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.

 

How advanced is the Chinese army?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Ok, so they have practically the largest army of the world, but how advanced are they? They haven't gotten involved in many conflicts unlike our government, so, they've had plenty of time to advance their technology. How far have they gotten with their military in terms of advanced and super technology?





posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Tough to answer that since it is most likely they would not publish their best pieces of hardware and technology out in the open.

But yes they have had plenty of time to develop some pretty nasty things.

The thing to keep in mind tho is that China is heavily involved in a world market place. They are making too much mula to want to kill the hand that feeds them.

Cheers!!!!



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Nothing advances technology and capability like actual combat. Experience also breeds efficiency, better training for all and enhanced doctrine.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Ok to finish this fer the year bella Colla has a 6 peice coast guard in port . 2 corvetts , 2 missel boats and 2 supply ships with gunz . they train the new Bella Colla cops and prince Goerge and east Burnaby Scottsdale have the light infitrry , 1 division guyz . The vets come home from Afghghani and do 3 weeks only in squad carz $ 25 an hour pay . They can becaome tewassen police , kewlona Police and Edmonton Police after 6 months service in car . In defense of the women , weirdo trainz keep rollin we gotta keep payin , money comes in from Minng and forestry taxes but all housing rentals get paid to the Government of Northern British Columbia , North Alberta and Souht Ontario respectively . Pay your taxes and fund our countries economy . Thats the slogan for 2009 budget crisis for north Coastal .

Over !



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Not very. They still go off the "more is better" approach. From the crap they are selling in Africa and other great places it is the same old wood and sheet metal that they have been pumping out for 60 years. Optics are their real problem. Quality and Chinese are two words that never seem to go togeather. Tanks, planes, subs, spaceships.....They are about 50 years behind the US in technology. They would have never gotten to space without stealing tech from us and Russia....Mostly Russia.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Great site with all your forces and logistical questions answered.

Click a topic and scroll down for a chart.

www.globalfirepower.com...



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
There idea of a battle is to use shear manpower. is in human wave attacks.

Most of there army is used for internal security and not equipped for combat outside China.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


To be perfectly honest thats a pretty hard question to ask, I'm not only the Chinese army but nearly every army on the planet has different technologies, techniques and weapons that we can only dream about.

Think of how advanced some pieces of civilian kit are, then think about what the army has! It's a scary thought.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I think the key is to have more ammo than they have people. If it was not for Clinton selling this country out to the Chicom's, they'd be throwing stones at us.



"…Until recently, China's nuclear weapons designs were a generation behind those of the United States, largely because Beijing was unable to produce small warheads that could be launched from a single missile at multiple targets and form the backbone of a modern nuclear force. But by the mid-1990s, China had built and tested such small bombs, a breakthrough that officials say was accelerated by the theft of U.S. nuclear secrets from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico…." (New York Times, Jeff Gerth, March 6, 1999)

Source: www.tldm.org...



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRooster
 


I agree 100 percent. Clinton gave them more info than they could have stolen in 100 years. or rather "allowed" them to aquire the info.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 03:08 AM
link   
While not up to the standards of the west, it's fair to say that regionally they hold the most clout. Here are some examples of modern Chinese equipment.

Their navy has shown the biggest improvement over the last 5 years.

New as yet unnamed amphibious light tank on AAAV chassis.



ZBD04 Amphibious Infantry Fighting Vehicle



ZTZ99/ZTZ99A/WZ123 are all prototypes for china's next main battle tank



New types of wheeled IFV's are being introduced



ZFB05 4x4 Armored Personnel Carrier



PLZ 04 Howitzer



Type 71 LPD



Type 52B and C DDG



Type 54A FFG



Type 22 Fast Attack Craft

[img]http://img119.imageshack.us/my.php?image=type02201largepreviewin9.jpgPLAN

SOVREMENNY Destroyers



Type 94 SSBN



Type 39A Diesel Electric



WZ-10 attach helicopter



J-10 Fighter



etc etc etc



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
Not very. They still go off the "more is better" approach. From the crap they are selling in Africa and other great places it is the same old wood and sheet metal that they have been pumping out for 60 years. Optics are their real problem. Quality and Chinese are two words that never seem to go togeather. Tanks, planes, subs, spaceships.....They are about 50 years behind the US in technology. They would have never gotten to space without stealing tech from us and Russia....Mostly Russia.


Give me a break, you obviously know nothing about what China can and can't do
The leaps in commercial technology alone ( where a large part is made in China ) automatically put China's tech within 15 years of the YS. The US isnn't the world defeating high tech country the ignorant seem to think it is.
I guess your flat screen TV is crap ( if you can;t afford a good one ) because they are all made in China, as with Laptops and PC's, smart phones, routers - the list goe on and on.
As for steel, China actually exports it to America, I guess that means your tanks and ships are crap.

To the poster whi says that CHina still relies on mass, that simply is not true. They are rapidly downsizing and modersnizing their military. US domination of the pacific and Asia is rapidly coming to an end. We have all read (this that are informed) about a Chinese SSK surfacing 10km's behind a US carrier completely undetected. If it was war time that carrier would have been sunk and probably a few of the escorting ships.

So yah in any fullscale war, China could hold its own against the US near its borders and especially if the US tried to intervene over Taiwan. Which is why the rhetoric over Taiwan is toned down these days. The US militry knows they would get a mauling from whcih they probably couldn't recover.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRooster
I think the key is to have more ammo than they have people. If it was not for Clinton selling this country out to the Chicom's, they'd be throwing stones at us.



"…Until recently, China's nuclear weapons designs were a generation behind those of the United States, largely because Beijing was unable to produce small warheads that could be launched from a single missile at multiple targets and form the backbone of a modern nuclear force. But by the mid-1990s, China had built and tested such small bombs, a breakthrough that officials say was accelerated by the theft of U.S. nuclear secrets from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico…." (New York Times, Jeff Gerth, March 6, 1999)

Source: www.tldm.org...


This has never been proven and the scientist who supposedly stole the information was found innocent, although it does make for a good headline for the ignorant. The CHinese with or without information would still have been able to produce small warheads, modern testing methods are far more advanced than the ones the US and Russia were using in the 1970's to produce minaturized warheads.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I hate to disagree with you Rouge but the Chinese paper dragon needs to walk first before such capabilities are attributed to it.


Originally posted by rogue1
They are rapidly downsizing and modersnizing their military.


And we're not? We have experience, training, technological, infrastructural, logistical, monetary advantages etc... over the Chinese anywhere from ten years to a couple of decades.


Originally posted by rogue1
US domination of the pacific and Asia is rapidly coming to an end.


You're entitled to your opinion of course.


Originally posted by rogue1
We have all read (this that are informed) about a Chinese SSK surfacing 10km's behind a US carrier completely undetected.


And those that are really informed would never tell you or me about the very specific (read relevant) information and circumstances about that and similar like incidents. Information which if not factoring into a detailed war scenario could nullify the dramatic extrapolations you've made.


Originally posted by rogue1
If it was war time that carrier would have been sunk and probably a few of the escorting ships.


If it was war time Chinese naval bases would have been devastated, their posts mined/patrolled and their command and control capabilities reduced. The carrier would be under wartime readiness and the precautions, planning and systems involved vastly different from what they were at that time. Even if the Chinese sunk a few carriers, a reasonable trade for the destruction of mainland China.


Originally posted by rogue1
So yah in any fullscale war, China could hold its own against the US near its borders and especially if the US tried to intervene over Taiwan.


Not without attacking US bases/territory in the area and destroying vital (see unacceptable losses) US assets, both in theater and globally. You can see how such a scenario would spiral out of control and could lead to events no one wants.


Originally posted by rogue1
Which is why the rhetoric over Taiwan is toned down these days.


Actions speak louder than words. US support for Taiwan in terms of armament and technology is still strong.


Originally posted by rogue1
The US militry knows they would get a mauling from whcih they probably couldn't recover.


Unless China goes nuclear they cannot destroy out of theater US military capability and forces conventionally. The same counter argument cannot be made for the Chinese. Mauling? Perhaps. But it will be far less destructive than what happens to China.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by WestPoint23]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And we're not? We have experience, training, technological, infrastructural, logistical, monetary advantages etc... over the Chinese anywhere from ten years to a couple of decades.


You missed the point, the person I was replying to stated that China relies on mass to win wars, thta simply is not correct today.



And those that are really informed would never tell you or me about the very specific (read relevant) information and circumstances about that and similar like incidents. Information which if not factoring into a detailed war scenario could nullify the dramatic extrapolations you've made.


Well, we won't know until the shooting begins. The fact that almost every time the US NAvy has conducted exercises with friendly SSK's providing OPFOR shows time and again how easily the carrier screen can be penetrated. The Australians have done it a few times even with the US Navy cheating and being given the positions of the sub.



If it was war time Chinese naval bases would have been devastated, their posts mined/patrolled and their command and control capabilities reduced.


Devestated by what ? I doubt very few American plains would survive the SAM defences on China's coast. Cruise missiles ? You barely had enough to take on Iraq let alone China and of course any platform lauching cruise missiles will be in range of chinese missiles. The Chinese ballistic missile carrier killer is a particularly interesting.


The carrier would be under wartime readiness and the precautions, planning and systems involved vastly different from what they were at that time. Even if the Chinese sunk a few carriers, a reasonable trade for the destruction of mainland China.


Again, America couldn't possibly devastate China with conventional weapons alone. The American Pacific Fleet would in turn be devasted as well as much of the Air Force.


Originally posted by rogue1
Not without attacking US bases/territory in the area and destroying vital (see unacceptable losses) US assets, both in theater and globally. You can see how such a scenario would spiral out of control and could lead to events no one wants.


Well you seem to imply that the US can attack the Chinese mailand with impunity. If there were a fullscale war then the US bases in the Pacific would of course be attacked. I doubt it would go nuclear unless the mainland US was attacked with mass casualties.


Originally posted by rogue1
Actions speak louder than words. US support for Taiwan in terms of armament and technology is still strong.


Actually these days more Taiwanese embrace China and reject America. One of the biggest complaints of Taiwanese is America selloing them weapons at exhorbatant prices whilst artificially keeping tension high between the 2 countries. The majority of Taiwanese would prefer America but out of making rash statements about Taiwan.


Originally posted by rogue1
Unless China goes nuclear they cannot destroy out of theater US military capability and forces conventionally. The same counter argument cannot be made for the Chinese. Mauling? Perhaps. But it will be far less destructive than what happens to China.


To attack China in a major war would require the bulk of US forces to be in theater, which means a large portion of them would be destroyed. As for who would come out on top, probably China. The US economy would be devastated and China's to a lessor degree. As well US interests arou nd the world would be threatened as other countries would take advantage of a weakened US state.

It is interesting of course to see how the USAF would manage against China, I doubt many planes would be coming back. China's SAM's are too numerous and advanced and of course AWACS couldn't take part they would be shot down hundreds of miles out.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by rogue1
 


Modern and China....
Yeah right give me a break. They are building crap 30 years at least behind us. If you are talking about the crap people buy at Wally World like TVs and clcok radios .....You got me there...Nobody can build a crappy TV like China. A bunch of morons beating on drums and twirling sticks does not impress me. Show me their F-22? Show me their Carriers .....Hell show me a modern conflict outside Korea when the Chinese had ANY experience at fighting in a war. They are all painted rust and socialist propaganda. That is all I need or want to know about the Chinese. They do make a hell of a nice AK though....But any idiot can do that.....As for a war with China...Will not happen. We will nuke them, and that will be it. They know that, and that is why they stay away from Taiwan.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by TXMACHINEGUNDLR]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
isn`t there something in the region of 400 balistic and asm in or around the taiwan straights? i wouldn`t like to be the CBG commander going near that lot



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
I was replying to stated that China relies on mass to win wars, thta simply is not correct today.


Yeah I agree with that too.


Originally posted by rogue1
The fact that almost every time the US NAvy has conducted exercises with friendly SSK's...


At the end of the day they are still exercises, we do not know the exact ROE. Conditions would be different under wartime, both from command, the crew, right down to the individual systems. Besides, our allies are pretty good at this business, despite the assumptions would an opposing nation be as proficient and capable?

I'm not saying subs can't sink one of our carriers, a sub it its greatest threat. However if we use them properly and make full use of our join branch weapon systems and capabilities we can minimize the losses. Yet they would still function as a critical element in any conflict. The focus should be in killing most of the threat and its support facilities before they can interact with the carrier.


Originally posted by rogue1
I doubt very few American plains would survive the SAM defences on China's coast.


China is almost surrounded with US bases. In the West we can target them from Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries. Then there is Diego Garcia, Australia, Guam, Hawaii, Okinawa, Japan, South Korea and Alaska. Not to mention the five 4.5 acre floating bases, which if positioned and defended properly, that can influence the outcome.


Originally posted by rogue1
Cruise missiles? You barely had enough to take on Iraq let alone China...


I think you're referring to Operation Allied Force. That was a problem caused due to several factors. Clinton had overlooked the military and it suffered. Also, at the time new cruise missiles were just being developed and integrated, GPS was not as mature as it is today. We have more aircraft, more ships, subs, and other systems integrated with cruise missiles. Bigger stocks, wartime training, an active logistical chain and overall more capable systems. In the near future this advantage will only increase as more of our programs come online.


Originally posted by rogue1
...and of course any platform lauching cruise missiles will be in range of chinese missiles.


That's pretty irrelevant. When your ISR is gone, Command and Control reduced and forward deployed sites are under attack max missile range and speed is pointless. We can survive their IADS and blue water surface capability. Because of this we can use our assets from global bases which can only be targeted effectively is with Chinese ballistic missiles. China would be forced to consider the implications.


Originally posted by rogue1
The Chinese ballistic missile carrier killer is a particularly interesting.


It is interesting but that concept has yet to be demonstrated, much less implemented and perfected.


Originally posted by rogue1
Again, America couldn't possibly devastate China with conventional weapons alone.


Yes we can actually. You are seriously overestimating the size of the Chinese military. While it may have a large number of facilities, a trait of inefficiency, it has a relatively few systems (in comparison). It is only critical to destroy half of the Chinese forces. I am confident the US or, more likely, a join coalition between the US, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea can do it.


Originally posted by rogue1
The American Pacific Fleet would in turn be devasted as well as much of the Air Force.


Yes the Pacific fleet would be affected, forward deployed US assets lost as well. However in comparison we would not be as affected as China. They are loosing continental based units and functions. We are losing forward deployed forces. Their situation is much more critical and severe. They can only target the CONUS with nuclear missiles. Again, would such a decision get made.



Originally posted by rogue1
Well you seem to imply that the US can attack the Chinese mailand with impunity. If there were a fullscale war then the US bases in the Pacific would of course be attacked.


Yes China can attack regional US bases however that would draw in Japan and South Korea; Taiwan in this scenario is understood to be included anyway. This is a worst case scenario for the Chinese, all the current regional military forces allied against it. We can all agree that would virtually ensure a Chinese defeat.


Originally posted by rogue1
I doubt it would go nuclear unless the mainland US was attacked with mass casualties.


It will not go nuclear unless NBC weapons are used by one side. The US has no reason to use NBC weapons, yet China lacks our conventional global reach.


Originally posted by rogue1
Actually these days more Taiwanese embrace China and reject America.


Are you kidding me? The mentality of the Taiwanese people is shifting at an increasing rate towards a more nationalized, western and independent citizen. The older generation is declining, once the younger generations takes over the identification with China will lessen almost completely. The Taiwanese school system and cultural model was completely changed to reflect independence. Recent attempts at a UN seat hit towards this trend. Taiwan wants to diffuse the situation politically and peacefully, hence contact with China, however they will not submit without a fight should push come to shove.


Originally posted by rogue1
To attack China in a major war would require the bulk of US forces to be in theater which means a large portion of them would be destroyed.


Perhaps a large portion would be required but I don't quite make the same connection. There will be losses, but ones which can be absorbed and which are less than the enemy.


Originally posted by rogue1
It is interesting of course to see how the USAF would manage against China, I doubt many planes would be coming back.


Chinese IADS will be systematically destroyed. A combination of electronic warfare, low observable aircraft, smart munitions etc... make our SEAD/DEAD capabilities second to none.


Originally posted by rogue1
China's SAM's are too numerous and advanced and of course AWACS couldn't take part they would be shot down hundreds of miles out.


Not numerous enough, not mobile enough and it can be overcome with few losses. A few AWACS might be lost, but all grounded? That's not happening.


Originally posted by Harelquin
i wouldn`t like to be the CBG commander going near that lot


There are an estimated ~950 ballistic missiles in the Taiwan theater of operation. And there are 0 ballistic missiles in the Taiwan theater of operation which have been credited with, or even demonstrated, an ability to realistically target a US carrier.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Not so long ago we had a topic about Chinese chips/semiconductors in US weapon systems [mainly cruise missiles], as a Trojan Horse..Americans have re-engineered the weapon systems and found out the chips had "intentional malfunctions"


www.businessweek.com... ies

think about the possibilities, this Chinese arent dumb people lacking 50 years behind, they have invented coal dust when America was yet to be born..Funny how you still talk about CHina, you're totally broke and they pay your debts.. as if you can pay any war in the future..
believe me the Chinese are going to put the first men on mars and beyond..

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Foppezao]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foppezao
Not so long ago we had a topic about Chinese chips/semiconductors in US weapon systems [mainly cruise missiles], as a Trojan Horse..Americans have re-engineered the weapon systems and found out the chips had "intentional malfunctions"


www.businessweek.com... ies

think about the possibilities, this Chinese arent dumb people lacking 50 years behind, they have invented coal dust when America was yet to be born..Funny how you still talk about CHina, you're totally broke and they pay your debts.. as if you can pay any war in the future..
believe me the Chinese are going to put the first men on mars and beyond..

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Foppezao]


They just figured out how to have a manned space walk.

It's funny how you talk out China. They couldn't achieve the logistics of an 800 peace keeper force in Africa. They haven't fought a war in a LONG time. They're a repressive regime, which you speak so highly of. They are polluting themselves off their own land.


[edit on 13-10-2008 by hadjimagnet]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join