|
Post by flyjoe180 on Jan 13, 2011 17:45:08 GMT 12
It's never been a mystery that the next major world super power would be China. Now it's on the surge and will not be stopped. The US merely replaces the Soviet Union in the 'Cold War' standings. If Cold War 1 saw the 'Iron Curtain', will this be the 'Rice Curtain'?
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Jan 14, 2011 3:31:15 GMT 12
Not really clever enough to participate in this excellent discussion, but from my old military background I always try to look at the perceived threat, consider the worst case scenario, and then work out a reduction plan to try to a) achieve a more likely scenario than the worst case, and b) determine what needs to be done to deal with the threat.
Mostly what we are talking about here is the unchallengeable point that the Chinese economy is booming, their global influence is rapidly rising and they have a growing military prowess.
On the latter, whilst I know it is wrong to ignore any growing capability, in a threat reduction sense we must also remember China's only ever modern aggression was against Vietnam where they staged a punitive invasion in the late 70s simply to prove to the Vietnamese that they could. Otherwise, China has remained contained within it's current borders for several centuries, appearing disinterested in the imperial aspirations of other comparable countries. Despite my reservations about what they intend to do with a huge blue water navy, I don't believe China will actually become territorially interested any time soon.
Their main interest in militarism will relate to food security. The Navy will be the main protector of sea lanes, and they will use it in an intimidatory manner, much the same as the RN up to the late 60s, and the USN since the Great White Fleet world tour pre WW1.
In ensuring food security, China will be relying on economic growth and we all seem to agree this has been phenomenal so far. In the worst case scenario, a wealthy China could try to dominate world affairs exclusively to their advantage, and many countries could be made to suffer, including many of the present First World nations.
In looking at reducing this threat, the down side for the Chinese is the undeniable fact that their wealth is propped up by a fixed currency. Countries with fixed currencies invariably collapse because nobody can determine their real value. In my view, China will not become a real global powerhouse until the currency floats and investors can see what they are buying.
In the meantime, if China tries to start an arms race I strongly advise against underestimating the global economic dominance of the USA. The GFC was a correction to over inflated value and because First World currencies float, the First World will re-emerge soon.
On stealthy aeroplanes, I am impressed that this machine has flown. I thought it was a fake. In terms of reducing the threat, let's be realistic. New technology is really hard and there is absolutely no reason to believe the Chinese development programmes will run any smoother than those in the west. Not educated enough to know real answers, but this aircraft has canards and a very weird vertical stabilizer set up. New aircraft design has been led by the USA, Europe and Russia for decades. Why have the Chinese "innovatively" included these items on a stealthy Gen 5 aeroplane when no-one else has? Both canards and all moving fins are not stealthy.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 14, 2011 14:50:52 GMT 12
I blame that idiot who walked out in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square for all this. if they'd just run him over, we wouldn't have all this trouble. ;D
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Jan 14, 2011 15:03:30 GMT 12
I blame that idiot who walked out in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square for all this. if they'd just run him over, we wouldn't have all this trouble. ;D Depending on who is telling the story he was tracked down by the authorities and executed anyway. Others have it that he was never identified. The image is also relatively unknown in China itself due to censorship.
|
|
|
Post by adzze on Jan 14, 2011 16:55:12 GMT 12
I blame that idiot who walked out in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square for all this. if they'd just run him over, we wouldn't have all this trouble. ;D That dude must've had balls made of depleted uranium...
|
|
|
Post by smithy on Jan 15, 2011 13:59:13 GMT 12
Although this is interesting what will really be worrying the US is the eminent launch of China's new aircraft carrier(s).
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Jan 15, 2011 15:43:01 GMT 12
Although this is interesting what will really be worrying the US is the eminent launch of China's new aircraft carrier(s). To be honest, I don't think the USN will be too concerned at the present. The Chinese navy are decades behind the USN in developing a Carrier Group let alone bringing the crews etc up to speed (having a carrier group (which I believe they have a type of) and having it work together is a different matter). The current Chinese carrier is the old Soviet navy Varyag which is smaller than her USN counterparts (USS George Washington etc), the Chinese carrier will carry a smaller Air wing also, some 60+ odd aircraft to th USN 90-100+ aircraft. I would imagine also that if the Chinese were to use their "stealth" aircraft on their carrier then its ability to carry out CAP (Combat Air Patrol) will be reduced also. And if the Chinese follow (possibly) the Russian doctrine of firing a radar guided and IR missile together to ensure a hit then the stealth fighter will be toothless very quickly. The other issue I have is, that stealth do not always equate to invisible, but rather allowing the aircraft to get closer to it's target before it's properly detected. The USAF B2 bomber has stealth in one direction (forward) but the radar signature of a barn from the top/bottom. The previous F117 would ghost in and out on enemy radars, making it difficult to pick up, but once it opened its armament bay doors, it lost its stealth (if the enemy radar was looking in the right direction). If you add AWACS into the equation, when the Chinese carrier launched its "stealth" fighter, odds are that they would be picked up at that point, and heading noted. Stealth will only allow the aircraft to get so far before detection, if the Chinese and US carriers had a face off, the USN carrier group would have a large exclusion zone into which the"stealth" fighters would have to penetrate. Odds are that they would be picked up by the USN CAP flying out that far, either by Mk 1 eyeball, or when either the AWACS or fighter or carrier picked up missile launch while the Chinese tried to take out the CAP. In a face off the USN would most likely seek to take out any Chinese AWACS, first to blind the carrier group, if the Chinese was flying one in defense of the carrier (lots of variables there) The Chinese have a long way to go before they really become any threat to the US Navy in a surface to surface engagement.
|
|
|
Post by smithy on Jan 15, 2011 16:02:44 GMT 12
I think the thing that will worry the US isn't necessarily the actual aircraft carriers themselves but what it says about China's changing ideas about her military role in the future.
An aircraft carrier is a means to project a nation's military might in any given region she chooses to deploy it.
I have no doubt the actual hardware will not be of great concern to the US but I do think the idea that China wishes to have that capability and how she will choose to use it and what this means will be discussed at length by US agencies.
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Jan 15, 2011 17:56:23 GMT 12
I think the thing that will worry the US isn't necessarily the actual aircraft carriers themselves but what it says about China's changing ideas about her military role in the future. An aircraft carrier is a means to project a nation's military might in any given region she chooses to deploy it. I have no doubt the actual hardware will not be of great concern to the US but I do think the idea that China wishes to have that capability and how she will choose to use it and what this means will be discussed at length by US agencies. I would agree with you whole heartedly about China's desire to push out into the Pacific. I don't think the US has not noticed China's' wanton desire to be a Pacific Rim power 1) Korean war - China certainly showed it's willingness to support who ever (North Koreans in this case) and use military might 2) Spratley Islands- for quite some time China has been at loggerheads in territorial dispute with Vietnam, Philippines etc who have laid claim to the islands -why is China interested in these islands - OIL- Black Gold!!! Having a carrier force to intimidate the Vietnamese/Philippines will project Beijings' will on this. The Philippines, no longer have US military bases/equipment on their shores -China has an open hand to project her new found wealth and military might (which she has done already, refer to my previous comments on PLAN ships visiting New Zealand). 3) The US has maintained bases in Japan- really only place left now in Asia but gives the US a launching pad just in case. The main issue I see, that will affect the power base in the SW Pacific (includes NZ) is the backdoor military assistance offered to countries like Fiji (Tonga too I believe) could include the Solomons also. If China can slowly lure Fiji/others in with the offers of troop training/equipment, guess who ends up with a Pacific Island base(s) in which to project naval force from (who was the ningnong who said we live in a benign environment?) If China can find a "Pearl Harbour" in the SW Pacific then anything can happen. Places like New Zealand can't offer any resistance, and we have a Trade Agreement also, economic leverage for China, New Zealand is effectively gelded (plus previous governments have effectively burned any bridges with our allies eg USA).
|
|
|
Post by adzze on Jan 15, 2011 19:42:53 GMT 12
Something to consider is the trend of relative wealth between China and US over the next 30 years and how this will effect the quality and quantity of defence programmes. Remember the Cold War? The old Soviet Union spent as much as 25% of its GDP on defence. The USA's "Reagan doctrine" arguably helped end the Cold War through leveraging its economic advantages over the USSR through increased defence spending (which the latter couldn't match in terms of sophistication), and encouraging a world oversupply of the USSR's primary export commodity, oil. But what if China could do the same to the US? The US is still by far the largest economy on earth, with a GDP of $14 Trillion. China's is currently $4 Trillion. But, on current growth rates it's expected to exceed that of the US in the next 10-20 years. Now in this news article, we can see that sophisticated weapons systems, especially ones designed to be superior, are massively expensive: www.defencetalk.com/f-35-looking-more-like-white-elephant-31347/In the event of Cold War 2.0, what if China adopted something like the Reagan doctrine to rein in the US, just through the sheer cost of trying to keep up?
|
|
|
Post by chinapilot on Jan 15, 2011 23:11:21 GMT 12
As far as the US Carriers are concerned the latest problem seems to be that China has developed a missile that can target them...this will put a whole new concept on 'Gunboat Diplomacy'...
Don't underestimate them...
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Jan 15, 2011 23:46:50 GMT 12
As far as the US Carriers are concerned the latest problem seems to be that China has developed a missile that can target them...this will put a whole new concept on 'Gunboat Diplomacy'... Don't underestimate them... The Russians did that too... Built smacking great missiles to sink carriers Apparently this Chinese missle is Ballistic so it can travel some distance around 1500 kms really depends on its warhead. Russian Anti Carrier missiles typically newer generation types had a 400 kg warhead. Whilst it can damage the carrier not sink it, would take a few hits to do so. If the Chinese went Nuclear to sink a carrier then the US would retaliate in kind. Would the Chinese be so foolish to initiate MAD- Mutually Assured Destruction - hope we don't have to find out. Whilst no one would under estimate such a threat, one thing to remember the Pacific is a large body of water You have to find the Carrier battle group first to target it. Satellites will assit, but again you must know where to look, then the Battle group will not stay stationary.... Also The US has a Space programme too..... The missle will be supersonic no doubt but, unless it has a ramjet/pulse jet type engine to supplement its inital rocket, it will only have its inital kenetic energy to keep it going once the rocket burns out, mid course guidance corrections would be small. Anything large would cause the missile to lose its inertia and trajectory. Until the world sees one in action ie test flight we don't even know how well it will work. China has obviously set its heart upon this build up, one important lesson learned from WWII, don't under estimate any potential enemies... Look how the Allies looked upon Japan.... China may end up with new missiles, carriers etc but don't count the US out, by no means...
|
|
|
Post by alanw on Jan 16, 2011 14:55:24 GMT 12
Hi All Found this interesting article while visiting another forum How the USAF has taken to dealing to the new Chinese Stealth Fighter www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/old-school-jet/Whilst there are always many variables in these situtations, no fighter is ever "untouchable". Read this article of how a USAF F16 pilot dropped a USAF F22 (stealth) fighter during Red Flag www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/07/first-f-22-rapt/Whilst the Red Flag exercises are controlled environments, it still shows how even a pilot with the latest technology can lose to a pilot in an older non stealth aircraft. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 16, 2011 15:22:51 GMT 12
I blame that idiot who walked out in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square for all this. if they'd just run him over, we wouldn't have all this trouble. ;D Depending on who is telling the story he was tracked down by the authorities and executed anyway. Others have it that he was never identified. The image is also relatively unknown in China itself due to censorship. Yes, but they went all around the rest of the world and the people in the "West" began thinking that as there was now a chipping away at the authority of Communist China from within, what better time to tap into the world's largest workforce. That is when the Americans and many other large manufacturing countries decided to begin moving their business offshore to a cheaper labour force, thus the beginning of the ned for their own local economies. Even if the Chinese are decades behind the US Navy, don't underestimate the speed in which they might catch up. In the past decade or so they have built entirely new cities and supercities in the space of a few years. Building a couple of ships will be a doddle to them. I guess if we do get invaded by China at least a few squadrons of these nice new stealth fighter jets will probably be based in each major NZ city for us to watch.
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Jan 20, 2011 10:11:01 GMT 12
and we might finally get a Chinese takeaway in Cheviot and Kaikoura!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 20, 2011 10:49:15 GMT 12
;D
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Jan 20, 2011 20:48:31 GMT 12
They are fast becoming a capitalist society whether they want to or not. If they become democratic it'll mean the goal posts will have shifted quite dramatically and the 2 sides will blur. China has been pursuing a capitalist economic model for it's economy since Deng Xiao Ping ordered/decided that China should abandon it's isolation from the world back in the 1980s. Too many make the mistake of referring to China as a Communist country still. Be aware that the Chinese Communist Party is the ruling political party and therefore governing party in China and they will do anything, including the oppression of their own citizens to ensure that they hold onto that power. I spent two years living and working in China from August 2006 to August 2008 and I assure you all Chinese are very good capitalists, good with money, bargaining and also saving. I think in a nutshell China and the USA are very much alike IMHO, apart from the political system. China is like the USA but on steroids and that is with regards to all of the good things (economically) about it but also the bad things, such as the huge economic disparities between the wealthy and poor. As for democracy, the Chinese government believes in a 'Chinese' -type of democracy. It's a kind of democracy under a totalitarian government rule, if you actually imagine such a thing I participated in the first official St Patrick's Day parade in Beijing in 2008. The weirdest thing was hearing the Irish ambassador introduce the local official from the Chinese Ministry of Propaganda. Little do the Chinese understand or realise the negative connotations associated with such a name (to Western people) for a government organisation. Truly a surreal/1984 moment. Do go and visit China folks, it's a really fascinating country, with good people and great food (on the whole). If in a major city, do be on the alert for the old 'tea ceremony' scam though.
|
|
|
Post by strikemaster on Jan 20, 2011 21:14:20 GMT 12
You pretty much said what I was trying to say. I can't see democracy being held at bay forever tho. Most governments are like that, even our own. Just not quite the same level of control. Well, not even close really. We don't have as many concentration camps.
1984 for sure. Ironically I think that was the year I was there. :-) Ministry of Propaganda.... lol, at least they call it what it is.
|
|
raylle
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 6
|
Post by raylle on Jan 23, 2011 10:30:18 GMT 12
A little bit of useless information. The stealth concept and design was done over three years by five aircraft engineers with an average age of seventy-one on drawing boards with slide rules. It was then passed on the the computer boys for completion. At least one is still alive today.
|
|
flyingpom
Flying Officer
Their finest hour
Posts: 65
|
Post by flyingpom on Jan 24, 2011 22:03:12 GMT 12
I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the USN and RN attack subs yet.The new Astute class can do both jobs now,Hunting subs and hitting targets up to a 1.000miles away.I knew a guy that served on HMS Turbelance and he said they were always following the russian subs around,They found it hard to detect NATO subs thats why they adopted the crazy Ivon manoeuver.So if it all went TU,no matter how big the new chinese carriers are,If you can hit 20 seperate targets from that distance,I dont think they would get to far from the docks.They say the only thing that you can kill a nuclear sub is with another nuclear sub,Thats why the US always has a hunter sub with every carrier that puts out to sea.
|
|