antiterror13
Brigadier
The area the Chinese would be interested would be in noise reduction and Nuclear power plant ... I think
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
The area the Chinese would be interested would be in noise reduction and Nuclear power plant ... I think
Why are we discussing the possibility of Russia selling Yasen or Yasen-related technologies to China in a H-X/JH-X thread? And there is no evidence, in the past or now, that there have been interest or discussions between Russia or China for such a deal. Is this just someone, out of nowhere, throwing out some hypothesis just for the fun of it?
Well...it may not work for you...but it works for me.
We will have to let Father Time tell us if they do or do not decide to do so.
But, such a sub would be able to go anywhere in the earth's Oceans to position itself...so ot could get appreciably close if the need ever arose...and of course we all hope and pray such a scenario or need NEVER emerges!
If we look at a map, we can see that Russia is a largely landlocked country whose cities reside in the interior and not on the coast
So the potential target set in Russia is either beyond the range of submarine launched cruise missiles or that small number of slow cruise missiles would easily be tracked and shot down.
Prior to Ukraine 3 years ago, I would have agreed that there was no chance of Russia transferring nuclear submarine tech to China. But now the strategic calculation for Russia has shifted that much, that I think they may have done a deal.
And in the longer-run, Russia knows that the USA and China will increasingly be pre-occupied with each other in waters of the Western Pacific, irrespective of what happens to China-Russia relations. And that a more fraught China-US relationship is in Russia's interest as it takes the pressure off them.
But yes, time will tell.
So the potential target set in Russia is either beyond the range of submarine launched cruise missiles or that small number of slow cruise missiles would easily be tracked and shot down.
Prior to Ukraine 3 years ago, I would have agreed that there was no chance of Russia transferring nuclear submarine tech to China. But now the strategic calculation for Russia has shifted that much, that I think they may have done a deal.
And in the longer-run, Russia knows that the USA and China will increasingly be pre-occupied with each other in waters of the Western Pacific, irrespective of what happens to China-Russia relations. And that a more fraught China-US relationship is in Russia's interest as it takes the pressure off them.
But yes, time will tell.
USAF and USN. USN is important. It is only recently by my estimation that the PLAAF and PLANAF combined reached rough parity with the USN naval assets (and the point is very much debatable). Underestimate her at your peril.
China isn't about to launch a surprise attack against Guam out of the blue. There'll be a period of rachetting up tensions during which USN assets will deploy in theatre, and as the Philippines is the obvious breakout area given IS assets in Korea, Japan and the Ryukyus there are only so many viable avenue for a notional Chinese breakout.
Which isn't to say bombers are hapless, but you need the former VMF levels of bomber saturation to defeat a CVBG and ideally a full suite of assets from the air to under the waves. It'll be a grinding battle of attrition with heavy losses on both sides and zero prospect of real surprise.
Number and tonnage are in fact useless for estimate power of navies, only " admistrative " datas.
In more include no combattants...
10 years ago Russia is 2nd for tonnage and in reality yet clearly outmatched by China.
USN AVIATION assets. Not naval assets. It should be clear from context but still, what a typo!
And yes, that IS a straight comparison of airframes, training and munitions, it's more or less meaningless in terms of any strategic calculations, but it's a useful metric on the relative strength of the militaries. Obviously comparing mobile aircraft carriers (which can be concentrated and strongly defended by ships, but limited in fuel, take of weight and other compromises made for sea-borne aviation) and fixed air bases (fixed, vulnerable, spread out, but on the other hand can be heavily hardened, with optimal sortie rates and a much higher fuel and ammo capacity) spread across China has no real direct applicability.
And yes, that IS a straight comparison of airframes, training and munitions, it's more or less meaningless in terms of any strategic calculations, but it's a useful metric on the relative strength of the militaries. Obviously comparing mobile aircraft carriers (which can be concentrated and strongly defended by ships, but limited in fuel, take of weight and other compromises made for sea-borne aviation) and fixed air bases (fixed, vulnerable, spread out, but on the other hand can be heavily hardened, with optimal sortie rates and a much higher fuel and ammo capacity) spread across China has no real direct applicability.
