09III/09IV (093/094) Nuclear Submarine Thread
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
kwaigonegin
Colonel
The US historically has played up Russian capabilities. This was even truer during the 1980s but much of that mentality has remained.
Everyone thought the MiG 25 was much superior to the F15 and the MiG 29 had true look down shoot down capabilities.
Everyone thought the MiG 25 was much superior to the F15 and the MiG 29 had true look down shoot down capabilities.
Never happened(to F-15). To "10x" series of fighters and Phantom - yes, it did, but it wasn't unreasonable way of thinking.
MiG-25 was considered to be what it wasn't due to lack of information(combination of photo analytics, known air records and radar recordings over Israel): plane was known to be 3M capable, to reach unimaginable heights, to carry heavy A2A missile loads, and, finally, to have very large wing area.
And problem was exactly what combination of facts which independently were true led to a conclusion which was not.
Induction in philosophy at its worst.
By the way, same actually happed quite frequently with Chinese military.
"If you don't know something, assume it to be as good as your own" is a very credible approach.
Nevertheless, German MiG-29s in 1990s had remarkable success in NATO exercises.
For it lacking true dream-like capabilities - well, physics and technological progress(especially in electronics in Soviet case) are hard to fool. Be it Russia, China or United States.
Last edited:
ONI chart graphic with different classes can be interesting only for compared classes but no noise no DBs in, and i have do long research on 5 - 10 sites/blogs serious i verifiy/check ... with noises of others classes US, Russians etc... and i have dépends classes noise approx but enough good.
And as i have say, also Tuphang Chinese except Yuan are not among the best, medium, very medium Han, Ming, Xia more old very Noisy exist also others classes of others countries not good, useless do paranoia... i have datas which are not wackyand i say it is all.
The noise mentionned is in general the radiated noise to tactical speed in fact maximum silencious speed to max speed about + 10 dBs a sub to 125 DBs dépends sensors but can be detected to 130/200 km, the Xia to 150 surely easy 300 km, a silencious in general 30/50 km max the best are extremely difficult to detect more if they fire especialy missiles more discret torpedoes.
The best combination for detected ships with hull sonar + towed + helo around.
Not only difficult have noise depth also and speed even US more easy as with China for almost all classes in service officilay + 25 kn, 300+ m and It is quite far from reality, submarines are a matter much classified but possible have ideas.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
One shouldnt forget that American analysts and think-tanks are waging psychological warfare with their reports as well.
Consistent between-the-lines in their reports about China are:
1. China's rise is becoming a threat to the minor-powers and US allies in Asia-Pacific.
2. But China still wont be able to beat the US, now and not in a hundred years.
3. China could only win by escalating first and doing ambushs and other dishonourable acts.
What are these points trying to convey? Simple:
"Ally yourself with the US, give up more of your territories for US bases, strengthen US alliance network and fortify US hegemony by praising it like the Poles, Balts and Japanese do - and buy more American weapons. You only have to fear China if you dont do the above to the letter. And while you are doing that, reject all and any of China's advances, because, as you have read, these sneaky bastards will always backstab you, since that's the only way they can win.
And no, China's military technology will never be able to overtake the US, so when you are on our side, you will be secure for the next hundred million years. The Pax Americana is eternal."
So, I wouldnt trust any US think-tank's public release to ever give any useful numbers about China's military technologies. Because if they ever happen to release any numbers that would make China appear more like a peer-competitor to the US, they will make the swing-states of the Pacific Rim lose confidence in the absolute superiority of Pax Americana. And this cant be allowed. Duterte shall never allowed to happen again.
Consistent between-the-lines in their reports about China are:
1. China's rise is becoming a threat to the minor-powers and US allies in Asia-Pacific.
2. But China still wont be able to beat the US, now and not in a hundred years.
3. China could only win by escalating first and doing ambushs and other dishonourable acts.
What are these points trying to convey? Simple:
"Ally yourself with the US, give up more of your territories for US bases, strengthen US alliance network and fortify US hegemony by praising it like the Poles, Balts and Japanese do - and buy more American weapons. You only have to fear China if you dont do the above to the letter. And while you are doing that, reject all and any of China's advances, because, as you have read, these sneaky bastards will always backstab you, since that's the only way they can win.
And no, China's military technology will never be able to overtake the US, so when you are on our side, you will be secure for the next hundred million years. The Pax Americana is eternal."
So, I wouldnt trust any US think-tank's public release to ever give any useful numbers about China's military technologies. Because if they ever happen to release any numbers that would make China appear more like a peer-competitor to the US, they will make the swing-states of the Pacific Rim lose confidence in the absolute superiority of Pax Americana. And this cant be allowed. Duterte shall never allowed to happen again.
Yes, 093 was (probably) very noisy.
Yes, there is no official Chinese information or declassified information from other countries to prove or disprove anything.
Yes, people are biased, but have their right to speak their opinion.
But, the question I must ask is "besides trolling or provoking, what reason is left to make a post of #903 to advertise the infamous Kyle person's article?"
That article is about 093 decades ago. Should anybody write an article about the first being slow, bumpy and noisy to imply anything about Mercedes after 100 years? Is that ridiculous beyond anybody? If so, I may ask again, what is the point of recycling that Kyle article in post #903? Say it straight.
I believe in people's right of holding different views, but I also believe that there must be a limit of being honest and respectful and abusing that right is not.
Yes, there is no official Chinese information or declassified information from other countries to prove or disprove anything.
Yes, people are biased, but have their right to speak their opinion.
But, the question I must ask is "besides trolling or provoking, what reason is left to make a post of #903 to advertise the infamous Kyle person's article?"
That article is about 093 decades ago. Should anybody write an article about the first being slow, bumpy and noisy to imply anything about Mercedes after 100 years? Is that ridiculous beyond anybody? If so, I may ask again, what is the point of recycling that Kyle article in post #903? Say it straight.
I believe in people's right of holding different views, but I also believe that there must be a limit of being honest and respectful and abusing that right is not.
Somewhere, there is a write up of how effective the East German Mig 29s were by "Spanky" the USAF ret pilot who flew the first civilian Mig-29 in the US. That aircraft is on you-tube, anyway, Spanky flew the East German Mig-29s as an exchange pilot, it was quite a quirky aircraft, though if well flown was quite agile up close, but the IRST was basically useless in his experience.
During the "kold war" the Soviets had a lot of quite kool toys, but most were not up to "Western Standards"? The Mig15 however proved to be an outstanding performer, turning and climbing very well, and initially it was extremely deadly, even into Vietnam the Mig-17 and later Mig-21 did very well, particularly in light of the fact that the F-4 had no internal gun, and the AAM of the day were very disappointing in actual practice.
Those lessons spawned "Red Flag" and "Top Gun" which used "edumacation" to learn a few things about ACM, so Mig-29s???EEEHHHH! alright, now the Flanker, the Flanker is a whole nother animal, much, much better than the Mig.
Not wrong, if we compare russian equipment with summ of whole 1st world. It becomes question of economy and necessity to have certain degree of each capability, after all. Because for country without umbrella overspecialisation isn't an option.
Otherwise - it depends(and level of competitiveness can be estimated on swinging, i.e. relatively neutral, export markets).
Good example can be seen currently - if you'll check recent air power estimations - China, for example, already more or less caught on with RuAF in many "combat" categories.
Yet non-combat roles(EW, surveilance, etc.) still aren't even close.
And this is a gap most "secondary" powers don't even bother about. UK, for example, suddenly found it unconvenient w/o MPA, - but MPA is only tip of an iceberg of capabilities, provided for them by USAF.
p.s. at cold war times it was much more complex. There won't be arms race if there is only one participant.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I can't believe such farcical nonsense from a notorious China hater managed to get some much traction.
Besically what that piece of trash rant article was saying was that because the first Chinese nuclear sub built decades ago was poor, the newest Chinese nuclear subs must all also be failures.
How does that make even the slightest bit of sense?
Besically what that piece of trash rant article was saying was that because the first Chinese nuclear sub built decades ago was poor, the newest Chinese nuclear subs must all also be failures.
How does that make even the slightest bit of sense?