China's military power

[tphuang]

It kind of makes me wonder why they are there in the first place if they are just going to be turned off anyways.

 

[old faithful]

just came across some interesting reading regarding chinese aircraft carrier developments. I didnt realise that when Australia retired our last ACC HMAS Melbourne,that we sold her to China for scrap.It seems that her new owners have reconstructed a land based version of her flight deck beside an exsisting runway,and engineers visited the ship regularly. use a search on history of hmas melbourne 1969 -1982 or go directly to users.qld.chariot.net.au/~dialabull/R21%20History2.htm cheers

 

[contedicavour]

The IDF has said the air defences were switched off to prevent friendly fire incidents.

OK but even with this explanation it doesn't speak highly of the IDF confidence in Barak... if the reason for switching off was fear of shooting down your own planes
Modern AAW systems are supposed to be able to make the difference, with IFF.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Oh and btw the Baraks had better be up and running if Syria decides to intervene. MIG23s and SU22 should be no match for Baraks, but who knows, ROE and all...

 

[TrangleC]

I have worked and lived in China for one year and i was amazed of how sophisticated they are when it comes to civil electronics.
Like the Japanese, the Chinese are just nuts with technology. I was working with a small company that runs a landfill and they only had the newest and most modern computer technology in every office there. I never understood what for.
They just need every high tech toy they have heard of and they got a lot of good engineers and sophisticatedproduction facilities to provide them.
With such an economic growth it just is inevitable that this will spread on to the military too.
I think it won't take long till they reach the same level of high tech in the military area like "the west".

At the same time Russia is on the rise again. The new lean, agile and increasingly rich Russia still has a lot of superpower ambitions and better chances than ever to fulfill them.

I think the time in which there only is one undisputed superpower will be pretty short. We're heading towards a pretty much multipolar world with the USA, China, Russia and India as pretty much equal superpowers.

I think Europe would be wise to have some more ambitions and the will for strenght.
And the USA would be wise to keep good relationships to Europe and help it become more united and stronger instead of saboutaging it by actively increasing the resentments between what they call "the old Europe" and "the new Europe".
"To divide and to rule" works just fine, but it is pretty stupid when you do it to the only potential ally of yours in a global situation like the one we're heading towards.

 

[contedicavour]

I have worked and lived in China for one year and i was amazed of how sophisticated they are when it comes to civil electronics.
Like the Japanese, the Chinese are just nuts with technology. I was working with a small company that runs a landfill and they only had the newest and most modern computer technology in every office there. I never understood what for.
They just need every high tech toy they have heard of and they got a lot of good engineers and sophisticatedproduction facilities to provide them.
With such an economic growth it just is inevitable that this will spread on to the military too.
I think it won't take long till they reach the same level of high tech in the military area like "the west".

At the same time Russia is on the rise again. The new lean, agile and increasingly rich Russia still has a lot of superpower ambitions and better chances than ever to fulfill them.

I think the time in which there only is one undisputed superpower will be pretty short. We're heading towards a pretty much multipolar world with the USA, China, Russia and India as pretty much equal superpowers.

I think Europe would be wise to have some more ambitions and the will for strenght.
And the USA would be wise to keep good relationships to Europe and help it become more united and stronger instead of saboutaging it by actively increasing the resentments between what they call "the old Europe" and "the new Europe".
"To divide and to rule" works just fine, but it is pretty stupid when you do it to the only potential ally of yours in a global situation like the one we're heading towards.

Yes and for the moment it is China who plays best the game of "divide and rule" between the US and Europe. There is always a contract for some planes or fast trains or telecoms equipment .... and each time China skilfully plays Europe against the US or vice versa.

cheers

 

[TrangleC]

I wouldn't say that.
It is not the chinese who cause problems between the USA and Europe, it is simply economical rivalry. Both want to sell their stuff to the chinese and they just use the power of the customer to get the best deal. That is legitimate and not agressive or political in any way.

 

[abramsteve]

I remember hearing that the Chinese were interested in the Melbourne's catapult for a time. But it was a long time ago, and I think that any information that they gained from her would be superseded by now. Surley if the Chinese were to build a new carrier she would be fitted with a catapult though?

IMO, Long range (preferably supersonic) bombers, long range stand off ASM's, advanced and effective Anti-Sub and Air warfare systems, and increasing/developing amphibious assault capabilities should be top of China's wish list.

 

[swerve]

I remember hearing that the Chinese were interested in the Melbourne's catapult for a time. But it was a long time ago, and I think that any information that they gained from her would be superseded by now. Surley if the Chinese were to build a new carrier she would be fitted with a catapult though?

IMO, Long range (preferably supersonic) bombers, long range stand off ASM's, advanced and effective Anti-Sub and Air warfare systems, and increasing/developing amphibious assault capabilities should be top of China's wish list.

Top of the wish list? Means to locate ships in open ocean, behind a defensive screen, accurately enough to target them, & heavy (enough to sink, say, a 90000 ton ship) weapons to attack them. For example, stealthy long-endurance UAVs & ballistic missiles with terminal homing warheads.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Top of the wish list? Means to locate ships in open ocean, behind a defensive screen, accurately enough to target them, & heavy (enough to sink, say, a 90000 ton ship) weapons to attack them. For example, stealthy long-endurance UAVs & ballistic missiles with terminal homing warheads.

maybe in 2020, unless the communist party a fairy godmother hidden under the chairmans desk!

 

[abramsteve]

Top of the wish list? Means to locate ships in open ocean, behind a defensive screen, accurately enough to target them, & heavy (enough to sink, say, a 90000 ton ship) weapons to attack them. For example, stealthy long-endurance UAVs & ballistic missiles with terminal homing warheads.

lol yeah that too! They are gonna have a bloody long list, so long they might have to add paper to it! It seems that they need an increase in capabilities across the board!

 

[Viktor]

In posible conflict China would rely mostly on its hudge missile potential. I have heard they are modifying some of its balistic missiles to hit moving targets with Russian help. Now this could proved to ba a bigest threat to CBG.
Also 800 SRBM with posibly neutron warheads facing Tywan is something whitch would decimate Tywan defences.
I think i event of war US has no means to defend Tywan. China is prepared to take any casaulties and US is not.

 

[contedicavour]

In posible conflict China would rely mostly on its hudge missile potential. I have heard they are modifying some of its balistic missiles to hit moving targets with Russian help. Now this could proved to ba a bigest threat to CBG.
Also 800 SRBM with posibly neutron warheads facing Tywan is something whitch would decimate Tywan defences.
I think i event of war US has no means to defend Tywan. China is prepared to take any casaulties and US is not.

Don't underestimate what a few hundred Tomahawks could do to the SRBMs you mention And if those SRBMs are launched before their bases are destroyed, SM-2IIIs are built on purpose to blow them up. Taiwan has some on its 4 ex Kidd DDGs, and there would be at least one American CVBG hanging around with at least 3 Ticonderogas and/or Burkes (=> at least approx 200 SM-2IIIs).
Anyway, unless Taiwan does something really provocative, I don't see why China would risk hurting its economic growth and development in a war that might see it win in the end, but with huge casualties and even more huge material damage to the most developed areas of China...

cheers

 

[Viktor]

Don't underestimate what a few hundred Tomahawks could do to the SRBMs you mention And if those SRBMs are launched before their bases are destroyed, SM-2IIIs are built on purpose to blow them up. Taiwan has some on its 4 ex Kidd DDGs, and there would be at least one American CVBG hanging around with at least 3 Ticonderogas and/or Burkes (=> at least approx 200 SM-2IIIs).
Anyway, unless Taiwan does something really provocative, I don't see why China would risk hurting its economic growth and development in a war that might see it win in the end, but with huge casualties and even more huge material damage to the most developed areas of China...

cheers

Im not quite sure. Because those SRBM bases are most havily defended and lots of Russian sistems aquired by China have quite large percentage for hiting cruise missiles.
Im not quite sure what missile defence sistem has capability to destroy 800 SRBM launched. LOL even US govrement recently during Taepodong-2 testing said they could most probably destroyed missile. Imagine one missile and they are not quite sure. bad. And you are teling me about 800 of them.
Not a chance.
Taiwan has some ships with advanced tehnology and US help but all those ships in the event of war would be put to a atacks by advanced China antiship missiles and areal atacks I dont know how mutch time would they have to deal with SRBM of witch some are modify to hit moving targets.
What do you think.
Chears.

 

[contedicavour]

Im not quite sure. Because those SRBM bases are most havily defended and lots of Russian sistems aquired by China have quite large percentage for hiting cruise missiles.
Im not quite sure what missile defence sistem has capability to destroy 800 SRBM launched. LOL even US govrement recently during Taepodong-2 testing said they could most probably destroyed missile. Imagine one missile and they are not quite sure. bad. And you are teling me about 800 of them.
Not a chance.
Taiwan has some ships with advanced tehnology and US help but all those ships in the event of war would be put to a atacks by advanced China antiship missiles and areal atacks I dont know how mutch time would they have to deal with SRBM of witch some are modify to hit moving targets.
What do you think.
Chears.

Well, Taepodong was launched without us knowing its target. Besides, it should be considered more of an ICBM than a SRBM (higher speeds and much higher altitude flight pattern). To hit a Taepodong the USN needs SM-3 or even SM-6. In the case of SRBMs, Taiwan and its potential US ally would know which targets the mainland Chinese would be targeting first. Defending a potential target with SM2s or PAC3s should be feasible even against multiple incoming SRBMs.
Not to mention that Taiwan is a relatively small island, and that inbound missiles would follow relatively easily predictable trajectories.
It is also true that China's missile sites are becoming more and more protected as we speak. However they could hardly resist waves of missiles launched by American SSNs, carrier-based aircrafts, CGs, DDGs, etc.
cheers

 

[Viktor]

Well, Taepodong was launched without us knowing its target. Besides, it should be considered more of an ICBM than a SRBM (higher speeds and much higher altitude flight pattern). To hit a Taepodong the USN needs SM-3 or even SM-6. In the case of SRBMs, Taiwan and its potential US ally would know which targets the mainland Chinese would be targeting first. Defending a potential target with SM2s or PAC3s should be feasible even against multiple incoming SRBMs.
Not to mention that Taiwan is a relatively small island, and that inbound missiles would follow relatively easily predictable trajectories.
It is also true that China's missile sites are becoming more and more protected as we speak. However they could hardly resist waves of missiles launched by American SSNs, carrier-based aircrafts, CGs, DDGs, etc.
cheers

Well we just have to see a couple of years to see who is right.
China main priority besides space tehnologe and ICBM are airdefence, and in some Pentagon reports on China military power I read that they are doing extreme effort to make a robust and data conected multilayer airdefence sistem that will cover all China (specialy taiwan strait). Besides they have S-300 sistem Im not quite sure but I think 12 bateries. They are producing highly capable FT-2000 whitch is copypaste of S-300 and Patriot sistem etc etc. All those sistems as well as Russian Tor (whitch China posseses) and some other have high kill probability for cruise missiles as tomahawk is not a supersonic or stealth.
And do you know how many SM-2 missiles Taiwan has. Im not sure it has them more than 800 , and besides you will want to send two missiles on one Chinese SRBM to be sure. Later what do you think how many cruise missiles US and Taiwan have togeather.
Im not quite sure why havent Chinese made or accuired some cruise missile with land atack capability or some bombers like Backfire. It would increased its capabilities.
I did found this moment this. China seems to have S-400 besides S-300PMU/1/2 and maybe 3

On May 23, the Pentagon released its annual report to Congress on the military power of the People’s Republic of China. The report states that China is “pursuing strategic forces modernization to provide a credible, survivable nuclear deterrent and counterstrike capability in response to its perception of an increasingly complex nuclear security environment.” In particular, China is developing forces and concepts focused on denying adversaries the ability to deploy near its borders. The most glaring example is the fact that China is “qualitatively and quantitatively improving its long-range nuclear missile force.” The report adds that China might be revising its policy of “no first use,” meaning that it is considering the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapons-free zones.

The report also notes that Chinese ballistic missile testing increased in 2005, and states that such an increase “indicat[es] the priority China places on strengthening this force.” It notes that “China’s expansion of missile and other military forces opposite Taiwan has continued unabated.” By the end of 2004, China had deployed 650-730 mobile CSS-6 and CSS-7 short-range ballistic missiles; by the end of 2005, this number had increased to 710-790. The new SRBMs are believed to feature increased range and accuracy. China is also modernizing its longer-range ballistic missile force “by qualitatively upgrading and/or replacing older systems with newer, more survivable ones,” including the DF-31, a new road-mobile, solid-propellant ICBM. The report notes that an extended-range DF-31A “can target most of the world, including the continental United States.” China is also deploying the JL-2 SLBM on its Jin-class (Type 094) ballistic missile submarines, and developing new methods to counter ballistic missiles defenses.

The Pentagon adds that China has acquired new Russian-made S-300P (SA-10) and S-400 (SA-20) air/missile defense interceptors, and has deployed them along the Taiwan Strait. China is also expected to deploy an extended range S-300PMU2, which would allow the People’s Liberation Army to engage targets over Taiwanese airspace. At the same time, China is developing “new concept” high energy weapon systems such as radio frequency and laser-based systems that could be used against missiles, aircraft, and command and control units. Evidence also exists that Beijing continues to pursue a new offensive anti-satellite system, which would most likely include a ground-based laser designed to damage or blind imaging satellites.

 

[contedicavour]

Well we just have to see a couple of years to see who is right.
China main priority besides space tehnologe and ICBM are airdefence, and in some Pentagon reports on China military power I read that they are doing extreme effort to make a robust and data conected multilayer airdefence sistem that will cover all China (specialy taiwan strait). Besides they have S-300 sistem Im not quite sure but I think 12 bateries. They are producing highly capable FT-2000 whitch is copypaste of S-300 and Patriot sistem etc etc. All those sistems as well as Russian Tor (whitch China posseses) and some other have high kill probability for cruise missiles as tomahawk is not a supersonic or stealth.
And do you know how many SM-2 missiles Taiwan has. Im not sure it has them more than 800 , and besides you will want to send two missiles on one Chinese SRBM to be sure. Later what do you think how many cruise missiles US and Taiwan have togeather.
Im not quite sure why havent Chinese made or accuired some cruise missile with land atack capability or some bombers like Backfire. It would increased its capabilities.
I did found this moment this. China seems to have S-400 besides S-300PMU/1/2 and maybe 3

Interesting, both sides are upping the stakes in this confrontation.
While I fear the extension of the Chinese ICBM capabilities, including potentially serious Type 094 SSBNs (the current Xia makes so much noise when sailing that a 1970s sonar would pick it up), I remain sceptical of the resistance of CSS 6&7 SRBMs in the face of SAMs.
I don't know how many SM2IIIs are in the Taiwanese or US arsenal. I guess this type of information is kept confidential for obvious reasons.
The improvement of air defences over mainland China may make it harder for TLAMs to hit missile bases, but once the CSS 6&7s are airborne, their vulnerability is the key issue.
Last thing, the US is also constantly improving on its standoff weaponry. TLAMs aren't the only standoffs anymore.

cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

It kind of makes me wonder why they are there in the first place if they are just going to be turned off anyways.

Because it was engaged in a shore bombardment, and it was felt there was no credible threat. If they had believed there was a threat, why would they have stationed themselves so near to the shore, thus reducing their response time?

 

[wangcong]

yah!!~~

[Mod edit Welcome to the forum. Please take a minute to go through the rules. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php/

Thank you.
Red aRRow.]

 

[dioditto]

If I just look at the defense budget of China (Even the hidden one) and that of the USA I don't think they are catching up. Not in comparison to the US.

There is a factor you didn't take into account. That is the PPP (purchasing power parity). The salary of a US engineer can fund 10+ engineers in China. So while the budget *may* look like China is lagging far behind, it may not be. The second factor is the validity of western intelligence on Chinese defense budgets. The number that comes from intelligence community was never a concrete number, thus all the numbers you have read are ROUGH GUESSTIMATES.