Miscellaneous News

voyager1

Captain
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"We are not blind to the geopolitics of diversification and decoupling. However, the Philippines does not see the need to take sides in the ongoing geo-economic competition among big powers," Duterte said in a recorded speech, clearly referring to the U.S. and China without naming them.
US in shambles

Nepal's Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli says he is committed to maintaining an amicable relationship with China
India encirclement is getting stronger
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Aha, you are actually asking a very intelligent question, well done. ROC actually had some serious thought about this question themselves and their military experts looked into this very thing. The concept is sound right: Iron Dome seems really good at intercepting Qassam rocket, perhaps it would also be very suited in intercepting PLAGF rocket artillery from coming across the strait.

Qassam rockets have some unique traits: they are dirt cheap since they're made in Hamas weapon workshops in people's garages using metal water pipes. Qassams are potentially launched in huge waves, they have abysmal accuracy (no guidance at all other than 'point the launch rail in the general direction of Israel') and have extremely poor terminal performance, subsonic even.

So Iron Dome interceptors have to be as cheap as possible to be available in numbers that would make a difference, and since Qassam have such poor terminal phase performance that's double incentive to keep the performance of the interceptor low to keep cost down.

The longest range rockets Hamas has used can now reach 120km, with Qassam usually go no further than 70km. On the other hand the minimum range PLA rocket artillery need to hit targets in Taiwan is 150km, and more likely PLA will be using rounds with more than 300km range during actual first wave attack. Iron Dome has been specially optimised to such a high degree against Qassam that they are very unlikely to be able to intercept this kind of proper military grade long range rocket artillery (nevermind even high performing PLARF ballistic missiles). ROC evidently agree because they looked at Iron Dome and then decided not to proceed further in buying it.

If you understand Chinese here's a recent video by Xi Yazhou on this very topic:

I'd say a better comparison would be to the Pantsir-S1 missiles.
They have the same missile weight and both dispense with expensive onboard active seekers.
Instead they use tracking from the launch vehicle.

But Iron Dome looks like a higher specification in terms of radar tracking and missile kinematics however.

And note Pantsir is supposed to protect against Mach 2 HARMs, although its performance in Syria has been questionable.
 

BlackWindMnt

Major
Registered Member
Realistically speaking, India is too big to be encircled by China.
And India's smaller neighbours will still have far greater trade and people links with India than China.

Plus the US Navy is in the Indian Ocean
Haven't invaders always used Pakistan as a high way from central Asia into India?

If so then it seems smart of China to build rail and road aka a physical high way through Pakistan with CPEC.
So it can quickly attack from land via two routes.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Haven't invaders always used Pakistan as a high way from central Asia into India?

If so then it seems smart of China to build rail and road aka a physical high way through Pakistan with CPEC.
So it can quickly attack from land via two routes.

Pakistan and India are connected by density-populated plains in the North.
So Pakistan is not really a highway, but part of the South Asian subcontinent proper.

Plus I wouldn't expect large numbers of Chinese soldiers in Pakistan.
Remember that Pakistan has a population of 216 million and 500,000 active duty soldiers already.
But China could assist in gaining air superiority in that theatre, then the Indian forces could easily be routed.

A China-Pakistan transport connection would be helpful in that regard, and with trade in general.

Remember that in any China-India conflict, the goal isn't to conquer and occupy, but to fracture India along its many pre-existing divisions.

Anyway, I think that's enough discussion here.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
IMO if the joint statement today between S.Korea and US doesn't even mention China then thats a L for Uncle Biden

If Biden wants a W he should had oriented the Quad away from anti-China and more for business and for a regional forum. In that case S.Korea would join a Quad+ forum
Quite frankly, the U.S. doesn't do actual strategy anymore despite what they're lying mouthes would proclaim on T.V. or print. Yes, both political parties have China as their new bogeyman as their way to coalesce together as a symbol they can in theory unify around. But due to the inherent flaws within the American political, business system they're simply incapable of coming up with a coherent strategy that's not at the mercy or short term thinking, feel good policies and idiotic fake issues etc. Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong that frankly have no chance in hell of working not unless the CPC simply becomes brain dead or Xi Jinping and the rest of his leadership becomes mentally handicapped.

The Americans have really lost their way since they "won" the cold war. It arrogantly assumed that it was indeed the "end of history" drank from the kool-aid helped propagated and evangelized by Francis Fukuyama to the world. They thought that they're unipolar moment would never fade as it decided to remake the middle east by exploiting the region through the use of their military power resulting into near cataclysmic, strategic blunders that is Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and their ongoing failure to reign in the nazi like belligerence of the Israeli government's actions in the mid east region.

If anyone here reads or takes the time to read any of the National strategy proposals/pronouncements made through their successive U.S. President's since Clinton little to none of their plans see the light of day not unless there's money to be made from yet another "revolutionary" weapons procurement program I.e. NATO expansion, F-35 program etc. The U.S. is too fragmented from it's politicians, citizens, businesses all of which are fighting not to achieve a common goal for the benefit of their country collectively but on what they all can get for themselves, each satisfying their respective constituencies self-serving desires. There's no common purpose or objectives. The only single common element they most share is greed, and their lust for power: American exceptionalism at it's best.
 
Top