Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chinese armoured Vehicles - Third Generation

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
stumason,

I think donwhite is refering to the Kilo submarines bought from russia. China has collectively about 12 of them in service. And to assume that china will copy the submarine is ignorant since there is nothing in chinese service which has been copied in the last 40 years. Copied as in illegally

The two submarines he might be refering to are the eariler 877 model which were bought beforehand. I think his information is a bit old.

Although i dont know how to explain the WW2 reference




posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Well, he stated from Europe, so if he meant Russian, he should have said. I was actually trying to stick up for the chinese as he seemed to be quite condecending about Submarine's they were buying. If I misread his intentions, I apologise, but diesel electric subs have come a long way since 1945.

And to say that China doesn't copy tech is laughable. The J-10 is clearly copied off western technology, for example and thats the first thing that springs to mind.

Having said that, I'm not attempting to offend the Chinese, as I'm sure everyone who gets tech from a foreign source has it's engineers pour over anything that they haven't thought of themselves and reverse engineer it. Makes perfect sense, IMO.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   


posted by jihad213

Yeah, you only listen to your own twisted ideas? I REALLY hope your quality comment was a joke. Why did the Chinese cars FAIL the euro crash test ratings? They have cheap labor which is why they have the market cornered. I think more car companies will use China in the coming years, but not now as they think it will ruin there image - which is rightfully so. Cheap labor is the ONLY reason they have the market cornered.
[Edited by Don W]


Crash-worthiness must be the most difficult challenge automotive engineers face today. I have only seen 2 pictures of Chinese cars as they came off the assembly line. They were dated in their design. I suspect China is unwilling to invest the $10 to $25 billion necessary to produce a primo car from the git go, and is taking the slower, less capital intensive way. Look at the motorcycles China is exporting. Parallel that with how Japan got into the personal transportation industry. Ask the Germans and British how to get out of the motorcycle business. “Cheap” is a relative term, but to many Chinese, it is a good wage. The 300 million Chinese involved in the post 1977 industrial explosion are envied by the 1 billion who are not. Envy is not a good human trait. Car parts have been made in China for 15 years. AC compressors. PS pumps. WS wiper motors. Electric window and seat motors. And etc. I would not be surprised to learn the car you drive is 20% China made parts. PS. The capital for China is coming from the West. I’ve stopped using the disparaging short-hand for the Chinese government, ‘Chi-coms’ and now call them ‘Chi-caps.’



I can't wait for the first Chinese dealer to go up in LA, I will protest the HELL out of it. Add to the trade deficit with complete garbage.


I’ll bet you are a ‘Free Market’ fan, Mr J.



posted by Chinawhite

I think donwhite is referring to the Kilo subs bought from Russia. The two subs he might be referring to are the earlier 877 model which were bought beforehand. I think his information is a bit old. Although I don’t know how to explain the WW2 reference.


Yes, C/W, you have brought light to darkness. Actually, I have the impression the Russians first used captured German WW2 subs as a template. The Germans had a large sub that did not get into production until towards the end of the war and there were not many examples. Perhaps it’s the “877?” In any case, the cost to make the subs China has is trivial compared to the cost of America’s subs. A few hundred million versus a couple billion. Which is one more example of the United States being whipsawed by its perceived enemies.



posted by stumason

He stated Europe, so if he meant Russia, he should have said. I was trying to stick up for the Chinese; he seemed to be quite condescending about Subs they were buying. If I misread his intentions, I apologize, but diesel electric subs have come a long way since 1945. [Edited by Don W]


For China’s purposes, WW2 diesel electrics work fine. For intimidating nations half way round the world, they would be duds. No mirv’d ballistic missiles. No super stealth. Repeating, the pro-war Administrations will use those old type subs as a reason to build more and more expensive US subs. Perhaps that is a subtle Oriental way of waging war? Challenge the palooka’s ego. He shoots himself in the foot. Then he’s helpless. That’s what I call ‘fight smart’ instead of our approach which is ‘fight dumb.’



The J-10 is clearly copied off western technology, for example and that’s the first thing that springs to mind.



I don’t know that. The wind blows the same in Chinese wind tunnels as it does in Western wind tunnels. Engineering is pretty much the same around the world. It comes down to objectives and choices how to get there. The story linked below points out the J-10 will be highly competitive in the “world arms market” and very competitive with the F16 and its derivatives.

Competition. Free market. If the J-10 will do 90% of what the F16 will do at 1/3rd the cost, not to speak of lower competence level of maintenance, then which will sub-Saharan dictators be more likely to buy?

See for excellent review of the J-10, www.aeronautics.ru...


[edit on 9/9/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

For China’s purposes, WW2 diesel electrics work fine. For intimidating nations half way round the world, they would be duds. No mirv’d ballistic missiles. No super stealth.
On this specific issue I think you are slightly off target Don. The Kilo class diesel electric boats as well as the Song and Yuan class boats are not "WW2 diesel electrics", they are rather modern. They already have sub launched anti-ship missiles (YJ-82 or Klub depending on the boat) and China demonstrably has the technology to field submarine launched ballistic missiles using either YJ-63 or Klub technology (plus a handful of AS-15 Kent cruise missiles for tech). And China of course does field SSNs.

SSBNs are a 1950s solution - in the modern world cruise missiles launched from SSKs and SSNs are the cheaper/more versitile alturnative. That is one reason why US is converting SSBNs into cruise missile launch platforms.

So I wouldn't be too sure of writing off China's power projection capabilities - perhaps not up to the level of asserting power of US of course (nuclear first strike aside), but then the same is true in reverse.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by planeman]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
The J-10 is clearly copied off western technology, for example and thats the first thing that springs to mind.


When you mean copied off western technology do you mean duplicate or concept?



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   


posted by planeman

On this issue I think you are slightly off target Don. [Edited by Don W]



Maybe, but I’ll have you know I qualified as Marksman in the Army NG, and again as Marksman in the USAF, both with the M1 .30 cal Carbine.



The Kilo, Song and Yuan class boats are not "WW2 diesel electrics", they are rather modern. They already have sub launched anti-ship missiles and China demonstrably has the technology to field submarine launched ballistic missiles plus a handful of AS-15 Kent cruise missiles. And China of course does field SSNs.



I was not aware the Chinese had nuclear power ed submarines. Do you have any idea how many subs of each class the Chinese have in service?



I wouldn't be writing off China's power projection capabilities - perhaps not up to the level of US, nuclear first strike aside, but then the same is true in reverse.



No, it would not be wise to write China off. We can see the Taiwan issue will be on the table one day, maybe sooner than later although the Chinese Government was content to wait from 1949 to 1999 to regain Hong Kong and Macao.



[edit on 9/9/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Do you have any idea how many subs of each class the Chinese have in service?


Known number of nuclear submarines are

5x Han Class SSN



1x Xia class SSBN




There is also a picture circulating the internet of what is claimed to be chinas new 094 class SSBN. 12~16 lanuch tubes and appears to share a similar conning tower as chinas yuan class submarine. We'll just assume that it has 533mm torpedo tubes instead of the larger 650mm ones

Here is a comparison, it may or may not be a photoshoped picture. The green parts are similar and the red areas are different




Larger Version


Here is a pictorial guide to chinas submarine force
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 9-9-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by donwhite
Do you have any idea how many subs of each class the Chinese have in service?


Known number of nuclear submarines are

5x Han Class SSN


Use to be 6 before one sank. The Han and Xia ( lengthened Han class ) are notoriously noisy and very basic.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Use to be 6 before one sank. The Han and Xia ( lengthened Han class ) are notoriously noisy and very basic.


There were never Six built. And no submarine was ever sunk. The fix built can still be spotted (401-405)

They might have been nosiy when they first arrived but most of them have finished their second mid-life upgrade which dramatically changed their appearance. Acoustic tiles, sound insulation, modern FCS and the ability to fire missiles under water. The last two submarines were both modernized in '98 which lasted to 2000.



[edit on 9-9-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   


posted by chinawhite

“ . . no submarine was sunk. The five built can still be spotted (401-405) . .
noisy when first arrived but most have finished the second mid-life upgrade which dramatically changed . . modern FCS and the ability to fire missiles under water. [Edited by Don W]



America’s media is moribund. Waiting for a decent burial. Example? The new Katie Curric on CBS Evening News had Rush Limbaugh featured in its 2nd show. Once a hypocritical drug addict, but now a reformed but unrepentant drug addict, Limbaugh hasn’t had a new thought for a decade. Fred Friendly and Edward Murrow would roll over in their respective graves to learn CBS was kowtowing to the Far Right Wing of American politics. As a Chinese person you know what “kowtow’ means but for my American friends, let me remind them to “kowtow” in old China meant to lay your head on the floor and the Emperor would position his foot on your head, so that if he believed you had betrayed him of even disappointed him, he could easily crush your skull. That was a position of extreme humility. My only consolation vis a vis Limbaugh is that Roy Black reputedly charged him $5 million, cash, up front. Plus expenses. It proved to be money well spent. Always go first class when you can. Ops, I digress.

OK, back to China. Let me restate my case. Since 1949, when the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong won the mainland, China has not invaded any of its neighbors. There have been “heated” border disputes with the USSR and Vietnam. Those are now resolved and never constituted an “invasion” by either of the disputants. China itself is invasion proof. The US planned to use 1.5 million soldiers and marines to invade Japan in 1945. We had 13 million men and women under arms on VJ-Day. Any serious invasion of mainland China would require at least 10 X that number. An impossibility. The US mainland is similarly situated. So that kind of irrational thinking can be ended.

I pose all of this to frame my question, What is the nature of the ‘threat” we in American are foreseeing from China? In 1999, China resolved the two similar issues over Hong Kong and Macao. I think everyone knows there is but one remaining and outstanding issue from China’s perspective. It is Taiwan.

I am not well founded, anthropologically speaking, and so I’m not able to address the issue how the Formosans - we called them that - I call them that to delineate a time line - feel towards reunification with mainland China. I assume the 1949 exodus of Nationalist Chinese - a political divide not an ethnicity divide - to the island of Taiwan where about 7 X their number were already in residence, have been absorbed into the general population. In other words, the old soldiers are all dead.

OTOH, Taiwan’s most recent election was described as the first truly democratic election. The Party gaining control of Taiwan is anti-unification. One can deduce that if the Party felt the necessity of taking a position, then the matter of re-unification is in fact a viable issue on Taiwan. The United States and more specifically the Seventh Fleet, is a wild card that its mere presence seems to bring predicable results. Our fleet has been in the Taiwan Straits since 1949, nearly 60 years. Two generations. There are few Americans alive today who have any personal recollections of the frequent artillery exchanges on Qemoy and Matsu islands following 1949. After China joined the nuclear club, the exchanges ended. Which makes one wonder which side was provoking the exchanges. Of course, over here it was accepted ritual that the evil Chinese Communists always started the trouble and us good guys were merely responding in self defense. Does this have a familiar ring?

Which brings me back, somewhat circuitously to Chinese weapons and armored vehicles. All the old National Geographic pictures of Taiwan show it to be a large island filled with rice paddies. The new Chinese 8 wheel and 6 wheel armored cars or whatever you call them, would be well suited for combat on Taiwan, whereas, an M1A1 Abrams would be useless. So we have 3,000 tanks we can’t use, and China has a few hundred vehicles it can use for close support for its massive infantry. Because China has nukes, and the means - you guys say - to deliver them to at least Seattle and San Francisco, that mens the US will not defend Taiwan with nukes. (Another reason Iran wants nukes.) Whether China’s SSBNs can get close enough to our West Coast to make Chicago vulnerable is uncertain. I’m sure we have 2 or 3 killer subs assigned to each of the Chinese nuclear subs. And a “do not cross” line drawn around Hawaii.

It looks to me as if China is subtly getting itself positioned to make a move on Taiwan, perhaps in this decade? If the Dems win Congress on November 7, they will quickly neuter Bush43, as was Nixon, by cutting off his money supply, so re-unification could happen sooner than later.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Well, he stated from Europe, so if he meant Russian, he should have said. I was actually trying to stick up for the chinese as he seemed to be quite condecending about Submarine's they were buying. If I misread his intentions, I apologise, but diesel electric subs have come a long way since 1945.

And to say that China doesn't copy tech is laughable. The J-10 is clearly copied off western technology, for example and thats the first thing that springs to mind.

Having said that, I'm not attempting to offend the Chinese, as I'm sure everyone who gets tech from a foreign source has it's engineers pour over anything that they haven't thought of themselves and reverse engineer it. Makes perfect sense, IMO.


lol

J-10 hasn't even being served in PLAN

air force currently is the weakest part of chinese forces

[edit on 11-9-2006 by warset]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Wow donwhite, informative post


You have voted donwhite for the Way Above Top Secret award.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
Use to be 6 before one sank. The Han and Xia ( lengthened Han class ) are notoriously noisy and very basic.


There were never Six built. And no submarine was ever sunk. The fix built can still be spotted (401-405)

They might have been nosiy when they first arrived but most of them have finished their second mid-life upgrade which dramatically changed their appearance. Acoustic tiles, sound insulation, modern FCS and the ability to fire missiles under water. The last two submarines were both modernized in '98 which lasted to 2000.



Operations have been limited and the Xia has never sailed beyond Chinese regional waters. Despite a potential for operations in the Pacific Ocean, capabilities would be very limited against modern Western or Russian ASW capabilities.
A second hull was launched in 1982, but the status of this boat remains uncertain. It is certainly not currently in service, with unsubstantiated reports claiming it was lost in a 1985 accident.

www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/slbm/type_92.htm



The lead boats (401 & 402?) suffered radiation problems which were thought to have been solved after extensive refit. But since the late 1990s they appeared to have become inoperational. According to some reports, as of 2000 only two of its Han-class SSNs remained operational, despite the extended re-fits to the units of this class.

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

with unsubstantiated reports claiming it was lost in a 1985 accident.
www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/slbm/type_92.htm


This word sums up your claims.

You go to claim one sunk even through the submarine never was even confirmed to exist. No pictures and no mention of it in any chinese records



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:52 AM
link   
LOL, according to reports it did exist, but mysteriously disappeared and probably sunk - OOPS. I wouldn't want to be a CHinese submariner.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, according to reports it did exist, but mysteriously disappeared and probably sunk - OOPS. I wouldn't want to be a CHinese submariner.


And you made a definate claim about it being sunk. Even though the only source you could get says unsubstantiated.OOPS

Even the claim there was two Xia class submarines haven't been proven. Note that it was a hull which was claimed to have been produced not a actual submarine entering service



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Even the claim there was two Xia class submarines haven't been proven. Note that it was a hull which was claimed to have been produced not a actual submarine entering service


LOL, so the hull magically disappeared, hahaha. It disappeared to the bottom of the ocean LOL. Let's face it hough the HAN and XIA are junk compared to modern SSN's. NOt to mention of course the HAN when first built was an extreme radiation hazard to the crew.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, so the hull magically disappeared, hahaha.


There was never a submarine lanuched. The hull number #407 has never been taken and NO EDVIDENCE has ever been shown to prove one had been lanuched or made it in service



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Nice pictures Chinawhite

Sounds like some have forgot the Chinese incursion into Korea that kicked our butts back to Pusan.

I personally believe they will go for Taiwan when the USA is tied up with yet another conflict i.e. Iran or something similar.

The Chinese have made great strides in the modernization of their weapons but the majority is purchased not designed at home.

The USA will blindly continue to help China fund their military by a growing trade deficiet that is freaking enormous.

I've seen the photos of their aircraft carrier and it looks very interesting. I think it will be awhile before they can field 12-13 carrier battle groups in a desparate situation like the USA can if needed.

Back to topic, thanks for the photos again. They definitely have mobility in mind with their armor.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   


posted by on_yur_6

Sounds like some have forgot the Chinese incursion into Korea that kicked our butts back to Pusan. I personally believe they will go for Taiwan when the USA is tied up with yet another conflict i.e. Iran or something similar.
[Edited by Don W]



Actually, OY6, it was the initial invasion by the North Koreans that pushed us down to the Pusan Perimeter. MacArthur then “blind sided” the NKs by his own Inchon landing, a very dubious undertaking that ended well. By late November, 1950, we had 95% destroyed the NK Army. China warned the US several times not to come within a security zone - about 20 miles - of the Yalu River, the NK-China boundary. MacArthur purposely ignored that warning. He wanted a war with China. We were still vicariously smarting from the1949 defeat of the Nationalists who fled to Taiwan. MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons to chastize the PRC and PLA. Truman said no, Mac “leaked” to the news, and Truman fired him. The PLA did push us back to below Seoul, but not too far. When we pushed them back to the present DMZ, the war was stalemated.



The USA will continue to help China fund their military by a growing trade deficient. I've seen the photos of their aircraft carrier and it looks very interesting. Back to topic, thanks for the photos again. They definitely have mobility in mind with their armor. [Edited by Don W]



The owners of America, I call them the R&Fs, are the ones who are moving American manufacturing to China. They become 49% partners with the PLA who is the 51% partner. Somebody once told me if you own less than half of a business, you are a lender, not a partner. In any case, it’s our choice.






top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join