JY-27A radar spotted in Pakistan

[YeBeWarned]

Not K1?

K1 is fiance I am married not a Fiance ..

 

[Haris Ali2140]

This guy's view is pretty neutral.

 

[YeBeWarned]

US has best jets handsdown

They indeed have, but their rivals are not children , or using 80's tech to counter .. As i said, let that F-22 or B2 Spirit fly over Moscow and Beijing and we we see what happen next .

 

[Haris Ali2140]

They indeed have, but their rivals are not children , or using 80's tech to counter .. As i said, let that F-22 or B2 Spirit fly over Moscow and Beijing and we we see what happen next .

Supremacy ain't cheap and even more difficult to mantain.

 

[Path-Finder]

This guy's view is pretty neutral.

our resident american expert wont like these!

 

[aliyusuf]

I think you are misreading these graphs.

They simply show at what distance a target of certain rcs will be visible to a particular radar system operating at a given band.

These graphs do not tell what would be the rcs of F-22A Raptor at these bands for specified radar systems.

That is the exactly point Sir jee.
The LO & VLO won't be having LO or VLO RCS on the VHF Band.
Their RCS wll be higher at that band.
Hence those figures become moot.
But VHF radar's are claimed to be better at detecting these sort of shapes and contours, albeit with lesser clarity, sans targeting details. But then again "forewarned is being ...".

 

[LeGenD]

China and Russia , they have modern Armies and equipment, but i wont consider their downgraded versions of assets which they give to war torn countries like Syria .. Attack main Land Russia or China and we will see how invincible F-22 or B-2 bomber is .
On paper everything looks good and advance but real scenarios changes a lot .

The word 'modern' = subjective.

Russia have a professional military but it is not well-equipped in comparison to American. A large proportion of Russian military equipment is outdated actually.

China also have a professional military but its equipment is loosely based on Russian designs and largely untested. A chunk of Chinese equipment is outdated but China can afford to modernize its military might due to its strong economy unlike Russia. So there's that.

Attack mainland Russia or China? How is it feasible given the sheer scale of nuclear arsenal of each? Tell either country to disable its nuclear arsenal then WE shall see.

If you ever bother to study history, you will realize that US have done well in a war with seemingly well-equipped states through the ages.

versus British Empire (1812 - 1815)
versus Spanish Empire (1898)
versus Germany (1943 - 1945)
versus Japan (1941 - 1945)
versus Iraq (1991)
versus Yugoslavia (1998)

Each theater represented massive set-of-challenges to Americans on the surface, and Americans had to come up with excellent strategies to overcome them. It wasn't as easy as guns blazing.

B/W

A German teen pilot shattered the myth of seemingly impregnable surface defenses of USSR in 1987 with a freaking Cessna aircraft.

https://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech-0528/

Russia and China have enormous terrain, and their respective surface defenses cannot be densely packed much like in the case of Iraq in 1991 for instance. There are pros and cons of having a huge geography.

You will be surely surprised.

irrelevant , As i said let them pitch their military against a formidable foe than we will talk .. Iraq ,Syria , ISIS , Somalia , Yemen , Sudan , Afghanistan none of these countries have modern standard armies or equipment . Even a little modern army like Iran Shot American modern drone with their SAM, I would love to see how S-300/400/500 and Chinese AD systems will work, and results might surprise you ..

See above.

Isolated incidents do not prove much.

S-300 and S-400 variants had their shot in Syria and both have utterly failed to blunt American and/or Israeli attacks on assets of Syrian regime and/or Iran in Syria. How many times I have to point out this reality to you?

That is very Biased opinion , which is why people don't take you seriously .. US despite all its military might is prone to failures , and there are numerous accidents in US military history , you forget how many Nukes US lost in accidents ? You really believe made in China means its crap or outdated ? don't act like uneducated Dumb Indian, Chinese Advancements are very rapid, and they are in Americans own words are catching up to them, Oh and not to forget what happened to KSA, Iranian drones make havoc despite these sites were protected by PAC , Top notch American AD system .

Biased? Don't talk about bias here because everybody is biased and some are really naive.

American military have never failed to deliver results in any theater in history but every WAR is sum of military expeditions and political decisions, and Americans are prone to making ill-advised political decisions which might cost them gains on the ground. Look no further than decisions of Donald Trump in relation to developments in Syria.

I would not generalize about Made in China but I am very disappointed with their consumer goods to say the least. I am also sure that Pakistani military have evaluated Chinese equipment from time-to-time and found it lacking at times. However, Pakistan does not have many options to choose from due to its geopolitical posture and lack of strong economy. So WE have to work with what WE are offered.

I am far more educated than many members here but I do not boast about my education. You are a kid in comparison to me in terms of knowledge as well as exposure. Don't try to lecture me about lack of education.

As if Americans are sitting idle? Do you know anything about American advancements in the matters of defense? I can give you numerous pointers since I read many articles.

Americans always need a boogeyman to justify their extreme levels of spending in the matters of defense. USSR was the boogeyman for several decades until it disintegrated. Now China is replacing USSR in this respect so expect Americans to hype Chinese advances beyond measure. However, if you have aptitude for research, you might be able to dig out articles which portray true picture of developments across the board.

The attack you are alluding to came as a surprise to Saudi defensive posture since much of it is pointed towards Yemen. The attacking force completely bypassed line-of-sight of a Patriot Battery stationed near the Abqaiq oil refinery. Secondly, oil refinery contain numerous parts which can interference with working of radar systems in the vicinity so other defensive assets also failed around it.

Patriot defense system is absolutely capable of shooting down a UAV or even a swarm of UAV but cost-to-kill ratio will be absurd. Patriot interceptors can be very expensive in comparison to approaching UAV, and are more appropriate for shooting down costly assets such as ballistic missiles and jets. There is never a one-shoe-fit-all measure in the matters of defense. There are different types of defensive arrangements to deal with different types of threats.

Patriot defense systems have an excellent intercept record of potential threats in Saudi Arabia otherwise. These have shot down numerous ballistic missiles over Saudi Arabia (from the direction of Yemen) and have prevented lot of damage in the process. This is very impressive resume for a defense system. Now show me what the likes of S-300 and S-400 have done in comparison in any theater.

As for Patriot defense systems being top notch? NO. Saudi are operating Patriot batteries armed with older PAC-2 class interceptors. Only Patriot battery stationed in Mecca is armed with latest PAC-3 class interceptors but this might change in the near future as Saudi order more and better.

I do not want to speak low of Russian and/or Chinese hardware at every given opportunity but when YOU draw comparison with American or European - expect to be scrutinized for "tall claims." This is all.

If an F-16 MLU is sufficient to down the much hyped Su-30 MKI in an aerial engagement (refer to aerial clashes between India and Pakistan on 27-02-19), F-22A Raptor is so far above the ladder that it should not be compared to any other fighter aircraft in existence yet.

They indeed have, but their rivals are not children , or using 80's tech to counter .. As i said, let that F-22 or B2 Spirit fly over Moscow and Beijing and we we see what happen next .

As if you know anything in this respect? See above.

That is the exactly point Sir jee.
The LO & VLO won't be having LO or VLO RCS on the VHF Band.
Their RCS wll be higher at that band.
Hence those figures become moot.
But VHF radar's are claimed to be better at detecting these sort of shapes and contours, albeit with lesser clarity, sans targeting details. But then again "forewarned is being ...".

F-22A Raptor have full-spectrum stealthy characteristics, or really close; it is LO across all frequency bands.

Do you know that airborne surveillance platforms (AWACS) feature powerful radar systems operating at very high frequency bands on average?

FYI:

F-22 pilot Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver responded to charges of sub-standard F-22 performance in a June 13/06 Virginian-Pilot article, and illustrated a number of the points above:

“In the Raptor, “I can outmaneuver an F-16, F-15, F-18. It doesn’t matter…” [and] the F-22’s radar works in a way that allows him to use it without revealing himself. Though its exact workings are classified, the F-22 is known to emit radar signals in extremely short bursts over multiple frequencies.

“Even if you detect me, you’re not going to know where I am a second from now,” said Joe Quimb, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin, the Raptor’s principal builder.

Tolliver said that radar and other sensors, along with information fed into the Raptor’s computers from ground-based radars and other planes, gives F-22 pilots an exceptional, unified view of potential threats and targets aloft and on the ground… “It’s amazing the information you have at your fingertips,” Tolliver said. In no-holds-barred mock battles with F-15s, F-16s and the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornets, he and other Raptor pilots generally “destroy” their adversaries before those foes even realize they’re around…”

That was proven in the June 2006 Northern Edge exercise, when even E-2C and E-3 AWACS aircraft reportedly weren’t much help against the F-22. After their missiles were fired, the F-22’s active & passive sensor capabilities functioned as the Raptor’s last weapon. Northern Edge 2006’s Raptors remained in the fight, flying as stealthy forward air controllers and guiding their colleagues to enemies sitting behind mountains and other “Blue Force” AWACS blind spots. When the AIM-120D AMRAAM missile enters wider service, F-22s will also have the option of actively guiding missiles fired by other aircraft.

E-2C and E-3 are better than Saab 2000 AEW&C. PAF wanted E-3 but was refused so PAF settled for Saab 2000 and Chinese alternatives.

 

[YeBeWarned]

The word 'modern' = subjective.

Come on dude , now you are just trying to hide behind fancy words, The word modern means China and Russia it is as simple as that , I would add France , UK as well but they are allies of US ..Subjective or not , Let America fight a modern Army first than claim that they are invincible, unless modern Army means Somalian Pirates and Sudani Dhoti worn AQ fighters .

Russia have a professional military but it is not well-equipped in comparison to American. A large proportion of Russian military equipment is outdated actually.

Ask America to try Invade Russia and see what they will do with their not so good equipped Army .. They took Crimea and Not a single country dared step in ..

China also have a professional military but its equipment is loosely based on Russian designs and largely untested. A chunk of Chinese equipment is outdated but China can afford to modernize its military might due to its strong economy unlike Russia. So there's that.

Generalization at its best .. nothing to respond here ,why you are assuming Chinese Tech is mostly Russian based ? and outdated ? you really think they are wasting their billions of old cheap products to defend their nations ? there is a thing called Common sense use it , it very useful ..

Attack mainland Russia or China? How is it feasible given the sheer scale of nuclear arsenal of each? Tell either country to disable its nuclear arsenal then WE shall see.

That is my point, even without Nukes US will not be unable to defeat China or Russia .. You can argue all day but truth is that none of these 3 Giants can defeat one another .

If you ever bother to study history, you will realize that US have done well in a war with seemingly well-equipped states through the ages.

versus British Empire (1812 - 1815)
versus Spanish Empire (1898)
versus Germany (1943 - 1945)
versus Japan (1941 - 1945)
versus Iraq (1991)
versus Yugoslavia (1998)

Seems you bother to read but with your dead brain surely ..

Against British , Idiot that was in 1812 and we are talking about modern warfare .
Same with Spanish ..
Against Germany ? most of the work done by Soviets and British , US came in last drop two nukes and they were declared Victor ? LOL
Against Japan ? A smaller country which was constantly in wars ? against a giant country which was hardly attacked by any nation ? LOL
Against IRAQ ? You call that Modern Army ? LOL even 80 era Iranians got their A$$ whopped ..
Against Yugoslavia ? LOL

Recent American Military conflict against Modern armies as per you ..

Somalian Pirates
Sudani AQ militia
AQ in Iraq
Taliban in Afghanistan
ISIS in Iraq and Syria with Allied forces

Wow these mention Countries are first world countries with Modern Armies, and proper AF , AD systems with net centric Environments . LOL

Each theater represented massive set-of-challenges to Americans on the surface, and Americans had to come up with excellent strategies to overcome them. It wasn't as easy as guns blazing.

Challenge ? for what ? they dropped Bombs on villages where 1 or 2 Taliban fighters hide .. Dude you have no clue about fighting a Modern Army and tag tag Militia who has no Anti Air Defense , No modern weaponry , no Air force , No Navy , No Radars , No Tanks , No modern AT weapons .. You call that Challenge ? LOL

See above.

Isolated incidents do not prove much.

S-300 and S-400 variants had their shot in Syria and both have utterly failed to blunt American and/or Israeli attacks on assets of Syrian regime and/or Iran in Syria. How many times I have to point out this reality to you?

Isolated ? Dude we are talking about Nukes .. even one incident is enough give them a bad name, one incident and you will be calling Chinese or Russians for same thing .. Come on dude, at least try not to be a Biased Hypocrite ? try at least ..

Biased? Don't talk about bias here because everybody is biased and some are really naive.

Hence proved my point you are one dumb Biased fool who just copy paste stuff from Internet but have no clue about Modern Warfare .

American military have never failed to deliver results in any theater in history but every WAR is sum of military expeditions and political decisions, and Americans are prone to making ill-advised political decisions which might cost them gains on the ground. Look no further than decisions of Donald Trump in relation to developments in Syria.

Really ? Lets see ..
WW2 = Partial Victory
Korean War = No major Victory even with help of tons of allies
Vietnam War = LOL Please call that a Victory
Afghan War = Taliban and AQ still exists and fighting
Iraq War = Saddam was removed ( Victory ) bringing Iraq Stability ( Failed Miserably )
Syrian War = Won ? Against Who ? Asshead is still in power ? ISIS was defeat with combine effort of Kurds , FSA , SAA , Turkey , Iran etc
Somalia war = does that country become heaven now ?

I would not generalize about Made in China but I am very disappointed with their consumer goods to say the least.

Here you go .. I am sure that will clear up doubts in any other rational member who think you are unbiased and reasonable @Beast @beijingwalker @Rafi @Path-Finder here you go ..you guys are gonna love this

I am far more educated than many members here but I do not boast about my education. You are a kid in comparison to me in terms of knowledge as well as exposure. Don't try to lecture me about lack of education.

Damnnnn never saw this level of Self sucking before .. You should try P0rn , you will be a successful star over there .

As if Americans are sitting idle? Do you know anything about American advancements in all spheres of life? I can give you some pointers.

I haven't said anything of that sort .. now you start lying to ? come on man how low you will stoop just to prove your biased argument ?

Americans always need a boogeyman to justify their extreme levels of spending in the matters of defense. USSR was the boogeyman for several decades until it disintegrated. Now China is replacing USSR in this respect so expect Americans to hype Chinese advances beyond measure. However, if you have aptitude for research, you might be able to dig out articles which portray true picture of developments across the board.

But they never go in a direct War against the same Bogyman right ? Again you are completely ignoring my point and circling around a dumb argument , When USA will fight a full scale war with a modern Army like China or Russia than we will see how invincible they are .. Until than its all on paper , US systems are best but also failed and out-smarted , Iran downed US drone, PAC failed to intercept Iranians drones on KSA ..

Patriot defense system is absolutely capable of shooting down a UAV or even a swarm of UAV but cost-to-kill ratio will be absurd. Patriot interceptors can be very expensive in comparison to approaching UAV, and are more appropriate for shooting down costly assets such as ballistic missiles and jets. There is never a one-shoe-fit-all measure in the matters of defense. There are different types of defensive arrangements to deal with different types of threats.

So are you implying that Saudi's didn't fire PAC missiles just because they are expensive against the enemy cheap Drones .. Bhai Kahan se esi Chawal Logic lata hai ? hahahahah

The attack you are alluding to came as a surprise to Saudi defensive posture since much of it is pointed towards Yemen. The attacking force completely bypassed line-of-sight of a Patriot Battery stationed near the Abqaiq oil refinery. Secondly, oil refinery contain numerous parts which can interference with working of radar systems in the vicinity so other defensive assets also failed around it.

Oh man, so you expect enemy to give you prior warning ? aby Med-evil mentality se Bahr aja , in modern Warfare Surprise elements are and will be used against the foes . I doubt you even have capability to even see how Dumb you sound but at least people here can see for what you are

Patriot defense system have an excellent intercept record of potential threats in Saudi Arabia otherwise. It have shot down numerous ballistic missiles over Saudi Arabia (from the direction of Yemen) and have prevented lot of damage in the process. This is very impressive resume for a defense system. Now show me what the likes of S-300 and S-400 have done in comparison in any theater.

So what ? some Yemeni's 80's era SCUD missiles ? but of course S-400 or HQ-9/16/26 can't intercept them ? because they are Russian or based on Russian Tech ? PAC failed, which prove my whole point , Neither America nor its Army , nor its systems are invincible .. they are prone to fail , outsmart etc .

I do not want to speak low of Russian and/or Chinese hardware at every given opportunity but when YOU draw comparison with American or European - expect to be scrutinized for tall claims.

Scrutinized ? LOL dude for you only American Systems are Advance rest of the world is either dumb idiots or living in caves ..

If an F-16 MLU is sufficient to down the much hyped Su-30 MKI in an aerial engagement (refer to aerial clashes between India and Pakistan on 27-02-19), F-22A Raptor is so far above the ladder that it should not be compared to any other fighter aircraft in existence yet.

First of all it is yet to be proved that F-16 killed a SU-30 but I agree that we shot it down , so ? Who told you SU-30 was better than F-16 ? and who told you it can't be shot down ? Indians ? Even Russian knows no Technology is invincible and can and will be outsmarted . Only dumb idiots like you think that F-22 raptor is some Vedic Godly Vihmaan which can't be Detected , Tracked and shot . Yes its the best AS fighter in the world but it can be outsmarted, detected , tracked and even shot down when pitched against a formidable foe .

 

[Rafi]

Come on dude , now you are just trying to hide behind fancy words, The word modern means China and Russia it is as simple as that , I would add France , UK as well but they are allies of US ..Subjective or not , Let America fight a modern Army first than claim that they are invincible, unless modern Army means Somalian Pirates and Sudani Dhoti worn AQ fighters .



Ask America to try Invade Russia and see what they will do with their not so good equipped Army .. They took Crimea and Not a single country dared step in ..



Generalization at its best .. nothing to respond here ,why you are assuming Chinese Tech is mostly Russian based ? and outdated ? you really think they are wasting their billions of old cheap products to defend their nations ? there is a thing called Common sense use it , it very useful ..



That is my point, even without Nukes US will not be unable to defeat China or Russia .. You can argue all day but truth is that none of these 3 Giants can defeat one another .



Seems you bother to read but with your dead brain surely ..

Against British , Idiot that was in 1812 and we are talking about modern warfare .
Same with Spanish ..
Against Germany ? most of the work done by Soviets and British , US came in last drop two nukes and they were declared Victor ? LOL
Against Japan ? A smaller country which was constantly in wars ? against a giant country which was hardly attacked by any nation ? LOL
Against IRAQ ? You call that Modern Army ? LOL even 80 era Iranians got their A$$ whopped ..
Against Yugoslavia ? LOL

Recent American Military conflict against Modern armies as per you ..

Somalian Pirates
Sudani AQ militia
AQ in Iraq
Taliban in Afghanistan
ISIS in Iraq and Syria with Allied forces

Wow these mention Countries are first world countries with Modern Armies, and proper AF , AD systems with net centric Environments . LOL



Challenge ? for what ? they dropped Bombs on villages where 1 or 2 Taliban fighters hide .. Dude you have no clue about fighting a Modern Army and tag tag Militia who has no Anti Air Defense , No modern weaponry , no Air force , No Navy , No Radars , No Tanks , No modern AT weapons .. You call that Challenge ? LOL



Isolated ? Dude we are talking about Nukes .. even one incident is enough give them a bad name, one incident and you will be calling Chinese or Russians for same thing .. Come on dude, at least try not to be a Biased Hypocrite ? try at least ..



Hence proved my point you are one dumb Biased fool who just copy paste stuff from Internet but have no clue about Modern Warfare .



Really ? Lets see ..
WW2 = Partial Victory
Korean War = No major Victory even with help of tons of allies
Vietnam War = LOL Please call that a Victory
Afghan War = Taliban and AQ still exists and fighting
Iraq War = Saddam was removed ( Victory ) bringing Iraq Stability ( Failed Miserably )
Syrian War = Won ? Against Who ? Asshead is still in power ? ISIS was defeat with combine effort of Kurds , FSA , SAA , Turkey , Iran etc
Somalia war = does that country become heaven now ?



Here you go .. I am sure that will clear up doubts in any other rational member who think you are unbiased and reasonable @Beast @beijingwalker @Rafi @Path-Finder here you go ..you guys are gonna love this



Damnnnn never saw this level of Self sucking before .. You should try P0rn , you will be a successful star over there .



I haven't said anything of that sort .. now you start lying to ? come on man how low you will stoop just to prove your biased argument ?



But they never go in a direct War against the same Bogyman right ? Again you are completely ignoring my point and circling around a dumb argument , When USA will fight a full scale war with a modern Army like China or Russia than we will see how invincible they are .. Until than its all on paper , US systems are best but also failed and out-smarted , Iran downed US drone, PAC failed to intercept Iranians drones on KSA ..



So are you implying that Saudi's didn't fire PAC missiles just because they are expensive against the enemy cheap Drones .. Bhai Kahan se esi Chawal Logic lata hai ? hahahahah



Oh man, so you expect enemy to give you prior warning ? aby Med-evil mentality se Bahr aja , in modern Warfare Surprise elements are and will be used against the foes . I doubt you even have capability to even see how Dumb you sound but at least people here can see for what you are



So what ? some Yemeni's 80's era SCUD missiles ? but of course S-400 or HQ-9/16/26 can't intercept them ? because they are Russian or based on Russian Tech ? PAC failed, which prove my whole point , Neither America nor its Army , nor its systems are invincible .. they are prone to fail , outsmart etc .



Scrutinized ? LOL dude for you only American Systems are Advance rest of the world is either dumb idiots or living in caves ..



First of all it is yet to be proved that F-16 killed a SU-30 but I agree that we shot it down , so ? Who told you SU-30 was better than F-16 ? and who told you it can't be shot down ? Indians ? Even Russian knows no Technology is invincible and can and will be outsmarted . Only dumb idiots like you think that F-22 raptor is some Vedic Godly Vihmaan which can't be Detected , Tracked and shot . Yes its the best AS fighter in the world but it can be outsmarted, detected , tracked and even shot down when pitched against a formidable foe .

He is simply a US groupie.

 

[aliyusuf]

F-22A Raptor have full-spectrum stealthy characteristics, or really close; it is LO across all frequency bands.

So you keep saying. And how LO is it across VHF And UHF frequencies? Is it lower than X-Band or higher? What you are saying is not scientifically possible. LO and VLO are infact tweaks and compromises at one band or the other. Because different bands have different wave patterns and reflective characteristics. Objects can be LO or VLO across most similar characteristic bands but not all.

Do you know that airborne surveillance platforms (AWACS) feature powerful radar systems operating at very high frequency bands on average?

They most certainly do have VHF sensors. What is the average I do not know and fail to see how that comes into the topic even? Do the figures you plotted represent their performance by gauging at what RCS the otherwise LO is detected at? Kindly don't keep parroting those 0.0001 m^2 figures because those are X-Band figures.

I am sensing that all counter arguments seem to be having no effect on you. I am sorry that I could not convince you. So lets agree to disagree.

 

[LeGenD]

Come on dude , now you are just trying to hide behind fancy words, The word modern means China and Russia it is as simple as that , I would add France , UK as well but they are allies of US ..Subjective or not , Let America fight a modern Army first than claim that they are invincible, unless modern Army means Somalian Pirates and Sudani Dhoti worn AQ fighters .

SUBJECTIVE therefore! Your perception of 'modern' is different from mine.

I evaluate 'modern' on the grounds of advances in technologies, and not on the grounds of names and/or perceptions. US is far ahead of both Russia and China in these matters.

Since Russian armed forces are stationed and active in Syria, this theater have provided very clear glimpses of how Russian technologies would fare against American and/or Israeli when either of the two will try to attack assets of Syrian regime, and respective outcomes are in front of you. Russian armed forces in Syria are supposed to shield Syrian regime from external attacks and threats of all manner, and they have utterly failed to deter either US or Israel from humiliating Syrian regime from time-to-time. So WE already have a demonstration.

Do you want me to compile incidents for you?

Ask America to try Invade Russia and see what they will do with their not so good equipped Army .. They took Crimea and Not a single country dared step in ..

This is childish talk, devoid of logic.

1. US is not supposed to protect Ukraine.
2. US will not invade Russia because this war will turn nuclear at some point.
3. Russian military stand no chance against American in direct clashes but Russian nuclear arsenal is massive and potent...

Generalization at its best .. nothing to respond here ,why you are assuming Chinese Tech is mostly Russian based ? and outdated ? you really think they are wasting their billions of old cheap products to defend their nations ? there is a thing called Common sense use it , it very useful ..

Chinese defense-related tech is largely based on Russian designs because Russia sell its weapons to China but US does not sell its weapons to China.

You should take your own advice in regards to applying common sense! Pointless jabs from you.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mil...partner-chinas-changing-military-weapons-ties

"For many years, China was Russia’s biggest military client, relying on Moscow for advanced weapons and adapting some of the technology for its own systems."

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2165182/what-weapons-china-buying-russia

"China, which was targeted by US military sanctions on Thursday for buying Russian fighter jets and surface-to-air missiles, is one of Russia’s key arms customers.

Russia sold around US$15 billion worth of weapons to the Chinese in 2017, maintaining a similar level of sales to the previous year, according to Rosoboronexport, the Russian agency responsible for military exports."

China is certainly trying to develop its own hardware but it have intimate access to Russian military applications as well as funds to afford costly experiments.

That is my point, even without Nukes US will not be unable to defeat China or Russia .. You can argue all day but truth is that none of these 3 Giants can defeat one another .

You got this wrong, friend.

The technologically superior side will absolutely dominate either Russia or China in a conventional war but not sure about subsequent occupation phase - how long US can last in the capacity of being an occupying force in either country.

China have a massive population so it might give US much harder time than Russia in occupation phase, probably to the point of routing Americans from Chinese mainland if they are really determined. But nothing is certain in imagined scenarios.

US have a much larger population, and higher fighting capacity, than Russia nevertheless. You are mistaking Russia for being USSR which is not the case. USSR was a collection of 16 Soviet Socialist Republics, and therefore had lot of manpower and resources at its disposal. Germans slaughtered Soviets by the millions (crores) back in the days of World War II but Soviets would keep coming at them, and Germans also had to contend with Allied forces on the WEST. However, it would be foolish to assume that Russians have never tasted defeat in history; refer to Mongolian-Russo wars in earlier times.

Seems you bother to read but with your dead brain surely ..

Against British , Idiot that was in 1812 and we are talking about modern warfare .
Same with Spanish ..
Against Germany ? most of the word done by Soviets and British , US came in last drop two nukes and they were declared Victor ? LOL
Against Japan ? A smaller country which was constantly in wars ? against a giant country which was hardly attacked by any nation ? LOL
Against IRAQ ? You call that Modern Army ? LOL even 80 era Iranians got their A$$ whopped ..
Against Yugoslavia ? LOL

1. You completely missed the point here.*

*Do you understand the concept of HISTORICAL ANALOGUES?

All of those American conflicts were with peer and near-peer adversaries when they happened, and Americans managed well in each of those conflicts.

OR

Do you think US had a 21st century army when it fought each of those adversaries at different points in time?

Since you think that US cannot defeat a near-peer adversary in a war at present - you are sadly mistaken. This is why I alluded to a series of American conflicts with peer and near-peer adversaries as historical analogues to counter your assumption. This bring me to the next point:

2. Your knowledge of each war is TERRIBLE.**

**This is my expression:

You do not even know which country was subjected to nuclear strikes by US in World War II. Mashallah.

Nevertheless, silly hormonal reactions from you (labeling me brain-dead) show your character as well as how sound your knowledge is in relation to these topics. Pathetic.

Recent American Military conflict against Modern armies as per you ..

Somalian Pirates
Sudani AQ militia
AQ in Iraq
Taliban in Afghanistan
ISIS in Iraq and Syria with Allied forces

Wow these mention Countries are first world countries with Modern Armies, and proper AF , AD systems with net centric Environments . LOL

These are asymmetric threats, and I do not consider these as historical analogues for your argument that US cannot defeat Russia or China in a war.

First world countries is a useless point. There are first world countries which pack considerable punch and there are first world countries which have minimum level of defenses.

Following are closest calls:-

Iraq had a modern army, proper AF, AD systems with net centric environments as you put back in 1991.

Serbia had a modern army, proper AF, AD systems with net centric environments as you put back in 1998.

Iraq had one of the largest and finest armies in the world back in 1990; better equipped than Chinese at this point in time (ignoring Chinese nuclear arsenal of-course). Then Pakistani COAS Mirza Aslam Beg had a very high opinion of Iraqi military might; when he was questioned about the prospects of US-Iraq war in an interview, he felt that Iraq will become another Vietnam for US in 1991, but his assumption proved wrong.

If a Pakistani COAS - with all manner of intel-related briefings to him at this post - can still get it wrong about something (an expected conflict - his forte). How do you compare? You would take the word of a Pakistani COAS at face value, and over mine at any point in time, right? But I have shown you the door right now.

Challenge ? for what ? they dropped Bombs on villages where 1 or 2 Taliban fighters hide .. Dude you have no clue about fighting a Modern Army and tag tag Militia who has no Anti Air Defense , No modern weaponry , no Air force , No Navy , No Radars , No Tanks , No modern AT weapons .. You call that Challenge ? LOL

Oh yes! I have no clue. I have been living in a cave all these years. Oh please! Help me navigate this such modern world around me...

Isolated ? Dude we are talking about Nukes .. even one incident is enough give them a bad name, one incident and you will be calling Chinese or Russians for same thing .. Come on dude, at least try not to be a Biased Hypocrite ? try at least ..

You fail to follow your own arguments now? You mentioned the incident of an Iranian SAM system managing to shoot down an American UAV recently:

"Even a little modern army like Iran Shot American modern drone with their SAM, I would love to see how S-300/400/500 and Chinese AD systems will work, and results might surprise you .."

My counter is that this isolated incident does not really prove how an all-out war between US and Iran will pan out. However, US is much more likely to humble Iran in a conventional war - kinda obvious to anybody with a functioning brain.

Russian S-300 and S-400 systems had their shot against American and/or Israeli hardware operating over Syria - both failed to deliver when a situation called for them to intercept American and/or Israeli strikes over assets of Syrian regime, even in Russian hands. How many times I have to highlight this reality to you? Comprehension problems much?
+
It does not matter if Russian S-300 system is stationed in Syria or Russia - if it failed to intercept American hardware that was intended to strike at a target which Russia does not wished to see destroyed in Syria, it will fail to do so in Russia as well because Americans have a clear idea how to circumvent its capabilities or even disable it.

Hence proved my point you are one dumb Biased fool who just copy paste stuff from Internet but have no clue about Modern Warfare .

This is coming from a guy who does not even know which country was subjected to nuclear strikes by US in World War II. Your knowledge of warfare is really impressive, friend. When will you schedule relevant lectures? I really want to seek history lessons from you.

I understand much about modern warfare but you do not have the prerequisite intellect to even follow my points, let alone lecture me about modern warfare. This is really sad.

Really ? Lets see ..
WW2 = Partial Victory
Korean War = No major Victory even with help of tons of allies
Vietnam War = LOL Please call that a Victory
Afghan War = Taliban and AQ still exists and fighting
Iraq War = Saddam was removed ( Victory ) bringing Iraq Stability ( Failed Miserably )
Syrian War = Won ? Against Who ? Asshead is still in power ? ISIS was defeat with combine effort of Kurds , FSA , SAA , Turkey , Iran etc
Somalia war = does that country become heaven now ?

Sure.

Read and learn: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/history-of-american-wars.538912/

WW2 = Victory (US-led forces soundly defeated Japan in the EAST as well as Germany in the WEST by 1945)

US-led forces began to roll-back advances of Japan across the Pacific since 1942, starting with the Battle of Midway

The tide of war began to shift for German forces as well when American flag showed up in Europe in 1943.

American Public supported this war-effort in full capacity, and US-led forces were led by able commanders in all theater of operations. Americans really wanted to win, and were willing to do everything to ensure the desired outcome. Well, Allah Almighty rewards determined people.

Korean War = Stalemate [US-led forces successfully liberated South Korea from North Korea (primary objective accomplished) but failed to occupy North Korea because China dispatched its armed forces to save North Korea from potential occupation (secondary objective failed), and Korean peninsula remain split to this day.]

If China had decided to not intervene in this theater or operations, US-led forces would have taken over North Korea and the Korean War would have concluded with unification of the Korean peninsula under American protectorate and reforms. But this was not to be.

Vietnam War = Defeat (This war was utterly mismanaged by American politicians).

US-led forces invaded and occupied much of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (3 neighboring countries in succession) for several years but this war proved costly to US in men and materials due to fighting in a difficult terrain, commanders being subjected to political constraints from Washington DC in the matters of engagements, as well as the duo of USSR and China providing full support to the Vietcong movement to resist American moves in the region. Nevertheless, it is true that American military reached its lowest point during the course of this war due to racial tensions within as well as this war being unpopular back home. An army cannot fight effectively under these conditions. However, Vietcong movement could not rout American forces from the region with its exploits - American withdrawal from this theater was ordered by an American President due to this war being unpopular back home (logical decision). Therefore, this is not a defeat in military terms but in political terms.

Afghan War = ??? (Another war being mismanaged by American politicians)

US-led forces invaded Afghanistan and toppled Afghan Taliban regime in Afghanistan (regime change successful), dismantled Osama Bin Laden's original Al-Qaeda Network in the region (primary objective accomplished) but American politicians did not agree to declare Afghan Taliban a terrorist organization in order to keep the door for negotiations with this group open, and restricted the rules of engagement for US-led forces in pursuit of Afghan Taliban in the region accordingly. Afghan Taliban managed to resurge after a major drawdown of US-led forces from Afghanistan in 2014, and now openly challenge US-backed Afghan government in the theater.

Limited presence of US-led forces in Afghanistan now ensure that US-backed Afghan government will be kept afloat until Afghan Taliban decide to embrace the new Afghan political setup. Therefore, this is a political decision.

Iraq War = Victory (This theater was prioritized over Afghanistan by American politicians)

US-led forces invaded and toppled Saddam regime in Iraq (regime change successful), dismantled Iraqi Ba'ath Party and executed Saddam Hussein and his sons (primary objective accomplished), prevented disintegration of Iraq in a period of Civil War (secondary objective accomplished), made it possible for the post-Saddam Iraqi government to neutralize ISIS movement in the country (new primary objective accomplished), and continue to maintain a limited presence in the country to keep tabs on matters of interest in Iraq and its surroundings. Iran have tried its best to dislodge US from Iran, but in vain.

Syria = Decent gains until American President Donald Trump damaged American foothold in this theater of operations by ditching US-backed SDF movement in Syria and ordering withdrawal of American troops from the theater.

Pentagon resisted this move, and American troops are back in Syria to reassert control over Syrian oil rich sectors within reach but the damage has been done since SDF movement had no choice but to give ground to other stakeholders in the region in the absence of solid American backing.

American intervention in Syria wasn't about toppling Assad regime in the country but to curb ISIS movement in Syria in connection with similar operations in Iraq (i.e. Operation Inherent Resolve). ISIS movement could not be routed from the region otherwise. Syrian SDF movement was orchestrated by US in Syria to this end. However, Turkey opposed this move due to involvement of Kurd factions in it. ISIS was strongest in Syria actually.

---

American military is very capable but American politicians can shape outcome(s) of an American conflict in reality - if they make sound decisions (great), if not (loss). Ask @gambit if you have doubts.

Here you go .. I am sure that will clear up doubts in any other rational member who think you are unbiased and reasonable @Beast @beijingwalker here you go ..

Do you know anything about quality or you grew up with MADE IN CHINA only? A large number of people have a low opinion of Chinese goods in terms of quality but this does not guarantee that many will stop using Chinese goods. I will continue to buy and use Chinese goods from time-to-time as well, but I have tested and used many consumer goods of numerous brands over the course of years and I know better. I am being totally honest here.

You are trying to appease your Chinese overlords on the other hand. You even tagged a few here to make fun of me. You are being immature and disrespectful to a fellow Pakistani - shame on you.

Damnnnn never saw this level of Self sucking before .. You should try P0rn , you will be a successful star over there .

You needed a soft reminder.

I haven't said anything of that sort .. now you start lying to ? come on man how low you will stoop just to prove your biased argument ?

Then how do you know that China is catching up to Americans in the matters of defense? Are you privy to insider accounts of both? Because some Americans said so? Well, some Americans believe that Earth is flat.

You have a simple mind, friend.

But they never go in a direct War against the same Bogyman right ? Again you are completely ignoring my point and circling around a dumb argument , When USA will fight a full scale war with a modern Army like China or Russia than we will see how invincible they are .. Until than its all on paper , US systems are best but also failed and out-smarted , Iran downed US drone, PAC failed to intercept Iranians drones on KSA ..

See above.

So are you implying that Saudi's didn't fire PAC missiles just because they are expensive against the enemy cheap Drones .. Bhai Kahan se esi Chawal Logic lata hai ? hahahahah

FYI: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/16/14944256/patriot-missile-shot-down-consumer-drone-us-military

CAPTION: A US ally shot down a $200 drone with a $3 million Patriot missile

In the case of Iranian swarm attack on Saudi Abqaiq oil refinery, Iranian UAV and cruise missiles flew towards the oil refinery from a direction which was not visible to the Patriot battery stationed there - the radar system of this battery was pointed towards Yemen whereas the intruding force came from a different direction. Therefore, Patriot battery could not engage the intruding force.

However, if you have doubts about the capabilities of Patriot defense system then read and learn: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/us-ballistic-missile-defence.373066/page-5

Saudi need to revisit their defensive arrangements and alert levels. They felt that Iran will not take its chances with them - they were wrong.

Oh man, so you expect enemy to give you prior warning ? aby Med-evil mentality se Bahr aja , in modern Warfare Surprise elements are and will be used against the foes . I doubt you even have capability to even see how Dumb you sound but at least people here can see for what you are

Saudi Arabia is officially at war with Yemen, not with Iran. It was logical for Saudi Arabia to have a defensive arrangement which could blunt strikes from Yemen, and it has to large extent. Although Iran support Yemeni Houthi in this war and provide know-how to this regime for the needful, they have never attacked Saudi Arabia until the Abqaiq episode. Now the Saudi know better.

Still, Saudi Arabia have a large geography, and it is possible for a potential intruder to slip through potential gaps in Saudi defenses and attempt to engage desired targets within. Every inch of a large geography is not possible to make intrusion-proof.

I am absolutely aware of the prospects of 'element of surprise' in modern warfare, and I shall tell you that this is not a modern construct but an ancient one.

So what ? some Yemeni's 80's era SCUD missiles ? but of course S-400 or HQ-9/16/26 can't intercept them ? because they are Russian or based on Russian Tech ? PAC failed, which prove my whole point , Neither America nor its Army , nor its systems are invincible .. they are prone to fail , outsmart etc .

Majority of SRBM and MRBM in service around the world are SCUD derivatives.

FYI: https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/whats-a-scud-4510864/

Yes, Patriot defense system have failed at times, so what? Contention is about how good Russian and/or Chinese defense applications are in comparison to American, and not about infallibility.

You completely missed the obvious or misunderstood my contention.

Scrutinized ? LOL dude for you only American Systems are Advance rest of the world is either dumb idiots or living in caves ..

What kind of argument is this?

US is simply a leading entity in R&D aspects. This does not make others dumb idiots or living in caves.

http://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/research-and-development-spending/

https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php

https://www.timeshighereducation.co...gs/world-university-rankings-2019-methodology

First of all it is yet to be proved that F-16 killed a SU-30 but I agree that we shot it down , so ? Who told you SU-30 was better than F-16 ? and who told you it can't be shot down ? Indians ? Even Russian knows no Technology is invincible and can and will be outsmarted . Only dumb idiots like you think that F-22 raptor is some Vedic Godly Vihmaan which can't be Detected , Tracked and shot . Yes its the best AS fighter in the world but it can be outsmarted, detected , tracked and even shot down when pitched against a formidable foe .

There.

---

Did I suggest that F-22A Raptor is literally invincible?

F-22A Raptor is simply better than any fighter aircraft in existence, and is much more likely to prevail in aerial clashes and/or wreck surface defenses during the course of conventional military operations.

F-22A is extremely hard to defeat, and a squadron of F-22A is expected to be a game-changer in conventional warfare, as participants in annually scheduled RED FLAG simulations are finding out on a consistent basis.

F-22A proved its mettle over Syria as well: http://aviationweek.com/defense/how-f-22-deconflicting-us-russia-operations-over-syria

You will learn from pilot testimonials.

The aircraft have a revolutionary design and one should not expect to defeat it with earlier generation jets, or even a network of existing radar systems can make this task easier.

Do you know about the concept of INTERNET OF THINGS ??? This phenomenon is dubbed as Cooperative Engagement Capability in American military circles but this is not mere networking at the communications level but across-the-board SENSOR-NETTING to construct a view of developments in a highly complex battlefield in real-time which is accessible to all assets involved, and they can collectively sort out incredibly complex targets in the process - very expensive and technically challenging endeavor to undertake. This is where MAGIC happen.

 

[MastanKhan]

SUBJECTIVE therefore! Your perception of 'modern' is different from mine.

I evaluate 'modern' on the grounds of advances in technologies, and not on the grounds of names and/or perceptions. US is far ahead of both Russia and China in these matters.

Since Russian armed forces are stationed and active in Syria, this theater have provided very clear glimpses of how Russian technologies would fare against American and/or Israeli when either of the two will try to attack assets of Syrian regime, and respective outcomes are in front of you. Russian armed forces in Syria are supposed to shield Syrian regime from external attacks and threats of all manner, and they have utterly failed to deter either US or Israel from humiliating Syrian regime from time-to-time. So WE already have a demonstration.

Do you want me to compile incidents for you?


This is childish talk, devoid of logic.

1. US is not supposed to protect Ukraine.
2. US will not invade Russia because this war will turn nuclear at some point.
3. Russian military stand no chance against American in direct clashes but Russian nuclear arsenal is massive and potent...


Chinese defense-related tech is largely based on Russian designs because Russia sell its weapons to China but US does not sell its weapons to China.

You should take your own advice in regards to applying common sense! Pointless jabs from you.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mil...partner-chinas-changing-military-weapons-ties

"For many years, China was Russia’s biggest military client, relying on Moscow for advanced weapons and adapting some of the technology for its own systems."

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2165182/what-weapons-china-buying-russia

"China, which was targeted by US military sanctions on Thursday for buying Russian fighter jets and surface-to-air missiles, is one of Russia’s key arms customers.

Russia sold around US$15 billion worth of weapons to the Chinese in 2017, maintaining a similar level of sales to the previous year, according to Rosoboronexport, the Russian agency responsible for military exports."

China is certainly trying to develop its own hardware but it have intimate access to Russian military applications as well as funds to afford costly experiments.


You got this wrong, friend.

The technologically superior side will absolutely dominate either Russia or China in a conventional war but not sure about subsequent occupation phase - how long US can last in the capacity of being an occupying force in either country.

China have a massive population so it might give US much harder time than Russia in occupation phase, probably to the point of routing Americans from Chinese mainland if they are really determined. But nothing is certain in imagined scenarios.

US have a much larger population, and higher fighting capacity, than Russia nevertheless. You are mistaking Russia for being USSR which is not the case. USSR was a collection of 16 Soviet Socialist Republics, and therefore had lot of manpower and resources at its disposal. Germans slaughtered Soviets by the millions (crores) back in the days of World War II but Soviets would keep coming at them, and Germans also had to contend with Allied forces on the WEST. However, it would be foolish to assume that Russians have never tasted defeat in history; refer to Mongolian-Russo wars in earlier times.


1. You completely missed the point here.*

*Do you understand the concept of HISTORICAL ANALOGUES?

All of those American conflicts were with peer and near-peer adversaries when they happened, and Americans managed well in each of those conflicts.

OR

Do you think US had a 21st century army when it fought each of those adversaries at different points in time?

Since you think that US cannot defeat a near-peer adversary in a war at present - you are sadly mistaken. This is why I alluded to a series of American conflicts with peer and near-peer adversaries as historical analogues to counter your assumption. This bring me to the next point:

2. Your knowledge of each war is TERRIBLE.**

**This is my expression:

You do not even know which country was subjected to nuclear strikes by US in World War II. Mashallah.

Nevertheless, silly hormonal reactions from you (labeling me brain-dead) show your character as well as how sound your knowledge is in relation to these topics. Pathetic.


These are asymmetric threats, and I do not consider these as historical analogues for your argument that US cannot defeat Russia or China in a war.

First world countries is a useless point. There are first world countries which pack considerable punch and there are first world countries which have minimum level of defenses.

Following are closest calls:-

Iraq had a modern army, proper AF, AD systems with net centric environments as you put back in 1991.

Serbia had a modern army, proper AF, AD systems with net centric environments as you put back in 1998.

Iraq had one of the largest and finest armies in the world back in 1990; better equipped than Chinese at this point in time (ignoring Chinese nuclear arsenal of-course). Then Pakistani COAS Mirza Aslam Beg had a very high opinion of Iraqi military might; when he was questioned about the prospects of US-Iraq war in an interview, he felt that Iraq will become another Vietnam for US in 1991, but his assumption proved wrong.

If a Pakistani COAS - with all manner of intel-related briefings to him at this post - can still get it wrong about something (an expected conflict - his forte). How do you compare? You would take the word of a Pakistani COAS at face value, and over mine at any point in time, right? But I have shown you the door right now.




Oh yes! I have no clue. I have been living in a cave all these years. Oh please! Help me navigate this such modern world around me...


You fail to follow your own arguments now? You mentioned the incident of an Iranian SAM system managing to shoot down an American UAV recently:

"Even a little modern army like Iran Shot American modern drone with their SAM, I would love to see how S-300/400/500 and Chinese AD systems will work, and results might surprise you .."

My counter is that this isolated incident does not really prove how an all-out war between US and Iran will pan out. However, US is much more likely to humble Iran in a conventional war - kinda obvious to anybody with a functioning brain.

Russian S-300 and S-400 systems had their shot against American and/or Israeli hardware operating over Syria - both failed to deliver when a situation called for them to intercept American and/or Israeli strikes over assets of Syrian regime, even in Russian hands. How many times I have to highlight this reality to you? Comprehension problems much?
+
It does not matter if Russian S-300 system is stationed in Syria or Russia - if it failed to intercept American hardware that was intended to strike at a target which Russia does not wished to see destroyed in Syria, it will fail to do so in Russia as well because Americans have a clear idea how to circumvent its capabilities or even disable it.


This is coming from a guy who does not even know which country was subjected to nuclear strikes by US in World War II. Your knowledge of warfare is really impressive, friend. When will you schedule relevant lectures? I really want to seek history lessons from you.

I understand much about modern warfare but you do not have the prerequisite intellect to even follow my points, let alone lecture me about modern warfare. This is really sad.


Sure.

Read and learn: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/history-of-american-wars.538912/

WW2 = Victory (US-led forces soundly defeated Japan in the EAST as well as Germany in the WEST by 1945)

US-led forces began to roll-back advances of Japan across the Pacific since 1942, starting with the Battle of Midway

The tide of war began to shift for German forces as well when American flag showed up in Europe in 1943.

American Public supported this war-effort in full capacity, and US-led forces were led by able commanders in all theater of operations. Americans really wanted to win, and were willing to do everything to ensure the desired outcome. Well, Allah Almighty rewards determined people.

Korean War = Stalemate [US-led forces successfully liberated South Korea from North Korea (primary objective accomplished) but failed to occupy North Korea because China dispatched its armed forces to save North Korea from potential occupation (secondary objective failed), and Korean peninsula remain split to this day.]

If China had decided to not intervene in this theater or operations, US-led forces would have taken over North Korea and the Korean War would have concluded with unification of the Korean peninsula under American protectorate and reforms. But this was not to be.

Vietnam War = Defeat (This war was utterly mismanaged by American politicians).

US-led forces invaded and occupied much of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (3 neighboring countries in succession) for several years but this war proved costly to US in men and materials due to fighting in a difficult terrain, commanders being subjected to political constraints from Washington DC in the matters of engagements, as well as the duo of USSR and China providing full support to the Vietcong movement to resist American moves in the region. Nevertheless, it is true that American military reached its lowest point during the course of this war due to racial tensions within as well as this war being unpopular back home. An army cannot fight effectively under these conditions. However, Vietcong movement could not rout American forces from the region with its exploits - American withdrawal from this theater was ordered by an American President due to this war being unpopular back home (logical decision). Therefore, this is not a defeat in military terms but in political terms.

Afghan War = ??? (Another war being mismanaged by American politicians)

US-led forces invaded Afghanistan and toppled Afghan Taliban regime in Afghanistan (regime change successful), dismantled Osama Bin Laden's original Al-Qaeda Network in the region (primary objective accomplished) but American politicians did not agree to declare Afghan Taliban a terrorist organization in order to keep the door for negotiations with this group open, and restricted the rules of engagement for US-led forces in pursuit of Afghan Taliban in the region accordingly. Afghan Taliban managed to resurge after a major drawdown of US-led forces from Afghanistan in 2014, and now openly challenge US-backed Afghan government in the theater.

Limited presence of US-led forces in Afghanistan now ensure that US-backed Afghan government will be kept afloat until Afghan Taliban decide to embrace the new Afghan political setup. Therefore, this is a political decision.

Iraq War = Victory (This theater was prioritized over Afghanistan by American politicians)

US-led forces invaded and toppled Saddam regime in Iraq (regime change successful), dismantled Iraqi Ba'ath Party and executed Saddam Hussein and his sons (primary objective accomplished), prevented disintegration of Iraq in a period of Civil War (secondary objective accomplished), made it possible for the post-Saddam Iraqi government to neutralize ISIS movement in the country (new primary objective accomplished), and continue to maintain a limited presence in the country to keep tabs on matters of interest in Iraq and its surroundings. Iran have tried its best to dislodge US from Iran, but in vain.

Syria = Decent gains until American President Donald Trump damaged American foothold in this theater of operations by ditching US-backed SDF movement in Syria and ordering withdrawal of American troops from the theater.

Pentagon resisted this move, and American troops are back in Syria to reassert control over Syrian oil rich sectors within reach but the damage has been done since SDF movement had no choice but to give ground to other stakeholders in the region in the absence of solid American backing.

American intervention in Syria wasn't about toppling Assad regime in the country but to curb ISIS movement in Syria in connection with similar operations in Iraq (i.e. Operation Inherent Resolve). ISIS movement could not be routed from the region otherwise. Syrian SDF movement was orchestrated by US in Syria to this end. However, Turkey opposed this move due to involvement of Kurd factions in it. ISIS was strongest in Syria actually.

---

American military is very capable but American politicians can shape outcome(s) of an American conflict in reality - if they make sound decisions (great), if not (loss). Ask @gambit if you have doubts.




Do you know anything about quality or you grew up with MADE IN CHINA only? A large number of people have a low opinion of Chinese goods in terms of quality but this does not guarantee that many will stop using Chinese goods. I will continue to buy and use Chinese goods from time-to-time as well, but I have tested and used many consumer goods of numerous brands over the course of years and I know better. I am being totally honest here.

You are trying to appease your Chinese overlords on the other hand. You even tagged a few here to make fun of me. You are being immature and disrespectful to a fellow Pakistani - shame on you.


You needed a soft reminder.


Then how do you know that China is catching up to Americans in the matters of defense? Are you privy to insider accounts of both? Because some Americans said so? Well, some Americans believe that Earth is flat.

You have a simple mind, friend.


See above.



FYI: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/16/14944256/patriot-missile-shot-down-consumer-drone-us-military

CAPTION: A US ally shot down a $200 drone with a $3 million Patriot missile

In the case of Iranian swarm attack on Saudi Abqaiq oil refinery, Iranian UAV and cruise missiles flew towards the oil refinery from a direction which was not visible to the Patriot battery stationed there - the radar system of this battery was pointed towards Yemen whereas the intruding force came from a different direction. Therefore, Patriot battery could not engage the intruding force.

However, if you have doubts about the capabilities of Patriot defense system then read and learn: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/us-ballistic-missile-defence.373066/page-5

Saudi need to revisit their defensive arrangements and alert levels. They felt that Iran will not take its chances with them - they were wrong.




Saudi Arabia is officially at war with Yemen, not with Iran. It was logical for Saudi Arabia to have a defensive arrangement which could blunt strikes from Yemen, and it has to large extent. Although Iran support Yemeni Houthi in this war and provide know-how to this regime for the needful, they have never attacked Saudi Arabia until the Abqaiq episode. Now the Saudi know better.

Still, Saudi Arabia have a large geography, and it is possible for a potential intruder to slip through potential gaps in Saudi defenses and attempt to engage desired targets within. Every inch of a large geography is not possible to make intrusion-proof.

I am absolutely aware of the prospects of 'element of surprise' in modern warfare, and I shall tell you that this is not a modern construct but an ancient one.


Majority of SRBM and MRBM in service around the world are SCUD derivatives.

FYI: https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/whats-a-scud-4510864/

Yes, Patriot defense system have failed at times, so what? Contention is about how good Russian and/or Chinese defense applications are in comparison to American, and not about infallibility.

You completely missed the obvious or misunderstood my contention.


What kind of argument is this?

US is simply a leading entity in R&D aspects. This does not make others dumb idiots or living in caves.

http://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/research-and-development-spending/

https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php

https://www.timeshighereducation.co...gs/world-university-rankings-2019-methodology

There.

---

Did I suggest that F-22A Raptor is literally invincible?

F-22A Raptor is simply better than any fighter aircraft in existence, and is much more likely to prevail in aerial clashes and/or wreck surface defenses during the course of conventional military operations.

F-22A is extremely hard to defeat, and a squadron of F-22A is expected to be a game-changer in conventional warfare, as participants in annually scheduled RED FLAG simulations are finding out on a consistent basis.

F-22A proved its mettle over Syria as well: http://aviationweek.com/defense/how-f-22-deconflicting-us-russia-operations-over-syria

You will learn from pilot testimonials.

The aircraft have a revolutionary design and one should not expect to defeat it with earlier generation jets, or even a network of existing radar systems can make this task easier.

Do you know about the concept of INTERNET OF THINGS ??? This phenomenon is dubbed as Cooperative Engagement Capability in American military circles but this is not mere networking at the communications level but across-the-board SENSOR-NETTING to construct a view of developments in a highly complex battlefield in real-time which is accessible to all assets involved, and they can collectively sort out incredibly complex targets in the process - very expensive and technically challenging endeavor to undertake. This is where MAGIC happen.

Hi,

What happened to you---what made you write what you did?

Very proper and detailed article by you---and thank you.

Pakistani kids have no clue of the strength of the US military empire---leave the kids aside---pakistani generals and defense analysts were clueless as well---.

 

[PakFactor]

Hi,

What happened to you---what made you write what you did?

Very proper and detailed article by you---and thank you.

Pakistani kids have no clue of the strength of the US military empire---leave the kids aside---pakistani generals and defense analysts were clueless as well---.

Pakistani Generals have always been clueless -- more so we've seen personal preference and toe kissers moving up than those experienced or potential game changer officers. Overall, the thinking and doctrine hasn't change to be honest just a different title.

SUBJECTIVE therefore! Your perception of 'modern' is different from mine.

I evaluate 'modern' on the grounds of advances in technologies, and not on the grounds of names and/or perceptions. US is far ahead of both Russia and China in these matters.

Since Russian armed forces are stationed and active in Syria, this theater have provided very clear glimpses of how Russian technologies would fare against American and/or Israeli when either of the two will try to attack assets of Syrian regime, and respective outcomes are in front of you. Russian armed forces in Syria are supposed to shield Syrian regime from external attacks and threats of all manner, and they have utterly failed to deter either US or Israel from humiliating Syrian regime from time-to-time. So WE already have a demonstration.

Do you want me to compile incidents for you?


This is childish talk, devoid of logic.

1. US is not supposed to protect Ukraine.
2. US will not invade Russia because this war will turn nuclear at some point.
3. Russian military stand no chance against American in direct clashes but Russian nuclear arsenal is massive and potent...


Chinese defense-related tech is largely based on Russian designs because Russia sell its weapons to China but US does not sell its weapons to China.

You should take your own advice in regards to applying common sense! Pointless jabs from you.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/mil...partner-chinas-changing-military-weapons-ties

"For many years, China was Russia’s biggest military client, relying on Moscow for advanced weapons and adapting some of the technology for its own systems."

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2165182/what-weapons-china-buying-russia

"China, which was targeted by US military sanctions on Thursday for buying Russian fighter jets and surface-to-air missiles, is one of Russia’s key arms customers.

Russia sold around US$15 billion worth of weapons to the Chinese in 2017, maintaining a similar level of sales to the previous year, according to Rosoboronexport, the Russian agency responsible for military exports."

China is certainly trying to develop its own hardware but it have intimate access to Russian military applications as well as funds to afford costly experiments.


You got this wrong, friend.

The technologically superior side will absolutely dominate either Russia or China in a conventional war but not sure about subsequent occupation phase - how long US can last in the capacity of being an occupying force in either country.

China have a massive population so it might give US much harder time than Russia in occupation phase, probably to the point of routing Americans from Chinese mainland if they are really determined. But nothing is certain in imagined scenarios.

US have a much larger population, and higher fighting capacity, than Russia nevertheless. You are mistaking Russia for being USSR which is not the case. USSR was a collection of 16 Soviet Socialist Republics, and therefore had lot of manpower and resources at its disposal. Germans slaughtered Soviets by the millions (crores) back in the days of World War II but Soviets would keep coming at them, and Germans also had to contend with Allied forces on the WEST. However, it would be foolish to assume that Russians have never tasted defeat in history; refer to Mongolian-Russo wars in earlier times.


1. You completely missed the point here.*

*Do you understand the concept of HISTORICAL ANALOGUES?

All of those American conflicts were with peer and near-peer adversaries when they happened, and Americans managed well in each of those conflicts.

OR

Do you think US had a 21st century army when it fought each of those adversaries at different points in time?

Since you think that US cannot defeat a near-peer adversary in a war at present - you are sadly mistaken. This is why I alluded to a series of American conflicts with peer and near-peer adversaries as historical analogues to counter your assumption. This bring me to the next point:

2. Your knowledge of each war is TERRIBLE.**

**This is my expression:

You do not even know which country was subjected to nuclear strikes by US in World War II. Mashallah.

Nevertheless, silly hormonal reactions from you (labeling me brain-dead) show your character as well as how sound your knowledge is in relation to these topics. Pathetic.


These are asymmetric threats, and I do not consider these as historical analogues for your argument that US cannot defeat Russia or China in a war.

First world countries is a useless point. There are first world countries which pack considerable punch and there are first world countries which have minimum level of defenses.

Following are closest calls:-

Iraq had a modern army, proper AF, AD systems with net centric environments as you put back in 1991.

Serbia had a modern army, proper AF, AD systems with net centric environments as you put back in 1998.

Iraq had one of the largest and finest armies in the world back in 1990; better equipped than Chinese at this point in time (ignoring Chinese nuclear arsenal of-course). Then Pakistani COAS Mirza Aslam Beg had a very high opinion of Iraqi military might; when he was questioned about the prospects of US-Iraq war in an interview, he felt that Iraq will become another Vietnam for US in 1991, but his assumption proved wrong.

If a Pakistani COAS - with all manner of intel-related briefings to him at this post - can still get it wrong about something (an expected conflict - his forte). How do you compare? You would take the word of a Pakistani COAS at face value, and over mine at any point in time, right? But I have shown you the door right now.




Oh yes! I have no clue. I have been living in a cave all these years. Oh please! Help me navigate this such modern world around me...


You fail to follow your own arguments now? You mentioned the incident of an Iranian SAM system managing to shoot down an American UAV recently:

"Even a little modern army like Iran Shot American modern drone with their SAM, I would love to see how S-300/400/500 and Chinese AD systems will work, and results might surprise you .."

My counter is that this isolated incident does not really prove how an all-out war between US and Iran will pan out. However, US is much more likely to humble Iran in a conventional war - kinda obvious to anybody with a functioning brain.

Russian S-300 and S-400 systems had their shot against American and/or Israeli hardware operating over Syria - both failed to deliver when a situation called for them to intercept American and/or Israeli strikes over assets of Syrian regime, even in Russian hands. How many times I have to highlight this reality to you? Comprehension problems much?
+
It does not matter if Russian S-300 system is stationed in Syria or Russia - if it failed to intercept American hardware that was intended to strike at a target which Russia does not wished to see destroyed in Syria, it will fail to do so in Russia as well because Americans have a clear idea how to circumvent its capabilities or even disable it.


This is coming from a guy who does not even know which country was subjected to nuclear strikes by US in World War II. Your knowledge of warfare is really impressive, friend. When will you schedule relevant lectures? I really want to seek history lessons from you.

I understand much about modern warfare but you do not have the prerequisite intellect to even follow my points, let alone lecture me about modern warfare. This is really sad.


Sure.

Read and learn: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/history-of-american-wars.538912/

WW2 = Victory (US-led forces soundly defeated Japan in the EAST as well as Germany in the WEST by 1945)

US-led forces began to roll-back advances of Japan across the Pacific since 1942, starting with the Battle of Midway

The tide of war began to shift for German forces as well when American flag showed up in Europe in 1943.

American Public supported this war-effort in full capacity, and US-led forces were led by able commanders in all theater of operations. Americans really wanted to win, and were willing to do everything to ensure the desired outcome. Well, Allah Almighty rewards determined people.

Korean War = Stalemate [US-led forces successfully liberated South Korea from North Korea (primary objective accomplished) but failed to occupy North Korea because China dispatched its armed forces to save North Korea from potential occupation (secondary objective failed), and Korean peninsula remain split to this day.]

If China had decided to not intervene in this theater or operations, US-led forces would have taken over North Korea and the Korean War would have concluded with unification of the Korean peninsula under American protectorate and reforms. But this was not to be.

Vietnam War = Defeat (This war was utterly mismanaged by American politicians).

US-led forces invaded and occupied much of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (3 neighboring countries in succession) for several years but this war proved costly to US in men and materials due to fighting in a difficult terrain, commanders being subjected to political constraints from Washington DC in the matters of engagements, as well as the duo of USSR and China providing full support to the Vietcong movement to resist American moves in the region. Nevertheless, it is true that American military reached its lowest point during the course of this war due to racial tensions within as well as this war being unpopular back home. An army cannot fight effectively under these conditions. However, Vietcong movement could not rout American forces from the region with its exploits - American withdrawal from this theater was ordered by an American President due to this war being unpopular back home (logical decision). Therefore, this is not a defeat in military terms but in political terms.

Afghan War = ??? (Another war being mismanaged by American politicians)

US-led forces invaded Afghanistan and toppled Afghan Taliban regime in Afghanistan (regime change successful), dismantled Osama Bin Laden's original Al-Qaeda Network in the region (primary objective accomplished) but American politicians did not agree to declare Afghan Taliban a terrorist organization in order to keep the door for negotiations with this group open, and restricted the rules of engagement for US-led forces in pursuit of Afghan Taliban in the region accordingly. Afghan Taliban managed to resurge after a major drawdown of US-led forces from Afghanistan in 2014, and now openly challenge US-backed Afghan government in the theater.

Limited presence of US-led forces in Afghanistan now ensure that US-backed Afghan government will be kept afloat until Afghan Taliban decide to embrace the new Afghan political setup. Therefore, this is a political decision.

Iraq War = Victory (This theater was prioritized over Afghanistan by American politicians)

US-led forces invaded and toppled Saddam regime in Iraq (regime change successful), dismantled Iraqi Ba'ath Party and executed Saddam Hussein and his sons (primary objective accomplished), prevented disintegration of Iraq in a period of Civil War (secondary objective accomplished), made it possible for the post-Saddam Iraqi government to neutralize ISIS movement in the country (new primary objective accomplished), and continue to maintain a limited presence in the country to keep tabs on matters of interest in Iraq and its surroundings. Iran have tried its best to dislodge US from Iran, but in vain.

Syria = Decent gains until American President Donald Trump damaged American foothold in this theater of operations by ditching US-backed SDF movement in Syria and ordering withdrawal of American troops from the theater.

Pentagon resisted this move, and American troops are back in Syria to reassert control over Syrian oil rich sectors within reach but the damage has been done since SDF movement had no choice but to give ground to other stakeholders in the region in the absence of solid American backing.

American intervention in Syria wasn't about toppling Assad regime in the country but to curb ISIS movement in Syria in connection with similar operations in Iraq (i.e. Operation Inherent Resolve). ISIS movement could not be routed from the region otherwise. Syrian SDF movement was orchestrated by US in Syria to this end. However, Turkey opposed this move due to involvement of Kurd factions in it. ISIS was strongest in Syria actually.

---

American military is very capable but American politicians can shape outcome(s) of an American conflict in reality - if they make sound decisions (great), if not (loss). Ask @gambit if you have doubts.




Do you know anything about quality or you grew up with MADE IN CHINA only? A large number of people have a low opinion of Chinese goods in terms of quality but this does not guarantee that many will stop using Chinese goods. I will continue to buy and use Chinese goods from time-to-time as well, but I have tested and used many consumer goods of numerous brands over the course of years and I know better. I am being totally honest here.

You are trying to appease your Chinese overlords on the other hand. You even tagged a few here to make fun of me. You are being immature and disrespectful to a fellow Pakistani - shame on you.


You needed a soft reminder.


Then how do you know that China is catching up to Americans in the matters of defense? Are you privy to insider accounts of both? Because some Americans said so? Well, some Americans believe that Earth is flat.

You have a simple mind, friend.


See above.



FYI: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/16/14944256/patriot-missile-shot-down-consumer-drone-us-military

CAPTION: A US ally shot down a $200 drone with a $3 million Patriot missile

In the case of Iranian swarm attack on Saudi Abqaiq oil refinery, Iranian UAV and cruise missiles flew towards the oil refinery from a direction which was not visible to the Patriot battery stationed there - the radar system of this battery was pointed towards Yemen whereas the intruding force came from a different direction. Therefore, Patriot battery could not engage the intruding force.

However, if you have doubts about the capabilities of Patriot defense system then read and learn: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/us-ballistic-missile-defence.373066/page-5

Saudi need to revisit their defensive arrangements and alert levels. They felt that Iran will not take its chances with them - they were wrong.




Saudi Arabia is officially at war with Yemen, not with Iran. It was logical for Saudi Arabia to have a defensive arrangement which could blunt strikes from Yemen, and it has to large extent. Although Iran support Yemeni Houthi in this war and provide know-how to this regime for the needful, they have never attacked Saudi Arabia until the Abqaiq episode. Now the Saudi know better.

Still, Saudi Arabia have a large geography, and it is possible for a potential intruder to slip through potential gaps in Saudi defenses and attempt to engage desired targets within. Every inch of a large geography is not possible to make intrusion-proof.

I am absolutely aware of the prospects of 'element of surprise' in modern warfare, and I shall tell you that this is not a modern construct but an ancient one.


Majority of SRBM and MRBM in service around the world are SCUD derivatives.

FYI: https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/whats-a-scud-4510864/

Yes, Patriot defense system have failed at times, so what? Contention is about how good Russian and/or Chinese defense applications are in comparison to American, and not about infallibility.

You completely missed the obvious or misunderstood my contention.


What kind of argument is this?

US is simply a leading entity in R&D aspects. This does not make others dumb idiots or living in caves.

http://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/research-and-development-spending/

https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php

https://www.timeshighereducation.co...gs/world-university-rankings-2019-methodology

There.

---

Did I suggest that F-22A Raptor is literally invincible?

F-22A Raptor is simply better than any fighter aircraft in existence, and is much more likely to prevail in aerial clashes and/or wreck surface defenses during the course of conventional military operations.

F-22A is extremely hard to defeat, and a squadron of F-22A is expected to be a game-changer in conventional warfare, as participants in annually scheduled RED FLAG simulations are finding out on a consistent basis.

F-22A proved its mettle over Syria as well: http://aviationweek.com/defense/how-f-22-deconflicting-us-russia-operations-over-syria

You will learn from pilot testimonials.

The aircraft have a revolutionary design and one should not expect to defeat it with earlier generation jets, or even a network of existing radar systems can make this task easier.

Do you know about the concept of INTERNET OF THINGS ??? This phenomenon is dubbed as Cooperative Engagement Capability in American military circles but this is not mere networking at the communications level but across-the-board SENSOR-NETTING to construct a view of developments in a highly complex battlefield in real-time which is accessible to all assets involved, and they can collectively sort out incredibly complex targets in the process - very expensive and technically challenging endeavor to undertake. This is where MAGIC happen.

It's important you bring up the S-300 / S-400 in your conversation - and I've been thinking the Indians are acquiring the same system. Seeing as to how this system performed in Syria, I don't expect it'll perform any different under Indian hands in an Indo-Pak conflict. If we look at Pakistan's Feb 27th response we jammed their communications., etc, according to reports.

Overall, Russian hardware time and time again proven to be useless those S-300 are under direct Russian control (operations). I feel the Russians still follow the old USSR Doctrine of large numbers to make up for their lack of qualitative edge.

 

[LeGenD]

So you keep saying. And how LO is it across VHF And UHF frequencies? Is it lower than X-Band or higher? What you are saying is not scientifically possible. LO and VLO are infact tweaks and compromises at one band or the other. Because different bands have different wave patterns and reflective characteristics. Objects can be LO or VLO across most similar characteristic bands but not all.


They most certainly do have VHF sensors. What is the average I do not know and fail to see how that comes into the topic even? Do the figures you plotted represent their performance by gauging at what RCS the otherwise LO is detected at? Kindly don't keep parroting those 0.0001 m^2 figures because those are X-Band figures.

I am sensing that all counter arguments seem to be having no effect on you. I am sorry that I could not convince you. So lets agree to disagree.

I completely understand what you are saying but you are missing my point.

Even if F-22A Raptor settle around 0.001 m^2 rcs mark in VHF band, it is still exceedingly difficult to track because YJ-27 types cannot obtain a lock on it or even tell with certainty that this is F-22A Raptor (they are very good but cannot offer clarity of X-band while operating at VHF band due to massive difference in frequencies across these bands). One will notice something unusual happened at a particular spot and alert operators (hey take a look). By the time, operators will notice and decide to interpret, F-22A Raptor would be at a different spot and wrecking havoc. Now imagine dealing with a squadron of these jets. Although I must tell you that these radar systems will be among the first targets to be taken out - if you understand tactics of USAF.

I am happy that Pakistan is testing decent radar systems but come on, do not overblow the stuff just because it is in our hands.

 

[Kingslayerr]

We have bought more than 1 right?