Al Khalid Main Gun Target Range

[Officer of Engineers]

Register at china-defense.com, there is a thread about that $ 75 bil figure. People with a lot more knowledge in this field and with a better reputation also support my claim that it is from PPP...so if you support the $ 75 bil figure then you support PPP, but you can't support one and deny the other.

Funny! I'm the MODERATOR at CDF.

LCol. W Yu.

Well, there goes the rest of your arguements.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

That is funny, i don't remember Type 99 participating in the Sino-Russian exercises. But i do remember Type 96 participating in that exercises.

You should really learn to read. I've said the Mongolian exercises with the 38 and 39 Group Armies.

You are dead wrong, best way to see capabilities is through performances on the actualy battlefield in a real war. If you think Sino-Russian is for training Chinese soldiers, then you are wrong again. The exercise is a political message to Taiwan since everything covered in the exercise just happens to be everything necessary for invasion of Taiwan. It is also an opportunity for Russia to demonstrate their weapons to China, who is a potential buyer.

Hehehehehahahahahaha. Thanks for the laugh. It was a Russian designed exercise. And I know far more about Russian/Chinese exercises than you. It's a dog and pony show for show but they've also put their best foot forward, meaning that they show the best that they've got.

Same thing can be said about you, you have absolutely no clue to the battle management systems in the Type 99 either. NO IN THIS OR ANY OTHER FORUM KNOWS.

Oh, I know. Have you by chance read the WZC thread at CDF? MY THREAD!

A Chinese tank division is composed of of three tank regiments, and each regiment contains three tank battallions plus an armoured infantry battalion, a self-propelled artillery battalion, AAA battalion, etc. A Chinese tank division also contains an armored infantry regiment plus an artillery regiment each with AAA, artillery, etc. In addition, a Chinese tank division contains an air defense battalion, engineer battalion, reconaissance battalion, and communications battalion, plus a bounch of other things that I can't remember of the top of my head...still think I have no idea about your ignorant comments?

I see you copy and paste from Andy and Andrew's works. However, you skipped over a little thing called BRIGADIZATION. Yep, you're ignorant all right.

How about come down and act professional and stop with these unecessary and irrelevent comments.

With what? All you've shown is that you cherry pick my work and without understanding the debates that CDF has done for over 10 years. Nice try. No cigar.

 

[sigatoka]

:stupid:
The Soviets were suppose to have 3 T-72's or T-80's for every Abrham the Americans have. The build time and cost was low. But the T series weren't suppose to directly engage Abrhams. The Western tank is supierior in every freakin way possible! Same think with China. Soviets figured the best way to kill Abrhams was anti tank missiles and artillery.

Tanks will play only a small role in conflict between China and the U.S. over Taiwan.

 

[ChinaWall65]

Funny! I'm the MODERATOR at CDF.

LCol. W Yu.

Well, there goes the rest of your arguements.

Okay, moderator, here is one of your own article at your own forum...

China's Defense Challenge


The Russian-built S-300 PMU-2 air defense system
by Martin Walker
UPI Editor Emeritus
Washington (UPI) May 26, 2006



At some point this fall, probably in September, China will take delivery of a state-of-the-art anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense system.
For an overall contract that with training and spares will certainly exceed a billion dollars, the Russian-built S-300 PMU-2 air defense system will provide China with the power to challenge the United States for command of the airspace over the Taiwan straits.

The Russian air defense system, reckoned by military specialists to be more advanced than the U.S. Patriot missile system, has an intercept range of up to 120 miles, and according to the Pentagon's latest report on China's military capabilities it provides "increased lethality against tactical ballistic missiles and more effective electronic counter measures."

China's military modernization program also includes Russian-built Sovremenny-2 guided missile destroyers, another eight Russian Kilo-class submarines, and an accelerated production program for China's own Song class of submarines. They carry a new generation of underwater-launched cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles, which represent a serious challenge to the U.S. Navy's traditional command of the waters around the Taiwan Straits and the Yellow Sea.

China is also building its own advanced warships. Last year China launched its own new Luzhou class guided missile destroyer, which incorporates much of what China's naval designers learned from the Sovremenny ships, but it said to have improved electronics that double the effective radar detection range.

China claims to be doing all this with a defense budget of a mere $23 billion, or about five percent of U.S. military spending. Nobody really believes this, but equally there was skepticism of Pentagon estimates that the real level of Chinese spending was around $90 billion a year. But now London's prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies has published its own detailed estimate, which comes very close to the U.S. estimates.

The IISS study analyzed China's defense budget for the year 2003, and by including figures for China's arms purchases from abroad (including Israel and Brazil as well as Russia), research and development costs and industrial subsidies, it came up with a more realistic figure of $39.6 billion. The IISS then applied the World Bank's purchasing power parity figures, which allow for the fact that China's real costs are far lower, and reckoned that in U.S. terms, China was really spending the equivalent of $75.5 billion.

Bear in mind that in the years since 2003, China's official defense budget has increased by over 10 percent a year (and it has for the past 15 years in a row) so the IISS figures would suggest that the Pentagon's estimate of around $90 billion for this year is bang on target. This would make China the world's number two in defense spending, ahead of Russia, Japan, Britain or France.

"Expenditure is on a sharp upward trend and will remain so in view of popular and elite support for accelerated defense modernization," said IISS director John Chipman at this week's publication of "The Military Balance," the annual IISS survey of global military power.

"As China's strategic presence continues to expand, the question of what resources Beijing is investing in defense capabilities, and to what end, loom larger," Chipman added. "The military dynamic of the U.S.-China relationship remains implicitly but decidedly competitive, and there is little that augurs for change. With that, the risk will grow that this military dynamic will over time have a greater bearing on the tone and content of the relationship as a whole."

China's official military journal recently published an interesting editorial that argued for the development of a Chinese military "commensurate with its international status... and its interests." This is significant for the long-term given that China has major energy investments in Sudan, Angola, Nigeria, Central Asia and Latin America, and its prosperity as a great trading economy and as the world's second biggest oil importer depends on sea routes.

But in the short term, any military analyst looking at China's current force structure and at the 700-plus ballistic missiles facing Taiwan would probably concur with this week's Pentagon report that "In the near term, China's military build-up appears focused on preparing for Taiwan Strait contingencies, including the possibility of US intervention."

"Beijing's sustained military buildup in the area of the Taiwan Strait risks disrupting the status quo," the Pentagon report added, which may be an understatement. The Pentagon report does not add that the status quo has been shifting because of Taiwan's own politics, where the National Assembly has declined to vote the $19 billion in funding for the arms modernization package that President George Bush offered them back in his first term. If Taiwan's politicians are reluctant to vote the money to help defend themselves, American taxpayers are entitled to ask why they should do it for them.

There is no doubt that the Pentagon and the Bush administration are aware of all this and deeply concerned by it. As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has noted, China's neighbors as well as the Americans are asking what China is intending to do with the surge in its military capabilities.

Dan Blumenthal, formerly senior country director for China and Taiwan in Rumsfeld's office and now with the American Enterprise Institute is warning that "the time may be fast approaching" when the United States has to recognize that its strategy of trying to encourage China to be a responsible player in the global security system is simply not working. Interestingly, Blumenthal's colleague at AEI Karl Zinsmeister has just been named as the new policy director at the White House. But with Iraq and Iran and North Korea already crowding out the agenda, the question is how much attention will the Bush administration can devote to China's military challenge and to the related question of Taiwan's curious reluctance to help meet it.


Source: United Press International

I'm sure there are more articles discussing military spendings at CDF, pay attention to your own forum...cmon now

 

[ChinaWall65]

You should really learn to read. I've said the Mongolian exercises with the 38 and 39 Group Armies.

My bad, I should have read more carefully.

Hehehehehahahahahaha. Thanks for the laugh. It was a Russian designed exercise. And I know far more about Russian/Chinese exercises than you. It's a dog and pony show for show but they've also put their best foot forward, meaning that they show the best that they've got.

Still didn't see Type 99, which is the best tank China have.

Oh, I know. Have you by chance read the WZC thread at CDF? MY THREAD!

Yes, you start it with a bunch of speculations.

I see you copy and paste from Andy and Andrew's works. However, you skipped over a little thing called BRIGADIZATION. Yep, you're ignorant all right.

You asked me about divisions vs. battalions, brigadization is irrelevent to answer your questions...also, what is wrong with their work? Is it so wrong if I learn from Andy and Andrew's work?

With what? All you've shown is that you cherry pick my work and without understanding the debates that CDF has done for over 10 years. Nice try. No cigar.

Right now, I don't have much respect for your work or you as a person.

We are getting to off topic...go back to PPP and stop trying to stray away from it.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Still didn't see Type 99, which is the best tank China have.

Battle management is MORE than a single tank. If they can't intergrate with a simple Russian exercise, then it's damned sure that the Type 99 don't have it.

Yes, you start it with a bunch of speculations.

No, we started it with facts. WZC is a Chinese term, not mine.

You asked me about divisions vs. battalions, brigadization is irrelevent to answer your questions...also, what is wrong with their work? Is it so wrong if I learn from Andy and Andrew's work?

You still don't have a clue and never would. I've stated up front that I would take a battalion of M1A2SEP over a division of Type 99. Now, why is that?

As for Andy and Andrew, you didn't learn a damned single thing. They're looking for evidence of mechanization and how is that mechanization being achieved. Brigadization forms the CORE of that method.

Right now, I don't have much respect for your work or you as a person.

Oh gee, like I care. And yet, you used my forum, my work, my collaboration to form the basis of your arguements.

We are getting to off topic...go back to PPP and stop trying to stray away from it.

What PPP or were you just too lazy to actually read that very thread you so pomposely trumped? The DoD make their original estiamtes in Yuan, not dollars. There goes your PPP trump.

Funny, now that your supposed expertise has now fallen to the wasteside.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

And I quote form my post

Overall, China's "official" budget does not entail the following: the purchase of foreign weapons systems; funding for paramilitaries (such as the People's Armed Police); government subsidies of the military-industrial complex; some aspects of research and development; revenue earned outside of the budget.

Although modernization is one reason for the budget increase, most defense modernization spending occurs outside the PLA budget. Imported weapon systems are financed by separate hard-currency allocations from the State Council and are not charged against the PLA budget. The PLA pays for domestically produced Chinese equipment, which makes up about half of the modernization effort, but it pays only the incremental cost of manufacturing one system and none of the substantial R&D or startup costs. Such costs appear in the budget of the state-owned industry that produces the equipment, including substantial hard-currency costs for foreign technology and assistance.

The PLA receives funding from numerous, extra-budgetary sources. These sources include special allocations for procurement, at least partially derived from arms sales profits; sales of military unit services (e.g., construction) and products (e.g., farm produce) and other traditional PLA self-sufficiency activities; earnings from PLA enterprises remaining after divestment, which still produce civilian services and products; and, defense-related allocations in other ministries (e.g., state science and technology budgets and agencies at the provincial and local levels). In addition, China’s proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-associated technology and conventional munitions may help subsidize certain force modernization programs. Tracking these sources complicates the process of identifying and assessing defense budgetary trends.

Beijing's publicly announced budget does not include military spending contained in off-budget funding and revenue. As with the Soviet military budget, the official Chinese defense budget apparently covers salaries, but does not cover the research, development and acquisition of new weapons and equipment, which is funded through the budgets of the responsible ministries. The official budget does not include the cost of the People's Armed Police, nor does it include soldiers' pensions. The official budget also excludes proceeds from international arms sales and from business operations owned by the military.

In the late 1990s estimates placed China's military spending from 4 to 10 times the official budget. In 1999 the Institute of Strategic Studies estimated actual Chinese military spending at $37.5 billion. As of 1999 China's actual defense expenditures were generally estimated at between $35 billion and $65 billion a year.

The official defense budget for FY2000 was $14.6 billion. However, the PLA may have spent 200-300 percent beyond what was revealed in the official budget, which places actual outlays between $29.1 and $43.7 billion.

Now, where do you see PPP in all of that?

 

[ChinaWall65]

And I quote form my post



Now, where do you see PPP in all of that?

well no sh!t it's your post, that that is why it is so flawed.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

I will be sure to pass that onto GlobalSecurity.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

The IISS study analyzed China's defense budget for the year 2003, and by including figures for China's arms purchases from abroad (including Israel and Brazil as well as Russia), research and development costs and industrial subsidies, it came up with a more realistic figure of $39.6 billion. The IISS then applied the World Bank's purchasing power parity figures, which allow for the fact that China's real costs are far lower, and reckoned that in U.S. terms, China was really spending the equivalent of $75.5 billion.

You really can't read, can you? The IISS is NOT the DoD.

 

[ChinaWall65]

Battle management is MORE than a single tank. If they can't intergrate with a simple Russian exercise, then it's damned sure that the Type 99 don't have it.

Or that PLA doesn't want to show off their newest MBT because of the same reason why they chose to not show off every single other new weapon...there goes you so "damned sure" arguement.

No, we started it with facts. WZC is a Chinese term, not mine.

I wasn't talking about WZC. Of course WZC is real, but i was referring to your posts that most of them are speculations and rest of your posts are just exaggerations of xinhui and other people's work.

You still don't have a clue and never would. I've stated up front that I would take a battalion of M1A2SEP over a division of Type 99. Now, why is that?

Because you are just plain out stubborn...M1A2 has never fought an opponent that actually had any real chance of winning...Type 99 is well enough to destroy M1A2s and vice versa, so stop being so absolute.

As for Andy and Andrew, you didn't learn a damned single thing. They're looking for evidence of mechanization and how is that mechanization being achieved. Brigadization forms the CORE of that method.

Again, you seem to have trouble understanding...you asked me about battalion vs. division. BATTALION VS. DIVISION, now where do you see the word brigade or brigadization in it? Brigadization is irrelevent in this discussion, because all you said is BATTALION VS. DIVISION...just so you remember what you wrote, BATTALION VS. DIVISION...BATTALION VS. DIVISION...BATTALION VS. DIVISION...got it now? And stop trying to stray away from the discussion that you can't defend.

Oh gee, like I care. And yet, you used my forum, my work, my collaboration to form the basis of your arguements.

Your work? Your forum? I never knew you owned CDF and I never knew you wrote all those articles.

What PPP or were you just too lazy to actually read that very thread you so pomposely trumped? The DoD make their original estiamtes in Yuan, not dollars. There goes your PPP trump.

Exactly the the estimates are in Yuan, not dollars...but its 75 billion dollars, so they must convert from Yuan to Dollars, and the conversion factor is determined by PPP, which means my arguement still stands...just to make sure you see where "your work" says PPP, I'll even point it out for you

The IISS study analyzed China's defense budget for the year 2003, and by including figures for China's arms purchases from abroad (including Israel and Brazil as well as Russia), research and development costs and industrial subsidies, it came up with a more realistic figure of $39.6 billion. The IISS then applied the World Bank's purchasing power parity figures, which allow for the fact that China's real costs are far lower, and reckoned that in U.S. terms, China was really spending the equivalent of $75.5 billion.

Funny, now that your supposed expertise has now fallen to the wasteside.

My expertise? I can just tell how perceptive you are...hahahaha

 

[ChinaWall65]

I will be sure to pass that onto GlobalSecurity.

You do that, they should update their datas at least once in a few years...

 

[sigatoka]

Because you are just plain out stubborn...M1A2 has never fought an opponent that actually had any real chance of winning...Type 99 is well enough to destroy M1A2s and vice versa, so stop being so absolute.

Damned right, the only combat where the abrahams excelled was against conscripted iraqi troops who fought in a third country against a force of over half a million troops.

Of course this "abberation" has been corrected in this current Iraq conflict where the improved U.S. division have been struggling against an Iraqi force which is much much more poorly armed.

There is another thing which people forget, the fact that the Iraqi military lost so badly ensured that every self respecting nation examined their manner of fighting and have changed it to reduce the effectivness of U.S. airpower.

The fact that such a stunning defeat of Iraq occured makes it unlikely it will happen again in a hurry.

Of course the engineer will never accept this because he comes with a preconception that Western forces are intrinsicly superior and they are destined to victory.

A lot of what the Gulf war commanders took credit for was in fact luck and little to do with skill.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

A lot of what the Gulf war commanders took credit for was in fact luck and little to do with skill.

BULL CRAP! There is no such thing as luck. Enemy incompetence is not something we relied on. At every engagement level in Iraq, we ENSURED we had local superiority and that's because we WON the recee battle at every level.

And don't tell me about combat and how superior I feel we are. I've lost people. You just wanking yourself in pretending to know more.

You've had 3 combat veterans on this board and you pretend to know more than any of us. How ridiculuslly sad.

 

[MastanKhan]

Officer of engineers,

It truly was 'LUCK', and I will tell you why------in 1989, I just started in the retail sales business and one of the first major SALES seminar that I attended, the guest speaker was JACKIE COOPER. Somebody from the audience shouted, ' Jackie, you got to have luck on your side. You got to be lucky to sell more than the others to be at the top'.

Jackie Cooper stopped for a moment, scratched his head and replied,' You are correct. Top proffessionals have luck on their side and you know why, because they have learned to LABOUR UNDER CORRECT KNOWLEDGE. That is why they have LUCK on their side. If you are prepared and done your homework about any assignment or the job ahead of time, it just gets amazing that how lucky you get in accomplishing your goals.

By the by, office of engineers, please don't talk about the superior forces-----iraq was a third rate army, with third rate soldiers, obsolete equipment and generals with no training. It should be a shame for any major army to show it as a feather of success in their hats. The american forces are trained to combat russian forces one on one---to dignify iraq conflict to that level is an indignity in itself.

You lost friends, that happens in combat----- in the first gulf war, when the coalition mine sweeper tanks and bulldozers went in, the LATIMES estimated that there may have been 50000 to a 100000 iraqi troops buried alive in their trenches.