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: 60
1
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Ok sound like you basic off the shelf Russian oriented anti missile battery.





West Point, Out.




posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Nope. It's quite different actually. The Type 052C probably marks the beginning of China breaking away the habit of copying others. Its VLS did not copy the Russian revolver VLS style. The sides of the ship are built with facets that reduce radar signature which is not done on Russian ships. Its fire control system is co-developed with Ukrane and has similar performance with the US Aegis system. The HQ-9 missile is reported to be an attempt to combine the guidance technology of the Russian S-300 and the US. Patriot, and fit it with a Chinese designed missile motor, to create the ultimate missile!
They also produced a variant, the FT-2000, which is the world's first long-range-surface-to-air-anti-radiation-missile. Now how's that for originality.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Uhh.. your anti radiation missile facts aren't quite true check out theAGM-88 HARM which came out in 83. Or the newer AARGM.
All the Chinese did was make a missile similar to it and fitted it on ground systems, and I doubt the Chinese ARM is as capable as the HARM.

HARM

Specs.







West Point, Out.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
HARM is an AIR TO SURFACE anti-radiation missile. FT-2000 is a SURFACE TO AIR anti-radiation missile, and the first of its kind.

Edit: and in fact, it's Global Security.org ITSELF that said the FT-2000 is the first surface to air anti radiation missile.

www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 3-4-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Ok...already knew that btw. All they did was take the missile and launched it form the ground instead of the air. I don't exactly consider that a real military accomplishment or a great invention. The U.S. does not need any ARM from the ground as we always have air superiority.




West Point, Out.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
westy the missile isn't designed to hit ground targets rather air targets such as EW planes.

FT-2000 capabilities are consistent with the employment of the HQ-9 missile without the evidently problematic tracking radar. Its broadband passive radar target seeker can detect the electromagnetic emmanations from the adversary early warning and electronic jamming planes and shoot them down by tracing signals. Since the missile has a passive homing system which does not transmit electromagnetic waves, the possibility of being discovered by the enemy is greatly minimized. Its 12-100 kilometer slant range also ensures that it can strike at long range. The FT-2000 has become the focus of attention in Taiwan, given the concern that this missile will pose a serious threat to Taiwan's US-made E-2T early warning planes.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Ahh... did not know that I stand corrected. Couldn't you jam the missile though? As most of the EW aircraft have that capability.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ahh... did not know that I stand corrected. Couldn't you jam the missile though? As most of the EW aircraft have that capability.


You can't necessarily jam a missile. You can easily jam hostile radar and prevent the missile from achieving lock-on.

But it's difficult to jam a missile. So once it's fired, it's target, assuming it's a large, bulky E-3B-type plane, is gone for good.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Most times you won't even know an anti-radiation missile is coming until very close. Anti radiation missiles don't emit radar signals so they won't show up on the plane's RWR. The FT-2000 is also hellishly fast, maximum speed should be around 1.2 km/s. Even if for some reason you know when an FT-2000 is launched at you, you have at most one minute to react. Most of the time it's unlikely that you'll know an FT-2000 is coming until your plane's IR missile warning picks up the missile's heat signature and by that time it will probably be too late.

Edit: oh and as for jamming a missile, if you try to jam an anti-radiation missile, it's only going to have a higher chance of hitting you!
The way jamming works is, if a jammer detects an enemy radar source, it will send false radar pulses to that radar so it gets confused and can't figure out how far you are. The way radars find out how far targets are is to bounce a radar signal off the target and find the time difference between radar emission and radar return. If the target keeps sending fake signals at your radar, you can't figure out how far it is. Anti radiation missiles work differently. They simply go towards whatever's emitting radar waves. So if you turn on your jammer and spew fake signals everywhere, the anti radiation missile will have an easier time finding where you are.

In fact, the main purposes of the FT-2000 are anti-AWACS and anti-jammer.

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
To move onto the most important factor in this situation, land warfare...

I just came back from playing my modified version of Operation Flashpoint. I decided to have a virtual "showdown." I pitted a PLA ZTZ98 tank platoon vs. a U.S. Army tank platoon consisting of one M1A2 (platoon commander) and three M1A1s. This was C.P.U. vs. C.P.U. The results were sobering.

I played out two scenarios, one giving the Chinese a clear LOS and the U.S. a poor LOS, and then vice versa. Each time, the U.S. M1A1s creamed the Chinese tanks. It was absolutely difficult to watch. In the first scenario, with their clear LOS, the Abrams had clear shots and before the Chinese tanks had time to respond, the Abrams destroyed two of them. Another one went down. The last one put up a valiant effort, getting off two shots (both missed) before finally going down to a two-shot blast from two of the Abrams. Absolutely no survivors.

The second scenario, I gave the Chinese a head start to close in on the Abrams, and I gave the Abrams obstacles to overcome andobstructions to their LOS. The Chinese started a furious barrage and destroyed one Abrams, but the remaining three Abrams took out two ZTZ98s simultaneously and closed in lightning-fast and crushed the remaining two. It became a rather horrifying scene, as I watched Chinese survivors abandon their tanks, only to be gunned down by the Abrams' .50-caliber machine guns. I didn't see it, but I could hear those heavy machine guns going off. Sure, it's a game, but it was an absolutely terrifying sound and realization.

This showed that in land armored warfare, the Chinese really need to change their ways or find a way to work around America's armor superiority. Despite the advantages, the Chinese were still quickly demolished by the Abrams and could only destroy one M1A1. It's like these guys had no idea what they were doing and just closed their eyes and fired as many rounds before getting killed.

One universal problem with Eastern equipment is that it places effectiveness over personnel protection. They believe the best defense is always a good offense. But in warfare, no defense means no offense. Because these tanks were so poorly protected, unlike the Abrams, they had virtually no time to respond with firepower of their own.

Infantry was a different story. I'll cover that when we beat armored warfare to death.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
first off... chinese and american tanks would probably never real action against eachother, as that would require a landing on mainland China, which would be insane. Also, the Chinese tanks would be mostly destroyed by aircraft and attack choppers before any such invasion. Secondly, what I WOULD be worried about would be the 2-3 hundred thousand hand help ATM's and hand held SAM's that would be lurking in every bush and ditch the PLA was hiding in. That's what I'd do. Just build a whole crap load of hand held missiles and give one to every troop trained to use em. Welcome to hell on earth, boys. Cuz the chinese are so far behind in almost every military tech, that realistically, they can only hope to catch up in a couple of areas where they can really focus their money and resources... right now it appears to be missiles, aircraft, and naval tech.

*shudders*.... imagine flying over the chinese countryside in your jet and your threat warning goes off..... 200 blips on the radar screen from hand help SAM's from the Company down below... and that little attack would GUARANTEE that you and your plane are done... and would cost a fraction of the cost of the f-15 they just shot down. What's a good hand help SAM or ATM worth anyways? just outta curiosity



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devans28
first off... chinese and american tanks would probably never real action against eachother, as that would require a landing on mainland China, which would be insane. Also, the Chinese tanks would be mostly destroyed by aircraft and attack choppers before any such invasion. Secondly, what I WOULD be worried about would be the 2-3 hundred thousand hand help ATM's and hand held SAM's that would be lurking in every bush and ditch the PLA was hiding in. That's what I'd do. Just build a whole crap load of hand held missiles and give one to every troop trained to use em. Welcome to hell on earth, boys. Cuz the chinese are so far behind in almost every military tech, that realistically, they can only hope to catch up in a couple of areas where they can really focus their money and resources... right now it appears to be missiles, aircraft, and naval tech.

*shudders*.... imagine flying over the chinese countryside in your jet and your threat warning goes off..... 200 blips on the radar screen from hand help SAM's from the Company down below... and that little attack would GUARANTEE that you and your plane are done... and would cost a fraction of the cost of the f-15 they just shot down. What's a good hand help SAM or ATM worth anyways? just outta curiosity


Why would we need to invade mainland to face Chinese tanks? They can easily face each other on Taiwan. Why everyone thinks a mainland invasion is the only way the U.S. and China can fight, I have no idea.

It may be only a game, but it's a rather realistic game.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Realistic as in the AI is realistic or the equipment is realistic? Equipment wise, the Type-98 is not much worse than the M1A1. I don't know how good the tank crews in PLA are but communist governments tend to focus on their ground forces more than any other, and train them like hell.

It's also in the air that the US forces often have the advantage. The M1A1s in Iraq could not survive against guerillas with roadside bombs. I don't think they will fare any better against infantry with portable anti-tank missiles hiding in every corner.

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taishyou
Realistic as in the AI is realistic or the equipment is realistic? Equipment wise, the Type-98 is equal to the M1A1. I don't know how good the tank crews in PLA are but communist governments tend to focus on their ground forces more than any other, and train them like hell.


A.I. isn't the greatest, but the equipment is 150% realistic. Operation Flashpoint is probably one of the most realistic games ever made and the guy who created the PLA mod was impeccible in the detail. The PLA infantry wears actual real-life uniforms, use the correct assault rifle, and there is a whole myriad of tanks.

Let me check again, I may have gotten the name of the tank wrong. Still, these Chinese tanks were reduced to cinders the moment the Abrams spotted them.

Tell me, how is training for Ground Forces in the PLA?



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Sorry, I was thinking about ceremonial drill training when I said they are trained like hell. Combat wise, I don't know.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Uhh... the Abrams is not going to be destroyed by a roadside bomb as someone said, the Abrams is not a Humvee. It might cause some damage to the tracks but other than that I don't see a road side bomb taking out an Abrams unless it freaking huge which you could see and disable it. Also I think Abrams can take RPG's if that is what you meant about them being take n out by guerillas.

Also what portable hand lunched missile are you talking about? Do you mean trying to shoot down a A-10 tat flies low? I don't think your going to be able to shoot down an F-15 with stingers, SAM maybe but I don't see how we would fly over 200 SAM sites without destroying them first.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
A couple of Abrahams was disabled in Iraq by roadside bombs. Not completely blown up, but disabled, rendered combat incapable. You can find some videos of it on www.thenausea.com... (warning! There are some very graphic videos & photos. It's basically an anti-war site showing all the horrors of war on video and pictures)

The Abrahams is fully capable of surviving RPGs unless it hits sensitive equipment. There was one incident of the Abrahams nearly pierced right through by a "mystery projectile" which later turned out to be a Russian Kornet E. (IIRC there was a thread about it on ATS talking about it) I think the weakness of Abrahams (and perhaps ALL tanks) is urban warfare vs. guerillas or anti-tank infantry. The small targets that deal big blows.

In tank vs. tank though the M1A1 is one of the best in the world

Edit: hey! looks like there's a new thread in this board talking about exactly the same thing. What a coincidence.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 5-4-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Yeah I know tanks are not made for urban combat its like taking a 6 foot 5 nch guy who is about 250Lb and trying to have him fight in a phone booth he won't be able to move let alone fight.

Don't laugh I tried to make a better comparison but this one just sounded better to me.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taishyou
A couple of Abrahams was disabled in Iraq by roadside bombs. Not completely blown up, but disabled, rendered combat incapable. You can find some videos of it on www.thenausea.com... (warning! There are some very graphic videos & photos. It's basically an anti-war site showing all the horrors of war on video and pictures)

The Abrahams is fully capable of surviving RPGs unless it hits sensitive equipment. There was one incident of the Abrahams nearly pierced right through by a "mystery projectile" which later turned out to be a Russian Kornet E. (IIRC there was a thread about it on ATS talking about it) I think the weakness of Abrahams (and perhaps ALL tanks) is urban warfare vs. guerillas or anti-tank infantry. The small targets that deal big blows.

In tank vs. tank though the M1A1 is one of the best in the world

Edit: hey! looks like there's a new thread in this board talking about exactly the same thing. What a coincidence.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 5-4-2005 by Taishyou]


Couple of mistakes you are making though. For one, it is the ABRAMS, not the Abrahams!! Second, the M1A1 is outdated. It is the M1A2 Abrams tank now, and the upgraded M1A1 that the Marine Corps has (since they can't afford the full M1A2 upgrade). The M1 is getting another upgrade that includes more protection for vital areas on the back part because it is being used essentially for WWII tactics now (i.e. urban warfare).

Also, the terrorists did succeed in blowing the turret off an Abrams )the ifrst time ever to an Abrams). Basically, it was some type of remote detonation and the weapon used involved rounds that were like 3 feet long. They blew up right under the center of the tank, went right through, and blew the turret off.

They also lost an Abrams because the driver fell asleep while approaching a bridge and drove off the bridge by accident. The tank turned upside down and sank to the bottom of the river.

What I find freaky is that may not have been a quick death. Those Abrams are have nuclear, biological, chemical protecton and can ford some deep water without it leaking in, so they were probably trapped in the tank for a while until they ran out of air. They'd probably have fallen asleep though inside I am guessing as the CO2 slowly replaced the oxygen.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Couple of mistakes you are making though. For one, it is the ABRAMS, not the Abrahams!! Second, the M1A1 is outdated. It is the M1A2 Abrams tank now, and the upgraded M1A1 that the Marine Corps has (since they can't afford the full M1A2 upgrade). The M1 is getting another upgrade that includes more protection for vital areas on the back part because it is being used essentially for WWII tactics now (i.e. urban warfare).


That's a mistake. Very few units field the M1A2. In fact, there are only a handful in service, as they are just beginning to transition from the M1A1 to the M1A2. And to say the M1A1 is outdated, I don't get where you're getting that from. It's been in service for a little over a decade now and it is still years ahead of many other contemporary tanks.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join