^

Also considering even things like the paint used is probably classified, even the smallest bit of tech can be used to be significant gains if reversed engineered.

12/5/2011 9:06:04 PM

Quote :

"China has the best mimicking engineers in the world."

Which can help you figure out anything... unless you don't know what you're looking for. If they know "something" is stealth about the aircraft but don't know if it's the skin, design, an electrical system, or anything else, they have no idea what they are looking for.

I know the skin on the F-117A and B-2s is a big component to the stealth technology. That being said, the F-22 doesn't use the same skin so I'm not sure that's what makes it classified. If it was anything avionic related, it was completely destroyed. You can only recover so much from shrapnel that you can't identify.

12/5/2011 9:12:51 PM

Quote :

"Was there an incorrect fact in there? Sure"

and that's why i stopped listening to you. because you keep spouting fucking opinions. i tried to give you the benefit of the doubt like you knew something about tomahawks for real.

the problem is you got yourself a little SCI for a day and got to sneak a peek into the tomahawk room for 30 seconds and now you're out here on a forum blathering every detail pretending you know what's up. that's the funny part, because bhehe and i were probably dealing with this equipment before you even finished your freshman year in high school.

12/6/2011 7:39:30 AM

"Mimicking engineer" ? Dear God is this some Kanazawa racism back from the grave or is there actually such a thing as a "Mimicking engineer" ?

12/6/2011 9:21:47 AM

^ it's been around for a while bro

in 1974 we introduce the new (B1 Lancer):


and then 'by chance' in 1981 the soviet union introduces this (Tu160):



curious isn't it.

12/6/2011 10:10:17 AM

^^^So in other words, you feel like I've pointed out how fucking stupid your original argument about UAVs being able to do what a Tomahawk or other cruise missile can do is and are now resorting to pointing out what you think is a huge error on my part.

Dude, the AGM that the Air Force uses is almost the same fucking missile as the Navy's Tomahawk. I may have misnamed it, but it's the same missile with different badges and a few airframe changes.

VLS Launched Tomahawk:
Engine: Williams International Corp. F-107-WR-101 turbofan engine
Length: 20' 6"
Weight: 3200 lbs
Range: 600 nm
Speed: 'High-Speed Subsonic'

Aircraft Launched AGM-86C:
Engine: Williams International F107-WR-402 cruise turbo-fan engine; solid-fuel booster
Length: 20' 9"
Weight: 3250 lbs
Range: 600 nm
Speed: 'High-Speed Subsonic'

Note the similarities in the airframe construction. That's because the same contractors make most of the components as well. It's practically the same damn thing. The only thing making these missiles different is the fact that their first baseline was in 1986 which means they've had over two decades to evolve. Despite that, they're still pretty much the exact same thing.



The AGM-86 IOCed in 1986, just a few years after they had B-52's dropping Navy Tomahawks. It's the same fucking missile, just modified for Air Force use.

I promise you that your assertion that UAVs and Tomahawks somehow could have interchangeable or replaceable missions is a much, much dumber statement than "Tomahawks are launched via aircraft." So, sorry, let me correct myself... the Air Force version of a Tomahawk called the AGM-86C/D is launched via aircraft from the Air Force.

The function of those cruise missiles is the same... and the discussion of not use either one and replacing them with a UAV, as you asserted in your previous post, is fucking stupid. Feel free to continue to run away from your own argument...

PS: Actually bb and I have shot a few messages back and forth. Turns out we have a lot in common and started classes at the exact same time at State. If you 'know a lot more than me', then your claims about missiles and UAVs certainly don't reflect it.


[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 10:16 AM. Reason : +^]

12/6/2011 10:11:30 AM

<yawn>

why are you so butthurt because i told you that tomahawks aren't currently being fired out of aircraft anymore. i know you wish TOMAHAWKS were being fired off of b52s, but they aren't anymore.

i know it pains you. just calm the fuck down and revert back to topic?? i honestly dont give a fuck about your misinformation about missile systems.

12/6/2011 10:19:36 AM

^^"UAVs being able to do what a Tomahawk or other cruise missile can do"

tell us for the record, how many drones are on your frigate (if you even know)



oh and lol: ---->AGM-86s will reach their end of service by 2020

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 10:27 AM. Reason : fucking pwnt. your missile is done. enjoy it's last few years in service]

12/6/2011 10:22:20 AM

I repeat:

Your quote:

Quote :

"the tomahawk is a great weapons system and is only currently deployed on naval platforms, its mission time can be compromising to a given scenario (tracking a vehicle) instead of launching from 1000 nautical miles you could have a short range UAV deploy a missile to destroy a vehicle in a matter of seconds instead of risking a mission failure because of a moving target or losing track of the target."

You keep avoiding this by trolling what you assume I know or don't know and what ships I've been on or haven't been on or what you think I do or don't do. You have no idea what I do or who I work for, so your only course of action at this point in time is to either respond to your own dumbshit comment about cruise missiles and UAVs, or troll. You're obviously chosing the latter.

12/6/2011 10:27:45 AM

Quote :

"i honestly dont give a fuck about your misinformation about missile systems. "

yeah you cared so little you decided to come back and post about it again 3 mins later

jesus christ, pissing contests abound on this board

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 10:38 AM. Reason : .]

12/6/2011 10:38:03 AM

^S'ok, I'm over it. When I first came on TWW I saw a lot of pack_bryan-directed laughter and I'm just discovering why. I mean, honestly, the most informative thing he's added to the discussion is (1) a stupid comparison of two technologies that have nothing to do with each other and (b) pointing at another user's post and using that as some sort of "gotchya" argument.

Sorry for getting trapped in the trolling, guys.

12/6/2011 10:46:12 AM

<yawn>

in conclusion:
UAVs are being deployed more and more into combat, with more and more roles.
Tomahawks and other cruise missiles are becoming meaningless in these iranian operations

/discussion.

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 2:05 PM. Reason : ,]

12/6/2011 1:55:50 PM

Quote :

"Tomahawks and other cruise missiles are becoming meaningless in these iranian operations "

Becoming meaningless? We've never used a Tomahawk in Iran. No one was talking about Tomahawks until you brought it up.

Quote :

"the tomahawk is a great weapons system and is only currently deployed on naval platforms, its mission time can be compromising to a given scenario (tracking a vehicle) instead of launching from 1000 nautical miles you could have a short range UAV deploy a missile to destroy a vehicle in a matter of seconds instead of risking a mission failure because of a moving target or losing track of the target."

PS: It's amazing even after being singled out for exactly what you're doing that you still keep trying to act like you've proved something. You bring up something that is a completely irrelevant then pretend like you've won some great fight. What's even more puzzling is why I'm even attempting to point out the obvious to you because you obviously don't want any part of it.

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 2:10 PM. Reason : Added 'PS...']

12/6/2011 2:09:05 PM

"nobody was talking about tomahawks until you brought it up"

elusis 12/5/2011 11:15:48 AM:

Quote :

"is there anything we can't do with a tomahawk that a stealth unmanned aircraft would be capable of doing with munitions?"

my first post on the matter: 12/5/2011 11:45:04 AM



nice to know some of our active military can't read.

12/6/2011 2:19:00 PM

Oh that's right... you weren't the one that brought it up; you were just the one to take a dumb statement, believe there was something to it, and attempt to make some kind of intelligent conversation over something you know nothing about. Got it.

Care to explain to us again how you could just replace a Tomahawk with a UAV? Maybe you could tell us what platform you were thinking of or maybe just the size of the warhead.

No, seriously... with all of your pissing your doing all over this thread, I'm really interested to know what you could have possibly been referring to when you said this: "instead of launching from 1000 nautical miles you could have a short range UAV deploy a missile to destroy a vehicle in a matter of seconds instead of risking a mission failure because of a moving target or losing track of the target."

Quote :

"nice to know some of our active military can't read."

Absolutely no fucking clue what I do or who I work for.

12/6/2011 2:31:59 PM

Quote :

"that wreckage was sent to china for reverse engineering. they don't need the plane design,they just needed the stealth technology from it. China has the best mimicking engineers in the world."

man, if so, that is a huge risk. hopefully since we engineered that stealth technology to begin with we have the ability to track it just in case the chinese DO in fact copy it.

12/6/2011 2:45:43 PM

copying your foes will only get yo so far-

theyre still just a bunch of ignorant peons with no concept of how to fight a war... and we've been in a constant state of war almost since our inception.

nobody truly wants to fight us-

now prodding us, thats a whole other matter.

12/6/2011 2:55:48 PM

Quote :

"Is it really inconceivable that the military is capable of wasting a shitload of money? It's like any government entity. When you don't have the market encouraging thrift and lower costs, you're going to have waste. The U.S. military is arguably the most wasteful organization on the planet."

Imagine how many 'small government conservatives' would shit their pants if welfare recipients got the kind of blank checks the defense department basically gets

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 10:51 AM. Reason : .]

12/7/2011 10:50:24 AM

Also lol at the blatant racism in the last page re: The Chinaman's insufficient creative ability compared to the naturally novel Caucasian mind

12/7/2011 10:52:13 AM

amazing how liberal trash can always bring it back to that-

instead of just confirming youre yet another stereotypical idiot you could have:

1) pointed to a chinese weapon system that isnt a shitty copy of an american/russian one

2) highlighted a successful chinese military operation since the formation of the united states that would possibly confirm their military prowness

since you did neither we can only assume we would absolutely massacre the chinese in basically any scenario imaginable.

they know this, they will not fight us. the only ones who "fight" us are the ones currently doing so with unorthodox tactics. theyre the ones you should concern yourself with.

hence this conversation is useless (as are you). typical liberal race card derail- a TSB classic!

12/7/2011 11:03:42 AM

Quote :

"Also lol at the blatant racism in the last page re: The Chinaman's insufficient creative ability compared to the naturally novel Caucasian mind "

is it really racist when the only thing the Chinese are known for is cheap imitation knockoffs and getting their asses pummelled by the Japanese and Mongolians? most people in here would gladly portray the Japanese as creative pioneers, even though their physical characteristics are similar.

12/7/2011 11:43:42 AM

Quote :

" 1) pointed to a chinese weapon system that isnt a shitty copy of an american/russian one"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

Quote :

"2) highlighted a successful chinese military operation since the formation of the united states that would possibly confirm their military prowness"

Two examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chamdo

Just because the Chinese military is mostly non-Imperial (unlike the US) doesn't make it inferior. They've kept Mongols, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Soviets, and more at bay at various points in history. They have primarily operated defensively since 1911, something the US should try as it stretches itself wafer-thin over the world.

Quote :

" they know this, they will not fight us. the only ones who "fight" us are the ones currently doing so with unorthodox tactics. theyre the ones you should concern yourself with. "

They don't fight us for the same reason we don't fight them, because it would be economic suicide for both countries to tear up our consumer-producer symbiosis.

Quote :

" hence this conversation is useless (as are you). typical liberal race card derail- a TSB classic!"

Not really. What's typical is the "Chinese have no creativity all they have are land hoards", coupled with an evident utter ignorance of Chinese military history, is a typical racist stereotype.

Quote :

" is it really racist when the only thing the Chinese are known for is cheap imitation knockoffs and getting their asses pummelled by the Japanese and Mongolians?"

"Cheap imitation knockoffs" get the job done economically. You buy them, right? Every manufacturing process involves a quality/cost ratio, and China's mastered it. Americans are short-sighted and prefer cheap products to quality products, so making practically-disposable products ends up being way more profitable. What's that? Hm, china is poised to become the largest economy on Earth within the decade, while the US is already in decline?

Quote :

" most people in here would gladly portray the Japanese as creative pioneers, even though their physical characteristics are similar."

It's not my fault you and others are ignorant of actual history and just base your idea of Chinese innovation on the shitty products they produce to be exported to unscrupulous Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Research_areas

Quote :

"is it really racist when the only thing the Chinese are known for is cheap imitation knockoffs"

The Chinese are known only for that by racists who can't be bothered to actually learn Chinese history, rather they just extend the stereotype of the Chinese as being a mindless hoard of drones to their production and research capabilities. It strikes to me of insecure Americans wanting to believe as hard as they can that China is somehow inherently inferior and so in the ultimate course of history they can never overcome us. Ironically, it's exactly that hubris and those kinds of assumptions that almost guarantees they will.

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2011 12:10:09 PM

I'd add that, in my personal experience as a robotics researcher at CMU, each year a greater proportion of students are Chinese-born, and each year more and more of the research papers I end up using are translated from Chinese. It's a big mistake to underestimate Chinese innovation, especially now when they're ramping up military spending and research spending simultaneously. They spent the last half-century devoting most of their effort to economic development, and excelled at it. If they turn their eyes to the military and put as much effort into that, they could easily become a military superpower within decades.

12/7/2011 12:27:08 PM

LOL at all the talk about the Chinese copying stuff. I suppose we were being super original when we grabbed Werner von Braun and all his Nazi scientist buddies to come show us how to do things.

12/7/2011 12:40:48 PM

I'll add that it was American innovation that gave us the fortune cookie.

12/7/2011 12:44:20 PM

I'll add that I bought 2 pair of knock-off, chinese made oakleys in NYC for $5.

nope, nothing to see here.

12/7/2011 1:02:16 PM

str8foolish, just to pile on more 'racism' as you call it:



they did a pretty shitty job trying to rip off our F22's too.


you know.. 'racist' since lockheed only employs whites lol

under evolved human logic by liberals yet again. maybe one day they can fix this inherited jealousy gene they seem to be born with (success, women, now 'what culture' invents technology???) wow




[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 1:43 PM. Reason : ,]

12/7/2011 1:25:39 PM

Quote :

"They don't fight us for the same reason we don't fight them, because it would be economic suicide for both countries to tear up our consumer-producer symbiosis. "

out of everything you said, this is the only thing not laughable.

*golf clap*

12/7/2011 1:28:57 PM

Quote :

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile "

care to reference one that actually works? maybe they would have a working guidance system if Americans had built one first and all they had to do was steal it.

12/7/2011 1:52:51 PM

Quote :

"I suppose we were being super original when we grabbed Werner von Braun and all his Nazi scientist buddies to come show us how to do things. "

when all else fails, find someone whiter than you to get it done.

12/7/2011 1:57:49 PM

ok, now maybe THAT was racist

12/7/2011 2:09:48 PM

hmm. where have we seen this design...



surely never before






[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 2:24 PM. Reason : ,]

12/7/2011 2:22:23 PM

except they didnt cut funding-

12/7/2011 2:24:15 PM

it's all that creativity you get with socialism / communism and / progressivism.
look at it in action all over the world.

oh wait.


hilarious. ha. their people must be thinking "wow those poor americans had to live in that barbaric capitalism to get this.... and we just petitioned our most gentle dictator and he has gifted us these magical items within days. sure my iphone is comparable to this fisher price toy, but functionally it's pretty much the same right?"

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ,]

12/7/2011 2:40:56 PM

Just playing devil's advocate here, just because something looks similar doesn't mean they're anywhere close to each other. Look at Buran vs our Shuttle, two radically different airframes on the inside, but look virtually identical

As for stuff like rockets, I mean in some cases there are only certain ways something can be designed. What, a main engine with 4 smaller boosters? GENIUS

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 2:48 PM. Reason : a]

12/7/2011 2:47:33 PM

yep. a main engine and 4 boosters. the only possible way to get to space.



[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 2:51 PM. Reason : ,]

12/7/2011 2:51:02 PM

I was just using that as an example. however, all those rockets you've shown are human rated (except for the Ares V which is a heavy cargo launch system)

The point is, booster/configuration is all going to look similar in many cases, however the inner workings of the engines or type of fuel/propellant used could be very different.

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 3:12 PM. Reason : a]

12/7/2011 3:07:32 PM

your point is valid. also, the chinese have launched humans in their tiangong which is the rocket i showed above. same with the russian one. not sure if you only wanted to talk about cargo launch systems or human/cargo systems


but my point is, there's many many ways to get to space.






yet they rip off the design that nasa and roscosmos has in common.

i mean it's a no brainer... they wanted the cheapest and not take any risk. (aka they would rather copy than innovate) oh well.


[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ,]

12/7/2011 3:35:56 PM

How dare they not skip basic capsule design and go right to Space Elevators!!

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 3:41 PM. Reason : a]

12/7/2011 3:39:25 PM

How dare we racist non-chinese attempt a non "stick on an engine approach" before the gemeni and mercury program!!




[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 4:13 PM. Reason : ,]

12/7/2011 4:05:00 PM

Quote :

"maybe they would have a working guidance system if Americans had built one first and all they had to do was steal it."

Give me a break, have you done any work in science in your life, ever? Everything is stolen, built on the past, built on foreign research. 99 times out of 100 innovation is simply combining two recent results by other researchers.

Fuck, we wouldn't have made it from the moon if we didn't directly employ fascist/socialist Nazi scintists after WWII.

I'm amazed at how much you'll squirm to avoid any recognition that the Chinese are somehow equally human in that they have a capacity to invent.

Is it because they were Communist for awhile? Hm, Russia managed to keep us sweating for 5 decades in research and development. It's almost as though investment in military research yields technology, regardless of your national ideology. That would mean that China, investing far more in manufacturing and infrastructure than military, might have more advanced manufacturing and infrastructure than they would military tech. Perhaps we should try comparing solar panel production in China vs. the US...

So without ideology as an excuse, what's left? Why is the Chinaman incapable of creativity?



[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 5:01 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2011 4:57:08 PM

Hurp a derp note how the Chinese wheel is round, how creative!

12/7/2011 4:59:39 PM

if their investments in infrastructure and technology were so groundbreaking, then why are they buying up our 50 year old utility meters while the US proceeds to install digital meters with automatic backhaul capabilities? Why has their Three Gorges dam, the flagship of their engineering and infrastructurer capabilities, turned out to be such a giant clusterfuck? if their solar panels, LEDs, and other electronic manufacturing processes are so advanced, then why are the plant designs being run by western companies? Why are they contracting out their most basic electrical infrastructure designs to American and European companies?

But before you answer all that, answer the original question about why they have a missile guidance system on their own propietary design that doesn't work.

12/7/2011 5:43:39 PM

they arent as great as you think-

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/china-bubble-million-dollar-pooch

http://www.grist.org/cities/2011-03-31-chinas-ghost-cities-and-the-biggest-property-bubble-of-all

http://www.mybudget360.com/china-ghost-city-shopping-malls-vacant-units-china-real-estate-bubble-bigger-than-us-housing-bubble-speculation/

http://consumerist.com/2011/07/chinas-hypergrowth-fueled-by-building-giant-cities-no-one-lives-in.html



[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 5:53 PM. Reason : -]

12/7/2011 5:48:37 PM

Western companies? American companies?

Is there any such thing? Do these companies wake up and pledge allegiance to the flag every day?

12/7/2011 5:51:24 PM

the work is being done out of the American and European offices by American and European workers. They have satellite offices in China that do little more than translate and serve as a middle man.

12/7/2011 6:10:15 PM

Ahah you dumbasses have been arguing for two pages over a single word from one of my posts. I actually considered using a more precise word other than "bomber" but did it anyway because I knew it would troll at least one of you guys into becoming Dwight Schrute. Haha didn't expect everyone to join in though.

******************************************************************
Fact: Our drones are weaponized and have been used many times to kill people.
******************************************************************

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 6:54 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2011 6:53:03 PM

do we have any stealth drones with 1,000lb payload capacities? that's what your post implied.

12/7/2011 6:56:57 PM

^i stand corrected. according to boeings website this guy has 1000lb payload capacity. but i doubt it handles what you want it to carry





[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 7:02 PM. Reason : ,]

12/7/2011 6:59:06 PM

Sorry. I was the orignial quote about chinas engineers. They do have the best copiers but that doesn't imply they don't have good creativity. they have a lot of EVERYTHING. its a huge amount of people. they probably have the most illiterate people and produce scientists at the same time.

They don't need to have weapons we can't beat. They just need good weapons that will overpower anyone who gets in their way. We won't fight them but they can fight their enemies even if those enemies are our friends. There will come a time where china does something militarily to piss off our ally and we won't be coming to save the day.

12/7/2011 8:56:14 PM