Slidey said:
Yeah, sorry, the thing is you're a conspiracy nut.
You've got a vendetta against America so you make up pseudofacts about them. I shouldn't need to debunk your rubbish every time you post it - I can leave any rational reader to do that themselves.
That's funny, none of these allegations seem to have stopped you
here. Argue when convenient eh?
Slidey said:
but the fact that you think evolution is a scientific conspiracy has ample weight in this argument; it shows how your mind works (or doesn't).
The fact that you think that I think that evolution is a scientific conspiracy, proves you are full of shit.
Slidey said:
You can throw around irrational claims in the guise of 'facts' all day, but at the end of it all, it's up to the reader to make up their own mind.
You can throw around irrational insults in the guise of 'rebuttal' all day, but at the end of it all, it's up to the reader to make up their own mind.
Slidey said:
you think that markets grow at a linear rate
No you blundering fool, I am stating the exact opposite. For the last time, for those of us who don't understand economics (ie. you), the simple concept upon which the US economy is based, is that it is driven by perpetual growth at an exponential rate, at the cost of exponential use of natural resources, which by definition are finite, hence it is doomed to collapse.
Aryanbeauty said:
OK show us your proof that Chinese submarine got near US Aircraft Carrier SEVERAL times. I knew of one incident with USS Kitty Hawk.
Ok,
http://starbulletin.com/2008/08/17/news/story09.html
The U.S. Navy League-Honolulu Council, nine retired Navy admirals, naval warfare experts and other civic organizations filed an amicus brief in support of the Navy. The brief refers to two separate incidents in the past two years where a Chinese diesel electric submarine approached a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Taiwan Strait and was within torpedo range of the ship before being detected by the U.S. ships.
Aryanbeauty said:
Human Development Index ranking is divided in to three, High, Medium and Low. Among those classified as high, Russia is at the 4th LOWEST, ranked 67 in the world along with other 3rd world poor countries like Brazil, Macedonia and Albania.
Lowest of the highest? Haha.
So according to you, unless they are coming first, they are poor and unhealthy?
And the term "3rd world" has no meaning in the 21st century. The three worlds no longer exist as they did during the cold war. And why are you implying that Brazil, Macedonia and Albania are poor? What is your definition of poverty?
Aryanbeauty said:
Poor in Russia means dirt POOR, beyond our imagination of POOR in the US or Australia.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
Hey look - that site lists Russia under high human development, alongside your USA!
Aryanbeauty said:
It is not surprising many russians prefers to be prostitute and strawberry picker in London and Europe than living in Oil rich Russia
It is not surprising many people think you are an idiot.
Admiral Nelson said:
Europe's economy would be adversely affected, but it wouldn't collapse.
Mainland Europe's will perhaps not, USA and UK are probably doomed. An even bigger problem of exports will occur.
Admiral Nelson said:
The US uses Chobham armour, which is better and more expensive than ERA. ERA is only useful against things like HEAT rounds, and offer little protection against sabot rounds using depleted uranium.
I had a good stats diagram shows Russian and US armour and penetration by various projectiles, but I lost it...
Russians have tested their latest armour against the exact same cannon the abrams use, with DU ammunition, and it failed to penetrate even at relatively close range.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L0SPYJNhII
Key points:
Weight: T-90: 47t ; Abrams: 64t
T-90: More compact
- Abrams armour was good in the 1st Iraq war because Iraq had obsolete tank ammunition. In the present Iraq war, their armour is easily penetrated by various projectiles.
- In a test, T-90 was fired at from 200m with 6 rounds of the latest abrams ammunition & identical calibre rounds, followed by a modern grenade launcher. After all this, it's armour failed to be fully penetrated, and the tank remained in perfect working condition.
- The main unit which provides electricity for Abram's on-board electronics, is easy to penetrate with an appropriate calibre weapon, as it is not shielded by the main armour as well as the interior of the tank, whereas the T-90 does not have this weakness.
- T-90 has an active protection system, capable of shooting down projectiles, such as various types of rocket propelled grenades, rocket launchers, and other projectiles of the sort. Abrams do not have this capability.
- The range of a T-90 is 5kms at an operational 100% accuracy, either firing still or while moving
- The calibre of the rounds on the Abrams and T-90 is virtually the same,
- DU rounds not used anymore in Russia due to adverse health affects on both the tank crew, and the environment on which they are used, Russia uses improved tungsten penetrators, which use kinetic energy to easily penetrate enemy armour.
- T-90 armament contains shrapnel projectiles, which are useful for eliminating enemy infantry, while abrams do not have anything of the sort.
- T-90 uses precise, laser-guided fire control, holds the record for the most targets hit in the shortest time, while moving. This occurred at an international presentation, stats:
Time taken: 54 seconds
Targets destroyed: 7
Target Range: 2.5km
Speed of t-90: 25km/h
- T-90 is renouned for being capable of comfortable operating in the harshest of environments, including deserts, marshlands, mud, snow and heavy vegetation. It is fully amphibious (unlike abrams), and is un-matched for mobility and duration of service in such environments.
- With the latest version of the T-90 having GPS navigation, the abram's last remaining lead over the t-90 has disappeared.
One other important thing I remembered here. The Abrams is ridiculously heavy, so heavy that it's impossible to transport it through any other means but by ship. This makes it rather difficult to get them out to the battle zone quickly.
Admiral Nelson said:
The US targetting system is definitely better than the Russians - it can and hasd been used against tanks from beyond 2 kilometres with consistant results.
I don't see how it's possible to improve on laser guidence - something which the US doesn't have on tanks.
Admiral Nelson said:
If memory serves correctly, they've the same or equivalents thereof.
Not sure what you're referring to there.
Admiral Nelson said:
I'd like to see some figures and facts here. It's irrelevant, as USN planes have a longer range still.
I'm pretty sure all the ships of both the Russian and US navies, including their arms are listed on warfare.ru, which also contains detailed statistics about the weapons in use by the ships.
I'd also like to draw your attention to this article,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4279842.html
Admiral Nelson said:
It's a pity they've only a few, and the US has far better trained crews and maintained ships.
Better trained perhaps - for now. I can't imagine this would stay the same in the near future. It is a pity there are few of them, however in the last 1-2 years, a lot of new ships and submarines have been laid down.
Currently there is one AkulaII, 1 Severodvins and 3 Lada subs under construction. Severodvins is further improvement on Akula, and Lada bears similarities, and is also said to be very silent.
Admiral Nelson said:
The one that concluded it wasn't in Australia's best interests to have the F-35, not that the F-35 was useless?
Yes, that was very much so to my liking.
However there were others (perhaps these were US senate enquires), which explored several key problems with the F-35 program. Mainly, the cost for it grew and grew without end, while it's specifications had to be dumbed-down again and again, specifically it's RCS has been pushed up more than once since the project started.
Admiral Nelson said:
I'll reply to some of these later. I'm the first to fly the Russian flag here, but I will admit, the US has better stuff than the Russians in most regards, even if it's only mildly.
There are only several areas of military technology where the US leads, and these would be large-scale electronics development (ie. carriers), AESA radars (massive work being done on these by Russia presently), supercruise thrusters, RAC coatings...and that's pretty much it.
One important technology I forgot to mention is the Shkval torpedo. This is one of the most amazing pieces of technology - a torpedo, which far far exceeds the speed of anything else which travels underwater. It is by far the deadliest underwater weapon. USA have spent massive amounts of money attempting to design their own supercavitating torpedo to match it's speed, but they have failed - this is another example of where USA's R&D dollars are going...down the drain.
Aryanbeauty said:
Starvation is the state of being deprived of food. No human can live in starvation, because they would die pretty quickly. No country is staving, or it's people would be dead in a few weeks.
Slidey said:
Haha holy fuck, Russia wants to take on Israel now? What, will they enlist Iran and launch a Jihad on the Western infidels?
They are simply stating they will sell weapons to countries such as Iran and Syria - none of this is new...
