Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览Saker档案
俄罗斯现在拥有卓越的军事技术吗?
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

“你觉得他的评价准确吗?” 是我最近从一位好朋友那里收到的一封电子邮件的主题行。 电子邮件中提到了 Paul Craig Roberts 的文章“明天有一天不会到” 声称“与俄罗斯军队相比,美国军队现在是二流的“。 然后,文章继续列出了一些明显优于美国同行的俄罗斯武器系统(当这些武器系统甚至存在时)。 我的回复很简短“基本上是的。 美国绝对有数量上的优势,但在质量和培训方面,俄罗斯遥遥领先。这完全取决于具体情况,但是是的,PCR基本上是现货“。 这次电子邮件交流发生在我与一位消息灵通的美国朋友进行有趣的会面之后,他与 PCR 完全相反,坚持认为美国对任何其他国家都拥有完全的军事优势,并且唯一阻止美国使用这种压倒性优势的东西军事力量是美国领导人不相信“野蛮、不受约束地使用武力”。 那么这里发生了什么? 为什么其他消息灵通的人会有如此完全矛盾的观点?

首先,免责声明。 要与任何权威就这个话题交谈,我必须能够访问大量有关美国武装部队和俄罗斯武装部队的机密数据。 唉,我没有。 因此,接下来的内容完全基于公开/公共资源,与一些个人联系人的对话以及一些,容我们说,有根据的猜测。 尽管如此,我相信接下来的内容在事实上是正确的并且经过逻辑分析。

总结目前的事态,我想说的是,美国武装部队处于严重衰败状态的事实本身并不像这个几乎无法隐藏的事实几乎被普遍忽视的事实那样令人惊讶。 因此,让我们将两者分为“发生了什么”和“为什么似乎没有人知道它”。

发生了什么

让我们从头开始:美国武装部队从来都不是美国宣传(包括好莱坞)让你相信的那种无敌的军队。 我在我的“给我的美国朋友的信”我不会在这里重复一遍。 让我们说,二战期间美国相对于其他所有人的最大优势是一个完全未受影响的工业基础,这使得在接近理想条件下生产大量武器系统和设备成为可能。 容我们说,一些“爱国”的美国人将其解释为资本主义经济组织“活力”和“优越性”的标志,而实际上,这仅仅是美国在受到两大洋的保护(相比之下,苏联人不得不将他们的整个工业基地转移到乌拉尔及更远的地方,而德国人则不得不在无情的轰炸下生产)。 底线是这样的:美军比其他部队装备更好(在数量上,有时甚至在质量上),他们可以集结敌人难以达到的火力。 而且,是的,这确实给美军带来了强大的优势,但几乎没有让他们以任何方式“变得更好”。

二战后,美国是地球上唯一一个工业没有被炸成碎片的主要工业化国家,在接下来的几十年里,美国处于接近完全垄断的境地。 这再次使美国武装部队受益匪浅,但很快就清楚地表明,在韩国和越南,这种优势虽然真实存在,但并不一定会导致美国取得任何胜利。 继越南之后,美国政客基本上将他们的侵略限制在小得多的国家,这些国家根本没有机会进行有意义的抵抗,更不用说占上风了。 如果我们看一下越南之后的美国军事侵略清单(见 此处 or 此处)我们可以清楚地看到,美军专门攻击手无寸铁的国家。

然后是苏联解体、第一次海湾战争和全球反恐战争,当时美国政客明确相信他们自己的宣传是“唯一的超级大国”或“超级大国”,他们进行了可能更复杂的军事袭击包括全面入侵阿富汗和伊拉克。 这些战争将作为案例研究当政客相信他们自己的宣传时会发生什么而载入史册。 入侵一结束,杜比亚就宣布胜利,但很快所有人都明白,这场战争是一场美国完全无法自拔的灾难(即使是苏联人也比美国人更快地连接了点,从阿富汗撤军) !)。 那么这一切告诉我们关于美国武装部队的什么信息:(无特殊顺序)

  1. 它们很大,比其他任何东西都大
  2. 他们拥有无与伦比的(全球)力量投射(机动性)能力
  3. 它们是高科技含量高的,这使它们在某些类型的冲突中具有很大的优势
  4. 他们有办法(核武器)将任何国家从地球上抹去
  5. 他们控制着海洋和战略要塞

这足以赢得一场战争吗?

实际上,不,不是。 消除这些优势所需要的只是一个意识到它们并且拒绝与我所谓的“美国式战争”作战的敌人(关于这个概念,见 此处)。 最近在黎巴嫩、科索沃、阿富汗和伊拉克发生的战争清楚地表明,适应性强的战术大多否定了美国武装部队的上述优势,或者至少使它们变得无关紧要。

如果我们接受克劳塞维茨的“战争是政治通过其他方式的延续”的论点,那么很明显,美国已经很久很久没有赢得真正的战争,愿意公开挑战山姆大叔的国家名单正在稳步上升。增长(现在不仅包括伊朗和朝鲜,还包括阿富汗、伊拉克、也门、叙利亚、委内瑞拉,甚至俄罗斯和中国)。 这意味着在美国试图威胁和胁迫使其屈服的国家之间形成了一种共识,即尽管存在所有威胁和宣传,但美国并不像某些人所认为的那样可怕。

为什么似乎没有人意识到它

矛盾的是,虽然这在美国目前试图威胁和胁迫屈服的国家中很清楚,但在美国内部却完全忽视和忽视了这一点。 大多数美国人,包括消息灵通的人,真诚地相信他们的武装部队是“首屈一指的”,美国可以粉碎任何敢于违抗或以其他方式违抗盎格鲁犹太复国主义帝国的敌人。 通常,当有证据表明美国空军、美国海军和北约甚至无法击败科索沃的塞尔维亚军团或在阿富汗的美国军事表现远远低于第 40 苏军所取得的成就(主要是应征入伍者!)时,我的对话者总是回答同样的事情:“是的,也许吧,但如果我们愿意,我们可以用核武器攻击它们!“。 这既是真的,也是假的。 美国的潜在核目标国家可细分为三类:

  1. 那些如果自己使用核武器,可以将美国从地球上彻底抹去(俄罗斯),或者至少对美国(中国)造成巨大损害。
  2. 美国可以在不担心报复的情况下进行核打击,但仍可能对美国及其盟国(伊朗、朝鲜)造成巨大的常规和不对称损害的国家。
  3. 那些美国可以用核武器相对不受惩罚的国家,但美国也可以用常规力量粉碎这些国家,使使用核武器毫无意义(委内瑞拉、古巴)。

而且,当然,在所有这些情况下,美国首次使用核武器将导致巨大的政治反弹,并带来完全不可预测的和潜在的灾难性后果。 例如,我个人认为,对伊朗使用核武器将标志着北约在欧洲的终结,因为这样的行动将不可挽回地损害欧盟与美国的关系。 同样,对朝鲜使用核武器将在亚洲引发巨大危机,并可能导致美国在韩国和日本的基地关闭。 毫无疑问,其他人会不同意🙂

底线:美国的核武器只对其他核大国起到威慑作用; 对于所有其他角色,它们基本上是无用的。 而且由于俄罗斯和中国都不会考虑对美国进行第一次打击,你可以说他们几乎完全没用(我说几乎,因为在现实世界中,美国不能简单地依靠其他国家的理智和善意;因此,实际上,美国核武库确实是美国国家安全的重要组成部分)。

剩下的就是海军和陆军。 美国海军仍然控制着公海和战略咽喉要道,但这变得越来越无关紧要,尤其是在局部战争的背景下。 此外,美国海军仍然顽固地以航母为中心,这恰恰表明战略眼光远远落后于官僚和制度惯性。 至于美国陆军,它早就成为特种作战和海军陆战队的一种支援力量,这在小规模战争(巴拿马,可能是委内瑞拉)中是有意义的,但对于大中型战争则完全不够用。

美国在“国防”(读作“侵略战争”)上的花费比地球上其他国家的总和还要多,这又如何呢? 当然,这很重要吗?

实际上,不,它没有。 首先,因为大部分钱都花在了为整个一类 MIC 寄生虫的腰包上,这些寄生虫从那个可笑膨胀的“国防”预算提供的“富矿”中赚取了数十亿美元。 从未提及的现实是,与美国相比,即使是乌克兰的军事机构看起来也只是“适度腐败”!

【侧边栏:你觉得我夸大其词? 问自己一个简单的问题:美国为什么需要 17个情报机构 而世界其他地方通常需要2到5个? 你真的真诚地相信这与国家安全有关吗? 如果你这样做,请给我发电子邮件,我有几座桥以优惠的价格卖给你! 说真的,美国的“情报”机构比地球其他地区多约 5 倍,这清楚地表明了美国“国家安全国家”的腐败程度达到真正天文数字]

在一个又一个的武器系统中,我们看到最重要的第一要务是尽可能多地花钱,而不是提供一个士兵可以实际使用的武器系统。 当这些系统投入使用时,它们通常会对抗比美国落后两到三代的对手,这让它们看起来很强大。 不仅如此,在每种情况下,美国都拥有巨大的数量优势(因此选择了小国进行攻击)。 但我向你保证,对于真正的军事专家来说,美国武器系统的优势是一个笑话。 例如,法国的系统(如阵风或勒克莱尔 MBT)通常比美国的同类系统更好、更便宜,因此需要大量贿赂和主要的“抵消协议“。

俄罗斯的军事预算很少,至少与美国相比是这样。 但是,作为 威廉恩达尔, 德米特里·奥尔洛夫 和其他人观察到,俄罗斯人获得了更大的收益。 不仅俄罗斯的武器系统是由士兵为士兵设计的(而不是工程师为官僚设计的),而且俄罗斯军队的腐败程度也远低于美国,至少在巨额资金方面(对于小额资金来说俄罗斯人仍然比美国人差得多)。 归根结底,您会得到 F-35 与 SU-35/T-50 的对比,或者更相关的是,我们从美国看到的平均故障间隔时间或工时与飞行小时的比率和俄罗斯军队最近在叙利亚。 可以说,美国人甚至无法开始考虑执行在叙利亚的小型俄罗斯航空航天特遣部队已经完成的飞行次数。 尽管如此,事实仍然是,如果美国人想要它,他们可以在叙利亚上空保留数百架飞机,而俄罗斯的俄罗斯航空航天任务在任何时候都没有超过 35 架战斗机:俄罗斯军事工业的现状简直就是不允许生产俄罗斯需要的系统数量(但情况正在慢慢好转)。

所以我们得到了它:美国人在数量上是毫无疑问的领导者; 但是从质量上讲,他们已经落后于俄罗斯人,并且日新月异地退步得越来越快。

美国军事指挥官知道吗?

当然可以。

但还记得特朗普提到美军的严重问题时发生了什么吗? 克林顿的宣传机器立即攻击他不爱国,“不支持军队”,没有重复“我们是第一,首屈一指”的政治强制性口头禅以及美国宣传机器提供的所有幼稚废话那些还在家里拥有电视的人。 坦率而诚实地谈论美国武装部队的真正问题更有可能是一种职业生涯的终结,而不是改革一个无可救药的腐败体系的方式。

还有一件事。 不再赘述我的论点,即美国人没有受过足够的教育,无法理解基本的马克思主义理论,但事实是他们中的大多数人对黑格尔辩证法一无所知。 他们。 因此,以静态的方式看待事物,而不是过程。 例如,当他们夸耀自己拥有“人类历史上最强大、最有能力的军队”(他们喜欢这种语言)时,他们甚至没有意识到这种所谓的优势必然会产生自己的矛盾,而因此,这种力量也会产生其自身的弱点。 博学多才的美国军官,很多人都明白这一点,但与他们身陷的数十亿美元和大规模腐败的上层建筑相比,他们的影响几乎可以忽略不计。此外,我绝对相信,这种状态事情是不可持续的,迟早会出现一位军事或政治领导人,他们将有勇气正面解决这些问题,并试图改革目前僵化的制度。 但前提条件可能必须是美国遭受大规模且极其尴尬的军事失败。 我可以很容易地想象,如果美国袭击伊朗或朝鲜,就会发生这种情况。 我可以保证,如果美国领导层变得足够妄想,试图打击俄罗斯或中国。

但就目前而言,这一切都将是“红、白、蓝”,保罗·克雷格·罗伯茨将仍然是沙漠中孤独的声音。 他会被忽视,是的。 但这并不能改变他是对的事实。

PS 至于我自己,我要献身 弗拉基米尔·维索茨基的这首歌 感谢保罗·克雷格·罗伯茨(Paul Craig Roberts)和所有其他有能力预见未来并有勇气警告我们的“卡桑德拉”。 他们通常最终会为自己的诚实和勇气付出高昂的代价。

 
• 类别: 对外政策 •标签: 美国媒体, 美国军事 
隐藏453条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Randal 说:

    To speak with any authority on this topic I would have to have access to a lot of classified data both on the US armed forces and on the Russian ones. Alas, I don’t.

    And the reality is that anybody who has access to the former has only limited access to the latter, and vice versa. So all claims of certainty in this kind of assessment should be viewed with great scepticism. That’s not all that important when we’re just debating whose speculative analysis is the more convincing, but it becomes vital when people are trying to insist that a particular war can safely be fought – such as the likes of Bannon and the parts of the US military establishment who insist that a “limited war” with China can safely be fought now, and supposedly must be fought in the next few years because after that it will be too late for it to be safely fought. The latter is true, but the greatest and best experts on the planet can’t say with any confidence what the outcome of even a “limited war” with China would be, nor give any plausible guarantee that their limits would be observed.

    Such men – which evidently by his own words includes Bannon, should absolutely be kept out of government as a matter of the highest priority.

    Typically, when presented with evidence that the USAF, USN and NATO could not even defeat the Serbian Army Corps in Kosovo…….If we accept Clausewitz’s thesis that “war is the continuation of politics by other means” then it becomes clear that the US has not won a real war in a long, long time

    Seem to be a double standard here. If the Serbians were “not defeated” when they fought the NATO air forces to a standstill but lost Kosovo, which was what they were fighting over, then the US was not defeated in Iraq when it destroyed the Iraqi military and occupied the county but failed subsequently to impose a fully subordinate government on the country, or when it successfully engineered the overthrow of the Taliban and gained free access to Afghanistan to hunt down Al Qaeda there but failed to make the country safe for feminists and American-style gays afterwards.

    The bottom line: US nukes are only useful as a deterrent against other nuclear powers; for all other roles they are basically useless. And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA, you could say that they are almost totally useless

    An argument against any need for nuclear weapons best put forward, in my experience (and I don’t except the British CND, who included Bertrand Russell amongst their ranks), by Iran’s Ahmadinejad. Personally I’m with Saker on this and I’d still want my country to have a nuclear deterrent, but it’s quite plausible that Iran’s elite does not agree.

    • 回复: @Narwan
    , @Joe Wong
  2. 希腊神话中最初的卡珊德拉年轻、女性、美丽。 不完全是PCR。

    至于明年看未来,我们都可以庆祝他的天启十周年:

    http://endoftheworldsurvivalguide.com/DrPaulCraigRoberts.html

    Of course if the end is near there’s only one truly American thing to sing:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzJbAZ4dwc

    • 回复: @uslabor
    , @jacques sheete
  3. Randal 说:

    Let’s just say that the biggest advantage the US had over everybody else during WWII was a completely untouched industrial base which made it possible to produce fantastic numbers of weapon systems and equipment in close to ideal conditions. Some, shall we kindly say, “patriotic” US Americans have interpreted that as a sign of the “vigor” and “superiority” of the Capitalist economic organization while, in reality, this simply was a direct result of the fact that the US was protected by two huge oceans

    This is the underlying story of the entirety of the US rise to global dominance by the late C20th – the ability, having once established continental security (by the late C19th certainly, arguably much earlier for practicable purposes) to develop in peace at home whilst avoiding or, when thought profitable, dabbling in rivals’ wars, from a safe distance. That situation, combined with the seizure of an almost completely unexploited continent from relatively primitive occupants and its efficient exploitation, is arguably enough to explain everything about the US’s success relative to the nations of the old world.

    So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: (in no special order)
    1.They are big, way bigger than any other
    2.They have unmatched (worldwide) power projection (mobility) capabilities
    3.They are high-tech heavy which gives them a big advantage in some type of conflicts
    4.They have the means (nukes) to wipe any country off the face of the earth
    5.They control the oceans and strategic choke points

    这足以赢得一场战争吗?

    Actually, no, it is not. All it takes to nullify these advantages is an enemy who is aware of them and who refuses to fight what I call the “American type of war” (on this concept, see here). The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.

    Actually, it is, given the political motivation to do what is necessary, against any country that does not have a nuclear deterrent, as Japan found out (and Germany in WW1).

    There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.

    As I noted above if you are applying what you call the “Clausewitzian” broad definition of victory in war, then the US defeated the Yugoslav and the Afghan states (the original justification for attacking Afghanistan was not to build a feminist social democracy, but to get at Al Qaeda). Whether the US “won” in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. Whether any of those victories was worthwhile for the American people is obviously highly dubious, but first the concept of a Pyrrhic victory is a well established one and second, the America people weren’t the ones in whose interests the decisions were being made.

    For sure, those countries were not peer or even near peer opponents, but the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation, based upon exactly the advantages you enumerate here. Motivation, however, is key.

  4. peterAUS 说:

    不同意 with most of the article.
    No desire whatsoever to regurgitate why; debated 几个 times so far in some other threads.

    BTW, good posts Randal, IMHO.

    祝你好运。

    • 回复: @Randal
  5. Israel Shamir reported at the beginning of the Syrian campaign that missiles fired towards Syria were intercepted and deflected harmlessly and a joint Russian and Chinese naval force was involved. He reported last year a Russia jet disabled a US warship by aiming a device that acted on the copper in the ship. Shortly after all US carriers went into dry dock for repairs.

    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/10/30/bouncing-along-on-juggernaut/

  6. Anonymous [AKA "thomasgregory"] 说:

    The coming collapse of the petrodollar does not bode well for the US economy in general or the US military in specific. Let’s check back in a few years when gold is \$5000 an ounce and one BTC costs 20K.

  7. 没关系

    US has more depth.

    It’s like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn’t all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.

    This is why Globalists are pushing all this anti-Russian hysteria. If Americans are made to think Russia is the enemy, then IF war breaks out between the US and Russia, Americans will be totally for a War Economy.

    US has resources 20x that of Russia.

    So, Russia must be defensive and avoid war with US at any cost.

  8. I think, Saker, that you mistake the role of “war” in America today. The point is not to win. If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let ‘er rip.

    As in so many things, the progressive Germans showed the way. We learned from Hitler that the only way to avoid depressions, maintain full employment while giving bankers a free hand, stimulate research and development while creating steady demand to prop up domestic industry is through ever increasing military expenditures. As was demonstrated during the Roosevelt administration and in Japan today government spending on infrastructure just won’t provide enough demand to keep things ticking along smoothly. The only ism American economists and politicians believe in is military Keynesianism.

    Americans have long had a reputation for being overoptimistic; some say, naively so. They consistently overestimate the power of positive thinking. This pragmatism works until one day, it doesn’t.

    But don’t underestimate America, Saker. When the dross has burned off, when today’s Washington D.C. posers are ground to dust, there is a core of very hard steel in tough-minded men whose presence is not obvious to the outsider simply because there is no place for them in the phony veneer that America projects today. But under the right conditions they will emerge. America, like Russia, was a wild frontier country not too long ago. Those were some hard-bitten men who swept the Indians off the plains, cleared timber, plowed soil with mules, hewed logs and fished offshore in small boats. Their grandsons live today.

  9. Cyrano 说:

    I think that Pierre de Coubertin would be proud of US for living according to the Olympic principle: It’s not important to win, but to participate. And then let someone else win the wars and then take credit for it.

    Like in WW2 when USSR did all the fighting and then after the war they discovered that communism is not “democratic”. The shock there, good think that they found out that in time to start the Cold war and prevent their former undemocratic allies from “taking over the world”.

    Then in the 80’s they decided to start harnessing the power of Islam in order to fight their wars on the cheap (without too many losses of US lives) I guess you can say the peaceful country met the peaceful religion and of course great things can happen when 2 such great pacifistic entities join forces.

    Of course soon after they started using Islam to fight their wars for them, they also conveniently discovered that they too are not democratic, so the war on terror started in order to make sure that their “allies” don’t make too many gains at the expense of democracy.

  10. peterAUS 说:

    …The only ism American economists and politicians believe in is military Keynesianism….

    同意。
    And have a hunch that the majority of American citizens don’t mind it either.
    At least as long as it doesn’t affect their own life and limb.

    And, somehow, have the same hunch for the rest of developed countries.
    With new NATO members on top of it.

  11. @Randal

    I largely agree except france and Britain did the bulk of the work in WWI, and the USSR shouldered the main war effort in WWII. But that is part of American military strength, because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.

    It would be interesting to play around with a counter-factual ‘Pact of Steel’ between Germany and Russia in WWII rather than Germany and Italy. The enormous strategic depth and resources of Russia would equalize the American advantages you enumerated. US strategic thinkers still fret about a union of German technical and industrial might with the military power and resources of the modern Russian state (plus Russia’s technical capital). That’s why, contrary to MSM propaganda, Russia doesn’t really care either way about the EU (which is run by Germany anyway). It cares about NATO and American influence, since this is what undermines Putin’s vision of a Lisbon to Vladivostok Europe (which really means a Berlin-Moscow axis that would confine Washington’s European presence to the British Isles).

  12. Does anybody else get tired of the way the Saker waffles on like a chatty old woman, or possibly a gay man? Such a fussy, mawkish tone.

    • 不同意: Dan Hayes
  13. Erebus 说:

    A “war” between great powers today is probably impossible. Nobody is going to march on Moscow, or send gunboats up the Yangtze. What there may well be are short, ferociously paced and destructive encounters in limited, off-shore theatres. Here, Russia has the advantage.

    Taking Syria as the test case, the Russian contingent is microscopic compared to in-theatre USM forces and prima facie could be overwhelmed pretty quickly. Their size means they can’t win, per se, but it also means that Russia doesn’t lose much should they be attacked.
    Meanwhile, compare that to USM assets that would be destroyed in that hypothetical exchange. CENTCOM Doha and the 5th Fleet in Manama would be gone, along with any other participating/supporting asset. The Russians could probably be back pounding ISIS within a month, while the USM’s M.E. presence would probably end. Everything about the USM, from its doctrines, to its training, leadership, weapons and materiel require countless layers of redundancy to operate at all. Replacing that would be all but politically/economically/technically impossible without seriously degrading their presence somewhere else (Japan? Germany?), and so America would cease to be a force to be reckoned with in the M.E. The USM knows it, and so have let a tiny Russian force have its way while it loses credibility, allies’ confidence and strategic advantage every day it continues to stand down.

    As Andrei Martyanov pointed out in his 800lb Gorilla post here on UNZ, Russia’s superiority in stand-off, high precision weapons means it doesn’t have to leave its own territory to launch devastating attacks against USM M.E. theatre assets. For the US to retaliate, they would have to attack Russian territory, and that instantly turns it into a very, very different war as the US homeland suddenly becomes fair game. Even if restricted to conventional weapons, the results could be devastating to any Imperial, or even National, ambitions the US could still be entertaining. Short of nuclear, the Russians win walking away.

  14. animalogic 说:
    @Anonymous

    Absolutely right thomas: should the US lose its reserve currency status & should the world grow weary of funding its various self indulgent deficits it will be interesting to see whether its defense budget & its Imperial pretensions can be maintained.

    • 同意: Beefcake the Mighty
    • 回复: @Jim Christian
  15. Randal 说:
    @peterAUS

    Cheers, Peter.

    As you say, old ground. But hopefully that means opinions are being refined to take into account valid points made by the other side 🙂

  16. Randal 说:
    @Lemurmaniac

    I largely agree except france and Britain did the bulk of the work in WWI, and the USSR shouldered the main war effort in WWII. But that is part of American military strength, because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.

    Indeed. And to some extent the US inherited some of the advantages Saker sets out from the British Empire, which had used them to leverage its global empire against the military and industrial superiority of Germany (over Britain).

  17. Randal 说:
    @Priss Factor

    US has more depth.

    It’s like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn’t all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.

    That’s seriously open to question these days. In the C20th the US was the workshop of the world. When the initial stocks of war-fighting material were exhausted or committed, the US could create more and better, faster than any other state in the world. Is that still true now that China is the world’s workshop?

    If and when there were a “limited war” with China of the kind Bannon and his ilk have suggested, after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?

    Does modern technology mean that most factories are no longer needed? Can an economy configured for just in time delivery of consumer goods be retooled to produce high tech war material quickly and effectively?

  18. The bottom line was this: US forces were better equipped (quantitatively and, sometimes, even qualitatively) than the others and they could muster firepower in amounts difficult to achieve for their enemies.

    The US had numbers, but the US was not qualitatively superior to the Germans in WW2. The Sherman tank, as just one example, was a track laying coffin against the run of the mill German Panzer. The P-51D had the advantage of numbers and range, but the Germans were fighting in their own skies and both the Bf-109 and FW-190 were the equal of the Mustang. The US had an advantage of a large rear area to train a bunch of pilots and the German pilot was required to fly until he died, and the shear numbers finally overwhelmed them.

    Such things is what led Stalin to say that quantity has its own quality.

    After WWII the US was the only major industrialized country on the planet whose industry had not been blown to smithereens and for the next couple of decades the US enjoyed a situation close to quasi total monopoly.

    British Industry was not blown to smithereens either. Same with Canadian Industry. Both did quite well after the war.

    And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA,

    You didn’t keep up. The Soviets predicated much of their planning on initiating nuclear war. The Stavka firmly believed that nuke war could be won.

    Suffice to say that the Americans could not even begin to contemplate executing the number of sorties the tiny Russian Aerospace task force in Syria has achieved.

    In their deteriorated state, the US Air Forces would have serious problems maintaining any sort of reasonable sortie rate. The fact that not much is being asked of the Russian units in Syria really doesn’t give much to work with when it comes to an argument of this sort.

    but the fact is that most of them know nothing about Hegelian dialectics. They. therefore, view things in a static way, not as processes.

    Hegelian dialectics are not needed to avoid static thinking. Hegelian philosophy is simply one way of think of things. It’s truly buffoonish to think it requires Hegelian dialectics. Hegelian dialectics is one of the factors that sunk the Soviet Union.

    Paul Craig Roberts will remain a lone voice crying in the desert.

    Perhaps Roberts is right about some things. He’s been far to shrill and silly and it has affected his credibility, so few people listen to him. Is the curse of a man that he can’t discipline himself and so husband his credibility so people will listen to him when it really counts.

    • 回复: @peterAUS
    , @Mefobills
    , @AndrewR
  19. @Erebus

    Everything about the USM, from its doctrines, to its training, leadership, weapons and materiel require countless layers of redundancy to operate at all. Replacing that would be all but politically/economically/technically impossible without seriously degrading their presence somewhere else (Japan? Germany?), and so America would cease to be a force to be reckoned with in the M.E. The USM knows it, and so have let a tiny Russian force have its way while it loses credibility, allies’ confidence and strategic advantage every day it continues to stand down.

    Bravo! I think the discussion thread after that could be simply closed. Succinct and concise statement of the essence of this huge issue.

  20. 这篇文章有太多要批评的地方。

    至于德国人,他们必须在无情的轰炸下生产

    Yes. And who was conducting that bombing campaign and built all those bombers? It wasn’t the Red Army. That bombing campaign also forced the Germans to divert 88-mm tubes to air-defense, taking a lot of pressure off the Red Army on the Eastern Front.

    战略、作战技能、地理和当代因素对于计算优势与武器质量和训练同样重要。 忽略这些因素会使您的论点变得琐碎且不那么相关。

    (即使是苏联人也比美国人更快地连接点并从阿富汗撤军!)。

    The Soviets lost 15,000 soldiers in Afghanistan while killing as many as 2 million Afghans. And then the Soviet Union collapsed. The American “capitalist” system didn’t collapse after Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Why no mention of that?

    相反,你想说的是:

    还有一件事。 不再赘述我的论点,即美国人没有受过足够的教育,无法理解基本的马克思主义理论,但事实是他们中的大多数人对黑格尔辩证法一无所知。

    But some do. And those that do might be asking themselves what the hell this has to do with anything. Your explanation, which is pure opinion as you so kindly pointed out in your second paragraph, doesn’t cut it. Feelings are not facts.

    As 棱镜系数 pointed out, it doesn’t matter.

    • 巨魔: FB
    • 回复: @Lurker
    , @Sad Sack
    , @Noah Way
  21. @Lemurmaniac

    because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.

    Not anymore. By around 2022-2025 it will be completely over. Competent people in US military know this. I am not talking about nuclear weapons, only conventional.

    • 回复: @survey-of-disinfo
  22. @Randal

    If and when there were a “limited war” with China of the kind Bannon and his ilk have suggested, after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?

    1. Navies are extremely complex and irreplaceable in the modern warfare–once the hard kill was obtained, there is no way to replace the loss within the time framework of hypothetical conventional peer-to-peer conflict. Loss of a single CVN and its CBG may have catastrophic consequences for political leadership and may, in fact, create enormous pressures for nuclear retaliation.

    2. Cruise missiles are easier to replace, especially for Russia in conventional conflict say with US since most facilities of NPO Raduga (part of Concern Tactical Missile Systems) is in and around Moscow and the means an immense Air Defense System. Yet, the first salvo and head-on one (otvetno-vstrechnyi udar) matter a great deal.

    3. Once the first phase, both in the sea and in the land concludes, on the sea it is a First Operation, on the land–a stand off phase, things eventually will come back (if there will be resources and will to continue) to a classic combined arms warfare which on the land will involve a fall back to stocks of older equipment, such as tanks, self-propelled artillery, not-SMART munitions and it is here where quantity would matter a great deal. In other words–legacy systems and mobilization factor could become (together with materiel) a decisive factor. I, however, don’t think that it will come down to this.

    With hyper sonic missiles coming on-line in several years, for US this becomes a paradigm-shifting moment, because without Navy I see not much conventional threat really from US ground forces.

    • 回复: @bb.
    , @Ron Unz
  23. bb. 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Not completely OT but, what do you make of the ”harvesting of russian tissue”(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-01/us-air-force-admits-harvesting-russian-tissue) and the potential of bio warfare becoming a thing? genetics is advancing considerably. a designer flu could considerably cripple productivity. It may not work in the long run but could supplement first strike capabilities.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
    , @Cyrano
  24. @Priss Factor

    U.S. power – indeed, all major countries’ power – have been degraded over the past 50 or so years for two reasons.

    First, nuclear deterrence makes any major war somewhat inconceivable. Also, Americans would never stomach the massive losses a major war against Russia or China would entail. We get the vapors over a few thousand men dying over a decade. What happens when tens of thousands of our guys are getting killed over a weekend, over and over and over.

    Wouldn’t happen. I also suspect that Russia and China would have a tough time with that as well.

    Second, smaller countries now have a tried and true blueprint for defeating major powers (except, perhaps, China): Don’t fight like Western countries, fight in the traditional Eastern style. Avoid large, open area, decisive battles. Let them roll into your country. Pull you fighters into the mountains or the jungle or hidden in large cities. Let things settle down, then begin the real war. Harass their troops. Draw them into ambushes. Kill their local puppet leaders. Don’t hurt civilians (except, of course, local puppets) but do force your opponent to kill civilians during battles.

    Always remember, we live here, they don’t. Grind them down and they will leave.

    That plan has worked repeatedly. The only powerful country that has managed to stall that plan is Israel with the Palestinians, but that’s mainly because the Jews, in fact, do live there, or, at least, next door, so it’s worth continuing the fight.

    Eventually, the U.S. will pull out of Afghanistan with very little to show for its effort, defeated by a bunch of goat-herders. We’ll also leave Iraq in God knows what condition.

    Now, if the U.S. had any sense, it’d understand that it is capable to doing some serious damage to the people and their supporters running a country. Basically, we tell some group running a country, “Can we take over and rebuild your country so that it’s a functioning ally of the U.S., probably not. But we can destroy you and your extended family so some other group has a good chance of taking over. Your country will still be a shithole and hate us, but someone else will be running the show. Therefore, you should play ball.”

    That’s not an insignficant amount of power. But this idea that we can come in and rebuild a country is stupid.

  25. Dutch Boy 说:

    Nobody would win a nuclear war and I don’t foresee any American deployment of troops to Eastern Europe large enough to overcome the Russian advantage in men and materiel already in place there (weapons superiority aside). Any such war by us there would be foolish to the nth degree, since we have nothing to gain and much to lose (possibly including our existence).

  26. @bb.

    what do you make of the ”harvesting of russian tissue”

    I have to go with Putin’s (that is intelligence services’) assessment here that it could, probably, be nefarious and biological weapons research related. Having said that–I am a complete dumber with anything connected to biological warfare and am not even pretending to know one way or another. I recall two semesters with of ZOMP (Defense from Weapons of Mass Destruction–in reality it is Porazhenie, a bit different) dedicated specifically to biological and chemical weapons, man I hated it with all my heart. Nukes are more interesting. As per First Strike Capability–anything is possible in this respect and I wouldn’t exclude the use of all arsenal, with the exception of nukes, including a “genetics” bio-weapons. Certainly not impossible.

  27. Ron Unz 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    As a non-military expert, one thing that strikes me is the near-perfect fit between the existing strengths of Russia and China, which are currently in a loose quasi-alliance against the general bullying of The American Empire.

    Obviously, Russia has vast natural resources, including energy, while China has the world’s largest industrial base, which requires such resources and energy supplies. But this ideal meshing also seems particularly strong in military matters.

    Based on this article and a few previous ones, it sounds like Russia has achieved considerable superiority to America in various aspects of advanced military technology, much more so than China. But Russia’s industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn’t hope to match America in the production side of World War II.

    However, China’s industrial production base is considerably larger than America’s, and if it were geared up in producing Russian military-designs (which obviously Russia would be loathe to provide) it would easily beat America in the War of Production.

    So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can’t be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

    Does this sound correct from a military perspective?

  28. Anonymous [又名“ Carlos5432”] 说:

    The US position is more of a paradox. Its targeting Russia to weaken China to maintain its global hedgemony, but any war would see both countries destroyed leaving China the worlds dominant power.

    The US is much more developed than Russia so has more to loose. It has numerous bases within 1000km of Russia that would be targeted and destroyed, by comparison Russia has vertually none. As someone on here already stated they could hit Russia back directly but then your into MAD territory.

    The most logical choice for the US is to make peace with Russia which its people have alot in common with. Just like ironically far sighted Trump tried to initially do before he was stopped by his arogant stupid party and the democrats.

  29. peterAUS 说:
    @Randal

    after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?

    Does modern technology mean that most factories are no longer needed? Can an economy configured for just in time delivery of consumer goods be retooled to produce high tech war material quickly and effectively?

    新的 症结 of the issue, IMHO.

    We did chat a bit about this re Iran (and NK) option, not quite China, though.

    Taking into account that with Keynesian militarism, well, I believe that’s the 核心 of US elites thinking.

  30. @Ron Unz

    But Russia’s industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn’t hope to match America in the production side of World War II.

    In Naval terms, absolutely true. US Navy, especially, has a world-class and numerically superior fleet of attack submarines. It is also somewhat true in terms of combat aviation, but Russian aerospace literally is getting in overdrive as I type this. In terms of cruise missiles–capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design. This is not to mention the fact that there some very large stocks of legacy tanks, most of which can be returned to active status after servicing and updating. So, I would say, that Russia is not really dependent on China’s manufacturing base for key-components plus China drags a generation or two behind Russia in combat aviation and I don’t see Russia allowing China to produce any advanced weapon system. Interestingly, it was a “father” of Russia’s disastrous military reform (until Shoigu stepped in), Colonel Vitaliy Shlykov of 10th (Military-Economic Analytical) Directorate of GRU who turned out completely… right when he predicted that US manufacturing capacity in tanks was grossly overstated, which is absolutely true, and US tank production was simply insufficient to deal with Soviet, and now even with Russian tank production. Plant in Lima, certainly, can produce good quantity of M1A2s given a financing–but those are:

    1. Not as good as was always advertised;
    2. Not a good tank for war around Russia in what will become a horrendously dense ATGMs and helicopter environment.
    3. Granted, that these tanks will even make it over Atlantic.

    In general, what Russia has (including manufacturing capacity) is more than sufficient for operations 300-600 kilometers away from Russian borders.

    So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can’t be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

    Does this sound correct from a military perspective?

    Yes, if China would be on par generation-wise and design-wise in her weapon systems with Russia–that would be a terrifying force with overwhelming power. But that is the whole thing: Chinese are insatiable for Russia’s domestic versions of combat aircraft, AD systems, cruise missiles etc. It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic–from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs–all in Russian. I find this rather peculiar, moreover, Chines asked to be it that way. Go figure.

  31. @Randal

    “Whether the US “won” in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. ”

    Everybody knows the motivation was to eliminate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Iraq no longer possesses WMD’s so the US won! Small caveat. There were never WMD’s so the war was unnecessary. The military industrial complex did make a killing though (no pun intended). Just a coincidence I suppose

    • 回复: @dearieme
  32.  

    The Russian Navy Is Powerful (But Suffers from 2 Big Fatal Flaws)

    But the problem for the Russian Navy is that the vessel’s gas-turbine engines are built by Zorya-Mashproekt in Ukraine—a legacy of the Soviet Union. “The frigate program has run into a mess because of Ukrainian engines,” Kofman said. “They’re looking at substantial delays of probably at least five years.”

    On the positive side, the Russians have learned to maintain and overhaul Ukrainian-made engines onboard their existing ships, Kofman said. However, the solution was to hire as many Ukrainian technicians as possible who were willing to work in Russia. Kofman noted Russia has not yet been able to indigenously produce its own gas turbines to replace those currently installed in its fleet. But Moscow is exploring the purchase of Chinese-built engines (which are “derived” from German engines made by MTU and China similarly benefitted from extensive cooperation with Ukraine in this sphere).

     

    Dr. Tom Fedyszyn on the State of the Russian Navy

    The Russian economy is built on exporting minerals (mostly oil and gas). Below that, it’s arms exports. They export almost as much as we do! But they have such a small economy that their arms sales really matter. So, when you look at Russian military capability, sometimes that’s just a small part of why they deploy. A larger part of why they deploy is to show off what type of technology they have and to try to sell it. You mentioned the Indian Navy. When I was in Moscow, there were more Indian officers there than from any other nation. U.S. was second. Why? Because the Russians, by the default of politics, ended up selling India its navy. Still today, about 70 percent of the Indian Navy is Russian.

    I’ve spoken to lots of Indian Navy officers about this. The sense is that they don’t like the Russian ships, they don’t work too well, they’re suboptimal, but they can afford them. The U.S. has this double-whammy where we’re not that good at selling high technology, and when we sell it, it costs a lot of money. And the Indian budget makes them buy Russian – and they continue to buy Russian. So, should the Russians be able to continue to build the Shtorm, India would be the most likely nation that would buy it.

    But remember, of course, Russia just sold and delivered to them the Vikramaditiya, a ski-jump carrier which was 4 years overdue, 300 percent over budget, and every Indian naval officer I’ve spoken to has said, “Well, it’s not a good ship, but we needed an aircraft carrier and we could afford it, so we got what we got.”

  33. Ron Unz 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    In terms of cruise missiles–capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design.

    That’s absolutely astonishing if correct. Consider that the U.S. now has well over twice Russia’s population, avoided the total collapse of the USSR industrial economy, and also controls the productive potential of many hundreds of millions of Europeans, plus has for decades had a military budget many, many times larger than that of Russia’s.

    If Russia can indeed now roughly match America’s quantitative military potential while possesses qualitative superiority in many areas, that truly underscores the disastrously total incompetence of America’s ruling political, intellectual, and economic elites.

    • 同意: Dan Hayes
  34. peterAUS 说:

    不错的线程。

    Some things 只是 made sense around here. And in a, say, wider area, as well.

    One could call it a moment of 明晰.

    In a word…excellent……really.

  35. @Ron Unz

    That’s absolutely astonishing if correct. Consider that the U.S. now has well over twice Russia’s population, avoided the total collapse of the USSR industrial economy, and also controls the productive potential of many hundreds of millions of Europeans, plus has for decades had a military budget many, many times larger than that of Russia’s.

    I would say that static numbers, while obviously important, do not reflect a complete dynamic picture whenever we deal with any military-warfare issue. Here is, for example, how many in US were judging dyadic relations in military sphere:

    This is from Biddle’s famous treatise on Military Power. But what is always forgotten–what for is the military power? Russia cares only about own safety, the safety of her borders and immediate geographic vicinity. For that she has more than enough military and industrial capability to meet any single or combination of threats. She also can call the bluff in those areas. In simpler terms, Russia, paradoxically has a greater strategic depth and much shorter and secure lines of communications. Now comes the issue which is not easily quantifiable: even if to assume that US “controls” manufacturing base of Europe. We need to start with two things, even assuming a success of NATO propaganda:

    1. How many Europeans would want to fight and die for the US? NATO? The narrative is not easily controlled today, it stops being effective the moment first Iskanders or X-101s fly in.

    2. US military knows that it cannot “defeat” Russia conventionally in her vicinity–for starters it will have to deal with, even if to assume pure dyadic superiority, with something it never dealt before in its history–huge damage to own C4 centers and with logistics which will be interdicted. As Colonel Douglas Macgregor stated:

    在110年与德国军队在法国作战的1918天中,美国陆军远征军共造成318,000人伤亡,其中包括110,000人阵亡。 那是致命的杀伤力,等待着美军在未来与真正的军队,空军,防空和海军的战争中。

    http://nation.time.com/2012/12/03/usmc-under-utilized-superfluous-military-capability/

    What will be the reaction in the US when these 110 000 killed will be, indeed, in roughly 100 days? I don’t think Western public in general, and especially US public, has any grasp of what is that nor is it ready for it. Russia WILL mobilize and arm additional 1-1.5 million troops (why and how–separate topic), US will not be able to do so without implosion at home. I don’t think so that even in a controlled narrative environment that kind of casualties will be concealed. Those who don’t remember, I remember it very clearly, how US did everything in its power to relegate RK-55 Sampson (Granat) TLAMs in 1980s to, initially, storage and then as far away from Victor-III (pr. 671 RTMK) and later Akula-class SSGNs. It all starts there, while Tomahawk received much publicity, very few people wanted to admit that USSR already had a lead in range. Today Russia has an immense advantage in range (10 000 km TLAMs can easily be launched at any US location with carriers not even leaving Russia’s airspace) and is closing gap in numbers. So, in this case even the issue of manufacturing base, which US still have larger than that of Russia in terms of 一些 military hardware–nobody denies that–the problem for US is doctrinal. Just some questions:

    1. How one defends CBG against 12 P-800 or 3M54 salvo? How can one defends against 3M22 Zircon 4-8 missile salvo? There are NO answers to that. None, zilch, do not exist in nature and all this laser cats technology etc. is just that-fantasy.

    2. United States tries to develop a PGS (Prompt Global Strike) capabilities–hyper-sonic gliders and all that. Does it have advantage here? No, Russia is ahead in that. In general, hyper-sonic theme is a “Russian” national weapon theme. M=4.3+ X-32 are already deployed and fully operational. Yu-71, meanwhile, is flying already.

    Far from having its manufacturing base shrink, US problem is in concept of warfare and incompetence of people who defined US military views for decades. Again, size of American military budget doesn’t matter, as I stated already–for a cost of a single, not yet existing, Columbia-class SSBN, Russians paid for already floating or getting ready state-of-the-art nuclear deterrent of 8 (eight) Borey-class SSBNs. Just think about it:

    美国: 1 Columbia-class SSBN= roughly \$ 8.5 billion (doesn’t exist yet)
    俄国: 8 Borey-class SSBNs= roughly \$ 8.5 billion. (3 afloat, 5 getting ready)

    I will abstain from commenting on quality of American weapon systems–some of them are really good, others not so much and a lot of them are expensive junk. So, in real combat capability, Russia gets several times a proverbial bang-for-a-buck and the gap continues to grow. There are currently NO American publicly known “analyst” (hasn’t been in decades) who ever predicted anything, or assessed anything correctly when it comes to Russia, with ONE single exception of a brilliant and prolific Norman Polmar, who used to be in a top form whenever talking about Soviet and Russian Navy issues. He is losing this form today. Most American views on warfare are shaped by late Tom Clancy’s drivel and in general–detached from reality. As I stated–it is clear and present danger, because there very many people in D.C. who still think that they can go and win in Russia or against Russia. Consequences of this delusion could be catastrophic. Is this a result of incompetence? Absolutely. As one American general stated in 1990s (don’t remember who)–the worst thing which could have happened to us was the victory over Saddam, they way it was obtained. My book is dedicated to this issue precisely. Just look at F-35, it is embarrassing that once great combat aircraft nation such as US drove itself to THAT–expensive flying junk, but yes, so “stealthy”. Look at two Zumwalt-class DDGs–\$ 4.1 billion for a thing which is nothing more than floating 2 155-mm cannons battery (add some TLAMs). It is sheer tactical and operational insanity and fleecing. Smart people, and there are plenty of those in US can see where it is all going. Russian Power Metal stalwarts Aria in 1986 in their Hero of Asphalt album had a super-hit called Rose Street, essentially it is about a glamour prostitute and there is a beautiful line in that song:

    “And she breaks the clock to extend her life”.(c)

    I by no means imply that US is a glamour prostitute, but there is no doubt, considering delusion and incompetence, and arrogance of US “elites” that it may (and the probability is, sadly, high) try to “break the clock” to “extend its life”. The consequences of that will be catastrophic for all. Here is my verbose and hopefully to the point answer to your question.

  36. FB 说:

    Well…the original comments by Paul Craig Roberts were specific to Russian 技术 advances…

    具体来说 超燃冲压发动机 engine technology on the Zirkon missile…and the maneuvering-glide re-entry vehicle on the Sarmat ICBM…

    Now the author of this article has taken several thousand words to make the issue more muddy instead of clear…and has deflected a question of 示意图 into one of war-fighting ability and even politics…

    Let’s first get our bearings…

    Major breakthroughs in 示意图 have shaped the course of history…

    Let’s go back to medieval times and look at a simple device that had such an impact…the humble ...

    Throughout history mounted warfare meant a soldier sitting on a horse’s back with no way to keep his own legs attached his mount…for any equestrians here, try riding without stirrups sometime and see how you feel…not much better than bareback…

    ‘…The introduction of the stirrup not only made the mounted warrior 最高 in medieval warfare, but may have initiated complex and far-reaching social and cultural changes in Europe…’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#Great_Stirrup_Controversy

    The fact that it took human civilization thousands of years to come up with the stirrup tells us that 真实 technology change does not always move quickly…

    Let’s fast forward to the closing days of WW2…

    We all know that the jet engine was a game-changer in military technology…

    The jet engine aircraft was first fielded by the Germans… the Messerschmitt Me262…followed closely by the British…but both the US and Russia quickly caught up within the space of a couple of years…

    After more than 70 years the jet engine is still a vital military technology…

    We note here that for all of China’s technical progress in recent years…it is still not able to produce a domestic jet engine on a par with Russia or even the US…

    这是严重的 阻力 to air combat capability…

    For all the amateur talk in the popular press about stealth and electronics…the real beef in aircraft comes down to two things…engine performance…and aerodynamic performance…and in that order...

    Now I don’t want to dwell on the jet engine too long here because I want to move on to the 超燃冲压发动机 engine…which is going to be a much gamechanger than the jet engine itself…

    But I will provide a link here to a true expert opinion on jet aircraft…a legendary USAF test pilot and one of the most influential thinkers on combat aircraft design…Col. Everest E. Riccione…[here’s a link to his obit…]

    http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/military-people-and-ideas/2015/member-of-fighter-mafia-passes.html

    Now we all know that the F35 has a lot of doubters [for very good reasons] but the F22 ‘Raptor’ is universally hailed as some kind of undisputed champion of the air…

    For those interested enough to read what a man who had a lot to do with the design of the F15, F16 and F18 has to say about the F22…then this 23 page document is an easy and enjoyable read…

    http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

    In essence…air combat is about the unbending laws of physics…and if you can’t make aircraft that can hold a piece of sky you want to protect then you will lose…it’s as simple as that…

    So what does this have to do with the Zirkon missile…?

    In one word…it’s the 发动机…a scramjet engine to be precise…

    Now most people have no idea what this is and why it is such a breakthrough…in a word it is 速度...

    The same way that the jet engine made piston engines and propellers obsolete because they could fly circles around them…the scramjet engine will give us aircraft that no jet aircraft can keep up with…

    A quick attempt at explaining engine technology…the simplest jet engine is a balloon you blow up and then release…and watch it zip around the room…

    The reason it does that is the air you blew into it…every type of heat engine needs compressed air…whether piston or jet…

    那是因为 仅由 pressure energy can be converted to work energy…adding heat by burning fuel only lets us do more with the pressure energy our engine is designed to produce in the first place…either by a piston moving up and compressing the air in a cylinder…or a row of rotating compressor blades on a jet engine…

    Ie… just burning fuel without compression will not produce any mechanical motion…

    A jet engine is a very simple device that uses a set of rotating blades at the front of the engine to 压缩 incoming air…

    That compressed air is then fed into a combustion chamber, where fuel is added and burned 一直...

    That hot, compressed air then flows into another set of rotating blades, using its heat and pressure energy to turn that turbine wheel…which in turn is attached by a solid shaft to the compressor at the front…

    The excess energy coming out of the turbine is squeezed through a nozzle, which speeds up the exhaust flow and creates thrust…[we get excess energy because we also put in fuel energy which lets us do the work of driving the compressor…and still have some left over…]

    This type of engine can make tremendous power for its weight and size…orders of magnitude more than any other kind of 呼吸空气 引擎…

    Now…when you get to a very high speed…say about twice the speed of sound [Mach 2]…you can actually throw all of that machinery away and just run what is sometimes called a ‘stovepipe’ or ramjet engine…

    Here there is no need for a compressor because the aircraft is moving so fast through the air that the air rammed into the engine inlet is already compressed…and since you don’t need a turbine wheel to drive the compressor wheel…you need no moving parts at all…

    Ramjet engines are used in missiles but not aircraft because they can’t make any thrust while they are standing still…[no ram effect obviously…]

    So a rocket motor is used to launch the missile to get it up to speed…then the spent rocket motor drops off and the ramjet engine takes over…

    This type of engine is good to about M5 [five times the speed of sound]…but then it hits its physical limits…

    Those limits can be overcome only if the airflow through that engine is not slowed down to subsonic speed as it is in a ramjet…but allowed to continue to move through the engine itself at supersonic speed…

    The big hurdle in all this is how to get fuel to burn in the very short time that this fast-moving air spends inside that engine…

    [like the ramjet the scramjet engine is basically a tube with a very specific interior shape for reasons of physics that I will not get into here…it has no moving parts…]

    The scramjet engine can go very fast…the Zirkon has reportedly been successfully flown at M8…

    However…just like the ramjet…the scramjet engine can’t make any thrust while standing still, or even at low speeds…

    So the big challenge that is still on the horizon is to find a way to integrate a conventional jet engine with a scramjet…in order to go from takeoff to 轨道 speed in a single vehicle…

    In other words a 空间平面 that can circle the earth in about an hour and a half…

    Clearly this will be a game-changing technology…anyone who gets a jump on this…well…the other guy might as well give up…

    The Zirkon has apparently mastered the scramjet part…but it still needs to be launched by a rocket motor…

    Ie…the part about making it an aircraft that can take off under its own power has not yet been accomplished…

    However the US is behind in its own scramjet technology…this is not surprising if we review the history of this technology…

    ‘…The first successful flight test of a Scramjet was performed by the Soviet Union in 1991…’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet#Before_2000

    Then…after the collapse of the Soviet Union…the Russians were willing to share this new technology with the West…

    ‘…Then from 1992 to 1998 an additional 6 flight tests of the axisymmetric high-speed scramjet-demonstrator were conducted by CIAM together with France and then with NASA, USA…’

    A 1998 Nasa technical report outlines those flight tests…

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88580main_H-2243.pdf

    This was in effect a technology transfer to the US from Russia…and allowed the US side to quickly get in the game…

    However…what we have seen since then is 非常慢 progress in the West…the US has had some experimental flights…but their technology is far from being production ready…

    Now for many technical observers in the field this is kind of puzzling…but at the same time…not really…

    There is one simple fact underpinning any nation’s technical capability…and that is its educational and scientific infrastructure…

    It should not be surprising that the Russians are winning the technology race at this point in time…in the 1980s there was a famous quip in the technical community that Russia graduated 10 times as many engineers as the US…but the US graduated 10 times as many lawyers…

    Anyone in the technical and aerospace field who has been to Russia…and to places like Zhukovsky and the adjacent Gromov Flight Test Center…and also has first-hand esperience with Nasa’s infrastructure is 时刻 very surprised…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TsAGI

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gromov_Flight_Research_Institute

    But we really shouldn’t be surprised…

    These kinds of intellectual infrastructure don’t just spring up all by themselves…the magic of the ‘invisible hand’ of the market is quite 无用 in this type of endeavor…

    In the US…the govt has of course been responsible for developing Nasa and that intellectual infrastructure…But the commitment over the years has been erratic and inconsistent…

    Even now you have clowns like Elon Musk who are convincing people that ‘private’ enterprise will beat the govt in space technology…but how many people has Elon Musk sent into space…?

    [Of course Musk doesn’t mind getting huge sums of money from the govt…which is buying into his song and dance…]

    The other factor is cultural…young people in the US aren’t interested in mathematics or phsyics…it’s just too hard…you actually have to work that brain…

    They would all rather be tv stars…or singers…or at least contestants on some talent show…

    Engineers and scientists aren’t valued in the US system…that’s the bottom line…

    These vital professions are forced to mediocrity by a system where the scramble for quick profit takes precedence over all else…

    In terms of America’s technical capability going forward…it is a race to the bottom…incidentally these professions in the US are now dominated by the children of Asian immigrants…

    Russia too has reason to worry…although the culture rot has not taken a death grip just yet…

    In China…it’s a different story…the government is actively doing all it can to build its intellectual infrastructure…

    They are building up their academic infrastructure in the 硬科学…and the Chinese culture places high value on engineers and scientists…

    The best bright young people are 系统地 channeled into hard science programs…as they once were in the Soviet model…

    This process of building up the intellectual infrastructure takes time but it will come…

    By then it may well be too late for the US to compete in any kind of technical endeavor…

    And with that will go its military capability…and eventually even the ability to defend itself from more technically advanced rivals…

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  37. dearieme 说:
    @Randal

    “the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation”. Defeated only with allies, though:

    WWI was won by the British and French, welcome though the American troops undoubtedly were.

    WWII against Germany was won first by the British hanging on by their fingernails and then by the Red Army taking huge casualties to expel the Germans and then conquer them.

    Even the US triumph against Japan depended in part on most of the Japanese army being tied down in China throughout the war.

    • 回复: @Rich
  38. dearieme 说:
    @The Scalpel

    Wasn’t the purpose to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Switzerland?

  39. Mikel 说:

    有趣的评论。

    But, perhaps due to my lack of Hegelian analytical skills, the author has not convinced me that Russia has a military technological advantage over the US.

    I would be more persuaded if I had some hard evidence that all those Kalibr missiles are really hitting their targets with reasonable precision in Syria. Or if the Syrians, with their Russian AA defense systems, could manage to shoot down some Israeli plane/drone/missile at least 一旦.

    • 回复: @Roy
  40. anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    If we look at the list of US military aggressions after Vietnam (see here or here) we can clearly see that the US military specialized in attacking defenseless countrie

    Not since Vietnam but all along from the Spanish-American war of 1898 until today. Both world wars were entered at the very last moment when the other combatants were already bled white. Vietnam and Korea were something of a miscalculation. This opportunistic preying upon weak opponents is the US’s winning strategy and although it’s easily derided as cowardly, treacherous, etc, it’s also one that works and has gained the US much benefit. This is in contrast to the stupid and suicidal Europeans who’ve hurled themselves at each other like wild dogs, killing millions of their own people and destroying their own countries in the process. All that to fight over which group would gain the upper hand in a relatively limited area.
    No point in thinking in terms of the past, in this case WWII. There’ll be no more grand land invasions, huge tank battles, multi-million massed armies. There’s about three centers which are strong where they are but could never conquer the other. Conflict emerges when one party tries to move into territory another believes to fall within their orbit, such as Ukraine, or when areas a party feels it can do as it pleases becomes contested as in Syria and the ME. There could be limited conflict in the peripheral areas but not full-blown war as everyone realizes that the gains would be outweighed by the costs. Were the US to decide to invade, say, Venezuela and turn it into a huge forced labor camp then who’s to stop them? Who’s going to fight to the death to save them? Conversely, no American would have an interest in dying to “save” Georgia or Uzbekistan. The world is being divided up and what falls under whose umbrella is what’s at stake here. That’s all it is.

    • 回复: @The Scalpel
  41. @ThreeCranes

    If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let ‘er rip

    THAT’S rich. 20,000,000 men? Really? And in the present day, faggy, feminist, transgendered United States which has been putting the kind of MEN you’re talking about OUT of the military in favor of the feminist, faggy and tranny, where are you to find these 20,000,000 men? Or even 2,000,000? It’s because of the high percentage of the faggy, feminist and tranny that we don’t even HAVE 2,000,000 able-bodied ACTUAL men left in this country of the sort of stuff of the men in those pictures.

    Yeah, the MIC is fatally flawed, has been since the beginning of Gee-Whiz widget military budgets, but the overriding factor is the people you would put to sea, to the air, to the ground. And the United States doesn’t pack the necessary human resources for that sort of thing anymore. From the Generals and Admirals down, the society is too weak, too obese and again, far too feminist, faggy and tranny. And of course, the aforementioned are not committed enough to the concept of the United States to give or even risk their lives for country. They’re having far too good of a time enjoying being tranny, and faggy and enjoying the free and easy ride being the feminist as civilians to join up. And good fucking luck conscripting them to military service. It takes a desire to support the girls back home and Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet and THAT dear friends, takes testosterone and girls back home worthy of defending. And THAT ship sailed with the 60s.

    Back to the Generals and Admirals, I’m waiting for the losers in the Pentagon who lose wars to lose jobs, prestige and Stars and bars. The losers in the Intel apparatus can’t catch anyone, the police can’t protect us even from our own feral Negros, the military is hopelessly corrupt and faggy. That’s about it in a nutshell.

    We better start polishing up those shiny rebuilt B-61s, because outside of beating third-world shitholes, that’s the only way our military is scary anymore.

  42. Cyrano 说:
    @bb.

    This is obviously a clever campaign to showcase the advantages of multiculturalism over any racially homogeneous country. For example if someone designed a biological weapon that targets a members of a specific genetic group, but in the meantime that nation was clever enough to get its population genetically diversified – obviously the biological weapon is not going to work.

    It all depends on what is the threshold in terms of percentage points of racial purity below which the biological weapon won’t work. Let’s say US designed a weapon that will target a specific genetic group only if members of that genetic group are over 50% genetically pure.

    But if that nation was prepared for that and via multiculturalism achieved genetic purity of no greater than let’s say 10% dominance of any racial or genetic group in any of the targeted individuals -then the racial weapon won’t work.

    This is only meant to show that multicultural US is superior to racially homogeneous countries thanks to their clever policy of multiculturalism and bio-weapons against them have no chance of success. Of course you have to realize that I am only joking.

    • 回复: @Diversity Heretic
  43. @animalogic

    should the world grow weary of funding its various self indulgent deficits it will be interesting to see whether its defense budget & its Imperial pretensions can be maintained.

    Spend any time at all in the DC region, around the Pentagon, the NSA, the various members of the multi-partnered, Alphabet Soup of Military/Intel Depravity, you’ll understand that THEY will be enriched before anyone else even if it means the rest of the country starves to death. These are the people that kill people after all, the folks that do the snooping, who daily are building DARPA files on everyone involved for blackmail purposes. These days, there’s no one to stand in the way of the MIC getting theirs and more, every single year. And it all flies in the face of the logic laid out by the folks right here. We’re composed in the wrong way to fight the wars they envision. And so the only solution for me is to assume corruption because the way things are composed NOW is too profitable to give up.

  44. @Andrei Martyanov

    I doubt we’d allow those means of Chinese production to exist, that is, their advantage. And correct to say, even for the great industrial powers, lead times in shipbuilding are so great a war would be well over before the steel was rounded up even to lay a keel. But if we got to the point of striking each others’ homeland, it would have gone nuclear anyway. Gentlemen, all this is unthinkable. Oh sure, it’s “fun” to kick around, but in the end, all unthinkable starting with North Korea and Iran and especially between what today are the great powers. As regards war-fighting, because of the nukes and the mess THEY respresent, the only way to win, is never to play the game. And nukes are a problem for everyone. The Bigs need nukes not to fly, ever.

    Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it’s TO be done. I suspect we’ll continue to harass each other through surrogates and enjoy the fruits of the Cold Wars. It’s the surrogate countries that seem to suffer most. Pity them.

  45. @Andrei Martyanov

    In terms of cruise missiles–capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design.

    For all my skepticism of our military contractors, is that accurate, Mr. Martyanov? All due respect, they uncorked some previously unknown (to the public in the 90s, we were working on these things in the late 70s) force multipliers such as stealth, guided munitions, depleted uranium, GPS and so on. I’ve been out of that bizz for quite awhile and so they may have stuff in the scabbard WE know nothing about today that multiplies our obvious forces many times over.

    That said, that they’re wringing the last nickels out of the currently obsolete constitution of our forces knowing they have the next generation in their back pockets already, is rather reprehensible. The Osprey, the F-35, the Gerald Ford, all of them, massive and deadly corruptions, fatally flawed and VERY expensive and really, they offer no explanation, there’s no obvious justification for these failures outside of the fact they were moneymakers. And they build these in spite of knowing their obsolescence. But I’m not certain they don’t have new toys in the box that will out-fox the toys of other States. The American defense contractor is a sneaky bastard at that..

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  46. Erebus 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    It is stated that even SU-35s which Russia started to delivered to China have all of their avionics suites in Cyrillic–from knobs and tumbler signs to everything which is displayed on LCD MF monitors and HUDs–all in Russian. Go figure.

    This is very interesting. It begs the question: Are the intended pilots Russian? If not native Russians, I think the answer is “Yes, with Chinese characteristics”. In addition to being the best of the best, I expect that the Chinese pilots selected for SU35 duty will have undergone extensive education in the Russian language, as well as Russian history, air battle doctrines, and even social & cultural milieu, etc. Before they even start the training process, they’ll be as Russian as a Chinese can get.

    The reason is that Russian/Cyrillic makes good sense from a neurolinguistic perspective. To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35’s systems, he has to 认为 in Russian. He emphatically can’t be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a “cookbook” understanding of the machine. It’s a Russian machine, designed by people who thought in Russian, for Russian pilots. If he’s gonna squeeze the last nth out of that machine in mission critical, even existential circumstances, he can’t be thinking in Chinese. He’s gotta think and react like a Russian pilot in a Russian machine.

    There’s also the question of training. One assumes that along with the aircraft come Russian trainers. To get the most from them, they have to teach in Russian to convey the subtleties required, and the trainees have to “get it” as close to instantly as possible. Translators will gum up that process to the point where the intended pilots will learn half as much in twice the time. Bad ROI.

    The Chinese always want their money’s worth, and usually they want it now. They probably figured that an “all Russian” program gets them that. I would have figured the same in their shoes.

    PS: Thanks for the kind words above, though I’m pleased to see that nobody took your suggestion seriously.

  47. @Erebus

    Nice theory but way too optimistic. The Chinese will spend a million dollars but not ten dollars. I could revolutionize Chinese industrial efficiency by going to any business a week a month, reviewing the problems, and telling them to spend the \$10 to fix each problem over and over and over again. Getting Chinese knobs costs an extra \$10 so they get the standard Cyrillic. They did the same thing on a multibillion dollar paper plant on Hainan Island. Bought the plant from the Germans for ~3 billion Euro, but would not pay extra for controls and manuals translated into Chinese, Halon fire suppression systems in the control room, etc.. Insanity! The poor workers were trying to run the plant by memorizing button sequences since they couldn’t read anything, and of course they smoked in the main control room and managed to set off the sprinkler system. I had dinner in Shanghai with one of the rotating staff of 30-40 German babysitters they ended up hiring to keep the place semi-functional. He had a million stories …

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
    , @Erebus
  48. theMann 说:
    @Cyrano

    Gee, I must of missed the history where the Russians fought at Iwo Jima, Manila, and Okinawa, every battle of which would have been bloodier than Stalingrad if the Japanese could have resupplied.

    The Russians fought, on the whole, rather poorly, a single front war on their own terrain against a known opponent.

    US forces fought a multi-front war against two opponents above and below two oceans, while fighting on the ground in multiple locations of Africa, Europe, multiple Pacific islands, SE Asia and God knows where else. All this while supplying the British, French, Australian, Dutch, Chinese, and yes Russian, armies with massive amounts of material aid (what do you think 400,000 trucks are worth in a war of movement?), the greatest logistic achievement of all time. And did it all while managing about 1\100th the casualties of the other combatants in similar situations.

    So, yea, US and Russian achievements in WW II are not remotely comparable.

    As far as the present, past and future are concerned, “the spiritual to the materiel is as a force of ten to one”, will always be true. Our Navy will always be better than their Navy, our Air Force will always be at least as good as their Air Force, and if you put 10 US infantry men against 10 Russian infantry men, we would win 9 to 1. And for this simple reason: The Russians may be better at dying than we are, but we are WAY better killers than they are. Them, or anyone else.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
    , @Cyrano
  49. @anonymous

    “There’s about three centers which are strong where they are but could never conquer the other. ”

    Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia

  50. Rich 说:
    @dearieme

    WWI was fought to a standstill until the arrival of fresh American troops. Had the US not entered the war, the Germans wouldn’t have had to surrender and there could have been a reasonable peace treaty that probably would have prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII.

    Do you really believe that if the US hadn’t joined the fighting in WWII, the Brits would’ve been able to hang on “by their fingernails” or that the Soviets would’ve been able to “expel” and “conquer” the Germans? Again, the influx of American troops and American supplies is what defeated the Germans. They’d be speaking German in Moscow and London if the US hadn’t entered WWII.

    The defeat of Japan had very little to do with the Japanese Army being “tied down in China”. The Japanese would have had no problem with China if the US had not been bombing and burning them from the Pacific. It was the American Navy, mostly, that defeated the Japanese, so the Japanese Army, which had success only against people with poorly armed militaries, had little role to play against the Americans.

  51. MarkinLA 说:

    While a lot of comments and articles have mentioned the relative poor performance of older weapons systems like the Patriot missile and tried to project their performance out to the future, one does have to remember the great strides made in microelectronics.

    I worked on some of those old computers which had components well behind the commercial world in order to meet the military specifications. The machines were slow, had small (16 to 24 bit) registers in precision, and the memory was small. There wasn’t much they could really do compared to even an Apple II. The focal plane arrays for IR imaging systems had to be cryogenically cooled and had a very small number of pixels (64X64 or 128X128 was typical). The frame rates for these system were slow as well – not much faster than analog TV (30 Hz).

    We now have computers millions of times faster, video systems that are probably thousands of times faster and more precise. I would bet even the radar systems are many more times as advanced due to microelectronics. We also have application specific ICs similar to PC graphics card chip sets that can calculate instant solutions to complex math problems.

    This doesn’t mean that I think the US is in some superior position and can start a nuclear war with impunity.

    It is just a comment on the massive change in weapons technology in 30 years. If you are not directly involved with the development of these systems there is no way you can know their capabilities. I left defense in 1994 and even then we were using 12.5 Mhz 386 (mil-spec version) chips which had at least 100 times the computing power of those old military computers designed in the 60s.

    • 同意: Jim Christian
  52. @Jim Christian

    “THAT’S rich. 20,000,000 men? Really?”

    Wiki says; “During the war [WW2], over 16 million Americans served in the United States Armed Forces, with 405,399 killed in action and 671,278 wounded…”

    In 1940 population of USA was 132,000,000. Today more than twice that.

    I’m not saying that I’m a kick-ass dude, but I’ve worked with some out West. Not all American males are fags. The countryside is loaded with guys who can shoot, hunt, fish, who love the outdoors. If your only impression of American males comes from acquaintance with coastal city boys, then you are likely to be sternly re-educated at some point in your life.

    • 回复: @Jim Christian
    , @A.B. Prosper
  53. @Rich

    Do you really believe that if the US hadn’t joined the fighting in WWII, the Brits would’ve been able to hang on “by their fingernails” or that the Soviets would’ve been able to “expel” and “conquer” the Germans? Again, the influx of American troops and American supplies is what defeated the Germans. They’d be speaking German in Moscow and London if the US hadn’t entered WWII.

    That is why US cannot win a war since WWII because continues to reside in a complete delusion about it. You just demonstrated a depth of this problem. Once again–read this:

    由此:

    Learn not to express opinion on something what you have no clue about and avoid spreading propaganda from US MSM.

    • 回复: @Rich
    , @TomSchmidt
  54. @theMann

    So, yea, US and Russian achievements in WW II are not remotely comparable.

    Damn right. Eastern Front dwarfs anything US ever experienced in its history. I also wonder what would Patton do, in the breaks between inflating 3-4 times Germans he “killed”, should he have met with Meinstein, Hoth or Model at the peak of their form and SS and Wehrmacht Panzers, say circa 1942-43. Other than that–sure, USA saved the world, the whole US propaganda machine was built around this delusion and as any sand castle it is disintegrating.

    • 回复: @Diversity Heretic
    , @L.K
  55. @Skullcrusher

    Nice theory but way too optimistic.

    No, it has nothing to do with “optimism” or otherwise. Erebus is spot on in giving a subject the treatment he gave. Not only it is legitimate but it is highly probable. Now comes my personal experiences with many things military, including with foreign (Arab, African etc.) cadets and officers–all so called “command words” (there is a special book dedicated to that) for their trainees were strictly Russian, the same as they were taught in Russian. Not because Russians are chauvinists but precisely because of the issue which Erebus described. Many Arab militaries, as an example, continued to use Russian language in combat for a reason. Try to teach calculus or combat system integration in Swahili, good luck with that. But here we are getting into a very specific subject.

    • 回复: @Sergey Krieger
    , @Ondrej
  56. Cyrano 说:
    @theMann

    Those “glorious” victories of US against Japan were nothing more than boat accidents, extra-proportionally glorified by American propaganda. Chew on this one for a while: US already had the nuclear bombs and Truman still begged Stalin to help him defeat Japan with a massive offensive in Manchuria. Which Stalin did.

    The nuclear weapons were just for special effects – and killing civilians, militarily they were close to useless. USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well. You are nothing but brain-washed idiot who believes that knows something. I am sending you a link too. Read and weep – at least someone in your country is still capable of publishing the truth.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/14/historians-soviet-offensive-key-japans-wwii-surrender-eclipsed-bombs.html

    • 回复: @FB
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    , @Vidi
  57. @Jim Christian

    Always enjoy your posts. Like you, I see no way the United States could field a mass army in the present cultural/political conditions. (If I had a son, I would do everything in my power to help him dodge the draft, and I sought to go to West Point in the 1970s–a mark of how attitudes have changed!)

    As for the B-61s, the Nuclear Matters Handbook has a surprisingly candid statement from the National Nuclear Security Administration that it is increasingly difficult to certify the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons in the stockpile. The United States has not tested any nuclear weapon or device since the early 1990s, even to the extent of putting it in a hole and seeing if it will still go off, and some of the secondaries in the weapons were last tested at full yield in the 1960s. None of these weapons was ever designed for exceptionally long service lives, so B-61 primaries may be from the 1980s–approaching or already at 30 years, and the estimates of their performance in their present state is mostly theoretical.

    Other nuclear powers (except North Korea) haven’t tested either, so they may have similar problems. It may be, however, that they designed weapons with long service lives in mind, rather than cutting-edge technology intended to achieve the best yield-to-weight ratio.

    • 回复: @Jim Christian
  58. Rich 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Your anti-Americanism blinds you to reality.
    1. After North Korea invaded South Korea, the US drove them out of the country and kept the South free.
    2.The US won every major battle fought in Vietnam and left S Vietnam as a free nation when they withdrew. It took the Reds two years, after the US left, to defeat the South.
    3. The US conquered Granada in a couple of hours. (I know, small stuff, but still a win.)
    4. Desert Storm 1 the Iraqis are driven out of Kuwait by US forces.
    5. Taliban defeated in the Afghan, driven from power and forced to hide in holes in the ground.
    6. Iraqi government overthrown, Iraqi military destroyed.

    There’s six wins for you, off the top of my head. You can grouse and grumble all you want, but a victory doesn’t mean you have to salt the ground, kill any man taller than a wagon wheel, then enslave all the women and children.

  59. @Andrei Martyanov

    although I agree with you generally about the relative size and scale of the Red Army and the United States Army contribution to victory over the German WWII military, Field Marshall Walter Model was the German commander in overall charge of the 1944 offensive in the Ardennes. So George Patton was up against Model, although one might argue that Model was not at the peak of his form and that the German war effort was already severely depleted. Still and all, Patton’s achievement in pulling out of one attack, turning 90° and attacking along another axis, all in bad winter weather, was a very skillfully conducted manoever.

    By the way, Hasso von Manteuffel, who commanded the 5th Panzer Army in the Ardennes attack, was no slouch as a soldier either.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  60. FB 说:
    @Cyrano

    Ha…I was wondering when someone here was going to mention this…

    I have an interesting mind-question…how many Aermicans [or in the wider West for that matter] actually know that this episode of WW2 even happened…?

    I say this because I only became aware of the existence of the Soviet-Japanese war only very recently…and quite by accident…

    And then I began feeling angry…that such an important piece of 历史 has been so deliberately concealed from The People…

    I began looking into this and turned up reams of information…anyone interested can start with wikipedia…and follow some of the references…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

    A good doc on youtube is here…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBuMDG2TvcY

    But I like this one even better…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjygZML_X-o

    And here is a 200 page treatise from US Army historian David Glantz…[which I’m still plowing through…]

    http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/LP7_AugustStormTheSoviet1945StrategicOffensiveInManchuria.pdf

    Some of the interesting things I learned…

    1. The Japs were deathly afraid of the Soviets and Stalin…not surprising having seen the mighty German war machine completely destroyed by same…

    2..The Russians upon entering Manchuria were quite amused by the Japanese weapons…their tanks with 50 mm guns were pea shooters compared to German equipment…their landmines were laughably simple…

    3. Russian generals couldn’t comprehend how the US had so much trouble and took so much time to subdue the Japs in Iwo Jima etc…

    The Russian war machine was a battle-hardened monster that just ate up the Japs in a couple of quick bites across the vast territory of Manchuria…same with the Kurils, Sakhalin and Hokkaido was next on the list…

    One gets the impression that if Stalin had just said ‘no thanks’ the US might still be fighting the Japs to this day…

    • 回复: @Cyrano
    , @jimmyriddle
    , @Hu Mi Yu
  61. @Cyrano

    Although I categorically reject biological warfare, it seems to me that the U.S. is very vulnerable, as it is vulnerable to a naturally occurring epidemic that affects one racial group disproportionately. The first reason for the vulnerability is that the U.S. has little “surge” capacity, such as excess beds in hospitals or the ability to manufacture huge quantities of vaccines or treatments on short notice. Society could very well break down over who gets first access to medicines. And if one racial group suffers disproportionately, there will be a suscipion that the organism was bio-engineered to attack that group, or that allocation of medical resources is allowing the group to suffer disproportionately.

    In short, we’d have a hell of mess. The actual disease might be the least of the problems.

  62. FB 说:
    @Rich

    ‘…After North Korea invaded South Korea, the US drove them out of the country and kept the South free…”

    有趣…

    And then there’s reality…

    ‘…Both South and North Korea were almost entirely occupied by United Nations forces. However, once American units neared the Yalu River and the frontier between North Korea and China, the Chinese intervened and drastically changed the character of the war. [US] Eighth Army was decisively defeated at the Battle of the Chongchon River and forced to retreat all the way back to South Korea…’

    ‘…The defeat of the U.S. Eighth Army resulted in the longest retreat of any American military unit in history…

    ‘…The Chinese broke through the American defenses despite American air supremacy and the Eighth Army and U.N. forces retreated hastily to avoid encirclement. The Chinese offensive continued pressing American forces, which 丢失 Seoul, the South Korean capital…’

    ‘…Eighth Army’s morale and esprit de corps hit rock bottom, to where it was widely regarded as a broken, defeated rabble…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_United_States_Army#Korean_War

    • 回复: @Rich
  63. Cyrano 说:
    @FB

    Thanks brother. You restore my faith in humanity. There is still hope when there are people out there who are capable of telling the truth.

    • 同意: FB
  64. Rich 说:
    @FB

    Anti-Americanism seems rampant with a lot of you fellows, so much that you’re really unable to see the facts. The fact is that the communist N Koreans invaded the South in the hope of conquering and annexing it. The Americans and their allies fought a bloody conflict which, in the end, resulted in the North being driven out of the South. It’s true, the Allied forces did, at one point, occupy most of the North, and had Truman followed MacArthur’s advice, all Koreans, as well as the Chinese, would be free today. But the fact is, the Norks were prevented from conquering the South and were driven back behind the 38th parallel. That’s a win.

    • 回复: @FB
    , @jilles dykstra
  65. TomSchmidt 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Thanks for this. When you read the Generalplan OST, you have to be grateful the Soviets won that struggle. Two million German soldiers worked to death in captivity doesn’t compare to what the Nazis had planned.

  66. @Cyrano

    …in the 80’s they decided to start harnessing the power of Islam in order to fight their wars on the cheap (without too many losses of US lives) I guess you can say the peaceful country met the peaceful religion and of course great things can happen when 2 such great pacifistic entities join forces.

    I’m experiencing that feeling you get, when someone else impugns your country, and instead of responding with a hearty “Fuck you!”, I feel more inclined to note “What a burn…”

  67. FB 说:
    @Rich

    Nothing to do with anti-Americanism…

    一切都与 pro-facts and actual history…not the smellywood 版…

    Sorry I offended you…I just happen to have 尊重 for the truth…

    As for the North ‘invading’ the south…the facts are much more nuanced…North struck pre-emptively as the US had massed an obvious invasion force on the 38’th parallel…

    You can count Korea and even Vietnam as a ‘win’ if you want…anyone is free to live in disneyland…

    Speaking of Vietnam…US was kicked out by a small third-world country…remember the rooftop helicopter evacuation of the US embassy in 1975…?

    US lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

    One of the best fighter pilots the US ever had said this…

    ‘A MiG-21 pilot at Phuc Yen was the best flying job in the world. If I’d been one of them, I’d have got fifty of us!’

    …Robin Olds…flew F4s…

    http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1943jun/13640/

    US lost 445 F4s…

    Viet pilots lost only 154 MiGs total…only 60 -21s…rest were -17s and -19s…

    • 回复: @Rich
  68. RJJCDA 说:

    Dupuy 父子几年前写了一本书 NUMBERS, PREDICTIONS AND WAR 并试图评估二战中交战国的军事能力。 他们试图将部队的数量、武器的威力、补给和其他因素考虑在内; 并得出了没有那些在战斗中给一个或另一个带来优势/劣势的东西的评估:

    #1 德国人
    #2 美国人、英国人、加拿大人
    #3 俄罗斯人、日本人、意大利人

    猎豹有意见吗?

    • 回复: @Dan Hayes
    , @Anonymous
  69. Erebus 说:
    @Skullcrusher

    What’s to be “optimistic” (or pessimistic) about?

    I found it interesting, and I’m pretty sure this is an aspect of the sale that would have been considered and discussed in detail. The HMI (Human-Machine Interface) of any complex system gets a lot of attention, and in the case of an SU35, it would surely get a disproportionally enormous amount.

    I smiled at your Hainan Island paper plant story. I’m currently at the tail end of an English-Chinese HMI project that has run into a more than a few vexing issues, and these were not only matters of translating the labels. Perhaps the buyers of that plant foresaw those issues and wanted to avoid them in the mistaken belief that the Chinese’ ability to memorize complex sequences would save the day. I told my client countless times that it would be cheaper to hire English readers to run the machinery than to make the necessary changes when all things are considered, but that fell on deaf ears.
    I’ve run into the “penny-wise-pound-foolish” Chinese businessman more times than I can count, but, frankly I can’t see the PLA looking to save \$10 on new knobs. We’re talking about the defence of the country in a turbulent time and a great deal is at stake. The PLA takes that very seriously.

  70. Dan Hayes 说:
    @RJJCDA

    RJJCDA:

    我相信德国总参谋部评价芬兰人是最好的二战士兵。

  71. Rich 说:
    @FB

    The US was “kicked out” of Vietnam? Talk about living in Disneyland, but it’s probably not even your fault.The leftist media and academia have been pushing that tale for so many years, the less well read repeat it like a mantra. The US pulled its troops out of Vietnam in 1973 and US POWs were freed. South Vietnam was defeated two years later, in 1975. That’s an historical fact, whether you like it or not. Until the US withdrawal, the North was on its knees, living in tunnels and hiding from American troops.

    As for Korea, buy a globe, and look at Northeastern Asia. You’ll see a line through the 38th parallel. That separates North Korea from South Korea. If the US lost, why does South Korea still exist? The object of the war was to evict the Reds from the South and that objective was achieved. Your opinion that the US was about to invade the North is ridiculous and no serious historian would take it seriously. A Marxist historian might, though, and that’s probably the history you read, right “comrade”?

    • 回复: @FB
  72. @Cyrano

    The nuclear weapons were just for special effects – and killing civilians, militarily they were close to useless. USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well. You are nothing but brain-washed idiot who believes that knows something.

    I think you may be laying it on a bit thick, never-the-less it is certainly true that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (and South Sakhalin) is probably the most underrated campaign in all the Second World War. It had as much to do with the Japanese surrender as anything that went on at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, if not more so.

    The Japanese surrendered to the USA on September 2nd, 1945 (the 1,975th anniversary of the battle of Actium), because it’s just a short hop from South Sakhalin to Hokkaido. The Soviets were about to invade the Home Islands (as were we, of course), and thus they (the Japanese, that is) evaded the prospect of northern Japan under Soviet domination.

    • 回复: @Cyrano
  73. FB 说:
    @Rich

    Try a US military historian on for size…comrade Mickey…

    My essay will address these questions and will present the case that the American decision to 入侵 North Korea and carry the ground war beyond the 38th Parallel toward the Chinese border was inconsistent with the political realities of September 1950.

    Lt. Colonel Michael Moseley…published 1989 by The National War College…

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA437546

    As for Vietnam…the US lost…end of story…even says so in Wikipedia…

    Result North Vietnamese victory

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

    And what about the humiliation of losing 10,000 aircraft while downing 150 MiGs in return…

    The US Eighth Army reduced to a ‘broken, defeated rabble…’

    Even that helter-skelter run for your life helicopter evacuation…

    I’m sure those Americans bugging out of that embassy thought they ‘won’ right…?

    But they were sure in a hurry to leave…

    I can’t think of any major power in the history of the world that has suffered such lopsided 屈辱…time after time…

    Karma can be a bitch you see…invading countries does not always end well…just ask Hitler…or Napoleon…

    Simple fact…a soldier…or even a farmer… will fight for his homeland against a foreign invader…

    What’s the motivation for Joe Lunchpail from Podunk, Idaho…?

    What’s he thinking when he lands in Korea…or Vietnam…or Iraq…or Afghanistan…?

    What’s he defending…?

    His ‘right’ to tell someone on the other side of the world how to live in his own house…?

    When you are standing up for your own home and farm against a foreign invader…then come back and tell me about it…otherwise stick to your cartoonish notions of military superiority…

  74. @Diversity Heretic

    Field Marshall Walter Model was the German commander in overall charge of the 1944 offensive in the Ardennes. So George Patton was up against Model, although one 可能会争辩 that Model was not at the peak of his form and that the German war effort was already severely depleted.

    Might argue? That is a funny way to put it. Look at the number of Volksgrenadier Division, as an example during Ardennes and that will give you a good clue. Most importantly, take a look at actions of Gerow’s V Corps, heroism of 2nd and 99th Divisions which faced the worst, and in general look at actions of Hodges 1st Army and, yes, able command by Montgomery who was given command of the 1st and 9th (taken from under Bradley’s command, which was an issue). The main thrust was on the Northern Face of Bulge and here is what people who study military history not from Hollywood know damn well:

    这里有一些注意事项。

    In 2011, the site of US Army’s 99th Infantry Division Association published an essay titled “Explaining the Silence Surrounding Elsenborne Ridge Battle” where it referred to a booklet by a Belgian historian Leon Nyssen who, far from adhering to Patton and Bastogne mandatory worship, made a conclusion which was looking into anyone’s face once the map of Ardennes Battle was opened. As Nyssen noted:

    “Many different battles were fought all through the Battle of the Bulge, also called the Ardennes Battle. The Elsenborn battle has a specific place in history. In fact, it is known as the area where the German attack was held in check from the second day. Any action following this battle was nothing else but an inevitable consequence of this fiasco. This did not mean that the skirmishes, which occurred during the following weeks and pitted the opposing forces, were not important or were lacking rage. Far from it. It is just as unreasonable to maintain that the American success during the Elsenborn battle was enough to assure the Allies’ victory during this lengthy and bloody Ardennes campaign. However, this battle definitely ruined Hitler’s hopes of crushing the western front”. [34]

    The truth, however, about why a crucial event and the crucial sector of the Ardennes Battle found so little resonance in American historiography was succinctly observed by Eliot Wager:

    “Just as one cannot mention Waterloo without thinking about Cambronne’s famous word, it is impossible to mention Bastogne without having someone adding “Nuts!” This “historical” word was uttered by Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe. The two are inseparable. There is not a book written concerning the Battle of Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) that does not devote many paragraphs, if not pages, to this episode. Neither generals Clarke nor Hasbrouck in Saint Vith, nor Colonels Butler or O’Brien in Montjoie (Monschau), nor Generals Lauer or Robertson at Elsenborn and Col. Daniel at the Butgenbach estate had the free time to pronounce a historical word. If they ever did there were no war correspondents there to capture and relay them. They all did their duty with the goal of being efficient. They didn’t try becoming popular by carrying revolvers decorated with mother-of-pearl grips, wearing defused hand grenades hooked up to their shoulder straps or go to the front line to take potshots at the enemy. This usually provoked the enemy to retaliate and caused unjustified losses to the GIs.”. One should also mention the rivalry between General George S. Patton, Commander, 3rd U.S. Army and General Hodges, Commander, 1st U.S. Army. Each wanted to claim that he was the one who stopped the Germans. General Patton had a knack of getting the press to talk or to write about him. General Hodges was not concerned about his reputation. This created an atmosphere concerning the performance of his men as a reflection of his own less flamboyant management style. However, it is General Hodges who should have been given credit for defeating the Germans.

    Just FYI. But even that is a separate topic, since has to deal with momentum. But this observation of yours is spot on:

    and that the German war effort was already severely depleted

    And no, Patton’s performance in Lorraine and in Ardennes is rather underwhelming, even against forces he encountered there.

    But that is what Atkinson states, read attentively, since it is one of those admissions which matter:

    As Rick Atkinson admitted in 1995, he could see in Patton: “the creeping arrogance, the hubris, which would costs the American Army so dearly in Vietnam. Summing up the achievements of his troops in crushing the German counterattack of December 1944, Patton with pardonable pride claims to have “moved farther and faster and engaged more divisions in less time than any other army in the history of the United States–possibly in the history of the world… No country can stand against such an Army.” These memoirs are valuable not least in showing, however unwittingly, that a disastrous presumption of invincibility took root in the ranks of officers who led the American military after World War II.”

    What was 3rd Army’s actual performance even against exhausted Wehrmacht is expertly reviewed here: Advance and Destroy. Patton as Commander in the Bulge. John Nelson Rickard. The University Press of Kentucky Scholarly Publisher for the Commonwealth. 2011. Here is quote:
    “there was nothing brilliant about his (Patton’s) performance in the Bulge”.(c) Once one begins to view his campaign in Lorraine–everything becomes clear.

    • 回复: @Diversity Heretic
  75. @Rich

    Your anti-Americanism blinds you to reality.

    So, operating with facts, numbers and, get this, reputable American historical sources is anti-American now? Oh my. Live and learn.

    The US conquered Granada in a couple of hours. (I know, small stuff, but still a win.)

    大声笑。

  76. Rich 说:

    Well, I just finished reading the essay on Korea that you cited, perhaps you should read it yourself. It says nothing about US plans of invading N Korea prior to the North’s invasion and references Truman’s belief that the war should be limited to freeing the South. Because, in the rush of a fairly quick victory over the forces of the North, the US and its allies took a chance on perhaps reuniting the peninsula doesn’t change the fact that the South was freed and the original objective met. You seem to be confusing victory with something else. You keep repeating “8th Army” like its some kind of chant. Early in the war, the 8th was caught unaware by the cowardly, surprise attack of the Reds and suffered losses. This is not uncommon in war. Shortly after that, US forces landed and beat the Norks back.

    Is Wikipedia your Pope? Because some kid writes there what he has heard repeated over and over doesn’t make it true. Accept the historical fact that South Vietnam was free as long as US combat troops were in country and that it took a full two years for the Reds to defeat the South after the US withdrew. These are historical facts. A couple of left wing writers and a few television shows doesn’t change that fact.

    As much as you keep telling yourself the US was “humiliated” here we sit in a world dominated by US power and culture. You’ll never be able to accept it, but observable reality shows you’re wrong.

  77. Cyrano 说:
    @Kevin O'Keeffe

    All right, how about this: The whole theory that US used atomic bombs in order to save millions of US and Japanese lives is obviously pure bunkum . They almost convinced the world of their humanism with that one. That whole formula is baloney.

    If the US really wanted to fight the Japanese army – instead of terrorizing the civilians – they didn’t even had to invade Japan, since the bulk of the Japanese army was – in Manchuria. That whole fairy tale about saving lives is fiction. The reality is that the Americans couldn’t put together a 1.5 million man army in order to deal with the Japanese army in Manchuria. But USSR could and did, with lightning speed.

    If you ask me for my opinion, I think that it was unfair on the part of USSR to do that. They didn’t owe the US that big of a favor, and Japan didn’t deserve that from USSR.

    In the winter of 1941 when the fate of Moscow was hanging in the balance, and maybe even the fate of the USSR, 500 000 Red Army troops were transferred from the far east – who were there to deal with potential Japanese threat – to Moscow. Those 1/2 Million men pretty match tipped the balance in favor of the defenders of Moscow.

    And the reason why they were able to transfer those troops is because Japan promised not to attack USSR in the far east. I actually feel sorry for the Japanese, they didn’t deserve that. But maybe is all for the better, if the Red Army didn’t defeat the Japanese Army, maybe the Americans would have felt compelled to use even more atomic bombs and more cities and civilians would have suffered the terrible fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, since the Americans obviously lacked the ability to put together a force to fight the Japanese army and using more atomic bombs would have been the easy way.

    • 回复: @Avery
    , @jilles dykstra
    , @MarkinLA
  78. polskijoe 说:

    I think the US still has a small advantage in conventional.

    我猜:
    Russian army is stronger
    US airforce/navy is stronger.

    Nukes: depends on who is faster, and we have self assured destruction (or whatever the term is).

    What is also important, is prototypes, secret programs. Im sure both countries have.
    US has money advantage (although also debt).

    Other important things: advantage in space, biological, chemical and maybe weather war options.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  79. Avery 说:
    @Cyrano

    {And the reason why they were able to transfer those troops is because Japan promised not to attack USSR in the far east}

    There was no _promise_ as such: Japan and USSR were enemies. You don’t give a promise to your enemy.

    SU had a deep penetration super spy in Japan: Richard Sorge.
    Sorge found out that Japan had decided not to invade USSR, for whatever reason.
    For once Stalin believed his spy. (……maybe he had confirmation from other sources in this case).
    Sorge had previously informed Moscow that Hitler was going to invade SU, but he did not know the date. Stalin did not believe him.

    The rest is correct: when Stalin was sure that Japan would not invade from the East, he transferred 18 divisions, 1,700 tanks, and over 1,500 aircraft from Siberia to the Moscow front. And these troops were tough Siberian men, well acclimated to fight in very cold weather.
    They arrived just in time. Thank God.

    • 回复: @FB
    , @Cyrano
  80. pyrrhus 说:
    @Randal

    A key fact not mentioned by the Saker…The US armed forces are rotten to the core due to feminism, diversity signaling, and the resulting complete lack of standards at West Point, Annapolis and in combat areas. Women are being allowed into combat posts, as officers, without meeting the physical or mental standards, when every army in the world has learned that they create nothing but strife and diversions, and many of them get pregnant. There is also the fact that our multi-billion dollar carriers are nothing but sitting ducks for missiles, torpedoes, and energy weapons, and become more moribund every day as technology advances…The US conventional forces are a paper tiger who can defeat 3d world armies at a fantastic cost, but can’t defeat guys on donkeys in Afghanistan.

  81. @FB

    The Japs made a probing attack into Outer Mongolia in 1939 and the Red Army knocked the snot out of them and sent them packing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

    That was one reason they decided to attack the USA rather than the USSR in 1941.

  82. @Andrei Martyanov

    All right, all right, but what do you think about Hasso von Manteuffel?

    Perhaps the greatest problem that other American WWII ETO commanders have vis-a-vis George Patton is that he had the immense good fortune to be portrayed by George C. Scott, an superbly talented actor, turning in the performance of a lifetime.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  83. @Rich

    Rich, I’ve been following your comments and it appears that you have neglected to add the precise distance of just how far you are able to urinate. I’m sure it’s quite impressive though and way further than anyone else. It’s a very easy error to make but this simple omission would seem to be costing you the victory that you seek in this debate. Do what you must.

    • 哈哈: FB
    • 回复: @Rich
  84. Vidi 说:
    @ThreeCranes

    If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let ‘er rip.

    How would you transport that army? Even if you had enough transports, would they survive the submarines, sea mines, and missiles near the enemy’s shores?

  85. 正确:
    WWII was won by mass USA production and Russian blood.
    The west did not have the V1, the V2, the German Tiger tank was far better than any other, and the German hydrogen bomb was nearly ready.
    I refused to believe the hydrogen bomb until I read the book.
    The hydrogen was ignited by conventional explosives.
    Two converted planes were in Prague to carry the bomb east, it was a sphere a metre in diameter.
    This bomb may explain why Hitler fought to the last moment.
    Just imagine a few V2’s with this bomb, each one obliterating a few square kilometres of London.
    Rudel, Germany’s best pilot, already in 1956 wrote about the atomic bomb he should fly to the Ural hydro electric installations, to stop USSR tank production.
    Germany also had TV guided missiles.

    At present there is the story about a USA very modern warship in the Black Sea, unable to respond to a very low and ver near fly by by an unarmed Russian plane, because this plane disabled all the ship’s systems.
    Then we have MH370, lost somewhere in the direction of the Antarctic.
    The USA is on top of my suspect list, media never mentioned this, but on the plane were two groups of Chinese technicians specialised in making planes invisible to radar.
    Then there is the asserted Chinese quantum computer, installed in a satellite, the emissions can not be heard or decrypted.

    • 回复: @Philip Owen
    , @MarkinLA
  86. Forgot the story about a USA missile fired in Spain towards Syria, intercepted above the E Mediterranean.
    Something indeed fell, USA and Israel declared an excercise.

  87. @ThreeCranes

    Fair enough takes. I carry concealed, a kick-ass city or country boy might be re-edumicated about messing with 60 year-old guys. So far however, I never let anyone have it that didn’t have it coming. Again, your takes are fair and cogent. Our kick-ass city and country boys were the norm back when I went in. Nerds were about the same proportion in the population as obese girls, that is, there were very, very few.. The rest of us got pounded playing sports, organized or sandlots. Which led to fights, handshakes and the learning of some honor. From High School, you were college material or you weren’t, sometimes you were, but had no money and there were no loans. Those who were not college material, well that saying went, “The world needs ditch diggers too”. The boys learned a trade, went into the military. The girls who were not college material stayed slender and got married and had babies. The girls who were became teachers and frequently found their husband at college. Now look, I don’t say out in the hinterlands, or even in the coastal cities there aren’t kick-ass boys, but it certainly isn’t encouraged or even tolerated. But if you think the same proportions of kick-ass boys out there exist to the tune of 5, 10, 20 million in THIS country, forget it. We couldn’t raise the same standing army and Navy we did back in the teens and 40s, I cannot fathom it. Aside from the physical characteristics of the inductees a boot camp would have to deal with, there isn’t the same spirit in kids.

    For most, Mom is the one that left Junior fatherless, Apple Pie is from a wax paper wrapper with Hostess printed on it and Chevrolet is a \$22,000-dollar bent shit can with three shots of clear coat made in cooperation with Kia of China. That is not an America that builds morale. To top it off, the education of our children toward heritage and war and sacrifice has changed, you’d have to re-program the kids in many ways. Just ain’t happening. And then, there are the girls, the first ones that would have to be reformed for wartime, the ones we have, no good. For starters…Naw, it’s over..

    • 回复: @ThreeCranes
  88. @Cyrano

    In the sixties there was a congressional investigation about the why of two atomic bombs on Japan.
    Oppenheimer testified that they wanted to see what the bombs did in reality.
    Through Stalin Japan already had offered capitalation in Januari 1945.
    Much later Stalin told Truman, and asked what he should do.
    Truman: nothing.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  89. @Rich

    GB was was against interference in a civil war:
    彼得·劳(Peter Lowe),《朝鲜战争的起源》,伦敦,1986年

  90. @Rich

    That I criticise the USA is just based on facts.
    I do not criticise the overwhelming majority of the USA people, they’re just victims of the two or three % richest USA citizens who run the country.
    Am reading Howard Zinn, the facts are not new to me, but to see them listed one after another, sad reading.

    • 回复: @Rich
  91. @Diversity Heretic

    As for the B-61,

    None of these weapons was ever designed for exceptionally long service lives, so B-61 primaries may be from the 1980s–approaching or already at 30 years

    We used to load those damned things two or three to an A-6 East of the Italian heel in the Med where they would become part of the nuclear triad. This was mid-70s. The A-6 Es, would, in war, be responsible for a one-way trip north to certain Soviet shipyards where they would reduce said shipyards to a radioactive puddle. For practice carrying them and for us loading them, they would fly and drill with Fabulous Fakes, Whites with Blue stripes, the real ones were all-silver. All this is utterly unclassified these days, by the way. We knew nothing of the innards and special folks would be along to dial-the-yield, that was none of the loaders’ business. But since you mention dependability, the electronics packages built into fakes and real weapons alike, weren’t terribly dependable. We’d have a hell of a time getting three ready to fly out of six. Understand, the planes are pulling 6 and 7 and more G’s, then coming back home with them, they treated to a carrier landing’s return and so for us, they weren’t so dependable, just for wire checks and their ability to talk to the airplane’s electronics, they were a hassle to keep going. The physics within? Damned if I know, none of my business, even as I loaded them. In a war? Would they actually go “Pop”? Who knows?

    • 回复: @Diversity Heretic
  92. jbwilson24 说:
    @ThreeCranes

    ” there is a core of very hard steel in tough-minded men whose presence is not obvious to the outsider simply because there is no place for them in the phony veneer that America projects today”

    Umm, the USA is no longer the nation it used to be in terms of manpower. You are showing pictures from when the bulk of the population was rural, before TV and computer games. Low incidence of diabetes, obesity, etc etc. Modern Americans are not the same. If you go to the rural areas they have major drug abuse problems that disqualify a lot of the potential recruits from enlisting.

  93. @dearieme

    Wasn’t the purpose to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Switzerland?

    Aside from the WMD nonsense, Cheney and Rummy were going to find the George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons of Baghdad and send a few copies of our Declaration of Independence and let them build a 2nd America. That didn’t work out HERE so well, given the Civil War, but that’s another story. Fact is, after we pulled Saddam out of his hole we ought to have re-instated him and left. Or handed him over and THEN left. Either way, here they are, 15 years later, still killing each other and us when they get the opportunity.

  94. uslabor 说:
    @anony-mouse

    你肯定通过让我们直接了解 Cassandra 来得分 - 对你有好处!

  95. BB753 说:
    @Rich

    “a victory doesn’t mean you have to salt the ground, kill any man taller than a wagon wheel, then enslave all the women and children.”

    To the contrary, victory means precisely this, and that’s the only way to actually win a war in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. Which is why we’re always winning battles but losing wars.

    • 同意: RadicalCenter
  96. Ondrej 说:
    @Erebus

    The reason is that Russian/Cyrillic makes good sense from a neurolinguistic perspective. To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35′s systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can’t be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a “cookbook” understanding of the machine. It’s a Russian machine, designed by people who thought in Russian, for Russian pilots. If he’s gonna squeeze the last nth out of that machine in mission critical, even existential circumstances, he can’t be thinking in Chinese. He’s gotta think and react like a Russian pilot in a Russian machine.

    宾果!

    As side note – this is typical Sapir–Whorf hypothesis:
    The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects its speakers’ world view or cognition.

    Interesting pattern in english literature is that hypothesis largely dismissed, but in Russian it is actively researched..

    • 回复: @Sergey Krieger
    , @Erebus
  97. Che Guava 说:
    @Priss Factor

    You are also having a next-gen fighter-bomber, F-35, that is ridiculously overpriced, not much good, costs an immense amount per plane, and is 60% or more of the time, stuck on the ground, or deck.

    Also a Navy where officers are too busy flirting with each other on the bridge to avoiding disastrous collisions, with deaths of many sailors.

    It is seeming to me to be a bad joke.

  98. iffen 说:

    The worthless efforts of the US were not needed by Russia in WWII. Keep your locomotives and trucks. The motherland could build trucks and locomotives out of the rubble of the factories without any rubles. Keep your trucks. We have thousands of patriotic and glorious horses and mules to move millions of men and hundreds of millions of tons of supplies. You Americans know diddly about logistics. You can only simultaneously move thousands of men and millions of tons of material over two oceans and into foreign countries. You would utterly fail at moving men and material on table top land within your own country.

  99. @Andrei Martyanov

    Lol, there is than more to this old saying that French is a language of love. Then English is a language of business communications and markets and quite reasonably Russian is a language of war considering Russia and Soviet Russian army record and background. In ancient times Latin was used same way in the military even when soldiers already were not native Latin speakers. This is very interesting topic. I wonder whether usage of Russian improve performance of aboriginals compared to them using own language and is there objective data.

  100. 俄罗斯现在拥有卓越的军事技术吗?

    A better question would be whether Russia has superior 道德 权威。

    The answer is that since the US has long ago squandered any shreds of moral authority it ever had, even a pig’s intestinal tapeworm has more.

  101. @anony-mouse

    至于明年看未来,我们都可以庆祝他的天启十周年:

    Yes, the sky is always falling. Here’s another boy crying wolf or izzit the Izzy Chickenshit Little?:

    内塔尼亚胡早在1992年就被记录在案,声称伊朗“接近”拥有核武器。
    Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 25 years ago.
    1992 年:以色列国会议员本雅明·内塔尼亚胡预测伊朗拥有核武器“3 到 5 年”。
    1992 年:以色列外交部长西蒙·佩雷斯 (Shimon Peres) 向法国电视台预测,到 1999 年将有伊朗核弹头。
    1995 年:《纽约时报》援引美国和以色列官员的话说,伊朗将在 2000 年拥有原子弹。
    1998 年:唐纳德拉姆斯菲尔德告诉国会,伊朗可能拥有洲际弹道导弹,可以在 2003 年击中美国。
    等等...
    http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2012/09/21/1992-breaking-news-netanyahu-says-iran-close-to-nuclear-weapon-veterans-today/

  102. Z-man 说:

    They spent billions on the F 35, a flying refrigerator!

  103. anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Cyrano

    Sheesh! All this chatter of each other’s superiority over weapons of mass destruction! Like killing and maiming people in the hundreds of millions is something to aspire towards? It is not like those weapons have never been used too… and, if not sure, you may want to look up who used them.

    What a sickening bunch of satanic degenerates, many of those living in pale-faced societies are…

    And then infidels scoff snidely at the quote/unquote, peaceful religion? Can you genius intellectuals find any irony in that?

    Anyway, if not for the machinations of the white supremacist ChrizzyJuden evildoers, the quote/unquote peaceful religion would actually prove to be no more or no less peaceful than others… considering that it is simply being followed by fallible humans.

    Not so the Chrizzies and the Juden though, who have taken evil to an awesomely different level.

    • 回复: @Cyrano
  104. @Jim Christian

    Good comment, both yours and JBW’s below. I won’t argue the point further. Probably moot anyway. I realize now how silly my original comment was. The Saker was talking about “hardware” and here I am talking about character, heart and guts. Anyway, the wars of tomorrow will be fought by the keyboard-pecking geek in the dark trailer a million miles from the battlefield so what do personal qualities of courage have to do with it anyway? They’re become as “irrelevantized” as have the practice of Homeric heroes calling out their adversary before battle and launching into a speech extolling their family’s glorious martial patrimony and history of bravery in past battles. The personal element is becoming ever smaller on the battlefield.

    First world war was so abhorred because of the waste. A young man arrives at the front. An artillery shell lands in his proximity. He is blown to bits. He never even saw the enemy much less engaged him. It was a random lottery. What’s the point? When random death rules, the mind boggles. The only way to cope is to adopt an equally insane mindset. That’s why war veterans are so mind-f*cked.

    Civil society requires that we have faith in the Justice of the system. War mocks human notions of justice or at any rate, has done so ever since the invention of–literally–slings and arrows, projectiles whose final destination is not wholly controlled by the source. Look at the HMS Hood, or King Harald with the arrow through the eye. Paris, who stole Helen was an archer at Troy. This association was made to demonstrate his treachery and cowardliness. He not only stole his host’s wife while his host was away, but refused to fight man to man, striking from a safe distance via the bow and arrow.

  105. The answer to the author’s question is very obviously no. Russia is several technological generations behind the US and NATO and by the time Russia catches up with where the US is now, the US will have advanced further! Add to that the long tradition of incompetent (and corrupt!) commanders, going right back to the tsars’ time, and you can see why Russia hasn’t won a war without a European ally since 1878, and even then it was against the decaying Turkish Empire. The whole “bigger bang for its buck” argument is an attempt to get around that reality as is the idea that Russia could “wipe the US off the face of the earth completely” without itself being destroyed completely long before it had done so. And even that presupposes that Putin’s order to launch a nuclear weapon would be obeyed by soldiers who have to fear bringing nuclear retaliation down on the heads of their own families for the benefit of the very gangsters who have been robbing them blind for 25 years. 1917 is the anniversary on one of the most famous mutinies in Russian history, which we can bet Putin is going to hype on 7 November. Equally, the first use of nukes by Russia would result in the same “fantastic political backlash” as a US first strike.
    That said, there is no harm in hyping in the US the idea that Russia is ahead. That incites the US and NATO to increase their armaments, thereby forcing Putin into an arms race. Without the global economic domination which flows from US global military domination, Russia can finance an arms race only by diverting resources from the productive economy into unproductive military expenditure. That’s the trap the Soviet Union, much larger and stronger than the Russian Federation, fell into in the 1980s. As we saw with Hitler, revisionists like Putin usually end up by bringing down on their country a far bigger defeat than the one whose consequences they’re trying to revise.

    • 回复: @hunor
    , @bluedog
    , @Anon
    , @Anon
    , @FB
    , @renfro
  106. FB 说:
    @Avery

    There was no _promise_ as such: Japan and USSR were enemies. You don’t give a promise to your enemy.

    Actually there was…The Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact…signed in 1941…and honored by both sides…

    For instance when B29 bomber crews had to make emergency landings in Russia’s far east…Stalin didn’t let the air crews go…even though US was an ally…

    He made sure to keep them for a few months then secretly spirited them through to Iran, which was on Russia’s Caucasus border…and which was jointly run by Russia and US during the war…

    Cyrano is correct that the Japs didn’t want to tangle with Uncle Joe after they were quickly rolled back in their attempts to invade Soviet territory in the far east…

    About the lengthy comments re Battle of Bulge [Ardennes]…

    Let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees…Battle of Kursk dwarfed the Battle of the Bulge in both size and importance…

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/wwiis-greatest-battle-how-kursk-changed-the-war

    ‘…After their defeat at Kursk, the Germans never again looked like they might win the war on the Eastern Front, the theater that held the to overall victory in the war…’

    • 回复: @Avery
  107. @Ondrej

    很有意思
    I never heard of this. But it makes complete sense.

    • 回复: @Ondrej
  108. Anon • 免责声明 说:
    @Priss Factor

    The march of the obnoxious (and stupid) psychopaths in the highest echelons of the US power: https://www.globalresearch.ca/wipe-the-ussr-off-the-map-204-atomic-bombs-against-major-cities-us-nuclear-attack-against-soviet-union-planned-prior-to-end-of-world-war-ii/5616601
    “On August 9, 1945, on the day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, president Truman, in a radio address to the American people, concluded that God is on the side of America with regard to the use of nuclear weapons and that
    “He May guide us to use it [atomic bomb] in His ways and His purposes”.
    According to Truman: God is with us, he will decide if and when to use the bomb:
    [We must] prepare plans for the future control of this bomb. I shall ask the Congress to cooperate to the end that its production and use be controlled, and that its power be made an overwhelming influence towards world peace.
    We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind.
    It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.
    We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes”

    The usual expression of “pious” US deciders, “…an overwhelming influence towards world peace…” The US has become the paragon of amorality and hypocrisy

  109. Rich 说:
    @jilles dykstra

    Stop reading Zinn. Now. He is a biased, Marxist historian who re-writes history to fit into his narrow-minded viewpoint. By the time you finish that ridiculous book, based on your already anti-American leanings, you’re going to hate the USA. No nation is perfect, but the US has tried, in most cases, to be a liberating force in the world. We didn’t turn Japan and Germany into agrarian territories like some wanted. We didn’t authorize the rape of every female from 8 to 80 like the Soviets did. There are more American Indians alive today, with full voting rights, than there were when Jamestown was founded. We didn’t send our boys to Korea and Nam to conquer and enslave the people, we were there to protect them from the murderous Reds. If the dopes in Al Quaeda hadn’t stupidly attacked the US, we wouldn’t be in the Afghan or Iraq, either. The US has, for the most part, been a benevolent force in the world. Some folks just have to bite the hand that feeds them.

  110. Joe Hide 说:

    萨克
    You’re articles were already pretty good. I think they are getting even better!
    Just be aware, that mass consciousness here in the U.S. is also evolving and improving at at ever increasing rate. The fact that more of us are reading Your articles is strong evidence of that. Keep informing us in Your customized writing style. It will change us more than anything else!

  111. Mulegino1 说:

    America was a great nation when it confined itself to the role which Divine Providence assigned to it, i.e., as a great, transcontinental tellurocratic power providing an alternative homeland to European Christians wearied by the dynastic squabbles and interminable conflicts of the ancestral homeland.

    Unfortunately, this role was abandoned in the last decade of the 19th century due to the emergence of the Empire builders like T.R., Mahan and John Hay, inter alia.

    The Imperial phase led to the utterly disastrous decision by Woodrow Wilson (no doubt under extreme duress and probably blackmail) to involve the U.S. in the First World War, and F.D.R.’s even more catastrophic – even apocalyptic – intervention in the Second, which dealt, ultimately, the fatal blow to the Christian European homeland of Western and Central Europe.

    The collapse of the old Soviet Union provided the final coup d’ grace to any pretense of American greatness in the post war years, since it proved, once and for all, that the U.S. has been governed and controlled by a corporate and financial hyena class, which relies upon the projection of overwhelming American military might and “cultural” (in reality anti-cultural and kosher) predatory hegemony upon the edges of the great world struggle for the control of Central Asia, the world heartland.

    As it stands now, the legacy of 30 or so years of easy victories over pitifully infinitesimal and weak opponents and the continuing sycophantic and triumphalist praise of Hollywood (which knows who will fight for Eretz Israel) the US military machine is analogous to a super obese diva continously gorging herself on boxes of chocolates. This is tragic. The U.S. military has not engaged with an adversary at rough conventional parity since the latter stages of the Korean War.

  112. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @Erebus

    To understand a hyper-complex Russian system as thoroughly as a combat pilot would have to understand an SU35′s systems, he has to think in Russian. He emphatically can’t be thinking in translation and hope to come to anything but a “cookbook” understanding of the machine.

    With training they will master it. They have done a good job of learning English. I only need to learn the meaning of a few icons to drive my Toyota. It doesn’t matter whether those icons are little pictures, English words or Russian. In combat pilots surely don’t have time to be reading the knobs and dials on the controls. They have trained reflexes, or they die.

    Russian is not that complex. It is just another Indo-European language spelled phonetically. They have more case endings than English, but about the same as Latin. Once you learn the Cyrillic alphabet, you will see many words in common with western languages. What makes you think that Russian is more complex than Chinese?

    • 回复: @Ondrej
    , @Sergey Krieger
    , @Erebus
  113. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    They must have a media as strong as the US does, otherwise they are in a weaker position.
    Facebook, twitter, google – these are but a few of the US’ most powerful weapons. Americans themselves are under 24/7 assault from information technology. The war is here as much as it is anywhere else. Crush any real threats, create layers of fake opposition through websites that all carry titilating diversions that pose as thoughful intellectual analysis.

    Russia probably has an equivalent number of journalists, former spooks or security professionals who dictate the proper amount of journalistic edge and harmless status quo criticism to appeal to readers through their writing. Undoubtedly an idiot like the Saker writes for a domestic audience to ridiculously simplify global affairs as some version of a Avalon Hill war game from the 1970s where the soldiers are lined up on each side. Widest possible audience – 5th graders on up.

    • 同意: FB
  114. @Jim Christian

    Thanks for your comment. Always enjoy hearing from someone with real world experience. The increasing uncertainty appears to be the radioactive components of the physics package-technical stuff like americium ingrowth and plutonium-240, which increases the risk of pre-detonatin. They might go “Pop,” but maybe not “ka-boom.”

    • 回复: @Jim Christian
  115. Cyrano 说:
    @Avery

    Your version of the events is more factually accurate than mine. Mine is only a speculation. I still find it difficult to believe that as paranoid as Stalin was – that he would put all of his fate in the words of one single spy and that he would make such a huge gamble based on that – leaving the far east exposed.

    I think that he must have had some other assurances from other sources. I know what you are saying, that Sorge established his credentials by being correct about the German attack, so Stalin trusted him the second time around about his intel of the Japanese intentions.

    • 回复: @Avery
  116. Hu Mi Yu 说:
    @FB

    I began looking into this and turned up reams of information…anyone interested can start with wikipedia…and follow some of the references…

    I was oblivious to this war until I read the autobiography of Pu Yi, the last emperor of China. If you want to understand the origins of modern China, this book is a must read.

    Puyi, From Emperor to Citizen: The Autobiography of Aisin-Gioro Pu Yi. Foreign Language Press, Beijing China: 1989 (no ISBN)

    A key advantage for the Russians was the superior range of their artillery compared to the Japanese.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  117. FB 说:
    @Erebus

    ‘…Taking Syria as the test case, the Russian contingent is microscopic compared to in-theatre USM forces and prima facie could be overwhelmed pretty quickly…’

    This is the layman’s take…as I tried to point out on the 800 lb Gorilla thread…

    ‘…Meanwhile, compare that to USM assets that would be destroyed in that hypothetical exchange. CENTCOM Doha and the 5th Fleet in Manama would be gone, along with any other participating/supporting asset…’

    就是说 不能 how a US-Russia conflict in Syria would unfold…

    As I began to explain on the other thread…a US attack on Russians in Syria would first need to 压制 the Russian air defenses there…

    Ie a SEAD operation…

    A massive TLAM salvo at Hmeimim would achieve 没什么...

    Russian SAMs [numbering in the dozens of launchers and radars are already dispersed…and could not be targeted by TLAMs which have no such capability…]

    Russian aircraft there would be in the skies defending the airspace and shooting down TLAMs not sitting on the airfield…so would not be hit by a TLAM salvo…

    What is the result…?

    Russian SAMs are are all still there an able to shoot down any airspace intruders…

    No Russian aircraft lost…and can operate from any number of airfields in the area…or even from Russian bases…

    A TLAM salvo…no matter how massive… would achieve 没什么…anyone who knows anything about air combat knows this…

    But again…it is ridiculous to contemplate a TLAM salvo…as the US would never contemplate such a ridiculous and doomed-to-fail scenario…

    I had begun on that other thread to explain some of the things we can learn from the Shayrat TLAM flop…but nobody seems interested…

    Now on this thread…the discussion was supposed to be about Russian advances in 关键 technologies like the 超燃冲压发动机 engine [supersonic combusting ramjet]…which powers the new Zircon missile…and which technology the US lags behind…

    Yet the discussion has inevitably turned into armchair general nonsense…

    Go get yourselves a copy of CMANO…and have at it…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command%3A_Modern_Air_Naval_Operations

    • 回复: @Erebus
  118. Rich 说:
    @NoseytheDuke

    Wow. Is that really what you think about? Man, that’s disgusting. You should get a hobby or something.

    • 回复: @NoseytheDuke
  119. Technology aside, I can’t see an American military made up of mall rats, hood rats, foreign mercenary immigrants, transgenders, SJWs, radical feminists, benefit seekers, and whatever else, holding its own against the Russians or Chinese.

  120. @Diversity Heretic

    All right, all right, but what do you think about Hasso von Manteuffel?

    Nothing special, really. He was a division commander at Kursk, he certainly was not a dummy and was an experienced officer, but his emergence to the operational top of Wehrmacht coincided with this very Wehrmacht’s decline due to fighting the Red Army.

    Perhaps the greatest problem that other American WWII ETO commanders have vis-a-vis George Patton is that he had the immense good fortune to be portrayed by George C. Scott, an superbly talented actor, turning in the performance of a lifetime.

    True, movie Patton (and George C. Scott is one of my favorite actors of all time) is one of the greatest Hollywood fairy tales ever made–insulting in its misrepresentation of the real war and the role of Commanders in it. Patton himself was the greatest PR general in military history. His delusion is excellently demonstrated in his conversation with US Army Undersecretary Patterson in May 1945–his monologue is not a monologue of mentally adequate person. Somehow Eisenhower never merited a good movie about himself (with the exception of a second-tier unnoticed picture with Tom Selleck), nor Omar Bradly has any movie about himself, but he certainly deserved one. Nor will Americans ever see movie about Gerow’s V Corps.

    • 回复: @Diversity Heretic
  121. Ondrej 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    What makes you think that Russian is more complex than Chinese?

    It is not about complexity, but different way of thinking, you can often clearly see it in engineering, Japanies and Chines products they have simply different logic in comparison to European (German for example), quite often it is visible in software UI logic as well. You can clearly see it when you dealing with some control SW of more complex machines..

    To certain degree you can see it also in between various nations.. French versus German for example…

    • 回复: @Sergey Krieger
  122. The difficulty in deciding who has the best weapons is to decide which weapons matter. The US has aircraft carriers and possible fighter jets superior to anything possessed by its competitors, but if the aircraft carriers are vulnerable to supersonic cruise and ballistic missiles, and the F35 is vulnerable to long-range anti-aircraft missiles, then American weapons superiority will prove to be of the wrong kind.

    America is well prepared to fight WW2 again, but may be set for humiliation flying F35s from aircraft carriers against Russian S500 missiles, or messing with China’s, perhaps quantum-encrypted, satellite communications.

    In an era of advanced technology, the most important national “weapons system” is the tech and manufacturing sector. The US is clearly losing competitiveness in both areas, as its educational system goes down the tubes and its industrial base continues to decline in scope and versatility.

  123. AaronB 说:

    Your remark about Americans being unable to understand Hegelian dialectic is particularly perceptive.

    When I try to explain to Americans that the strength of the West – technology, science, and the critical spirit – has led to its weakness, I am met with a deafening silence.

    Americans literally cannot understand paradox, it is beyond their ken.

    The alt-right continues to plan for the cultural resurgence of the West based on the very thing that destroyed it’s culture, the critical scientific spirit.

    The second time, history repeats itself ad farce. Humans never learn.

  124. @polskijoe

    US airforce/navy is stronger.

    US Navy, despite all its problems, is the strongest Navy in the world and by far. But it also has a fatal flaw. This, to a significant degree applies to US Air Force too. The issue with acquisition in US military is, indeed, clear and present danger to the US and it is only the fact of US superb geographic position that this gigantic flaw hasn’t been demonstrated even more dramatically. This is how Colonel Davies was forced to admit it:

    The truth is, the United States is nowhere near as powerful and dominant as many believe.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-sobering-truth-about-the-pentagons-acquisition-failures-15138

    The problem is deeper than some collection of technologies, the problem is cultural and it cannot be changed.

    • 回复: @Sergey Krieger
    , @Narwan
  125. @Ondrej

    In terms of spoken language Russian is by far more complex than chinese. Grammar alone is on different level. Modern Chinese grammar is basically very simple. When it comes to reading and writing it is obviously a different ball game. Chinese is far more difficult to master and requires years of hard daily study and never ending practice.

    • 回复: @ondrej
  126. @Hu Mi Yu

    Russian is very different from say English. Grammar and changes that words are going through when spoken in different situations, times tenses, who is speaking male or female and so forth so on. I studied in China some 29 years ago. It looked like we were mastering spoken Chinese better than other way around. One of our students actually won competition among Han locals for position of radio host. Her Potong Hua was flawless and pronunciation spot on. Learning written language requires a lot of hard work and daily study. Without constant practice it is getting forgotten rather quickly. I agree that one who learned written Chinese would have little problem to memorize kirillik or Latin as mere icons. I would not have.

  127. Ben Gunn 说:

    Good column, Saker. Corruption in the military is an American tradition. Union uniforms printed on paper for example, or the infamous fire trap Sherman tank. A WW2 vet told me they asked every week for tank volunteers. It was regarded as a death trap. We did understand the airplane, fighter and bomber was more important than the German tank.

  128. FB 说:
    @Rich

    ‘…The US has, for the most part, been a 仁慈 force in the world. Some folks just have to the hand that feeds them…’

    I guess the whole world is now ‘biting the hand that feeds them…’

    http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008

    不少于 a quarter of the world population thinks US is the 最大 threat to world peace…

    Even funnier…13 percent of US agrees…

    In 加拿大 it’s 17 percent…and Mexico 34 percent…

    What a knee-slapper…even US neighbors biting that ‘benevolent’ hand…

    US wins the prize of biggest threat to peace by a 英里…second place Pakistan gets only 8 percent…three times less than US…china at 6 percent…

    I guess they should all stop reading Zinn and other ‘anti-American’ books…?

    • 同意: Cyrano
    • 回复: @Rich
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
  129. @Randal

    There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.

    hmmm. I’d say the real question is why the interminable navel gazing over hypothetical Russia/US match-ups.
    Saker says on his page he’s studying theology. There’s 3 Russian Orthodox monasteries on Mt. Athos he can go to navel gaze, and they really are the pros there.

    It is an altogether worthwhile and proper discussion for everyone to wonder why we have so many deployments, like in what world of even perfectly conventional Republicrat thinking does it make any sense that we are so deployed, in so many places. We will be stronger – deployed less.

    Another worthwhile question is why the hell anyone is talking about a 300 ship navy when we can’t keep 1/3rd of the current one sailing and why 50% of its planes aren’t flightworthy. Then there’s the F35.

    All of those are good questions. A rarely deployed US military, with a smaller navy, with 1/3 of its ships deployed 100% of the time and in full readiness, with 80% of its planes flightworthy, is a military Russia has no stomach to test.

    But then – again – why the hell do we need to think about fighting Russia? Yes, yes – I know there are 20 answers and the response is: we shouldn’t fight Russia, and Russia shouldn’t fight us. It’s in neither country’s interests and only a damn fool thinks otherwise.

    As to Saker – and every, silly, little, puissant article he insists on publishing … do this:

    Imagine you are a US Marine, Army Ranger, or other manner of deployed infantry or airmobile unit – and go ahead and imagine that it is in one of these deployments that do nothing at all for US interests – day to day you do your thing and you know what your thing is and so do your comrades – and every once in awhile there’s a death in Yemen or Niger or Libya – and they are kind of like the exceptions that prove the rule, and meanwhile you know your thing, and you know what’s going on, and you know how war works.

    And you know: Saker is completely full of it.

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  130. @Diversity Heretic

    “radioactive components of the physics package-technical stuff like americium ingrowth and plutonium-240, which increases the risk of pre-detonatin. They might go “Pop,” but maybe not “ka-boom.”

    You mean, there’s radioactive shit in a B-61? I had no idea. I thought it was just physics. A motherboard, a canon plug, a few wires. Damn! Had I but known!

  131. bluedog 说:
    @Michael Kenny

    Who cares for its not going to happen,we can spend spend spend on suspect weapon systems and argue they are the best but with a dead economy trillions in debt and a collaspe of the financial system like Russia had will probably occure first..

    • 同意: renfro
  132. @Rich

    The problem, I fear, is that Zinn does not write much else than I already knew from books like:
    Larry G. Gerber,“自由主义的局限性,约瑟夫斯·丹尼尔斯、亨利·斯蒂姆森、伯纳德·巴鲁克、唐纳德·里奇伯格、菲利克斯·法兰克福和现代美国政治经济的发展”,纽约,伦敦,1984 年
    Harold L Ickes,“Harold L Ickes 的秘密日记,第一千天”,纽约,1954 年
    Harold L Ickes,“Harold L Ickes 的秘密日记,II,内部斗争”,纽约,1954
    Harold L Ickes,“Harold L Ickes 的秘密日记,III,降低的云彩”,纽约,1954 年
    约翰·弗林(John F.
    赫伯特·阿普特克(Herbert Aptheker),“美国黑人奴隶起义1526 – 1860年”,纽约,1939年
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan,《秘密》,纽黑文 1998
    芭芭拉·欣克利·谢尔顿·戈德曼,美国政治与政府,伊利诺伊州格伦维尤,1990年
    Edwin E. Moïse,《东京湾与越南战争的升级》,1996 年,伦敦
    The list is far from complete.

    • 回复: @Rich
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
  133. @Hu Mi Yu

    A key advantage for the Russians was the superior range of their artillery compared to the Japanese.

    真的吗?

  134. Anon • 免责声明 说:
    @dearieme

    “Wasn’t the purpose to turn Iraq into a middle eastern Switzerland?”

    Since when the Feds and Pentagon have been involved in philanthropy? Look at the smirking idiot Bush and the psychopathic Cheney; do they look like two decent human beings caring for humanity? – Not at all. They are the traitors to the US Constitution and to the humanity at large.

  135. Rich 说:
    @FB

    With all the anti-American propaganda that you, and a lot of others on this site swallow, I’m surprised it’s only 25% and I’m encouraged that it’s only 17% in Canada. Human nature, as it is, I can understand many people, like the Mexicans, being jealous of their wealthy neighbor. Still, they’ll do anything they can to get across the Rio Grande, won’t they? If, Heaven forbid, the Chicoms ever become the world’s sole superpower, people will be praying for the return of the very benevolent Americans.

  136. peterAUS 说:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    hmmm. I’d say the real question is why the interminable navel gazing over hypothetical Russia/US match-ups.

    Well…..assuming that’s not a rhetorical question, how about this:

    There is a very well thought out reason.
    The execution is sometimes crude, but well managed. Offsets the crudeness, more or less. Clever, really.
    Takes some time and effort to get it here, but, you can’t miss it in time.

    There is actually a core reason and then, say, additional two reasons of less importance.

    And, of course, can’t spell them out. One of those “Internet chat” catches 22.

    But, with just a little bit of effort anyone can figure that out.
    A good exercise IMHO.

  137. Anon • 免责声明 说:
    @Michael Kenny

    “…revisionists like Putin…” — And your opinion about your Bibi and our Trump? Peachy?
    Russia has been fighting for survival, for some 20 years, and not without some success. There were numerous attempts by Russian Federation to establish the normal and mutually fruitful relationships with the EU and US. Could you explain why the US has not been interested and the pitiful vassalage of Europe could not dare to have a voice on these matters?
    https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html
    Harold Pinter – Nobel Lecture: “Art, Truth & Politics”

    [更多]

    “Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified. … the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States’ actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.
    Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America’s favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as ‘low intensity conflict’. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued – or beaten to death – the same thing – and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed…
    二战结束后,美国支持并在许多情况下促成了世界上每一个右翼军事独裁统治。 我指的是印度尼西亚、希腊、乌拉圭、巴西、巴拉圭、海地、土耳其、菲律宾、危地马拉、萨尔瓦多,当然还有智利。 美国在 1973 年对智利造成的恐怖永远无法清除,也永远无法原谅。
    Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy.”

  138. @Andrei Martyanov

    Geographic location has been America blessing so far. But considering changes you have been talking about and America never ending willingness to make bets may lead to USA sooner or later “winning” the lottery but not one American elites are looking for.it is a matter of enough bets made actually. Due to mentioned by you cultural thing America is reckless and is playing with fire.

  139. @Rich

    …who re-writes history to fit into his narrow-minded viewpoint.

    How can you be so sure that history 不能 be re-written? By the rest of your comment, it looks as if you’ve swallowed nearly century old war propaganda as some sort of “history.”

    As late as 1958, then, [A.J.P.] Taylor clung as tenaciously as before to his Germanophobic line… [then he] began to investigate the documents, and as he did so, he began to realize the truth. The power of the truth, and his courageous recognition of the truth swept away all of his own biases and preconceptions

    ……德国人在道义上是正确的……

    -Murray N. Rothbard,《第二次世界大战的起源》,作者:AJ.P。 泰勒(伦敦:Hamish Hamilton,1961年;现纽约:雅典娜,1962年)。
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/murray-n-rothbard/origins-2nd-world-war/

  140. Anon • 免责声明 说:
    @Michael Kenny

    In case you still do not understand the dynamics of ziocon/evangelical plans & actions in relation to Russia, here are the facts: https://www.globalresearch.ca/wipe-the-ussr-off-the-map-204-atomic-bombs-against-major-cities-us-nuclear-attack-against-soviet-union-planned-prior-to-end-of-world-war-ii/5616601
    “According to a secret document dated September 15, 1945, “the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas.
    The Kremlin was aware of the 1945 plan to bomb sixty-six Soviet cities.
    Had the US decided not to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclar arms race would not have taken place. Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of deterrence.
    The Soviet Union lost 26 million people during World War II.
    The USSR developed its own atomic bomb in 1949, in response to 1942 Soviet intelligence reports on the Manhattan Project.
    On August 9, 1945, on the day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, president Truman, in a radio address to the American people, concluded that God is on the side of America with regard to the use of nuclear weapons and that
    “He May guide us to use it [atomic bomb] in His ways and His purposes”.
    According to Truman: God is with us, he will decide if and when to use the bomb:
    [We must] prepare plans for the future control of this bomb. I shall ask the Congress to cooperate to the end that its production and use be controlled, and that its power be made an overwhelming influence towards world peace.
    We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind.
    It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.
    We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes”

    Truman other infamy was “he got the Jewish money and the Jewish vote” http://rense.com/general77/truman.htm

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  141. Vidi 说:
    @Cyrano

    USSR pretty much almost single handedly defeated not only Germany, but Japan as well.

    Japan was fighting a Chinese insurgency as well; that may have prevented them from focusing on the USSR threat. The Chinese were fighting a bitter civil war, so they were unable repel the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. However, a guerilla war against the Japanese kept them busy.

  142. renfro 说:
    @Randal

    The US no longer has the industrial base to produce the necessary war material.
    It has been almost entirely wiped out since GATT in 1966.

  143. Anonymous [AKA "british brainsize1325cclol"] 说:
    @RJJCDA

    根据二战期间与所有这些人作战的日本顾问的说法,英国人、英国人美国人、英国人澳大利亚人都应该与印度人和法国人并肩作战。 英属澳大利亚的懦夫任何人,新加坡都没有打架就投降了。嘿嘿嘿。

  144. @Randal

    The Americans never fought the Germans on anything like equal terms, they only entered the actual fray well after Germany’s fate was already sealed.

    • 同意: FB, RadicalCenter
    • 回复: @renfro
  145. ondrej 说:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Well, some argue based on legacy of Prague linguistic circle and Vygotsky, that spoken and written language are in fact two separate languages – means of communication.

    Making situation even bit more complex;-)

    In case you would find that interesting – Vygotsky: Мышление и речь, Thinking and Speech are interesting and not difficult to read…

    As for Russian as language of war, to me Russian military terminology is clear mirror of its millenium exchanges with various languages/military traditions – and it is bit mess (IMHO) .

    Sometimes it is even difficult to translate to very close language such as Czech:
    Often one can not find correct pair – word for certain terms, even when one can understand meaning due to shared history of language… which often in past resulted in just accepting some terns without translation..

    • 回复: @Sergey Krieger
  146. @Lemurmaniac

    It was a tragic event of history, in light of the current crisis, that Stalin’s ambitions got the better of him and that the Germans and Soviets did not remain allies.

  147. @Erebus

    I don’t follow your argument; if the Russian force in Syria is too small to win, who is going to inflict the defeat on US forces that would be devastating to US imperial credibility?

    • 回复: @Erebus
  148. Carl Jones 说:

    I think Russia has definite advantages such as jamming US ships and planes. There are also the weapons that rarely get mentioned. Space based weapons like the one that hit Tianjan. Then we have weaponised weather. I don’t think the US has seariously tried to win post WW2 wars. The designed 08 financial collapse was supposed to end the rise of China and bring down Russia. This failed so now we have sanctions and South China Sea topped off by North Korea. My guess is that Russia and China are waiting for the US to go bust which it will do as the petrodollar ends. The question is, does the cornered dying dog go out with a bang? It has taken me about 45 minutes to write this due to computer problems.

  149. Sean 说:

    Very dangerous for Russia to think the US is only going to attack if Russia is weaker. Furthermore, there are mounting internal problems of Trump’s that muscling a strong Russia represents a solution to. Even if Russia had the military edge, Trump may have his own reasons for clashing with Russia., inasmuch he could make the people who call him a tool of Putin look silly.

    If the indictments get too close, Trump’s quickest and easier way out would be to go after Iran as a way of drawing Putin into warning America off. Trump could then threaten him back; take out Iran; and look like a solid president who takes no guff from foreign twerps. Risky, but Trump will do it if push comes to shove.

  150. Russian weapon systems designed by soldiers for soldiers

    Russian weapon systems are designed by Americans which they then copy.

  151. Cyrano 说:
    @anonymous

    Yeah, and you are model citizens, aren’t you? “Chrizzies” never tried to forcibly convert the Muzzies to their religion, probably aware that there is no use. The Muzzies actually did use force to convert Chrizzies to their religion. Ever heard of Janissaries – wonderful practice by the Muzzies of stealing Chrizzies children and training them to be ruthless warriors, never knowing their families or their roots. Pure humanity. Don’t try to teach me who is more evil, you’re going to have to find some other audience for that.

  152. @Andrei Martyanov

    Enjoy your comments! I’m no huge fan of Patton myself, and Rick Atkinson’s books paint a picture of a talented but very erratic personality, who probably reached his highest “level of competence” as a corps commander. Or as Omar Bradley said of George Patton: “The oddest duck I ever meant.

    I thought there was also a movie about Ike in which he as portrayed by Patrick Stewart. Douglas MacArthur has had at least one movie made about him. Too bad no cinematic depiction of the much more competent Chester Nimitz, or maybe Raymond Spruance.

    As fun as it is to exchange views on WWII, I am increasingly depressed by the sheer tragedy of the first half of the 20th Century. The spectacle of Europeans and European-origin people killing each other in large numbers is well, just damned depressing! Do we now have the execrable Theresa May and Angela Merkel beccause of the losses on the Somme or at Stalingrad? I’m originally from Iowa and one loss of WWII was Nile Kinnock–Heisman Trophy winner and Sportsman of the Year in 1939. People who knew him said that he would have had a good chance to be Iowa governor. He died in a training accident in 1942.

    On the subject of the Saker’s original article, well that’s another tragedy. The U.S. and Russia have no real differences that need be resolved by bows and arrows, let alone F-35s and Sukhois.

    • 同意: Andrei Martyanov
    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  153. renfro 说:
    @Ron Unz

    Russia has a national strategy for who it allies with. All the US has is Israel, which isn’t even an ally, its the scorpion on the frogs back.

    2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship
    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-03/21/content_548330.htm

    [更多]

    8条
    The contracting parties shall not enter into any alliance or be a party to any bloc nor shall they embark on any such action, including the conclusion of such treaty with a third country which compromises the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party. Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow its territory to be used by a third country to jeopardize the national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party.
    Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow the setting up of organizations or gangs on its own soil which shall impair the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contrasting party and their activities should be prohibited.
    9条
    当出现缔约一方认为和平受到威胁和破坏或者涉及其安全利益或者面临侵略威胁的情况时,缔约双方应当立即进行接触和协商,以消除这种情况。威胁。
    11条
    The contracting parties stand for the strict observation of universally acknowledged principles and norms of international laws and oppose any action of resorting to the use of force to bring pressure to bear on others or interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign state under all sorts of pretexts and both are ready to make positive efforts to strengthen peace, stability, development and cooperation throughout the world.
    The contracting parties are against any action which may constitute a threat to international stability, security and peace and will conduct mutual co-ordination with regard to the prevention of international conflicts and bringing about their political settlement.
    Article l6
    On the basis of mutual benefit, the contracting parties shall conduct cooperation in such areas as economy and trade, military know-how, science and technology, energy resources, transport, nuclear energy, finance, aerospace and aviation, information technology and other areas of common interest. They shall promote economic and trade cooperation in border areas and local regions between the two countries and create necessary and favorable conditions in this regard in accordance with the laws of each country

    2015
    Russia Signs Military Cooperation Deal with Iran

    2016
    Iran and China sign military cooperation agreement

  154. @Rich

    Team America vs Team Russia. Talk about a battle of idiots.

  155. Ondrej 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I have heard similar stories for fighter pilots of Arab countries trained at Czechoslovakia Flight Academy (now Slovakia – Košice) or by Czechoslovak instructors in their countries.

    But, if it was true I do not know…

  156. @FB

    Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. America is the lap-dog, ultimately.

    • 同意: renfro
  157. FB 说:
    @Michael Kenny

    ‘…Russia is several technological generations behind the US and NATO and by the time Russia catches up with where the US is now, the US will have advanced further!…’

    有趣…

    And this US lead of two to three generations in technology includes the 超燃冲压发动机 engine, about which I wrote in the above comment…

    Ie…supersonic combusting ramjet engine which powers the hypersonic Zircon missile…while US scramjet technology is still in the lab stage…

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2063846

    Would be very interested in hearing your ‘expert’ comment…

  158. @Jim Christian

    For all my skepticism of our military contractors, is that accurate, Mr. Martyanov? All due respect, they uncorked some previously unknown (to the public in the 90s, we were working on these things in the late 70s) force multipliers such as stealth, guided munitions, depleted uranium, GPS and so on. I’ve been out of that bizz for quite awhile and so they may have stuff in the scabbard WE know nothing about today that multiplies our obvious forces many times over.

    Sorry I missed your post and didn’t answer promptly. You, certainly, have a point and I am not insisting on being absolutely right. I merely try to present a compelling argument. What you described in terms of 70s–pretty much same was case in Soviet Union. In the end, Soviet war in Afghanistan saw limited but not insignificant use of PGMs, from TV to laser-guided munitions. That was early 1980s and R&D on that was since late 1950s, actually. With US things started to go downhill namely in 1980s, especially as the gap in submarines was closed pretty much. Once the ability to process very large arrays of information was in place–game changed. What it is today we all, of course, may only speculate about.

    I, however, liked this observation of yours. From your other post:

    And of course, the aforementioned are not committed enough to the concept of the United States to give or even risk their lives for country. They’re having far too good of a time enjoying being tranny, and faggy and enjoying the free and easy ride being the feminist as civilians to join up. And good fucking luck conscripting them to military service. It takes a desire to support the girls back home and Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet and THAT dear friends, takes testosterone and girls back home worthy of defending. And THAT ship sailed with the 60s.

    Here, you nailed it.

  159. Rich 说:
    @jilles dykstra

    Quite a list of leftists and all out Marxists you’ve got there, except for Mr Flynn. It explains you virulent anti-Americanism. Maybe you should try a couple of non-Marxist historians, or maybe just appreciate that instead of speaking Dutch, you’d be speaking German if the Americans hadn’t come to save you. And you’d be speaking Russian if the Yanks hadn’t stayed after the war.

    • 巨魔: FB
    • 回复: @Begemot
  160. Avery 说:
    @Cyrano

    { I still find it difficult to believe that as paranoid as Stalin was – that he would put all of his fate in the words of one single spy….}

    I agree: Stalin was too cautious and paranoid to trust just one man, even if Sorge was right about Nazi invasion. So Stalin must have had other confirmation, which would be prudent. Sorge told him first, and Stalin had it confirmed by other means.

    It’s just a speculation on my part, but possibly Stalin’s other spies in Nazi Germany confirmed it: Japan being an ally of Nazi Germany, Japanese may have told Hitler not to expect a Japanese invasion from the East. Remember that Sorge was a spy in Japan when he found out about Hitler’s plan to invade SU. Germans must have told Japanese leaders, probably hoping Japan would invade from the East same time Germany invaded from the West.

    Or, maybe Soviet military intelligence confirmed it by observing the movement or non-movement of various Japanese military assets to particular staging sites.

  161. @jilles dykstra

    Germany was neither remotely close to an atomic bomb nor a hydrogen bomb. They were researching in the wrong direction. Japan on the other hand actually tested a very feeble A-bomb between the drops at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    • 回复: @Beefcake the Mighty
  162. 一些观察

    1) Russian airframes may well be better, on average, at dog fighting but engine fuel use is enormous so only near base. Dogfighting is dead anyway now the F35 is here.

    2) The Armata tank (currently built around French technology) is not due for production until 2030. It uses reactive armour which will slaughter supporting infantry and trigger counterattacks from reactive armour on nearby tanks.

    等等。

    • 回复: @FB
  163. Ondrej 说:
    @Erebus

    expect that the Chinese pilots selected for SU35 duty will have undergone extensive education in the Russian language, as well as Russian history, air battle doctrines, and even social & cultural milieu, etc. Before they even start the training process, they’ll be as Russian as a Chinese can get.

    你的意思是这样的?
    In this case, It looks like train already left station long ago.
    Can you for example recognize girls allegiance by their uniform ?

    • 回复: @Sergey Krieger
  164. Avery 说:
    @FB

    {Actually there was…The Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact…signed in 1941…and honored by both sides…}

    1939 August: Germany-USSR non-aggression pact.
    1940 September: Germany-Japan-Italy Tripartite pact.
    1941 April: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact.

    Despite the non-aggression pact between Germany and SU, Nazi Germany invaded SU in June 1941.

    Stalin was not someone to put his trust on a piece of paper, particularly after Hitler spat on it and invaded anyway. If Stalin had put any stock on a piece of pare, he would not keep badly needed troops, tanks, and airplanes in Siberia. He kept them there, because he prudently considered the possibility that Japan would invade – neutrality pact or no pact. Those Siberian troops arrived just in time to turn the tide of the Battle of Moscow. It was very close: without those fresh, tough Siberian troops Germans may have broken through.

    {….…and honored by both sides…}

    你是认真的吗?
    Is that why SU invaded Manchuria and totally routed the Imperial Japanese?

  165. @Ondrej

    I see “Vstavai strana ogromnaya”- RISE UP GREAT COUNTRY in Chinese. Qi lai weida de guo jia. Really, there was”Podmoskovnie vechera” in Chinese and other dongs. It has been since 1950’s.

  166. @ondrej

    By the way I have been in Prague probably 4 times. I noticed many signs “Pozor”. In Russian it is basically can be translated as shame, but I guessed it must be Attention in Chezh? If it is so, close slavic languages but quite a difference in samely pronounced word.

    • 回复: @ondrej
  167. MarkinLA 说:
    @Cyrano

    If the US really wanted to fight the Japanese army – instead of terrorizing the civilians – they didn’t even had to invade Japan, since the bulk of the Japanese army was – in Manchuria. That whole fairy tale about saving lives is fiction. The reality is that the Americans couldn’t put together a 1.5 million man army in order to deal with the Japanese army in Manchuria. But USSR could and did, with lightning speed.

    The purpose of fighting a war is to get some countries government to capitulate to your demands. The US could have simply used the US Navy and Army Air Force to strangle the Japanese home islands and there was NOTHING that Japanese Army in Manchuria could do about it.

    Asking Stalin to join the war was a mistake made by FDR when there was some doubt as to what an invasion of Japan would cost. If FDR had realize that he would have total naval and air superiority over Japan and decided to starve them out he could have chosen to do so but the US would have had to stay in a state of war for 5 years bombing cities and destroying farmland while millions of Japanese starved to death waiting for their government to realize the hopelessness of their situation.

    • 回复: @Sergey Krieger
    , @Cyrano
  168. MarkinLA 说:
    @jilles dykstra

    Japan was offering conditional surrender. When FDR blundered and made his unconditional surrender demand, Truman probably couldn’t accept less. The US for the sake of keeping the peace in post-war Japan pretty much gave Japan what they were asking for anyway – keeping the Emperor.

  169. MarkinLA 说:
    @jilles dykstra

    I don’t think you can get the temperatures or pressures required to ignite a hydrogen bomb. If you could there would have been plenty of clandestine programs in places like Iraq since you would not need centrifuges or reactors.

    • 回复: @jilles dykstra
  170. MarkinLA 说:
    @Anon

    Had the US decided not to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclar arms race would not have taken place. Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of deterrence.

    You actually believe this? Even Britain had a nuclear weapons program before the war started. They just merged it with ours to speed things up.

    • 回复: @MarkinPNW
  171. renfro 说:
    @Michael Kenny

    You should wish the US had a leader as smart as Putin.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2945924/Reborn-Russia-clears-Soviet-debt.html

    Putin Pays off all USSR Debt
    Paying back \$60bn of USSR debt with the latest payment of 22bn owed to the 17 Paris Club creditors.

    Russia paid off all its debt—the US otoh is swimming in debt …..6% of US income (taxes) goes to pay interest on that debt last time I checked, probably higher now.

  172. @Rich

    Britain in the 30’s was pacifist. The first spitfire wasn’t produced until after Munich. Merlin engine powered fighter planes were the only effective weapons the UK had in 1940. But even in 1940, the UK started to out produce Germany in every class of weapon: planes, ships and tanks, without counting Canada. Assuming USSR stayed neutral, the British Empire would have eventually beaten Germany in a straight fight. The UK didn’t have a strategic bomber in action until 1942. Build up takes time. More money, more men (5 million Indians volunteered for the army), more weapons, more oil to fuel jet engines. USSR neutrality mattered. USSR supplied Germany with rubber the most critical raw material for Germany. Make a plane or a car or even wheels for a decent horse cart without rubber? The UK was also on the right track for an A bomb, unlike the Germans.

    The USSR was forced into the fight by Germany and Japan expanded its war to attack the US and the UK so it wasn’t a straight fight. Canadian Valentine tanks diverted in mid ocean from the UK were defending Moscow by December 1941. The US clearly shortened the war by 3 or 4 years but the UK could hold Germany back and blockade it and UK/Russia could defeat it.

  173. renfro 说:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    The Eisenhower Institute

    http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/about/living_history/wwii_soviet_experience.dot

    ”Studied without bias born of the Cold War, one can understand the Soviet description of the facts. Some historians of World War II suggest that by mid 1944 the USSR was strong enough to defeat Germany eventually, without any Anglo-American second front. With respect to the “practically no opposition” propaganda phrase it is also true that the Soviets, who routinely faced battles involving several hundred thousand soldiers on both sides, did not regard the 67,000 Germans defending Normandy on June 6th as serious opposition.iii To the Soviets, fighting 390,000 Germans in the area of a single city (Stalingrad) was meeting serious opposition

  174. @Philip Owen

    Interesting, what’s the citation for the Japanese test?

    • 回复: @Philip Owen
  175. Narwan 说:
    @Randal

    Serbia didn’t lose Kosovo due to the war with Nato. It actually withdrew under a UN resolution which explicitly aknowledged Kososvo as part of Serbia.
    Unfortunately for the Serbs (and the rest of the world) the US and its european lackeys then later reneged on this deal. Once again showing that they are absolutely untrustworthy and that when national security is at stake you should never make a diplomatic deal with the US (such as giving up WMD’s).
    NATO was defeated on the field. It was through its usual nefarious diplomatic dealings that they later ‘gained’ Kosovo (although legally Kosovo is not independent but still part of Serbia).

  176. @MarkinLA

    “Asking Stalin to join the war was a mistake made by FDR when there was some doubt as to what an invasion of Japan would cost.”

    It is always a mistake after the fact and after someone did the job that you could not.

    • 同意: FB, Cyrano
    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  177. ondrej 说:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Correct, ussualy pozor=vnimanije, there are few tricky words like these in between Slavic languages.

    Another words ужас – úžas in Russian it has usually negative meaning in Czech mostly positive, but in some context it works for both languages same way..

    But it is often interesting, for example komnata, is originally Czech word, but nowadays you hear it only in old Czech fairly tales, another is military rota, it is believed it came from hussites to Russian language but originally german.. AFAIK it is used only in Czech and Russian language.
    On other hand Czech word vzduch=воздух was taken from Russian language at 19. century.

  178. MarkinLA 说:

    did not regard the 67,000 Germans defending Normandy on June 6th as serious opposition.

    You cannot compare what is needed to defend against an amphibious assault to what happens on a large open plain where you can be outflanked. You also have to remember the huge disinformation campaign to fool the Germans into thinking the main landing would be at Calais making sure the Germans would be below the strength needed to repel the invasion.

  179. FB 说:
    @Philip Owen

    ‘…Russian airframes may well be better, on average, at dog fighting but engine fuel use is enormous so only near base…’

    有趣…

    And you have some citations to back this up I suppose…?

    You may have missed my earlier comment about jet engine technology in this thread…

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2063846

    将是 满意 to engage in specifics on the point of fuel consumption in jet engines…

    • 回复: @Philip Owen
    , @Anonymous
  180. Erebus 说:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    The Kalibr, X-101, and X-32(?) missile strikes, launched from a wide variety of platforms and locations may be rather expensive ways to spoil jihadi commanders’ breakfast meetings, but they’re a very cost-effective way of letting the US Central Command know that the Russian expeditionary force in Syria is not alone, or in any way “isolated”.
    In fact, they demonstrate that the Russian expeditionary force is fully integrated into the entire Russian military complex, and that they will be defended from a wide variety of unassailable positions. The table turned around with the first Kalibr launch from the Caspian. Suddenly Central Command’s theatre assets became more “isolated” than Russia’s expeditionary force.

    From time to time, Russia sent reminders from TU-160s over the Urals & Iran, and surface & sub-surface shipping in the Med. Centcom understood the message and busied itself with betraying the Kurds.

    • 回复: @Beefcake the Mighty
  181. The one concern that I think over rides or eves a the test is that it has not bee tested.

    The US has not fought a major power since Korea.

    But I would add this caveat, should the US have to engage in such a conflict. She will most likely not do it alone.

    Side note: NATO defeated Serbia.

  182. Narwan 说: • 您的网站
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Thanks for the excellent background information.

    With regards to the US navy though one should not assign it too much clout. The US navy is primairily a colonial enforcement tool whose actual combat capabilities are nowhere near the level they are commonly portrayed at.
    The quality of the equipment used is overall fairly poor, either due to being outdated, being too complicated (resulting in a lot of downtime) and most importantly the incomptence of the crews. The latter is a very serious issue in the US armed forces and especially in the US surface fleet. Add to that the top-heavy organisation of the different commands filled with political generals and admirals.

    Instead of just listing examples i’d like to refer to this excellent website. Both the author of the blog and the main contributors to the discussions are very pro-US but they are also very aware of the near disastrous state of the US (surface) navy and discuss this in great detail with many showcases:

    http://navy-matters.blogspot.de/

    So while the US navy does have the numbers on paper, many ships are not operational, even many of those who are send out to sea. Maintenance and repair have been deffered on year after year and crews barely trained.
    I very much fear that should the US navy be seriously challenged by an opponent all too many of it’s surface vessels will turn out to be floating coffins.

  183. @Erebus

    OK, then the Russian force isn’t too small to win, no? Still not getting your point.

    • 回复: @Erebus
  184. @renfro

    Putin is a true statesman. Always striking to compare his intelligent responses to any number of policy issues, to American politicians, who can barely mouth mindless platitudes without a teleprompter.

  185. Rich 说:
    @Philip Owen

    Maybe, I wouldn’t have bet on it, though. Without the US, would the Brits have bothered to keep fighting if the Nazis had given them a pass? I’m pretty sure there would have been no D-Day without the US and if the Germans didn’t have the pesky Allies in North Africa, the Atlantic and Western Europe to deal with, I think the Germans would have defeated the Soviets.

    Of course it was a concerted effort to defeat the Nazis and without the Western Front, led by the US, I believe the Germans would have gotten their Lebensraum. The Soviets were on their heels before the US entry and the Brits were alone as a free nation in Western Europe. The US was the stick that broke the German camel’s back. Many of the commenters here have a major dislike of the US, though, and want to give all the credit to their Communist heroes. I strongly disagree with that.

    • 回复: @Joe Wong
  186. Erebus 说:
    @FB

    Sorry FB, didn’t notice your post.

    This is the layman’s take…

    I’m obviously a layman, but there are a few professionals hanging around here that disagree with you, so (assuming you’re a professional) what’s a layman to do when the experts disagree? Well, I think things through as best I can and come to my “layman’s take”. If I’m lucky, a pro will show me where I went wrong. If I’m even luckier and hit close to the mark, a pro may come along and apply a course correction.

    The take I took on the 800lb Gorilla thread was that the Russians would “run out bullets” before the USM “ran out of targets” for them to shoot at. Assuming the Russians have 3-500 SAMs and a dozen, maybe 2, air superiority fighters in Syria, what happens after they’ve all been launched/lost first against salvos of various stand-off missiles including the TLAM, followed by fleets of Predators and other armed UAVs, and then against incoming waves of B1/2s, B52s, F15/16/18/22s, etc and there’s still more waves coming, from all directions? Following that will come waves of A10s, Apaches, and whatever else Centcom can throw at what’s left of now defenceless ground targets. Even at 100% combat efficiency, somewhere along the line the Russians will have run out ammunition. Latakia, Tartus, and Hmeimim would surely be degraded to inoperable if not destroyed. No? If not, why not?

    To be sure, Centcom would have to have understood the existential nature of its situation, and moreover lost their aversion to casualties. Absent the Russian demonstrations of their stand-off capabilities, it is imaginable that the the USM would be able to man-up and deal with it. After those demonstrations, it ceased being a matter of losing a few hundred planes and assets, and became a very high probability of losing Centcom altogether. That, I think is what stayed their hand.

    …a US attack on Russians in Syria would first need to suppress the Russian air defenses there…

    Would it? Or would it just have to deplete them? In any case, the real combat efficiency of the S3/400 and Pantsir complexes is unknown to us (at least to me), but I doubt it’s reliably “1 shot – 1 kill”, never mind “1 shot – n kills” (where n> 1)。

    I had begun on that other thread to explain some of the things we can learn from the Shayrat TLAM flop…but nobody seems interested…

    I guess you haven’t been there lately. I and another commentator were lamenting the thread’s apparent death.

    • 回复: @FB
    , @Vidi
  187. Erebus 说:
    @Ondrej

    The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects its speakers’ world view or cognition.

    I speak a couple of European languages, 1 badly and the other at say a 10 yr old’s level. Even so, I can’t help but notice that one’s perspective and even personality change subtly to take on nuances that weren’t there before. I’m a pretty firm believer that there’s much more to this than is normally noticed.

    • 回复: @Diversity Heretic
  188. Begemot 说:
    @Rich

    Mr. Dykstra is instead speaking English, the language of the current conqueror.

  189. MarkinLA 说:
    @Sergey Krieger

    This is a stupid comment as the war in Manchuria had nothing to do with the Japanese surrender. The Japanese military was against surrender even after the atomic bombs were dropped and the civilian authorities were for it so the government was deadlocked. The Emperor broke the tie. In the Emperor’s speech to the Japanese people he said nothing about the war in Manchuria and only about the US and it’s use of a cruel weapon.

  190. MarkinPNW 说:
    @MarkinLA

    There is even the rumor that Hitler’s attack on Denmark and Sweden was, in part, an attempt to deprive the allies of nuclear technology from Nils Bohr’s lab in Denmark and the Heavy Water plant in Norway, and to seize it for himself. Also the attack on France, as France’s attempt to purchase Norwegian Heavy water production for several years into the future could be interpreted by German Intelligence as an attempt to deprive the Germans of nuclear materials while using it to develop their own bombs.

    • 回复: @jilles dykstra
  191. @Rich

    It’s called a pissing contest as you should well know since it’s what you do. To you, any criticism of American foreign policy is either un-American or anti-American and it doesn’t seem to occur to you that many Americans love America and the ideals that they once believed it stood for but they HATE what has become of it. Your pissing display or chest-thumping, call it what you will, only serves to further empower the enemies of the American PEOPLE by those who have highjacked the USA and are driving it to destruction.

    • 同意: FB
    • 回复: @Rich
  192. Joe Wong 说:
    @Randal

    the greatest and best experts on the planet can’t say with any confidence what the outcome of even a “limited war” with China would be, nor give any plausible guarantee that their limits would be observed.,
    But one thing can be guaranteed is that the USA will be the side that cannot observe the limit once the USA on the losing side real or perceived, because all the USA military men and war mongers are Ramble morons like Curtis E. LeMay type of psychopathic nuts and they believe the USA homeland is immune from wars, wars always fought on other people’s land, and their industrial might will overwhelm all enemies.

    Even the POTUS controls the key to the nuclear weapons but generals will launch nuclear weapons unilaterally once they are on the losing side. To the American politicians, generals and large portion of the population war is a game of win or loss like pro sports, win is everything, everything else is inconsequential.

  193. @Andrei Martyanov

    By around 2022-2025 it will be completely over. Competent people in US military know this. I am not talking about nuclear weapons, only conventional.

    For this precise reason, US will throw the first punch before that date, if it fails to convince the putative “resistance”‘s elite to accept their designated roles in the neo-feudal system.

    There are various clocks that were wound and set to tick by the actual owners of US Inc., most importantly the massive capital and technology transfer to Communist China by these same stakeholders. The bet was and remains that in the course of integration into the “world order”, at the time of relative parity, the Chinese Communist party would lose its hold over its people. The bet by Chinese communists was and remains that they would be able to maintain their hold on power and at the time of parity, they would implement the 4th and final goal set by Mao for Communist China.

    All of which means that there will be war with capital W in the very near future, if one is to believe the surface theatrics. I expect 2018 will be quite hot.

    And as an aside, Andrei, my sense of the mindset of the war party in America is that, based on encounters between US and Soviet Union, they believe that you Russians 不要 have the fire in the belly (or the psychological pathology, if you prefer) to go the ultimate limit, which is nuclear war. They do, however, take the Chinese very seriously in this regard.

    Btw, Randal’s first 2 posts were imo quite accurate.

    And @Saker, reading your pathetic propaganda makes my skin crawl. The same feeling I get when I read MSM. Give it a rest buddy. It won’t work. The same soft American heads that get turned by your type of output can be trivially turned back when the time comes. Seriously dude, after decades of unrelenting mass manipulation of the Americans they have their number. (And didn’t we see this just recently with young progressives and the Russia hysteria? Yes, we did.)

    • 回复: @Joe Wong
  194. Joe Wong 说:
    @Rich

    Brits were alone as a free nation in Western Europe

    What a staled cold war propaganda. The WWII was a bitter dog eat dog infighting between the morally defunct greedy imperials for spoils. “Free” my foot, after the Axis Powers was defeat the first thing those “free” nations did was to recolonize all their colonies and continue their imperial enslavement, brutal suppression, greedy exploitation and squeeze “free” out of their colonies.

  195. Yeah 说:
    @Ron Unz

    But there is another way to look at it – meaning the possibility of Russian military superiority. Here is my reasoning: For all its woes and warts, the USSR was in fact a science and technology powerhouse. The first man in space; nuclear capability not much after America; heavy artillery, tanks, other military hardware; world class theoretical physics; good military jets; etc. The scientific and engineering knowledge did not just dissipate when the USSR dissolved. True, it went into a limbo for want of funds, but once a people have acquired high level skills, the skills can quickly be serviced and freshened up once circumstances are right. Putin came at the right time for Russia. Another fifteen years of someone like Yeltsin, and perhaps the technological knowledge might have literally gone to grave. So it is well within the realm of possibilities for Russian military technology to be excellent. Is it better than American? I am no expert, but would find that hard to believe, but can easily believe that what the Russians have is pretty good. It also follows – if this line of reasoning is correct – that Russia’s military strength does not really prove American leadership’s incompetence. Russian military excellence, or at least adequate competence, was a pre-existing condition, going back to early Soviet times. Therefore, American leadership could be off the hook on this specific charge. General incompetence and stupidity is another matter, though!

  196. @jilles dykstra

    Zinn, like Chomsky, can provide useful insights from a leftist perspective, but they have obvious blind spots about Israel, and Jewish power in general.

    • 回复: @jilles dykstra
  197. FB 说:
    @Erebus

    ‘…there are a few professionals hanging around here that disagree with you…’

    Where…?

    I haven’t seen anyone here that actually has demonstrated anything I would call 技术 knowledge rising to the level of professionalism…

    The Syria scenario you described would never actually take place in the real world [as I already pointed out]…perhaps in a badly programmed video game…

    I would be pleased to carry on on the other thread but received no replies to my last post…where I went to some length to discuss the flight characteristics of the T-hawk…

    On this thread I have not received a reply to my one 技术 post…which was quite specific to the topic under discussion…

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2063846

    • 回复: @Erebus
  198. Mefobills 说:
    @Quartermaster

    Roberts isn’t shrill when he discusses near nuclear misses from the past. It was humans who decided to not launch nuclear weapons, despite false signaling and bad communications.

    Roberts is on the mark when it comes to now short warning times due to Nato encroachment. Also, by Western elites fomenting distrust, Russian’s are likely to think the U.S. DID launch. Hence the important human element has been subverted by the shrill warmongering from the West.

    Roberts is exactly right, the West is acting in an insane stupid way, which puts the world at risk.

  199. Cyrano 说:
    @MarkinLA

    The US could have simply used the US Navy and Army Air Force to strangle the Japanese home islands

    The “strangulation” method was applied to Japan since before Pearl Harbor – actually that’s why Japan attacked US.

    There was some economic blockade going on against Japan before Pearl Harbor, probably under some phony pretense like Japan is not democratic enough, or the human rights of the Geishas were being violated, whatever phony excuse they could come up at that moment.

    Obviously the boa constrictor type strangulation was not as effective killing method as the bear claw swipe.

    • 回复: @Vidi
    , @jilles dykstra
    , @MarkinLA
  200. Roy 说:
    @Mikel

    My sentiments exactly. He talks about how having the most powerful military “will generate it’s own weakness ” but never gets around to explaining how.

  201. @FB

    Those things are so fast at low altitude, do they not have radome troubles at the nose-end?

    • 回复: @FB
  202. @Andrei Martyanov

    I find this rather peculiar, moreover, Chines asked to be it that way. Go figure.

    How interesting. Well, it seems the obvious reason from the Chinese military’s point of view is (if and) when the Chinese capture Russian military assets in a war with Russia, or should they acquire the same under other scenarios, they can readily use them:

    Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs. (Sun Tzu 2.9)

  203. @Narwan

    So while the US navy does have the numbers on paper, many ships are not operational, even many of those who are send out to sea. Maintenance and repair have been deffered on year after year and crews barely trained.

    Good takes, Narwan. I’ve been bitching about the Navy and the train wreck Naval Air has become, how few carriers can put to sea with operational squadrons, escorts and crew. 10 carriers in stock, 3 or 4 at sea (at the most and we don’t get the truth as to how fully mission capable they are). The rest reside pier side, floating offices for single women with children. Because: if we deploy, what to do with the children? They lie about their deployment plans, their ships go to sea and the ladies miss movement of their ship. And they aren’t subject to Court Martial or even NJP. THESE are the “sailors” we filled sailor’s billets with? The ships, with the urinals all removed and potties all enclosed and private-like are also training grounds for homosexuals and trannies. Best part? We have two more under construction and one built with NMC catapults. It’s UN-fuckin-believable. It’s culture, it’s corruption (why is Lockeed the airplane manufacturer now building my ships?). Too few contractors control the entire procurement landscape. Add in the revolving door, the Generals and Admirals beholden to the contractors and of course, the Alphabet Soup of Sexual Depravity and their involvement in all of it and from where I sit, it’s a big fat dumpster fire.

  204. @Ron Unz

    The biggest problem in the US is that many new technologies are ignored because they would upset the traditional funding allocations expected for certain areas for the big contractors. Mounting anti-tank and anti-ship warheads on simple \$200 UAVs from Walmart are game changers. The best example are video guided missiles that have revolutionized warfare, but the USA has none! Israel took the lead with its “Spike” systems, and others have appeared since the technology is available at Radio Shack. South Korea has a system whose missiles are unjamable, cheap , and can easily destroy anything in range to include the latest American \$20 million mighty M-1 tank.

  205. @Joe Wong

    General Jack D. Ripper, is that you?

    🙂 Hardly. I’ve actually made the same observation, as you, Joe.

    US has demonstrated, whether in the ethnic cleansing of North America; or the manner of war waged by North against the South; or the ultra violence meted out to Koreans and Vietnamese and other assorted “gooks”, “nips”, and “sand niggers”, that they recognize no limits in warfare if (according to them) a line has been crossed and view their adversaries in such cases as untermensch.

    Would you, for example, consider Americans as particularly “spiritual”? Sure, lots of talk about Lord and Jesus and all that, but this is not a spiritual nation. Russians, on the other hand, have deep souls, and to their credit, I don’t think them capable of pushing the button that blows up the planet.

  206. Erebus 说:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    OK, then the Russian force isn’t too small to win, no? Still not getting your point.

    See my comment to FB @194.
    The argument, as I understand it, is whether Russia’s Syrian contingent, taken by itself, could survive a determined American attack. Andrei Martyanov’s (and most others’) stance is that it would be overwhelmed. Certainly, by late 2015 the ramifications of their presence were becoming apparent, yet the USM sat on its hands. FB has been claiming that the Russian contingent could in fact defend itself, but hasn’t (yet) given a convincing argument why he thinks so.
    So, the question arises “Why did the USM stand down?” Martyanov’s opinion is that they got the “horse’s head in the bed” offer when the Russians launched the Caspian Kalibrs and I’m just echoing his point. In straight power calculus terms, the launch said: “You could blow our little expeditionary force away, but doing so will cost you your assets and presence in the M.E. Your move.”

    In summary, Russia’s Syrian force, cannot be defended, and the main/only factor keeping a USM attack at bay is that the collateral damage (Centcom) would fall disproportionately on the American side. That’s why I use the term zugzwang. The geo-political situation demands a move from the US, but any move it makes puts it in a worse position than the one it’s in. So, it sits hoping the situation changes in some miraculous way that gives them some running room, but it seems that Russian diplomacy has boxed them in there as well. So far, their Iraqi Kurdish gambit failed and the Syrian variant is failing. They’re now hoping Al Qaeda saves them. Not a lot of moves left.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  207. @MarkinLA

    The Emperor’s large palace compound was never bombed while the rest of Tokyo was destroyed. The Emperor negotiated the surrender of Japan despite opposition by his army. The Emperor was untouched to live in luxury after the war. So why does anyone believe this was an unconditional surrender? Of course the USA was publicly committed to that by an FDR speech, but a secret deal saved millions of lives. I have no proof as ultra-secret deals are not made public, but I do have proof by the evidence noted above.

    • 回复: @britishbrainsize
    , @MarkinLA
  208. Vidi 说:
    @Erebus

    The take I took on the 800lb Gorilla thread was that the Russians would “run out bullets” before the USM “ran out of targets” for them to shoot at.

    That’s not clear to me. The Russian production capability can be collossal if China supplies most of the components. Then Russia can add the secret sauce (i.e. the software) and voila! a huge production line. I doubt the USM can overwhelm that.

    • 回复: @Erebus
  209. Vidi 说:
    @Cyrano

    The “strangulation” method was applied to Japan since before Pearl Harbor – actually that’s why Japan attacked US.

    There was some economic blockade going on against Japan before Pearl Harbor, probably under some phony pretense like Japan is not democratic enough, or the human rights of the Geishas were being violated, whatever phony excuse they could come up at that moment.

    Obviously the boa constrictor type strangulation was not as effective killing method as the bear claw swipe.

    A blockade is vastly more effective if the cargo ships are sunk instead of merely stopped and fined.

  210. Erebus 说:
    @FB

    You suggested (@37) that Roberts’ comments…

    … were specific to Russian technical advances…
    Specifically the scramjet engine technology on the Zirkon missile

    In the first place Roberts doesn’t mention “Scramjet”, and barely touches on the Zirkon’s hypersonic speeds. I don’t get your point here.

    继续…
    Please note that I was responding to your #121 where you said things like

    A TLAM salvo…no matter how massive… would achieve 没什么…anyone who knows anything about air combat knows this…

    Really? How about 1,000 missiles? Still “nothing”? 10,000? I’ve nowhere seen a convincing argument that the Russian AD could defend against an attack “no matter how massive”, even it was limited to TLAMs. That’s a pretty wild claim for a “professional” to make, and really a case that wouldn’t “take place in the real world”.

    The Syria scenario you described would never actually take place in the real world [as I already pointed out]…

    The fact that it hasn’t taken place is obvious, but the question “why not?” remains open. I don’t recall you answering it anywhere except in exactly the way you did in the blockquote above. Essentially, “It didn’t because it wouldn’t”. I don’t know what to do with that. Give me something to work with here. Why wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t “the world’s most powerful military” take umbrage at being humiliated by a few dozen aircraft and a couple thousand servicemen landing in their strategic backyard and totalling disrupting their program? Indeed, to the point of suffering a strategic (and very public) defeat? Help me out here, why wouldn’t it?

    Given that I think Syriaq is an existential tipping point for its Imperial ambitions, I’d expect the US to do “whatever it takes” to reverse the setback. In the event, they didn’t. Those S3/400s, however cleverly engineered, accurate and mobile, are useless unless they’re shooting things down. Everything they shoot down means that asset is gone. How many are there in Syria? How many targets can the US put up? Which number is bigger? Why wouldn’t the USM contemplate that in the existential context it found itself in? Were they really just afraid of losing a few hundred plane/pilots? They lost 10,000 in Vietnam in a not-even-close-to-existential war and shrugged it off. Did the Kalibrs, X-101s and X-32s sit them down, or what was it?

    I didn’t comment on your Tomahawk aeronomics post simply because I know little about the subject. The Tomahawk’s technical details and specifications are interesting, but they are, of course tangential to the strategic dilemma the US finds itself in.

    • 回复: @FB
  211. @FB

    Scramjet is BS due to skin heating, mass fraction, and maneuverability drawbacks.

    • 回复: @FB
  212. Erebus 说:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    They have done a good job of learning English.

    I have no idea about Su35 candidates, but my best translator (I’ve had several) placed 4th in a city competition in spoken/written English, and has degrees in English Lit and in International Commercial Law. Both require intensive use of English. Still, he struggles even at the levels of tech that I deal with, and would be hopelessly lost at levels significantly above that. We would both be hopelessly lost discussing an SU35.

    I doubt I can add much to what Ondrej and Sergey Krieger have already said without giving the whole topic a lot more thought than I’ve had time to devote to it. At this point, my thoughts on the topic are a somewhat disjointed compendium of observations, but I remain convinced there’s depths there that would yield insights not only in regards to SU35s, but to the entire scope of human action. Suffice to say that it’s a lot more complex than figuring out how to turn your Toyota’s heater on.

    In combat pilots surely don’t have time to be reading the knobs and dials on the controls. They have trained reflexes, or they die.

    Exactly, but they have to know 为什么 they’re doing the things they’re doing if they’re to become masters of their reflexes rather than be driven by them. Think of the long psycho-cultural indoctrination a warrior monk undergoes before he finally “gets it” and can start to learn actual strategies and physical techniques. I think something like that is behind the Chinese decision to go with Cyrillic labels.

    What makes you think that Russian is more complex than Chinese?

    I wasn’t really saying that, but Russian does have a vastly larger vocabulary, and so circumvents some of the ambiguities inherent in Chinese that makes communication and execution problematic as things get increasingly technical/specialized. Some of the concepts involved may not have an analogue in Chinese. Creating them is rarely efficient, and never quite satisfactory in my experience.

    • 回复: @Ivan K.
  213. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Randal

    I agree this is some of the American advantage, but not all of it.

    American superiority in manufacturing from the Civil War and up to fairly modern times, let us say the 1970s, was based not only on the size and security of the industrial base but a certain kind of thinking and an ability to implement it not possible in Europe. many of the people involved were first or second generation immigrants from England, Scotland, France, Germany, Holland, and of course by no means least Russia (and other nations of the former Soviet bloc). Some of them were old line WASP-Americans too.

    There is no one in firearms design, for instance, to equal the Mormon gunsmith, John Moses Browning. Browning’s designs are still in production and several are best in class without question.

    Although most all of these individuals were essentially European, none of them could have achieved what they did in Europe.

    Even in England, WWII production gives us great insights. The British produced the superb Spitfire fighter with its magnificent RR Merlin engine. Today a Spitfire is worth millions as both a historical artifact and a magnificent airplane for the well heeled enthusiast to fly, and in its time it defeated the Luftwaffe over Britain and played a huge role in the air war. But….the American P-51 Mustang , once fitted with the Merlin engine with its two stage, two speed centrifugal blower, proved a better fighter overall. It could be built in half the shop floor time with half the (wo)man-hours with less skilled personnel, was easier to repair (ask any warbird restoration firm: many have current experience with both types) and in its later, D variant could outrun most later Marks of Spitfire despite their having the 36 liter Griffon engine in lieu of the 27 liter Merlin.

    But….although the United States had the fine V-1710 Allison engine, the RR Merlin was unquestionably superior for fighter use where turbosuperchargers couldn’t be accomodated, because it had a much more sophisticated supercharger system. Packard in the United States therefore was licensed to build the Merlin engine.

    Packard had to build the engine so that all parts would interchange with the Rolls Royce version of the engine perfectly. This was an immense task for two reasons: each Merlin had much hand fitting of clearances and settings where an American engine would be made with full interchangeability of parts, and further, the RR Merlin like all British products was built with Whitworth threaded nuts, bolts and fittings whereas American products typically used an entirely different range of parts which in no way interchanged (UNC and UNF threads, plus a few others in places.) Taps, dies, broaches and so forth for Whitworth threads were not made in the US and given the war situation the Brits could barely meet their own needs. Packard therefore had to make all the nuts, bolts, fittings and so forth themselves as well as make the tooling to do it inhouse.

    This, was a job that no other nation’s industrial base could have a single plant do. If it had to be repeated today, even with the sophisticated CNC equipment now available it would be considered commercially prohibitive.

    Other good examples are the production of the M-1 Carbine and the M1911 .45 pistol by numerous contractors, with every part fully interchangeable with any from any other contractor.

    American engineering benefitted from two distinct things in all these. Top engineers and skilled workers from all the major countries came over and had the opportunity to compete with other, and there were no “old country” guilds to artificially restrict the thinking of manufacturing engineers. And the most skilled craftsmen were the toolmakers, die sinkers and patternmakers that made the tooling: the skill was made into the tooling so the actual work could be done by less skilled production people. Old time scraping and fitting was not used, at least not anymore than could not be eliminated completely.

    The downside was that the focus was exclusively on building large numbers of “pretty good” designs even when there were known flaws, where better R&D would have resulted in a far superior product.

    The P-38 Lightning was a good example. As good as a fighter as it was in the air, if an engine failed on takeoff usually the airplane crashed and often the pilot was killed. By 1944, it was realized that the problem was because the landing gear doors tool a long time to cycle and were very draggy during the cycle and also that the Curtiss electric propeller, superb on a four engine airplane or on a single engine fighter where fast feathering was not especially critical, was a killer on twin engine aircraft in a takeoff engine failure because it took many seconds to feather. Neither issue was ever addressed.

    However, overall, no nation could produce war materiel in both the quantity and quality than the United States could……back when it did, in fact , manufacture.

    My advice to Putin: Make all your own consumer goods, and make them really well. And pursue export markets for civil aircraft and other high value items. That’s how you build a manufacturing base.

    • 回复: @jilles dykstra
  214. FB 说:
    @Jim Christian

    ‘…Those things are so fast at low altitude, do they not have radome troubles at the nose-end?…’

    That’s a valid technical question…

    A bit of background…unlike an ICBM re-entry vehicle…a hypersonic cruise missile like the Zircon must carry a radar in its nose in order to home in on its intended target…moving surface ships…

    [There is apparently an exception now with regard to ICBM RVs carrying radar…the USN’s new W76-1/Mk4A warhead on the Trident 2 SLBM now carries a radar altimeter, which is a very simple type of down-looking radar that is also used on commercial aircraft to read its height above ground level or AGL…]

    At low altitudes the air density is highest…because the weight of the atmosphere pushes down and compresses the air progressively towards the earth’s surface…ie the full weight of the atmosphere is felt at sea level…

    Air density and the speed of the flight vehicle determine the amount of friction heating the vehicle will experience…

    At a Mach 8 flight speed near sea level where the air density is greatest the surface heating of the nose cone will reach very high temperatures…although not as high as an RV re-entering the atmosphere at M25…

    This is a materials science challenge and it has been addressed in various ways over the years…on ICBMs the nosecone is typically made of a material known as carbon-carbon…which is also used on the space shuttle nosecone and wing leading edges…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_carbon%E2%80%93carbon

    There are many more challenges involved in hypersonic flight…one is the structural strength of the airframe…

    The measure of total air resistance of any flight vehicle is called the dynamic pressure…in simple terms this is what you feel on your hand if you stick your arm out the window of your car at highway speeds…

    A passenger jet cruising at its typical altitude and speed will experience a dynamic pressure of just under 300 lb per square ft…

    A Zircon flying at M8 at 500 ft altitude will experience dynamic pressure of over 90,000 lb/ft^2…

    Obviously if the Zircon was only as sturdy as a Boeing, it would disintegrate just from the air resistance long before reaching that speed…This is a structures problem and is also dealt with by material science and careful geometric design of structural elements…

    However…as noted in my original comment…the 最大 challenge by far is to sustain stable combustion within the scramjet engine at supersonic speed…

    Hydrogen is the fuel of choice due to its fast burning speed…

    But the scale of this problem is 巨大 from a standpoint of fundamental physics…

    The fact that the Russians have a working scramjet is a 巨大 development to everyone involved in aerospace propulsion…

    This is the holy grail that everyone has been working towards…as I said earlier…it will be a bigger game changer than the jet engine 70 years ago…

    • 回复: @Jim Christian
  215. @ThreeCranes

    It was a 90% White homogeneous industrial society at that time. It was highly religious and even our leftists were far more rough and tumble than we see now

    We are much less industrialized and trust me pajama boy isn’t going to be fighting Russia

    If you want to send all the country boys off to fight Russia, good luck with that . YOu’ve just turned the US over the SJW’s

    All this speculation is also predicated on no one being able to target CONUS. I’m not so sure of that these days. A few well placed attacks could turn our cities feral , shut down our production and repair capacity and leave us in a world of hurt

    Its also massively easier since our peer competitors now have precision guided weapons as well

  216. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Indeed, the first loyalty of a jew is towards jews.
    Those who criticise Israel are called traitors, by jews.

  217. @Philip Owen

    What one sees as pacifist.
    The British problem was that maintaining the empire had bcome too costly:
    劳伦斯·R·普拉特(Lawrence R.Pratt),《苏伊士以西的马耳他东部》,伦敦,1975年
    罗德瑞克·麦克劳德上校(DSO,MC)和丹尼斯·凯利(Dennis Kelly),“时间未定,铁杆日记1937年至1940年”,纽约,1963年
    It was financially impossible to secure both the Mediterranean, the gateway to the East, and the East itself.
    I wonder if the USA is now in a comparable position.

    • 回复: @Philip Owen
  218. @MarkinPNW

    The attack was because of British French plans to invade neutral Norway and Sweden to deprive Germany of the Galliväre iron ore.

  219. @MarkinLA

    It is not physically impossibe, but technically very difficult.
    What I understand from the book is that a resonance did the trick, but not always.
    Rainer Karlsch,希特勒·波姆(Hitlers Bom),Ho纳粹-杜伊斯兰(Hoe Nazi-Duitsland)的核武器,在蒂尔特(Wilten)上进行的第一次世界大战,蒂尔特,2005年(慕尼黑希特勒斯·邦贝(Hitlers Bombe),慕尼黑)
    Do not know if a translation in english exists.
    It is a well researched book, there is an interview with a representative of Mussolini who saw a succesfull test, there are interviews with people in neigbbouring villages.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  220. @Cyrano

    Not some, when Japan attacked it had oil for another three months.
    FDR needed an attack to wage war, in the 1940 elections he had promised ‘not to send USA boys overseas unless the USA was attacked’.
    Dutch queen Wilhelmina was brought to GB against her will on a British navy ship, the captain told her she could not go to Zeeland, the SW province, not yet occupied.
    In September the Dutch East Indies joined the USA oil boycott.
    I wonder if Wilhelmina was brought to GB for this reason.
    The king of Denmark remained, he was able to do a lot, also for jews.

  221. @MarkinLA

    FDR did not at all blunder, it was deliberate.
    What Truman indeed accepted was more or less what was offered in januari 1945, the Emperor could stay.
    Germany was in fact the only country where the unconditional surrender was applied, also in Italy there was compromise:
    马里奥·托斯卡诺(Mario Toscano),《外交的设计,二十世纪欧洲外交史》,1970年,巴尔的摩

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  222. Erebus 说:
    @Vidi

    I doubt the USM can overwhelm that.

    The USM couldn’t, but it wouldn’t need to. In the scenario envisaged (@#194), the USM could probably muster the aerial assets in a month or two, and the war (assuming Russia’s Syrian force was more or less on its own) would be over in hours after the attack started, say 72 hrs on the outside. The sort of help the Chinese could offer in that sort of scenario is pretty difficult to imagine.

  223. @Erebus

    There is a saying that when one acquires a new language, one acquires a new soul. My daughter, who perfectly bi-lingual, says she thinks differently in French than in English.

  224. @Randal

    “the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation, based upon exactly the advantages you enumerate here. ”

    The US did not defeat either Germany or Japan. Russia defeated Japan before D Day and Russia and China together defeated Japan. The US was a lamb in the fighting but took the lion’s share of the spoils and the glory.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  225. @FB

    Big logistical problem, keeping liquid gaseous fuels on a battlefield. Although, on the Nimitz, we had liquid Nitrogen and Oxygen plants, Hydrogen presents lots of extra problems, not to mention you only get to fuel the bird just before flight. It could be we’ll only see these things at sea deployed and in homeland defense where they can be maintained and the fuels made available. I’m only a layman but maybe that allows me to see the forest, but on a dry-dirt battlefield, doubt we’ll see hypersonics dependent on liquid hydrogen. As far as the ICBM re-entry vehicles of MIRV’d warheads, relatively speaking, the sheer weight of the protections afforded ballistic missile-lifted warheads simply can’t be applied to a hypersonic weapon that’s doing Mach 5-7 first two miles of flight, low-level, the horsepower isn’t there to support the weight of present-day protective tech.

    You can’t beat physics, you can only work with them. This one is huge, expensive and we’ll see how intractable.

    • 回复: @FB
  226. @Erebus

    Maybe Russians could maintain defense of factories on the homeland, but anyone can attack the necessary logistics. You still need the natural resources to build your widgets. And these logistical streams are far-flung, world-wide, vulnerable and easy to attack. All this is WHY we have bases and outposts everywhere, they’re trip-wires, defending resources. We don’t hang around Afghani-Whakistan for terror, we hang around for the lithium, the silver, the poppies and a dozen other critical manufacturing components necessary to various processes.

    But citizens, they’re good with just thinking we’re “fighting terrorists”. What a great foil, eh? Brilliant!

  227. MarkinLA 说:
    @Cyrano

    The “strangulation” method was applied to Japan since before Pearl Harbor – actually that’s why Japan attacked US.

    Why do you insist on making stupid comments? Prior to Pearl Harbor the US would not sell scrap metal and oil to Japan. This was not a blockade and Japan was free to obtain those items from anybody who would sell them. They chose to attack the US so they could gain the Royal Dutch Shell holdings in Indonesia.

    Once the Japanese navy and air force were destroyed, and they effectively where, the US could do as it pleased with impunity. It could have destroyed all the means of communication and transportation. It could have destroyed fishing vessels and farm equipment. It could have destroyed power stations. It could have destroyed the few remaining factories that had raw materials. The Japanese could have been starved to death as daily strafing and bombing runs made farming impossible. Japan has no natural resources other than coal and the Navy and Air force could make sure the coal is never utilized.

    At the end of the war the US produced so many Essex class aircraft carriers that they could be kept on station around all the main islands of Japan.

    This is just classic siege warfare practiced from time immemorial. The only difference is without airpower you usually cannot destroy targets inside the walls of the fortress. The US could have destroyed anything inside Japan.

    • 回复: @Cyrano
  228. MarkinLA 说:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Well I was wondering when the most stupid comment was going to appear, and here it is:

    Russia defeated Japan before D Day and Russia and China together defeated Japan.

    The only force that the Japanese had that could be considered on par with the rest of the world was the Imperial Navy. The US Navy almost single handedly put the Imperial Navy at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. Without the navy all the other Japanese forces were useless for the defense of the home islands or the projection of Japanese power in foreign countries.

    • 回复: @Godfree Roberts
  229. MarkinLA 说:
    @jilles dykstra

    The Japanese accepted unconditional surrender. Some in the leadership in the US wanted Hirohito executed as a war criminal. Hirohito even offered his head up to MacArthur in their first meeting. MacArthur thought better of killing the Emperor in order to keep the peace in postwar Japan. MacArthur had total control over postwar Japan, his decision stood.

  230. @Narwan

    The US navy is primairily a colonial enforcement tool whose actual combat capabilities are nowhere near the level they are commonly portrayed at.

    Certainly applicable to surface fleet which is heavily carrier-centric force, which, in its turn, creates a dis-balance. It finally occurred to Rowden that one has to have an actual surface strike weapon and “distributed lethality” term was introduced, I think it is too late, but I may be wrong. US Navy has some excellent ASW platforms, but modern ASW is an extremely complex affair. It also has a superb submarine force and that is what really makes it a formidable force. I agree, it is an Imperial Navy honed for Power Projection (meaning blowing shit up with impunity in third world shitholes).

    So while the US navy does have the numbers on paper, many ships are not operational, even many of those who are send out to sea. Maintenance and repair have been deffered on year after year and crews barely trained.

    True. Add here such “combat” ships as LCS–which turned out to be an embarrassment ( a very expensive one), aka self-propelled 57-mm gun, and one gets the idea that there are some huge issues across the whole spectrum of naval warfare. But those are just some signs of a much larger problem with the US as a whole. But for now, US Navy remains the most powerful among US armed branches. For now, but the signs of Hollow Force are already highly pronounced. Granted that the world doesn’t slide into the global war, it will take some time for the US to finally reach some kind of balance between real (actual) capability is CAN have and geopolitical objectives it can achieve based on this capability.

  231. @Erebus

    The sort of help the Chinese could offer in that sort of scenario is pretty difficult to imagine.

    China is NOT real military Ally of Russia. Any help China may offer will be of non-military nature. China will not interfere in any meaningful way.

    • 回复: @Vidi
    , @Erebus
  232. MarkinLA 说:
    @jilles dykstra

    Then why doesn’t anybody else do it, it has been 70 years. It might be theoretically possible but impossible to achieve. Without an implosions device you cannot keep plutonium critical long enough to get a boom.

    Yeah, in a laboratory under ideal conditions you can make a small amount of hydrogen fuse, but you cannot make a large sustained reaction.

    If it was possible, Syria, Iraq, Libya …… would have all had clandestine programs and done it if the Germans in 1944 had.

    We had cold fusion (or thought we did) or maybe you forgot that.

    • 回复: @jilles dykstra
  233. FB 说:
    @Carlton Meyer

    ‘…Scramjet is BS due to skin heating, mass fraction, and maneuverability drawbacks…’

    Well…that would certainly be 重大新闻 to everyone at Nasa…and in fact the entire global aerospace community…

    I guess you didn’t bother to glance at that Nasa paper I linked to…

    ‘…Internationally, several countries, such as the United States, Japan, France, Germany, and Russia, have been involved individually and jointly in the development of air-breathing propulsion technology solutions to efficient, low-cost, point-to-point rapid global access and space transportation…

    '…这 超燃冲压发动机, its performance potential, and its design methodology validation have been at the center of this quest. Programs, such as this joint Russian-American project, seek to address this last major aeronautics frontier…

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88580main_H-2243.pdf

    I visited your website and had a good chuckle…your article on jet engine thrust vectoring…a few hundred [amateur] words lifted directly from pop-sci publication ‘Aviation Week’…

    Oh and btw…the term ‘mass fraction’ is applied in chemical rocket astronautics…in air-breathing engine aeronautics the proper terminology is ‘fuel fraction’…

    Any more snappy one-liners…?

  234. @Erebus

    In summary, Russia’s Syrian force, cannot be defended, and the main/only factor keeping a USM attack at bay is that the collateral damage (Centcom) would fall disproportionately on the American side. That’s why I use the term zugzwang. The geo-political situation demands a move from the US, but any move it makes puts it in a worse position than the one it’s in.

    Exactly what I wrote about–you put it well in a concise short statement. Great summary. Apart from Zugzwang, using chess terminology, there is also a huge factor of Zeitnot for the US since the US challenge was accepted on most fronts it planned to “constrain” Russia and that was totally unexpected and achieved a devastating surprise. The reason it happened is simple: look at the American “expert” community on Russia–most of them have no clue, economically or militarily. Many of them still believe, against overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary, that Russia is, indeed, a gas station masquerading as a country(c). They simply do not learn, evidently they are not capable of doing this. But I already quoted former Russia’s Ambassador to US somewhere on UNZ: US elites are delusional and arrogant. This what makes them also very dangerous since they are not rational players.

    • 不同意: FB
  235. FB 说:
    @Jim Christian

    Well…I’m a little confused…

    First you say…

    ‘…I’m only a layman…’

    And then you follow that up with…

    ‘…As far as the ICBM re-entry vehicles of MIRV’d [?] warheads, relatively speaking, the sheer weight of the protections afforded ballistic missile-lifted warheads simply can’t be applied to a hypersonic weapon that’s doing Mach 5-7 first two miles of flight, low-level, the horsepower isn’t there to support the weight of present-day protective tech…’

    和…

    ‘…You can’t beat physics, you can only work with them…’

    So…which is it…are you a 外行……或者一个 物理学家......?

    And by the sound of it perhaps a materials science practitioner as well…?

    If you have actual technical questions…I can address those…but [layman] comments like ‘can’t be applied’…are neither a question nor an actual statement of any discernible fact…

    至于 ‘horsepower’…I have no idea what you are referring to there…all I can add here is an explanation of what ‘horsepower’ actually means to persons involved in engineering and science…

    In the 18’th century when steam engines first appeared…there was a need to compare the work output of these new machines with the legacy source of mechanical work output…ie the draft horse…

    Scottish engineer James Watt embarked on a simple experiment with draft horses employed to hoist water out of mine shafts…and found that the average horse could work at a rate of lifting a bucket of water weighing 550 lb at a rate of 1 ft per second…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#History

    Hence the definition of horsepower…550 ft*lb/s…

    It follows then…a car engine making 100 HP would be making 55,000 ft*lb/s of 功率 [work rate]…

    So I’m not sure how this ties in with your ‘point’ about skin friction heating…

    我只能 that you are talking about the measure of 热流 in HP…

    Since the rate of heat flow is a measure of 功率 it can be expressed in a number of interchangeable units of power measurement…

    ie ...BTU/s…甚至 HP...

    For instance…1 HP = 1.34 W…= 0.7 BTU/s…

    所以如果你有 计算 the rate of heat flow from a hypersonic airframe to the atmosphere in HP…I would be 满意 to review your computations and discuss further…

    As for hydrogen…yes cryogenic [ie very low temperature] hydrogen is not easy to work with…and there is not presently a significant infrastructure in place…for the simple reason that there is no 需要 for it…

    The bigger problem with hydrogen as far as aeronautics is concerned is its low 能量密度…ie it takes up a lot more space for its given energy content than fuels like kerosene or gasoline…

    This means that a hydrogen powered atmospheric flight vehicle must have a bigger fuel tank…and hence more aerodynamic drag…

    This is not really a problem in the higher reaches of the atmosphere…say above 80,000 ft…where the air is quite thin…and where hypersonic vehicles would typically cruise…

    But hydrogen is also very light and has the highest 比能 of any chemical fuel…ie its energy content per 质量…which is more than three times that of kerosene [jet fuel]…

    That means that even though the gas tank has to be big in 体积...的 重量 of the actual fuel carried can be less than one third that of kerosene…

    This is significant…since the fuel fraction of any atmospheric flight vehicle is a key parameter of its capability…ie range…

    • 回复: @FB
    , @Jim Christian
  236. FB 说:
    @FB

    更正…

    1 watt = 1.34 HP…not the other way around…

    so…1 HP = 0.75 W = 0.7 BTU/s

    • 回复: @Erebus
  237. Cyrano 说:
    @MarkinLA

    The siege and the air-power did squat to defeat Japan. The Red Army offensive in Manchuria was what finished them off. Same thing as with Germany, 4 years of bombing and destruction of civilian targets accomplished diddly, the Red Army marching into Berlin got the job done.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  238. @FB

    The other factor is cultural…young people in the US aren’t interested in mathematics or phsyics…it’s just too hard…you actually have to work that brain…

    And anyhow, potential employers prefer low-cost H1b visa immigrant to an American-born and expensively trained engineers (what does a bachelor’s degree at Caltech cost now? Oh, here we are, \$68,901 a year for the undergraduate degree). Wonder what it costs at Moscow State or Shanghai Tech?

    • 回复: @FB
    , @Antiwar7
  239. britishbrainsize [AKA“ britishbrainsize1325cclol”] 说:
    @Carlton Meyer

    [Select a single Handle and stick to it permanently, or else use Anonymous/Anon. If you keep changing your Handle, most of your future comments will get trashed, which will be no real loss since they’re generally worthless anyway.]

    British americans nuked Japan because their feelings got hurt when some of their weak basque britshit brothers died while building the railroad in malaysia ww2 due to the heat and humidity all other EXQUCES for nuking Japan are a red herring .

  240. AndrewR 说:
    @ThreeCranes

    Most of those men likely never had children. Of the ones that did, almost all of their grandsons have been dead for years, and the ones remaining are almost certainly all elderly, senile and incontinent.

  241. Erebus 说:
    @FB

    Umm, 1hp = 0.75kW = 0.7 BTU/s

    • 回复: @FB
  242. AndrewR 说:
    @Quartermaster

    The UK had food rationing until 1954. You are appallingly shameless to imply that the UK didn’t end up much worse off than the US after the war.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  243. Vidi 说:
    @Erebus

    The USM couldn’t, but it wouldn’t need to. In the scenario envisaged (@#194), the USM could probably muster the aerial assets in a month or two, and the war (assuming Russia’s Syrian force was more or less on its own) would be over in hours after the attack started, say 72 hrs on the outside. The sort of help the Chinese could offer in that sort of scenario is pretty difficult to imagine.

    How would the U.S. overwhelm Russia/China’s aerial defenses if the latter destroyed all the nearby NATO airfields (in Europe) and all the nearby airfields and carriers (in the Pacific)? The GPS constellation would not survive either, so the US’s missiles would be ineffective (inaccurate).

    Without air supremacy (let alone dominance), the US would have a really hard time. Russia has lots of resources, so the logistics could not be seriously damaged. With all the resources available, China could supply Russia with enormous quantities of components. As I said, Russia’s production capacity would be quite collossal. The US would lose the war if it were stupid enough to start one.

    Of course, if the conflict went nuclear, we’d all lose.

    • 回复: @Vidi
  244. @AndrewR

    The UK had food rationing until 1954. You are appallingly shameless to imply that the UK didn’t end up much worse off than the US after the war.

    He never heard of a “Utility Loaf”. Albeit, this rationing looked damn good from the Soviet Union in 1945-1950. But you are right. As Paul Fussel admitted, bar some staples, portions were minuscule till 1954. The US simply has no experience with that kind of war impact. In the end London, Coventry and others had the shit bombed out of them during the War.

    • 回复: @jilles dykstra
  245. Vidi 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    China is NOT real military Ally of Russia. Any help China may offer will be of non-military nature. China will not interfere in any meaningful way.

    I think you underestimate the depth of China’s A2/AD; the US will be unable to overwhelm those defenses. NATO will probably be neutralized in Europe, so Russia and China will have time. With time, the production capacity and sheer manpower of China will begin to tell. USA will lose.

  246. Anonymous [AKA "c1ue"] 说:

    What is interesting that almost all of the above commenters – as well as the original author of the article – miss is that the US is no longer protected by 2 oceans.
    Not because the oceans have gone away, but because the US has spread its soldiers, sailors, airmen and rear echelon types literally all over the world. The same is true for most of the American productive capacity.
    The reason the US could benefit from WW1 and WW2 is because it was totally detached militarily and was an exporter economically.
    The sad reality is that today the US is no longer detached militarily due to its hundreds of bases and hundreds of thousands of troops all over the world.
    And the US is a net importer, so is equally not positioned to benefit from other people fighting.
    Yet the establishment in the US still thinks it is 1912 or 1937 – that they can start a conflict somewhere else and reap the rewards as Wilson and FDR did.
    I’d also note that the type of thinking which has enormously advanced NPRK missile technology is something which very much threatens American military dominance – real or imagined.
    The 30,000 3D printers which North Korea is supposedly using is a major game changer: it means that a nation doesn’t need to create the machines, to create the machines, to create the machines to make modern weapons.
    It means that fantastically expensive, WW2 style American military factories with their decades of MIC padding may no longer be producing higher quality with acceptable cost, but rather are a huge negative efficiency multiplier.
    The F35 certainly seems to fit this bill.

    • 回复: @Avery
  247. MarkinLA 说:
    @Cyrano

    There was no siege and if you had any real understanding about that war you would know it. The Japanese Army in Manchuria had NO way to ever get back to Japan and contribute to it’s defense no matter what happened to them in Manchuria. The point was that the US did not need nuclear weapons to defeat Japan, they simply had to blockade Japan until the Japanese starved to death however long that took.

    Like a lot of these commenters here you have let your anti-Americanism blind you into coming up with incredibly stupid arguments that have nothing to do with the reality of what was important in that war.

    I am not someone who doesn’t respect what the USSR did against Germany but in the war against Japan, the USSR was a non-entity for all practical purposes.

    • 回复: @Cyrano
    , @Andrei Martyanov
  248. I think you underestimate the depth of China’s A2/AD; the US will be unable to overwhelm those defenses. NATO will probably be neutralized in Europe, so Russia and China will have time. With time, the production capacity and sheer manpower of China will begin to tell. USA will lose.

    Then I am missing something. Please elaborate what scenario are you talking about? I thought about Syria. Most likely, my mistake. Per Chinese A2/AD–agree, formidable. Once China gets her act together in terms of modern submarine force–could become impenetrable, especially against the background of China being on a buying spree in terms of P-800 Onyx, Su-35s, S-400 etc. P-800s creates a continuous (with a good overlap coefficient) forbidden zone at the First Island Chain.

    • 回复: @Vidi
  249. @MarkinLA

    Because it is damned difficult to accomplish.
    Even German scientists did not succeed in producing a reliable hydrogen bomb.
    Some tests succeeded, others failed.
    Pity you cannot read the book, I suppose.

    When Hitler visited Peenemünde he said to Dornberger, that he was one of the two people in Germany he owed apologies.
    I long wondered who was the second, I now think is was the leader, of the team, just three scientists, one of them jewish, who were near to the hydrogen bomb.
    As I stated, on Prague airport two planes converted for delivering the bomb were ready, Rudel, Germany’s best pilot, was forbidden to fly any more.
    He had to drop the bomb on the Ural hydro electric power installation.

    Walter Dornberger, Peenemünde, Die Geschichte der V-Waffen, Esslingen 1981, 2003
    Hans-Ulrich Rudel, 'Mein Kriegstagebuch, Aufzeichnungen eines Stukafliegers', 1983, 2006 德累斯顿
    Rudel mentions the bomb, he called it atomic, already in the 1956 edition of his book.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  250. @Anonymous

    According to Lindbergh the Lightning was not a good fighter ‘one could not outturn a Zero’.
    The trick of the Lightning was that the armament was concentrated in the nose, not in the wings.
    Therefore the Lightning could effectively fire from a far greater distance than one engined planes.

    • 回复: @Lurker
  251. Avery 说:
    @Anonymous

    {The sad reality is that today the US is no longer detached militarily due to its hundreds of bases and hundreds of thousands of troops all over the world.}

    The Rulers in Washington D.C. regard those troops as expendable.
    They are nothing more than cannon fodder.
    Hired guns to be used to advance Globalist Imperial goals.
    (“They volunteered to be in harm’s way, didn’t they……”)

    Not my opinion: how US military KIA or WIA are treated after they are no longer useful is proof.

    The Rulers still feel very safe separated by two oceans: no conventional military can harm US mainland and because the possibility of being nuked is too hard or impossible to contemplate for these people.
    So they constantly play with fire all over the world, discounting the possibility, however remote, that starting controlled fires sometimes get out of hand and burn everything in site* .


    {The 30,000 3D printers which North Korea is supposedly using is a major game changer: }

    3D printers are no magic solution.
    You can create useful parts, mostly consumer, but 3D printers use a special metal or plastic suitable for 3D printing. Military parts that require special alloys and treatment cannot be created by 3D: you still need old fashioned metal smelters, CNC machines, etc.
    ________________

    * [Clinton residents angered over controlled burn now raging out of control]
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/clinton-residents-angered-over-controlled-burn-now-raging-out-of-control-1.4231953

    [When Prescribed Burns Go Wrong]
    https://www.outsideonline.com/1988971/playing-fire-feud-grows

    [The controlled burn was supposed to stave off a future blaze; instead, warm temperatures and high winds fanned a wall of flames that torched 1,400 acres, left three people dead, and destroyed 23 homes—even those like Scanlan’s with defensible space.]

    • 回复: @Vidi
  252. @Andrei Martyanov

    As the British said after the war ‘we won the war, but lost the peace’.
    They, nor the French, won the war, the war was won by Russian blood and USA industrial production.
    Churchill was the undertaker of the British empire.
    This truth cannot be sold in GB, therefore the book describing this by a GB historian exists only in a German translation:
    约翰·查姆利(John Charmley),《罗斯福帝国的下层帝国》,罗斯福–丘吉尔和美利坚合众国,《格拉茨》,2005年,格拉茨
    翻译
    The end of the British empire, FDR – Churchill and the USA road to world power.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
    , @Eagle Eye
  253. FB 说:
    @Erebus

    I’ll start with your most ‘serious’ comment/question first…[relatively speaking]

    ‘…The Tomahawk’s technical details and specifications are interesting, but they are, of course 切线的 to the strategic dilemma the US finds itself in…’

    Tangential…?

    ‘Of course…’

    Then perhaps you might enlighten us as to how exactly a TLAM strike is actually planned and its flight path programmed…?

    I guess someone on the warship just presses a button…and away she goes…?

    I’m sure you have experienced a flight on a passenger jet…do you think the flight crew just punches one key into the nav computer and away she goes…?

    Sorry but it doesn’t work that way…

    I used the analogy of commercial jets in my discussion of the flight characteristics of the T-hawk because these two 飞机 are very similar…in aerodynamics, propulsion and flight dynamics… I will not rehash that so here is the comment link…

    https://www.unz.com/article/russia-the-800-pound-gorilla/#comment-2056929

    I will continue this useful analogy here…with regard to the question of actually launching a TLAM from a naval vessel…

    First the passenger jet…the flight crew must program carefully a 飞行计划 that includes a number of 航路点 along the way…

    The TLAM operator must do the same …

    I had not yet got to the part about exploring the T-hawk’s nav system…but suffice to say that its flight plan relies very heavily on 航路点...

    These waypoints are geographical features of the terrain it is overflying…and are used to keep the T-hawk on its intended route…

    The sensors used to do this are optical and are called ‘Digitized Scene-Mapping Area Correlator’ [DSMAC]…

    In simple terms…the T-hawk uses a gyroscopic nav system as its primary guidance method…just like those used on passenger jets…they are called ienrtial nav systems [INS]…and rely on gyroscopic principles to detect slight changes in the flight vehicle’s direction, speed etc…

    Knowing the location you started from…these changes in the aircraft’s direction and speed allow the computation of the aircraft’s actual position at any time along the flight…

    INS are also used on ICBMs but highly accurate INS can be very expensive…the lower cost ones used on civil aircraft and T-hawks tend to have some small amount of ‘drift’ over a given period of flight time…

    从而 课程更正 must be applied periodically…

    In a passenger jet this is done with various other backup nav systems…such as radio navaids…and GPS…

    In an aircraft that is designed for low-level terrain following like the T-hawk…these course corrections are provided by the DSMAC…

    Quite simply…the optical sensors ‘look’ for physical landmarks that can be 确定 and matched to the onboard digital map of the terrain…

    So let’s stop to 认为 here for a moment…

    We now have two 导航 elements in play…

    1… an onboard digital map of the 地形 below…[presumably accurate]

    2…an onboard digital set of 图片 of physical landmarks…

    题…

    Where do these two sets of data come from…?

    Are they already inside every TLAM in the USN inventory…?…ie just press a button and go…?

    Or do these 也许 need to be ‘programmed’ as a 飞行计划…[which also takes into account the actual geographic location co-ordinates of wherever that ship happens to be at the time of launch]…?

    Do I really need to expound on the 回答 to that question…?

    Perhaps [?]…

    So let’s go back to our handy benchmark of commercial jet routes and see if there are 差异 between planning a passenger jet flight and planning a TLAM flight…

    We recall that all commercial jet routes are well established…with exact locations of takeoff field…destination field…and nav waypoints along the way…all very well known…

    The T-hawk flight planner does not have it so simple…the takeoff [launch] point could be anywhere on the millions of square miles of the earth’s sea surface where that ship happens to choose to be…

    The destination [target] could again be any one of many millions of places in the world…

    The passenger jet does not need to fly low to the ground and follow terrain…the T-hawk does…

    The passenger jet has an actual flight crew…the T-hawk only has a 预编程 计算机…

    So let’s consider all of the 可能的组合 of launch location…target location…and all the possible routes for each and every such pair [launch and target lcoation]…

    What do we end up with here…how many billions of possibilities…?

    So yeah…we conclude quite naturally that all of that is just ‘built in’…we just push a button…and away she goes…

    向前进…

    Since we now realize [light bulb]…that launching a TLAM is not a push-button operation, but involves actual 飞行计划…实际上 许多 more involved than planning a passenger jet flight…

    We may then consider 形成一种 实际上 aerodynamic and propulsion performance might affect our planning for any particular mission…

    So let us now put ourselves in the position of those T-hawk flight planners and look at a 地形 map of Syria…

    [I had posted this in the other thread earlier as I attempted to carry on the discussion…but it got lost in the site crash aftermath…]

    We note here quickly the obvious terrain characteristics…most notably a long north-south mountain chain starting just a few km inland from the coast…and stretching from northern Israel in the south to the Turkish border in the north…

    We note that a number of these ranges have peaks well above 6,000 ft…and even approaching 10,000 ft…the map shows color coded heights in meters…so multiply by 3.3 for ft…

    Considering my careful prior explanation of T-hawk flight characteristics like low thrust-to-weight ratiohigh wing loading…we note that the T-hawk has very 有限 climb performance…which is not even on a par with a passenger jet…[as I had explained…]

    So now we arrive at your question/comment that the T-hawk’s flight characteristics are merely ‘tangential’ considerations…

    Perhaps you would like to explain to us then how 究竟 that T-hawk is going to from sea level to 10,000 ft in the space of several minutes…which is the flying time from the coast to those mountain peaks…?

    A flight plan no passenger jet crew would attempt to fly…despite their aircraft’s huge climb rate advantage in comparison to a T-hawk…

    I’m sure you have a 飞行计划 ready to go, no…?

    但让我们回到 现实 and consider a more detailed topo map here…

    http://en-gb.topographic-map.com/places/Syria-1310654/

    This one has the nice feature of being able to zoom in and out…and also has place names…including Shayrat…

    Let’s first zoom in on Homs city…since Shayrat is just to the southeast…

    We first note that Homs is about 60 km inland from the coast…and is sits at about 1,000 ft altitude…

    We also note that it lies just east of the Syria-Lebanon border…which is defined by the Kabir al-Janoubi river…

    This river source is in the Anti-Lebanon mountains in Syria…and winds its way to the Med sea…forming the border…

    This river valley would make for a suitable ingress route for the T-hawk…it allows for terrain masking due to the mountain peaks on its flanks…and the slowly rising altitude of the river valley is not as demanding on climb performance as trying to fly over those 10,000 ft peaks nearby…[!]

    So let’s zoom into this area along the Syria-Lebanon border and see up close where our T-hawk is going to fly…shall we…?

    Unfortunately the zoomable map does not give us river names or mountain names…but the first map does so we can use both to find our bearings…

    Let’s zoom in on the river border then between Lebanon and Syria…we see for reference the town of Talkalah in Syria as well as the M1 highway…

    Let’s zoom in Talkalah with a view to trying to get the actual course of the river in our field of view…

    We now see a Syrian town called Addabousiyah which is right on the river…so let’s zoom in on that…[we note it is about 10 km inland from the Med sea]

    We now clearly see the river valley and can pan left and right to see the route our T-hawk would fly as it entered at the river mouth and proceeded inland eastward toward the Homs area…

    Let’s zoom in now to where our distance scale at the bottom reads ‘200 meters’…

    We now see the presence of many sharp turns and bends and even hairpins…

    I note here that I had also discussed turning performance of the T-hawk in the aforementioned post…and endeavored to explain how the two 枢机主教 parameters of flight performance wing loading 和Thrust to weight affect turning performance…

    [there is actually much more technical ground to cover here if we really want to understand this subject…]

    Of course…since the flight planners at the USN in charge of T-hawk missions are already well aware that these things are ‘tangential’ to the issue of carrying out a successful strike mission we will simply ignore that part…as some here have chosen to do…

    Otoh… we may choose leave aside our CMANO game console for a moment and try to actually use that thing sitting between our ears…

    Let’s recap our discussion on the other thread…

    1…we concluded with a fair degree of confidence that the sat imagery of Shayrat does 不能 support the claim of 50 plus 1000 lb warhead hits…

    2…we are unable to make any 确凿 determination of what happened to the considerable number of T-hawks that actually didn’t hit anything at Shayrat…[considering verifiable info at our disposal…]

    3…we note that this T-hawk strike came together in a matter of a 几天…with a sudden order to launch from the white house…

    4…we now at least have some idea of how a T-hawk actually flies…and how much planning may be involved in a successful strike mission…

    But perhaps all of that is ‘tangential’…

    We should leave aside of course all attempts to use 技术知识 at our disposal to try to figure out what happened…

    Why bother looking into the flight performance of the T-hawk…the short time available for flight planning etc…?

    That’s not going to get us any 接近 to understanding now is it…?

    Just as Pilots for 911 Truth applying well established 技术知识飞行性能 questions surrounding that incident is also ‘tangential’…?

    As for your gripe about what PCR said…you may want to look at that again…

    As I noted in my original comment here…PCR specifically mentioned Russian technologies…the first being the scramjet-powered Zircon hypersonic missile…

    The second being the ICBM maneuvering-glide re-entry vehicles on the Sarmat ICBM…

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/10/28/one-day-tomorrow-wont-arrive/

    I have attempted here to shed some light on the most important and relevant aspects of this technology…by seeking to explain its significance, first and foremost…and by trying to explain the technology in a way that is understandable to the layman…

    Of course…everyone’s mileage may vary…

    One ‘expert blogger’ posted here that…

    ‘…Scramjet is BS…’

    Thankfully enlightening the entire global aerospace community…Nasa is especially 感谢 for the correction…since they view the scramjet as the…

    ‘…last major aeronautics frontier…’

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88580main_H-2243.pdf

    As for your ‘question’ about a salvo of 10,000 TLAMs [the US possesses 3,500 total]…I will of course try to address that [if you insist] in a separate comment…[?!]

    • 回复: @Erebus
    , @Erebus
    , @Erebus
  254. MarkinLA 说:
    @Carlton Meyer

    There was no secret deal. You have the signed instrument of surrender by the Japanese authorities. It was unconditional surrender. MacArthur just didn’t want a guerilla war to break out in Japan if he executed the Emperor like a lot of US officials wanted.

  255. FB 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    Thank you for a serious comment…

    I was wondering when one might appear here…

  256. Cyrano 说:
    @MarkinLA

    Imagine this: Imagine that your thick skull is a wailing wall and I am sitting outside wailing and trying to get through, but the signal is not powerful enough to penetrate your fortified skull. You are beyond salvation, and you are the perfect MSM customer.

    Go back to enjoying your myths and legends, this site is a wasted opportunity to educate you. You already know everything the way the propaganda machine wanted you to know. Don’t try to argue with me, I had enough of you.

    • 哈哈: FB
    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  257. FB 说:
    @Erebus

    Right you are…oh eagle-eyed one…

    just for the record…

    1 HP = 0.75 kilowatt = 0.7 BTU/s = 550 ft*lb/s

  258. @MarkinLA

    I am not someone who doesn’t respect what the USSR did against Germany but in the war against Japan, the USSR was a non-entity for all practical purposes.

    USSR did contribute to the defeat of Japan but most of the credit, of course, goes to the US Navy and marines in doing a heavy lifting there. Yet, demolition of the 1 million strong Kwantung Army certainly should not be discounted to the “non-entity” level, after all, USSR merely followed it Allied obligations.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  259. @Beefcake the Mighty

    It was something I read years ago and have no reference to now. Wikipaedia mentions a claim of one but it does not fit the description I remember. The article I remember was a test on a small island in the Japanese home archipalego.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program#Reports_of_a_Japanese_weapon_test

    • 回复: @Beefcake the Mighty
  260. @FB

    Discussions with jet fuel suppliers near Engels. Also the son of Brezhnev’s pilot.

  261. @jilles dykstra

    This is also true but Britain was the main proposer of world disarmanent. Also the period referred to above is post war when Britain was no longer pacifist.

    Withdrawal from Empire was indeed a financial matter. Most so called Liberation struggles were struggles for post colonial power among ethnic groups and elites (Malaya, Mau Mau).

  262. Vidi 说:

    Then I am missing something. Please elaborate what scenario are you talking about? I thought about Syria. Most likely, my mistake. Per Chinese A2/AD–agree, formidable. Once China gets her act together in terms of modern submarine force–could become impenetrable, especially against the background of China being on a buying spree in terms of P-800 Onyx, Su-35s, S-400 etc. P-800s creates a continuous (with a good overlap coefficient) forbidden zone at the First Island Chain.

    Well, I was thinking of a World War 3 scenario; if the US and Russia go directly into conflict (over Syria or elsewhere), WW3 is likely what we will have. In that scenario, the US will almost certainly lose badly. That may be why they are holding off in Syria.

  263. @jilles dykstra

    They, nor the French, won the war, the war was won by Russian blood and USA industrial production.

    Let’s be very clear that Great Britain was by far larger recipient of the US Lend-Lease than it was the case with Soviet Union. I don’t remember exact number from the top of my head but I believe something like three times more than USSR. Moreover, in most crucial war technology USSR produced, with the exception of bombers, quantities which were either equal or larger than US produced. Lend-Lease was a good help but it didn’t win the war.

    Churchill was the undertaker of the British empire.

    This I agree entirely, after all Correlli Barnett is my favorite British (and generally Anglophone) historian for a reason, but Great Britain is, undeniably, a proud part of Allied Victory against Nazi Germany and this fact can not be erased. Remember British veteran Sailors sitting right behind Putin at the Red Square during Victory Parade in 2015. They were there instead of British PM (who refused invitation) and they were treated as dear Allies and heroes that they are. But yes, Churchill also was instrumental in unleashing the Cold War. By the end of the WW II and immediately, after losing elections, he was an embittered spiteful man, suffering from complex of inferiority (as his daughter and Lord Moran confirmed) and great strategist he was not and was directly responsible for impeding a Second Front effort.

    This truth cannot be sold in GB

    It used to be sold easily.

  264. Vidi 说:
    @Avery

    3D printers are no magic solution.
    You can create useful parts, mostly consumer, but 3D printers use a special metal or plastic suitable for 3D printing. Military parts that require special alloys and treatment cannot be created by 3D: you still need old fashioned metal smelters, CNC machines, etc.

    A 3D printer doesn’t have to make the final product. The OP (c1ue) wrote “to create the machines, to create the machines, to create the machines to make modern weapons”. That may be possible (I’m no expert on 3D printing).

    • 回复: @Avery
  265. Bill Jones 说:

    Russia’s military is in the defense business.
    America’s military is in the looting business.

    • 回复: @FB
  266. Avery 说:
    @Vidi

    Give me some examples from US (open sources), of 3D printed CNC machines that can produce precision mechanical parts. Not one or two parts on a complex CNC machine, but an entire CNC machine*.

    If you can produce such examples from US then I’ll change my mind (…..and will assume North Koreans can do it too).

    ________________________
    * [How a homemade tool helped North Korea’s missile program]

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-a-homemade-tool-helped-north-koreas-missile-program/ar-AAtkE76?ocid=spartandhp

    [Big, gray and boxy, CNC machines use pre-programmed guides to produce intricate parts for everything from automobiles and mobile phones to furniture and clothes. They offer accuracy that human machine tool operators are unable to achieve.
    In North Korea, thanks to a combination of homemade technology and reverse engineering, the machines now play a critical role in the weapons programs. They allow Kim Jong Un to build nuclear bombs and missiles without relying as heavily on outside technical aid or imports.]

    • 回复: @FB
    , @Vidi
  267. Vidi 说:
    @Vidi

    By “air supremacy” I mean “air superiority” of course.

  268. FB 说:
    @Avery

    Actually 3D printing has for some time allowed for forming of various high-tech materials…including advanced metals and ceramics…

    Using various processes…including such advanced ones as electron beam melting [EBM] etc…

    GE now makes 3D printed parts in its commercial jet engines…

    You can find plenty of info…

    Still…I agree with you that 3D print alone will not really get you someplace in terms of advanced machines…

    You also need the 3D design tools…ie Inventor, Solidworks, Catia etc…

    Also CNC tools…which also are now easily available…

    But yes, you are correct that you still need foundries, smelters etc…

    However…I would stress in this discussion that the key is not in the actual hardware or even software…all of which is now easily available…

    The real challenge is the human intellect…you need very good engineers, physicists…etc…

    In any kind of project to build an advanced piece of equipment…whether military or not…it comes down to people solving problems…

  269. @FB

    Well, genius, a layman can understand that you don’t beat physics. A layman can also read various articles and glean some useful information from them as to the heat-related problems of traveling low-altitude at hypersonic speeds and then question how those are to be overcome. As to fuels, their carriage and types? I worked with cryogenics in the past, it isn’t rocket science.

    FB, I’ve met lots of MIT guys up here and AE guys down around Virginia Tech that could munch your pasted crib notes for breakfast and spit em out before lunch. Guys like you in venues such as these that cut and paste lots of figures that then have to be corrected by others make me wonder where a guy like you gets the drugs that 令人失望 you into thinking how much SMARTER you are than everyone else. But then you outed with all THIS? No I know you aren’t smarter than anyone else..

    And so, about those drugs you take..?

    • 回复: @FB
  270. @Diversity Heretic

    As fun as it is to exchange views on WWII, I am increasingly depressed by the sheer tragedy of the first half of the 20th Century. The spectacle of Europeans and European-origin people killing each other in large numbers is well, just damned depressing!

    同意,100%。

    On the subject of the Saker’s original article, well that’s another tragedy. The U.S. and Russia have no real differences that need be resolved by bows and arrows, let alone F-35s and Sukhois.

    Esteemed Ambassador Jack Matlock speaks precisely about it on this conference, On Friday:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/live-u-s-foreign-policy-in-the-trump-era/

    I would offer another paradoxical thought that US and Russia are natural geopolitical allies, but, sadly, this ship sailed too, at least for awhile.

  271. FB 说:
    @Jim Christian

    天啊…

    Someone is a little bent out of shape…

    ‘…a layman can understand that you don’t beat physics…’

    同意…

    Your point being what exactly…?

    ‘…A layman can also read various 用品 and glean some useful information from them as to the heat-related problems of traveling low-altitude at hypersonic speeds and then question how those are to be overcome…’

    伟大的…

    Would you like to point to a few of those articles…?

    ‘…I’ve met lots of MIT guys up here and AE guys down around Virginia Tech that could munch your pasted crib notes for breakfast and spit em out before lunch…’

    And I just polished off a bologna sandwich…very tasty…

    • 回复: @Jim Christian
  272. edgeslider 说:

    American Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) is bloated, corrupt and inefficient. The military is politicized and the leadership corrupt, its recruits increasingly unfit to fight and its procurement system dysfunctional. All true, but the real question is it still better than that of America’s adversaries and competitors, Russia and China, Iran and North Korea? Funk yeah!

  273. Vidi 说:
    @Avery

    Give me some examples from US (open sources), of 3D printed CNC machines that can produce precision mechanical parts. Not one or two parts on a complex CNC machine, but an entire CNC machine*.

    As I said, I’m no expert on 3D printing, a field that is apparently growing really fast. I don’t know the current capabilities of such things. However, I seem to remember that there are now machines that can print titanium parts.

    CNCs may not need to be printed directly. As c1eu said, 3D printers can make the tools that make the tools that make the final products. That seems feasible to me.

  274. FB 说:
    @Bill Jones

    ‘…Russia’s military is in the defense business.
    America’s military is in the looting business…’

    What a quote…says it all…[I pasted and bookmarked this quote for future reference…]

    Just a heads up here to an article by a generally trustworthy pro-truth journo…Pepe Escobar…

    In his latest piece…just up today on CounterPunch…he purports to have ‘some inside info’…from ‘highly placed’ sources…

    Of course one must always take these anonymous source stories with a grain of salt…but some of this is interesting…and relates directly to the topic under discussion here…

    This ‘intel source’ tells Escobar of a high-level meeting at which the real ‘Masters of the Universe’ were present…ahead of the Trump Asia trip now taking place…

    ‘…The source stressed how principals in these meetings were familiar with “key strategists 以上 Mattis who were responsible for most of the major US defense programs in place…’

    ‘…They know, for instance, how “we are four generations behind in defensive missiles which seals the Russian airspace” – even though any expert in US Think Tankland persists in total denial…’

    [我的重点补充]

    the source went on to describe Mattis thusly…

    ‘…Mattis has no strategic sense at all and should be no more than a minor Marine functionary as his ability is very limited.”…’

    Interesting stuff…also a lot to say about North Korea and that ‘WWIII has already started…’

    The hotspots being Korea, Syria and Ukraine…

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/06/how-the-dprk-riddle-is-freaking-out-the-us-establishment/

    For what it’s worth…taking these kinds of anonymous sources at face value is not something I would ever take to the bank…

    I know Sy Hersh gets into a lot of this stuff…and he no doubt has a lot of connections in the intel community…

    But you can never tell 为什么 someone in said community is feeding any particular info to a journalist at any particular moment in time…

    These guys are in the business of lying…after all…

    Still…I do find believable the part about growing concern about US military tech…

    And I’m not the only one…many serious, credible people have long had much to say about the sad state of US weapons procurement…

    I linked previously to a very good critique on the much-hyped F22 that was written by the most authoritative person possible…legendary US test pilot and fighter designer Eveerest E. Riccione…

    http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

    And that was bakc in 2005…things have only got worse since then…

    The late Col’s obit tells you everything you need to know about this man’s credibility and credentials…

    http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/military-people-and-ideas/2015/member-of-fighter-mafia-passes.html

    I can say he’s not the only one in the community who has serious issues…

    • 回复: @Astuteobservor II
  275. @MarkinLA

    Japan’s army handily defeated the Imperial Russian and British armies and was (and is) highly regarded for its morale and effectiveness. Russia annihilated two Japanese armies (First, in 1939, the Kwantung Army of Japan, consisting of some of the best Japanese units under General Komatsubara. Second, in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation if 1945 defeated 800,000 Japanese troops in a double envelopment). The latter defeat–not the atomic bombs–led to Japan’s surrender. America’s Pacific Theater was just that, mopping up operations, with no major engagements.

    To my knowledge, the only time the US has faced an intact, undefeated army in the field was during the Korean War, when it ran away from a PLA volunteer force.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  276. Erebus 说:
    @FB

    ‘…The Tomahawk’s technical details and specifications are interesting, but they are, of course tangential to the 战略 dilemma the US finds itself in…’

    Tangential…?
    ‘Of course…’
    Then perhaps you might enlighten us as to how exactly a TLAM strike is actually planned and its flight path programmed…?

    Rather than that, you might start by explaining what you think the key phrase in my statement, namely strategic dilemma 手段。

    Look, you can drill all the way down into the source codes and kernels of TLAM software, or to the atomic level in discussing the metallurgy of some of its components. However interesting I (or you) may find these subjects, they will necessarily remain tangential to “the 战略 dilemma the US finds itself in”.
    That strategic dilemma, the zugzwang, exists because the Russians can retaliate against a USM attack on its Syrian contingent at stand-off distances from Russian territory. Whatever the Tomahawk can and can’t do, and why it can or can’t do them may be interesting to me, but the whole subject necessarily remains tangential to understanding the geo-political tipping point that the Russian development of stand-off weapons represents.

    In the hope I’ve settled this particular matter, I’ll go on to read the rest of your post.

    • 回复: @FB
  277. Erebus 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    China is NOT real military Ally of Russia. Any help China may offer will be of non-military nature. China will not interfere in any meaningful way.

    I know, but apparently, Vidi doesn’t.

  278. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @FB

    Fuel efficiency in gas turbines tends to be a function of how high a turbine inlet temperature can be maintained, since from Carnot, thermodynamic efficiency goes up with the difference in temperature available. Russian airframes are often pretty well made but Russian/WarPac jet engines have always far lagged behind Western ones in fuel efficiency and allowable time between overhauls. Russian metallurgy has never been as good (despite ready access to the raw materials needed for high energy metallurgy) and Russian manufacture of compressor and turbine blades and wheels has never equaled what P&W and GE in America and Rolls Royce in the UK routinely achieved.

    After the fall of Communism, a lot of general aviation pilots and operators in the US hoped that the ex-Warpac nations would become suppliers to the world GA markets, because of lower labor and material costs and functional immunity to the then-prevalent bugaboo of “product liability” which was the excuse why GA aircraft were expensive and of old design. Warpac light aircraft were of even older design, but we hoped they would at least be a lot cheaper. It turned out that all these manufacturing operations were so inefficient that the Warpac aircraft would have cost more than what Wichita was selling. In addition, they could not locally source things like flight instruments calibrated in standard (aviation standard for the rest of the world that is) units and Western ones had to be fitted at retail prices. Apparently they can not make an altimeter in feet rather than meters or a compass with 360 degrees instead of 32 points, as in a Horatio Hornblower novel.

    Neither Russia nor any other ex Warpac nation seems able to produce electronic test equipment or machinist’s measuring tools either. None of this bodes well for taking the latest generation of Russian aircraft as equals of the F-22, for instance.

    • 回复: @FB
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    , @FB
  279. MarkinLA 说:
    @Godfree Roberts

    What part of the war being a naval war don’t you understand? Where was the USSR’s navy in WWII in the Pacific.

    The entire Japanese war strategy was to draw the US Navy into a decisive battle that would cripple it to the point that the US would retreat from the western Pacific and either sue for peace or give the Japanese time to consolidate their advances making it nearly impossible for the US to eject them.

    Anybody who knows anything knows that the Japanese Army was severely underequipped when compared to the other armies of the day. Everything they had was inferior right down to their service rifles and pistols.

    The only Japanese force that in any way compared to the European or American powers was it’s navy which the US Navy sunk all of it’s capital ships.

  280. MarkinLA 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Whether the USSR destroyed that army or not, it would have had NOTHING to do with the defense of the home islands if the US invaded them and certainly would have done nothing if the US had simply blockaded the home islands until Japan was starved to capitulation. Without a navy that army was useless to the home islands. This wasn’t a case like the Dutch government running off to Britain and keeping a government and army structure in exile.

    This was the issue when the US decided to regain the Philippines – there was no point in it militarily and the Navy was against it as a waste of resources. The US let many small Japanese outposts shrivel up and die instead of wasting Marines taking them. The US retook the Philippines simply because they didn’t want to embarrass MacArthur and his “I shall return” drivel.

    Now if there had been an invasion of the home islands and the Red Army had taken part then that would have been a different story, but things never got that far.

    I don’t see why you Russophiles can’t see this simple distinction.

  281. MarkinLA 说:
    @Cyrano

    Why would I argue with you it is obvious you are an idiot. Hey idiot, how was the Japanese army in Manchuria going to get back to Japan without a navy, in row boats?

    • 回复: @Cyrano
  282. MarkinLA 说:
    @jilles dykstra

    Do you not get the idea that if something was done 70 years ago that the same physics exist today and somebody on this planet could have duplicated this feat, yet they have not. Just because somebody wrote a book and you believed it doesn’t mean anything.

    Somebody wrote a book that said humans are the result of a visiting alien experiment. I guess that must be true as well.

  283. Erebus 说:
    @FB

    You do love to parachute words into what your interlocutor wrote and then go on to rant (usually with a dollop of snark) against the now distorted version. Alternatively, you may remove a word in preparation for a similar rant. Is this a reading comprehension issue, or are you just another disingenuous crank? This question is important in alerting potential readers appropriately.

    In addition to propagating your gross misconstruance of the Tomahawk’s technical parameters as a germane rather than tangential issue pertaining to the USM’s strategic dilemma through the entire post, I include a couple of examples of apparent disingenuity as follows:

    PCR specifically mentioned … the scramjet-powered Zircon hypersonic missile…
    – No, PCR never mentions “scramjet” technology in regards to the Zirkon or to anything else. Read what you link.
    As for your ‘question’ about a salvo of 10,000 TLAMs…
    – I never asked that. I asked about 10,000 “missiles”, of which the TLAM is one example. The word “missile”, as I’m sure you know is a much more general term, and the US has 10s of 1,000s of them.

    You would be well advised to avoid this kind of behaviour if you want to be read.

    Be that all as it may, your explication of the Tomahawk’s navigation to target needs to go a lot deeper before you can start zeroing in on what may have happened to the 36 that went astray at Shayrat.

  284. Rich 说:
    @NoseytheDuke

    You are wrong. I understand that some people are pacifists, and although I believe that kind of thinking would lead to tyranny, I believe they could still love their country. America has stayed pretty true to the ideals that led it, from its founding, to defeat its enemies and expand its territory and influence. Otherwise we’d still be only thirteen states, I think. I also believe men of goodwill can disagree with each others opinions without resorting to schoolyard taunts and vulgarities. You, apparently, cannot.

    You sound like you’ve learned your history from leftists who have always despised America and the freedom it has always represented. As is typical, your ilk creates false histories, then swears by them, then grows angry if someone points out the inaccuracy of your statements. One of you guys actually wrote that the US hasn’t won a war since WWII, which is factually wrong. I realize I’m not going to change the minds of the hardcore leftists and America haters out there, but I’m also not going to let your nonsensical diatribes about my country go unanswered.

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  285. The US Navy was useful in the Pacific theater because Japan’s island possessions were vulnerable. Other than that, navies are only useful against civilian targets, which is how the US Navy has principally been employed. They are never decisive but they are glamorous.

    • 回复: @Cyrano
    , @Philip Owen
  286. Cyrano 说:
    @MarkinLA

    The same way they got there you moron. Let me tell you something else you stupid imbecile. The US was always good at fighting civilians. It’s their niche market. Maybe because of their advanced technology they feel it’s beneath them to fight the armies, that’s so 19th century. Same way the “fought” in Europe for 4 years bombing civilians, same thing in Japan, fire bombing cities and at then in the end nuking couple of them. Really brave. Go back to watching CNN you stupid, you have nothing intelligent to contribute here.

  287. Cyrano 说:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Even in their own theater of war – which the Pacific was supposed to be – when the time for the big final episode of the season came, the Americans preferred to be spectators rather than then the leading actors, relinquishing that role to the Red army. Their only contribution came at very end of the show by the way of some the extra fireworks made of atomic bombs.

    • 同意: FB
  288. FB 说:
    @Anonymous

    ‘…None of this bodes well for taking the latest generation of Russian aircraft as equals of the F-22, for instance…’

    Agree 100 percent…

    Outside of fanboy circles, the F22… a grossly overweight hangar-queen with a ridiculously inadequate fuel fraction…mediocre wing loading and completely outclassed weapons-carrying ability…could not seriously be considered 等于 to current Russian fighters…

    I guess you missed my link to Col. Everest E. Riccione’s critique of the F22…

    http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

    I think the title sums it up neatly…

    ‘…DESCRIPTION OF OUR FAILING DEFENSE ACQUISITION SYSTEM AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE HISTORY, NATURE AND ANALYSIS OF THE USAF F–22 RAPTOR PROGRAM…’

    Just a few highlights…

    ‘…The soaring weight increase ruined two of the requirements. The 26 percent increase in gross weight led to a wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio that are totally comparable to those of the F-15C.

    …That means there was no increase in performance or maneuverability for reasons of 物理......”

    ‘…The highly touted Supercruise characteristic was failed. The USAF hides it behind an aspect of supercruise rather than stating its supersonic radius with combat allowance and landing reserves.

    …The 50-year-old F–104A-19 can match the F-22’s supersonic cruise radius!..

    ‘…Stealth was not fully achieved because in being the largest fighter in the sky it is the most visible. It is “visible” to infrared sensors and identifiable by its sound.

    …Its radar can be sensed by high-tech Russian sensors. Its radar signature is admittedly small in the forward quarter but only to airborne radars. The aircraft is detectable by high-power, low-frequency ground based radars…’

    Since I’m sure you have no idea who ‘Rich’ is…I will simply point you to his obit…he passed away at 91 two years ago…

    Read his self-written life story below the obit…

    Flew P51s, P38s, Liberators and and others during WW2…then got an aeronautical engineering degree and masters in applied math…

    Graduated from the USAF Experimental Flight Test Pilot School…

    Flew all the fighters, bombers, and transports at Edwards FTC…which stands for flight test center…[for those who may not know what they do at Edwards…]

    Four years of advanced studies in Astronautical Engineering at MIT…then USAF teaching ASTR0-551 at USAF Academy… one of the two most advanced engineering courses at the USAFA.

    There’s a lot more…including the driving force behind the F16 design team…

    Your mention of Carnot seems to imply some nodding acquaintance with the subject of thermodynamics…

    But we recall that the gas turbine engine runs on the 布雷顿 cycle …where efficiency is function of the overall pressure ratio to the exponent of the specific heat ratio…

    Ie…thermal efficiency = 1 – 1 / PR^((k-1)/k)

    Where PR is the pressure ratio…and k is the ratio of specific heats…

    This relation tells us that pressure ratio is the main determinant of efficiency…

    Once we go a bit further we find that for any particular pressure ratio that we can physically achieve in a Brayton cycle engine…there is an 理想 maximum temperature [turbine inlet temp] for maximum work output…

    Ie…the maximum area under the temperature-entropy chart…

    In simple terms this means that there is no use increasing temperature beyond the point at which our given PR operates at its maximum work output…

    The engine’s ideal pressure ratio cannot be achieved at all flight speeds at which a combat aircraft needs to operate…ie at M2 it will be more efficient with a lower pressure ratio than is ideal for subsonic flight…

    As for fuel efficiency of Russian engines and Russian engine tech in general…do you have any actual 来源 to point to…or do we just take the standard pop-sci fanboy narrative at face value…?

    实际数据 would be nice…

    Looking forward to what you can provide…

    • 回复: @The Scalpel
    , @Anonymous
  289. @Anonymous

    Neither Russia nor any other ex Warpac nation seems able to produce electronic test equipment or machinist’s measuring tools either.

    What a crock o’shit. Obviously you never heard of KIP (Контрольно-Измерительные Приборы, Control-Measuring Equipment). And, of course, never heard of this, as one example of many:

    http://www.shvabe.com/en/products/

    You may want to study and update yourself on a subject of KIP and testing equipment as related to Russia. I’ll open some horrible strategic secret to you–in modern submarine business tolerances are extremely tight (they were already in 1970s), especially on nukes, well, guess from three attempts who produces that test equipment, just a single example. You obviously do not understand the difference between not producing at all, which is not the case in Russia (I know nothing of WarPac anymore, nor do I care), since she does produce indigenous tools and electronic test equipment and is fighting import, admittedly significant but declining, for the share of the internal market.

    None of this bodes well for taking the latest generation of Russian aircraft as equals of the F-22, for instance.

    LOL. I am all ears to hear the Stealth fairy tales. In fact, I may go and make some pop-corn. When, and if F-22 will be able to do this without disintegrating in the air, such as at 6:36 an on:

    或者那个:

    You give me a holler. But I don’t hold my breath.

    FYI, I am a son of one of the leading engineers of the ERA (Electro-Radio Automatics) Concern, early-late 1970s, which was a huge contractor for Soviet Navy. I can surely tell you that you have no idea what are you talking about. Just to give you some heads up–my late father worked on Project 949 (Oscal-class) and Project 941 (Akula-class) nukes, among other things, and I can assure you that overwhelming majority of the KIP (Control-Measuring Equipment) was of Soviet design and manufacture. But then again, should you have known my background you wouldn’t have posted here such a crap. I hope you heard that tolerances in nuclear propulsion or in space flight are within microns? And, BTW, while we at it–the calibration of the platforms for inertial navigational complexes of strategic missile systems was done also to microns and that was done on Soviet made optronic (including laser) equipment not to mention using a variety of calibration tools, many digital. That was late 1970s. That the Soviet development of advanced KIP was effectively arrested by the collapse of the Soviet Union and then deliberate bankrupting of very many enterprises which were producing unique equipment, including testing one, already in Yeltsin’s years followed–is a separate issue altogether. You obviously also never heard of Russia producing indigenous (not through JV) highly localized CNC machining centers. Like that, from tables to spindles, to ball-screws to whatever:

    https://www.stan-company.ru/catalog/metalloobrabatyvayushchee-oborudovanie/

    I hope you understand that HAAS and Vanuks are common globally, including in US, although Russia has own Controls, based on made in Russia Baikal processors and own soft, including own state-of-the-art CAMs. So much, I guess, for your late 1980s-early 1990s information.

    P.S. Did I mention that Soviet Union built largest objects on earth out of titanium with unique properties? Ah, never mind…

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  290. @Cyrano

    Like I said, Team America vs Team Russia is a battle of idiots. If war ever does break out between the two, it will be the military equivalent of the Special Olympics.

    • 回复: @Cyrano
  291. FB 说:
    @Erebus

    ‘…Rather than that, you might start by explaining what you think the key phrase in my statement, namely strategic dilemma means…’

    I didn’t realize this thread topic was about ‘strategic dilemmas’…

    Silly me…here I though it was about Russian weapons tech…

    ‘…Be that all as it may, your explication of the Tomahawk’s navigation to target needs to go a lot deeper before you can start zeroing in on what may have happened to the 36 that went astray at Shayrat…’

    Exactly…of course it is difficult to stay focused when every comment is met by an attempt to hijack the discussion into a truly tangential direction…as in strategic dilemma…

    And yes…a serious exploration of this question requires acquiring some ‘deeper’ knowledge as you yourself put it…

    Then in that other thread you said this…in respect to Shayrat…

    ‘…I’m also aware that flat, barren terrain, and of course water, make both the terrain-following and image-mapping guidance unreliable…’

    https://www.unz.com/article/russia-the-800-pound-gorilla/#comment-2057520

    So the fact that I have now at least shown you a topo map that has nothing to do with flat barren terrain…has not disabused you of any notions you may have had…?

    One would think you would be at least grateful for learning something…

    ‘…In regards to the latter, one wonders if the missiles took two (or more) different flight paths into Shayrat…’

    Gee really…?

    Yet you are now 激怒的 that I discussed the specifics of Shayrat routing in my last comment…

    Well make up your mind…

    And yes…there are other possible routes…and it is possible…even likely that more than one route was taken…

    But of course you don’t want to go there…now you want to talk about ‘strategic dilemmas…’

    I have said from the beginning that it would be impossible for the US to now evict Russia from Syria…if you do not know enough about A2/AD to know what is at play here…then at least have the good sense to listen attentively…

    I have also explained quite clearly that a cruise missile strike whether TLAMs or ALCMs would not achieve anything because the Russian air and SAM assets are mobile and could not be harmed by such a ridiculous scenario…

    It is quite preposterous to anyone with actual knowledge of the subject…

    Such a strike would have been viable in that window of opportunity at the beginning before the Russians established the airspace denial zone…

    But that ship has sailed…neither you nor your learned mentor seem to know anything about air combat or air defense…

    I have tried mightily to bring some light to this subject…but you respond only with silliness…if you are unable to be serious then buzz off…

    PS: your nits about what PCR are bordering on pettiness…he clearly named the Zircon as the first technology…and the entire news about the Zircon is the 超燃冲压发动机 engine…the very first operational one in a production weapon…

    • 回复: @Erebus
  292. Lurker 说:
    @Johnny Rico

    That bombing campaign also forced the Germans to divert 88-mm tubes to air-defense, taking a lot of pressure off the Red Army on the Eastern Front.

    Indeed, I only found out quite recently how important that may have been.

    Apparently @10,000 88mm guns were deployed as AAA in Germany 1944-45. Thats such a large figure that I think that were those guns deployed as AT guns it would not only have put pressure on the Red Army it might well have been enough to destroy every Soviet tank. Given that there were also thousands of other German AT guns and tanks in use as well.

  293. The Kwantung Army was a shadow of its former self in 1945. Russian crowing over its defeat (and no doubt, it was Soviet entry into the Pacific War that led to Japan’s surrender, the atomic bombings were political acts of terror) sounds exactly like American puffery over beating Saddam’s “million man army”. Birds of a feather, I guess.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
    , @MarkinLA
    , @L.K
  294. Lurker 说:
    @jilles dykstra

    好点子。

    This was the problem for most single engine propeller aircraft. Guns were wing mounted which demanded all sorts of fiddling around with synchronising the guns to converge at what was hoped to be the optimum range and getting pilots to work with this feature. Twin engine fighters were freed from this constraint and could aim/fire in a straight line (yeah, obviously: gravity) and cut holes through enemy planes in a way that was almost impossible for planes with wing mounted guns.

    Of course some aircraft mounted guns firing thru the prop in a WW1 style which countered the problem to some extent. I wonder how the Hurricane & Spitfire would have performed with two central guns and only six wing MGs instead of the 8 wing guns.

  295. Cyrano 说:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    I wasn’t talking about the future, I was talking about the past and the fairy tales that you’ve been fed since you could walk. How the US is the force for good (isn’t that the army slogan anyway?).

    If they are such a force for good and trying to make the world “safe for democracy”, after so many countries being wrecked is the explanation “Ooops, we made a mistake” good enough? If they make so many mistakes, than they are stupid and they shouldn’t be in charge of reshaping the world. Actually they never admit to any mistakes, that’s part of their aura of excellence.

    Just because you have elections every 4 years doesn’t make you special. And during those elections, you don’t simply transfer responsibility for the crimes that they commit – to them, you take part of the blame for what they do and if anything – it makes you equally accountable. Do you understand?

    Their fairy tales a big load of BS. You live in advanced country, it’s not difficult to find the truth, you have the resources. I think that the only way you’re going to wake up from your sweet dreams is when they finally manage to do to your country what they are doing to the rest of the world – wreck it. That’s what’s going to bring it home. Then you’ll understand that they shouldn’t have been trusted – elections or not.

    • 回复: @Beefcake the Mighty
  296. @Rich

    “The US conquered Granada in a couple of hours.”

    The US never invaded Spain.

    • 回复: @Rich
  297. Erebus 说:
    @FB

    I didn’t realize this thread topic was about ‘strategic dilemmas’…

    My original comment, which you replied to, with your snarky “layman’s take”, was. If the strategic dilemma I talked about wasn’t of interest to you, why did you reply and start this series of exchanges? There’s plenty of topics discussed above that you haven’t responded to. And yes, that Russian technology has put the USM in this position is what makes it important, and compels my interest in learning about it. Perhaps, as you continue, I will.

    Silly me…here I though it was about Russian weapons tech…

    I guess that’s why Saker spent a significant part of his article talking about the impact of that new technology, and what it meant, while the commentators have touched on everything from 3D printing to war in Manchuria. IOW, the thread has a life of its own.

    Yet you are now incensed that I discussed the specifics of Shayrat routing in my last comment…

    “Incensed” is wildly off the mark. 困惑 by the reaction would come (much) closer.

    I have also explained quite clearly that a cruise missile strike whether TLAMs or ALCMs would not achieve anything because the Russian air and SAM assets are mobile and could not be harmed by such a ridiculous scenario…
    It is quite preposterous to anyone with actual knowledge of the subject…

    Aye, there’s the rub. You haven’t done anything of the sort. You’ve repeated your conclusion ad nauseum, but there’s little save the weakest logic behind it. Moreover, you’ve simply ignored contrary arguments. However much I (or my “learned mentor”) know about air defence, I do know enough about the construction of logical arguments to know that repeating specious conclusions is a poor substitute for one.

    Such a strike would have been viable in that window of opportunity at the beginning before the Russians established the airspace denial zone…

    And so, after wandering as aimlessly as the 36 missing Tomahawks, you’ve returned at last to the strategic dilemma after all. Do you recognize it? No? Well, welcome back anyway.

    …if you are unable to be serious then buzz off…

    Serious? Yes.
    Obsessed? No.
    BTW, you are not obliged to press the Reply button every time I, or anyone else writes something. I will, of course, reserve the right to press the Reply button at will.

    • 回复: @FB
  298. @FB

    And I just polished off a bologna sandwich…very tasty…

    That says it all. Bologna.

    • 回复: @FB
    , @FB
    , @NoseytheDuke
  299. @Cyrano

    You are obviously too much of a blockhead to realize that you are talking to someone (me) who despises the American Imperium and all of its lies dressed up as slogans. Stick to pissing matches about who makes better cannon fodder. (Afghanistan/Vietnam was a tie! We defeated Japan armed with nothing more than popsicle sticks! No, we did! Ad nauseum.)

    • 回复: @Cyrano
  300. Rich 说:
    @The Scalpel

    Oops, I misspelled the name of the small island nation of Grenada. Guess that means that everything I wrote is wrong…

    Some of you guys are hilarious.

  301. FB 说:
    @Jim Christian

    That’s right… a Bologna sandwich named Jim Christian…

    • 回复: @Jim Christian
  302. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Russian crowing over its defeat (and no doubt, it was Soviet entry into the Pacific War that led to Japan’s surrender, the atomic bombings were political acts of terror) sounds exactly like American puffery over beating Saddam’s “million man army”

    There is no Russian “crowing” about that. Far from it–overwhelming share of attention always was and remains on the European Theater, with Far East Theater merely being a matter of fact. Yes, there is a pronounced pointing out of the fact of defeat of the Kwantung Army in Soviet/Russian historiography but nothing, not even close, to decades long, finally coming somewhat to a close, of the Gulf War boasting. In the end, first Soviet encounter with Kwantung Army happened in 1938. I agree with you that Kwantung Army was no match to enormously experienced Red Army and its commanders, but still–one doesn’t go about the business of war ignoring a defeat of a massive by all measures enemy’s force. What is your suggestion? For Russians to state that they didn’t defeat this army? Nobody suggests US Army give up its record of defeating Saddam forces. As per Soviet entrance into the war against Japan–this was decided as early as 1943 in Tehran and re-affirmed in Yalta. These were the United States which wanted Soviet Union to launch operations against that army. This fact immediately begs the conclusion that American military planners did view Kwantung Army as a serious military factor in US war against Japan.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  303. FB 说:
    @Jim Christian

    I have also explained quite clearly that a cruise missile strike whether TLAMs or ALCMs would not achieve anything because the Russian air and SAM assets are mobile and could not be harmed by such a ridiculous scenario…

    Aye, there’s the rub. You haven’t done anything of the sort.

    Well…ignorance is bliss as they say…

    Even your learned mentor managed to dig up 一单 case in the history of the T-hawk where it was used against elements of 固定 air defense systems…

    And that was in Iraq during the interwar years when the US was enforcing self-imposed [illegal] no-fly zones and was in control of the airspace to begin with…

    And even then a proper SEAD mission had been planned initiall…but it was decided to just lob a handful of T-hawks at those FIXED targets…

    I could…and have issued the challenge to you [on several occasions]…

    How do you think a T-hawk is going to hit a mobile target…?

    [Btw…the target SAM doesn’t have to be moving at the time of the T-hawk arrival…it could have simply been moved from the time of TLAM launch to another location…and could be sitting in a new, unknown location at the time of TLAM arrival …]

    Or more precisely…what 究竟 is that massive cruise missile salvo going to destroy in Syria…?

    Please answer this question…so we know what is inside that mighty logic machine between your ears…?

    [Btw…the USAF 1140 ALCMs…AGM-86,,,in inventory…one third of the 3,500 TLAMs…so your ridiculous word games are shown to be just that…10,000 cruise missiles indeed…]

    https://www.quora.com/How-many-Tomahawk-missiles-are-in-Americas-current-arsenal?share=1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM

    You don’t seem to realize that the 现实 of air combat has changed profoundly in recent years…the advent of very advanced and mobile SAMs on the Russian side…designed specifically to combat SEAD weapons like airborne jammers and radar-seeking missiles [HARMs]…

    While the same US airborne jammers and Harms have remained exactly what they have been since the 1970s…

    I would bet dollars to donuts that you have not bothered availing yourself of the information I posted previously…ie Lambeth and Andrew…

    ‘…Operation Allied Force showed mobility was the key element to survivability…

    …The Federal Yugoslav Integrated Air Defence System (IADS) 幸存 Operation Allied Force (OAF), the NATO air campaign used to force the removal of Serbian forces from Kosovo, which ran from 24th March to 9th June, 1999, and at its height involved over 1,000 aircraft…’

    And here is the bottom line…

    ‘…There is much new equipment, primarily of Russian and Chinese origin, but also from Belarus and the Ukraine, now available on the open market as building blocks, for any country with enough money and the motivation, to create a highly survivable Integrated Air Defence System…

    This from a peer-reviewed paper written by a retired RAAF officer and PhD Martin Andrew…

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html

    If you had read Lambeth…you would have noted that the last part of the paper is devoted to what the US might bring to a SEAD fight next time…considering the lessons taught by the Serbs…

    ‘…The inescapable message here is that the Air Force cannot afford to wait for the F-22 and F-35 deployments to help solve its SEAD conundrum. It must begin coming to effective grips now with this increasingly 明确和现实的危险......”

    哪一部分 ‘clear and present danger’ are you having difficulty with…?

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APJ-Lambeth-Mirror.html

    That was in 2002…this is a reprint of the same Lambeth paper I pointed to earlier in pdf form…and originally published in the USAF academy jflagship ournal Aerospace Power…

    But the F22 turned out to be a complete dog…despite the ridiculous hype in fanboy media…see my links to Col. Riccione’s critique of the F22…

    Incidentally…I had the opportunity to physically examine a part of the airframe of the F117 the Serbs shot down…I was amazed at the thickness of the rubbery ‘stealth coating’…

    The piece I examined was from a wing elevon…a control surface combining both pitch and roll functions…ie a combination of elevator [usually in the horizontal tail] and the aileron…

    The actual structure was composite material with a honeycomb core…typical Lockheed construction…very lightweight…but that rubbery skin was over 1/16 th inch thick and weighed more than the actual structure it covered…

    The F22 is a grossly overweight hog…just look at the specs…that can carry very little fuel…[ie poor fuel fraction and hence combat radius…as Col Riccione has made crystal clear…]

    Its radar ‘stealth’ is useless against Russian low-frequency ground radars…so the ‘deep penetration’ mission it was designed for is toast…

    http://ausairpower.net/APA-Nebo-M-Annex.html

    These developments…the effective development of counter-SEAD technologies…[for instance the Serbs didn’t even have the ability to airborne jammers like the FA18 Growlers…]

    The Russian equipment can literally fry this US 1970s technology…if you know anything about radar…the total power is the product of aperture and electrical power…a small airborne jammer is a radar emitter that by necessity has to be small…under 10 inches…while the countermeasures on teh ground can have an antenna [aperture] of several meters…

    Same with power…the ground station can have hundreds of kilowatts…compared to maybe 5 for the airborne…

    What we have seen is the logical development of technology based on such physical principles that cannot be bent to one’s will…

    The US has no ability to take over a Russian A2/AD zone…that’s the bottom line…

    And if you read my comment above…this appears to be exactly what the US deep state is very concerned about…despite the ridiculous propaganda for public consumption…

    ‘…They know, for instance, how “we are four generations behind in defensive missiles which seals the Russian airspace” – even though any expert in US Think Tankland persists in total denial…’

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2067413

    That quote from an anonymous intel source…to journalist Pepe Escobar…

    The US cannot launch 10,000 cruise missile because they only have half that number total…

    Even if they launched 1,000 which would be 20 percent of their force total…it would do nothing…Russian SAMs hidden in unknown location..and picking off T-hawks that haven’t been diverted by electronic countermeasures…

    Russian warplanes in the skies…along with the A50 AWACs that ir in Syria…in complete control of the airspace…

    We saw that not a single T-hawk hit a runway at Shayrat…what would ten times that many do if the Russians actually decided to fight back…?

    And that’s not even beginning to take into account what would happen to those US ships if they launched aggression against Russian forces…

    Russia has over 100 supersonic Tu22M3 heavy bomber carrier killers…each packing three huge six-ton anti-ship missiles with a 2,200 lb warhead [more than twice that of a TLAM]…

    '...苏联的测试表明,配备 22 公斤(1,000 磅)RDX 弹头且进场速度为 2,205 米/秒(800 马赫)的 Kh-2.4MA 用于对抗航空母舰,将使 22 平方米(2 平方英尺) ) 孔,弹头的累积射流将燃烧最深 240 m 的内部船舱……”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22#Design

    Here’s a bit on the Tu22…scroll down to the picture of the US admiral [commander of the USN pacific Fleet] sitting in one [tour]…and check the look on his face…

    http://ausairpower.net/APA-Backfire.html

    That’s the reality of the situation…physical reality cares little about your or anyone’s obtuse objections to the contrary…

    • 回复: @Jim Christian
  304. Cyrano 说:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    No, you are right. The Russians had nothing and you defeated Japan with 2 nuclear bombs. Don’t ever try to comment on my comments again, you stupid monkey.

    • 回复: @Beefcake the Mighty
  305. @Hans

    我刚刚看到美国海军应该有210名现役海军上将——这是真的吗? 每2或3艘船必须是海军上将?

    在这里数。

    https://www.usni.org/sites/default/files/References%20Flag%20List%20May%2016.pdf

    我的数是 292,但我可能漏掉了一些海军上将,或者数得更多。 嗯,美国海军是一个庞大的组织,而且确实头重脚轻。 是的,这大约是每艘现役舰艇 1 名海军上将,每艘舰艇大约有 292/416(即包括后备舰)0.7 名海军上将,或者相反,每 1.43 艘舰艇有一名海军上将。 你提出的一个有趣的话题。 我需要对俄罗斯海军上将进行计数并进行人均计算。 但是,是的,我会说,这似乎有些过分。

  306. MarkinLA 说:
    @Cyrano

    It is obvious by your every post that you don’t know anything about that war. Worse than that your pathetic bed wetting about fighting civilians and the other crap shows you to be an immature (and probably psychotic retard.

    • 回复: @Cyrano
  307. c matt 说:

    US leaders did not believe in the “brutal, unconstrained, use of force”.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ok, he just lost all credibility right there.

  308. @FB

    Pretty douchie, FB. I never got argumentive over TLAMS and the rest with you. Also, missing your ravings with others, gee, how could I miss all of THOSE?

    FB, the arguments you’re pasting in come from others. You want to discuss Russian air defense, go talk to the mirror or read the sources you cut and paste and present as your own. You really should attribute. Unz frowns on your kind of plagiarism.

    Jesus, I asked a couple of hypotheticals and got this FB, who doesn’t know shit from shinola, backed up in my drain like a cockroach all of a sudden. Get this fucking mosquito off me. Now I know why they jail stalkers. Shoo, maggot, shoo!

  309. MarkinLA 说:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Japans surrender had nothing to do with the USSR’s entry into the war. It has been well documented what happened after the bombs were dropped. The Japanese military did not want to surrender, the civilian authorities did. The Emperor made the decision to break the tie and surrender. He did it to avoid the privations that the Japanese people were suffering.

    The Japanese military was preparing for one big attempt to inflict enough pain on the invading forces such that they would sue for peace on favorable terms. The whole country was involved with practicing human wave attacks. The Japanese military guessed that the US could only produce about one atomic bomb a month.

    The Emperor made a recording of his speech to be played the next day telling the Japanese that “we have to endure the unendurable” and that Japan was surrendering. The only reference to the military was that he mentioned the US has developed a “most cruel weapon”.

    Young officers in the palace guard tried to stage a coup and confiscate the recording, they failed. The man in charge of the recording’s safe keeping hid it well.

    • 回复: @FB
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
  310. FB 说:
    @Erebus

    And just to finish my train of thought with regard to your persistent nonsense about the US attacking Russia in Syria with cruise missiles…

    As many here…and elsewhere…have pointed out…the US navy is a tool designed for colonial enforcement against poor, weak countries…

    The TLAMs and ALCMs are the weapon of choice for terrorizing civilian infrastructure…

    I have been to Belgrade and have seen this up close…

    Targeting civilian infrastructure has been a US strategy since at least WW2 with the terror bombing of Germany…Japan…and of course the nukes…

    We have seen this in every US war of aggression since then…Korea [five million dead]…Vietnam [10 million]…Serbia…Iraq [twice]…Libya…Syria…etc.

    图案是 时刻 相同…

    Targeting civilians to inflict pain is not new in the history of warfare…but rarely has it been relied on so exclusively as we have seen with the US in the past century…

    As I explained in my previous comment…those same cruise missiles are useless against an A2/AD zone…

    Not only that…but a country like Russia has the weapons [Tu22 as I explained already] expressly designed to send any US warship that is stupid enough to launch TLAMs at it… to the bottom…and quickly…

    That would be the instant response…not targeting other US assets with Kalibrs…

    The fantastic notion of US launching a massive TLAM salvo against Russian forces in Syria…and then a Russian response with its own standoff weapons is complete 业余时间…not even the programmers of CMANO are that stupid…

    As for mounting a SEAD operation against Russia in Syria…that is unrealistic…the US has no bullets for that…it has done nothing to come up with a solution to modern, mobile Russian air defenses…

    If the US weapons procurement system were not so corrupt…they would have worked tirelessly on that ever since Kosovo 1999…as experts have urged…

    But they have done nothing except increasing the already massive pork to insiders…

    • 回复: @Erebus
  311. @FB

    And FB’s gay in addition to being a stalker! How progressive! Chasing the balony, he is. Fail.

    • 回复: @FB
  312. Cyrano 说:
    @MarkinLA

    Yes, thanks Freud, if I ever need a diagnosis I’ll look you up. How about this for perspective: The Russians weren’t your little helpers in winning the war against the axis, you were theirs. You “don’t appreciate what they did for you”, they appreciate what you did for them. It’s a little role reversal, that’s all. Keep living in your fantasies.

  313. c matt 说:
    @Priss Factor

    How many of our parts are made in China?

    As for depth, what depth in manpower? Are you talking about the welfare recipients, the illegal aliens, or SJWs? How many rednecks do you think are left, and how many would deploy for our “diversity” generals?

  314. MarkinLA 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    This fact immediately begs the conclusion that American military planners did view Kwantung Army as a serious military factor in US war against Japan.

    More likely it was a political decision by FDR. In 1943 there is no way to know how the war in the Pacific is going to go. The Japanese after Midway should have done like the Germans and made a fighting retreat to consolidate their forces around the home islands, Instead they continued their main strategy (it was likely all they could do) to try and meet the US Navy in a decisive battle that would push the US out of the western Pacific.

    However, by the time of the Battle of Leyte Gulf the Imperial Navy was finished as a force capable of ever engaging the US Navy in any significant way. Now all those far flung outposts had no way to be resupplied nor could the Imperial Navy retrieve those soldiers and their equipment for the defense of the home islands.

    FDR had no way to know how thoroughly the Imperial Navy would be beaten or how much of the Japanese forces would be stranded and useless to Japan’s defense. Being a politician he was likely protecting himself against post war claims that he got XXXX soldiers killed unnecessarily when Japan was already beaten.

    He could offer the USSR return of the lands the Japanese took in 1905 and the Russians would share in the casualties. He also would counter political cries in the US that he gave Stalin Lend-Lease equipment and fought the Germans for them but the Russians never reciprocated against Japan.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  315. FB 说:
    @Jim Christian

    Buzz off twit…

    If you have anything of substance to say in reply to anything I have posted here then by all means do so…

    这是一个 挑战…in case you don’t recognize one when you see one…

    And in the process cause yourself more utter embarrassment…

    • 回复: @Jim Christian
  316. FB 说:
    @MarkinLA

    ‘…Japans surrender had nothing to do with the USSR’s entry into the war…’

    You gotta love the historical illiterates who post grade school nonsense here…

    From the first paragraph in wikipedia…

    ‘…The defeat of Japan’s Kwantung Army helped in the Japanese surrender and the termination of World War II…’

    ‘…The Soviet entry into the war was a 重要因素 in the Japanese government’s decision to surrender unconditionally, as it made apparent the Soviet Union would no longer be willing to act as a third party in negotiating an end to hostilities on conditional terms…’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War

    citations listed there to back that up…starting with US Army historian Col Glantz…

    There are several uneducated nitwits here who go on here with endless in Monday morning quarterbacking…

    oh…if only he had caught that pass we would have won…

    oh…if only we had made that tackle we would have won…

    I love the one somewhere in here about how the Germans transferring 80 mm AAA guns to western front in response to Allied D-Day landing…was the decisive factor in WW2…

    This in June 1944 when Red Army was already on German border…and Germans in full retreat for over a year…

    You can’t make this stuff up…[but apparently some people can…]

    Woulda…Shoulda…Coulda…

    Means diddly squat when the Super Bowl is over and done with…

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  317. @FB

    I don’t post a lot of comments here but I read many of them. I want to thank you for the time and effort you put into your posts. Many of them are a real education – your post on programming the flight path of a tomahawk missile is one example. The work you put into that post must have been considerable and again, I thank you.

    Your knowledge of the individual trees in the forest is impressive. I would like to hear more of your insights on the forest itself, so to speak, if you have them.

    • 回复: @FB
  318. @MarkinLA

    However, by the time of the Battle of Leyte Gulf the Imperial Navy was finished as a force capable of ever engaging the US Navy in any significant way. Now all those far flung outposts had no way to be resupplied nor could the Imperial Navy retrieve those soldiers and their equipment for the defense of the home islands.

    同意。

    FDR had no way to know how thoroughly the Imperial Navy would be beaten or how much of the Japanese forces would be stranded and useless to Japan’s defense. Being a politician he was likely protecting himself against post war claims that he got XXXX soldiers killed unnecessarily when Japan was already beaten.

    The request to engage was re-affirmed in Yalta, that is in 1945–the fate of the Japanese Navy has been by then already decided nor the state of Kwantung Army was a secret. But no matter how one goes about it–one can not win the war still having a huge force being operational. Kwantung Army was such a force and mopping it up was a factor. Red Army dealt with it in three weeks. Overwhelming credit for a defeat of Imperial Japan goes to US Navy and other US forces.

    He could offer the USSR return of the lands the Japanese took in 1905 and the Russians would share in the casualties. He also would counter political cries in the US that he gave Stalin Lend-Lease equipment and fought the Germans for them but the Russians never reciprocated against Japan.

    Who knows–now it is just a speculation. On a more practical note: Lend-lease was paid for, in gold. There was nothing being “given” in Lend-Lease to anyone. Great Britain knows it also really well with her golden reserves (apart from other things of non-monetary nature) being completely gone by 1942.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  319. peterAUS 说:
    @Rich

    I realize I’m not going to change the minds of the hardcore leftists and America haters out there, but I’m also not going to let your nonsensical diatribes about my country go unanswered.

    I am afraid that you’ll, sooner or later, also realize that the game, here, is pretty much 非法操纵的 针对你。
    Feels like “changing the system from inside”.
    祝你好运,反正。

  320. FB 说:
    @The Scalpel

    Thanks for that, Scalpel…

    It’s people like you who make this worthwhile…I’m sure there are others…

    Let me tell you why I do this…

    I have long had a big problem with the quality of the so-called ‘popular science’ media…

    It is utter crap…written by people who have no scientific credentials whatsoever…I am talking here about rags like ‘National Interest’…a neocon rag founded by Irving Kristol…

    This rag has several so-called ‘aerospace analysts’ who have absolutely hard science credentials…or any pilot qualifications…

    These people spread utter crap that neocons want people to believe…

    It is part of well-oiled 洗脑 machine that is meant to get ordinary folks to buy into a false narrative about how the world actually works…

    Science and technology is a very part of the modern world…and it is my strong belief that ordinary folks want and need to know 真实 information on this stuff ..

    It is in fact very easy to grasp fundamentals of science for the layman…as long as it is explained properly…

    What makes me even more angry is that they do this on purpose…they think ordinary folks are stupid and easy to manipulate…

    In the popular automotive press for instance there are often ‘engineering editors’ who are actually 工程师 and explain these things for ordinary folks…

    You don’t see that in the aviation popular press…why not…?

    There are the odd exceptions…British publication Flight Global often runs flight tests of commercial [and sometimes military] aircraft…by top-notch test pilots with military background…

    Such as Peter Collins…who unfortunately passed recently…

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/obituary-peter-collins-flight-international-test-p-429158/

    I have pointed here several times to the Late Col. Everest Riccione…

    I didn’t have the opportunity to work with ‘Rich’ but I have had the opportunity to work with men very much like him…they are not as rare as one might think…

    Please read this page…especially the bottom half which was written by Riccione himself…

    http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/military-people-and-ideas/2015/member-of-fighter-mafia-passes.html

    If you haven’t got there already you may also want to check out my post on the other thread about the T-hawk flight characteristics…

    https://www.unz.com/article/russia-the-800-pound-gorilla/#comment-2056929

    If you are interested in any particular subject just let me know…and I will do my best to try to bring an 诚实的 answer that is also helpful…

    干杯…

  321. I love the one somewhere in here about how the Germans transferring 80 mm AAA guns to western front in response to Allied D-Day landing…was the decisive factor in WW2…

    I bet you can’t find that. You are making that up. Because that’s what you do. You make stuff up.

    Try actually reading what Glantz wrote about the Soviet Manchurian invasion. He covers it with as many words as anybody.

    There is too much cherry-picking from Wikipedia entries on this thread. Too little actual research. Visit a library.

    Glantz’ assignment of significance and narration of this 9-day adventure at the very end of the war in the Pacific is very close to what 马克林 说。

    马克林 is the only one here who knows what he is talking about when it comes to the Kwantung Army in August 1945 and the Manchurian invasion.

    The Russophiles don’t understand the very nature of the Pacific War or the American strategy. The Red Army was incapable of fighting the War in the Pacific that the Americans fought.

    They don’t understand the contribution of Kenney’s 5th Air Force. They don’t understand that the War in the Pacific was fought byAmerican forces. On led by MacArthur, the other by Nimitz. The don’t understand that the war was fought by both the Marines the American Army. That is why you see stuff like this above:

    …but most of the credit, of course, goes to the US Navy and marines in doing a heavy lifting there. Yet, demolition of the 1 million strong Kwantung Army…

    The Soviets outnumbered The Kwantung Army 1.5 million to 700,000.

    And this Kwantung Army was a shell of its former self.

    In ten days of fighting, the Russians lost 35,000 casualties (11,000 dead) to 41,000 Japanese casualties (21,000 dead).

    The Russians had an overwhelming advantage in artillery and tanks. And yet according to the correspondence of General Meretskov who commanded the 1st Far East Front under Vasilevsky, this was hardly a cake-walk.

    Thanks to the NKVD code-breaking group led by Sergei Tolstoy, Stalin was able to transfer a sizeable amount of forces to stop Hitler at Moscow in December 1941. Absent American participation against the Germans and the Japanese over the next four years…I’m just sayin

    American Lend-Lease provides 400,000 trucks, 18,000 locomotives and train cars, and 14,000 aircraft (11% of Soviet wartime aircraft production).

    几乎所有的 喀秋莎 multiple rocket launch systems were mounted on and their accompanying crews, ammunition and rations rode into battle on American built trucks or on trucks designed by and licensed by The Ford Motor Company.

    Glantz estimates that without Lend-Lease it would have taken the Red-Army 12-18 more months to defeat Hitler. How many Soviet lives is that?…well, at the rate Germans killed Russians right up until the end – it looks like as many as 4 million 更多 死。

    马克林 is quite correct in his analysis.

    • 回复: @FB
    , @FB
  322. FB 说:
    @Johnny Rico

    ‘…I love the one somewhere in here about how the Germans transferring 80 mm AAA guns to western front in response to Allied D-Day landing…was the decisive factor in WW2…’

    ‘…I bet you can’t find that. You are making that up. Because that’s what you do. You make stuff up…’

    I have to wonder about the total brain horsepower involved here…?

    或者应该是这样 horse brainpower…

    Guess what…I didn’t make it up…你做到了...

    Here is the post history for your viewing pleasure…

    ‘…That bombing campaign also forced the Germans to divert 88-mm tubes to air-defense, taking a lot of pressure off the Red Army on the Eastern Front…’

    Posted by one ‘Johnny Rico’…

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2063318

    To which a similarly inclined equine-brain decided to one-up your crapola

    ‘…Apparently @10,000 88mm guns were deployed as AAA in Germany 1944-45. Thats such a large figure that I think that were those guns deployed as AT guns it would not only have put pressure on the Red Army it might well have been enough to destroy every Soviet tank…

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2067728

    Seeing as that comment was directed to 美味…it is rather baffling how you might have 错过 那…

    ‘…Try actually reading what Glantz wrote about the Soviet Manchurian invasion. He covers it with as many words as anybody…’

    So you have read Glantz, have you…?

    有趣…

    I guess you somehow 错过 the very first paragraph of the very first page…

    This critical examination of the final Soviet strategic offensive operation during WW II seeks to chip away at two generally 不准确 pictures many Westerners have of the war.

    Specifically, many Westerners seem to think that only geography, climate, and sheer numbers negated German military skill and competency on the eastern front, a view that relegates Soviet military accomplishments to oblivion.

    Moreover, Westerners have concluded that little worthy of meaningful study occurred in the Asian theaters of war. These analyses reflect a distinct German bias in the analyses of operations on the eastern front, and an anti-Asian front bias concerning WW II in general.

    Both impressions are false. Yet, over the decades since WW II, they have perpetuated an inaccurate view of the war, particularly of Soviet performance in that war.

    This Western misconception 变态 history, and that perversion, in turn, 经线 contemporary attitudes and thus current assessments of Soviet military capabilities—past, present and future.

    ‘August Storm: The Soviet 1945 Strategic Offensive in Manchuria

    By Lt. Col. David M. Glantz

    Combat Studies Institute

    US Army Command and General Staff College

    Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027’

    Those words pretty much shut down the nonsense being flung about here…

    And you know…Johnny Reek-o…

    I don’t have anything against people who may be uninformed, misinformed…or even too lazy to get themselves informed…

    但是, Obvious Liar 是另一个故事……

    Thanks for the opportunity to expose your Pathetic Lying Ass…

    Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw…

    • 回复: @Johnny Rico
    , @Johnny Rico
  323. FB 说:
    @Johnny Rico

    Forgot to give the link to the Glantz document…just in case you do decide to read…

    http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/LP7_AugustStormTheSoviet1945StrategicOffensiveInManchuria.pdf

    And you might be interested in this…

    The plaque over the door of the Captain’s Cabin of the USS Missouri…

    Notice the signature of Lt. General Kuzma Nikolayevich Derevyanko…Soviet Union…

    请享用…

  324. Eagle Eye 说:
    @jilles dykstra

    Churchill was the undertaker of the British empire.

    Churchill was always a war hawk, an early version of our Hanoi John. He and his backers worked hard and (relatively) smart to gin up WWI and WWII, ostensibly to destroy Britain’s traditional enemy Germany once and for all.

    One can’t help noticing that both wars were disastrous for Britain – culturally, economically, militarily, politically – but a great boon for Churchill personally. Without the wars, Churchill would have remained a second-tier military officer and politician.

    • 回复: @Anon
    , @CanSpeccy
  325. Erebus 说:
    @FB

    And just to finish my train of thought with regard to your persistent nonsense about the US attacking Russia in Syria with cruise missiles…

    Why would you have a train of thought with regard to it? In any case, it’s a train wreck. I never mentioned anybody attacking Russia with cruise missiles, or with anything else, and certainly didn’t do so persistently (much less nonsensically). Be careful, the light you occasionally glimpse at the end of your tunnel vision may be one of those trains of thought you haven’t yet finished.

    例如:

    The fantastic notion of US launching a massive TLAM salvo against Russian forces in Syria…and then a Russian response with its own standoff weapons is complete amateur hour…

    As stated, agreed. What’s your point?

    • 回复: @FB
  326. FB 说:
    @Erebus

    Sounds like you missed my previous comment…since you have so little to say for a change…

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2068280

  327. @FB

    damn, that riccioni pdf is eye opening. that was literally like a money grubbing black hole.

    • 回复: @FB
    , @Erebus
  328. @FB

    我:

    ‘…That bombing campaign also forced the Germans to divert 88-mm tubes to air-defense, taking a lot of pressure off the Red Army on the Eastern Front…’

    您:

    ‘…I love the one somewhere in here about how the Germans transferring 80 mm AAA guns to western front in response to Allied D-Day landing…was the decisive factor in WW2…’

    Notice the many differences in those? I sure did before I wrote my first post…and you fell for it.

    Not knowing the specs on one of the most well known weapons of the war – the 8.8 cm Flak gun – is an indicator something is not right with you.

    向前走。

    • 回复: @FB
  329. @Andrei Martyanov

    Many young American men are still virile, normal, patriotic, sensible males who deeply love their nation and their girls and children and communities back home, and have the ability and willingness to fight, persevere, suffer, and win.

    But I’ll agree that I see many younger Americans in LA, DC, and other major cities who lack all those qualities. They have priorities, lifestyles, and views that range from the foolish and puerile to the disgusting. For the most part, they are part of the Democrat coalition of the freaks and fringes —people for whom the core nation of Americans are just people to be mocked and fleeced to pay for their own dispossession by alien hordes.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  330. FB 说:
    @Johnny Rico

    ‘…Not knowing the specs on one of the most well known weapons of the war – the 8.8 cm Flak gun – is an indicator something is not right with you…’

    I do know the ‘specs’ of A PATHETIC LIAR…

    Starts with ‘Johnny’… and ends with ‘Reek-o’

    HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW…

  331. FB 说:
    @Astuteobservor II

    No kidding, huh…?

    Makes one’s stomach turn just thinking of all the ‘golden parachutes’ involved…

    Well…at least we have ‘Homeland Security’…

  332. @FB

    You fool. My version of events comes mostly from Glantz.

    What you quote, you are using completely out of context with what we are specifically discussing here. Glantz is talking about certain historical treatment of WWII which he aims to correct. If I’m using HIS treatment of this history – then your points (whatever they are, you are incomprehensible) are meaningless.

    Glantz is also highly critical of Russian historians who he believes have covered up as much as 40% of the combat experiences of the Red Army.

    The conclusion to Glantz’ history of the conflict that you posted a link to and starts on page 173 confirms everything MarkinLA and I have been saying. I’m done with you.

    • 回复: @FB
  333. @Andrei Martyanov

    P.S. One thing I have come to respect and admire about Russians is that they know who they are and where they come from, and they are not ashamed to be who they are.

    Like Americans, Russians believe some myths about themselves and sometimes make excuses for their past wrongs. But Russians, it seems, don’t let themselves be demoralized by a one-sided recounting of history that focuses disproportionately on the negative and makes all other peoples sound saintly by comparison.

    We remaining real and realistic Americans know that Russia need not be our enemy. Just as Russia needed to learn from the West, we in the morally confused, self-hating, declining, homosexualized, indulgent, increasing indolent West now need to learn from Russia — and, wherever possible, make a partner and eventually a friend of Russia.

    God bless and keep both our nations safe from every evil. Including the evil residing in our governments, especially the US government in recent years.

    • 同意: FB, Andrei Martyanov
  334. @Philip Owen

    Without the USA, Germany would have thrashed, occupied, and settled the “United Kingdom.” Please.

    And we should have let them.

    Or is “great” britain’s Islamic future superior to what would have existed under German rule?

  335. @renfro

    I would have been glad to have a president as pragmatic, sensible, knowledgeable, credible, and effective as Putin, compared to the liars and losers who have been “my” presidents: Nixon, Carter, Reagan, CIA I mean bush senior, and then God help us Junior Bush and Obama.

    Compared to Putin who played an initially weak hand very well, my presidents wasted American lives, racked up enormous debt, incurred well-justified international hatred, and generally exhibited no long term thinking, no sense of the reality of limited resources, no sense of honor, no loyalty to their own people, and no sense of what WORKS in this world. Trump, we shall see.

    Good luck, Presidents Trump and Putin. God bless both our great nations and keep us from war.

    • 回复: @RadicalCenter
  336. @MarkinLA

    This is just specious. What difference does it make whether it was the civilian vs the military authorities who wanted to surrender. The context was the prospect of a Soviet invasion of the home islands.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  337. @RadicalCenter

    Certainly didn’t mean to leave slick willie Clinton out of the condemnation. Gerald Ford I omit because of his very short tenure.

    • 回复: @NoseytheDuke
  338. Erebus 说:
    @Astuteobservor II

    damn, that riccioni pdf is eye opening. that was literally like a money grubbing black hole.

    The F22 con-job just a dry run for an even greater heist called the F35.

    The last Emperor’s last task is to loot the Empire. It looks like we’re just about there.

  339. FB 说:
    @Johnny Rico

    ‘…The conclusion to Glantz’ history of the conflict that you posted a link to and starts on page 173 confirms everything MarkinLA and I have been saying I’m done with you…’

    有趣…

    Let’s have a look at page 173 shall we…

    结论,页面173

    The Soviet High Command projected that operations in Manchuria would last one month and prepared accordingly.

    Preparations for a short, victorious campaign involved 大规模 redeployments of forces in 有限 time under conditions of 保密.

    小心 selected commanders manned a unified command structure to control the massive forces operating on such a wide front.

    Commanders at all levels selected strategic, operational and tactical objectives and tailored their forces to secure them in the 最短的 可能的时间。

    A 广大 array of support units of all types prepared to support the combat forces. As planned, operations 剥削 地形和 dynamically used all elements of combat power, especially armor.

    Flexibility and audacity characterized the operation. Commanders at all levels displayed initiative to achieve success.

    Challenging the Soviets in Manchuria were stringent time requirements, terrain and Japanese resistance…

    The Soviets exceeded their timetable by three weeks, suffered light casualties and overwhelmed the Kwantung army.

    Why the Soviet victory? In essence, ultimate Soviet victory was inevitable…So the real question becomes, why did the Soviets win so 很快?

    苏维埃 尊敬的 the prowess, at least in name, of the Kwantung army; they had, after all, battled the Japanese before and knew the individual strength and bravery of the Japanese soldier…

    In terms of leadership, equipment and manpower, the Kwantung army of 1945 certainly was not the same army as it was in 1941, but it was also not so ineffective as some analysts had claimed.

    Glantz goes on to list the three main military lessons of the Soviet campaign…

    Echelon forces 富有想象力, especially against a defense that may take time to gel.

    Commit forces to battle in timed phases.

    Lead with forward detachments at every command level.

    And here is the concluding paragraph…

    A concrete legacy of the Manchurian campaign, these three techniques offer prospects of 成功 against even a relatively prepared enemy defense.

    Against an unprepared or partially prepared opponent, the use of these techniques could be 破坏性的.

    技巧 工作 in 1945 when mobility was in its infancy (or adolescence). So they certainly apply today, when mobility extends to virtually every aspect of a force. And they may even prohibit any rational use of tactical nuclear weapons.

    What is certain is that these techniques are of more than simple historical interest to Soviet tactical writers. They should be more than historical interest to US tacticians as well.

    Well…I stand corrected…

    Sheesh how could I have missed that part where Glantz says that the transfer of 88 mm AAA guns to the western front cost the Germans the war…?

    And how could I have possibly missed the part where Glantz concludes that the Soviet Kwantung campaign had nothing to do with the victory over Japan…?

    Sheesh…I really must try harder so see…

    SOME KIND OF WHACKED OUT DISNEYLAND VERSION OF REALITY…

    I have to say here…rarely have I seen such a shameless liar…

    It really takes a lot of 脸颊 to sit here in front of who knows how many people and just start lying as soon as you open your mouth…

    Pretty disgusting…excuse me while I go have a shower…

  340. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @FB

    I know people who own and operate MiG aircraft and whose fuel bills go on their credit card.

    And I know people who were USAF at Nellis/ Groom who were working on the secret hoard of US maintained MiG and Sukhoi aircraft when their existence was not public knowledge. Even by fighter standards engine TBO was short and engine hours were the limiting factor on operations.

    I went to A&P school and had instructors who had been working for US airlines in New York and could tell Aeroflot stories, hot starts, hung starts, engine FOD losses. They did not have any actual hands on with the Soviet engines but they heard the stories.

    Warpac aircraft are not competing with Boeing and Airbus because the ex Soviet designs are not economic to operate. Other than GE’s purchase of the Walter turboprop line from the Czechs, Warpac turbine tech has been a complete fail in the West. (I see no evidence the uprated and Westernized Walter is making any inroads at all in the PWC PT-6 market.)

    Williams Research has a program to re-engine the popular (both in military service and as a warjet) L-39 trainer with its FJ44 engine. The biggest problem with the L-39 is not its main propulsion engine but the small APU that starts it:it is extraordinarily troublesome. It should be noted that a FJ44 engine ‘in the can’, if you can get Williams to sell you one, costs significantly more than the value of a L-39 on the US warbird market, even after it has been imported and made US FAA compliant.

    As an airframe, the L-39 is a very good design, but its engines and avionics are T-33 era.

    • 回复: @Avery
    , @FB
  341. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I never said the Russians were not competent in many areas and even superior in a few. But they are not competitive with Tektronix and LeCroy in oscilloscopes, for instance, nor with HP/Agilent/Keysight in most other electronic bench equipment. And the most advanced semiconductor fab lines in Russia proper are at what was leading edge in the Pentium II era, or a little over that. They are dependent on merchant silicon from Asia, of course so are we to a big extent, but they don’t have inhouse facilities for critical high security parts like US NSA and the Sandia/LLNL complexes have here.

    Believe me, I’d be perfectly happy to buy a Russian scope or sig gen if the price and performance were competitive. Even during the Yeltsin sell off, when MiGs and Soviet tanks started turning up at the Surplus Hut, I never saw a piece of Russian or allied electronic test equipment. Indeed, the guys at Tucker and TestEquity laughed when I asked: they said they were exporting to them all the old Tek 465 and 475 scopes and HP 8646B generators and 339 audio boxes they could find.

    I did, however, buy a Russian Doff guitar. Like the Ukrainian made Fed camera I bought in the late nineties, it’s a matter of getting what you paid for : for under \$200 shipped it’s a pretty good \$200 guitar.

    • 回复: @Avery
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    , @FB
  342. @Jim Christian

    Jim, I suspect that there was more to the matter though I cannot say for sure, things like mustard, mayo, tomato slices, lettuce and who knows what else were also likely involved. Certainly, bologna does NOT say it all.

    • 哈哈: FB
    • 回复: @Jim Christian
  343. Avery 说:
    @Anonymous

    {But they are not competitive with Tektronix and LeCroy in oscilloscopes, for instance, nor with HP/Agilent/Keysight in most other electronic bench equipment.}

    Competitive measured with what yardstick?
    In the consumer/commercial marketplace – absolutely.
    But Russian military is not competing in the consumer/commercial marketplace.
    They are competing in the only “marketplace” that counts in war: the battlefield.
    Apparently the test equipment Russians produce for their military needs is good enough, judging by the performance of their military equipment*.

    ___________________________
    * http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1865180/war-game-changer-russias-launch-dozens-precision-cruise-missiles-syria

    [“We knew that both the Gepard frigate and Buyan corvettes were capable of launching land-attack cruise missiles, but the apparent range of the missiles has come as a surprise to us,” Jeremy Binnie, a weapons expert for Janes IHS, the London-based defence think tank, said, referring to two types of Russian ships.]

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  344. Avery 说:
    @Anonymous

    {I know people who own and operate MiG aircraft and whose fuel bills go on their credit card.}

    Well, you may know people with MiG fuel bills of whatever vintage, but fuel bills don’t matter much it you are achieving your military objective. By various yardsticks Russian AF in Syria is doing just that*.

    Now, I accept that RuAF might be fudging their sortie stats a little. But if there was a huge discrepancy, we can be sure Pentagon would shout about it from the rooftops, to make Russians look bad in Syria, Plus, the decimation of ISIS on the ground by RuAF is proof positive that the relatively small number of aircraft Russia has deployed in Syria are causing immense damage to terrorist invaders.

    Only way they could do that with a small number of jets is to be in the air attacking targets pretty much non-stop.

    ______________
    * http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/bombs-away-why-russias-air-war-syria-so-impressive-14080

    [The Russian air force in Syria seems to be generating close to the theoretical maximum number of sorties possible for thirty-two fixed-wing combat aircraft. That’s of course assuming the Russians are providing factually accurate information about their operations in Latakia.]

    [But several U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps official had noted that Russian jets are extremely “rugged” and could be surprisingly reliable—especially since Soviet aircraft often have a lot of common parts. “They have more interoperability between their planes and they were designed to be easy to work on,” another Air Force official had said.]

    • 回复: @Erebus
  345. Dicky Cone 说:
    @Anonymous

    I’ve been expecting something like that for the last twenty years or so. Seems to always be just around the corner but never actually gets here.

  346. @RadicalCenter

    Ford should also be included in your list because of his continuance of the cover ups, presidential pardons and all that. Sadly, ALL of them presided over a declining America.

  347. @Ron Unz

    In terms of cruise missiles–capabilities are approximately equal, while design-wise Russia is generation ahead. But in terms of armored forces. Russia is way ahead both in manufacturing capacity and design.

    That’s absolutely astonishing if correct. Consider that the U.S. now has well over twice Russia’s population, avoided the total collapse of the USSR industrial economy, and also controls the productive potential of many hundreds of millions of Europeans, plus has for decades had a military budget many, many times larger than that of Russia’s.

    But as noted above, the best education in STEM fields in the US is very expensive, e.g., 68,000 a year for an undergraduate at Caltech not including board and lodging. And Grad school costs at least as much, around \$85,000 per year not counting pocket money. So a PhD from a top US engineering school costs around a million bucks. In other words, the best education in the US in a STEM field is available on to a tiny fraction of the population. So if you consider the population from which the top defense scientists and engineers are drawn, Russia may, in fact, have a vastly greater pool of talent that the US. As for China …..

    It looks as though the US, under a system of plutocratic control, will fail in the drive for hegemony in a world where raw talent without regard for wealth is more highly valued by competing powers.

  348. @Anonymous

    The coming collapse of the petrodollar does not bode well for the US economy in general or the US military in specific.

    On the contrary, it will make US manufacturing internationally competitive once again. As for military inadequacy, the issue is not the petrodollar but political stupidity (e.g., Saddam’s nukular bombs), stupidity in weapons system acquisition (e.g., the F-35) and a demoralizing absence of ruling elite commitment to military service.

  349. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Avery

    But Russian military is not competing in the consumer/commercial marketplace.
    They are competing in the only “marketplace” that counts in war: the battlefield.
    Apparently the test equipment Russians produce for their military needs is good enough, judging by the performance of their military equipment*.

    My guess is they are using US (actually, usually Asian assembled units with mostly Asian merchant silicon and US or rarely German (Rohde & Schwarz, Hameg) engineering, and in the case of high end units, a few critical analog and A/D parts made in the US, marketed and funded by US corporations) or Euro units for high end purposes and Chinese made merchant stuff (e.g., Rigol) for the commodity functions. Military specific fixturing and test units, sure. Most of that stuff is wires and switches to connect a proprietary bus or wiring scheme to the outside world.

    I’ve talked with people who were in previously highly classified Soviet engineering facilities during the Yeltsin years. They saw Russian made meters and simple scopes and so forth, but for highly demanding uses they had all HP or Tek stuff. Including quite a few of the legendary Tek 7104 scopes with the microchannel plate CRTs, which were usable at 1 GHz and were controlled items because of their utility in nuclear weapons work. (Hundreds of them are scrapped as being radioactive in the US because the tantalum in the capacitors was activated by radiation. Dealers wanted to buy them and replace all the caps, but the authorities refused: the CRTs, which are no longer made, were fine and are worth a lot of money.)

    • 回复: @FB
  350. Erebus 说:
    @Avery

    Quotes from your National Interest link:

    “With thirty-two on the ramp, I think they’ll probably be able to fly twenty-four jets per day,” one recently retired U.S. Air Force fighter pilot told me.

    I’m pretty sure I heard the following quote on TV from a USAF talking head to the talking Barbie Doll in an airport lounge 1 or 2 days after the Russians went live.

    “If I had thirty-two airplanes and they were all different I think we could—with good logistics—get a four-turn-four from the Su-24s, a four-turn-four from the Su-25s, and two-turn-twos from the Su-30s and Su-34s…” another U.S. Air Force official had predicted. “So that’s twenty-four sorties a day.”

    If that was the same USAF official as I saw, he then qualified that by saying he doubted the Russians could maintain that pace as the current A-Team were rotated out and replaced by lower performing B & C teams.
    Then sometime last year I read that the RuAF had already rotated 85% of its personnel through the Syrian theatre. Some are probably on their 2nd tour by now. Meanwhile, that small contingent continued an energetic, effective air campaign for >2yrs without noticeable letup.

    0 for 3. Not a good average. Just another small example of how far the USM has drifted from reality’s shore.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  351. @NoseytheDuke

    Yes, well, these faux engineers do like to add fat to the old baloney in their resume. H.R. types have a word for those that add fat. Oh yeah: unemployed.

  352. @FB

    I knew it. He’s in love. FB, you remind me of Harvey Weinstein with the stalking. Is Mossad looking for me? Jesus.

    • 回复: @FB
  353. @Anonymous

    I never said the Russians were not competent in many areas and even superior in a few.

    If you are the anonymous I answered about KIP, here is what you said, and I quote:

    None of this bodes well for taking the latest generation of Russian aircraft as equals of the F-22, for instance.

    I repeat my points, reworded:

    1. I can guarantee you that tolerances, workmanship, precision, quality which go into manufacturing Su-30 or Su-35C are in no way inferior to whatever went into the manufacturing of the hangar queen (together with B-2) of F-22. Metal, composites, titanium (specifically), electronics.

    2. Per oscilloscopes specifically: Western copies–both through re-design and, of course, courtesy of industrial espionage (GRU, for example). Plus, of course, own ones.

    or above mentioned copies:

    I can throw you some other food: you can see in Irkut’s labs, as an example, two types of Instrons. I am not sure they use Wyoming Test Fixtures (yes, WTF–they couldn’t find better name for the company) since most of them are likely of domestic origin but if you will open any ASTM of 15.03 you will see HOW testing is described and in what cases one will need a very complex equpment from spectrography to very high tolerances mechanical. But all that Russia has in own domestic or imported shape and that is precisely what invalidates your argument on “not being equal”. Not only they are equal, they offer performances which are beyond the grasp of any American-made combat aircraft and I witnessed and know personally a number of severely butt-hurt cases which, as with your argument above, deviated into some preposterous direction such as, and I quote you again:

    Neither Russia nor any other ex Warpac nation seems able to produce electronic test equipment or machinist’s measuring tools either.

    This is plainly untrue, in fact–it is manifestly false. Just some history overview:

    http://www.faqs.org/cia/docs/103/0000493690/IMPLICATIONS-OF-THE-PLANNED-EXPANSION-IN-THE-SOVIET-MACHINE-TOOL-AND-METALFORMI.html

    Moreover, USSR exported a lot of top notch of machine building tools and USSR produced pretty much any tools from simple calipers and micrometers to any other serious metrology.

    but they don’t have inhouse facilities for critical high security parts like US NSA and the Sandia/LLNL complexes have here.

    You need to update yourself by about ten years. I am not going to go too deep into this, but you need to ask yourself how it came about that in 1990s almost whole Russian machine-building complex was deliberately ran into the ground and why it is getting now where it is–that is slowly but surely replacing Western imports. The “secret” is in Soviet/Russian Military-Industrial Complex and the way it operated and operates, of which combined West has a very vague understanding as my discussion with you so clearly demonstrates. I’ll give you a hint: Soviet and now Russian Navy, as one example out of many, has several Scientific Research Institutes (no, they are not NavSea analogues), Russia also has such things as MGTU or MAI which blow any MIT out of the water hands down and that is why Russia remains extremely competitive in the high-end, hi-tech, very high complexity weapons systems all of which have all crucial parts, from processors to unique metallurgy, made in Russia. Why it is so–is totally another matter. But US in terms of, as an example, Air Defense Complexes or EW is not even in the same league as Russia. But, sure, I remember many US “experts” also speaking in 1970s and 1980s that Soviet ships and subs didn’t have integrated systems. Boy, talk about delusion.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  354. FB 说:
    @Jim Christian

    ‘…Is Mossad looking for me?…’

    No… just the nice friendly men in the white coats…remember those…?

  355. @Erebus

    0 for 3. Not a good average. Just another small example of how far the USM has drifted from reality’s shore.

    It is worse than that, even “experts” fail non-stop to explain what is going on. The problem is much deeper and is endemic in American “elites” post-WW II world view. It is astonishing to observe.

  356. MarkinLA 说:
    @FB

    You are citing somebody’s opinion. This isn’t fact. What is documented was that the military did not want to surrender and the military staged a coup to prevent the broadcast of the Emperor’s message to the people about the surrender.

    • 回复: @FB
  357. MarkinLA 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The USSR would have been part of the invasion of the home islands if such an invasion had taken place. Therefore, the destruction of the Kwantung Army was necessary for the invasion so it had to be done so there would not be a force in the rear that could cause trouble. However, just because something is necessary doesn’t mean it actually affected the war.

    The British had to oppose the Japanese in Burma to deny the Japanese raw materials that could be sent back to the home islands. However, in the grand scheme of things, that mattered very little since without a navy those materials weren’t much use.

    The Japanese still had millions of men in the Army in the home islands. The Japanese bushido code was such that surrender was not an option. I don’t think the Japanese ever surrendered on any of those islands battles the Marines fought. When it became hopeless, the junior officers lead suicidal charges while the senior officers committed ritual suicide. This code was why the Japanese were so brutal to POWs – such cowards were beneath contempt.

    The Japanese military knew that an amphibious assault was extremely costly and difficult to achieve successfully and they had a lot of experience with different strategies to counter them. They no longer were fighting for victory but viewed unconditional surrender as a possible threat to their society and culture and were fighting to make sure that any peace agreement allowed them to stay Japanese.

    The idea by some these posters that the defeat of the Kwantung Army was the most important and decisive battle of the war is ridiculous.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  358. MarkinLA 说:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    It is documented what happened – even the attempted coup. It matters because it disproves the nonsense pushed by some of these commenters that somehow the defeat of the Kwantung Army was the single most important and decisive battle of the war and the US Navy was just a mopping up sideshow.

    Any invasion of the home islands was going to be spearheaded by the US Navy since the USSR had no resources on hand capable of such an undertaking. An amphibious assault during the 1940s with those slow moving Higgins boats was a big crap shoot until you landed enough men to establish a defensive perimeter.

    The Japanese still had millions of men in the Army capable of stopping an invasion. If they succeeded it would have forced the US to give up on it’s idea of unconditional surrender.

  359. Sparkon 说:

    The Fog of war has not entirely lifted from WWII, and myths about it endure.

    For example, the argument has been repeated several times in the comments here that it was the transfer of Siberian divisions to the Moscow front that saved the Bolshevik capital in late 1941, the transfers enabled because Stalin’s spy ring said the Japanese would not attack the USSR.

    However, according to analyst Nigel Askey, there is no record of any significant movement of Red Army divisions from Siberia or the Far East to the Moscow front during the 2nd half of 1941.

    所以问题是; 如果不可能是成群结队的西伯利亚或东线部队,谁在 1941 年 XNUMX 月阻止了德国人? 答案是大量新动员和部署的师和旅。

    The Soviet land model shows that 182 rifle divisions […] 41 armies, 11 fronts and a multitude of other units were newly Mobilised and Deployed in the second half of 1941[…] Even if the few Siberian divisions exhibited a higher than average combat proficiency in the winter of 1941/42, their contribution was almost insignificant compared to the mass of newly mobilised units.

    毫无疑问,1941年的苏联动员计划简直是历史上规模最大、速度最快的战时动员。 组成这些部队的来自苏联各地的众多普通苏联士兵拯救了这一天,绝对不是 1941 年 XNUMX 月之后向西转移的现有部队,或者几乎不存在的神话般的西伯利亚师。

    (my edits & bold)
    http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/

    The fact of the matter is that the German 希尔 on “the Eastern Front” had been ground to a pulp already by the Красная Армия —红豆军团— the Red Army, even before the shattered German units lay bleeding and freezing in the snowdrifts around the outskirts of Moscow in early December 1941.

    此时, 赫尔的 best units on the Eastern Front were mere skeletons of their nominal order of battle with which they had started Barbarossa.

    But all the melodrama aside, the battle for Moscow had been decided already earlier in the year, when for reasons that remain obscure, the German dictator with the little mustache divided his forces, and ran them ragged, rather than concentrating the three army groups along a narrow axis for an all-out drive on Moscow to decapitate the Bolshevik leadership, which action was the only possible chance for Germany to defeat the Soviet Union in WWII, as Germany had neither the weapons, manpower, strategic reserves, nor abundant natural resources to prevail over the Soviet Union in any prolonged conflict.

    But when Hitler had his chance to kick in the front door to see if the whole rotten mess would indeed collapse, he did everything else. It could be argued that Hitler was provoked into Barbarossa because of his fear of the Soviet Red Army units massed along its western frontier, so destruction of those military forces became his primary objective in Barbarossa, rather than overthrow of Stalin.

    But this was not the German 菲勒的 only disastrous mistake. Consider the repercussions of the 德国空军的 failure to knock-out Fighter Command’s airfields in late summer 1940. The prevailing narrative is that Churchill goaded Hitler into attacking British cities, rather the finishing off Fighter Command’s bases, but who knows? Maybe that’s a myth too.

  360. FB 说:
    @Anonymous

    ‘…I know people who own and operate MiG aircraft and whose fuel bills go on their credit card…’

    ‘…And I know people who were USAF at Nellis/ Groom who were working on the secret hoard of US maintained MiG and Sukhoi aircraft when their existence was not public knowledge…’

    Well…I enjoy a good hangar-flying tale as much as the next guy…

    But here’s what I know…anyone who has ever flown anything with a gun bolted to it will tell you they have a healthy respect for Russian equipment…

    And even more respect for that Russian guy in the driver’s seat…

    Because at the end of the day…you can have the best airplane in the world [and current US ‘equipment’ is far from a shoe-in in that department]…it’s the guy holding the stick that’s going to make the 差异...

    And therein lies a story in itself…one not often talked about…and in fact 故意 concealed…like so much else in today’s information ‘space’…

    Used to be that a cadet coming out of primary training in a prop airplane…would go into basic jet training in a Cessna T37 ‘Tweet’…and then on to advanced jet training in a Northrop T38 ‘Talon’ before going into their ‘type’ training…ie fighter/bomber…transport…etc…

    Every airman got the benefit of the advanced jet training in the T38 [advanced maneuvers…situational awareness etc…] before going into their ‘type’ training in actual and expensive to run airplanes like the F15, B52 etc……

    Of course that system that worked so well for so long all began to change about 20 years ago…

    The Tweet was first introduced in 1957…and used license built turbojet engines of French design of 1940s technology [with their 4 to 1 compression ratio these really were the definition of gas guzzlers…but not really important for a training flight that doesn’t need to stay aloft for more than an hour or so…]

    The tweet was finally retired about 10 years ago after serving half a century…in a word those airplanes were worn out and there was no replacement in the pipeline…

    Instead of getting a new airplane…the ‘geniuses’ decided that the ‘solution’ was to 改版 the whole training system…几个 times in fact over the last two decades…

    [In fact…several new trainer airplanes have been needed for at least the last 30 years…since a student airman needs to go step by step into aircraft of increasing capability…]

    Airmen now go from the prop primary trainer…the Texan T6 [a 瑞士人 design based on the civilian Pilatus PC9]…into the T38…but if you’re on the fighter/bomber track…

    Those on the transport track go from the T6 prop to to the T-1 Jayhawk [actually a 商业的 light bizjet known as the Beechjet…which was in fact originally designed and built by 三菱…并且是 不再? in production for the last 10 years…

    So now after decades of band-aids and buying all kinds of civilian crap from other countries…there is the predictable problem of a serious shortage in actual pilots being turned out…

    ‘…The Air Force faces a persistent and critical shortage of fighter pilots…’

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1113.htmlbell to make its way into the MSM…

    ‘…The pilot shortage has been a problem for some time – the Air Force chief of staff and Air Force secretary called it a “quiet crisis” in summer 2016 – and the service is now looking to rapidly train new ones…’

    http://nordic.businessinsider.com/air-force-scrambling-to-train-pilots-as-new-aircraft-wait-to-be-tested-2017-9/?op=1

    Of course what’s left out of the so-called discussion is the fact that it’s already too late…there are no more quick fixes and band-aids to be had…

    The T38…which every airman got to train in…was introduced in 1961 ...

    And hasn’t been built since 1972…

    The steadily dwindling numbers of T38s even 20 years ago…meant that not everyone could get the benefit of that advanced jet training anymore…

    The solution…simple…just cut out all of that training altogether for anyone not going into fighters and bombers…

    As of right now…there is still no advanced jet trainer in the actual pipeline to replace the remaining 50 year-old T38…[which capabilities…incidentally fall far short of what is needed for that kind of training today…]

    The updated ‘replacement’ for the T38 was supposed to be flying students by this year…but of course…

    ‘…but shrinking budgets have pushed initial operating capability to around 2023…’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-X_program

    Of course…corners have to be cut somewhere right…

    The logical place to start…?…hmm…let’s see…pilot training sounds good…

    You see…there are Thousands of Big Gaping Mouths in Pinstriped Suits to Feed in this gravy train called the military procurement system…and they always come first…

    Of course there can never be enough cash to go around…not even with 1000 billion a year of taxpayer money dropped into this sinkhole every year…

    And let’s wait and see if there is an actual new trainer airplane on the scene within the next six years…[yeah right…]

    The other side of the story is the human side…

    Ie those dedicated career instructor officers who used to pass on their accumulated 知识 to the next generation…

    When there were no longer enough T38s to fly 20 years ago…these men have long since departed for the airlines…

    This is how institutions DIE…

    So now let’s see what the Russians are up to shall we…?

    The Yak 130 is a twin engine advanced jet trainer that has been churning out of a state of the art Siberian factory since 2010…

    Noted British test pilot Peter Collins had a chance to fly the new jet a few years ago in Russia…

    ‘…It was clear from the tour and a 30 min period of cockpit familiarisation inside the hangar that the Yak-130 I was to evaluate is a seriously modern design…’

    ‘…Some aircraft I have flown are good advanced trainers and some are good light-attack aircraft, but the Yak-130 comprehensively covers both roles with sophistication yet robustness, and docility yet potency…’

    ‘…Any air force commander would be delighted to have such a multi-role aircraft in his inventory; in part for the breadth of roles it can fulfill with competence and also because of its affordability and built-in digital future…’

    ‘…Russia has got the Yak-130 almost perfectly right and, for many countries, the training and fighter aircraft could come close to providing a one-type, 21st century air force…’

    You can read the entire report here…

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-test-yak-130-proves-versatility-373512/

    [note…Peter Collins passed recently…he will be missed]

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/obituary-peter-collins-flight-international-test-p-429158/

    So there you have it…Russian cadets get to train in this…

    While those US airmen lucky enough to even get into an advanced jet trainer…get to fly in this nearly 60 year-old airplane…[and what comes next is anybody’s guess…maybe they can slap something together in China…?]

    那些 不能 going into fighters go from the prop to this…

  361. FB 说:

    meant to post a link to a more serious take on the pilot shortage problem…this from RAND…

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1113.html

  362. FB 说:
    @Anonymous

    ‘…My is they are using US (actually, usually Asian assembled units with mostly Asian merchant silicon and US or rarely German (Rohde & Schwarz, Hameg) engineering…’

    You know…it takes a pretty good-size load of crap to finally get me to the point of kicking a noisemaker across the room…

    You ever heard of a ‘hohlraum’…

    What you are looking at there is about 2 mm…a little over 1/16th of an inch…

    This is the little piece inside a thermonuclear weapon that makes it go bang…

    Now what kind of tolerancing, dimensioning and instrumentation do you think is required for something like this…?

    I guess you just order that stuff from Harbor Freight…?

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  363. FB 说:
    @MarkinLA

    ‘…You are citing somebody’s opinion. This isn’t fact…’

    Here is where you can reach Lt. Col Glantz…the author of said ‘opinion…’

    Combat Studies Institute
    US Army Command and General Staff College
    Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027

    I’m sure he’ll be delighted to hear from 美味...

    As for the normal folks here…there is a decent doc here on the subject…illustrates how historians are finally turning the tide in the gross misconceptions about the US nukes on Japan…and the Soviet role on the surrender…

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
    , @NoseytheDuke
  364. MarkinLA 说:
    @MarkinLA

    The idea by some these posters that the defeat of the Kwantung Army was the most important and decisive battle of the war is ridiculous.

    Not directed at you Andrei, just to make sure you know.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  365. @MarkinLA

    Not directed at you Andrei, just to make sure you know.

    I know and you know my position: Pacific War was American war, US won it. Kwantung Army’s defeat was a strategic episode, however important.

  366. MarkinLA 说:
    @FB

    Since the final decision to surrender was made by the Emperor to stop the suffering of his people, I doubt he thought much about the USSR, the Kwantung Army, or anything else military for that matter when he made that decision. Asking military people about a war will always get you a military answer (think Vietnam), I think we all know that by now.

    • 回复: @Diversity Heretic
  367. FB 说:

    ‘…Since the final decision to surrender was made by the Emperor to stop the suffering of his people, I doubt he thought much about the USSR, the Kwantung Army, or anything else military for that matter when he made that decision…’

    我懂了…

    So you were not only present at the Emperor’s side at the time…

    But also able to READ HIS THOUGHTS…

    Quick…somebody call The Amazing Kreskin…

    We’ve got a live one here…

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  368. MarkinLA 说:
    @FB

    It has as much validity as your postings. Was Glanz there?

  369. William F. Engdahl: The Deep Rot Inside the Over-Extended US Armed Forces
    The waste, incompetence, and dysfunction is a reflection of how the US itself has lost its way …

  370. @Sparkon

    Interesting. His decision to call off the Kursk offensive just as it was making headway was also curious (the Allied landings in Italy notwithstanding).

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  371. @Sparkon

    A lot of Fighter Command’s airfields were just that, fields. Grass fields mown down to a level strip supported by a few minor buildings. I think new ones would have been created to replace any of the ones destroyed and it a very short time. The big mistake there was stopping the attacks too soon, fortunately for Britain.

  372. @FB

    FB slices and dices again and not a Ginsu knife in sight. Great comments and worthy of an article or two here at The Unz Review.

  373. L.K 说:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Birds of a feather, I guess.

    Damn right! Both pushing their own flavor of WW2 propaganda. Pathetic.

    • 回复: @Beefcake the Mighty
  374. @L.K

    Indeed, and neither side can see how they reinforce the other sides’s myths, which are basically one and the same.

    • 回复: @L.K
  375. @MarkinLA

    My recollection from my Naval War College readings on the subject was that the entry of the USSR was a major political factor in the Japanese decision to surrender. Stalin had been honoring the five year non-aggression pact between Japan and the USSR, and the Japanese hoped that the USSR could mediate some kind of peace negotiations. (They didn’t know about Stalin’s promise to enter the war once the five years were up.) When the five year pact expired and the USSR declared war, the Japanese leadership (the sane ones, at least) realized that no political solution was possible. The defeat of the Japanese Army by the Red Army and the invasion of the Kuriles had military significance, to be sure, but the lack of any feasible political arrangement forced the Japanese hand.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  376. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @FB

    Right, the Tweet uses the license built Continental J69 which is a Turbomeca Marbore at a higher price. Same engine in the Hispano Saeta and a couple of other contemporaneous trainers. In the Tweet it is especially loud, so loud it is an operational problem on the ramp. Many of them were uprated with the J-85 (sans afterburners) as the A-37. Great airplane, basically a jet Cessna 310 with a canopy and bang seats. I would take the Canadair Tutor or any of several other aircraft over the Tweet if I were outfitting an air force, but it is a good trainer.

    The Northrop T-38 is in its own class and category as a trainer. Besides the limited supply-the logical thing would be simply build a few hundred more for the USAF, NASA, and a dozen or two for civilians who want them for flight test or as the ultimate toy (google N638TC, I was at Oshkosh when it took Best Jet, Best Warbird, Best of Show in ’86 iirc), but Northrop Grumman doesn’t want to make them -there is also the fact that Bomber/Tanker/Transport pilots who would be perfectly competent in any other aircraft had an excessive washout rate. The T-38 has to be flown very precisely in the pattern as one is within a small margin of stall, defensible in a fighter trainer in the JFK//MM era (the 104,105 and 100 were similar, today fly by wire jets are data limited) but not so much for that BTT queue. (Another fix: since the T-38/F-5 has a one piece wing that drops out from the bottom so the airplane is palletizable for transport via cargo aircraft or truck, make a longer wing, interchangeable with the standard one, which would give you supercritical cruise and/or a poor man’s U-2.)

    I agree that the JPATS “T-6” was a good screwing for the taxpayer and find the idea of turning someone loose on a first solo in a \$5,000,000 airplane ludicrous, but it is basically a Pilatus PC-9. I’d love to have a PC-9 or a PC-7, simple airplane, overpriced but reliable PT-6 engine, but as a primary trainer it is ridiculous. Basically JPATS doubled the price of the perfectly good existing PC-9 so as to provide a few hundred man-years of (mediocre-paying) jobs in Wichita. It would have been cheaper simply to hand out hundred dollar bills to everyone arriving in Wichita at the East Kellogg toll booth and done more for the economy of that benighted town, but I digress.

    Were I training pilots, I’d do what I understand the Israelis did for years and start everyone out in something like a Super Cub or Citabria and then put them in a simple jet (I think they used the Fouga Magister, another Tweet contemporary also with twin Marbores) for formation work and basic aerobatics. Instrument work and the principles of crew coordiation could be taught in something like an Aero Commander. At that point, you could use a serious modern trainer at the associated capital costs for those selected for fast jets and an off the shelf corporate jet for the BTT students with little ill effect. R&D costs-zero. I seem to recall that the idea of license building the L-39, with a more suitable engine and avionics suite, was more than trivially passed around during the JPATS scheme. I know the FAA in the US requires pilots to have a minimum of 500 hours before you can be type rated to fly an L-39, for whatever that is worth, but it has been used as an ab initio trainer in several air forces.

    The Russian system of the “design bureau” and then (in effect) contracting out manufacturing, with the State owning the IP of the design, has several advantages. ( In fact, at one time this was sort of done in the US-there was a Naval Aircraft Factory that turned out the famous “Yellow Peril” before WWII.) It means that the government takes all the financial risk of R&D and then can get the product manufactured where an when it wants by competing bidders. We may need to look into that again.

    • 回复: @FB
    , @FB
  377. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    It was a sad day when Tektronix (although sadly degraded from the Harold Vollum era) finally quit making real analog oscilloscopes. I don’t think anyone actually makes a real oscilloscope any more, if one means one with an actual beam deflected CRT display. The last holdout I think was Iwatsu in Japan, who in inimitable Japanese fashion made a tiny CRT about the size of a 6550 with a charge coupled video sensor onto which the beam painted, driving a LCD NTSC video display.

    A few hardcore analog holdouts would love to be able to buy one. Perhaps yo could arrange ordering information?

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  378. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @FB

    That is a beautiful bit of work, but I thought the term “hohlraum” as applied to CWNDI referred to the outer casing of a Device designed to focus or amplify radiation pressure, as opposed to the little device here used in fusion research? Or did Sakharov go in a very different direction than Teller and Ulam? And if so…..

    • 回复: @FB
  379. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Look at the front panel of the Tektronix 5xxxx mainframe and its plug-ins and then the ones on the Russian unit. This alone will tell you much.

    But-there is more-all the solid state Tek verticals were built out of proprietary transistors and thick film modules using circuit designs that were far beyond what even their US competitors (chiefly HP) could do. Much of that tech is described in the late Jim Williams’ Analog Circuit Design: Art, Science, and Personalities. It is fascinating and I commend it to all who have even a rudimentary understanding of electronics provided they enjoy a good read.

    The timebase was more generic , but as many have commented, “HP thought Trigger was a horse”.

    Competitors had to make do with merchant silicon or parts that may have been inhouse but had similar performances.

    The Germans and the English couldn’t equal Tek performance in oscilloscopes. The Japanese came close. From what I have seen (and I am no authority) Soviet practice was to regard the oscilloscope as merely a qualitative tool and use other techniques for precise quantitative measurements wherever possible.

  380. @FB

    Could the USAF lease some Alpha jets? Aren’t they a pretty good trainer? They’ve been around for a while and can even double in a light attack role, although I don’t think that would be their USAF role.

    • 回复: @FB
  381. @Anonymous

    A few hardcore analog holdouts would love to be able to buy one. Perhaps yo could arrange ordering information?

    I am not into oscilloscopes, if that’s what you mean. Vintage Soviet electronics is valuable and you have to look for it yourself. Scroll down on this resource (firs link) and you may get lucky buying old Soviet CRTS for oscilloscopes:

    https://vk.com/baraholka_sssr

    You have to use search engines such as Yandex or Mail.ru to be ready to catch such things, as an example, as this:

    https://bryansk.au.ru/9425793/

    or

    http://is000.livejournal.com/28851.html

    But remember–you will have a very stiff competition.

    But I can further reveal you some metrology “secrets” which may explain why USSR, especially, after WW II remained and, actually, increased its competitiveness and number of advantages in military-technological field.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00979095?no-access=true

    To put it in plain language: Russians were and remain damn good in metrology issues. In fact, one of the world’s leaders. Meanwhile, if I tell you how the ultra-fine dimensioning of the spherical gyroscopes was achieved in late 1950s and early 1960s for the first serious navigation (especially gyro-verticals) and guidance systems in Soviet Navy you may not even believe me and call it a BS but it is not and a first hand knowledge.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  382. @Diversity Heretic

    Stalin had been honoring the five year non-aggression pact between Japan and the USSR, and the Japanese hoped that the USSR could mediate some kind of peace negotiations. (They didn’t know about Stalin’s promise to enter the war once the five years were up.)

    If I may. I believe his main issue is with the fact of contribution and costs of a Pacific War. It is one of those cases of “what if”. Could US alone, without USSR entering the war, win the Imperial Japan? Absolutely, at a much higher cost primarily in blood. That is the issue in this whole discussion. But US still could win since won the Naval War over Japan, and won it decisively. Considering the fact that this war was the greatest naval war in history, there is no denial of its huge significance in both strategic and political senses. No one with even rudimentary common sense can deny well-deserved glory and reputation of the US Navy and forces which fought in Pacific. IMHO, of course.

  383. @RadicalCenter

    But I’ll agree that I see many younger Americans in LA, DC, and other major cities who lack all those qualities. They have priorities, lifestyles, and views that range from the foolish and puerile to the disgusting. For the most part, they are part of the Democrat coalition of the freaks and fringes —people for whom the core nation of Americans are just people to be mocked and fleeced to pay for their own dispossession by alien hordes.

    同意100%。

    Many young American men are still virile, normal, patriotic, sensible males who deeply love their nation and their girls and children and communities back home, and have the ability and willingness to fight, persevere, suffer, and win.

    Also true and I know many such people myself, some of them are my close friends.

  384. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Interesting. His decision to call off the Kursk offensive just as it was making headway was also curious (the Allied landings in Italy notwithstanding).

    It wasn’t. See in bold. To explain why it was called off (apart from obvious and Guderian’s admission), see what happened with three SS crack Panzer Divisions, namely: Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler Division, Das Reich and Totenkopf. Where and how they were transferred and why Liebstandarte transferred all of its heavy equipment to other two.

  385. A Modern History of Japan
    From Tokugawa Times to the Present
    By Andre Gordon
    (2009)

    1的3部分

    [更多]

    结束战争

    People in Japan lived through most of the war with remarkable public perseverance, despite mounting private doubts. But toward the end, signs of social breakdown increased. Chronic absenteeism in urban workplaces throughout Japan reached 20 percent daily even before air raids forced workers to flee the cities. After the raids began in 1944 and 1945, absentee rates often came to a full 50 percent of the work force. Wildcat disputes over wages and work conditions rose in number. The military police also noted an alarming rise in passive resistance such as anti-government graffiti. One imperial household aide recorded in his diary in December 1943 the fearful spectacle of a drunken gentleman on a streetcar singing loudly and then shouting:

    They started a war
    they were bound to lose
    saving we’ll win in, we’ll win,
    the big fools. Look, we’re sure to lose.
    The war is lost
    and Europe’s turned Red.
    Turning Asia Red can be done before breakfast.
    And when that time comes, out I’ll come.

    As they observed these trends, and as they realized that the war had turned decisively against Japan, some leaders in court, diplomatic, and business circles and a few military brass concluded that even a nearly total surrender would be preferable to the consequences of a doomed last battle. Most prominent among them was Prince Konoe Fumimaro, the former prime minister upon whom the more radical reformers had pinned great hopes several years back. Konoe and others were terrified at the prospect that the Soviet Union might enter the war against Japan (the 1941 Neutrality Treaty between Japan and the Soviets had remained in effect throughout the war). The group around Konoe feared above all that a prolonged war would crush the imperial institution. They came to identify a three-pronged threat: Foreign attack might combine with unrest from below and revolutionary plans from above to destroy the spiritual and cultural heart of their world…

  386. [There’s no logical reason to divide lengthy external excerpts among multiple comments, which just clutters things up and isn’t good practice. You should stop doing this if you want your comments published.]

    A Modern History of Japan
    From Tokugawa Times to the Present
    By Andre Gordon
    (2009)

    2的3部分

    [更多]

    …These fears—especially the fear of a domestic revolution initiated by high-level military and bureaucratic radicals were exaggerated. Factional conflict near the war’s end indeed set Konoe and his allies against the army leadership in particular. But this was not a fight setting pro-emperor conservatives around the throne versus anti-emperor revolutionaries in the military. The dispute centered on the question of who posed the greater threat to the imperial institution: the United States or the Soviet Union. Army officers who feared the Americans even entertained desperate plains to evacuate the emperor to the Asian continent with Soviet protection during a final battle for the homeland. Their opponents preferred to take their chances by accepting the American conditions for peace.

    The army strategy prevailed in the first stage of the war’s endgame. Prime Minister Tojo resigned in July 1944. He had lost the support of the court, the navy, and his own cabinet ministers. But these elites believed they could not control the military, so another army man, General Koiso Kuniaki, succeeded him. In February 1945 Konoe made a desperate attempt to take the initiative from army hardliners. He presented a plea, known as the Konoe Memorial, to the emperor in person. He urged Hirohito to make peace with the United States, even at the cost of unconditional surrender. This, he argued, was the only way to “extricate the people from the miserable ravages of war, preserve the 国泰, and plan for the security of the imperial house.” The emperor appeared intrigued, but did not follow his advice to replace the prime minister with someone willing to take this course. Several of the men who helped Konoe formulate his proposal were briefly jailed, including the diplomat and postwar prime minister, Yoshida Shigeru. Koiso continued his public stance of confidence in the aggressive pursuit of the war, but he secretly made overtures to the Soviet Union seeking its help in working out a peace agreement…

    • 回复: @Johnny Rico
  387. FB 说:
    @Anonymous

    ‘…The Northrop T-38 is in its own class and category as a trainer…’

    That was in 1961…or even in 1972 when Northrop stopped making them…today it is 绝望...

    Main thing today is students need to learn fly by wire [FBW]…since every modern fighter for the last 30 years is FBW…

    For those who don’t know what this really means…it means the aircraft is designed to be aerodynamically unstable…ie if the pilot releases the controls the airplane will immediately start changing attitude or direction on its own…and could quickly go out of control…

    Aerodynamic instability is not desirable in hand-flown airplanes for obvious reasons…but for airplanes that need to maneuver hard and fast it is a big plus…even piston aerobatic planes are typically 中立 stable…as opposed to positively stable…

    But in a combat plane you have the FBW flight computer basically ‘holding’ the stick…and making tiny corrections continuously…to counter the inherent instability…

    This gives the best of both worlds…the plane feels rock steady to the pilot when flying normally…but when quick response is needed the airplane will 跑赢大市 an aerodynamically stable configuration…

    [更多]

    The reason is that the aircraft stability is the tendency to 不能 deviate from the direction it’s going…so when you want to quickly change direction…you have to fight against the airplane’s built-in stability…hence response is slower…

    The fact that US student airmen don’t get the benefits of FBW is a very deal…they have to learn that in their type…

    Running even the ‘small’ F16 as a trainer costs many times more than something like the Yak 130…and wears out the aircraft’s service life more quickly for no good reason…

    ‘…the logical thing would be simply build a few hundred more [T38s] for the USAF…’

    Again…if it was 1961…

    Besides the FBW issue…there is also the issue of 性能...

    An advanced trainer needs to ‘feel’ similar enough to the combat jet in terms of ‘power’ in order to be useful to the student…

    That comes down to thrust to weight ratio…

    You can get an idea of some of these parameters even by looking at wikipedia aircraft specs…[although one must be careful to check those citations to make sure the info is up to date and accurate…]

    The T38 has ‘loaded’ weight of just under 12,000 lb…’loaded’ being the ‘typical’ mission weight…although in practice any airplane’s takeoff weight can be greater or less… as required for any particular mission… by juggling the amount of fuel and weapons carried…

    The T38 has ‘dry’ thrust of just over 2,000 lb…reheat [afterburner] thrust is 2,900 lb…but you’re not going to be in reheat except for short bursts of speed…and in a trainer reheat is more of a hindrance…

    You need thrust for turning performance…as the aircraft loses lift in a bank…you need lots of power to make tight turns…the most basic and important combat maneuver…

    So the typical T38 thrust to weight [without reheat] is going to be about 0.35…that’s half of the Yak 130…and utterly 绝望 in today’s world…

    Even with reheat the T38 T/W is under 0.5…

    The idea of reheat in a trainer/light attack aircraft is 无厘头 to begin with…

    只有 situations in which reheat is useful in a combat situation…the one being when you need to get the hell out of there in a hurry…[the other being trying to catch up or intercept a slower aircraft…]

    We have to remember that engine thrust has increased greatly since the 1960s and ’70s…in those days frontline fighter thrust to weight was a lot less than now…so trainers did not need as much either…

    There are other issues with older airplane designs…the T38 has a pretty high wing loading of 70 lb per square ft of wing area…

    Wing loading is one of the 枢机主教 parameters of aircraft performance…it tells you how much weight each square foot of wing lifting surface has to support…

    Think of carrying a backpack while walking up a set of stairs…your lifting ability is the strength of your legs…if the weight of the backpack is 100 lb…will it make a difference compared to 50 pounds…?

    Will you be able to climb as quickly…?

    Same thing in an airplane…where the ‘legs’ are the wings…

    The Yak’s wing loading is under 60 lb/ft^2…

    许多 more design issues…

    For example modern aircraft have leading edge flaps which increase wing lift performance at low speeds and in turning flight…

    These high-lift devices have the effect of 降低 wing loading…

    T38 doesn’t have any leading edge high lift movable surfaces…all modern fighters do…so again the training you get is only piece-meal and has to be completed in the actual fighter type…

    On the Yak…if you read Peter Collins detailed flight evaluation…the 130’s flaps [both leading and trailing edge] are automatically deployed by the FBW computer…thus cutting pilot workload and allowing him/her to concentrate on situational awareness…

    另一个 one is the aerodynamic performance of the airplane…

    We know a lot more today than we did 60 years ago…even 30 years ago the Sukhoi ‘Flanker’ [Su27] introduced the ability to operate at very high angles of attack [AOA]…ie over 30 degrees…

    The AOA [or alpha] is a very capability indicator in terms of maneuvering capability…

    The alpha is the angle at which the wing leading edge meets the airflow…in a turn the alpha increases…

    As the alpha increases beyond a certain angle, the airflow over the wing is disrupted and the wing experiences a sudden loss of lift which is called aerodynamic stall…

    In the ’60s combat jets could pull maybe 20 degrees…today’s aircraft can go to about 30…

    Russians have the very big edge here in aerodynamics…the Flanker can keep flying at ridiculous alpha…exceeding 90 degrees [ie straight up] to the direction of flight…as in the Cobra maneuver…

    This capability is due largely to the wing ‘strakes’ at the front of the wing-fuselage junction…also called leading edge extensions or LEX…

    The McDonnel F18 and even the F16 developed by Col. Riccione and company have this high alpha capability to an extent…ie better than an F15…but not nearly that of the Sukhoi…

    The way this works is that at high alpha…that wing strake causes a very high energy rotating flow of air called a 涡旋 [a mini tornado basically]…

    As that vortex travels back over the rest of the wing…it pushes down on the air that wants to lift up and separate from the wing…

    Thus the airflow separation and wing stall is 延迟 to a greater angle of attack…you can see these vortices here…

    I think that’s a chinese Flanker knockoff in the picture…

    Here is what Peter Collins said in his test of the Yak…

    ‘…For more advanced training, a second limiter setting of 35˚ is almost 翻番 that of many other advanced jet trainers in this category…’

    You simply cannot get this kind of performance from any other trainer…even a very good pilot in an F18 is going to be hard pressed to fly at 35 degrees…

    For those interested in further technical reading…there is a good nasa article here…

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-002-DFRC.html

    The idea of keeping the T38 is 可笑...

    [Incidentally…the T38 is billed as ‘supersonic’ in the popular media…which is flatly false…it is capable of breaking the sound barrier only in a shallow dive…not straight and level flight…just ask any T38 instructor…]

    Another commenter asked about the Dassault-Dornier Alpha Jet…

    Again…this design is old in the tooth…it’s been out of production for 26 years…

    It is certainly a decent improvement over the T38 in thrust to weight and wing loading…but not 几乎 comparable to the Yak…it also doesn’t have FBW which makes it obsolete in today’s world…

    The Alpha is designed for the dual-role of trainer and light attack aircraft…like other advanced trainers…[but not the T-38]

    This is actually a bigger deal than some might imagine…

    In today’s world where increasingly the combat mission is against heavily armed, but relatively unsophisticated non-state actors…ie extremists…a light attack jet is just the ticket…

    Provided it can deliver precision guided munitions [PGMs] and has good performance and defensive ability against things like manpads…these aircraft could be extremely 有效…at much lower cost…

    数字计数…to quote Col Riccione…the number of sorties you can carry out is physically limited by the number of 操作 aircraft you have…

    And the number of aircraft you can put on the flight line is limited by finances…[no need to go there…]

    The light attack role is where I could see the Yak really shine…

    这是 把手放下 the final word in this dual role…it can even carry Russia’s quite nasty air to air missiles…and with its agility and turning performance it makes for a feisty little package…

    I would love to see this little bantamweight thrown into the fray in the Mideast…especially in say Yemen where they would be going up against those inept Saudi pilots…

    It can also carry a wide range of PGM for the ground-attack role…

    Weapons capability is in fact 非常 重要的 训练...

    Because you get the student up to speed in a less challenging airplane…and you save a lot of money and 磨损 on your frontline combat aircraft by offloading a lot of this training at the 学生 stage…

    It just makes a lot of sense…

    The T38 has no weapons carrying ability…a certain number were modified to carry a gun and simple sight for very basic weapons training…and dubbed the ‘B’ model…but this is really far from adequate…

    The best of the Western trainers/light attack aircraft right now is the British BAE Hawk…still in production so continues to be upgraded and modernized…

    但它是 from the Yak in capability…

    It has the highest wing loading of any trainer…and in fact much higher than any frontline fighter…over 100 lb/ft^2 …

    BAE is only now developing leading edge slats to address the wing loading problem…

    It’s thrust to weight is not bad at about 0.65…but the Yak with the newer -28 engines is at 0.77…with a light fuel load the Yak would be in frontline fighter territory in thrust to weight…

    It’s also a single-engine airplane…which is a big deal, at least in the opinion of many instructors…

    Most important…it has no FBW…

    There are a lot more things to consider…

    Airframes have become much lighter and stronger with advances in materials science…

    The lighter your aircraft empty weight…the more fuel and weapons you can carry…

    It is hopeless to try to adapt aging designs for the advanced training requirements of today…

    You have to start with a clean sheet…

    By far the best option…other than the Yak…is its Italian cousin…the Aermacchi M346…

    In the early ’90s…then-bankrupt Yeltsin Russia brought Italy in as a partner on the Yak…mainly to fund it, while the Russians did the design…

    But the two parted ways in 2000 [and the Russians sold the airframe blueprints to the Italians]…so the Italian ship lacks much of the 高级 development that the Russian put into the Yak over the next decade…

    这包括 four-channel FBW…[for redundancy…you only actually use one at any time…]

    It also lacks the follow-on airframe refinements…the advanced avionics…etc…

    The Honeywell turbofans in the M346 are a decent enough engine and rated at slightly greater power than Russian Ivchenko powerplant…

    However…this engine is based on the civilian Garrett TFE731…which dates back to 1970…the military version F124 in the Aermacchi goes back to 1979…

    The Ivchenko engine is a new design first run in 2003…and has considerably higher engine fuel efficiency…SFC of 0.64 to the Honeywell’s 0.78…[28 percent less fuel burn per pound of thrust]

    SFC…specific fuel consumption is the pounds of fuel burned for each pound of thrust…so 0.5 for a 10,000 lb thrust engine…means it will burn 5,000 lb of fuel per hour…

    Also look at the engine diameter…the F124 is 36 inches…compared to the Ivhenko 25.5 inches…

    The extra engine diameter is more important than the layman may realize…it has a big effect on total drag…as well as ram drag through the engine…

    The Honeywell is also 80 kg heavier…[176 lb]

    Still…the M346 is used by Israel…Poland…and of course Italy…

    But there can be little doubt who the bantamweight world champion is today…

    If there were normal people instead of basement crazies and Israeli-firsters running the US they would address the 国家紧急状态 of pilot training by having normal relations with Russia and buying the Yak…

    The Russians would surely allow for assembly of these in the US…like they do with India and the frontline Sukhois…

    I suggest everyone have a look at the wiki entry on the so-called ‘program’ for the next-gen trainer…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-X_program#Potential_competitors

    That list of ‘potential competitors’ looks more like a police lineup of mugs than anything resembling a competent aircraft for this role…[with the exception of M346…]

    甚至 韩国 is in there with the KAI ‘golden eagle’…

    Look at the accident record of this 可笑 contraption…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle#Accidents_and_incidents

    Three ships lost [with all crew] in the last five years…this thing is a flying coffin…

    We note here that the little Yak has the Zvezda zero-zero capable ejection seats as on the big boys…[zero zero means it can safely eject the pilot even at zero altitude and zero speed]…widely considered the best ejection seat in the world…

    Notice both crew ejecting safely while the plane is inverted…

    And US govt is saying with a straight face that they will have a new trainer by 2024 now…

    What a knee-slapper…

    It would take at least a for the US to come up with something in the class of the Yak [more likely two decades]…and it would probably end up costing the taxpayer ten times as much…

    This process should have been started 25年前…as it was with the Yak…

    Like I said already…right now it’s too late…

    This is the kind of problem that just grows and spreads…

    We have the flight training 制度知识 already depleted with the massive exodus of career instructor officers over the last two decades…

    Now that it has come to a crisis listen to the 废话 they are proposing…

    To keep combat pilots in the service longer so they don’t have to 培养 as many new replacements…and asking pilots who have already left to come back…

    这是 rat-scurrying response one sees in a laboratory specimen…not normal people…and this comes of course from the politicians and military brass…

    Here’s the sobering statement from the head of Air Education Command…

    ‘…We are going to have to figure out a way to produce pilots that is outside the resource capacity of the United States Air Force…’

    ‘…We’re maximizing the use of our air frames to the fullest extent that we can right now. We can only produce so many flying training sorties per day…’

    http://nordic.businessinsider.com/air-force-scrambling-to-train-pilots-as-new-aircraft-wait-to-be-tested-2017-9/?op=1

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  388. FB 说:
    @Anonymous

    ‘…I thought the term “hohlraum” as applied to CWNDI referred to the outer casing of a Device designed to focus or amplify radiation pressure, as opposed to the little device here used in fusion research?…’

    The hohlraum is the key trigger device in any nuclear weapon…

    They can be used to simulate detonations…but their main use is as stated…

    The outer casing is layman termninology and has nothing to do with modern use of the word ‘hohlraum…’

    I wouldn’t rely too much on wikipedia and such in these matters…if you can get someone who has worked at Lawrence Livermore to talk to you that would be the only way to learn anything in this field…

    Best online tidbit is here…

    ‘…Hohlraums…are the focal point in a nuclear weapon for both the primary reactions as well as the secondary atomic reactions…’

    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-hohlraum.htm

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  389. L.K 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I also wonder what would Patton do, in the breaks between inflating 3-4 times Germans he “killed” blah, blah

    Yes, Patton did indeed inflate German casualties, so did other Americans, the British AND the Soviets.
    That is why a serious person does not use wartime estimates to access the other side’s losses.

    What is pathetic though, is that a cheap propagandist like you, year 2017, feels compelled to exaggerate
    German troop strength and their casualties while at the same time lying about Red Army real figures, all in a sad attempt to make the Red Army look much better than it actually was.

    You are so ridiculous that you accused me of making up Krivosheev’s numbers for 1944, that I had never read him nieh, nieh, in the end forcing me to scan the page and upload it, proving you to be the bald faced liar you are. You remember this, right: https://justpaste.it/1cvij

    Even after that, you never conceded the point and went right on with your obfuscation

    I pity anybody who is gullible enough to take you seriously.

    • 回复: @Andrei Martyanov
  390. @Johnny Rico

    I tried that initially, but comments longer than 500 words were not being accepted, site would time out.

    [That’s odd. There’s no length restriction in the system, and other comments, sometimes running into the thousands of words, regularly appear. Try again.]

  391. L.K 说:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    确实是的。

    On another note, it’s quite sad how some of these propagandists, like the Stalinist Martyanov,
    like to cherry-pick stuff from Glantz, but ONLY if the selected bits might support their propaganda.
    If not, as I have experienced in exchanges with this character, he throws Glantz under the bus.

    Also, as a ret. US officer who used to post here under ‘Twinkie’, wrote:
    “格兰茨有他自己的观点,并非该领域的所有或什至大多数历史学家都认同他的观点。”

    There are quite a few problems with Glantz and one Frederick L Clemens pointed out some of the more serious ones that I have encountered;

    …In my opinion Glantz has made a contribution, but I am against him and others when they overstate that contribution.
    Glantz promises two things which I believe he fails to deliver on:

    – a balanced analysis of East Front battles…not just the Soviet view as his fans claim for him. He fails to deliver because he simply doesn’t bother to exploit the German primary sources, instead he uses German secondary and Soviet secondary sources for the German information. That is unacceptable.

    – the previously “unknown” Soviet view. He translates and paraphrases entire portions of Soviet secondary sources, using their information as if it is gospel truth. This is also an unacceptable approach given the fact not only that they are secondary sources but that they are propaganda products of a totalitarian regime which used history as a tool to manipulate popular perceptions. The sources can only be used with great caution in the form of cross-checking with other sources and caveats – such as “according to such-and-such report”.
    My background is in intel reporting and as such I am very alert to the importance of clear sourcing. Glantz should be as well. Has he compromised his own training for the sake of telling a good story? It appears so and that makes his books bad history. Call him the East Front Ambrose.

  392. @L.K

    I pity anybody who is gullible enough to take you seriously.

    记住这一点?

    2015 edition, btw.

    in a sad attempt to make the Red Army look much better than it actually was.

    No, Red Army handed your Nazi asses to you on a platter and, since you have not only issues with math (and dates) but also with memory (by “assigning” additional million of casualties) I would suggest you to accept you fate as some humiliated beaten down Nazi that you are and stick to your myths. Do you need calculator? Instead of trying to be hot air balloon that you are, go outside–try to fight real rapists, I doubt you have guts for that. But still. Go, realize yourself.

    • 回复: @Avery
    , @L.K
    , @L.K
    , @Christos T.
  393. FB 说:
    @Diversity Heretic

    谢谢您的提问……

    See my comment here, where I cover that…as well as the other ‘candidates’…

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2071242

  394. FB 说:
    @Anonymous

    ‘…I agree that the JPATS “T-6″ was a good screwing for the taxpayer and find the idea of turning someone loose on a first solo in a \$5,000,000 airplane ludicrous…’

    The ab initio training and 筛查 for cadets and officer graduates is done on piston-prop Diamond Aircraft DA20…and administered by civilian instructors under contract…

    Basically the same deal as any private individual who signs up for private pilot lessons…

    In previous years…the British Slingsby aerobatic-rated piston prop…as well as the military version of the Cessna 172 were used…again…same thing…

    You only get to the Texan which is a turbopropeller airplane…ie a gas turbine [aka jet] engine driving a prop…after ab initio…

    So the solo is not in the turboprop…

    The turboprop basically replaced the tweet…even while the tweet was active cadets first had to complete ab initio in a piston…

    There is some merit to going to a turboprop first…for one thing there are lots of turboprop combat aircraft like the Lockheed C130…

    [incidentally the latest gunship version the ‘Ghosthip’ is now in production but no pilots available to fly it…]

    The same C130 airframe is also used as an airlifter and paratroop ship…

    The Grumman E2 ‘Hawkeye’ AWACS on aircraft carriers is also twin turboprop…there are others…

    So it’s actually good that turboprop is in there…[also the turboshafts used on rotorcraft run the same way]…

    Pilatus makes solid turboprop aircraft in the civil sector…the Texan is just upgraded to military spec in things like ejection seats…sturdier controls etc…

    five million bucks for one of those is just crazy…[if they even still cost that much…probably two or three times that by now…]

    But the problem is what comes after the Texan…

    The T38 should have been replaced 20 years ago…

    And many believe that advanced training should be done across the board as it used to be…instead of splitting off into two tracks…one for the combat aircraft…the other for transports…

    This reduces the overall pilot capability…it may seem to the layman that a transport pilot may not need the advanced jet training…but that is wrong…

    There is no replacement for training…the higher the capability of those pilots the better…a military situation…no matter the airplane…is always going to be more demanding than civilian…

    To me it is 可笑 that pilots on the ‘transport’ track go to a commercial little 私人飞机…the Beechjet [aka T1 ‘Jayhawk’]…

    That’s great if you want to train pilots to fly billionaires around in their private jets…or to fly those same aircraft for p[rivate charters etc…

    But that type of training does 不能 产生一个 真实 military pilot…sorry…

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  395. Avery 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    {….Red Army handed your Nazi asses to you on a platter….}

    的确。

    One of my favourite pics from Stalingrad* WW2:
    Chunks of chopped Schweinhunden being turned into valuable biochar by victorious Red Army troops, which will later fertilize the rich Russian soil around Stalingrad. Today Volgograd is covered with beautiful greenery thanks to timely application of soil enrichment.
    Thank You ‘Field Marshal’ Paulus.

    另一个不错的:

    An alleged ‘Master Race’ scarecrow being prepared to be sent to some well earned R&R in one of the beautiful wintertime lodges of Siberia by a, ahem, Red Army ‘Untermensch’.

    {…try to fight real rapists, I doubt you have guts for that. }

    I doubt it too.
    These neo-Nazi, neo-Hitlerite revisionists and apologists are desperately trying to blame everybody but their Nazi ancestors for WW2, while 今晚 Germany is being overrun by Islamists, who sexually harass, sexually molest, even rape their women, while their men watch helplessly and do nothing.
    That is the legacy of Hitler.
    But they are too busy trying to rehabilitate Adolf to understand.

    ______________________
    * the defeat of Nazis at Stalingrad has special significance for Armenia SSR at that time.

    • 同意: FB
  396. L.K 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Once a clown & a bald faced LIAR, always a clown and a bald faced LIAR.

    Still cherry picking from Glantz, who, as I have said, does not even use German primary sources.
    Your pathetic circling in red of US army center of military history, 1968, that supposed to enhance your BS claims?
    You are a fucking joke. You have the cheek to attack Patton on inflating German losses while nonchalantly doing exactly that in the bloody year of 2017, despite the long time availability of German war records.. . contrary to Soviet records btw.

    From 22 June to 31 Dec. 1944, German documents concerning the Eastern Front show the following losses:
    885.802 KIA, 3.448.180 WIA, 1.105.197 MIA(mostly pows).*

    *Source: military historians Niklas Zetterling & Anders Frankson working from German primary sources, who, btw, have written for Glantz journal and have sharply criticized the many errors and innaccuracies re alleged German troop strengths, casualties, etc. They give all the archival details in various articles and books.

    What did Glantz say about the Red Army & the Wehrmacht in an interview for his Stalingrad series?
    Have you ‘forgotten’ it already, you sad little liar?
    http://www.historynet.com/david-m-glantz.htm

    ‘The Soviet troops are sacrificial lambs. Divisions that come in with 10,000 men have 500 the next day’
    A retired U.S. Army colonel fluent in Russian, David M. Glantz writes data-rich tomes that synthesize his research in the recently opened Soviet archives. His goal: to debunk long-standing myths with what he calls “ground truth.” His latest epics, To the Gates of Stalingrad and Armageddon in Stalingrad (both published in 2009, with a third volume due next year), recast history’s biggest battle in a new light. For example, he and coauthor Jonathan M. House are the first historians to use archival material from the brutal Soviet secret police force, the NKVD, which was charged with maintaining discipline in the Red Army. “Its documents are surprisingly candid about declining morale, the amount of censorship, numbers of deserters, and so on,” Glantz says, “a human dimension of the battle often speculated upon but never before documented.”
    ...
    斯大林是个怎样的领袖?
    The myth is that Stalin micromanaged the first year, then at about the time of Stalingrad began deferring to his commanders, and thereafter the commanders fought the war under his general guidance. That’s wrong. He was hands-on throughout. In 1941, his stubbornness and insistence on fighting back cost him a lot, but also ensured that Hitler’s key assumption—that the Red Army would dissolve once it was smashed—didn’t happen. By 1942, after Leningrad and Moscow, Stalin and Marshal Georgi Zhukov think alike. They understand that even if you have to ruthlessly expend manpower, resistance will wear down a numerically weaker opponent. That tactic cost probably 14 million military dead—the price of defeating a more experienced, battle-worthy, savvy Wehrmacht.

  397. L.K 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Krivosheev’s figures, though the best available for the Soviet side, are understated, particularly for the year of 1941.

    Glantz, in his book about the Soviet debacle in operation Mars, 1942, a campaign your Stalinist heroes disappeared with from their ‘history’, writes that Krivosheev’s figures are 120.000 FEWER than his own.
    Glantz then writes, p.379

    “given the poor state of red army personnel accounting procedures, Krivosheev and his team of researchers are doing yomanly research in ferreting out the truth. It is a lengthy, time-consuming and often frustrating process that may never be complete.”

    Keep lying, Martyanov, that is really all that has ever been available to you.

  398. FB 说:
    @Anonymous

    ‘…but 他们 [俄罗斯人] 没有 inhouse facilities for critical high security parts like US NSA and the Sandia/LLNL [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory] complexes have here…’

    好…

    Considering you even know what a hohlraum is…[see my comment link]…

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2071265

    I have to wonder how exactly 你知道 what is inside Lawrence Livermore…Sandia…or such Russian facilities…

    I would suggest sticking to things you actually know something about…

    You’re taking up a lot of 带宽 here with statements along the lines of…

    ‘well…my uncle knew a guy… who talked to a fellow… who said… xyz…’

  399. @Avery

    These neo-Nazi, neo-Hitlerite revisionists and apologists are desperately trying to blame everybody but their Nazi ancestors for WW2, while today Germany is being overrun by Islamists, who sexually harass, sexually molest, even rape their women, while their men watch helplessly and do nothing. That is the legacy of Hitler. But they are too busy trying to rehabilitate Adolf to understand.

    Agree. There is very little to add here. The only energy which is left for them is to become an arm-chair strategists and try to recall the days of glory past.

  400. Anon • 免责声明 说:
    @Eagle Eye

    Also, consider Churchill’s history of being bought by zionists and plutocrats: http://www.newnationalist.net/2016/09/22/neocon-stooge-winston-churchill-bought-and-paid-for-by-jewish-interests/
    “Churchill gambled heavily at casinos, lost a bundle in the stock market and did everything he could to avoid paying taxes – even when he was chancellor of the exchequer, the head of His Majesty’s Treasury. Though Churchill was compulsively tardy in paying his debts, he never thought about living a more frugal life. He always knew there would be someone to save the day”

    Decent Brits about Churchill: “…a paid stooge from his early days in politics…”, “.. the true demagogue…”, “has no principles…”

  401. @Avery

    Ultimately they did better than the Armenians vs the Turks.

  402. Erebus 说:
    @FB

    Interesting enough, but I think more interesting than the details of navigation, would be some details of how and where the target and flight path instructions are generated and how that “package” gets into the missiles computer(s).

    EG: for a case like Shayrat, are the details worked out at a dedicated targeting centre in the US, at CENTCOM Doha? in the US? Elsewhere? on board the Porter/Ross? If not onboard, how does the software package get to the ship? Sat link obviously, but does it go directly to the missile, or into a targeting centre onboard the ship for last minute tuning for current location etc, and/or assignment to individual missiles?

    There’s gotta be a lot of data movement to make a salvo of 60 missiles head for their targets. How all that happens is where the big hole in understanding is for me, and I suspect for most of your readers.

    Know anything about this process you can pass on?

  403. @Eagle Eye

    Without the wars, Churchill would have remained a second-tier military officer and politician.

    More likely he would have remained what he was before WWII, a back-bench MP and a highly successful journalist and popular historian. In total his literary output totaled more than ten million words.

  404. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @FB

    The only real necessity of a training aircraft is that it be capable of doing the things you need to do in the syllabus and that it not be especially hazardous to operate. Being relatively economic to operate and maintain is generally a plus, “relatively” being the operative term.

    The Slingsby T-3 failed spectacularly in that respect and was indeed so bad the USAF destroyed the entire fleet. In this regard, I would direct your attention to the report by former USAF Maj. Rob Robinette. Robinette, a fascinating individual in that he was a US Army helo pilot before becoming a USAF pilot flying both fighters and heavy transports and now flies 737s for Southwest Airlines (I believe he’s with Southwest: they only operate the 737), states clearly:

    In my 21 years as a US Army and Air Force pilot my most dangerous assignment came as an instructor pilot (at) the United States Air Force Academy flying the Slingsby T-3A Firefly trainer.

    https://robrobinette.com/T-3A_Firefly.htm

    However, “costing a lot of money”, “looking and feeling like a real military airplane”, and “also being a usable combat aircraft”, are not criteria. It’s my belief that currently existing light aircraft are usable for a large portion of, but certainly not the entirety of, Undergraduate Pilot Training syllabi.

    Basically, according to the old military flying training manuals I spent so many hours studying as a pre-teen (I am a civilian pilot, inactive today because I couldn’t pass a medical due to several health issues as well as the old ‘lack of money’, but never served as a military pilot. I am a veteran of the US Army Reserve: I was in communications.) the syllabus is divided into ‘Contact Flying’ and ‘Instrument Flying’. This was done in the T-37 and the T-38 in the USAF. Previously, the Beech T-34 Mentor, T-28 Trojan, and T-33 were used. Some years were done with pilot candidates starting out in the T-41 Mescalero and in some years one started out cold in the Tweet. (I knew, as a youth, a former SR pilot who had _never in his life_ flown a single engine aircraft or a propeller aircraft as a student, PIC or SIC: and further was proud of it.) The Tweet was basically a Cessna 310 with two jet engines instead of the recips and a canopy and was approved for spins and aerobatics, but had unconventional and miserable spin recovery characteristics. The FAA considers it a “centerline thrust twin” for licensing purposes, meaning that UPT grads were issued a Commercial pilot’s license with centerline thrust twin class privileges only. (The only thing they could legally fly as a civilian without an additional instructor signoff and checkride was the Cessna 337, in other words.)

    As a lead in trainer for the Talon, it can’t be considered very good, yet the USAF made it work just fine. Other than being approved for aerobatics, it was a vanilla light twin. In that regard, an older generation round engine recip trainer would have worked as well or better: those descended at a good rate when you pulled the throttle back. With its huge Hershey bar wing the Tweet flies much like a Piper Cherokee.

    The Pilatus PC-7 and PC-9 are used in many air forces and navies as ab initio trainers and they work fine, but most of those countries have no significant GA base. Both have a FAA Approved Type Certificate and may be operated in the US as a standard/utility/aerobatic category aircraft: I don’t know if Pilatus will sell you one now, but they sold the PC-7 here in a small number ( a couple of famous football players bought them IIRC) at one time. That isn’t my primary issue, save for the cost involved. The JPATS T-6 program doubled the price of the aircraft with no real benefit, for the sole reason of enriching Raytheon. It did create a few rivet pounding jobs (in a scab state) but that was just a side order of political postillionage.

    For its assigned task the Jayhawk (for the benefit of foreign readers, a Jayhawk is a term for the demented abolitionists who founded the misbegotten State of Kansas. Quantrill didn’t go far enough!) is actually probably entirely adequate. It has been uprated for aerobatic flight and will enable one to do instrument work in a modern glass cockpit, formation flying and all the other things you really need and it will emulate a B-52 a lot more closely than will the Talon. The problem is the curriculum -there are simply insufficient flight hours involved-and the number of people put through the pipeline.

    Designing a new trainer would give the opportunity to make the program a little better, but the US does not have the political will or the sense to develop an airplane in a cost effective manner any more and hasn’t for years. No one would ever call the F-22 or F-35 programs “cost effective”, they are grossly inefficient, but the issue of whether any other country’s front line airplane will beat them once in the air is a wholly different one. The issue is, to be certain, undecided, but I would be skeptical that they will until proven otherwise.

    For a trainer, though , the USAF should be forced to buy an off the shelf airplane, as it is save minor configuration changes.

    • 回复: @FB
  405. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @FB

    US weapons use either a polonium source or a neutron gun as an initiator.

    I have been in one US GO-CO NNSA plant, however, these facilities are highly compartmentalized and access is on a need to know basis, so that only a plant manager might have access to the whole thing. What I worked on was nothing directly related to the physics package and no one I knew knew or would admit to knowing about the details of the field under discussion.

    However, the picture in Post 378 is from a US site and is a fusion research part, NOT anything that goes into a nuclear weapon.

    http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/islam1/

    • 回复: @FB
  406. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Unless they fit a solid state Tek scope (they don’t) these are of interest to hobbyists building CRT clocks and such, but not of use for serious electronic work.

    The old Tek scopes are dying, because there are many parts (of which the ‘jug’ (CRT) is but one that die off and there are no replacements. Tek outsourced their semiconductor fab lines to another company who promptly discontinued them, meaning that all the old Tek proprietary transistors and ICs are irreplaceable.

    The true analog scopes were replaced by a line that used a CRT, but of the video display type, which proved unpopular (because sorely deficient) and then by flat panel displays. They then introduced the “Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope” which purported to truly emulate the behavior of the true high bandwidth electrostatically deflected CRT. It came a lot closer but even now it is not all the way there.

  407. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @FB

    When the Ivchenko engine, or any Russian engine, starts to replace the TFE731 I will take notice. NO Russian, or former Soviet Bloc, engine has successfully been marketed to the GA, corporate, or air carrier world, despite the fact that turbine engines are very, very profitable. And the US sanctions are little excuse since this is a worldwide market. Airlines are buying GE, P&W or Rolls Royce. As I said earlier, Williams Research is offering the FJ44 as a refit for the L-39 despite the fact the engine costs more than the airplane itself. The Russian engine is a lot of trouble, or more precisely the APU that is is its only method of starting is a lot of trouble. They did not fit any facility for impingement start, which was a big design flaw.

    And I disagree that UPT pupils require a fly by wire aircraft. Going from an analog hydraulic to FBW is like going from a manual to an automatic transmission, it is just one less thing to do, and the only real adjustment is to the differing control pressures, depending on how the airplane is set up. The F-16 has a sidestick that was a significant deal, the F-18 not so much. I think you are confusing UPT, with fighter lead in training, which is a different animal, and there a more modern-fighter-like airplane makes sense, but not in UPT. UPT is to teach a person the stick and rudder skills to fly along with navigation and basic flight organization, and often the older airplanes did that better.

    • 回复: @FB
    , @FB
  408. Ivan K. 说:
    @Erebus

    April 2012. “In a study with implications for businesspeople in a global economy, researchers at the University of Chicago have found that people make more rational decisions when they think through a problem in a non-native tongue.
    People are more likely to take favorable risks if they think in a foreign language, the new study showed. “We know from previous research that because people are naturally loss-averse, they often forgo attractive opportunities,” said UChicago psychologist Boaz Keysar, a leading expert on communication. “Our new findings demonstrate that such aversion to losses is much reduced when people make decisions in their non-native language.
    “,”

    https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2012/04/25/thinking-foreign-language-helps-economic-decision-making

  409. FB 说:
    @Anonymous

    ‘…US weapons 使用 either a polonium source or a neutron gun as an initiator…’

    Have you ever thought that you might run into someone who actually 知道 something…and can instantly spot BS ......?

    Polonium has not been used in nuclear weapons by the US since the 1940s…

    ‘…Initiators made of polonium-210 and beryllium were located at the center of the fissile cores of early atomic weapons......”

    https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/polonium.htm

    And what you call a neutron ‘gun’…is actually an external neutron initiator…

    This works like a particle accelerator and actually uses a 真空管 to accelerate ions to the 目标...

    In this case we are talking about what is called in layman’s terms a ‘hydrogen’ bomb…

    And the ‘target’ is the hydrogen fuel inside a 空腔…[technically the fuel is actually an isotope of hydrogen known as …]

    http://www.nuclear-knowledge.com/neutron_initiators.php

    You are way out of your 深度…as usual…

    Like I said…the technical details of these kinds of things are known only to a very group of people with highly specialized knowledge…

    If and when you actually to someone like that let me know…

    That picture I posted is in fact a research hohlraum…as you pointed out…

    If you can find a picture of a 武器 hohlraum online please let me know…

    I’m sure a lot of guys in dark suits would be interested…

  410. FB 说:
    @Anonymous

    ‘…When the Ivchenko engine, or any Russian engine, starts to replace the TFE731 I will take notice…’

    好…

    We in the global aerospace community will certainly await 的课 judgement on these matters…

    你到底是什么 知道 about the TF731…other than having seen a Lear or Falcon parked on the ramp…?

    I don’t suppose you also had an ‘uncle’ or some other ‘acquaintance’ inside the Garrett Advanced Engines group in the 1960s…?

    Like I said in the hohlraum ‘discussion’…where 美味 stated that US nuclear weapons 用途 polonium…[yes we are still using polonium since the year is 1944…]

    Stick to things you actually have some 第一手 knowledge of…

  411. Anonymous [AKA "SooperMatt"] 说:

    2600 words, and not a single line analyzing the U.S. military. Not once.

    The entire article essentially conflates losing an insurgent guerilla warfare-type campaign with having a weak military. This is completely ridiculous. The U.S. defeated the Iraqi Army, twice, in a few days. It was incredible. Failing to occupy multiple countries simultaneously, as it tried to do with Afghanistan and Iraq, is an impossible task. This is not evidence at all that America’s military is weaker than, say, Russia’s or China’s.

    Nor does he compare the technical capabilities of various weapons between Russia, the U.S. and China. Nor does he even bother comparing their costs, merely resorting to repeating the same cliche over and over again.

    Again, it’s surpising that he wrote so much fluff, with so little rigorous analysis. This is even worse than an op-ed piece.

    Let’s do that there. And use the much-maligned F35 as a case study, shall we?

    The F-35 has one of the most powerful radars of any fighter, it’s the only fighter on the planet that has a 360 degree IRST, it has one of the most sensitive and accurate ESM / ‘passive radar’ suites of any fighter, it has one of the best electronic warfare / cyber warfare suites of any fighter, it’s agile, it has a long range, it has a large payload capacity, it has a higher (combat loaded) top speed than most fighters, etc. Oh and it’s cheaper than half the fighters on the market.

    It’s been quicker to enter service than the F-22 or Eurofighter Typhoon, it’s taken equally as long as the Rafale and only took 2 years longer than the Gripen. Sukhoi was selected to develop the PAK-FA in 2002, the year after Lockheed was selected to develop the F-35, and Chengdu has been working on the J-20 (“J-XX” at the time) to some extent at least since 2003. Today there’s more than 250 F-35s, 10 or 11 PAK-FAs and around 20 or so J-20s.

    The F-35 cost \$55.5 billion to develop, will cost about \$350 billion for the United States to acquire more than 2,450 jets, and cost about \$1.1 trillion to operate them (including fuel, wages, spare parts, etc) from 2010 (when the first F-35 was handed over to the US military for training purposes) to 2070 (when they’re planned to retire the last F-35s). Since the program began 20 years ago, about 10% of that \$1.5 trillion total figure has been spent, with all of the above costs including inflation (all figures are in cumulative then-year dollars). About \$500 billion out of that \$1.5 trillion is purely inflation. The F-35A variant as of the start of this year cost \$94.6 million flyaway (flyaway = the cost of the jet; doesn’t include necessary support equipment, etc) and in recent international orders to nations like Australia and Israel, has been about \$200 million in program unit acquisition cost (includes US gov fees, the jet, spare parts, ground equipment, tech support, etc). By comparison, a French Rafale cost about \$80m USD flyaway and \$250m & \$300m in PAUC in sales to India and Qatar. Kuwait paid \$250 million PAUC per Super Hornet, Canada was recently quoted \$300m PAUC for the Super Hornet (but with additional tech support). Kuwait paid \$324m PAUC for their Eurofighter Typhoons, etc. You can see that the prices are reasonable.

    The Saker neglects to mention all this, however.

    • 回复: @Beefcake the Mighty
  412. peterAUS 说:

    This is not evidence at all that America’s military is weaker than, say, Russia’s or China’s.

    You, apparently, aren’t on the program.

    Nor does he compare the technical capabilities of various weapons between Russia, the U.S. and China. Nor does he even bother comparing their costs, merely resorting to repeating the same cliche over and over again.

    Again, it’s surpising that he wrote so much fluff, with so little rigorous analysis. This is even worse than an op-ed piece.

    Let’s do that there. And use the much-maligned F35 as a case study, shall we?

    Actually, you definitely aren’t on the program.

    不要怕。

    Several resident experts, with assortment of fanboys, will help you there.
    祝你好运。

  413. @Godfree Roberts

    Tell this to Napoleon or even Churchill.

    There was a decisive blockade of Germany by the Royal Navy in WW2. Germany came close to defeating Britain in the Battle of the Atlantic.

  414. anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    我没有被说服。
    I would need to see more evidence.

  415. @Anonymous

    US vs the Iraqi Army (esp. the second time around) was a bit like the 6th grade playground bully beating up the kindergarten kids. And you’re proud of this?

  416. FB 说:
    @Anonymous

    ‘…I think you are 扑朔迷离 UPT, with fighter lead in training, which is a different animal…’

    Oh 美味 do…?

    你不明白其中的哪一部分......?

    ‘…Airmen now go straight from the prop primary trainer…the Texan T6 [a Swiss design based on the civilian Pilatus PC9]…into the T38…but 如果你在 fighter/bomber track…

    还有这个…

    ‘…Those on the transport 跟踪时 go from the T6 prop to to the T-1 Jayhawk [actually a commercial light bizjet known as the Beechjet…which was in fact originally designed and built by Mitsubishi…and is no longer in production for the last 10 years…’

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2069843

    [Btw…for those not familiar with the acronyms Mr. Smartypants is throwing around UPT stands for undergraduate pilot training in the USAF…]

    Let me go over a short selection of the BS you have spewed here…

    ‘…I agree that the JPATS “T-6″ was a good screwing for the taxpayer and find the idea of turning someone loose on a first solo in a \$5,000,000 airplane ludicrous…’

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2070726

    Fact…US cadets start their initial training [ab initio] in civilian piston prop two-seat airplanes…as of the last few years the Diamond Aircraft DA20…and do their first solo in that airplane…

    Which I had already pointed out in my comment here…

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2071414

    Then you said this…

    ‘…For its assigned task the Jayhawk [Raytheon Hawker 400] is actually probably entirely adequate. It has been uprated for 特技飞行 flight…’

    This has to be the 最愚蠢的 thing I have heard anybody say in the history of aviation…

    Here is what it says in the Flight Manual…

    ‘…The following operations are 不能 authorized:

    Acrobatic Maneuvers

    自旋......”

    http://www.mrmoo.net/pilot/BJet%20400A/04%20limitations.pdf

    No airplane in the ‘transport’ category ever manufactured anywhere…has ever been approved for aerobatics…here is the FAA type certificate for the Hawker 400…the part pertaining to the T1 Jayhawk starts on page 10…

    http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/6ee5d3c331bdb552862579a0006725ee/\$FILE/A16SW%20Rev%2027.pdf

    至于 ‘uprated’ part you mentioned from the civilian version…here is what it says on the USAF page…

    ‘…The T-1A differs from its commercial counterpart with structural enhancements that provide for increased bird strike resistance and an additional fuselage fuel tank…’

    That means thicker windshield…plus some additional fuel capacity…

    http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104542/t-1a-jayhawk/

    Btw…that page explains also how the split-track training program works…to which I devoted a great deal of commentary in my comment above...

    ‘…Starting in 1993, undergraduate pilots who have graduated from their primary aircraft have proceeded to 专门 training tailored for their follow-on assignments. The T-1A is used in advanced training for students identified to go into airlift or tanker aircraft. Those selected for bombers and fighters receive their advanced in the T-38......”

    比较 that to what I said 此处...

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2069843

    和这里 美味 are….lecturing me about being ‘confused…’

    Then you went on to spout even more nonsense…[it never actually stops…]

    ‘…Were I training pilots, I’d do what I understand the 以色列人 did for years and start everyone out in something like a 超级幼崽 or Citabria and then put them in a simple jet (我觉得 they used the Fouga Magister, another Tweet contemporary also with twin Marbores) for formation work and basic aerobatics…’

    First off…thank god 美味 are not training anybody anything…

    And now the facts…

    Israeli cadets start out in piston prop airplanes manufactured by Grob of Germany…not US-made Super Cubs [a tailwheel aircraft for god’s sake] or Citabrias…

    They then go to the Turboprop Texan that the US also uses…ie the Pilatus PC9 turboprop…

    After that they go to…wait for it…the Aermacchi M346…the poor Italian cousin of the Yak130…

    我已经 提到 this fact in one of my above comments…

    It is worthwhile to read through that entire wiki article…as it spells out the 科学与工程 education that goes with the pilot training…

    基本上 每周 IDF pilot ends up as a graduate aerospace engineer…

    This in fact is a very big deal…

    In the US and many other countries…only 试飞员 need an engineering education…

    Anyone who has gone through test pilot school knows this…the knowledge of flight physics and mathematics makes for a better understanding of your machine…and what you can do with it…

    That’s why an advanced engineering, math, and physics education is a must even to 修饰 for test pilot school…

    As for you…my harebrained little friend…

    I could go on and on here…[without even getting into your nonsense about polonium being used in US nukes…]

    I don’t have the space here to go into all the drivel you have unloaded here…without any regard to the reader upon whose heads you are squatting and dumping...

    [it would take a book to unpack that entire load of crap…]

    Here is my conclusion…you know absolutely nothing about flying airplanes…either military or civil…

    If you have indeed earned a private pilot certificate…I certainly would not go up in the air with you…unless you were sitting hogtied in the back seat…

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  417. FB 说:
    @Anonymous

    A couple of loose ends from my last comment…

    Here is where our anonymous ‘expert’ holds forth about his ideas on flight training…read it and laugh/weep…

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2072080

    Also the link to the Israeli air force training program…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force_flight_academy

  418. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @FB

    The Manual you link to is for the civilian version. The military airplane is not only structurally different it has a different manual. It will be a Technical Order, something like 1T-1A-1 or something. Find it and let me know.

    Even if this Jayhawk is approved under the ATC I would expect it not to be approved for aerobatic maneuvers under the FARs as a type certificated aircraft. The USAF operates with a different set of limitations entirely. Most military aircraft do not have a n approved FAA Type Certificate and those that do are generally derivatives of the civilian airplane. Either way, the USAF and not the FAA states what is and is not allowed with regard to operating limitations .

    I did not say the Israelis flew the Super Cub as a trainer any more, only that at one time they did.

    Piper PA-18 Super Cub (‘Cheevayee’) * Retired *
    One hundred model PA-18-150 purchased from manufacturer and delivered 1956-68. Used by FTS for primary pilot training. Withdrawn from service 15 June 2003 and survivors offered for sale. Hebrew name means Osprey. The L-18 did not enter production until late 1949, and the PA-18-150 was certificated in 1954.

    I’m just not even going to discuss this subject further in this forum because there is no point in doing so. I don’t care what you think and you don’t care what I think.

    • 回复: @FB
  419. Anonymous [AKA "esoteric"] 说:
    @Erebus

    Speaking of Russian-Chinese cooperation – I am reminded of the time I was presenting some advanced 1D computation fluid dynamics software to a room full of Phd’s in the Chinese aviation MIC headquarterws in Xian (having come from their HQ in Chendu)

    I commented to the lovely lass video-recording the presentation that it must be unusual to get non-Chinese here.

    “Oh no” she said. “In the next room is a Russian Airforce General running a seminar”.
    It turns out that Russians and Israelis were all over the place.

    Our software distributor’s lead technical consultant’s PhD thesis was on how to tailor the exhaust plume of one of their J20 fighter planes to significantly decrease the radar detection distance required. He sent it to me and I think I still have a copy of it somewhere.
    He was only 25 and one of the 25,000 engineering PhD’s China turns out each year.

    The west has lost any future war to the more self-disciplined, intellectually advanced, dedicated, nationalistic societies of Russia and East Asia. We had our time in the sun and squandered it.

    • 同意: FB
  420. Damn straight! They killed the dream of America. The psychopathic greed of the few has doomed the future of the many. Sad indeed.

  421. FB 说:
    @Anonymous

    ‘…The military airplane is not only 结构上 different it has a different manual…’

    Our anonymous ‘expert’…when exposed as the 骗局 he is…continues to try to pull the wool over the eyes of readers here who may not be familiar with some of these technicalities…

    As the USAF fact sheet on the T1 Jayhawk makes clear…

    ‘…The T-1A 不同 from its commercial counterpart with structural enhancements that provide for increased 鸟罢工 resistance and an additional fuselage fuel tank.’

    http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104542/t-1a-jayhawk/

    这意味着

    thicker windshield

    …as I already explained in my above comment…

    Bird strike tests on an airframe consist of shooting supermarket chickens [or synthetic meat] at an aircraft windshield with an air cannon…

    没什么 to do with the aircraft’s physical ability to perform aerobatics…which as I said is completely ludicrous in a transport category airplane…

    ‘…Either way, the USAF and not the FAA states what is and is not allowed with regard to operating limitations …’

    Again…’Mr. Expert’ is trying to 傻瓜 人们…

    The USAF cannot change the laws of 物理…this plane is aerodynamically 相同 to the civilian version…and is not able to perform aerobatics due to physics…

    Regardless of what mr. ‘expert’ thinks the USAF '将' command it to do in that military flight manual which he has never even seen…

    Even spins [an airplane loss of control that comes after aerodynamic wing stall] are prohibited in 全部产品 such planes…

    Spins are not considered aerobatic maneuvers…and spin recovery is actually part of even the private pilot training in most countries [but not the US in recent decades]…

    Intentional spins are not even performed during 试飞 of transport category aircraft…and they will typically carry a spin-recovery parachute mounted in the aircraft tail…

    Even with the parachute…deadly test flight accidents have happened…in 1980 a Challenger 600 business jet [similar to the Jayhawk but bigger] was lost during flight testing due to an 疏忽的 spin…

    ‘…The flight crew lost control of the Challenger.

    Following the recovery procedures set in place, they were unable to regain control, going so far as to, in a last ditch effort, deploy the plane’s emergency spin recovery parachute.

    Control was temporarily regained, but now the deployed chute fouled the flight characteristics. Unable to 释放 the chute, with with the plane’s starboard engine failing, the flight crew was forced to bail out of the doomed aircraft…’

    One of the test pilots was killed…

    http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Canadair-CGCGRX.htm

    Incidentally…it is pretty comical that the F35 needs a spin chute for flight testing…

    We recall that test pilot Peter Collins spun the Yak 130 during his flight evaluation in Russia…noting…

    ‘…This was the first time I had ever spun a FBW [fly by wire] jet and it felt like a very 有声有色 capability…’

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-test-yak-130-proves-versatility-373512/

    Just another day at the office for the little Yak…but the F35 needs a spin chute…what a knee-slapper…

    Bottom line is that our anonymous ‘expert’ continues to dig himself ever deeper with his nonsense comments…

    -----------------------

    And here is what anonymous ‘expert’ said about FBW…which is used on all modern combat aircraft…all modern passenger jets…and even on some business [private] jets…

    ‘…And I disagree that UPT pupils require a fly by wire aircraft.

    Going from an analog hydraulic to FBW is like going from a manual to an automatic transmission, it is just one less thing to do, and the 仅由 real adjustment is to the differing control pressures, depending on how the airplane is set up…’

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2072170

    好…

    We certainly appreciate that 洞察 from an alleged private pilot who has exactly hours in any kind of military aircraft…or even a turbine aircraft of any kind…

    Actual pilots have a much different opinion…including the evaluation report on the Yak from Colllins…

    He describes a routine aerobatic maneuver that is a staple of military training…ie ‘hesitation rolls’ or ‘four-point’ rolls…

    As I explained previously in my comment here…FBW allows much more responsive aircraft handling…and is one of the reasons why FBW has become standard on combat planes…

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2071242

    This is crucial for advanced maneuvers like the four-point roll…

    It should be intuitively clear to even the layman that…the more closely the training aircraft can replicate the feel of the actual article…the better the training is going to be…

    But of course our resident ‘expert’ this has something to do with automatic car transmissions…

    But speaking of cars…many folks are of course familiar with the recent technology that allows for adjusting the car’s handling characteristics…from a firm sport feel…to the comfortable daily driver feel…

    Nobody would argue that this is not a very useful feature in cars…

    Well…the FBW similarly allows the handling characteristics to be changed by a button…in the Yak…this is quite useful as the airplane handling can be made to feel like several different airplanes…

    Of course this too is not important…it is better to spend ten times as much money training pilots in an actual frontline fighter…than getting them up to speed in the trainer…

    ——————————————————————————————————

    And the crap just continues 飞行…[no pun intended…]

    ‘…UPT is to teach a person the stick and rudder skills to fly along with navigation and basic flight organization, and often the older airplanes did that better…’

    First we note that there is no such terminology as ‘UPT’…ie Undergraduate pilot training in the USAF…

    After completing the initial flight training [IFT] in a simple piston prop civilian airplane that costs about \$ 100,000…

    https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot/usaf_ift.html

    …the cadets that pass screening go on to 支持…ie specialized undergraduate pilot training…

    https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot

    You can click on phase 1, 2 and 3 on that page to read what actually goes into that training…

    The ‘stick and rudder’ skills are taught in the 25 flying hours in IFT…ie the initial screening and training in inexpensive simple airplanes…

    -------------------------

    And then this…

    ‘…The Pilatus PC-7 and PC-9 are used in 许多 air forces and navies as ab initio trainers...

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2072080

    Totally false…there is not a flight instructor in the world…either civilian or military…who would put a novice pilot into a Turbine Powered airplane for his first lesson…[ie ab initio…or initial training]…

    As I explained already…the turboprop airplane uses a jet engine [ie gas turbine] driving a propeller…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop

    Note that the Pilatus and its Texan 2 derivative cost millions of dollars apiece…who on earth would put a complete novice who has never flown into such a machine…?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-9

    --------------------------

    Then anonymous ‘expert’ tops it all off with this…

    ‘…For its assigned task the Jayhawk (for the 得益 of foreign readers, a Jayhawk is a term for the 发狂 abolitionists who founded the misbegotten State of Kansas. Quantrill didn’t go far enough!)…’

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/do-you-think-his-assessment-is-accurate/#comment-2072080

    I’m sure that’s going to go over well with Kansans…

    Wichita has…since the beginning of aviation…been the ‘Capital’ of American aviation…

    Not only is the Beechcraft T1/Hawker 400 made there…but so are Learjets…Cessna and Cessna Citation Jets…[world’s best selling private jet]…and a lot of what goes into a Boeing and many military aircraft…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us/wichita-clings-to-airplane-capital-identity.html

    Where is this guy’s basic human 耻辱 to sit here and pop off about airplanes people he knows nothing about…?

    He has been holding forth here about how he would do this that and the other…

    Yapping ridiculous nonsense about the aircraft under discussion…with no connection to reality whatsoever…

    ‘…I’m just not even going to discuss this subject further in this forum because there is no point in doing so…’

    Adios…

    You will be missed about as much as the guy that thinks it’s funny to walk into a crowded room and rip a loud, wet fart…

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  422. @FB

    All this tech stuff about planes is fun to read, but the relevance of technicalities about spin recovery, etc. to the superiority or otherwise of Russian equipment is not readily apparent.

    As for spins and pilot training, what’s the big deal? As my father, a WWII RAF flying instructor explained it while driving me to school when I was six or seven years old, the routine in a spin is simple enough: stick forward, full throttle and full opposite rudder (that’s if you have enough altitude and a spin recoverable plane). Otherwise, just bail out — on the inside of the turn (otherwise, you may find yourself, either thrown back into the cockpit or, possibly, seated astride the nose of the plane).

    But the most important question concerning the relative merits of US versus Russian equipment must concern the effectiveness of planes versus rockets, and ships versus rockets. It is doubtful if that question will be resolved except in a war, but it’s worth remembering that almost sixty years ago a Soviet C-75 (SA-2) SAM knocked down Gary Powers’ U2 flying at over 70,000 feet, and it is 35 years since a French Exocet missile sank Britain’s then newest naval vessel, the destroyer, HMS Nottingham, during the Falklands war. Indeed the entire British fleet dispatched to the Falklands might have gone to the bottom had not President Mitterrand capitulated to Margaret Thatcher and handed her the codes that controlled the remaining missiles in Agentinian hands.

    • 回复: @peterAUS
    , @FB
  423. peterAUS 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    and it is 35 years since a French Exocet missile sank Britain’s then newest naval vessel, the destroyer, HMS Nottingham, during the Falklands war.

    是的
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glamorgan_(D19)
    And Atlantic Conveyor….

    Indeed the entire British fleet dispatched to the Falklands might have gone to the bottom had not President Mitterrand capitulated to Margaret Thatcher and handed her the codes that controlled the remaining missiles in Agentinian hands.

    A……..u…….h………..
    代码….that 受控….the remaining….missiles…..
    呃,好吧…..

  424. Sad Sack 说:
    @Johnny Rico

    可能还有另一条逻辑线索……和猜测。 作者提到美国农业部缺乏对马克思主义等人的理解,就暗示了这一点。 在现代美国政治和文化的几乎每一个方面都隐藏着马克思主义,以及对美国文化的持续破坏。 鉴于这看似隐藏,但在你的脸上,威胁变得完全成功......美国继续其对外追求的能力受到损害......在短期内。 还暗示……是一个非常真实的苏联式威胁,对世界其他地区的转型后……来自 USSA。 也许有用的名字……北美联盟。

    马克思主义在其“公平”的努力中传播了大规模的贫困和死亡...... 从而为自由市场资本主义的庞大金鹅提供资金。

    有很多隐藏在能力和技术中的东西会改变整个讨论。 此外,在作者长篇大论的早期暗示。

    推断特斯拉发现的承诺以及他是如何制造它们的……他是如何制造它们的。 其中大部分在现代景观中并不明显……尽管这一切都基于他的一些发明和发现。 推断有限数量的国家在开发特斯拉向他们有限传播他的技术方面的进展……很多年前。 推断希特勒和他的核心圈子真正参与了从看似无处提取更多高科技的活动。 推断 USofA 参与了大量深奥技术和能力的开发。 证据就在你面前,全世界……和网上。 它已被无限期地使用和拒绝。

    也许它是作为大规模“火力演示”的第一次使用……在纽约市和华盛顿特区……于 9 月 11 日举行。

    当前的媒体宣传行业是此类技术的大量使用……通过“白痴盒子”……电视……很久以前就通过其他多种方式。 群众的嗜睡和无知是有目的的……可悲的是,他们因此很容易受到指导和影响。

    作者提出的观点和所有其他论点,尽管有说服力且切中要害……仅考虑了自二战以来已知的内容。

    其他一切都是隐藏的……深奥的。 但是,尽管如此……非常真实。

  425. FB 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    And to your list we can add the Serbs downing US F117 ‘stealth’ aircraft in 1999…with the ancient even then S125 SAM…

    The second F117 made it back to base at Aviano but never flew again…according to Col. Everest Riccione…whose paper on the F22 I have cited elsewhere here…[so by the rules it counts as downed…]

    I appreciate your comment…and I have indeed posted here some material that is directly relevant to the subject under discussion…including my comment @34 to which you yourself responded…[in which I talked specifically about the game-changing scramjet engine technology on which the Russians demonstrably have gained the upper hand…]

    As for airplane spins…yes your father gave you the right idea and you yourself mentioned the proviso of being in a spin-recoverable plane…which is not the case with the plane under discussion with our resident ‘expert’…

    I believe it is important to be 诚实的 精准的 in any discussion…

    In any case…as for rockets vs. planes…there is news today in fact that the IDF shot down a Russian drone over the Golan…

    But even more interesting is that last year they fired Patriot missiles at same Russian drone [not operated by Russians surely…] and 错过...

    Then tried shooting it down with an AA missile shot from one of their frontline jets…also 失踪…with the drone making it back safely to base…

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/israel-almost-shot-down-russian-drone-17390

    That russian drone btw is a tiny surveillance craft about the size of a large model airplane…weighing about 33 lb…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan-10

    It speaks to the ineptness of the US air defense technology…

    I had said here on a number of occasions that my ‘opinion’ is that the Russians, by contrast, have developed quite 有效 air defenses…to the point where it may not actually be possible to successfully storm [or suppress] such an A2/AD zone…and that 包括 Syria…

    I have formed this opinion based on my own knowledge and experience in these matters…

    Ie… I had the opportunity to physically examine in Serbia…some years after the war…pieces of that F117 airframe…while carrying out discussions with the professionals 直接 involved in that engagement…

    My primary interest at the time was the stealth aircraft technology…but I learned much about air defense technology in my investigation…

    And especially how that technology has progressed since then

    The US has not appeared to have developed an 有效 counter to those new air defenses…including aircraft that can be said to have the capability to penetrate said defenses…

    That in fact is a very interesting discussion in itself…

    Again I base that conclusion on first-hand experience and knowledge of the subject of SEAD [suppression of enemy air defenses…]

    This the situation now in regard to that particular 这个和那个 问题…

    I have held this ‘conclusion’ if you will…for some time now…

    And it is affirmed anecdotally from time to time…as in my earlier post that a generally reliable journalist is reporting a confidential US intel source as directly telling him that the US is very worried about this issue…

  426. Anonymous [AKA "F Blood"] 说: • 您的网站

    Yes, we have technically superior products. But that only matters if unit X (say, a submarine) is going to fight their unit X (another sub) on an equal basis. That’s certainly a bad way to go to war for the underdog.

    Rather think of if this way. Our expensive assets (AirCraft Carriers) can be defeated with cheap cruise missiles. Only one of them needs to get through. Look — our Navy can’t even drive ships any more (collisions in the Pacific). If our Navy becomes targets for cheap cruise missiles (Iran, China, Russia) what are we going to do? Nuke Moscow? I really don’t think so.

    Sink their ships? OK. Fine. So what? What does that get us? That doesn’t win us a war.
    Can we really invade Russia? No freaking way. When has that ever worked out for anyone?

    Western Europe has gone to war against Russian four times between 1812 and 1990. Napoleon’s invasion in 1812. The Crimean War. World War One. World War Two. Since 1990 NATO has expanded east and hybrid/grey zone warfare is in full bloom in areas that have historical been core Russian interests. I have no idea why Crimea is a core US interest — no one can explain that to me.

    The US had 13,000 troops in Russian in WW1. I know US Army officers — Colonels — who have no idea about this. You think Russia has forgotten? Does anyone really think the Russian’s don’t consider us at war with them?

    Only US policy wonks don’t believe that economic sanctions are a form of warfare. Does China, NK, Iran, and Russian think it is OK for the US to try to crush their economies? At some point, there will be payback. There always is (Japan/Pearl Harbor 1941).

    War with Russia looks like Napoleon’s invasion in 1812. The Allied forces had complete overmatch. The Russians pulled back and burned the land behind them. When Napoleon reached Moscow, the Russian military governor ordered the city put to the torch. Then Napoleon retreated, having gained nothing, lost 95% of his forces, and the Napoleonic Empire collapsed in short order. All this while dominating the battle-space at every level.

    That’s what war with Russian looks like.

    Let’s face it. As soon as the power goes out in LA and NYC, it’s game over for the US. Even if Moscow glows in the dark, it’s This Big Empire that will collapse. The Russians will grow potatoes, make vodka, and prepare for the next invasion. We’ll be crying over dead iPhones.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  427. @Anonymous

    Yes, we have technically superior products. But that only matters if unit X (say, a submarine) is going to fight their unit X (another sub) on an equal basis.

    Right. The US certainly does n’t intend open war with Russia. The F35s and the aircraft carriers are for imperial police work: kicking the shit out of little countries that fail to follow advice. Kill a million here, a million there, hang a Saddam or sodomized a Gadhafi with a bayonet and people get the message: democratic self-determination is not an option for the little countries.

    As for Russia and China and anyone else who can repay aggression with devastating force, the MO is the color revolution. Hence the Maidan in Litttle Russia, aka the Ukraine. Likewise, in Russia itself. Remember Johny McCain’s taunting Putin (“Dear Vlad, the #ArabSpring has arrived at a neighborhood near you” ). Remember Putin’s recent comment: “Russian interference is a lie to justify American interference in Russia elections.”

    Thing is, the US of Assimilation is so despised by a large proportion of its own population that it’s at risk of a color revolution at home.

  428. Anon • 免责声明 说:
    @Erebus

    You forgot about the willing patsies.
    Poland is ready to enter the “Ukrainian club:”
    https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-totalitarian-europe-now-on-our-doorstep/5617176
    “Poland now faces a further crises of post World War Two occupation. Once again by the West. The first Western incursion was set in motion by the selling-off of key industries to outside corporate interests – and what I call the Coca Colarisation’ of the country by US interests. However that slides into the background when compared to the current crisis facing the country. Poles stand on the very brink of being forced to give up their sovereignty. In doing so they will become pawns to the forces of a global New World Order. A regime whose new HQ will be located in Europe, and make strategic use of Poland – and Romania – as its ‘war theatre’. While the US, UK, Germany and France pull-back to avoid being caught up in the front lines of this, their very own belligerent, geopolitically motivated incitement to war.”

    More from the same article: “The key ingredient of this strategy is the establishment of an ‘EU Treasury’ which, according to Donald Tusk, President of the EU Council, will come into effect in June 2018, under the official title: European Monetary Fund. This will result in the single point control of all EU member state finances. The plan will involve a further leveraging of the power of the major banks, to consolidate their controlling influence over EU affairs. By combining an ‘EU Treasury’ and a consolidation of banking power, a major step will be taken in the ‘amalgamation of everything’ heist; to be brought under the single umbrella of a Totalitarian Super State. We are talking about individual country’s monetary policies; the military; police forces and intelligence services all being run from a central control unit in Brussels. These will be followed by more of the same – covering almost all areas of administrative control, that were once the domain of individual countries.
    The institution at the forefront of this power grab is the Bank of International Settlements, based in Basle, Switzerland, which has global outreach and acts as a funnel for the acquisition and distribution of vast sums of globally fluid international money. The Bank of International Settlements is under the control of approximately eight thousand hedge fund managers with a common ambition to rule the world.”

  429. Noah Way 说:
    @Johnny Rico

    The American “capitalist” system didn’t collapse after Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Why no mention of that?

    The Soviet Union didn’t collapse because of Afghanistan, it fell to indirect economic attrition – they went bankrupt trying to compete in the arms race. The difference is that the US uses the military is a profit vehicle, a well-made point that you clearly ignore.

    What few have seemed to notice (but that is becoming more clearly evident daily) is that the US also bankrupted itself and continues to do so by pouring trillions into military systems and misadventures for profit while neglecting its own population that continues to decline both economically and socially.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  430. @Noah Way

    The Soviet Union didn’t collapse because of Afghanistan, it fell to indirect economic attrition – they went bankrupt trying to compete in the arms race.

    I don’t think so. The SU had no insuperable economic problems, however inefficient the centrally planned economy may have been. Certainly, the economic problems of the ex-SU were far greater.

    The SU failed for the same reason that Tsardom failed, due to an absence of will on the part of the autocrat. Even as things were falling apart, had Gorbachev ordered the execution of the 1991 coup plotters, ordered the elimination of Yeltsin, and sent the tanks into the Baltic Soviets and other rebellious regions, ordering the imprisonment or execution of the leaders of rebellion, the Union would have survived. There would still have been the problem of an inefficient economy and a corrupt bureaucracy, but the Chinese solution could have been applied. That, however, would have required an iron grip in the political sphere. As Deng Hsiao Ping stated at the time of the Tianamen Square trouble, if it had cost a million lives to preserve the state it would have been worth it. Such is the logic of tyranny. Gorby, like Alexander II, just didn’t have it in him.

    And once the Communist Party of the SU was dissolved, the Russian Empire collapsed without the slightest resistance, since the Communist Party was the only instrument of control, each Soviet having been set up by Lenin as an autonomous state, with its own comprehensive apparatus of government.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  431. @CanSpeccy

    I meant Nicholas II, not Alexander II who was a far different character.

  432. Antiwar7 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    Spot on. There’s no engineering shortage in the US. There’s only a shortage if you refuse to pay enough. Ditto for machinists.

  433. Anonymous [AKA "real world"] 说:

    40 years ago my intelligence chief in the Navy stated our goal was always to be 20 years ahead of the closest competition. 30 years ago Bush 1 was on the air touting how allowing the Japanese to build our F-16s under lease was good because we needed their technology. I was seated next to a friend of mine who was working at a defense contractor’s firm in Conn. watching this. He laughed his ass off with total scorn at Bush’s statement and told me they had a working radar which could read the outline of a man’s face at 200 nautical miles.

    Didn’t watching our A-10s totally shred that Russian junk in Iraq teach you guys anything? And that was the backup squad.

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有The Saker评论