Syrian Strikes Would Battle-Test Chinese Radars

[ephone]

Does Syria have the latest version of Chinese radar?

Syrian Strikes Would Battle-Test Chinese Radars


TAIPEI — If the US strikes Syria, China would get to see just how well some of its radars and electronic warfare (EW) emitters perform in combat.

Among the Chinese systems deployed by the Syrian military are the JYL-1 3-D long-range surveillance radar, Type 120 (LLQ120) 2D low-altitude acquisition radar, and JY-27 VHF long-range surveillance radar, according to Richard Fisher, a senior fellow with the US-based International Assessment and Strategy Center.

China would no doubt digest any performance data for use in a potential conflict with the US, which could be sparked by disputes over Taiwan, Senkaku Island or the South China Sea.

But the lessons would flow both ways. The Pentagon would scoop up wartime electronic emissions from the Chinese systems, and moreover, could test its own methods of countering the kind of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategies and technologies that China is developing.

Fisher said the multiple types of Chinese radar strongly suggest that Beijing has been “providing much of the secure electronic infrastructure critical to the regime’s survival.”


He said Beijing has in the past used Chinese telecommunications firms to “militarily support its dictator clients” against the US. In the late 1990s, such firms linked Saddam Hussein’s radars via fiberoptic cables to better target US aircraft enforcing the U.S. no-fly zone.

“American fighter-bombers were actually bombing these cable nodes, that the Chinese would then rebuild,” he said.

A more urgent question is just how much of a threat the Chinese-augmented air-defense system would pose to attacking US planes.

Syria has 120 surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites armed with a mix of Russian and old Soviet systems: SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, and SA-6. It has 50 EW facilities with a mix of Chinese and Russian systems, said Sean O’Connor, editor of IMINT & Analysis, a US-based newsletter.

Modern Chinese EW radars can detect US low-observable aircraft and perhaps even very-low-observable ones, O’Connor said. Particularly effective are the two 500-km JY-27 radars delivered in 2006, now deployed north and south of the city of Palmyra in central Syria.

“The range of the JY-27 permits either site to monitor the bulk of Syrian airspace, along with a significant amount of the surrounding region,” he said.

Little is known directly about the less-capable Type 120 radar, but it is a derivative of the JY-29/LSS-1 2D radar, which can track 72 targets out to 200 km.

“The more refined Type 120 may improve on these specifications, but they are a logical baseline,” O’Connor said.

O’Connor said the Type 120 likely acquires only range and azimuth data, making it best suited to supporting other radars. He said that China itself deploys the 120 with the HQ-9 and HQ-12 SAM systems, but that Syria might use it as a dedicated EW asset.

Syria has four Type 120 radar sites: Dar Ta`izzah, Baniyas, Tartus, and Kafr Buhum, O’Connor said. The JY-29s were initially misidentified in Syria as the F-band radar JY-11B Hunter-1 radars.

The 320-km JYL-1 3D radar is deployed at Kafr Buhum, O’Connor said. The radar has been misidentified in the past as the Chinese-built YLC-2V High Guard 3D long-range surveillance radar.

There is some question as to whether the Chinese sensors can pass data directly to the Soviet-era weapons, O’Connor said.

“A lack of interoperability would require voice transmission of target track data between nodes, a potential source for error and a signal likely to be targeted for interference if transmitted openly,” he said.

The US has reasonable information about Chinese radars, but what the US most likely lacks is an understanding on “Chinese EW game play,” said John Wise, UK-based radar analyst and creator of the radars.org.uk website.

Wise said the US and NATO have a distinct advantage in their ability to exercise hostile EW through the remit of the NATO Joint Electronic Warfare Core Staff.

“Tactical EW exercising is held as a very high priority in Western maritime operations, game play which has been extended to tactical exercises on land and NATO forces have the advantage of the experience from these exercises,” he said. “We do not know how the Syrian land army might respond in the face of hardhitting EW, assuming it recognizes it soon enough to actually respond.”

But there are no guarantees, he said.

“It would be wholly wrong of me to suggest that US jamming against any particular Chinese radar would be successful because of the variable factors,” which include range between jammer and target, element of surprise, and available jamming power per Mhz.

“As to false target generation, that can fox the best of radar operators if sensibly applied when least expected.” he said. “Timing of EW applications can be a critical factor.”

A key question is “whether Syria has come to grips with the operation of its Chinese equipment sufficiently to understand the difference between the results of black and noise jamming on radar displays,” Wise said.

Another question is whether Assad might have learned from Libya’s unsuccessful EW and air-defense efforts against NATO forces in 2011.

Ultimately, O’Connor believes Syria’s integrated air defense system cannot defeat a large-scale attack by the US and NATO. Despite the new Chinese systems, Syria still relies heavily on aging Russian and Soviet technology that has been encountered before by US and NATO forces.

“The bulk of the network does not represent a significant threat to modern combat aircraft, although any threat system should be regarded as potentially dangerous,” O’Connor said.

For example, the 250-km SA-5 SAM system can threaten intelligence-surveillance-radar aircraft and aerial tankers, he said.

O’Connor also said no one should expect Syrian rebels to degrade the government’s integrated air defense. The civil war has so far had little impact on the overall network, and the Syrian military retains control of the bulk of EW and SAM assets.

Will the US lose aircraft over Syria? In December 1983, two US Navy aircraft, one A-7E Corsair and an A-6E Intruder, were shot down while attacking Syrian air defense sites.


Syrian Strikes Would Battle-Test Chinese Radars | Defense News | defensenews.com

 

[Beast]

Does Syria have the latest version of Chinese radar?

No. Ever since China become rich. China do not need to export the latest military tech to earn hard cash. Example? ZTZ-99G MBT, PLZ-05 SPH and J-20 are not for export. They are the best for PLA and save for domestic used only.

Same as radar.

 

[tranquilium]

looks like nato and US expected the rebels to take down considerable Syrian defense assets before the planned invasion/attack.

In my opinion, the opposite can the expected. US would more likely use precision missile strikes to take down key defensive assets before sending planes and hope that the rebels finishes the job. This is because after two years of civil war, the rebels really didn't show any edge over Assad's forces.

Everyone knows the anti-aircraft capacity of the Russian equipments are pretty good, but missile defense is another story entirely.

 

[GR!FF!N]

I doubt any info will ever flow..as we have seen in multiple war that heavy amount of cruise missile is used to cripple any opponent of USA in the early stage..if anything remains after that attack,USAF's stealth bombers will take care of that..other remained things will be take care via SEAD/DEAD operation..I barely think that if even Syria has S-300,it'll barely inflict any significant damage to USAF..we're going to see a replay of Iraq Invasion,thats all..

 

[BigDaddyWatch]

Rumors had it that the PLA generals and admirals swiftly withdrew their opinions about Desert Storm to the Politburo
before the Iraqi Army was completely ejected from Kuwait. The Soviets were not so quick...

Foreign Military Studies Office Publications - DESERT STORM: The Soviet View

The PLA was also keenly interested since just about everything about the PLA came from the Soviets, from equipment to organization to doctrines. Probably the only difference was that the PLA was still focused on the concept of "The People's War", which is essentially guerrilla warfare when an enemy was already in-country. The PLA had to know that if the time has come -- at that time -- for China had to abandon that concept.

Even though Iraq would lose, if the Iraqis managed to inflict serious casualties to the Allies, Soviet weaponry and doctrines would be vindicated from Western technical analyses and criticism and therefore what China learned and bought from the Soviets would be compelling enough for China to abandon the essentially defeatist concept of "The People's War".


What Zhivits did not say was that the pre-war 'special exercises' were not true exercises in the sense of maintaining readiness and inspection of units to ensure standards are met. But that those 'special exercises' were about technical verification of modifications to meet unexpected and unplanned combat opponents and conditions. The ability of the Americans and allies to do this practically blew the Soviet generals' minds. Despite the fact that the Soviet military leadership knew the Americans' penchant to make everything as multi-tasking capable and as flexible to changes as possible, it was the extent of the equipment's ability to do this made them realize that they continued to underestimate the Americans all the way up to when the first missile fired in the war.


This came from purely his own faith in Soviet equipment and doctrines as imparted to the Iraqis and had nothing relating to the technical aspects on how to detect the F-117, let alone shooting it down. Prior to Desert Storm, the F-117 did not have a positive image, at home and abroad, regarding its largely media fueled claimed ability to be 'invisible' to radar, never mind that the US military, from the start of the 'stealth' program, discouraged the use of the word 'invisible' since it was technically incorrect.

Note to F-35 skeptics: The F-35's public image today is exactly as the F-117's yesterday. Guess we will just have to splash a few J-20s to make the critics STFU.


The 90 minutes came from the inherent weakness of a centralized top-down command and control structure advocated by the Soviets and adopted by just about every Soviet trained and equipped military in the world, including the PLA. The 'shock and awe', and resultant paralysis for 90 minutes, occurred at all levels throughout this structure because each level demanded information from the lower levels before it could issue orders and/or execute its own mission and to provide intelligence to higher headquarters, who then would issue response instructions in a trickle down manner.


This 'high degree of professionalism' opinion did not sit well with both the Soviet and PLA genital...I mean...general staffs.

It is well known throughout the world that the US military non-commissioned officers (NCO) corps is the best educated, trained, and autonomous in the execution of their daily duties. From the infantry platoon sergeant to the aircraft crewchief to the sub chief-of-the-boat (COB), they are the best in the world. Without this backbone of any army in any era in history, the swift defeat of the Iraqi Army would not be possible. They put the NCO corps of the Soviets and the PLA to professional and technical shame.

The officers that lead these NCOs are devoid of political indoctrination common in both Soviet and Chinese militaries, leaving them with responsibilities are broader in scope and professional knowledge, especially technical ones, are deeper in details. This has been confirmed over and over by Soviet defectors, among the more famous are Viktor Belenko who flew the MIG-25 to Japan, and Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, aka Viktor Suvurov, of the GRU, the Soviet military intelligence unit.

Regarding this discussion, the PLA can at best come half way close under the current reform driven by the shame from Desert Storm.


The Soviet version of Baghdad Bob. And sounds a lot like the Chinese members here.


You read the highlighted correctly, folks.

According to the Soviets, which we could safely impute to be with the Chinese as well, an average MIG-29 pilot would probably best any F-15 adversary, and other fighters as well. Kinda like how the Chinese members here, of which not one ever served in uniform except that of a fast food joint, talks about the PLA.


The US SIGINT and EW capabilities have not rested since then. If anything, we made even greater progress. We created 'stealth', fielded it, and know how to defeat it. All the while the rest of the world, including Russia and China, are still struggling with it.

Like it or not, the J-20 and the PAK-FA are dead before they are even fielded.


We can also safely assume this to be representative of Chinese view as well for the PLA: 不足道的 (pathetic).

Now queue the Korean War...


That 'defeated U.S. pilot' does not give a sh1t about what other thinks of his Air Force and its aircrafts. To secure oil, we lowered our standards for the spoiled brat princes of Saudi Arabia and let them 'win' mock air combats, then praised their 'airmanship' effusively for the media to eat it all up. The MIG-29 pilots thinks they have the better fighter? Let them talk smack. We have the actual combat records on our side.


Despite the high overdrive the Soviets did for PR face saving, the rest of the world did came to look at Soviet military hardware and doctrines with as high a skepticism as the PR effort. The PLA wisely remained silent on the sidelines and let the Soviets played ball, fumbling all the way.


There goes those huge quantities of DF-21Ds for those fantasy saturation attacks against an American aircraft carrier.


And here is the sad reality for the Chinese members here.

Put aside hardware for now. Soviet doctrines that the PLA adopted and practiced by the Iraqis proved to be an utter failure in a real war, like communism so proven in the real world with competing ideologies practiced by other countries. The PLA generals and admirals swiftly withdrew their reports/opinions about Desert Storm and they did so with a lot of egg foo yung on their faces in front of the Politburo. Fortunately, we have the Soviet view to guide us on how the Chinese must have felt during that war.

If, as Marshal Kulikov stated that success in instructions and training are not guaranteed, what are we to make of the PLA regarding its ability to perform in a real war when it had to discard most of what it learned from the Soviets? Bring back the Korean War vets like how often the Chinese conscript rejects here have done? Militarily speaking, the PLA is as adrift as a sailboat with its sail in tatters from a storm -- a Desert Storm. All the hardware, no matter how new and boasted about by nationalistic citizens, will be as worthless as the Iraqi arms were in the face of battle tested and grimy American equipment.

The PLA is not a professional military and at best half way close to the US military. It has no recent combat records to support any doctrine it may develop or adopted. Its generals and admirals are heavily politicized and morally corrupt due to their extra-military interests in the civilian corporate sectors. If a fish rots from the head down, then the rot from the PLA's own non-professional leadership will doom the PLA in any shooting war against US.

The PLA will experience the 'shock and awe' as the Iraqis did. From the lowest private to the highest medal-ed general/admiral.


Yeah...That is what 'they' said about US back then as well. So talk away...


Not at all. You can sell the J-20 to jungle tribesmen for all we care.

Gambit stop obsessing about Desert Storm that's more than 20 years ago. The world has changed and today the US military can't defeat the Taliban on flip flops despite fighting for 12 years in Afghanistan.

 

[ephone]

So the so-called battle-test means nothing.

No. Ever since China become rich. China do not need to export the latest military tech to earn hard cash. Example? ZTZ-99G MBT, PLZ-05 SPH and J-20 are not for export. They are the best for PLA and save for domestic used only.

Same as radar.

 

[gambit]

Gambit stop obsessing about Desert Storm that's more than 20 years ago.

At least it is within your lifetime. But then again, I do not see the Chinese members here let go of the Korean War and that was in your grandfather's time. How much has changed since then?

The world has changed and today the US military can't defeat the Taliban on flip flops despite fighting for 12 years in Afghanistan.

Please...We are in Afghanistan. We kicked them out of power and installed our own guy. We buried many of them in their own caves. The only thing that saved and continues to save the Taliban are women and children. See if you can take Taiwan.

 

[gambit]

Giap lost many battle against the French but he just need one major dien bien phu in 1954 to decisively knock the French out to surrender.. The Igorant is you!

No. The ignorant one is still YOU.

I can tell immediately that you never bothered to look at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in an objective manner. You, just like most here when it comes to Viet Nam, are more concerned with how to use the Vietnam War as a poke-the-US-in-the-eye tool rather than a serious military history subject.

At DBP, Giap had the gross manpower and artillery high ground advantages. And yet his casualty count, which includes WIA and KIA, was nearly ten times that of the French, and that was a conservative estimate. The other estimate was that Giap used about 100,000 men to take down the defender. The siege lasted from Nov 1953 to May 1954. Artillery professionals the world over ripped Giap for his inept use of his overwhelming pieces. That is 'use' and not 'exploitation' because the latter implies expertise, of which the Viet Minh had precious little despite being supplied by China.

For example...

Direct fire is when each gun crew is responsible for its own sighting and firing. There is little but more like no coordination between crews. Essentially each crew for itself. Direct fire also leave the crew exposed to enemy counterfire.

Indirect fire is when crews are out of sight of their targets and requires estimation on where the shells are going to land. The only person exposed to the enemy are the forward observers who provides immediate feedback on the shells' landings.

Each method have its own tactics of employment and advantages and disadvantages.

But for DBP when the enemy is essentially trapped, as in the French being in a valley and the Viet Minh held the high ground, indirect fire is so advantageous that only an utter boob would order his crews to engage in direct fire. The French's major strongholds were already well known and mapped by Giap's own reconnaissance. If Giap had employed forward observers, ordered his artillery to stay out of sight over the valley's rim, and have them move after a few rounds, he would not have lost as many men as he did from French counterfire. With the defenders trapped and shelled via indirect fire, Giap's artillery would have gained invaluable experience and kept those experienced men instead of losing them to the French.

This is just one of the many tactical and technical blunders Giap made in his career. He was never a soldier to start. His appointment to lead the NVA was purely political because of his relationship with Ho Chi Minh.

Tet offensive is a political victory and is the catalyst for non-further US deeper involvement In prolong Vietnam war. You seems to know nothing of warfare. Warfare is not just about who suffer more causualty and losses and means you will win.

I know and understand warfare better than ALL of the Chinese members here COMBINED.

Yes, the 1968 Tet Offensive was a political success, but it was not a military victory. The plan was never intended to be political in nature. To commit men and hardware to a battle that have less than 50/50 odds of success simply because one wishes a political perspective is foolhardy. You fight to win, not to make a point regardless of losing one can still make a point.

The US military did not lose in Viet Nam. The reason why the US withdrew from Viet Nam was because of a gross difference in political goals. I explained this difference a long time ago here.

How about this scenario...

Mike Tyson beat the sh1t out of his opponent. The guy got both eyes cut and so swollen he can barely see. A couple ribs cracked. And he suffered several standing 8-counts. Then Tyson just simply quit and left the ring.

Yes, technically speaking, Tyson lost the fight and his opponent gain the belt. But no one sane is going to say that Tyson lost on purely boxing techniques.

Edit what a joke of the day, sorry to see you cry to your wife tonight. Oops your wife just kick ur arshe and went with your best friend.

Was there something relevant to the thread or even to China in that? No? I thought so. Another mindless dribble from the Chinese crowd.

 

[feilong]

Was there something relevant to the thread or even to China in that? No? I thought so. Another mindless dribble from the Chinese crowd.

Does Gambit name in my post old man? Can't compare between name and who in the post, your empty brain got washed 100 times.

Mike Tyson beat the sh1t out of his opponent. The guy got both eyes cut and so swollen he can barely see. A couple ribs cracked. And he suffered several standing 8-counts. Then Tyson just simply quit and left the ring.

Yes, technically speaking, Tyson lost the fight and his opponent gain the belt. But no one sane is going to say that Tyson lost on purely boxing techniques.

what a joke example, Mike Tyson bit out oponent ear. Lost the fight ran to his car to get a gun, why you don't include that too. what a joker, where is Batman. We have a JOKER in the forum here.

 

[帅的一匹]

Russia and China shall extend help to Syria goverment, we can't let those yankee wantonly tread other country.

 

[The SC]

Rumors had it that the PLA generals and admirals swiftly withdrew their opinions about Desert Storm to the Politburo
before the Iraqi Army was completely ejected from Kuwait. The Soviets were not so quick...

Foreign Military Studies Office Publications - DESERT STORM: The Soviet View


The PLA was also keenly interested since just about everything about the PLA came from the Soviets, from equipment to organization to doctrines. Probably the only difference was that the PLA was still focused on the concept of "The People's War", which is essentially guerrilla warfare when an enemy was already in-country. The PLA had to know that if the time has come -- at that time -- for China had to abandon that concept.

Even though Iraq would lose, if the Iraqis managed to inflict serious casualties to the Allies, Soviet weaponry and doctrines would be vindicated from Western technical analyses and criticism and therefore what China learned and bought from the Soviets would be compelling enough for China to abandon the essentially defeatist concept of "The People's War".


What Zhivits did not say was that the pre-war 'special exercises' were not true exercises in the sense of maintaining readiness and inspection of units to ensure standards are met. But that those 'special exercises' were about technical verification of modifications to meet unexpected and unplanned combat opponents and conditions. The ability of the Americans and allies to do this practically blew the Soviet generals' minds. Despite the fact that the Soviet military leadership knew the Americans' penchant to make everything as multi-tasking capable and as flexible to changes as possible, it was the extent of the equipment's ability to do this made them realize that they continued to underestimate the Americans all the way up to when the first missile fired in the war.


This came from purely his own faith in Soviet equipment and doctrines as imparted to the Iraqis and had nothing relating to the technical aspects on how to detect the F-117, let alone shooting it down. Prior to Desert Storm, the F-117 did not have a positive image, at home and abroad, regarding its largely media fueled claimed ability to be 'invisible' to radar, never mind that the US military, from the start of the 'stealth' program, discouraged the use of the word 'invisible' since it was technically incorrect.

Note to F-35 skeptics: The F-35's public image today is exactly as the F-117's yesterday. Guess we will just have to splash a few J-20s to make the critics STFU.


The 90 minutes came from the inherent weakness of a centralized top-down command and control structure advocated by the Soviets and adopted by just about every Soviet trained and equipped military in the world, including the PLA. The 'shock and awe', and resultant paralysis for 90 minutes, occurred at all levels throughout this structure because each level demanded information from the lower levels before it could issue orders and/or execute its own mission and to provide intelligence to higher headquarters, who then would issue response instructions in a trickle down manner.


This 'high degree of professionalism' opinion did not sit well with both the Soviet and PLA genital...I mean...general staffs.

It is well known throughout the world that the US military non-commissioned officers (NCO) corps is the best educated, trained, and autonomous in the execution of their daily duties. From the infantry platoon sergeant to the aircraft crewchief to the sub chief-of-the-boat (COB), they are the best in the world. Without this backbone of any army in any era in history, the swift defeat of the Iraqi Army would not be possible. They put the NCO corps of the Soviets and the PLA to professional and technical shame.

The officers that lead these NCOs are devoid of political indoctrination common in both Soviet and Chinese militaries, leaving them with responsibilities are broader in scope and professional knowledge, especially technical ones, are deeper in details. This has been confirmed over and over by Soviet defectors, among the more famous are Viktor Belenko who flew the MIG-25 to Japan, and Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, aka Viktor Suvurov, of the GRU, the Soviet military intelligence unit.

Regarding this discussion, the PLA can at best come half way close under the current reform driven by the shame from Desert Storm.


The Soviet version of Baghdad Bob. And sounds a lot like the Chinese members here.


You read the highlighted correctly, folks.

According to the Soviets, which we could safely impute to be with the Chinese as well, an average MIG-29 pilot would probably best any F-15 adversary, and other fighters as well. Kinda like how the Chinese members here, of which not one ever served in uniform except that of a fast food joint, talks about the PLA.


The US SIGINT and EW capabilities have not rested since then. If anything, we made even greater progress. We created 'stealth', fielded it, and know how to defeat it. All the while the rest of the world, including Russia and China, are still struggling with it.

Like it or not, the J-20 and the PAK-FA are dead before they are even fielded.


We can also safely assume this to be representative of Chinese view as well for the PLA: 不足道的 (pathetic).

Now queue the Korean War...


That 'defeated U.S. pilot' does not give a sh1t about what other thinks of his Air Force and its aircrafts. To secure oil, we lowered our standards for the spoiled brat princes of Saudi Arabia and let them 'win' mock air combats, then praised their 'airmanship' effusively for the media to eat it all up. The MIG-29 pilots thinks they have the better fighter? Let them talk smack. We have the actual combat records on our side.


Despite the high overdrive the Soviets did for PR face saving, the rest of the world did came to look at Soviet military hardware and doctrines with as high a skepticism as the PR effort. The PLA wisely remained silent on the sidelines and let the Soviets played ball, fumbling all the way.


There goes those huge quantities of DF-21Ds for those fantasy saturation attacks against an American aircraft carrier.


And here is the sad reality for the Chinese members here.

Put aside hardware for now. Soviet doctrines that the PLA adopted and practiced by the Iraqis proved to be an utter failure in a real war, like communism so proven in the real world with competing ideologies practiced by other countries. The PLA generals and admirals swiftly withdrew their reports/opinions about Desert Storm and they did so with a lot of egg foo yung on their faces in front of the Politburo. Fortunately, we have the Soviet view to guide us on how the Chinese must have felt during that war.

If, as Marshal Kulikov stated that success in instructions and training are not guaranteed, what are we to make of the PLA regarding its ability to perform in a real war when it had to discard most of what it learned from the Soviets? Bring back the Korean War vets like how often the Chinese conscript rejects here have done? Militarily speaking, the PLA is as adrift as a sailboat with its sail in tatters from a storm -- a Desert Storm. All the hardware, no matter how new and boasted about by nationalistic citizens, will be as worthless as the Iraqi arms were in the face of battle tested and grimy American equipment.

The PLA is not a professional military and at best half way close to the US military. It has no recent combat records to support any doctrine it may develop or adopted. Its generals and admirals are heavily politicized and morally corrupt due to their extra-military interests in the civilian corporate sectors. If a fish rots from the head down, then the rot from the PLA's own non-professional leadership will doom the PLA in any shooting war against US.

The PLA will experience the 'shock and awe' as the Iraqis did. From the lowest private to the highest medal-ed general/admiral.


Yeah...That is what 'they' said about US back then as well. So talk away...


Not at all. You can sell the J-20 to jungle tribesmen for all we care.

You are talking about desert storm and Iraq like if you were talking about USA vs Russia, and that is far from it, when there was a possibility of confrontation between the two in Europe, the US had to wave the flag of nuclear war, because it knew that Europe and American forces there didn't stand a chance against a conventional war or invasion buy the than Soviet Union.
You seem to be enjoying the American might tested against a small country with 3 divisions of University educated volunteers, namely the republican guards and maybe 7 to 10 divisions of much less educated military with very low self confidence and easily influenced by events beyond their control, so as soon as they have lost contact with their superiors, they were almost paralysed in contrast to the republican guard that pressed on till the end of the war 10 years later.
The republican guard fought brightly and even intruded into Saudi Arabia under the nose of all the coalition forces and fought there for 48 hours before retreating to where no one of the coalition force knew. Apart from that many of the republican guard's officers split all over Iraq to organise the resistance that finally won the war and forced the US troops out by force not by diplomacy, just too many US causalities everyday that it was not feasible or sustainable to stay there.

 

[Juice]

except 20 years ago you guys had an industry, we had nothing. We advanced way more in the same 20s. Even you would dispute this would you.

Besides, what kind of Chinese weapons were even available in those days, from what I remember, almost nothing that wasn't phased out by other countries.

Repeat of desert storm, yea, keep telling yourself that. Once you fight a nation that Americans can actually find on a map with names of the country, we'll talk.

Actually, the fact that we had an industry and you didn't means we have advanced more. If one guy starts with a machine shop, and another with a sharp rock....who do you think will have advanced the most in twenty years? Plus, copying is a great short-cut....and keeps you from being left too far behind....but it never puts you ahead.

 

[Juice]

Even Vietnam army stomped over US army in 1970's, you don't have to lick American boots like that.



Ignore the troll

The Vietnam army did squat. We bounced them so bad that it took two years after we left for them to be able to scrape together an offensive. The problem was that the countryside was always a mess....the South Vietnamese would do nothing but soak up aid for personal gain....and we got sick of it.

A repeat of Desert Storm? Is that why Obama is cutting back on strikes to "limited" quantities? Is that also why Israel thought it was necessary to pre emptively strike the S-300 and Onyx missiles?



Any weapon is only as good as the person who operates them. The US forces learned that lesson in Vietnam.

Yup....pre emptively struck them.....so bad they get wiped out before you can even un box them.

 

[Lightningbolt]

Ignore the Sherminator people. I have destroyed him multiple times on this forum.

The US lost the war in Iraq in 1991. That's why they needed to come back in 2003. Their defeat in 1991 stung them. It humiliated them. The Vietnamese Sherminator is proud that his own people were raped, murdered and their bodies mutilated by the f*lthy Yankees. There are millions of Vietnamese children being born with severe deformities, they are so deformed that its difficult to see if the baby born is a human or not. That's what the repulsive Yankees did to the Sherminator's own country and people.

Ofcourse the Sherminator is enjoying his life being a janitor in the Yankee military while his Vietnamese people continue to suffer decades after the Vietnam War.

I for one am glad anytime a Yankee soldier dies. That's one less Yankee to deal with on this planet. Good riddance to garbage!!!

 

[Juice]

If our weapons are so ineffective, then you won't mind we sell them some more right?

Go for it. PS....when you say "we"...do you mean China? Because I see a US flag on your post. And you wonder why we see you all as potential traitors.