America Vs China

[bman8810]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Rofl dude. That picture *IS* a Sukhoi. T-50.

That is a picture of a prototype.

[Beastro]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Rofl dude. That picture *IS* a Sukhoi. T-50.

And hence why I should never pull all nighters ever again.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Beastro [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The mainstay of China will remain rip off Russian designs for quite some time.

My point stands. Discounting the PLAAF is a fool's errand.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

5th gen fighters were only our little secret while the f-22 was the yf-22..

The cat is out of the bag.

[Vendar]

China will use all its mmo gold farmers to hack America's gibson rendering them unable to defend themselves.

both economies crash.


Smedy emerges from the rubble as the last standing and takes over as the head of the new world order.


duh.

[Beastro]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My point stands. Discounting the PLAAF is a fool's errand.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

5th gen fighters were only our little secret while the f-22 was the yf-22..

The cat is out of the bag.

Still in prototype and won't be in service for more than a decade, the mainstay will remain Sukhoi ripoffs just like the US will remain tied to the F-15,-16 and -18.

For the next decade or two China will still retain it's old weakness' but come 2030-2040 is when they'll pull a head of the US. Even then the faction that wants a blue water navy will still be babying an infant fleet.

BTW, the ballistic carrier killers was just a BS project started by the brown water clique to undermine said blue water proponents drive for a navy to challenge the USN.

Anyway, US politics fucked over the USAF by canceling the -22 after only 189 units. Such a small number, all will be over worked and I doubt many will last beyond 2020.

China won't over take America by catching up and surpassing US tech, American politics is glad to freeze their force in the 1980s and let the Chicoms play catch up....

The rest if the air arm.... well all I can say is "Dave", with a shudder.

[bman8810]

Originally Posted by Ronas [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. Use of Nukes wouldn't really be put into play, to me i believe they are there just to scare the other nations but neither countries would use them (Well maybe the US because they are stupid and arrogant) due to one bomb pretty much blasting away 1/5 of the world, and leaving behind scars on the planet that wouldn't regen for over 1000 years.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you were exaggerating and don't really believe those claims. If you really did, you would believe that we destroyed 40% of the world during WW2.

A picture of Hiroshima now:
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Prince]

just fyi the nuclear weapons the US, Russia etc have nowadays are pretty different from the two bombs that were dropped on Japan in WW2.

[Prince]

For instance, Fat man had a blast yield of 21 kilotons of tnt (88 terajoules of energy) and little boy had a yield of 13-18 kt TNT (54-75 TJ). Modern nuclear weapons (using the B83 as an example) have blast yields of up to 1.2 Megatons (1,200 Kilotons) of TNT, equivalent to 5,000 terajoules of energy. There's a pretty big difference between the impact that one of these bombs would have if detonated compared to the long term effect of fat man + little boy on Japan.

[bman8810]

Originally Posted by Prince [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For instance, Fat man had a blast yield of 21 kilotons of tnt (88 terajoules of energy) and little boy had a yield of 13-18 kt TNT (54-75 TJ). Modern nuclear weapons (using the B83 as an example) have blast yields of up to 1.2 Megatons (1,200 Kilotons) of TNT, equivalent to 5,000 terajoules of energy. There's a pretty big difference between the impact that one of these bombs would have if detonated compared to the long term effect of fat man + little boy on Japan.

You are referring to two different types of bombs. The first type of bomb you are referring to is an atomic bomb and relies solely on fission. The second type of bomb you are referring to is a thermonuclear bomb which utilizes both fusion and fission.

Also, 1954 was the first testing of a hydrogen bomb; i.e. a thermonuclear bomb. It released the equivalent (approximately) of 10 megatons of TNT. As such, the 1/5th of the earth claim is still far from accurate.

[Beastro]

Originally Posted by Prince [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For instance, Fat man had a blast yield of 21 kilotons of tnt (88 terajoules of energy) and little boy had a yield of 13-18 kt TNT (54-75 TJ). Modern nuclear weapons (using the B83 as an example) have blast yields of up to 1.2 Megatons (1,200 Kilotons) of TNT, equivalent to 5,000 terajoules of energy. There's a pretty big difference between the impact that one of these bombs would have if detonated compared to the long term effect of fat man + little boy on Japan.

Most modern US weapons are geared to initiate below their maximum yield and, at least under Bush, there were projects looking to replace the US deterrent with warheads whose yields were below the first generation of nukes.

Big bombs are, for the most part, a waste. The only real advantage they give is that the initiation material is greater and thus the bomb doesn't been to be serviced and have parts replaced as much (mainly the tritium which has a fairly short half life).

Even a megaton+ nuke still wouldn't destroy a whole city, nor would the after effects be as bad as the Jap bombs, again because of air bursts.