Next generation Japanese destroyers, what it means for PLAN

Sea Dog said:

I wouldn't expect it to mention those things. Yes, I and many others knew that China was trying to develop new nuclear submarines in the mid-1990's. Bill Gertz knew it. The entire Washington Times knew it. And most other open source databases such as Jane's knew it.

Click to expand...

Is that a fact? I haven't seen any sources indicating this. Can you point to something from Washington Times or Janes from 2000 that talks about this?

Sea Dog said:

But no, I wouldn't expect it to be on an annual report to Congress in 2000 because even now in 2006, China shows no evidence of these subs. They simply aren't proven to be even built yet. There are some reports in USA circles that say that they are fielded, but I would take that with a grain of salt for many reasons already discussed.

Click to expand...

Weren't you talking before about how you like to back up your words with published open source information? So why is that when published open source information credit China with the newest technology all of a sudden you have some "special inside information" that leads you to doubt these sources?

Sea Dog said:

That annual report to Congress is about what China currently has now, and it's audience is members of Congress and their constituents.

Click to expand...

Actually, the 2006 Annual Report explicitly talks about what platforms China will field in the next few years. It doesn't limit itself to what China current has now. You've read it, you should know.

Roger604 said:

Is that a fact? I haven't seen any sources indicating this. Can you point to something from Washington Times or Janes from 2000 that talks about this?

Click to expand...

No. Unfortunately the archives don't go back that far. Maybe you can do your own research and request an archived article from them yourself. I don't know when, but I first read an open sourced article on China's new nuclear submarine ambitions around 1997 or so.

Weren't you talking before about how you like to back up your words with published open source information? So why is that when published open source information credit China with the newest technology all of a sudden you have some "special inside information" that leads you to doubt these sources?

Click to expand...

Nope, never said anything about "special inside information". In fact, these things were well known where I was working at the time. What open source info are you referring to that I dismiss? Yes, there are people in the USA that have said that type 093 has been fielded. I'm not dismissing it, but I am taking that info with a grain of salt. Because ultimately it's still hearsay, until you provide something like this:



and this:



and especially this:



Until that, it's all rumour. And speculation. This ain't the Cold War. We know they're coming, and we have pretty good guesses how they'll be performance wise, if history is a good judge. It's just a matter of when.

Actually, the 2006 Annual Report explicitly talks about what platforms China will field in the next few years. It doesn't limit itself to what China current has now. You've read it, you should know.

Click to expand...

Right, but it's also realistic pertaining to what can be substantiated. That's the key. I know how to read those reports. And I'm clear what these audiences are looking for.

Sea Dog said:

.....
Nobody can say for sure, but China has not demonstrated a high level of indigineous design. Without Russian assistance, China would be much further behind. I have no doubt China grew alot just from the aquisition of Kilo and Sovremenny technologies. The timeline of growth from these purchases coincide with one another. Sometimes you have to make an analysis based on demonstrated capability and tie in a few factors. I have no proof, but it's my opinion that China found a way to make use of that downed F-117. It's my opinion only. You are free to take it or leave it. But China has not demonstrated they have an equivalent base of stealth technology or the infrastructure to field it as such. These window designs are only a small piece.

Click to expand...

It's in the right direction that u've admitted at least what u say abt the stealth is mostly opinion without much proof.
I hope u understand since this is a forum, opinions without proof will naturally generate much debate.
China does learn a lot from Russian tech but some say the same abt the US which rely heavily on electronics from Japan.
For reasons best known to yourself, u seem eager to highlight only the Chinese learning from foreign tech.

Schumacher said:

It's in the right direction that u've admitted at least what u say abt the stealth is mostly opinion without much proof.
I hope u understand since this is a forum, opinions without proof will naturally generate much debate.
China does learn a lot from Russian tech but some say the same abt the US which rely heavily on electronics from Japan.

Click to expand...

What?!?! The US is developing it's entire line of new military hardware pretty much on it's own. In fact, there are a number of nations wanting more inclusion from the US in terms of the F-35 program as an example. The US also has a working relationship with many countries and trades info/tech with Japan, UK, Australia, Germany, and now to a smaller but growing extent India. But nevertheless, pretty much everything is domestically produced from a very robust technological infrastructure.

For reasons best known to yourself, u seem eager to highlight only the Chinese learning from foreign tech.

Click to expand...

This is a Chinese military forum, right? So it makes sense that a focus would be put on it. But yeah, China has learned alot from secondary sources. That's undeniable. I never said there's dishonor in that. This all started when one individual asserted that China's within 5 years of catching up. And I've only followed up to explain why this will not happen, even under the most favorable of circumstances. I've also said I believe that China is making respectable gains.

Sea Dog said:

What?!?! The US is developing it's entire line of new military hardware pretty much on it's own. In fact, there are a number of nations wanting more inclusion from the US in terms of the F-35 program as an example. The US also has a working relationship with many countries and trades info/tech with Japan, UK, Australia, Germany, and now to a smaller but growing extent India. But nevertheless, pretty much everything is domestically produced from a very robust technological infrastructure.
This is a Chinese military forum, right? So it makes sense that a focus would be put on it. But yeah, China has learned alot from secondary sources. That's undeniable. I never said there's dishonor in that. This all started when one individual asserted that China's within 5 years of catching up. And I've only followed up to explain why this will not happen, even under the most favorable of circumstances. I've also said I believe that China is making respectable gains.

Click to expand...

Well, is that a fact ? No doubt US has the most advanced millitary in the world but it was widely reported during the first Gulf war, the first time the so-called high tech war went on display, that many US systems would not have worked without Japanese electronics tech. Now some of that may have been inflated by the Japanese, who, like u, were justifiably proud of their nation's tech achievements. But, being open minded, I have no problem at all believing those reports considering what we know abt Japan's leadership in many areas of electronics.
As u said, there's no dishonour in learning from secondary sources but u seem very eager to deny US having ever done the same despite the reports abt the Japan electronics tech being very plausible.

Schumacher said:

Well, is that a fact ? No doubt US has the most advanced millitary in the world but it was widely reported during the first Gulf war, the first time the so-called high tech war went on display, that many US systems would not have worked without Japanese electronics tech. Now some of that may have been inflated by the Japanese, who, like u, were justifiably proud of their nation's tech achievements. But, being open minded, I have no problem at all believing those reports considering what we know abt Japan's leadership in many areas of electronics.
As u said, there's no dishonour in learning from secondary sources but u seem very eager to deny US having ever done the same despite the reports abt the Japan electronics tech being very plausible.

Click to expand...

What systems are you talking about here? I don't deny the Japanese anything. They are quite remarkable in this field. You do know that the USA does have it's own electronics tech, right? And alot of today's electronics tech originated from the USA. Alot of work done in several University and research labs. What systems are you referring to?

Sea Dog said:

What systems are you talking about here? I don't deny the Japanese anything. They are quite remarkable in this field. You do know that the USA does have it's own electronics tech, right? And alot of today's electronics tech originated from the USA. What systems are you referring to?

Click to expand...

I don't remember the specific systems. Most of the reports were during the first gulf war mind u and amid all the media hype abt the military prowess US displayed.
But the key question here is do u totally rule out the US having learnt from Japan tech ?

So now u say ur not 'denying the Japanese anything'. Sorry if I misunderstood the following
"What?!?! The US is developing it's entire line of new military hardware pretty much on it's own."
I thought that sounded like a denial.

Schumacher said:

I don't remember the specific systems. Most of the reports were during the first gulf war mind u and amid all the media hype abt the military prowess US displayed.
But the key question here is do u totally rule out the US having learnt from Japan tech ?

So now u say ur not 'denying the Japanese anything'. Sorry if I misunderstood the following
"What?!?! The US is developing it's entire line of new military hardware pretty much on it's own."
I thought that sounded like a denial.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. I'm not denying it. I'm sure that US arms manufacturers buy lower cost high performance electronics from abroad. But I'm not sure what systems may have been included. Nothing in the naval realm that I can think of. Maybe in some of the PGM's? But nevertheless, this is a relationship that is mutually beneficial. The USA is not building or sustaining it's technological infrastructure by absorbing Japanese technology. Nor is the USA advancing it's military this way. This is not a good comparison.

Sea Dog said:

No, not at all. I'm not denying it. I'm sure that US arms manufacturers buy lower cost high performance electronics from abroad.

Click to expand...

Wow, maybe it's just me reading too much into it. But that sounds very much like the typical view of some sections of the US populations who think they only import because the foreign stuffs are of 'lower cost', not necessarily because they're of higher performance. IF this is true, it would go a long way to explaining ur views on the PLA.

Sea Dog said:

But I'm not sure what systems may have been included. Nothing in the naval realm that I can think of. Maybe in some of the PGM's? But nevertheless, this is a relationship that is mutually beneficial. The USA is not building or sustaining it's technological infrastructure by absorbing Japanese technology. Nor is the USA advancing it's military this way. This is not a good comparison.

Click to expand...

Of course the relationship is mutually beneficial, isn't the Chinese-Russian one as well ?
Who said anything abt sustaining the whole tech infrastructure ? or have u now moved on from saying China copied military techs to sustaining its whole tech infrastructure thru copying ?
If the US military did learn and buy Japanese tech, which I believe they did, I'm sure they advanced their military in some significant ways.
It would not have been smart to make investments that did not bring advancements would it ?

Schumacher said:

Wow, maybe it's just me reading too much into it. But that sounds very much like the typical view of some sections of the US populations who think they only import because the foreign stuffs are of 'lower cost', not necessarily because they're of higher performance. IF this is true, it would go a long way to explaining ur views on the PLA.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you are reading too much into it. But cost is a factor why the US seeks to import from abroad some of this stuff. Some of them are higher performance indeed. But nevertheless, the US still has it's own domestic electronics tech. US weapons would still be manufactured with or without foreign electronics. I'm not sure if you understand that.

Of course the relationship is mutually beneficial, isn't the Chinese-Russian one as well ?
Who said anything abt sustaining the whole tech infrastructure ? or have u now moved on from saying China copied military techs to sustaining its whole tech infrastructure thru copying ?
If the US military did learn and buy Japanese tech, which I believe they did, I'm sure they advanced their military in some significant ways.
It would not have been smart to make investments that did not bring advancements would it ?

Click to expand...

Right. But China has been more dependant on Russia to bring it up to a higher standard of military technological capability. If you look at the timelines, China was way behind until Russia intervened and offered Kilo's, Sovremenny's, Sukhoi jets, and Russian missiles. China started moving more quickly once they aquired and absobed this stuff. Of course China is not as dependant nowadays.

The same cannot be said about the USA/Japanese relationship in the context of US military development. China is simply not evolving anything like the USA which is pretty much totally self-sufficient in fielding newer military technologies, and in fact pushing the limits. The comparison is totally absurd.