well, those esitimation are so weak. It doesn't say under what condition. Let's say, if the china made planes operate on a exterme hot enviroment for 700 hours, and the US make engine will last 8000 hours in a warm envirmont. It's just an example. However, I don't see any mainstream newspaper or mainstream magizine published information like those. I really feel supprise. and in the article, it claims that Russian engine will last only 1000 hours. Then why the hell you think Indian will purchase so much Russian made fighter???? even thought they are cheaper than the US made fighter, but US made planes will last 8 times longer. The number is exaggerated too big, and it is hardly to believe. BTW, it doesn't say what kind of engine still, engine for Mig 14. Su-27? Su-30? Su-47? to compare with what? F-4, F-15. F-26 or F-22
They both use difference engines. even thought the China made engine has difference kinds. I believe that US made engine last longer than Russian made and China made, but the differences is so big????

Man, theres something REALLY sexy about the words: Chinese Engine

All American military equipment made by the contractors are tested in various locations, from the freezing-cold Alaska to the baking-hot Nevada desert. They have specially designated military equipment testing zones just for the testing purposes and nothing else.

I'm pretty sure that the writer averaged out the lifespan of available engines from each country.

And, yes, the differences can be quite big when you consider the types of materials and levels of designs put into the engine. The U.S. engines incorporate a lot of heat-resistant composite alloys, such as aluminium and titanium, which the Americans can produce at much higher purity than their Russian and Chinese counterparts.

Indians prefer Russian equipment for the sheer fact that they, the Indians, do not have to go through all the political bullsh!t and red-taping by purchasing Russian equipment, whereas the U.S. equipment can only be exported to another country with high-level clearance from the U.S. Congress.

Simply put, even if you had all the data and specification available to you, you will not have the know-how to work with the metals and composits until you have tried it enough to learn on your own. Even in today's era of technological sophistication, there is still a concept of worksmanship; it's not all about the chips and layouts. The Russians never got the hang of making high-quality during the Cold War because it wasn't part of their doctrine, and nobody really cared either.

I understand your explaination. However, it is not clearly explained in the article, and it's not from a mainstream newspaper either.
If the problem is so big, why we have not seen any reports like this before. In other professional military magezine?
I totally believe that Chinese made engine surely have more problem than US made and with a shorter life span. But, nobody in the world would expect china can produce any sophiscate engine like US now. It's not possible. However, it's really great to see China to start its first step. Let's see how's China's second generation engine.

Why is this subject brought up? and the past Japanese Imperialism domination?

It's getting old because almost everyone knows the whole truth and nothing more.

Japan attacked China at the right time, not sure if i can say the same for all the other countries that Japan were able to attack and take control.

China was not unified, warlords vs warlords, a civil war was on the verge of happening, for a few hundred years China had to deal with internal corruption and poor leaders who also sided with Western Imperilist pirates which eventually was the start of weakening China, so when Japan attacked China had no more gas in the tank until the K.M.T and Chairman Mao's army decided to unite for this 1 time oppurtunity to run out the Japanese army.

So when all was said and done, Chairman Mao and the K.M.T went on to their unfinished buisness, China could not start rebuilding even right after WWII, due to the civil war. Eventually the iron fist of Mao ruled and this is what we have today. China/2007 and forward, i don;t think Japan or any nation wanting to attack China will be successful at all.

It's not rocket scientist, when China has over 800 missles pointing at Taiwan what makes you think they couldn't shift all of those 800 misssles on Japan? its only up the street.

Issues of range and targeting maybe? Japan's 1,000-2,000 kilometers further away from China than Taiwan is. But maybe the Dong Fengs can strike that far, I don't know? Doubtful.

It can work out if thats the case, we all know how both N & S Korea feel about the Japanese Imperialism, on their land.
What can happen is China can place the missles on Korean soil, the only obstacle is S.Korea the U.S.A will most definitely intervene so otherwise N.Korea's soil is a forsure option to place the ballistic missles.

I believe at this stage and with the power of the military technology today an all-out war between two big Nations are unlikely. I think they're likely to take a pro-active route against smaller countries and nations or one's whose Military's they can simply blow out of the water. It's not in anyone's best interests to have the monster nations go head to head. There's too much to lose on both ends.

Comparing Taiwan and Japan are comparing apples with oranges. Simply adjusting the direction of the missles and sending it over to Japan isn't the same as sending it over to Taiwan.

Chinese missile on Korean soil? That's a delusion, nothing more. Positioning of such missiles on North Korea will not only bring Japanese protest, but also US and South Korea as well. The issue may very well bring escalation of strategic asset of all sides. The issue will be much bigger than even the NOrth Korean nuke test. Such blatantly agressive move does no one any good. South Korea is even less of an option. If people appear to be barely tolerating token US presence there, what makes you think people will like Chinese strategic, and therefore a 'first-strike' asset any better?

Well all i can ad is Japan is an island thats not any bigger than Taiwan, shouldn't be hard to aim like the O is where the c*** goes.

umm...Japan is a lot bigger then Taiwan.
Japan: 377,835 square kms
Taiwan: 35,980 square kms

oh come on, what i meant was its not like Russia compared to Taiwan. Japan is still considered an island, a huge island that has limited natural resources, blow that up and Taiwan up and problem solved.

Yes...if life was like that, we wouldn't need a visa card.

Your callousness towards human life is pretty cold-blooded.

I don't think anyone needs a report to know that Chinese military tech is behind US military tech. Which is why China needs to update its military weapons asap.

stupid article, if there's a war, china just can sink every japan supply ship and they are cooked.

With modern submarine flotilla, Japan can return the favor, probably better than anyone else. They don't even have to shoot at ships really, just mine the harbor with submarines and tell everyone about it. Chinese mine-hunting capability will be overwhelmed very quickly. While China wont' starve per say, the economic sector will still die from that.

It's like I said before "Militarily speaking, China's main goal is to make herself a huge liability for the rest of the world. Essentially, the economic and environmetal consequences of military confrontation against her would prove drastic if not fatal." It wouldn't matter even if Japan was militarily superior to China in some ways. China's main goal militarily is be the world's liability in that department. One way or another, no nation on this earth can escape a full-blown military confrontation against China without suffering drastic if not fatal consequences. Would China win? No but neither would anyone else and that's exactly the agenda. Is any nation on this earth willing to risk the economic and environmental consequences of such an action? If China is imperialistic, it's economically not militarily. It's much easier to take advantage of and exploit politically weak countries for your own personal benefits hence the reason China is bonding with African nations right now.

a very interesting topic ............. i had no idea that japan had such a strong military but as always size matters ........

i think china would win, their main aim would be to finish off the island. i dont think they would be involved in dog fights they would be going for only one thing tokyo ......... once they finish off half of the population .......... japan will have a hard time trying to protect its citizens ........

also intercepting 2000 or 3000 missiles is no easy task no matter what sort of missile defence system u have ..........

If you think that Russians don't test their military equipment then your totally ignorant. Russians also have a very advanced testing facilities for their military equipment. For all this testing your talking about can only be successful if the equipment can work well in the actual battle scenario.


And from where these averages were taken? What are the basis of the boasting in that article?


Aluminium and Titanium are metals, they are not alloys. However they are mixed with other materials to form strong alloys. Let me remind you that Mendeleev the founder of Periodic Table was a Russian so never doubt their ability on this thing. First you talk about alloys then you refer to purity what do you mea n by that? Com'on get your facts right first.

On what basis your saying that American engine designs are better? You also seem to be boastful just like the author. Talking about engine designs and materials used in them is very hard because there is no way of comparing engines used in military applications of two countries it is nearly impossible thing to do.

So I will go low tech and come to the rifles. Let me remind you again that during Vietnam war the American M16 rifles used to get jammed all the time in jungle and humid conditions. While I never heard or read anywhere that the famed AK47 rifle that Vietcong was using or anywhere in the world got any problem. The AK47 and its variants that Russian armed forces use is made of best materials and have an excellent design. It is the best rifle to use in extreme rough conditions.


During Cold War era India was in the Soviet Block so there was no way they could get American arms at that time. Now Cold Wwar has ended U.S.A. and India have become friendly, but yes clearance from U.S. congress is needed.

isn't the japanese military leader a woman?

In a war of attrition PRC has a clear advantage. As for quality its hard to beat Japan at their game. Even equipment purchased from the USA Japan does a lot of modifying.
Russian made planes are of quality as its been proven time and again. Russian Subs? Junk with the exception of the Akula class.
Surface ships and surface to air missiles? The quality of their ships is lacking. The missiles when observed by NATO were less than accurate. But China can put more boats in the water than Japan, more boots on the ground. Japan could never hope to invade therfore defeating China impossible.

Right now, Kigun is the one of the most massive navy in the world equip with state-of-the-art weapon systems; needless to state, the assumption is they are well-train. However, they never been tested in actual combat before.

One word NUKE

When did I say that Russians don't test their equipment? You must be an idiot.



Read below this post for engine life comparisons.



Discovering something is one thing, applying it to its full or nearly-full potential is another.

And, again, you must be an idiot. Couldn't you have read the post more carefully to see the message that I'm trying to send across?



The original Klimov RD-33 used on MiG-29s had about 1,000 hours of rated service life. It wasn't until quite recently that the manufacturers were able to bring it up to 4,000 hours, and that's still stretching it.

Now, compare that with the GE F110 used on F-16C/D and F-15K. (I was going to try to use P&W F100 for comparison, but I will just go with the F110 since MiG-29 is similar to F-16 than F-15.) You see, there is no definite service life rated for the F110, because it's still being used after the SLEP, which does not define hours, but rather years. (GE F110 is slated to be used until 2025.)



This was a minor design flaw and had nothing to do with the materials used on the rifle. The M16s were jamming mainly due to lack of chromed barrels that resist barrel wearing. This was fixed with M16A1, and jamming became a rare case ever since.

And if you think that the AK-47s were perfect, they certainly weren't. The sheer humidity within the jungle often caused rifle butts of AK-47s and M14s (an equally sturdy rifle with rare cases of jamming), both of which are made out of wood, to rot.



Thanks a lot for reciting what I've said previously. Talk about redundancy.

Yes brother. Nice remark, someone had to eventually stand up and say that even if it means angering some of the nationalists within our ranks.

Why your getting so much infuriated? Because I pointed out flaws in your post? First look yourself in a mirror before saying bad things to others. Why were you pointing out testing of American military equipment as if only Americans have this kind of facility tell me. Let me show you that para of yours in which you commented this thing

And let me remind you, this thread is all about comparing American, Chinese and Russian military hardware. So tell me why I shouldn't think that you indirectly pointed out that Russians have rudimentary or non-existent testing facility??


Russians are good at discovering and applying it to nearly full potential.


Your proving yourself an idiot by calling other people idiot for no reason. Where in any of your previous posts you referred to Klimov engines or any of the engines you just mentioned?? The hours and years labels your talking about what seem to me is a gimmick by American companies to entice potential buyers and sell their products. GE F110 is a good engine but the claims your making seem to be too far fetched to be true. You want to say that there is no overhauling required for GE F110 for a long time? This is laughable. Time and again Russian hardware have proven that it is not only reliable but also very effective.


May be minor to you but for soldiers in a battlefield it makes a difference between life and death. The M16 used in Vietnam war was an obsolete weapon with many flaws in its operation. Still after so many improvements the present M16, requires constant cleaning to prevent it from jamming. The gas system, blows carbon into the receiver, which can lead to jamming of the rifle. This is a major design flaw americans were never able to rectify it properly. With improved M16 the jamming was reduced a bit but it is still there. M16 requires a lot of care it is not rugged like the AK47. If your in a battlefield, try not to clean M16 for a day then you will know what I mean. And that is why I said before that weapons can only be proven in real battlefield scenarios.

What is the difference between M16A1 and M16 rifles? M16A1 is M16 with a forward assist feature to discourage jamming of the rifle. Forward assist is only a solution for a problem but the problem still stays.


No weapon is perfect. But AK47 is a proven weapon, you will be a big fool if you try to think otherwise. I think your either a japanese or an american nationalist or whatever. You have a problem digesting the truth. M14 is no where near AK47. M14 is an obsolete infantry rifle it was replaced by M16 during Vietnam War. Read this article and accept the truth that AK47 is better.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Why_AK_rifle_is_the_Best_Kalashnikov


It is called correction.

Tsk.. tsk... tsk... What you've failed to realize is that I was replying directly to W&N's post, to point out that Americans do have testing facilities that utilize a variety of environmental conditions. If that sounded as if it meant that only the Americans has such facilities to you, then you really are a moron.



Can I see some evidence or do I need to just call this one as a mere bluff?



Actually, you are an idiot for not being able to comprehend the very obvious to begin with, not the other way around like you would like to believe. Baseline F110s do have service life of greater than 8,000+ hours, yet the baseline RD-33s couldn't push little more than 1,000 before needing an overhaul, with both of them being mounted on the same class of fighters. This is quite a contrast between the different designs from different countries. You might want to believe that the American companies are trying to sucker foreign customers into buying them, but there hasn't been many cases where their products fell short of their expected performance ratio within other foreign countries that resulted in major complaints.



Now you are talking as if any rifle other than M16 will fire when it's not maintained properly. Sorry, but even the mighty AK-47 isn't going to fire after it's been through very rough conditions without a basic maintenance. But, then again, I wouldn't expect anything better from a fool who's trying to compare a rifle with few dozens of interchangable parts to an aircraft engine with thousands of tiny parts.



And the M16 series isn't? AK-47 had its fair share of experience on battlefield, but that doesn't mean that M16 had none, either.

And you have a problem with being too delusional. Nowhere have I stated that AK-47 was a bad rifle, not to mention that I've never said anything about M16 being the perfect rifle. (And, since you have a problem trying to face the facts, M14 is, in fact, a very reliable and combat-proven rifle. Period. It's still being used as a marksman weapon within the U.S. military due to its reliability and accuracy.) You are just bringing things out of context to further serve your own agenda and pad your ego.

And it's hilarious that you are thinking that I'm "either a Japanese or an American nationalist or whatever." Sorry, but I really don't need to hear that one from someone who's flying an Indian flag in his avatar.



Nope. It's called unnecessary comment.

No contest. Japan is no match for China currently.

Taiwanese and their fantasies.

Perhaps you too are deluded to believe your own fantasies.

You see, under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security 1960, the USA will back Japan to the hilt.

The PLA is having enough problems as it is with the US military over Taiwan-I don't see how opening a new front with Japan will lessen the problem-especially in the event of such an altercation the Japanese can go nuclear in just six months, there is an awful lot of unprocessed plutonium waiting, 12,645 tonnes at last count

Back to the good old days of MAD.

W&N and also myself are not convinced by either the articles or your claims. The gaps seem to be too much to believe and also I have never heard or read anything like that before.


Here your showing your nationalistic side, asking me to show the Russian ingenuity. If I list the things that Russians created and western countries copied then you gonna get owned. Russians are very good they have a very good creative mind don't doubt them.


See I am not an expert on engines. So can't argue with you on that. period


I am only referring to Russian made rifles. Don't make a dumbass out of yourself by assuming things all by yourself. Yes all rifles need to be maintained and cleaned in order to work properly. But M16 does have a design defect and it calls for a lot more maintenance that the AK47. That is why M16A1 has a thing known as 'forward assist' so that if the gun got jammed during a battle it can be made to work again. Now you got it?

Secondly stop stating insults to people. The way you make your post stating insults after every few sentences shows the third rate upbringing you got. Thirdly I stated before as well that by going low tech we can see that Russian material is of the same standard as the american material because engine comparisons are very rare to find, and comparisons between a simple machines like guns is all too well known and it is very easy thing to do.


Every good as well as crappy gun has its fair share of experiences in the battlefield.


But your getting too defensive on this thing. Sorry to say but a lot of countries use better guns than the ones U.S. Army use.


See it is not about only the reliability or being accurate alone. M14 though accurate was heavy to carry and it was not able to withstand the firepower of AK47 that is why M16 was introduced in its place.

There are lots of things that make a good infantry rifle.

• Firstly it should be reliable enough so that it wouldn't get jammed during a battle easily. All guns jam but which jams the least is better.
• It should be sufficiently accurate.
• It should have a good firepower.
• It should be simple enough so that if a gun gets jammed during a battle it could be repaired easily. More simple the better. Any tom dik harry with rudimentary training can handle AK47 and can use it because of its simpler design.
• It should be cost effective value for money so that more men could be armed with it.

That makes a good rifle for the infantry. Even hunting rifles are also very accurate you know.

This article also states that
It means that the author reluctantly conceded that Sukhoi fighter-planes are superior.

does Japan have nuclear weapons? NOOOO!...end of discussion

Generally speaking, had Japan lifted international ban, it will outmatch Russia as second largest nuclear power only to USA at minimal gap! In other words, Japan has deposited enough materials to creat 6000 warheads.
By the way, Japan have a complete welfare system, clean food products, officals who speaks for it's countrymen's interests and a stable social environment. All of these make China suck![color="#FF0000"][/color]

What's with the sudden shift in gears from you trying to make my post of Americans having testing fields as if I'm saying that only Americans have them to the whole spectrum of "oh, I can't believe this crap"? Look, if you want to stuff your head with things that will make you feel better, fine. But don't go around telling me that my statements are bullsh!t, because it's obvious that you don't want to face the facts.



Alright, since you have some horrible connecting abilities, let me walk you through all the things we have said;



Then you've went ahead to say;



I've never questioned the ability of Russian designing and engineering abilities. They create some of the most interesting concept designs in the world and apply them to their equipment. However, they usually don't apply them to their full or nearly-full potential due to their abismal production qualities. Find out a SINGLE SPOT where and when I have doubted the Russians of their capabilities to come up with ideas before calling me "nationalistic". As far as I'm concerned, you are the one who's being "nationalistic", due to the fact that you seem to jump to conclusions that heavily favor anything and everything that's Russian without even giving a thought about them.



And it's quite ironic how someone who just suddenly jumped from comparing aircraft engines to infantry rifles because he couldn't find a proper counter-argument is calling someone else to be making a "dumbass" out of himself, let alone the fact that he is unable to distinguish between design of an equipment to the quality of the materials used to create the equipment, and expects not to hear others calling him to be stupid.



Explain, in your own words, how AK-47 is good and M16 is crappy because, obviously, you've never even held any one of them in your life to begin with.



Uh, that line coming from who's been praising the AK-47 as if it's some sort of weapon made by God himself?



I was only pointing out about some of the things that would disprove your statement of the M14 being "obsolete", but you just had to bring in something entirely out of the context. Would you please stick to one topic instead of wondering around like an idiot? You are like a fu-king tree branch of some sort, keep dragging the discussion further down by bringing in things out of the context because you can't keep up.



A properly maintained M16 is quite reliable. Only a fool will neglect his firearm to the point where it will no longer function.

Try hitting a target at 150 yards with the M16 and then try to do the same with the AK-47.

Are you implying that the M16 is a pea-shooter? Then may God help you if you get shot in the @$$ by one.

That's offset by the level of training given to the troops. No matter which way you put it, an average Joe, given rudimentary training and armed with AK-47, isn't going to be able to duke it out with a well-trained soldier, given a full-course military training and armed with M16.

And sacrifice ergonomics, and increase its overall weight and clumsiness. We don't live in the era where wars are fought by millions of people armed with cheap, expendable weapons. It's more cost-effective to create a small, elite and well-equipped professional military, hence why you don't see waves upon waves of men storming down hills in middle of a battle.

Oh, and, don't forget that those hunting rifles are much more ergonomic than your AK-47, too.



By the way I read it, the "narrowly outperformed by Sukhoi fighters" part in that article applies to the F-2A, and not F-15J, which is quite true considering the fact that the F-2A is a multirole aircraft while F-15 and Su-27 family are full-blown air superiority fighters, which means that they belong to different class of fighters. Do I need to walk you through everything?

From aircraft engines to infantry rifles and then to entire fighter aircrafts... You really need to focus on one topic, because you are the only one who's making a fool out of yourself due to the fact that you can't even come up with a proper argument without bringing in a whole bunch of other stuff from elsewhere.

^ To keep things simple, You wre being asked from where you got the data about comparisons between the Russian and American aircraft engines. But you haven't yet come out with anything on that. Except your usual blah blah. I will cut some portion of your post because it is grossly off topic.


Russians may have abysmal production qualities in your eyes but I don't agree with that at all. There is no proof that they lack in professionalism or low production quality. I am not jumping into conclusion I am trying to argue that Russian made hardware it up to standards. And american hardware doesn't have that much superiority as they claim they also have a fair share of glitches and low standards like the use of the guns in Vietnam War and many other episodes. Good to know that at least you recognize Russian ingenuity. And how I am being nationalistic in a discussion concerning U.S. and Russia? Your comment make no sense at all. You are the one who is shying away from telling your nationality here.


Firstly I was not the one arguing with you on engines it was @W&N. Secondly you haven't yet come up with anything to bolster your arguments about your too tall claims about the engines. They are just plain claims just like in the article. Now your a proven dumbass to think that a design and material used to make up a thing are separate entities. The design and the material are both applied to make a good equipment. Good material is a junk without a good design and vice versa.


I said AK47 is better than M16. I have already listed as to what makes a good infantry rifle. I think that should be enough. How do you know if I fired from rifle or not? Even you must have never flown an fighter plane or tested an aircraft engine. So stop making unnecessary comments.


Man seriously you getting too defensive you lost your logic here it is getting more crappy with each passing post. Assault rifles are meant to kill and AK47 serves this purpose with excellent results. If you need to target a thing there are more better rifles for that purpose. Talk about fight between soldiers with guns in their hands.


I was referring to ease of use and maintenance. The Russian made AK47 is not a cheap weapon, other countries which make their own copies of AK47 legally or illegally are responsible for this belief of it being cheap. The wave after wave of attacking is a Chinese war tactic not Russian. I don't know what is your purpose of pointing this out. FYI AK47 is abundantly used by professional militaries throughout the world.


AK47 is better than M16. I understand your frustration.


The article was comparing F-15J and F-16 with Sukhoi. It is not mentioned to which Sukhoi the comparison was made. May be Su-30MKK the Chinese version of Sukhoi. While F2 was referred to in entirely different context. Not to mention that F15J, F16 and Su30MKK are all meant for air superiority.

SuMKK with Max speed Mach 2 seems like a comparable aircraft. Characteristics like max load it can carry, type of armament, maneuverability, type of technology used and how much effective is that technology and range. Will decide which aircraft is better.

Also there are other factors involved like the use of AWACS which Chinese really don't know.


It would be too boring to hang on to one topic alone, since we are discussing the strengths of the defense forces of countries. Read that article it mentioned, Airforces, particularly fighter aircrafts, the quality of pilots, Naval destroyers, Submarines etc. I mentioned rifles and why not? The comparisons should be made in every sense. You need to broaden your thinking.

Since the board is showing me that there are just too many quotes in this post, I'm going to make this into a two-part post.



Straight from the GE's site for the baseline F110;
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/..._19950610d.html



Do an overhaul on the thing and that will jack it up to around 8,000 hours.

On the other hand;
http://www.deagel.com/Fighter-Aircraft-Eng...a000909001.aspx



2,000 hours of life cycle means that, without any overhauling, the baseline RD-33 will last about 1,000 hours.



I say this again; design flaws are NOT as same as poor production quality. You are trying to compare a weapon that's been utilized all the way back from 1947 with proven designs to a new, unproven weapon that was rushed to the battlefield in the Vietnam War. Read below for why design flaws aren't as same as production and/or material quality.



If that's the case, can you please tell me how I am being "nationalistic"? You were the one who brought it up first, but it doesn't make any sense since I'm neither American or Japanese. Just because you can't stand up to the fact that something isn't the best in the block doesn't mean that the person who's pointing out its faults is some sort of a "nationalist".



Read above for the engine claims.

As for the design and materials, I've never said or referred to anything about how both the design and the materials need to be of high quality to make high quality equipment. I've merely pointed out that design flaw of an equipment is a complete separate thing from utilizing poor-quality materials to construct the equipment because, obviously, having parts that don't fit together isn't as the same as parts breaking down. Yet you've still had to go on about and talk as if M16's parts are made out of plywood or something.



I have listed the reasons why the AK-47 isn't "better than" M16. Have you tried reading it, or were you just too afraid to realize how AK-47 falls behind in several places compared to the M16 and admit that AK-47 isn't necessarily "better" overall?

And, honestly, I was merely comparing the engines from the two countries, with sources, until you've decided to bring in the whole topic between AK-47 and M16 because you couldn't keep up with the engine part. So, if there's anyone in here that needs to "stop making unnecessary comments", it would be you.



"Too defensive" my @$$. You are the one who's getting all worked up whenever I point out AK-47's faults despite your claims of it being "perfect".

Contradictory considering your previous post;



AK-47's can be picked up for fairly cheap around blackmarket nowadays. South Africa had them selling for around USD$50 each, while they costed somewhere around USD$20 in the Middle East a few years back. (Not sure if I can find the original source again since the news on this was published quite a while back.)

Anyways, countries that use AK-47 are often used in militaries that are often in need of huge stockpiles due to large amount of troops or ones that can't afford anything better. Lets face it, if the North Korea and Pakistan had enough cash to ditch their AK-47s in favor of, say, G36, they would do it instantly. Similar case with China and India, where they need hundreds of thousands of rifles that can be easily produced to arm their massive amount of men.



Only in terms of reliability. M16, however, is more accurate and ergonomic with easier overall control than AK-47 when firing. On the firepower side, both are evenly matched due to the amount of ammunition that the soldier can carry when you consider their size and weight. Read the list that I've made two posts ago in this thread.



Fact #1: The secondary objective of the article is about comparing the equipments between JSDF and PLA/N/AF.

Fact #2: JASDF doesn't even have F-16s, but has the closest thing being the F-2A.

Fact #3: As far as I, or anyone who didn't flunk their high-school English class, read it, the "narrowly outperformed by Sukhoi fighters" part only applies to F-16/F-2A, which is why the double-dash (or "--") is placed between the two.

Fact #4: F-16 is a light-weight multirole aircraft that has air-to-air combat capabilities. Having air-to-air combat capabilities doesn't necessarily turn the aircraft into an air superiority aircraft -- even AH-64Ds and A-10As can carry AIM-9M/X and take part in ATA roles.



F-15 and Su-27 series belong to the heavy air superiority fighter class, whereas the F-16 (and the MiG-29) series belong to light-weight multirole fighter class. Comparing the Su-30 to the F-16 (or F-2, for that matter) is like comparing a Porsche to a Buick. Even then it's really not right, because F-15J is based on F-15C, which doesn't have a variety of mud-moving armaments like the Su-30. F-15FX, (planned to be similar to F-15K/SG, which are, in turn, based on F-15E) when produced and delivered to Japan, will be the closest thing that can be compared to the Su-30.



AWACS is a sheer force-multiplier. JASDF has a clear advantage in terms of aerial coordination with their monster E-767s.



That's because neither China or Japan has the capability to invade one another, and ground forces will be of little use. In case of a conflict, most, if not all, conventional battles between China and Japan will be fought over sea and air. China doesn't have enough amphibious capability or naval force projection to punch through JMSDF and JASDF and invade Japan, while Japan lacks the number of ground troops to effectively force their way to the shores and occupy a territory within China due to high number of Chinese ground strength. So, you need to think up of the big picture first before getting down to the macro-scale, because you obviously aren't -- it's like planning a tactic to fight your opponents without setting up a final goal to achieve.

It really depends on what you mean by "better". In terms of combat in an ideal situation, the 5.56x45 and the M16 wins. Its recoil is more forgiving, and though it doesn't do as well a job against armor, the fragmenting round should have enough killing power. In a perfect situation, the M16 is a better rifle.

However, the AK, as a weapon of "war", has the advantage. It has less moving parts, so it's less prone to jamming, thus making it more reliable. It's also cheap and easy to manufacture. In a drawn out dirty war, that's the weapon you want to mass produce and give out to your troops. Performance wise, the AK lags behind the M16 rifles, but it's not THAT huge a gap. However, the price/reliability of the AK makes it a better sell, though I doubt you'd find a country that can afford the M16s to go for the cheaper AK models.

The AK is actually the ideal weapon for the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're cheap and easy to make, just right for some expendable trooper. Plus, the round is better against NATO troops since NATO troops carry body armor on them.

It's not accurate, but then again, you can give those guys any weapon, and they'll still miss a lot. But, the AK lets them get a few lucky shots off at a close distance.

Well said Suijen. The ak is a great spray and pray weapon. Its reliable and the caliper is big enough to cause serious damage to any human it hits. It is without doubt the most mass produced weapon available and therefore cheap and easily replaced. Ammunition is always easily obtained and the producers of the ak really don't care who or how it is used. It is the perfect weapon for terrorists. After all terrorists don't care what or who they hit as long as someone is hit.
The M-16 which will be replaced soon is a marvel of machinist engineering. Very accurate and reliable. The .223 is a little light and struggles to stop crazed advesaries but it too will get the job done when in capable hands. Its major down fall is that it is like my favorite the HK 91 and 93 very expensive.

6.8 SPC all the way.

absolutely...

Okey now it is making some sense. Looks like the whole GE inventory being compared to Klimov RD-33. Good now I have to agree.


See I am not arguing on whether design flaws and production quality are same or different. My point is that the final product depends on both of these elements. I think I have made myself very clear.

Yes I am trying to compare a proven weapon with a noob and that makes AK47 better than M16. This shows that Vietcong had better guns in their hands than the Americans. There is no alibi to the enemy please spare us we have a new untested weapon in our hands it got jammed this is not our fault.


Design and production are the two faces of the same coin. If I again tell you that you are getting too defensive on this then you will again say no your not getting defensive.



Okey so your arguements about engines being understood by me so its fine no problem.

Read the specifications for the F110-GE-100 at the top. I even told you for what to look for. Are you having trouble understanding what I'm saying?



Nope. You haven't made any sense when you've decide to hijack and argue about design, despite the fact that I originally referred to how the Americans can make better and stronger materials. Different sides of the same coin? Yes. But I was talking about one side of the coin about aircraft engines when you've decided to show up and steer the topic in the wrong way by trying to compare aircraft engine with infantry rifles. Now that would be a completely different coin. It's too bad that no military that's formed up of highly-trained soldiers and have access to decent funding, not ranks upon ranks of conscripts that requires them to have cheap and obsolete weapons because of funding, maintenance and logistics issues, and technology won't even touch the AK-47 to back up your claims about how the AK-47 is the "perfect infantry rifle". Even the Chinese are trying to get rid of their massive stock of AK-47 clone, the Type 81, in favor of QBZ-95.

China will deliver the nukes with Missiles.

damn enomisiki and vaman have a lot of spare time on their hands .............

enomisiki is just pissed off cos he saw all those racist russian videos .... and now he is angry with the russians .........

It's ironic for you to say that, considering that you haven't even contributed a single thing to the topic. You might want to go and find something more productive to do instead of browsing through the boards and randomly post irrelevant messages before saying such a line.



What are these "racist Russian videos" that you speak of? As far as I can see, there aren't any "racist Russian videos", never mind a single link to a video, that are posted within this topic. Stop pulling things out of your @$$.

seriously those russians have a really powerful military......... they can take on two countries at once ....... and blast both of them to hell with their nukes........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWn3T5XIbNk

honestly i think the ak47 will always be special ..... simple design ......... easy to use ..... jus the thing u need on a battlefield.

The Russian military is a shadow of what it once was. Its Navy is in a state of disrepair, not that it was ever well maintained. Its army has low morale. Lack of pay will do that. Its tank forces much like the navy is in poor condition. So what exactly makes Russia so powerful aside from its Nukes?

Nothing is what. Russians are a bunch of lazy drunks who would rather spend thier mornings vodka-ring away their next-months-pay while they hire Chinese peasants to till their potato fields so they can make more vodka. Nuclear arms aside, i suspect it would be much easier for the PRC to invade Russia than Japan in a conventional war.