China launches new stealth fighter project

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Serb
Yearh, sure St. Claus did it.

I feel sorry for you. I had no idea that Russian history was so poorly taught within Russia.

Anyway, the Finns likely would have helped Napoleon.

[Kramerman]

This thing exist only as concept art

true, but the basic technology all exists... it merely must be improved, integrated, and most importantly, produced more cheaply. It will be sometime before all this happens...

Ok, educate me what the heck is OICW?

tired... need sleep... might explain tomorrow, for now here:
Information on OICW

Big deal

it is a big deal ( i know no one else who can use the *roll eyes* smilie as effective, tho superfluous, as yourself)

Already have them, more probably you've stole it from us.

perhaps. but like most US equipment, our guided shells will have superior range, accuracy, and effectiveness in general

Really? No kidding? 10*6*15*50=5400 Km per hour? Faster then planes?
At this moment the fastest torpedo is Russian "Shkval" which travels at speeds 300 Km per hour. Pentagon wasted years to stole it and create something eqaul, since "Shkval" was created in 80s. Last attempt was not so long ago, when mr. Pope was trying to steal blueprints of this weapon. Now you claims that you have ten times faster torpedo. Where did you get it? How it works?

hmm... you sound skeptical.
yes, i know all about 'shkval', it can travel 200 mph, and was rumored to be aboard the kursk when it sank...

and the reason why the torpedo goes so fast: gas is emitted through a nozel at the tip, this gas forms water vapor that effectively incases the torpedo in a bubble. This 'bubble' allows the torpedo to travel thru the water with virtually no drag. Combined with a rocket engine, the torpedo can travel as fast as a...err... rocket. This expalins why it can travel faster than jets. It is only theoretical presently, but researches at the US Naval Undersea Warfare Center have already launched an experimental supercavitating torpedo that broke the sound-barrier.

At current moment the largest battleship is Russian Peter the Great of "Kirov" class. I doubt that on distances about 500 miles accuracy of rail guns could be somewhere near the accuracy of Peter the Great missiles.

well, this is the problem currently with developing rail guns. We would probably already have them if it werent for this. They are trying to develope guided munitions for them, in order to make them effective, but these are more 'fragile' than the standard 'hard shells' and have a very hard time surviving the hyper-velocity launch speeds (the friction produced at these speeds often melt the projectile, welding it to the inside of the bore). Once conquered however, rest assured they will be equally effective, and much, much cheaper than your missiles.

Kman

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Serb
At the same scale as you needed our help to defeat Japan Ipmerial Army.

I'd hardly call March 1945 (IIRC) the most helpful time for a DOW by the USSR ...

[David Floyd]

We were talking about butt kicking, remember?

Oh, well, in that case, the only similar experience to the falling apart of the Soviet Union was the US Civil War. And I don't recall the CSA winning.

There are no invincible countries, armies as well as kickboxers for example. Sooner or later some one will kick your as$ on the ring and later this guy will be beaten by next guy and so on. Thinking that you are invincible is really stupid. When you think so, you start to understimate your enemy which is damn big mistake. Such thinking leads only to much sooner defeat.

No one's saying the US is invincible forever. We're just saying the US is invincible for today and the forseeable future.

Ground, sea, air, big difference- just don't fight there that's the meaning

Yes, because the US would have loads of trouble winning any naval war against an Asian country Hell, the USN would beat every Asian navy - including the Russian navy - combined, and everyone knows that.

Well, if we are talking about REAL wars, then our last real war was Great patriotic war (you call it WW2).

Yes, and I don't recall you winning that one on your own.

btw, when was the last time when USA won a war without Russian help?

Persian Gulf, to start with.

And in general, when was the last time USA won a war ALONE?

Panama and Grenada come to mind.

This list is too long. Wars vs. Hitler,

Laughable. You didn't beat Hitler by yourself, you needed virtually the rest of the world's help.

Napoleon,

This was non-assisted? For starters, the Russian Winter is what beat Napoleon - not the non-existence Russian victory at Borodino.
And never mind the fact that the Peninsular War tied up over 300,000 French troops at the same time. Never mind the fact that it was the British and Dutch and Prussians who won at Waterloo, not the Russians.

Mongols,

Eventually they got kicked out, although not before conquering and plundering Russia as it existed at the time. Hardly a brilliant victory, and hardly unassisted by other factors, such as Mongol internal politics.

Turks,

You mean like in the Crimean War? Good job winning that one

Swedes,

You never beat the Swedes until Poltava. Gustavus Adolphus kicked the **** out of Russia in his day. And Russia damn well better have won, considering their huge numerical superiority. In fact, as I recall, that's all Russia has ever relied on to win battles - numerical superiority. Hardly a brilliant strategy - hell, my cat could figure that one out

Poles,

So you beat the Poles in the 1920s?

If you are referring to the Polish Partition, you might recall that this was by no means an unassisted victory.

Oh...and also intervention of 14 foreign countries (including your own) during Russian civil war after Boltshevick's revolution etc.

Oh bollocks. If the US, Britain, France, etc., had actually committed to a full scale war, Russia - oh excuse me the Soviet Union - would have gotten its ass kicked, unless you are trying to argue that it was stronger in the middle of a civil war, after huge losses in WW1, than it was before and during the time when Germany by itself was whipping the **** out of it with less than half of its army.

Big deal

Yes, space-based weapons are totally irrelevant

At current moment the largest battleship is Russian Peter the Great of "Kirov" class.

You have two of those that are (semi) active, with no money to procure more or even adequately maintain and exercise the two you have. If that's the best you have, I'm not worried - those'll get beat by US naval aviation, anti-ship missiles, and submarines operating together.

Anyhow, we weren't beaten there.

Fine, then the US wasn't beaten in Vietnam either. The US Army won every major battle, including and especially the Tet Offensive.

At the same scale as you needed our help to defeat Japan Ipmerial Army.

The Japanese Imperial Army was irrelevant to the final defeat of Japan. Not only that, but the portion you fought was the Kwangtung Army, which was under-supplied and under-manned, without adequate fuel or air cover.

Your victory in Manchuria in no way affected the US victories against Japan, which are what decided the war. Those millions of Japanese troops in China, Manchuria, and Korea were irrelevant because they could not be transported back to Japan.

And in any case, the Soviet Union would NOT have defeated Germany on its own. This is not only due to Lend Lease, but also largely due to the fact that by 1944 over a million Germans were tied down in anti-aircraft duties in the West, over a million German troops were in Italy and the Balkans, over 400,000 were in Norway, and 46 divisions - including 9 Panzer divisions with 1500+ tanks - were in France, along with over 80% of the Luftwaffe's fighter strength. If Germany had been able to throw over 2 million additional troops, 2000 additional tanks, a couple thousand additional fighters, and vast numbers of 88s onto the Eastern Front, do you really think that the Soviets would have made anything close to the gains they did? I certainly don't, and in fact, I rather expect that the front would have largely stabilized, and the Germans might even have regained some ground.

The longer the war went on, the SU's rail transportation system became more and more taxed - by 1945 it was at a breaking point, EVEN WITH Lend Lease, which accounted for well over 85% of both new rail tracks and rolling stock. Extend the war a couple more years and take away Lend Lease, and suddenly the Red Army has to march from north to south and east to west, not take the trains. Germany would have had no such problems, given the fact that the US/Britain strategic bombing war would not have been taking place, and the fact that the SU had no capability to launch such a campaign.

German production would have been even higher, and as the war went on Germany would have been able to better exploit the industrial potential of the areas they had conquered. Further, without having to fight Britain and the US, there would have been no embargo (and, by the way, no need to divert massive resources to the U-Boat campaign). This means that Germany would have had access to the world market for oil and rubber, among other things, such as the international money market and credit system. German national wealth was certainly greater than that of the Soviet Union, which would have translated into a much better ability to finance a long war.

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, would have been much worse off than they were historically, because of a lack of the major advantages they possessed in a coalition-type war, and the influx of billions of dollars worth of free equipment, food, supplies, etc.

Really, saying that the SU would have beaten Nazi Germany on its own is incredibly silly.

I don't remember a single case when America engaged in war vs. real competitor.

The US certainly had the balls to fight the British Empire in 1812, for example, and to fight an undeclared naval war against the French in the early 1800s. Those contests were certainly not even, by any stretch of the imagination.

[Serb]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I feel sorry for you. I had no idea that Russian history was so poorly taught within Russia.

Read carefuly next time. Why do you think I added three sarcastic smiles?

Anyway, the Finns likely would have helped Napoleon.

Bah...Russia took Finland as rusult of Napoleonic wars. There was no need for them to help him.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kramerman

Why do you say this, out of curiosity?

Because American airpower triumphs have been against poor, backward countries.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Who cares about a new stealth fighter? If you play Deus Ex, you'll know that we're due for a stealth HELICOPTER in a few decades.

Now that I'd like to see. How on earth could you "stealthify" a helicopter? Is it even possible?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Aside from the fact that it is fairly stupid to assume that the tech capabilities of the US has remained static since 1995?

Not remaining static is not the same as a *cough* leap *cough*. Sure, incremental improvements have certainly been made, but a "leap" is something quite major, which I haven't seen.

The Missile Shield, if it works, will count as a leap. But I am sure it won't work, at least not in a few decades.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If China wants to put fixed wing ASW aircraft over the Straits of Taiwan, they'll be shot down.

You are again assuming the US has air superiority, which really is the question.

Originally posted by David Floyd
If the PLAN sorties with ASW ships, 688is are more than capable of defeating those warships. China does not have enough ASW-capable warships to set up a wide enough net, anyway.

There isn't such a need. Either your subs attack or they don't. If they attack, they can only go so far.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Are you seriously making the claim that the PLAN could defeat the USN in the Straits of Taiwan?

Depending on how much you deploy. In any realistic scenario, yes. The US will not be risking much if at all of naval assets.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, air based radar - the E3A Sentry and the E2C Hawkeye, for starters. Secondly, this assumes that the US would NOT deploy any sort of theater missile defense. I see no reason this would be the case.

First of all, no Hawkeyes, because you agreed that there wouldn't be any carriers. Where will be the E3As coming from? Japan? If they get close enough to be of use, they will be outside protection range of any missile defenses the US can deploy in Japanese bases.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, and US standoff cruise missiles can target Chinese radar sites from behind Taiwan.

That's why the S-300's can be so useful.

Originally posted by David Floyd
And in any case, the F-22 and F-15 are able to easily outperform ANYTHING the Chinese can put in the air, just on the basis of paper performance alone. When you put training, equipment, maintenance, experience, leadership, etc., into the mix, the USAF is FAR superior to the PLAAF.

I am assuming US-only assets. There are 3 USAF bases in Japan and 1 in ROK. Say, 8 fighter squardons? That's not a whole lot really.

Originally posted by David Floyd
The Mainstay is not the equal of the E-3.

Sure, but the advantage of proximity is huge.

Originally posted by David Floyd
US AWACS aircraft operating off carriers and land-based airfields, if it comes down to it. Those aircraft are pretty much invulnerable to the PLAAF, unless you think a PLAAF fighter sweep could get past the Taiwan Straits, over Taiwan, through Taiwanese and US fighter defenses, and be able to find and shoot down these AWACS planes. But I'm not worried - the Soviet Union probably wouldn't have been able to do this over Europe, so why would you think the much inferior PLAAF could?

You aren't paying attention.

1. None of them will have the same kind of fighter protection it would have over Europe.

2. Operating beyond Taiwan renders them quite useless, and it's doubtful that have the effective coverage.

3. Consider any and all airbases in Taiwan not operational.

4. You are igoring the long range anti-radiation missiles again.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not remaining static is not the same as a *cough* leap *cough*. Sure, incremental improvements have certainly been made, but a "leap" is something quite major, which I haven't seen.

It's bad form to redefine terms.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Who cares about a new stealth fighter? If you play Deus Ex, you'll know that we're due for a stealth HELICOPTER in a few decades.

Now that I'd like to see. How on earth could you "stealthify" a helicopter? Is it even possible?

Yes it is possible, as it has already been done. The US Comanche helicopter is stealth, but it, after countless delays and other inefficiencies, will not be introduced for a few more years yet. Its been in developement since like the early 90s, IIRC. If you know what an Apache helicopter is, its basically like that in function, and similar in form (except without the protruding stub pylons that the apache has to carry weapon payloads... the comanche carries these in an internal weapons bay, much like the F-22 Raptor)

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kramerman

true, but the basic technology all exists... it merely must be improved, integrated, and most importantly, produced more cheaply. It will be sometime before all this happens...

Well, cool then. It's good to know that I have chances to see Powered armor (those guys stolen the idea from Fallout, I'm sure) in my lifetime.

tired... need sleep... might explain tomorrow, for now here:
Information on OICW

Nice looking toys, a bit bulky, but still looking fine.
Btw, Did you read "personal opinions" in the end of this article? This heretic is saying that those rifles actully sucks How dare he? It's such cool looking rifles.

it is a big deal ( i know no one else who can use the *roll eyes* smilie as effective, tho superfluous, as yourself)

Not so big considering that we have such toys too. Phasers, shmazers, megamazers- full arsenal. But tssss... it's a secret information.

perhaps. but like most US equipment, our guided shells will have superior range, accuracy, and effectiveness in general

I'm afraid you are ABSOLUTELY wrong here and btw, we already offereing this ammo on world market (India bought some, iirc) aside your "already out in small numbers and for certain weapons"

hmm... you sound skeptical.

I'm sound realistic. I'm almost sure that you've made a mistake. No torpedo can travel with speed of 5400 kmph.

and the reason why the torpedo goes so fast: gas is emitted through a nozel at the tip, this gas forms water vapor that effectively incases the torpedo in a bubble. This 'bubble' allows the torpedo to travel thru the water with virtually no drag. Combined with a rocket engine, the torpedo can travel as fast as a...err... rocket. This expalins why it can travel faster than jets. It is only theoretical presently, but researches at the US Naval Undersea Warfare Center have already launched an experimental supercavitating torpedo that broke the sound-barrier.

This is EXACTLY how "Shkval" works. It means that you finaly solen "Shkval"- the technology Russians invented 20 years ago. Bastards.

well, this is the problem currently with developing rail guns. We would probably already have them if it werent for this. They are trying to develope guided munitions for them, in order to make them effective, but these are more 'fragile' than the standard 'hard shells' and have a very hard time surviving the hyper-velocity launch speeds (the friction produced at these speeds often melt the projectile, welding it to the inside of the bore). Once conquered however, rest assured they will be equally effective, and much, much cheaper than your missiles.

I don't know how gun shot on distances about 500 miles could be accurate. (I have no idea how exactly you gonna deliver shels on such great distance too). It's just beyond me. Imho, the age of big cannons is over. It's a dead end. Those guys just wasting your money.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Oh, well, in that case, the only similar experience to the falling apart of the Soviet Union was the US Civil War. And I don't recall the CSA winning.

I don't see any similarities here. There was no civil war in 1991 to your knowledge.

No one's saying the US is invincible forever. We're just saying the US is invincible for today and the forseeable future.

American thinking is funny. With such thinking you will never defeat China. It's bodybuilder's philosophy- pump your muscles and don't worry about anything else. USA reminds me such thug, as Arnie for example- "hey babe, look at my back...it's huge isn't it? Now look at my leg...fantastic size isn't it? I'm the strongest, just look at my muscles. I can kick everyone's as$es easily"

Yes, because the US would have loads of trouble winning any naval war against an Asian country Hell, the USN would beat every Asian navy - including the Russian navy - combined, and everyone knows that.

Not everyone. Every American, perhaps, but not everyone.

Yes, and I don't recall you winning that one on your own.

Sure you did it for us.

Persian Gulf, to start with.

Hmmm...where did I heard this?
"Yes, and I don't recall you winning that one on your own. "

Panama and Grenada come to mind.

Great victories, my ass.

Laughable. You didn't beat Hitler by yourself, you needed virtually the rest of the world's help.

Oh sure, it's the rest of the world who destroyed his army.

This was non-assisted? For starters, the Russian Winter is what beat Napoleon - not the non-existence Russian victory at Borodino.
And never mind the fact that the Peninsular War tied up over 300,000 French troops at the same time. Never mind the fact that it was the British and Dutch and Prussians who won at Waterloo, not the Russians.

And never mind the fact that Napoleon was running away from Russia like beaten dog. And never mind the fact that he lost about million of soldiers here overall.

Eventually they got kicked out, although not before conquering and plundering Russia as it existed at the time. Hardly a brilliant victory, and hardly unassisted by other factors, such as Mongol internal politics.

Without such hardly brilliant victories Europe was conquered and it would be Indians who discover Europe, not Europeans who discover America. Ungratefull bastard.

You mean like in the Crimean War? Good job winning that one

I mean other half of the dozen wars we've won against Turkey. Who do you think gave independece to Serbia and Bulgaria, Harry Poter? If not Brits and French pressure there wouldn't be Stambul today, only Constaninopol.

You never beat the Swedes until Poltava. Gustavus Adolphus kicked the **** out of Russia in his day. And Russia damn well better have won, considering their huge numerical superiority. In fact, as I recall, that's all Russia has ever relied on to win battles - numerical superiority. Hardly a brilliant strategy - hell, my cat could figure that one out

Blah...blah...blah...Swedes did beaten Russians in Poltava first time. Not a big deal considering that Sweden army was the strongest army in Europe, not a big deal when elite soldiers beats 50 000 of peasants. Nine years later they faced absolutely different army and were beaten. And not because of numeric superiority. We won this war, not the other way around, so shut the f*ck up, please.

So you beat the Poles in the 1920s?

Yep, they were lucky this time. Great victory. To your knowledge, at this time we fought vs dozen of other countries and half our own population.

If you are referring to the Polish Partition, you might recall that this was by no means an unassisted victory.

Yeah and repeling of Polish invasion in 17 century was assisted victory too?

Oh bollocks. If the US, Britain, France, etc., had actually committed to a full scale war, Russia - oh excuse me the Soviet Union

Wrong mr. Floyd. Russia, not Soviet Union. SU didn't existed at this time.

- would have gotten its ass kicked, unless you are trying to argue that it was stronger in the middle of a civil war, after huge losses in WW1, than it was before and during the time when Germany by itself was whipping the **** out of it with less than half of its army.

Of course it was MUCH, thousands times MUCH stronger. You will never understand this. The key word is motivation.

Yes, space-based weapons are totally irrelevant

I meant, not unique not irrelevant.

You have two of those that are (semi) active, with no money to procure more or even adequately maintain and exercise the two you have. If that's the best you have, I'm not worried - those'll get beat by US naval aviation, anti-ship missiles, and submarines operating together.

Come and get them. I'm tired of your crap.

Fine, then the US wasn't beaten in Vietnam either. The US Army won every major battle, including and especially the Tet Offensive.

Do you want to compare loss ratio? Kill ratio without millions of civilians whom your shining and peace loving democracy killed during carped bombardments and due chem&bio weapons of course.

The Japanese Imperial Army was irrelevant to the final defeat of Japan. Not only that, but the portion you fought was the Kwangtung Army, which was under-supplied and under-manned, without adequate fuel or air cover.

Too tired to write it myself so:
The German forces in Normandy were irrelevant to the final defeat of Germany. Not only that, but the portion you fought was divisions such as Hitler Yougent and divisions of WW1 badly injured veterans, which was under-supplied and under-manned, without adequate fuel or air cover.
How do you like that?

Your victory in Manchuria in no way affected the US victories against Japan, which are what decided the war. Those millions of Japanese troops in China, Manchuria, and Korea were irrelevant because they could not be transported back to Japan.

And how many milions Japanese troops America defeated?

And in any case, the Soviet Union would NOT have defeated Germany on its own.

BULLSH*T.

This is not only due to Lend Lease, but also largely due to the fact that by 1944 over a million Germans were tied down in anti-aircraft duties in the West, over a million German troops were in Italy and the Balkans, over 400,000 were in Norway, and 46 divisions - including 9 Panzer divisions with 1500+ tanks - were in France, along with over 80% of the Luftwaffe's fighter strength.

If you occupy almost entire Europe and declared war on everyone, you should maintain some troops there to jold this territory. That's the rule.

If Germany had been able to throw over 2 million additional troops, 2000 additional tanks, a couple thousand additional fighters, and vast numbers of 88s onto the Eastern Front,

It can't thrown 2 millions. And even if so, then we thrown 4 millions. If they thrown 9 additional panzer divisions, we' thrown 18 tank division, because SU had much more manpower and industrial capacity then Germany.

do you really think that the Soviets would have made anything close to the gains they did?

YES.

I certainly don't, and in fact, I rather expect that the front would have largely stabilized, and the Germans might even have regained some ground.

It's your expectations, nothing more. Go read another anti-Soviet book- your favorite source of knowledge.

The longer the war went on, the SU's rail transportation system became more and more taxed - by 1945 it was at a breaking point, EVEN WITH Lend Lease, which accounted for well over 85% of both new rail tracks and rolling stock. Extend the war a couple more years and take away Lend Lease, and suddenly the Red Army has to march from north to south and east to west, not take the trains. Germany would have had no such problems, given the fact that the US/Britain strategic bombing war would not have been taking place, and the fact that the SU had no capability to launch such a campaign.

Blah...blah...blah....
1) First strategic bombing of Berlin Soviets made at August of 1941, when USA wasn't in even in war with Germany. There was no need for this later.
2) It's Hitler who declared war on USA, not the other way around. Like you have choice, like you could stay out of war if your enemy already declared war on you.

German production would have been even higher, and as the war went on Germany would have been able to better exploit the industrial potential of the areas they had conquered. Further, without having to fight Britain and the US, there would have been no embargo (and, by the way, no need to divert massive resources to the U-Boat campaign).

Again, it was Hilter who declared war on USA. So, your fascinating speech is in fact crap.

This means that Germany would have had access to the world market for oil and rubber, among other things, such as the international money market and credit system. German national wealth was certainly greater than that of the Soviet Union, which would have translated into a much better ability to finance a long war.

BULLSH*T. Comlete bullsh*t. They drafted 14 years old boys in 1945. What kind of long war are you talking about?

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, would have been much worse off than they were historically, because of a lack of the major advantages they possessed in a coalition-type war, and the influx of billions of dollars worth of free equipment, food, supplies, etc.

Free equipment my ass. Still playing a hero? YOU WERE MAKING BUCKS. When you will understand this? Bucks, money, $$$. I don't know how to explain it better.

Really, saying that the SU would have beaten Nazi Germany on its own is incredibly silly.

Saying otherwise is super silliness.

The US certainly had the balls to fight the British Empire in 1812, for example, and to fight an undeclared naval war against the French in the early 1800s. Those contests were certainly not even, by any stretch of the imagination

Cool, so you defeated a couple of thousands soldiers of British Empire and sunk few French ships? Outstanding.
It's nowhere near much greater acheivments then destruction of entire Napoleon's army.

Next time could you please write a bit less? I'm really tired after answering this post.

[Serb]

Originally posted by ravagon



I'd hardly call March 1945 (IIRC) the most helpful time for a DOW by the USSR ...

I can say the same about invasion in Normandy in 1944, several months before the end of war. So what?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Serb
I can say the same about invasion in Normandy in 1944, several months before the end of war. So what?

The Soviet Union was largely irrelevent to the outcome of the Pacific War. The sooner you realize that the lower your blood pressure will be.