The Chinese have a jet to match F-22

IB has stated that perfectly fine, so no need for me to say anything else. Frankly I am getting sick to death at having to explain this over and over and over again.

And no, the Navy has not "always relied heavily on Air Force Tankers". Yes, they use them, but certainly not "always relied upon them". It depends on the mission. In the missions under discussion, these were planned around refuelling, so had pretty much their max bomb loads. If the big tankers were not available, they would have had drop tanks and a lighter bomb load.

And a lot of that article actually spends time to build up for the actual "sales pitch" at the end, the money to develop a C-2 Greyhound or OV-22 Osprey as a future Naval Tanker.

 

why do you accuse Obama of treason?

 

To effectively wage a sustained campaign of CAS/ interdiction sorties against mainland chinese targets the USN would require USAF support. An F/A 18 with a significant strike payload and/or loiter capability with a 500-600 miles is going to have to tank every 90 minutes it is airborne- buddy tanks aren't going to cut it if the USN wants to project sustained air power beyond short ranges. The USN could not have made the contributions they did to OEF OIF without USAF support. The USN relied heavily upon US and allied tanker aircraft in Desert storm, OIF and OEF.

As for the the DF-21, it is undoubtedley an unproven system but one should expect the system to mature over the next 10-20 years. However, they are far from the only card the chinese hold. It would be mistake to underestimate their capabilities as they are developing their war fighting capabilities almost solely around a conflict with the US is the S china sea.

 

To effectively wage a sustained campaign of CAS/ interdiction sorties against mainland chinese targets the USN would require USAF support. An F/A 18 with a significant strike payload and/or loiter capability with a 500-600 miles is going to have to tank every 90 minutes it is airborne- buddy tanks aren't going to cut it if the USN wants to project sustained air power beyond short ranges. The USN could not have made the contributions they did to OEF OIF without USAF support. The USN relied heavily upon US and allied tanker aircraft in Desert storm, OIF and OEF.

As for the the DF-21, it is undoubtedley an unproven system but one should expect the system to mature over the next 10-20 years. However, they are far from the only card the chinese hold. It would be mistake to underestimate their capabilities as they are developing their war fighting capabilities almost solely around a conflict with the US is the S china sea.

 

OK, now you are trying to use a blender to mix up a large group of things that really do not belong together (but do not feel bad, this is a frequent problem with civilians).

For one, the Navy is more or less like the "911" of the military. They are the first ones on the sceen, and try to stabilize things and assess the situation. It is not their job to make deep strikes, it is not their job nessicarily to "punish" the bad guys. They simply try to recon the area, and determine what exactly is needed.

The primary role of Naval Aviation is to protect the fleet. First and foremost, their real job. Any other tasks may be taken only if the situation dictates such, and it does not weaken the fleet as a whole. You are not going to have 20 fighters streaking off to strike some land target if there is possibly any threat against the carrier or other ships of the fleet. Period.

OIF, OEF, Desert Storm were great exceptions as to how Naval Air normally operates. In these situations, there was almost zero threat to the fleet from enemy air action, so it was perfectly safe to send the fighters off to go after Iraq or other targets. If we are facing China (with long ranger bombers and other aircraft), this will not be the case.

For an example of what I mean, consider El Dorado Canyon, a strike against Libya in 1986. In this mission, Navy and Marine fighters struck the Libyan radar sites situated along the coast. But the actual attacks on Tripoli and the various Libyan military sites was conducted by Air Force F-111 bombers. Not Tomcats, not Hornets, Air Force bombers.

Get off the obsession with strikes by "Naval Aircraft". You seem to lack almost all knowledge of how the military operates. When the F-117 attacked Iraq in 1990, they came from the US. When we struck Libya, the fighters came from the UK. And yes, the J-20 may be a threat, as you yourself say someday. But my money is on them never really getting it working, and replacing it at least 5 more times in the next 20 years, maybe producing a handfull of prototypes of various models, and never a real production aircraft. That is the history of Chinese military R&D.

You say it is dangerous to underestimate them. I say it is dangerous to overestimate them. I have been tracking Chinese military equipment for decades. And for ever 10 items they claim are under development, maybe 1 actually becomes a production item. And of that 1, maybe 1 in 4 of them is ever widely adopted. The rest end up with a limited run, then are replaced by the next "Chinese super weapon".

If you question that, look at their history of "best tanks in the world". Runs of a few hundred tanks, then it is replaced by the next "best tank in the world". Ad nauseam.

 

if this is just SCS, and limited to that area than fine. but any strike against china mainland is dangerous, as they are one of the most advance/armed/whatever you call it anti-air defense network in the world. and the logistic required to strike mainland is massive, and there are tons target, layer upon layer of air-defense system. this is not iraq or iran.
china 90s was concentrate on defending their own land, only recently they felt the confidence to increase number of ships/subs for area such as SCS.

 

This has been going on for a long time before Obama, but he's as guilty as any of 'em. Clinton with the guidance systems, Bush with the advanced radars, now Obama. There's an open portal between the U.S. and China, and that portal is Israel.

 

china certaintly grab alot western tech via dual use and other method. but alot of their stuff are influence by russia, or russian origin

 

If there was ever a strike against China, I expect that the US would largely sit back in a strong defensive position, and let China make the first move. And during that time there would be all sorts of intelligence gathering systems trying to learn as much as they could about their offenses and defenses.

The first strikes would probably be two-fold. The Marine and Navy would probably concentrate on starting to work on their coastal systems. RADAR and Missile sites mostly, then on harbors and air fields close to the coast. The deep penetration missions would likely go in from Diego Garcia, or even the US (the B-2 has an amazingly long range). First priorities would likely be the RADAR systems, then missile sites.

And with this, trust me when I say that the Command and Controll staff will be very twitchy. This is the type of situation when the Chinese would most likely try to use their DF-21D. With the entire US military in DEFCON 3, and being very worried about a nuclear strike. If they see a ICBM (or even a MRBM) missile streaking towards a carrier group, there is no saying what their response will be. I just hope there is a China left afterwards.

 

Yes, China has a lot of stuff. But there is a lot of stuff they do not have. They have Phased Array RADAR and long range missiles, but do they have the computers and software needed to let them operate together to peak performance? It takes a lot to actually put all of these things together into working systems, not just the hardware itself. And that is something that China has been strugling with for decades.

To give an idea, the US started to work with PATRIOT back in the 1960's. They were tested heavily in the 1970's, and fielded in the early 1980's. And they have been constantly upgrading and improving it for the last 30 years. From the outside there has been little change, but there is actually very little of the original PATRIOT launcher that is the same as when they were first delivered (other then the trailer itself). China may even choose to replicate the system, but they will have to make the software themselves, which will take a long time to develop and refine.

And it is evident when you look at their many R&D programs that they have wither QAQC issues, or system integration issues. There are scores of them, started, prototypes or a handfull of production models, then the project is dropped and they move on to another version. This tells me that their main problem probably lies in either Quality Control, or in getting all the various components of the system to work together properly.

 

i doubt any situation will escalate into strike china mainland, it could escalate into something worst. china has good capability to defend their country from any attack, but lack ability to strike US soil other than bases in asia. likely china will wait and see our 1st move. B2/F22 is good and all, but it lack sufficent number/sorties to penetrate/locate/destory sufficient targets to make difference for legacy plane f15/f18 to pass through. also with modern integrate air defense, and evolving anti-stealth stuff, its gonna be tough to not get caught. there is no winner in nuke war with china, also china doctrine always emphsize no first use, if DF21D works, it will has different trajectory/path/speed than ICBM. and if US know china has DF21D, then the risk of nuclear exchange reduce significantly. so i doubt nuke war will happen unless we are invading china, or really push them into a corner.

as for SCS, china still concentrate on anti-access weapon and other asymmetric warfare, anti-sate,cyberwarefare, etc. + quite deisel sub which will delay CVBG movements. any f22 fly from okinawa will not make much different, lack the # and payloads. so china/taiwan war is already in favor of china. SCS remain to be seen in the future.

 

electronic system is actually something they are ahead of russia due to dual use, education and other factors. i agree they still lack the quality and quanity of our military but they are not what they were 20, or even 10yrs ago. they leapfrog on certain military tech. it won't match our military, but the days where we can park 2 CVBG in taiwan strait with impunity is gone. the rate of their military improvement/catching up is faster than the rate of our R&D. its easier to play catch up than invent something new. and at current rate, they will eventually narrow the gap even further provide their economy/political is stable.

 

Sorry, I have no idea where you get that information, but it is dead wrong.

The DF-21D is the same missile as their most common MRBM, the DF-21A and DF-21C. In each of these 3 weapons, they act and perform almost identically. Same range, same speed and altitude, same payload capability. The only differences are the actual payload (A and C is nuclear, D claims to be conventional), and the guidence system (A is primarily inertial wigh some upgraded to GPS, C is GPS, D is GPS+guided).

But from ignition to detonation, all 3 of these missiles appears identicle to each other. The only way to tell which one it is is how close to the target it arrives (A has a CEP of 100-300 meters, C of 20-50 meters, D of 20-50 meters), and what kind of explosion you get from it.

So no, it will not have a different trajectory, speed or path then any other MRBM. These figures are set by physics, and can't be changed.

Yes, they have subs. Which spend most of their time tied up on the docks, and the rest of the time working close to the coastal areas. One thing that has been commented on in here before is the almost total lack of China to have a "Blue Water Navy".

And they are also lacking a great many other things, like support ships. China has very few Sub Tenders, and not really enough ships to escort them into a hot war zone. So their subs will have to make long trips to try and engage US ships. And quiet does not mean undetectable. One thing that the Soviets learned during the Cold War is that the US Navy are masters as sub detection. Our use of passive sonar bouys often means that we were able to track their subs with little effort from great distances.

Actually, that was done mostly as a gesture of intent (you get to frisky, we can swat you down). In most case studies I have read, in the event of an actual war the carriers would actually be on the far side of Taiwan. 1 or 2 Arleigh Burke Destroyers would likely be all that was between CHina and Taiwan, to help and intercept incoming missiles and aircraft, and to act as an extended early warning system.

Yes, but they have not been very good at catch-up. And this also has been discussed in here ad nauseum.

What would you think of while making the F-117, the US was also working on developing 3 other "Stealth Fighters"? Or within 2 years of building the first M-1 Abrams, we suddenly dumped the entire design, and made the M-2, then the M-3, then the M-4 all within 20 years?

Or after building the first Los Angeles class sub, we scrapped the design and then 5 years later came out with yet another sub, then scrapped that and started work on yet another one?

These are classic examples of Chinese R&D. Some have tried to claim that they do this because they really do design better versions, and then this will be the weapon of the future.

And if this was true, why is the main Chinese Battle Tank still the Type 59, a Chinese copy of the 1950's Soviet T-54? And every single "Upgraded Chinese Tank" still uses huge amounts of T-54 technology (especially the engines-drive train). You would think if their weapons development was going so well, they would have retired these things decades ago. These tanks were introduced around the time of the M60 Patton, based on a design about the same age as the M47 Patton.

If China was so awesome in designs and "improvements", why is their main tank essentially a relic from the Korean War era? And if anybody wants to know how well they would do, the Type 59 was mostly what Iraq was using from the 1970's until 2003. And everybody knows how effective those were. That is the exact same tank China uses as it's primary tank.

 

I don't think America can afford to maintain a forward posture in East Asia and the Western Pacific. America is broke. That isn't going to change anytime soon.

 

Are you sure?

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type96.asp

One design's production run of 1,500+ doesn't mean you're talking bollocks...but it suggests you may be.

 

So is China.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2012/02/26/how-will-china-pay-off-its-debt/

 

Minor manufacturing/production glitches. China has all the plans and tech information it can handle through its purchasing rep, Israel.

 

The author of the article is Gordon Chang. He's been predicting the collapse of the PRC and CCP for over ten years. He makes some good points, but seems excessively pessimistic about the ability of the Party to maintain its grip on the state apparatus.

 

And that is a production run of about 1/8 that of the M1 Abrams (9,000+).

And do you know how many Type 59 tanks China keeps in it's inventory?

Oh, only about 6,000. 4 Type 59 for every 1 Type 96.

Oh, and they have around 200 Type 69/79 tanks.

Then the Type 88 tank, a grand total of 450 in service.

Oh, but now it is all about the new Type 99! With around 200 in service.

See a trend here? Their predominant tank is still to this day a post WWII relic. And over the last 40 years, they have introduced 6 other models, with most of them having a run of fewer then 500 tanks before being replaced by something else. None of which has ever performed satisfactorily enough to retire the 1950's era relics they still have more of then all of their other tanks combined.

So yes, I am sure. 1,500 may sound impressive, until you realize their military has over 8,000 tanks in it's inventory. 3/4 of them the Type 59.

So yes, I am sure, positive in fact. So no, I know what I am talking about, I have been tracking this very issue for many years now.

 

THen why can't they seem to be able to build a quality tank to replace their 1950's antiques? Why do most of their ships use foreign built engines? Why is their ARJ21 Passenger jet years behins schedule?

Announced in 2002, it is simply a licensed copy of the old MD80, and it was supposed to fly by 2005, with commercial shipments to be delivered by 2007. The first flight did not even happen until 2008. Delivery dates were pushed back to 2009, 2010, now it is said to be 2016. But as of 2012, none have been delivered. And it has yet to pass the safety certificaion of a single country.

And it will not even use Chinese built engines! The engines are all going to be made in the US by General Electric.

SO here we have a Chinese passenger aircraft. US designed, US engines, US avionics, made in China. And if they are lucky it will only be 9 years overdue.

And there is also the C919. Pretty much a copy of the Airbus A320, announced in 2007, original first flight planned for 2010. Now pushed back to 2014 at the earliest. Once again, foreign made engines and avionics, years behind schedule.

And if you want to know how well completed projects turned out, look at the Y-10. Development started in 1970, first prototype flew in 1980. Most experts believe it is a backward engineered Boeing 707, and in 1983 the entire project was cancelled, with a total production run of 3 aircraft.

I do not make such claims lightly. I look at a great many different projects that China has taken on over the decades. And when it comes to actually completing the project and producing a sizeable run, they are sadly lacking.

 

Just sayin', I think it's a manufacturing problem. They don't have the specialized foundaries and mills we have or the ability to produce the high-tech materials we do. If we keep outsourcing these things, they will have them soon enough.

 

i'm compare to ICBM not MRBM.

diesel sub are extremely quite, it can't be use for blue water but for coastal region its ideal. their ssbn don't get enough excercise, but not their diesel sub. china is concentrate on anti-acess weapons, thats what the anti-ship missile, subs, minefield etc for, to delay not to stop CVBG. if taiwan surrander before CVBG arrive then all is lost.

china don't build thing in a massive way right now. 1. its costly 2 they still play catch up. 3 they are not in a war, so right now they try to figure something right for them. also i never claim they are awesome etc, so dont' twist my words. i simply indicate they catch up quite a bit since 90s, and they still doing catch up, make improvement etc etc. as for tank t98, t99, etc most design are similar, the latter is improvement from previous. also their main concentrate are in Air force/navy, not much in army, as their concentrate on SCS/taiwan, not from soviet anymore. look at how many j6/j7 replace by su27/j10/j11 over the years etc. their shipyard has the ability to build 5-6 52c/yr, they don't because, the current design is still not ideal for them, and they are not in a war so they have time to make improvement etc.

 

are you expecting china to build 6000 t96/t99 in few years to replace t59? especially when most their budget goes to air force/navy, when their #1 enemy soviet collapse, they don't have a potential tank war anymore. US has about 2000 m1, not 9000+. most are store in bases near CA etc. not used, guess what cause we don't have an enemy that has alot tanks like USSR, and we certainlly not gonna ship M1 to invade china. so instead china building 6000 tanks, those $$ can be used elsewhere.

 

china overall still lack in several field, and behind on almost all field compare to western stuff. and its not something they can fix in a yr or two. when we first doing R&D etc etc, many projects are also behind schedule, overrun cost etc etc china never build passenger plane before so i doubt they gonna meet schedule anyway. china always lack experience/technology in engine design, thats way they still using Al31. but it doesn't not mean other system are the same. their electronic system are not that faroff. but if they can send a man to space and build space station, then they have the capability to catch up, learn and build it.
look at 52c, j10, j20 granted its sub-par compare to our stuff, but compare these platform to their 90's stuff, there is a big difference. they are still catching up, but they are not gonna stay on the same place forever.

 

People simply overlook Chinese debt because the majority of it is "off the books." The economic experts that do know of its existence simply assume China will grow its way out of it, as the U.S. did in the late 40s and 50s.