[USimperialist]

Some US military pics

Coming in three parts: land, sea, and air. First things first:

Land:


An M1A1 Abrams fires its main cannon


A convoy of M2A3 Bradleys in Iraq



M270 MLRs



M109 Paladin


US convoy rolls past destroyed Iraqi T-72

[Red Fox Ace]

Are we planning on seeing a Part Two?

[USimperialist]

Red Fox Ace, on Aug 15 2007, 12:28 AM, said:

Are we planning on seeing a Part Two?

I have been trying to find my password to a source which I think has some good picture on US military tech but I have been thus far unsuccessful.

But Part 2 will be coming shortly..

[Sampanviking]

sorry to seem a spoilsport, but I am moving this to the World Military section. The Picture Gallery is really for Civilain Images of China etc......

[exocet]

Imperialist ,

Most impressive array of mighty armaments . Good sale's pitch too . Saudi Arabia , Egypt and Israel will be the main purchasers I suppose . Say, can you tell us plebeian peasants why it is that even with all these heart warming and stirring weaponry , the US is still stuck in that quagmire called Iraq ? I have heard that " one hand tied behind our back " theory , any other fresher spins ? ( I mean offer ?).

[edisonone]

Are we merely
stupid? Or is this merely lip
services our part?

Quote

China vows defence transparency

China has agreed to start reporting its military
spending to the UN and resume a practice of giving data about
import and export of conventional weapons.
.

I seriouly hope it's the latter because, I'm sure the Americans are
not as honorable in the same respect and that they are not as stupid as to go
transparent on what they are doing in order to ensure their survival.

I mean all those top
secret black projects happening in Nevada? Will they
let the world in on it???

Damn! Why are we
almost always the ones to compromise
our rights?!!!

[edisonone]

As compromising as we are,
the bashing, the finger pointings, the fantasies or "the
ridiculous charges", it continues!!!

I mean if they wanted in on more
of those fancy and latest of toys (JSFs) than Mama care to
afford, why don't they just say so???

Man!!! Can't win can we???

Quote

China Building World's Larges Navy

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/W...china_09_19.asp

Did you know that China could become the world's leading naval power by 2020?
That's the verdict of military analyst Tony Corn. This may help explain why the U.S. Navy thinks a piece of paper called the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty provides some sort of protection for American forces on the high seas. It offers no such protection, of course, but it creates the impression that Navy leaders are doing something about our increasing weakness and vulnerability. However, like so many other U.N. treaties, including the 19 anti-terrorism treaties in effect on 9/11, this one offers a false sense of security. It will mask a dramatic decline in our military power.
.

Quote

Air Force chief links F-35 fighter jet to China

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070920/pl_nm/...7lP3Nk6Y34Bxg8F

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force Secretary, drawing an unusually explicit link to China, said on Wednesday the United States should stick with a $299 billion plan to buy more than 2,400 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets....

"How big do you think China is?" he said, pausing for effect. "Twenty-one B-2s. Think about that," he said referring to the limited number of advanced Northrop Grumman Corp bombers in the U.S. arsenal.
.

Quote

Kanwa on H-6 K

These guys, the west in general http://www.kanwa.com on h-6k have no idea...

As chatters and leaks from Chinese military periodicals and medias had almost confirmed, China has had nuke capable cruise missiles with a range of more than 1100-1500 nautical miles for quite some time. In fact, it was reported (or covered) by even Jane's Defence Weekly some four, maybe five years back.

Matter of factly, it was said that these cruise missiles can be launched from submerged attack subs such as the Songs, the Yuans, Hans, and later model Chinese attack subs such as the 093.
.

[Red Fox Ace]

If I were China I wouldn't cooperate with any US demands for openness or lifting the veil of secrecy; there's certainly nothing for Beijing to gain from it.

[edisonone]

But Ace, like it or not, you are China. Makes sense? I tell my kids
this same principle and, lucky me, they have the inteligence to understand that
it's true. Now they proudly tell everyone who and what they are.



.

[Red Fox Ace]

edisonone, on Sep 20 2007, 10:40 AM, said:

But Ace, like it or not, you are China. Makes sense? I tell my kids
this same principle and, lucky me, they have the inteligence to understand that
it's true. Now they proudly tell everyone who and what they are.
.

I see that I was ambiguous. What I meant, more precisely was, China in the PRC leadership sense - "i.e.,. If I were Hu Jintao I wouldn't cooperate with the Yanks."


And yeah, I'm proud to be Chinese too. Did you know that? But in your view, if I'm not 100% pro-PRC, then I'm probably "un-Chinese," right?

[edisonone]

"And yeah, I'm proud to be Chinese too"



Is that a joke?

[Red Fox Ace]

edisonone, on Sep 20 2007, 12:11 PM, said:

"And yeah, I'm proud to be Chinese too"



Is that a joke?

Look, we're probably not going to see eye to eye on this. I'd like to drop this matter without further discussion if you don't mind.

[Sampanviking]

Quote

But Ace, like it or not, you are China

Got that wrong Edi - he is Chinese and whilst you may feel that you are China in a purely spiritual sense, this was clearly in the Legal and Political sense.

On this basis, the personalisation of the State is sole perogative of the Soverign or Head of State and their Administrations if an Internationally recognised Country. In this instance it can only mean the Govt of the PRC as the ROC is not recognised.

Red was entirely correct in his usage of the word China, whilst your response was borderline in the extreme

Remember everybody, we do have a naughty corner!!

[edisonone]

What crap!!!

As it seems, this is nothing
more but more American General's BS to try and get
more funding for the US Military .

Quote

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/29/...US-Military.php
KADENA AIR BASE, Japan:


While the U.S. has been tied up fighting the war in Iraq, China has made huge gains toward modernizing its military and improving its equipment, and its air defenses are now nearly impenetrable to all but the newest of American fighters, the senior U.S. military official in Japan said.

Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright, commander of the roughly 50,000 U.S. forces in Japan, Washington's biggest ally in Asia, said in an interview this week the Iraq war is reducing the availability of U.S. troops and equipment to meet other contingencies and eating up funds that might be used to replace or upgrade planes that are being pushed to their operational limits.

China, meanwhile, is rapidly filling the skies with newer, Russian-made Sukhoi Su-27 "Flankers" and Su-30s, along with the domestically built J-10, a state-of-the-art fighter that Beijing just rolled out in January. China has also improved its ballistic missile defenses and its ability to take the fight into space — as it proved by shooting down an old weather satellite at an orbital height similar to that used by the U.S. military.

Wright stressed he is "positive" about the current efforts to increase diplomatic and political engagement with Beijing. But he said the Chinese military buildup is disconcerting.

.


And, they must be
joking about this one here... I mean higher
Mach # than F-16s???

Quote

#5

There's got to be some mistake here.
Chinese engineering at par with state of the art American technology?
How silly of them there Chinese.

Heck! This kind of an
nonsense is going to give our resident Homer Simpson
here a nervous breakdown.

[flyzies]

I want to share with everyone a good research paper i read on US military. This really puts in perspective of how overwhelmingly power US military machine really is...and how far China (or anyone else for that matter) have to go before even thinking about catching up.

I would love to hear all your opinions about this matter...

Its called "Strategic Command (StratCom) in Context: The Hidden Architecture of U.S. Militarism" and can be found here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8810

[Sampanviking]

Every monolith has its Achilles heel and this is what opponents of the US must try and find.

Leaving Nuke exchanges out of it (as all you do is escalate to MAD), the US has a global network of bases which allow it to move and concentrate its firepower against a potential target.

The base network is therefore more about logistics than it is firepower and so when in normal situations represents the dispersement of US forces and their relative vulnerability to pre-emption. In the past the US machine has looked effective as it faced adversaries which were prepared to wait on America's timescale and which had limited or non existent ability to interdict US forces at great distance or from Strategic depth.

A country such as the PRC which has deep strike capabilities and whose forces are concentrated, can take the initiative and disrupt the base orientated logistic network, preventing the US from effectively concentrating its firepower and therefore being able to concentrate its own firepower for the rapid annihilation of adjacent and progressively more distant US base/nodes.

A good comparison would be perhaps the British campaign against Italian forces in North Africa in WW2, in which the Italians were likewise dispersed in a network of bases and destroyed in a similar piecemeal fashion and which necessitated the Germans sending Rommel and the Africa Corps.

[AresTitan]

Sampanviking, on Apr 28 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

Every monolith has its Achilles heel and this is what opponents of the US must try and find.

Leaving Nuke exchanges out of it (as all you do is escalate to MAD), the US has a global network of bases which allow it to move and concentrate its firepower against a potential target.

The base network is therefore more about logistics than it is firepower and so when in normal situations represents the dispersement of US forces and their relative vulnerability to pre-emption. In the past the US machine has looked effective as it faced adversaries which were prepared to wait on America's timescale and which had limited or non existent ability to interdict US forces at great distance or from Strategic depth.

A country such as the PRC which has deep strike capabilities and whose forces are concentrated, can take the initiative and disrupt the base orientated logistic network, preventing the US from effectively concentrating its firepower and therefore being able to concentrate its own firepower for the rapid annihilation of adjacent and progressively more distant US base/nodes.

A good comparison would be perhaps the British campaign against Italian forces in North Africa in WW2, in which the Italians were likewise dispersed in a network of bases and destroyed in a similar piecemeal fashion and which necessitated the Germans sending Rommel and the Africa Corps.

Or perhaps China can simply forego the "war" option and find a better alternative such as "waiting it out" which China seems to be amazingly capable of doing.

[flyzies]

^ And what would China be waiting for exactly?

Sampanviking, on Apr 29 2008, 04:54 AM, said:

Every monolith has its Achilles heel and this is what opponents of the US must try and find.

True, and i think PLA strategists have been developing capabilities to do just that. However, with ABM shield now functioning on small scale, the guarantees of MAD may not be there in the future. The only way to assure yourself you can retaliate would be to build enough nukes and ICBMs so that you can overwhelm the ABM shield...question is, would China's govt give 2nd Artillery enough funds to do that?

IMO, biggest achilles heel of US military right now is its information relay circuit, ie. its satellites. Thats why China's ASAT test was so significant. But space weapons is the next frontier, im really interested to see what China does in this field.

[OneOneSeven]

flyzies, on Apr 29 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

IMO, biggest achilles heel of US military right now is its information relay circuit, ie. its satellites. Thats why China's ASAT test was so significant. But space weapons is the next frontier, im really interested to see what China does in this field.

Exactly, the American war machine, whether you like it or not, is built upon their satellites. Their modern warfighting capability is contributed by their satellite constellations.

Once you take that out of the equation, the war is much more -balanced-.

If China really needs to take out their constellations, a couple of EMP pulses ought to do the trick.

Sampanviking, on Apr 29 2008, 01:54 AM, said:

A country such as the PRC which has deep strike capabilities and whose forces are concentrated, can take the initiative and disrupt the base orientated logistic network, preventing the US from effectively concentrating its firepower and therefore being able to concentrate its own firepower for the rapid annihilation of adjacent and progressively more distant US base/nodes.

Yes, a deep strike mission such as the seizure of natural resources in Alaska, followed up by an assault on the continental United States. The dispersal of American troops throughout the world may prove to be their disadvantage, considering how short on manpower they are.

[HaZh]

I think the US already noticed their satellite vulnerability. Maybe that's why they're working on microsatellites