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.

 

U.S. vs. China

page: 15
1
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Yes, your last comment is what I mean, in general terms. The most sosphicated (spelling) rader in the world cannot detect the F-22 until it is too late, better?




posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Please dont tell me you really think the UK still has one of the best navies in the world. I'm British and living in Britian at the moment and trust me, the glory days are over.

As for radar, sweatmonica's post is true. It will reflect off pretty much all objects, in particularly metals (e.g. planes?
)
Stealth is just used to reduce the signature so that even objects in the background (E.g. civilian planes, birds, etc) will have similar or much greater radar signatures



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Yes, your last comment is what I mean, in general terms. The most sosphicated (spelling) rader in the world cannot detect the F-22 until it is too late, better?


no, that is BS, if usa cant detect it it doesnt mean other nations cant, stealth is only usefull against 3rd world #holes such as iraq, even china detected your f117 with its crappy EW radar, S-400 radars use the latest technology and designed to detect small-signature targets such as cruise missiles and aircraft such as f-22



the triumph system is capable of hitting targets up to 250 miles away and engaging stealth aircraft built to avoid normal radar detection

While the Triumph SAM system is capable of firing older 48N6E missiles, it will use a brand new missile currently in final stages of development. This new missile feature a combination of semi-active/active homing, an effective range of up to 400km and it will be capable of hitting new-generation air-to-surface missiles and AWACS aircraft.

The S-400 system will also use a second, mid-range 9M96 missile. This missile features active homing and is designed to be employed against LO targets



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Please dont tell me you really think the UK still has one of the best navies in the world. I'm British and living in Britian at the moment and trust me, the glory days are over.
bowna man no offence but u arnt a navy man are u?
iv been n many ships and in bases and i tell u 1 thing they are the most organised of the 3 services not inculding the marines
also our submarines may not be top or the rate but they are comanded and piloted by the best in the world



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 07:36 AM
link   
No, I'm not a navy man
But budget cuts and 'accidents' by the captains (as have been much publicized over here) are taking their toll. Our armed forces are being developed in such a way that they can only operate alongside US armed forces



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 07:48 AM
link   
dude where r u getting this stuff from man iv talked to navy and marines and belive me they like to joke about each other
they have never said anything about our captains screwing up i mean come on what other navy do u know manages to sail through a carrier battle group?



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flanker

Originally posted by Laxpla
Yes, your last comment is what I mean, in general terms. The most sosphicated (spelling) rader in the world cannot detect the F-22 until it is too late, better?


no, that is BS, if usa cant detect it it doesnt mean other nations cant, stealth is only usefull against 3rd world #holes such as iraq, even china detected your f117 with its crappy EW radar, S-400 radars use the latest technology and designed to detect small-signature targets such as cruise missiles and aircraft such as f-22



the triumph system is capable of hitting targets up to 250 miles away and engaging stealth aircraft built to avoid normal radar detection

While the Triumph SAM system is capable of firing older 48N6E missiles, it will use a brand new missile currently in final stages of development. This new missile feature a combination of semi-active/active homing, an effective range of up to 400km and it will be capable of hitting new-generation air-to-surface missiles and AWACS aircraft.

The S-400 system will also use a second, mid-range 9M96 missile. This missile features active homing and is designed to be employed against LO targets





Also, the F117 is more then 20 years old


Of coarse it can get detected, but I forgot where I read the F-22 cannot be detected with the most sophicated to date, the radar signature reduces it to a bumble bee.


Your key Phrase was "normal" radar detection, he F22 is not normal like the F117, its the most advanced aircraft in the WORLD.

Theres my point, like it or not, USA owns you


[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Laxpla]



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   
more BS coming out from you
, f22 is also more then 20 years old
, cant you read? triumph system was designed to detect and engage such targets as your f22 and stealth cruise missiles


the triumph system is capable of hitting targets up to 250 miles away and engaging stealth aircraft built to avoid normal radar detection



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   
wtf are u on about if it was 20 years old it would be in ful servive in the USAF ur the one spilling out BS not us



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flanker
more BS coming out from you
, f22 is also more then 20 years old
, cant you read? triumph system was designed to detect and engage such targets as your f22 and stealth cruise missiles


the triumph system is capable of hitting targets up to 250 miles away and engaging stealth aircraft built to avoid normal radar detection



Flanker, then must I say, to stop the bullsh!t coming from you, I must strike you now before you can open your mouth again. Lets quote you "NORMAL" detection.

"Stealth


Successfully reflects a radar signature approximately the size of a bumblebee, thereby avoiding detection by the most sophisticated enemy air defense systems


Virtually eliminates emissions of sound, turbulence, and heat that can aid detection


Requires no direct assistance from electronic support aircraft that may be more easily detected


Includes plan form alignment of the wing and tail edges, radar- absorbing sawtoothed surfaces, an engine face that is concealed by a serpentine inlet duct, "stealthy" coating cockpit design to minimize the usually substantial radar return of pilots helmet


Eliminates multiple surface features that could be detected by enemy radar, through internal weapons placement"


Whats the first paragraph say? Please review that Flanker, and before you speak again, think of what you are talking about. Thank you and have a nice day!

I could also say this. Even if you do detect it, how is the missle going to hit it? How? it will blow up in mid air..... with the Airborne Laser
That things fasinating, gota love the protection the brits and USA get.


[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Laxpla]


[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Laxpla]



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
I could also say this. Even if you do detect it, how is the missle going to hit it? How? it will blow up in mid air..... with the Airborne Laser
That things fasinating, gota love the protection the brits and USA get.



[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Laxpla]



i see this is pointless to talk with you, you got those lasers stuck in you're head, lasers didnt help your stealthy f117.

LOLLAZER LOL



[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Flanker]



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   
1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place?
Yes. The US can invade, but that's not to say that such an invasion would be successful.
2. Are America's technological and firepower advantages helpful in the long run against 1 billion people?
I wouldn't consider them "advantages". China has as much firepower, and has many contingencies in place to undermine US technological means. Also, I've seen a lot of people quite simply bullsh**ting about what manpower and firepower China has available. China has 2 million soldiers? That would be false. China has over 200 million men ready to be deployed immediately in the event of war. That is 80% of the ENTIRE population of the United States. On top of this, they can muster almost another 200 million men for service. This is, of course, exluding women, who make up a significant portion of the Chinese military/security forces.
3. How effective would U.S. airpower be?
Given landmass, and the sheer logistics on the side of China, from their air force to their anti-aircraft measures, The United States could not establish any kind of air dominance.

Also, considering the fact that Chinese patrol boats will be helping sabotage any Marine units or naval vessels trying to secure a beach-head offensive, or amphibious operations, the meat of the Chinese navy could be committed to destroying the US aircraft carriers. That is if China's missiles haven't already done so.

4. Is it safe to say every Chinese citizen would fight?
Yes. Very safe to say that. The Chinese are culturally very self-contained, and patriotic. They wouldn't take kindly to having their country invaded by dull foreigners.
5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by guerrilla warfare?
No. Absolutely not. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but I will. In Vietnam, which is a tiny country in comparison with China, guerrilla warfare forced the US to recall its forces (and no, I won't even discuss the advances in technology from then to now because they just would not be sufficient). Given the fact that the Americans would already be getting slaughtered by the Chinese forces, due to the latter's sheer numbers and knowledge of their home country, guerrilla warfare could quickly cripple US forces from behind the lines and completely disrupt supply-lines.
6. Any other thoughts?
Given economic factors, the United States, as a country, would collapse into bankruptcy as a result of a war with China. In case you weren't aware, the United States is currently in 7 quadrillion dollars (that is $7,000,000,000,000,000) of debt. The cost of maintaining such a war, once waged, would utterly destroy the US economy.

Let me also point out that China, whose culture differs quite a lot from America and Europe, has not and will not be "infected" with capitalism. As a country, they have already INTEGRATED effective capital-generating policies, and are a rapidly-growing economy, given the opening of Tibet to new business oppurtunities.

Taking into account geographical factors, the US could not maintain a parity of forces. China differs from province to province. It has everything from jungles and cities, to desolate regions like the Gobi Desert, and freezing mountainous regions.

To address another popular point on this thread: an embargo would not work because China will have stockpiles of food, will be prepared to rely on its own resources, and at the very least, it can gain relief from North Korea, with whom China shares a BORDER (even though I'm willing to acknowledge North Korea herself has had problems with food shortages). Given China's mainly rural nature, it would be easy to have as much food as is NECESSARY, although I'll concede there'd be few if any commodities.

As if I had to point it out, China would own the United States forces, and then promptly retaliate with justified vengeance, swiftly and brutally. With the loss of morale suffered by the people of the United States at seeing their aggressor forces destroyed, and without the coordiantion or reference to begin guerrilla warfare, it would be only a matter of time before the United States of America became the United Bitches of China.

Thank you for asking those questions, dude. Braniacs like me live for these oppurtunities.



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   
*coordination

One typo without proof-reading. I still rule.



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flanker

Originally posted by Laxpla
I could also say this. Even if you do detect it, how is the missle going to hit it? How? it will blow up in mid air..... with the Airborne Laser
That things fasinating, gota love the protection the brits and USA get.



[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Laxpla]



i see this is pointless to talk with you, you got those lasers stuck in you're head, lasers didnt help your stealthy f117.

LOLLAZER LOL



[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Flanker]


Do you have any other comments about the F22 and the S400? Shut you up there quick eh?

Well, lets review this... www.airbornelaser.com... and lets not forget the JSF laser program! www.defense-aerospace.com... Now, how can a s400 shoot down a target it CANNOT see, CANNOT hit, and CONNECT detect in all one word. Seems you proved yourself to be a loser. Thank you.



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Flanker>your last post was a quote and no reply from you are you gonna leave it at that?



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   
hey all father i doubt the chinese navy could disurpt the landing frankly thier best ship is a submarine and u ant use them in shallow waters

this is just my assesment of the fact but judge for ur selfs



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by All-Father
1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place?
Yes. The US can invade, but that's not to say that such an invasion would be successful.
2. Are America's technological and firepower advantages helpful in the long run against 1 billion people?
I wouldn't consider them "advantages". China has as much firepower, and has many contingencies in place to undermine US technological means. Also, I've seen a lot of people quite simply bullsh**ting about what manpower and firepower China has available. China has 2 million soldiers? That would be false. China has over 200 million men ready to be deployed immediately in the event of war. That is 80% of the ENTIRE population of the United States. On top of this, they can muster almost another 200 million men for service. This is, of course, exluding women, who make up a significant portion of the Chinese military/security forces.
3. How effective would U.S. airpower be?
Given landmass, and the sheer logistics on the side of China, from their air force to their anti-aircraft measures, The United States could not establish any kind of air dominance.

Also, considering the fact that Chinese patrol boats will be helping sabotage any Marine units or naval vessels trying to secure a beach-head offensive, or amphibious operations, the meat of the Chinese navy could be committed to destroying the US aircraft carriers. That is if China's missiles haven't already done so.

4. Is it safe to say every Chinese citizen would fight?
Yes. Very safe to say that. The Chinese are culturally very self-contained, and patriotic. They wouldn't take kindly to having their country invaded by dull foreigners.
5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by guerrilla warfare?
No. Absolutely not. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but I will. In Vietnam, which is a tiny country in comparison with China, guerrilla warfare forced the US to recall its forces (and no, I won't even discuss the advances in technology from then to now because they just would not be sufficient). Given the fact that the Americans would already be getting slaughtered by the Chinese forces, due to the latter's sheer numbers and knowledge of their home country, guerrilla warfare could quickly cripple US forces from behind the lines and completely disrupt supply-lines.
6. Any other thoughts?
Given economic factors, the United States, as a country, would collapse into bankruptcy as a result of a war with China. In case you weren't aware, the United States is currently in 7 quadrillion dollars (that is $7,000,000,000,000,000) of debt. The cost of maintaining such a war, once waged, would utterly destroy the US economy.

Let me also point out that China, whose culture differs quite a lot from America and Europe, has not and will not be "infected" with capitalism. As a country, they have already INTEGRATED effective capital-generating policies, and are a rapidly-growing economy, given the opening of Tibet to new business oppurtunities.

Taking into account geographical factors, the US could not maintain a parity of forces. China differs from province to province. It has everything from jungles and cities, to desolate regions like the Gobi Desert, and freezing mountainous regions.

To address another popular point on this thread: an embargo would not work because China will have stockpiles of food, will be prepared to rely on its own resources, and at the very least, it can gain relief from North Korea, with whom China shares a BORDER (even though I'm willing to acknowledge North Korea herself has had problems with food shortages). Given China's mainly rural nature, it would be easy to have as much food as is NECESSARY, although I'll concede there'd be few if any commodities.

As if I had to point it out, China would own the United States forces, and then promptly retaliate with justified vengeance, swiftly and brutally. With the loss of morale suffered by the people of the United States at seeing their aggressor forces destroyed, and without the coordiantion or reference to begin guerrilla warfare, it would be only a matter of time before the United States of America became the United Bitches of China.

Thank you for asking those questions, dude. Braniacs like me live for these oppurtunities.



Huzzah, good post!
I'd just like to point out, the Chinese army is officially 2 million people. That's excluding reserves and civilian weapons trained.
And I do live in Hong Kong sometimes so I would know

but nonetheless, the essence of the post is very good


Also, Devilwasp, there are lots of articles about how a British Navy captain nearly wrote off a brand new destroyer but running it aground, then there was a submarine incident I believe... adds up to about 200,000,000 pounds repair funding!

[Edited on 25-4-2004 by browha]



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   
and browna what was he doing when he got them damaged ? on duty? tryting to do a manoever?
remmeber the sas motto "who dares wins" so they must of been doing a darering manoevuer but it didnt pay off
u cant win every battle or win in every chance .
but if u want funny stories u should have heard about the XO on a sub down in austriala he was told to bring the sub down to 500 feet at 1030 but he thought the captain said 1015 so when he does dive he runs the sub right into bottom
the other 1 was where the submarine anchor just fell out mid dive
the diver that went out to check out the hull there was a massive hole where the anchor was.



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   
He was plain sailing.. misread the charts and nearly wrote off the ship, they had to get an underwater thingy to lift it backk up, there was a massssive gash along the side of it




top topics



 
1
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join