15-01-2003 22:32									#181
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by sabrewolf i no the USSR and USA out-built each other to demonstrate power and absolut insanity. but i can't understand why newer nuclear powers (israel, india, pakistan) do the same?

Well, sometimes the old reasons are the best. Furthermore, the USA and the USSR hated each other because they were geopolitically opposed, not so much because of the antipathy between totalitarian communism vs. capitalist democracy... but India and Pakistan have already fought 3 MAJOR WARS. They are steeped in hatred of each other.

Perhaps they feel these nuclear weapons will give them legitimacy. Maybe they hope to spur a small high-tech sector in their economy. Or maybe they're just STUPID.

	15-01-2003 23:07									#182
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakchstab, South Africa do not have nuclear weapons, and speculations about that are something like speculations about UFO

	15-01-2003 23:17									#183
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Luk Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakchstab, South Africa do not have nuclear weapons, and speculations about that are something like speculations about UFO

Well, it's good to know that Kazakchstab has no nuclear weapons! Their tension with Tajikstanan and Uzbekerstan could have produced some serious problems.

	15-01-2003 23:33									#184
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

ukraina actually had nukes after the fall of the ussr, but they voluntarily destroyed them or gave them to russia. but noone can be sure there isn't that lonely little nuke somewhere in the outskirts of that small city...

i think there's a higher chance of "nucular" (quoted W) weapons than ufos...

	15-01-2003 23:37									#185
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by sabrewolf ukraina actually had nukes after the fall of the ussr, but they voluntarily destroyed them or gave them to russia. but noone can be sure there isn't that lonely little nuke somewhere in the outskirts of that small city...

Well, that's what most "experts" repeatedly say... that Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazahkstan at LEAST still have some nuclear warheads floating around.

	16-01-2003 00:58									#186
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Byelorussia, Kazahkstan and Ukraine have all had nuclear weapons on their territory after the fall of the Soviet Union. However, they all either destroyed these weapons or sent them to Russia by 1996. All of the weapons have been accounted for and verification has been done by international inspectors.

As to the need for so many nuclear weapons it stems from the desire of the Superpowers to engage in simultaneous counter-force and counter-value targetting in many countries at the same time. For example, the USA would want to be able to destroy all the major cities in Russia and China and other countries at the same time. It is estimated that just to destroy the major cities in China about 500 nuclear warheads are needed, not to mention all the cities in other countries (which would not be as many as for China, but it would still add up). Bear in mind that you do not only want to destroy enemy cities, but also want to target their own nuclear weapons, so that they cannot strike back at you and for that you need further warheads. Moreover, you also want to have sufficient weapons, so that if you are struck with a surprise enemy nuclear strike, you can still strike back in force, despite a large proportion of your missiles being destroyed in the proccess. Consequently, the US Nuclear Posture Review estimates that to achieve the above, the USA needs to have an absolute minimum of 3,000 deliverable strategic nuclear warheads.

	16-01-2003 01:03									#187
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Ugh... well that is just patently absurd. How the hell can man survive on Earth after 3,000 nuclear weapons are launched? It's disgusting that anyone even thought about it enough to come up with this number...

(I'm not knocking you, Roman, I'm knocking the bastards that built our nuclear arsenal into this ridiculous state)

	16-01-2003 01:12									#188
	Increase the size of your Attachments

isn't that absolutely insane (not you, Roman, but the idea of it)? "the USA needs to have an absolute minimum of 3,000 deliverable strategic nuclear warheads." ... and before: "the USA would want to be able to destroy all the major cities in Russia and China and other countries at the same time"

i guess i'm just too young to understand this "if i die, everyone else must die"-thing. i started being interested in politics, when the us leader was more evil than the soviet leader (reagan vs. gorbatchov).

about destroying the nukes of the oponent: you can't do it with your own nukes, because a) you don't know where they are, b) you wouldn't get them in time because the automatic counterstrike mechanism would send them off before yours arrive and c) some of them are hidden under several 100m of solid rock. not even a nuke could get rid of the mountains.

	16-01-2003 01:23									#189
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

btw: the most human way to use a nuke is like in the film goldeneye: a NEMP (Nuclear ElectroMagnetic Pulse). detonate the bomb above the athmosphere over a city. the direct radiation isn't big enough for serious injuries, the famous fire "mushroom" won't be, because there's no air to ignite.

all that happens: every single electronic circuit in a range of several km will be toast (except the ones protected by close meshed faraday cages). this would ruin the economy and life of a whole city without killing many people.

but still: ban the nukes

	16-01-2003 01:24									#190
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Oh, I agree that the whole situation is depressing, but I was merely explaining the 'rationale' that the Superpowers used to build so many weapons. You can feel some comfort at the fact that Russia and the USA have already agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals to between 2,000 and 2,500 deliverable warheads each by 2010 (I think that was the date) with the possibility of further reductions (to the 1,000-1,500 range) later (apparently, they are ignoring the conclusions of the Review I mentioned above). Currently the fastest growing nuclear arsenal is that of China - it is expected that China may well produce in excess of 1,000 new nuclear weapons by 2010.

	16-01-2003 01:25									#191
	Tired of ads?

ok, sorry - threadjacking

JW: what's the state of the mods (standard size, large, PTW)?

	16-01-2003 05:26									#192
	Put an end to popups!

I have one more exam. Then I have a four day weekend, followed by a week of non-academic school activities, and then I start school again monday/tuesday-ish. This means good news for the mod. A 100x100 version will be completed for ptw and regular in three weeks. (I hope.)

	17-01-2003 23:13									#193
	Increase Your PM Length

Some extra information on the armed forces of various countries. Please note that I always try to use as recent a source as possible for each, but sometimes recent sources are not available.


Size of the Armed Forces (millions of men):-
1. China: 4.0 + extra 0.8 People's Armed Police paramilitaries (Being downsized to 2.8, but in addition to these figures, the Chinese have various Militias/Reserves, numbering, 7 million, 12 million and 25 million.)
2. India: 2.2 (Includes paramilitaries)
3. USA: 1.4 (Being downsized to 1.2)
4. North Korea: 1.2 (North Korea also keeps additional 4.7-7.0 million reserve troops)
5. Russia: 1.2 (This is the official number. The real strength is somewhere between 800,000 and 900,000 troops and is being downsized further. In the long term it is expected to stabilize around 800,000, but some have suggested 700,000 or even 500,000. In 1990 USSR had 2 million to 3 million troops.)
6. Pakistan: 0.85
7. Turkey: 0.6-0.7
8. Brazil: 0.6
9. Vietnam: 0.5 (In addition, there are 4.5 million paramilitaries, so Vietnam could be considered to have the largest army at 5.0 million men in total.)
10. Iran: 0.5


Military Expenditure (Millions of US dollars [valued at year 2000 level]):
1. USA: cca. 300,000 (This has increased dramatically during the Bush administration and is expected to exceed 400 Billion USD in 2003.)
2. China: 65,000 (The real figure may well be substantially higher, especially considering the fact that the PLA owns a whole industrial empire of its own. Some estimates put the real Chinese spending at between 110 Billion USD and 150 Billion USD. Whatever the real level of spending is, one thing is certain - it is growing very fast [at least 20% every year.])
3. Russia: 64,000 (This figure is for 1996, as I could not find a later one. It is absolutely certain that military spending has declined enormously since then. In 1990, the military spending amounted to 350 Billion USD, which would be in excess of 400 Billion USD in year 2000 dollars.)
4. France: 46,500
5. Japan: 41,000
7. Germany: 38,500
8. UK: 31,700
9. Italy: 20,200
10. Saudi Arabia: 18,300
11. South Korea: 12,800
12. India: 12,100

Last edited by Roman on 18-01-2003 at 02:35

	17-01-2003 23:50									#194
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Hey, that's some good information to know! Do you have more detailed breakdowns? (no. of ships, no. of planes, no. of wheeled units , etc.?)

	18-01-2003 00:01									#195
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth Hey, that's some good information to know! Do you have more detailed breakdowns? (no. of ships, no. of planes, no. of wheeled units , etc.?)

Yes, I do, but none of my material is arranged from greatest to lowest, so I have to search carefully, so that I choose the highest numbers and that takes time... Nonetheless, I will find it and post it here eventually.

	18-01-2003 02:09									#196
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Note that the numbers of equipment say nothing about its quality. For example, the US aircraft carriers can carry about twice as many aircraft and are far superior to even the largest and the best of those from the other nations.

Number of Frontline Combat Aircraft (does not include combat helicopters):
1. USA: 5,000 (down from 12,000 in 1990)
2. China: 4,200
3. Russia: 3,800 (down from 11,000-17,000 in 1990)
4. India: 600-1,100
5. North Korea: 750
6. UK: 700
7. Turkey: 600
8. France: 500
9. Sweden: 500
10. Italy: 450
11.Saudi Arabia: 430
12. Germany: 400



Number of Combat Helicopters:
1. USA: 7,000-8,000
2. Russia: 2,500-3,000 (down from 6,000 n 1990)
3. China: 52* (Although China has about 1,500 helicopters in total only 52 are combat helicopters. Helicopters are the one serious weakness of the Chinese armed forces.)
4. France: 500
5. Brazil: 400
6. India: 300
7. UK: 250
8. Turkey: 200
9. Canada: 150
10. Poland: 150


Aircraft Carriers:
1. USA: 11 + 1 in reserve
2. UK: 2 + 1 in reserve
3. India: 1 + 1 in reserve (another one to be bought from Russia)
4. Brazil: 1 + 1(this second aircraft carrier was built during the Second World War by the British [in 1945 to be precise], so draw your own conslusions about its effectiveness)
5. France: 1 (another one in construction)
6. Russia: 1 (down from 5 in 1990)
7. Spain: 1
8. Argentine: 0 + 1 in reserve
9. China: 0 (1 in construction and another one to be bought from Russia)

Last edited by Roman on 18-01-2003 at 04:35

	18-01-2003 02:17									#197
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Roman Note that the numbers of equipment say nothing about its quality. For example, the US aircraft carriers can carry about twice as many aircraft and are far superior to even the largest and the best of those from the other nations.

Time to add another unit to the modern ages, eh? At least for this mod?

Does anyone have a good link for information on military equipment currently "in play" to ready for use in the world at large? Might be useful for making this mod.

	18-01-2003 02:45									#198
	Increase Your PM Length

My listings for submarines are comprehensive - they actually include all military submarines that exist in the world and since there were not so many, I decided to include them all, not just the top 10.

Submarines:- SSBNs (Nuclear Balistic Missile Submarines), SSNs (Nuclear Attack Submarines) and SSKs (Conventional Attack Submarines)

SSBNs:
1. USA: 18
2. Russia: 13 + 21 in reserve (down from 83 in 1990)
3. France: 4 + 2 in construction
4. UK: 3 +1 in reserve
5. China: 1 (plans to acquire more)

SSNs:
1. USA: 67
2. Russia: 28 + 34 in reserve (down from 100 in 1990)
3. UK: 12
4. France: 6
5. China: 6

SSKs:
1. China: 60
2. Russia: 18 + 8 in reserve (down from 80 in 1990)
3. North Korea: 26
4. Japan: 18
5. Germany: 16
6. Turkey: 15 (7 of these are from WWII and the rest are not too new either)
7. India: 13
8. Norway: 12
9. Spain: 8
10. Greece: 8
11. Sweden: 8
12. South Korea: 6
13. Pakistan: 6
14. Egypt: 6 (very old)
15. Brazil: 5
16. Taiwan: 4
17. Serbia: 4
18. Argentine: 3
19. Canada: 3
20. Portugal: 3
21. Iran: 3
22. Poland: 3
23. Indonesia: 2
24. Bulgaria: 2 (very old)
25. Venezuela: 2
26. Colombia: 2
27. Romania: 1

(USA, France and UK only use the superior SSNs for attack roles, so they do not have any SSKs.)

Last edited by Roman on 18-01-2003 at 04:18

	18-01-2003 02:51									#199
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth Does anyone have a good link for information on military equipment currently "in play" to ready for use in the world at large? Might be useful for making this mod.

The following should give you all the info on weapon systems that you will ever need, but it will not give you the numbers in service...

www.fas.org/man
www.military.cz

	18-01-2003 04:24									#200
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

My listings for capital ships are comprehensive - they actually include all military capital ships that exist in the world and since there were not so many, I decided to include them all, not just the top 10.

Aegis Cruisers (for Russia the figures represents its indigenous Aegis equivalents):
1. USA: 30
2. Russia: 6 (down from 32 in 1990, but this means the ones left are of highest quality)

Only Russia and USA operate Cruisers of any kind and the both operate only Aegis (Aegis equivalent for Russia) Cruisers.


Destroyers:
1. USA: 56
2. Russia: 26 (down from 74 in 1990)
3. China: 21 (very old ones, except for two top class ones bought from Russia)
4. UK: 12
5. Japan: 8
6. South Korea: 7 (very old ones)
7. Taiwan: 7
8. Argentine: 6
8. India: 5
9. France: 4
9. Italy: 4
10. Greece: 4
11. Canada: 4
12. Germany: 3
13. Pakistan: 3 (extemely old ones [from WWII])
14. Mexico: 3 (very old)
15. Iran: 2
16. Poland: 1
17. Romania: 1
18. Egypt: 1 (very old)

All other navies operate only Frigates, Corvettes and Missile Boats none of which can be classified as capital ships and hence should not feature in the scenario. However, Aircraft Carriers, Submarines, Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers should probably be converted on a 1:1 basis to the scenario, since there are not so many of them. Aircraft Carriers, Submarines and Destroyers, should probably be represented by 2-3 types of unit each, perhaps even more for submarines.

Last edited by Roman on 18-01-2003 at 04:31

	19-01-2003 01:05									#201
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well... You estimates Roman are incorrect... Russia spends in dollars only 12-13 bln dollars, China about 16-17 bln dollars (but it is estimated that Chine has 2-3 times more money, because they are hidding military expedientures in other budget sections). That what you wrote it is a sum of expedientures based on PPP Dollar, not a real dollar. And for example now when China is buying from Russia new equipment they pay in normal dollars, not PPP dollars which generally not exist.

China has very weak army, those numbers are totally mistification. They have only many soldiers... that is all.

	19-01-2003 06:09									#202
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Luk Well... You estimates Roman are incorrect... Russia spends in dollars only 12-13 bln dollars, China about 16-17 bln dollars (but it is estimated that Chine has 2-3 times more money, because they are hidding military expedientures in other budget sections). That what you wrote it is a sum of expedientures based on PPP Dollar, not a real dollar. And for example now when China is buying from Russia new equipment they pay in normal dollars, not PPP dollars which generally not exist. China has very weak army, those numbers are totally mistification. They have only many soldiers... that is all.

As I mentioned in the brackets after the figure, my figures on Russia's military spending are from 1996/1997. Funding has fallen substantially since then, as Russia's economic situation continued to worsen... My source for this is "The Stateman's Yearbook" (2000 Edition, but it did not include newer figures).

China officially spends over 20 billion dollars per year on her armed forces, but that spending does not include spending on the navy and virtually all experts agree that the real spending on defence by China is several orders of magnitude higher. The estimate of 65 billion dollars is the one most commonly cited, but some estimates run much higher, as I pointed out.

I do not know where you got the idea that Chinese army is weak, but I respectfully disagree. China has the numbers and numbers are very important indeed. Furthermore, China not only buys many Russian weapons, but reverse-engineers many too. China's technological base is imporving dramatically and the country conducts advanced research in several hi-tech areas such as anti-sattelite weapons, SAMs and many others. To say that China has a weak army is a mistake of grossly underestimating them.

	19-01-2003 09:44									#203
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It's nitpicky, but arbitrarily determining navy size by the number of DESTROYERS, while ignoring "Frigates," doesn't really match the realities of naval power. The distinction between a "Destroyer" and a "Frigate" is often an arbitrary one.

To use a rather obvious example, Canada's 4 destroyers, which are old and obsolete, are substantially LESS powerful than its 12 frigates, which are high-tech and heavily armed.

I'd also question the value of having a player have to handle 50-100 ships anyway. I would suggest that a little flexibility is needed here.

	19-01-2003 10:06									#204
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Very cool.

	19-01-2003 19:50									#205
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Even in 1996/1997 Russia did not spend that much money for the army. For example in 99 Russia had spendings in dollars about... 6-7 bln dollars. It is not possible to downgrade expedientures in two-three years by 10 times.

China army... It is only the numbers... Most equipment is from 50s, and 60s years, or even older. Chineese engineers are very incompetent, for example, Russia and China signed a deal in 98 year that China will produce 200 Sukhoi Su-27 aircraft in their own factiories from parts sent from Russia. And what happenned. Chineese engineers start to construct from Russian parts two Sukhois... But they could not do this, despite they had instructions etc. They sent this aircraft to Russia back and russian enginners di this. Pathetic.

China is far behind almost in almost all military technologies, and only what they can do is to copy Russian technology, but this copies are far behind originals.

	20-01-2003 14:34									#206
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by RickJay It's nitpicky, but arbitrarily determining navy size by the number of DESTROYERS, while ignoring "Frigates," doesn't really match the realities of naval power. The distinction between a "Destroyer" and a "Frigate" is often an arbitrary one. To use a rather obvious example, Canada's 4 destroyers, which are old and obsolete, are substantially LESS powerful than its 12 frigates, which are high-tech and heavily armed. I'd also question the value of having a player have to handle 50-100 ships anyway. I would suggest that a little flexibility is needed here.

You are obviously correct that modern frigates are often much more powerful than old destroyers, but even though I have the listings for the numbers of frigates for individual countries, so many countries have them (and in such large numbers) that I honestly do not have any desire to put in the work to type it all up. In any case, to evaluate which frigates are equivalent to what (and to do the same for all the other ships too) for the purposes of the scenario would take a fantastic amount of work. Consequently, I think we ought to stick to destroyers as the smallest ships that we counts.

	20-01-2003 17:28									#207
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Luk Even in 1996/1997 Russia did not spend that much money for the army. For example in 99 Russia had spendings in dollars about... 6-7 bln dollars. It is not possible to downgrade expedientures in two-three years by 10 times.

Well, my "The Stateman's Yearbook" quotes the number for that year as 64 billion USD. After you brought this up I did a cross check with the CIA World Factbook and for year 1996 they estimate that Russia was spending on defence about 1/6 of the money that she used to spend at the peak during the late 1980s. That peak was in excess of 350 billion USD, so 1/6 of that is just under 60 billion USD per year. That is pretty close to 64 billion reported in "The Stateman's Yearbook" and the two sources are independent, so it appears that military expenditure really was in that range.

quote: China army... It is only the numbers... Most equipment is from 50s, and 60s years, or even older. Chineese engineers are very incompetent, for example, Russia and China signed a deal in 98 year that China will produce 200 Sukhoi Su-27 aircraft in their own factiories from parts sent from Russia. And what happenned. Chineese engineers start to construct from Russian parts two Sukhois... But they could not do this, despite they had instructions etc. They sent this aircraft to Russia back and russian enginners di this. Pathetic.

What you say is not entirely correct. Russia indeed sold China the licence to produce up to 200 Su-27 planes, but that occured in 91/92 not in 98. In fact, China succesfully produced about 15 of these fighters in their Shenyang aircraft manufacturing plant. However, new improved versions of the Su-27 fighter have been develped in the following years and China was also developing her own advanced fighter called the J-10 and hence lost interest in producing any more of the Su-27 planes. Instead, it converted the deal into obtaining a more modern version of the Su-27 called the Su-27MKK. That is the 98 deal you were talking about... The first 50 or so of these aircraft were supposed to be produced in Russia and the rest in China. Russia has delivered the 50 Su-27MKK planes to China by now, but an even newer version of the Su-27 has now become available. It is a vast improvement on the old one and is called Su-37 (Despite the new designation, it is a still a derivation of the Su-27 fighter, albeit vastly improved). It now appears that China would like to change the contract again and produce this latest version of the fighter instead of the previous contract. The contract may also be upgraded to a higher number of the new figter jets, probably 300.

quote: China is far behind almost in almost all military technologies, and only what they can do is to copy Russian technology, but this copies are far behind originals.

Most of Chinese hardware is old, that much is true. However, they have large numbers of this old equipment and that makes up for its age. Yes, most of it is copied from the Russians, but it is not inferior. In fact, a Chinese equivalent to the T-55 is superior to the original Russian T-55, due to upgrades (e.g. laser sights, newer coms, etc.). The same goes for most of the old Chinese weapons - they are slightly better than their Russian equivalents. Of course, China does not have the newer Russian weaponry...

In any case, Chinese army is modernising and it is happening much faster than most people realise. If you wish to better understand what is happening with the Chinese military, I reccommend these two papers from the Institute for Strategic Studies:

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pu...od/chinamod.pdf
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pu...ese/chinese.pdf

	20-01-2003 17:35									#208
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I just noticed this thread a minute ago and I was afraid you were going to steal my good idea: A scenario from 1500 untill 1900. Modern world is a term used for the world since 1500. (For example early modern Europe is Europe between 1500 and 1789, and I have to say there are damn few scenarios about this period and the ones that are are all about the early imperialism)

Maybe you could rename your scenario to something like this: A history of the present/contemperary world.

	20-01-2003 20:59									#209
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Heh... first... The spendings of USSR army was a suppose, because there was no clear method to have a data on russian official spendings. American Intelligence tried to estabilish the soviet spendings only, and they tried to do it in $ equivalent.

But after Soviet Union collapsed and Russian currency started to normally exchange the value of Russian rubel started to detoriate. And for example today Russian spendings are 12-13 bln dollars, but the military sources very often gives a real number of about 50 bln dollars, because the equivalent of 12-13 bln dollars in Russia is 50 bln dollars in USA. Only because of it

That what you write about Su-27 license is true, but as I said they resigned from 200 producing Sukhois because of lack o knowledge by their scientist, which probably you did not hear abou it. The level of technology, and technology base in China is very poor. I read a lot of Russian Military Articles, and Russian military scientist and engineers very often say that their chineese friendsa are very incompetent, and they have many problems in cooperating with China. They, as I said couldn't produce Sukhois from all Russian parts, and with instructions etc. But it is only an example, there are many other facts that support this example

I did not hear that Russia will sell China full Su-37 aircraft. Russia doesnt want to sell to China the newest models of their Sukhois because they dont want China to copy their technology. even Su-30MK, which Russia sold China in recent years are not fully Su-30MK, and they lack many things in electronics avionics, and ESPECIALLY in weaponry. Russia does not sell China the latest models of their rockets, which is very important in todays air fights.

I can not agree with you, that Russian newest models of T-55 are worse then Chinas equivalents. Of course China imporves their T-54/55 lines still, but first I do not belive that they improved all of their tanks to the newest modells (I doubt it is 1/2) and even their improved versions of T-54/55 tanks are technically old tanks, and they can not match with newer models.

All Chinese copies are far beyond Russian models and that is the fact. It is a myth about Chinese army, and chinese economy which is supported by American goverment because USA wants to have the enemy, the enemy which is seriosly not danger, but in paper is very danger.

And there is lot pages in internet where we can fins data on chinese weaponry, but this data is very often writed by Chinese arms fans, and their naturally overestimate Chinese weaponry. The same as Russian sites, where we can read that almost in everything Russia is equal to USA, and even better, which is of course a mistake.

	20-01-2003 22:31									#210
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Luk Heh... first... The spendings of USSR army was a suppose, because there was no clear method to have a data on russian official spendings. American Intelligence tried to estabilish the soviet spendings only, and they tried to do it in $ equivalent.

Thas is correct.

quote: But after Soviet Union collapsed and Russian currency started to normally exchange the value of Russian rubel started to detoriate. And for example today Russian spendings are 12-13 bln dollars, but the military sources very often gives a real number of about 50 bln dollars, because the equivalent of 12-13 bln dollars in Russia is 50 bln dollars in USA. Only because of it

Thas is also correct. I guess you probably just got confused, because I did not specify that the numbers are PPP figures. I am sorry, I should have mentioned that. There is no point using nominal figures for this scenario - PPP figures give a much better picture.

quote: That what you write about Su-27 license is true, but as I said they resigned from 200 producing Sukhois because of lack o knowledge by their scientist, which probably you did not hear abou it. The level of technology, and technology base in China is very poor. I read a lot of Russian Military Articles, and Russian military scientist and engineers very often say that their chineese friendsa are very incompetent, and they have many problems in cooperating with China. They, as I said couldn't produce Sukhois from all Russian parts, and with instructions etc. But it is only an example, there are many other facts that support this example

Well, they DID manage to produce about 15 of the aircraft in Shenyang, so they obviously could assemble them. You are, however, correct in pointing out that they had some problems. The main problem was the engine - China was supposed to use its own indigenous engine for the Su-27 fighters, but in the end it had to buy Russian Saturn engines, because it was unable to finish designing its own on time.

quote: I did not hear that Russia will sell China full Su-37 aircraft. Russia doesnt want to sell to China the newest models of their Sukhois because they dont want China to copy their technology. even Su-30MK, which Russia sold China in recent years are not fully Su-30MK, and they lack many things in electronics avionics, and ESPECIALLY in weaponry. Russia does not sell China the latest models of their rockets, which is very important in todays air fights.

As I said, China is INTERESTED in changing the deal from Su-27MKK aircraft to Su-37 and there have been negotiations with Russia on the matter, but so far it is unclear whether they have been successful.

quote: I can not agree with you, that Russian newest models of T-55 are worse then Chinas equivalents. Of course China imporves their T-54/55 lines still, but first I do not belive that they improved all of their tanks to the newest modells (I doubt it is 1/2) and even their improved versions of T-54/55 tanks are technically old tanks, and they can not match with newer models.

Chinese T-55s are better than Russian ones due to upgrades. However, China does not have the T-90 (well, it does, but that is a completely different indigeneously designed tank), which is better than anything China has.

quote: All Chinese copies are far beyond Russian models and that is the fact. It is a myth about Chinese army, and chinese economy which is supported by American goverment because USA wants to have the enemy, the enemy which is seriosly not danger, but in paper is very danger.

I think what you are proposing is an implausible conspiracy theory. That the Chinese economy is booming is undeniable - just look at the figures of what percentage of what products they produce if you do not believe the GDP figures. I have lived in China for six years and the economic change was unbelievable during that period - I have personally witnessed it - the growth of Chinese economy is real.

quote: And there is lot pages in internet where we can fins data on chinese weaponry, but this data is very often writed by Chinese arms fans, and their naturally overestimate Chinese weaponry. The same as Russian sites, where we can read that almost in everything Russia is equal to USA, and even better, which is of course a mistake.

Yes, US weaponry is better than Russian weaponry, which in turn is better than Chinese weaponry. That, however, does not mean that we should try to underestimate the level of Chinese weaponry on purpose, because although it is behind it is catching up.