Thread: China plans double-digit boost in military spending

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

"China will raise its military spending by 11.2 percent in 2012 as the Asian giant worries about the US presence in the region.

Beijing
China said Sunday that it would boost its defense spending by 11.2 percent in 2012, the latest in a nearly two-decade string of double-digit increases.

Although the planned figure is less than last year's 12.7 percent increase, China's military leaders have said they are unhappy with recent moves by the Obama administration to increase the US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. Only twice since the early 1990s has the increase been less than double digits.

National People's Congress spokesman, Li Zhaoxing, said China's defense spending would increase by 11.2 percent over actual spending last year to hit 670.2 billion yuan ($106.4 billion) in 2012, an increase of about 67 billion yuan.

China's official defense spending is the largest in the world after the United States, but actual spending, according to foreign defense experts, may be 50 percent higher, as China excludes outlays for its nuclear missile force and other programs.

Li, speaking at a news conference a day before the opening of the annual session of the congress, said China's military spending was small as a percentage of gross domestic product compared to other countries, especially the United States.

"China is committed to the path of peaceful development and follows a national defense policy that is defensive in nature," Li said. "You see, China has 1.3 billion people, a large territory and long coastline, but our defense spending is relatively low compared with other major countries."

Last year's military spending amounted to 1.28 percent of China's economy, Li said. By contrast, the ratio stood at 4.8 percent for the US in 2010, according to the World Bank.

The increase in defense spending is part of China' long-term military modernization process, but also is partly spurred by Obama's new emphasis on the Asia-Pacific, said Sarah McDowall, a senior analyst at IHS Jane's, a London-based security consultancy.

"It is important to note that Beijing views itself as reacting to the increasingly assertive policies of other countries and has repeatedly said that it does not want to provoke military confrontation," McDowall was quoted as saying in a news release.

Beijing has mounted a robust defense buildup for more than two decades that has transformed the military into a formidable regional force, increasingly able to project power far from China. While chiefly aimed at the US, the buildup is also jangling nerves among Asian rival India and neighbors Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines, which have maritime disputes with China.

Mindful of the unease the burgeoning military has created among its neighbors and the opportunity it has given the United States to raise its profile in the region, Li repeated several times that China's intentions are peaceful and defensive.

"China's limited military strength is aimed at safeguarding sovereignty, national security, and territorial integrity and will not pose a threat to other countries," he said.

With the huge outlays, the Chinese military's armory include the home-built J-10 jet fighter, new nuclear submarines, and modern surface vessels armed with supersonic anti-ship missiles. Last year, China began testing a new J-20 stealth fighter and launched sea trials of its first aircraft carrier, a refurbished hulk purchased from Ukraine. Cyber-warfare programs are also burgeoning.

While Beijing insists its military is defensive and is not a threat, defense analysts say the new capabilities are aimed at keeping foreign forces, especially the US, out of the seas and airspace around China. The South China Sea has become a new potential flash point, with Beijing's more powerful navy and an assertive policy to defend contested claims to groups of islands, reefs, and atolls, and the US has declared its own interest in making sure sea lanes remain open.

Growing Chinese power and East Asia's economic importance is driving neighboring countries to boost defense spending and has prompted the US to redirect defense resources to the region. Washington's moves to rotate new troops to Australia, shore up alliances with other traditional allies Japan and the Philippines while forging new military ties to Vietnam has heightened Beijing's fears of encirclement."

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Lates...itary-spending

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.............

Too much spending on military is harmful to economy. If this is true in the US then it is also true in China, or in any other country.
.

Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo

That's most unfortunate from the standpoint of the United States.

unfortunate for you. my customer are seem happy

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Oh my goodness. They are nothing alike. One follows an active radar signature all the way to the target. The other is in total free-fall, only aiming at where the carrier is believed to be. In one, there is a direct line of sight between the launching vessel. In the other it is a ballistic trajectory, and there is absolutely no line of sight between launcher and launching system and the target.

They could not be any further apart from each other, other then they both use missiles.

And I am sorry, that PM article says nothing. It only talks about the theory, nothing else. The same with the Aviation Week article. Both simply talk about how the system would work. Not that it would work. And neither brings up the multiple problems that myself and others in here have mentioned to you over and over again.

Look, the theory behind this weapon is sound. And the US looked into this over 30 years ago. But they saw far to many problems with the system to ever go further then preliminary studies into it.

Among the largest is how would the Soviet Union react when they saw a ballistic missile coming towards some of their ships. That was one of the biggest reasons why it was scrapped. They did not want to set off an accidental nuclear exchange simply to sink some ships.

Plus it was also realized that there are easier ways to sink ships, like cruise missiles and conventional aircraft. Plus with the modern Nimitz class carriers, even if it does hit, it would 95% only damage it unless it got a very lucky hit. Our carriers (even older conventional carriers) have had on-deck explosions much larger then this one and survived just fine. Within months they were back in service.

In 1967, the USS Forrestal had over a ton of explosived detonate on her deck, as well as Zuni rockets, smaller bombs, and tons of jet fuel. She returned to port under her own power, and less then a year later put out to sea one again.

In 1972 there was another massive fire on the USS Forrestal, this time deep inside the ship in the CIC. The fire got so hot that the flight deck was glowing red, several floors higher. 4 months later she once again returned to sea.

Sorry, such weapons as China claims to have only exist in video games. Not in real life.

Command & Conquer Zero Hour - GLA Mission 3 Intro & Scenes - YouTube

modern MMW seeker with real time processor onboard compare to 70's. i deal with radar and its processing. the major difference between a hypersonce anti-ship missile vs a ballistic missile arm with same time MMW sensor is one is ballistic the other is terrain hugging missile. the current generation of microchip allow real time processing of data from ADC with Giga sample/s, multiple channel. thats why i said terminal guidance is diffcult but not impossible. if the BM is near the location of carrier, it can use onboard or datalink from satelite to locate exact location of carrier.

there are many things that can counter cruise missile, Standard Missile, ESSMs, RAM, and then Phlanx, as well as other EW, chaff, decoy defenses etc

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Actually, mostly I am talking from my experience and my understanding of how such weapons would work.

A lot of us in here have a wide and varied list of military skills. A couple are pilots, others are infantry, we even have had tankers and artollery in here from time to time.

Myself, my experience is mostly in Infantry, Amphibious Operations, Jungle Warfare, and Missile Defense systems.

And of course in knowing missile defense, I have to know and understand the missiles I may have to actually help shoot down.

And you know, the more I think of that PM article you posted, the more I laugh at it. I mean, come on! It shows the ballistic missile suddenly taking a 90 degree turn, flying horizontal, flying a distance, then turning 90 degrees again and returning to vertical for the final descent.



This is a ballistic missile for goodness sakes, not an airplane! The more I think on that, the more I laugh at it. Even the vaunted experts at PM have no idea what they are talking about there.

that comment was for nosfrex. also are you gonna deny all the paper that was published by US, china which say china already doing experimental test on the missile, but yet you just want to deny it. its impossible to make it. i'm sorry but i consider the paper, document published from varies source are more crediable than online forum. unless you can find some expert/link said AshBM is impossible to work etc. all the evidence online indicate otherwise, all the stuff i learn about radar, processor etc indicate its not impossible.

how does modern rocket manuver in space? thruster at the front of rocket, will tilt the nose up a bit, slow the re-entry speed, and give time for MMW or info pass to missile.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

...my customer are seem happy

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Do you mean Wan Hu?



...

Wan Hu is s002wjh's customer.

Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo

Wan Hu is s002wjh's customer.

stop trolling

Originally Posted by s002wjh

stop trolling

Think of me as the Honey Badger:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7pGZudN8rE&feature=re lated"]The Honey Badger Don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*)! [czg123] video owner! - YouTube[/ame]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

Too much spending on military is harmful to economy. If this is true in the US then it is also true in China, or in any other country.
.

A rather silly quote. Too much spending on ANYTHING isn't good for an economy.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

that comment was for nosfrex. also are you gonna deny all the paper that was published by US, china which say china already doing experimental test on the missile, but yet you just want to deny it. its impossible to make it. i'm sorry but i consider the paper, document published from varies source are more crediable than online forum. unless you can find some expert/link said AshBM is impossible to work etc. all the evidence online indicate otherwise, all the stuff i learn about radar, processor etc indicate its not impossible.

how does modern rocket manuver in space? thruster at the front of rocket, will tilt the nose up a bit, slow the re-entry speed, and give time for MMW or info pass to missile.

Not going to happen in realtime with support ship blasting ECM over ECM for miles around the fleet. And this won't prevent the missile from being shutdown by the dozen Aegis in the fleet. To the contrary, the fact that in your scenario your missile has to transmit and receive data while descending will just help tracking it and shooting it down.

BTW, you should stop with that silly story about you working in defense.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

that comment was for nosfrex. also are you gonna deny all the paper that was published by US, china which say china already doing experimental test on the missile, but yet you just want to deny it. its impossible to make it. i'm sorry but i consider the paper, document published from varies source are more crediable than online forum. unless you can find some expert/link said AshBM is impossible to work etc. all the evidence online indicate otherwise, all the stuff i learn about radar, processor etc indicate its not impossible.

I do not deny that they are probably doing research on it. But there is a huge difference between "doing experimental tests" and "having a working system". That is what I am trying to get you to understand.

Do I think this would never work? Of course not. There may well be a system like this in operation. In another 10-15 years if somebody wants to put enough money and research into it. We could have had this years ago, but thankfully people in the US and USSR realized that launching ballistic missiles (even conventional ones) at each other was one step away from suicide.

But you and others go on like this is a complete and working system that is in place now and ready to operate at a moment's notice. That is the bubble I am trying to burst.

And great, you know radar. So do I, but I know much more about missiles. And they are very different.

Originally Posted by s002wjh

how does modern rocket manuver in space? thruster at the front of rocket, will tilt the nose up a bit, slow the re-entry speed, and give time for MMW or info pass to missile.

The use thruster rockets. Those are not air foils. And they do not make fast and radical turns like we all see in movies. A rocket makes a very slow turn, far in advance. And it only moves 1-2 degrees normally, allowing the great distances they have to move to make the actual course changes.

They do not zip around like this one claims to do. That is something that requires air foils and an atmosphere. Once again, you are talking about very different things. A rocket, a missile and a cruise missile all operate on vastly different principals. And trying to compare them is pure folly.