Why the Chinese military is only a paper dragon.

[walle990]

i see our foreign friends are living in denial once again.

 

[DesiGuy]

Chinese military is vastly over-rated...they lack so much experience...!

There is no way an US army can invade Chinese mainland. Same for India because of our huge population density. Its soldiers are better equipped though not equal to USA. Its navy is something they can be proud of and in Missile arena.
Air Force can challenge India and its neighbours but not USA.

why would US need to invade at all? they can deliver massive economic blowout in times of war.

 

[Sam Manekshaw]

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!

Yeah, USA gonna be technologically superior to Chinese in decades to come.... Just take example of Jet engine and rest can follow.

 

[Genesis]

At its present stage even IN can challenge PLAN.
But further modernistaion will enable the PLAN to compete USN within next 30 years.

This is a weird thought, that most Indian media takes as fact, what makes you guys so sure.

In terms of modern subs, India has maybe none that has AIP? Not sure, we have at least 20, in terms of nuke subs, come on.

In terms of carriers, it's essentially a tie at most minor advantage to India due to battle readiness, not right now, but sooner probably. The Liaoning and Vicky was both made by the Soviets, and the Liaoning has the superior design, as was the intention of the Soviet navy, but I think it's safe to say we both suck here, very badly.

LPDs, and other amphibious assault ships, it's no contest 3 to one at the moment and more if you include the smaller ones.

In terms of destroyers, India has one Kolkata, that can be considered modern. China has 10-15 modern destroyers in the navy, depending on your view of the Russian DDGs, and the earliest of our modern destroyers.

In terms of frigates, India has 9 modern frigates, and we have 18, this is closer.

Corvettes? India has 1 modern, and we have 18.

I'm counting the veer as missile boat, and you have 12, while we have ~80.


Mine ships, India has 9 in total, China has about 9 modern ones, and more than 50 older ones.

Patrol boats, it's no contest, Chinese coast guard is neck to neck with the US now and will soon surpass it in both, tonnage and equipments.

replenishment ships, this is the closest, you have 4 we have 7.

in terms of the other support vessels, it's not that important, but if you must you can count it, a rough estimate puts us ahead by a mile and a half.



I'm only including currently in service vessels.


I don't really want to do a vs thread, but I'm just wondering, what gives these perception that it's a close contest. Is it all the articles that points to the superiority of the US NAVY relative to us? Well, nobody else is the US navy, so just because we suck relative to them, doesn't mean the same is true to everyone else.

 

[Kompromat]

But not in case of India and Pakistan.

I can't speak on the behalf of India but Pakistan's military technology is very much driven by war.

 

[Genesis]

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.

This is the easiest to disprove and I don't want to spend time on the rest, so....

The type 98 are prototypes, and early test versions of our type 99 tanks.

The type 96 and 99 are the modern tanks. Type 96 is from an earlier time period but it's actually better than 98.


The type 96 number around 2,500, and the 99 700 more or less, so you are looking at more than 3000 modern tanks.


This Japanese dude if he's the dude I'm thinking of, is made fun of by Chinese military enthusiast, experts, and service men, his "expert" views are so out of date and out of his ***, that I can't believe he's paid to do this, but than again so is Gordon Chang.

 

[tranquilium]

This is the easiest to disprove and I don't want to spend time on the rest, so....

The type 98 are prototypes, and early test versions of our type 99 tanks.

The type 96 and 99 are the modern tanks. Type 96 is from an earlier time period but it's actually better than 98.


The type 96 number around 2,500, and the 99 700 more or less, so you are looking at more than 3000 modern tanks.


This Japanese dude if he's the dude I'm thinking of, is made fun of by Chinese military enthusiast, experts, and service men, his "expert" views are so out of date and out of his ***, that I can't believe he's paid to do this, but than again so is Gordon Chang.

Let's not forget most of the type-59 still in service are the upgraded variety.

I think a lot of these has to do with the writer comes from non-weapon manufacturer countries, which, actually consist of majority of the countries in the world.

Remember, for the countries that must import their gear, upgrading and refitting their gear is a very expensive business because they have to ask the selling country to do it. This is why their older equipment will naturally see less upgrades over the years.

Adding in the fact that without the manufacturing capacity, maintenance also becomes an issue. This means the equipments wear out sooner and their performance degrades faster.

A third factor is that because the previous issues, the weapon importing country also tends to have less training with these equipments because they need them in case of war and can't afford to have them expire due to excessive training use. This means their solider also tends to perform worse.

Basically, for weapon importers, their old equipment tends to go obsolete very quickly and must constantly buy newer gear just to keep up. Weapon manufacturing countries, on the other hand, can keep their equipment in service for much longer period of time and still outperforms the weapon importers.

 

[SrNair]

This is a weird thought, that most Indian media takes as fact, what makes you guys so sure.

In terms of modern subs, India has maybe none that has AIP? Not sure, we have at least 20, in terms of nuke subs, come on.

In terms of carriers, it's essentially a tie at most minor advantage to India due to battle readiness, not right now, but sooner probably. The Liaoning and Vicky was both made by the Soviets, and the Liaoning has the superior design, as was the intention of the Soviet navy, but I think it's safe to say we both suck here, very badly.

LPDs, and other amphibious assault ships, it's no contest 3 to one at the moment and more if you include the smaller ones.

In terms of destroyers, India has one Kolkata, that can be considered modern. China has 10-15 modern destroyers in the navy, depending on your view of the Russian DDGs, and the earliest of our modern destroyers.

In terms of frigates, India has 9 modern frigates, and we have 18, this is closer.

Corvettes? India has 1 modern, and we have 18.

I'm counting the veer as missile boat, and you have 12, while we have ~80.


Mine ships, India has 9 in total, China has about 9 modern ones, and more than 50 older ones.

Patrol boats, it's no contest, Chinese coast guard is neck to neck with the US now and will soon surpass it in both, tonnage and equipments.

replenishment ships, this is the closest, you have 4 we have 7.

in terms of the other support vessels, it's not that important, but if you must you can count it, a rough estimate puts us ahead by a mile and a half.



I'm only including currently in service vessels.


I don't really want to do a vs thread, but I'm just wondering, what gives these perception that it's a close contest. Is it all the articles that points to the superiority of the US NAVY relative to us? Well, nobody else is the US navy, so just because we suck relative to them, doesn't mean the same is true to everyone else.

All these armaments are the maximum of PLAN and India is not your only adversary.But excepts those 3 subs in PN noone in from Persian Gulf to Mallacca Strait cant challenge our Naval might.Those fleet of Poseidon alone can challenge your entire sub fleet.Corvette and DDG number is not an issue.We already have advanced tech we only need to spike up that numbers thats all.And realtime battleexperience isone hell of advantage and we already have a success in that.
And only thing PLAN concern about our Armed forces is our
Navy.PLA and PLAAF are comparatively better than us.

You are aiming for US position.So you also need a military that can challenve them.

 

[tranquilium]

All these armaments are the maximum of PLAN and India is not your only adversary.But excepts those 3 subs in PN noone in from Persian Gulf to Mallacca Strait cant challenge our Naval might.Those fleet of Poseidon alone can challenge your entire sub fleet.Corvette and DDG number is not an issue.We already have advanced tech we only need to spike up that numbers thats all.And realtime battleexperience isone hell of advantage and we already have a success in that.
And only thing PLAN concern about our Armed forces is our
Navy.PLA and PLAAF are comparatively better than us.

You are aiming for US position.So you also need a military that can challenve them.

Well, by that argument, PLAN certainly isn't the only adversary for US navy either. US navy's chance in a East Asia engagement against PLAN is actually worse than PLAN's change against Indian navy in India ocean. For example, Chinese naval support in East Asia will have land based over the horizon radars and satellites in space to detect stealth fighters, something that ship/plane based radar system simply can't compete. Also, the rather large discrepencies between air force and missile forces. Typically when we comparing the navy, we are only comparing the navy and whole strength of the navy. Actual engagement is, of course, very different.

 

[Sam Manekshaw]

I can't speak on the behalf of India but Pakistan's military technology is very much driven by war.

So for technology advance Pakistan have to go for a War.

 

[Place Of Space]

Except buddha was from Nepal and India with one ruler did not exist

I don't think it's the fact. It's true Buddha originated from India. They spoke in Sanskrit at that time. According to pilgrim's writings, dozens of nations in Sub-Himalayas still believe in Buddha in 7th century.

All these armaments are the maximum of PLAN and India is not your only adversary.But excepts those 3 subs in PN noone in from Persian Gulf to Mallacca Strait cant challenge our Naval might.Those fleet of Poseidon alone can challenge your entire sub fleet.Corvette and DDG number is not an issue.We already have advanced tech we only need to spike up that numbers thats all.And realtime battleexperience isone hell of advantage and we already have a success in that.
And only thing PLAN concern about our Armed forces is our
Navy.PLA and PLAAF are comparatively better than us.

You are aiming for US position.So you also need a military that can challenve them.

China don't have to challenge the super power America, economy is still primary Sino-goal, becoming the advanced country in economy within 40 years. As to military, China have enough forces to protect interests and security, mobile nuclear submarine speaks. Anyway we will develop conventional forces more or less according to international circumstance and outside challenges, especially Japan from sea and India from land.

 

[Kompromat]

So for technology advance Pakistan have to go for a War.

Not necessarily. Thats not what i meant anyway. For instance POF developed the EYE Cornershot weapon because our infiltration teams were getting shot in corners because they were having to expose themselves to incoming fire in order to enter tight corners in urban or close quarters. Al-Khalid was developed with desert warfare requirements in mind. JF-17 was developed with costs in mind and to fill the much needed 4th gen gap. POF's G3S - SBR was developed to use a 7.62mm round in CQB with 16 inch barrel and compact design because some terrorists were wearing body armor or were taking cover behind walls and furniture. The 9mm rounds cant penetrate them but with 7.62mm you can also use steel penetrator rounds in CQB setting. Those 'requirements' were generated out of actual warfare.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

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.

o saain! this is a public forum and has masses here from different countries plus the specific info yr sharing is already poorly written by a writer who has no clue of how militarizes are equipped and work. This prove that the writer lacks the strategic and tactical knowledge in the first place. This explains why he has in the end written a rather mild last paragraph to compensate his gibberish! Now u havnt put his entire article as it is to let the PDFers decide for themselves. This is the actual forum discipline in the first place and these are one of the basic ethics journalism on which a journalist writes and the writer has done that himself while u have choose to quote his article without a proper reference to context rule.

Its not just about that u have written in my reply (which i agree) its something more then that! Such type of old tactics are done to brainwash people by western journalists.@Horus

 

[Sam Manekshaw]

Not necessarily. Thats not what i meant anyway. For instance POF developed the EYE Cornershot weapon because our infiltration teams were getting shot in corners because they were having to expose themselves to incoming fire in order to enter tight corners in urban or close quarters. Al-Khalid was developed with desert warfare requirements in mind. JF-17 was developed with costs in mind and to fill the much needed 4th gen gap. POF's G3S - SBR was developed to use a 7.62mm round in CQB with 16 inch barrel and compact design because some terrorists were wearing body armor or were taking cover behind walls and furniture. The 9mm rounds cant penetrate them but with 7.62mm you can also use steel penetrator rounds in CQB setting. Those 'requirements' were generated out of actual warfare.

Interesting question:
How much percentage of technology available in the world is actually War driven?
I know it's difficult to trace but u can give it a shot.

 

[AMDR]

It is funny because China is in the same position the U.S. was before the first gulf war in term of its military. New Precision strike capability, updated ground forces hardware, ETC....
They said that the US would be "in another Vietnam" if it fought the Iraqi Army in Kuwait. People had their doubts about overall US doctrine and how their newly acquired tech would fit into it. 1 month after the start of the first gulf war all critics were silenced.

My point is you should NEVER underestimate a military that has undergone major reforms in their army like modernization. Especially an Army the size of China's. The PLA have studied foriegn wars and made adjustments. China in the past 15 years has modernized its military EXTREMELY FAST, just like the US did in the late 70s and 80s.
Do not underestimate China.