China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

chola · Post by **chola** » 09 Jan 2017 17:23

shiv wrote:
Tomorrow I will write about the dream I had about an Indian kid (not) arguing with a Chinese kid and agreeing with everything. Watch this space

</digression>

Shivji, this would make sense if we actually had a proper amount of chini kids to argue with. Like the hundreds currently posting in the paki forum. There, a core group of us are maintaining a shock and awe campaign in the Indian section. To be perfectly honest, we put up more pictures in concentrated form to burn paki eyes than we do here. Why? Because BR is ours so we can discuss OUR issues in whatever manner deem fit (including dry pictureless threads and woe-are-us wailings.) While the paki forum is theirs so that is where your "please don't acknowledge the enemy" pleadings make sense.

Here at BR, how many chinis do we have? I count exactly two -- Liu and David. We need to constrain our talk because of two old mostly useless members? Ban them if we need to worry about our own speech in our own house.

Shivji, I said you will "try" to get me banned because as jingo sahib I am a chini apologist onlee to you not that I ascribe any power to you.

chola · Post by **chola** » 09 Jan 2017 17:40

<POOF>

Admint note - Stick to thread topic. Take your observations on forum moderation to Forum Feedback thread

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Jan 2017 18:13

Philip wrote: https://sputniknews.com/military/201701 ... t-carrier/

The Chinese spend a lot of effort in trying to intimidate using psy ops. And it works and they know it works. If you ask my personal opinion the Chinese nuke sub docking in Karachi is exactly that - meant to intimidate. Nuke subs are supposed to remain stealthy and unseen. But I digress. I think a lot of people don't grok the extent to which the Chinese use psy ops - and in fact this leads to the type of exchange I wrote about in the fictitious dream posted earlier.

Just look at the above link. Some chap called "Liang Fang" is described as an expert and he says:

although the Chinese aircraft carrier battle group is not comparable with its US counterpart in tonnage or number of aircraft, it nevertheless boasts stamina and a bright future. “From the perspective of future development, the US military clearly lacks stamina and the country's insufficient military spending is proof of that,” Liang told People’s Daily. In addition, frequent problems with US Navy Super Hornet, F-35C and other carrier-borne fighters have seriously hindered the aircraft carriers’ combat capability.

I admire the pride these guys show - that itself is half the battle won with 75% of Indians immediately pissing in their pants reading such stuff. China has won at least half the media battle against India and will stay that way. With China on its way to defeat the US what can India do - India a nation that is so far below the US in our own eyes that anything we talk about as the best in military terms is American. We rate ourselves third grade - as our own view of us.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 09 Jan 2017 19:52

although the Chinese aircraft carrier battle group is not comparable with its US counterpart in tonnage or number of aircraft, it nevertheless boasts stamina and a bright future. “From the perspective of future development, the US military clearly lacks stamina and the country's insufficient military spending is proof of that,” Liang told People’s Daily. In addition, frequent problems with US Navy Super Hornet, F-35C and other carrier-borne fighters have seriously hindered the aircraft carriers’ combat capability.

yeah and I bet this guy thinks King Kong ain't nothing but another g-d d--n monkey!

I put this one under believing-yer-own-lies.

like watching old horror movies where the chump goes into a haunted house and says trembling "I ain't scared of no ghosts!".

the Han think they're the smartest thing since pork dumplings and soy sauce were created.

ricky_v · Post by **ricky_v** » 11 Jan 2017 19:23

http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/chi ... li=AAggbRN

China's newly formed Rocket Force launched 100 ballistic missiles last year while army conducted scores of live drills, official media reported on Wednesday as the 2.3 million strong PLA, the world's largest army, adopts a more aggressive posture with massive structural revamp. Each combatant branch of the PLA - the Army, Navy, Air Force and Rocket Force - has confirmed that realistic training drills and exercises were intensified last year

The Army sent 15 brigades to participate in more than 100 drills; the Air Force conducted at least six large, long-range training drills in the Western Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea; the Rocket Force carried out more than 20 exercises and launched nearly 100 ballistic missiles," the report said.
"The Navy organised three live-fire exercises that featured a large number of forces from its three fleets," in addition to the first aircraft carrier Liaoning battle group conducting its first live-fire drill, four years after its commissioning. The Air Force is now taking delivery of the Y-20 strategic transport plane, mass production of the J-20 stealth fighter is understood to have started. A next-generation strategic bomber is also being developed for the Air Force and is expected to be unveiled soon," the report said.

The Rocket Force which was previously known as strategic force has commissioned a new type of strategic ballistic missile, the report said without disclosing details

"The last day of 2015 saw the establishment of PLA Army Headquarters, the PLA Rocket Force and the PLA Strategic Support Force, moves that formally started the historic shakeup," it said.

"The founding of the PLA Army Headquarters ended 88 years without a leading body for the Army, and also signalled the end of an era in which the unit dominated the other services and had the final word in military affairs," it said.

Historically, the Army did not have its own headquarters because its units were under the direct control of the CMC, while the seven former regional commands oversaw the operations of Army units under their jurisdictions.The regional commands were also reshuffled to become the Eastern, Southern, Western, Northern and Central theatre commands replacing seven regional commands named after the cities in which their headquarters were located. The western command became an integrated command for India borders.

Du Wenlong, a senior researcher at the PLA Academy of Military Science said, the rebranding of the Second Artillery Corps as PLA Rocket Force indicates that China is transparent and confident about displaying its true military capabilities to the world, and that the Rocket Force is expected to play a larger role in the future.

The tasks assigned to the Strategic Support Force have yet to be unveiled, but Yin Zhuo, director of the PLA Navy's Expert Consultation Committee, said the responsibilities of the new branch will include target reconnaissance and tracking, global positioning operations, space-asset management and defending against hostile activities in the cyberspace and electromagnetic fields.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 11 Jan 2017 21:06

well, according to yankees, CHina has only 20+ missles which can hit north America with nukes,although china rocket force fire 100 missles( including s ICBM like DF31/41) in all kinds of tests/drills

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jan 2017 07:46

As is my wont, I will ask a rhetorical question which may have no clear answer other than the one I am trying to suggest..

We insist time and again that technology is acquired faster by copying. It is very difficult to claim that this assertion is not true. To an extent it really is true.

Let me start with jet engines. Chinese jet engines look just as good as any made by the top companies. It is likely that some have been copied part by part. But unlike handbags and lipstick, jet engines are graded by their function - their power and reliability and fuel efficiency. And that is where Chinese engines have fallen short. It is not as if they have not had a chance to study and copy engines - and it is not as though engine data could not have been stolen. The point is that one engine looks much like another but one may not work as well as the other. This we all know and accept as facts based on available information.

But what about stealth tech. The earliest attempts at stealth tech development by the US was in the 1950s. But the F-117 came in 1983 and the F-22 in 1997. Just 14 years after 1997 - the Chinese produced an aircraft that appeared to have all the stealth features of the F-117 and F-22. By 2011 we all knew what a "stealthy aircraft" should look like. It should have radar absorbent skin, be black in colour, have leading and trailing edges in parallel lines, should have engine face hidden, should have a radar signal breaking zig-zag pattern on hatches and doors, should have engine exhaust shielded, should have no uneven bumps, rivets etc. We knew it. So did China. China produced something that looked like what we knew stealth was supposed to look like and now we all accept that China has stealthy "5th generation" aircraft and has caught up with the US.

Now riddle me this. What is it about stealth technology that makes something that appears stealthy in China as good as the best in the world, while Chinese jet engines, that look as good as the best do not work so well?

I hear a lot of stories "Oh the Chinese stole it" . OK. But why didn't they steal engine tech that was available to them as ready-made engines and has been around for longer?

I feel I am now entering territory where it is necessary to post my usual disclaimer lest I have my mouth smashed in by people who demand that I must respect the Chinese. Please click on link below if you feel inclined or else move on..

China Disclaimer

It is possible that Chinese stealth designs have copied the appearances of the best stealth designs of the world in a manner that convinces people who can recognize stealth by visual appearance but not by radar, IR or acoustic signature. Stealth is only partly about shape - a lot of it is skin care and avoidance of bumps and scratches and the actual materials used. The shape is easily copied, but is stealth so easily copied? If stealth tech is copied so easily why was engine tech not copied so easily?

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 12 Jan 2017 09:30

there are huge amounts metallurgical research not only in jet engines but stealth.

I would also add that flight controls on stealth planes are a nightmare w/o automation. the US has had a number of crashes/accidents on developing the flight controls.

if you don't do the research then what you have is a cargo cult.

that's the reason why I like India's space program. step by step they are doing the research.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jan 2017 18:45

https://sputniknews.com/military/201611 ... a-pacific/

China's New Copy of Russian Supersonic Missile Has US Pacific Fleet Worried

MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE 13:40 11.11.2016

China's new CM-302 supersonic anti-ship cruise missile is a variation on Russia's Yakhont missile, and the development will worry the US as it tries to impose its authority in the Pacific region, military expert Vasiliy Kashin told Sputnik. © WIKIPEDIA Flying High, Flying Fast: Russian Hypersonic Missile's Capabilities Revealed At the Zhuhai air show earlier this month, China Aerospace Science and Industry Corp (CASC) unveiled its CM-302 supersonic anti-ship cruise missile. According to CASC, the missile system can carry a 250kg warhead and has a range of around 290 km. Traveling faster than the speed of sound, it has an accuracy rate of 90 percent. There are only two other supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles on the market, Russia's P-800 Onyx (Yakhont) and the joint Russian-Indian BrahMos supersonic missile, for which the P-800 served as the basis for development. The Yakhont is capable of traveling at up to 2.6 times the speed of sound and has a 300km range. It can carry a warhead weighing up to 200kg, and can be launched from land, sea, air and submarine. The sea-skimming missile is able to fly at altitudes between 5 and 15 meters above sea level, avoiding radar and infrared detection as it approaches its target. © PHOTO: WIKIPEDIA/ONE HALF 3544 Anti-ship missile Brahmos Chinese reporters at the Zhuhai air show were quick to call the CM-302 "the world's best anti-ship missile." However, military expert Vasiliy Kashin told Sputnik that while Chinese manufacturers are able to manufacture top anti-ship cruise missiles, their development lags behind rivals. "China has had real success in making supersonic anti-ship missiles, but it shows very modest capability for creating really innovation constructions in this sphere." "China is still playing catch-up, and the supersonic missiles produced by CASC and China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC) are modifications of the two main structures of Russian anti-ship cruise missiles," Kashin said. "In itself, this approach is not so bad. In some ways, China has already overtaken Western countries, including the US, which has only subsonic missiles. However, Tiawan has begun production of its own Hsiung Feng III supersonic missile." The CM-302 unveiled at the Zhuhai air show is the export version of the YJ-12 which is in service with the Chinese navy. That, in turn, was developed on the basis of Russia's Kh-31 supersonic anti-ship cruise missile, which was the first to be able to launch from tactical aircraft. © SPUTNIK/ EVGENY BIYATOV Yakhont anti-ship cruise missile While China has successfully developed an analogue to the Yakhont, it still lacks a rival to heavier supersonic missiles such as the Russian P-700 Granit, which can carry a 750kg warhead, or the P-1000 Vulkan, which can carry a 1,000kg warhead. "The P-700 is really a small plane weighing seven tons, which flies towards its target up to 2.5 times the speed of sound. The P-700 has its own radio-electric station and fired missiles exchange information during flight and co-ordinate their attack in order to hit the target simultaneously from different directions." "These missiles have been repeatedly modernized and are capable of firing at land targets. Such heavy missiles are specifically designed for targeting aircraft carriers and have a range of up to 700km," Kashin said. Russia continues with the development of its anti-ship missiles, including the Tsirkon hypersonic cruise missile which travels at five times the speed of sound and has a range of 400km. According to sources in the Russian navy, the atomic missile cruisers Admiral Nakhimov and Pyotr Velikiy will be fitted with the new equipment during the course of modernization over the next couple of years. © SPUTNIK/ VITALY ANKOV Sentinels of Peace: Crimeans Resting Easy With Bal and Bastion Missiles on Duty Russia is also extending its co-operation with India, and last month it was reported that the two countries are going to double the range of Brahmos to 600km. Vasiliy Kashin told Sputnik that China's rapid development of anti-ship cruise missile capability has serious consequences for the South China Sea dispute and the US' ability to defend its interests there. "China's advances in missile manufacturing will have a serious impact on the military-political situation in the Pacific, in any case. It is a concern for the Americans." "The US is well aware that as the number of Chinese supersonic missiles is increasing, as is their range. The YJ-12 can be launched from outside the maximum range of the most common American anti-aircraft missiles such as the Standard SM-2, and buying a lot of long-range missiles such as the Standard SM-6 is a huge cost, because each missile costs $4 million," Kashin said.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201611 ... a-pacific/

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 14 Jan 2017 00:53

shiv wrote:As is my wont, I will ask a rhetorical question which may have no clear answer other than the one I am trying to suggest..

We insist time and again that technology is acquired faster by copying. It is very difficult to claim that this assertion is not true. To an extent it really is true.

Let me start with jet engines. Chinese jet engines look just as good as any made by the top companies. It is likely that some have been copied part by part. But unlike handbags and lipstick, jet engines are graded by their function - their power and reliability and fuel efficiency. And that is where Chinese engines have fallen short. It is not as if they have not had a chance to study and copy engines - and it is not as though engine data could not have been stolen. The point is that one engine looks much like another but one may not work as well as the other. This we all know and accept as facts based on available information.

But what about stealth tech. The earliest attempts at stealth tech development by the US was in the 1950s. But the F-117 came in 1983 and the F-22 in 1997. Just 14 years after 1997 - the Chinese produced an aircraft that appeared to have all the stealth features of the F-117 and F-22. By 2011 we all knew what a "stealthy aircraft" should look like. It should have radar absorbent skin, be black in colour, have leading and trailing edges in parallel lines, should have engine face hidden, should have a radar signal breaking zig-zag pattern on hatches and doors, should have engine exhaust shielded, should have no uneven bumps, rivets etc. We knew it. So did China. China produced something that looked like what we knew stealth was supposed to look like and now we all accept that China has stealthy "5th generation" aircraft and has caught up with the US.

Now riddle me this. What is it about stealth technology that makes something that appears stealthy in China as good as the best in the world, while Chinese jet engines, that look as good as the best do not work so well?

I hear a lot of stories "Oh the Chinese stole it" . OK. But why didn't they steal engine tech that was available to them as ready-made engines and has been around for longer?

I feel I am now entering territory where it is necessary to post my usual disclaimer lest I have my mouth smashed in by people who demand that I must respect the Chinese. Please click on link below if you feel inclined or else move on..

China Disclaimer

It is possible that Chinese stealth designs have copied the appearances of the best stealth designs of the world in a manner that convinces people who can recognize stealth by visual appearance but not by radar, IR or acoustic signature. Stealth is only partly about shape - a lot of it is skin care and avoidance of bumps and scratches and the actual materials used. The shape is easily copied, but is stealth so easily copied? If stealth tech is copied so easily why was engine tech not copied so easily?

Shape, by and large, IS stealth. Other countries don't make stealth planes primarily because it's so damn expensive both to build/maintain as well as having little commercial utility to help recuperate the cost of investment, not because of its technical difficulties. The pinnacle of technology is still materials science, which in turn is what engines and semiconductors (e.g. AESA radars) rely on and have commercial utility that far outweigh their military applications. The tolerance of fit on the Rafale or the Typhoon, for example, is probably comparable to those on stealth aircrafts and do allow for reduced RCS on those aircrafts, but the Europeans didn't go a step further for full stealth because manufacturing techniques that allow for such tight fit has a much, much wider range of commercial applications than e.g. stealth shaping and RAM.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 15 Jan 2017 09:56

US Deploys Third Carrier Group In Asia To Boost "Naval Air Forces" In Disputed South China Sea

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-1 ... ted-south-

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 15 Jan 2017 21:16

http://m.scmp.com/news/china/article/20 ... ern-region

Navy man tipped to command PLA’s key southern region

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Jan 2017 13:27

The creators of the Chinese "anti-stealth" radars were awarded

The creators of the Chinese radar meter length received the National Award for Science and Technology in 2016, according to a Chinese source.

It is reported that JY-26 radar, which has a maximum detection range of aerial targets up to 500 km, successfully detect stealth targets such as American fighter F-22 and F-35, and provides an accurate measurement of coordinates. Modern stealth aircraft optimized for stealth in the decimeter, centimeter and millimeter range, but helpless in the meter range.

China is also developing a system of passive radar, the principle of which consists in placing the radar interacting over a large area, which by analyzing the difference between the received signals from each other in real time determine the coordinates stealth purposes.

The creation of these stations engaged in NII-38, which is also known as the China Electronic Technology Group (China Electronics Technology Group). The Institute was established in 1965 in Duyane (Guizhou Province), to the end of 1988 moved to Hefei (Anhui Province).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jan 2017 16:36

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jan 2017 10:38

Did Trump’s Team Just Threaten War With China?

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/01 ... enseOneTCO

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Jan 2017 22:05

Why India–Vietnam Military Relation Disturbs China
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spot ... rbs-china/

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Jan 2017 04:33

2 Chinese helicopter pilots die in crash-likely to be WZ-10 gunship

A helicopter of the People's Liberation Army Ground Force's aviation wing crashed in southeast China's Fujian Province on 19 January, killing both pilots, the China Military Online website reported on 23 January.

Three other people suffered minor injuries and four houses were damaged as a result of the crash, which occurred during a night-flight training mission near the village of Xiazhuwei.

The military did not disclose what kind of helicopter the pilots were flying, but observers said it is likely to have been a WZ-10 attack helicopter. The cause of the crash is under investigation.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Jan 2017 20:46

China bans export of Chengdu J-20
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2015/03/ ... -j-20.html

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Jan 2017 04:46

Dhoti Shiver!!!!

China may have tested new 400-km range air-to-air missile
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/ ... s-4493078/

China may test 400-km range air-to-air missile
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/chin ... 67358.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jan 2017 08:41

A 400 km AAM is obviously a threat, but it would be interesting to know how the targeting would be achieved at 400 km As a rough "back of envelop" calculation - even at 300 km - with the missile travelling at 3 Mach (?) and the AWACS at 0.8 Mach the plane would have moved 70 km in the time that the missile takes to get to the area. So what is the mode of terminal guidance?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2017 10:47

shiv wrote:A 400 km AAM is obviously a threat, but it would be interesting to know how the targeting would be achieved at 400 km As a rough "back of envelop" calculation - even at 300 km - with the missile travelling at 3 Mach (?) and the AWACS at 0.8 Mach the plane would have moved 70 km in the time that the missile takes to get to the area. So what is the mode of terminal guidance?

They would loft it up say 25km altitude to get that kind of range while providing mcg updates , guidance would be INS/mcu and homing would be Active/Passive for terminal homing with possible LOJ capability. Perhaps a dual pulse motor as well for long range. Thats how it works for atleast R-37M AAM

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2017 11:08

A Closer Look At Stealth, Part 4: Counterstealth Radars At Zhuhai 2016

http://aviationweek.com/defense/closer- ... es-1565651

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Jan 2017 21:54

Chaoxun-1 vs BrahMos: An Arms Race or War of Words Over RAMJET Supersonic Cruise Missile Technology?
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2016/09/ ... ology.html

These reports have been proven false by Russia defence officials stating “there is no question of Russian technology being used for the Cx-1”. Still, the missile has been ironically nicknamed “Cahoxi 1”, meaning “Copy 1” in English. There has been speculation that the Chinese CX-1 is a copy of the BrahMos supersonic missile and bears an unsettling resemblance to it.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 Jan 2017 22:00

Uneasy over Trump's hardline stance, China steps up preparedness for military conflict with US
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 811582.cms

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jan 2017 14:43

Stealh + camouflage paint = visibly invisble

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Jan 2017 15:53

China does seem to assess there is a likely militry confrontation with India in the near term ... and since its not likely India that is going to initiate .preoccupied as it is with its own economy ...signs are ominous
.. this is the only reason they are objecting to US arms sales to India ...by the same logic one wonders about Russian support to India in war with China

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 30 Jan 2017 18:14

kit wrote:China does seem to assess there is a likely militry confrontation with India in the near term ... and since its not likely India that is going to initiate .preoccupied as it is with its own economy ...signs are ominous
.. this is the only reason they are objecting to US arms sales to India ...by the same logic one wonders about Russian support to India in war with China

They are probably confident enough that they can strong arm Russia into ditching India in the case of a conflict. Or maybe this list is for negotiation - go in with 6 demands and settle for the 2 that they really want.

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Jan 2017 22:35

Rakesh wrote:Chaoxun-1 vs BrahMos: An Arms Race or War of Words Over RAMJET Supersonic Cruise Missile Technology?
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2016/09/ ... ology.html

These reports have been proven false by Russia defence officials stating “there is no question of Russian technology being used for the Cx-1”. Still, the missile has been ironically nicknamed “Cahoxi 1”, meaning “Copy 1” in English. There has been speculation that the Chinese CX-1 is a copy of the BrahMos supersonic missile and bears an unsettling resemblance to it.

Boss ..when something looks it and flies like it ..it has to be the same .. maybe clone 2 will be different . I wont trust the Russians any more, they do have the idea that India is a soft kneed state and play up for suckers

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 30 Jan 2017 23:06

kit: Oh I know. Next you will see the Copy 1 painted in green and shipped to Porkistan. It will be called Speedy Abdul

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jan 2017 23:16

Chinese Chaoxun-1

Indian Brahmos

Chinese C-802

French Exocet

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Feb 2017 13:03

Multi-warhead weapon tested amid growing tensions with the United States

China Tests Missile With 10 Warheads

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -warheads/

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Feb 2017 13:27

kit wrote:China does seem to assess there is a likely militry confrontation with India in the near term ... and since its not likely India that is going to initiate .preoccupied as it is with its own economy ...signs are ominous
.. this is the only reason they are objecting to US arms sales to India ...by the same logic one wonders about Russian support to India in war with China

Sorry but this is Dhoti Shivering with capital letters. The chinis are scared stiff of what Trump will do. It is they who are worried about what the Russians will do since Trump loves Putin. And the Russians went all out to support his candidacy.

Again, why assume that we would not initiate a war with cheen especially when the US Navy and USAF (and probably Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Singapore) begin their dance with the chinis? Must we always be Mahatma, half naked and retiring to the blows of others? No, we can deliver the first punches. We can take advantage of advantageous geo-political situations and victimize others.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Feb 2017 14:17

Lets see what DT does , will he stop recognising 1 china policy by recognizing Taiwan , Will he start a conflict in South China Sea , Will he add 45 % tarrif on Chinese product entering into US as he claims he will do or move back jobs to US from China ?

DT will face strong resistance from US Business Community that are so embedded into Chinese business network , Obama could not do much inspite of his Polished Rhetoric on China

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Feb 2017 14:34

Austin wrote:Lets see what DT does , will he stop recognising 1 china policy by recognizing Taiwan , Will he start a conflict in South China Sea , Will he add 45 % tarrif on Chinese product entering into US as he claims he will do or move back jobs to US from China ?

DT will face strong resistance from US Business Community that are so embedded into Chinese business network , Obama could not do much inspite of his Polished Rhetoric on China

I know Wall Street. Yes, there are many who feel that the Trump is bluffing since the entire Fortune 500 are tied up in one way or another with Cheen. But there are others who are already cashing in on this market (a very good time with the DOW over 20K) in preparation for the trade war.

If you look at the people Trump has put in charge of trade, the writing is on the wall. There is not much wiggle room when your chief trade advisor (Navarro) us the author of "Death by China."

His Secretary of State nominee, Tillerson, stated he would blockade Cheen from its newly built islands in the SCS. The chinis had said this would mean war. He has already encourage Taiwan to act independently. A Taiwanese declaration of independence would mean war.

Even if Trump does nothing more going forward, the PRC must keep preponderance of force facing east base on those alone.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2017 16:05

the taiwan AF is in process of updating their 100+ F16 with APG82 type aesa radars and new munitions.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Feb 2017 16:23

chola wrote: I know Wall Street. Yes, there are many who feel that the Trump is bluffing since the entire Fortune 500 are tied up in one way or another with Cheen. But there are others who are already cashing in on this market (a very good time with the DOW over 20K) in preparation for the trade war.

If you look at the people Trump has put in charge of trade, the writing is on the wall. There is not much wiggle room when your chief trade advisor (Navarro) us the author of "Death by China."

His Secretary of State nominee, Tillerson, stated he would blockade Cheen from its newly built islands in the SCS. The chinis had said this would mean war. He has already encourage Taiwan to act independently. A Taiwanese declaration of independence would mean war.

Even if Trump does nothing more going forward, the PRC must keep preponderance of force facing east base on those alone.

Yes I agree Trump has added people to his administration that have background calling for Tarrif and other trade restrictive practices against China. I even saw Tillerson confirmation hearing on China and He mentioned New Built Island at SSC would be an act of war etc.

But those confirmation hearing are just staged managed stuff to please their audience , If tillerson wont say these things he will face opposition from his own parties.

I want to see clear cut policies that not just talk about it but do something about it , Past Adminstration have been high on pitch and weak on actions , May be The Dems being Leftist on Ideology have a Soft corner for china and didnt do any thing beyond rhetoric or simply scummbed to US Corporates pressure , May be DT will be different and his Center Right Party are not idelogical driven to please china but its too early to say about it.

The proof of the pudding is in its eating , Lets see what comes out from US beyond anti China Rhetoric and how long they can sustain a Trade War with China or threat of Military Confrontation then we can say if DT was just bluffing to get a good deal for US or he was serious.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Feb 2017 16:58

Analysis: Chinese Aircraft Carrier Program Progressing Substantially Into the New Year

This takes me back to a debate I witnessed at the US Naval academy a few years ago where one side was arguing for cancelation of the USN CVN program on account of counter-carrier technology essentially "killing" the carrier concept. One of the predictions the other side made was to closely monitor the Chinese carrier build up and the person at the time predicted that they will ultimately begin to incorporate many elements including CAT's in the future. I see a similar pattern in the stealth vs counter-stealth debate where they are also churning out a substantial number of low-observable designs in the fast jet, strike, and unmanned categories while also claiming to detect stealth aircraft from insanely long ranges.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 03 Feb 2017 08:31

chinese must be deterred from space war says US general.....

http://spacenews.com/hyten-u-s-must-det ... -in-space/

“If somebody wants to threaten that and if they do something to geosynchronous orbit because of where that orbit is, the debris that’s created will be there forever,” he said. “That means I have to figure out — with the 184,000 people who work under Strategic Command — how we defend the nation against that kind of threat and how I deter that conflict from ever happening.” -

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 05 Feb 2017 07:40

http://idrw.org/new-chinese-air-air-mis ... ore-123532

Photographs posted on Chinese media show China’s J-11B and J-16 fighters carrying an unnamed missile that Chinese state-run media confirms has a range of nearly 400kms. New very long-range air-to-air missiles are especially threat to India’s high-value targets, which usually operate beyond operational range of BVRAAMs

A2A missile of 400Km range,
Is there any thread to document gems such as these

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Feb 2017 09:46

^^^ It is certainly possible. It is nrither a new, nor an unfeasible idea.