(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Question for the military nerds, do US actually sell price competitive arms in the international market? The surrounding political environment and the attached political costs (or lack thereof) is most likely a larger determinant of where a polity is looking to purchase arms.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
Tankbuster posted:Don't think the USA has anything comparable to the S-400. The US has its anti air systems, just nothing with the range and reach of the s-400. Pakistan has f-16s but it is still building more JF-17s since they are comparable in capability but cheaper and domestically made. It is more complex than “they can’t afford or access American equipment” but rather usually there is a litany of criteria that goes into purchasing weapons. From the late 1970s to the 2000s, US equipment was generally much better than the competition but now the picture is much more murky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The F14 is twice the weight and much bigger than the Mig-29. The Mig-29 might have been equivalent to the F-16 or the original F/A-18 A/B (like what Canada/Finland still uses, not the current E/F which is a different plane). The Su-27 would have been the only other equivalent and the USSR wouldn't even let other Warsaw Pact countries have the Su-27 (only the Mig-29). There was no remote possibility that the Chinese would get that unless the USSR collapsed or something (oops). Yeah China and US doing and serious military deal other than semi civilian Blackhawk and the alike just doesn't make any sense to me. China getting the F14 would be using it to accelerate the Taiwan unification time table. Why would the US do it. Reagan sold the Shah F14 because Iran was the closest US ally before the revolution. US selling F14 to Iran was the same reason they are selling the F35 to UAE. But China was never that close. The closest time between Deng and the US is basically what between Vietnam and US now, not that close.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I think they're generally price competitive vis a vis equivalent items from other countries, sure. Many things the US makes also don't have competitors with equivalent capabilities, but if you look at e.g. F-35 compared to other aircraft it competes with like Gripen or Rafale, it doesn't seem like the others are significantly cheaper, and they are probably significantly less capable. Countries like South Korea or Canada are generally not getting anything for free from anyone and even on a cost basis it at least makes sense for them to go with American weapons. LMAO. Canada still didn't agree to buy the F-35 and has been stalling on it for years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:LMAO. Canada's defense procurement process is literally worse than late Qing China or most infrastructre projects in sub-Saharan Africa. At least the Beiyang navy actually got something, anything built at the end of the day. Canada spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to *not* buy any planes or helicopters or warships. Canadians constantly joke about their military being broke and having obsolete equipment, except they're not broke, or even particularly badly funded. It's all some kind of weird corruption that seems to also not actually result in anyone getting rich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
The entire point of Canada is to funnel resources to USA. Edit: But in terms of weapons USA doesn't make weapons that Canada needs. Just giving money to US and not getting anything out of it is the best outcome for everyone. Lostconfused has issued a correction as of 19:26 on Dec 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The US has its anti air systems, just nothing with the range and reach of the s-400. Pakistan has f-16s but it is still building more JF-17s since they are comparable in capability but cheaper and domestically made. I mean Pakistan has been leaning pro china since the last decade so it makes sense that they would be buying more chinese materiel as it slips into the PRC's orbit. The US for instance tried to pawn off a later model of the f-16s to India but the IAF just said nope and ended up going with the Rafale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The F14 is twice the weight and much bigger than the Mig-29. The Mig-29 might have been equivalent to the F-16 or the original F/A-18 A/B (like what Canada/Finland still uses, not the current E/F which is a different plane). The Su-27 would have been the only other equivalent and the USSR wouldn't even let other Warsaw Pact countries have the Su-27 (only the Mig-29). There was no remote possibility that the Chinese would get that unless the USSR collapsed or something (oops). Modern AESA radar and long range missiles are also a lot more capable than what the F-14 was equipped with. Honestly, China needed some type of capable 4th generation fighter at that point, the mig 29 would have probably been fine even if the f-14 was more capable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:I mean Pakistan has been leaning pro china since the last decade so it makes sense that they would be buying more chinese materiel as it slips into the PRC's orbit. The US for instance tried to pawn off a later model of the f-16s to India but the IAF just said nope and ended up going with the Rafale. China and Pakistan have been close for decades, they co-developed a fighter jet together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
Palladium posted:remember, this a littoral combat stealth ship built on the very realistic assumption that the millions of Chinese fishing boats will not be able to visually spot it off the coast Lmao no it's built off the actually realistic assumption that the arms dealers who control the entire pentagon needed to make more money, so a new variety of stupid and expensive horseshit was cooked up using all the buzzwords senators and loving nerd idiots love. None of this was intended to be used and none of it ever will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
The chengdu j20 shall destroy america.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 22:46
|
|
|
instead of writing to Santa once a year, kids should petition President Xi on the reg
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:China and Pakistan have been close for decades, they co-developed a fighter jet together. Yes but up until recently most of the top of the line hardware was US sourced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
If you're just minding your own business, s-400 and jf-17 are probably fine. If you are a bully, get the us equipment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
The new version of JF17 (block 3?) Is supposedly pretty good. Argentina is shopping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:If you're just minding your own business, s-400 and jf-17 are probably fine. If you are a bully, get the us equipment. The s-400 is genuinely more capable than what the US has. Basically, the tables flipped a bit over the last few years in several fields: a lot of is that the US has generally just upgraded late Cold War systems. The problem is a lot of new systems just suck, the Zumwalt and the LCS both are completely useless. Everyone knows about the problems with the F-35. The F-22 was a good fighter that is barely allowed to fly nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
Posted without further comment. Except maybe LMAO https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/11/national/riken-research-covid-19/ “Nationalist Research Institute of Japan” posted:The reason that Japan has fared far better than the West when it comes to COVID-19 cases and deaths may come down to simple genetics, according to research by a leading Japanese institute. It only gets more nutty and nationalistic from here on out. Can Xi please annex this shithole?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
Someone upthread said Japan was the "UK of Asia" and I think they couldn't be more right. They're so far up their own arse they are basically forming a Goedel strip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
Japan Times eh
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 02:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The s-400 is genuinely more capable than what the US has. Basically, the tables flipped a bit over the last few years in several fields: a lot of is that the US has generally just upgraded late Cold War systems. Also the Sea Wolf, My pet theory of the F22 is that it has a secret serious flaw, that's why it was being discontinued with some "didn't sound too bad reasons".
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 02:28
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Also the Sea Wolf, Did they not fix the flip if they cross over the equator bug or was that another US fighter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:Japan Times eh was it here or in the bad china thread that someone got real pissy about JT being called out for it's far right ultra-nationalist connections because lol "Perhaps the fine people of Japan simply are...genetically supermen???" "Hm yes, normal reporting."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:Japan Times eh They're quoting research by Riken, which is the Japanese government funded research institute. I happen to have an acquaintance working there who pointed this bit of asinine research out to me. This was the only lovely English-language source I could find
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The s-400 is genuinely more capable than what the US has. Basically, the tables flipped a bit over the last few years in several fields: a lot of is that the US has generally just upgraded late Cold War systems. Right. You can patrol just fine with a 1/5th cost JF-17, conduct precision strikes on ground targets, launch anti-ship missiles, decent A2A, but probably not invade nations that have F-35. Which is fine. The S-300 probably has enough oomph to take out F-35 if operated competently, S-400 more so. Other Russian and Chinese point defense and anti-ship missiles are pretty good and a likely a better value, still would need a lot to avoid being overwhelmed/overwhelm. You only need a bunch of carriers, tankers, f-35, b-21, if you are an aggressor nation (i.e. the US).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 02:37
|
|
|
There's like a million departments and labs of RIKEN. The whole story is based on one published paper looking at some certain cell's reaction to coronaviruses which is more commonly found in Japanese people. Bit of a stretch to claim it's now the official government policy that Japanese people have better genes or something. But once again a good example of how trash English language media in Asia is, unfortunately if you don't understand the native language you're basically going to get bad journalism loosely translated from local tabloids or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:was it here or in the bad china thread that someone got real pissy about JT being called out for it's far right ultra-nationalist connections because lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
AnimeIsTrash posted:Did they not fix the flip if they cross over the equator bug or was that another US fighter? That was the F-16 IIRC
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 02:54
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:Haha, I'd actually argue that most Japanese nationalists would hate JT, a lot of their reporting paints Japan in a terrible light, some of it justified but some weirdly racist stuff in the other direction. I doubt that anyone in their right mind (regardless of political leanings) would argue that the JT isn't a giant heap of trash and a mouthpiece for the usual US jingoist propaganda bullshit. This is hardly a problem unique to Japan, but the overall news landscape doesn't fare any better. It's all on a sliding scale of worthlessness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 02:57
|
|
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:Right. You can patrol just fine with a 1/5th cost JF-17, conduct precision strikes on ground targets, launch anti-ship missiles, decent A2A, but probably not invade nations that have F-35. Which is fine. The S-300 probably has enough oomph to take out F-35 if operated competently, S-400 more so. Other Russian and Chinese point defense and anti-ship missiles are pretty good and a likely a better value, still would need a lot to avoid being overwhelmed/overwhelm. Admittedly, Russia and China both have tankers and China is amassing a carrier fleet. That said, most developing nations are interested solely in defense and yeah you don’t need literal cutting edge offensive hardware to do it. Hoewver, on a technical level, the gap has closed a lot and it isn’t a situation like the 1980s. As for the f-22 who knows, it has barely been combat, and they are cannibalizing the remaining fleet at an accelerated rate. It is on paper still one of the best fighters in the world, but has been cut down to a relative handful of squadrons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 03:51
|
|
|
CaptainACAB posted:Lmao no it's built off the actually realistic assumption that the arms dealers who control the entire pentagon needed to make more money, so a new variety of stupid and expensive horseshit was cooked up using all the buzzwords senators and loving nerd idiots love. I do know that, but pointing out everything in the US is a endless grift sandwich is a tired trope by this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
You know there is a recent scandal about the material used in the US submarine. I am just writing from memory. Basically a lady scientist who worked fof the MIC contractor admited she was faking the number for decades. They basically claimed the metal could be used in very very cold temp so the contacter could charged for extra $$$$. I heard a Chinese podcast discussed it, and the way the podcasters interpreted the news was that the nuclear subs never really need that kind of endurance in that temperture. The MIC was just making up a new way to graft money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 04:21
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:You know there is a recent scandal about the material used in the US submarine. I am just writing from memory. Basically a lady scientist who worked fof the MIC contractor admited she was faking the number for decades. They basically claimed the metal could be used in very very cold temp so the contacter could charged for extra $$$$. yeah the reason she gave for faking the number was that she thought it was a stupid waste of time to test the steel at -100 degrees Fahrenheit, since if the ocean is that cold the SSBNs are going to have bigger problems to worry about than structural failure, such as being trapped in a giant block of ice the issue is not that it calls the structural integrity of the subs into question, it's that by not doing the dumb pointless tests for 30+ years she ruined the racket
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 04:53
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Also the Sea Wolf, it was because they downsized the amount of F22s they ordered which made the price go waaaay up per plane (since one of the fundamental laws of mfg is the more you make of something the cheaper it typically gets) so they just went gently caress it no more planes lol
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
Could also be meant to account for other factors, like resist X force at -32 (where X is a rather large number) but instead we will request X/3 force at -100. Either to obfuscate whatever the actual design requirement is or to make it easier to test given the testing equipment available 70 years ago (and everyone who knew why has since been retired so they just keep doing it the same).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
Lady Militant posted:it was because they downsized the amount of F22s they ordered which made the price go waaaay up per plane (since one of the fundamental laws of mfg is the more you make of something the cheaper it typically gets) so they just went gently caress it no more planes lol The F-22 was designed to fight the USSR over Central Europe and sacrificed range for stealthyness and performance. The US doesn't have any land bases in the pacific from which the F-22 can reach any potential battlefield without huge amounts of vulnerable tankers. Basing it out of South Korea or Japan would allow it to reach Northern China or the Russian far east but it would still be to far away from Taiwan or the SCS, and the US hasn't based any F-22s outside of the US. Currently it's basically a praetorian guard for in case any rouge air force units try to pull an Turkish coup on Washington DC. This is a thing that goes back to WW2. The Japanese didn't have any use for German aircraft even though they had access to them, because none of the German aircraft had enough range to fly anywhere in the Pacific. Conversely the Germans struggled with the Battle of Britain because their aircraft didn't have the range to stay in the air over Britain for more than a little while, and might have done much better if they had the longer range Japanese planes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Also the Sea Wolf, I thought the F-22 was just too expensive to every risk it being in a situation where it could get shot down KomradeX has issued a correction as of 06:58 on Dec 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 06:25
|
|
|
What's fleet in being but for planes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 06:43
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:What's fleet in being but for planes? The Air National Guard?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:38 |
|
|
KomradeX posted:I thought the F-22 was just too expensive to every risk it being in a situation whate it could get shot down shhh stop spoiling American top military secrets
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 06:53
|
|