Militarov wrote:And ofc Clark wrote that, they write one like that about every single item in the inventory so they get more funds, they have been doing it for decades.
Do you see Militarov ,if what you think
(a very odd idea regularly "recycled" by some western apologetic people any time an official document produced by the same western military insiders highlight the backwardness inferiority of some of theirs products in comparison to competitor's ones ) would be correct then we would observe a presentation vastly bloated of the specifics of competitors systems
so to persuade US MoD to fund a new R&D program.Well in the document i have pointed out
,as well in literally dozen of other ones produced only in the last few years.....up to autumn 2015.... used even to present to US generals the overall situation concerning the capability of theirs systems in comparison to those of likely opponents , you can see the exact opposite behaviour
You can check by yourself - very clear examples are slide 10 and 11-.
I can distinctively remember a document of few years ago - i think of 2012 or 2013 - used to present to US Navy Command a model of the new strategic measures and research and acquisition plans to adopt within 2025 where was explained that US Navy still retained a distinctive advantage in land attack cruise missile engagement range and that main opposing forces ,among which Russia and China armed just with SS-N-27
, even if conceding to them some unparalleled features in lethality and versatility of employment, cause a mysterious and not further specified "technical backwardness in cruise missile's engine fuel efficiency", would have been forced in a potential conflict to limit theirs land attacks only to near shore ground installations , 300-350 km from those ships
, therefore well within the potential engagement range of air groups of stance in main air bases present those theatre , supposedly safely outside the reach of those enemy land attacks !
Practically marketing approach of main US military related firms is the exact contrary of what outlined in the apologetic hypothesis
; rather that hypothesis is generated and predate exactly upon the same irrational, and often fanatic wish of superiority deep rooted in US military culture that render so efficient the marketing practice.
Any of those US firms present always theirs in production systems as those assuring "unparalleled superiority", "complete primacy", "total dominance
".....and so on with similar US- thinking-friendly slogans....over those now produced anywhere else on the planet and presenting perspective products as those extending that "dominace" over any new system now in development by part of any opponent for the next 15-20-30 years.
Militarov you will easily realize that honestly declaring that practically all missiles in the AShM, antisubarine, ground attack, anti-torpedo, anti-AShM roles
available today to US Navy surface ships are horribly outmatched under practically any cardinal parameter by those in service with the "hated opponent"
(that in observance to cold war era old PsyOp mandates must be always untruthfully presented as technologically inferior and "catching -up" with US products
) and that the new devolopment plans, using in reality nothing more than old weapons re-engineerized to adapt to new roles ,will still hardly be in the same league with those now in-production enemy systems
, when them will have likely already adopted the new generation of those calss of weapons, will hardly gain any support of funding in the US Congress for the companies producing them
You will very very rarely, if any, find a serious domestic military analyst or insider personel ever boast superiority over foreign firms in the field of data sharing, processing and dissemination systems, cooperative and integrated intelligence and surveillance systems, airborne UAVs, microprocessor production and so on for dozen of other military related fields ,but on the other side you can find countless of western military operatives , at practically any level of responsability, literally living blindly in a phantasy world when the fields of theirs wide technical inferirority are concerned and just on that cultural "deviation" predate the marketing tactics of the giants of US military industry and theirs analysis community.