China Wants To Target US Aircraft Carriers

[peterAustralia]

To Tpauang

Cruise missiles or low cost drones, call them what you prefer.

My point is this, to build a supersonic cruise missile capable of hitting an American ship requires a high level of technical skill, advanced seekers, high speed and millions of dollars per missile.

Now a fairly dumb drone could be built in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mechanically you take the V1 and upgrade it a little, mainly with a better engine, the main requirement being that it be cheap, reliable. Performance has to be merely high subsonic. The force multiplier is accurate guidance, via GPS. The GPS can also be used to send the missiles at low low level making them more difficult to detect.

End result is a very cheap missile with a long range and a big warhead. Aim that at airforce bases and airfields, dockyards, army logistic centers etc and the destruction is immense. They would be built in huge numbers at modest cost, maybe even built in number by ten thousand number or so, and launched in waves of hundreds at a time.

The V1 had a warhead of 850kg and a range of 250km, total weight of 2,150kg Germany made 30,000 of them in WW2 (according to wikipedia).

Obviously an upgraded V1 would need a lot of work in terms of reliability, pre-positioned missiles in tunnels, a better engine etc, but in terms of what is required, a 2,150kg missile with an 850kg payload packs a lot of punch, a lot of power for the money required.

When Chinese fighters attack (I mean if not when) they can use the hundreds of cheap dumb drones flying alongside to soak up air to air missiles. The upgraded V1 being so simple and unrefined would cost far far less than any decent air to air missile.

My point is that if China were so inclined they could for a modest sum build thousand of low tech cruise missiles and swamp the defenses of Taiwan.

regards
peterAustralia

 

[swerve]

IMF and the World Bank just cut PRC GDP PPP by 40% in the much anticipated 2005 International Comparison Program.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...002243~piPK:62002387~theSitePK:270065,00.html


China 2005
PPP$ 5,333.2 billion
GDP$ 2,243.8 billion


http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/summary-tables.pdf

(Swerve, they finally updated the 1986 extrapolations and replaced them with real data )

A little less than 40%, but still, a very big reduction. I think most of the reduction is due to the growth rate, rather than the 1986 estimate being too high. It may have been, but probably not that much. Firstly, the systematic faults identified by Wu, Maddison & others in Chinas official growth rate figures, causing them to be overstated. Alone,that explains half the difference. Secondly, calculating growth at the very different set of prices, & hence sectoral weights, resulting from the PPP comparison, would probably reduce growth further.

The remaining difference is small enough to be accounted for by the normal margins of error in the PPP calculations & underlying GDP estimates.

This makes a big difference to predictions of when Chinas GDP may surpass that of the USA.

BTW, if you look at the other countries, you see some other interesting changes. The most significant is India, which also suffered from being extrapolated from an old estimate (1985), and which has been revised downward about the same amount, putting it well behind Japan, & just behind Germany - but close enough that we can think about the margin of error, & growth since 2005 may have changed positions anyway. South Africa is also revised down considerably. Like China, this is its first full comparison. Russia is up slightly.

DR Congo clearly suffers from GIGO - the underlying GDP figures are too incomplete, producing an implausibly low figure. Nice demonstration of how such estimates are totally dependent on the GDP figures from which they're derived.

 

[swerve]

I always find those PPP estimations to be extremely fishy.....

Well, this one was done with the full co-operation of Chinas State Statistical Bureau. It can be considered the first official Chinese estimate.

Back in the 1980s, the Hungarian national statistics office produced a couple of estimates of Soviet GDP at PPP, for 1980 & 1985, which were quite a lot lower than the official figures. Slightly lower than the CIA estimates, in fact. They were rather cagey about how they'd come up with those figures. In 1990, just before closing down, the USSR produced its first official estimate with international co-operation, on the same basis as the Chinese one above. It was close to those 1980 & 1985 figures, assuming growth in between to have been roughly what the CIA thought. About the same time, it was admitted that the "Hungarian" estimates had been done within Goskomstat, & given to the Hungarians to pass off as their own because Goskomstat wasn't allowed to publish them.

 

[Transient]

You speak as if you actually have idea what programs China has under development? Of all the major programs they've worked on in the recent years, we've rarely seen any major cuts. This might be hard for you to swallow, but they are expanding fast without putting any kind of burden on the economy. We haven't seen any kind of slow down or delays in any of the naval programs.

So you believe China has the lead in terms of technical competance, weight of experience and breadth of R&D effort?

071 despite being a complete new program was actually launched right on schedule. Can we say the same about US?

You seriously believe the LPD-17 and the 071 are even remotely comparable in terms of technical complexity?

they've spent the past 60 years fighting without space assets, I'm sure they are used to it by now, lol.

nfloorl: Why put satellites up then? Why get better ships, better jets? They spent the past 60 years with the people's war concept. Why go network centric? Who the hell are you trying to fool?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why put satellites up then? Why get better ships, better jets? They spent the past 60 years with the people's war concept. Why go network centric? Who the hell are you trying to fool?

Even the PLA state that GW1 was the watershed that drove them to fast track modernising their military. The speed at which modern co-ordinated warfare was despatched was enough to convince them that they needed their own RMA.

Anyone who argues that they did fine before so don't need a modern military thats competitive now is ignoring even their (PLA's) own assessment....

 

[McTaff]

All analysis of GDP and current/past projects and modernisation aside, let us focus on a few points raised so far:

1) Nuclear first-strike by China is not a viable option.
2) Satellite kills would prompt an immediate reaction, and only gives a 2 hour window to prosecute the CBG.
3) Chinese SSBN deployment would remain a non-entry into this engagement, provided it were non-nuclear.
4) The few Chinese SSN's would need to detect and relay any targeting information, or the PLAN/PLAAF would need to have the CBG under continuous surveillance in order to have precise enough intelligence on the CBG for any type of strike.
5) EMP based attacks are as-yet-unproven against modern naval ships.
6) Saturation missile attacks would potentially require the use of almost the entire resources available to the PLAAF/PLAN.

[/rerail]

So what I want to know is this:

What would the point be? I mean, you expend a goodly chunk of your resources to attack an aircraft carrier. Okay, suppose you manage to sink it with, say (random figure) 25% losses to attacking force.

-You have bought yourself perhaps two days to do what you like before long-range bombers start arriving with cruise missiles and standoff weapons, assuming the US want to tank some over.

-You have about seven days before a dozen or so SSN's arrive offshore, (potentially up towards fifteen). With semi careful placement, you'd need perhaps eight to cover all of the active Chinese naval bases. With good networking, you could assign one to backstop another, or simply cover smaller areas if you feel comfortable with more than one operating in the same area.

-You have perhaps a week (plus or minus) before another carrier arrives, depending on what carriers are where at the time. (I was under the impression one homeported in Japan, and a second would generally be in South-East Asia, plus one on the western seaboard of the US would mean that there would easily be room for one to be near to China within a week. Correct me if I am wrong here).

-

So you have perhaps a week before the US would mount a full-scale retaliation. At least one carrier sitting offshore, an SSN within spitting distance of every major military seaport, the potential for long-range bombers to drop precision weapons at any time at your land bases and airfields...

What are you going to do in this time? Invade Taiwan? Huh. I'd be praying.

I'm not saying that the US is some vengeful god with an all encompassing capability that is unstoppable, but if you manage to sink a carrier, you'd best be prepared for them to throw just about everything they have at you. And, mind, this is after you've already had a bit of a chewing from the CBG you had to take out in the first place. So using your resources anywhere other than self defence is completely ludicrous. Extending your borders by annexing another country under any pretense is only making it more difficult for yourself.
Plus, think about exactly how far the shipyards are going to get building anything else (i.e. carriers, subs, ships) once they are nothing more than rubble and melted iron from the tons of ordnance that'll be directed there. That'd set China back years and years with respect to their plans for a blue water navy.

Going nuclear is only asking for a serious kicking up the backside, as you'll be responded to in kind - IMHO it is out of the question. Anyone who seriously contemplates it has grossly marginalised global politics and feels they can 'go it alone', and acheive everything they want without any imports, exports or outside friends.

The only way the PLAN/PLAAF can take a chunk out of a carrier (and possibly attain a mission kill) without fear of retribution is to catch it in territorial waters, and that'd be simply an attack of opportunity (and thus couldn't be properly planned) - and not giving a friendly warning first and just loosing missiles would seriously put relations up the spout right there. Expect some backlash for that, just perhaps not direct military (two carriers in station nearby, more ship visits to Taiwan, trade bans, that sort of thing.) As far as that goes, you've totally dropped the ball by having the reverse situation than the one you'd hoped for.

Attacking a CBG isn't going to make the US retreat like a kicked puppy. Rather, it'll have the mother dog routine all hitched up and ready to go. Within seven days you'll have military pressure directed at anything and all things the PLA/PLAN/PLAAF has - and it'd be justified. The US would attempt to flatten everything they own 'damn the torpedoes' style and it'd be hard to stave off such a sustained attack. The US does have a long reach across the Pacific, and China would have a hard time hitting back after a while.

 

[Firehorse]

Well, the issue of ASAT & confronting CSG/TF with SSBNs aren't directly related- I never meant that. But, the survivability of Soviet/Russian SSBNs are related to survivability of Chinese ones- especially since they are/were getting Russia's help, and in the event of a conflict at sea would face the USN SSNs & other ASW assets. Granted, their #s are not as big as the former USSR could boast, but they could use other sub classes to protect & confuse ASW directed at them.
We need to look at the whole picture of US-PRC relations. Even if the latter manages to sink a carrier, I don't think the US will want to bomb China back into the stone age, as someone suggested- it won't be in their geoplitical/economic interests. Examples from past history: Japan sunk quite a few USN warships in WWII- was it turned into another Bikini Atoll, in addition to Hiroshima? The USS Liberty was attacked & heavily damaged by Israelis in '67- did the US "wiped them off the map"? Iraq nearly sunk USS Stark-in 1987, but continued to be an ally against Iran until '91. 14 out of the 19 9/11/01 haijackers were Saudis- that country is still immune from "regime change" scenario that played out in Iraq.
So, the PRC shouldn't be expected to pull any punches, especially on such emotional issue as Taiwan. BTW, the Clubs AShMs don't seem to mulfunction in Russian and Chinese inventory- maybe Indian operating environment & other factors/conditions are unique!
The USN recently demonstrated the ability to put 7 CV/Ns at sea simultaneously, in both Pac/Atl. Oceans. How many will actualy be within striking range off China after 1 of them is out of commission, in what time frame? Will the US risk loosing more of them with very little, if anything, to gain? I 100% agree that missiles, drones and fighters are a lot cheaper to make and use, and in larger #s, than CV/Ns! Defending Taiwan may be the last thing they may be worth commiting to!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well, the issue of ASAT & confronting CSG/TF with SSBNs aren't directly related- I never meant that. But, the survivability of Soviet/Russian SSBNs are related to survivability of Chinese ones- especially since they are/were getting Russia's help, and in the event of a conflict at sea would face the USN SSNs & other ASW assets. Granted, their #s are not as big as the former USSR could boast, but they could use other sub classes to protect & confuse ASW directed at them.
We need to look at the whole picture of US-PRC relations. Even if the latter manages to sink a carrier, I don't think the US will want to bomb China back into the stone age, as someone suggested- it won't be in their geoplitical/economic interests. Examples from past history: Japan sunk quite a few USN warships in WWII- was it turned into another Bikini Atoll, in addition to Hiroshima? The USS Liberty was attacked & heavily damaged by Israelis in '67- did the US "wiped them off the map"? Iraq nearly sunk USS Stark-in 1987, but continued to be an ally against Iran until '91. 14 out of the 19 9/11/01 haijackers were Saudis- that country is still immune from "regime change" scenario that played out in Iraq.
So, the PRC shouldn't be expected to pull any punches, especially on such emotional issue as Taiwan. BTW, the Clubs AShMs don't seem to mulfunction in Russian and Chinese inventory- maybe Indian operating environment & other factors/conditions are unique!
The USN recently demonstrated the ability to put 7 CV/Ns at sea simultaneously, in both Pac/Atl. Oceans. How many will actualy be within striking range off China after 1 of them is out of commission, in what time frame? Will the US risk loosing more of them with very little, if anything, to gain? I 100% agree that missiles, drones and fighters are a lot cheaper to make and use, and in larger #s, than CV/Ns! Defending Taiwan may be the last thing they may be worth commiting to!

Not bomb china back to the stone age? Baer (ex CIA) states quite clearly that if the USG had been able to identify which country had given shelter to bin laden in the first 48 hours that there was an overwhelming committment on the part of the executive to drop a nuke on that country. Killing a carrier would instantly result in more deaths than the WTC. Don't bank on it, they might not bomb china back to the stone age, but I suspect that china wouldn't get a free ride and that a proportionate response would be curious even if constrained .

As for your misuse of Stark, and Liberty, you are quoting examples where none of those countries were:


1) Regarded as an enemy of the state (Israel)

2) were geopolitically and militarily a threat (Iraq).
2a) were already emasculated (Japan) but still received an a-bomb to reinforce the issue of commitment and outright victory

3) where senior military officers promoted a war against the US as a long
term vision

4) If china does not exist in the US economies trading matrix will that disrupt both economies - sure, but a high proportion of chinas economy is via US spending. India is a far more attractive country as a counter, it respects international law, has similar institutional models, and has an economy which can start to turn within 15 years. The simple message is, if your enemy needs your economy to survive - then you change the dynamics by changing the trading arrangements.

The US needs China less than vice versa as no other country or group of countries has US purchasing demand. And quite frankly, US companies have made a rod for their own back by bringing in the very technology that some PLA senior military staff are using to make the weapons and systems to threaten the US.

5) The Saudis? you want to blame an entire country on ethnicity - the Saudis are the one major OPEC and oil producer who have publicly stated and reinforced that they will not use oil as a weapon of political manouvre - that the 70's oil embargo mentaility is not in their interest. they want to ensure that they sell product - thats why they're adamant about keeping OPEC stable rather than have the Venzuelans usurp it as a vehicle of political statement.

6) japan was in outright war - the US and China are in a phony war. Its not even remotely at the stages of the Cold War of the 70's. Do you seriously think that the US govt would take such a meandering approach if this was 1986?

7) The russians trust china as much as they trust the US - probably less so as its easier to contain china militarily than the US. They needed china before as the petro dollar was at $90 per barrel - its a business decision. China is regarded just as much as a threat due to population merge in siberia - and due to the fact that selling to china is a one time wonder - every major system is copied so as to reduce dependancy on russian expertise. The russians aren't morons, they know how it works.

8) The russians as allies? what is russias main concern? its the security of it as a continental power - china is the only immediate continental power with conflicting issues. America isn't. In absolute terms american power as a threat is a furphy as it has to be projected, they have no claims on russian territories and the russians know damn well that the US has no interest in waging a theatre war against them.

9) Trying to bring the russians in as allies? the americans will take the gloves off - how many actual real military powers does china have as an ally? 1. pakistan. I can think of over a dozen US allies which are superior at a military level than china is. The Japanese MSDF is a far more competent coherent navy than the PLAN and would win a conventional conflict in international waters. Nukes don't give you options. They restrict your capability to move and exercise absolute power. Nukes are a damocles sword.

10) The fact that you are focussed on the carriers means that you actually are paying attention to the wrong asset. The power is not the carrier. The carrier provides a key element, but the actual critical platform is another. Why would a country that is the most experienced naval aviation deliverer in history, who's got actual experience in blue water warfare, who fights and has fought in a 21st century combined arms model - even consider that they will use carriers in the opening stages of a counter response?

China is and has made herself a visible threat by the actions of some of her senior military leaders

11) China already has issues of sustaining her economy due to resources issues and something very basic like potable water. Strangle the economy and she'll focus within a lot sooner than she'll worry about impressing herself about threatening the US. She already has substantial problems in the northern, western and poorer regions where they aren't realising benefit. She has 25million new unemployed a year. She cannot provide sufficient jobs for a new cohort of unskilled workers when she is caught in the flux of trying to emulate a sophisticated economy, where there is a conflicting need to abandon unskilled and inefficient work and industry practices. The US was in that position in 1939. The USA is not as vulnerable as she has infrastructure in place, she has a highly skilled workforce, she has institutional strength - and she can pull manufacturing from China to India - or to central africa where she has had an import free relationship with all of africa for the last 3 years. in other words, african states can import into the US without duty impediments so that their economies aren't hindered.

Who has more to risk? Not the US. Not by a long shot.

How can you even begin to compare PLAN technology to Russian technology for SSBN's? They're not even remotely close. The russians have a modern maritime heritage, they have the technology - and they're certainly not exporting that as blind freddy can see in the design of the Shang that its a late 1970's design. Acoustically at a management level its not remotely comparable. Survivability as such is heavily influenced by technological capacity as well as training. How many SSBN's does china have? How many modern bluewater subs does she have, How much blue water experience does she have? How much deep level training is conducted with competent dissimilar navies? real training - not marketing visits. How much SLOC capability does she have? She's not even remotely capable of protecting her trade routes and fighting a series of blue water naval wars concurrently. They're rhetorical questions - but they apply quite clearly.

As much as some kids might get excited at the thought of a chinese naval imperium, you can bet that the Senior Admirals in the PLAN have a far more sobered perspective - and you can also assume that now that friction is becoming far more visible, that the US won't be dragging her heels on a few technology issues. My view is that in some projects they've already elected to fast track by 30%. The US won't continue on in some temporal flux and allow a self avowed competitor to remove her gap.

 

[Schumacher]

Not bomb china back to the stone age? Baer (ex CIA) states quite clearly that if the USG had been able to identify which country had given shelter to bin laden in the first 48 hours that there was an overwhelming committment on the part of the executive to drop a nuke on that country. Killing a carrier would instantly result in more deaths than the WTC. Don't bank on it.

Isn't it widely known that Bin Laden was at times in Pakistan's border & that US was less than totally satisfied with the cooperation they got. Far from being punished by US, I think they've actually done quite well with regard to ties with US extracting some goodies occasionally.
Similarly, the US sure did contemplate nukes but fortunately refrained from doing so during the Korean war.
While agreeing many are too complacent in believing US won't resort to nukes. The point is it seems some are also putting too much faith into the words of some hawkish elements of the US military with regard to their willingness & ability to 'bomb someone back to stone-age'.
In the end, just like any powers, they'll look long & hard at the cards they & the opponents have at the time rather than it being an automatic decision to go nuke, even if a carrier has been sunk.

.... The simple message is, if your enemy needs your economy to survive - then change the trading arrangemnts. The US needs China less than vice versa as no other country or group of countries has US purchasing demand.....

Many still seem to think Sino-US trading arrangement is due to US having so much love for China that they're doing it to do China a favour. I know the Chinese can be quite lovable sometimes.
Trades are there for mutual needs & benefits.
I believe most in US can see China as a rival & is trying as much as they can to slow it down. The fact that the trading arrangement still as it is in spite of this suggests it's not as easy as some might want to think to just alter the arrangements.

As to how much really is China dependent on US & vice-versa, I think we'll have a much better picture in just a few more yrs as the current global economic tensions develop, especially when more questions are being raised as to the values of US$ IOUs compared to other assets.

.....And quite frankly, US companies have made a rod for their own back by bringing in the very technology that some PLA senior military staff are using to make the weapons and systems to threaten the US.

Again, it's incredible how easy some continues to believe these decision makers in multi-billion companies & government agencies are all idiots or China-lovers, oblivious to the 'threats' of future Chinese competitors.
Personally, I don't think they are nearly as dumb. It's just market forces at work. They need the sales to China or anyone else to function as a business & R&D.
As to future Chinese competitions, these are their own companies, so I suspect they would know a bit more than many on this forum.
Either they don't see there's a threat or that they've analyzed & concluded the Chinese could have gotten the techs sooner or later thru other sources or self-development.
So you see, it's not as easy as just saying people who run multi-billion companies or the government are dumb but it's not rocket science either if one just spend a few mins to think abt why they do what they do.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Isn't it widely known that Bin Laden was at times in Pakistan's border & that US was less than totally satisfied with the cooperation they got. Far from being punished by US, I think they've actually done quite well with regard to ties with US extracting some goodies occasionally.

The reality is the north western provinces were key to the US pursuit of bib-laden, and that required Pakistani assistance. That is a far cry from a state governed action to destroy a principal military asset

Similarly, the US sure did contemplate nukes but fortunately refrained from doing so during the Korean war.
While agreeing many are too complacent in believing US won't resort to nukes. The point is it seems some are also putting too much faith into the words of some hawkish elements of the US military with regard to their willingness & ability to 'bomb someone back to stone-age'.

Baer was hardly a hawke. The bottom line is that the US was very much of a mind set that nuking a country that gave bin-laden cover and comfort was a serious option - and this was not an issue of a state sanctioned event.

Does one seriously think that the american executive would survive office if a symbol of american military power since the time of Adm Reeves was deliberately targetted? There are almost twice as many people on a carrier as there were in killed in the Twin Towers. Of course there will be emotion involved.

In the end, just like any powers, they'll look long & hard at the cards they & the opponents have at the time rather than it being an automatic decision to go nuke, even if a carrier has been sunk.

See above. Striking a carrier is meant to be a statement of intent. One would be incredibly foolish to think that there would be an absence of reciprocity.

Many still seem to think Sino-US trading arrangement is due to US having so much love for China that they're doing it to do China a favour. I know the Chinese can be quite lovable sometimes. Trades are there for mutual needs & benefits.

They trade for commercial benefit, not because they love each other. History is littered with examples of trade during conflict - except when the national strategic interest is finally challenged.

I believe most in US can see China as a rival & is trying as much as they can to slow it down. The fact that the trading arrangement still as it is in spite of this suggests it's not as easy as some might want to think to just alter the arrangements.

I haven't seen anything where the US is trying to slow it down. The easiest way to slow china down is to trade with another country like India. Its not rocket science. Commercial co-dependancy relationships exist for benefit. If the benefit is polluted by other national requirements, then it doesn't matter how much profit Walmart and GE will lose that will govern the action of the executive. (Look at Joseph Kennedy)

As to how much really is China dependent on US & vice-versa, I think we'll have a much better picture in just a few more yrs as the current global economic tensions develop, especially when more questions are being raised as to the values of US$ IOUs compared to other assets.

It will also settle once the chinese currency is floated at real value - and once it becomes seriously competitive. There is an indian middle and lower class that are keen to lift themselves into a well of opportunity. The Free Market will certainly decide whether buyers want to cover their risk by diverting and divesting themselves of single country of origin vulnerabilities. eg For all of Venezuelas state driven hysteria about the US, the bulk of their exchange is for US product (not just money)

Again, it's incredible how easy some continues to believe these decision makers in multi-billion companies & government agencies are all idiots or China-lovers, oblivious to the 'threats' of future Chinese competitors.

Greed has a quality all of its own.

Personally, I don't think they are nearly as dumb. It's just market forces at work. They need the sales to China or anyone else to function as a business & R&D.

Thats based on single commercial benefit that china is a cheap source of trade. The market hasn't opened up. India was perceived to be a financial power of the future in '97. It has survived the meltdown and is eager to position herself. China has an unlevel playing field where she has market position. That will change - as night follows day.

As to future Chinese competitions, these are their own companies, so I suspect they would know a bit more than many on this forum.

Are you assuming something about my own personal experiences?

Either they don't see there's a threat or that they've analyzed & concluded the Chinese could have gotten the techs sooner or later thru other sources or self-development.

no disagree. we have set parameters about what technology is allowed to go to china - there is a never ending issue of companies trying to circumvent those requirements. Greed is a base character deficiency. I've had chinese companies appealing to my sense of heritage as a vehicle of motivation to try and get access to various technologies. In these instances, if you want the tech, then develop it yourself, or accept the fact that you are limited in what will be exported for our own security reasons.

So you see, it's not as easy as just saying people who run multi-billion companies or the government are dumb but it's not rocket science either if one just spend a few mins to think abt why they do what they do.

Of course they're not dumb, they want to make the maximum revenue they can in their market of entry. Businesses don't make strategic decisions, their ability to trade at some levels is managed by Govt legislation - if there were no restrictions I can assure you that the GE's of the world always have people prepared to sell the family jewels.

Companies are driven by a bottom line that seeks to manipulate shareholder benefit to their maximum advantage. That can be remotely different from a nations best interests. eg the Boeing 767 already had LO technology developments in its construction. By getting manufacture done in china it fast tracked chinese development of their materials development sector. My view is that if a nation wants to treat you like a threat (as have a number of PLA generals), then you let them manufacture picnic chairs instead of aircraft. Let them develop their economy through real commercial natural selection.... or make it based on trust.

The China US relationship is not the same as the huggy years of Nixon. Its not even the same as when Adm Keating offered to help the PLAN build a carrier.

Thats the reality for the US. The Govt to Govt relationship is polluted, and in that case, the issue of how one country will react to the sinking of a principle symbolic asset does have some significance. bearing in mind that sinking one US carrier won't be the same as sinking Spains as the US has redundancy.

Realpolitik cuts both ways.

 

[Schumacher]

.... That is a far cry from a state governed action to destroy a principal military asset...

My point being whatever pressure or reprimand US put on Pakistan was also a far cry from being 'bombed back to stone-age'.

See above. Striking a carrier is meant to be a statement of intent. One would be incredibly foolish to think that there would be an absence of reciprocity.

I don't think anyone here has suggested there'll be an absence any reciprocity of some kind.

...I haven't seen anything where the US is trying to slow it down. The easiest way to slow china down is to trade with another country like India.

I actually think there're many signs that they are trying. The absence of even more strong attempts & diversion of trades to India is I think due that it is far from as easy as you suggest.
While greed & short-term views are prevalent in the commercial world, it's wrong to assume they don't have strategic views. They don't get to where they are without strategies on dealing firmly with possible competitions.

 

[Grand Danois]

Not arguing that it describes the pressure put on Pakistan, but I was amused over the wording.

US 'threatened to bomb' Pakistan

The US threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" unless it joined the fight against al-Qaeda, President Pervez Musharraf has said.
...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5369198.stm

 

[tphuang]

Well, this one was done with the full co-operation of Chinas State Statistical Bureau. It can be considered the first official Chinese estimate.

Back in the 1980s, the Hungarian national statistics office produced a couple of estimates of Soviet GDP at PPP, for 1980 & 1985, which were quite a lot lower than the official figures. Slightly lower than the CIA estimates, in fact. They were rather cagey about how they'd come up with those figures. In 1990, just before closing down, the USSR produced its first official estimate with international co-operation, on the same basis as the Chinese one above. It was close to those 1980 & 1985 figures, assuming growth in between to have been roughly what the CIA thought. About the same time, it was admitted that the "Hungarian" estimates had been done within Goskomstat, & given to the Hungarians to pass off as their own because Goskomstat wasn't allowed to publish them.

that's fine, i just don't believe in using PPP to measure economy in general. Just use nominal, I'm sure we all know poorer countries can also live on cheaper living expenses.

So you believe China has the lead in terms of technical competance, weight of experience and breadth of R&D effort?

First, do you have any idea where they are researching into and how far they are in them? Because clearly from your past posts, you don't have the faintest idea about how PLA works.

As for your question and as related to the original question, China certainly has a small set of fields that it leads right now. In the long run, it can certainly afford to make the investments and man power needed to maintain/decrease its gap with USA. For a number of reasons:
1. It's cheaper to develop something you already seen.
2. It's simply cheaper to develop and build stuff in China, especially when it comes to the navy.
3. China's economy is growing much faster than that of USA
4. China does not have the global responsibility of US, so there are certain areas it doesn't need to invest in as much.

You seriously believe the LPD-17 and the 071 are even remotely comparable in terms of technical complexity?

Good grief. 071 in terms of technology leap from its previous landing ship was far greater for China than LPD-17 is for US. Can you find a recent case where US had to build a ship they've never had any experience with before and managed to get it built on time and on budget? Did I compare 071 to LPD-17? And since you are questioning 071's technical complexity, do you even know how large it is or what kind of combat system it uses or how many helicopters of each type it can hold or anything?

Why put satellites up then? Why get better ships, better jets? They spent the past 60 years with the people's war concept. Why go network centric? Who the hell are you trying to fool?

Did I say that it's not better to have Satellites? If I did, why don't you point where I said those words. I said that they've learnt to fight without satellites. And yes, just like the Americans, their cruise missiles and PGMs can operate without satellites. They have more experience doing strikes without using satellite than with using satellite guidance. Why get better ships and jets? because they are better and have other forms of navigation system. Why go network centric? because they have the technology to do so and not having satellites will not stop it from working.

 

[rickusn]

Quote: Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
...I haven't seen anything where the US is trying to slow it down. The easiest way to slow china down is to trade with another country like India.


Shumacher:

I actually think there're many signs that they are trying. The absence of even more strong attempts & diversion of trades to India is I think due that it is far from as easy as you suggest.
While greed & short-term views are prevalent in the commercial world, it's wrong to assume they don't have strategic views. They don't get to where they are without strategies on dealing firmly with possible competitions.

Me:

Many US companies have found ways to compete with foreign imports its not goten much media play.

My company is a perfect example a year ago it looked like we were going to have to shut the doors.

Now we are considering either turning away business or quickly and greatly expanding our operations as our order book has increased 10 fold!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even though the housing market our customer comtinues in a serious downturn.

There are ways to compete and the American worker continues to increase productivity, increase attention to quality, lower delivery time cycles to hours instead of days which is down from weeks all despite a lack of new capital improvements and stagnate wages. All in a very short time frame.

There are many emerging success stories that are being ignored by the mainstream media, political pundits and even wall street analysts.

As the focus has and remains on gloom and doom.

But the American worker in general is far more resilient, adaptable, innovative, educated, motivated, trained and flexible than they are ever given credit for.

And more importantly far more than the elites both public and private in this country.

What the US really lacks is competent leaders with vision, focus and a can-do attitude.

Because quite simply blaming and denigrating those with a relative lack of power, voice and wealth is much simpler than looking in the mirror to find and fix their own faults and shorcomings and is apparently much easier and rewarding not to mention self-fullfilling.

If anything in the US is a disgrace its the people at the top of the totem pole.

All I can say is lead, follow or at least get the h-ll out of the way we others have families to support and we will do it with or without you.

And when it comes to education my 7th grade daugher is doing work in a typical public school that was freshman/sophmore high school curricula when I was her age.

When 88% correct is considered average or a "C" grade and anything below 80% is considered failing those are pretty tough standards.

Yeo thats right on 10 question pop quzzes seven right is an F, 8 a D, 9 C, no Bs and 10 an A. yep to get a B overall you have to get many 10s to go along with scores of less to get to a 95% grade for a B. As are almost unheard of but not impossible as my daughter has a couple. B & B+ more often.

Perfection appears now to be the goal at the expense of an actual reasonable learning experience.

And they wonder why kids feel overly stressed and pressured?

Does she struggle? Not nearly as much as I do trying to help teach her. LOL

And Im no dummy or so many say.

This next generation is poised to burst on the scene. Also IMHO the current younger generation coming into the work force is given short shrift also.

But its more a lack of leadership at all levels than any inherent shortcoming on their part.

Its amazing they have survived as well as they have with all the crap theyve had to put up with denigrating their intelligence and abilities.

Its no wonder the most important aspect of my mentoring and training efforts has been remedial work on confidence and self-esteem which has been institutionally and systematically almost completely beaten out of many if not most of them.

Thats the "real" shame of the US society.

 

[Transient]

China certainly has a small set of fields that it leads right now.

Like stealing and reverse engineering?

1. It's cheaper to develop something you already seen.

1. It's cheaper to develop something based on blueprints they stole

2. It's simply cheaper to develop and build stuff in China, especially when it comes to the navy.

2. It's simply cheaper to build manpower intensive 'equipment' like soft toys in China. Not necessarily cheaper to build technologically advanced systems.

3. China's economy is growing much faster than that of USA

You can make great improvements when starting from a low base.

4. China does not have the global responsibility of US, so there are certain areas it doesn't need to invest in as much.

Like aircraft carriers, amphibious assets, satellites? Waait a minute... nfloorl:

Good grief. 071 in terms of technology leap from its previous landing ship was far greater for China than LPD-17 is for US.

Great technological leap in terms of what? Developing a well dock? Excellent WW2 era achivement.

Can you find a recent case where US had to build a ship they've never had any experience with before and managed to get it built on time and on budget?

Sea Shadow.

Did I compare 071 to LPD-17? And since you are questioning 071's technical complexity, do you even know how large it is or what kind of combat system it uses or how many helicopters of each type it can hold or anything?

210m length estimated. ~2 helis. Probably uses the JRNG gun control system. Pretty unspectacular. Looking at the sensors on the 071, they hardly compare to the large number of combat systems and sensors on the LPD-17.

Did I say that it's not better to have Satellites? If I did, why don't you point where I said those words.

Did I say you said that it's not better to have satellites? nfloorl: After trying to make it sound they can operate without a drastic loss in combat effectiveness even with the loss of their satellites, now you make a desperate attempt to claw back some semblance of credibility. Caught with your pants down, now you're trying spin.

Tphuang: "they've spent the past 60 years fighting without space assets, I'm sure they are used to it by now, lol."

 

[funtz]

Oh ya, Targeting a USN aircraft carrier, covering all that is so obvious, from economics to education. This was a good read.

 

[tphuang]

Like stealing and reverse engineering?

why don't you read up on things rather than just taking wise cracks?

1. It's cheaper to develop something based on blueprints they stole

why don't you name the number of systems they did that for and I will name you all the systems that don't have anything to that. And please get your facts straight. I don't want anymore J-10 is a copy of F-16/Lavi kind of argument.

2. It's simply cheaper to build manpower intensive 'equipment' like soft toys in China. Not necessarily cheaper to build technologically advanced systems.

their entire navy is built at a discount to what it would take to build an equivalent navy in US. Look at their shipbuilding industry, can US compare to that at all? We can go through the air force and army too.

You can make great improvements when starting from a low base.

have you seen their GDP chart? it has gone up as the years went by, showing no signs of a decline. Do you know what it was in 1999 and what it is now? Take a look. And how about this, name another economy that has sustained the growth rate that China has for the past 25 years.

Like aircraft carriers, amphibious assets, satellites? Waait a minute... nfloorl:

right, how many of those do they have. Right, maintaining 3 carrier groups is the same as maintaining 11 carrier groups and 12 ESF. How many wars are they fighting in? Do they have responsibilities in the Western hemisphere? In the current state, China only needs to worry about East Asia and its energy route.

Great technological leap in terms of what? Developing a well dock? Excellent WW2 era achivement.

Going from 4800 tonne 072 to 20k+ tonne 071 (and never having the experience of building something that large other than replenishment ships), I would say that's a huge jump. Anyone can see that except yourself. But I would guess you are going to discount it when they build the first 60k+ carrier on schedule and say that it's inferior to anything that USN has, so it requires no technological leap. How about this, name me systems in PLAN that you think represent technological leap compared to what they have before and we can discuss.

Sea Shadow.

right, you are going to bring up an extremely remote project from the 80s. Why don't you go through all the recent USN delays in their major projects?

210m length estimated. ~2 helis. Probably uses the JRNG gun control system. Pretty unspectacular. Looking at the sensors on the 071, they hardly compare to the large number of combat systems and sensors on the LPD-17.

2 helis? Have you seen the pictures? Sensors, how many of those sensors can you actually name? Again, don't turn this into LPD-17 vs Type 71. It was never about that. I asked you where I compared LPD-17 to Type 71. Instead of answering me (which you probably won't do when you reply), you just continue to do more comparisons. You are just turning it into that so that somehow you can turn this away from the original topic that PLAN builds its new systems on time and on budget. That they are not cutting back any of their programs. Which you can't say the same about USN. Funny how the South Koreans were able to do the same. It's amazing how having a competitive civilian shipbuilding industry helps. but of course, you will probably go back to comparing LPD-17 to Type 71.

Did I say you said that it's not better to have satellites? nfloorl: After trying to make it sound they can operate without a drastic loss in combat effectiveness even with the loss of their satellites, now you make a desperate attempt to claw back some semblance of credibility. Caught with your pants down, now you're trying spin.

Tphuang: "they've spent the past 60 years fighting without space assets, I'm sure they are used to it by now, lol."

caught with whose pants down? I clearly said that they are capable of fighting without space assets and are trained for it. And you said, "Why put satellites up then? .... Who the hell are you trying to fool?" in response.
Let's see now, you are implying that I'm trying to fool the public by saying it's not helpful to put up the satellites. Trying to spin what? What do I need to spin? That I don't think they've spent past 60 years fighting without space assets? no. That I don't think they are prepared to fight without space assets? no. That I think they will be better off without space assets? no. And do I think they can operate without a drastic drop off in combat effectiveness? Actually yes. They will have a drop off, but I would not call it drastic. Why don't you go through the areas they will have a drastic drop off and we can analyze.

And notice all of the posts on this forum and how few people actually use taunting kind of smilies in spite of what they think about another person's post? You might want to work on your manners before continuing to reply to others.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

If China wants to target U.S. Aircraft carriers than that means we could get into a cold war with China and that China is not an alley with the U.S. just like Russia.

 

[Schumacher]

If China wants to target U.S. Aircraft carriers than that means we could get into a cold war with China and that China is not an alley with the U.S. just like Russia.

Relax, China don't 'want' to target US carriers unless forced to in the absolute worst case scenario. It's just all about making contingencies.
10 times out of 10, if there's a non-military solution to any disagreement with US, China will choose it.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Relax, China don't 'want' to target US carriers unless forced to in the absolute worst case scenario. It's just all about making contingencies.
10 times out of 10, if there's a non-military solution to any disagreement with US, China will choose it.

Well I guess I can sleep safely tonight I guess.