OT: Hey Jazzad thumbs up for your country bro! The French saved the day in Benghazi.

[wades_keys]

 

I know its not. But we are more advanced than China and we were hit and miss with a SCUD.

 

Do you honestly think we are going to show the world our true capability against a non-threat, tumbling piece of {censored} like a SCUD missile?

 

BWA HA HA HA HA

 

That was a test run dude, and it's hard to find the truth of the "true effectiveness" of this system. Seems to me that its primary purpose now is to defend certain European interests: how many billions of dollars worth of those did we ship over there, pissing off the Russkies? It was quite a lot.

 

Now ask yourself: when is the last time this country has EVER shipped it's most advanced tech to other countries?

 

I don't think you'll find any Patriots defending the white house. LOL

 

Fact is: underestimating our capabilies is as dangerous as underestimating the Chinese.

[The Lurker]

 

Probably made out of pop metal. Remember when the Soviet MiG-25 was all the rave?!? Until we got our hands on it and we found out it was a stainless frame with a control panel running off vacuum tubes, like you would use in a SVT! LOL

 

 

 

Mig-25 first flew in 1964. US planes from the same era also used tube electronics, because that's all there was in 1964-- the F-4 Phantom II had a big ol' Westinghouse tube radar all the way through 'Nam, and the Hughes AN/AWG-9 in the F-14 had tubes in it. In 1964 solid-state was still mostly in the lab (hell, when the Iron Man comics started in 1963, transistors were science fiction). Funny thing is, though, that in one of those odd bits of technological history, tubes are more resistant to EMP effects (e.g from nuke blasts) than solid-state gear, and it was still a 600-watt emitter (20% more than AN/AWG-9).

 

The Mig-25 still holds a lot of unbroken speed, altitude, and climb records, too. The US Navy tracked one over the Sinai Peninsula at Mach 3.2 just before the Yom Kippur war. I've also heard stories of Israeli Phantoms trying to shoot Foxbats down during the 70s and 80s and the Mig just putting the pedal down and outrunning the missiles. Better be careful, though-- past Mach 2.8 the engines overheat and wear;).

 

Also, Soviet gear in general isn't as inferior as people generally assume-- when built, it was intended to be simple, cheap, and robust. Now most of it's just old and rusted out, but the point is that a lot of NATO kit from the same era is just as bad. US tanks from the 1950s and 1960s--the first few models in the Patton series in particular-- would probably die just as quickly as Saddam's T-55s and T-62s if you hit them with modern ordnance-- hell, the M113's hull is made of aluminum that'll ignite if you hit it with a HEAT warhead (we learned this in Vietnam, and the Israelis did too in the Yom Kippur War), and some of the Patton series tanks used flammable hydraulic fluid for turret traverse. The big difference in performance only came in the 80s, with the microchip stuff that made western systems faster and more reliable.

 

Oh yeah-- the missile that the Serbs used to shoot down a US stealth fighter in 1999? SA-3 Goa, vintage 1963, and a lot of cunning and luck.

 

The Soviets also used to make two models of a lot of stuff- the good stuff to keep at home, and the bare-bones 'monkey models' to sell overseas or for their own emergency war production. The T-64 was a really good tank by anyone's standard, but the USSR never exported it. By comparison the T-72, which they exported all over creation, is a Ford Pinto.

 

The major weaknesses of third world nations using Warsaw Pact gear were always crew training, logistics, and maintenance-- even if you gave them the best tanks in the world they wouldn't know how to use them effectively. Most of Gaddafi's stuff has been sitting in warehouses, unused, since Andropov was premier.

[perrydabassman]

 

Oh yeah-- the missile that the Serbs used to shoot down a US stealth fighter in 1999? SA-3 Goa, vintage 1963, and a lot of cunning and luck. .

 

 

I agree with the rest of your post. The 117 went down because its bombay door stuck open after expending ordnance, and therefore was visible to radar. The only luck was bad on the part of the stealth jock.

[pickinatit]

 

But that doesn't speak whatsoever to their advanced guidance capability. Shooting a satellite out of orbit is an incredible feat. Clearly some of our secrets have made it into Chinese hands.

 

 

Not only guidance system secrets. Someone mentioned "questionable metallurgy" I think. Well, there are literally thousands of advisors/consultants from all over the world (including U.S. Companies) helping the Chinese solve quality issues in a whole range of product forms and various materials. Of course there are pretty strict restrictions on passing along information regarding "strategic materials" such as commercially pure Zirconium plate, tube, pipe etc. but they are learning plenty and learning it fast.

[isaac42]

 

But that doesn't speak whatsoever to their advanced guidance capability. Shooting a satellite out of orbit is an incredible feat. Clearly some of our secrets have made it into Chinese hands.

 

 

Incredible? Maybe, but still an order of magnitude easier than shooting down other things. Satellites have known orbits. You know, within a few meters at most, where it's going to be and when it's going to be there. That's not nearly as difficult as hitting something that, five minutes ago, you didn't even know was there to hit, let alone what its velocity or trajectory are.

[isaac42]

 

I know its not. But we are more advanced than China and we were hit and miss with a SCUD.

 

 

That's because SCUDs are harder to hit than satellites.