Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

US can’t keep up with China’s warship building, Navy Secretary says
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/asia/us- ... index.html
22 Feb 2023
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

A set of videos about the development of the future type 76 assault ships for the PLAN.






This is a set of informed opinions about the project on the basis of publicly available budget and procurement documents published by the PLAN for the future ship's.

It shows what is possible with modern gas turbines.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1718
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Lisa »

:roll: The "Yun 5" aircraft independently developed and manufactured by mainland China is like a tractor driving in the sky, with the damper turned on by hand, and smoke everywhere. China's self-made aircraft-Yun 5

https://twitter.com/JosephZheng777/stat ... bo86MtAAAA
Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 1054
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Guddu »

Here's an interesting thread on the Chines kit

https://twitter.com/Spadex716i/status/1 ... 1672834049
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

TrishulM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 02 Oct 2016 10:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by TrishulM »

China’s ‘AI Ship Designer’ Works At Unprecedented Speed; Performed A Year’s Work Only In 24 Hours!
A team of Chinese researchers funded by China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) recently claimed to have used artificial intelligence (AI) to design an electrical layout of a warship with 100 percent accuracy and at an unprecedented speed.

By Tanmay Kadam- March 12, 2023


A team of researchers from the China Ship Design and Research Center, headed by Luo Wei, a senior engineer with the ship design center, published a paper in the Chinese-language journal Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems on February 27.

The researchers claimed in the paper that their AI designer took only a day to complete work that humans would need nearly a year to achieve with the most advanced computer tools.

Considering the scale and complexity of modern warships, mistakes are sure to happen during the design process, and it can take several hours to discover and rectify them. However, when the researchers put the AI designer to the test, with more than 400 challenging tasks, they found that the AI could accomplish 100 percent accuracy.

According to the researchers, while there is still room for improvement, their AI designer was “ready for engineering applications” in China’s shipbuilding industry to increase the rate of warship manufacturing.

Luo’s team said that the Chinese military funded their AI designer project because the design process was the main area hindering the speed of production of warships rather than shipyard delays.

Chinese AI Compared To That Of Google
Luo’s team compared their AI designer to those developed by companies like Google to increase the speed of computer chip design. There were some critical differences between the two, according to the team.

Firstly, the team notes in the paper that there is no room for error in warship design, and the AI chip designer can make a few mistakes.

Furthermore, the team said that while an AI chip designer could produce many products, computing resources could be assigned to train it, and the company could still realize a profit margin.

Whereas their AI warship designer was only working on one vessel without the resources of a Big Tech company.

Also, unlike an AI system that learns and makes decisions independently without human intervention, the warship designer created by the team is a machine that operates with human guidance.

The AI designer starts by consulting a database of Chinese ship design knowledge and experience from past decades, and then it comes up with a design, which it checks against the database. According to Luo’s team, this approach significantly reduced the computing resources needed and eliminated errors.

The team also noted that the AI designer’s effectiveness had only been proven for the layout of electrical systems. However, it also carried out these design tasks much faster and more accurately than humans, and it could be used easily with a small computer system.

“Other countries may have developed similar systems, but they have not disclosed them publicly due to the military sensitivity,” the team added.

China Could Surpass The US
China already boasts the world’s largest navy numerically after overtaking the US Navy between 2015 and 2020. If the recent claims by Luo’s team are anything to go by, the US military planners have much to fear.

The US is already concerned about China’s expanding naval fleet and its capacity to produce warships at a very high pace.

The US Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro told reporters in Washington last month that US naval shipyards cannot match the output of Chinese ones.

“They have 13 shipyards. In some cases, their shipyard has more capacity – one shipyard has more capacity than all of our shipyards combined. That presents a real threat,” Del Toro said.

China intends to build a fleet of more than 400 warships by 2025. The US naval fleet is currently under 300 ships, and the Pentagon aims to have 350 manned vessels by 2045, according to the US Navy’s Navigation Plan 2022 released last summer, which is still way behind China.

In January, a senior American naval expert, Sam Tangredi, a former US Navy captain and the Leidos Chair of Future Warfare Studies at the US Naval War College, warned that the US Navy might lose to China’s PLA Navy, which enjoys a substantial numerical advantage over the US, saying, “the side with the most ships almost always wins.”

In a January issue of the US Naval Institute’s (USNI’s) Proceedings magazine, Tangredi looked at 28 naval wars in history, going back to the Greco-Persian Wars of 500 BC, and found that superior technology defeated more significant numbers in only three instances.

“Using technological advantage as an indicator of quality, historical research on 28 naval wars (or wars with significant and protracted naval combat) indicates that the side won 25 with the larger fleet,” wrote Tangredi, while noting that in cases where fleet size was roughly equal, superior strategy and substantially better trained and motivated crews carried the day.

“Only three could be said to have been won by a smaller fleet with superior technology,” according to Tangredi’s findings.

On the issue of a potential future conflict with China, Tangredi says that a naval war against China in the western Pacific in this decade would see a smaller US Naval force against a gigantic PLA Navy, and that too in waters near China, inside the range of PLA’s air and rocket forces.

“US leaders must ask themselves to what extent they are willing to bet on technological—without numerical—superiority in that fight,” wrote Tangredi.
gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4667
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by gakakkad »

^ there have been many articles calling the Chinese AI bluff . Like the 3d printed AI designed hydrogen powered tractor was photochored from a computer game and did not work . Huawei had voiceover artists mimicking as robots chatting with humans .
Luo’s team compared their AI designer to those developed by companies like Google to increase the speed of computer chip design. There were some critical differences between the two, according to the team.

Firstly, the team notes in the paper that there is no room for error in warship design, and the AI chip designer can make a few mistakes.

Furthermore, the team said that while an AI chip designer could produce many products, computing resources could be assigned to train it, and the company could still realize a profit margin.

Whereas their AI warship designer was only working on one vessel without the resources of a Big Tech company.
I've not been able to locate the Chinese language paper , but if they actually wrote what's written above in a research paper it would not be accepted in mainstream academic papers .
TrishulM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 02 Oct 2016 10:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by TrishulM »

The research team belongs to China Ship Design and Research Centre which has 2 decades of ship design8ng experience. And the team is alsp funded by the Chinese military.
The study is published in a Chinese language journal so I am not able to google search it. But I did find a paper published in Science Direct by a group of Chinese or Chinese origin researchers about AI assisting in ship's hull design leading to faster yet accurate design.
Above linked article about AI designing electrical outlay might just turn out to be true.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

AI designing electrical outlay in a day does not sound outrageous at all. The standards are pretty much known and highly codified already. The trickier components such as automation and ship management systems would be trickier because they would depend on the products and solutions selected. The complicated and painstaking services overlay to manage fault tolerance would be the trickier part which AI will be able to do in a jiffy. I am surprised it took 24 hrs for AI.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Submarines Will Reign in a War with China
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... -war-china
March 2023, US Naval Institute
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by eklavya »

The Economist:
Briefing: Defending Taiwan
Defending Taiwan
Storm warning
GUAM, HONOLULU, OKINAWA AND TAIPEI
China and America are preparing for a devastating war

Their faces smeared in green and black, some with Stinger anti-aircraft missiles on their packs, the men of “Darkside”—the 3rd battalion of America’s 4th marine regiment—boarded a pair of Sea Stallion helicopters and clattered away into the nearby jungle. Their commanders followed in more choppers carrying ultralight vehicles and communications gear. Anything superfluous was left behind. No big screens for video links of the sort used in Iraq and Afghanistan: to avoid detection, the marines must make sure their communications blend into the background just as surely as their camouflage blends into the tropical greenery. The goal of the exercise: to disperse around an unnamed island, link up with friendly “green” allies and repel an amphibious invasion by “red” forces.

Ignore the polite abstractions. The marines are training for a war with China, probably precipitated by an invasion of Taiwan. Their base in Okinawa, at the southern end of the Japanese archipelago, is just 600km (370 miles) from Taiwan. The two islands are part of what American military planners call the “first island chain”: a series of archipelagoes and islands, big and small, that stretches from Japan to Malaysia, impeding naval passage from China to the Pacific. Whether by harrying Chinese ships from a distance or—much less likely—by deploying to Taiwan to help repel a Chinese landing, the marines will be early participants in any conflict.

The hardest part, says Lieutenant-Colonel Jason Copeland, Darkside’s commanding officer, would be dealing with “an adversary that’s coming at you in mass”. As China’s military power grows, predicting how a war over Taiwan might unfold, and thus improving the odds of fending China off without unleashing a nuclear calamity, is getting ever harder. The only certainty is that, even if all nuclear weapons remained in their silos, such a conflict would have horrific consequences, not just for the 23m people of Taiwan, but for the world.

China’s Communist leaders have claimed Taiwan since Nationalist forces fled to it after losing a civil war in 1949. America has long pledged to help the island defend itself. But in recent years, on both sides, rhetoric and preparations have grown more fevered. China’s forces often practise island landings. Its warships and fighter jets routinely cross the “median line” (in effect Taiwan’s maritime boundary) and harass military ships and planes of America and its allies. After Nancy Pelosi, at the time the Speaker of America’s House of Representatives, visited Taiwan last year, China fired missiles towards it.

Dire strait
America, meanwhile, is sending more military trainers to Taiwan. The Taiwanese government recently increased mandatory military service from four months to a year. Prominent congressmen have urged President Joe Biden to learn from Russia’s attack on Ukraine and give Taiwan all the weapons it may need before an invasion, not after one has started. Adding to the sense of impending crisis are America’s efforts to throttle China’s tech industry and Mr Xi’s growing friendliness with Russia.

American military commanders and intelligence chiefs say Mr Xi has ordered the People’s Liberation Army (pla) to develop the capacity to invade Taiwan by 2027. Some think conflict is closer. “My gut tells me we will fight in 2025,” General Michael Minihan, head of America’s air mobility command, recently warned subordinates. Both sides fear that time is running out: America worries that China’s armed forces may soon become too strong to deter, while China frets that the prospect of peaceful reunification is evaporating.

“War with China is not inevitable, and it’s not imminent,” declares Admiral John Aquilino, commander of America’s Indo-Pacific Command, who would oversee any fight with China. Speaking in his headquarters overlooking Pearl Harbour, scene of Japan’s pre-emptive strike in 1941, he says his first mission is “to do everything in my power to prevent a conflict”. Nonetheless, he adds, “if deterrence fails, you must be prepared to fight and win.” As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows, he warns, “There is no such thing as a short war.”

The first question for America’s strategists is how much warning they would get of an impending invasion. The pla, with an estimated 2m active personnel, versus Taiwan’s 163,000, would need extensive preparations to conduct what would be the biggest amphibious assault since the D-Day landings in 1944. It would have to cancel leave, gather landing ships, stockpile munitions, set up mobile command posts and much more.

But in a war of choice, with Mr Xi able to pick his timing, many of these moves could be disguised as military exercises. American defence officials say they might see unambiguous signs of imminent war, such as stockpiling of blood supplies, only a fortnight ahead. For smaller operations, to seize islands Taiwan controls close to the mainland, say, there might be only a few hours’ warning—if that.

America would want to expose China’s preparations early, as it did with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and rally an international coalition in opposition. That would be easier if Mr Xi embarked on an outright invasion. But China may try to exploit the ambiguities of Taiwan’s status: it does not have diplomatic relations with most other countries (see Special report). If Mr Xi cites some “provocation”, and begins with actions short of war, such as a blockade, America or its allies might equivocate.

America must also weigh how far its preparations risk precipitating conflict. Send aircraft-carriers to the region as a show of force? Deploy troops to Taiwan? Threaten China’s oil supplies through the Strait of Malacca? All might be deemed provocations by China, if not acts of war.

As war approaches, Taiwan will move navy ships from its vulnerable western coast to the east, behind the mountain range that runs along the eastern side of the island. It would seek to hide jet fighters in underground shelters and mobilise its 2.3m reservists. It would also have to control widespread panic, as multitudes attempted to flee and as transport links to the outside world were cut.

America, too, would be dispersing jets from exposed bases. The marines would deploy around maritime choke-points. American submarines would slip under the waves, some mustering close to Taiwan. Some American and Taiwanese military commanders would no doubt press for military strikes against China’s gathering invasion force. They would probably be overruled by those seeking a diplomatic solution, or at least not wanting to be blamed for firing the first shot.

China, for its part, would have to take a momentous decision. Should it limit its attack to Taiwan, hoping to create a fait accompli as America and its allies dither? Or should it strike America’s forces in the region, in a new Pearl Harbour? The first option leaves America free to attack the invasion fleet; the latter all but guarantees its wholehearted entry into the war, and probably Japan’s, too, if China attacked American bases there.

An invasion would almost certainly begin with massive missile and rocket strikes on Taiwan. These would quickly destroy much of Taiwan’s navy, air force and air defences. Wang Hongguang, a former deputy commander of the pla region opposite Taiwan, predicted in 2018 that there would be 24 hours of bombardment—first on military and political targets, then on civilian infrastructure such as power plants and fuel depots. He suggested that China would blind Taiwan’s satellites, cut its subsea internet cables and use electronic warfare to scramble its command-and-control systems, hobbling co-ordination with American and allied forces.

General Wang said the onslaught would cause enough havoc to open at least a two-day window for invasion. If American forces did not arrive within three days, he blustered, “don’t bother to make a trip in vain”. China will also do its best to sap Taiwan’s will to fight. Its cyber-forces will try to hack local television and radio, and bombard Taiwanese soldiers with text and social-media messages, offering rewards to mutineers and deserters.

China must then confront the formidable challenge of an amphibious assault, one of the most difficult forms of warfare. The beaches of Kinmen, a Taiwanese island just 3km from the mainland, are dotted with relics from an attempted invasion in 1949, when Nationalist forces killed or captured almost the entire advance party of 9,000 Communist troops who landed in small fishing boats. The pla has come far since then, acquiring advanced weaponry and studying precedents such as D-Day, the American-led landings at Incheon in Korea in 1950 and Britain’s recapture of the Falkland Islands from Argentina in 1982.

Walk of strife
Yet the risks are still great. China has not fought a war since invading Vietnam in 1979. Although the Taiwan Strait is only 130km wide at its narrowest, its currents and tides are powerful and erratic. Conditions are usually propitious only in March-May and September-October. Just 14 of Taiwan’s beaches are suitable for landings and they are heavily fortified, especially the ones close to Taipei, where Chinese forces would probably prefer to start an invasion (see map 1). Taiwan has built lots of bunkers and tunnels in the area.


Nor is it certain that the pla has enough ships to transport an adequate landing force quickly across the strait. It would need 300,000 to 1m troops to be sure of subduing Taiwan. It has six amphibious army brigades stationed nearby, with a combined 20,000 troops, plus a similar number of marines. But China’s amphibious landing ships could probably ferry only about 20,000 soldiers across in the first day or two, depending on how much equipment they take. Likewise, the pla’s transport aircraft could probably convey only half of its 20,000 airborne troops in the opening phase. The pla recently practised using ferries and other civilian ships, which could bring across many more units but, for that to work well, China would need to capture a still-usable port.

The war in Ukraine has raised fresh doubts, too, especially about China’s ground forces. Its combined-arms battalions, including its amphibious ones, are modelled on Russia’s battalion tactical groups, which have struggled in Ukraine. Even if China succeeded in swiftly decapitating Taiwan’s leadership, it might still face protracted fighting against forces replicating the Ukrainians’ use of portable missile-launchers and drones.

Taiwan’s strategy, meanwhile, is to thwart China’s initial landing or prevent it from bringing enough troops. Taiwanese forces would block ports and beaches with sea mines, submerged ships and other obstacles. Backed by surviving aircraft and naval vessels, they would strike China’s approaching force with missiles and pound disembarking Chinese troops with artillery and rockets. Some pla texts suggest that Taiwan has underwater pipelines off its beaches that could release flammable liquid. Some of its outlying islands are protected by remote-controlled guns.


No easy way past
If the pla broke out of its beachheads, it would face a slog through arduous terrain to reach Taipei and other urban centres. Then both sides would face a challenge for which neither is fully prepared: urban warfare. Taiwan is reluctant to fight in its cities, fearing high civilian casualties. The pla does train for urban warfare, but had long banked on a quick victory if it reached Taipei. Since the war in Ukraine began, however, both sides have been practising fighting in built-up areas more.

Even if a Chinese invasion got bogged down, though, time would not be on Taiwan’s side. “We can fend them off for one or two weeks but no longer,” says Si-fu Ou of Taiwan’s Institute for National Defence and Security Research, a think-tank. Unless Taiwanese forces resist steadfastly, everything else is futile. But, by the same token, Taiwan cannot hope to defend itself in the long run without American help.

As an island, Taiwan is not just harder to invade than Ukraine, but also harder to support. Its ports might be destroyed by China, its own forces or even America’s. Attempting to bring reinforcements or supplies to the island as Chinese missiles rain down would be almost as difficult as attempting to invade.

At the very least, America and Taiwan would need help from allies. Japan, which hosts tens of thousands of American troops, has capable forces. The Philippines is weak militarily but close to Taiwan. Australia is closely allied but modestly armed and farther away. Countries in the Pacific could provide rear bases. More distant allies, such as Britain, might send naval vessels. A big uncertainty is how much India would help. A lot would depend on how the crisis unfolds and who is blamed for it.

America’s plans to help Taiwan used to hinge on aircraft-carriers. It sent one to the area after China fired missiles near Taiwan in 1995 and again after another salvo in 1996. But China has since invested heavily in “anti-access/area-denial” (a2/ ad) weapons, designed to fend off American ships and aircraft. They include the df-26 missile, which can strike deep into the Pacific (see map 2), and new hypersonic missiles that are harder to intercept. China’s navy is now the world’s largest, with a fleet of submarines to attack approaching American ships. Its long-range bombers are also a menace. David Ochmanek of the rand Corporation, a think-tank that has run classified war-games simulating a Taiwan conflict, argues that old American strategies now “lead to defeat”.


American planners’ alternative is summed up with three d’s: disrupt Chinese operations within the first island chain, defend allies on it and dominate the sea and air beyond. America must overcome daunting problems: the “tyranny of distance” in the vast Pacific Ocean, the growth of China’s “weapons engagement zone” to encompass American bases in the western Pacific and the sheer mass of China’s manpower and weapons, which exceeds America’s in many categories.

The risk of Chinese attack, by missiles or bombers, decreases with distance (see chart). But even Guam, America’s big military hub some 3,000km from China, is vulnerable. What is more, America’s air defence is worryingly thin. It also has few means of passive defence, such as concrete aircraft hangars.


American officers speak of the prospect of war with a mixture of dread at China’s growing power (“Every day I am astounded by their capabilities,” says one), and optimism that new tactics can achieve victory. They emphasise “distributed lethality”, meaning the scattering and constant movement of forces to avoid becoming easy targets, while maintaining the capacity to gather or co-ordinate in attacks. This will rely to an unprecedented degree on America’s experience of fighting as a “joint force”, in which separate military branches and weapons systems reinforce each other.

Military jets would disperse from big bases, gather in the air for battle and settle where they can on specks of land. They would repeat the pattern as quickly as possible by “hot-pit” refuelling with engines running. Sometimes planes would perch in civilian airports; sometimes on austere airfields, many dating from the second world war, which are being refurbished. Adding ever more concrete to protect aircraft “is a fool’s errand”, says Brigadier-General Paul Birch, commander of the 36th Wing at Andersen air base, in Guam. “Being in the air is much safer.”

Engineers, meanwhile, would aim to repair cratered runways within about six hours. Ground crews would set up pop-up hangars as well as traffic-control centres and data links. A big headache would be how to get fuel and munitions to the right places. One aim of this “agile combat employment” is to force China to expend its large but finite stock of missiles.

Rather than fight near Taiwan, American surface ships would probably hold back, to survive, provide air defence for Guam and other rear bases and blockade Chinese trade. They would “pulse”—sailing briefly in and out of the danger zone—to shoot at Chinese ships and planes.

Brothers with arms
Marines would deploy to “key maritime terrain”, especially islands dominating the straits that separate Taiwan from Japan and the Philippines. They would reinforce the local troops, reconnoitre Chinese dispositions and, armed with new missiles coming into service in the next few months, fire on enemy ships. The marines are creating three new “marine littoral regiments”, each with more than 2,000 troops, giving up their tanks and many of their howitzers.

Some critics say these units would be too vulnerable; others reckon that, without deployment to Taiwan itself, they would be too distant to help much in the main battle. The marines, though, argue that they would multiply the threats China must face, “canalise” Chinese ships into vulnerable positions and, above all, “sense and make sense” of Chinese deployments. General David Berger, the marines’ commandant, talks of “turning the tables” on China by using an a2/ ad strategy to defend the first island chain. America won’t have to fight its way in, he says: “We are there persistently, 52 weeks a year.”

Dispersed warfare sacrifices efficiency for resilience. To succeed, though, lots of things need to go well. First, command-and-control networks must be able to withstand Chinese electronic attack. Planners talk of a yet-to-be-perfected “kill web”, in which artificial intelligence helps “sensors” and ”shooters”—including those of allies—operate together even when far apart. Marines on islands, stealthy f-35 fighters, drones and more can all act as nodes. Second, America would need more sophisticated logistics to supply far-flung units. Last, it must persuade allies to risk China’s wrath. Their willingness would become clear only as hostilities erupt, which complicates planning.

Early in the war the job of sinking China’s invasion fleet—the critical task in defending Taiwan—would fall mainly to submarines and long-range bombers. Though its boats are outnumbered by China’s, America retains the edge in underwater warfare. Its attack submarines carry torpedoes, cruise missiles and sea mines. Sooner or later, however, they would run out of munitions, and would have to sail away for several days to replenish in places such as Guam, where they would be vulnerable.

Too far away
Bombers flying from Hawaii, Alaska and the American mainland, meanwhile, would be using munitions that can be fired from beyond the reach of Chinese anti-aircraft missiles. But America’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles, which can travel 200 nautical miles or more, would probably run out within a week. Thereafter, American forces would have to move closer to Taiwan to sink ships. America’s hope is that, by then, China has also run short of long-range munitions.

America and China would debate whether and when to attack each others’ satellites, potentially turning low-earth orbit into a scrapyard. Some war-games suggest they might refrain from doing so for fear of harming themselves. But as a senior American military official puts it, “The side that shoots first gets a big advantage.”

Every stage of the war would be fought in the shadow of nuclear weapons. Mr Biden has talked about reducing America’s reliance on nukes, and China espouses “no first use”. But the risk of disaster is presumably rising as China expands its arsenal. It will grow from 400 or so warheads today, the Pentagon reckons, to 1,000-odd by 2030 (still less than America and Russia have). A recent war game conducted by the Centre for a New American Security, a think-tank, suggested that both sides underestimate the risk of escalation. This grows if either attacks the other’s mainland, or if the conflict becomes protracted.

The toll of even a purely conventional war would be devastating, for the victors as well as the losers. A war game by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, another American think-tank, found that under its “base scenario” Taiwanese, American and Japanese forces typically severed pla supply lines after about ten days, stranding some 30,000 Chinese troops on the island. Taiwan survived as an autonomous entity, but was left with no electricity or basic services. America and Japan suffered, too, losing 382 aircraft and 43 ships, including two American aircraft-carriers. China lost 155 planes and 138 ships.

The economic cost would be enormous, too. rand estimated in 2016 that a year-long war over Taiwan would reduce China’s gdp by 25-35% and America’s by 5-10%. The Rhodium Group, a consultancy, concluded in 2022 that the disruption to the supply of semiconductors (Taiwan makes 90% of the world’s most advanced computer chips) would cause global shortages of electronic goods, leading to “incalculable” damage to the world economy.

Given the appalling consequences, would America and China really go to war? Chinese officials say their preferred option is still peaceful unification, and deny there is any timetable for an attack. China also has many options short of an all-out invasion. They include economic coercion, a full or partial blockade and the seizure of outlying islands such as Kinmen. China may well embark on this sort of “grey-zone” operation as a substitute for, or a prelude to, a wider attack.

Mr Xi has strong incentives to bide his time, not least because his forces are growing, whereas American defence spending is near an 80-year low as a share of gdp. But he may also feel pressure to attack if Taiwan abandons all pretence that it might ever reconcile with the mainland, and formally declares independence, or if America deploys troops to Taiwan. The year-long conflict in Ukraine is proof that an irredentist autocrat can miscalculate appallingly. Zhou Bo, a former senior officer in the pla, notes that to achieve its aims, China does not need to exceed America’s global might; it just needs an edge in the western Pacific.

Many strategists in America and Asia fear that the loss of Taiwan would replace the American-led order in the region with a Chinese-led one. Japan and South Korea might feel obliged to develop their own nuclear weapons. Rather than constraining China, the first island chain would become a platform for it to project power farther afield. “Taiwan is the cork in the bottle,” as an American military official puts it.

America draws solace from Russia’s failures in Ukraine, believing they have increased Mr Xi’s doubts about his ability to take Taiwan. But to preserve the precarious balance across the Taiwan Strait, America must act with exquisite skill. It needs to reinforce Mr Xi’s hesitation by strengthening itself, its allies and Taiwan, but not go so far that he thinks he must attack fast or give up on seizing Taiwan for ever.
Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 632
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Anoop »



Interesting take on the challenges of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. The flow of discussion is a bit haphazard, though.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

China’s navy looks to junior high schools to find pilots for its aircraft carriers
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/militar ... t-carriers
28 March 2023
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

The J-10 Changed China’s Fighter Game 25 Years Ago
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/t ... -years-ago
29 March 2023
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Xi Jinping Says He Is Preparing China for War
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-s ... -china-war
29 March 2023
The World Should Take Him Seriously
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

China to have 150 more ships than US by 2028 under Biden budget, Navy Secretary admits
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rest ... us-by-2028
28 March 2023
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

Rakesh wrote:The J-10 Changed China’s Fighter Game 25 Years Ago
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/t ... -years-ago
29 March 2023
The J-10 looks less the Lavi but more like the Mig 1.44, shape of wings Canards etc, the intake also has some resemble to Su 75 Checkmate design. I suspect post Soviet collapse, the Russians had a lot to do with it.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

So much for the open ocean! And this is OSINT info. Imagine what the US Navy does clandestinely and that too a live feed, 24-7 :)

https://twitter.com/detresfa_/status/16 ... 08961?s=20 ---> Quick note on the current Chinese aircraft carrier movements in the Western Pacific, in December 2022, Chinese carrier Liaoning (CV-16) sailed nearly 350 nautical miles west of Guam, currently carrier Shandong (CV-17) appears roughly 400 nautical miles west of Guam.

Image
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by MeshaVishwas »

Funny video on the "over compensating for other things small" ICV from Cheen
AdityaM
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by AdityaM »

What Are German Fighter Pilots Doing in China?
suspicious-activity-what-are-german-fighter-pilots-doing-in-china
02 June 2023
Qiqihar is a remote city in northeastern China, in the province of Heilongjiang, which shares a border with Siberia. One flight a day lands here from Beijing, with the flight attendants making sure on the approach that all the window shades have been closed. Nobody is supposed to catch sight of the Chinese-made Jian-11 fighter jets parked on the tarmac and in the hangars.

Qiqihar is home to an airbase belonging to the People’s Liberation Army. And it is here that former Bundeswehr officer Alexander H. apparently lived and worked. It is thought that he was there to train Chinese pilots.

there appears to be a handful of former German fighter pilots working as trainers in China. And they are apparently earning salaries that would normally be reserved for professional athletes or top executives of multinational corporations.

German security officials believe it is very possible that the pilots have passed on military expertise and confidential operational tactics, and even practiced attack scenarios
sanman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 22 Mar 2023 11:02

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by sanman »

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8243
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by disha »

In a tit move, the twats deployed their shore based crafts to show to their hostage popln. they have some thing that floats (currently)

Chinese Navy Carries Out Rare Deployment Of Shandong Aircraft Carrier Through Taiwan Strait
https://swarajyamag.com/news-brief/chin ... wan-strait
22 June 2023
Chinese Navy Carries Out Rare Deployment Of Shandong Aircraft Carrier Through Taiwan Strait
The onlookers on the other side of the straight, a.ka Taiwanese were wondering how many brahmos they can fire at the floating shore based craft without hitting the shore itself. You see if they fire three, and the first two take out the craft, the third one will head straight to the other side finding juicy targets...
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

China War-Gamed Arunachal With Drones, Jets After Tawang Clash
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/exclusi ... sh-3619284
19 Dec 2022
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

China's J-20 Fighter With Long-Awaited WS-15 Engines May Have Flown
There are signs that a Chinese J-20 stealth fighter has flown for the first time with two new indigenously developed WS-15 jet engines installed. If true, this would be a significant milestone in the continued development of the J-20 design and the WS-15 turbofan.

Pictures and videos reportedly from the test flight have been increasingly circulating on social media. The flight is said to have taken place yesterday and looks to have been conducted from the manufacturer Chengdu's main test airfield, which is co-located with its production plant in its namesake city.

Signs point to the first flight of a J-20 stealth fighter with two WS-15 engines.
There are signs that a Chinese J-20 stealth fighter has flown for the first time with two new indigenously developed WS-15 jet engines installed. If true, this would be a significant milestone in the continued development of the J-20 design and the WS-15 turbofan.

Pictures and videos reportedly from the test flight have been increasingly circulating on social media. The flight is said to have taken place yesterday and looks to have been conducted from the manufacturer Chengdu's main test airfield, which is co-located with its production plant in its namesake city.

The quality of the imagery makes it difficult to independently determine conclusively if the J-20 in question indeed has WS-15s in place of the WS-10-series turbofans that now generally power these jets. The original J-20 prototypes and initial production examples were powered by Russian-made AL-31 turbofans. The easiest way to tell for sure that the reportedly re-engined J-20 has WS-15s would be to get a close look at the exhaust nozzles.

A WS-10-powered J-20 seen from the rear. YouTube screen capture "What I find interesting is, when I saw that video it was one of my first impressions, the sound is different to a WS-10C, more of a dull, deep rumble," Andreas Rupprecht, a Chinese military aviation expert and contributor to The War Zone, wrote on Twitter after watching a clip of the reported test flight.

Pictures of the reportedly WS-15-powered jet after the conclusion of its flight do show it receiving special attention. One image also shows a banner where the number 15 is visible, as well.

Hard details about the WS-15, the development of which reportedly traces its roots back to the 1990s, are limited. No images of a prototype or full-scale mockup appear to have emerged publicly to date. Media reports over the years have said that prototypes of the engine have been capable of producing at least 36,000 pounds of thrust using an afterburner and that the ultimate goal is to achieve a thrust rating of 40,000 pounds.

The most powerful afterburning WS-10 variants known to exist now are reportedly in the 32,000 to 35,000-pound maximum thrust class. Variants of the WS-10 with thrust vectoring capabilities have been developed, as well, and could be a feature on future versions of the WS-15, too.

There have certainly been rumors that a WS-15-powered J-20 is coming for some time now. At the same time, there have been a number of indications in the past year or so that this has indeed getting closer to becoming a reality.

In March 2022, reports said that a WS-15-powered J-20 had flown, although only one of these engines was believed to have been fitted at that stage of testing. Then, in December 2022, images appeared online showing what looked to be an example of an improved J-20 variant. It would make sense that the new version would include upgraded engines, among other features. The new J-20 variant is often referred to as the J-20B, though this appears to be at best semi-official. It should not be confused with the two-seat version of the baseline J-20, which appeared publicly for the first time in 2021 and is also often called the J-20B.

"The mass production of WS-10 and WS-15 [engines] delivery has been achieved," Zhang Yong, a project director at the Beijing Institute of Aeronautical Materials, part of the state-owned Aero Engine Corporation of China (AECC), said at an event in March 2023, according to a report from Janes. Zhang added that WS-15 serial production came after his institute "tackled all bottlenecks" from "a technical point of view."

FlightGlobal separately reported at that time that Zhang's comments had also hinted at progress in integrating the WS-15 onto the J-20 specifically.

With 4,000 pounds more thrust or more each than the J-20's existing WS-10s, WS-15s could give these already quite capable jets a significant boost in performance. At least on paper, this could make the J-20 more powerful thrust-wise than either of the other two fifth-generation fighters in widespread service today, the U.S. F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The F-22's two Pratt & Whitney F119s each have a thrust rating of around 35,000 pounds at full afterburner. The afterburning versions of Pratt & Whitney F135 used on the F-35A and C variants are rated up to 43,000 pounds, but those aircraft only have one engine. The F-22 is particularly well known for its speed, including its ability to 'supercruise' at supersonic speeds without the need to use its afterburners, as you can read more about here.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

Why the PLA Rocket Force is in trouble and how it may be related to the CIA



Rumors about the former rocket force deputy commander Lt. General Zhang Zhen-Zhong and current deputy commander Lt. General Liu Guang-Bing arrested for spying
sanman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 22 Mar 2023 11:02

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by sanman »

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

China names General Wang Houbin as new PLA Rocket Force chief after former commanders snared in corruption scandal
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/militar ... on-scandal
31 July 2023
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

China’s J-20 Gets Another Upgrade
https://thediplomat.com/2023/08/chinas- ... r-upgrade/
01 August 2023
Updates on the 5th-gen fighter’s WS-15 engine, new variants, and fleet size, and what it all means for the future of China’s fighter fleet
Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 632
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Anoop »

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

^^^
- Excellent podcast 2 senior ex-generals talking about CCP's rocket force and where India stands
- The generals feel that China might attack India before going after Taiwan (sounds plausible)
- How US thinks climate change is the biggest threat; while China is gaining an upper hand in the world
- China sees war a 7 dimensional event (sea bed to space); Gen Shukla says if he mentions that in India people laugh (lack of knowledge)
rags
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 26 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by rags »

VinodTK wrote: 12 Aug 2023 01:56 ^^^
- The generals feel that China might attack India before going after Taiwan (sounds plausible)
This is why, Bharat's infra build on the LAC has reached crisis proportions, even while the armies are facing each other. And massive, never seen before missile/ Rocket forces build up. As if "A Missile test launch a day keeps the ccp away" kind of motto.
We are now waiting for Ukarine/ Russian special experiment's results to fine tune how this going to go. In addition, the CCP has outsourced their thinking to AI; the algo's must be telling them that it is all downhill for the CCP from 2022.
Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 632
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Anoop »

My main takeaways from the interview were:

1. The PLA's written doctrine explicitly states that their BRI infrastructure is dual use. With caneristerized missiles on warships, that eliminates the disadvantage of their lack of military bases and poses a great challenge to the US (and of course, India).

2. The PLA Rocket Force is at the vanguard of their power projection, and Xi has been personally involved in PLA postings.

3. The fact that Xi's hand picked Generals have been compromised by the US should be cause for concern to him.

4. There might be a link between the foreign minister's and the Generals' removal.
tandav
BRFite
Posts: 722
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 08:24

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by tandav »

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... -are-there

The PLAAF is converting enmasse to J-20 with the new WS-15 engine

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... onary-ws15

The IAF must have very good counter stealth methodologies in place with the entire Himalayan Border from Jammu to Tripura covered with decentralized trans-receivers to generate a good target lock. This is essential as India will face near US type sophisticated military with combined arms abilities that need an equally sophisticated counter measures in place. In a long drawn out war with China the current import oriented Indian army will be fighting akin to Ukraine begging for arms from NATO while Russia produces its own weapons to bring to the fight.

India must develop asymmetrically Guerrilla like fighting capabilities against an occupying force like China.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

No sir,

Not necessary sir.

114 imported MRFA are sufficient for the purposes.

Absent those the IAF will not consider any other option.
sanman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 22 Mar 2023 11:02

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by sanman »

PLA building it near India -- it's obviously a military platform -- but for what purpose?

High-altitude radar/surveillance platform? (ie. Aerostat?)
Missile platform?
Airlift/transport vehicle?

Larry Walker
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 26 Nov 2019 17:33

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Larry Walker »

Interesting - just wondering how much difficult it will be for a terrain/image mapping seeker to locate this and home in on the final dive.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

China Seeks to Build Military Base in West Africa: Experts
https://www.theepochtimes.com/china/chi ... ts-5467910
15 August 2023
Post Reply