China destroys satellite with ballistic missile

[havocsquad 0]

Be this as educated guess, I wouldn't be suprised if Pakistan would be "working" both sides of the arms market by purchasing these J-10's from China.  Much like the issue of ballistic missile and nuclear training & technology bouncing around the world with Pakistan a few years ago.  Then after a few years passes, Pakistan secretly sells the opportunity for a US foriegn intellegence agency to look over the J-10 or any other willing bidder of their desire.

That would help them replace their aging F-16's while forming closer partnership with China, while also quietly keeping the US pleased as well.

If US foreign intellegence hasn't gotten that critical information about the J-10, they'll probably have it within a few years or so.  We live in the age of "loyalty to the dollar", with enough of em people start talking...

Dream on, mate.

The US army have showed it's weakness fighting militia forces. I fear that it is useless against a 'real enemy'. Especially your 'air superiocity' as China is capable of destroying or deactivate any satelites it wishes, and their Anti-Air capability is alot stronger than what the US have encountered so far.

As for your 'theory' of state-piracy of software. You are wrong - China doesn't support piracy neither officialy or unofficialy - infact, China have executed numerious people for selling pirate software, media etc.

The piracy comes primarily from other Asian countries, but not from China. Also, if China felt like it, it could destroy the world economy and paralyse the US industry by making a boycut.

You forget that a war with China would primarily be a "water war."  With plenty of naval bases in the region, that means the PRC will mainly have to fight the USAF and USN along with willing allies (ROC, ROK, JSDF, etc.).  Last time I looked, the PRC still has extremely few numbers of significant amphibious forces to land on Taiwan or any nearby well armed nation or base surrounded by water.

In such a conflict, the US Army probably only be involved in shoring up US overseas bases unless the PRC motivated North Korea to cross the DMZ and create another front.

Not to mention the PRC still has a navy that without sufficient landbased air cover, would be ripped to pieces by any well equipped navy and/or airforce.  I believe over 80% of their naval forces are outdated by at least 15 years or more and are basically anti-ship missile or torpedo food.

All that is required for the US to win a conflict against China is to stalemale or win the war at sea and the air.  If that can be done, there is no possible way for China to "conventionally" threaten any nation seperated by water except with conventional ballistic missiles.  NBC weapons is a whole different story.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Navies are outdated, all of them. Why have a huge aircraft carrier when it can be blown up with a few missles fired from far out of its reach?

In a conventional fight between two strong sides a war would be more about missles then either ships or aircraft.

Weapons and their delivery systems have become so sophisticated and destructive that an aircraft carrier is just a giant target. Same for every other surface vessel.

Even with the lack of proper delivery systems you can cause an insane amount of dmg to these vessels.

I know the War Nerd ain't the most reliable source but he sums things up nicely: http://www.exile.ru/2002-December-11/war_nerd.html

edit: What i'm trying to get at with all this is that china doesn't need a strong navy.

[EiZei 0]

As for your 'theory' of state-piracy of software. You are wrong - China doesn't support piracy neither officialy or unofficialy - infact, China have executed numerious people for selling pirate software, media etc.

That seems quite outlandish to me. Sources?

[Supah 0]

China's Militiary: That Ji-10 or whatever looks like a more heavily armored version of a Lockheed F-104 Starfighter from the 60's lol... Probably is based upon it. China has very little succesful or inovative R&D. Alot of things they copy for example Software Piracy... its like breathing to them over there.

Do you have any idea what a F-104 looks like? This machine in no way resembles a F-104 Starfighter. The wingplanform is different, the intake system is different, the cockpit placement is different. The Chinese may have learnt a lot rebuilding and modifying russian designs but their J-10 looks to be quite an apt fighter that borrows nothing from any foreign design.

Quote[/b] ]

EDIT:

US Militiary Presence in the Asian Market:

We have naval bases in Japan, Taiwan, Australia for sure. We have Infantry in all those and Okinawa, South Korea, Alaska, and not to mention 100,000 troops and navy forces and what not alone in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US has a Militiary Shield around China, and frankly if the US and China ever got in a war, the US would win with airpower. our F-14's are being replaced by F-22's and we still have the F-17, B-2's, F-117's and we also have Drone capacity, somthing china dosnt have.

F-14 being replaced by F-22's? Well show's what you know, or rather how much you don't know. In case you hadn't notice the F-14 Tomcat was a carrier borne jet that flew for the NAVY. The F-22 is a land based fighter that flies for AIRFORCE. The Raptor (that's the F-22's nickname) will never fly operationally of a carrier. The F-17 you say? You are aware you are talking about the Cobra prototype that that compete unsuccesfully with the F-16 for a Airforce contract? Later on the Hornet was developed from this machine but only after extensive redesign. The B-2? Good that you mention this one, you should do some research about how good its stealth capabillity works after its been rained on. The F-117 ..... fun choice! You do know it is being withdrawn from service? You are not Legally obliged to say something so if you have no idea about Military aviation feel free to just say nothing.

[Tovarish 0]

their J-10 looks to be quite an apt fighter that borrows nothing from any foreign design.

I'd have to agree with a large number of people who believe it's heavily influenced by the Lavi, but yeah, there's always this knee-jerk reaction to dismiss any eastern as an aircraft as a copy of a western one - like the MiG-29's radar was rummored to be a copy of the F-18's AN/APG-65 or the F-15's AN/APG-63, when it's N-019 radar was a completely different system with a twist-cassegrain antenna. And then there were the Russian innovations such as the helmet mounted sights - which all the new US fighter's are incorporating, R-73 thrust vectoring, which we now see in the AIM-9X, ect :P.

[XeLSiS 0]

@ supah:

Yes i do know what a F-104 looks like, I didnt its looked like it, i said in a broader sense it was somewhat similiar. YIKES!

I was being general that while there J-10 was comparable to our F-17 we have the Raptors coming online therefore taking out the J-10 as a super threat, still moderate-good though. Then i must be thinking of the F-15's not the 14's sorry. I havent slept in 36 hours :P

@ CsonkaPityu:

Navys are as you say outdated, but they're being updated right, atleast the US's is. Carrier are an extremely effective tool, WW2 proved that m8. With sea bases carriers aka moveable bases we can attack china from the N, NE, E, SE, S. and thats all of eastern china, the important stuff. Yes there are anti-ship missles and what not but currently the anti-missle defenses are fairly well designed i hear. Carrier escorts also offer Land Support such as Missles and Light 30mm Cannon Fire.

@ havocsquad:

I'll agree, however, with the mass amount of upgrades and new models coming out to the navy i would be highly surprised if they couldnt take out the small chinese navy. Airpower and Seapower we outmatch them.

@ Espectro:

Always attacking me in some form m8 :P

Think of this Espectro, who has actually ever fought an insurgent war? a modern one? This is new warfare which the world hasnt seen in this kind of form. Religous Extremists taking up arms and being funded heavily. We havent really seen this kind of thing before.

The US is fully equipped to take on a Conventional Army... Iraq's was a convential army in 1991 & 2003... We blew em out within 72 hours both times

[Supah 0]

@ supah:

Yes i do know what a F-104 looks like, I didnt its looked like it, i said in a broader sense it was somewhat similiar. YIKES!  

I was being general that while there J-10 was comparable to our F-17 we have the Raptors coming online therefore taking out the J-10 as a super threat, still moderate-good though. Then i must be thinking of the F-15's not the 14's sorry. I havent slept in 36 hours :P

Ah the "havent slept in XX hours excuse" ... where have I heard that one before. Again though, the F-17 was a abject failure and never flew operationally, less then five airframes were ever built. It had to be extensively reworked to become the F/A-18 Hornet.

[baddo 0]

Quote[/b] ]freedom of action

yes that made me laugh, too!

It's clear that it is a bit provocatice to shoot down a satellite even if it is your own. They, by doing that, demonstrated their ability to do such thing, which naturally scares the hell out of some people, it seems that mostly in the USA. I am not worried at all but hey I don't have satellites in the orbit or do I?

This is a very big problem, kind of an endless loop. Some country builds up army, calling it self-defence. Others get scared "they can use all those weapons against us!" then they go and build up their armies too, and call it self-defence. I honestly believe that the USA could put a stop to this kind of behaviour if they wanted to do it. But they don't want it because they are just too scared of being attacked. Might be a self-ignited threat they are defending themselfs from.

[fardwark 0]

Think of this Espectro, who has actually ever fought an insurgent war? a modern one? This is new warfare which the world hasnt seen in this kind of form. Religous Extremists taking up arms and being funded heavily. We havent really seen this kind of thing before.

I bet that if you studied it, you would find that 'insurgent war' (AKA rebellion, why do people always have to invent new phrases?) is the most common type of conflict there is, even in todays modern world.

As for not having seen religious extremists taking up arms before... haha, are you from the same planet as the rest of us? What colour is the sky where you live, through the enchanted forest and across the chocolate river?

[XeLSiS 0]

Think of this Espectro, who has actually ever fought an insurgent war? a modern one? This is new warfare which the world hasnt seen in this kind of form. Religous Extremists taking up arms and being funded heavily. We havent really seen this kind of thing before.

I bet that if you studied it, you would find that 'insurgent war' (AKA rebellion, why do people always have to invent new phrases?) is the most common type of conflict there is, even in todays modern world.

As for not having seen religious extremists taking up arms before... haha, are you from the same planet as the rest of us? What colour is the sky where you live, through the enchanted forest and across the chocolate river?

Well if you wanna get specific about it... I meant in the term where you have unofficial civil war yet no major conflicting battles in the public.

I see iraq as 3 governments..

US Colation, Iraqi Democratic Official Gov, and Extremist Clerics.

---

Back to china lol...

@ supah: I dont study modern aviation, i study WW2 mainly

So why would china shoot down a 8 year old satellite? I mean it aint that old...

[Lateflip 0]

They kind of gave themselves that role somewhere after or before they were fighting the nazis, breaking down communism, stopping mass murder, liberating kuwait and aiding south korea.

We have America to thank for living in a free world.

Russia invaded Berlin, them and the British did more to stop the Nazis. Not saying the US was useless, but they are far from the only ones to thank.

And I bet you're American   .

And as for stopping mass murder? Yea right. Heard of Hiroshima? That is mass murder. The US still kills innocent civilians in wars.

Don't call me anti-American, I'm not.

I'm Swedish. And WWII would not have been won without America, that's for sure, although I'm pretty sure it could have been won without Russia who suffered mayor defeat in the first phases of the war. And if America withdrew from South Korea, their northern neighbor wouldn't hesitate to launch an assault on them, and after that the UN wouldn't do anything while the US returned their troops, and North Korea would launch a nuke on Europe/Japan and WWIII would be here.

In the long run America is keeping the peace. I'm not saying Bush is perfect, he was wrong about Iraq, they didn't have any nukes, they were just not willing to let a foreign nation inspect every little part of them. Saddam had too much self respect, and he mass murdered people and needed to be replaced. But it needed to be done in a different way.

And about Hiroshima, how many died there? 200 000? Just imagine if the Nazis/Japanese guys would have been allowed to continue fighting, how many more would have died? And frankly whatever they did wrong when dropping that A-bomb, they've made up for it.

[ran 0]

Think of this Espectro, who has actually ever fought an insurgent war? a modern one? This is new warfare which the world hasnt seen in this kind of form. Religous Extremists taking up arms and being funded heavily. We havent really seen this kind of thing before.

The US is fully equipped to take on a Conventional Army... Iraq's was a convential army in 1991 & 2003... We blew em out within 72 hours both times

New kind of warfare ? Time to read a few books mate, asymetric warfare while it became a buzzword these last few years is far from new and frictions resulting from opposite ideologies are nothing new.

Several countries have fought well organised and financed insurgencies: France, South Africa, what was once called Rhodesia, the Brits. Nothing is new, it's just the same stuff rehashed over and over.

Irak had a conventionnal -third world- army using mostly outdated or "export" weapon systems bought mainly from the former varsaw pact. Bear in mind that in 1991, it was still affected by the cost of the Iran-Irak war and that in 2003, the Iraki army still beared the pressure of the economic sanctions, not forgetting the purges among its ranks common to all totalitarian regimes. They uparmoured their tanks with concrete and dug their planes under the sand for christ's sake.

Overconfidence kills, as much as the enemy, whoever that is.

[stainer 0]

WWII would not have been won without America, that's for sure, although I'm pretty sure it could have been won without Russia

I haven't read the last few pages, but I thought I had to comment on this.

Without Russia the Western Front would have collapsed within a very short time period. The millions of men and tonnes of material Russia injected into the war meant that the Nazis had to use the vast majority of their forces to engage the staggering amount of soldiers Russia put forward. The Western Front was simply a thorn in Hitlers side.

It is undeniable however, that the Americans made an invaluable contribution to the war effort on the western front.

Check this out to see how many men Russia lost in WW2.

Anyway, sorry about that...back to China....

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

XeLSiS, no matter how crappy the J10 may be, you can count on the fact that the chinese are able to churn out a whole more of them than any number of fielded F-22's could take out right now, I guess...

@Balschoiw:

I've missed out another angle that I've once read about in a Tom Clancy book called "The Bear and the Dragon" - China could be trying to go for Russia's natural resources, as it definitely faces an ever increasing need for oil, gas etc...

Whatever is below the surfaces of Siberia I do not know, but China could go all out on Russia... now that WOULD be FUBAR...

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Quote[/b] ]Me being somewhat of a WW2 Historian and Theory vs Fact type can explain alot of things here without causing more arguing.

USA & WW2: The russians were allowed by the US to take berlin, because the US Government didnt want the casulties. The Russians lost HUGE numbers taking berlin. But that was the "great" russian strategy in WW2, throw vast numbers at the enemy and hope they retreat. Russian lost 10,700,000+ Militiary Personnal during WW2. Compared with a 407,300 by the US. The US Launched a Western Front on Germany, it was somewhat unexpected, this gave Hitler a 2 front war which he didnt want, he had to divert supplies heading to the Eastern Front which was in desperate need of them. The US also heavily supplied Great Britian, Russia, France, and China from 1939-1945. In fact, britian just finished its WW2 repayment of the 10 billion or so owed to the US from WW2. Without the US, Hitler would have won WW2, or atleast all of europe. Britian was bankrupt and cutoff of everything. P-40's and Navy were supplied, food, ammo, clothing, everything. We supplied China and Russia with the materials and weapons for War, and france well... we mainly sponsored the undergroud.

What you have said here is the american viewpoint on History.  The USA didnt want Russia to take Berlin, infact the US was scared of not taking Berlin as it feared it might not get any control over it.  But more to the point the 2 front war is jibberish.  By 1944 the eastern front was being won.  

Stalingrad had happened, and more importantly Kursk.  This destroyed the German offencive capabilites , wiping out thousands of tanks and infantry units.  It has also been suggested that the USA was biding its time and letting Russia and Germany destroy each other.  Opening a second front in 1943 was a reality, and yet the Allies waited.  

This is part of the reason the tension between Stalin and Churchill/Roosevelt grew.  the war was all but won by D-Day,  the situation for the Germans in the east was desperate.  The USA did supply russia with lots of material, more than the Russian like to admit.  However when industry was moved behind the Urals they were more than capable of supporting themselves.  Lets remember, T34's were the most common tank in the east, not Shermans.  

The French underground was also mainly supported by the British, they dropped Radios, weapons (they mainly used the Sten and Bren) and agents.  To argue that the second front opened by the Allies as 'unexpected' is obsurd.  Hitler always knew it was coming , hence the vast building programs around the French coast.  It also explains why he kept key panzer divisions in northern France despite them being deperatly needed on the Eastern Front.

 To argue that without the US Hitler would have won is what we have come to expect from narrow minded traditional western historians, but is now majorly contested by most.  Hitlers eyes were always too big for his belly, and the Russian war machine of manpower brought Hitler to his knees.  

The huge numbers of Russian losses (350,000 in Berlin alone) helps to explain why they were so keen to have a buffer zone. No-one from the USA could understand this becuase they hadnt been invaded three times within a hundred years.

[Balschoiw 0]

Last call for all WW2 maniacs to leave the runway

This thread is purely about the latest PLA military achievements and not some "mine is bigger than yours" stuff.

Over the last years we have heard a lot of comments and warnings from the US towards China about their military spendings. In fact China imo has/had to do something about their military equipment to keep up their defense potential and to get aboard those countries who export high-tech military systems. The question will be where the shipments go. While France, Germany the US the Brits and other manufacturers of military goods lately have developed some kind of export-conscience (which doesn´t mean that they stopped selling plenty to dubious countries and regimes via 3rd party countries like the Saudis and others) and the public has an eye on that issues more than in the late 80´s or mid 90´s, China indeed has a chance to become a major player in modern weapon systems trade for the guys who have a hard time getting some from the west the easy way.

I am alos leaning myself out of the window if I say that the prices probably will be not as high as the production costs in China are significantly lower than in the western hemisphere.

Who knows, maybe even western forces will buy chinese stuff in large amounts oneday. Certainly scary thinking about the unclear political direction of China and the dependance of western forces on chinese supply and replacement parts but thing slike that could happen.

I guess the taiwanese status is sort of fixed, even for China.

They would be incredibly stupid to push initiatives into that direction, but we never know what they base their decisions on. If it´s logic, there will be no initiative, if it´s honor and a growing unrest over US initiatives in the area it "could" be labelled a preemptive strike.

[mattxr 9]

Yeah the hole of chinas military onto a small naval base ^^

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

That's why I thought that Russia would be a better target for all of China's military might - land warfare... Plus it makes economical sense, getting their hands on natural resources they need to live in 21st century standards, not just to build (military) hardware etc. And I would really wonder who'd win if the Dragon would descend on the Bear... And what the rest of the world would do.

[Lateflip 0]

WWII would not have been won without America, that's for sure, although I'm pretty sure it could have been won without Russia

I haven't read the last few pages, but I thought I had to comment on this.

Without Russia the Western Front would have collapsed within a very short time period. The millions of men and tonnes of material Russia injected into the war meant that the Nazis had to use the vast majority of their forces to engage the staggering amount of soldiers Russia put forward. The Western Front was simply a thorn in Hitlers side.

It is undeniable however, that the Americans made an invaluable contribution to the war effort on the western front.

Check this out to see how many men Russia lost in WW2.

Anyway, sorry about that...back to China....

I know how many men Russia lost, but what I meant was that the war was won by the stupidity of Hitler.

He pushed his own men north and many died from cold. Russia would have been forced into the war.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

china is a growing economic giant, however there has been talk of its enconomy growing so fast that its going to hit trouble. perhaps China will be undone before it reaches full 'superpower' status.

[ozanzac 0]

So why would china shoot down a 8 year old satellite? I mean it aint that old...

Foremost, to show that they have the capability.

Satellites generally have a short used by date, and have a high failure rate. 8 years in orbit, is pretty typical, and I've read that the failure rate after 13 years for a satellite is around the 98% mark. One of the most limiting factors, is the amount of propellant onboard the orbiting vehicle. Once the propellant runs out, the satellite tends to lose orbit, and simply burns up when falling back into the earth's atmosphere anyway...

There's no real fuss there.... but, destroying a sattelite up there, is the equivalent to stripping a car on the highway and scattering all the parts on the road for others to dodge. It's simply, inconsiderate.

[chipper 0]

God damnit why does every time someone mentions the USA it turns into a fucking "lets bash the USA thread". That's why I hardly ever come into the off-topic discussions.

Seems almost everyone who ain't American has got something against the US weather it's their president, military, their history, etc...

I'm fuckin' tired of it.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Oh harden up will ya ffs, you can't to stick you neck out as a world power and expect to cop no flak over it.

Same happens for other countries mate, cept you don't happen to really nitice/care about those threads.

[kavoven 4]

As far as I know from my geography lessons (yes, they can't keep up with the "I-study-subject-X guys :P") China will have to face huge Environmental problems in max. 50 years. Their population is still increasing and sooner or later they won't be able to feed everybody. Also, they're poluting their rivers and citys like hell, which is already a problem today. (Desertification adds to this)

Another important point is the demographic factor, which means that after this "One-Child-Policy" the major concentration of population will be in the very upper part of the population pyramid. China has to rely on an upcoming generation, which not only has to get along with such a huge country, but also with their parents. (This problem is highly discussed in Germany as well)

Concerning the military question I think that the theory of attacking Russia because of its vast natural resources is quite interesting...

[shadow 6]

This is not about WW2 or the US. Stay on topic or I will start handing out WLs.