Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What drives some to make the assumption that the U.S. is NOT as Militarily Advanced as it truly is?

page: 17
22
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


How good are the Chinese and Russians at "reverse engineering" American Tech? Im not talking about WW2 either, as an example. We know they can copy, but are their skills good enough to mass produce quality work?




China has long copied foreign technology, not always successfully. One of these unsuccessful efforts is becoming a major embarrassment, to the point where government officials are complaining about it openly. While the Chinese government tries to control news of leadership conflicts, they often allow arguments to go public when it is believed some public debate might do some good.

Such is the case with the uneven effort to manufacture military jet engines in China. The basic problem is the inability of the state controlled aviation company (Aviation Industry Corporation of China) to master the most advanced manufacturing and quality control techniques.

The problem is the inability of state-run firms to operate as efficiently as their privately owned counterparts in the West. The public debate points to the continued inability to even achieve the lower (than in the West) manufacturing standards of Russia, whose state-run firms (during the Soviet period) were also never able to match Western standards.

Some Chinese officials urge privatizing the engine manufacturers, but many others oppose that on political (not wanting to admit defeat) or practical (losing direct control of a key military industry) grounds. Meanwhile, the manufacturing bureaucrats cannot cope, even after many years of effort and much money spent.

While some 20 percent of Chinese warplanes now use Chinese made engines, 80 percent do not and that is something the government has not been able to keep secret....


Why Russia Has China By The Engines




posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


How old are you
the fighters/strike fighters and f-117 were 100% late 80's 1990/1 upgrades !!!!!!!!


I am TOO OLD. You are incorrect. The F-15 program started in 1968. The F-117 program started in 1975. I will detail this out for you. The B-52 program started in 1949. Most of the weapon systems used in Iraq and Afghanistan are programs that are over 40 or 50 years old. How old are YOU!?

The following information is from 'The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft' - General Editor Paul Eden - which I always keep handy, "The beginning of today's F-15 Eagle occurred in February 1968 when Tactical Air Command chief General Gabriel P. Disosway signed off on an ROC (Required Operational Capability) statement. This held that any F-4 replacement to emerge from thee F-X (next-generation fighter) studies must be an air superiority fighter. In May 1968, USAF Chief of Staff General John P. McConnell endorsed Disosway's package and allocated to the F-X effort his services highest priority.

In August 1975, Lockheed and Northrop were invited to develop and test an aircraft known as the Experimental Survivable Testbed (XST). Both manufacturers designed small single seat aircraft. The results of radar tests gave Lockheed victory in the Have Blue demonstration program in April 1976.

Have Blue was the development of the Lockheed F-117.

I think you would do yourself a favor and at the very least research what i post before you condemn it as it makes you look silly when I have to prove myself. Split Infinity




You are 100% wrong, the F-14/15/16/18's used in O.D.S. (Operation Desert Storm) we're nothing but the latest 1987-90 tech.
1. www.tim-thompson.com...


edit on 25-11-2012 by ATSWATCHER because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by peck420
 

Peck...the COVERT ULTRA-HIGH TECH WEAPON SYSTEMS that the U.S. has developed are HIDDEN with the total Military Budget. This is why it seems as if we are not getting our Moneys worth.


Do you honestly think that other countries don't have covert operations? Every major player has them.



The REALITY is that the COVERT PROGRAMS BUDGET is larger than many Countries entire GNP.
Split Infinity


And, once again, in terms of absolute dollars that means jack squat. If it costs you $1 million to make a cruise missile, and it costs the other guy $100,000 to make a comparable missile, does it matter if his budget is 10 times less? No it doesn't. You will both be getting the same number of missiles as a percentage of your overall budget.

The unfortunate truth is, every Western military budget is grossly inflated in comparison to their true purchasing power, and every 3rd world country is grossly deflated.

Unless you actually think that $100 USD will get you the same goods in China as it would in the US. Or Russia, or Brazil, or India, or South Africa, etc.


Hello there. I was reading through this thread and wanted to respond to this post.

SplitInfinity is correct here.

On the surface, it may "look" like the US military budget is inflated. However, your not taking into account
all of the "super secret" weapon's the US has, and the black budget's for them.

In your example, the US pays 1mil for a cruise missile, and other countries $100,000?
1,000 Cruise Missiles x $100,000 = $1,000,000 (One Hundred Million Dollars) Other Countries

1,000 Cruise Missiles x $1,000,000 = 1 Billion dollars USA
Over half of that 1 Billion goes towards development of super secret high tech weapons.


You don't really think the US Military pays $200 bucks per hammer, do you?



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


How old are you
the fighters/strike fighters and f-117 were 100% late 80's 1990/1 upgrades !!!!!!!!


I am TOO OLD. You are incorrect. The F-15 program started in 1968. The F-117 program started in 1975. I will detail this out for you. The B-52 program started in 1949. Most of the weapon systems used in Iraq and Afghanistan are programs that are over 40 or 50 years old. How old are YOU!?

The following information is from 'The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft' - General Editor Paul Eden - which I always keep handy, "The beginning of today's F-15 Eagle occurred in February 1968 when Tactical Air Command chief General Gabriel P. Disosway signed off on an ROC (Required Operational Capability) statement. This held that any F-4 replacement to emerge from thee F-X (next-generation fighter) studies must be an air superiority fighter. In May 1968, USAF Chief of Staff General John P. McConnell endorsed Disosway's package and allocated to the F-X effort his services highest priority.

In August 1975, Lockheed and Northrop were invited to develop and test an aircraft known as the Experimental Survivable Testbed (XST). Both manufacturers designed small single seat aircraft. The results of radar tests gave Lockheed victory in the Have Blue demonstration program in April 1976.

Have Blue was the development of the Lockheed F-117.

I think you would do yourself a favor and at the very least research what i post before you condemn it as it makes you look silly when I have to prove myself. Split Infinity




You are 100% wrong, the F-14/15/16/18's used in O.D.S. (Operation Desert Storm) we're nothing but the latest 1987-90 tech.
1. www.tim-thompson.com...


edit on 25-11-2012 by ATSWATCHER because: (no reason given)

SplitInfinity is correct.

All of the aircraft you are mentioning, the F-14/15/16/18's used in O.D.S. were designed in the 1960's. In some cases their avionics suite used 1980's technology (F-15E with its APG-70), in other cases not ( A-10 famously improvising a poor mans FLIR using the AGM-65D IR targeting display)

F-14's first flight was in 1970

F-15 maiden flight was 1972

F-16' first flight 1974

F/A-18 was 1978 but its prototype, the YF-17 flew with the YF-16 in 1974.

Out of curiosity, what point are you emphasizing by posting the order of battle for the Gulf War coalition air forces?
edit on 26-11-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by RAY1990
 

Ray...what ever you could imagine the level of Tech. the U.S. currently has...it is even more shockingly Advanced. The U.S. has Weaponry at such High Levels of Tech. that some of this weaponry has classifications and doctrine as to why, when and under what circumstances some Weaponry would be used.

There is also what is known as LAST USE WEAPONS which are only meant to be used in the case of a Catastrophic Breakdown in the U.S. Military's ability to protect the U.S. Mainland. I would NOT want to be the Country on the receiving end of such weaponry. Split Infinity


Reading through a few of your posts, it's conclusive that you are nothing but a complete & utter fantasist.

Whatever the status of your country's secret weapons program, you have no clue as does anybody bar a few high ranking military officials.

All weapons have deployment levels that would dictate where & when it to be used. Every military will have it, even more so, those with next gen weapons systems. Big whoop!

As for your all powerful last use weapons that you keep ejaculating over. The point is in the name, something that will cause mass destruction on a crazy scale. Something so horrifying that no-one would want to be on the end of it. A nuke is a last-use weapon & you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that would you? So I hate to break it to you but there is no super-weapon that is more frightful because after a nuke has gone off there is nothing left behind. Therefore, a nuke is the ultimate last resort weapon. It doesn't matter if a country has fusion or anti-matter warheads in future. No need for a sledgehammer when a regular hammer is more than capable of getting the job done.

Given the absurd amount of money your country spends on it's military, I'd be astonished if it didn't have some crazy tech. the problem you seem incapable of understanding is a country like Russia will also have some nasty crap waiting to be deployed. It does not matter how much money is given to R&D a project, A simple example is NASA, look how much was spent on getting it's astronauts into space. Now look at Elon Musk's company SpaceX & compare. Look the net for the numerous examples of large multi-national corporations buying up small start-up companies who have made breakthroughs in a tiny lab with miniscule budgets. Breakthroughs that the big boy with all their resources couldn't manage.

The exact same will be true for the military. All it takes is a single scientist to make a breakthrough in a lab & the playing field has been leveled.

So instead of all this chest thumping jingoism that you have going on, you should accept that while your country will have secret weapons (which you know jack sh1t about btw) other countries will have their own & should any ever be deployed, then there will be absolutely no winners because very little will be left standing in the end!



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
 

You need to do some reading.
Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by big_BHOY
 

It is unfortunate that you are personalizing your posts as this topic just asks a question. It is also unfortunate that instead of debating my or anyone else's statements in a civilized manner...you have resorted to name calling and labeling people who you neither know nor have an understanding of.

What is even worse is your complete ignorance of the reality of this issue.

I would find it sad if I didn't find it so amusing. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 
I agree. Syria is a civil war. Assad is a bad buy but that doesn't mean the people that are fighting him are any better. It's hard to pick sides in a situation like that especially when there's been atrocities on both sides.

It's like Colin Powell said, if you go into a situation like that you're going to own the country and then what. Can you cure all what ails them? Will they even want you to be there.

The US just photos of there old secret planes. Incredibly advanced looking stuff even dating back to the 1950s. Anyone could reasonable mistake this stuff for being UFOs IMO but that's another thread I suppose. The point is that we could go in there and take over but then what? As we learned in Iraq & Viet Nam. It's hard to help people who don't want help and/or have terrorist organizations with their country.

Don't have any solutions or set ideas about this. Just questions.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 


So nothing but hearsay? If you want to include black budgets...include the documents. If you can't, assume that your adversary is just as invested as you.

I don't think Chinese military budgets include for their top secret programs either, not that it matters.

And, yes, what costs the US $1,000,000 to to produce (for example a cruise missile) will cost the Chinese in around a couple thousand.

Really helps when you can pay a top line worker with years of training...like an engineer... less than what a barrista at Starbucks makes here.

But, as Split Infinity points out, none of that matters, just absolute totals. It's not like the Chinese were able to take over much of the world production through relative currency values or anything.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by big_BHOY
 


I've shared a number of these types of projects here on this site, danger to myself or not, and there are indeed weapons, devices, and complicated operations even that would cause massive destruction. There's an alternative to all that, the only one I know of, that bounces an EM field around the globe. That in itself is fairly scary, and it worked on a small scale. I don't know what became of it but it's there.

These arguments are a bit pointless in the broader sense of things though. A number of the major players have these capabilities but just use different methods. With the way things are right now, despite all the fear mongering in places like here on ATS, it's unlikely anything like this will be used any time soon. There's nothing to be gained in decimating a population. The repercussions ripple back home and place the "victor" in a position worse than if they had not acted at all. Tactical solutions win wars these days. The things relatively unseen but for their later effects. As time goes on, the meaning of "battlefield" will become more and more skewed.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Jesse Ventura exposed one of the major weapons being used by, in my opinion, two countries on our planet, the US being one.

I was so alarmed at one of Jesse Ventura's recent shows on Death Rays (notice how I capitalized - with all due respect), I did a youtube video on one of the weapons. I researched over 50 hours, and I downloaded various local-live news stories, radio snippets from various Alex Jones shows, as well as my own interviews by making phone calls to the Minneapolis Chief of Police's secretary. I also made contact with one of Dr. Fred Bell's relatives during the last week in November '12. Anyways, I videotaped my alarming conversations, and added them to my research video.

If you want to see my video, it's here. Enjoy my 50 hour audit investigation in this 8 minutes video compilation audit investigation of Jesse Ventura's Death Ray episode. www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


How old are you
the fighters/strike fighters and f-117 were 100% late 80's 1990/1 upgrades !!!!!!!!


I am TOO OLD. You are incorrect. The F-15 program started in 1968. The F-117 program started in 1975. I will detail this out for you. The B-52 program started in 1949. Most of the weapon systems used in Iraq and Afghanistan are programs that are over 40 or 50 years old. How old are YOU!?

The following information is from 'The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft' - General Editor Paul Eden - which I always keep handy, "The beginning of today's F-15 Eagle occurred in February 1968 when Tactical Air Command chief General Gabriel P. Disosway signed off on an ROC (Required Operational Capability) statement. This held that any F-4 replacement to emerge from thee F-X (next-generation fighter) studies must be an air superiority fighter. In May 1968, USAF Chief of Staff General John P. McConnell endorsed Disosway's package and allocated to the F-X effort his services highest priority.

In August 1975, Lockheed and Northrop were invited to develop and test an aircraft known as the Experimental Survivable Testbed (XST). Both manufacturers designed small single seat aircraft. The results of radar tests gave Lockheed victory in the Have Blue demonstration program in April 1976.

Have Blue was the development of the Lockheed F-117.

I think you would do yourself a favor and at the very least research what i post before you condemn it as it makes you look silly when I have to prove myself. Split Infinity




You are 100% wrong, the F-14/15/16/18's used in O.D.S. (Operation Desert Storm) we're nothing but the latest 1987-90 tech.
1. www.tim-thompson.com...


edit on 25-11-2012 by ATSWATCHER because: (no reason given)

SplitInfinity is correct.

All of the aircraft you are mentioning, the F-14/15/16/18's used in O.D.S. were designed in the 1960's. In some cases their avionics suite used 1980's technology (F-15E with its APG-70), in other cases not ( A-10 famously improvising a poor mans FLIR using the AGM-65D IR targeting display)

F-14's first flight was in 1970

F-15 maiden flight was 1972

F-16' first flight 1974

F/A-18 was 1978 but its prototype, the YF-17 flew with the YF-16 in 1974.

Out of curiosity, what point are you emphasizing by posting the order of battle for the Gulf War coalition air forces?
edit on 26-11-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)


Well I think I miss-understood him, I thought, he was saying the F-14/15/18's and B-52's in O.D.S. (Operation Desert Storm) did NOT have the latest Radars/ECM/ECCM/ESM/ESSM/RWR (Radar Warning Recievers) and IFFs I know those planes were made in the 70-80's



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
 

You need to do some reading.
Split Infinity



It would be better for you to read those links I put up, you'd be shocked, I know I was, and am 100% convinced the U.S. will NOT win the next world war.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
 


What links? The only links you have put up are to a video of a supercavitating torpedo, and the OOB of Desert Storm. There's nothing to read.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
 


What links? The only links you have put up are to a video of a supercavitating torpedo, and the OOB of Desert Storm. There's nothing to read.



1.catless.ncl.ac.uk...

2. www.jamesoberg.com...

3. www.dia.mil...

4. www.heritage.org...

5. www.astronautix.com...

6. www.fas.org...

7. www.heritage.org...

8. www.fas.org...

There's more links, I just posted those up, which I thought he would read, but he didn't so I'll post the rest.
edit on 4-12-2012 by ATSWATCHER because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
For those of you here on this board...I tell you this. Whatever you can think of as a possible U.S. Military High Tech Weapon...Multiply your thoughts times a THOUSAND! We have capabilities and Weaponry that scare even those who have designed it and if any Nation were to actually attempt a Sneak Attack...the U.S. Military would use some of this weaponry. These systems are WORLD CHANGING and even knowledge of their EXISTENCE would put Political Strains on our relations with other countries and even our own allies.


My guess: there exist EMP and anti-electronics capabilities which, when used in aggregate, equal an ionospheric nuclear weapon in effects. It also means the consequences to the unfortunate target's economy and civilian lifestyle would be very dramatic. Not directly killing people but making an enormous number of people as desperate as those in the hurricane areas---but across the nation, for months.

This would be equally devastating against the USA as well.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


So it beggers the question. Why won't the US get involved in Syria. The answer would be that they FEAR Russian and Chinese involvement.


My guess is that they fear not having a winning strategy or outcome which justifies the efforts, expense and blowback.

Libya was comparatively easy---the Libyan military was very weak and divided, the country was large, and air power could be decisive. Syria is brutal block by block atrocity vs atrocity.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
This is not a troll answer but what I think:

9/11

If the USA had as powerful and advanced a military as people believed then 19 minimally funded hijackers wouldn't have pulled off what they did.


Why? They did everything without engaging the U.S. military in any way. Capabilities don't make people have better judgement. After all, somebody even reported the highly irregular behavior of the hijackers at flight school to the FBI, and just a week before, James Woods (yes the actor) reported to the FBI a number of suspicious men on a flight. The terrorists were on a dry run.

The US military and intelligence agencies do not have total mind reading access, and they never will.
edit on 6-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by peck420
 

The OP is 100% dead on correct about how insanely advanced our military has got to be. It's got to be a relatively small but very advanced group....because no vet or serving member I know or am related to has seen what accounts for this:

U.S. Defense spending in global context

The spending...when I first realized the true scale of it in real terms of what those dollars ARE...made me sick. One of those gut moments. Our military is smaller than China, by a large margin. Yet look at the spending difference. Russia isn't dramatically less advanced if noticeably less so than we are....they've stolen most before we've had a prototype of our own. ...but R&D doesn't...even...begin...to explain that. Annual spending. Every 12 months. (???) Seeing the breakdown doesn't make it more logical either. No..The OP is right about the advanced core somewhere...and it's costing enough to have the Starship Enterprise every couple years, too.

edit on 2-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


On one hand there is the possibility that the USA is building the Death Star

The other possibility is epic, mind altering levels of waste, fraud and corruption hiding behind a web of secrecy so big and deep nobody understands all of it.

I suspect reality is actually in between.
edit on 2-11-2012 by justwokeup because: Typo


First, the officially published figures for the Chinese military budget are completely nonsensical, and intentionally misleading. It is nothing like the US. In China, at a minimum, the Communist Party---not even the official government---controls the military. Therefore entire gobs of money, resources, and power can go to the military without ever officially being part of the Chinese government system.

In the USA, a very large amount of the US military spending, e.g. R&D is actually black-budget funding of the intelligence agencies. And yes, there is mind altering levels of waste, fraud and corruption hiding behind a web of secrecy. They are not building the Death Star--they can't. They are building the Death Star's networks of supercomputers. Nevertheless, this is often an exercise in gigantism. Huge projects managed to increase one's bureaucratic empire. They can collect and store all sorts of data at Titanic expense. Now what? They still can't read minds---and most importantly, they can't change people's mind's in the slightest. It's corporate welfare for Cisco and Intel.

BTW, don't ever buy a Chinese router (if you think the Chinese might have something to learn from you). In the Intelligence Community (before it went completely silent and black) there was some really deep worry (from experimental evidence) about true hardware hacks. That is, backdoors built in very subtly directly in the chip manufacturing. Even if it was a US company designing it, the designs were ever so slightly changed in production, and it was extremely hard to find out. No anti-virus scan will ever find this.

Similarly, I'm sure the Chinese military establishment wont' ever use a Cisco router for the same reason.
edit on 6-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Confusion42
On the surface, it may "look" like the US military budget is inflated. However, your not taking into account
all of the "super secret" weapon's the US has, and the black budget's for them.

In your example, the US pays 1mil for a cruise missile, and other countries $100,000?
1,000 Cruise Missiles x $100,000 = $1,000,000 (One Hundred Million Dollars) Other Countries

1,000 Cruise Missiles x $1,000,000 = 1 Billion dollars USA
Over half of that 1 Billion goes towards development of super secret high tech weapons.


You don't really think the US Military pays $200 bucks per hammer, do you?


Actually in the USAF's development and procurement, now more than half just goes to a black-line in the budget and funneled to the black intelligence agencies. The rest goes to actually buying stuff. So yes the cost of the cruise missiles really is as expensive they seem.
edit on 6-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
22
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join