China's military power
- Thread starter long live usa
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for repeating the obvious. You forget its the US that will attack CHINA and not the other way around. China knows its at least 2 decades behind us in Technology...therefore i believe this test was just a scare tactic...and it certainly worked! Our senators and the sino haters have been going beserk in the past few days over this.
I don't think anyone needs to worry about China growing military power as yet!
It very much behind the rest of the world in it capabilies and technology.
The latest equipment (J-10) delivered to the PLA is only really for show. I lived near a airbase and the only time they fly is during fine weather and what seems to be mainly touch and goes and that's about it. If I had my binos I could tell you what the A/C are but SU-27's are what they look like. I dare say the J-10 won't be flown to often. They would loose to much face if one went down.
Also the face deal is one of the things stopping them from taking on Taiwan and the fact that if they did attck Taiwan, the people here would probably turn on the CCP for killing Chinese. Catch 22 really. Also, the CCP is losing its grip on the population through development. If they attacked Taiwan and won, it would only leave Japan for its national external focal point.
When you sit down a talk to people in private they really open up and tell you what they think. So much for one mind, one child and one country idea that the CCP has. You get the some who tells the party line and most of the time it looks like really want you to believe thhem about what they are saying. But the look in there eye's gives them away because they know that you are not buying what they are saying.
They really turn a blind eye to most things here and I not sure if it is on purpose or if they don't have a clue on what the people are up to. Most people here seem to care more about buying a house and car, than going to war with the US. If war did happen they would not get a chance to buy theses things that show others that they are developed.
Funny place this.
It very much behind the rest of the world in it capabilies and technology.
The latest equipment (J-10) delivered to the PLA is only really for show. I lived near a airbase and the only time they fly is during fine weather and what seems to be mainly touch and goes and that's about it. If I had my binos I could tell you what the A/C are but SU-27's are what they look like. I dare say the J-10 won't be flown to often. They would loose to much face if one went down.
Also the face deal is one of the things stopping them from taking on Taiwan and the fact that if they did attck Taiwan, the people here would probably turn on the CCP for killing Chinese. Catch 22 really. Also, the CCP is losing its grip on the population through development. If they attacked Taiwan and won, it would only leave Japan for its national external focal point.
When you sit down a talk to people in private they really open up and tell you what they think. So much for one mind, one child and one country idea that the CCP has. You get the some who tells the party line and most of the time it looks like really want you to believe thhem about what they are saying. But the look in there eye's gives them away because they know that you are not buying what they are saying.
They really turn a blind eye to most things here and I not sure if it is on purpose or if they don't have a clue on what the people are up to. Most people here seem to care more about buying a house and car, than going to war with the US. If war did happen they would not get a chance to buy theses things that show others that they are developed.
Funny place this.
goldenpanda
New Member
you remind me about hitler, who even though had a keen understanding of european affairs, thought Americans could not, would not fight in an european war.
chinese tend to focus on one thing at a time. right now the focus is how to be successful in the new economy. We can switch focus very fast if we need to. Remember how much we surprised you in korea.
p.s. with the su27's did you expect air combat practice above several hundreds thousand civilians, or what?
goldenpanda
New Member
A single 1985 launch from F15, hitting lower altitude? Unlike launch pad rockets, you can't exactly make F15 any bigger to shoot higher.
USA *depends* on space more than anybody else. Antisat will always "out cheap" any amount of redundancy anyway.
This is true. The weapon shown is good for taking out spy satellite so you will not have real time information. GEO orbits will require something else.
You better have the capability to touch nearly everything that looks like a truck, then.
Depends on what your goal is. If your goal is Taiwan you need to bring your capabilities very close to where ours will be positioned.
@Satan
You talked about the ultimate weapon. Not me.
And ultimate weapon is a much too big term in my eyes.
@goldenpapa
How does USA depends on space more than others? They have much bigger space capabilities but when loosing these the rest of their tech is still way ahead of everybody else.
And on what do you think China relies in terms of spy sats, GPS and communication?
The USA are still able to get some Carrier Task Forces into the area and land based air assets from Japan and I see no way China is able to counter this huge forces.
The only question is is China fast enough to get Taiwan not can they win a naval/air war on their coast against the US.
BTW, I hope this never happens because I sometimes do trips to China and Taiwan and I would hate to sit in the middle of a conflict over there.
You talked about the ultimate weapon. Not me.
And ultimate weapon is a much too big term in my eyes.
@goldenpapa
How does USA depends on space more than others? They have much bigger space capabilities but when loosing these the rest of their tech is still way ahead of everybody else.
And on what do you think China relies in terms of spy sats, GPS and communication?
The USA are still able to get some Carrier Task Forces into the area and land based air assets from Japan and I see no way China is able to counter this huge forces.
The only question is is China fast enough to get Taiwan not can they win a naval/air war on their coast against the US.
BTW, I hope this never happens because I sometimes do trips to China and Taiwan and I would hate to sit in the middle of a conflict over there.
goldenpanda
New Member
Let's see, so far I've presented these facts: Hitler didn't understand USA, we surprised you in korea, USA antisat is launched from fighter plane, we are favorably positioned regarding Taiwan.
What facts have you presented, except just go around calling out names?
goldenpanda
New Member
@Satan
You talked about the ultimate weapon. Not me.
And ultimate weapon is a much too big term in my eyes.
@goldenpapa
How does USA depends on space more than others? They have much bigger space capabilities but when loosing these the rest of their tech is still way ahead of everybody else.
And on what do you think China relies in terms of spy sats, GPS and communication?
The USA are still able to get some Carrier Task Forces into the area and land based air assets from Japan and I see no way China is able to counter this huge forces.
The only question is is China fast enough to get Taiwan not can they win a naval/air war on their coast against the US.
BTW, I hope this never happens because I sometimes do trips to China and Taiwan and I would hate to sit in the middle of a conflict over there.
China benefits from internal communications. We use undersea and overland fiber. USA wants to fight on OUR turf, so of course they need satellites. In the very least, taking out sats bring us down to an equal intel footing. Now USA come up blind against our ballistic missiles, networked submarines, hordes of aShm's, and undestructable land based air!
So Who's doing the wishful thinking around here?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
If you wish to discuss the importance of the Chinese ASAT test and what ability it suggestss, continue here:
So what's new with Chinese Missiles? in WMDs & Missiles
A discussion on the utility of supersonic ASMs can be found here:
Sunburst: The Invincible? in Naval Forces
Redundancy of US intel assets, navigation and targeting capabilities of static, time sensitive and ballistic targets may require a new thread in, say, Defence Tech. The same goes to the value of Chinese built networked IADSs.
There should be appropriate threads out there. If not they could be created.
There is no category for indestructible air forces. Sorry.
I'm thinking it would benefit the topic - China's military power - to approach it in more holistic terms.
Keep your heads cool.
So what's new with Chinese Missiles? in WMDs & Missiles
A discussion on the utility of supersonic ASMs can be found here:
Sunburst: The Invincible? in Naval Forces
Redundancy of US intel assets, navigation and targeting capabilities of static, time sensitive and ballistic targets may require a new thread in, say, Defence Tech. The same goes to the value of Chinese built networked IADSs.
There should be appropriate threads out there. If not they could be created.
There is no category for indestructible air forces. Sorry.
I'm thinking it would benefit the topic - China's military power - to approach it in more holistic terms.
Keep your heads cool.
Last edited:
They are not blind.
They are for hampered and some of their important assets are down but for example the whole carrier task force network remains.
And land based air assets are not undestructable.
It is not easy to stop an airfield fully from funtioning but it is possible and the US have the weapons for this.
And why should the networks you are talking of (submarines, AShMs, ballistic missiles) work better than the US ones even when their satellite network is crippled?
I do not want to argue against the fact that by crippling the US space assets you hamper them but I don't agree with the theory that this makes the USA blind and ineffective.
They are for hampered and some of their important assets are down but for example the whole carrier task force network remains.
And land based air assets are not undestructable.
It is not easy to stop an airfield fully from funtioning but it is possible and the US have the weapons for this.
And why should the networks you are talking of (submarines, AShMs, ballistic missiles) work better than the US ones even when their satellite network is crippled?
I do not want to argue against the fact that by crippling the US space assets you hamper them but I don't agree with the theory that this makes the USA blind and ineffective.
goldenpanda
New Member
Clearly I meant that as land basing of aircraft is unsinkable.
All of China's Taiwan facing SRBM's are mobile. Without sats--and we cannot assume they will dominate the air--USA has little ability to locate Chinese land based assets, which we conceal among terrain and urban features. Not true for carrier groups, which remain big targets for subs and aircraft.
All of China's Taiwan facing SRBM's are mobile. Without sats--and we cannot assume they will dominate the air--USA has little ability to locate Chinese land based assets, which we conceal among terrain and urban features. Not true for carrier groups, which remain big targets for subs and aircraft.
But you can destroy the shelters, the tower, rollway, etc.
I agreed before that stopping an airbase from totally funtioning is not that easy but not impossible and the US are able to perform such missions.
And in the end an US aircraft carrier is better protected these days than most airbases and you don't always know were a carrier is.
I agreed before that stopping an airbase from totally funtioning is not that easy but not impossible and the US are able to perform such missions.
And in the end an US aircraft carrier is better protected these days than most airbases and you don't always know were a carrier is.
Hey goldenpanda - what can you tell me about this new arty platform that China has, do you have any good scoop on it. Also the U.S has been playing around in space for a very long time, I would not start lighting cigars just yet, there could be some additional surprises up there that China doesn`t have a clue on.:unknown
Unfortunately this is a bigger threat then most give credit for. The US military establishment is going ape over it and disgusted with the Politicians who are keeping the the news from the public in an attempt to coddle the Chinese into being helpful with North Korea.
Dont forget that even if China "needs" sats they need them much less then we do and taking these systems out of the picture, or at least degrading them, is helpful to them. Think of it as the Korean war equivalent of charging at night instead of during the day and the more they can de-technologize a possible conflict the more it helps them. Even a Sat war that went tit for tat would benefit them. The simple fact is they have far less eggs in that particular basket. And I think it really boils their guts to have Yank spy Sats flying over them all the time, so accurate we can even tell which mistress each Party member is sleeping with each night.
None of this is a big surprise. China has been working on anti-Sat systems for a long time. It really freaked them out to see all those precision munitions take Iraq apart.
Dont forget that even if China "needs" sats they need them much less then we do and taking these systems out of the picture, or at least degrading them, is helpful to them. Think of it as the Korean war equivalent of charging at night instead of during the day and the more they can de-technologize a possible conflict the more it helps them. Even a Sat war that went tit for tat would benefit them. The simple fact is they have far less eggs in that particular basket. And I think it really boils their guts to have Yank spy Sats flying over them all the time, so accurate we can even tell which mistress each Party member is sleeping with each night.
None of this is a big surprise. China has been working on anti-Sat systems for a long time. It really freaked them out to see all those precision munitions take Iraq apart.
goldenpanda
New Member
Now you've got our party members thinking! Can you give us some lessons about how to pick up whitehouse/zhongnanhai interns?
You just keep giving us reasons to be more prepared. We are a bit different from iraq though:
- we can develop better systems
- we don't bury them in the desert
- we don't run away
goldenpanda
New Member
I assume you mean MLRS. I only have public information. They have enough range to saturate landing beach--good for going after second value targets.
Both countries have black programs. China keeps more secrets generally. We think deterrence is best announced when it's too late to do anything about it.
Actually your far better at stealing them and buying them then you are "developing them".
You havnt fought in a war since the early '50s.Well, a few border disputes. So you just might end up buying them in the desert.
As to "running away" see above. But I doubt The Chinese would. They have a history of fighting bravely.
Good point on the mistresses. It wasnt meant personal in the first place but I guess that got lost in the translation. Of course "we" have an option of not voting someone in again.
It is fact that the Chinese military leadership looked on with aghast as advanced American weaponry took Iraq apart piece by piece. You can stick your chest out and make brave noises but fact is fact and since the early '90s it has spurred on a major military and espionage buildup by the Chinese to counter it. There are some here that would consider shooting a laser at a Sat as an "act of war". Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. On this side those "heads" have to face an American electorate.
I never said the Chinese were cowards. What I was implying was that they are "smart". Nobody was insulting anyone. If anything, an American like I who has some knowledge of Asian culture and history, is respectful!
Last edited:
Please - can we get back on topic, let`s hope that the U.S and China do not have to face each other, what do you know in-regards to China modernizing their ground forces, what other type of weapons platforms are they coming out with.
- Status