More Leo 2s
-
I wonder if the Chinese would like to trade their economy for 2 aircraft carriers. You have heard of Pyrrhic victories? Ya? Do the Chinese want to live without power for a few mths?Originally posted by Fatum:high-altitude bombers also make fat juicy targets for flankers ...
... methinks the US will never achieve air-superiority in an east asian theatre the way they did over iraq or even the balkans ....
and then again, in the end, it's still an equation of resolve and means ... let's say both sides uses EMP weapons, two US carrier battle groups get taken out .... the war is over for the US ... but what equivalent targets does the US EMP weapons have ? ... the chinese can still cross over the straits in a mass of small boats and still swarm over taiwan ....
and attack choppers ? ... remember the incident in Iraq, earlier on in the war, when a whole battalion of apaches had to turn back because of concentrated ground small arms fire ? ... (with one shot down, and a number of others taken out of future missions ? ) .... a helicopter is just that ... however heavily armoured the bodies, put a shell burst near enough to rotors and what not, it'll go down ...
and what about national resolve then ? ... let's say it's taiwan or the spratleys ... both places are thought of as "home soil" by any chinese ... flip out a navigation chart from any chinese-flagged ship and you'll see most of the south china sea marked at EEZ and territorial waters ... couple that with the kind of rabid nationalism we see in our dear forumers like dreamryb, hellomoto ... and the sort who'll riot and tear up sushi resturants ? ...
what about US resolve then ? ... arrange a few mangled bodies shots on cable television and you'll have plenty more cindy sheehans camping outside camp david ...
And how are the Flankers to attack the stealth bombers if they can't even find them? You think the stealth doesn't affect the missile guidance systems also ah? And these Flankers aren't even to the standard of the SU-35MKKs sold to the Indians.
And oi, I did say the Apaches are to work in combined arms. Where did I say they are to work alone? I even said having the AFVs escort them. -
stealth bombers are not magic .... remember the F-117 in bosnia ? ...Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:I wonder if the Chinese would like to trade their economy for 2 aircraft carriers. You have heard of Pyrrhic victories? Ya?
And how are the Flankers to attack the stealth bombers if they can't even find them? You think the stealth doesn't affect the missile guidance systems also ah?
And oi, I did say they are to work in combined arms. Where did I say they work alone?
oh well ... I'm not here to engage in debate with you lah ... my point is to high-light China as an emerging security threat to the whole region ... as politically incorrect it is to say so ... they'll profess to be committed to peace and all that ... but once they think they've gained enough weight .... you watch ....
btw, what I said about visiting the spratleys from hainan is true .... I had a sinking feeling when my chinese friend told me about it .....
unspoilt south sea paradise anyone ? .... protected by the PLAN ! ... -
How on earth conventional EMP weapons can take out a CBG, when US naval warships are shielded against such a very thing as part of the design specs that require them to survive a nearby nuclear strike is a question that Fatum should really answer.
And this is not to mention conventional EMP weapons have very little power compared to their nuclear counterparts. The EMP that can be generated is limited to the amount of explosive/energy in the warhead and hence it is only useful over a small area due to the inverse square law.
Note that EMP weapons are used against unshielded, soft targets (civvie targets and comms) and not really an option for properly shielded equipment, which is exactly the condition you find in most modern military stuff.
At best EMP weapons are prehaps good for causing a radar blackout/jam while the chinese set up their real antiship warheads. However to get EMP weapons close enough to cause problems is as good as scoring a direct hit on a ship and in that case you might as well use a real warhead.
Seems like somebody's impression of EMP warfare leaves much to be desired. -
Who said stealth was magic? It is a useful tool to gain a tatical advantage on the enemy, and only a fool would not want such a tool.Originally posted by Fatum:stealth bombers are not magic .... remember the F-117 in bosnia ? ...
Your logic is like saying M1 Abrams can be defeated by IEDs, hence there's no point in it having armour and we might as well go into a tank battle on an open-topped buggy.
The point is not if stealth can be defeated, but if it can be used to get the job done, and by all indications the answer is yes.
You may not want to engage in debate, but the very least you can do is not to put up retarded points and then expect that they don't need defending. -
Ah.. damn.. I forgot about the NBC protection which also hardens equipment against EMP including radar.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:How on earth conventional EMP weapons can take out a CBG, when US naval warships are shielded against such a very thing as part of the design specs that require them to survive a nearby nuclear strike is a question that Fatum should really answer.
And this is not to mention conventional EMP weapons have very little power compared to their nuclear counterparts. The EMP that can be generated is limited to the amount of explosive/energy in the warhead and hence it is only useful over a small area due to the inverse square law.
Note that EMP weapons are used against unshielded, soft targets (civvie targets and comms) and not really an option for properly shielded equipment, which is exactly the condition you find in most modern military stuff.
At best EMP weapons are prehaps good for causing a radar blackout/jam while the chinese set up their real antiship warheads. However to get EMP weapons close enough to cause problems is as good as scoring a direct hit on a ship and in that case you might as well use a real warhead.
Seems like somebody's impression of EMP warfare leaves much to be desired.
But yes, EMP weapons used in China will not be a good thing for them. -
In any case Fatum's "arguments" reek plenty of the strawman type, in which case one wonders if one should even listen to his "oh well ... I'm not here to engage in debate with you lah ... my point is to high-light China as an emerging security threat to the whole region ... " vibe.
Straw man
An example of a straw man fallacy:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Person A: I don't think children should run into the busy streets.
Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all day.
Person A: And how are the Flankers to attack the stealth bombers if they can't even find them? You think the stealth doesn't affect the missile guidance systems also ah?
Person B: stealth bombers are not magic .... remember the F-117 in bosnia ? -
Well, one must remember, that bombers like the B-1B, are designed for high altitude strikes out of range of most anti-air weapons. Plus, the B-2s are stealthy for the purpose of deep penetration strikes.
No doubt b-1B is a good bomber but itÂ’s not used in such a way, PLA SAMs is able to shoot down an even higher flyer like US made U-2 as early as in 1962, Counting B-1B flying high to elude SAMs is totally out of option. B-2 stealthy is not really Stealthy in absolute term, itÂ’s in low observation which means itÂ’s still detectable, if not by a short wave X-band radar, it can be picked up by long wave radar like meter wave radar in a long distance.And remember, the US military also possesses EMP weapons... if the Chinese use it, the US is bound to... Let's not discount the fact that the Tomahawks are a proven platform with much greater range than the Silkworms. The US Navy will have to be within view of the Chinese shore for the Silkworms to be used.
PLA already deployed its own LACM, JaneÂ’s reported such Chinese made LACM as early as in 2004, it reported then the Chinese version Tomahawks, namely DH-10, has a range of 2500 kms with the CEP less than 10 meter. And again, Silkworms are not only been launched ashore, it can be airborned. It can be launched from Submarines like type039, one of which surfaced only miles away from US A/C carriers not long ago. Besides AshM & LACM, thereÂ’re TBM, Chinese just shot down one of their own satellite by using such a middle range TBM. Can a CVBG travels faster than a satellite or the main airbase of US pacific forces are not within the range of those missile? I mean, PLA is no way to match US force in a global base, but, if US forces need to play at peopleÂ’s door side, then itÂ’s another story.And attack Helicopters are used together with the army... they don't go around alone.... I would like to see the infantry deal with the AFVs while they try to shoot.
Helicopter only reins if you control the airspace plus the group SAMs are totally cleared. Chinese manufacture a whole range of man portable air-defense systems, some of which like FN-6 are even exported to the north neighbor. See the AH-64s performance in Iraq, even some RPG is able to bring it down. IÂ’ll reasonably doubt how effect those helicopters to deal with a armor force well protected by should launched or vehicle mounted missiles.Do note that the US Army and Navy trained to deal with the swarm tactics of the Red Army... And that the US still has plenty of nukes if it comes to it.
You destroy enemy 1 time is no different from enemy destroy you 100 times. -
Originally posted by ^Delta^:"A few" more will also be acquired for "spares" as well.
We sure need alot of "spares"
132 Leopard 2A4 (102 Leopard 2A4 + 30 Spares) (On order)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
source -
Ah yes General Tyrannosaur .... I see mine posting my view of China's military might has offended your sensibilities, eh ? ....Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Who said stealth was magic? It is a useful tool to gain a tatical advantage on the enemy, and only a fool would not want such a tool.
Your logic is like saying M1 Abrams can be defeated by IEDs, hence there's no point in it having armour and we might as well go into a tank battle on an open-topped buggy.
The point is not if stealth can be defeated, but if it can be used to get the job done, and by all indications the answer is yes.
You may not want to engage in debate, but the very least you can do is not to put up retarded points and then expect that they don't need defending.
you're always right of course .... you're the expert in this forum, aren't you General ? ...
neways ... spratley cruise anyone ? ... -
if you pay for the boat and tackle?Originally posted by Fatum:Ah yes General Tyrannosaur .... I see mine posting my view of China's military might has offended your sensibilities, eh ? ....
you're always right of course .... you're the expert in this forum, aren't you General ? ...
neways ... spratley cruise anyone ? ...
I'll provide the barbie. -
right now pay in ringgit still a bit ex ... wait till when we pay in renminbi lah ...Originally posted by LazerLordz:if you pay for the boat and tackle?
I'll provide the barbie. -
never say never, later the RMB loses its cheap lustre..then how?Originally posted by Fatum:right now pay in ringgit still a bit ex ... wait till when we pay in renminbi lah ... -
Actually I have no problem with China's military might, it is just people with a lack of common sense and thinking pseudowitty one-liners can help them get away with posting rubbish that offend most common sensibilities in here.Originally posted by Fatum:Ah yes General Tyrannosaur .... I see mine posting my view of China's military might has offended your sensibilities, eh ? ....
you're always right of course .... you're the expert in this forum, aren't you General ? ...
neways ... spratley cruise anyone ? ...
Unless you have something that say on the military prowless on either side that makes sense, then please restrict your RMB better or whatever you have to CC or Speakers Corner, in which there would be plenty of people willing to take on your hyperbole. But while you are in here, please refrain from making yourself look like a fool by talking about fanciful EMP weapons managing to take out a carrier battle group, and then expecting people to buy it...
It would do you good not to join the ranks of lionnoisy.
Basic logic anyone? ... -
ah yes, of course, the great armchair general knows it all ... *scratch your balls ... there ... feels better ? .... only you're correct, and everyone else's talking rubbish, and doesn't know what he's talking about, right ? ...Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Actually I have no problem with China's military might, it is just people with a lack of common sense and thinking pseudowitty one-liners can help them get away with posting rubbish that offend most common sensibilities in here.
Unless you have something that say on the military prowless on either side that makes sense, then please restrict your RMB better or whatever you have to CC or Speakers Corner, in which there would be plenty of people willing to take on your hyperbole. But while you are in here, please refrain from making yourself look like a fool by talking about fanciful EMP weapons managing to take out a carrier battle group, and then expecting people to buy it...
It would do you good not to join the ranks of lionnoisy.
Basic logic anyone? ... ... have you ever taken a second look at your posts ? ... and I don't mean this one .... if you like continue with your mental masturbation in here by all means go ahead ... cos of course I don't have a smart pill to give you to help you understand me ... -
The F-117s stealth was only stealth within certain flight perimeters. Unfortunately, they had to fly outside a certain portion of that perimeter, due to constricted airspace. Rumor has it, the Serbs knew that and specifically set up an ambush to down a -117.
-
I'll say it again, for those people who cannot make the connection in their craniums ..... stealth is physics ... not magic .....Originally posted by Shotgun:The F-117s stealth was only stealth within certain flight perimeters. Unfortunately, they had to fly outside a certain portion of that perimeter, due to constricted airspace. Rumor has it, the Serbs knew that and specifically set up an ambush to down a -117.
you have those planes flying around long enough, someone will find a way to counter those planes .... and they have ....
the russians in particular, have dedicated a lot of effort to detecting stealth planes ...
it's so ironic isn't it, that billions of dollars and years of toil and research got trumped so easily by a tube of cheapo manpads ... -
If you can prove me wrong I will willingly admit I was in error, but until then, no amount of vapouring about my mental state or wanting to be an armchair general will do you any good unless you work through my sums and prove to me how I was wrong.Originally posted by Fatum:ah yes, of course, the great armchair general knows it all ... *scratch your balls ... there ... feels better ? .... only you're correct, and everyone else's talking rubbish, and doesn't know what he's talking about, right ? ... ... have you ever taken a second look at your posts ? ... and I don't mean this one .... if you like continue with your mental masturbation in here by all means go ahead ... cos of course I don't have a smart pill to give you to help you understand me ...
If not, you are simply engaging in Bulverism, and that will not change no matter how vulgar or creative you may try to get in insisting your opponents are armchair generals.Bulverism is a logical fallacy coined by C. S. Lewis where rather than proving that an argument is wrong, a person instead assumes it wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held that argument. It is essentially a circumstantial ad hominem argument.
Say all you want, but the bottom line remains beyond using a lot of "
Lewis wrote about this in an essay of the same name (in 1941) which is available to us in the book God in the Dock. He explains the origin of this term as follows:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century. " and one-liners, you have done little to justify what you have posted here.
Until you do so, unfortunately, the onus is on you to prove it, no matter how much you may say people are armchair generals or always want to insist they are correct.From Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
Until you can do that, your posts ultimately mean little no matter how funny or irrelevant you may try to make them. Calling people armchair generals or know-it-alls will not detract from their case if they are in fact, correct.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
And of course it calls into question the honestly of the person who attempts to distract from the crux of the issue by using circumstantial ad hominem arguments.
To date you still have not justified your statement of how you realistically expect the Chinese to use EMP weapons to take out an American Carrier Battle Group.
Will you contuine to dodge the issue or face up to it? -
I'll say it again, for those people who cannot make the connection in their craniums ..... stealth is physics ... not magic ..... Laughing
correct! stealth is mostly physics. but do also note that the stealth aircraft is also coated with RAM, radar absorbent material, which as the name implies absorbs incoming radar waves.
you have those planes flying around long enough, someone will find a way to counter those planes .... and they have ....
the russians in particular, have dedicated a lot of effort to detecting stealth planes ...
it's so ironic isn't it, that billions of dollars and years of toil and research got trumped so easily by a tube of cheapo manpads ...
note: stealth a/c = F-117, B-2 and to a certain extent F-22... B-1B just barely qualifies
im sure the russians have dedicated a lot of effort into detecting stealth, but have there been any successes to date?
what im saying here is stealth is not fool proof, there will be times where the stealth a/c just happens to fly withing a certain envelope of the enemy radar, at the right angle and at the right time(provided radar operating really watching, not lim kopi
), then stealth can be defeated, but those scenarios are few and far between and the majority of stealth aircraft will rtb safely... -
aha ... this is getting cute ...
you know ... you're starting to remind me of that chap in SC who like to give rambling long replies and call people names and then scratch his balls in triumph ... did you bang on your keyboard too hard ? ... would you like to make further corrections to your post while you stew ? ...
EMPs will achieve a "soft kill" ... as I have outlined in my scenarios above, destroy the electronics the Americans are so dependent on, and you'll remove their ability to make war .... sans the mangled bodies on CNN, which will only strengthen american public opinion .... oh sure, of course ... anything can be shielded against EMPs ... but at what cost ? ... is it done ? ... perhaps you'd like to subscribe to the discovery channel ? ...
if you can't make the quantum leap in your head to connect some of my "one-liners", then I'm sorry, I can't help you with that ...
but if you don't understand what others are saying, or disagree with them, then you should stop behaving like a petulant little boy, and leave, cos this is a public avenue after all, and not just a venue for your mental masturbation ... -
Originally posted by Fatum:aha ... this is getting cute ...
you know ... you're starting to remind me of that chap in SC who like to give rambling long replies and call people names and then scratch his balls in triumph ... did you bang on your keyboard too hard ? ... would you like to make further corrections to your post while you stew ? ... Who's the one acting cute here?
If you lack the ability to comprehend proper arguments, I'm afriad the fault lies soley with you, no matter how much you try to use "the argument of length" to say something is not valid.
I understand what you are saying, but I simply disagree with you for the simple reason the evidence we have on the topic seems to disagree with the picture you are painting of EMP warfare.EMPs will achieve a "soft kill" ... as I have outlined in my scenarios above, destroy the electronics the Americans are so dependent on, and you'll remove their ability to make war .... sans the mangled bodies on CNN, which will only strengthen american public opinion .... oh sure, of course ... anything can be shielded against EMPs ... but at what cost ? ... is it done ? ... perhaps you'd like to subscribe to the discovery channel ? ... [/quote]
You mean you go simply by Discovery Channel and documentries like Future Weapons?
The effects of EMP on military hardware have long been understood when it was observed during nuclear testing in the Cold War. Other forums like strategy page where they have grunts and subject-matter-experts on the topic of EMP warfare and state your views. You will find them in disagreement with you.
The effects of EMP on military hardware have long been understood when it was observed during nuclear testing in the Cold War, and making equipment resistant to such effects had long been implemented on both sides. The most basic milspec requirements call for it. And this is a condition you find
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA022961 Note that this was in 1975
EW warfare has long been an aspect that both sides of the cold war have trained in.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/e1/MOD3LES2.html
And of course, the Yanks understand the threat of EW warfare, and what to do about it: http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL33153
So what is this “at what cost” you are talking about? This is not to mention they have a defence budget that is several times that of the next closet nation on earth. If anybody needs to catch up in “at what cost” when it comes to EMP warfare, that would be China.
EMP warfare, like you mentioned, is a good way of taking out civilian infrastructure which does not usually have the shielding military equipment has without causing the collateral damage associated with conventional bomb. Against military targets like a carrier battle ground they are significantly less, or even not effective at all. And indeed if you can hit a military ship with an E-missile you might as well do it with a real missie.
Which brings me to how your point actually flips around. In the case of both sides using EMP warfare, the Chinese have far more to lose as EMP warfare is vastly more effective on their civilian electronic infrastructure then on American military targets. In an Electronic Warfare scenario, China is far more vulnerable.
However I need to point out that the effects of EMP warfare are often vastly overrated. Actual E-bombs are often intended to create an EMP pulse as an added effect of their explosive power, as opposed to the device of fiction we often see in Goldeneye or the “pinch” in Ocean’s Eleven.
It is difficult to get an EMP pulse far beyond the actual blast radius of the bomb due to the inverse square law and the simple physics- the amount of energy you can pack into an conventional package (aka. explosively pumped flux compression generator) is not usually up to the task of pumping out the kind of EMP that would be useful in overwhelming properly designed military targets (usually the blast from the weapon itself is far more destructive). Thought they would be useful versus civilian targets, but the Chinese would have to worry more about that then the Americans if push came to shove.[quote]but if you don't understand what others are saying, or disagree with them, then you should stop behaving like a petulant little boy, and leave, cos this is a public avenue after all, and not just a venue for your mental masturbation ...
If you don't want to agree with, of believe me then by all means fine, but please head on down to other forums like strategy page where they have grunts trained in EW warfare and subject-matter-experts on the topic of EMP warfare and state your views. You will find them in disagreement with you. -
You have heard of faraday cages no? They protect electronics from EMP bursts? And you think Americans are that stupid?Originally posted by Fatum:aha ... this is getting cute ...
you know ... you're starting to remind me of that chap in SC who like to give rambling long replies and call people names and then scratch his balls in triumph ... did you bang on your keyboard too hard ? ... would you like to make further corrections to your post while you stew ? ...
EMPs will achieve a "soft kill" ... as I have outlined in my scenarios above, destroy the electronics the Americans are so dependent on, and you'll remove their ability to make war .... sans the mangled bodies on CNN, which will only strengthen american public opinion .... oh sure, of course ... anything can be shielded against EMPs ... but at what cost ? ... is it done ? ... perhaps you'd like to subscribe to the discovery channel ? ...
if you can't make the quantum leap in your head to connect some of my "one-liners", then I'm sorry, I can't help you with that ...
but if you don't understand what others are saying, or disagree with them, then you should stop behaving like a petulant little boy, and leave, cos this is a public avenue after all, and not just a venue for your mental masturbation ...
http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jfs/jfs001012_usscole_n.shtml
The above url says you are an ass.
And in case you continue to be an ass:The ship, except for the aluminium funnels, is constructed of steel. 70 tons of armour provided to protect vital spaces. This is the first class of US Navy warship designed with a `collective protection system for defense against the fallout associated with NBC warfare'. The ship's crew are protected by double air-locked hatches, fewer accesses to the weatherdecks and positive pressurisation of the interior of the ship to keep out contaminants. All incoming air is filtered and more reliance placed on recirculating air inside the ship. All accommodation compartments have sprinkler systems. Stealth technology includes angled surfaces and rounded edges to reduce radar signature and IR signature suppression plus Prairie Masker hull/blade rate suppression. The Ops room is below the waterline and electronics are EMP hardened. The original upright mast design has been changed to increase separation between electronic systems and the forward funnel. Differences in Flight II starting with DDG 72 include Link 16, SLQ-32(V)3 EW suite, extended-range SAM missiles and improved tactical information exchange systems. The topmast is vertical to take the SRS-1. There is also an increase in displacement caused by using more space to carry fuel.
-
You can't expect everyone to be an expert right?
Calm the flames guys.. -
LOL, but it's not very often you find somebody who celebrates ignorance, I mean unless you want to count "lionnoisy", which most people would not, we hadn't had the kind of character who would insist on doing his sums more and more wrong since glock.Originally posted by LazerLordz:You can't expect everyone to be an expert right?
Calm the flames guys..
While such antics might work in Speaker's Corner, it just does not cut any ice with any basic military buff who knows his stuff.
Let's not say the Yanks, ask any EW specialist in our own SAF and they can give you a basic idea of what we do to protect our sensitive equipment against EMP. For some reason to argue his already lost cause, Fatum sees the need to argue in vague terms that it is impossible to defend against EMP by using terms like “at what cost?” without bothering to verity them, not to mention his fantastic extrapolations for the actual effectiveness of non nuclear EMP weapons versus military targets when the intended application of these weapons were to be used against soft and “non hardened” targets usually found in unprotected infrastructure.
The Chinese are not so silly as to use EMP against an American Carrier battle group. In fact even the patriotic Chinese donÂ’t make such an argument in their own forum and where Fatum invented that can only be left up to the imagination.
But I must say his posts are getting funnier by the minute. -
I detected a frantic burst of googling activity a little while ago ....
isn't google fantastic ? ...
in case you didn't realize yet ... what we're engaging in, is called "zhi shang tan ping" ... you're a military buff, and just that ... but if you think the stuff that you google out are better than the stuff that others read ... or that everything from your source is correct, then it's being a bit naive isn't it ? ... ... I don't profess to be an expert, cos I'm not a defense scientist, but if you'd like to be General google know-all, by all means go ahead ... but it is obvious that you have a thing for the US ...
fact of the matter is, the rise of china is a reality ... that a stealth fighter was shot down was a reality ... that now you can book tours in China to tour the spratleys is a reality ... that china has designs on the south china sea is a reality ... that china has spent time and effort to specifically take down carrier battle groups is known ...
you say that stealth cannot be detected, I say an F-117 has been shot down before ... you think attack choppers are invulnerable, I tell you to read about the 2003 war .... you say EMP can be defeated with protection ... I say wait and see .... you say China has more to loose in terms of infrastructure, I say she isn't stupid enough to fight over her cities, but on taiwan and the taiwan straits ...
oh well, this is getting silly .... we can go on till kingdom come, but of course, you'd always be the General in your own mind, eh ? ...
-
in case you didn't realize yet ... what we're engaging in, is called "zhi shang tan ping" ... you're a military buff, and just that ... but if you think the stuff that you google out are better than the stuff that others read ... or that everything from your source is correct, then it's being a bit naive isn't it ? ... ... I don't profess to be an expert, cos I'm not a defense scientist, but if you'd like to be General google know-all, by all means go ahead ... but it is obvious that you have a thing for the US ...
I said it before and will say it again, if you indeed think that the stuff I use to support my point is in error, then please by all means post or link something to enlighten us, we are dying to learn the errors of our ways.
What exactly is the stuff you read that contradicts what we have posted? I am sure we are interested to know.
I have nothing to root for the yanks, what I am pointing out is that like the Chinese, they have a measure of common sense and will move to prepare themselves against any technologies the Chinese will prepare, just as the Chinese are moving in kind in response. How the thing actually plays out will be highly unpredictable.you say that stealth cannot be detected, I say an F-117 has been shot down before ... you think attack choppers are invulnerable, I tell you to read about the 2003 war .... you say EMP can be defeated with protection ... I say wait and see .... you say China has more to loose in terms of infrastructure, I say she isn't stupid enough to fight over her cities, but on taiwan and the taiwan straits ...
Who in the first place said that stealth cannot be detected, or attack choppers are invulnerable? That is your erroneous inference. What people are saying is that these things in the right hands can and will be used effectively, not that they are invulnerable, unlike you which seems to paint some picture of war being a matter of rock sissors paper.
Need I point out you seem to assume a certain air of “invulnerability” for your pet largely whimsical EMP and anti-stealth technologies without even a clue to how they work except that they are somehow key to your China point and hence assumed to work?
At the very least, you ought to give us some source as to where you got the idea that the Chinese has found a way to employ effective EMP warfare or was it just an idea you coined up and insist anyhow, that we should listen despite all we know about EMP protection technologies that have been around since the cold war?
So we must trust your words over what we can find in the media?
Where do you get your ideas and info on the inevitable rise of China anyway... oh wait... the media.
That's a good one, what's next, that we actually have Gundams?
Indeed this is getting funnier by the minute, but I'm afraid the joke's to any reading this thread is clearly on you.