Russia says Chinese arms better than Russian arms

[AerospaceEngineer]

I am sure those anti-China trolls are very upset now because they keep insisting that China's military hardwares are inferior copies of Russian hardwares.

Yes, it is true.

Russians arms used to be better, but only used to.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Yes, it is true.

Russians arms used to be better, but only used to.

In fact, the Chinese people care more about action than talking on the paper.

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

Pravada

Interesting how this Russian, Alexander Postnikov, claims Chinese arms and vehicals are of better quality, we do not have any Chinese products to compare quality to. I also fail to see how any small arms can beat even the old AK-74 in quality, and i have used this gun, a gun that never jams, has almost no recoil due to muzzle brake, is nearly indistructable and has about the same accuracy as an M-16.

The title of the thread should be Pravada claims.

It should also be noted that Postnikov doesn't even know how much the T-90 costs you would think he would atleast know the correct price. Either this is another garbage artical or this guy doesn't know what he is talking about which has been proven by the T-90 reference.

Hey, I respect your post.

But do you know that Russians talk a lot of BS about Chinese all the time. In fact you guys BS China a hell lot more than China BS Russia.

 

[Akasa]

Plz stop buying Sukhios and copying them.
Plz stop buying russian engines(build superior engines by yourself)

You mean...

"Plz stop designing your own superior variants and making Sukhoi look bad."
"Plz stop making your WS-15 engines superior to the Russian-bought ones, because that'll embarrass the Russians."

And this is for you:

Plz stop being ignorant and educate yourself on the Chinese J-11B jets before showing to us what little knowledge you have on such matter.




Oh, and one more thing:

Plz stop pasting IAF roundels on Mirage 2000s and calling them the "Tejas".

 

[Akasa]

"German tanks are better than Russian tanks" and chinese and Pakistanis are geting happy.. PLz pakistanis and chinese tell me in which areas you are ahead of Russians...

Alright, here's the list:
- Small arms
- Artillery
- Armored vehicles
- Strategic missiles
- Cruise missiles
- UAV
- Naval surface ships
- Conventional submarines
- Anti-ballistic missiles
- Anti-satellite missiles

 

[Joe Shearer]

You mean...

"Plz stop designing your own superior variants and making Sukhoi look bad."
"Plz stop making your WS-15 engines superior to the Russian-bought ones, because that'll embarrass the Russians."

And this is for you:

Plz stop being ignorant and educate yourself on the Chinese J-11B jets before showing to us what little knowledge you have on such matter.




Oh, and one more thing:

Plz stop pasting IAF roundels on Mirage 2000s and calling them the "Tejas".

What an incredibly stupid thread.

Technology, like all knowledge, flows; it does not sit still, it is not something to be kept away in guarded treasure chests and doled out by high priests on festival days. It flows in all directions and it has an impact wherever it lands up; any superior technical product excites admiration and a keen desire for emulation in its owner's mind, if the owner is not also the creator. Historically, ancient and mediaeval China was a powerhouse of technology; so many products originated there, and were disseminated through the world by those who acquired the technology involved, by purchase or by conquest, and then spread to other parts of the world, like the Mongolians, for instance, that it is difficult to visualise the modern world if China's contribution is taken out.

This applies to Russian military technology too, ironically, considering the extremely stupid statements being made on this thread. Russia could have done nothing without explosive projectiles and without the facility of designing superior products and processes on cheap, easy-to-make media like paper. Missile technology, whether we identify modern origins with Germany or with Russia, also originated in China, and was progressively refined in the west.

Does that sound familiar? It should, for the nincompoops on both sides who have been wasting time and effort arguing about cliches and platitudes. Just as China contributed huge technological strides to the rest of the world, she did not hesitate to grasp the essentials of the best technology available in this age, and to improve on it once she had grasped it. One contributing factor, of course, was a young and vigorous army of engineers, able to see the best content in a product, and able to see how to extract this best as well as to embellish it beyond recognition. Another contributing factor was the large volumes of purchases she made, in the 50s when the partnership between the two communist giants peaked; it was never so good anytime after. A third and very important contributing factor was the increasing restoration of the Chinese position in the world's economy; traditionally, throughout history, China has been one of the two richest nations in the world, and much of her prosperity had fuelled much of her technical progress, especially her technical progress in defence.

So here we have it: huge imports, a young work-force, well-versed in technology, and increasing prosperity with which to support a bid to acquire technical mastery. Short of slapping a few of the idiots who have been writing utter drivel on this thread, there is little more that can be done to point their attention to the writing on the wall. For those looking around wondering where the wall is, a small hint: look in all directions, not just straight ahead of you.

 

[Akasa]

What an incredibly stupid thread.

Technology, like all knowledge, flows; it does not sit still, it is not something to be kept away in guarded treasure chests and doled out by high priests on festival days. It flows in all directions and it has an impact wherever it lands up; any superior technical product excites admiration and a keen desire for emulation in its owner's mind, if the owner is not also the creator. Historically, ancient and mediaeval China was a powerhouse of technology; so many products originated there, and were disseminated through the world by those who acquired the technology involved, by purchase or by conquest, and then spread to other parts of the world, like the Mongolians, for instance, that it is difficult to visualise the modern world if China's contribution is taken out.

This applies to Russian military technology too, ironically, considering the extremely stupid statements being made on this thread. Russia could have done nothing without explosive projectiles and without the facility of designing superior products and processes on cheap, easy-to-make media like paper. Missile technology, whether we identify modern origins with Germany or with Russia, also originated in China, and was progressively refined in the west.

Does that sound familiar? It should, for the nincompoops on both sides who have been wasting time and effort arguing about cliches and platitudes. Just as China contributed huge technological strides to the rest of the world, she did not hesitate to grasp the essentials of the best technology available in this age, and to improve on it once she had grasped it. One contributing factor, of course, was a young and vigorous army of engineers, able to see the best content in a product, and able to see how to extract this best as well as to embellish it beyond recognition. Another contributing factor was the large volumes of purchases she made, in the 50s when the partnership between the two communist giants peaked; it was never so good anytime after. A third and very important contributing factor was the increasing restoration of the Chinese position in the world's economy; traditionally, throughout history, China has been one of the two richest nations in the world, and much of her prosperity had fuelled much of her technical progress, especially her technical progress in defence.

So here we have it: huge imports, a young work-force, well-versed in technology, and increasing prosperity with which to support a bid to acquire technical mastery. Short of slapping a few of the idiots who have been writing utter drivel on this thread, there is little more that can be done to point their attention to the writing on the wall. For those looking around wondering where the wall is, a small hint: look in all directions, not just straight ahead of you.

Each country has certain technologies that are ahead of others. That applies from South Africa to China to India to Russia to the US.

You cannot say which country has "better" technology because the term applies to a huge area. Each aspect is different.

In terms of arms trade, certain areas are dominated by certain countries.

This thread isn't about who invented what technology, but which areas are superior and which areas are not.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Each country has certain technologies that are ahead of others. That applies from South Africa to China to India to Russia to the US.

You cannot say which country has "better" technology because the term applies to a huge area. Each aspect is different.

In terms of arms trade, certain areas are dominated by certain countries.

This thread isn't about who invented what technology, but which areas are superior and which areas are not.

This is precisely why I intervened, against my better judgement and inclination.

When you say each country has certain technologies that are ahead of others, you need to remember, as you obviously, painfully have not, that these leads are not frozen in concrete. They change; different countries lead at different times. That applies, indeed, from South African to China to India to Russia to the US. And to all others involved, including the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, the Ukrainians, the Japanese, the South Koreans.

Of course you cannot say which country has 'better' technology because the term applies to a huge area. And also to a shifting, dynamic trend; nobody is king of the mountain permanently.

In terms of arms trade, certain areas are dominated by certain countries - today. This was not the situation in the days of Krupp, for instance, or for the days when the Japanese and the Turks vied for the ships built in famous British yards, in Belfast, in Scotland, in England. Is anyone buying German artillery any more, or British ships?

Of course this thread isn't about who invented what technology; that moment of invention is just that, a moment, and the knowledge disseminates rapidly through the world, through scientific and educational dissemination, through reverse engineering, and through plain industrial espionage, or what foolish old men like me call theft. No areas are superior, and no areas are not superior, as this idiotic thread assumes, as the lead changes, constantly, and will change in future as well.

Nobody's ascendancy today can be guaranteed tomorrow. Nobody's predominance today can be guaranteed tomorrow. Let the leader beware; taking the lead is a sure sign of coming decline and of others overtaking the lead.

That is why this tiresome game of Mine_is_bigger_than_yours is irritating in the extreme.

 

[ptldM3]

For sukhoi case,the chinese already stopped buying. For the engine case,i advise you to show up some creditable prove to support your stupid claimed.IF not,you're embarassing yourself as a stupid troll.Thank you very much.

---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 PM ----------



So what?At least they are better than india.

What engines does the J-10 and JF-17 use? Hit they arn't Chinese....

I know. If Russian military technology is so "good" then why does Russia want French Technology ? :

For evaluation, which is reasonable considering even the US uses forign equipment and even components. The other major reason was because of Georgia, Russia urgently wanted something such as the Mistral, the Mistral allows flexibility in troops landing by acting as a medivac, allows mass troop movement, armor movment and arial suport. The Mistral is nothing special, it would just take years to design something similar, built or modify a port, set up logistics, construct, and comission, it's faster to just buy it.

Russia has lost its ability to build large modern warship once it lost the largest shipyard Nikoyalev located in Ukraine.

And they don't have the plan to build the nuclear supercarriers anymore.

Many sources say otherwise, you have a link to back that claim?

Dont mad rusky.Its your own russian buddy claimed that but not a Chinese claimed that.Go send a letter and question him lol.

Don't worry, i read all sorts of garbage from the media, several weeks ago it was report that the second pak-fa made its maiden flight, which was denied by Sukhoi. And don't confuse this for the real second flight.

Alright, here's the list:
- Small arms
- Artillery
- Armored vehicles
- Strategic missiles
- Cruise missiles
- UAV
- Naval surface ships
- Conventional submarines
- Anti-ballistic missiles
- Anti-satellite missiles

Sorry just because Pravada claims some Russian bonehead made a claim doesn't mean it happened. And mind explaining how Chinese small arms are better than the world famous Russian ones? Look at all the Kalashnikov varients everything from the AK-74, to 101, 103, 107, AN series and many others, what makes Chinese varients better, they can't be more reliable because a Kalashnikov almost never Jams or breaks, infact Chinese varients of the Kalashnikov somehow manage to jam, in terms of accurancy 5.56X45 and 5.45X 39 rounds are about as accurate as they come, and i speak from experience having consistantly hit tight grouping at over 100 yards away. So how are they better? I bet you can't find one area to back your claim with--and a little remind i have used many forign weapons so don't waste my time with made up BS.

As for artilary, how is Chinese artillary better? I assume you used both to come to this conclusion or have accurate spects for accuracy reports. Also, Russia doesn't operate or have modern Chinese artilery, so bonehead's claims is unsubstantiated and opinion at best. That is if he actually made those claims.

Same applies for armored vehicals.

As for Strategic missles, again what makes Chinese strategic missiles better?

As for cruise missles Russia helped China improve the accuracy of their cruis emissles, i also assume you have reports on accuracy, countermeasures, ect and sory building very large missles that hold more fuel doesn't make a cruise missle better.

Same applies for UAV's where is your proof? I assume you have the latest spects for resolution, range, altitued ect ect for boths sides?

As for Naval ships China purchases countless Russian systems for its 054 frigate, and there is likely more purchases that havn't reached the media.

Your claim about conventional submarines seems as vague as your other claims, especially when just about everything related to submarines is classified.

Now to address yor asertion about Anti-ballistic missiles, China has something better than the S-400 and soon to be S-500? Really? Seriously?


And as for Anti-satellite missiles, Russia conducted tests way back in the 1960, China is about 40 years too late. And Russia is not interested in such test at this time, infact Russia is trying to clear space debris because it keeps damaging space crafts while China keeps creating space debris.

 

[Akasa]

Sorry just because Pravada claims some Russian bonehead made a claim doesn't mean it happened. And mind explaining how Chinese small arms are better than the world famous Russian ones? Look at all the Kalashnikov varients everything from the AK-74, to 101, 103, 107, AN series and many others, what makes Chinese varients better, they can't be more reliable because a Kalashnikov almost never Jams or breaks, infact Chinese varients of the Kalashnikov somehow manage to jam, in terms of accurancy 5.56X45 and 5.45X 39 rounds are about as accurate as they come, and i speak from experience having consistantly hit tight grouping at over 100 yards away. So how are they better? I bet you can't find one area to back your claim with--and a little remind i have used many forign weapons so don't waste my time with made up BS.

As for artilary, how is Chinese artillary better? I assume you used both to come to this conclusion or have accurate spects for accuracy reports. Also, Russia doesn't operate or have modern Chinese artilery, so bonehead's claims is unsubstantiated and opinion at best. That is if he actually made those claims.

Same applies for armored vehicals.

As for Strategic missles, again what makes Chinese strategic missiles better?

As for cruise missles Russia helped China improve the accuracy of their cruis emissles, i also assume you have reports on accuracy, countermeasures, ect and sory building very large missles that hold more fuel doesn't make a cruise missle better.

Same applies for UAV's where is your proof? I assume you have the latest spects for resolution, range, altitued ect ect for boths sides?

As for Naval ships China purchases countless Russian systems for its 054 frigate, and there is likely more purchases that havn't reached the media.

Your claim about conventional submarines seems as vague as your other claims, especially when just about everything related to submarines is classified.

Now to address yor asertion about Anti-ballistic missiles, China has something better than the S-400 and soon to be S-500? Really? Seriously?


And as for Anti-satellite missiles, Russia conducted tests way back in the 1960, China is about 40 years too late. And Russia is not interested in such test at this time, infact Russia is trying to clear space debris because it keeps damaging space crafts while China keeps creating space debris.

Famous does not mean better.
The QBZ-95's round has a better penetration, accuracy, and range than even the NATO 5.56 mm.
The AMR-2 sniper rifle also has an accuracy of 0.2 MOA, much superior than the Russian SVU-98.
In general, Chinese arms are more durable, reliable, and tougher in harsh conditions.
Online buyers claim Chinese-made Kalashnikovs as more reliable than Russian ones.

Speaking of artillery and armored vehicles, try searching up the specifications and capabilities of them. '
The PLZ04 howitzer has a range of over 50+ km and a firing rate of over 10 rounds per minute. Russia's most advanced artillery howitzer, the MSTA, has only 36 km of range and a max rate of 8 rounds/min.
China's SY-400 rocket artillery (with 400 km range and VLS launch) is more powerful than any Russian counterpart.
Chinese Type 99A2 tanks boasts more advanced armor, more powerful gun, better round capability, better mobility, and same protection system as the Russian T-90. Not to mention newer tanks like Type 99KM and CSU-152 are in testing and are being produced.

Strategic missiles: the JL-2 has a range of 14000 km and can carry 10 MaRVed warheads. The DF-41 has a range of 15000 km and can carry 12 MaRVed warheads. This is more capable than the Topol-M, Bulava, and in some aspects the SS-18.

Cruise missiles: just because Russia helped China in the 1980s doesn't mean it now holds an advantage. Missiles like the C-805, DH-10, CJ-10, and YJ-12/22 all have superior speed, range, and anti-interception countermeasures than the Russian counterparts. I can go in detail, but I would like to keep it brief.

Cruise missiles: The Xianglong UAV and Thunderbolt UAV are all jet-powered UAV with ranges of over 7000 km and speeds of 750 km/hr. Russia's Dozor UAVs are nowhere near that.

China may purchase some certain naval technologies from Russia, but again, those are just subsystems. Chinese ships have substantially better stealth shaping as well as weapons and in some areas, radar. Heck, Russian ships don't even incorporate VLS. Again, I can go in detail, but for the sake of this forum, I'm going to keep it short.

S-400 and S-500 aren't anti-ballistic missiles. The missiles I'm talking about are the type that can engage missiles in mid-flight. China's KT family has six missiles that have been successfully tested. Currently, only the US THAAD system and the Chinese KT system have proven being capable of doing that. Russia hasn't done so.

According to , China has contributed to at least 50% of the S-400's development and production. The missile's Chinese name is the HQ-19. So, the S-400 is Chinese-Russian, not just Russian.

Russian anti-satellite missiles are not known if they are capable of engaging specific targets in polar orbit or above 1000 altitude. Chinese missiles have been designed for such.

I'm sure that there are some ambiguous areas, but that's what is said according to weapons specifications.

 

[Obambam]

China = Money = Technology

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Many sources say otherwise, you have a link to back that claim?

Well, you can argue about the aerospace and the space tech, but Russia's shipbuilding ability is a joke, and i suggest that you should stop embarrassing yourself by struggling in this area.

Think about how to build a destroyer with Aegis system before thinking about the 100,000 tons CVN.

 

[ptldM3]

Sino i will answer some of your fanboy claims tomorow.

Well, you can argue about the aerospace and the space tech, but Russia's shipbuilding ability is a joke, and i suggest that you should stop embarrassing yourself by struggling in this area.

Think about how to build a destroyer with Aegis system before thinking about the 100,000 tons CVN.

If our shipbuilding is a joke than Chinas' is an even bigger joke considering it purchased the MGK-335 sonar, M2EM three-dimensional radar, Mineral ME (Bandstand) tracking radars and the RMR90 missile guidance tracker-illuminator for the SAN-7 Rif-M Shtil surface-to-air missile (SAM). How many more systems will you buy so you can make copies? And last i checked Russia still constructs large ships and submarines.

Back to the topic, where is the sourse that says Russia has no plans to build 'supercarriers'.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Sino i will answer some of your fanboy claims tomorow.



If our shipbuilding is a joke than Chinas' is an even bigger joke considering it purchased the MGK-335 sonar, M2EM three-dimensional radar, Mineral ME (Bandstand) tracking radars and the RMR90 missile guidance tracker-illuminator for the SAN-7 Rif-M Shtil surface-to-air missile (SAM). How many more systems will you buy so you can make copies? And last i checked Russia still constructs large ships and submarines.

Back to the topic, where is the sourse that says Russia has no plans to build 'supercarriers'.

Well, these junks have nothing to do with us, so keep it for yourself.

The last deal between us and Russia on the navy gadgets was the Sovremenny class back in late 90s and early 2000s. And the only reason that China bought these destroyers is because of the SS-N-22 missile they were interested, but the ship design was totally crap.

Compared to our futurist looking Type 052C, who would want to buy these ghetto $hits anymore?

 

[ptldM3]

Well, these junks have nothing to do with us, so keep it for yourself..

Keep what to ourselves? It was China that purchased the systems and then copied them according to the original designer.

The last deal between us and Russia on the navy gadgets was the Sovremenny class back in late 90s and early 2000s. And the only reason that China bought these destroyers is because of the SS-N-22 missile they were interested, but the ship design was crap.

Sorry the 054 frigate upgrade deal was in 2007 and China just recently ordered and received anti submarine helicopters, and again answer my question.