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 launches new type of sub, American intelligence "suprised"

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Chinas indrustrial capabilities are quite impressive. The only thing they lack is up to date technology. And that might change in the next couple of years. Look at Japan. The stayed low-tech in WWII but know we buy their cars, video game systems, and entertainment systems. True the F-22s are going to start going into service in 2005. But you wont see very many of them for a couple more years. And the first squadrons probably won't travel outside the US very much. And as gooseuk said before there are ways to shoot down stealth. Now as for us losing sophisticated aircraft would you mind supplying a few links. I've heard a few have gone down, but due to operational accidents. Not actual combat. Of course the reason we rolled over Iraq was because they had no army! But the guerillas are giving us hell! So I would call Iraq a miserable failure. Of course most of our problems were political in nature.




posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Greetings,

That states the loss of one US Apache Helicopter, due to hostile fire. It also mentions the loss of a F16, I am trying to shore that one up with a few of my sources.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Another Source
www.command-post.org...

As I find more I will post the links, with as much cross referencing as is possible. As for the AC 130 Spectre I will attempt to find the source of that to confirm it for you.

- Phil



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
do you seriously think china spent money on subs just for subs? dont you think they would make them more powerful then any other sub? do you they theyre retarded or something and not technologically updated.....china's government is well funded and would you seriously think they would spend hard earned money on a peice of crap? NO

so if you all disagree about china's subs being worse then americans.....your probably wrong



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Thanks for the links gooseuk.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Where does China find the money to finance all this powerful arm forces that we think they have or where they get the money to build submarines and other war equipment. And if they are so dangerous why UN and US have gone blind when it comes to them.


Just pick up any nearby object... Odds are it says "Made in China" on it... That's where they get the money. As one mentioned though...attacking the US is kind of like biting the hand that feeds you... This is more likely for defense or conquest of other Asian neighbors....

For a funny look at deisel vs a nuclear sub, see the movie "Down Periscope", hehe....



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   

do you seriously think china spent money on subs just for subs? dont you think they would make them more powerful then any other sub? do you they theyre retarded or something and not technologically updated.....china's government is well funded and would you seriously think they would spend hard earned money on a peice of crap? NO

so if you all disagree about china's subs being worse then americans.....your probably wrong


They are not more "powerful" than any other sub they are diesel no they are not retarded just don't have the money and tech to build 70+ nuclear subs. So your going to say that china has better subs than the US or that Chinas subs are more technologically advanced? Hate to break it to you buddy but they aren't. Plus china is well funded but the Us is even better funded 58 billion Vs. 466 billion



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Westpoint

You may reply to my post any time


- Phil



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
you guys are so arrogant , I have no interest to discuss this issue with u



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

do you seriously think china spent money on subs just for subs? dont you think they would make them more powerful then any other sub? do you they theyre retarded or something and not technologically updated.....china's government is well funded and would you seriously think they would spend hard earned money on a peice of crap? NO

so if you all disagree about china's subs being worse then americans.....your probably wrong


They are not more "powerful" than any other sub they are diesel no they are not retarded just don't have the money and tech to build 70+ nuclear subs. So your going to say that china has better subs than the US or that Chinas subs are more technologically advanced? Hate to break it to you buddy but they aren't. Plus china is well funded but the Us is even better funded 58 billion Vs. 466 billion



Maybe they use theyr money more wisely,

(referring to Bradley case where Pentagon spend over 16billion to make "anti-tank-scout-APC" )

And how long do you think that you could hold that sum up? Allready your nations budget is going down the sewer.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigrain
you guys are so arrogant , I have no interest to discuss this issue with u

well dont post here then.
oh and thanks for the complement mate i absolutley love your attitude



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Maybe they use theyr money more wisely,

(referring to Bradley case where Pentagon spend over 16billion to make "anti-tank-scout-APC" )

And how long do you think that you could hold that sum up? Allready your nations budget is going down the sewer.



Really they use their money more wisely? What do they got to show for it a couple of old russian subs and the pathetic J-10. China should feed and make living conditions better because 2/3 of its population are pheasants.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
That depends on your version of peasants. Farmer doesn't mean poor. And from what I hear the standard of living isn't too bad. Thats the great thing about communism, everybody gets what they need. From what I hear our unemployment rates are higher than theirs. I'll try to find a link on that ASAP.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
For a funny look at deisel vs a nuclear sub, see the movie "Down Periscope", hehe....

Lol...
That movie was hilarious.
"This food has been here since Korea!"
"Whats the matter it still tastes like cream corn"
"But its deviled ham!"

But if you want to be realistic about diesel vs. electric Down Periscope doesn't accuratly compare seeing as WWII technology diesel or not doesn't quite compare with modern technology. I'm sure the Chinese subs are better than the Stingray.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   


Really they use their money more wisely? What do they got to show for it a couple of old russian subs and the pathetic J-10. China should feed and make living conditions better because 2/3 of its population are pheasants.


Westpoint, you never cease to crack me up. Firstly, if 2/3 of Chinas population is pheasants, then i doubt they would have any food shortages, pheasants have tasty meat on them


Secondly...... Get your head out of your arse, and stop biggin up America as some sort of Uber power....there are plenty of nations that could ruck america.
If it hadn't been for a campaign of deception (well done on that by the way) Iraq could have fought you to a standstill for several months with what they had (as confirmed on BBC documentary Panorama, when they spoke to a US marine Colonel in charge of looking after captured Iraqi tanks).
They had Challengers, T-72's, chieftains, plus assorted heavy artillery and rocket launchers. But due to them placing 13 divisions north of Baghdad (to counter the expected attack from Turkey by the US by armour and airborne troops) they where horribly misplaced and Baghdad fell.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
- Phil


Hi, gooseuk,

It is so informative to read your posts. You have good and relevant reference to back up your points, not like someone else ranting all day and night " US is #1, can beat anyone".

Your analysis are objective and reasonable. I am looking forward to your future posts.

Thanks,

Zcheng



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Uhh... we are talking about Chinese tech so why are you bringing up the Iraq war? That is the strategy of war to get you enemy to deeply its forces at the wrong spot. Our tanks would have destroyed the T-72's with small or no loses, just like they did in Desert storm the US lost 4 tanks in 91 and no tank crews were killed.

Also read this article about Chinas working percentage and many other things. This is a quote from the article.


The basic condition of China is that it has a population of 1.2 billion, among which 80 per cent live in the rural areas. With more than 400 million peasants farming 1,5 billion mu arable land, the average acreage under cultivation of each farm laborer is less than 4 mu. Calculated according to the current agricultural productive capacity, there is about 130 million of Surplus labor in rural areas, accounting for one third of the total rural labor.


notesweb.uni-wh.de...

Most of Chinas population still doesn't live in cities but are mostly farmers.
And zcheng its funny you only like the posts of people who agree with your point of view



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Most of Chinas population still doesn't live in cities but are mostly farmers.
And zcheng its funny you only like the posts of people who agree with your point of view

your point is caller?
and one thing if thier famrers dont you think they'll be makeing food for the country.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Devil yea they are making food for their country, but they are also very poor cuz their jobs don't pay much. 80% of Chinese people don't live in cities, that is a major weakness in my mind for the Chinese economy especially if they have 960.000 people not living in cities.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Uhh... we are talking about Chinese tech so why are you bringing up the Iraq war? That is the strategy of war to get you enemy to deeply its forces at the wrong spot. Our tanks would have destroyed the T-72's with small or no loses, just like they did in Desert storm the US lost 4 tanks in 91 and no tank crews were killed.


I think in Iraq war, most tanks are not destroyed by tanks, but by helicopters, most T-72s did not even get a chance to fire. This showed how ground force are vulnerabe if they don't have good air-protection, does not really mean T-72 is crap. Even give Iraq M1A2, without a good system integration and support, their fate will not be better.

Another example is the jet fighter. You may look down upon all the Russian weapons, but Iraq also has French's Mirages. Did these Mirages ever shot down a F-16 ? no. Is Mirage also crap, no. In international market, Mirage's reputation is on par with F-16.



Most of Chinas population still doesn't live in cities but are mostly farmers.


I don't see much contradiction between these 2 issues, you just need to weigh the importance. Today we may put more money to solve Taiwan issue, tomorrow we may put more money to solve farmers issue.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by xbin
[I think in Iraq war, most tanks are not destroyed by tanks, but by helicopters, most T-72s did not even get a chance to fire. This showed how ground force are vulnerabe if they don't have good air-protection


The main force on force tank battle involved the 2nd armored clavary regiment aginst the Tawakalna Republican Guards Division at 73 Easting. The US forces WITHOUT aircover decimated a numericaly superior Elite Iraqi force. They sufferd very little in the way of losses.

The T-72 tank is typical of Soviet Era design. Made alot fo them, decent armour (for the time) but very little in the way of crew protection or safety etc. Revcent designs have come along way, but the T-72 is not the tank I would want to put my but on the line with. For christ sake a fuel line is ringed around the turret!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join