What's new

Russia says Chinese arms better than Russian arms

Personal opinions of weapon systems matter little when its time for war. I'm sure the military knows what they are facing in real life. Hopefully.

Yes that's my point and none of those forumer goers have access to the necessary intelligence to formulate a good picture. They compare fighter jets and other complicated military equipment the same way they compare hot-rods and Harleys. Which is heavily biased by the "oh man that's cool!" factor.
 
Noooo.....no thinking is involved, just apply the all-time straight rule:

Chinese -> copy -> inferior. :rolleyes:

I'm getting a bit tired of the repeats, like the comments about other aspects of china rehashed over and over again.

And I don't think the thread title was good to start with anyway.
 
Noooo.....no thinking is involved, just apply the all-time straight rule:

Chinese -> copy -> inferior. :rolleyes:

I'm getting a bit tired of the repeats, like the comments about other aspects of china rehashed over and over again.

And I don't think the thread title was good to start with anyway.

I really think we shouldn't be upset by this. We are building a world class air force and a world class defense industry, we have the capabilities that's all it matters.

War is the only penultimate decider of quality, not name calling on a forum.
 
If China really is as backward as they west make it to be, I am sure we would have been living life as slaves already. They would have came in as quick as they did with Libya. Fortunately all the trash talking that goes around doesn't get translated into reality very well.
 
If China really is as backward as they west make it to be, I am sure we would have been living life as slaves already. They would have came in as quick as they did with Libya. Fortunately all the trash talking that goes around doesn't get translated into reality very well.

Make no mistake about it. What the US military puts out for the press is very different from what their assessments are for a war scenario.
 
Make no mistake about it. What the US military puts out for the press is very different from what their assessments are for a war scenario.

Exactly. We would be a replication of the middle-east if they really see us the way its media portrayed us to be.
 
Famous does not mean better.



The AK series is famous for it's reliability, so yes it is better. The Real Russian AK's are vertualy indistructable.

The QBZ-95's round has a better penetration, accuracy, and range than even the NATO 5.56 mm.


Heavier rounds create more kenetic energy thus they penetrate more, the QBZ-95 is a 5.8x42 round while NATO uses the 5.56x45 round both are small rounds and if the QBZ-95 does indeed have more penetration, as you claim, than it is not by much. The 5.56x45 round is a small and accurate round made for fragmentation, it is not meant to have the knock down power that you would expect with the 7.62 round.



In general, Chinese arms are more durable, reliable, and tougher in harsh conditions.
Online buyers claim Chinese-made Kalashnikovs as more reliable than Russian ones.


:rofl:

Even the original AK-47's are virtually indistructable--and i can personally vounch for that. Read up on th reliability of genuine Russian made Kaloshnikoves or watch a documentary. The AK can operate with dirt in the chamber, as well as mud, it can even function normally even after the weapond is rusted, the damn thing can even be ran over and still fire. And the reality is that Chinese AK varients are just copies, so reliability would, at best, be equal.

As for online claims, please don't make me laugh. Genuine Russian AK's are almost impossible to find, most varients are Bulgarian, Romanian, Polish or even American, the list goes on. Further, many of the AK's that are imported have original parts replaced with cheap demestic junk parts. For instance, the Polish AK-74 (Tantal) had the wrong size barrels which caused shots to keyhole.




Speaking of artillery and armored vehicles, try searching up the specifications and capabilities of them. '
The PLZ04 howitzer has a range of over 50+ km and a firing rate of over 10 rounds per minute. Russia's most advanced artillery howitzer, the MSTA, has only 36 km of range and a max rate of 8 rounds/min.



You're too simplistic and narrow minded, range and rate of fire is only one of many,many factors that contribute to a howitzer's performance, and the MSTA's range is over 40km, and it can fire 9 rounds per minute.


Before we look closer at the MSTA, look at the following:

Army Guide - 2S19M1-155 MSTA-S, Modernization of the vehicle

foreign experts say the MSTA-S is one of the world's best SP artillery systems in its class.


Now for the details:

Army Guide - 2S19M1-155 MSTA-S, Modernization of the vehicle


The gun can deliver both direct and indirect fire and case pointing, without preparing position for fire and with ventilation sets switched on (both in standard regime and the one for contaminated zones). It has a sight system for indirect fire (1P22) which provides automatic leveling, vertical sighting and vertical repositioning after each shot. The pointer has only to keep the sight on the needed point via a driver control panel. The elevation angle during direct fire can achieve up to 50?, including firing in mountains. The commander, having at his disposal control equipment for sighting and shooting, makes it impossible to make a wrong operation. Charging and sighting processes are manually backed up; so if power is not supplied, the fire is made without any problem. The 2S19 has got equipment for sighting control. All types of standard Russian 152-mm rounds including smart ones can be used. The 50 shells are located in the combat compartment. 46 of them are situated in the turret (in two automated charges) - this fact helps to fire from whatever howitzer's position. The system provides automatic gun loading for projectiles and semi-automatic loading for shells, which allows firing at a rate of 8rpm at whatever sighting angle: this result exceeds those of nearly all NATO SP howitzers (the US M109A2 provides 4rpm, and the newer M109A6 - 6rpm). The MSTA-S's actual performance is, however, even higher. In 1993, during the Abu-Dhabi international arms show, the Russian SP gun firmly took the first place with a rate of aimed fire of 9-1 Orpm.

In one minute a battery consisting of eight 2S19s hits a target with shells weighing 3t, and leaves its position before eventual countermeasures are taken. At maximum ranges about 70 shells are in flight at the moment when the first one is hitting the target.

Special attention should be paid to Krasnopol and Centimeter guided and corrected projectiles. The Krasnopol is designed to kill tanks, IFVs, APCs, guns and other targets both stationary and moving at a speed of up to 36km/h by the first shot. The Krasnopol can also destroy bridges, dug-outs (and other field fortifications), ferries and pontoon ferries, surface targets, etc.

The 50.8-kg HE-FRAG projectile is employed jointly with the 1D20 (1D22) laser designator/rangefinder illuminating tank-type targets at ranges of up to 7km and boat-type ones - up to 20km. It consists of two sections - the ammunition one including the combat unit, booster and stabilization assembly and control section comprising the autopilot unit, passive laser seeker and front unit. The both blocks are coupled by a quick-screwed junction. Extended air rudders provide in-flight control.


The newer projectile flies to the target via a lower trajectory, which bates requirements for minimal limit height: the period favourable for the Krasnopol-M1's employment

increased by 10-30% depending on the theater when compared to the Krasnopol. The hit probability also slightly increased, from 0.7-0.8 to 0.8-0.9.

The simpler and cheaper Centimeter corrected projectile also has a semi-active laser seeker. It lacks expensive gyros and other smart devices. To reduce the time for target processing and thus raise its jamming protection, the Centimeter has a synchronization system that transmits the 'fire' command to switch on the timer installed in the 1D20 or 1D22 laser designator/rangefinder. After a certain period of time (the flight time minus 1-3 sec), the laser designator/rangefinder automatically switches to the radiation mode. By this time, the flight timing device triggered by longitudinal loads sets off the protective ballistic cap covering the optic seeker. Then the pho-todetector's optical channel opens to correct the trajectory.


Mishit is automatically prevented at the terminal phase of the trajectory (20-600m) by means of a unique high-energy kicker, which takes less than 1 sec in case of direct fire and less than 3 sec in case of indirect fire.

Artillery rounds corrected via the GLONASS or NAVSTAR satellite navigation systems are also very promising. Even they, however, will not fully replace rounds with semi-active laser homing and will probably be an addition to them.

The 2S19 can fire Motiv projectiles with self-homing munitions, too. The Motiv submunition designed by the Basalt enterprise was fielded 10 years ago. It is unified for various combat arms and is also used in MLRSs and disposable cluster bombs. The Motiv well surpasses its US analogue by the aggregate efficiency index. It has higher jamming resistance and armor penetration (up to 100m, which largely exceeds the horizontal armour resistance of the most advanced foreign tanks, namely the M1A2 Abrams, Leclerc, Leopard 2, etc.

he system transports 45 shells; 31 of them in automated charger. New processors and mechanisms control the charging. The 2S19M1-155 has got an autonomous feeder (AP-18DM) with air conditioner. The ASUNO-155, which appeared recently, provides the so-called "non-sight shooting", and the commander uses digital terrain maps. Maximum firing speed: 6-8rpm.

According to the Russian mass media, the promising SP mount got a high-precision satellite navigation system interfaced with a digital map system, on-board computer linked with other guns, batteries and superior command posts via an automated data communication line, newer crew information management environment including, as in advanced combat aircraft, multifunctional colour displays showing text and graphic information, particularly digital maps with overlaid tactical situation. As a result, the new-generation SP artillery mount will become a full-fledged (and one of the most important) actors on the digital battlefield fighting jointly with army missile systems, UAVs of various purposes, combat and reconnaissance helicopters, light strike fighters and multifunctional fifth-generation aviation systems.






Chinese Type 99A2 tanks boasts more advanced armor, more powerful gun, better round capability, better mobility, and same protection system as the Russian T-90. Not to mention newer tanks like Type 99KM and CSU-152 are in testing and are being produced.



Your are right it does 'boast' because armor is classified :lol: so do not come in here with this 'advanced' nonsense. As for it's gun i can find nothing reliable about it being more 'powerful'' As for mobility, the T-90 is probably the best due to it's light weight and track design, it's lighter, thus making it easier to transport, it can cross bodies of water and it it was tested in jungles, marshes, deserts, and tundra.



Strategic missiles: the JL-2 has a range of 14000 km and can carry 10 MaRVed warheads. The DF-41 has a range of 15000 km and can carry 12 MaRVed warheads. This is more capable than the Topol-M, Bulava, and in some aspects the SS-18.




What is more capable? Range? Again you are too simplistic, a system such as the Topel-M relies on cold starts and short burn times to minimize detection, counter measures, accurate satelite navigation, evasive maneuvers, short reaction time due to its speed; 10,800 mph, as well as many other features.


Cruise missiles: just because Russia helped China in the 1980s doesn't mean it now holds an advantage. Missiles like the C-805, DH-10, CJ-10, and YJ-12/22 all have superior speed, range, and anti-interception countermeasures than the Russian counterparts. I can go in detail, but I would like to keep it brief.


No, we helped China in the 1990's and we helped with one of the most important aspects of a cruise missle--it's navigation system. And stop boasting with words like 'superior', and 'more powerful' either post reliable details or don't post at all. It should also be noted that even old Russian cruise missles have a range of 300km, the short range cruise missles you see today is due to a treaty pact that Russia is part of.



Cruise missiles: The Xianglong UAV and Thunderbolt UAV are all jet-powered UAV with ranges of over 7000 km and speeds of 750 km/hr. Russia's Dozor UAVs are nowhere near that.


And those UAV's are operational? I can also talk about UAV, even better Russia has atleast two stealth UCAV's that are being worked on....it should also be noted that turbo prob UAV's are more popular due to less IR and high officiency.



China may purchase some certain naval technologies from Russia, but again, those are just subsystems. Chinese ships have substantially better stealth shaping as well as weapons and in some areas, radar. Heck, Russian ships don't even incorporate VLS. Again, I can go in detail, but for the sake of this forum, I'm going to keep it short.



Again, you are wrong, China has purchased everything from radars to sonars and weapons systems, don't miss use the word subsystem.



S-400 and S-500 aren't anti-ballistic missiles. The missiles I'm talking about are the type that can engage missiles in mid-flight. China's KT family has six missiles that have been successfully tested. Currently, only the US THAAD system and the Chinese KT system have proven being capable of doing that. Russia hasn't done so.




Wrong, they are both designed to intercept ballistic missles, and there is plenty of video's showing various types of Russian batteries intercepting missles in mid-flight.






"Evaluation" purpose, huh ? If China did the same then Russia would claim that China is "stealing" technology and not evaluating the hardware, right ?

Thats becuase China does steal, Russia wants to built the Mistral locally with technology transfer, so they can evaluate french shipbuilding methods, this is very different from ordering a few examples of a products and than producing copies.




ZERO russian companies in the top list. 4 mainland China 3 Taiwan on that list. In 2008, 6 mainland China on that list (but zero Russians still). Russia has an electronics industry? Show me the companies?


If Russian electronic are so bad why has China recently ordered anti submarine helicopters from Russia? Why did China seek Russia help to develope a seeker for the PL-12? Why did China purchase radars, sonars and countless other systems? All of the above systems use electronics, with China's super duper superior electronics why is China still comming to Russia?

No. Worse than Indian arms would be a hyperbole.

In ground forces Russia is behind China be it MBTs, Artillery, APCs, MLRS, and the like.

Read up, the last guy that claimed that got a big helping of reality, vague statments and simplistic thinking such as blank has more range than blank is vague fanboy talk, and your MSTA information is wrong. And basing a tanks superiority off of more weight, horespower, and speed is foolish, none of those factor give any real advantage to a tank, when the opposing tank acheives the same protection with less weight and at the same time performs atleast as good or better in mobility; for instance, the T-90 is a compact design, thus it is lighter but it's armour is as thick as most other tanks; moreover, lighter tanks are easier to transport and have better mobility in tough terrain. The key is to be as light as possible, the only one of those factors that are important is power to weight for climbing high inclines which the T-90s deisel has no problems doing. But again this is all simplistic talk.
 
The AK series is famous for it's reliability, so yes it is better. The Real Russian AK's are vertualy indistructable.

Uh, no not really. Customers usually rank the Type 56 as more reliable than the original AK. Its fame is due to its rugged design, cheap price, and proliferation, and the fact that it was built in 1947. Its fame does not come from its "indestructability".

Rifles are also ranked on its firepower, range, rate, and its recoil. "Indestructability" does not play a role.

If you compare Russian and Chinese rifles (I doubt you even bothered to), Chinese rifles rank much better in rate of fire, range, and penetrating capabilities.




Heavier rounds create more kenetic energy thus they penetrate more, the QBZ-95 is a 5.8x42 round while NATO uses the 5.56x45 round both are small rounds and if the QBZ-95 does indeed have more penetration, as you claim, than it is not by much. The 5.56x45 round is a small and accurate round made for fragmentation, it is not meant to have the knock down power that you would expect with the 7.62 round.

Do you seriously believe that mass is related to its size? :lol:
Try searching up the DBP87 heavy round and you'll see what I mean. It's standard for all QBZ-95 later variants as well as the QBZ-95G.
7.62 mm rounds have yaw forces when fired, which impedes its capability to penetrate body armor, due to the excess amounts of kinetic energy transferred from the bullet to the target (impulse momentum theorem).






:rofl:

Even the original AK-47's are virtually indistructable--and i can personally vounch for that. Read up on th reliability of genuine Russian made Kaloshnikoves or watch a documentary. The AK can operate with dirt in the chamber, as well as mud, it can even function normally even after the weapond is rusted, the damn thing can even be ran over and still fire. And the reality is that Chinese AK varients are just copies, so reliability would, at best, be equal.

As for online claims, please don't make me laugh. Genuine Russian AK's are almost impossible to find, most varients are Bulgarian, Romanian, Polish or even American, the list goes on. Further, many of the AK's that are imported have original parts replaced with cheap demestic junk parts. For instance, the Polish AK-74 (Tantal) had the wrong size barrels which caused shots to keyhole.

Again, just because it's popular doesn't mean it's effective. Rifles are measured in firepower, not reliability.
QBZ-95 is also known as a very reliable rifle, able to fire rounds in tough conditions, including underwater.
However, the QBZ-95 has a higher rate of fire, higher muzzle velocity, and better penetration.

Authentic Russian AK-47s are still on the market, buddy.








You're too simplistic and narrow minded, range and rate of fire is only one of many,many factors that contribute to a howitzer's performance, and the MSTA's range is over 40km, and it can fire 9 rounds per minute.


Before we look closer at the MSTA, look at the following:

Army Guide - 2S19M1-155 MSTA-S, Modernization of the vehicle




Now for the details:

Army Guide - 2S19M1-155 MSTA-S, Modernization of the vehicle

The info you provided me has just proved my point. Its range, firepower, and rate of fire is nowhere near that of the PLZ-05 or PLZ-04, which has 50+ km in range and can fire 10 rounds per minute.

And those are the most important factors in a howitzer.













Your are right it does 'boast' because armor is classified :lol: so do not come in here with this 'advanced' nonsense. As for it's gun i can find nothing reliable about it being more 'powerful'' As for mobility, the T-90 is probably the best due to it's light weight and track design, it's lighter, thus making it easier to transport, it can cross bodies of water and it it was tested in jungles, marshes, deserts, and tundra.

Have you even done any researching?:disagree:

Type 99A2 uses Al2O3 armor that, during tests, took 9 direct hits from a T-72 at 1 km and took no damage.
That is coupled with the classified armor.

The T-90 still uses add-on ERA that still leave gaps on the tank, stuff that the Al-Khalid is in the same league with.






What is more capable? Range? Again you are too simplistic, a system such as the Topel-M relies on cold starts and short burn times to minimize detection, counter measures, accurate satelite navigation, evasive maneuvers, short reaction time due to its speed; 10,800 mph, as well as many other features.

If you read my previous post, you would know that all Chinese ICBMs have the capabilities you mentioned above (MaRV, high apogee, cold launch, etc) coupled with greater range and more warheads.





No, we helped China in the 1990's and we helped with one of the most important aspects of a cruise missle--it's navigation system. And stop boasting with words like 'superior', and 'more powerful' either post reliable details or don't post at all. It should also be noted that even old Russian cruise missles have a range of 300km, the short range cruise missles you see today is due to a treaty pact that Russia is part of.


My reliable details lies in the company's description of the YJ-802 missile. It uses pop-up approach, dodging techniques, and very low attack altitude (3 m). The Russian Klub does not have that capability.

Chinese anti-ship missiles have a range of up to 500 km.

And those UAV's are operational? I can also talk about UAV, even better Russia has atleast two stealth UCAV's that are being worked on....it should also be noted that turbo prob UAV's are more popular due to less IR and high officiency.

Yes, those UAVs are operational.

You wanna talk about stealth UAVs?
Alright, China has two stealth UCAV programs underway, the Shenyang Darksword and the Combat Eagle.

Turbo prop UAV also happen to have much lower escape capabilities, air-to-air capabilities, range, speed, and general combat effectiveness.





Again, you are wrong, China has purchased everything from radars to sonars and weapons systems, don't miss use the word subsystem.

Seriously, do some more reading on this.

All current Chinese major surface combatants uses Chinese missiles and CIWS/main cannons.

New Chinese destroyers and frigates uses Chinese weaponry and Chinese ESA radar. Some subsystems are French. The older ships (like Luda or Jianghu) uses Russian radars and sonars.






Wrong, they are both designed to intercept ballistic missles, and there is plenty of video's showing various types of Russian batteries intercepting missles in mid-flight.

Wrong, buddy. Mid-course flight is different from mid-flight. Midcourse flight is when the ballistic missile's second stage kicks in and goes to the apogee of flight. This is the highest altitude of the ballistic missile's flight path.

To date, only the US and China has conducted mid-course interceptions.
 
The AK series is famous for it's reliability, so yes it is better. The Real Russian AK's are vertualy indistructable.

Reliability has always been the quality of any AK. However its accuracy is not. Can it hit medium targets at 300 meters consistently? If not then it is not up to the M 16 or QBZ 95. Both use use cold hammered barrels with barrels at 20 inches and 18 inches respectively with high velocity small diameter rounds and consistently hit targets at that range.

Heavier rounds create more kenetic energy thus they penetrate more, the QBZ-95 is a 5.8x42 round while NATO uses the 5.56x45 round both are small rounds and if the QBZ-95 does indeed have more penetration, as you claim, than it is not by much. The 5.56x45 round is a small and accurate round made for fragmentation, it is not meant to have the knock down power that you would expect with the 7.62 round.

The Chinese army created the 5.8mm round for use against heavily armored professional troops, not insurgents. And its penetration is significantly greater than 5.56 with consistent 10 mm of penetration against NATO spec hardened steel plate at 310 meters. Only the AP 5.56 with tungsten core exceeds that.

:rofl:

Even the original AK-47's are virtually indistructable--and i can personally vounch for that. Read up on th reliability of genuine Russian made Kaloshnikoves or watch a documentary. The AK can operate with dirt in the chamber, as well as mud, it can even function normally even after the weapond is rusted, the damn thing can even be ran over and still fire. And the reality is that Chinese AK varients are just copies, so reliability would, at best, be equal.

As for online claims, please don't make me laugh. Genuine Russian AK's are almost impossible to find, most varients are Bulgarian, Romanian, Polish or even American, the list goes on. Further, many of the AK's that are imported have original parts replaced with cheap demestic junk parts. For instance, the Polish AK-74 (Tantal) had the wrong size barrels which caused shots to keyhole.

Yes we all know AK 47s are not issued anymore. Being the same they should be similar.

You're too simplistic and narrow minded, range and rate of fire is only one of many,many factors that contribute to a howitzer's performance, and the MSTA's range is over 40km, and it can fire 9 rounds per minute.

No we are not. Technical performance is all we have with non war tested weapons. And the type 04 with its 155mm 54 cal gun fires farther and faster with it laser guided rocket assisted rounds.


So they are modernizing it. Whats your point? Even with this modernization it does not match the PLZ 04 in capabilities.

Your are right it does 'boast' because armor is classified :lol: so do not come in here with this 'advanced' nonsense. As for it's gun i can find nothing reliable about it being more 'powerful'' As for mobility, the T-90 is probably the best due to it's light weight and track design, it's lighter, thus making it easier to transport, it can cross bodies of water and it it was tested in jungles, marshes, deserts, and tundra.

The T 90 armor is not declassified either. No armor on any tank is declassified besides old vanilla steel tanks. We can only make estimates based on the tests on it as well as the weight class. For example the prototype type 98 was hit with a HQ 8 with over 1000mm of RHA penetration failed to penetrate. Old 98s were also tested with an acquired t 72C with 7 rounds and 9 rounds of 105 without sustaining damage. This was all done with only composite, and not with the massive ERA blocks and arrow shaped armor in todays models. With your argument light weight tanks are the best. That is not the case. Light MBTs were destroyed by Heavy MBTs in recent war experiences.


What is more capable? Range? Again you are too simplistic, a system such as the Topel-M relies on cold starts and short burn times to minimize detection, counter measures, accurate satelite navigation, evasive maneuvers, short reaction time due to its speed; 10,800 mph, as well as many other features.

Range is the only thing besides the solid fuel and MiRVeded warheads we know enough about in Chinese ICBMs and SLBMs. Cold start is standard for any SLBM. Whats your point? Counter measures like MiRVs and ECM is also on Chinese SLBMs as well. Again, what is your point? Longer range ballistic missiles generally have higher speeds due to its higher parabolic reentry. As for maneuverability the ASBM manuverability would be applied to ICBMs as well


No, we helped China in the 1990's and we helped with one of the most important aspects of a cruise missle--it's navigation system. And stop boasting with words like 'superior', and 'more powerful' either post reliable details or don't post at all. It should also be noted that even old Russian cruise missles have a range of 300km, the short range cruise missles you see today is due to a treaty pact that Russia is part of.

MTCR does not restrict Russia from using long range missiles itself, only exports. That is not an excuse. Once again technical details are all we can go by in these non war tested missiles. Chinese cruise missiles today have greater range, payload, guidance, and etc.

And those UAV's are operational? I can also talk about UAV, even better Russia has atleast two stealth UCAV's that are being worked on....it should also be noted that turbo prob UAV's are more popular due to less IR and high officiency.

Yes they are operational. The amount is the question as is with all Chinese weapon systems. Stealth UCAVs are also something China works on. Eg the Shenlong. In this case whoever deploys first would have more capability.


Again, you are wrong, China has purchased everything from radars to sonars and weapons systems, don't miss use the word subsystem.

Yes we purchased entire planes as well. Now we do not. Do not constantly look to the past for reassurance. For us only the present and future are applicable.

Wrong, they are both designed to intercept ballistic missles, and there is plenty of video's showing various types of Russian batteries intercepting missles in mid-flight.

Yes I am sure they are. They are not extroatmosphoric with KKVs with mid course interception capabilites like the KT series.


Thats becuase China does steal, Russia wants to built the Mistral locally with technology transfer, so they can evaluate french shipbuilding methods, this is very different from ordering a few examples of a products and than producing copies.

China has no choice in this matter. Even Russia can buy Western weapons and take methods and advances from them. If we could we would do the same thing. However that is not possible.

If Russian electronic are so bad why has China recently ordered anti submarine helicopters from Russia? Why did China seek Russia help to develope a seeker for the PL-12? Why did China purchase radars, sonars and countless other systems? All of the above systems use electronics, with China's super duper superior electronics why is China still comming to Russia?

We still order Russian anti submarine helicopters because we do not have helicopters like that. The sonar has little to do with the choice. As for PL 12 it uses the first switching datalink in use so its certainly not Russian as no Russian missile use that. Yes we used to purchase Russian systems extensively. We do not anymore. Your constant reliance on past glory is getting a little old. So no we are not still coming to Russia.

Read up, the last guy that claimed that got a big helping of reality, vague statments and simplistic thinking such as blank has more range than blank is vague fanboy talk, and your MSTA information is wrong. And basing a tanks superiority off of weight, horespower, and speed is foolish, none of those factor give any real advantage to a tank, for instance, the T-90 is a compact design, thus it is lighter but it's armour is as thick as most other tanks; moreover, lighter tanks are easier to transport and have better mobility in tough terrain.

Fanboy talk is all you have as well. 36 Km to 40 Km still does not beat 50 Km. They are both untested in war environments and can only be compared through technical details and speculation. Speed, horsepower, and weight are all important in a main battle tank that we can see. Electronics, armor, and gun are less detailed. The three factors are heavily factored into a tanks capabilities. The Type 99 like the T 90 both use 3 men crew which makes them more compact then western tanks. However the Type 99 still has for more armor despite the similar layout. And heavy tanks with similar arrangement have more protection. Mobility of the Type 99 has been tested throughout China in all terrains and its rough terrain speed is faster than the T 90s top road speed. The T 90 is more easily transported but it is not more mobile. For air transportable tanks we use the type 96G
 
If China really is as backward as they west make it to be, I am sure we would have been living life as slaves already. They would have came in as quick as they did with Libya. Fortunately all the trash talking that goes around doesn't get translated into reality very well.

Psychological warfare against China have never worked and never will.

The West is just wasting her time and making herself look bad.
 
Uh, no not really. Customers usually rank the Type 56 as more reliable than the original AK. Its fame is due to its rugged design, cheap price, and proliferation, and the fact that it was built in 1947. Its fame does not come from its "indestructability".

What customers would these be? Imaginary ones or the ones that have Bulgarian, Romanian or some suspicious kit built AK with domestic parts? I have met two Cambodians, one with 10 years combat experience and one with 7 years combat experience, both used the (real) type 56 and (real) AK-47 and when I spoke to them (2-3 years ago) they stated that the AK-47 was the better weapon.



Rifles are also ranked on its firepower, range, rate, and its recoil. "Indestructability" does not play a role.



If you compare Russian and Chinese rifles (I doubt you even bothered to), Chinese rifles rank much better in rate of fire, range, and penetrating capabilities.






Reliability is a major factor in any combat rifle, I will chose a rifle that never jams over a rifle that sometimes jams but has better rate of fire or range because most combat scenarios are less than 100 yards and only morons fire their weapons on full auto unless it is for suppression fire but regardless whether its a 600 rate of fire or 800 it still achieves the same result, difference being one gun wasted more ammunition than the other. In fact the AK-47 was specifically designed to fire at 600 rounds per minute, if I was to pick a weapons for the specific purpose of a high rate of fire I would chose the AN-94 with its ridiculous 1,800 round per minute rate of fire. Further, newer AK variants have what is said to be the best muzzle break ever made and I agree having shot the AK-74; less recoil more accuracy. There is also a broad range of Russian assault rifles, the Vintorez AK-74, 103, 104, 101, 107, AN-94 and the list goes on, all are very accurate and all very unique, with some using 5.45, some using 7.62, some using 5.56 and others using large 9x39 rounds.




Do you seriously believe that mass is related to its size? :lol:
Try searching up the DBP87 heavy round and you'll see what I mean. It's standard for all QBZ-95 later variants as well as the QBZ-95G.
7.62 mm rounds have yaw forces when fired, which impedes its capability to penetrate body armor, due to the excess amounts of kinetic energy transferred from the bullet to the target (impulse momentum theorem).



Larger caliber rounds are simply heavier than smaller caliber rounds given that they both use the same core, heavier rounds have more kinetic energy, this is why the 7.62 round has far better penetration than the 5.45 round despite less velocity.




Again, just because it's popular doesn't mean it's effective. Rifles are measured in firepower, not reliability.
QBZ-95 is also known as a very reliable rifle, able to fire rounds in tough conditions, including underwater.
However, the QBZ-95 has a higher rate of fire, higher muzzle velocity, and better penetration.






The QBZ-95 has not proved its reliability on the battlefield like the AK family has, also rate of fire means next to nothing; muzzle velocity also means little when the difference is negligible. Many of Chinas’ allies use modern day AK variants even Pakistan, yes Pakistan chose the AK-101, and not the QBZ-95, jeez I wonder why, maybe because it’s specifications are highly exaggerated?



T
he info you provided me has just proved my point. Its range, firepower, and rate of fire is nowhere near that of the PLZ-05 or PLZ-04, which has 50+ km in range and can fire 10 rounds per minute.



No my info proved reality, hit probability, jamming protection, sighting, laser range finders, ability to hit moving targets, the ability to map terrain digitally, hit probability, and jamming capability. I will chose a combat proven howitzer that’s know to accurately hit targets. And it's firepower and rate of fire is similar to the Chinese system 40+ km vs. 50+ is not that great of a distance especially when the exact ranges are not know.

And I case you did not know the 50km range for the PLZ-04 is only with rocket assisted shells, the standard rounds it fires is well under 50km. The MSAT also carries 20 more rounds meaning it can prolong the fight, and most importantly the MSAT can fire jammer projectiles which disrupt the enemies communications/electronics allowing the MSAT and other allied units to more effectively and safely destroy enemy positions. Once the PLZ-05/04 rocket assisted rounds are depleted which it will only carry a limited amount of it’s not difficult to see that which system is better, even with the rocket assisted rounds the MSAT has more capabilities and a proven combat record.


\

Have you even done any researching?:disagree:

Type 99A2 uses Al2O3 armor that, during tests, took 9 direct hits from a T-72 at 1 km and took no damage.
That is coupled with the classified armor.





So we are on the same page, the armor is classified for both tanks besides the AL203. It also quite funny how you say the Type 99A2 took 'no damage', the reality is that even old RPG-7's have put large gashes in the Abrams and even disabled it with a hit to the tracks or rear; further, the heavily armored Merkava’s were completely destroyed by Russian RPG's, so I would take that T-72 claim with a truckload of salt. In reality a well placed triple charge round or a modern day RPG will destroy the Type 99A2.




If you read my previous post, you would know that all Chinese ICBMs have the capabilities you mentioned above (MaRV, high apogee, cold launch, etc) coupled with greater range and more warheads.





The capabilities of Chinese ICBM’s have yet to prove themselves, even old Soviet ICBM’s were found to be more accurate than the American counterparts--this is what US inspectors said, as for range and warheads we have ICBM’s with 16,000km range and nuclear warheads 500 times more powerful than the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan.






Turbo prop UAV also happen to have much lower escape capabilities, air-to-air capabilities, range, speed, and general combat effectiveness.


UAV’s are clearly visible to radar and jet powered UAV’s give off large IR emissions, so either the UAV’s will be shot down by a fighter like Russia did to Georgia or a surface to air missile will destroy it, either way the reaction time for both scenarios is extremely short, even modern day fighters and bombers have been downed from surface to air missiles or weapons and these aircraft usually have RWR UAV‘s usually do not. Having a turbo prop as apposed to a jet engine will not increase air to air capabilities, UAV’s are not dog fighters, not in maneuvering, not in speed, and not in situational awareness; a UAV is simply a launch platform and reconnaissance platform, having a jet engine will not do anything for a UAV in terms of air to air capabilities, in fact the IR emissions will make it an easier target. You also fail to understand the significance of turbo pro platform, having a jet powered UAV, especially a Chinese one (Chinese engines lack) does not mean better range, the TU-95 chose turbo props for their efficiency, consequently the TU-95 has almost the same seed as the jet powered B-52.




Seriously, do some more reading on this.

All current Chinese major surface combatants uses Chinese missiles and CIWS/main cannons.

New Chinese destroyers and frigates uses Chinese weaponry and Chinese ESA radar. Some subsystems are French. The older ships (like Luda or Jianghu) uses Russian radars and sonars.






The Severnoye Design Bureau would disagree, they claim Chinese ships appear to have Russian made systems when Russian never sold them. Severnoye Design Bureau claims that Russia upgraded one Chinese ship and suddenly other Chinese ships were seen with the same systems.






Reliability has always been the quality of any AK. However its accuracy is not. Can it hit medium targets at 300 meters consistently? If not then it is not up to the M 16 or QBZ 95. Both use cold hammered barrels with barrels at 20 inches and 18 inches respectively with high velocity small diameter rounds and consistently hit targets at that range.


What AK are you talking about? There are AK variants which use 5.45 as well as 5.56 rounds which are known for their accuracy as apposed to the heavier 7.62 round. Newer AK variants also have a muzzle break which virtually eliminates all recoil. New AK’s have extreme accuracy, especially with a modified sight.



The Chinese army created the 5.8mm round for use against heavily armored professional troops, not insurgents. And its penetration is significantly greater than 5.56 with consistent 10 mm of penetration against NATO spec hardened steel plate at 310 meters. Only the AP 5.56 with tungsten core exceeds that.



Different rounds for different jobs. The 5.56 and the 5.45 rounds are know to be the most lethal rounds on the battlefield, even more lethal than the 7.62 even though the 7.62 has far better penetration. The 5.56 round fragment once it hit tissue causing mass bleeding , it’s also difficult for doctors to remove all of the fragments. The 5.45 round has been called the poison or devils round because of it’s





No we are not. Technical performance is all we have with non war tested weapons. And the type 04 with its 155mm 54 cal gun fires farther and faster with it laser guided rocket assisted rounds.


As stated before the 50km range is for rocket assisted rounds; its standard rounds have much less range, and howitzers always carry a combination of different munitions. Also it’s only able to get one more shot off faster than the MSAT, that’s hardly anything worth bragging about. The MSAT is a smart combat proven system. The following is the same information I posted for Sino Soldier:


Hit probability, jamming protection, sighting, laser range finders, ability to hit moving targets, the ability to map terrain digitally, hit probability, and jamming capability are important factors in a howitzer. I will chose a combat proven howitzer that’s know to accurately hit targets and a system with more capabilities over a system that has slightly more range with rocket assisted rounds. And it's firepower and rate of fire is similar to the Chinese system 40+ km vs. 50+ is not that great of a distance especially when the exact ranges are not know.

And I case you did not know the 50km range for the PLZ-04 is only with rocket assisted shells, the standard rounds it fires is well under 50km. The MSAT also carries 20 more rounds meaning it can prolong the fight, and most importantly the MSAT can fire jammer projectiles which disrupt the enemies communications/electronics allowing the MSAT and other allied units to more effectively and safely destroy enemy positions. Once the PLZ-05/04 rocket assisted rounds are depleted which it will only carry a limited amount of it’s not difficult to see which system is better, even with the rocket assisted rounds the MSAT has more capabilities and a proven combat record.



So they are modernizing it. Whats your point? Even with this modernization it does not match the PLZ 04 in capabilities.





Read again, the system has been modernized, in fact there is a new variant of the MSAT with unknown capabilities, and the MSAT is more than a match for the unproven PLZ-04. Does the PLZ-04 have digital terrain mapping? Or even jamming munitions. Do we know it’s hit probability? Can it hit moving targets?




The T 90 armor is not declassified either. No armor on any tank is declassified besides old vanilla steel tanks. We can only make estimates based on the tests on it as well as the weight class. For example the prototype type 98 was hit with a HQ 8 with over 1000mm of RHA penetration failed to penetrate. Old 98s were also tested with an acquired t 72C with 7 rounds and 9 rounds of 105 without sustaining damage. This was all done with only composite, and not with the massive ERA blocks and arrow shaped armor in todays models. With your argument light weight tanks are the best. That is not the case. Light MBTs were destroyed by Heavy MBTs in recent war experiences.





Seems like a made up story, there is no way a tank can not ‘sustain damage’ even Abrams tanks have receive damage from stone age RPG’s and Merkavas, which are extremely heavy and well protected have been destroyed by newer RPG’s. Unless the T-72’s rounds were training rounds it’s safe to say that the story is just that (a story) unless you want to believe Chinese tanks are mystical wonder weapons. A well placed round, especially from a modern day round, something like a triple charge round will penetrate any tank. The front of a tank is the most heavily armored, the amour is also sloped which does two things, firstly it deflects some of the energy away, but more importantly slopped amour can double or perhaps triple to amours thickness. Fore example, a 1 inch plate tilted at and angle will suddenly have a 2 inch thickness. So the front of a tank can often times survive almost all hits, but the sides and especially the rear are vulnerable, and all tanks will sustain damage.











Yes we purchased entire planes as well. Now we do not. Do not constantly look to the past for reassurance. For us only the present and future are applicable.





You just ordered anti submarine helicopters if Chinese technology was so good which I constantly hear Chinese members boasting about than why go to Russia? The Chinese always like to say how much better that are than Russians so why come to us? And China has still purchased a number of other systems within the past 5 years.







We still order Russian anti submarine helicopters because we do not have helicopters like that. The sonar has little to do with the choice. As for PL 12 it uses the first switching datalink in use so its certainly not Russian as no Russian missile use that. Yes we used to purchase Russian systems extensively. We do not anymore. Your constant reliance on past glory is getting a little old. So no we are not still coming to Russia.



You do not need helicopters like that, you only need to install avionics that allow it to do what an anti submarine helicopter is meant to do. As for the PL-12, Sino defense which Chinese members swear on claims that Russia helped China develop it seeker. The data-link and navigation system is also said to be Russia, also Russia does not need to use ‘first switching datalink’. There are systems that Russia exports that it itself does not use.
 
An article made by russian and make a serious debate between Chinese and Russian. Keep going.
 
Back
Top Bottom