The Chinese have a jet to match F-22

Big deal. It is still based upon a nuclear MRBM. And no, they would not be launching an ICBM at a bunch of ships off their coast. That is why it is called a "Medium Range Ballistic Missile", and not an "Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile". The fact is, the DF-21 series is their predominant MRBM, and if they were to launch a nuke at anybody from Korea and Japan to Taiwan and the Philippines and India, it would be with a MRBM nuke, not an ICBM.

Apples and oranges, apples and oranges. And as has been stated many times, this is why both the US and USSR agreed to place no nukes in cruise missiles, and no conventional weapons into ballistic missiles. To prevent the accidental start of a nuclear war. China does not seem to get this, of course they also do not participate in such treaties.

Yea, diesel subs can be quiet, when they are crawling and operating entirely on batteries. On the surface with a snorkle and running their engines to replenish their batteries, they are screaming like banshees. Then everybody with SONAR within 200 miles knows they are there, and where they are.

And what good is that sub in the coastal region, when the ships it wants to attack are another 200 miles out to sea? Not very.

You really do not seem to have a very good grasp on how a Carrier group operates, or you would not be trying to pull out such things that have nothing to do with them.

China is not building much of anything. Their problems with all areas of weapons development and "crossover technology" is almost legendary. Aircraft that fail to perform, tanks that are so bad not even their own Army wants them. They can't even build a below-average passenger get without being years behind schedule and with foreign parts, engines, and designs in hand.

Yea, I hear over and over excuses as to why this is, trying to spin it to an example of their superiority. And that might be find for fanboys without any connection with reality. When a country that claims it is a "Superpower" uses 60 year old tanks, there is a serious problem. Tome and many others, China is largely a paper tiger. With a military good at frightening their own people, but that is about it.



And it apparently does not even scare their own people all the time. Could you imagine the results of this entire column of these "1989 state of the art Chinese tanks" running across a single 1989 era M1 Abrams?



Here see frightening Chinese Army Tanks. See tanks already decades obsolete in USSR who design them. See China persecute their own citizen with tanks that not frighten anybody else.

 

if authoritarian lunch nuke that easily, we will be long gone by now. china has 1 no first use, 2 no wish for sucide 3 no point to lunch nuke at Japan, russia, s.korea, india if they were fighting a limited SCS conflict. any commander think china will use nuke against these countries or use nuke against us duing a limited SCS conflict need their head examed. china is not going to escalte into a nuke war with US

when i say coastal region i mean SCS. those sub can operate in SCS or taiwan strait. you are naive to ignore the threat of diesel subs. and if any navy commander think diesel subs is not a threat then i only hope he get replaced. new modern sub can submerge for days and weeks, thus delay CVBG movement until the threat is gone. also if you look at asia-pacific, there are plently choke point for subs to ambush. combine with other anti-access weapon, moving in that area become more diffcult. you only concentrate on 1 aspect of anti-access while i'm talking about combine of diesel sub, long-range anti-ship cruise/ballistic, satelite, cyber etc etc. the combine of these system can certainly delay the movement of CVBG

no one claim they are superior. i already said in multiple post that they lack quality and quantity, but are catching up compare to their 90's stuff. you are the one said their stuff is junk, and why only concentrate on their tank, when obvious china spend most their budget on navy/air force. and when obivous china has thousands t96/t99 etc deployed, and this was done in what 10yrs. may not be good as m1, but certainly not as junk you describe. if you believe 52c, j10, j11 etc etc is junk thats your opinion. my opinion is they are not good as western standard, but certainly not junk. there are people who overestimate china and there are those who underestimate them, you obivous belong to the latter group. i'm not overestimate them, obivouslly they lack in alot area, but they are catching up.

 

Once again, we go back to how and why weapon systems are used. Now put away the propaganda and look at reality.

The US and USSR long ago made a decision when it comes to weapons. Flat trajectory missiles will only be used for conventional weapons, and Ballistic Missiles for nuclear weapons. This was logical, and helped ensure that if things ever turned into a war situation, one side would not accidentially think they were under nuclear attack and start a chain reaction.

It does not matter what China says. If things ever heat up, do not expect those under attack to go "Oh, this can't be a nuke since China promised to never use them, so we can ignore this." You are delusional if you think that the use of this weapon might not accidentially trigger such a response.

Wow, love how you keep throwing out the TLAs and ETLAs. Why not just speak clearly, since you could be talking about a great many things. Sea Control Ship, Surface Combat Ship, Seapower Capability System, and Systems Command Ship jump immediately to mind here. So stop trying to impress us with the TLAs, and just try to say what you mean.

And no, I do not think diesel subs would be harmless. I also do not fear them as some kind of all-powerfull uberweapon as you apparently do.

Yea, they got some Diesel subs. Some old early 80's era surplus Soviet subs, Some 1950's era they are turning into razor blades. And a handfull of others made in the last 20 years. The most remarkable thing however is how much warf time they have. These things rarely leave the docks, spending most of their time just sitting there. This means very little actual training time and experience for their crews. And in addition their ability to replenish the subs means they can't travel very far.

And while a modern nuclear]/b] sub can remain submerged for weeks, this is not the case of a diesel sub. Diesel subs are very quiet, only when operating on batteries. When snorkeling to run the engines they are far from quiet. And even if just sitting in one place, they only have a submerged duration of 1-3 days. After that the batteries are dead, and the air is foul and poisoned.

Even their "90's junk" is just that, junk. I notice you combined the Type 96 and Type 99, and tried to make it appear there are more then there are. For one, the Type 90 is a kludge of many older tanks, from the drive train and suspension of the Type 59, up through other models of tank from the Type 69 and Type 88. When this was released, the turret armor was considered to be insufficient, and that the turret would be replaced with one with better armor. This was never done. And the engine? It's not Chinese, the engines are made by a US company (Caterpillar). The transmission? It's French.

To say that the world was underwhelmed when this tank came out is an understatement. A tank similar to what the US and USSR was building in the mid to late 1970's, in the late 1990's.

And yea, they have around 2,500 of them. But since major componants were actually imported from other countries, the ability to actually repair these during a conflict is a major issue.

Then their newest tank, the Type 99. Only around 200 made, with 2 regiments of them in active service. Russian turret, Russian gun, essentially a remodel of the earlier failed Type 98. In reality, this is little more then a slightly larger version of the T-72 tank. Most of the equipment inside is nothing more then Chinese copies of the T-72 system, from loader to sights and command and control. Although this time the engine comes from Germany.

See a pattern here? If you look at the majority of Chinese weapons systems, you find that engines and transmissions are often imported. This is one area that China is still having major issues with.

However, many are underwhelmed also by the battle history of the Chinese tanks. A lot of countries bought them in the 1980's because they were considered to be inexpensive alternatives to the US and Soviet tanks of the era. And now they are often overlooked because of the performance of past tanks.

The Type 69-79 were bought by many countries, including Iraq. But the almost complete and utter failure of these against the M-1 during 3 seperate conflicts has caused a great many nations to dump them. Iraq scrapped all of their remaining Type 69/79 tanks. Thailand is in the process of stripping them (more then 1/4 have failed, and they are being dumped in the ocean). Pakistan and Albania have dumped them, and even China has largely sent them to training units.

Pakistan bought the plans for the Type 96, but makes them in Pakistan. Some other countries are interested in the Type 99, mostly because it is almost the same as the ancient Type 59, so little additional training or parts are needed.

The Type 98/99 has gathered almost no international interest. And it is essentially 30+ years behind US tanks. Most experts place it in ability somewhere between the M-60 and the M-1. And with the M-1 in the process of it's 3rd major improvement cycle, this places it very far behind indeed.

I do not understimate them, I look at their production history, how well their tanks have done in battle, and how interested International buyers are in acquiring them (all of these tanks are available on the open market).

With China falling very low on the International market, it is not just my opinion here. To give an idea, the army of Sudan has around 360 tanks of various models. Only 10 of these are Chinese. At one time they had a lot of Type 62 tanks, but all have been retired. Instead of purchasing more Type 85 tanks, they instead decided to just upgrade their existing Soviet era T-55 tanks.

In general, the concensus of the countries that have looked at Chinese tanks in order to purchase them has not been very high. And only a few countries have bought them, and generally in small numbers. And a few countries like Pakistan bave started to buy the blueprints and build their own models, since the Chinese quality is considered to be so poor.

If these were such fearsome beasts as you seem to make them out to be, then why does Russia do so much business? Russian tanks cost a lot more then Chinese ones (and China still imports them). These simply have a horrible reputation. In the 2003 Iraq War, Iraq generally buried them into the sand to use as pillboxes, because their performance was so poor, and so many simply did not work any longer.

 

yes there is a chance during scs conflict which escalate to nuke exchange, but that chance is very small. unless we invade china mainland, that chance remain very small. as i said, if missile was detect, the chance of been a anti-ship ballistic missile over nuke is MUCH greater. and we will try to intercept it, but we have sufficent 2nd strike capability to wipe out china if it turn out to be nuke. espeically if we detect is MRBM not ICBM. especially china has no 1st use, and they didn't use during vietnam war even when they suffer tens thousands death. nuclear strike from china is the last thing on navy commanders mind. and everyone know china is not crazy/sucidal.
you basically say, whenever china lunch a BM its a nuke, and you really need to get that idea out of your head. china has about 2000 BM aim at taiwan, if there is conflict during taiwan/china, you think US navy commander will think the BM fire at taiwan or elsewhere is nuke, it will be the last posbilities in their mind

is kilo 093, yuan seem like 50-60 tech lol, granted they are not the best, but i won't say they are 50-60s tech. and the nature of electric motor is its quietness, but thats about it. and stop concentrate on tanks. tanks is last priority on china list. and i'm not try to impress anyone, i'm not even chinese. you are the one lack any knowledge on china, thinking they are still the arm force like they where in 80s and early 90s. go read it. againt they are not good as us, but their capability did improve alot since 80-90s. and i'm tire argue with someone who think china is some 3rd rate arm force that even iraq/iran can beat them.

there are alot more other resource, detail spec etc, suggest you go through it

http://www.ausairpower.net/

http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/2012.htm

 

Vietnam War? Don't you mean the Korean War?

To me this simply proves that the US and Russia need to get China actively involved in Arms Limitations treaties. To me the use of any ballistic missile with conventional warheads by a nuclear power is just insane. Period.

Yes, the electric motor is silent, but the diesel engine is not. Funny how you keep ignoring the fact that it needs to do most of it's movement with the diesel engines.

And excuse me, but I am quite knowledgeable about Chinese capabilities. In fact, this has long been a common topic of conversation in the smoke pit. The conversations based on the DF-21D have actually been quite funny.

And yes, the Chinese Armed Forces are quite a joke. The quality of their equipment is actually rather bad, the only think it has going for it is the sheer size of their military. Everything from tanks and aircraft to ships and missiles are actually pretty poor in quality, but many countries buy/bought them because they were cheap. The (in)famous Silkworm was just a Chinese copy of the Soviet Termit missile. Generally these were bought by nations that could not afford or did not want to buy the Soviet version (or the much more capable EXOCET).

I do not look at the claims of "weapon superiority" in press releases or claims, but in how they actually perform. And since China pretty much makes everything available for sale, the impressions of other nations become a major factor here. China makes a lot of systems for sale, but actually has very few buyers. Even their own military often turns it's nose at their own creations, prefering to buy more reliable equipment from Russia.

And as far as their "quality improving", then why have so many of their programs become failures? Brand new "state of the art" tanks that nobody wants. "Nuclear Submarines" that spend 95% of their time sitting on the warf? Why are most of their jets simply copies of old Soviet designs? Funny how you claim I know nothing about the "Chinese Military", while that is actually part of my profession.

And yes, China could beat Iran or Iraq, because of the weight of numbers they can bring to the field. Of course, nobody has said that Iran or Iraq has much of a military either. Those 2 nations were involved in a decade long war with each other, with no real winner. The US took on Iraq twice, and both times defeated them within days.

Can China beat Iran, Iraq, Tibet, or a handfull of other nations? Yes, easily. China can throw such numbers at them that the sheer quantity makes up for any lack of quality. Can they beat the US or Russia? Not likely.

 

right, the sub will just surface run its diesel engine and paint a bullseye on its back. diesel can stay underwater for weeks, it can wait for carrier at different choke point therefore delay the carrier. i suggest you read some research on diesel-electric sub and why its dangerous to ignore it in coastal region.

lets put it this way can US/russia beat china that easily without suffer alot loss whether is economy lost or human? again you looking at stuff china is not really working on. tank, nuke sub etc. but ignore other things they made improvement quite diesel sub, anti-ship missile, improve fighters, ships, awac etc etc.

as for sale, did they sale 52c/j10/j11 etc.

as for using conventional ballistic missile, you might want to ask taiwan on that 2000 ballistic missile point at taiwan, right and china is not gonna use it.

again i'm not saying china can much us, but they improve alot in recent years. i already provide several link and spec on their weapon platform, 52c, j10 etc etc.

 

Why would the U.S. ever bring its carriers close to choke points? It's heavily protected carriers would be hundreds of miles away from shore in deep water moving at high speed where Diesel subs aren't nearly as effective.

 

This is why I do not even bother to respond anymore. It is obvious that he understands absolutely nothing of how Naval Warfare is conducted, so it is pointless to continue any longer.

And he also greatly overestimates the capability of these Diesel subs. Their "quiet speed" is only if they are operating at a speed of no more then 3-5 knots. And obviously at that speed, they will a week just getting to the target. And unless they come up to snorkel every 2-3 days, the air will get foul and poison the crew.

And for all this silence, they are still absolutely defenseless against active sonar. It may be sitting at a dead stop with nothing running, but if an active sonar pings within 10 miles or so, it might as well be running it's engines because it is going to be obvious it is there.

 

if you look at the map near taiwan, SCS there are potential point ships need to go through to move other part of area. the diesel is for anti-acess, a defensive weapon, not used to chase CVBG. for example we know china has alot these quiet diesel sub, if a conflict arise in taiwan strait or SCS. do you think the commander will just blindly rush into the theater of interest without worry about some sub waiting for ambush etc. these subs can submerge under water for weeks, its best use for ambush.

 

funny i could say the samething. obivous you have no understanding modern diesel subs, with AIP sub can submerge for weeks. it can move to certain location above water when situation are save.
if diesel sub is that useless, why the hell russia, europe etc still keep making these subs. and are you saying you are the one smarter than those people, give me a break.

i didn't overestimate the capability of diesel subs, its for defensive,ambush use, and if use it correctly it can be a dangerous wepon.

even if the subs is outdate IT STILL NEED to be tracked. you think navy commander will just ignore these subs and sail through SCS or taiwan strait like nothing underneath lol

suggest you read more before claim you are expert on this or that.

as for submerged speed 3-5knot don't make me laugh. have you even heard a hybrid car with only electric motor on?? or any electric motor

http://csis.org/blog/nuclear-vs-diesel-submarines

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110612/DEFFEAT05/106120303/U-S-Navy-Needs-Diesel-Submarines

nuclear sub has its advantage over diesel, but don't make stupid argument that diesel sub is useless, unless you got something to back it up.

 

A lot of this is your failure to understand what these terms you use mean.

Submerged simply means the ability to operate underwater without the need to come to the surface and replenish essential supplies. It does not mean that the sub does not have to snorkel (which is done while still submerged). This is what you fail to grasp over and over and over again. While snorkeling, a submarine is still submerged. It rises to a shallow depth, and then uses the snorkel to run it's engines to recharge the batteries and replenish the air supply. However, it is still under water and still submerged.

Nothing is against what I have said at all. The sub rises to a depth of around 10-20 feet, then while still submerged does these things.

This is what is meant. The fact that it can do these things while submerged does not mean that it can do all of these things without rising to snorkel.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/propulsion.htm

And yes, some subs can stay completely submerged for much longer periods of time. However, in doing so they are very limited in their capabilities. While relying entirely on internal batteries, their speed is limited to 2-3 knots, and mostly just stay in one place. Running at the speeds needed to go out after an enemy is simply not possible.

And yes, I am aware that modern diesel subs can run at 20 knots and more. However, have you ever heard of cavitation? At that speed, it is about as stealthy as 10 trash cans filled with cats falling down a flight of stairs. And look at your own data sheet, what is the range capability at this speed while submerged?

12.7 miles.

At that point the batteries are all dead, and it must snorkel or surface to replenish the batteries. Period.

Nobody is saying that the diesel boats are useless. I am just injecting reality into their true capabilities. Nothing more, nothing less. But your failure to understand what their capabilities really are, and how the Navy would operate in the region is almost comical I must say. You read bits of information, without really understanding what it all means. You read some information, and without understanding how it all fits together assume that is true in all conditions.

The only submarines that can remain fully and completely submerged for weeks or months at a time without the need to surface or even snorkel at all are nuclear subs. That is because these are essentially spacecraft, with power provided by a nuclear reactor so the batteries never run low, and with the same air scrubbers that are used on the Space Shuttles and the ISS, so there is no need to replenish the oxygen. Diesel submarines simply can't do this, and are largely limited by the capacity of their batteries.

And that information about "modern diesel subs" is largely worthless in this discussion. The discussion we are talking about covers Chinese subs, and not a single Chinese sub has any of this type of technology. However, if you want to change the discussion to the HMS Gotland and it's Stirling engines, then we can discuss that. But do not confuse Chinese subs and Swedish subs.

But even these revolutionary subs have only extended their underwater endurance to "a few weeks". Not the "month" you have tried to claim.

 

Chinese got `em a new stealth fighter...

New pictures show second Chinese stealth fighter being test flown
November 2nd, 2012 WASHINGTON (CNN) - CNN has obtained detailed photographs of a new stealth fighter being tested in China.

 

*yawn*

Yea, with Russian engines. The Sinophiles are going nuts, and I simply see yet another of typical Chinese Military Procurement in action.

Build one model, scream it is the best int he world, and when that is still in the prototype stage release yet another similar product, saying that this is now the best.

Come back in another 10 years when they actually have to show something more then a few prototypes, and I might start to become impressed. The endless prototype system of China mostly leaves me laughing, and I just can't take it seriously.

The J20 and J31 being shown off and saying "China has a Stealth Fighter" is a lot like looking at the Buran, and saying "The Soviet Union (Russia) has a Space Shuttle".

 

good China can has billion dollar paper weight too.

 

The Type 99 Chinese tanks are not as far behind as you seem to think they are.

Protection
The Type 99G is known to use composite armor, although the exact composition and the sophistication of the materials technology therein are unknown. A good measure of how much armor a tank has (albeit not how good that armor is) is how heavy the tank is, and the basic Type 99 weighs 54 tons. The Chinese have chosen to buttress the armored protection with reactive armor as a standard feature, which uses explosive plates to deflect incoming missiles and penetrators. The tank has also been fitted with active defenses, namely small missiles that intercept and destroy incoming projectiles. The Chinese claim that their frontal defenses are the equivalent of 1 to 1.2 m of steel, and while that claim might be exaggerated, it is probably good enough to deflect a 120 mm depleted uranium round.

[URL="http://voices.yahoo.com/how-good-chinese-type-99g-main-battle-tank-8974095.html"[/URL]

Notice the article said "it is probably good enough to deflect a 120 mm depleted uranium round". Should do a lot better than the old Iraqi tanks.

 

Samsung phones are exactly the same as iphones - not.

The F35



The new Chinese machine.



sorry

 

[video=youtube;LC02JDcg4dE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC02JDcg4dE[/video]

 

OK, a terminated video. Is this the status of the newest Chinese equipment?

 

None of this is going to matter in a decade or so. The wave of the future is unmanned planes .. every manned vehicle in the air or being built right now will be obsolete in short order.

Same with all our aircraft carriers ..

The "Drone war" has begun.

 

Drones may be the way in some areas (observation, hitting specific targets on the ground with no surrounding non-hostiles), but I can't see them taking over for decades at the soonest.

Drones are nowhere near being able to carry this much ordinance:

 

.... so then you simply drone out an A-10...

 

The amount of fearmongering with regards to PRC's military rise is astounding. Based upon my studies of the new PRC fighter jet, it is vastly inferior to US fighters.

 

Why is your opinion of any importance on this subject? Do you have special knowledge of this subject?

In the waters of the far western Pacific in ten years the Chinese will be able do defeat American air and naval forces because that is where their forces are concentrated. American forces are not so concentrated, and will be defunded in the years ahead.

 

Yes. I have done months of study on PRC's rise and its implications for US foreign policy. China is incapable of defeating a blue-water naval force and exemplary air force, namely because they themselves lack both. PLAN is incapable of sustaining operations in the Pacific for more than 72 hours. As a result, and despite the Liaoning, the J-15 fighter jet, a large standing army, and a growing ballistic missile capability, the PRC would be crushed in a military conflict against the US. The most PRC can do against US military presence in the SCS/ECS is hinder our normal peacetime operations in the region, and this is if they can continue to direct resources to the development of a credible and optimal guerra de course/access-denial capability. Being that nationalism is afoot in the PRC, I can assure you that instead of pursuing this effective maritime security route, they will continue to develop a fatal prestige strategy of creating a blue-water navy.

 

Unless I have some idea of your credentials I am tempted to dismiss what you have posted.

The problem with your analysis is that it is one dimensional in my nonexpert opinion. Where will American aircraft fly from? Kadena? Aircraft carriers? Kadena will be unusable and aircraft carriers are going to be forced to think about force protection instead of time on target.