US invasion of China.

china is not falling its catching up. their modernization start after gulf war in the 90s, back in 90s, look at their military vs today. thats 20yrs start from almost nothing. it will continue to grow given its internal domestic is stable.

mobile lunch is much harder to detect, espeically if they store in bunkers. china has 3k mile underground, plenty space for R&D/storage.

by miserably, you mean t99, 52c, 52d, j10,etc their 1st aircraft, space program given credit when is due, you are over underestimate china.
they are no match for US, cause weve been develop military hardware for century, but you can't underestimate china either. looking t99,52c etc etc, its not state of art but its modern.

 

i disagree, their stuff is not state of art, but its modern, it might look similar but the subsystem is different. you don't expect china use 70s su27 avionic on their j15/j16. if i gut a honda civic, then install a v8+other fancy electronic, then its complete different system.
china can't match US in term of navy, but now they are at a pts, they can match Sk/japan navy. copy doesn't mean its not good as the original, in fact, many country reversen engineer, then made improvment upon the original. the only thing look similar is the outside, the interior is different.

 

Good piece of ignorance.

First of all, half live of Uranium 235~700 000 years, half live Uranium 238~ >4 billion years.
Secondly, you've missed my point. I didn't say that nukes are perfectly clean, I said, that compared to 1945, with only 2% of uranium depleted during fission and the rest 98% turning into devastating fallout, modern termonuclear warheads are totally clean with minor ammount of Uranium/Plutonium used and the rest of energy created by fusion reaction.

 

So? You've missed the point again. They still lack their own engenering school if they are all about "let's copy this thing outlook, it looks cool, but we have no idea how it works".

You know that how exactly? Have you examined their planes? Military technology is kinda completely different to cars. You can have good cars and lack any military technology worth mentioning. Like Japan. Or the opposite (our case).

True.

Usually it does.

 

Oh, I am aware it is a simplification, but it is also pretty much the way each side developed their weapons.

But this was also for many other reasons. For example, much of the Soviet weapons were also designed for export, so had to be easy and fast to teach to people from many different countries. They also had to be inexpensive, for the same reason.

The US equipment was primarily used for the US itself, most of it's equipment was not sold other then to NATO and close allies until it was close to hitting the end of it's service life. For example., the US HAWK missile system came out in 1960, but the US only started to export them outside of NATO and Israel in the mid-late 1970's, when it was in the process of phasing this system out and replace it with the PATRIOT system.

 

That idea didn't fit the reality 90% of a time. US army hadn't anything close to overenginered and not so reliable T-64 till 80-th. On the opposite side jet engines, produced by the US was believed to have twice the lifetime (read:more reliable) of Soviet ones. It seems you are spreading firearms situation to the entire military.
Export example is invalid too. Both USSR and USA had their top equipment only for domestic use. USSR have never exported "Kub" known as SA-6 Gainful to you but it's downgrade "Kvadrat". USSR have never exported T-64 or T-80, with only T-72 avaliable for export. T-72 basic vesion was a downgrade compared to T-64 by itself with 100 mm less RHA equivalent armor from the front, despite being designed a decade later. This cute rule works even now. True 5-th gen fighter F-22 is not for sale. Only all-around inferior F-35 would be avaliable for aborigines...ughhh...partners. Same for S-400. "Won't be exported until Russian army would be equiped with them" - read not for export until something new will appear.

 

And the overengineering is what made the Soviet stuff so reliable quite often. The equipment was simpler, and often more reliable and durable then the equivalent US equipment. It was also normally easier to build/repair, and cost less. But in some equipment this was a detriment, like in jet engines and nuclear powerplants, where precision was a critical factor for lifespan and performance.

Then you have the compromises that worked both ways, like Soviet submarines. Among the finest submarine hulls ever built was that for the Alpha class sub. With an incredibly durable hull made out of thick titanium, it was the deepest diving hunter-killer attack sub ever built. With a maximum safe depth of 400 meters, that exceeded that of the Los Angeles class (290m) by over 100 meters (and a maximum emergency depth rated at 800 meters).

They were also the fastest military sub ever built, due to an improvement with reactor technology.

However, they also suffered from a problem that plagued all Soviet nuclear sub designs: noise. However, this was considered to be a formidable submarine, because it could operate at depths the US subs could not. And with favorable thermalclines could operate quite close to US ships without being detected. And it could also outrun any other sub in the world. But once detected, it stood out like a marching band.

 

Tell that story to "reliable" Tu-22 or "simplificated" T-64 or "enginered to death" Harpoon.

Your claim can be used as a rule only to firearms. It has too many exceptions when you are trying to apply it for other types of military hardware.

Ah yes, these were so simplificated and cheap they even had an unofficial nickname "Golden Fish". Probably the reason program was abadoned for cheaper, quiter and not nearly as fast Shuka, Barrakuda, Kondor e.t.c.

 

then tell me how they copy it without access to weapons. there are tons resource regarding spec of J11/52c. sinodefence is one. china has millions graduate + decade experience learn/catch up, you really think they just copy the outside without putting something workable inside. and you think PLA just some ignornat dumb originazition that can only copy outer appearance.
by your logic, no one can say F22 is stealth or its general capabilities because non of civilian seen the inside before

oh japan has very formidable military, civil/military often tie together, there are tons dual use technology.

as for half life check the table plz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium <- there is a table indicated half life of different isotope like i said there is no clean nuke whether is thermo or fission. what you expect radioactive fallout last only a year lol
so what your defination of "clean" a year, 10 yr. anyway, i'm not taking your words for it, but if you have link that indicate radioactive fallout of modern warhead is "clean" let me know

 

For starters, you have to rebuild America's industrial capacity. You will have to reopen, retool and expand existing factories as well as build new ones. You will also have to build more shipyards on both the East and West Coast.

The next thing you will have to do is implement universal military training, expanding our current active duty force to at least ten million personnel and our National Guard and reserve force to 100 million citizen-soldiers. We would have to build a US Army of 200 combat divisions, a Navy of a 1000 ships including 25 carrier task forces, a air force of 10,000 combat aircraft, and a USMC of eight Marine Divisions and eight Marine Air Wings.

The next thing I would do is get our space program back in gear with the goal of establishing a permanent colony on the Moon. Lunar colonists will mine the moon for its mineral wealth and ship it to space colonies orbiting Earth which will make components for orbital weapons platforms which will knock out enemy ICBMs, enemy satellites, and launch weapons at China.

The next thing I would do is arm 100 million Chinese to take up arms against the regime in Beijing. I would weaken China with China's own civil war while rebuilding America's military and industrial capacity.

Finally, I would launch an all-out invasion of the Mainland with USMC and Taiwanese Marine divisions launching the largest amphibious assault in world history and the 11th, 13th, 17th, 82nd, and 101st Airborne divisions staging the largest airborne operation in world history. I would have US, ROK, and Japanese Divisions roll through North Korea into China. US Navy, Air Force and Marine combat aircraft will bomb China round the clock. Eventually, the American Flag will fly over Tianamen Square.

 

OMG, really?

Look, the Soviets never really had access to the Space Shuttle, nor to the Concorde or B-1 bombers either. Yet look at what they built:







This my friend is known as "Backward Engineering". Once you know something is possible, and you can even figure out how they did it in general terms, it is not all that hard to make a replica that does almost the same thing, even if not exactly in the same way. So they do not need actual "access to our weapons", quite often in things like aviation and ships, simply looking at images tells a good engineer a lot.

Of course, this does not work as well when it comes to some things, especially once it leaves the hands of the physical engineers and goes into building completely new electronics systems from scratch. This is one area that the Soviets always had problems (the actual mathematics that helped us design the F-117 could not be copied by the Soviets because they lacked the needed computers), and the Chinese are having problems now (specifically, their biggest weak link is in avionics and engines, as well as QAQC).

And as usual, you just hide behind "oh, it's secret" as if that means anything.

 

seriously, i suggest read the defination of "copy""An imitation or reproduction of an original; a duplicate" you think j11 or other outer appereance similar device are consider copy? in that case samsung G4 is a copy of iphone 5 since bother share similar outer appeareance. i agree the appearance is same but the guts is more important than ourter appearance. for example engine, avionci, fire&control, china/russia don't have access to these. a copy is produce something same or very similar both outside and inside. this is not the case. if i do a paper and use others paper as reference, thats not consider copy.

 

For starters, thay had an access to weapons. Starting with sales of S-300 (ended with appearance of downgraded clone HQ-9), Su-27 (ended as J-11B) and ending with our beloved brother Ukraine selling first Su-33 prototype (ended as J-15).
Moreover, in case you didn't get it, they are often copying outlook but being incapable to copy internal systems. Glorious China still buy Al-31 engines, despite having access for technology for more than 10 years.

In general, yes.

With time they will be able to produce fully domestic designs. But not now.

States have spended decades developing the technology and billions of dollars. They have an opportunity to do it, so why wouldn't all expect that it is a real thing flying, not some wooden mock-up.

No. Most of the technology they used are provided by the US. Just check out global weapons sales. Both China and Japan are not in top 5.
You need to read up about how the nuke work before entering into serious discussion.

lolwut?

Tu-144 First flight 31 December 1968
Concorde First flight 2 March 1969


Those pesky Soviets also had a time mashine obviously.


Also---> no canards and engines under the wings, instead of under the belly.

Buran and B1 refference certanly deserve a "lolwut" too, but to a lesser degree.

Looks like typical westernish butthurt.

 

Reverse Engineer: (noun) to disassemble and examine or analyze in detail (as a product or device) to discover the concepts involved in manufacture usually in order to produce something similar.

 

Actually, the Tu-144 was more accurately based upon an aircraft that was designed even earlier, the XB-70.

The first research into high speed large payload aircraft was actually a US Air Force program, which started in the mid-1950's. And at the same time, both Boeing and Lockheed were designing similar aircraft for the passenger market (the B-2708 and L-2000). But among the largest problems all 3 suffered from was instability just as they were breaking the sound barrier (a problem which long plagued aircraft designers). Boeing, Lockheed and BAC all spent longer trying to solve this issue, which resulted in longer then expected production times (both the Lockheed and Boeing programs were eventually scrapped). The Soviets instead covered the preliminary designs of the XB-70, and added a canard.

But all 4 of these Western designs were definitely first, all being set by the mid-late 1950's, and having to depend on financing to be constructed.

The Soviets entered the game in 1962, and made this a prestige project. And over time, the corners cut to beat everybody else in the "SST Race" resulted in failure. After only 3 years a crash caused a permanent grounding of the Tu-144 passenger fleet, causing them to only be used for cargo after that. And after only 105 flights the entire fleet was permanently grounded.

Do not base "which was a copy" on dates of first flight, you instead have to look at when the actual designs were created. Yes, they are not exact copies, just like the Tu-95 is not an exact copy of the B-29. But when you compare them, there are far more similarities then there are differences.

 

That is a lie. Supersonic passanger jet was build based on top secret mach 3 supercruise strategical bomber bomber prototype. Yeah, sure. And, by the way, it is nice to see how you accused Tu-144 being a copy of Concorde and now retrat for Valkyrie. So....Concorde was a copy of Valkyrie too?

In fact it is simpler. Before the development there is always an ultimate goal of the programm and several specifications, which need to be reached.
In most cases engineers from various countries have the same technology. They design an object using current technology and trying to spend minimum resources. And yes, they base their design on previous expirence, both foreign and domestic. So, if their goal was the same and the technology was the same and they all are humans why it seems so wird to you that they have found similar solutions for the same issues?
If you disagree, than you should also back up that F-15 is a copy of MiG-25.

Despite that is the case, which breaks your assumptions of "u can understand how it works just looking on it".

Or an Apollo being a copy of Vostok.

Please, stop being a dissapointment. Tu-95 has nothing to do with B-29. Different class, different shape, different weight, different payload, different type of engines, different all. It might share a conseption but that is pretty much it. It is called progress, not copying. It is just like me to come up with B-29 being a copy of Ilya Muromets.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-95

And as I have said many times before, everybody copies from everybody. We copy from Japan, they copy from Korea, Russia copies from us, China copies from Russia. So what? You seem to think I am passing some kind of judgement about something being a copy, I am not. I am just recognizing where a concept came from, nothing more and nothing less.

I really could not care less who was "first", when comparing things it is the longevity that tends to matter most. Often times copies are just as good if not better then the original, other times they are inferior, so what?

 

You have problems with noting a small difference between Tu-95 and Tu-4?
Tu-4 was a full copy, yes. Tu-95 was fully domestic grown.

What you call copy I call "progress" or "trends in development".

In my world "copy" is China building Su-27 hull and calling it "J-11". Or USSR building B-29, replacing mashineguns with cannons and calling it "Tu-4". Or even China building J-31 wich would be an exact copy of F-35 if they have an engine of proper might. Not that Tu-144 and Concorde both slim and triangular winged or MiG-25 and F-15 both having twin tales...because there is physics, which pushes the devs that way.

 

But even before taking on China (if China doesn't take us on first), I would focus on expanding the USA to include the entire North American continent. If the USA were to annex and rebuild all of North America, the USA would then have a population of 600 million and a GDP of $60 trillion. I would encourage Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand and the Phillipines to join the USA. I would send 30 million Americans to emigrate to Japan to repopulate the country after the native population ages and declines, brining Japan into the USA. We will definitely then have the resources to overwhelm and subdue China

 

This is one of those "no-go" scenarios that results in human extinction. If the war got serious it'd trigger a nuclear response either from China itself or outsourced terrorism. North Korea would obliterate Seoul.

Without doubt once either of these things happens the US will go nuclear.

 

Wow, I am not really sure what to say about this. I guess William Walker and White Man's Burden is still alive in some people.

 

tank/jet/v2 rocket was develop in europe. we study it then developed our own. i won't call that copy, same with china, the study our stuff to develop something their own. there is a difference between reverse engineering and copying.

 

like i said, china did do reverse engineering, but thats different then copy. both soviet/USA did alot reverse engineer on german or other countries system. su27 has outdate avionic/electronic etc. china study the design, and put their own electronic, radar, F&C, upgrade frame with composite etc. china always has shortcoming in the metallurgy department for its engine. however, their electronic/software due to dual-use, manufatures etc in china is modern.
some of their new DDG are domestice produce, the only part like i said before is engine tech, they still lack in that area.

look at japan DDG, tell me thats piece crap. doesn't matter US provide tech or not, japan has very good defense force. there is a difference between export weapon vs how formiddable their military is.

oh yes plz do tell me how nuke work. this coming from you saying nuke is "clean"

 

Reverse enginering=copying in chinese case.

Like what? I only can remember Fau-1 copies by the US and USSR copying jet engines. Overall nobody was interested in copying German junk.
Moreover, I have to ask it: so what? That was 70 years ago. It is very far away from printer-nation "achivements".

Depends on the version.

Well it is you who say it is an upgrade. Copies usually are worse than upgraded original version.

Ok, so pray tell me, what is a dual use of a PESA radar?
Military stuff are usually light years ahead of civilian stuff. With rare exceptions like microelectronics. I am not buying, that China have build up-to-date technology in just 10 years.

First of all, what is DDG?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design#Clean_bombs
Here you go. Let me know, when you finish studing.
Modern devices are relatively clean. It is not Fat Man, hundreds of thousands are not going to die because of cancer. Most of the damage would be done with the actual explosion. Damage to ecology is minor.

 

Taken for a ride.