star49Russia is using all the leftovers from Soviet which used up all of its reresources poured into all these military equipments and infrastructure. All the money were already spent into these infrastructures, human resources, R&D, spy/stolen from the west. All these expenses were already used and built up from Soviet cold war era. That’s why the Soviet broke up in pieces.
Soviet Union broke up because Russian peole stop believing on there system. it has nothing to do with military spending.
China started to build all these stuff only within most recent 20 years. It started all from scratch. Before the 80’s, it did not evemn have financial conditions to complete its project, and no money to build/ train/ form the basis.
China a started from Scratch? so all the foreign investment, millions of student and still external help from Russia and West does not count. Starting from scratch means u build on ur own.
If Russia is starting all from scratch like China, the are not better than China.
I don’t recognize a fighter newly built from scratch from Russia. Most (if not all) are just inherited from Soviet, and just to keep upgrade/ improve these leftovers.
China hasnt done anything from scratch so comparision is mute. simple example ever thought who designed first 64 bit DSP. there are plenty of things they did it in 90s. offcourse there is strong momentum from Soviet era to complete and refined those things before going into next phase.
star49This guy is just a complete BS, contradicting his own statements.
One time he stated Russia cannot completed its military projects due to its fanicial problem, now saying economy has no relation with defense.
What a joke.
Russia is already making more advance products than China using 70s era technology without that much money and external help. just try to build PS-90A2 or newer NK-321 which propels newer BlackJack with 45 Ton weopons in less than 2 hrs to any target on the World with long range cruise missiles.
what it cant finish on time is based on compeletely new science which China cannot even create in first place let alone build it.
star49Well the Chinese economy has to service more a population more than three times the size of the US, across a nation of comparable size to the CONUS and with the overwhelming majority of that population having started with a base standard of living much lower than that of the US in the 1950s. The fact that the Chinese military buildup has been relatively slow is good for world at large and the Chinese people.
Besides military is best used when you are confident of winning and that is not an easy state to reach given the current opposition. China has seemed to follow a very well considered development path.
Daniel
Population is irrelevant in that case. all that matter is total amount of resources available to government (tax revenues). and Current Chinese exceeds what was available to US/USSR in 70s.
Chinese military build has been slow because they dont have the intellectual capital to research, develop and produce complex system. first they have to buy the knowledge than obsorb it and later reproduce it on imported industrial machinery. Globalization of 90s made is easier to obtain dual use technology and equipment.
Boeing/Mcdonald/Tupolev/Illysian were producing hundreds of airlines 3 decades a year. and here China is getting a license without engines for Airbus.
star49Pardon me how you explained “defence is not directly related to economy” by saying ” In Globalized world u can build economy with foreign capital, trade and expertize”?!
because in Defence no one shares or publish top of the line expertize. USSR/USA had much smaller economy than current China but at that time they could build Aircraft carreirs and Supersonic bombers.
u can take simple example of J-10. China can hardly make 30 to 40 a year but more than 2 decades ago US could make 200 F-16 a year with older production line.
star49New Delhi was initially reluctant to embark upon a programme that was already past its basic design phase in Russia, but has now reconciled itself to making a possible lateral entry into the programme, assured by Moscow that progress off the drawing board will be spearheaded by both countries
how is that possible. they are building 4 prototypes and with first flight in 2009 for that KNAAPO is already equiped with Supercomputers and deep modernization worth hundreds of millons of dollars modern production line which is shared with building Sukhoi SSJ which is built on new materals.
Separate Stealth chambers . couple of billions of dollars in modernizing Semiconductor plants at Mikron and Angstrem to produce elmental base for electronics.
u cannot make 5th generation on Flanker production line. with out this infrastrucuture India will be left from prototype stage but left to licensing.
star49The same argument can be said about your sweeping comment that China must loose in the race toward mastery of Space As anything else defense is directly related to economy Yes US still has the largest defense budget in the world but to assume that China will fight to the strength of US military is a fallacy If you are weaker you try to exploit your opponent vulnerability
defence is not directly related to economy. In Globalized world u can build economy with foreign capital, trade and expertize.
star49I think you are being a little optimistic about the effectiveness of the test stage airborne laser. If it came to the point where the PLA is shooting down US sats, then sitting in international airspace is not going to save it from being attacked. Also remember the size of China. The PLA could easily launch from deep inland, well outside of the range of the laser and bypass it fairly easily.
The laser is a very well known and important development, and the PLA would be unlikely to neglect to develop strategies and weapons and counter or bypass it.
and u are not optimistic that u are inferring operational system from single test:rolleyes:
that aside. US has much more satellietes and keep serious watch for years on every single ICBM, Production factory of missiles, airbase of PLA etc. US will already know when and where the antisatellite weopon will likely to be launch. and u dont have high altitude capability. they can take the airborne laser into space into this response. US has much more intellectual capital. and they dont need to start a war. they just need to park ships in pacific to slow down international trade. after all it is still less than 2% of there economcy but much bigger for China.
star49If this is the same as PAK-FA so first flight is in 2009. It is dumb idea to have single engine 5th generation fighter. Supercruise is must with acceptable load for long range and speed.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070124/48/6bh97.html
After six years of negotiations on jointly developing an advanced fifth generation fighter aircraft with stealth features, New Delhi and Moscow today reached an agreement at a meeting of their Defence Ministers.
A formal pact will be be signed shortly after the deal is fine-tuned.Designated PAK-FA, the multi-billion dollar programme will be the largest and most complex in Indo-Russian military cooperation, dwarfing BrahMos, the only true joint military project between the two countries as of now.
Fronted by Sukhoi Design Bureau, the PAK-FA will give both countries a distinct leap in fighter technology – the Russians have promised a first flight as early as 2009, and are open to a BrahMos-style model for development with New Delhi. In the next decade, the fighter will be produced in large numbers to replace legacy fighters in both countries’ air forces, including MiG-29s, Jaguars and Mirage-2000s.
New Delhi was initially reluctant to embark upon a programme that was already past its basic design phase in Russia, but has now reconciled itself to making a possible lateral entry into the programme, assured by Moscow that progress off the drawing board will be spearheaded by both countries.
The programme envisages a fighter with all fifth generation capabilities. These include advanced stealth features, a full composite airframe, a crucial active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, advanced integrated onboard sensors, vectored thrust nozzles for superior manoeuvrability, the ability to deploy beyond visual range and ground attack missiles and importantly, the ability to supercruise – fly at supersonic velocities without the use of engine afterburners.
star49They developed it. There has been plenty of article on this.
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.142/pub_detail.asp
Richard fishter is not Strategic force General or US airforce General. he can not about the origin of the system.
The Americans have had laser targetting capability since 1969. When do you think the Russians achieved that technology. All you posted is that the Russians managed to achieve blinding capability with laser in the 80s. That’s not the same as destroying a satellite.
Permananent damage to satellite in 1976 and instrument malfunction is not equal to targeting(Painting) and they didnot use full poweron Challenger for humane reason as mentioned in FAS.
they were in cold war they do not want to change into hot. I can put alot more on this from SDI Monitor.
star49Referring to entire US anti-missile effort I have one question: Could Russia sustain economically and financially to produce: 50 mobile MIRV-ed “Topol-M”s, 12 “Bulava”s, 75 H-101s, 4 Tu-160s and a half of “Borey” annually for ten years to come?
ur list is very cheap.
BlackJack $100m*4= $400m
Topol-M $40m*50= $2b
101 $1m*75= $75m
not sure about Bulva and Borie. lets put it another $1B. every thing under $4B. which is perfectly fine for $11B acquisition at current point. keeping in view cheap upgradation of previous fighters/bombers.
star49SO they r blocking or not blocking? Will Russia made RD_93 goes into the initial fleet of FC-1 meant for PAF?
I think we will see the answer in march this year.:D
Let just ,close our eyes and pray for the success of FC-1 and 2 months later,all this doubt and confusion will end.
BTW,I also feel fishy abt FC-1 PT06 which came out of the blue from no where. Might be testing a new engine for FC-1…
Too soon to tell about FC-1 export. and u cannot apply double standards. If there was end user certificate clause in original contract so China has to accept those 100 engines for domestic use just like it insist on lower price of IL-76 based on original contract.
and that was after PT-6 flight. there is big difference between exporting house hold goods based on foreign technology and manufacturing techniques and high end military stuff. and here we are not even talking blisk technol0gy RD-33MKV rather than late 80s series three engine.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9ee65006-6f82-11db-ab7b-0000779e2340.html
However, Li Pei, head of development of the Xiaolong at China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corp (CATIC), said Moscow was now expected to approve the sale to Pakistan by the end of 2006 or in January next year.“We feel optimistic,” said Mr Li, who has had close contact with Russian arms exporters. He added that an application for permission to re-export the Klimov engines had been under consideration by Moscow for about six months.
star49http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bu107.cfm
The Soviets, by contrast, have a robust program investigating the potential military uses of laser weapons. They are rapidly developing a laser weapon that could threaten existing U.S. communication and surveillance satellites, and that in the future could be applied as a defense against ballistic missiles.
at that time US misjudge thinking laser was fired from Okno (tajikistan) but it is from Kazak.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/719598/russian_tv_looks_at_history_of_okno_space_monitoring_facility/index.html?source=r_space
On 11 October 1984, the US defence secretary reported to the president that equipment on the Challenger shuttle broke down and crew felt unwell when it passed over Lake Balkhash, near Norak, suggesting that the Soviets were testing a new anti-satellite weapon. Indeed, the Terra-3 experimental laser radar was used on Defence Minister Dmitriy Ustinov’s orders. After a US protest, the Soviets promised not to use it against manned spacecraft. The Americans, however, were worried, thinking that Okno was a beam anti- satellite weapon system. This nearly wrecked the Soviet-US summit in 1985, which only went ahead after Soviet specialists proved that Okno had no radiating elements
Zdor said the Okno is what is known as a “smart system”, half of it being algorithms and programs.Okno also catalogues all space objects. Thus, in May 1999 it was able to identify the object that flew very close to the International Space Station as an old US satellite. Oleg Aksenov, deputy chief for scientific work of Research Centre No 1 at the Defence Ministry’s Central Research Institute, said that with the addition of new towers the facility will be able monitor even small fragments of space debris.
Okno has become back operational and thats why they got state prize for that achievement.
http://www.g2mil.com/spacewar.htm
These sources said that the Soviets fired ground-based lasers to cripple
sensitive optical equipment attempting to scan launches at Tyuratam to
obtain a variety of sensitive military information including payloads and
throw weights. The Soviet laser “hosings” of costly satellites, details of
which remain classified, occurred throughout the 1980s and into the early
1990s, and sent U.S. scientists scrambling to shield the space surveillance
system.According to a former Senate Intelligence Committee chief of staff, Angelo
Codevilla, the Soviets regularly “pulsed” or targeted lasers on U.S.
satellites. A senior Air Force official said that the U.S. had decided to
keep evidence of the laser attacks hushed up for a variety of reasons.The official said that first, it makes our equipment “look bad” but more
important, the United States has used the collective evidence as a
bargaining chip in strategic arms limitation talks. “U.S. negotiators say,
look, we know this is happening and we are willing to make it public if you
don’t give us this or that concession,” said the official.In 1976, a KH-11 or Code 1010 satellite was “painted” by a Soviet laser
and sustained “permanent damage,” according to a senior Air Force official.
This source said that such paintings continued into the late 1980s
Force officials told UPI that for years the Soviets had a
“battle-ready” ground-based laser at Saryshagan that they said they believed
had been involved in past blindings of U.S. spacecraft.When the Soviet Union dissolved, it was in the process of building a new
battle-ready laser at Nurek in Tadzhikstan and a second 500 miles away at
Khazakstan in the Caucasus Mountains. Four more ground laser battle stations
were planned, one begun on mountains near Dushanbe and another between Nruek and Dushambe and two more at unidentified areas. A Pentagon source said the collapse of the Soviet Union prevented their being completed
star49Oh tell me. Scuds fall down at speeds of 1700m to 2100m / sec. The Pershing II does Mach 8. So tell me what is the speed regime of an SSM (your basic IRBM or short ranged ballistic missile) please.
u are living in scud and pershing era.:eek: speed regime of advance SSM depends on what is required to defeat the interceptor. it can be as low as 700m/sec.
And what do you know about AI and ECCM systems built into SSM, huh?
why i have to know about these things. when they describe it.
All i know countries approach for the export version of the sytem for couple years back to defeat Arrow-2.
Oh really? What is the price tag of PAC-3?
It is cheaper than modern SSM. (but i doubt u know modern SSM)
PAC-3 will destroy the obsolete SSM and its launcher can immediately be located and destroyed. Obsolete luanch system cannot be removed in less than minute nor they can be prepared in one minute. it is whole different ball game.
Speaking from someone who claims he knows better more about USAF commanders with regards to long range bombers.
where i said i know better. basing in foreign countries depends on political relationship.
Please attribute quote to the right person. But in any case I have not seen the Russian laser system actually achieve destruction other just blinding. All you really need anyway is to mission kill a satellite, why waste more energy for its total destruction.
why they have to destroy to create debris? there function is to put them out of function.
you continue to post stuff wrote back in the day from unknown sources. I can even write those stuff if I want.
what is mean by unknown sources? It is FAS website. and i put from SDI monitor (SDI stands for strategic defence initiative)
it wasn’t one test, they repeatedly blinded American satellites.
and from where that Laser comes from? u havent develop a single thing which already not exist.
Americans buy stuff from others to study all the time, that doesn’t mean they can’t develop their own. They’ve had satellite targetting since 1969, yet, they are still developing laser ASAT. So no, a general speculating that Russians might have laser ASAT does not show that they have it.
It is not targeting it is the power of laser. and show me a single american source that say China can develop anything of its own. I dont have to go through list of Soviet Scientist that went to US.
basically it is the low grade scientist from russia that went to China. top technolgy is still with russians.
http://www.fas.org/news/china/1998/t000108750.html
Experts say that if the Chinese are receiving outside help in building anti-satellite lasers, it would almost certainly be coming from scientists associated with the old Soviet laser program, which lasted for many years and made significant advances.
The United States, although diligent in trying to stop the spread of Soviet nuclear weapons, has not been as attentive to containing anti-satellite technology
star49Lol. SSMs are hypersonic.
surely when u are clueless about Next generation SSM. I cant help.:rolleyes: ever thought why Israeli PM Visited Moscow ten Times to stop a export version of a SSM.
Lol. Overshooting only happens in a dogfight. If the target slows down, the interceptor can correct itself. The target does not have the capability of knowing where the interceptor is to judge a timed response to suddenly slow down.
how is interceptor going to correct itself? surely u dont know AI and ECCM systems built into SSM.
If you have one. ATBMs are expensive. The economics favor the SSMs, as each SSM will be cheaper than the ATBM. Not to mention the SSMs are capable of using decoys, or multiple warheads.
nope ATBM are not expensive. particulary to the countries who are producing it.
so you post more junk as usual.
how is that junk. Or u know more than US Generals?
How is it different? More accuracy, better guidance, more power required. China has achieved the capability to target satellite using laser, but it doesn’t have a laser based ASAT
One test does not equal to capability. and u dont have laser power to achieve destruction. It was Russian who sold high power 20 MW laser system in 1995 to US. China can only produce things what US/USSR already did. u dont have ur own science.
star49We are talking of hypersonic speeds, exceeding mach 4.
in that case u are talking about obsolete missiles not fit for tactical strikes.
Tell me of an interception device that works and is slower than the target. You say you can anticipate by prepositioning? That does not give you an allowance once the target starts doing evasions. Speed is what gives the margin to counter evasions. There is a reason why interceptors, whether its a plane or a missile, must have the sheer speed.
speed can also works against u. incase the target slows down. and it is not necessary for interceptor to be faster than target.
I like to see someone actually do a terminally guided PGM accurate SSM. Even the Chinese are said to be developing on one. Such a missile would have terrific implications in any region’s balance of power.
unless ur missile is stealth, control flight, fast reaction time. it is just simple target for advance ATBM
Sign In
