It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chinese Fleet 2008

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 02:18 PM
You may be a little off base from the original argument but I won't pin you for it as I have been.

I would obviously agree that they don't have a current need for external naval warfare, and therefor have not developed technology to do so. In fact, they have some neighbors that they need to keep ground forces sharp to act on if need be.

However, the lack of far-reaching naval capacity could prove fatal if they are ever cornered and need to move strategically far out at sea. The possibilities of any situation including this one are endless so lets not go into military fantasy world.

Additionally the cyber-warfare puts the US at serious risk. This is probably China's best military strategy to date; hack the pentagon.

Also economically China is absolutely on the upper-hand because they choose to employ civilians for pennies on the dollar. If I ran a country this way, you would be sending your production to me too. It must save corporations millions, but in a very sad way that I do not agree with.

@ the gun-powder remark

With all of this information coming to light, it is simply my argument (as it was in the beginning) that these naval fleets are not as technologically capable as the US. Didn't mean to start a war, but I will not stand down in my opinion because I believe it to be the absolute truth. Regardless of how stupid my Star-Wars comment was and lack of current military technology.

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 02:32 PM
reply to post by chinawhite

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

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 02:32 PM

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 03:38 PM
Revelation 16:12 "kings of the east"

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 03:51 PM
Why are people so upset because someone posts some pictures up of Chinese Military boats. Why do some Americans feel so threatened. China unlike America has been around a very long time. They seem to persue control over there own county. Unlike Amercan which has its fingers in pies all over the world. Who is more of a threat to world peace, the Chinese or the Americans. look at history i dont even need to answer the question.
Please people dont harp on about America being land off the free, especially after the farcical election of bush. Is that freedom, cmon peeps use a little of that grey matter between youre ears. Stop harping on about socialism and communism, especially after the American state intervention in the finacial market; its hypocritical to say the least.
Yes China has an army, yes china has a navy, they do contain a 20% of the worlds populance. No i dont think the chiness are stupid enough to try and take the world by military might. In war there are no winners!
I would stop looking at China as a threat, instead i would look a little closer to home at the cancer that is spreading throughout American and the westwern world. No one needs to invade America with military might, it can be done with money. You guys better sort youre heads out. educate yourselves before youre country is pawned!


posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 04:16 PM

Originally posted by blowfishdl
Nobody should waste their time debating a communist.

Define irony. Seriously, that is one of the most hilarious thing's I've read all day, thanks for the luls!

As far as this thread goes, If only our governments would put more money into social programs and less into their cockamamie war machines, I think the world would be a better place. I will join hands with all of my brethren and we will create a new paradigm.

And remember friends,
"A filthy mouth will not utter decent language."

"A bird does not sing because it has an answer. It sings because it has a song."

-Chinese Proverbs

you live in a world that is not my own
i've created a different place inside myself
i don't need the things that i cling to
i need to sing to myself and remember
i've let go of my hand and disbanded my psyche
i might be the slightly tyrant who quickly became violent
this silent knight is so holy as a man i simply realize my folly

Peace be among all of these, my brethren.

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 04:21 PM
It all looks extremely outdated, and/or "cheap". That navy probably wouldn't stand a chance against any western one.

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 04:26 PM
I am glad the Chinese are spending money on things that matter rather than helping the hundreds of millions of people who are impoverished. Or teach Chinese people not to spit and pick their noses in public. Then again, the Chinese government learned from the best (U.S. government)...not.

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 05:19 PM
Why are there english numbers on the side?

Why not in mandarin or whatever the national Chinese language?

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 06:09 PM

Until they deploy ships capable of true power projection (aircraft carriers) the Chinese Navy will be a regional threat at best.

This is pure arrogance, China has a war machine with considerable personnel, a civilian standing army, equipment and most importantly, nukes. They are running joint exercises with the Russian military who are rebuilding their Cold War infrastructure to past "glories".

You can dislike your enemy, but it is stupid not to respect their influence or make assumptions about their capabilities. This kind of arrogance precedes the time when an empire crumbles.

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 06:12 PM

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

U.S. Buys Moldovan MiG-29 Fighters

U.S. Army Looks to Russian Copters for Afghanistan

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]

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 06:12 PM

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.


posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 06:14 PM
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.

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
lets stay peaceful america and china. Thats where world war three would happen!

I'm with you there. I dont really know why this turned into an comparison between America and China in the first place. I didn't even make one mention of America in the opening posts

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
Why are there english numbers on the side?

Why not in mandarin or whatever the national Chinese language?

Its a martitime thing. Similar to the use of English for commercial aviation world wide.

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 06:20 PM

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
Why are there english numbers on the side?

Those are Arabic numerals, not English.

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 06:23 PM
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]

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 06:46 PM

Originally posted by FredT
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.

I still rate the Chinese Navy below the Japanese one to be honest. The RN proved it had power projection capabilities in the Falklands and the French and Indian navies both have capable aircraft carriers. The Chinese navy would be ideally classed as a "coastal" defence force with big guns.

What is interesting though is the transaction the Chinese navy has undergone. What you see now are evualation of concepts as demonstrated in 4 classes of destroyers in the last decade. China is proving the "concept" of a blue water fleet and these designs are prototypes for a future navy and hence their continual evolution. Even with their army and airforce the Chinese have not settled on one design to build a modular force around, there are many concepts and their is ongoing transaction so its hard to say if or when that will happen

Type-52 (First Naval SAM) >>> Type-52B (demonstration of naval design) >> Type-52C (Fully integrated AEGIS like system)

I wrote something similar here about the direction of the PLAN

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 06:53 PM
(Bleh, my uncle is the secretary of the department of terrestrial defense XD.)

China just need to build more submarines if they want to compete with American carriers.

Didn't an Iraqi farmer shoot down an Apache with a musket? So what's more important? Intelligence or fist?

To tell you the truth, as a Chinese, I find that the people on this forum censor what I say more than the Chinese government. I have to be careful of what I say and accept hostility. And you know what? I do accept hostility but since this country protects freedom of speech I can say whatever I want and however much I want.

[edit on 11/30/2008 by die_another_day]

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by blowfishdl

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]

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in