Actually, you cannot even hand off targeting to a '3rd party FCS', because you cannot drive a useful communications signal through the plasma designate the target. The communications receiver is just a specialized type of sensor.
Will Super Anti Ship Missile change who controls the oceans?
- Thread starter justone
- Start date
TDL is in bytes, you don't need a continuous data stream, you need approp bursts.
it can be an issue of exactly where you set the transmitter, or transponder.
plasma doesn't cover the entire aircraft - in oversimplified terms, its a boundary layer effect..
Sampanviking
Banned Member
So you can have an orbital (or slow descent) section of the weapon with sensors relaying targeting information via the upward facing base of the attack vehicle?
notionally you place the transmitter/transponder away from the immediate boundary layer effect. - but that only deals with physical issues, there are obviously sensor/signal impact issues.
my main point is that TDL is not like video streaming, you send bursts of data in very very small packets and you can still have something useful to act and acquire with.
it's within the realm of the possible - not the impossible. we've already seen what is possible with sensor management of hyoersonic payloads in australia and the US
While the plasma is generated in the boundary layer, the plasma and the boundary layer do not automatically cease to exist when you reach the end of the vehicle. Rather the a hypersonic vehicle is designed so that a shock wave causes the boundary layer, and the plasma, to separate from the vehicle at a point near the front, leaving a vacuum between the boundary layer and vehicle. The vacuum in turn sucks the boundary layer, and plasma, inward until the inner walls of the boundary layer meet, enclosing the vehicle in a teardrop shaped bubble of plasma with the vehicle at the tip.
Sorry, but there is no hole at the rear to send a signal through.
The fact that the majority of the vehicle is in vacuum also makes it impossible to steer using fins.
yes, have said that
again, we currently do it with hypersonics, and have done it with ballistics.
signals can and do get through. plasma/boundary layers do not act like a tempest event. the endstate is signal quality relative to the size of the packet and the speed at which it can be repeatedly burst. TDL sized packets can and do get through. a video stream would not. Note that I am not talking about transmission at the generation point or in the immediate plasma shield
we currently do it with hypersonics. except we don't call it plasma, the boundary layer is closely related to fluid mechanics and super cavitation. aerodynamics and fluid mechanics are kissing cousins. at the cavitation junction we have a boundary layer - and we're steering that system as well
happier to discuss this offline as its borderline for an open forum
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #87
China is aware of these problems what makes you think they not workin on the problem. China really tired of a CBG pushing it weight around in the ocean. You much remember they alway said if they have to they will takeover Taiwan. China is building there Armed Forces for this conflict. A CBG is the main problem in there goals to takeover Taiwan. This to me is the overall plan of China is to keep a CBG at bay. China Naval build up is amazing and its growing at alarming rate. Yes they have some problems to work out but it will overcome these problem if they can put a man in orbit they on there way in solving this problem with a CBG.
sorry, thats just nonsense. Carrier led task forces are not the threat that counts, this is just silly posturing. There are other assets that will do far more damage to chinese strategic nodes than what a task force will do.
this focus on the carrier as the symbolic threat is plainly idiotic and makes you wonder how smart the people are who are promoting it....
china might have put a man in orbit but that has no relationship to track and target management for a ballistic weapons system
lets not dumb down the debate via nationalistic posturing.....
Sampanviking
Banned Member
I would agree with that.
That subject is an ASBM not a ACBM and there are plenty of things that an army needs to transport in large ships that are just as tempting a target and maybe be more critical to the success or failure of a campaign than just Carriers.
If one missile can sink a ship transporting all the Heavy Weapons of an Armoured Division, you would have to regard it as money very well spent. I would remind people of the Atlantic Conveyor during the Falklands.
That subject is an ASBM not a ACBM and there are plenty of things that an army needs to transport in large ships that are just as tempting a target and maybe be more critical to the success or failure of a campaign than just Carriers.
If one missile can sink a ship transporting all the Heavy Weapons of an Armoured Division, you would have to regard it as money very well spent. I would remind people of the Atlantic Conveyor during the Falklands.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #90
If look at every conflict the U.S. been in the last 20 years they always sent a CBG to the area. I already know that not the only thing to worry about they also know that to. Now everyone who been watching or been in U.S. Military know there alway a CBG in the area somewhere that just way it is buddy. If some kind of fighting start between Taiwan and PRC a CBG will be sent to area that common sense you know this if you been paying attention for the last 20 years. You added this other stuff into it all that gonna happen anyway but a CBG is something you have to take care immediately that common sense. I'm not a fan of China so let get that straight. Just don't put them down they came a long way. Listen to what PRC say about Taiwan and you understand what there goals are. The U.S. is only country with over 10 aircraft carriers that why they rules the waves right now no one can match that. The truth hurts having this many aircraft carriers you rule the ocean. Name a country that can match up to that !!!!! I dont know what you thinking about a CBG is no joke. I really see that you must take out a CBG and then get to the next issue you will have in a conflict with the U.S. . Being able to take a CBG down with change the whole situation in a naval conflict.
what are you on about?
the first 3 days of a conflict are the issue.
getting a CBG in place is not the issue.
the US is not going to use carriers to decapitate chinese assets days 1-3 or 5
do you have ANY idea how long it would take to get any other CBG's or task forces in place outside of what is already in the PACRIM? (and they only have 3 in the PACRIM within 10 days sailing time) At Day 7 the serious stuff will be tapering off
It is absolutely stupid to talk about a USN carrier task force presence against china in week 1 when there are a whole pile of other assets that would be primary.
this isn't the shoot out at the OK Corral, it's not Korea. we are in the 21st Century
on top of which getting excited over what the chinese have achieved with a decayed orbit shoot down has got ZERO to do with theatre capability - let alone track and target management in heavily defended battlespace.
getting excited at what you see as the potential shoot em up has no bearing on the reality of what is required for china to prosecute activity in a sustained and complex environment.
@justone, do you know that the PRC has over 1500 jet fighter capable airfields within 300km of their coastline? So what's this nonsense about the USN sending a single aircraft carrier to conduct strikes in the world's most complex IAD's? Your concerns are just a little misplaced and overly simplistic, don't you think?
If PRC is going to conduct a strike against a carrier, they would also take into consideration all air bases in Taiwan and the following bases in theatre:
IMO, the tyranny of distance applied both ways to US forces and PRC forces (the distance stated is to a point on the southern coast of the PRC). BTW, I do listen to what PRC says through their TV channels and propaganda organs in Putong Hua (the official spoken Chinese) and China's worries are not as simplistic as you suggest. The PLA has a relatively sophisticated understanding of both strengths and limitations with regards to their own forces and that of the US military - thanks to their extensive intelligence gathering network. In news media, the Chinese analysts invited on speak often cite US open source analysis and data, and they will critique American perspectives from their point of view. They often discuss the complexities of theatre logistics, and the competing military technologies available to both sides. They also try to explain their reasoning and explain their assumptions. This means that they present the limitations inherent to PLA's current capabilities and attempt explain how the PLA would apply their capabilities to theatre. Their concerns are much wider and much more detailed than you present. They have gone about developing their forces and geo-political reach in a more determined manner than you suggest. Chinese media, when discussing the balance of power are not just exclusively focused on US carriers.
As gf0012-aust implicitly suggests his earlier posts, the PLA are also concerned about the ability to hold at risk US bases in theatre (I've listed 7 airbases above), tracking US submarines in theatre, US strike packages rolling out of US bases (including Hawaii and CONUS bases), the reaction of US allies and partners, their own ability to ensure the continued supply oil in the event of war (String of Pearls - a US based blogger has a couple of informative posts on this point and the role of India) and so on.
Edit: BTW, in 2008, China imported 56 percent of its oil and conservative estimates of future oil consumption project that China will import almost two-thirds of its oil by 2015 and four-fifths by 2030. Oil currently contributes about 20% to national energy consumption; China meets about 70% of its total energy needs through coal. And in 2008, over 80 percent of China’s oil imports transited the Strait of Malacca - but unfortunately for the PRC, Singapore is not part of China's String of Pearls. While Singapore has extensive economic ties with the PRC (and Singapore has made it clear that Singapore sees no need to choose sides between China and the US, at the present time), it is the US that is Singapore's preferred security partner.
Basically, China cannot secure her own oil shipments through the Strait of Malacca in the face of determined opposition by the USN, in a wartime scenario. So what do you think the USN will do in the event of an attack on US forces? If the PRC cannot secure their oil supply in the face of determined opposition, so why start a war they cannot 'win'?
Edit: For background on cross straits balance of power, please read this Heritage Foundation's article, 'Meeting Taiwan's Self-Defense Needs', this article by Richard Fisher, Jr., called 'The Air Balance on the Taiwan Strait' and the Pentagon's 2010 report to Congress called 'Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China' (this is the document you need to read, if you want to discuss the matter seriously).
IMO, China increased her ability to project power but people like Ben Blanchard have said 'China's military bluster camouflages toothless bite'. In Ben Blanchard's article, Lt. Gen. Li Dianren, a professor at the National Defense University was quoted as saying:
Lt. Gen. Li Dianren also adds:
I listen to what is being said in Hong Kong and in Taiwan in the relevant local dialects and languages. I have been to both China and Taiwan and I have even entered army camps in Taiwan. Note that I said camps and not camp. I previously posted links to Chinese news reports on assessed PRC capabilities with regards to Taiwan in Chinese media - search for it. I know you can't understand the video link with Putong Hua bits, maybe you should read those older posts first before further embarrassing yourself.
Edit: Kindly also read the following critique of the carrier killer myth from the blog, In from the Cold, as background. A portion of this critique is quoted below:
If PRC is going to conduct a strike against a carrier, they would also take into consideration all air bases in Taiwan and the following bases in theatre:
(i) Kadena - 460 nm (Japan)
(ii) Kunsan - 785 nm (S. Korea)
(iii) Osan - 845 nm (S. Korea)
(iv) Iwakuni - 885 nm (Japan)
(v) Yakota - 1230 nm (Japan)
(vi) Misawa - 1435 nm (Japan)
(vii) Andersen -1565 nm (Guam, US territory)
(ii) Kunsan - 785 nm (S. Korea)
(iii) Osan - 845 nm (S. Korea)
(iv) Iwakuni - 885 nm (Japan)
(v) Yakota - 1230 nm (Japan)
(vi) Misawa - 1435 nm (Japan)
(vii) Andersen -1565 nm (Guam, US territory)
IMO, the tyranny of distance applied both ways to US forces and PRC forces (the distance stated is to a point on the southern coast of the PRC). BTW, I do listen to what PRC says through their TV channels and propaganda organs in Putong Hua (the official spoken Chinese) and China's worries are not as simplistic as you suggest. The PLA has a relatively sophisticated understanding of both strengths and limitations with regards to their own forces and that of the US military - thanks to their extensive intelligence gathering network. In news media, the Chinese analysts invited on speak often cite US open source analysis and data, and they will critique American perspectives from their point of view. They often discuss the complexities of theatre logistics, and the competing military technologies available to both sides. They also try to explain their reasoning and explain their assumptions. This means that they present the limitations inherent to PLA's current capabilities and attempt explain how the PLA would apply their capabilities to theatre. Their concerns are much wider and much more detailed than you present. They have gone about developing their forces and geo-political reach in a more determined manner than you suggest. Chinese media, when discussing the balance of power are not just exclusively focused on US carriers.
As gf0012-aust implicitly suggests his earlier posts, the PLA are also concerned about the ability to hold at risk US bases in theatre (I've listed 7 airbases above), tracking US submarines in theatre, US strike packages rolling out of US bases (including Hawaii and CONUS bases), the reaction of US allies and partners, their own ability to ensure the continued supply oil in the event of war (String of Pearls - a US based blogger has a couple of informative posts on this point and the role of India) and so on.
Edit: BTW, in 2008, China imported 56 percent of its oil and conservative estimates of future oil consumption project that China will import almost two-thirds of its oil by 2015 and four-fifths by 2030. Oil currently contributes about 20% to national energy consumption; China meets about 70% of its total energy needs through coal. And in 2008, over 80 percent of China’s oil imports transited the Strait of Malacca - but unfortunately for the PRC, Singapore is not part of China's String of Pearls. While Singapore has extensive economic ties with the PRC (and Singapore has made it clear that Singapore sees no need to choose sides between China and the US, at the present time), it is the US that is Singapore's preferred security partner.
Basically, China cannot secure her own oil shipments through the Strait of Malacca in the face of determined opposition by the USN, in a wartime scenario. So what do you think the USN will do in the event of an attack on US forces? If the PRC cannot secure their oil supply in the face of determined opposition, so why start a war they cannot 'win'?
What sort of expertise on understanding Chinese goals are you claiming? You mean you speak Chinese and observe what they actually say in Chinese, like me? Have you travelled to China and interacted with CCP members, where necessary, like me? There are a few members of the Mod Team here that speak Chinese and are China watchers. And the China watchers here have no problem with what gf0012-aust says. In fact, I learn a great deal from him.
Edit: For background on cross straits balance of power, please read this Heritage Foundation's article, 'Meeting Taiwan's Self-Defense Needs', this article by Richard Fisher, Jr., called 'The Air Balance on the Taiwan Strait' and the Pentagon's 2010 report to Congress called 'Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China' (this is the document you need to read, if you want to discuss the matter seriously).
For those who speak Putong Hua, there's a 2010 CCTV 7 analysis on two of Taiwan's jet viz a viz the J-10 ([nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XSq8wBmw_g[/nomedia]). The CCTV 7 programme charts and compares along a matrix of factors the capabilities of the Mirage 2000-5, the F-16C/D and the J-10. What surprised me was not that they ranked the J-10 highly (lot's of As) but that they also ranked the F-16C/D highly too with also lot's of As and even an A+ too (and where they gave the F-16C/D a B on it's maneuverability in comparison to Russian designs, they explained that this was not an area of emphasis). Of note is that they also gave the J-10 a B and a A-.
IMO, China increased her ability to project power but people like Ben Blanchard have said 'China's military bluster camouflages toothless bite'. In Ben Blanchard's article, Lt. Gen. Li Dianren, a professor at the National Defense University was quoted as saying:
"There's no way China can threaten the United States".
Lt. Gen. Li Dianren also adds:
"Anyone with even a bit of common sense knows that our capabilities do not come even close to matching those of the U.S. In terms of economics, technology and the military, the gap is huge. How can we threaten them?"
I listen to what is being said in Hong Kong and in Taiwan in the relevant local dialects and languages. I have been to both China and Taiwan and I have even entered army camps in Taiwan. Note that I said camps and not camp. I previously posted links to Chinese news reports on assessed PRC capabilities with regards to Taiwan in Chinese media - search for it. I know you can't understand the video link with Putong Hua bits, maybe you should read those older posts first before further embarrassing yourself.
Edit: Kindly also read the following critique of the carrier killer myth from the blog, In from the Cold, as background. A portion of this critique is quoted below:
Please do some background reading, including those links listed above, before further comment. I hope you take the trouble understand what has been written thus far.
Last edited:
answer to why
I would like to answer you question “What sort of expertise on understanding Chinese goals are you claiming? You mean you speak Chinese and observe what they actually say in Chinese, like me? Have you traveled to China and interacted with CCP members, where necessary, like me?” as to why the Chinese leadership might make a dangerous and possible irrational decision so as to provoke a conflict with the USA when we would both lose far more than ether of us could gain.
I would first like to make clear that I am a long term admirer of the Chinese people, their history, their poetry, their food, and their art. Even though I do not speak any of their several languages or read their single written form I have been to Taiwan several times over the years, to Hong Kong some time ago, and more recently to parts of PRC in its southern regions like Hanna Island and points east of there though I do not clam in any way to be an expert I have know a few old china hands over the years. I sincerely hope that my country and China can successfully navigate the difficult challenges that lie ahead for both of us peacefully and eventually become partners in an ever more prosperous world.
But there are two problems that you may not want to comment upon and I understand why you may not want to, but I will. That is first we (the USA among others) do not trust China. We have many reasons not to trust them. I do not know how much history you are aware of that has occurred between the USA and the Chinese people before the communist revolution. I do know for a fact however, from the many conversations with people I have met in China and Chinese people living abroad that their official history, the only one that is allowed to be taught there is seriously flawed, what little of that history is recognized to have occurred at all before the glorious revolution.
This is not the proper place to go over that history and it is always better to look forward than too deeply in to the past with its many grievances and disappointments but there are very real reasons for the USA to not trust them. Regardless of the unbelievable suffering the Chinese people endured, (some of it self inflicted but most coming from external sources), and the horrors they lived with for so long, is that the USA was never part of that process of systematic exploitation and humiliation of China. As far as racism is concerned well that is a road that goes both ways dose it not? The USA was usually on their side with just a few exceptions.
Thou the Chinese Communist Parity has given up the utopian dream of universal socialism, uniting the world in a worker’s paradise it is still the same Dictator of the Proletariat that encouraged the invasion of South Korea with the aim of destroying the capitalist system by the use of force and in turn my country, the USA’s way of life, as a fundamental precept of its existence. This is after all we did to assist China before and during world war two. Part of the history mentioned before that is not recognized. It is still the dictatorship that has and can again expend it citizen’s lives without regret, too maintain its monopoly of power at whatever the cost.
The second problem is the CRP’s irrational clam on the Spartly Islands and the South China Sea. I remember a friend from high school reaction, when the military dictatorship that then controlled Argentina got into trouble with its people and decided the best way to deflect their people’s anger was to start a little war with Great Britain over the Falklands Islands. This friend, who was in my class in California, had been born in Argentina and was so infuriated with the USA for not taking the side of Argentina that she wanted to leave the country forever.
Why? Even though the islands were not discovered by the Spanish and hade never been occupied by any Argentinean or the Spanish, they believed that it was irrevocable part of their country and they had the right to take it back, even though the people who had been living on it for generations wanted no part of it. The Argentines had taught this lie to all of their children for generation after generation. It has become so intertwined with their identity as what it meant to be Argentineans that they could not separate the lie form the idea of themselves, without not risking, no longer knowing who they were anymore. National myths are very powerful things. Empires have risen and fallen on their strength. I have been to China and the same lie is taught to their children in the same way as they still do in Argentina. But it is stile a lie.
The Communist party has done a very remarkable job of changing the economic system and managing its transformation in to a dynamic and successful power. Good for them and I hope they continue to rise. The Party’s credibility for holding on to its monopoly of power (their mandate from heaven) resides upon only four things: one is their success in razing the standard of living. Two, the confusion ethic of the Chinese culture respect for authority and their fear of drastic political change, three. Three, the naked power of force that have proved they are willing to use to stay in power and lastly the old stand by so often used by dictatorships when in trouble, fervent nationalism.
Let’s weave a possible scenario that I hope never happens but the application of reason would tell us that it could. Suppose at sometime in the future the Communist Party screws up badly and the economy goes sour and many people lose their jobs and their savings, becoming very angry. This will happen someday. Why because no government can always get it right every time no matter how smart they are and luck always runs out eventually. So it is only a matter of time before it happens.
One of the reasons that democracies are more stable and stronger than dictatorships is when the people vote to put some government in to power they have to take some of the responsibility for what those people do or don’t do when they gave that power to them. So the people react in a more constrained fashion with their disappointment than with rioting and revolution. The second reason is they know they can kick the bums out without resulting to violence and hopefully get a change that is better.
As everyone knows, because of one child policy, there is a large imbalance between the number of young men and potential wives for them. Historically this has always led to unstable societies, regardless of culture, where there are too many aggressive young men and no women to then socialize them into more responsible behaviors and China will feel this societal strain sometime in the future.
In this environment The Communist party may feel threatened. So it could decide to enforce its clam upon the South China Sea as an internal political devise, a tool to retain its authority. The needs of internal politics, always trumps the needs of external politics, every time. This leads eventually, I am afraid to say, with war with the USA who has just like the British before them, maintained the freedom of the seas for all as a guiding principle and this is a principal it will never back off from.
The Parity’s desperate calculation might be, to provoke a small but contained limited little war to give itself credibility with the populace and use it to unify the nation behind it just like the Argentina generals tried to do. But let me assure you that is not how it would play out. Everywhere in the world, where that are USA and Chinese interest will be put in to play, exploited by third parties, and the war will be fought in all of those places. That will be mean, most of the world and who knows where that may end. But were ever it goes it will not be under the control of the Chinese leadership.
It has been the USA’s policy to avoid a major land war in Asia at all costs for over a hundred years but this just might break it. The USA is not trying to change the status quo in the Far East. We think that the status quo is working very well for everyone. It is this very status quo that China has materially benefited greatly from has it not? The USA dose not seek to acquire any additional territory; it never was an imperialist no matter what the propaganda you may hear or believe. If the truth were to be told, we really don’t care that much what our status is or what other people’s think it is very much. We know who we are. We would rather to be liked of course than to be feared but in the end, if the world would only let us, which it has proved over and over again that it won’t, we would be perfectly happy to mind our own business and not think about peoples problems but every time we do, it comes back and bit us in the ass. So we are in the world to stay, like it or not, deal with it.
[Mod Edit: Please do not write in walls/blocks of text. Use paragraphs to increase readability. I have inserted line breaks for you this time. Future text walls will be deleted without warning.]
Mr. OPPSG
I would like to answer you question “What sort of expertise on understanding Chinese goals are you claiming? You mean you speak Chinese and observe what they actually say in Chinese, like me? Have you traveled to China and interacted with CCP members, where necessary, like me?” as to why the Chinese leadership might make a dangerous and possible irrational decision so as to provoke a conflict with the USA when we would both lose far more than ether of us could gain.
I would first like to make clear that I am a long term admirer of the Chinese people, their history, their poetry, their food, and their art. Even though I do not speak any of their several languages or read their single written form I have been to Taiwan several times over the years, to Hong Kong some time ago, and more recently to parts of PRC in its southern regions like Hanna Island and points east of there though I do not clam in any way to be an expert I have know a few old china hands over the years. I sincerely hope that my country and China can successfully navigate the difficult challenges that lie ahead for both of us peacefully and eventually become partners in an ever more prosperous world.
But there are two problems that you may not want to comment upon and I understand why you may not want to, but I will. That is first we (the USA among others) do not trust China. We have many reasons not to trust them. I do not know how much history you are aware of that has occurred between the USA and the Chinese people before the communist revolution. I do know for a fact however, from the many conversations with people I have met in China and Chinese people living abroad that their official history, the only one that is allowed to be taught there is seriously flawed, what little of that history is recognized to have occurred at all before the glorious revolution.
This is not the proper place to go over that history and it is always better to look forward than too deeply in to the past with its many grievances and disappointments but there are very real reasons for the USA to not trust them. Regardless of the unbelievable suffering the Chinese people endured, (some of it self inflicted but most coming from external sources), and the horrors they lived with for so long, is that the USA was never part of that process of systematic exploitation and humiliation of China. As far as racism is concerned well that is a road that goes both ways dose it not? The USA was usually on their side with just a few exceptions.
Thou the Chinese Communist Parity has given up the utopian dream of universal socialism, uniting the world in a worker’s paradise it is still the same Dictator of the Proletariat that encouraged the invasion of South Korea with the aim of destroying the capitalist system by the use of force and in turn my country, the USA’s way of life, as a fundamental precept of its existence. This is after all we did to assist China before and during world war two. Part of the history mentioned before that is not recognized. It is still the dictatorship that has and can again expend it citizen’s lives without regret, too maintain its monopoly of power at whatever the cost.
The second problem is the CRP’s irrational clam on the Spartly Islands and the South China Sea. I remember a friend from high school reaction, when the military dictatorship that then controlled Argentina got into trouble with its people and decided the best way to deflect their people’s anger was to start a little war with Great Britain over the Falklands Islands. This friend, who was in my class in California, had been born in Argentina and was so infuriated with the USA for not taking the side of Argentina that she wanted to leave the country forever.
Why? Even though the islands were not discovered by the Spanish and hade never been occupied by any Argentinean or the Spanish, they believed that it was irrevocable part of their country and they had the right to take it back, even though the people who had been living on it for generations wanted no part of it. The Argentines had taught this lie to all of their children for generation after generation. It has become so intertwined with their identity as what it meant to be Argentineans that they could not separate the lie form the idea of themselves, without not risking, no longer knowing who they were anymore. National myths are very powerful things. Empires have risen and fallen on their strength. I have been to China and the same lie is taught to their children in the same way as they still do in Argentina. But it is stile a lie.
The Communist party has done a very remarkable job of changing the economic system and managing its transformation in to a dynamic and successful power. Good for them and I hope they continue to rise. The Party’s credibility for holding on to its monopoly of power (their mandate from heaven) resides upon only four things: one is their success in razing the standard of living. Two, the confusion ethic of the Chinese culture respect for authority and their fear of drastic political change, three. Three, the naked power of force that have proved they are willing to use to stay in power and lastly the old stand by so often used by dictatorships when in trouble, fervent nationalism.
Let’s weave a possible scenario that I hope never happens but the application of reason would tell us that it could. Suppose at sometime in the future the Communist Party screws up badly and the economy goes sour and many people lose their jobs and their savings, becoming very angry. This will happen someday. Why because no government can always get it right every time no matter how smart they are and luck always runs out eventually. So it is only a matter of time before it happens.
One of the reasons that democracies are more stable and stronger than dictatorships is when the people vote to put some government in to power they have to take some of the responsibility for what those people do or don’t do when they gave that power to them. So the people react in a more constrained fashion with their disappointment than with rioting and revolution. The second reason is they know they can kick the bums out without resulting to violence and hopefully get a change that is better.
As everyone knows, because of one child policy, there is a large imbalance between the number of young men and potential wives for them. Historically this has always led to unstable societies, regardless of culture, where there are too many aggressive young men and no women to then socialize them into more responsible behaviors and China will feel this societal strain sometime in the future.
In this environment The Communist party may feel threatened. So it could decide to enforce its clam upon the South China Sea as an internal political devise, a tool to retain its authority. The needs of internal politics, always trumps the needs of external politics, every time. This leads eventually, I am afraid to say, with war with the USA who has just like the British before them, maintained the freedom of the seas for all as a guiding principle and this is a principal it will never back off from.
The Parity’s desperate calculation might be, to provoke a small but contained limited little war to give itself credibility with the populace and use it to unify the nation behind it just like the Argentina generals tried to do. But let me assure you that is not how it would play out. Everywhere in the world, where that are USA and Chinese interest will be put in to play, exploited by third parties, and the war will be fought in all of those places. That will be mean, most of the world and who knows where that may end. But were ever it goes it will not be under the control of the Chinese leadership.
It has been the USA’s policy to avoid a major land war in Asia at all costs for over a hundred years but this just might break it. The USA is not trying to change the status quo in the Far East. We think that the status quo is working very well for everyone. It is this very status quo that China has materially benefited greatly from has it not? The USA dose not seek to acquire any additional territory; it never was an imperialist no matter what the propaganda you may hear or believe. If the truth were to be told, we really don’t care that much what our status is or what other people’s think it is very much. We know who we are. We would rather to be liked of course than to be feared but in the end, if the world would only let us, which it has proved over and over again that it won’t, we would be perfectly happy to mind our own business and not think about peoples problems but every time we do, it comes back and bit us in the ass. So we are in the world to stay, like it or not, deal with it.
[Mod Edit: Please do not write in walls/blocks of text. Use paragraphs to increase readability. I have inserted line breaks for you this time. Future text walls will be deleted without warning.]
Last edited by a moderator:
One, my post was not directed at you. Rather, it was to a member whose posts consistently did not make sense and we are trying to explain the wider war fighting context to him. Therefore, I don't know why you chose to reply to my post in the manner you have and to engage in an act of verbal diarrhea that expose your slightly misguided PRC prejudices.
Two, I'm only willing to do one, off-topic, courtesy post, to correct some of these prejudices so don't expect a further reply from me.
Three, from your post, it seems as if you are insisting on discussing this topic from the purely political view point (and propagating your political beliefs), when this is a discussion about specific military capabilities of both sides within a certain geo-political context.
Four, the discussion thus far is really more about China's technical capabilities in anti-access/area denial and the complexity of the response to the development of such a capability at theatre level. It's not about who is right or wrong or even about your political views. So try to keep that in mind.
With that said, I proceed to go a little off-topic below for the benefit of rip.
There are three off-topic but important myths on China that you need to dis-abuse yourself of:
One, you need to put aside is the idea that the 'Chinese' people see themselves as one people. They don't. The Hong Kong Chinese don't like the Shanghai Chinese, and the Shanghai Chinese don't like the Beijing Chinese.
Two, that the CCP cannot win a 'fair' election in China (the way an election is conducted in a liberal democracy). They can but choose not to. They have chosen an authoritarianism in part because of state weakness (at an institutional level), not strength. It is this that many do not understand.
Three, the Chinese in China would want western middle class values. They do not because they are do not have a significant middle class, at this stage of their economic development. 1% of the Chinese population control something like 30 to 40% of all wealth. So they are not a middle class society. They have the rich and the poor - which means a big class divide, which their government is trying to bridge. They also have significant bubbles in their economy and their government is concerned about that, amongst many other concerns.
There are two Han characters that make up the word 'China' - which translated means 'centre or middle' and 'nation' - that implies an inward looking orientation even in the name of the country. In the past, China as a country has been victimized by European powers and their distrust of another great power like the US is natural, given their proclivities, especially since on May 7, 1999 US planes bombed PRC's embassy in Belgrade. That's why both countries need confidence building measures - more recent incidents and the April 2001mid-air collision between a USN EP-3E and a PLAN J-8II of course increased bilateral tensions.
Edit: The thing that irritates a lot of Chinese in China is the 'brash American' performing to stereotype. Metaphorically, when China takes out a revolver from their pocket, they are willing to use it. And like many other Asians, I'm watching the latest developments with some concern - in particular, PRC's approach lately. Various American presidents have waved the metaphorical chop-stick at China while pointing out that in his gun holster there is a .44 Magnum and in his bag -- an aircraft carrier -- as was the case when Bill Clinton ordered the USS Nimitz into the Taiwan Strait in December 1995. In that incident both US and China sought reputational objectives by influencing perceptions of U.S. resolve (see this article by Robert S. Ross for details). Now when an American waves a metaphorical chop-stick at China in 2010, they will see it for what it is. It took the PRC 15 years of developing their anti-access/area denial capabilities to get to this stage, so as to ensure that future American Presidents will think twice before trying to show them up as impotent by sailing a carrier group across the Taiwan Straits. However, as others in this thread have pointed out, the PRC worries are beyond just USN aircraft carriers. In particular, the USN has 4 modified Ohio-class SSGNs, each capable of carrying over a hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles, which presents a potent strike threat that is hard for the PRC to defend against. It is US 'stealth' assets like these SSGNs, VLO fighters and bombers that will enter a high threat environment to conduct the first wave of strikes to takeout key nodes of PRC's integrated IADS, command and control structure and other critical assets before follow on waves of strikes are launched.
What a lot of people do not realize is that the PRC does respect American power. That's why they have not fired their metaphorical revolver in their hand. They also know that at regular intervals, American elections will change American leaders and policy. The Chinese diplomat can wait to deal with the next Administration, if this present one does not suit them.
Most importantly, your above point is not relevant to current discussion for two reasons:
You are very selective in the use of information (or what the media in China like to call typical double standards). Fyi, there are tens of thousands of students from China in American and UK universities. So their elite and future elite have access to information, speak and write English as well as you, have American or UK friends (as the case may be).
But as always, there are people who are not very smart in China and same would apply to some people in the US. The question is: Who in China do you want to measure against? Those who are ranting online (and powerless) or those who are making policy?
The US role in Asia has both positive and negative sides. You just can't be so blindly selective. How can you claim that US is on PRC's side? During China's civil war, the US took the side of the KMT - how is that pro-PRC? If you look further back, at the list of unequal treaties imposed by European powers on China, the US was a party to a number of them. So it is very disingenuous to say that the PRC's use of history is selective, when you engaging in equal or greater selectivity in presenting the view that the US has clean hands.
IMO, every society has people who hate 'other people'. I'm sure you are not proud of the Klu Klux Clan members and the Aryan Brotherhood in the US but they exist. Same with China, there are some extremists there. I'm sure that China is not proud of the actions of some of their own citizens.
Two, I'm only willing to do one, off-topic, courtesy post, to correct some of these prejudices so don't expect a further reply from me.
Three, from your post, it seems as if you are insisting on discussing this topic from the purely political view point (and propagating your political beliefs), when this is a discussion about specific military capabilities of both sides within a certain geo-political context.
Four, the discussion thus far is really more about China's technical capabilities in anti-access/area denial and the complexity of the response to the development of such a capability at theatre level. It's not about who is right or wrong or even about your political views. So try to keep that in mind.
With that said, I proceed to go a little off-topic below for the benefit of rip.
I hate to tell you this. Anyone who describes or would attempt to describe the collective Chinese leadership in China as irrational has a world view that is very, very, very limited.
So? It tells me that traveling and talking to others makes you more American instead of more cosmopolitan.
Both countries already have a symbiotic relationship. However, there is a gap in communication and understanding between the two countries. And American analysts have noted that the US can be accurately described as a country that often goes to war without understanding the countries they are at war with (Vietnam and Iraq come to mind). The problem is that a significant percentage of China's younger intelligentsia speak English, while very few American policy makers speak Putong Hua. So where is the gulf of understanding?
There are three off-topic but important myths on China that you need to dis-abuse yourself of:
One, you need to put aside is the idea that the 'Chinese' people see themselves as one people. They don't. The Hong Kong Chinese don't like the Shanghai Chinese, and the Shanghai Chinese don't like the Beijing Chinese.
Two, that the CCP cannot win a 'fair' election in China (the way an election is conducted in a liberal democracy). They can but choose not to. They have chosen an authoritarianism in part because of state weakness (at an institutional level), not strength. It is this that many do not understand.
Three, the Chinese in China would want western middle class values. They do not because they are do not have a significant middle class, at this stage of their economic development. 1% of the Chinese population control something like 30 to 40% of all wealth. So they are not a middle class society. They have the rich and the poor - which means a big class divide, which their government is trying to bridge. They also have significant bubbles in their economy and their government is concerned about that, amongst many other concerns.
It's understandable given that Chinese troops have fought US troops in the past, in different conflicts. But it is equally important to remember that when relations between US and China normalised, the two have stood together against the Soviet empire and its puppet/satellite states. In other words, at one time, the two countries stood together and Nixon basked in the glory of splitting the communist, eastern bloc.
There are two Han characters that make up the word 'China' - which translated means 'centre or middle' and 'nation' - that implies an inward looking orientation even in the name of the country. In the past, China as a country has been victimized by European powers and their distrust of another great power like the US is natural, given their proclivities, especially since on May 7, 1999 US planes bombed PRC's embassy in Belgrade. That's why both countries need confidence building measures - more recent incidents and the April 2001mid-air collision between a USN EP-3E and a PLAN J-8II of course increased bilateral tensions.
Edit: The thing that irritates a lot of Chinese in China is the 'brash American' performing to stereotype. Metaphorically, when China takes out a revolver from their pocket, they are willing to use it. And like many other Asians, I'm watching the latest developments with some concern - in particular, PRC's approach lately. Various American presidents have waved the metaphorical chop-stick at China while pointing out that in his gun holster there is a .44 Magnum and in his bag -- an aircraft carrier -- as was the case when Bill Clinton ordered the USS Nimitz into the Taiwan Strait in December 1995. In that incident both US and China sought reputational objectives by influencing perceptions of U.S. resolve (see this article by Robert S. Ross for details). Now when an American waves a metaphorical chop-stick at China in 2010, they will see it for what it is. It took the PRC 15 years of developing their anti-access/area denial capabilities to get to this stage, so as to ensure that future American Presidents will think twice before trying to show them up as impotent by sailing a carrier group across the Taiwan Straits. However, as others in this thread have pointed out, the PRC worries are beyond just USN aircraft carriers. In particular, the USN has 4 modified Ohio-class SSGNs, each capable of carrying over a hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles, which presents a potent strike threat that is hard for the PRC to defend against. It is US 'stealth' assets like these SSGNs, VLO fighters and bombers that will enter a high threat environment to conduct the first wave of strikes to takeout key nodes of PRC's integrated IADS, command and control structure and other critical assets before follow on waves of strikes are launched.
What a lot of people do not realize is that the PRC does respect American power. That's why they have not fired their metaphorical revolver in their hand. They also know that at regular intervals, American elections will change American leaders and policy. The Chinese diplomat can wait to deal with the next Administration, if this present one does not suit them.
This is off-topic but I hope you are aware that the current Japanese school curriculum (an American ally) is equally deceptive about their imperial past. In World War II, the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) engaged in human experimentation to develop chemical and biological weapons in Manchukuo. In return for IJA data, the US decided not to prosecute those Japanese involved in war crimes against the Chinese in furtherance of US national interest. Does your education system highlight this particular point?
Most importantly, your above point is not relevant to current discussion for two reasons:
(i) the younger generation of Chinese leadership have studied or gone abroad; and
(ii) they also know about and accept state censorship - in other words, they take information from propaganda organs with a pinch of salt.
(ii) they also know about and accept state censorship - in other words, they take information from propaganda organs with a pinch of salt.
You are very selective in the use of information (or what the media in China like to call typical double standards). Fyi, there are tens of thousands of students from China in American and UK universities. So their elite and future elite have access to information, speak and write English as well as you, have American or UK friends (as the case may be).
But as always, there are people who are not very smart in China and same would apply to some people in the US. The question is: Who in China do you want to measure against? Those who are ranting online (and powerless) or those who are making policy?
On great! A big off-topic detour on your misguided lecture on racism. Have you forgotten about the plight of the early Chinese migrants in US and Canada and how they later fought for their rights against systematic and institutional discrimination because of their ethnicity - otherwise known as the history of racism in N. America?
The US role in Asia has both positive and negative sides. You just can't be so blindly selective. How can you claim that US is on PRC's side? During China's civil war, the US took the side of the KMT - how is that pro-PRC? If you look further back, at the list of unequal treaties imposed by European powers on China, the US was a party to a number of them. So it is very disingenuous to say that the PRC's use of history is selective, when you engaging in equal or greater selectivity in presenting the view that the US has clean hands.
IMO, every society has people who hate 'other people'. I'm sure you are not proud of the Klu Klux Clan members and the Aryan Brotherhood in the US but they exist. Same with China, there are some extremists there. I'm sure that China is not proud of the actions of some of their own citizens.
China has got many problems but they do not need American solutions. Every time an American tells them their way is better, they will tell you to look at Iraq. Look at your American solution to the problem of regime change after Saddam. The truth is an American businessman is more respected and less likely to be killed in China than in Iraq, where there are 50,000 American troops. The Chinese Government will not allow it because they want American FDI and know-how. At a larger scale, the US is a net importer of goods from China and Chinese goods need a market.
This is way off topic. To talk about this intelligently requires some discussion on international law and there are other threads that deal with that specific issue in more depth - so, let's go back to the topic at hand.
Last edited:
Hi OPSSG:
Kindly tell me if chinese state weakness at an institutional level will affect its stability in the long term.I am just trying to understand.Thx
[Mod Edit: Kindly select the relevant portion of the post you want to comment and do so, rather than quoting the entire prior post. I've trimmed your quote of my post, as a sample of how trimming helps readability.]
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh dear, we are going even more off-topic in this request to clarify. Please note that I will not reply to further off-topic questions in this thread.
The short answer is no, state institutional weakness will not affect stability. This is because it is the CCP what is holding China together. The CCP is the grease that make the Chinese economic cog work. It is part of the problem while at the same time, it leads the country and shows the way forward. The CCP is an intelligent and adaptive organisation that is capable of not only attracting smart members but also rewarding them. So as long as the CCP stays in power and remains the preeminent leadership organisation in the PRC, the CCP can keep China stable. And they will keep China stable by as much force as they deem necessary.
I hope this would give you an idea of what to look out for and let us return to the topic at hand.
Cheers
Last edited:
plasmahawk
Member
Completely in agreement with OPSSG, CCP is indeed what holds, unifies and directs China
However, OPSSG you forgot to say one thing..
In China regardless if you are talking to an employee from a small village, a university educated grad, a business owner or a government official, remember one thing:
to beguile, deceive, delude, exaggerate, misguide, misinform, misrepresent, string along, deceit, deception, evasion, hyperbole, state with inaccuracy,
All will be said / done at any and all levels. Therefore, never put your trust in what you see on TV what you hear from people, what you think is really going on. Never.
Because we really do not know what is going on, besides, who said that the Carrier Killer would need to be land launched? It can be launched via a submarine or container ship, especially as it does not need to have the same global reach. Furthermore, Hainan island is now being upgraded to host a new space launch centre, and as I know... nothing in a communist system is EVER built as a "single purpose facility".
Therefore, until we see a test of the Anti Carrier Missile I would end this discussion here and now.
Cheers
Plas
1) Welcome to the forums
2) Please read the Fiorum Rules re posting standards (eg on one liner responses)
of course they need time and tests to demonstrate the possible.
based on "feasability" the US could be on mars in 20 years time
eg china has a had a nuke sub in service for nearly 10 years. in that 10 years they still don't have a nuke that is full operational capability - and they have a nuke that is less acoustically efficient than the Oberons, Agosta 70's or less capable than the first US Polaris weaponised SLBM's. Acoustically she's noisier than the USS Lafayette laid down in the early 60's. So they have a nuke sub, but in practical purposes all they have is a technology mule.
ditto for ASBM. They have NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA of any of the companion solutions required to realise an effective weaponised solution.
can they do it, in all likelhood, yes.
is it a carrier killer - hardly, they've go too many other things to resolve and to implement before they even get to the stage of fielding it as a viable, credible weapons solution. (ie track management, target management, companion redundant support systems etc...
this is not the boogyman. considered judgement is what's needed here - not noise and in some circles "hand wringing"
I think you meant to say 20 years ago.
There were feasibility studies starting back in the 60's, and various plans were being made and compared from the 70's on. None ever progressed past the planning stage.