We want a carrier: GT poll

[Akasa]

China went to the West after relationship with Soviet Union went sour in the 1960's. China was no longer able to get the latest Russian toys or technical assistance from Soviet experts. It was severely lagging behind by the late 1970's. The loss of access to newer Soviet weapon technology meant China only had the West to go. Never in any point in PRC's history did China have both access to both Western and Soviet assistance. It was always one or the other. To claim that China would have done something if they had the choice is pure imagination.

The British offered their Hawk and Harrier to the Chinese, who revealed the contenders seriously. However, due to Tiananmen, it was cancelled. The time came after the Sino Soviet Split, when the West opened to China.

Great, send me these classified data so I can do a comparison.

No need, the company released specs are enough.

YJ-12:
Speed - Mach 2.5
Range - 400 km
Uses newly designed warhead with equivalent firepower of 500 kg of TNT

DH-10:
Range - 4000 km
Speed - subsonic
Can use multiple types of warheads

CJ-10:
Range - 2200 km
Speed - Mach 2.25
Can be air launched

C-803:
Range - 255 km
Speed - Mach 1.6
Uses pop up approach
98% single shot kill probability
Has dodging ability
Has strong anti jamming capability
C-805 variant has a range of 400 km

Type 59/62/69/79/80/88 still make up the bulk of Chinese tank force, modern or not.

And that comparison does not mean much. China has the world's 2nd largest tank force. If we choose to retire all the old ones, then the Type 96G and Type 99 series make up 100% of the force, and that will still remain a formidable 2800 tank force.

In this case it's not the percentage that matters; it's the numbers.

That's assuming Russians were stagnant when it comes to upgrading their own Tu-16 fleet. Unfortunately, they are now completely retired from service and replaced with much more capable Su-34/Tu-160. China has yet to develop something as capable.

That's not what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that the modern H-6 variants in service barely shares the same technologies as the Tu-16. Your saying that the modern H-6s rely on Russian technology is partially incorrect.

And yet you neglect the fact that that the "modern" equipments are only issued to front line units while the bulk are still using outdated toys.

If a 300 million man force has only 20 million "modern" soldiers, then it is still a formidable force, regardless of the percentage the "modern soldiers" comprise. In this case it's the pure numbers that matter, not the percentage.

No it does not, but apparently they were impressed with T-80 enough to implement some of its design into Type 99. Also, the original design goal of Type 96 (85IIAP) was to counter Soviet T-72, a design which was more than 15 years into service at the time.

"Implement" is a different word than "copy" or "developed from". As far as design and configuration is concerned, the Type 99 is mostly Chinese developed.

The design goal change all the time. The J-10A was originally designed to counter the MiG-29. It is no longer the goal. The Type 96G is referred to as the Type 85IIIM, not Type 85IIAP.

Not enough to change the fact that most equipments in PLA are still based on obsolete Soviet design.

Which brings me to my previous points. The bulk of the equipment are from the 1970s, when the PLA relied all on Soviet technology. Almost all modern PLA equipment are not.

Everything will eventually be replaced. However, it does not take away the fact that Romeo, Ming and Kilos are of Russian origin. It also does not take away the fact that most of the submarine force is made up of these boats.

And China has the world's 3rd largest submarine force. A small portion is big enough for China's defense. China does not need a hegemonic military force like that of the US.

Percentages can be misleading. A 100 submarine force with 90% modern equipment is still not as capable as a 3000 submarine force with 5% modern equipment.

Certainly times have changed, but it only changed for a short while.

Did I say otherwise?

Is Y-20 in service? WS-10 has not yet been put into any operational platform except J-11B. WS-15 is several years from ready. PL-12C/D and PL-21 are both in development. If anything, this comment illustrate that China is still dependent on Russians.

Hence the term "late development".

China depended on Russia to boost its industries. But do you see Russia involving with PL-12, WS-10G, WS-15, J-20, or J-11B? No. China still imports engines and many subsystems from Russia, but that is independent of China's ability to produce her own.

 

[S10]

The British offered their Hawk and Harrier to the Chinese, who revealed the contenders seriously. However, due to Tiananmen, it was cancelled. The time came after the Sino Soviet Split, when the West opened to China.

When the West opened up to China, the relationship with Soviet Union was broken. It wasn't until mid 1985 that it was slowly repaired and first orders for Su-27 were placed in 1988. China DID NOT have a choice on who to import from. It was either the Russians before the split or West after the split. Choice implies you can freely choose between both, not the case.

No need, the company released specs are enough.

YJ-12:
Speed - Mach 2.5
Range - 400 km
Uses newly designed warhead with equivalent firepower of 500 kg of TNT

DH-10:
Range - 4000 km
Speed - subsonic
Can use multiple types of warheads

CJ-10:
Range - 2200 km
Speed - Mach 2.25
Can be air launched

C-803:
Range - 255 km
Speed - Mach 1.6
Uses pop up approach
98% single shot kill probability
Has dodging ability
Has strong anti jamming capability
C-805 variant has a range of 400 km

These specs are meaningless without context and without actual sources backing them up. Wikipedia/sinodefence are not legitimate sources. Don't mentino Huitong either. It would take actual classified military documents regarding capability and test data. Don't make claims you can't back up.

And that comparison does not mean much. China has the world's 2nd largest tank force. If we choose to retire all the old ones, then the Type 96G and Type 99 series make up 100% of the force, and that will still remain a formidable 2800 tank force.

In this case it's not the percentage that matters; it's the numbers.

PLA leadership deemed that they needed to maintain the bulk of their tank force, so it can be safely assumed that they deemed 2800 Type 96/99 aren't adequate enough to satisfy numbers needed.

That's not what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that the modern H-6 variants in service barely shares the same technologies as the Tu-16. Your saying that the modern H-6s rely on Russian technology is partially incorrect.

Put all lipstick you want on a dog and it's still a dog. Put all the gadgets you want on an obsolete platform and it's still an obsolete platform. Some inherent flaws cannot be overcome with upgrades. H-6 will never be as capable as Su-34/Tu-160, hell I don't it would even be as capable as Tu-22M.

If a 300 million man force has only 20 million "modern" soldiers, then it is still a formidable force, regardless of the percentage the "modern soldiers" comprise. In this case it's the pure numbers that matter, not the percentage.

China does not have 20 million troops let alone "modern" troops. It has 2.3 million in total, 1.6 million of which are ground forces including about 100k Second Artillery. On the other hand, even American national guards units are better equipped than most PLA units, probably with actual combat experience too.

"Implement" is a different word than "copy" or "developed from". As far as design and configuration is concerned, the Type 99 is mostly Chinese developed.

Never said it wasn't, but the bulk of the tank force is still made up of old Soviet design.

The design goal change all the time. The J-10A was originally designed to counter the MiG-29. It is no longer the goal. The Type 96G is referred to as the Type 85IIIM, not Type 85IIAP.

Problem is your design goal to match the T-72 was 15 years after T-72 was introduced into service, almost 20 years for T-64. Russian tank development slowed after its collapse, allowing China to catch up. Even then, the Type 96/99 was originally considered to have fallen below of their design goal, especially related to engine/transmission.

Type 85 IIA is the right designation. P is the ones manufactured by HIT in Pak.

Which brings me to my previous points. The bulk of the equipment are from the 1970s, when the PLA relied all on Soviet technology. Almost all modern PLA equipment are not.

"Modern" equipments are only issued to first tier units, a minority within the PLA. Bragging you have a nice sofa when your house is worn down is funny.

And China has the world's 3rd largest submarine force. A small portion is big enough for China's defense. China does not need a hegemonic military force like that of the US.

Percentages can be misleading. A 100 submarine force with 90% modern equipment is still not as capable as a 3000 submarine force with 5% modern equipment.

With the exception of a dozen newer subs, China's submarine force are largely obsolete. No, it doesn't have 3000 or 100 subs even. Even to this very day, Russian submarine development still leaves China in the dust be it weapon systems or propulsion.

Did I say otherwise?

Then don't bring up a few toys and talk like PLA is some modernized force. It is not. 比下有余，比上不足。

Hence the term "late development".

China depended on Russia to boost its industries. But do you see Russia involving with PL-12, WS-10G, WS-15, J-20, or J-11B? No. China still imports engines and many subsystems from Russia, but that is independent of China's ability to produce her own.

None of the things you've mentioned are in operational service except J-11B and PL-12. At the same time, PLA kept on importing similar equipments from Russia, which obviously demonstrate their lack of complete confidence in these new developments.

 

[CardSharp]

^^^^^

Interesting discussion, I have to say that I lean toward S10's evaluation of things esp. on the submarines.

What I can find about China's boomers from more reliable sources are that China is decades behind in terms of crew experience, and quietness.

China’s Noisy Nuclear Submarines » FAS Strategic Security Blog
Jeffrey Lewis • China's Noisy New Boomer

 

[CardSharp]

By and large the PLA is still a outsized and outdated self-defence force with little power projection. But I am optimistic. The PLA reformers have taken a very practical and realistic schedule for the PLA's transformation into a high-tech professional force, of which we are only 30 years in and about half way through.

Cliff's note, let's not oversell capabilities and buck up, the good part is still ahead for us defence watcher.

 

[Akasa]

When the West opened up to China, the relationship with Soviet Union was broken. It wasn't until mid 1985 that it was slowly repaired and first orders for Su-27 were placed in 1988. China DID NOT have a choice on who to import from. It was either the Russians before the split or West after the split. Choice implies you can freely choose between both, not the case.

Which is why BAe offered the Harrier to China. At that time the Western powers wanted China to be a counterweight to the Soviet Union.

These specs are meaningless without context and without actual sources backing them up. Wikipedia/sinodefence are not legitimate sources. Don't mentino Huitong either. It would take actual classified military documents regarding capability and test data. Don't make claims you can't back up.

These are what the company`s export specs were. That`s about as `legitimate`as it gets.

PLA leadership deemed that they needed to maintain the bulk of their tank force, so it can be safely assumed that they deemed 2800 Type 96/99 aren't adequate enough to satisfy numbers needed.

Then that`s their problem. The `numbers`they are talking about is simply too unreal for PLA`s production capabilities. It took 12 years to build 500 Type 99 tanks; by the time their definition of `satisfactory numbers`is reached, the US would already be rolling out the M1A3 in big numbers.

If you add 30000 T-55 tanks to the US Army, the US Army would no longer be considered a `modernized force`, but it will still remain more powerful than a 10-tank force with 10 `modern`tanks.

Put all lipstick you want on a dog and it's still a dog. Put all the gadgets you want on an obsolete platform and it's still an obsolete platform. Some inherent flaws cannot be overcome with upgrades. H-6 will never be as capable as Su-34/Tu-160, hell I don't it would even be as capable as Tu-22M.

A dog isn`t a plane. A Super Hornet is not the same as an F-18C. In this day of information warfare, the avionics seems to play a bigger role than airframe itself. The modern H-6s have different guts and brains than the original Tu-16. That hardly makes the two the same. Their capabilities are still both very obsolete, but the two are different in internal configuration.

The H-6 is comparable to the Avro Vulcan.

China does not have 20 million troops let alone "modern" troops. It has 2.3 million in total, 1.6 million of which are ground forces including about 100k Second Artillery. On the other hand, even American national guards units are better equipped than most PLA units, probably with actual combat experience too.

Thanks for not noting my analogy (I was making an example; I know the PLA has only 2.3 million standing troops). It is impossible, with the current PLA budget, to equip every PLA division with Chinese `modern individual equipment`` like the ones I posted in an older thread. In fact, PLA commanders stated that only the most elite special units have regular body armor.

It is up to the industry to build more `modern individual equipment`. It`s about numbers. You can technically make the PLA a `modernized`force by deactivating and throwing out the bulk of the force. But what good will that do?

Never said it wasn't, but the bulk of the tank force is still made up of old Soviet design.

Never said otherwise.

Problem is your design goal to match the T-72 was 15 years after T-72 was introduced into service, almost 20 years for T-64. Russian tank development slowed after its collapse, allowing China to catch up. Even then, the Type 96/99 was originally considered to have fallen below of their design goal, especially related to engine/transmission.

Which is why they spent a lot of time improving it and changing its design goal. Chinese engineers put the Type 99A2`s capabilities on par with the M1A2 Abrams, hardly the original goal for which the Type 99 was developed.

"Modern" equipments are only issued to first tier units, a minority within the PLA. Bragging you have a nice sofa when your house is worn down is funny.

And so it`s a matter of numbers, not technology. Proves my previous points. It`s now about producing more Type 99 tanks, more Type 039B submarines, more J-10B fighters, more QBU-09 sniper rifles.

Having 10 nice houses and 200 worn down houses is better than the guy that has 2 nice houses and 2 houses only.

With the exception of a dozen newer subs, China's submarine force are largely obsolete. No, it doesn't have 3000 or 100 subs even. Even to this very day, Russian submarine development still leaves China in the dust be it weapon systems or propulsion.

I was using the 3000 sub force as an exaggerated example. China has around 60 submarines, and though most of them are Type 035s or Type 033s, modern subs like the Type 039G, Type 041, and Type 039B do not have much Russian influence. Although not being able to match Russian counterparts like the Lada, they are still huge improvements and proves the PLA`s improvement.

The `dozen`of newer subs is sufficient for defense of China for now. It`s a matter of numbers from now on.

Then don't bring up a few toys and talk like PLA is some modernized force. It is not. 比下有余，比上不足。

Then you didn`t read my previous posts. Did I ever say the PLA was largely modernized? I was referring to specific modern equipment of the PLA, regardless to what extent these are deployed in the PLA.

None of the things you've mentioned are in operational service except J-11B and PL-12. At the same time, PLA kept on importing similar equipments from Russia, which obviously demonstrate their lack of complete confidence in these new developments.

Hence the term `late development`, again.

PLA imports similar equipment mostly to supplement the older equipment, which makes up the bulk of the force. Some of the older equipment are not compatible with contemporary Chinese weapons packages.

 

[Akasa]

By and large the PLA is still a outsized and outdated self-defence force with little power projection. But I am optimistic. The PLA reformers have taken a very practical and realistic schedule for the PLA's transformation into a high-tech professional force, of which we are only 30 years in and about half way through.

Cliff's note, let's oversell capabilities and buck up, the good part is still ahead for us defence watcher.

Producing high tech equipment for 2.3 million soldiers is nothing short of impossible. And even if they kept on producing them, by the time they are fully deployed, they will already be considered outdated.

It`s better to produce some high tech equipment and keep the development and improving process going.

With the current budget, I`ll be happy to see the PLA equip 5% of their force with high tech equipment.

 

[S10]

Producing high tech equipment for 2.3 million soldiers is nothing short of impossible. And even if they kept on producing them, by the time they are fully deployed, they will already be considered outdated.

Americans were able to equip their forces, including their reserves and national guard, with modern equipments. Same went for the Soviet Union until its collapse.

It`s better to produce some high tech equipment and keep the development and improving process going.

That's what the French thought too before WWII. When Germany attacked, the French troops didn't know how to operate them and was captured by Germans. Newer equipments require different set of training and doctrine. It's meaningless if your troops are not familiar with them.

With the current budget, I`ll be happy to see the PLA equip 5% of their force with high tech equipment.

And that 5% would be lost very quickly in the intensity of modern warfare, while the rest of your obsolete forces crumble because they cannot use newly issued toys properly.

 

[S10]

Which is why BAe offered the Harrier to China. At that time the Western powers wanted China to be a counterweight to the Soviet Union.

You said China had a choice between Western and Soviet equipment when it obviously didn't. The choice never existed. When Soviets offered assistance, the West denied it. When West offered it, Soviet route was closed.

These are what the company`s export specs were. That`s about as `legitimate`as it gets.

My S10 Missle
Range: 10000KM
Speed: Mach 10
Hit Probability: 150%
Immune to jamming and all forms of electronic warfare
Completely invisible to all methods of detection

Yeah these are straight from company's export specs, so they're legit. Now do you actually have a source and classified test comparison data that stateds Chinese missiles are superior to Russians'? Because that's what it's going to take to prove your claim. Don't make a claim unless you can reasonably support it.

Then that`s their problem. The `numbers`they are talking about is simply too unreal for PLA`s production capabilities. It took 12 years to build 500 Type 99 tanks; by the time their definition of `satisfactory numbers`is reached, the US would already be rolling out the M1A3 in big numbers.

If you add 30000 T-55 tanks to the US Army, the US Army would no longer be considered a `modernized force`, but it will still remain more powerful than a 10-tank force with 10 `modern`tanks.

When you don't have the money or production capability to produce newer MBT in numbers, that's another sign you are behind. Bragging about how some select few units have nice toys is folly. Libya has a nice Khamis Brigade too, but doesn't mean the Libyan army isn't complete crap.

A dog isn`t a plane. A Super Hornet is not the same as an F-18C. In this day of information warfare, the avionics seems to play a bigger role than airframe itself. The modern H-6s have different guts and brains than the original Tu-16. That hardly makes the two the same. Their capabilities are still both very obsolete, but the two are different in internal configuration.

The Super Hornet cannot supercruise, cannot go faster than Mach 1.8, and cannot be low observable. It certainly is an improvement over Hornets, but somethings you cannot overcome because the flaws are inherent in the design. So yes, my analogy applies.

The H-6 is comparable to the Avro Vulcan.

The H-6 is fit for the recylcing yard had PLAAF gotten better options.

Thanks for not noting my analogy (I was making an example; I know the PLA has only 2.3 million standing troops). It is impossible, with the current PLA budget, to equip every PLA division with Chinese `modern individual equipment`` like the ones I posted in an older thread. In fact, PLA commanders stated that only the most elite special units have regular body armor.

It is up to the industry to build more `modern individual equipment`. It`s about numbers. You can technically make the PLA a `modernized`force by deactivating and throwing out the bulk of the force. But what good will that do?

Then the PLA is largely an obsolete force unsuited for modern warfare against capable adversaries. It's that simple. On the other hand, Russia is still ahead by a wide margin since they were able to equip their units better.

Which is why they spent a lot of time improving it and changing its design goal. Chinese engineers put the Type 99A2`s capabilities on par with the M1A2 Abrams, hardly the original goal for which the Type 99 was developed.

And so it`s a matter of numbers, not technology. Proves my previous points. It`s now about producing more Type 99 tanks, more Type 039B submarines, more J-10B fighters, more QBU-09 sniper rifles.

It's not just numbers. It takes years to develop the training, doctrine and tactics for newer weapon systems. New generation of weapons is a revolution in military doctrine. You can't expect units operating Type-59 tanks to be able to effectively utilize the latetst Type 99A2. So yes, it is a matter of technology, and your inability to use it.

Having 10 nice houses and 200 worn down houses is better than the guy that has 2 nice houses and 2 houses only.

Except the other guy has the same number of houses and they're all nice. Oh and he can build houses faster than you.

I was using the 3000 sub force as an exaggerated example. China has around 60 submarines, and though most of them are Type 035s or Type 033s, modern subs like the Type 039G, Type 041, and Type 039B do not have much Russian influence. Although not being able to match Russian counterparts like the Lada, they are still huge improvements and proves the PLA`s improvement.

Sure, but they're still lagging behind.

The `dozen`of newer subs is sufficient for defense of China for now. It`s a matter of numbers from now on.

The word sufficient" is contexual. Sufficient against who? Not United States, not Russia and certainly not Japan.

Then you didn`t read my previous posts. Did I ever say the PLA was largely modernized? I was referring to specific modern equipment of the PLA, regardless to what extent these are deployed in the PLA.

No, peaceful stated Russian equipments were crap. You stated China only bought them for cheap price and sake of relationship, which was not the case. Russian hardware was and to a lesser extent still is superior to Chinese made ones.

Hence the term `late development`, again.

PLA imports similar equipment mostly to supplement the older equipment, which makes up the bulk of the force. Some of the older equipment are not compatible with contemporary Chinese weapons packages.

Then don't mention things on plan as if you have them. Fact of the matter is China is still heavily dependent on Russia.

 

[below_freezing]

Some facts remain: Russia has not yet deployed a destroyer comparable to the US Arleigh Burke. But we have deployed the 052C with equivalent radar.

Russia's stealth fighter is, visually at least, behind the J-20.

If you go by the fact that a company's own issued specs are not good enough, then I just have to ask:

How do you know the F-22 is good? It has never seen actual combat. No outside parties have tested it. No non-US pilots have sat in its cockpit. There were signs of scandals with the anti-radar coating. All we have to go by is the company's own specs. So how do we know the F-22 is good? Apply your scrutiny to other armed forces and they also fall apart.

CS:

You are comparing nuclear subs. Diesel subs are all electric and have no engine noise, only shaft and propeller noise.

 

[S10]

Some facts remain: Russia has not yet deployed a destroyer comparable to the US Arleigh Burke. But we have deployed the 052C with equivalent radar.

Two 052C in service, while 051C that came after still purchased Russian Top Plate radar and utilized S-300. The fact that following on ships to 052C are only being constructed now is indicative of immaturity of the class.

Russia's stealth fighter is, visually at least, behind the J-20.

You don't measure the a plane by its exterior views, especially a prototype.

If you go by the fact that a company's own issued specs are not good enough, then I just have to ask:

How do you know the F-22 is good? It has never seen actual combat. No outside parties have tested it. No non-US pilots have sat in its cockpit. There were signs of scandals with the anti-radar coating. All we have to go by is the company's own specs. So how do we know the F-22 is good? Apply your scrutiny to other armed forces and they also fall apart.

He hasn't provided a source for those specs, only claimed they were company released. On the other hand, LM released plenty of information regarding the F-22. Furthermore, he went on to say that Chinese missiles are superior to Russians', without having any sort of data to back up his claim. Given the fact that China is still importing Russian missiles, the claim is dubious at best.

CS:

You are comparing nuclear subs. Diesel subs are all electric and have no engine noise, only shaft and propeller noise.

Nuclear submarines offer significant advantage over diesel electric subs in terms of speed, endurance, diving depth and adaptability. Even in terms of electric diesel submarines, do you think China is capable of matching the latest Japanese/Russian counters?

In short, China is in no place to militarily look down upon Russia. Economy-wise, however, is a different matter.

 

[Tin Man]

Some facts remain: Russia has not yet deployed a destroyer comparable to the US Arleigh Burke. But we have deployed the 052C with equivalent radar.

Russia's stealth fighter is, visually at least, behind the J-20.

If you go by the fact that a company's own issued specs are not good enough, then I just have to ask:

How do you know the F-22 is good? It has never seen actual combat. No outside parties have tested it. No non-US pilots have sat in its cockpit. There were signs of scandals with the anti-radar coating. All we have to go by is the company's own specs. So how do we know the F-22 is good? Apply your scrutiny to other armed forces and they also fall apart.

CS:

The british have flown the f-22.

 

[gambit]

No non-US pilots have sat in its cockpit.

The british have flown the f-22.

You must excuse the young man. Neither sourcing his arguments nor exercising due diligence are something familiar.

VIDEO - RIAT 2008: F-22 display follows 'flawless' first transatlantic crossing

The deployment took place at altitudes of up to the high-20,000ft bracket, said RAF F-22 exchange pilot Flt Lt Dan Robinson, who had the distinction of landing the first Raptor to touch down on UK soil.

 

[below_freezing]

Two 052C in service, while 051C that came after still purchased Russian Top Plate radar and utilized S-300. The fact that following on ships to 052C are only being constructed now is indicative of immaturity of the class.


You don't measure the a plane by its exterior views, especially a prototype.


He hasn't provided a source for those specs, only claimed they were company released. On the other hand, LM released plenty of information regarding the F-22. Furthermore, he went on to say that Chinese missiles are superior to Russians', without having any sort of data to back up his claim. Given the fact that China is still importing Russian missiles, the claim is dubious at best.

Nuclear submarines offer significant advantage over diesel electric subs in terms of speed, endurance, diving depth and adaptability. Even in terms of electric diesel submarines, do you think China is capable of matching the latest Japanese/Russian counters?

In short, China is in no place to militarily look down upon Russia. Economy-wise, however, is a different matter.

With visual inspection we can figure many things out. For example, the gap between the fuselage and the intakes of the F-22 could result in radio waves constructively interfering and becoming significant source of reflections. The J-20 avoids that issue altogether.

The T-50 also has gaps and major surface flaws that act to create specular reflection off the panels, which defeats the purpose of stealth shaping. In addition, it does not have a 1 piece canopy, and the metal frame of the windows could reflect radio waves back towards the receiver.

For the missiles:

DH-10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2008, a Pentagon report estimated the range of the DH-10 as over 4,000 km and that from 50 to 250 missiles had been deployed[1]

Kh-55 (missile family) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has a range of up to 3,000 km (1,620 nmi) and can carry conventional or nuclear warheads. Kh-55 is launched exclusively from bomber aircraft and has spawned a number of conventionally armed variants mainly for tactical use,

There is the evidence. Russia has no other subsonic long range cruise missiles other than KH-55. DH-10 has a 1000 km longer range. Is this sufficient proof?

 

[gambit]

With visual inspection we can figure many things out. For example, the gap between the fuselage and the intakes of the F-22 could result in radio waves constructively interfering and becoming significant source of reflections. The J-20 avoids that issue altogether.

And you would be wrong. If that is what you think how RCS calculations work then I hope every Chinese engineers on the J-20 think like you. It would make detecting the J-20 and shooting it down easier.

You are correct -- from reading me no less -- that there are constructive interference in multiple reflections region. But you are wrong in thinking that is how final RCS calculations are derived on a complex body. If the rest of the aircraft do not rise above a certain threshold in measurement, then the inlet regions are irrelevant. Further, the companion to constructive interference is destructive interference so for all you know, the F-22's inlets could produce nothing but destructive interference in relation to the surrounding structures.

Stay out of areas you know nothing about.

 

[Akasa]

You said China had a choice between Western and Soviet equipment when it obviously didn't. The choice never existed. When Soviets offered assistance, the West denied it. When West offered it, Soviet route was closed.

I said that China had a choice among Western weapons. The BAe Harrier was one of them.

My S10 Missle
Range: 10000KM
Speed: Mach 10
Hit Probability: 150%
Immune to jamming and all forms of electronic warfare
Completely invisible to all methods of detection

Yeah these are straight from company's export specs, so they're legit. Now do you actually have a source and classified test comparison data that stateds Chinese missiles are superior to Russians'? Because that's what it's going to take to prove your claim. Don't make a claim unless you can reasonably support it.

Great, try exporting your S10 to the Pakistani Navy. Oh wait, it doesn't exist, does it?

If you know something about export regulations, you would know that the export specs are usually downgraded from the domestic ones.

When you don't have the money or production capability to produce newer MBT in numbers, that's another sign you are behind. Bragging about how some select few units have nice toys is folly. Libya has a nice Khamis Brigade too, but doesn't mean the Libyan army isn't complete crap.

A select "few" units happen to have 2800 modern tanks, which is more than what most modern militaries have. Libya's Kahmis Brigade also does not happen to have tanks equipped with laser blinding devices, DU-capable guns, Active Protection Systems, and that are comparable to the M1A2 Abrams.

The Super Hornet cannot supercruise, cannot go faster than Mach 1.8, and cannot be low observable. It certainly is an improvement over Hornets, but somethings you cannot overcome because the flaws are inherent in the design. So yes, my analogy applies.

False. The Super Hornet is in fact much stealthier than the original F/A-18C with a decrease to roughly 1 m^2 when it comes to RCS. Its airframe also happens to be larger than the original F/A-18C. The biggest difference is the addition of the APG-79 AESA radar.

So, if you ask me, the Super Hornet bears a big difference in regards to the F/A-18C.

The H-6 is fit for the recylcing yard had PLAAF gotten better options.

Hence the development of the H-X and the attempts to build the H-6K as a stop gap measure.

Then the PLA is largely an obsolete force unsuited for modern warfare against capable adversaries. It's that simple. On the other hand, Russia is still ahead by a wide margin since they were able to equip their units better.

Unsuitable for warfare against adversaries like US, Russia, or alliances, but the PLA holds (by numbers) more "modern equipment" than most other armies.

Russia is pretty much in the same ratio situation as the PLA. Their T-90 tanks makes up a fraction of their (rather large) tank force, their Su-35BM fighters is a pinpoint when compared to their entire arsenal, their Borei and Lada class submarines haven't finished development yet, and as far as I know, their Navy does not possess a single AEGIS-type destroyer yet.

It's not just numbers. It takes years to develop the training, doctrine and tactics for newer weapon systems. New generation of weapons is a revolution in military doctrine. You can't expect units operating Type-59 tanks to be able to effectively utilize the latetst Type 99A2. So yes, it is a matter of technology, and your inability to use it.

Then it's a matter of training and planning. Those two are separate beasts. The reason why the National Revolutionary Army failed against the much inferior equipped People's Liberation Army was because of training, tactics, and effective use of their weapons.

Except the other guy has the same number of houses and they're all nice. Oh and he can build houses faster than you.

Except that he's one of the very few guys that can do that.
And also except that you were guy that had only 2 houses several decades ago.

Sure, but they're still lagging behind.

The Song series are behind the latest Russian Lada subs, yes, but we do not know its comparison with the Yuan and the Improved Yuan until we see further data. From what we know, all three submarines have Air Independent Propulsion, but until we get decibel readings, we can not say which one is superior to the other.

The word sufficient" is contexual. Sufficient against who? Not United States, not Russia and certainly not Japan.

The thing is that the US Navy does not deploy diesel electric submarines, Russia does not have enough Ladas to make a difference, and we don't know how the Improved Yuan (designation Type 039B or Type 041A) fares against the Soryu class. So, in terms of diesel electric submarines, yes, it's sufficient.

No, peaceful stated Russian equipments were crap. You stated China only bought them for cheap price and sake of relationship, which was not the case. Russian hardware was and to a lesser extent still is superior to Chinese made ones.

I said that China bought Russian equipment to boost their industries, and it has been successful at doing so.

It really depends on which sector of Russian arms you are considering when speaking of "superior". Bombers, yes. Nuclear submarines, yes. Transports, yes. Armored & artillery, no. Destroyers & frigates, no. ASAT/ABM missiles, no.

Then don't mention things on plan as if you have them. Fact of the matter is China is still heavily dependent on Russia.

I was trying to show that the PLA has its own industries producing similar equipment, not stating that these had already entered service. Read my posts carefully.

Again, speaking of dependence, it depend on what field you are talking about.