China's official media shows shot down a U.S U - 2

[topjumper]

I have said it before here and I will repeat: There is no such thing as 'military technology', only the adoption and adaptation of technology for military uses.

The only way for China to have as active the adoption and adaptation of technology for military uses as the US is for China to have fundamental changes at the societal level. The US DoD thru DARPA encourages civilians to investigate and innovate, allow the new technologies to mature and it does not need to be widespread among the civilian sector to mature, re: the Internet for example, then the US military will adopt and adapt. This 'catch up' is under the assumption that the US will remain static. Good luck with your assumption.


Then you do not know much.

Now now gambit, let's not play with word games. While it is true that there are many branches of science that have potential military applications, such as fluid dynamics, solid mechanics, computer science, materials engineering, mechanical engineering just to name a few, it is nonetheless entirely valid for one to collectively refer the subsets of these sciences applicable to military weaponry as military technology, however wide this definition may seem, it was nevertheless appropriate for someone to make his/her point.

I think the essential point you were making is that the United States by far is leading in many branches of scientific research at civilian/commercial institutions such as universities, engineering firms etc, and these researches will be beneficial to your military weaponry developments as well as others. I have to agree with you on this one -- the US is by far the world's leader in annually registered patents, published research papers etc just look at a few research capability indicators, but I also think in your post you were somewhat suggesting that the current Chinese society/social system does not encourage or is not as suitable for scientific research at civilian institutions compared to the US, that I must disagree.

In fact education, science and technology development has consistently been the focus of the Chinese government ever since Deng Xiao Ping era, while many US politicians have backgrounds in law, banking, business etc, in China the top politicians are engineers/technologists, for example president Jiang Zemin is a graduate in electrical engineering from a top chinese university, the current president Hu Jintao was a hydraulic engineer from Tsinghua university, it may not mean much in practice but it does give you an indication of how much respect/focus people in china have for science and technology. If we look at the number of patents filed per year by country as a rough guide on indigenous research capability(however imperfect this indicator is) -- 10 years ago China's patent filings was not even 1/10 of the US total, but by 2008 China's total filing was 203,257 while the US total was 389,073, and in 2008 its education budget increased over 45% compared to 2007 and this trend is continuing.

I am not debating for the fact that US is the leader in world class research in many fields and it has the capability to attract the world's leading scientists, I have immense respect for your great country in that field, but I would just like to point out to you that China in fact is catching up on the US in terms of education and scientific research, you don't have to stand still (or remain "static" in your word) for the rest of the world to catch up on you, other countries just need to focus on research more and develop faster to catch up, to simply suggest that your society is best suited for research and other countries can only copy your model and forever play the catch up game is -- an inaccurate if not ignorant (forgive my bluntness) assessment from your part in my opinion.

Regards.

 

[gambit]

Now now gambit, let's not play with word games. While it is true that there are many branches of science that have potential military applications, such as fluid dynamics, solid mechanics, computer science, materials engineering, mechanical engineering just to name a few, it is nonetheless entirely valid for one to collectively refer the subsets of these sciences applicable to military weaponry as military technology, however wide this definition may seem, it was nevertheless appropriate for someone to make his/her point.

Let us take radar absorbers used by US 'stealth' aircrafts for example. The general public have been overwhelmed by technically ignorant journalists with the implication that absorbers are unique to these aircrafts and for very narrow application -- war -- and that it was the military who placed the demand for this technology. Far less well known is the fact that radar absorbing material (RAM) have been in use for decades -- the radome. The entire structure is made from the stuff. It must be else the radar detection process would not work. The way I see it, classifying something as 'military technology' is the true word game.

...to simply suggest that your society is best suited for research and other countries can only copy your model and forever play the catch up game is -- an inaccurate if not ignorant (forgive my bluntness) assessment from your part in my opinion.

Regards.

Which offers the most in terms of balance in vehicular stability, safety, speed, and load capacity? Two wheels, three or four? As a motorcyclist I know the answer -- four. From a philosophical standpoint, the best model for what you want is not open to compromise or even debate. This is not about R/D but about the foundation of the society that encourages R/D, risk assessment, financing and finally deployment of whatever it is. All this with minimal governmental controls and often with that government controls comes impediments and delays.

We may have LED or plasma type illumination but as far as incandescent lighting goes, what Edison accomplished cannot be compromised. Show me a single three-wheeled vehicle that offers the same level of stability and load carrying capacity as four wheels. Just like the vehicle analogy, show me a single society that either does not adopt or abandon the US/Western model and yet remain internationally competitive. This is not about copying US but about using what works best regardless of how one may feel about whoever is currently using that method. What I see so common in these forums is that the desire to be 'not like US' so strong that their 'not like US' arguments often defy common sense and even the laws of physics.

 

[topjumper]

We may have LED or plasma type illumination but as far as incandescent lighting goes, what Edison accomplished cannot be compromised. Show me a single three-wheeled vehicle that offers the same level of stability and load carrying capacity as four wheels. Just like the vehicle analogy, show me a single society that either does not adopt or abandon the US/Western model and yet remain internationally competitive. This is not about copying US but about using what works best regardless of how one may feel about whoever is currently using that method. What I see so common in these forums is that the desire to be 'not like US' so strong that their 'not like US' arguments often defy common sense and even the laws of physics.

Well I think we have all heard of similar debates before -- regarding the best political system, economic policies and now science and education etc. The attitude the US tends to have is "because it works for me, therefore it is the single best way and any other ways just won't work even for other countries". Just take capitalism and socialism for example -- a capitalist system favors more on market self-regulated economy, while a socialist system favors more on a planned economy, just because the US is leaning more towards a loosely planned market economy doesn't mean it will be the best for other countries to do so, China for example combines both central planning and market self-regulation and developed its own way of "market economy with chinese characteristics", it is markedly different from that of the US but it has worked well (at least so far).

The exact same argument goes for political and education systems and beyond, whether there should be more or less government intervention etc etc totally varies across countries depend on their own unique backgrounds -- as much as you'd like to think defining successful social policies are as clear cut as the best of way building a bike, there never is a clear cut answer in social sciences and it all depends on the individual country's circumstances, this is hard to understand sometimes -- I know because I studied mathematics and tend to look for clear cut / well defined answers, but in social sciences this isn't necessarily the case, I would even argue that when sciences get close to model real world problems there are many times not one definitive best solution, take a non-linear PDE that does not have a closed form solution for example, you can have many different numerical techniques to try to approximate the solution within an acceptable error bound, but different techniques has its own pros and cons and depends on your own circumstances/limitations, you may choose one approach over the other. There is however, one definitive way for us to assess objectively on the success of a policy based on some quantitative indicators, and I was merely pointing out to you that for whatever China did to its education, it has worked well so far and it is catching up with the best of the world fast. If you read my post I did not for one second claim what the US has is not correct, I just wanted to let you know that it is not correct to assume that because other countries are going down a different route to try to achieve the same goal, therefore their approach is definitely not correct or not optimal for them.

Who knows -- maybe one day when China gets to a certain level it will adopt the route that the US is going, or maybe it won't because it is convinced there is an alternative that works just as well if not better, only history can tell, but to assume that every country has all but one way -- the US way to develop is the opinion that I beg to differ. It's not that "in this forum" there is this desire to be "not like US", I am new to this forum here and this has been my opinion long before -- everyone needs to find their own way to get to their goals, we'll look to the US for examples but we don't have to go down its way as long as we can achieve what we want in the end.

To go even further on this -- this mentality is what many chinese people and its politicians have that may seem strange to the US: we want to be able to develop our country in our own ways, we can learn from the US of course and in many instances we have, but we should be free from pressure to figure out our own best choice in the end, that's all.

 

[gambit]

Well I think we have all heard of similar debates before -- regarding the best political system, economic policies and now science and education etc. The attitude the US tends to have is "because it works for me, therefore it is the single best way and any other ways just won't work even for other countries". Just take capitalism and socialism for example -- a capitalist system favors more on market self-regulated economy, while a socialist system favors more on a planned economy, just because the US is leaning more towards a loosely planned market economy doesn't mean it will be the best for other countries to do so, China for example combines both central planning and market self-regulation and developed its own way of "market economy with chinese characteristics", it is markedly different from that of the US but it has worked well (at least so far).

Where do you think metrics and standards came from? Metrics and standards come from those who were pioneers in particular areas of human endeavors, continue to be engaged in it and eventually excelled in it. There are metrics and standards even for the 'soft' side of human endeavors, such as human rights or literacy, as opposed to the 'hard' side like the sciences. Many do not like it but metrics and standards do exists and they are ALWAYS applied, consciously and equally important subconsciously. Those who created the metrics and the standards did it first for themselves and do not need to force them upon others. It is only when others feel there are benefits they can reap from those particular areas of human endeavors that the metrics and standards become self imposed. You have no interests in making automobiles? Then why bother with safety metrics and standards for the automobile? You have no interests in improving the physical and material comforts of your people? Then why bother with the metrics and standards of say -- microwave oven manufacturing -- an item that would improve said physical and material comforts, even if just a little. Get the proverbial 'big picture'?

Yes...You are correct that China, or anyone else for this matter, should develop their own paths based upon what they 'feel' is best for their people but do not delude yourselves into believing that metrics and standards do not matter. Per capita income is one metric and standard, GDP is another, living standards is another. And the list goes on. As long as China continues to lag behind the US in these metrics and standards, as far as 'military technology' goes, China will always be in the 'catch up' mode.

 

[topjumper]

Gambit, I think we all have the same idea here -- I DO agree that every social policy should be measured against quantifiable metrics so that we can assess the success or failures of our policies and hopefully learn something from it.

In all of the measures you mentioned -- GDP per capita, total GDP etc the US is way ahead of China, in fact with a population of 1.3 billion if we can have the highest GDP per capita in the world, then we'd be talking about an overall GDP that's several times that of the US. To improve the living standard in China I think our policy is overall heading towards the right direction -- introducing population control on one hand and expand the economy on the other, population control (the one child policy) has its problems of course, but given the circumstances we have it is a drastic measure that needed to be done.

Any ways, it's always good for us to exchange our opinions and create a mutual understanding, let's hope our governments can do too.

 

[SBD-3]

Please...Not that crap again. NATO flew tens of thousands of sorties over Yugoslavia and the Serbian air defense combat record was one F-16 and one F-117. Can you say luck before skill?

also considering the fact that F-117 was not much manuverable

 

[applesauce]

Just like the SR-71, the B-2 came and went. Did you know?

unlike the SR-71 the B-2 is still in service

 

[ARCHON]

Aah Yet Another Blow to US Technology.

the same technology of F-16s and cobra helicoptors