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.

 

Reverse Engineering by the Chinese

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

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.




posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruelapathy


this is the american ship
image2.sina.com.cn...

and this is the chinese ship
img237.photo.163.com...

this is an american rocket
image2.sina.com.cn...

and this is a chinese rocket
www.chinaiiss.org...

do they even look the same?

if you think they are clones in anyway, then pretty much all the weapons in the world are alike. Planes have wings, tanks have wheels and hulks, cannons are cylinder shaped and etc.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by warset]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Jesus, you actually quoted every sentence



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


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

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.

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


China has no stealth capability, carrier, chobham armor, modern SSN, modern SSBN


- China has LO technology (RAM, shaping , composite)
- China will get a carrier when it wants a carrier. The knowledge of making a basic carrier is already known to chinese engineers since they have studied several of them.
- China has Composite armour on its tanks (chobham is a british acronym of a form of composite armour)
- The US actually claims china has lanuched its modern 093 SSN
- China does have modern SSBN's which are modelled on the russian concept with a hump for its SLBM, Here is a claimed picture of it in post 3 Link to the thread

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


China's doctrine of quantity over quality has nothing to do with western standards.


Chinese doctrime is not quantity over quality, dont confuse that with soviet thoughts. Chinas modern doctrime is Rapid Reaction Units (RRU). Basically, these units are on alert 24/7 and are the inital fighting units to either stop a retreat from a attacking force or impede their progress. Also, all forces use a ratio of about 3:1 for an offensive attack while the soviets use 5:1 or more

But as it goes, chinas military does not use a doctrime of more less capable equipment over more good quality equipment. If we look at the downsizing of the chinese military, we can tell they are aiming for a less man power intensive army. The PLA had used large army or corps size organisation not long ago, but now the major unit is a division and fighting is done at the division, battilion and brigade level


Why? Rate of modernization and the kind of equipment acquired are obviosuly intended to deter the US from getting into a fight for Taiwan


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

The equipment china has recieve barely contributes 5-10% of the whole force modernisation. The other equipment is to replace the ageing equipment in chinese service. With the exception of the Moskit missile, all other services have got equipment which can be used in a number of senarios. The Su-30MKK is geared towards ground attack and can be seen fitted with rocket pods and LGB for CAS. We would want to at least have a military force able to protect ourselves from america.



extensive deployment of Anti-Ship weaponry


China has always deployed lots of shiped based anti-ship missiles and land based systems as well. It was in a defensive role. The existing systems are older silkworms which need to be replaced because they are obsolete or getting to old to be in service. When a new system enters service, a lot more older ones get taken out of service. But why does china need so much Anti-ship missiles?. Because a agressive power like america, relies on her navy to fight battles. The equipment china is getting is defensive in nature and when you term agression you term them as offensive weaponary. Its not like china is buying equipment so it can project it to america


Nothing?


It was a figure of speech, China in the 1980's was spending around 6 million each year. That is a lot less than japan and roughly similar to what most Nato countries were spending. In '79 china activate a new program involving four modernisations, Agriculture, Industry, Science and technology and National Defence. Defence spending during that time was kept to the bare minimum so other funds could be given towards economic moderisation. Thats one of the reasons why chiense defence spending was so low.

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. Not to mention that chinas military budget is still quite small compare to other countries spending


China as of now is still powerless to do much against two or more carriergroups.


I actually beg to differ. China has been activly trying to develop the means to kill a aircraft carrier. Extract from this thread

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

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


This is the likey senario
This is not just ment to send one or a couple of SRBM or MRBMs to attack a carrier fleet its about flooding the defenses combined with air lanuched anti-ship missiles and submarine lanuched anti-ship missiles. 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

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

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.

Chinas air component is the Su-30MK2 which is a Su-30MKK optimized for naval combat with the N001VEP radar firing KP-31 missiles. 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. then there are the the H-6 missiles which are also being equiped with cruise missiles. old but still flying

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. 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

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

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

Su-27SK. A total of 76 aircraft has been confirmed. This is also a what if considering how well J-11B upgrades go. About 70% of these will be upgraded. Anti-ship missiles etc.

Su-30MKK - 76 of these multi-role aircraft have been confirmed and wouldn't recieve upgrades now or near future. Anti-ship missiles

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

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

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.

This does not include the JH-7 and JH-7A planes

In total there is 476 BVR capable systems

The list of chinese ships and submarines which are modern is very large
Chiense Fleet 2006

25 modern submarines and over 12 very capble destroyers, while the rest of the destroyers have been outfitted with modern Anti-ship missil



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

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?


Not everyone from speaking their mind, but people who have crazy ideas. It has tried to stamp out the paparazzi and other people like Falun Gong

Havoc as in conspiracies. A land of the free where most of the worlds worst atrocties are born. If you look carfully into chinas scanners, you will find that they try to stamp out numerous "devils" in capitalism. Porn, religious lunatics, scams.

You might be a person who thinks people dont get tricked like that easily but this happens. Since china opened up to the west, china has been exported capitalist evils like the gambling, prositution, drugs.

[Venezuela]

Thats actually called a threat which he stated he is willing to furfill on numerous occasions. May was used because there was no actual deal involved just giving use his opinions

[Pakistan]

The claim goes that pakistan actually gave one F-16 to china for studies. You can do a quick search if you like

[Israel]


about it…


You sure about that



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I see you got two warnings next to your name again. I wonder why



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 )


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


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


but yet you can


Please share them then

Since no-one else can find about their power, if seems a 20ish airchair general in chian selling shoes has information regarding them



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.


And is this how you divert peoples attention?

I asked whether you have read the Cox report and try to change the topic to whether i can read or not?. Enjoy those nice warnings



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

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.


LOL, Tellar-Ulam is a concept, the designs using this concept can be very very different. Why do you thnk the US and USSR tested so many warheads, because they were testing new designs usin the Tellar-Ulam concept. All Tellar-Ulam concept is, is using a fission weapon as a trigger for thermonuclear fuel, nothing else. I thnk you fail to understand this.


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 ?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

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


what are you talking about selling shoes ?
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



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   

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.


Erm no, I said all thermonuclear weapons are of the Tellar-Ulam concept ( which incidentally tou'd never heard of until I mentioned it
). You are the one which implied the Chinese used something different. NOt sure what your anology about the cars is meant to prove, but I agree - China drives Holdens whilst the US and Russia drive Ferrari's. Which would you rather steal a Holden or a Ferrari, lol.



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...


Here's a book I read some time ago. www.encounterbooks.com...



what are you talking about selling shoes ?
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


LOL, right as opposed to listening to you, a schoolkid ? I tell you you display a completel lack of knowlege on teh subject, which you do. For example I talk about Tellar-Ulam concept, something which you'd never heard about, lucky you can use google well. Then you come back pretending you know all about it, when in fact it is obvious to anyone who has done any real reading on the subject that you don't.


[edit on 12-9-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   

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
Limited amount?? What China has been buying from Russia is limited?? Don’t think so…


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.
They must have modified the language in the manual I guess…China’s equipment before buying and acquiring western technology were Soviet clones.


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
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.


- China has LO technology (RAM, shaping , composite)
Used in the J-7 or J-8?
what plane china has uses LO technology?


- China will get a carrier when it wants a carrier.
When Russia delivers one you mean?

The knowledge of making a basic carrier is already known to chinese engineers since they have studied several of them.
Basic capability doesn’t mean they can build one whenever they want…


- China has Composite armour on its tanks (chobham is a british acronym of a form of composite armour)
Only a handful of tanks where designed with it, and even fewer are in service. China still uses Type 59 tanks…

-

The US actually claims china has lanuched its modern 093 SSN
Comparable to British or US SSN?? Russia’s SSN are better than 093…


- China does have modern SSBN's which are modelled on the russian concept with a hump for its SLBM,
Well according to sinodefense…China only has 1 Xia class SSBN and maybe 1 094 sub…bad russian copy anyway…
-
-

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
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…


Chinese doctrime is not quantity over quality, dont confuse that with soviet thoughts.
Ok…why does China still use Mig-21 and T-59?? High Quality hardware, isn’t it??


But as it goes, chinas military does not use a doctrime of more less capable equipment over more good quality equipment.
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…

If we look at the downsizing of the chinese military, we can tell they are aiming for a less man power intensive army.
1.6 million soldiers are really “less man power intensive”…

The PLA had used large army or corps size organisation not long ago
Really?

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.
Apparently it still does

but now the major unit is a division and fighting is done at the division, battilion and brigade level
not according to sinodefense… Source: Sinodefense


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
Self-protection from…pirates of the caribbean? Short ranged? Tell that to the Taiwanese…




The equipment china has recieve barely contributes 5-10% of the whole force modernisation.
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 other equipment is to replace the ageing equipment in chinese service.
Which is all swell and good, if people didn’t know why are they modernizing.

We would want to at least have a military force able to protect ourselves from america.
Oooh…so China is preparing to fight the US? Well…maybe that’s why they called that aggressive…



China has always deployed lots of shiped based anti-ship missiles and land based systems as well. It was in a defensive role.
I guess Taiwan must be very happy China is pointing all those missiles their way

But why does china need so much Anti-ship missiles?
Because it plans on attacking and invading an Independent Nation…
.

The equipment china is getting is defensive in nature
Defensive as in flying across the sea and hitting in a Taiwanese or US ship?

Its not like china is buying equipment so it can project it to america
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.




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.
A need? Such need only appeared until China turned it’s eyes on Taiwan again, there’s the “need”

Not to mention that chinas military budget is still quite small compare to other countries spending
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…




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 missile…so they get Nuked in return?



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
A ballistic launch would be confused for a nuclear launch, and tactical nukes would rain on chinse military…that weapon will never be used…


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 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…




This is not just ment to send one or a couple of SRBM or MRBMs
I’m guessing not nuclear tipped, otherwise China would make a nice landmark “Biggest Nuclear Wasteland on Earth”

to attack a carrier fleet its about flooding the defenses combined with air lanuched anti-ship missiles and submarine lanuched anti-ship missiles.
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?

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
Russians at that time had technology that was comparable to western standards, not old.


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
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…


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.
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…


Chinas air component is the Su-30MK2 which is a Su-30MKK optimized for naval combat with the N001VEP radar firing KP-31 missiles.
24 in service…you’re kidding right? You really expect 24 modern aircraft to defeat a carrier?

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.
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…

then there are the the H-6 missiles which are also being equiped with cruise missiles. old but still flying
Still not quantity over quality…riight.


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.
All arms of China’s military…not so sure if even the Carrier groups would be in range of land forces…

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
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…
Chinese fighters scrambled would be in range of Carrier fighter wings and escort SAMs before they could hit a carrier…subs would probably just run for they lives against dedicated ASW helos and SSNs like Seawolf or Virginia…


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
F-16 knockoff?


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
SU-27 you mean..a somewhat capable plane I’ll reckon…





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
24 of them…


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
Do new Mig-21 make bigger holes in the ground than old Mig-21s??


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.
This one I’m sure will make a bigger hole than Mig-21, it has TWO engines…



In total there is 476 BVR capable systems
76 modern ones, 400 crap…



25 modern submarines and over 12 very capble destroyers, while the rest of the destroyers have been outfitted with modern Anti-ship missil
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…



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   

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 )



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?

And its

Teller-Ulam

Edward Teller and Stanisław Ulam



In early 1999, attention focused on Chinese espionage's role in nuclear



None of which gives me any figures which you claimed to have known, Making things up again?


I tell you you display a completel lack of knowlege on teh subject, which you do.


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



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Your quoting SinoDefence.com for things like this?

You do realise its run as someones hobby

-----------

Edit: Are you seriously going to quote me sentence by sentence?


[edit on 12-9-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
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? I adress the different points you make, instead of quoting each paragraph and adressing it completely, which might lead to confusion...why, you dislike being quoted that way??



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   

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.


LOL, being able to make a basic device using the Teller-Ulam concept is hardly mastering it. ONce again you completely miss the point, the concept is easy for a nuclear power, it's being able to get maximum power with minimal weight which is the hard part.



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?


Of course you did
LOL. It can't have been a very inforamtive discussion as you don't seem to know anything about the concept.



Teller-Ulam

Edward Teller and Stanisław Ulam


LOL, you are so smart, sorry I didn't use google. SO why being an expert in google, can you still not understand the design concepts of nuclear weapons. The information is all their, yet you repeat the same ignorant lines again and again.



None of which gives me any figures which you claimed to have known, Making things up again?


Figures for what ?



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


LOL, you do hvae a completel lack of knowlege, as people can see jusdging this thread. Well at least you learnt about teh Teller-Ulam concept from me



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   

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...


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.


Sentence by sentence?


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

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

People refer to that as a slug fest of un-organized argument.


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?


If i was answering the same post as you were, it would take me less than 5 minutes since you have nothing more than a one liner for each reply. Which does not contain contention or edvidence let alone proper structure



[edit on 12-9-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   

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...


The information is all their, yet you repeat the same ignorant lines again and again.


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?

Please, do not use the "I" word when describing other people


Figures for what ?


Chinese nuclear warheads yield to weight ratio. You seem to ahve known just a few post before and now you forgot?. Your always right.....LOL

"there is no OFFICAL CHINESE DATA WHICH YOU COULD HAVE CALCULATED FROM"


Well at least you learnt about teh Teller-Ulam concept from me


I might have learnt something if you spelt the actual name right



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

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, 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...
Since you dislike Sinodefense, for it's obviously someones very elaborate "hobby" I'll use Globalsecurity...unless you don't approve of it either


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
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...
I see nothing wrong in adressing point by point, so it's clear what's being discussed, and what's the response, yet your advise will be taken into consideration
And about not proving anything...don't think so, the information just has to be used correctly, it matters not the length of the writing, but the quality...



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
Fine...we go around the bush then, though it didn't take me 7-8 mins, I do research every answer I make...
Anyway it was my belief people disliked looong posts, obviously it seems to be otherwise, so your advice has been taken and I'll be careful to add lot of interesting details so you feel satisfied...



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?
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.
I really don't know if what I'm shooting for is for "amazement" of others, but merely a logical discussion. So comparing me (what you obviously did) to someone spamming, even when I raised valid points...simply doesn't fly

Anyway...I did ask some questions, so I'll expect your answer to my post, unless you want it in paragraph form so it suits you better...



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

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?


LOL ok right, so according to you nuclear weapons technology has remained stagnant fr the last 50 years, ahem. We are talking about warhead designs which teh CHinese stole information about NOT the concept. I fail to see how you can't understand the difference.



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...


LOL please haha. I think your post highlights your maturity. You seem to thinik that these 2 people are in some way important ? maybe because you somehow think this is a victory for you lol. I hardly see them complementing your posts




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?


We both know I informed you about the concept
As for spelling so what, you've found one tiny mistake I made, lol. It unfortunately for you does not change the facts.


Figures for what ?


Chinese nuclear warheads yield to weight ratio. You seem to ahve known just a few post before and now you forgot?. Your always right.....LOL

"there is no OFFICAL CHINESE DATA WHICH YOU COULD HAVE CALCULATED FROM"

OK so likewise you assume that the CHinese have taken a leap ahead in technology by themselves. Quite simply the Chinese cannot make warheads as advanced as Russia or the US without outside help. Simple as that. NOt to mention they have a small amount of tests compared to the 2 poweres I've mentioned. Testing is invaluably to proving the design of the weapon.
You like to assume alot with no facts at all, where is your information about CHinese warheads ?


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...



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Go to this site and read some articles published here Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou . It is the best collection in english i could find

I cut a lot of seperate quotes you made which were irrelevant


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Limited amount?? What China has been buying from Russia is limited?


Its a drop in the pond if you compare the purchases to the size of the chinese armed forces. Some submarines, a few hundred planes does not contribute a large amount of weaponary. For a full scale war of agression. China could and would have brought a much larger amount of weaponary


Like the Yakhont? Or maybe the Carriers? Sovremenny?


China does not have the Yakhont, that is india. And it is very unlikey the Yakhont technology would have been exported to china. The other antiship missiles in chiense service (C-803, YJ-62) bare no resembalence to any russian missile

The Sovremenny is hardley the leading edge in the chinese navy. The chinese manufractures have already been building more advanced systems for their destroyers. The Sovremenny was bought to fill the capability cap when the PLAN did not yet ahve the Type-52B/C destroyers


what plane china has uses LO technology?


The J-10. It uses a cloat (or a few cloats) of RAM, its fuselage has been shaped to hide the enginers compressor fans and its canards have been angled to deflect radar waves. It also uses a amount of composite materials in its structure


Only a handful of tanks where designed with it


You claimed that china does not pocess this technology, not about its status in service. And the T-98 has been fitted with composite armour. The older T-96 had also been fitted with a large amount of composite armour on its glacis plate


Russia’s SSN are better than 093


Yet they are still modern submarines. Even if these submarines are better than chiense ones. It doesn't make the chinese submarines less modern.


Well according to sinodefense


Sinodefence is the last site which would be "in the know" . Its figures and data are sourced from other sites and other people. The only good things about Sino-defence is its friendliness to the eyes. But apart from that, its only used as an appetizer and not the main meal as they say. As i mentioned, the site is run as a hobby and its reflected in the amount of outdated pages


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


Quality over Quanity is a catch phase. It has no actual meaning. When the americans go on a offensive, it will also be using quanity

The chinese army is in transition, the doctrime can be reflected in the fact that they are deploying a lot more high quailty fighters along the coast facing taiwan, instead of employing cheap light fighters. Ever heard the phase, "local wars under high tech conditions"

The systems you mention are all based in reserve squardons. They are what the chinese and russians refer to as the "B" class units


1.6 million soldiers are really “less man power intensive"


Which ones are in the RRU and which ones are basic the home guards. How much units in the PLA are undergoing transition. I am talking about the future not the present



not according to sinodefense


SinoDefence does not even cover the 20 or so army exercises held every year. They have not even strached the surface of orBat. If you try to refer to sino-defense as a reliable source or orBat, i am sad to say that most of that information is inccorect and they have no information about other things peoples statements.

The owner called DongFeng actualy tries to find a mendium between the two


A ballistic launch would be confused for a nuclear launch


Thank god for the idiot proof army. The reason why people in movies lanuch when they are first warned about a lanuch is because there are normally two hundred missiles heading that way. The reason they lanuch their missiles is because they dont want to waste their relatitory strike.

A few missiles heading towards a carrier wouldn't be worth a general nuclear strike and will be waited out. This is called escalation and has been inforced since the end of the cold war and a little time before



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


If you had a opinion of a army officer that would matter, but you dont and it doesn't matter what you think (even after reading sinodefence.........)

You could atleast tell me why you prefer a australian or swedish submarine

Modern FCS
Ability to fire Anti-ship missiels while submerged
Capable Sonar suite
acoustic tiles

Apart from AIP (which has already been rumoured to have been put in the Type 039G1)


You really expect 24 modern aircraft to defeat a carrier?


No, I dont expect it to defeat a carr, I except it to defeat is air component with the help of the other few hundred planes china will be deploying.

Unless you missed this, One plane can carry two missiles, 2*24 equals 48 missiles. The Kh-31A is not some other missile. It is extremly capable and if used when the MK2 is skimming the water will pop out of nowhere at mach 3. Now is that a thread or not?

Chinese airforce has been practising interdiction missons for a while (since its founding) and has been focused on ground based radar. Now it has AWACS and the M400 pod as well as capable datalinks. Co-ordination is no big task. Also, chinas airfields are not crammed and fairy spread out

Interesting to note, that "Australia's Collins class submarines "destroyed" two US Navy nuclear submarines and an aircraft carrier in separate exercises off the Australian coast."


Most likely coastal positions would be destoyed by stealth and cruise bombing


The US will be the LAST to act. If you haven't seen chinas array of SAM and moblie PAR and passive radars i suggest you check them out. Chinas military on the coast will not be turkey shoot outs. Considering the war will most likey not turn full scale, it will be a limited war involving a few carriers and not a wide scale bombardment since the US neither has the equipment or the will to wait it out


F-16 knockoff?


Unless you going to tell me that was a joke or i will have to consider you ignorant.

Read my two post here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


76 modern ones, 400 crap…


Strange.

90-100 J-11 (su-27)
24 Su-30MK2
76 Su-30MKK

unknown number of J-10, lets use the lower 50 estimate

That equals 250 MODERN fighters

-----------------

You must know what happened in Cope India dont you??. Mig-21's served up the F-15s 90% of the time


25 modern subs?


12 Song class
1 Yuan class
12 Kilo submarines

All capable and MODERN

Chinas Type-52C/B are worth more in combat than a soverny class simply because they have more capable systems emplaced.

The YJ-62 and C-803 are far better missiles than the moskit. Considering a good deal of chinas destoryers use these missiles, i would say that it is quite a LARGE threat to a carrier



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well, perhaps you know some sites other than sinodefense that are reliable and do containt the latest news?


STAY AWAY FROM GLOBALSECRUITY

Thats taking 100 steps backward


Not sites but forums. Sites are old fashion and most of them are run by a few members and the news does not get updated as fast. Forums draw alot more people

Wforum (if you speak chinese) is the best for chinese military news.

I created my list of the best military sites (In english) in the link below
Link


it matters not the length of the writing, but the quality.


Good quality?.

Let me take a example from your post
"China only has 1 Xia class SSBN and maybe 1 094 sub…bad russian copy anyway… "Self-protection from…pirates of the caribbean?"
"otherwise China would make a nice landmark “Biggest Nuclear Wasteland on Earth”"
"F-16 knockoff? "
"Do new Mig-21 make bigger holes in the ground than old Mig-21s?? "
"This one I’m sure will make a bigger hole than Mig-21, it has TWO engines… "
"76 modern ones, 400 crap… "

In my honest opinion. Nothing was "good" quality and in no way can you address anything with a couple of lines



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT ANY AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY IS IN CHINESE WARHEADS.


Originally posted by rogue1so according to you nuclear weapons technology has remained stagnant fr the last 50 years, ahem.


Im claiming the concepts have remained stagnant. Talk about interpretation. And if you read about the W-88 warhead, it wasn't vastly improved technology that allowed it to be better but a different arrgament the radiation case had. I think it was called a watermelon and it allowed the warhead to be much smaller since it did not ahve to have a clyinder shape.

Unless you claim that chinese engineers would be stagnant or be unaware of ways to improve a warhead than arent you bias?


I think your post highlights your maturity.


Your the one to talk about maturity, Anyone just looks at your profile will see the level you work on. two red boxs show how much maturity you ahve. Wolf, cries wolf?


We both know I informed you about the concept
As for spelling so what, you've found one tiny mistake I made, lol.


You love claiming BS dont you?. Here are some facts you can swallow,

You were spelling the name wrong for the past 2 days while you claim you educated me about it. If it was a small mistake, you would have fixed it quickly. You actualy thought you were right. At least you admitted to it here.

And like i have said for the third time, i already knew about that since i had a discussion with some indian members about the H-bomb. Why dont you try to deny that?


Quite simply the Chinese cannot make warheads as advanced as Russia or the US without outside help.


Says who? you?

20ish armchair general selling shoes in china?

Claiming how unknowledgable people are while you have no creditbility to speak of considering your a shoe salesman?


The question we ask is whether the chinese had the same technological base as the russians and americans were using in the 1960s as the chinese were using in the 1980's. Considering the changes in technology at that time, its more than pausible. One thing you simply bypass is the fact that NO CHINESE WARHEAD HAS BEEN PROVEN TO USE THE SAME TECHNIQUE AS THE AMERICANS.

do the russians use the same technique, or did they also steal an american design to make their warheads



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join