Thread: The Chinese have a jet to match F-22

Originally Posted by s002wjh

i'm compare to ICBM not MRBM.

Big deal. It is still based upon a nuclear MRBM. And no, they would not be launching an ICBM at a bunch of ships off their coast. That is why it is called a "Medium Range Ballistic Missile", and not an "Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile". The fact is, the DF-21 series is their predominant MRBM, and if they were to launch a nuke at anybody from Korea and Japan to Taiwan and the Philippines and India, it would be with a MRBM nuke, not an ICBM.

Apples and oranges, apples and oranges. And as has been stated many times, this is why both the US and USSR agreed to place no nukes in cruise missiles, and no conventional weapons into ballistic missiles. To prevent the accidental start of a nuclear war. China does not seem to get this, of course they also do not participate in such treaties.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

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.

Yea, diesel subs can be quiet, when they are crawling and operating entirely on batteries. On the surface with a snorkle and running their engines to replenish their batteries, they are screaming like banshees. Then everybody with SONAR within 200 miles knows they are there, and where they are.

And what good is that sub in the coastal region, when the ships it wants to attack are another 200 miles out to sea? Not very.

You really do not seem to have a very good grasp on how a Carrier group operates, or you would not be trying to pull out such things that have nothing to do with them.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

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.

China is not building much of anything. Their problems with all areas of weapons development and "crossover technology" is almost legendary. Aircraft that fail to perform, tanks that are so bad not even their own Army wants them. They can't even build a below-average passenger get without being years behind schedule and with foreign parts, engines, and designs in hand.

Yea, I hear over and over excuses as to why this is, trying to spin it to an example of their superiority. And that might be find for fanboys without any connection with reality. When a country that claims it is a "Superpower" uses 60 year old tanks, there is a serious problem. Tome and many others, China is largely a paper tiger. With a military good at frightening their own people, but that is about it.



And it apparently does not even scare their own people all the time. Could you imagine the results of this entire column of these "1989 state of the art Chinese tanks" running across a single 1989 era M1 Abrams?



Here see frightening Chinese Army Tanks. See tanks already decades obsolete in USSR who design them. See China persecute their own citizen with tanks that not frighten anybody else.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Big deal. It is still based upon a nuclear MRBM. And no, they would not be launching an ICBM at a bunch of ships off their coast. That is why it is called a "Medium Range Ballistic Missile", and not an "Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile". The fact is, the DF-21 series is their predominant MRBM, and if they were to launch a nuke at anybody from Korea and Japan to Taiwan and the Philippines and India, it would be with a MRBM nuke, not an ICBM.

Apples and oranges, apples and oranges. And as has been stated many times, this is why both the US and USSR agreed to place no nukes in cruise missiles, and no conventional weapons into ballistic missiles. To prevent the accidental start of a nuclear war. China does not seem to get this, of course they also do not participate in such treaties..

if authoritarian lunch nuke that easily, we will be long gone by now. china has 1 no first use, 2 no wish for sucide 3 no point to lunch nuke at Japan, russia, s.korea, india if they were fighting a limited SCS conflict. any commander think china will use nuke against these countries or use nuke against us duing a limited SCS conflict need their head examed. china is not going to escalte into a nuke war with US

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Yea, diesel subs can be quiet, when they are crawling and operating entirely on batteries. On the surface with a snorkle and running their engines to replenish their batteries, they are screaming like banshees. Then everybody with SONAR within 200 miles knows they are there, and where they are.

And what good is that sub in the coastal region, when the ships it wants to attack are another 200 miles out to sea? Not very.

You really do not seem to have a very good grasp on how a Carrier group operates, or you would not be trying to pull out such things that have nothing to do with them..

when i say coastal region i mean SCS. those sub can operate in SCS or taiwan strait. you are naive to ignore the threat of diesel subs. and if any navy commander think diesel subs is not a threat then i only hope he get replaced. new modern sub can submerge for days and weeks, thus delay CVBG movement until the threat is gone. also if you look at asia-pacific, there are plently choke point for subs to ambush. combine with other anti-access weapon, moving in that area become more diffcult. you only concentrate on 1 aspect of anti-access while i'm talking about combine of diesel sub, long-range anti-ship cruise/ballistic, satelite, cyber etc etc. the combine of these system can certainly delay the movement of CVBG

Originally Posted by Mushroom

China is not building much of anything. Their problems with all areas of weapons development and "crossover technology" is almost legendary. Aircraft that fail to perform, tanks that are so bad not even their own Army wants them. They can't even build a below-average passenger get without being years behind schedule and with foreign parts, engines, and designs in hand.

Yea, I hear over and over excuses as to why this is, trying to spin it to an example of their superiority. And that might be find for fanboys without any connection with reality. When a country that claims it is a "Superpower" uses 60 year old tanks, there is a serious problem. Tome and many others, China is largely a paper tiger. With a military good at frightening their own people, but that is about it.



And it apparently does not even scare their own people all the time. Could you imagine the results of this entire column of these "1989 state of the art Chinese tanks" running across a single 1989 era M1 Abrams?


Here see frightening Chinese Army Tanks. See tanks already decades obsolete in USSR who design them. See China persecute their own citizen with tanks that not frighten anybody else.

no one claim they are superior. i already said in multiple post that they lack quality and quantity, but are catching up compare to their 90's stuff. you are the one said their stuff is junk, and why only concentrate on their tank, when obvious china spend most their budget on navy/air force. and when obivous china has thousands t96/t99 etc deployed, and this was done in what 10yrs. may not be good as m1, but certainly not as junk you describe. if you believe 52c, j10, j11 etc etc is junk thats your opinion. my opinion is they are not good as western standard, but certainly not junk. there are people who overestimate china and there are those who underestimate them, you obivous belong to the latter group. i'm not overestimate them, obivouslly they lack in alot area, but they are catching up.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

if authoritarian lunch nuke that easily, we will be long gone by now. china has 1 no first use, 2 no wish for sucide 3 no point to lunch nuke at Japan, russia, s.korea, india if they were fighting a limited SCS conflict. any commander think china will use nuke against these countries or use nuke against us duing a limited SCS conflict need their head examed. china is not going to escalte into a nuke war with US

Once again, we go back to how and why weapon systems are used. Now put away the propaganda and look at reality.

The US and USSR long ago made a decision when it comes to weapons. Flat trajectory missiles will only be used for conventional weapons, and Ballistic Missiles for nuclear weapons. This was logical, and helped ensure that if things ever turned into a war situation, one side would not accidentially think they were under nuclear attack and start a chain reaction.

It does not matter what China says. If things ever heat up, do not expect those under attack to go "Oh, this can't be a nuke since China promised to never use them, so we can ignore this." You are delusional if you think that the use of this weapon might not accidentially trigger such a response.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

when i say coastal region i mean SCS. those sub can operate in SCS or taiwan strait. you are naive to ignore the threat of diesel subs. and if any navy commander think diesel subs is not a threat then i only hope he get replaced. new modern sub can submerge for days and weeks, thus delay CVBG movement until the threat is gone. also if you look at asia-pacific, there are plently choke point for subs to ambush. combine with other anti-access weapon, moving in that area become more diffcult. you only concentrate on 1 aspect of anti-access while i'm talking about combine of diesel sub, long-range anti-ship cruise/ballistic, satelite, cyber etc etc. the combine of these system can certainly delay the movement of CVBG

Wow, love how you keep throwing out the TLAs and ETLAs. Why not just speak clearly, since you could be talking about a great many things. Sea Control Ship, Surface Combat Ship, Seapower Capability System, and Systems Command Ship jump immediately to mind here. So stop trying to impress us with the TLAs, and just try to say what you mean.

And no, I do not think diesel subs would be harmless. I also do not fear them as some kind of all-powerfull uberweapon as you apparently do.

Yea, they got some Diesel subs. Some old early 80's era surplus Soviet subs, Some 1950's era they are turning into razor blades. And a handfull of others made in the last 20 years. The most remarkable thing however is how much warf time they have. These things rarely leave the docks, spending most of their time just sitting there. This means very little actual training time and experience for their crews. And in addition their ability to replenish the subs means they can't travel very far.

And while a modern [b]nuclear]/b] sub can remain submerged for weeks, this is not the case of a diesel sub. Diesel subs are very quiet, only when operating on batteries. When snorkeling to run the engines they are far from quiet. And even if just sitting in one place, they only have a submerged duration of 1-3 days. After that the batteries are dead, and the air is foul and poisoned.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

no one claim they are superior. i already said in multiple post that they lack quality and quantity, but are catching up compare to their 90's stuff. you are the one said their stuff is junk, and why only concentrate on their tank, when obvious china spend most their budget on navy/air force. and when obivous china has thousands t96/t99 etc deployed, and this was done in what 10yrs. may not be good as m1, but certainly not as junk you describe. if you believe 52c, j10, j11 etc etc is junk thats your opinion. my opinion is they are not good as western standard, but certainly not junk. there are people who overestimate china and there are those who underestimate them, you obivous belong to the latter group. i'm not overestimate them, obivouslly they lack in alot area, but they are catching up.

Even their "90's junk" is just that, junk. I notice you combined the Type 96 and Type 99, and tried to make it appear there are more then there are. For one, the Type 90 is a kludge of many older tanks, from the drive train and suspension of the Type 59, up through other models of tank from the Type 69 and Type 88. When this was released, the turret armor was considered to be insufficient, and that the turret would be replaced with one with better armor. This was never done. And the engine? It's not Chinese, the engines are made by a US company (Caterpillar). The transmission? It's French.

To say that the world was underwhelmed when this tank came out is an understatement. A tank similar to what the US and USSR was building in the mid to late 1970's, in the late 1990's.

And yea, they have around 2,500 of them. But since major componants were actually imported from other countries, the ability to actually repair these during a conflict is a major issue.

Then their newest tank, the Type 99. Only around 200 made, with 2 regiments of them in active service. Russian turret, Russian gun, essentially a remodel of the earlier failed Type 98. In reality, this is little more then a slightly larger version of the T-72 tank. Most of the equipment inside is nothing more then Chinese copies of the T-72 system, from loader to sights and command and control. Although this time the engine comes from Germany.

See a pattern here? If you look at the majority of Chinese weapons systems, you find that engines and transmissions are often imported. This is one area that China is still having major issues with.

However, many are underwhelmed also by the battle history of the Chinese tanks. A lot of countries bought them in the 1980's because they were considered to be inexpensive alternatives to the US and Soviet tanks of the era. And now they are often overlooked because of the performance of past tanks.

The Type 69-79 were bought by many countries, including Iraq. But the almost complete and utter failure of these against the M-1 during 3 seperate conflicts has caused a great many nations to dump them. Iraq scrapped all of their remaining Type 69/79 tanks. Thailand is in the process of stripping them (more then 1/4 have failed, and they are being dumped in the ocean). Pakistan and Albania have dumped them, and even China has largely sent them to training units.

Pakistan bought the plans for the Type 96, but makes them in Pakistan. Some other countries are interested in the Type 99, mostly because it is almost the same as the ancient Type 59, so little additional training or parts are needed.

The Type 98/99 has gathered almost no international interest. And it is essentially 30+ years behind US tanks. Most experts place it in ability somewhere between the M-60 and the M-1. And with the M-1 in the process of it's 3rd major improvement cycle, this places it very far behind indeed.

I do not understimate them, I look at their production history, how well their tanks have done in battle, and how interested International buyers are in acquiring them (all of these tanks are available on the open market).

With China falling very low on the International market, it is not just my opinion here. To give an idea, the army of Sudan has around 360 tanks of various models. Only 10 of these are Chinese. At one time they had a lot of Type 62 tanks, but all have been retired. Instead of purchasing more Type 85 tanks, they instead decided to just upgrade their existing Soviet era T-55 tanks.

In general, the concensus of the countries that have looked at Chinese tanks in order to purchase them has not been very high. And only a few countries have bought them, and generally in small numbers. And a few countries like Pakistan bave started to buy the blueprints and build their own models, since the Chinese quality is considered to be so poor.

If these were such fearsome beasts as you seem to make them out to be, then why does Russia do so much business? Russian tanks cost a lot more then Chinese ones (and China still imports them). These simply have a horrible reputation. In the 2003 Iraq War, Iraq generally buried them into the sand to use as pillboxes, because their performance was so poor, and so many simply did not work any longer.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Once again, we go back to how and why weapon systems are used. Now put away the propaganda and look at reality.

The US and USSR long ago made a decision when it comes to weapons. Flat trajectory missiles will only be used for conventional weapons, and Ballistic Missiles for nuclear weapons. This was logical, and helped ensure that if things ever turned into a war situation, one side would not accidentially think they were under nuclear attack and start a chain reaction.

It does not matter what China says. If things ever heat up, do not expect those under attack to go "Oh, this can't be a nuke since China promised to never use them, so we can ignore this." You are delusional if you think that the use of this weapon might not accidentially trigger such a response..

yes there is a chance during scs conflict which escalate to nuke exchange, but that chance is very small. unless we invade china mainland, that chance remain very small. as i said, if missile was detect, the chance of been a anti-ship ballistic missile over nuke is MUCH greater. and we will try to intercept it, but we have sufficent 2nd strike capability to wipe out china if it turn out to be nuke. espeically if we detect is MRBM not ICBM. especially china has no 1st use, and they didn't use during vietnam war even when they suffer tens thousands death. nuclear strike from china is the last thing on navy commanders mind. and everyone know china is not crazy/sucidal.
you basically say, whenever china lunch a BM its a nuke, and you really need to get that idea out of your head. china has about 2000 BM aim at taiwan, if there is conflict during taiwan/china, you think US navy commander will think the BM fire at taiwan or elsewhere is nuke, it will be the last posbilities in their mind

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Wow, love how you keep throwing out the TLAs and ETLAs. Why not just speak clearly, since you could be talking about a great many things. Sea Control Ship, Surface Combat Ship, Seapower Capability System, and Systems Command Ship jump immediately to mind here. So stop trying to impress us with the TLAs, and just try to say what you mean.

And no, I do not think diesel subs would be harmless. I also do not fear them as some kind of all-powerfull uberweapon as you apparently do.

Yea, they got some Diesel subs. Some old early 80's era surplus Soviet subs, Some 1950's era they are turning into razor blades. And a handfull of others made in the last 20 years. The most remarkable thing however is how much warf time they have. These things rarely leave the docks, spending most of their time just sitting there. This means very little actual training time and experience for their crews. And in addition their ability to replenish the subs means they can't travel very far.

And while a modern [b]nuclear]/b] sub can remain submerged for weeks, this is not the case of a diesel sub. Diesel subs are very quiet, only when operating on batteries. When snorkeling to run the engines they are far from quiet. And even if just sitting in one place, they only have a submerged duration of 1-3 days. After that the batteries are dead, and the air is foul and poisoned.



Even their "90's junk" is just that, junk. I notice you combined the Type 96 and Type 99, and tried to make it appear there are more then there are. For one, the Type 90 is a kludge of many older tanks, from the drive train and suspension of the Type 59, up through other models of tank from the Type 69 and Type 88. When this was released, the turret armor was considered to be insufficient, and that the turret would be replaced with one with better armor. This was never done. And the engine? It's not Chinese, the engines are made by a US company (Caterpillar). The transmission? It's French.

To say that the world was underwhelmed when this tank came out is an understatement. A tank similar to what the US and USSR was building in the mid to late 1970's, in the late 1990's.

And yea, they have around 2,500 of them. But since major componants were actually imported from other countries, the ability to actually repair these during a conflict is a major issue.

Then their newest tank, the Type 99. Only around 200 made, with 2 regiments of them in active service. Russian turret, Russian gun, essentially a remodel of the earlier failed Type 98. In reality, this is little more then a slightly larger version of the T-72 tank. Most of the equipment inside is nothing more then Chinese copies of the T-72 system, from loader to sights and command and control. Although this time the engine comes from Germany.

See a pattern here? If you look at the majority of Chinese weapons systems, you find that engines and transmissions are often imported. This is one area that China is still having major issues with.

However, many are underwhelmed also by the battle history of the Chinese tanks. A lot of countries bought them in the 1980's because they were considered to be inexpensive alternatives to the US and Soviet tanks of the era. And now they are often overlooked because of the performance of past tanks.

The Type 69-79 were bought by many countries, including Iraq. But the almost complete and utter failure of these against the M-1 during 3 seperate conflicts has caused a great many nations to dump them. Iraq scrapped all of their remaining Type 69/79 tanks. Thailand is in the process of stripping them (more then 1/4 have failed, and they are being dumped in the ocean). Pakistan and Albania have dumped them, and even China has largely sent them to training units.

Pakistan bought the plans for the Type 96, but makes them in Pakistan. Some other countries are interested in the Type 99, mostly because it is almost the same as the ancient Type 59, so little additional training or parts are needed.

The Type 98/99 has gathered almost no international interest. And it is essentially 30+ years behind US tanks. Most experts place it in ability somewhere between the M-60 and the M-1. And with the M-1 in the process of it's 3rd major improvement cycle, this places it very far behind indeed.

I do not understimate them, I look at their production history, how well their tanks have done in battle, and how interested International buyers are in acquiring them (all of these tanks are available on the open market).

With China falling very low on the International market, it is not just my opinion here. To give an idea, the army of Sudan has around 360 tanks of various models. Only 10 of these are Chinese. At one time they had a lot of Type 62 tanks, but all have been retired. Instead of purchasing more Type 85 tanks, they instead decided to just upgrade their existing Soviet era T-55 tanks.

In general, the concensus of the countries that have looked at Chinese tanks in order to purchase them has not been very high. And only a few countries have bought them, and generally in small numbers. And a few countries like Pakistan bave started to buy the blueprints and build their own models, since the Chinese quality is considered to be so poor.

If these were such fearsome beasts as you seem to make them out to be, then why does Russia do so much business? Russian tanks cost a lot more then Chinese ones (and China still imports them). These simply have a horrible reputation. In the 2003 Iraq War, Iraq generally buried them into the sand to use as pillboxes, because their performance was so poor, and so many simply did not work any longer.

is kilo 093, yuan seem like 50-60 tech lol, granted they are not the best, but i won't say they are 50-60s tech. and the nature of electric motor is its quietness, but thats about it. and stop concentrate on tanks. tanks is last priority on china list. and i'm not try to impress anyone, i'm not even chinese. you are the one lack any knowledge on china, thinking they are still the arm force like they where in 80s and early 90s. go read it. againt they are not good as us, but their capability did improve alot since 80-90s. and i'm tire argue with someone who think china is some 3rd rate arm force that even iraq/iran can beat them.

there are alot more other resource, detail spec etc, suggest you go through it

http://www.ausairpower.net/

http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/2012.htm

2011 has seen significant increases in major combatant shipbuilding by the PLAN across the board. From the PLA Navy's first carrier being launched and sent to sea for trials, to continued testing and production of J-15 fighters for that carrier's airwing, to the increased tempo of serial production of the PLAN's Type 071 LPD, the Yuzhao Class (with a second and third unit launched and a fourth being built), to increased serial production of the PLAN's premier stealthy, area-wide anti-air/multipurpose destroyer, the Lanzhou Type 52C Class DDG with VLS and PARS which now has seen a 3rd, 4th, and 5th unit launched and a 6th, 7th and an 8th unit under construction, to continued rapid production of the modern Type 054A FFG Guided missiles Frigate, which now numbers 16 units either launched or about to be launched, to a brand new class of Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV), the Type 056 Class which appears to be a PLAN litoral combatant which is already building in two shipyards and may expand to as many as four shipyards for very rapid production (30 or more units), to production of a new, improved Yuan Class SSK conventional submarine, the Qing Class, which has Air-independent Propulsion (AIP) capabilities.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

yes there is a chance during scs conflict which escalate to nuke exchange, but that chance is very small. unless we invade china mainland, that chance remain very small. as i said, if missile was detect, the chance of been a anti-ship ballistic missile over nuke is MUCH greater. and we will try to intercept it, but we have sufficent 2nd strike capability to wipe out china if it turn out to be nuke. espeically if we detect is MRBM not ICBM. especially china has no 1st use, and they didn't use during vietnam war even when they suffer tens thousands death. nuclear strike from china is the last thing on navy commanders mind. and everyone know china is not crazy/sucidal.
you basically say, whenever china lunch a BM its a nuke, and you really need to get that idea out of your head. china has about 2000 BM aim at taiwan, if there is conflict during taiwan/china, you think US navy commander will think the BM fire at taiwan or elsewhere is nuke, it will be the last posbilities in their mind

Vietnam War? Don't you mean the Korean War?

To me this simply proves that the US and Russia need to get China actively involved in Arms Limitations treaties. To me the use of any ballistic missile with conventional warheads by a nuclear power is just insane. Period.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

is kilo 093, yuan seem like 50-60 tech lol, granted they are not the best, but i won't say they are 50-60s tech. and the nature of electric motor is its quietness, but thats about it. and stop concentrate on tanks. tanks is last priority on china list. and i'm not try to impress anyone, i'm not even chinese. you are the one lack any knowledge on china, thinking they are still the arm force like they where in 80s and early 90s. go read it. againt they are not good as us, but their capability did improve alot since 80-90s. and i'm tire argue with someone who think china is some 3rd rate arm force that even iraq/iran can beat them.

Yes, the electric motor is silent, but the diesel engine is not. Funny how you keep ignoring the fact that it needs to do most of it's movement with the diesel engines.

And excuse me, but I am quite knowledgeable about Chinese capabilities. In fact, this has long been a common topic of conversation in the smoke pit. The conversations based on the DF-21D have actually been quite funny.

And yes, the Chinese Armed Forces are quite a joke. The quality of their equipment is actually rather bad, the only think it has going for it is the sheer size of their military. Everything from tanks and aircraft to ships and missiles are actually pretty poor in quality, but many countries buy/bought them because they were cheap. The (in)famous Silkworm was just a Chinese copy of the Soviet Termit missile. Generally these were bought by nations that could not afford or did not want to buy the Soviet version (or the much more capable EXOCET).

I do not look at the claims of "weapon superiority" in press releases or claims, but in how they actually perform. And since China pretty much makes everything available for sale, the impressions of other nations become a major factor here. China makes a lot of systems for sale, but actually has very few buyers. Even their own military often turns it's nose at their own creations, prefering to buy more reliable equipment from Russia.

And as far as their "quality improving", then why have so many of their programs become failures? Brand new "state of the art" tanks that nobody wants. "Nuclear Submarines" that spend 95% of their time sitting on the warf? Why are most of their jets simply copies of old Soviet designs? Funny how you claim I know nothing about the "Chinese Military", while that is actually part of my profession.

And yes, China could beat Iran or Iraq, because of the weight of numbers they can bring to the field. Of course, nobody has said that Iran or Iraq has much of a military either. Those 2 nations were involved in a decade long war with each other, with no real winner. The US took on Iraq twice, and both times defeated them within days.

Can China beat Iran, Iraq, Tibet, or a handfull of other nations? Yes, easily. China can throw such numbers at them that the sheer quantity makes up for any lack of quality. Can they beat the US or Russia? Not likely.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Vietnam War? Don't you mean the Korean War?

To me this simply proves that the US and Russia need to get China actively involved in Arms Limitations treaties. To me the use of any ballistic missile with conventional warheads by a nuclear power is just insane. Period.



Yes, the electric motor is silent, but the diesel engine is not. Funny how you keep ignoring the fact that it needs to do most of it's movement with the diesel engines.

And excuse me, but I am quite knowledgeable about Chinese capabilities. In fact, this has long been a common topic of conversation in the smoke pit. The conversations based on the DF-21D have actually been quite funny.

And yes, the Chinese Armed Forces are quite a joke. The quality of their equipment is actually rather bad, the only think it has going for it is the sheer size of their military. Everything from tanks and aircraft to ships and missiles are actually pretty poor in quality, but many countries buy/bought them because they were cheap. The (in)famous Silkworm was just a Chinese copy of the Soviet Termit missile. Generally these were bought by nations that could not afford or did not want to buy the Soviet version (or the much more capable EXOCET).

I do not look at the claims of "weapon superiority" in press releases or claims, but in how they actually perform. And since China pretty much makes everything available for sale, the impressions of other nations become a major factor here. China makes a lot of systems for sale, but actually has very few buyers. Even their own military often turns it's nose at their own creations, prefering to buy more reliable equipment from Russia.

And as far as their "quality improving", then why have so many of their programs become failures? Brand new "state of the art" tanks that nobody wants. "Nuclear Submarines" that spend 95% of their time sitting on the warf? Why are most of their jets simply copies of old Soviet designs? Funny how you claim I know nothing about the "Chinese Military", while that is actually part of my profession.

And yes, China could beat Iran or Iraq, because of the weight of numbers they can bring to the field. Of course, nobody has said that Iran or Iraq has much of a military either. Those 2 nations were involved in a decade long war with each other, with no real winner. The US took on Iraq twice, and both times defeated them within days.

Can China beat Iran, Iraq, Tibet, or a handfull of other nations? Yes, easily. China can throw such numbers at them that the sheer quantity makes up for any lack of quality. Can they beat the US or Russia? Not likely.

right, the sub will just surface run its diesel engine and paint a bullseye on its back. diesel can stay underwater for weeks, it can wait for carrier at different choke point therefore delay the carrier. i suggest you read some research on diesel-electric sub and why its dangerous to ignore it in coastal region.

lets put it this way can US/russia beat china that easily without suffer alot loss whether is economy lost or human? again you looking at stuff china is not really working on. tank, nuke sub etc. but ignore other things they made improvement quite diesel sub, anti-ship missile, improve fighters, ships, awac etc etc.

as for sale, did they sale 52c/j10/j11 etc.

as for using conventional ballistic missile, you might want to ask taiwan on that 2000 ballistic missile point at taiwan, right and china is not gonna use it.

again i'm not saying china can much us, but they improve alot in recent years. i already provide several link and spec on their weapon platform, 52c, j10 etc etc.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

right, the sub will just surface run its diesel engine and paint a bullseye on its back. diesel can stay underwater for weeks, it can wait for carrier at different choke point therefore delay the carrier. i suggest you read some research on diesel-electric sub and why its dangerous to ignore it in coastal region.

lets put it this way can US/russia beat china that easily without suffer alot loss whether is economy lost or human? again you looking at stuff china is not really working on. tank, nuke sub etc. but ignore other things they made improvement quite diesel sub, anti-ship missile, improve fighters, ships, awac etc etc.

as for sale, did they sale 52c/j10/j11 etc.

as for using conventional ballistic missile, you might want to ask taiwan on that 2000 ballistic missile point at taiwan, right and china is not gonna use it.

again i'm not saying china can much us, but they improve alot in recent years. i already provide several link and spec on their weapon platform, 52c, j10 etc etc.

Why would the U.S. ever bring its carriers close to choke points? It's heavily protected carriers would be hundreds of miles away from shore in deep water moving at high speed where Diesel subs aren't nearly as effective.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

Why would the U.S. ever bring its carriers close to choke points? It's heavily protected carriers would be hundreds of miles away from shore in deep water moving at high speed where Diesel subs aren't nearly as effective.

This is why I do not even bother to respond anymore. It is obvious that he understands absolutely nothing of how Naval Warfare is conducted, so it is pointless to continue any longer.

And he also greatly overestimates the capability of these Diesel subs. Their "quiet speed" is only if they are operating at a speed of no more then 3-5 knots. And obviously at that speed, they will a week just getting to the target. And unless they come up to snorkel every 2-3 days, the air will get foul and poison the crew.

And for all this silence, they are still absolutely defenseless against active sonar. It may be sitting at a dead stop with nothing running, but if an active sonar pings within 10 miles or so, it might as well be running it's engines because it is going to be obvious it is there.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

Why would the U.S. ever bring its carriers close to choke points? It's heavily protected carriers would be hundreds of miles away from shore in deep water moving at high speed where Diesel subs aren't nearly as effective.

if you look at the map near taiwan, SCS there are potential point ships need to go through to move other part of area. the diesel is for anti-acess, a defensive weapon, not used to chase CVBG. for example we know china has alot these quiet diesel sub, if a conflict arise in taiwan strait or SCS. do you think the commander will just blindly rush into the theater of interest without worry about some sub waiting for ambush etc. these subs can submerge under water for weeks, its best use for ambush.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

This is why I do not even bother to respond anymore. It is obvious that he understands absolutely nothing of how Naval Warfare is conducted, so it is pointless to continue any longer.

And he also greatly overestimates the capability of these Diesel subs. Their "quiet speed" is only if they are operating at a speed of no more then 3-5 knots. And obviously at that speed, they will a week just getting to the target. And unless they come up to snorkel every 2-3 days, the air will get foul and poison the crew.

And for all this silence, they are still absolutely defenseless against active sonar. It may be sitting at a dead stop with nothing running, but if an active sonar pings within 10 miles or so, it might as well be running it's engines because it is going to be obvious it is there.

funny i could say the samething. obivous you have no understanding modern diesel subs, with AIP sub can submerge for weeks. it can move to certain location above water when situation are save.
if diesel sub is that useless, why the hell russia, europe etc still keep making these subs. and are you saying you are the one smarter than those people, give me a break.

i didn't overestimate the capability of diesel subs, its for defensive,ambush use, and if use it correctly it can be a dangerous wepon.

even if the subs is outdate IT STILL NEED to be tracked. you think navy commander will just ignore these subs and sail through SCS or taiwan strait like nothing underneath lol

suggest you read more before claim you are expert on this or that.

as for submerged speed 3-5knot don't make me laugh. have you even heard a hybrid car with only electric motor on?? or any electric motor

Displacement: Surfaced: 2,300–2,350 tons
Submerged:3,000-3,950 tons full load
Length: 70.0–74.0 m
Beam: 9.9 m
Draft: 6.5 m
Depth of hold: Operational: 240 meters
Maximum: 300 meters
Installed power: Diesel-electric
Propulsion: Diesel-electric propulsion
2 x 1000 kW Diesel generators
1 x 5,500–6,800 shp Propulsion motor
1 x fixed-pitch 6 or 7 bladed Propeller (6BL project 877) (7BL project 636)
Speed: Surfaced: 10–12 knots
Submerged: 17–25 knots
Range: With snorkel: 6,000–7,500 miles at 7 knots
Submerged: 400 miles at 3 knots
Full run: 12.7 miles at 21 knots
Endurance: 45 days
Test depth: 300 m
Complement: 52
Armament: 6/533 mm torpedo tubes
18 torpedoes
Club S anti-ship missiles (only on some export versions)
24 mines
8 SA-N-8 Gremlin or 8 SA-N-10 Gimlet Surface-to-air missiles (export submarines may not be equipped with air defense weapons)

http://csis.org/blog/nuclear-vs-diesel-submarines

Nuclear vs. Diesel Submarines

Nuclear vs. Diesel SubmarinesOct 18, 2011


By Jonah Friedman

In recent months there have been a number of calls for building diesel-powered submarines for the United States Navy. In two separate Defense News articles in June and September Gary Schmitt and J. Scott Shipman, respectively, urged the Navy to build such vessels. They cite a number of advantages for diesel subs, both operationally and in terms of cost. However, while diesel submarines may enjoy some advantages over nuclear bots, the significant drawbacks to this form of propulsion should be kept in mind as well.

Schmitt and Shipman highlight some of the most important benefits of diesel submarines compared to their nuclear-powered counterparts. Perhaps chief among these is cost. They both note that one of the biggest challenges facing the Navy today – and one which it will continue to face in the coming years – is a lack of submarines in sufficient numbers to maintain a presence in areas of interest to the United States. Shipman in particular points to the need to augment the U.S. naval presence in the Indian Ocean to deal with piracy, and in the western Pacific to monitor a rising China. Leaving aside the question of how effective submarines would be in fighting piracy or how many are truly needed in the Pacific, the concerns surrounding a shrinking navy is a legitimate one. One of the chief causes for this contraction is the extremely high cost of nuclear-powered submarines. As Schmitt and Shipman note, the cost of a Virginia-class submarine is in the area of $2 billion, whereas the cost of a diesel boat is around $500 million. Given these prices, the U.S. Navy could certainly procure more submarines (and have a correspondingly greater presence around the world) if it pursued diesel instead of nuclear versions.

The other major benefit conferred by diesel subs relates to their operational capabilities. While early diesel technologies greatly impinged on the length of time a submarine could remain submerged and deployed, new technologies have improved this time. Through the Second World War, submarines needed to either surface or use snorkels in order to obtain the oxygen needed to recharge their batteries and continue operating. This both left them vulnerable to attack and reduced their range, since they could only be submerged for several days at a time. Modern diesel submarines utilizing air-independent propulsion can remain submerged for about a month. Moreover, as Schmitt points out, unlike a nuclear-powered sub, a diesel sub can turn off its engine and sit on the ocean floor “deadly silent, while monitoring whatever passes over and around it.” (Although it should be noted that a nuclear sub could also switch off its propellers and also remain extremely quiet).....

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...sel-Submarines

The demand for attack submarines is both quantitative and qualitative. Over the past two decades, for example, China has added more than 40 new submarines. Although they are not equivalent to ours, they still need to be tracked - and that takes numbers. Meanwhile, the list of actual and potential submarine missions, including close-in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, special operations, and blockade and mining, continues to grow.

there are a number of scenarios today that are focused on the littoral areas, the green water within 100 miles of land, be they in the strait of Hormuz or Malacca, off the shores of Taiwan or in the South China Sea.

It is these missions that often favor diesel submarines. Diesel subs are smaller, stealthier and more maneuverable in tight spaces than nuclear submarines

The U.S. Navy is not ignorant of the advantages of diesel subs. Time and again, American naval crews have struggled to detect their diesel-electric "foes" at sea. Over the past two years, for example, Peruvian and Chilean diesels have made life extremely tough for the U.S. in naval exercises.

Nor is this new; in a joint training exercise in 2005, a Swedish AIP-outfitted Götland-class sub scored a "strike" on the carrier Ronald Reagan. And, most famously, in 2006 a Chinese Song-class diesel submarine surfaced undetected within striking distance of the carrier Kitty Hawk off Japanese waters

nuclear sub has its advantage over diesel, but don't make stupid argument that diesel sub is useless, unless you got something to back it up.