CCTV news: PLA has many secret super weapons and will win the war with them

[terranMarine]

'USA MIRV hydrogen war head' have been tested by not only USA but also independently by erstwhile USSR, now Russia and France. So the theory holds.

So China can make DF-5 warhead explode but not miniaturized warheads?

 

[Beast]

'USA MIRV hydrogen war head' have been tested by not only USA but also independently by erstwhile USSR, now Russia and France. So the theory holds.

Any 'secret super weapon' that China or for that matter any country believes to possess is more likely to be fake or overstated by its developers simply because it pays to develop a super weapon, never mind if it actually works or not or if it is practical or not. Sometimes that 'secret super weapon' may prove to be a much bigger risk than no weapon.

Take that carrier killer for example. It is a ballistic missile with very accurate terminal phase guidance. If kept completely secret, it may amount to US military considering it as a nuclear missile if and when used for the first time as there is no way to tell if a ballistic missile was launched has nuclear warhead or non-nuclear warhead. Meaning while you fired it for area denial the other party thinks it is a nuclear strike and goes on for a full or limited nuclear retaliation. Congrats! you just started nuclear war with USA and you will certainly lose now.

China has already long figure out. There is a reason why no first used policy is installed. All ballistic missile launch by China is non nuclear tipped unless China attack by nuke. Secondly, US Spend huge much money on missile shield defend. Their satellite on space is able to differentiate a 8000km ICBM trajectory vs a 2500km or 4000km trajectory ballistic missile.

Whether US want to start WWIII if they don't trust China no first used policy is up to US choice. That will not prevent China from using ballistic missile as a tactical weapon. If we goes by your theory, cruise missile warhead can be nuke tip. So lanuching cruise missile can also be starting WW3? How abt long range artillery? US demonstrated they have used artillery to launched nuke. So using artillery can also trigger WW3. So might as well don't used any weapon?

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

So China can make DF-5 warhead explode but not miniaturized warheads?

I have no insights in Chinese nuclear capabilities. May be they are all fart no shit or may be they are indeed Bond. But the point here was not that. The point was, why some mythical capability which is China only is more doubt-worthy than something like hydrogen bomb delivered using a missile. I guess reading incompetence among Chinese is the reason why they always loose the track of context in conversation.

China has already long figure out. There is a reason why no first used policy is installed. All ballistic missile launch by China is non nuclear tipped unless China attack by nuke. Secondly, US Spend huge much money on missile shield defend. Their satellite on space is able to differentiate a 8000km ICBM trajectory vs a 2500km or 4000km trajectory ballistic missile.

Whether US want to start WWIII if they don't trust China no first used policy is up to US choice. That will not prevent China from using ballistic missile as a tactical weapon. If we goes by your theory, cruise missile warhead can be nuke tip. So lanuching cruise missile can also be starting WW3? How abt long range artillery? US demonstrated they have used artillery to launched nuke. So using artillery can also trigger WW3. So might as well don't used any weapon?

Firstly, ballistic missiles, especially MRBM/IRBM range ballistic, like DF-21D or DF-26 missiles are almost always used to carry nuclear warheads. Also do not forget that your adversary does not know in advance that you have a ASBM (which is actually the entire discussion is all about, unknown super weapons). If they see this, what will be their first reaction? Also for a range of 1500 or so KM do you think there will be enough time to deliberate Chinese policy? You have used a weapon which is almost exclusively reserved for nuclear bomb! If US does not know that you have a missile in the ASBM role, they may and will assume that you are nuking say Taiwan or Okinawa. And battle field mistakes do happen especially when time is short. Do you think Trump will be able to parse through all the nuances of your policy in 8 minutes or so? Most probably he will go with the advice of his military advisor who if not having the prior knowledge of your ASBM missile will assume worse and will order a nuclear strike on you as well.

All of your other weapons are used in conventional roles a lot. It is not just how a weapon can be used, it is also how they are often used. Cruise missiles, artillery etc are used in conventional role mainly. Thing is, if you use a weapon which is novel and often reserved for a nuclear role, you take a huge risk in your adversary mis-reading your intent.

 

[cirr]

The key word is "speed".

Speed, speed and speed(repeated thrice)

 

[samsara]

I have no insights in Chinese nuclear capabilities. May be they are all fart no shit or may be they are indeed Bond. But the point here was not that. The point was, why some mythical capability which is China only is more doubt-worthy than something like hydrogen bomb delivered using a missile. I guess reading incompetence among Chinese is the reason why they always loose the track of context in conversation.



Firstly, ballistic missiles, especially MRBM/IRBM range ballistic, like DF-21D or DF-26 missiles are almost always used to carry nuclear warheads. Also do not forget that your adversary does not know in advance that you have a ASBM (which is actually the entire discussion is all about, unknown super weapons). If they see this, what will be their first reaction? Also for a range of 1500 or so KM do you think there will be enough time to deliberate Chinese policy? You have used a weapon which is almost exclusively reserved for nuclear bomb! If US does not know that you have a missile in the ASBM role, they may and will assume that you are nuking say Taiwan or Okinawa. And battle field mistakes do happen especially when time is short. Do you think Trump will be able to parse through all the nuances of your policy in 8 minutes or so? Most probably he will go with the advice of his military advisor who if not having the prior knowledge of your ASBM missile will assume worse and will order a nuclear strike on you as well.

All of your other weapons are used in conventional roles a lot. It is not just how a weapon can be used, it is also how they are often used. Cruise missiles, artillery etc are used in conventional role mainly. Thing is, if you use a weapon which is novel and often reserved for a nuclear role, you take a huge risk in your adversary mis-reading your intent.

- How can China uses often its arsenal of weapons if during these last three decades China never goes war against any nation?
- If China is afraid so much of the war risk as dictated by the current hegemon, then just be submissive and taking the command as a vassal state. Is it what you suggested?

Or China should employ no military secrecy and just displays all its weaponry? Is it what you hinted?

Btw how can the major powers be not able to differentiate between the A2/AD missile vs the long and middle range ballistic nuclear missile? Then it's a fake major power, perhaps just some supapowa wannabe.

Moreover it's widely known that China has been operating the most advanced A2/AD missiles to deter those interventions by the many CSG owned by USA. The PLA is convinced that it can neutralize those naval assets within the China's backyard waters (i.e. within the First Island Chain). In this case it's about a person's faith against the other person's faith. So how to prove which one is true? Please shed your light, Mr. Expert.

The belief that one major power is able to win a total nuclear war against the other major power among the Planet Earth's sole three triumvirate (USA RUS CHN) is akin to the faith into the modern religions that promise one the paradise upon his/her final departure... it's all unwarranted belief, no one knows the true outcome until it booms, but by then it's too late so it's a just belief... so, will any major power be cowardice and be succumbed to other's pressure and containment?

 

[Foxtrot Delta]

He was talking about something more lethal than missiles. Something like a laser weapon, fires like a Canon , with short bursts or can give out continuous beam for 50 seconds then has to recharge. Experimental weapon being boasted on chinese forums,

Has changed the balance of power.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

- How can China uses often its arsenal of weapons if during these last three decades China never goes war against any nation?

Read my post again, where did I stated or implied that CHINA often uses these weapons. The exact point is, MRBM and IRBM (Chinese or otherwise) are almost always used as a nuclear delivery mechanism. It is the other weapons (Cruise/Artillery shells etc) are used -- By anyone -- in conventional roles. It is not necessary that only Chinese use will establish a precedent.

- If China is afraid so much of the war risk as dictated by the current hegemon, then just be submissive and taking the command as a vassal state. Is it what you suggested?

Irrelevant to this thread. Read the topic of the thread again to understand what is being discussed. I have no opinion on this.

Or China should employ no military secrecy and just displays all its weaponry? Is it what you hinted?

No, In the context of the point being discussed, I merely pointed out that a secret weapon like ASBM can become a fatal liability in battle if the adversary confuses it for a nuclear attack and why is that probable. In general how is/should secrecy be applied to Chinese military is a vast topic and I doubt can be covered in this thread.

Btw how can the major powers be not able to differentiate between the A2/AD missile vs the long and middle range ballistic nuclear missile? Then it's a fake major power, perhaps just some supapowa wannabe.

Moreover it's widely known that China has been operating the most advanced A2/AD missiles to deter those interventions by the many CSG owned by USA. The PLA is convinced that it can neutralize those naval assets within the China's backyard waters (i.e. within the First Island Chain). In this case it's about a person's faith against the other person's faith. So how to prove which one is true? Please shed your light, Mr. Expert.

You may be right when you are talking about A2/AD/Anti-ship weapons in general but not when you are talking about MRBM or IRBM missile based anti ship weapon in particular. In the entire history there are only two examples (IIRC) of ballistic missile based Anti ship missiles. Soviet R-27K which was never operationalized (possible they also understood the consequences) and Chinese DF-21D and DF-26. There is an Iranian one as well but Iran has no nuclear capability and even their ASBM is doubtful. I guess this much of expert opinion will get the cogs moving.

The belief that one major power is able to win a total nuclear war against the other major power among the Planet Earth's sole three triumvirate (USA RUS CHN) is akin to the faith into the modern religions that promise one the paradise upon his/her final departure... it's all unwarranted belief, no one knows the true outcome until it booms, but by then it's too late so it's a just belief... so, will any major power be cowardice and be succumbed to other's pressure and containment?

What happens after nuclear weapons start flying is anyone's guess, but I am sure of this much: China will cease to exist if a USA goes on total nuclear commitment on your country. What happens to USA/India/World is anyone's guess. May be we all will die, may be we will live no idea. Which is why such kind of confusing hidden super weapons is a stupid idea.

He was talking about something more lethal than missiles. Something like a laser weapon, fires like a Canon , with short bursts or can give out continuous beam for 50 seconds then has to recharge. Experimental weapon being boasted on chinese forums,

Has changed the balance of power.

Well that is what I covered in my first post. A novel fantastic weapon like this being touted by just one country requires more proof than something like a hydrogen bomb riding a MIRV. Till china provides that I guess everyone will be calling their bluff.

 

[Foxtrot Delta]

These kinds of weapons can only be revealed in time of war. Otherwise there is a backlash and counter measures. Better let enemy call bluff and have it given to them in their face. Than let them know what you have and let them prepare.

 

[Beast]

I have no insights in Chinese nuclear capabilities. May be they are all fart no shit or may be they are indeed Bond. But the point here was not that. The point was, why some mythical capability which is China only is more doubt-worthy than something like hydrogen bomb delivered using a missile. I guess reading incompetence among Chinese is the reason why they always loose the track of context in conversation.



Firstly, ballistic missiles, especially MRBM/IRBM range ballistic, like DF-21D or DF-26 missiles are almost always used to carry nuclear warheads. Also do not forget that your adversary does not know in advance that you have a ASBM (which is actually the entire discussion is all about, unknown super weapons). If they see this, what will be their first reaction? Also for a range of 1500 or so KM do you think there will be enough time to deliberate Chinese policy? You have used a weapon which is almost exclusively reserved for nuclear bomb! If US does not know that you have a missile in the ASBM role, they may and will assume that you are nuking say Taiwan or Okinawa. And battle field mistakes do happen especially when time is short. Do you think Trump will be able to parse through all the nuances of your policy in 8 minutes or so? Most probably he will go with the advice of his military advisor who if not having the prior knowledge of your ASBM missile will assume worse and will order a nuclear strike on you as well.

All of your other weapons are used in conventional roles a lot. It is not just how a weapon can be used, it is also how they are often used. Cruise missiles, artillery etc are used in conventional role mainly. Thing is, if you use a weapon which is novel and often reserved for a nuclear role, you take a huge risk in your adversary mis-reading your intent.

No, DF-21/DF-26 are not used to deliver nuke. They are used 30years ago when they are the longest range solid fuel ballistic missile. Since DF-31 and DF-5B are available with longer range , faster speed and higher payload.

Why bother to fit precious nuke on inferior missile compare to real ICBM?

 

[gambit]

The PLA is convinced that it can neutralize those naval assets within the China's backyard waters (i.e. within the First Island Chain). In this case it's about a person's faith against the other person's faith. So how to prove which one is true? Please shed your light, Mr. Expert.

Here is what Saddam Hussein supposedly said about US...

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/30/w...-declares-he-is-ready-for-war-against-us.html

By PHILIP SHENON, Special to The New York Times
Published: November 30, 1990

"We don't underestimate the military might of the United States, but we belittle its evil intentions. If Allah wills that war should take place, the Americans will find that their Stealth plane is seen even by the shepherd in the desert, and is also seen by Iraqi technology."

 

[samsara]

Here is what Saddam Hussein supposedly said about US...

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/30/w...-declares-he-is-ready-for-war-against-us.html

Gambit, I think you are much smarter to ever compare IRAQ with CHINA.

 

[Penguin]

No, all other countries beside China loves to brag whatever new weapon or even just concept to the whole world.

Companies, perhaps. Countries, nah.

 

[NakedLunch]

Our Chinese friends should have more confidence in themselves. China is a powerful country, it can defend itself without doubt. I really dont think there is a single country in the world that would want to be a part of any coalition that decides to militarily confront China. It will be a bloodbath. China is a true super-power and it is gets stronger with each passing day. Those who think they can attack and defeat China are living in a dangerous delusion.

 

[phancong]

China military modernization at the advance stage but still need a full decade to reach key breakthrough in all field of military technology and the maturization of their weapons platform.

 

[gambit]

Gambit, I think you are much smarter to ever compare IRAQ with CHINA.

I can and I will. I laugh every time someone even implies there is NO comparison between China and Iraq.

Am going to give you one of many incidents of Desert Storm that military historians and analysts continues to study to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khafji
https://www.army.mil/article/141322/JSTARS_plays_critical_role_in_Operation_Desert_Storm

The JSTARS was comprised of an E-8 platform and several ground station modules, or GSMs. It could provide wide-area surveillance through a moving target indicator, also known as an MTI, and two- or three-dimensional imaging through synthetic aperture radar, or SAR.

JSTARS was a new sensor platform that made its combat presence in Desert Storm 1991 while it was still in the development phase.

At the Battle of Al Khafji, the E-8 JSTARS proved its worth in ways that the PLA can only dream of.

Two radars: Moving Target Indicator (MTI) and Synthetic Aperture (SAR).

SAR is more resource intensive than MTI, from CPU to graphical display. MTI discriminates only velocity differences. If you are moving faster than background, you will be noted. On the other hand, SAR uses radar returns to compose, as approximate as possible to a black and white photograph, of what it sees. For SAR, moving objects are the most difficult to represent.

At the Battle of Al Khafji, the JSTARS crew used the MTI radar to track the Iraqi Army convoy. The JSTARS crew can only guess at the composition of the column. When the convoy stopped, the MTI radar showed nothing. Simply put, there were no velocity differences to display, so the scopes were blanks, so to speak.

If the convoy stopped, that can be either the convoy arrived at its destination, or was preparing to secure itself for the night. But since the convoy stopped moving, it means less computing power demands for the SAR system, so the JSTARS crew turned on the SAR. Back then, the graphics were blurry, but still good enough for the JSTARS crew to discriminate tracked from wheeled vehicles in the convoy. Tracked vehicles means tanks and/or mobile artillery. Wheeled vehicles means troops carriers or other.

The JSTARS crew then guided in fighter-bombers and the slaughter began with the tracked vehicles the first victims.

This is the kind of combat experience the PLA do not have. It does not matter if we are talking about the PLA of today. Convoys obeys certain rules in order to make themselves efficient at what they do -- transport stuff. Under fire, soldiers scatters and seeks cover, even to the ground. Air force fighters like to travels at least in pairs. And so on...

What happened at the Battle of Al Khafji showed how US airmen can quickly adapt as far as EMPLOYMENT of what they have. And as far as airpower goes, this is just one in the thousands of situations, large and small, of how US airmen accomplished their missions using their equipment in ways the original designers never thought of using.

Let us be generous and assume that, in a hypothetical shooting fight between the US and China, the two countries are technological parity.

China WILL still lose. That is my prediction. And I am a Desert Storm veteran.

China will be facing an opponent that has a proven record of creative uses of technology to adapt to the immediate environment and combat situation, as the JSTARS example showed. It is at least one magnitude, but more like two, difference between US and China. What the JSTARS crew did at Al Khafji, we had 20 yrs since then to refine at analyses and exercises, as well as advances in technology. In the decades that we were studying what went right and what went wrong of Desert Storm, China finally started modernizing her military.

People on this forum laughed at US because we defeated Iraq, a country that they said 'could not fight back'.

Iraq definitely could fight back. Iraq watched US build up for months. The Iraqi Army was probably the most combat experienced in the ME. Not even China could have fought the Iraqi military. People foolishly reasoned that the swift defeat of the Iraqi Army meant it was weak.

WRONG

That swift defeat of the Iraqi military, from land to sea and to air, meant that the US military was far superior at the EMPLOYMENT of what we have, including superior technology, than the Iraqi military was the EMPLOYMENT of what it had.

Any shooting fight against US -- China WILL lose.