US there is no way even a modern army can compete with that the numbers are just to great



posted on Jul, 11 2003 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by highchancellor
china could kick our ass and that is a fact there is no question have u ever looked up how many people the chinese could put in there amry if they needed to it's around 360 million people thats more than the entire population of the US there is no way even a modern army can compete with that the numbers are just to great

wut r they gonna arm their huge army with...sticks? they already have a hard time equipping their soldiers with decent equipment



posted on Jul, 11 2003 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pearly



Well China could only produce more if its imdustrial capacity were untouched. However in a major shooting war China's military industrial base would be hit early and very hard. Therefore once they have lost aircraft it would be much harder to replace them, as well as the pilots.


for the US to start a war it needs to build up its assets which usually take 4-6 months, you don't need to be a professional spook to figure out the US is gearing for war, just look for where they are moving all their assets. in those 4-6 months you could easily tool up your factories to build more military equipment, plus move things around so you don't have all your eggs in one basket, as for loseing pilots and aircraft, even in its current form the chi air force is twice that of the US, and the US never sends more the 33% of it total assets out of the country, so the chi airfroce would outnumber it even more

despite the major difference in numbers, most of the chinese force consists of obselete equipment that are nothing more than moving targets. so if u just count the advanced aircraft, it would be around the same number as the U.S. force. also considering sam sites, the navy could probably launch some missiles and take out most of them. the chinese ability to replace its aircraft its not very impressive considering most of its advanced aircraft is imported from Russia. if the U.S. force was not capable of taking on the entire PLAAF, then at the very least, they could probably hold off long enough so that reinforcements would arrive. plus, the U.S. would probably blow up a few factories before they actually begin any major engagements with the chinese.



posted on Jul, 11 2003 @ 04:34 PM
link   

blow up a few factories before they actually begin any major engagements with the chinese.



thats why they are upgrading their sam sites to the Triumph and Antey 2000 standarts




posted on Jul, 12 2003 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by $tranger

blow up a few factories before they actually begin any major engagements with the chinese.



thats why they are upgrading their sam sites to the Triumph and Antey 2000 standarts


how many of these sam sites do they have?



posted on Jul, 12 2003 @ 12:20 AM
link   
In the early 1990s China imported 100-120 S-300 missile systems which are deployed aroung Bejing, and it has been suggested that China intends to obtain a license to produce them, with a designation variously reported as either HQ-10 or HQ-15. The first Chinese copy have been tested, but all the components of the first copy version were imported from Russia. The October 1999 parade celebrating the 50th anniversary of the People's Republic of China in Beijing featured a large number of truck towed quad-cannister systems associated with the SA-10.



[Edited on 12-7-2003 by $tranger]



posted on Jul, 12 2003 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Yep, like those are going to have anything to do in hampering what they cannot see right?!?

You guys looking for superheroes or something? Any nation can be toppled and/or overcome. China is a powerful nation but so was the USSR and we see who is aiding who today right? In the amount of how many BILLIONS...........keep looking for the "Dark horse" fellas......

The US has to defeat no one, no where....all we have to do is go back to Reaganomics and just concentrate on military projects and build-ups and the Chinese will ending up tearing down the Great Wall as USSR tore down the Berlin Wall...its called being taken to the point of being broke.

regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 12 2003 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yep, like those are going to have anything to do in hampering what they cannot see right?!?




you think that "f22" is totally invisible ?



posted on Jul, 12 2003 @ 01:13 PM
link   
If they do mass produce these aircraft the chinese might have some conquering to do but I doubt that they can reach us with their poor fuel quaility


[Edited on 12-7-2003 by WolfSpirit]



posted on Jul, 13 2003 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfSpirit
If they do mass produce these aircraft the chinese might have some conquering to do but I doubt that they can reach us with their poor fuel quaility


[Edited on 12-7-2003 by WolfSpirit]

the current chinese goal is not to invade the u.s. its goal is to reunify china. poor fuel quality?...wuts wrong with chinese fuel?



posted on Jul, 13 2003 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by $tranger

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yep, like those are going to have anything to do in hampering what they cannot see right?!?




you think that "f22" is totally invisible ?



You think anything the Russian's or Chinese has is?!
Personally, the Air Force was being kind when they named the F-22 "Raptor"....I heard they were going to name it: "Rapedya".......


regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 14 2003 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by $tranger

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yep, like those are going to have anything to do in hampering what they cannot see right?!?




you think that "f22" is totally invisible ?



You think anything the Russian's or Chinese has is?!
Personally, the Air Force was being kind when they named the F-22 "Raptor"....I heard they were going to name it: "Rapedya".......


regards
seekerof

i believe the russians have the stealth ability in their Mig 1.42



posted on Jul, 14 2003 @ 06:10 AM
link   
you mean the plasma stealth generator?



posted on Jul, 14 2003 @ 08:36 AM
link   


you mean the plasma stealth generator


has anyone got any pics of this in operation on an aircraft, it may make a plane stealthy, but plasma will really light up the night sky, it would most likely look like a purple comet going through the sky



posted on Jul, 14 2003 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Like the Russian's are the only ones with that technology...might want to dig a bit deeper there.....


regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 14 2003 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Like the Russian's are the only ones with that technology...might want to dig a bit deeper there.....


regards
seekerof


do you even know where you got that f-117 and the RCS calculation?


pyotr ufimtsov!



posted on Jul, 14 2003 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by $tranger

Originally posted by Seekerof
Like the Russian's are the only ones with that technology...might want to dig a bit deeper there.....


regards
seekerof


do you even know where you got that f-117 and the RCS calculation?


pyotr ufimtsov!


$tranger, I'm merely saying, you may want to dig a little deeper......you are leaving out the US works on "invisability" via "mirrired" views.....ie: think of it as a larger, more indpth, method applied from the Japanese "invisability coat/cloak" thing a ma jig.............




regards
seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join