U.S. vs. China, page 10

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Dude... the U.S. fought undertrained, outdated fighters in Korea and Vietnam and we still got our @$$es handed to us.

Ummmmmmmmmm no. N. Korea we were fighting RUSSIAN pilots in BETTER planes. But still, we didn't get our asses handed to us. As one pilot said "I've never seen an Asian with red hair." As for Nam - that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. OUR ASSES HANDED TO US? We had a kill ratio of 3:1 as in for every one we lost, we killed 3. Get an education.

Turkey shoot? Dude, your ignorance is astronomical!Missiles are not guns. Chinese pilots are not as stupid as you think. Yes, many missiles will hit, but many will also miss. And you only have so many missiles you can carry on a plane. You must think missiles come from a tree! And if the U.S. enters Chinese airspace, the way Chinese fighters fight, BVR is going to be a non-concept. It's going to be guns or nothing. On bombing missions, how are they going to drop their ordnance if there are fighters all over them? Sure, you can brag about fighter cover, but our reliance on missiles and the amount of fighter escort is not too promising. You only have so many aircraft. Seriously, brush up on the doctrine of air warfare. It's not all pressing buttons and using night-vision. It actually requires technique. Technique that has little to do with BVR combat (something that'll become useless in crowded combat skies). And believe me, it will not be a Turkey Shoot. I rarely say this, but that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Missiles don't last forever and aircraft against more aircraft is nothing to be proud of.

First off - don't call me ignorant boy. You believe you are right, and thats all well and good, but hearing your arguments, you are in no position to throw the word ignorant around. And yes, it would be a turkey shoot for the US. Chinese pilots are every bit as bad as I claim! You know that "spy" plane they were so happy about bringing down? You wunna know how that happened? One of their pilots RAN INTO our plane! Killed himself. I'd call that stupid. The fact is that they don't get the flying time that the US does. I't is just a fact. They don't have the training we do. Another FACT. You talk about technique - thanks for proving my point! The US has BETTER PILOTS - MUCH BETTER! You say that BVR isn't important? Tell that to the man who dies without ever seeing his enemy. American missles hit at around a 90% clip - depending on the missle. Most aircraft can carry around 10 missles. So i would say we would probably be shooting down 6 or 7 aircraft (if not more) for evey one of ours - I'd call that a turkey shoot.

Backtracking, the only fighter capable of the safest BVR is the F-14 and the Phoenix missile. All other fighters carry medium-range Sparrows and AMRAAMs, meaning they'd have to enter Chinese airspace anyway before engaging. And it's not like China's a place they can just dump U.S. aircraft onto. So BVR isn't much of an advantage from the start.

Well, the Phoenix is a stand off missle is our longest ranged, but it is not the only BVR missle. Like you said there are these things called AMRAAMs - they hit at over 90%. So yeah I'd say we could fight a BVR war quite well, thank you very much. As for not being able to enter their airspace - you are joking right? The US could go in there when ever it wanted, without too much problem. Again - if you don't think BVR is much of an advantege, you need to do your homework! There is a reason that every single aircraft built for the last 30 years has placed more and more importance on BVR combat. Why? Because it is a very good thing to be able to kill the enemy before he kills you! Get with it dude - this is how modern battles are fought by planes. We are not in WWI with dogfights anymore (though it is important to have a gun on board for backup).

Dude, WWII is over. We are in different times now. Get with it. You also totally ignore the fact that in a war (especially in an all-out conventional war), the budget will be strained beyond the breaking point. It costs too much even without any stealth fighters or advanced weapons systems. And your Cold War arguement is irrelevant - we were never at war. That's a totally different situation, if you don't realize. Wartime budget is very different from peacetime budget.

OK - you know what - you use every attack against the US you can but don't apply it to China! If the US budget is strained, HOW IN THE # WILL THE CHINESE BUDGET NOT BE STRAINED? THE US HAS A LARGER MILITARY BUDGET THEN THE NEXT 25 COUNTRIES COMBINED! So if the US budget is strained, then China will just fall apart! The US budget will not stain beyond breaking point - it could by increased by 2 to 3 times with little problem. The US has like 3 trillion dollars of tax money - they could easilly put a 3rd of that into the military if they were in a war with China. My cold war argument is not a totally different situation - the US was spending 3 times more on our military budget then they are now. So why in the hell coudn't the US do it again - in a time of war WHICH WOULD DEMAND IT MORE THEN PEACE TIME! You are right - war time and peace time budgets are totally different - IN WAR TIME THEY ARE HIGHER! USE YOUR LITTLE BRAIN HERE! WHEN ANY COUNTRY IS IN AN ALL OUT WAR THE BUDGET FOR THE MILITARY IS ALWAYS MUCH HIGHER THEN IN TIMES OF PEACE!

You get even more comedic. Do you realize just how different WWII fighters are from today's fighters? No, you obviously don't. WWII fighters are much simpler, therefore easier to build and takes less time (I did not say less cost). Today's fighters are incredibly complex, difficult to build, and thus take more time. They would not rush things, otherwise we'd lose them in transit. The moment they build a fighter, they must test it THUROUGHLY. One mistake with a complex fighter and BOOM. For example, America's most primitive attack helicopter in service today, the AH-1S Super Cobra, requires 38,500 hours just to build a single copy. Not including testing. Imagine the time it would take to build a single F-22. How many do you actually think they can build in time to make a difference in the war? Let's say the war lasts about three years, they probably wouldn't get a new shipment of F-22s until the middle of the third year (assuming they ordered a new batch at the beginning of the war). They are complex war machines, and you cannot rush building them. That's how they turn against you. We might get them for cheap, but busting them out and building and rushing them into service is a very inefficient and dangerous way of doing things. Complex aircraft require more time to perfect. I cannot stress that enough.

Yes, I realize the difference in the technology! Yes, I understand the time it takes to pump them out. However - UNLIKE in peace time conditions, in times of war, every aircraft manufacturer in America would be making military planes. Thus, instead of getting shipments of say 25 aircraft at a time, it's more like 300 at a time. But again - how can you so blindly not apply this to China as well? While the US gets no attack on home soil, every manufacturing plant in China is getting a cruise missle up it's ass! So I'd say that advantage falls to the US as well. The US would be able to replace it's aircraft, unlike China. If you think it takes 3 years to build a single fighter plane, you need to get your head checked out by a shrink man. get real.

Wartime is different from peacetime, you must realize that. Assuming you are correct (I really hope so), the wartime budget would be strained beyond belief. It's not like they can separate military and civilian budget, it all forms a symbiant circle. Imagine the stress it would cause the civilian budget if we purchased and purchased these stealth fighters (even if we could get them for cheaper). And you still deny the fact a conventional war budget is very pricey even without the stealth fighters. It is just not very efficient or wise to pump out fighters like these when money must be spent on everything else.

I realize the difference in wartime to peace time - but obviously you don't. During a war, the military gets all the money it possably can at all costs to other sectors. That is why there are things like gas rations during war - so that the military has more gas to work with. I say again - our budget would not be strained beyond beliefe - calm down dude. The US would probably spend close to 2 TRILLION dollars a year on the war - THE ENTIRE CHINESE ECONOMY DOES NOT EQUAL 2 TRILLION DOLLARS! It doesn't matter what kind of strain it puts on the civilian sector - in times of war everything else has to make due!. I'll say it again - you need to rethink your train of thought here, because you are acting like all of these financial problems would only happen to the US - how about CHINA? Are they exempt from this for some unknown reason? Or is it the only way you can justify your position?

Again, get with the times. The Persian Gulf War of 1991 was smaller than WWII, but the U.S. spent more money on it than they did in the Gulf War, in relative terms. World War II cost America $1 trillion, but over a period of roughly 48 months. Operation: Desert Storm cost $60 billion in a span of only two months. And the advancements we've made since 1991, the costs are unbearably high. It all costs money and with our military, it takes time and time and time. Nothing comes from a tree. Sorry.

Again - you are talking money here andd only applying it to the US. How is china going to be able to pay for this huge cost when they can't even export goods to other countries? Or does this fall under your special rule that money problems only apply to the US and no one else? The US has more stuff in it's arsenal then China does - and since they won't be able to build anything after a few weeks, I'd say their stuff with take even more time and time and time. Your right though - nothing comes from a tree - THAT INCLUDES CHINA!