It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by rogue1
The most advanced designs of the US and Russia are very very different from the large warheads of the 50's and 60's.
Is this suppose to be a joke?
You said as if the W-88 feature the Teller-Ulam configuration as if it was something unqie. Now you posted some lines which completely divert peoples attention to what you mentioned just a few posts up.
The warheads might have been differenet but most of the H-bombs were in the Teller-Ulam configuration. Thats a fact you cannot change[/QUOTE]
Sorry you are just stupid. You obviusly can't comprehend english The tellar-Ulam confiuration ( which incidentally you didn't even know about until I posted it LMAO ) is not some universal configuration, DUH. It's a concept, which can be altered in any number of ways. The US and Russia perfected the design whilst the Chinese still had to build cumbersome ineffeicent weapons, well utl they stole US blueprints. Obvioulsy bsic concepts are far too hard for you to understand, that's OK I'm used to that from you as a re most members.
Dont play the insult card. If you get insulted by me using friendly language its your program. Tell me where is my agressive tone or abusive language?. It your in china selling shoes its not my problem, thats a fact and there is no other way of saying it more politely. If you claimed to be knowleadgable in a subject while you clearly are not, I will state what you ahve told me
Laughing too hrd to reply, look just because your landlord is going to evict your family from the trailer, don't bring it to ATS, we don't care. GET A JOB you bum.
You use a ratio of thrust to weight to describe the throw weight of a missile. You dont use that to compare a warhead. If that was the case, chinas warhead would have a higher expolisve power to weight ratio over a american warhead considering their power and relatively small size. If we use the diameter of a missile and its throw weight to work out its weight
LOL once again you are completely out of our depth, you really are gnorant. A warheds efficeiency is measure bu it's weight to power. The US can achieve almost 5kt per kg of weight, something CHina cannot copme close to. DO some reading, I feel like I'm teaching someoe in kindergarten. Maybe i am.
That justs assuming our estimates are correct since there is no OFFICAL CHINESE DATA WHICH YOU COULD HAVE CALCULATED FROM
LMAO, but yet you can - I findyour argumenats extremely funny, especialy u2u's popel ahve sent me about it. Please keep posting, I need some entertainment.
Have you even read the Cox report?
LOL I find this even more hilarious from a persn who can barely read. I have seen blind people who have read more books tahn you.
Originally posted by Cruelapathy
Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
In the present tense China is buying modern equipment from foreign countries, and the only indigenous technology they have somewhat advanced are missiles
China has no stealth capability, carrier, chobham armor, modern SSN, modern SSBN
China's doctrine of quantity over quality has nothing to do with western standards.
Why? Rate of modernization and the kind of equipment acquired are obviosuly intended to deter the US from getting into a fight for Taiwan
extensive deployment of Anti-Ship weaponry
Nothing?
China as of now is still powerless to do much against two or more carriergroups.
Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
It works in China to keep everyone from speaking their mind? Well…it figures, what would happen if people did?
about it…
Originally posted by rogue1
is not some universal configuration, DUH. It's a concept, which can be altered in any number of ways. ( which incidentally you didn't even know about until I posted it LMAO )
The US can achieve almost 5kt per kg of weight, something CHina cannot copme close to.
but yet you can
LOL I find this even more hilarious from a persn who can barely read. I have seen blind people who have read more books tahn you.
Originally posted by chinawhite
And what concepts might they be?.
You said teller-Ulam configuration as if it made the W-88 different from any other H-bomb warhead. You might have forgotten your "concepts" you talk so much about.
And i did know about the teller-Ulam configuration from a dicussion me and a few indians had about indias H-bomb program but i wouldn't have guessed you tried to pass it off as something spectaular[/qoute]
LOL, only spectalular to you.
The US can achieve almost 5kt per kg of weight, something CHina cannot copme close to.
You claimed that
"[W88]giant leap towards minaturisation of warheads as well as allowing them to design advanced warheads for MIRV missiles"
China could already design warheads for MRV and MIRV, If it could design a warhead for a small JL-1 missle and had denoted sub-100kt munitions and fitted nuclear devices to little Q-5 attacks than a MIRV warhead is possible. Even the US had managed to design mirco bombs like the davy crockett with 1950's technology
LOL obviously you have trouble understanding the concept of yield to weight. I am talking about efficeincy, CHinese weapons are not efficient, simple as that. China's low weight bombs aren't nearly as efficeint as US or Russian designs, simple as that. They don't have the technology or testing program to obtain that information without stealing it.
Since no-one else can find about their power, if seems a 20ish airchair general in chian selling shoes has information regarding them
Hmmm, power is relatively easy to deduce, from satellites and seismographs. The US and other powers have honed this into an art form. They can be pretty accurate, accurate enough to make a summation of their power.
Not sure why you persist with this same insult all the time, what are you talking about selling shoes ?
Originally posted by rogue1
Tellar-Ulam is a concept, the designs using this concept can be very very different.
They don't have the technology or testing program to obtain that information without stealing it.
I only talk about your real circumstances since you tell everyone they "display a complete lack of knowlege about the subject" when you dont have any credentials to speak about
what are you talking about selling shoes ?
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by rogue1
Tellar-Ulam is a concept, the designs using this concept can be very very different.
All Teller-Ulam confriguration work on the same basic princle. Im not saying these designs are the same (which they are not). It was you which claimed that the W-88 had the Teller-Ulam confirguration which somehow made it different from a chinese nuclear. Thats like calling a holden a ferrari because there both cars.
They don't have the technology or testing program to obtain that information without stealing it.
Please, Mr rogue1
Would you like to present a source where you got these figures
In early 1999, attention focused on Chinese espionage's role in nuclear warhead development. A US intelligence community assessment of China's acquisition of US nuclear weapons information concluded that US nuclear weapons information obtained through "classified and unclassified information derived from espionage, contact with US and other countries' scientists, conferences and publications, unauthorized media disclosures, declassified US weapons information . . . have probably accelerated China's program to develop future nuclear weapons." Specifically, the report concluded:
China obtained at least basic design information on several modern US nuclear reentry vehicles, including the Trident II (W88).
China also obtained information on a variety of US weapon design concepts and weaponization features, including those of the neutron bomb.
It is more likely that the Chinese used US design information to inform their own program than to replicate US weapons designs.
cns.miis.edu...
Much of the public focus on the Cox Report has focused on the question of Chinese nuclear espionage and its effect on U.S. national security. When asked how the Chinese spying described in the report differed from previous instances of espionage, Cox told NBC News on May 21, "No other country has succeeded in stealing so much from the United States. And no other country having stolen such secrets has used it to design weapons that will threaten the United States."
www.armscontrol.org...
I only talk about your real circumstances since you tell everyone they "display a complete lack of knowlege about the subject" when you dont have any credentials to speak about
what are you talking about selling shoes ?
Limited amount?? What China has been buying from Russia is limited?? Don’t think so…
Originally posted by chinawhite
In the present tense China is buying limited amount of modern equipment from foreign countries. Not buying equipment wholesale. The reason of this was because there were gaps between chinas capbility let the Su-27 and modern Kilo submarines
They must have modified the language in the manual I guess…China’s equipment before buying and acquiring western technology were Soviet clones.
Chinese defence spending are accountable in stages. In the inital stage, china brought whole sets of equipment to equip its armed forces during and following the korean war. Then they progressed to making soviet origin designs which then led to modifed soviet designs in service. eg T-69/79, J-8I, MiG-21 series of planes.
Like the Yakhont? Or maybe the Carriers? Sovremenny? Missiles is the only area where China is somewhat advanced, and basically due to Russian tech transfers, not completely indigenous designed.
As of now, chinas advanced military sector is missiles (missiles (SAMs, A2A missiles, Destroyers, Fighters, Submainres, Tanks, Rifles, and a very rapidly developing C4I industry). They are indigenious but use some elements of foreign technology. But as a whole, they are developed and manufractured by china
Used in the J-7 or J-8? what plane china has uses LO technology?
- China has LO technology (RAM, shaping , composite)
When Russia delivers one you mean?
- China will get a carrier when it wants a carrier.
Basic capability doesn’t mean they can build one whenever they want…
The knowledge of making a basic carrier is already known to chinese engineers since they have studied several of them.
Only a handful of tanks where designed with it, and even fewer are in service. China still uses Type 59 tanks…
- China has Composite armour on its tanks (chobham is a british acronym of a form of composite armour)
Comparable to British or US SSN?? Russia’s SSN are better than 093…
The US actually claims china has lanuched its modern 093 SSN
Well according to sinodefense…China only has 1 Xia class SSBN and maybe 1 094 sub…bad russian copy anyway…
- China does have modern SSBN's which are modelled on the russian concept with a hump for its SLBM,
A chinese carrier group would help project power in Taiwan better, not to mention would give the Chinese Navy a better chance against Taiwanese/US forces…
There are capbilities which china does not have but also does not need. A carrier is not a priority as yet because chinas navy is still geared around a conflict with taiwan
Ok…why does China still use Mig-21 and T-59?? High Quality hardware, isn’t it??
Chinese doctrime is not quantity over quality, dont confuse that with soviet thoughts.
Loads of J-8 (Mig-21) and J-8(Fat Mig-21) still in service, Han Class submarine…Ming Class sub, even Romeo class for crying out loud…if you were right, all this old crappy equipment would have been dismantled already and in a junkyard…
But as it goes, chinas military does not use a doctrime of more less capable equipment over more good quality equipment.
1.6 million soldiers are really “less man power intensive”…
If we look at the downsizing of the chinese military, we can tell they are aiming for a less man power intensive army.
Really?
The PLA had used large army or corps size organisation not long ago
Apparently it still does
The regular forces of the ground forces consist of 18 group armies, which are corps-size combined arms units each with 24,000~50,000 personnel. The group armies contain among them 25 infantry divisions, 28 infantry brigades, 9 armoured divisions, 9 armoured brigades, 2 artillery divisions, 19 artillery brigades, 19 antiaircraft artillery/air-defence missile brigades, and 10 army aviation (helicopter) regiments.
not according to sinodefense… Source: Sinodefense
but now the major unit is a division and fighting is done at the division, battilion and brigade level
Self-protection from…pirates of the caribbean? Short ranged? Tell that to the Taiwanese…
Well, i can easily argue that the equipment is for self-protection as well considering the systems they are based on are quite short ranged
Don’t know what percentage it is, or where you got your figures from, but agreed, China still has a lot of absolutely old and crappy equipment.
The equipment china has recieve barely contributes 5-10% of the whole force modernisation.
Which is all swell and good, if people didn’t know why are they modernizing.
The other equipment is to replace the ageing equipment in chinese service.
Oooh…so China is preparing to fight the US? Well…maybe that’s why they called that aggressive…
We would want to at least have a military force able to protect ourselves from america.
I guess Taiwan must be very happy China is pointing all those missiles their way
China has always deployed lots of shiped based anti-ship missiles and land based systems as well. It was in a defensive role.
Because it plans on attacking and invading an Independent Nation….
But why does china need so much Anti-ship missiles?
Defensive as in flying across the sea and hitting in a Taiwanese or US ship?
The equipment china is getting is defensive in nature
If that was the case there would have already been a war, China cannot project power…only Taiwan, and that still remains a big IF.
Its not like china is buying equipment so it can project it to america
A need? Such need only appeared until China turned it’s eyes on Taiwan again, there’s the “need”
Also, Its only been in recent years where the chinese military budget has actually risen since there was a need to re-focus on the military.
And not to forget that they spend on cheap weapons and can buy more for less money and have the capability to continue to raise that spending…
Not to mention that chinas military budget is still quite small compare to other countries spending
A ballistic missile…so they get Nuked in return?
I actually beg to differ. China has been activly trying to develop the means to kill a aircraft carrier. Extract from this thread.
A ballistic launch would be confused for a nuclear launch, and tactical nukes would rain on chinse military…that weapon will never be used…
The chinese Anti-carrier ballistic missile program is not designed to kill a carrier but mission kill it. The warhead being planned is said to be a large claymore that blows up and destroys all the electic gear on top radar, communications etc. Thats why a large CEP is not important being its a area effect weapon
I’m still wondering how will this ballistic weapon will be employed, or kept from being destroyed by cruise launchs from subs or B-2…If I was american, that would be the first thing I’d blow up, and keep an eye closely from the sky at all times…
That is part one of chinas Assains Mace program. Take away the head from the body. The rest of the carrier will be left for other missiles like the sunburn, YJ-62 which were designed to kill ships. Using a bunburn againest a carrier on full alert is a waste of a missile. Take its eyes and ears and the jobs much easier
I’m guessing not nuclear tipped, otherwise China would make a nice landmark “Biggest Nuclear Wasteland on Earth”
This is not just ment to send one or a couple of SRBM or MRBMs
Soo…let’s see, in your scenario, somehow Chinse Fighters get past the Carries own fighters, and launch their missiles at the same time that Kilo class sneak past ASW helos and launch?
to attack a carrier fleet its about flooding the defenses combined with air lanuched anti-ship missiles and submarine lanuched anti-ship missiles.
Russians at that time had technology that was comparable to western standards, not old.
The russians in the cold war would hook up their backfires with mach three kitchens to saturate the US carrier defense which were meant to be effective
Actually…not, in doesn’t hit me in the face at all. I’ll consider Kilo 636 class capable, and just maybe the Song (big IF) though I’d take an Australian or Swedish diesel over chinese diesel anytime…
chinas doctrime is a little similar to the saturating bit but doing that with stealthy missile attacks. Chinas purchases of Kilo submarines with the Klub cruise missile system. china has 12 of them right now. 2 877 and the rest 636 ones armed with the klub system. and producing the Song class with chinese missiles with about one dozen in service or sea trials. But im not saying all of them will be concentrated on a carrier group but the figure of 24 modern submarines kind of hits you in the face pretty hard
I hope you don’t forget those very capable (had to make the pun…sorry :lol 16 Luda class destroyers and 30 Jianghu class frigates…don’t forget that nice old towed array technology, at least 20 years behind the west…
The surface fleet is the soverny class with moskit missiles. the first ones 956 has the 120km moskit missiles and the improved 956EM has the improved moskit with a range of about 200km. Plus chinas own destroyers with 280km range YJ-62 missiles and a lot of other missiles but i cant be bother going over all of them at this momment.
24 in service…you’re kidding right? You really expect 24 modern aircraft to defeat a carrier?
Chinas air component is the Su-30MK2 which is a Su-30MKK optimized for naval combat with the N001VEP radar firing KP-31 missiles.
20 of them at a time, at best, though likely less., 44 fighters, assuming all of them scrambled with some degree of coordination, and none of them are grounded, and even then, against two carrier fighter wings…no game…
Fly low and fly fast to the target. Chinas JH-7/A fighters which are purpose built for naval strikes along with ground strikes but anyway was built to go low and fire their missiles.
Still not quantity over quality…riight.
then there are the the H-6 missiles which are also being equiped with cruise missiles. old but still flying
All arms of China’s military…not so sure if even the Carrier groups would be in range of land forces…
Anyway what im getting at is china is not going to just throw some missiles at them and hpe the problem goes away but a co-ordinated assult involing all arms of chinas military.
And why would the US put deliberately it’s carrier’s in it’s enemy’s weapon range? Most likely coastal positions would be destoyed by stealth and cruise bombing, that rain of pellets not even tested and unknown if it would work against a carrier would be destroyed in the ground, or would not hit, worst case scenariot, it does some damage, though a carier is not the easiest thing to mission kill…
Most probaly chinas submarines will fire the first shots then all of a sudden a hail of pellets come from the sky then some low flying aircraft. all assuming america enters within 200km of chinas coast or first interfers in the taiwan strait
F-16 knockoff?
Here is a breakdown of the chiense airforce
J-10 - From engine purchases, we know that there are more than 40 J-10 in production or produced. Numbers for a plane like this is a big what if but my rough estimate is that by 2010 there will be 100+ in chinese service depending on more engine purchases on the WS-10A program
SU-27 you mean..a somewhat capable plane I’ll reckon…
J-11- China has a confired figure of 90-100J-11s already produced with a possible 100 more depending if the contract is still valid. i roughly say that 70% will be upgraded to the J-11B standard
24 of them…
Su-30MKK2 - This plane was designed for the naval arm of the PLAN. Has good Anti-ship capabilities and is fitted with the M-400 recon pod
Do new Mig-21 make bigger holes in the ground than old Mig-21s??
J-7 - China has 500 of these planes which are upgraded and now able to fire AAM and do a little bombing. These planes have good manuverbility and the lastest versions have longer range and FCS
This one I’m sure will make a bigger hole than Mig-21, it has TWO engines…
J-8II - This aircraft is still a mistery to me. What is the PLAAF going to do with this aircraft make more or leave and upgrade. 240 have already been built ranging from a primitive plane to the J-8H which fires BVR missiles.
76 modern ones, 400 crap…
In total there is 476 BVR capable systems
25 modern subs? Well…only if you count Ming and Song class…not very modern really…and 4 capable destroyers, all of them Russian made…
25 modern submarines and over 12 very capble destroyers, while the rest of the destroyers have been outfitted with modern Anti-ship missil
Originally posted by rogue1
Erm no, I said all thermonuclear weapons are of the Tellar-Ulam concept ( which incidentally tou'd never heard of until I mentioned it )
In early 1999, attention focused on Chinese espionage's role in nuclear
I tell you you display a completel lack of knowlege on teh subject, which you do.
Originally posted by chinawhite
I never said the chinese were using anything different. I said, why does china need american concepts when china had mastered it in the 60's.
And I did not hear of the Teller-Ulam from you, I had already reseached about it when i had a discussion with indians about their nuclear program (which i have already said and you ignored), just trying to fill up the spaces?
Teller-Ulam
Edward Teller and Stanisław Ulam
None of which gives me any figures which you claimed to have known, Making things up again?
Hard to believe, since you did not even spell the name correctly which you "claimed" to have knowledge of. And its not me who has a complete lack of knowledge as others can judge in another thread
Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
I use sinodefense since Chinese writings is kinda impossible to read...and not that many sites talk about chinese capability, and so far Sinodefense hasn't proven unreliable...
Sentence by sentence?
Originally posted by rogue1
Teller-Ulam concept is hardly mastering it.
It can't have been a very inforamtive discussion as you don't seem to know anything about the concept.
The information is all their, yet you repeat the same ignorant lines again and again.
Figures for what ?
Well at least you learnt about teh Teller-Ulam concept from me
Well, perhaps you know some sites other than sinodefense that are reliable and do containt the latest news? It's a bit hard to come by with reliable sites these days...
Originally posted by chinawhite
Sinodefence is a site for general reference not one used for doctrimes or the latest news. Even to look for stats about things is not entirely clear.
Well...I only try to be concise and clear, without going around the bush too much, or ranting about other issues. Cheapen the post and the website...well, I would differ, "cheapening" ATS is a bit too much for some concrete questions and answers...
Anyone can post and quote sentence by sentence. Do you want to know why people dont do post like that?. It cheapens your post and it cheapens the website. Most people would agree and have stopped it since you dont prove anything like that
Fine...we go around the bush then, though it didn't take me 7-8 mins, I do research every answer I make...
If i wrote in paragraph form, it would take me about 30mins to write a full post. If i use quotes it takes about 7-8 minutes and you get nothing out of it
Mmm...well i do think you're exaggerating it a bit, I don't compare myself to one liners, and though some of my answers might be from one line, they are related to the issue, and are concrete enough to be answered.
People dont look at you post and read in amazment you wrote so much, they just see some guy spamming, thats the truth, the adminastrators first said that to me when i first came to ATS. Have you seriously wondered why no one else except you is doing it?
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by rogue1
Teller-Ulam concept is hardly mastering it.
How so?. How does a modern american warhead differ from the dinosaurs used before it in concept?
It can't have been a very inforamtive discussion as you don't seem to know anything about the concept.
Considering all the people in the space of a hour talking abour our "informative" self on their ignore list. I would think you would be the last person throwing mud?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
This is coming from the person who was trumpetting the claim that you first informed me about the concept whilst you had been spelling it wrong for the good part of this thread?
Figures for what ?
Walter Pincus and Vernon Loeb reported in stories published in the Washington Post on 8 April and 9 May 1999 that in 1997 another Chinese-American scientist named Peter H. Lee had been arrested and pled guilty to verbally passing classified nuclear weapons information to Chinese scientists while he was employed as a physicist at Los Alamos. Like Wen Ho Lee (who is unrelated), Peter Lee is a naturalized citizen born in Taiwan. The 1985 incident for which he was convicted involved a briefing Lee gave seven or more top Chinese nuclear scientists for two hours in a small conference room at another Beijing hotel. According to Pincus and Loeb;
"He talked about laser fusion and even discussed problems the United States was having in its nuclear weapons simulation program. He drew diagrams and supplied specifications. He explained test data. And he described at least one portion of a classified paper he had written, knowing that his disclosures violated the law.
"In December 1997 -- more than 12 years after the events, and after a six-year FBI investigation that included agents tapping his phones for months, reading his e-mail and his personal diaries, trailing him to China and conducting a polygraph -- Lee finally confessed and pleaded guilty. He was not paid by the Chinese for information, receiving only some travel expenses in 1997, and there was no evidence he disclosed classified information other than what he, himself, had described".
nuclearweaponarchive.org...
Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Limited amount?? What China has been buying from Russia is limited?
Like the Yakhont? Or maybe the Carriers? Sovremenny?
what plane china has uses LO technology?
Only a handful of tanks where designed with it
Russia’s SSN are better than 093
Well according to sinodefense
Loads of J-8 (Mig-21) and J-8(Fat Mig-21) still in service, Han Class submarine…Ming Class sub, even Romeo class for crying out loud
1.6 million soldiers are really “less man power intensive"
not according to sinodefense
A ballistic launch would be confused for a nuclear launch
I’ll consider Kilo 636 class capable, and just maybe the Song (big IF) though I’d take an Australian or Swedish diesel over chinese diesel anytime
You really expect 24 modern aircraft to defeat a carrier?
Most likely coastal positions would be destoyed by stealth and cruise bombing
F-16 knockoff?
76 modern ones, 400 crap…
25 modern subs?
Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well, perhaps you know some sites other than sinodefense that are reliable and do containt the latest news?
it matters not the length of the writing, but the quality.
Originally posted by rogue1so according to you nuclear weapons technology has remained stagnant fr the last 50 years, ahem.
I think your post highlights your maturity.
We both know I informed you about the concept As for spelling so what, you've found one tiny mistake I made, lol.
Quite simply the Chinese cannot make warheads as advanced as Russia or the US without outside help.