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: 42
1
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Squid
LMAO!!


Yeah, China has nothing to fight the American army with, only a well trained army thats about 3 times the size of the American one, which is used to the terrian, and China can always get more conscripts... And China only has about 1.3 BILLION people, most of which would fight off America.

Yeah, Thats no defence...


Typical "Oh we're AMERICAN nobody can beat us because we're AMERICAN!" attitude... Never Under Estimate your Enemy.. ESPECIALLY on their home soil!


The Chinese Army is not well-trained at all, relies much on old-style tactics, and uhhhh, this is modern warfare, numbers don't matter too much in real WAR. Also, how would China supply all those troops with food, when the population is all crammed into one side of the country, since the other side is all mountainous??

China is a nothing militarily when it comes to their army in terms of global projection power; invading China would be different, but in terms of being an actual military power, Chian is nothing to the United States right now.

Oh, and America does have a culture now, which, in the event of an all-out war, would prevail. If anything, if you had Chinese who areof Chinese culture, they would teach their children the Chinese ways, surviving Americans would teach their children the American ways, etc....but American culture is very different from French and British culture. We WERE a country of immigrants, but just as Vietnam is made up of people who immigrated down from China, they are now VIETNAM. Japan consists of people who migrated to the island of Japan from Korea, but they are now JAPANESE. Americans, real Americans, consist of people who migrated over from France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Britain, etc.....but now Americans are AMERICANS, with our own culture. A British person is a British person. A French person is French. An American is usually a combination of some European countries. For example, I am a combo of Irish, German, African-American, and Greek. But I am an American; that is jsut where I originated from.

There is a genetic difference between a Vietnamese and a Chinese, even though Vietnamese originated from Chinese who migrated down there. There is a difference between Koreans and Japanese too, even though Japanese are Koreans who migrated to Japan. There is a difference between Americans even though they may be descendants of French, Scottish, Irish, etc....who immigrated over to here long ago.

Oh, and American culture pretty much influences every culture worldwide now; many countries even complain about that, how much American culture is starting to mess with old cultures in some of these countries. Chinese culture is limited mainly to China right now, and in all-out war, I'd say American culture would actually have a better chance of surviving than Chinese culture.




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Will people ever stop bringing up China's massive population. It's been conquered by very small armies in the past. Large areas have been conquered by small forces throughout history. With modern technology its far easier.

Just think of the type of modern garrison that could be built today in China. It would be basically impenetrable. Mobs could be cut down by America's gunships.


My point is: when USA as a country vanished, those offspring of American living in other countries will not recoginz themselves as American anymore, the reason is there is no strong culture linkage at all, They will just be merged into local society or become what they ancestor were, German or Frechman or whatever...
From that point, American and America die together.


I suppose Roman culture just died, too, right? How about the Greeks? Their are many similarities to American culture there.

Rome influenced the cultures of Europe for centuries. Still does in many ways.

Just remember one thing - attacking America isn't just an attack on one nation. It's an attack on the entire Western world. It's an attack even on the Muslim words, and the Africans, and every other ethnicity you can think of.

When push comes to shove, Europe will side with America over the Chinese. If you fired nukes on America, Europe would not sit by and watch as their friends and relatives died. They'd strike back.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Just remember one thing - attacking America isn't just an attack on one nation. It's an attack on the entire Western world. It's an attack even on the Muslim words, and the Africans, and every other ethnicity you can think of.



Oh, really?

How many people with you stand up for Iraq? 28 some countries including no name island countries? and ......send their total 200 men or something like that?

The world are just afraid of America power. Dont take 'obey' as 'like'.
The arrogant and igorance of American make few true friend, you better know it.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
If China does not nuke america in a war with america they have no chance of winning. China does not have the capability to start an offensive inside of america. America has the capability to strike China from many different locations in close proximity to china. China would be on the defensive from the very start. China's navy does not stand a chance against the usa's navy therefore they could not send there large army to invade. The other option is air transport. They can not defeat the us air force and therefore that rules that method out.

Numbers mean very little in todays warfare. Quality equipment and precision weapons do.

It is my opinion that someday a war with china may occur. China has a large population that can outproduce america because of the cheap labor but it takes vasts amounts of energy to produce goods and that means oil. Guess what the us has military bases surrounding the major oil reserves with a navy that can protect the shipping lanes. The us could choke of chinas oil supply. How long can china fight without oil or remain an industrial economy. China is in deep trouble down the road if they do not play ball with america. That means if china wants to secure the energy it needs to produce things and fuel their war machines they would have to send its massive army into foriegn territory namely the middle east. Thus exposing themselves. Once they move on the oil fields every country on the earth with the capability will attack them and destroy them. The us holds the key, oil. An army moves only as far as it has fuel.

proteinx, how many countries in this world have true friends? Look at the history of the world. Countries band together against common foes from time to time but other than that they all fight over and for the same scarce resources that their country needs to survive and thrive.

China, France and Russia had contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields and the UN was making money off the oil for food program so they were definately against america taking out Iraq. they lost their oil contracts. American and British companies now have rights to develop the oil fields. Those countries could not do jak sh#t about it. It will happen in Iran next. The energy wars are on. Who has the energy survives and those that don't will wither in power.


[edit on 21-1-2005 by cryptorsa1001]

[edit on 21-1-2005 by cryptorsa1001]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Alright maybe this post will end this rather long debate.

This is because Russia and China have nothing to threaten the U.S. militarily with except nuclear missiles. Without nuclear missiles, China, Russia and the rest of the world are completely at the military mercy of the United States, which now enjoys overwhelming non-nuclear military superiority on Earth, while maintaining a launch-ready nuclear missle strike force capable of annihilating any nation anywhere.



I severely disagree with this claim...Even if one doesn't include the chinese public joining the battle; IMHO the US cannot come out victorious in a campaign here, simply because the logistical requirements are just too overwhelmingly high..
Iraq is okay, so is Kosovo and afghanistan..But the sheer size of the chinese/russian/indian/brit/French military makes its impossible for the US to strike a decisive blow in conventional terms.
All these countries can indivisually IMHO stave off a US attack successfully, w/o even resorting to last ditch attempts guerilla warfare.
The Casualities in Kosovo are a indication of this..



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
The casualties in Kosovo? America didn't even put many troops on the ground there, and there weren't high casualties.

Your claim on logistics is ridiculous. Smaller, ancient armies have taken more territory then China. They didn't have the overwhelming military advantage the US has today. China has been taken in such conditions.

I mean, by your standard, Alexander could NEVER have marched through all of Asia minor with 40,000 men and faced off against massive Persian armies of hundreds of thousands. He did it, and in record time. The Mongols could never have done what they did. Napoleon? Never. Hannibal? Never could have done it. Hell, could the Nazis have made it as far as they did with your logic? No.


How many people with you stand up for Iraq? 28 some countries including no name island countries? and ......send their total 200 men or something like that?


Is Iraq life and death for America? Hell no. It's a petty squable.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
hehe..so now you compare the american strategists of war to alexander,napoleon,genghis khan etc..getting a bit ahead of yourself aye?

Im talking about loses of aircraft in Yugoslavia, no troops; troops will die when you put em' on the ground..In yugoslavia the USAF/NATO suffered air losses that were not expected by them...and some over here argue that the losses are more than what they are made out to be...
no offence but the US does not possess that capability to single handedly wage war against any of the countries I mentioned before, nobody does
unless they get support and get some real good intel on the enemy...and that too will result in a long drawn out campaign which the US will not be able to sustain...
It'll run into years..maybe even a decade...not worth it..The US armed forces is good enough for what it is..defend all US assests and to knock of little rogue staes here and there...
and theres no need to attain such a capability unless you're setting up an imperial empire....



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

hehe..so now you compare the american strategists of war to alexander,napoleon,genghis khan etc..getting a bit ahead of yourself aye?


I'm talking more about various war machines. If you actually looked at the American military doctrine, you'll find it relies on the same basic principals that all of these militaries did. It's a hell of a lot like the Mongol force, using superior mobility and firepower.


Im talking about loses of aircraft in Yugoslavia, no troops; troops will die when you put em' on the ground..In yugoslavia the USAF/NATO suffered air losses that were not expected by them...and some over here argue that the losses are more than what they are made out to be...
no offence but the US does not possess that capability to single handedly wage war against any of the countries I mentioned before, nobody does
unless they get support and get some real good intel on the enemy...and that too will result in a long drawn out campaign which the US will not be able to sustain...
It'll run into years..maybe even a decade...not worth it..The US armed forces is good enough for what it is..defend all US assests and to knock of little rogue staes here and there...
and theres no need to attain such a capability unless you're setting up an imperial empire....


America planned through the Cold War to fight those powers. We had the ability to wage wars on multiple continents.

And we hardly lost anything in Kosovo. Most were NATO losses, not American, and the bulk of those was made up of UAV's, which are cheap and expendable.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   



America planned through the Cold War to fight those powers. We had the ability to wage wars on multiple continents.



Unless the wars severely begin to threaten most American's daily life, American soldiers will have no interest to make multiple wars------ you even cannot find enough troops for Iraq, not even mention dreaming multiple wars at the same time.

If the current government want to keep the agressive war policy, they have to build so called "foreigner groups" like what Nopolian or Roman did, like outsourcing the military jobs to others who want to earn green card or money by serving in military in USA. That is the only way to decrease/prevent the death toll of American soldiers. But, it will lead to the death of the empire finally. Two reasons: "foreinger groups" will decrease the willing of fight in Americans, second, foreigner groups have no real loyaty except money. These two reasons are exact same reasons why Roman's troops could not fight during the critical time. and the big empire calapse in a minute.

Moreover, check who is in the army? 80% of the solderis are from poor family who cannot afford for colleges, most of them from the poor Southern states. Of course, there are also many brain-washed rednecks too, thinking they are fighting for "freedom" in iraq, or fighting for "honor" of american. In Christmas time I visited my friends and we went to mall, a crew of army recruiter yell to the people:" let's fight for the freedom of the world!" ---what a nut. Communists yelled the exact same thing years ago. That alone predict the death of America Empire. Because nobody can fight for the world. who give you the right to represent the world and all other native's right to choose their own life style? "Fight for the world" alone is the curse.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Unless the wars severely begin to threaten most American's daily life, American soldiers will have no interest to make multiple wars------ you even cannot find enough troops for Iraq, not even mention dreaming multiple wars at the same time.


We don't even have a quarter of our forces in Iraq. We still keep 70,000 troops in Germany. We're hardly having trouble finding troops for Iraq, we just don't feel any need to send them there.

We also scaled down our military drastically after the end of the Cold War. We had a lot more ground troops then compared to now.


If the current government want to keep the agressive war policy, they have to build so called "foreigner groups" like what Nopolian or Roman did, like outsourcing the military jobs to others who want to earn green card or money by serving in military in USA. That is the only way to decrease/prevent the death toll of American soldiers. But, it will lead to the death of the empire finally. Two reasons: "foreinger groups" will decrease the willing of fight in Americans, second, foreigner groups have no real loyaty except money. These two reasons are exact same reasons why Roman's troops could not fight during the critical time. and the big empire calapse in a minute.


You'll notice that they lasted centuries. Their problem was a degrading economy and political system, not their military. The fact that you'd say Rome "calapse in a minute" shows your ignorance of history.

Rome was always able to build massive armies of well trained soldiers. That's how they beat the Carthaginians. They drew their soldiers at that time straight from the Roman citizens.


Moreover, check who is in the army? 80% of the solderis are from poor family who cannot afford for colleges, most of them from the poor Southern states. Of course, there are also many brain-washed rednecks too, thinking they are fighting for "freedom" in iraq, or fighting for "honor" of american. In Christmas time I visited my friends and we went to mall, a crew of army recruiter yell to the people:" let's fight for the freedom of the world!" ---what a nut. Communists yelled the exact same thing years ago. That alone predict the death of America Empire. Because nobody can fight for the world. who give you the right to represent the world and all other native's right to choose their own life style? "Fight for the world" alone is the curse.


You mean poor kids join the military in America, like in EVERY nation on the planet?

This isn't the fuedal ages where they were forced to go fight for some King while their families starved. Our soldiers have the highest pay, and get the most benefits. They are the best equipped. They have every reason to fight well. Our soldiers believe in what they're fighting for. Our soldiers have high morale.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Lets look at a few facts and figures here...

PLAAF -

currently has 50 J-10's in service undergoing pre-prodution trials.
After recieving operational status later this year over 300 will be built initially.

In addition to the PL-8 short-range infrared-guided air-to-air missile reportedly derived from Israeli Rafael Python-3 technology, the J-10 could also carry Russian Vympel R-73 (AA-11) short-range and R-77 (AA-12) medium-range missiles equipped by Chinese Flankers. It may also be fitted with indigenously developed PL-11 or PL-12 medium-range AAM for BVR combat.

For ground attack missions, the J-10 will carry laser-guided bombs, YJ-8K anti-ship missile, as well as various unguided bombs and rockets. Some missiles currently under development such as the YJ-9 ramjet-powered anti-radiation missile may also be carried by the J-10.

There are around 100 Su-27's in service and a further 100 Su-30's with anti-ship capabilities.

There are approximately 200 upgraded J8's in service with potent AA capabilties.

There are the only planes worth considering as the rest are probably going to be scrapped in the near future.

That makes a total of 700 aircraft that pose a serious threat to any us attempt to invade.

PLAN

North Sea Fleet

Sea Units

* Destroyer Division
* Frigate Division
* Nuclear Submarine Division
* Conventional Submarine Division
* Fast Attack Craft Division

Air Units

* 2 X Fighter Divisions
* 1 X Bomber Division
* 1 X Training Regiment
* 1 X Shipborne Helicopter Group
* 1 X Amphibious Aircraft Group

Ships

* Destroyers (7): 5 X Type 051 (Luda Class); 2 X Type 052 (Luhu Class)
* Frigates (5): 5 X Type 053H (Jianghu Class)
* Conventional Submarines (15): 13 X Type 035 (Ming Class); 2 X Type 033 (Remeo Class)
* Nuclear Submarines (6): 1 X Type 092 SSBN (Xia Class); 5 X Type 091 SSN (Han Class)

Aircraft

* Fighter: J-8A, J-7, J-6,
* Bomber/Attacker: H-5, Q-5
* Patrol and AEW: SH-5
* Trainer: JJ-6, JJ-5
* Helicopter: Z-8, Z-9

East sea fleet

Sea Units

* Destroyer/Frigate Division
* Frigate Division
* Conventional Submarine Division
* Landing Ship Division
* Fast Attack Craft Division

Air Units

* 1 X Fighter Division
* 2 X Bomber Divisions
* 1 X Training Regiment
* 1 X Shipborne Helicopter Group

Marine Units

* 1 X Marine Infantry Bridge (3rd)

Ships

* Destroyers (6): 2 X Soveremenny Class; 4 X Type 051 (Luda Class)
* Frigates (15): 2 X Type 053H3 (Jiangwei-II Class); 4X Type 053H2G (Jiangwei-I Class); 9 X Type 053H (Jianghu Class)
* Conventional Submarines (18): 4 X Type 877/636 (Kilo Class); 2 X Type 039 (Song Class); 12 X Type 035 (Ming Class)
* Large Landing Ships (4): 4 X Type 072 (Yukang Class)

Aircraft

* Fighter: J-8A/B, J-7, J-6,
* Bomber/Attacker: JH-7, Q-5, H-6D, H-5
* Patrol and AEW: Y-8X
* Trainer: JJ-6, JJ-5
* Helicopter: Ka-28, Z-8, Z-9

South sea fleet

Sea Units

* Destroyer Division
* Frigate Division
* Conventional Submarine Division
* Landing Ship Division
* Fast Attack Craft Division
* Hong Kong Garrison Troops Naval Unit

Air Units

* 1 X Fighter Division
* 1 X Bomber Division
* 1 X Transport Regiment
* 1 X Shipborne Helicopter Group

Marine Units

* 1 X Marine Infantry Bridge (1st), including 5 combat battalions.

Ships

* Destroyers (7): 1 X Type 051B (Luhai Class); 6 X Type 051 (Luda Class)
* Frigates (17): 2 X Type 053H3 (Jiangwei-II Class); 15X Type 053H (Jianghu Class)
* Conventional Submarines (6+): 6 X Type 035 (Ming Class); Unknown number if Type 033 (Remeo Class)
* Large Landing Ships (17): 10 X Type 072II (Yuting Class); 7 X Type 072 (Yukang Class)

Aircraft

* Fighter: J-8A/B/D, J-7B, J-6,
* Bomber/Attacker: Q-5, H-6D, H-5
* Tanker: H-6
* Trainer: JJ-6, JJ-5
* Helicopter: Z-8, Z-9

These statistics do not include the new generation of suface combatants such as the type-54 and 52-C/D which are under construction

Although the ships do not have potent anti-missile defence... they do have an arsenal of extremely deadly anti-ship missiles that will pose a serious threat to any US carrier group.

The submarine fleet poses the biggest theat of all though...



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Are the Chinese the only ones producing new tech or what? You can't give one side and act like that means something. You know, and I know, that nothing China has matches up well with what America has.

J-10's and Flankers? Too few in number, and arguably inferior to America's thousands of fourth generation fighters.

Our navy is just the most powerful in the world in every way. We have the technology, and number advantages, and they're both overwhelming.


Although the ships do not have potent anti-missile defence... they do have an arsenal of extremely deadly anti-ship missiles that will pose a serious threat to any US carrier group.


Yea, they'll be gone in a matter of hours after America launches its cruise missiles.


The submarine fleet poses the biggest theat of all though...


China doesn't even have that many subs, and what they do have won't stand up to what America has. Their sub crews aren't as well trained. Most of their subs aren't even maintained well.

And as long as you're counting stuff under production, like the J-10 or future vessels, how about America's stealth destroyers and F-22's? The 20 F-22's we have now could destroy a few hundred J-10's or Flankers. The advantage is that overwhelming.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Are the Chinese the only ones producing new tech or what? You can't give one side and act like that means something. You know, and I know, that nothing China has matches up well with what America has.



I was not saying china was "leapfrogging" the US... I simply pointed out that there is a large collection of potent millitary hardware already in China's arsenal


J-10's and Flankers? Too few in number, and arguably inferior to America's thousands of fourth generation fighters.


700 modern aircraft is more than enough to deter a carrier battle group. The US would need it's entire fleet to muster enough strength to strike. Not forgetting chinese missiles have a greater range than US jets initially anyhow.


Our navy is just the most powerful in the world in every way. We have the technology, and number advantages, and they're both overwhelming.


Number advantages mean nothing as soon as the ships come into range of shore based defences. Than i'm afraid the balance is heavily against the US.


Although the ships do not have potent anti-missile defence... they do have an arsenal of extremely deadly anti-ship missiles that will pose a serious threat to any US carrier group.



Yea, they'll be gone in a matter of hours after America launches its cruise missiles.


China has a vast collection of very accurate cruise missiles (10 meters) as well.


China doesn't even have that many subs, and what they do have won't stand up to what America has. Their sub crews aren't as well trained. Most of their subs aren't even maintained well.


China has around 80 battle-ready submarines, and you are wrong... they are maintained to very high standards. They have no choice until the new generation is phased in.


And as long as you're counting stuff under production, like the J-10 or future vessels, how about America's stealth destroyers and F-22's? The 20 F-22's we have now could destroy a few hundred J-10's or Flankers. The advantage is that overwhelming.


You are forgetting china has radars that render the F-22's stealth limited already. If the european arms embargo is lifted this year than you can kiss that advantage pretty much goodbye.

European radars etc are first on China's shopping list.

You also have to get the F-22's into a position where they can strike at china... From japan... penetration is going to be limited due to fuel range etc.... and no fueling tanker is going to last long near chinese air-space.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   

I was not saying china was "leapfrogging" the US... I simply pointed out that there is a large collection of potent millitary hardware already in China's arsenal


All of which would be nearly useless against America.


700 modern aircraft is more than enough to deter a carrier battle group. The US would need it's entire fleet to muster enough strength to strike. Not forgetting chinese missiles have a greater range than US jets initially anyhow.


And this is a problem how? We're fighting China, not Iraq. We'd hardly need all of our carrier groups, either. We don't need to just rely on carrier groups for airpower, either. We have many bases right in the region, and many allies in the region to lend a hand. Who does China have? North Korea?

Plus, American pilots are way better then Chinese pilots, and still have the tech advantage. A small, or equal numbers scenario is going to America.


Number advantages mean nothing as soon as the ships come into range of shore based defences. Than i'm afraid the balance is heavily against the US.


Cruise missiles will allow us to stay well out of range.


China has a vast collection of very accurate cruise missiles (10 meters) as well


A cruise missile for defense...seems kind of useless when we can fire them from B-2's and other stealth aircraft.


China has around 80 battle-ready submarines, and you are wrong... they are maintained to very high standards. They have no choice until the new generation is phased in.


Like the one which "strayed" off shore recently? That was supposed to be from a malfunction.

Very few of China's subs (only a handfull, really) are any kind of threat to American subs.


You are forgetting china has radars that render the F-22's stealth limited already. If the european arms embargo is lifted this year than you can kiss that advantage pretty much goodbye.


I can't forget what doesn't exist. You have absolutely no proof of these things. Did China and Russia invent an entirely new radar concept to detect stealth? Normal radar isn't just going to suddenly detect stealth planes. Low frequency was a small threat to first generation stealth like the F-117, it doesn't threaten the B-2 or F-22.


European radars etc are first on China's shopping list.


Europe doesn't have the radars, either. You don't get it. There's really only one reliable way of detecting stealth, and its a theory, and years away.


You also have to get the F-22's into a position where they can strike at china... From japan... penetration is going to be limited due to fuel range etc.... and no fueling tanker is going to last long near chinese air-space.


Fuel range is hardly a problem from Japan. We don't just have to use Japan. Afghanistan is a real possibility in the future. Maybe even India.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Lucretius:
don't waste your time, Disturbed Deliverer is a troll.

"All the weapons, no matter from Russia or China, are useless to American"---that is the sign of troll.

don't feed him, lucretius. not worth it.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Yes but someone who dreams up mythological radars that detect stealth is not a troll.

Why is it that posters on here from countries that do not have stealth or other advancements that America has always dream up stuff to counter it? Is it jelousy? Fear? I have always been curious, it comes off as childish.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Who knows; no one knows what America has. I have heard that the military has a radar that it bounce off the Moon to fry the eletronics in any aircraft out there; people say China has missiles that the carriers are defenseless against, yet I have heard that the Navy has 3-4 different counters for those missiles.

And proteinx, most of what China has IS inferior to what the U.S. has.

China's army = jack crap at the moment.

China's navy = improvement on what they had, but not equal in any way to the U.S. navy

China's air force = improvement on what they had, but not equal in any way to American Navy or Air Force pilots, and with inferior technology.

Also, what is this with 700 aircraft being a threat? You can't put all 700 aircraft down right near Taiwan, and the majority of those aircraft have far inferior weapons, avionics, and inferiorily-trained pilots than the American aircraft.

As for the F/A-22, no one knows what can or cannot detect that plane. People say this and that, blah blah whatever, the F-15 had the same criticism. People even said the F-15 would never match some of the other aircraft out there at the time.

The majority of the F/A-22's features are classified; they have tried to detect it, and and failed. Fighter planes aren't like computers, where you build the baddest system you can, yet 2 years later and it's slow as hell; same with stealth. They don't spend billions of dollars designing a stealth aircraft that won't be able to be stealthy by the time it sees service, or only would be able to be stealthy for a short time.

People saying the F/A-22 is detectable already are probably reading what the gov't wants them to think, not the actual truth of the aircraft. No one knows what the F/A-22 is capable of; pilots who fly against it say it is truly amazing to go up against in what it can do; what exactly it can do is only known by the U.S. military. They're not going to give away it's full stealth abilities to the public. That would be ludicrous.

And there is lots of false information out there as well.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
This isn't the fuedal ages where they were forced to go fight for some King while their families starved. Our soldiers have the highest pay, and get the most benefits. They are the best equipped. They have every reason to fight well. Our soldiers believe in what they're fighting for. Our soldiers have high morale.


Is enlistment in the USMC purely voluntary??



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by subcane
Yes but someone who dreams up mythological radars that detect stealth is not a troll.

Why is it that posters on here from countries that do not have stealth or other advancements that America has always dream up stuff to counter it? Is it jelousy? Fear? I have always been curious, it comes off as childish.


Yeah , but isn't pompous bravado a little childish too?
And what is this counter to stealth??
IMO the only good counter to stealth is 'damn good intel' and assests in various locations which can help with sabotage...
That is a weapon which is v. v. potent
I'm quite curious to know how many sleeper agents are there in the US..from Russia, the EU, China, India...
And also there are the likes of Bob Hanson...
And what about all those chinki people who stole SLBM tech from th eLos Alamos labs??..
The only way to protect against such sabotage is to d a "hitler" in the US..and that I do not think will be very successful, consideinrg the diversity of the ethnic pop in the US..



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

I was not saying china was "leapfrogging" the US... I simply pointed out that there is a large collection of potent millitary hardware already in China's arsenal


All of which would be nearly useless against America.


And you proof is where?... did US war machines suddenly develop impervious armour? ... if I recall correctly they seemed pretty vulnerable in iraq to simple fragmentation grenades and home made bombs



700 modern aircraft is more than enough to deter a carrier battle group. The US would need it's entire fleet to muster enough strength to strike. Not forgetting chinese missiles have a greater range than US jets initially anyhow.


And this is a problem how? We're fighting China, not Iraq. We'd hardly need all of our carrier groups, either. We don't need to just rely on carrier groups for airpower, either. We have many bases right in the region, and many allies in the region to lend a hand. Who does China have? North Korea?


Lets see... China's land mass is about the same as the US. Just think of the area those jets are going to have to cover.
Currently US allies are, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea... none of which would be willing to place themselves in the firing line of Chinese ballistic missiles.
Did you know China is the only country in the world that has spent the last 20 years researching into turning ballistic missiles into precision guided weaponry... accurate to a few meters. Nobody knows how advanced they are in this area, though it would be foolish to underestimate.


Plus, American pilots are way better then Chinese pilots, and still have the tech advantage. A small, or equal numbers scenario is going to America.


I won't argue here... american pilots are better trained, but remember missile technology is roughly the same on both sides... so really it's all about fire and forget these day's. And what do you think will be making up the bulk of any US assault?... certainly not raptors.



Number advantages mean nothing as soon as the ships come into range of shore based defences. Than i'm afraid the balance is heavily against the US.


Cruise missiles will allow us to stay well out of range.


China has a vast collection of very accurate cruise missiles (10 meters) as well


A cruise missile for defense...seems kind of useless when we can fire them from B-2's and other stealth aircraft.


China like I mentioned before will be using a selectionm of high accuracy ballistic (non-nuclear) missiles against carrier groups. B-2's can be detected with passive radars.



China has around 80 battle-ready submarines, and you are wrong... they are maintained to very high standards. They have no choice until the new generation is phased in.


Like the one which "strayed" off shore recently? That was supposed to be from a malfunction.

Very few of China's subs (only a handfull, really) are any kind of threat to American subs.


Yes... it had a malfunction
... I suppose the same could be said for the US submarine captains brain after it recently ran aground.
China's submarine force is deadly... they recently proved that twice against Japan and the pentagon has many published articles mentioning them as the number one threat to US shipping.



You are forgetting china has radars that render the F-22's stealth limited already. If the european arms embargo is lifted this year than you can kiss that advantage pretty much goodbye.


I can't forget what doesn't exist. You have absolutely no proof of these things. Did China and Russia invent an entirely new radar concept to detect stealth? Normal radar isn't just going to suddenly detect stealth planes. Low frequency was a small threat to first generation stealth like the F-117, it doesn't threaten the B-2 or F-22.


Stealth does not make an aircraft invisible... it simply returns lower yeilds making them harder to find and track. I have seen a video broadcast on the BBC showing a type-42 destroyer tracking a B2 bomber coming into UK airspace... the Americans denied it until shown the video.



European radars etc are first on China's shopping list.


Europe doesn't have the radars, either. You don't get it. There's really only one reliable way of detecting stealth, and its a theory, and years away.


See my above answer



You also have to get the F-22's into a position where they can strike at china... From japan... penetration is going to be limited due to fuel range etc.... and no fueling tanker is going to last long near chinese air-space.


Fuel range is hardly a problem from Japan. We don't just have to use Japan. Afghanistan is a real possibility in the future. Maybe even India.


Yes... use countries even further away
... fighter aircraft do not have that kind of range



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join