Project Reality Forums

First off, yes China has derived military technology just like American, Russia, and Britain. However there is nothing wrong with that, it does not make the equipment inferior. As of right now, China is making rapid progress in developing indigenous technology; go to sinodefense.com if you want to see the tip of the iceberg.

robbo wrote:The QBZ-03 just looks old, as does the Type-81 it lacks the modern look that the QBZ-95 has achieved.

The J-10 is miles behind the F-35 in all ways.

All these fancy T-96 and T-99 whatnots sound good on paper but lack battle testing and are not even in full production unlike the battle hardened Challenger 2 (how many of these has been lost in Iraq? thats right not even double figures) M1A2 Abrams and the Leo which have proven to be very effective.

How could you judge weapons simply based on their looks? A weapon does not need to be sleek and sexy to be effective, maybe it will look good in a game but an effective ugly weapon will beat an ineffective pretty weapon any day (E.G. AK47 vs. M16A1).

What proof of J-10 being miles behind F-35 do you have? Because the F-35 looks better? I agree that F-35 is probably more effective than J-10, but you are comparing two different classes of fighters. A more accurate comparison would be the
J-12 or J-XX, which probably be out in 2009/2010.

Finally regarding the tanks, you don’t need to have a tank to be battle tested to see if it’s very effective or not. The ZTZ-99 (not T-99) has gone through extensive testing, including ATGM, Landmine, live-fire and numerous other rigorous testings and have been proven worthy. Also, while the ZTZ99 is somewhat limitedly produced at the moment, “full” production will probably come before the end of next fall, and based on the Chinese economy and industry, there would be no problem in producing a very large number of ZTZ99s very rapidly. BTW, does M1A2, Challenger, or Leo (good tanks) have advanced laser defense system? Didn’t think so.

Will The ZTZ-99 have some active anti AT defense?
Something like russian Drozd or Arena?
And what about its armor? Kontakt-5 or even Kaktus style?

-----------
And actually Abrams and Challenger are battle tested? If you consider destroying few rusty T-55 and old export versions of T-72 with poorly trained crews a battle test then you are right.

But as I believe only fight with current models of T-80U or T-90 without air dominance would be a true BATTLE test.

"BTW, does M1A2, Challenger, or Leo (good tanks) have advanced laser defense system? Didn’t think so."

No they don't but id love to see your 'Advanced Laser System' Actually work in the field never to be affected by weather or terrain.

"What proof of J-10 being miles behind F-35 do you have? Because the F-35 looks better? I agree that F-35 is probably more effective than J-10, but you are comparing two different classes of fighters."

Not really both are Fighter Bomber craft and have similar weapon availability's the F35 is ahead in all of them.


"And actually Abrams and Challenger are battle tested? If you consider destroying few rusty T-55 and old export versions of T-72 with poorly trained crews a battle test then you are right."

Yes, Yes they have considering the Extreamly low losses of Challenger 2s to IEDs and RPG attack, Accounts also say that a Challenger 2 withstood over 70 RPG hits whilst leading an Armour column the only Challenger to be lost was that to friendly fire. You have never even seen these ZTZ-99 in battle so you cannot comment on their performance.

How the hell did a C2 get hit by FF ?!
Seriously, was there a blind gunner? or poorly placed artillery barrage?

robbo wrote: No they don't but id love to see your 'Advanced Laser System' Actually work in the field never to be affected by weather or terrain.

Are you inferring that it wouldn’t work in bad weather/terrain situations? Based on what? Lack of information on the internet? FYI, the laser defense system works by tracking down the source of hostile laser targeting/ guidance system and frying/blinding the hostile laser source (AT soldier, laser optics on missiles, helicopter optics…etc.). Therefore if the ZTZ99 could be “tagged”, the laser system could counter. Anyways, the laser defense system have been tested extensively in extreme weather/terrain conditions such as dust storms, snow, rain, extreme cold etc. Are there variations in performance? Yes of course, just as anything is affected by weather and terrain. However, the affects are rather insignificant and therefore negligible.

robbo wrote: Not really both are Fighter Bomber craft and have similar weapon availability's the F35 is ahead in all of them.

Yes they are both multi-role fighters, I was talking about generations (class is Chinese term for “generations”, my bad), F35 is still in prototype stage and has not entered full production, as are J-12/J-XX, and based on the prototypes they seem fairly well matched other than the fact that F35 has a fuel guzzling vertical take off system. BTW, what do you mean “the F35 is ahead in all of them” you were comparing two fighters were you not? Faulty comparison or are you making inferences based on lack of information?

"And actually Abrams and Challenger are battle tested? If you consider destroying few rusty T-55 and old export versions of T-72 with poorly trained crews a battle test then you are right."

robbo wrote: Yes, Yes they have considering the Extreamly low losses of Challenger 2s to IEDs and RPG attack, Accounts also say that a Challenger 2 withstood over 70 RPG hits whilst leading an Armour column the only Challenger to be lost was that to friendly fire. You have never even seen these ZTZ-99 in battle so you cannot comment on their performance.

That was not my quote, perhaps you were discussing with someone else but just because they haven’t been “battle tested” doesn’t mean you can’t comment on their performance. As I have posted earlier, ZTZ99 have gone through extensive and rigorous testing and performed extremely well. Also, I agree with whoever you were quoting because even though Challenger2 / Abrams are great tanks, annihilating a bunch of rag-tagged crews and archaic tanks don’t really prove much; you might as well just drive around and shoot wooden targets. In addition, the RPGs used in Iraq mostly scratch the paint off of MBTs. Unless someone got lucky or actually knew how and where to shoot, the most a volley of RPGs do is disable or track a tank.

"Are you inferring that it wouldn’t work in bad weather/terrain situations? Based on what? Lack of information on the internet? FYI,"
Says Mr i have a censored internet that only contains propaganda.

"Yes they are both multi-role fighters, I was talking about generations (class is Chinese term for “generations”, my bad), F35 is still in prototype stage and has not entered full production, as are J-12/J-XX, and based on the prototypes they seem fairly well matched other than the fact that F35 has a fuel guzzling vertical take off system. BTW, what do you mean “the F35 is ahead in all of them” you were comparing two fighters were you not? Faulty comparison or are you making inferences based on lack of information?"

The F35 and the F22 for that matter are the most advanced Fighter Bomber craft in date today( No question) , the F35 is very close to been out of the Prototype stage were as the J-XX doesn't look to be off the drawing board yet and the J-12 i cant even find anything on that.
The Eurofighter Typhoon is superior to the J-10 also.

"That was not my quote, perhaps you were discussing with someone else but just because they haven’t been “battle tested” doesn’t mean you can’t comment on their performance."

Unless you have tested the Tank i will not believe you.

"As I have posted earlier, ZTZ99 have gone through extensive and rigorous testing and performed extremely well."

Proof of this show me another site that isn't Chinease propaganda not to be fussy or anything but the most Chinese links arnt the most reliable considering the corruptness over their.

"In addition, the RPGs used in Iraq mostly scratch the paint off of MBTs. Unless someone got lucky or actually knew how and where to shoot, the most a volley of RPGs do is disable or track a tank."

That is a Stupid comment many M1A2 Abrams have been destroyed and heavily damaged by RPG-7s, Do some research if your Censored internet will let you onto the western sites.

PRC_Heavy_Z, I do not want to get into an argument about this but you say that the M1A2, Leo and CH2 aren't properly combat tested, therefore the tanks have not been tested properly.

You then claim that the ZGZ99 has gone through "rigorous testing".... well, so has the M1A2, Leo and CH2 then... Apart from our countries tested the crews too. They were put in a war zone, sure there might be a few rusty T55s, but those T55s in Iraq were upgraded with 125mm/150mm rifled guns and extra armour plating.

The difference in tanks is, our crews have seen and lived in wars. Not simulated "boo-hoo, my virtual life is over" wars, I mean "Shit, they've got T55s".

Robbo, your attempts of countering my points with crude comments about censored internet/ propagnda is rather weak , especially considering you probably never used the censored internet or seen any propaganda. it seems you are simply one of those hard-necked and a bit childish people who refuses to reason, and uses excuses instead. Therefore, I guess there isn't really much a point in wasting time with you or making this into some flame war, have a nice day.

BTW, Eddie don't get me wrong, I did not say that Abrams, leo, CH2 aren't properly tested; they are battle provened (even if against a weaker enemy)and efficient tanks, I also have the utmost the men/women in uniform. I was saying battle testing is not the only way to predict/judge performance (my english is not that bad is it? )

No, your English is excellent, it must just be the way it came across. The way it was put lead me to believe that you think the war in Iraq and Afghanistan counts for nothing in terms of combat.

Robbo, give up tbf. The JCA/JSF wouldn't stand up to the J-10 in an air-to-air battle, however, the Typhoon and Raptor would.

Attention, contestants and spectators. The venue for the electronic ****-measuring contest has been changed to . . . not here.