China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread
- Thread starter swimmerXC
- Start date
- Status
Western forces is very general, cause not all Western forces are 2009 standard, some Western forces are still in 1990's technology. To add on not all Western forces have SSN and SSBN. So if I had to put China military as a whole I'd say its American technology equivalent to mid 1990's. But with that said American military technology haven't risen or paced itself that much since 2004 to current 2009. So currently China is about less then a decade behind America technology in general. I say general cause some area's aren't near 1990's level, others are pass 1990 level, and other areas are modern-advanced. In area of submarine there are only 5 in total submarine powerhouses. America, France, UK, Russia and China.
escobar
Brigadier
China holds landmark naval parade to mark PLA Navy 60th anniversary
Chinese President Hu Jintao, aboard the Chinese Navy destroyer Shijiazhuang, reviewed Thursday afternoon warships and aircraft in a landmark naval parade off the coast of Qingdao marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy.
Hu, also chairman of the Central Military Commission, was accompanied by PLA Navy Commander Admiral Wu Shengli aboard the destroyer Shijiazhuang.
The parade will display 25 naval vessels and 31 aircraft of the PLA Navy, including two nuclear submarines, as part of a celebration to mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of the PLA Navy.
Four submarines came first in the parade. Two are nuclear-powered, the Long March 6 and the Long March 3, and two are conventionally-powered, the Great Wall 218 and the Great Wall 177. This is the first public appearance of the PLA nuclear submarines.
The submarines were followed by five missile destroyers, the Shenyang, the Lanzhou, the Guangzhou, the Harbin and the Dalian.
Then came the aircraft formations include an electronic reconnaissance aircraft, a warning aircraft, a fighter-bomber formation, a fighter formation, an anti-submarine helicopter formation, and an ambulance helicopter formation.
Six frigates also joined the parade. They were the Zhoushan, the Xuzhou, the Luoyang, the Mianyang, the Wuhu and the Cangzhou, which were followed by the landing ship LSD-998 Kunlunshan.
An international fleet inspection involving 21 foreign vessels from 14 countries will be held after the PLA naval parade.
Chinese President Hu Jintao, aboard the Chinese Navy destroyer Shijiazhuang, reviewed Thursday afternoon warships and aircraft in a landmark naval parade off the coast of Qingdao marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy.
Hu, also chairman of the Central Military Commission, was accompanied by PLA Navy Commander Admiral Wu Shengli aboard the destroyer Shijiazhuang.
The parade will display 25 naval vessels and 31 aircraft of the PLA Navy, including two nuclear submarines, as part of a celebration to mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of the PLA Navy.
Four submarines came first in the parade. Two are nuclear-powered, the Long March 6 and the Long March 3, and two are conventionally-powered, the Great Wall 218 and the Great Wall 177. This is the first public appearance of the PLA nuclear submarines.
The submarines were followed by five missile destroyers, the Shenyang, the Lanzhou, the Guangzhou, the Harbin and the Dalian.
Then came the aircraft formations include an electronic reconnaissance aircraft, a warning aircraft, a fighter-bomber formation, a fighter formation, an anti-submarine helicopter formation, and an ambulance helicopter formation.
Six frigates also joined the parade. They were the Zhoushan, the Xuzhou, the Luoyang, the Mianyang, the Wuhu and the Cangzhou, which were followed by the landing ship LSD-998 Kunlunshan.
An international fleet inspection involving 21 foreign vessels from 14 countries will be held after the PLA naval parade.
i wouldnt measure technology gap by time at all. its very misleading, how do you define "20 years behind"? howcome its not 19, or 17, it has to be a full number like 20? how many years is AK-47 behind M-16? what about Su-27 and F-22? where i serve we dont use any weapon that uses 2009 technology. the most advanced weapon we have is our newest laser printer.
certainly the PLA is inferior to the US military in terms of technology, but you measure that by how they perform in battle. 20 years is not a measure of how weapons perform in the field, its a cliche that ppl invented to make themselves feel good
certainly the PLA is inferior to the US military in terms of technology, but you measure that by how they perform in battle. 20 years is not a measure of how weapons perform in the field, its a cliche that ppl invented to make themselves feel good
vesicles
Colonel
IMHO, comparing weapon systems by measuring weapon systyem performance would only work in an ideal world.
Performance of a weapon system depends on many factors: advancement of the technology that made it, quality of the manufacture, training of the personel operating the system, proper tactical strategies when using the system, etc... For instance, you can have the baddest main battle tank (technology wise) the world has ever seen. If there is problem with quality control, the high-tech tank might malfunction/fall apart quickly on the battle field. If operator is not totally familiar with the tank, it is impossible to utilize the full potential of the tank. And if you use it in an area where ground is soft and muddy, the tank is going to perform poorly when compared to a light tank with inferior technology. If the tank commmandor is less knowledgable about tank warfare and tactics, the tanks he commands will not win out at the end of the day when they face tank forces with inferior technology but commanded by highly experienced officers.
The only way to truly compare two weapon systems on equal ground is to eliminate all the variables and leaving only the weapon systems as the variable. This would mean that the same person uses both systems in the same place at the same time. Of course, this would almost never happen (no military would allow personel from other nations to operate their systems).
So IMHO, it is impratical to measure advancement of a weapon system by performance. I actually think years should be a good way for comparison. Just like we think of a cassette player as a 70's tech, CD as a 80's/90's tech, ipod as a 21st century tech. If you still uses a CD player instead of an ipod (or a 21-inch tube TV instead of 50-inch plasma/LCD TV), people will say that the entertainment technology you use is about 15-20 years behind the most advanced. We can definitely look at weapon systems in the same way.
Except we ARE comparing capabilities. You should read what people wrote more carefully. I compared current Chinese capabilities to a conveniently selected point - that is first gulf war - American capabilities, with regards specific fields. Comparing capabilities (not state of the art, capabilities) between specific point in time is sensible, and no more cliched than comparing same point in time of different militaries (like when people say "JSMDF has superior anti-sub ability to PLAN"). It gives a convenient yardstick of how far one has to go.
i guess the reason bush invaded iraq is because rumsfeld told him that Iraqi military is 50 years behind the US so they can takeover the country blindfolded. sorry i am only interested in how things actually works.
vesicles
Colonel
The US had absolutely no problem during the major offenses. It took the US only days (not sure about the exact length of time) to take Bagdad. The obselete weapons that Iraqis had were no match for advanced American ones. And the reason that US is having trouble in Iraq is not that the old obselet weapon systems in Iraq were "performing" better than top notch American counterparts. It is mainly because of "non-weapon" factors, such as socio-political structure in the country and tactical problems in the urban warfare.
As I mentioned before, there are simply too many variables when comparing performances. The easiest way to judge a weapon system is to look at the advancement of the technology involved and a timeline is a good yardstick for that.
LOL the americans werent fighting the insurgents in the initial campaigns. bush would have been delighted if someone had told him that the fact that the US is 50 years ahead of iraqi farmers in terms of military technology aint gonna help them one bit.
Any comparing is just relative and wont reflect how effect a weaons system will be during conflict, years or not, take for example "JSMDF has superior anti-sub ability to PLAN", which is definitely true, but all the airborn Japanese antisub system(which is the main core of JSMDF antisub capability) wont be affective during any conflict since the fact is Japan cant reach air superiority over China, thus the Chinese subs are protected and shielded from that threat.
- Status