China for World super power in next 40 years

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   
So in plain words I argue your point, and since you have no good response, you just have to ignore me now. Real grown-up.




posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
"The only way to take out a carrier would be to use a nuclear missile,"says boardsword. That is ultimitely the most down right arrogent thing I have heard. There are in fact many ways to "take out" a carrier: 1. To use submarines with air support (depending on the strenght) 2. To overflood air territories with aircraft including bombers. NOT NUCLEAR BOMBS! And so forth. I am not really familiar with stratigic operations, but the dumbest person in the world would know that a nuclear missle is not the kind of weaponry to use in battles like this scenario. IDIOT!
On the other hand, China already owns us. Just look in your living room. I bet you that a big portion of your furnishings and little accessories around your house, come form China. Even my computer has been manufactured in China.
However, Boardsword is not the most knowledgeable person about this sort of situation.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Let's all take the word "Idiot" out of our vocabulary.


Tatical anti-ship missiles are a very real threat and aircraft carriers aren't exactly low profile targets. So getting back to the topic can China display any weaponry that gives them a footing in the Superpower category? I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but I did run into the following ariticle.


FL-7 Feilong-7
China and Russia are the only two countries to have successfully developed supersonic anti-ship missiles, which represent the future direction of anti-ship weapons. The majority of anti-ship missiles are high subsonic. .....


Thought that was a bit interesting.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   
The threat of the supersonic ASM is exactly why the USN with Germany i believe has developed the Rolling Airframe Missile. The PHALANX they felt was marginal agains those threats. The RAM is basically a sidewinder missile with a stinger missile seeker. Its benifit is that while the PHALANX syste can hit a sunburn, due to its proximity and speed, the ship is going to get fragged.

globalsecurity.org...



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
The threat of the supersonic ASM is exactly why the USN with Germany i believe has developed the Rolling Airframe Missile. The PHALANX they felt was marginal agains those threats. The RAM is basically a sidewinder missile with a stinger missile seeker. Its benifit is that while the PHALANX syste can hit a sunburn, due to its proximity and speed, the ship is going to get fragged.

globalsecurity.org...


I thought the problem with Supersonic missiles and torps is that they usually ended up exploding while being launched half the time. Isn't that what happened to the Kursk?



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nehzismann
"The only way to take out a carrier would be to use a nuclear missile,"says boardsword. That is ultimitely the most down right arrogent thing I have heard. There are in fact many ways to "take out" a carrier: 1. To use submarines with air support (depending on the strenght) 2. To overflood air territories with aircraft including bombers. NOT NUCLEAR BOMBS! And so forth. I am not really familiar with stratigic operations, but the dumbest person in the world would know that a nuclear missle is not the kind of weaponry to use in battles like this scenario. IDIOT!
On the other hand, China already owns us. Just look in your living room. I bet you that a big portion of your furnishings and little accessories around your house, come form China. Even my computer has been manufactured in China.
However, Boardsword is not the most knowledgeable person about this sort of situation.


And China wouldn't have half the money they have if the U.S. didn't buy their stuff either; no one "owns" anybody man, sheesh.

You want to tell me how you could "overflood" the air territory of a carrier? You'd have to fly the aircraft to the carrier's location; that' s pretty hard to do if the carriers are parked outside of the aircraft's range. A long range bomber? It needs escort planes to guard it, otherwise a carrier's anti-aircraft missiles will take it out; or, its own aircraft will.

Submarines?? Again, carriers train for this sort of scenario. In any war scenario, the entire carrier fleet would be on full alert with its entire aircraft fleet on standby; the carrier would use its anti-sbumarine warefar technologies and dispatch its anti-sub helicopters to hunt down the enemy subs.

As I said above, though you seem to have ignored it somewhat, they train for these types of scenarios all the time. You also seem to forget that the U.S. Navy has its own subs to counter any enemy subs as well.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
I thought the problem with Supersonic missiles and torps is that they usually ended up exploding while being launched half the time. Isn't that what happened to the Kursk?


I don't know about launching, the RAM is a defencsive weapon only. I think you are correct that either a torpedo or a Sunburn exploded in one of the tubes. Google USS. Scorpion. It is belived that a torpedo battery overheated and exploded sinking the submarine



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004


And China wouldn't have half the money they have if the U.S. didn't buy their stuff either; no one "owns" anybody man, sheesh.

You want to tell me how you could "overflood" the air territory of a carrier? You'd have to fly the aircraft to the carrier's location; that' s pretty hard to do if the carriers are parked outside of the aircraft's range. A long range bomber? It needs escort planes to guard it, otherwise a carrier's anti-aircraft missiles will take it out; or, its own aircraft will.

Submarines?? Again, carriers train for this sort of scenario. In any war scenario, the entire carrier fleet would be on full alert with its entire aircraft fleet on standby; the carrier would use its anti-sbumarine warefar technologies and dispatch its anti-sub helicopters to hunt down the enemy subs.

As I said above, though you seem to have ignored it somewhat, they train for these types of scenarios all the time. You also seem to forget that the U.S. Navy has its own subs to counter any enemy subs as well.



You know everybody here esp the Chicoms think its a piece of cake to take out a carrier.The whole point of a carrier is that it would take a loads of concentrated fire to damage it. sinking a carrier is way tougher. So whether they are top of the line Nimitz class or '$hitty' old Indian carriers they're not soo easy to sink..



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 03:22 AM
link   
It is not easy,but it is very possible,The chinese sovys and their Su-30 MKKs(meant for anti-ship,not aerial supremacy) will at least give SOME trouble to the US/Indian/whatever carriers.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
More idiots again (exclusing SweatmonicaIdo).

It also shows here that you seem to have no idea of how a carrier would go into battle. The Chinese mainland? I don't think the U.S. has any plans of invading China. That would be political suicide right now, plus, despite what politicians might ever want, the people themselves of the U.S. have no such interests. Also, aircrafts? China has no forward sea projection. All their aircrafts have to come from the mainland pretty much. Which means in a real war scenario, the carriers would be sitting out of range of those aircraft. And if any of those aircraft somehow came near the carrier, the carrier has its own anti-aircraft missiles, AND its own aircraft to fight those aircraft. The carriers would be out of range of the missiles too. The only way to take out a carrier would be to use a nuclear missile, and everyone knows where that would lead.

You also seem to forget that carrier groups train for such scenarios all the time!! You think the U.S. Navy hasn't already thought of, "What if, in a real battle scenario, the enemy tries to swarm a carrier battle group...." etc....etc....they are plenty aware of all that. No carrier would ever come close enough to China to get into such danger.


lol, ok, I am not gonna argue about carrier groups' maximum computing capacity simply because I am studying in this field, let me just say it is general knowledge to me and it is not worth my time to debate on the "US must have ..." assumptions. It is the current "technological limitation", including GPS's vulnerability to interference and limitations on the deployment of UCAVs, please, at least do some homework before you talk, it is not "if US Navy haven't thought of", it is "they are not able to atm".

PS: I think COWlan does have a point, no offence.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Does anyone even have knowledge what sort of Teraflops capacity of super computers China has, i mean it manufacture own hybrid processors for example. Also all signs show that China will take semiconductor markets over and what that means, increased research low research cost compared to almost any other country. In fact China is becoming more and more self substaining country only thing it will need in future exported resources from foreign countrys. China doesnt need to research all the tech again while it already made, but it havent stopped it using it. Good word would be that they are currently dublicators.

China is doing all it can to not be depent of US, it has own standars on many commercial areas to keep licenses in mainland instead paying US corporal coffins. All facts show that China will grow over US first economic and that follows military rise too, if 5,5% GNP expenditure to military continues. History has clearly shown that many of the techs for example US had made for military use has been made obsolute this days and that sort of development will always continue. Im not saying US will become Chinas pet dog but 1,3 billion population vs 350 million is easy math at this rate of development.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by plutonian

lol, ok, I am not gonna argue about carrier groups' maximum computing capacity simply because I am studying in this field, let me just say it is general knowledge to me and it is not worth my time to debate on the "US must have ..." assumptions. It is the current "technological limitation", including GPS's vulnerability to interference and limitations on the deployment of UCAVs, please, at least do some homework before you talk, it is not "if US Navy haven't thought of", it is "they are not able to atm".

PS: I think COWlan does have a point, no offence.


If you wnt to nkow the progress made in the UCAV department then
Alan Jones is your man. He's on the UCAV project. He'll tell you all thats allowed to be told.And in what capacity are you working with "carriers' computing power"..?
Just curious..



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   
can i say broad sword if the US is soo advanced more than china,russia ETC then why do they buy tech off them?

IMO the answer is that they lead in several areas but not all.
i mean take russia and the AK47 the "free mans" weapon as its called. its world renownd and is a great weapon. hell many western (that right western not just america) special forces prefer the AK47's older variants to other weapons.

china has the will and the means to make its self powerful but they will most likely work on thier social system first.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
As stated earlier, China's problem for modernizing her army comes from lack of economies of scale (economic structure). They have tried for decades to develop their modern military hardware, and concluded the economic structure is lacking at this moment to efficiently modernize their forces.

Because also of the above, China's current policy is to focus on reorganizing their economic structure, while in the mean time (as a temporary meassure) a lot of hardware comes from abroad for modernization.

As stated earlier, in approximately 2040 China will be the biggest economy in the world. Let us assume they, somewhere in time, will have the economic structure like the US. Let us assume that their military with regard to technology is 40 years behind (which they are not) of that of the US. Given their population, theoretically they may leap frog this gap in 10-20 years when their economy has the characteristics of that of the US.

See also this report, while it acknowledge the fact of China's current military technological gap, in 2015 already China will be able to "power project" in Asia if she decides she wants to.

www.rand.org...
www.fas.org...

So yes, when they have reformed their economic structure, I believe in 40 years from now they can pass the US as the leading superpower. And just as a note, it's acknowledged that China has for decades the ambition to have a blue water navy (carriergroups etc) also. It is rumoured that they are working on their own carriers. Although this is just a start, one can imagine what they may achieve in 40 years from now when their economy has been organized into an efficient capitalistic production machine.

Blobber



[edit on 21-11-2004 by Blobber]

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
China to lead supercomputing sector@
Last Updated(Beijing Time):2004-10-25 15:37

China will soon -- possibly next year -- be home to the world's fastest supercomputer, and the nation will hold all intellectual property rights (IPRs) to the bionic processor and its relevant applications.

That means China, previously a non-player in the advanced supercomputing that is the core technology to a country's information grid, soon will be among the world's top players in both supercomputing technology and applications, including the United States and Japan.

"We have already developed the world's fastest blade supercomputer," Steve Chen, founder and deputy chairman of Galactic Computing Shenzhen Co Ltd, said.

"What we will do is develop industrial applications based on the supercomputer, so that China will take the leadership in establishing key, strategic, nationwide information services grids." said Chen.

"We have contacted the government to apply for relevant projects in various industries. If things proceed well, we will launch our first product next year."

Galactic Computing, founded in 1999 with investment from Hong Kong-based Shell Electric Manufacturing Holdings Co Ltd, primarily develops blade supercomputers.

Chen, who has dedicated 30 years of his life to the supercomputing technology, is a member of the National Academy of Engineering of the United States and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

"Our third-generation (blade supercomputer) is mature in technology and ready for deployment and development of industrial applications," Chen said.

The company's third-generation supercomputer, launched earlier this year, is reportedly the fastest computer of its kind -- real-time collaborative supercomputing blade system, in the world.

With an average calculation speed 1 teraflop (trillion floating-point operations per second), it can be scaled up to more than50 teraflops at peak speed.

In comparison, Chen noted, the blade supercomputer the United States is expected to launch, either late this year or early next year, will have an average speed of 41 teraflops. And Japan has announced that it will have a 50-teraflops blade supercomputer in 2005.

Chen last Saturday met senior Chinese Government officials from two dozen ministries and bureaus -- including education, commerce, public security, information industry, health, science and technology, and the National Development and Reform Commission.

Fastest computer in works

That marked the first time Chen met Chinese officials to seek government support for his blade supercomputing technology.

"We expect to receive favourable response from the government, universities and research institutions and companies ," Chen said.

He refused to say how much the projects would cost, but he did provide a reference point.

Chen said the US Government has invested US$90 million in the ongoing development of the 4-teraflop blade supercomputer, which was designed to assist with energy-related research.

"The cost will surely be somewhat lower in China," he said. "By far, we have invested US$20 million."

The US$20 million was funded by Galactic Computing's investor, Shell Electric.

Chen said his company will focus on 10 sectors when developing -- through co-operation with Chinese universities and/or research institutions -- industrial applications.

The 10 sectors will be healthcare, chip design foundry, education, entertainment, national security, logistics, new drug discovery and clinical trials, bioscience and exploration for natural resources.

"We have selected eight top colleges or research institutions as development partners, each for a specific industrial application," he said.

For example, Tsinghua University was selected for bioscience; China University of Geosciences, exploration of natural resources; Beijing Jiaotong University, transportation logistics; and Nankai University, port logistics, Chen explained.

Galactic Computing, with its partners, will invite the leading Chinese company in each sector to adopt, when ready, and promote the relevant application, Chen said.

"With our technology transfer, I hope we can help China in making a leapfrog in blade supercomputing technology and applications, and joining the global leaders in information services economics,," Chen said.

China lags behind other nations, including the United States and Japan, in supercomputing technology and applications, he added.

Dawning Information Industry Co Ltd, a leading Chinese supercomputer vendor, launched, earlier this year, a 1-teraflop supercomputer. To date, that is the fastest supercomputer in China.

Yet despite the notable progress, China does not have much IPRs to the computer's core system, which is based on imported technology, Chen said.

Also, the design of Dawning's product was not based on the "blade," which has become an accepted concept in supercomputer design, he noted.

Some major computer vendors in the United States, aware of the importance of blade supercomputing system, are starting research in the field.

Yet, "they are still in the early stages, and are focusing on the hardware. We started six years ago. Now, we are prepared to develop applications," Chen said.

"I decided to move our work from the United States to China, as I believed the products and the relevant applications would be better promoted here," he said.

The United States, despite being a leader in super computer technology, was not overly interested in adopting the blade design when Chen invented the concept.

That was because the US Government had spent so much on-speed-oriented supercomputers, and that heavy investment made it hard for US officials to shift their focus to a new technology, Chen said.

Despite the fact many US companies -- including IT (information technology) giants such as IBM and Dell -- immediately recognized the design as the technology trend of supercomputers, "they would not promote the technology as we do, as it is against their box sales business models," Chen added.

Users of blade supercomputers need not discard old computers to buy new ones for greater performance or new applications, Chen said.

Instead, they can simply re-use the old blades and add new "blades" to the existing equipment. That, Chen added, creates savings.

"The technology is not welcomed by computer vendors as it does not require frequent purchases of entire systems," Chen said. "We are not simply a vendor."

In comparison, China, the latecomer, has few obstacles in adopting the new technology.

"Companies or institutions do not need to buy such supercomputersand use it expensively after the government pays the bill prior to establishing Galactic Computing, Chen worked in the United States since early 1980s.

He created Supercomputer Systems Inc in 1987, with financial aid from IBM, after he left his post as a vice-president of renowned US supercomputer company Cray Inc.

"It was difficult to import supercomputers into China in 1980s. Now the component technologies for commercial use, becoming more mature, are available for us to build high-performance supercomputers for China market ," he said.

"But our ultimate goal is not only China. China, as a leader in the near future, should export its blade supercomputing technology worldwide," Chen said.

The idea of blade supercomputing, first raised by Chen in 1998, is widely considered to be a revolutionary design concept. It has significantly enhanced the sustainability of computers' processing capabilities.

Users can easily increase the calculation speed of a blade supercomputer by adding "blades," or sets of CPUs (central processing units).

The different computing sections of a blade supercomputer can achieve real-time, collaborative computing in a single system, Chen explained. While in traditionally-designed supercomputers, the processing capability is fixed and each computing section is programmed for a certain function, working independently.

According to Chen's scheme, China needs 50-100 units of huge blade supercomputers, to work as a systematic public information service platform covering diversified sectors.

The existing platforms, most of which were set up one by one, scattered and isolated from each other, will be replaced.

"It is similar to the electric power utility industry, when a few large nuclear power plants are set up to replace numerous small power generators... it is much more effective and efficient," Chen said

en-1.ce.cn...



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
The ironic thing with China becoming a super power in 50 years prediction is that most of its economic investments are foreign investment, including US investment.

And it is funny that Canadian government and perhaps other government still gives money to China for humanitarian aids, but I doubt the money is really used for that.

If China is going to become a super power, it needs to be able to develop its own weapons completely, like Russia, US and some European countries.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by twchang]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by twchang
The ironic thing with China becoming a super power in 50 years prediction is that most of its economic investments are foreign investment, including US investment.

And it is funny that Canadian government and perhaps other government still gives money to China for humanitarian aids, but I doubt the money is really used for that.

If China is going to become a super power, it needs to be able to develop its own weapons completely, like Russia, US and some European countries.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by twchang]


I haven't been looking into investments rates, but I know that the US has a debt of 700 billion to China (it was published yesterday).

Blobber



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blobber
I haven't been looking into investments rates, but I know that the US has a debt of 700 billion to China (it was published yesterday).

Blobber


That is why the whole thing is wierd and funny. While US private sector invest money into China, US government borrow from China. And while coutries like Japan and Canada give money to China, China lend money to US and other countries.

Guess that is what happen when you criss cross politics and economics.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by twchang

That is why the whole thing is wierd and funny. While US private sector invest money into China, US government borrow from China. And while coutries like Japan and Canada give money to China, China lend money to US and other countries.

Guess that is what happen when you criss cross politics and economics.


It's really not weird when you realise that a lot of our consumer goods has a stamp, "made in China," on it.

Edit: so the US debts is from international trade.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
OHHHHHHH.......I can assure you ONE HUNDRED PERCENT that Canada does not give China humanitarian aid (the government). But if you are talking about all the organizations that invest in the less fortunate then yeah maybe but I haven't heard of one yet. I am sure there are many organizations that help the less fortunate in America.





 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join