Chinese Fleet 2008, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 30-11-2008 @ 02:32 PM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by chinawhite



lets stay peaceful america and china. Thats where world war three would happen! china, great job upgrading your navy.


reply posted on 30-11-2008 @ 02:32 PM by Anonymous ATS




reply posted on 30-11-2008 @ 06:12 PM by chinawhite
Originally posted by blowfishdl
These military vehicles look nothing more than American rip-offs from old and stolen technology.


First of all, you need to provide PROOF or examples of your accusations. They look like copies?, you might be looking at a bunch of American vehicles and comparing them to each other

Familiar predicament as last time blowfishdl!



Do the Chinese even have aircraft carriers?
What are their flight capabilities? Stealth aircraft like the B-2A?
GPS and Laser targeted missile systems?


Does China need aircraft carriers?
Who says stealth is a prerequisite for winning wars or whether stealth is not ALREADY compromised
China has GPS and Laser targeted missile systems, they also have TV-guided systems as well


How China Steals U.S. Military Technology - Popular Mechanics


Moo's package was an F110-GE-129 afterburning turbofan engine, built by General Electric to power America's latest F-16 fighter jet to speeds greater than Mach 2 (1500 mph).


Why would China need this engine when it has superior engines already?. The AL-31FN-M1 has HIGHER thrust and also a thrust vectoring engine nozzle. Chinas own WS-10A engine also has superior performance to this engine and has already been certified for production and induction on fighters already. If China were to get the F110 and spend a decade reverse engineering it we would end up with a inferior American engine which doesn't fit into our fighter. Not logical

F110-GE-129 = 13154 kg
AL-31FN-M1 = 13,200kg (also includes 3D TVC which no American fighter has)
WS-10A = 13,200kg


South Korean arms dealer Kwonhwan Park was sentenced in August 2005 for exporting Black Hawk helicopter engines and night vision equipment to China. Ting-Ih Hsu


China already has Blackhawk Helicopters from America and thus their engines. Why would China need to buy another one to reverse engineer?. That is nonsensical. Anyhow, I dont see how China "stole" this engine if there was a middle man.

In June 2005, China began sea trials of its new Luyang II guided-missile destroyers. When the armaments were unveiled, jaws clenched in the Pentagon.


That is the most ridiculous claim I have heard. The Chinese phased array radar differs considerably from the American AN/SPY-1 in that instead of having separate dedicated transmitting and receiving elements, each element of the antenna array of the Chinese radar is capable of both transmitting and receiving.

How can the Chinese have a greatly IMRPOVED copy?. Makes perfect sense....

But the Lyulka provides a Pontiac Firebird level of performance compared to the Formula One-worthy engine that Moo was set to deliver. U.S. officials believe that China planned to copy the F-16 engine for its own prototype fighter.


F110-GE-129 = 13154 kg
AL-31FN-M1 = 13,200kg (also includes 3D TVC which no American fighter has)
WS-10A = 13,200kg

Need I say more?. Formula One-worthy engine?, Lets wait until America makes a Formula One-worthy car first.

America also does the same thing with other peoples equipment.
NASA Seeks Clearance to Buy Russian Technology
link


U.S. Buys Moldovan MiG-29 Fighters
link


U.S. Army Looks to Russian Copters for Afghanistan
link



The list of claims are both nonsensical and are just claims without and evidence to back them up. The idol boasting of popular mechanics is absurd as they are both denigrating the Russians and Chinese, baseless chest thumping



It can now be concluded that the Chinese military technological capability does not match the U.S. military technological capability.


Because they are lacking in what fields?.

Why Chinese Military Technology Does Not Match Up:
1. No aircraft carriers.
2. No stealth technology.
3. Most technology is given to them by Russian aide or stolen from USA



1. China does not have a current need for aircraft carriers nor are carriers a prerequisite for military technology. Why invest in a ship which is highly venerable to submarines and land based anti-ship missiles. A waste of investment as the future is going to be ruled by UCAV with anti-ship missiles which are both hard to detect as well as destroy

2. Stealth technology?. China has stealth technology but its called LO not the VLO that America has. China has RAM paint, composite materials and also knows how to design an airframe to minimise the RCS such as hiding the engine turbines

3. The proof is in the pudding. China would probably have 85-95% indigenous products. The only American product in Chinas arseal which is American is the Black Hawk helicopter which the Americans sold to China during their honeymoon period in the cold war.





[edit on 30-11-2008 by chinawhite]


reply posted on 30-11-2008 @ 06:12 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by TheOracle
Well the nazis had the best technologies by miles and yet lost to the soviets and their "cheap stuff".


No, they didn't have the 'best technologies' by miles and even when they did 'they' quite frequently failed to employ it as generals and soldiers wanted to. These issues are FAR too complex and history clearly shows that technology alone is no surer way to victory than is superior numbers. As for the 'cheap stuff' the SU deployed tanks that normally had more armor, and bigger guns, ( so much for throwing lives away pointlessly) artillery that were at the time rated to be just about the best in the world and a air force that deployed sufficient numbers of modern fighters and bombers to have on the face of it allowed for a aggressive defense right from the start.

As much of this can be said for France and Britain/low countries ( with no insults thrown around as to them 'throwing away lives or building 'cheap stuff') people who open history books relatively frequently have discovered that having the means doesn't mean as much as is normally projected in peace time.

People should stop being childish over who has the biggest toys.


Agreed. In the end national self defense is largely enabled by citizenry who refuse to be pacified. Admittedly such a defense is greatly aided when they have higher education standards and technology/logistical aids but it's no sure thing.

Originally posted by Solomons
Thats because the russian didnt give a flying fook and sent wave after wave of men....


Actually the Russian draftees called up when Germany invaded received six months of basic training showing that the Russians understood that throwing untrained men at the Germans would be entirely futile. The fact that the reservist and regular army formations fared as badly as they did in the opening months obviously came as a surprise but desperation and committed defense should not be confused with throwing lives away pointlessly.

As i have read more and more over the years you slowly begin to understand attrition and just how unavoidable it is when it comes to war. One does your best to arrange a favorable attrition rate ( the best you can get without sacrificing objectives or the nations wealth) but in the end nations exchange lives at generally understood rate with the nation that is willing to accept it's rate for longer walking ( or crawling) away as the victor.

This is largely the reason why Imperialist nations can 'lose' wars despite killing ten or twenty enemy combatants ( or citizens they posthumously accuse of such) for each one of their own. This is very much why wars for imperial hegemony can only be won by inflicting terror in proper dosages ( too much and there is nothing too lose, too little and there is freedom to gain; a balance few imperial powers can strike) with technology not playing a preeminent part in any of this.

they won by sheer numbers against germany.


No, they didn't. In fact when Germany and allies invaded they outnumbered the Russians and in terms of fielded men on the East front they did so for years to come. What the Russians managed to do is to mobilize their citizenry to replace the massive original losses in both men and war materials; a measure Germany copied years later with similar great affect towards keeping them in the war a year longer. The USSR had what Germany did not and that was a national will to defeat a imperial invader. Germany lacked the will because Germany never voted Hitler into power and only fought because the machinery of modern states allows for great coordination and abuses of power.

This is why the US lost in Korea, lost in Vietnam, have/will lose in Iraq and Afghanistan will keep losing wars until one's are fought where the American people are actually threatened and united against a obvious aggressor.

Stellar


reply posted on 30-11-2008 @ 06:14 PM by FredT
reply to post by reaverto



But that does not change the fact that untill they develop a true blue water navy and carriers the PLAN is at best a frigate navy with local influence and is not really capable of projecting power far from the confines of China. A well equipped frigate navy mind you but one that would fare poorly in a coordinated combined arms attack against a true blue water navy like the USN. Once out of range of land based fighters, they would be easy targets for SSN's and CBG's

Maintaing persistence in an area of operations involves far more than sailing your ships from point A to B.


reply posted on 30-11-2008 @ 06:23 PM by FredT
reply to post by chinawhite




There has been a bit of topic drift I would agree, but it is natural to compare one navy to the next. However, while having made huge gains in the last 25 years, I stil think a more resonable comparison is to compare the PLAN with say the RN or French navy (who have a limited number of carriers) or say the Indian Navy.

Regardless its an interesting thread and very cool to see the PLAN order of Battle in one thread


[edit on 11/30/08 by FredT]


reply posted on 30-11-2008 @ 08:52 PM by Underbelly
reply to post by blowfishdl



*SNIP*
China are emerging, there's no doubt about that. They are building well within their means, acquiring European technology and fusing it with their own, and most importantly, China has no spiraling debt to worry about.

I agree, they will surpass the Americans militarily and economically within the next 30-40 years, maybe sooner if the American economy continues to capitulate at its current rate, but at the moment they are a regional threat and are still behind the Japanese who possess defence-only weaponry.

We will know when China is a serious threat when Japan raises its defence spending from its 1% GDP rate which they have refused to raise for decades. Also when Japan decides to re-write its constitution to allow for collective self-defence.



[edit on 30-11-2008 by Underbelly]



[edit on 30-11-2008 by alien]
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



Nano Drones Flying in Formation
  Posted 10 days ago with 15 member flags
FPS RUSSIA
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags
Spinel Thin Transparent Ceramic Armor defeats Barrett .50 Cal BMG
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
Self-steering Bullet Researched
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags
Shockrounds take out three of your five senses.
  Posted 4 days ago with 5 member flags
Defective Ammunition Warning
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags