Unfortunately, it seems like China is not in any hurry of retiring the Ming subs. It looks like R subs might not be retired until the end of this decade. The Ming subs are just getting retrofitted. Sad, I know, but PLA seems to have a fetish with having a lot of outdated equipment around. It can't be a great experience operating in a ming sub, if you know you are a cannon fodder ahead of times. As for Varyag, nobody really knows the exact status of it. I personally think it will be a trainer carrier. Richard Fisher has an interesting article on China's carrier program recently. They have even put sensors into it, but then later remove them to cover things up I guess. I think some serious work will be done after the Chinese new year.gf0012-aust said:
Chinese Military 2005
- Thread starter chinawhite
- Start date
I suspect that she will be a static trainer. PLAN aviation pilots were still training on a static mocl up of a carrier deck throughout last year - and that land based deck is much smaller than varyag.tphuang said:
the telling sign is that there are no aircraft in place to undertake carrier ops - and thats a non trivial issue. none of the existing PLAAF/PLAN aircraft are rated for traps and launches and would require significant mods.
You also don't retro modify aircraft for carrier work - they need to be designed at the robust level from inception.
cool, so the stories about a land based deck is true. Have you heard anything about catapults in thiese places?gf0012-aust said:
As for aircrafts, that's why China is so interested in su-27kub these days. We have seen in the past that once China signs a contract with the Russians, the product gets delivered pretty fast.
No cats as far as I know. they were stobar launches.tphuang said:
It also means that all the other carrier hulks currently in dock are not going to be used for fixed wing operations. they're too small for an Su-27kub STOBAR launch.tphuang said:
Thats interesting, becouse the sole land based carrier mockup trainings that i've heard were made by using catabults (by J-8s). Also several sources mentiones (i can try to find them bit later) steam catabults specificly designed for land based training. I've never heard static Ski-jump like one in Saki, Ukraine based on chinese soil. Do you have any additional info of this?
Not so sure about that. The only cats they had were ex HMAS Melbourne and they were too small to launch J8'sGollevainen said:
I was under the distinct impression that the only land based cats was a failed Soviet/Russian system which was eventually abandoned. The Russians then went to STOBARs in Ukraine and then when they refused to pay the new lease rates they built their own (STOBAR)Gollevainen said:
Bit hard to give detail on this. But I'm part of a Strategic Studies Group that specifically wargamed a few things on a chinese invasion of taiwan. Some of the group are ex ONI hands and ex china hands from the late 90's. They're also ex-pat mainland chinese.Gollevainen said:
Our data is normally pretty solid as the sources are pretty reliable.
I'll put a call out and see if I can get an update.
I'm sorry that i cannot find the source of my claim so quess i have to seddle on your word. About the soviet catabult development, i've heard bit controvercial stories, one stating that the soviets were studying catabults onboard INS Vikrant back in the seventyes but failed to reverse engineering it and thus the catabult project was cancelled. In otherhands some russian sources indicates that the the cancellation of the soviet catabult development was more of a political decision, nothing to do with the capapilityes of soviet engineering. But I guess the soviet catabult discussion is bit oftopic so perhaps we should stick in the china issue.
Thanks, greatly appriciated
Not meaning to challenge the results of your studies group, but the Taiwanese themselves believe that they can last a maximum of 6 days without external help. This is from their own simulations. And they had PLA doing plenty of stupid things in there. It seems like you are giving them a lot more credit than they give themselves.gf0012-aust said:
That might be six days, after the PLA manages to land a full division, and ALL of it's logistic support on the island. If you think that won't require the deaths of many thousands of lives beforehand, then I'd suggest you rethink it.
So that could be six days after the first week. The Taiwanese aren't going to make it easy. They aren't just going to surrender without a fight. They are already dug in, in hardened bunker complexes, that are probably designed to withstand nuclear strikes- because they have had to cope with the threat of of Chinese nukes pointed at the island for decades. China can't hope to keep such an operation a secret, given the logistic footprint involved, so it's likely that the world will be well aware of a PRC invasion of Taiwan at least a week before it takes place. So basically, that adds a week to the time the US will have to respond, and the time that Taiwan will have to prepare. Given that Taiwan holds both the tactical, and moral highground, has the advantage of American INTEL, will be fighting on their own turf from prepared defeses, and is armed to the teeth for a nation of that size- I think the PRC is either headed for a rude awakening, or will have to nuke the island...
Two- to three weeks time. That's about how much time it would take for two full ESG's based at Washington, and California to reach the theater. And lets not forget that Taiwan has other allies in the region besides the US- to include nations such as Japan, Australia/New Zealand, Thailand and South Korea. All of the above have very modern, and capable naval and air forces. They are not likely going to sit idly by, and allow the PRC to bulldoze Taiwan- particularly when the US is also involved. And then there will be the outrage at the UN....
Frankly, that's just too long, given that the US military has assets RIGHT there in the theater, and can position at least two full ESGs
on the situation in less than two weeks. Not to mention a handfull of SSN's, the US Air Force at Okinawa, Japan, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, the continental US, and whatever else may be transiting to, or from the IO/PG.
In my opinion, China must seek to appease Taiwan, in order to achieve reunification in a diplomatic, peaceful manner- or they are going to have to destroy the entire island, and everyone on it. Choosing the latter may just mean the end of China, and the rest of world- when one takes into account all of the nuclear weapons the participants are pointing at one another.
So that could be six days after the first week. The Taiwanese aren't going to make it easy. They aren't just going to surrender without a fight. They are already dug in, in hardened bunker complexes, that are probably designed to withstand nuclear strikes- because they have had to cope with the threat of of Chinese nukes pointed at the island for decades. China can't hope to keep such an operation a secret, given the logistic footprint involved, so it's likely that the world will be well aware of a PRC invasion of Taiwan at least a week before it takes place. So basically, that adds a week to the time the US will have to respond, and the time that Taiwan will have to prepare. Given that Taiwan holds both the tactical, and moral highground, has the advantage of American INTEL, will be fighting on their own turf from prepared defeses, and is armed to the teeth for a nation of that size- I think the PRC is either headed for a rude awakening, or will have to nuke the island...
Two- to three weeks time. That's about how much time it would take for two full ESG's based at Washington, and California to reach the theater. And lets not forget that Taiwan has other allies in the region besides the US- to include nations such as Japan, Australia/New Zealand, Thailand and South Korea. All of the above have very modern, and capable naval and air forces. They are not likely going to sit idly by, and allow the PRC to bulldoze Taiwan- particularly when the US is also involved. And then there will be the outrage at the UN....
Frankly, that's just too long, given that the US military has assets RIGHT there in the theater, and can position at least two full ESGs
on the situation in less than two weeks. Not to mention a handfull of SSN's, the US Air Force at Okinawa, Japan, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, the continental US, and whatever else may be transiting to, or from the IO/PG.
In my opinion, China must seek to appease Taiwan, in order to achieve reunification in a diplomatic, peaceful manner- or they are going to have to destroy the entire island, and everyone on it. Choosing the latter may just mean the end of China, and the rest of world- when one takes into account all of the nuclear weapons the participants are pointing at one another.
I actually haven't applied a "temporal" response window to any of my input on a china/taiwan conflict.tphuang said:
there are actually multiple scenarios. even though there are some published claims of a 6 day max window, some of us certainly believe that it can be longer if other variables are factored in - and that doesn't include US intervention.tphuang said:
there are some in the Taiwan military who think that 5 days is far too pessimistic. like all militaries, they are divided on opinion. Some think 6, some think far longer.
who really knows? the first maxim is to not let an enemy know your real capbility. quite frankly, all of the public wargamed data I've seen on the internet has so many staged variables in them, has so many holes in the process that its apparent that they're not real military generated opinions.
again, who really knows?
Last edited:
Thats very true. A lot of the comment you see in forums is so far from comprehending what is required to get something like this in play - that it demonstrates a severe lack of mil-op experience.Wild Weasel said:
A country cannot set the stage for this kind of event without alerting various intel scrapers. even alerts in isolation trigger analysis, so when and if a series of alerts happen concurrently, or within a proscribed period of mutual influence (ie one event can influence another within a certain number of days), then alerts will be screaming their head off somewhere in cyberspace.
You cannot establish and prepare the logistics footprint for a massed invasion without tripping an intel scraper somewhere. and China is a single coastline where all activity is easy to monitor. geographically you cannot change their lot in life. it means that electronic analysis is so much easier - and ipso facto, so much more saturated and persistent if required.
Agree, all of the internet response data I've seen assumes either a US cold start or a limted presence response. Thats just nonsensical - and demonstrates an intervention of enthusiasm over analysis. One only has to look at what assets are already in place that are not based in hawai'i and guam. One only has to consider what other assets can be bought to the table in under 8 hours - and they are significant invasion fleet stoppers.Wild Weasel said:
If nukes get used then the whole thing will go to custard very very quickly. It will also legitimise the fast tracking of Sth Korea and Japan into the legitimate warfighting nuclear club. They both can fast track nuke footprints in under 3 months IMO. As a marketing exercise the chinese govt would blow it big time - and I can't believe that they wouldn't have run the "cause and effect" component in their own wargames.Wild Weasel said:
The smartest thing is for this to be talked out - going to a military solution has far too many adverse outcomes - one being the strength of tenure of the then chinese govt as they can't afford to lose in the nations eyes - and that means that a worst case scenario where nuke overmatch is bought to bear is a very very real possibility.
My feedback on this is as follows:Gollevainen said:
a cat was set up and trialled on long barges and/or caissons in Shanghaisome years ago. It was originally trialled for tests with some old MiG- J-6's
"Carrier Qualification" on the "simulation of HMAS Melbourne's deck" was done at a PLAAF (not PLANAF) base. They were running launches - not "traps" - which implies either a one way committment - or an intention to land at another base. (a variation of sea basing but on a return ticket level - not a rotate out level)
The PLAN has studied various Russian ideas on the Kuznetzov - and have also flown both MiG-29 and Su-27 variants on her.
chinawhite
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #53
The idea behind stealth is to weaken or divert radar waves so the signal is weaker or it goes a long distance from where the original wave hit instead of going dirctly back. On the chinese coast their is a network of ground based radar and mobile radar post whihc pick up the faintest signals, while compared to american warships whic do not have as powerful radars nor the amont of dishes to pick up those singals it will be a disadvantged when compared to chinas ground based network.KGB said:
You get me?
The difference is, i am saying china could possibility find stealth targets.You do not need stealth aircraft to test your systems. Just use a object like a missiles with a similar RCS to see if your passive radars can work. eg. First test it with a conventional radar and find out when it is possible to detect the object and work it out with a calulation of distance vs speed vs RCS. Then you test it on the systems you make.
Why would the US be investing in LO technology if they had a technology which could effictivly track or destroy a Stealth target. While from reports from the british the aussies and the czech their longwave (10cm) radars picked up targets which their conventional radars couldn't pick up
I never said they dont have anti-stealth technology. But their current technology has trouble detecting the moskit and Yankort missiles. How are they going to the same misiles it they applied a coat of paint on or used some carbon materials? And the current ANti-ship missiles will have a degree of stealth built in just because of their small size and the distance it travels from the water.
The difference is a Cruise missile skimming the water is harder to track than aircraft flying through the air at about 20,000 feet. even if both have similar RCS. Simply because the water will mask or distort waves while their is nothing that hies the plane
chinawhite
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #54
And what was the Su-30MKI called or the Su-30MKK? Its a custom versiontphuang said:
What page is it? If its just some chit-chat between chiense members im not buying it
------------------
I think my original comment was about capabilities nnot about who has the superior airdefence suit. The J-10 has only been certified in 2003. Dont think about miracles. TP. If you really want to know why the J-10 is not as good as the Block 30 F-16 just ask the members of CDF.
The reality is the J-10 is still be tested for new avonics and new equipment. And has not reached the levels of service the F-16 has seen nor has it been tweaked or the bugs been found.
Maybe the Dog-fighting missiles?.
Huh?. The AL-31FN is basically a AL-31F with the gear box on the bottom. Has the tweaked engines arrived yet?
A couple of things:Wild Weasel said:
1) I was in effect relating to a post earlier in this thread about whether or not China has air supremacy over the Taiwan strait. It was my personal belief from reading that post and some of Gary's other post, that he has higher opinion of ROCA than me. It was a post that is relating just the strength of PLA vs ROCA and nothing else. I do not know the condition on which they ran these scenarios. Frankly, who knows what it would take the Taiwanese to surrender?
2) In a real environment, it's obvious that Taiwan will never be fighting a possible war alone. I guess the Americans will have the planes over in less than 2 days and some might even get there on the same day.
Actually, I have a question for gary, do you think China will try to bomb American military airports in the near by area? Like in say Okinawa? And vice versa? I would think the answer is probably yes, but that would cause some scary escalation.
3) about hiding start of operation part, it did happen with the Germans against Russians in WWII. I guess it's not possible today with the kind of intelligence that the Americans have.
4) about the nations that you listed.
Japan, Australia/New Zealand, Thailand and South Korea
Japan - definitely, lol, you could see a conflict between these two independent of Taiwan.
Australia - already said that they would not intervene, although maybe they were lying? Any insights, Gary?
New Zealand - again, similar to Australia.
Thailand - no, they got way too much of a relationship going with China in terms of trade. They even buy weapons from China. I don't think China would sell them those OPVs if they think it would be used against them in Taiwan conflict.
South Korea - no, the relation between China and South Korea is getting better and better. I would think the relation between South Korea and Japan is getting worse. I can't see South Korea getting involved here.
5) about the catapult and J-8, is it possible that China has some kind of secret sight that is hidden from the American intelligence? That's what the rumour was. They claimed that China already have a working steam catapult and this is done in one of their bases in South China Sea?
and all of your assumptions are redundant because any OTH or lookdown radar system, be it from a SeaHawk, SeaSprite, Compass nn, E2 or E3, cover AWACs/AEW&C's, the new Sea Based tracking station etc... are going to pick up a cruise missile - thats their job - and for some of those platforms concepts, they've been doing that since the 70's/80's.chinawhite said:
Any vessel without onboard air and by itself might be at risk - but a fleet with existing organics is structured to deal with cruise missiles.
they were su-30 right from the start. There is a difference between su-30 and su-35 despite the claims of certain people. As I said, when the Russians put fighters into export bid, they will state whether it's su-30 or su-35. They did that for the Brazilian bid and South Korean bid. In the Thailand bid, they called it su-30, because they were trying to export su-30.chinawhite said:
chinawhite, I'm disappointed here, you are getting lazy.
first half of the posts on this page, china-defense.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2009&st=1850
what does a fighter's service time have anything to do with its ability? I've had numerous arguments with people on CDF and will have more with flanker supporters. My views are clear. J-10 is used for purely air superiority role in plaaf, so it's not fair to compare its multirole ability to a multirole fighter.
J-10 first flew in 1998. If they have problems, they would not have certified 2 versions of J-10. As for new avionics, every fighter is testing new avionics. The super bug is getting a new AESA radar, would you be questioning its ability?
Check the article on "super 10". Most of it is Russian propoganda, but I think they should at least know what engine they just exported.
"However, AL-31FN-maker Moscow Machine Production Plant (MMPP) Salyut in December 2005 revealed the order to be for the AL-31FN M1, which is claimed to be a new AL-31FN production standard."
"Eliseyev said the AL-31FN M1 differs from the original in having an enlarged fan with an inlet diameter of 924 mm instead of 902 mm. The increased airflow boosts the engine's thrust at full afterburner from 27,560 lbst (122.6 kN) to 29,760 lbst (132.4 kN). It also has a swivel nozzle developed by Salyut together with St Petersburg-based Zavod imeni Klimova."
Last edited by a moderator:
any bombing of say Okinawa would trigger a Japanese entry - it would ptobably have to be pre-emptive as well - and that changes the dynamics of response altogether.tphuang said:
Actually, the Aust Govt said that there should be no assumption of automatic intervention. he didn't say no intervention. There are treaty obligations that bind us - so if the US doesn't initiate conflict at the combative level - then I would think that both Australia and NZ would be working towards defusing things. We're in the position of having good relationships with China, Japan, Taiwan and the US.tphuang said:
Thailand does participate in RIMPAC - and they have increased the number of external military training events that they have each year.tphuang said:
Sth Korea does participate in RIMPAC - Sth Korean Naval Officerss I know are far more wary of a militaristic china than japan. japan has made every attempt to neuter the power of the military, be it in constitutional terms, or in practical terms. None of the Sth Koreans I deal with see Japan as a threat - they do however regard China as dangerous and consider the increasing anti-japanese rhetoric as the catalyst for triggering a japanese shift in their attitude to their military.tphuang said:
anythings possible - but there would be telltale signs of the development of carrier capable aircraft - those things can't continue to be hidden.tphuang said:
chinawhite
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #59
Read my original comment.tphuang said:
"Su-30MKK3 - It has been rumoured on the internet tat china will recieve its own MKI standard aircraft. But from all these new upgrades it seems unlikey that china wil buy more aircraft but this cant be ruled out"
You said retire? They are talking about storing the planes away for a future war.
And dont be disappointed. Im not going to be foruming actively anymore. My short response and un-thought out replys are because i cant really be bothered anymore.
The longer the aircraft in in service the longer they have to find out all the bugs in the system. When the bugs are found they can work on a better system or with longer service can find the areas of weakness
But the comparision is their capability. This will not factor in what role each other plays in their respective airforces.
Every fighter still has problems. even fighters which had retired like the F-4 still had its problems.
These are the new AL-31FNs not the orginal ones.
Schumacher
New Member
Japan would surely enter whether Okinawa is hit or not. Japan's the most obedient US ally, even more so than UK & Aust.gf0012-aust said:
Thailand & SK however will not enter, participation in RIMPAC does not mean they will. One has to look at the political side to see why.
Not surprised to hear SK military people say that, they are after all still officially under the US military alliance with Japan. I don't think many will openly talk abt their negative views if any of Japan or US. Furthermore, what they say is also probably true, SK's very capable military can hold its own against Japan, so there's no fear.
Maybe they see China as problematic due to her ties with NK, other than that they have mostly similar views wrt Japan.
Anyway, I think far too much than what's necessary has been talked abt China-US conflict due to Taiwan. China-Taiwan is getting closer. Even if China does attack Taiwan sometime in the future, it'll be a time of their choosing & when they're ready.
Any future US-China conflict will most likely be initiated by US, with Japan's help of course, & it'll basically be due to US's desire to maintain her dominance. Read in the news today that Bush plans to discuss space cooperation with Hu when he goes to US in a few months time. Either US is starting to think it's better to work with China or that they see China's rise as less of a threat. Either of which is good news indeed.