What's new

Why the Chinese military is only a paper dragon.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Perhaps this video will change your opinion?

View attachment 162846
Hey, it's not good to hurt their emotions. The war has pasted for more than 50 years. We both need to learn something from that. At that time, India got independence for a decade, they were too aggressive and nationalistic. I hope nowadays Indian could be more friendly and open-minded. Also we need to respect India like we did 2000 years ago. We learned Buddha and some kind of music, dance from India.
 
. .
China needs to cut the overall size of its military to better equip its military with the latest weapons and sub systems. This article is not entirely accurate, however China does have a long way to go for catching up with US. The US military is huge and technically superior because it fought dozens of wars in last 60-70 years.

A common misconception is that the equipment of your entire army has to be the newest model in order to function effectively. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Military production during peace time is typically slow. A lot of equipments can be used for quite a long period of time before needing to be replaced. Of course, "outdated" equipment also undergoes continuous refit.

Take the Chinese type-59 tank for example. Orionhunter claimed that "The other 7,130 Chinese tanks — some of which are pictured here — are the same descendants of Soviet T-55s that comprised Beijing's armored force in the late 1980s … and were obsolete even then."

Let's take a look at the current type-59's spec, shall we?

Tank weight: 37 tons
weight power ratio: 14.4/ton
top speed: 50 km
105 mm cannon capable of 600 mm of armor penetration at 2000 meters
also capable of firing 105 mm missiles capable at 700mm of armor penetration at 5.2 km range
turret armor rated at 520 mm HEAT
Body Armor rated at 490 mm HEAT
Can be fitted with explosive reactive external modules
advanced fire suppression system capable of extinguishing flames within 10 ms.
third generation night/low light version with a range of 2000 meters.

Sure, it is not going to beat type-96 or type 99 in a one on one fight, but its performance is still very respectable. More importantly, it is more than a match with other nation's second line tanks.

Now, we are currently at a unique historical period. While no war has broke out between major powers in almost 60 years, many of these powers have spent the time period between 1950 to 1990 gearing up for a total war. This means the major players, such as US, Russia, China all have tons of extra equipment from this period. For example, even though US built over 6000 Abrams, only 1400 are actually in service and the others, as well as earlier MBTs, are put into storage instead. Chinese type 59 are in a similar situation.
To simple put, both China and US has way more tank than it needs right now. However, since Type-59 is not actually the top of the line gear for PLA. Many of them are instead sold to other countries instead of being put into storage.

I think whoever wrote this article is either very ignorant on how military equipment works or assumes the readers are ignorant. There isn't a single major military in the world that do not have a large amount of legacy equipment laying around.
 
Last edited:
.
India and Pakistan both have much more battle xp than Chinese army. Indian Army is fighting terrorists in kashmir day per day basis. you can not deny the fact that xp is much more effective. Indian army is weaker than Chinese but the difference is minimal and xp of Indian army give India and edge over China in any battle

You have experience losing battles ... that's not a good thing.
 
.
This is an opinion of someone who nobody on earth cares about. /endtopic
 
.

Perhaps this video will change your opinion?

View attachment 162846
You troll, stop derailing this thread. This isn't about India but Communist China and its charade of calling itself a 'super power'!!

Now go and play Chinese checkers and stop wasting our time here. Grow some brain cells first before taking part in serious discussions.
 
. .
China's military buildup, along with an aggressive foreign policy, has inspired a fair amount of alarm in the West. Some American policymakers consider Beijing to be Washington's only "near-peer competitor" — in other words, the only country with the military might to actually beat the U.S. military in certain circumstances.

But they're wrong. Even after decades of expensive rearmament, China is a paper dragon — a version of what Mao Zedong wrongly claimed the United States was … in 1956.

Despite a growing defense budget, China's arsenals still overflow with outdated equipment. The PLA possesses 7,580 main battle tanks, but only 450 of those tanks — the Type 98As and Type 99s — are anywhere near modern, with 125-millimeter guns, composite armor, modern suspension, and advanced fire control systems.

The other 7,130 Chinese tanks — some of which are pictured here — are the same descendants of Soviet T-55s that comprised Beijing's armored force in the late 1980s … and were obsolete even then.

China also has a lot of fighter planes. Between the People's Liberation Army Air Force and the air arm of the People's Liberation Army Navy, China boasts no fewer than 1,321 fighter aircraft, an aerial armada only slightly smaller than America's.

But China's air forces likewise maintain mostly obsolete jets. Of 1,321 fighters, only 502 are modern — 296 variants of the Russian Su-27 and 206 J-10s of an indigenous design. The remaining 819 fighters — mostly J-7s, J-8s and Q-5s — are 1960s designs built in the 1970s. They wouldn't last long in a shooting war.

The navy is in the best shape, but that's not saying much. The PLAN's destroyers and frigates are fairly new, but its first aircraft carrier Liaoning is a rebuilt Soviet ship from the 1980s. After a nine-year refit, Liaoning started sea trials in 2011.

Liaoning is half the size of an American Nimitz-class supercarrier and carries half as many planes. As Liaoning lacks a catapult, China's J-15 naval fighters must use a ski ramp to take off — and that limits their payload and range. Liaoning lacks the radar and refueling planes that give American flattops their long-range striking power.

Submarines are another problem area for the PLAN. Just over half of China's 54 submarines are modern — that is, built within the last 20 years. Beijing's modern undersea fleet includes the Shang, Han, Yuan, and Song classes. All four classes are Chinese-built. All are markedly inferior to Western designs.

The rest of China's submarines, especially its 1980s-vintage Mings, are totally obsolete.

The PLAN halted production of the nuclear-powered Shang class after only building just three boats — an ominous sign. Moreover, Beijing has placed an order with Russia for up to four Kalina-class subs, signalling a lack of faith in local designs.

One of the most visible signs of China's military rise is all the 'new', locally-designed and -produced hardware. Beijing is building new ships, aircraft, drones and tanks most of it reversed engineered from Russian technology, that, on the outside, appear to be matches for Western weapons. But we know very little about China's homemade weaponry. Specifically, we don't know if any of it really works. :lol:

Many of China's "new" weapons are actually foreign designs that Beijing's state companies have licensed, stolen, or painstakingly reverse-engineered. The Changhe Z-8 helicopter was originally the French Super Frelon. The Harbin Z-9 scout helicopter started life as the Eurocopter Dauphin. The Type 99 tank is an updated Soviet T-72.


The J-20 stealth fighter prototype, for example, has flown scores of test flights since first appearing in late 2010. The large, angular plane appears to boast long range and a large payload, but its stealthiness is hard to gauge. Its avionics, aerodynamic controls, weapons, and sensors — and especially its engines — are equally questionable.

The J-20's designers appear to be waiting on new, Chinese-developed engines to replace the prototype's Russian-made AL-31Ns. China has been working on those engines, without visible success, since the early 1990s.

It's important to remember that America's latest F-35 Joint Strike Fighter first flew in 2006 and won't be ready for combat until 2016. The United States has experience developing stealth fighters; China does not. If we allow China 10 years from first flight to combat readiness, the J-20 won't be a front-line fighter until 2021. At the earliest.

Why the Chinese military is only a paper dragon - The Week


So, all this talk of a 'super military' capability of the Chinese is just so much hogwash. It's nothing but a paper tiger....errr...paper dragon at present. It would take decades to catch up with the West. In fact it can never hope to do so.

If our Chinese friends and their allies on this forum intend to troll, they need to come out with concrete facts and figures, not spew rubbish for the heck of it.

Thank you!
kindly next time post the full news in the forum not yr selected info. @Horus kindly look at this troll tactic.The article written by Kyle Mizokaami is awfully long with lots of things in it.........Why the Chinese military is only a paper dragon - The Week

For example writer writes this in the end;
Yet China is a hobbled giant with many deep, systemic problems. Some of these problems — particularly the technological ones — are solvable. The demographic issue is not. And it's the biggest reason the paper dragon does not pose a major threat to the rest of the world over the long term.
 
.
We need a balanced approach here.Of Course US Army is multiple times better than the PLA in technological field.But they cant sustain a war with PLA without airsupport.They cant do that even against India.So PLA can resist USArmy perhaps defeat them.
When it comes to the Navy .USN is light years ahead than PLAN .At its present stage even IN can challenge PLAN.
But further modernistaion will enable the PLAN to compete USN within next 30 years.

And when it comes to the Airforce .US is again miles ahead than PLAAF .Except those 450 modern jets ,PLAAF dont have anything to offer.In current scenario fighters from US navy will
knockdown thosemodern Chinese fighters .
Rest of them are just a turkey shooting for USN.
The performance of Chinese radars against fighters F 22 is even doubtful.
 
.
Hey, it's not good to hurt their emotions. The war has pasted for more than 50 years. We both need to learn something from that. At that time, India got independence for a decade, they were too aggressive and nationalistic. I hope nowadays Indian could be more friendly and open-minded. Also we need to respect India like we did 2000 years ago. We learned Buddha and some kind of music, dance from India.
Except buddha was from Nepal and India with one ruler did not exist
 
. .
kindly next time post the full news in the forum not yr selected info. @Horus kindly look at this troll tactic.The article written by Kyle Mizokaami is awfully long with lots of things in it.........Why the Chinese military is only a paper dragon - The Week

For example writer writes this in the end;
Yet China is a hobbled giant with many deep, systemic problems. Some of these problems — particularly the technological ones — are solvable. The demographic issue is not. And it's the biggest reason the paper dragon does not pose a major threat to the rest of the world over the long term.
Don't give nonsensical advice. If one wants to quote something from a book, does one have to copy/paste the entire book on the post? You can't because it's impractical. So you pull out relevant excerpts and paste it, providing the link below the post, giving a choice to the reader whether he wants to read the entire article/book or not..

I thought you knew this common methodology employed across all websites/forums? Now stop trolling and move on. This post of yours has made you look pretty silly.
 
.
But further modernistaion will enable the PLAN to compete USN within next 30 years.
USA will still have technological edge.

It seems that most of these statements are simply skewed statistics. The article is indeed correct in stating that most of the equipment used by the Chinese military haven't been replaced by newer counterparts, but please do keep in mind that their military is also significantly larger than any other force besides the Russians and the U.S. Hence, they would have considerably bigger quantities of "modern" equipment than most other militaries even if the percentage of modernized gear may be lower at the first glance.



Same kind of logic with the above statement. The sheer size of the PLAAF means that it will still have more modern aircraft than most nations, by number, even if the percentage thereof is lower compared with the rest of the force.



And because it has gone into a refit, the fact that it was built in the 1980s is of much irrelevance here.



How did the author manage to obtain the secret performance data on the Chinese naval AESA and the US one?



The rest of China's submarines, especially its 1980s-vintage Mings, are totally obsolete.

Still the same logic as the first two statements. Half of a 54-boat force would still comprise of more modern equipment than any other navy aside from that of the United States and Russia.



Kalina deal was already denied by the Russian government. As far as satellite images are concerned, yes, the Chinese are still building their nuclear attack submarines, which speaks volumes of the author's quality of research.



I have yet to read an article on this matter that doesn't resort to outdated stereotypes for the purpose of sentiments.



Having the design based on something else does not preclude it from being modified in such manner that allows it to adopt modern capabilities when coupled with their own research and technologies. And no, there is not one shred of evidence that the Type 99 was rooted in the T-72.



Questionable does not mean impossible.



The WS-10A engine has equipped the J-11B and J-16 in service, and has been powering the prototypes of the J-10B and J-15.



And yet the author does not take into account that China's military development is anything but linear, which would mean that to measure its military developments with that of the United States cannot be done with a simple add and subtract.



No worries, buddy; all of the "trolling" has already been done by you and the waste of screen space that this article has become.
Comparison is between China and USA not other country.
 
.
true, this article is absolutely true, we are paper dragon.

Just let little China go, please, great India.

:bunny:
 
.
USA will still have technological edge.
The US is far ahead of the Chinese considering the enormous experience they have had in numerous wars. They have top secret black project programs where billion upon billions of dollars have been pumped into them to produce exotic technology.

Many whistle blowers who have previously worked in these projects contend that the technology they have is more than 50 years ahead of mainstream scientific knowledge!

Remember Donald Rumsfeld had admitted to the missing $2 trillion!! Where did it all go? The top secret black project programs!
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom