The Modernization of Chinese Military Power

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


I think that Chinese aviation hardware is like most other Chinese made products. Quantity over quality. The phrase "Made in China" isn't synonymous with lower quality for nothing. All those American companies that have been looking for the cheapest and fastest way to produce something got it from Chinese industry. Now that industry is trying it's hand at top of the line aircraft production, this from an industrial complex already tooled to produce products as cheaply and as fast as possible, the learning curve for them to build quality over quantity will be extremely steep.
So I guess we have the export of American jobs to thank for the Chinese's lack of quality and attention to detail to the military hardware it produces?




posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Sammamishman
Quantity over quality. The phrase "Made in China" isn't synonymous with lower quality for nothing.


We used to say the same thing about "Made in Japan"...

And on the battlefield, as widely attributed to tovarisch Iosef, "quantity has a quality all its own."



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I know this is comparing apples and oranges but as far as i have understood the russians have succeded in putting stuff into space and getting it back safely to earth so i guess that at least they have som technical ability? Anyway, the thread is about the chinese and their aircraft projects :-)



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by tomra
 


The Chinese didn't, Bill Clinton sold that to them.
edit on 25-11-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: to Clarfy



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Interesting and rare shot of the HUD camara capture of the J-10 dog fighting with a SU-30MKK2.

theaviationist.com...



posted on Dec, 26 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
China's Blackhawk copy makes first flight:






On Dec. 23, at 14.11 Local Time, Chinese medium lift utility helicopter dubbed Z-20 made its first flight.
As the image (published on a Chinese Internet website and then made available by Alert5) shows, the chopper is clearly based on the U.S. Black Hawk type (China operates 24 Black Hawk procured in 1983 as S-70C-2).

Still, it features some peculiar things: the 5-blade rotor, a larger cabin and a different landing gear and tail.

Z-20 is believed to be a 10-ton chopper that will be used to replace Mi-17 and Mi-171 helos within People’s Liberation Army.


I guess it wasn't as hard for them this time since they have direct access to their own Blackhawks. I'm surprised it took them this long to make em.

Aviationist
edit on 26-12-2013 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
China has refined their J-20 design. Unbelievable how quickly the Chinese can produce/manufacture stolen design changes and implement them:






aviationintel.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


The new and improved J-20 took its maiden flight on Sat. March 1st. A better photo of the newest version with differences compared to the first prototype:



Aviationist



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I still don't see that big hog with those teeny tiny control surfaces holding a candle to an F16. I would love to see it's envelope explored but based on that airframe it's no threat.
I understand it's engines are Russian service cans too. No stealth,thrust vectoring,I would compare what it looks like it could could perform to a SAAB Viggen.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
It's smaller than the Su-27 family which is plenty agile. The canards are all-moving, unlike the Viggen's which had flaps. That's a very large control surface which maintains it's effectiveness at high alpha and can help trim in cruise. I don't see why it wouldn't be comparable to- or even better than -- most legacy aircraft in performance and almost certainly better if they end up with the WS-15.
It clearly has RCS reduction features; I'm not sure where you're getting that it doesn't. It's not as refined as the F-22 or F-35, but other than the tail-end, it'll have a smaller signature than any legacy aircraft based on shaping alone.
It's a giant leap forward for a country that was still actively producing MiG-21 variants until just a few years ago. The gap is starting to narrow.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Not to mention it will have RAM coatings that came from US planes. I think it is designed to be an initial strike penetrator against a foe (Taiwan) that may not be able to sustain a counter attack or pursue the J-20 after the initial strike, hence the lack of out bound RCS refinements.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


The problem is...their best doesn't have to beat ours every time. It only has to beat ours once. They mass produce systems and throw people into the fight like it's a free resource. We cherish every last life as our own, and every air frame as a national asset. That is our weakness and their strength, and they'll play that to the maximum if it ever comes to that, I'm sure.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


The problem is...their best doesn't have to beat ours every time. It only has to beat ours once. They mass produce systems and throw people into the fight like it's a free resource. We cherish every last life as our own, and every air frame as a national asset. That is our weakness and their strength, and they'll play that to the maximum if it ever comes to that, I'm sure.

---
I disagree.
Because we treat our current applications with such high regard is what makes us that much more dangerous and lethal in what we do best, for instance, a Raptor's role is to take on multiple targets, an Abrahms can take some serious heat and dish out massive damage.
A nation that resorts to using its peoples as canon fodder simply cause their numbers are larger will not win against a force designed an trained to fight overwhelming odds, can you imagine the psychological effects of these ramifications? it would demoralize their military and will cave in from the center inducing large defects.
If anything, its our GREATEST STRENGHT and their GREATEST WEAKNESS.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Arnie123
 


I hope you're right.... We're betting the survival of our nation and it's people on our faith in toys and gizmos. They'd better live up to every claim and exceed every expectation in combat, should they be put to the test against a nation that actually knows how to fight. We haven't encountered one since Vietnam. We wouldn't know if our stuff works or not, for the pure lack of serious tests to show either way.

The headlines on peacetime bench testing of the F-35 and F-22 are pathetic if one considers that the front line future of U.S. air power.

Quantity or Quality? The Russians and Chinese took one path and we've taken the other. Too late to change now, and lets just pray it works out how we all hope it will. (Of course.. best hope is we never have to find out at all)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

---
I agree.
Lets hope it doesn't come to that, a high tech war would mean whole divisions lost in minutes, pretty much a human grinder.
But to say we haven't faced a true adversary since vietnam and then say something about a nation that actually knows how to fight is a little off don't you agree?
As terrible as the wars were these last 10 years, we did gain a lot of actively rotating combat experience, specifically in Asymetric Warfare, in a sense, we went from Revolutionary War, Civil War, Coventional War and Now the Asymetric setting, that's hella amount of experience.
A nation can mass produce and build all they want, but to field it and utilize to their benefit is a whole other thing, serious losses will have to occur defeat will be a norm till one day they just WAKE UP and become the Battle captains of tomorrow.
I get it, People give the US a lot of crap about us being bullies and invading, but fail to see how other nations act and what they do to their peoples, sure its none of our business....But, to qoute my Fav Actor Q....
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you had better go back home and crawl under your bed."
"It's not safe out there, it's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross, but not for the timid"



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Arnie123
 


That's just it though, if that F-22 is brought down by one J20 or 10 J15s (and shoots down 8 of them) the F-22 is still shot down.

Same with the Abrams. Sooner or later numbers become overwhelming no matter how good your equipment is.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Arnie123
 


We've learned what NOT to do in guerrilla warfare and urban combat among civilians across the last 10 years. We've sure learned how not to run a counter-insurgency for political leadership of day to day function.

The thing is...if you stop and think? Nothing in the last 10+ years of fighting has remotely prepared our people for fighting either Russia or China.

Iraq had no air force worthy of the name ..and simple had NONE within a week or so of crossing the berms in 2003. We had nothing to fight. Afghanistan didn't even have that much to start with. Air Superiority was only delayed in Afghanistan out of an abundance of caution for anti-air artillery or missiles which didn't turn out to be half what the Taliban claimed them to be.

Prior to that? What have we really had? Multiple forays in police actions against Iraq from 1992 to 2003. No actual combat worthy of the term for practice or learning. We had Kosovo, but were there any air engagements at all? I won't go on about ground to air engagements ... We lost an F-117 Nighthawk over Serbia. Not the best example of US Superiority. (China might agree with their Embassy taking a U.S. missile through the window, too).

Before that... Somalia and again, guerrilla warfare which is absolutely not our strong point. Our people aren't naturally able to use the tactics that fighting requires to literally break the will to fight among the enemy. It's barbaric, so we've learned how not to do it...and sadly, watch OUR will broken as a result.

Before that.... Whew.. We're back in time a bit now... We DID see some respectable air power against our planes in 1990/1991. Unfortunately for the enemy pilots, their training didn't match their air frames and it wasn't a challenging fight.

Russia and China...however...aren't 3rd rate has beens and wanna be's. Vietnam was the last time we faced airplanes with pilots that knew how to fly them and fight them. We held our own there...but it wasn't superiority as we've come to know it now.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
China's economic growth has been massive and will continue to grow into the future. Their military will continue to grow with their economy for the foreseeable future.

At some point it is possible their conventional military power may equal or exceed the United States but this will happen in decades to come, if ever.
They will probably never equal the massive US nuclear arsenal. China and Russia or any nation for that matter would be extremely reluctant to directly engage the US military as the threat of escalation and possible nuclear weapons being used is a real possibility.

Because of the threat of nuclear weapons being used it is highly unlikely we will ever see a direct military confrontation between nuclear powers such as the US, China or Russia.

They may poke and taunt each other and throw their weight around but war is something all sides would avoid at all costs. Some seem to think some kind of war with China and Russia is inevitable but I think this is highly improbable.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The training and experience aren't the problem. China and Russia both are far behind the US in flight hours and C3.

The real problem is the Air Force, which will have to do the yeomans work. The leadership has screwed the Air Force to the point where the question "what if they gave a war and no one came" is fast becoming the fact of the matter again.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I seem to recall you had recently mentioned a new Russian anti-air missile that was more advanced than our side really cared to think about. It wasn't the S-500 systems..which are a deadly threat in their own right, but something new as I recall?





new topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join