China is top 3 in everything except...

I don't think being #1 in everything implies a guarantee victory in every war. I mean look at the US for example in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan (same with the Soviets), with all the mighty equipment can not completely destroyed the enemy or hold and control enemy territory effectively. But it did work in both World Wars and the Kosovo War air strikes. So with that said, it all depends on what kind of war is it taking place.

Equation said:

I don't think being #1 in everything implies a guarantee victory in every war. I mean look at the US for example in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan (same with the Soviets), with all the mighty equipment can not completely destroyed the enemy or hold and control enemy territory effectively. But it did work in both World Wars and the Kosovo War air strikes. So with that said, it all depends on what kind of war is it taking place.

Click to expand...

Back then the technological gap was too small even for the US military to defeat more backwards China. However, these days it is very easy to achieve it through technological means.

The war in Afghanistan and Iraq are very extreme cases. It's not the fact that they cannot kill the enemies, but the problem finding them. Theoretically speaking, if the mission was just to kill everyone in sight, similar to that in WWII, then the war could end in a week.
Right now the challenge is an exceptional case, which the war is rather tricky than HARD. Don't forget the US military took over all of Iraq within a month or less. The rest of the turbulence that lasted until now are more similar to the cartel problem in Mexico, than a conventional all-out war.

Vini_Vidi_Vici said:

Back then the technological gap was too small even for the US military to defeat more backwards China. However, these days it is very easy to achieve it through technological means.

The war in Afghanistan and Iraq are very extreme cases. It's not the fact that they cannot kill the enemies, but the problem finding them. Theoretically speaking, if the mission was just to kill everyone in sight, similar to that in WWII, then the war could end in a week.
Right now the challenge is an exceptional case, which the war is rather tricky than HARD. Don't forget the US military took over all of Iraq within a month or less. The rest of the turbulence that lasted until now are more similar to the cartel problem in Mexico, than a conventional all-out war.

Click to expand...

Actually the tactical unit element of finding the enemy and using the terrain is no different back in WW II than it is today. Human judgement and knowledge of terrain and enemy activities are still conducted without using drones or satellites images on a lot of hard to reach areas. Yes all these fancy equipment are built to effectively fight a conventional warfare not a gorilla one or a war of attrition. As each high tech equipment requires more personnel to maintain and operate it, it also take away the special skill (combat support units) soldiers time from their basic infantry skills and squad tactical maneuvers and reaction to any enemy fire, therefore exposing them. Don't get me wrong, high tech warfare equipment are great and very helpful when applied properly, but it also hinders and could become a burden as the war drags on.

I think people kind of overlook the quantity part of the "top 3". It is true that not all of China's airforce/navy/army ect is completely modernized but numbers do count if the technology gap is not huge, therefore making it top three in terms of raw power. Perfect example would be Nazi Germany and USSR in WW2, where an army with large numbers defeated a smaller technologically advanced army.

muddie said:

I think people kind of overlook the quantity part of the "top 3". It is true that not all of China's airforce/navy/army ect is completely modernized but numbers do count if the technology gap is not huge, therefore making it top three in terms of raw power. Perfect example would be Nazi Germany and USSR in WW2, where an army with large numbers defeated a smaller technologically advanced army.

Click to expand...

The corollary here could be said that logistical sustainability can be much more significant than mere technological sophistication alone in combat.

I think China's current military thinking would be to avoid battles of attrition.

Equation said:

How's that, just curious about the technical aspects of it all?

Click to expand...

In fuel consumptions and outer appearance there isn't much difference between these designs, the autogyro is a very simple extremely short STOL design while the helicopter is a more complicated VTOL design.





Shortend runway length possible


Adding optional features for hovering
are very loud and fuel consuming, but simple and would work better with high, even supersonic, speed that would require a different, curved and not straight wing shape. Curved wing shape allows higher (supersonic) rotary wing speeds and thus higher transit speed of rotary wing aircraft from A to B than the current limit on helicopters due to subsonic rotor limits (= cheaper solution for the problem than the Osprey) because there's much less mechanical stress due to an engine pushing the wings, freeing them for enduring higher speed stress.

Current example of military use replacing a helicopter for naval surface surveillance at a fraction of the cost


The ability to hover at a spot is limited to the requirements of troops and some hull down "periscope up" attack helicopter maneuvers () that requires a special configuration. If you can exclude these requirements for a number of machines or reduce their speed requirements and devise suitable maneuvers as well as give them simple devices for rare requirements, all the complicated technology for the main rotor is not required. There's some debate about pull or push configuration, I'm for thrust vectoring at the outlet of an energy efficient fan. If this craft is shot down, the crew will survive because the autogyro can be built sturdy, is no missile target because it lacks a nearby heat source and thus allows the aircraft to glide down without any countertorque (modern high-tech helicopters sometimes can switch to such an emergency configuration).
Autogyros are among the most likely rotary wing for the earliest outstanding complete radar stealth, a major problem with helicopters. For an autogyro aerodynamic drag is a feature because it is powered by the drag of the wings to provide lift. For a helicopter this drag on the rotating wings is energy substracted from their ability to provide lift. Stealth designs usually have more aerodynamic drag.

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ----------

montyp165 said:

The corollary here could be said that logistical sustainability can be much more significant than mere technological sophistication alone in combat.

Click to expand...

Very good comments, it's the overengineering trap, plus the Murmansk convois plus very stupid decisions of the Nazi leadership (naval procurement again too expensive, too inefficient, but not as bad as for the Reich before them). If Someone like Churchill or Roosevelt was the "Führer" (he would have stuck with being chancellor or president in a democracy) it would have looked different. Dictatorships need wackos for internal stability and wackos in power diminish the effects of strength against external threats.

Just look at the USSR, they are lacking behind in so many technology sectors, but everyone fears them.

Click to expand...

Ahh the USSR went "out of business" in December 1991. What's left is the Russian Union and about 12-15 other countries. Much of the USSRs nuclear arsenal was lost to these countries.....And I do not fear Russia.

model modern, unlike ancient, combat with a square and not a linear differential equation. Minor advantages have a major impact with corresponding unbalanced outcomes, making combat increasingly decisive. In my opinion, we might even reach cubic in the near future. Nuclear (and to a lesser degree biological, radiological and chemical) weapons and guerillas are two choices in order to counter the increased decisiveness and retain some capability to impose limits on decisions.
To re-formulate Clausewitz, it's a special case of . There's claimed to be an old Khmer saying that runs like this:"Don't argue with state servants, don't discuss with women and don't barter with the Chinese and you'll lead a long and happy life."

Kurt said:

I totally agree that the issue is more complex than the "death-match" I presented to make a point about capabilities, but it was a valid argument in order to highlight that France or the UK can not be compared to one of the many Chinese provinces in their global power and influence role.
Being an independant country has many influences on outlooks and solutions from which derive influence abilities. Singapore, Hong-Kong and Shanghai can no way be compared in their role in global politics. The sinocentrism above of looking at UK and France as insignificant because of population numbers and thus qualifying them as something akin in importance to some province within China is incorrect. Population numbers don't say much about capabilities. How much of the power of modern China is derived from Hong Kong and Shanghai and what percentage of the population is responsible? Many of the inhabitants are currently, from this perspective, mouths to feed who contribute little wealth gains, but do have future potentials. In a conflict scenario they can be more of a liability than an asset if self-sufficiency becomes impossible.

Click to expand...

You are wrong, sorry. Where was the J-20 developed? Chengdu, 3000 km away from Shanghai in the middle of the mountains. Does the UK or France have anything that compares? No. The difference between the J-20 and any 4th gen like Eurofighter, is just like that between F-22 and F-15: 1 to 100 ratio. In a war scenario, the J-20 developed in 5000 USD gdp/capita Chengdu is still leagues ahead of an Eurofighter developed in 40000 GDP/capita Paris/London.

PanAsian said:

I forgot to mention one thing in my earlier post. China is nowhere near the top 3 in helicopters, in terms of related R&D, production, and operation of helicopters China is very much behind the top players.

As much progress as China has made, I think a lot of posters on this forum underestimate how advanced the real top players in all of these military and technological fields are.

Not only has China made a lot of progress, it also has a realistic chance of someday catching up and becoming a top player in all of these fields. But that day is at least years if not decades away assuming everything continues to go as well for China as it has in the recent past.

Click to expand...

Helicopters are tactical weapons. Useless for turning the tide of a war. They are useful when you are already winning and dominating to further win and dominate. They are useless when enemy fighters are taking your cities out. The only things that can really turn the tide of a modern war are fighters, fighter radars, AWACS, ground early warning radars, satellites, bombers, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, destroyers, destroyer radars, submarines and SAMs. In all of these aspects, China is already top 3.