China tests missile air defence system

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

Show me who rejected artillery. Show me who rejected the airplane.


Show me who rejected the infantry and the Rangers.

 

[gambit]

Cool! Were you at the first Iraq war?

Yes...Back then the USAFSOC was nowhere as 'organized' as it is today. The only two 'official' AFSC for them were the Combat Controllers and the Pararescue gents. Combat Weather was the third major group but they were semi-official, they were called the 'Gray Berets'. Next to them, and some would say below the CWs were assorted recruits from diverse USAF backgrounds but most were linguists and avionics. I was recruited for both. We can be attached to the USAFSOC but we actually worked for USAF Systems Command, which is the USAF's techno-geeks branch. We were essentially hardware thieves and EM sniffers for the USAF's foreign technology exploitation office.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

This has nothing to do with the argument that defense is just to keep arms manufacturers busy. Not for defense of country. Try again, Lieutenant.

Yes it is. Then explain to me why all the buildup of obsolete and expensive war toys such as carriers, bombers, and fighters when we needed body armor for the ground troops over in Iraq? Because all the armed forces are competing for tax payers dollars, they are shooting for over killed tech toys that are irrelevant in the long term not about the right strategy for defense. Apparently you have not seen the politics going on in the brass, Sargent.

Not talking about technological parity and you missed the point completely. Am asking about the greater issue when it comes to the introduction of a technology that WILL enhance the warfighting effectiveness of a military. For example...Show me who rejected the scope as a mean of seeing the enemy from long distance. Show me who rejected artillery. Show me who rejected the airplane.


War fighting effectiveness comes with competent of leadership and preparedness of troops in all aspects of combat, not on enhancement of machines. Yes technological war machines will always evolve but the strategy, tactics, and good commander will always rule the battlefield. For every new piece of technology there is always a downside to it, such as maintenance time, and how many skillful people it takes to conduct it, thus adding cost to the overall budget that are needed for drill and training of current forces.

SSGT USAF. Used to fix jet fighters for a living. Then I was recruited to USAF SpecOps SIGINT program. Got out in '92. I have a good friend in Enterprise.

Just in case ya couldn't read my previous one.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

The main goal of any war is to win. Very close to the main goal is to win with as little loss to one's own forces as possible. I see nothing wrong with that concept. Of course, given the Chinese government's little regard for the human lives of its own forces, American affinity for superior technology in warfare in the interest of keeping our soldiers, airmen, and sailors alive for as long as possible must be very alien to you.

You can't keep soldiers, airmen, and sailors alive for too long, because one would lose the objective of the winning the war. Than you are playing prevent defense mentality, instead of fighting the enemy you end up fighting yourself, media, and what the outside world thinks of you. War is violent messy business, one has to be totally commit to it, it's not a video game. China has a huge history in fighting warfare and so is the Vietnamese. How does that pertain to today? Easy, it allows the generals and admirals to see the errors made by others in history and apply the strategy to that's relevant to the condition and situation of the battle. Can an American military leaders learn from this? Sure, but the Pentagon officials are the one's pulling the strings. There's seems to be an emphasis on and false bravado on gear and fear instead of situational awareness and purpose of the current Armed Forces.

 

[madooxno9]

China should just target and shoot down all of US Low-earth orbit and mid-earth orbit satelites. That way they can't get proper targeting and intelligence to strike targets in China lol.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

Yes...Back then the USAFSOC was nowhere as 'organized' as it is today. The only two 'official' AFSC for them were the Combat Controllers and the Pararescue gents. Combat Weather was the third major group but they were semi-official, they were called the 'Gray Berets'. Next to them, and some would say below the CWs were assorted recruits from diverse USAF backgrounds but most were linguists and avionics. I was recruited for both. We can be attached to the USAFSOC but we actually worked for USAF Systems Command, which is the USAF's techno-geeks branch. We were essentially hardware thieves and EM sniffers for the USAF's foreign technology exploitation office.

Do you feel today's AF has changed for the better or worse in your opinion? I for one personally don't like where the Army are heading. The training are too short for TDY and AIT personal. There are a number of other issues too, like the continuing numbers of Ft. Carson soldiers committing suicide after several tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[gambit]

Yes it is. Then explain to me why all the buildup of obsolete and expensive war toys such as carriers, bombers, and fighters when we needed body armor for the ground troops over in Iraq? Because all the armed forces are competing for tax payers dollars, they are shooting for over killed tech toys that are irrelevant in the long term not about the right strategy for defense. Apparently you have not seen the politics going on in the brass, Sargent.

I do not see aircraft carriers, bombers, or fighters as obsolete. As long as the US has global interests, ours and/or our allies, and that those interests needs protection, we have no choice but to allocate funds for them. They are programs that require long development and manufacturing time so they have been allocated long before the issue of body armor for Iraq came up. Even so, yours is more of a criticism of budgeting and priority than of the greater philosophical question on what is the purpose of a military. Or are you saying that somehow only the US should be under this criticism? China is building an aircraft carrier and has goal for a fleet of them. So what if the labor cost is lower in China? If we outsource the construction of the next carrier to Africa would that satisfy your criticism? Most likely not. The low casualty count in Desert Storm is proof that when the need arise, our high tech 'toys' performed to high expectations and served US well.

War fighting effectiveness comes with competent of leadership and preparedness of troops in all aspects of combat, not on enhancement of machines. Yes technological war machines will always evolve but the strategy, tactics, and good commander will always rule the battlefield.

I disagree in that enhancement of machines give the leadership greater tools and flexibility. Whether a general or a captain is 'competent' or not is a matter of professional military education and peer assessment, but you cannot deny the superiority of the machine gun over the manually activated bolt action rifle, the latter have been relegated to a highly specialized combat arena.

For every new piece of technology there is always a downside to it, such as maintenance time, and how many skillful people it takes to conduct it, thus adding cost to the overall budget that are needed for drill and training of current forces.

And there is always the cost versus benefit analysis going on. Again...I see nothing to suggest that a military should not keep up with technology's progress and to incorporate new technology into its arsenal.

You can't keep soldiers, airmen, and sailors alive for too long, because one would lose the objective of the winning the war. Than you are playing prevent defense mentality, instead of fighting the enemy you end up fighting yourself, media, and what the outside world thinks of you.

How long is 'too long'? From what we have seen in the news so far, the Army and Marines are hardly reluctant for any fight in Iraq. If anything, our restraint in Iraq was not from a fear of casualty but from bad PR that can come from distortions of combat events.

War is violent messy business, one has to be totally commit to it, it's not a video game.

I do not play video games. If you were a 'butter bar' back in the 90s' that make you at least ten yrs younger than me and you being US borned. No one here knows better than me on how bloody wars can be. I have seen flies so gorged on human blood from dead bodies that they could only hop on the ground next to the corpses and when stepped on they loudly popped. I know what burnt human flesh smell like and what a 'death gurgle' or 'rattle' sound like. I know what getting hit with a hot projectile feels like. I have a scar from a grenade thrown by a VC fighter trying to kill a group of terrified children. The shrapnel traveled deep enough into my chest that it nearly touched the shoulder blade. That is why I believe that if we go to war, we should go to win and if technology help reduce casualties, especially ours, then by all mean we should use that technology.

China has a huge history in fighting warfare and so is the Vietnamese. How does that pertain to today? Easy, it allows the generals and admirals to see the errors made by others in history and apply the strategy to that's relevant to the condition and situation of the battle. Can an American military leaders learn from this? Sure, but the Pentagon officials are the one's pulling the strings. There's seems to be an emphasis on and false bravado on gear and fear instead of situational awareness and purpose of the current Armed Forces.

I understand that there is a certain amount of institutional inertia whenever a doctrinal change is involved, but it is undeniable that superior technology on the battlefield can, not always, force the enemy into situations of our choosing. That was proven in Desert Storm and in the early days of OIF.

Do you feel today's AF has changed for the better or worse in your opinion? I for one personally don't like where the Army are heading. The training are too short for TDY and AIT personal. There are a number of other issues too, like the continuing numbers of Ft. Carson soldiers committing suicide after several tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.

For the better. The USAF is demanding more of its people in the intellectual side. That does not mean the USAF is asking for only college grads, but that once inducted, more is expected of the pilot and of the enlisted crew who maintains his aircraft.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

Even so, yours is more of a criticism of budgeting and priority than of the greater philosophical question on what is the purpose of a military. Or are you saying that somehow only the US should be under this criticism? China is building an aircraft carrier and has goal for a fleet of them. So what if the labor cost is lower in China? If we outsource the construction of the next carrier to Africa would that satisfy your criticism? Most likely not. The low casualty count in Desert Storm is proof that when the need arise, our high tech 'toys' performed to high expectations and served US well.

We can debate about the purpose of a military all day long till the cows come home, but the fact remains in today's geopolitical games it is use both to safeguard a nation and to acquire advantages to a country's interests. Good for China to build a fleet of Aircraft Carrier or whatever they want to keep the US hegemony away from her waters. Sure the low casualty count in Desert Storm due to high tech toys performance against a third world country. What about it's performance against say Russia or China? All high tech toys depends too much on satellites for guided weapons and gps, war is still decided on an intelligent field commander.

How long is 'too long'? From what we have seen in the news so far, the Army and Marines are hardly reluctant for any fight in Iraq. If anything, our restraint in Iraq was not from a fear of casualty but from bad PR that can come from distortions of combat events.

If a country needs good PR to sustain public support than it's not fighting a war, but more of a mercenary reality t.v.

And there is always the cost versus benefit analysis going on. Again...I see nothing to suggest that a military should not keep up with technology's progress and to incorporate new technology into its arsenal.

Good points there.


I disagree in that enhancement of machines give the leadership greater tools and flexibility. Whether a general or a captain is 'competent' or not is a matter of professional military education and peer assessment, but you cannot deny the superiority of the machine gun over the manually activated bolt action rifle, the latter have been relegated to a highly specialized combat arena.


I have to disagree with you on this. I am believer in a strong, intelligent, and competent field commander can over come any obstacles even when the enemy has a more advance machines against his forces. Look at what General Vo Nguyen Giap did to the French and Americans when his Viet Minh and Viet Cong forces fought. He had just enough of modern weapons to deter and defeat his enemies in any ways possible.


I do not play video games. If you were a 'butter bar' back in the 90s' that make you at least ten yrs younger than me and you being US borned. No one here knows better than me on how bloody wars can be. I have seen flies so gorged on human blood from dead bodies that they could only hop on the ground next to the corpses and when stepped on they loudly popped. I know what burnt human flesh smell like and what a 'death gurgle' or 'rattle' sound like. I know what getting hit with a hot projectile feels like. I have a scar from a grenade thrown by a VC fighter trying to kill a group of terrified children. The shrapnel traveled deep enough into my chest that it nearly touched the shoulder blade. That is why I believe that if we go to war, we should go to win and if technology help reduce casualties, especially ours, then by all mean we should use that technology.

Interested war stories you got there. You got a scar in Vietnam because of a VC? Yes technology can help us, but we shouldn't depend on it so much that our concentration is more on keeping the machine working well instead of killing the actual enemy soldiers.

I understand that there is a certain amount of institutional inertia whenever a doctrinal change is involved, but it is undeniable that superior technology on the battlefield can, not always, force the enemy into situations of our choosing. That was proven in Desert Storm and in the early days of OIF.


To a certain extent it does force the enemy to our choosing, but when they go guerrilla style fighting on the ground and start sending agents to disrupt the peace in the homeland than it became a game of will and tolerance. As a result a new method to be involved..


Great posts man, keep it up. I enjoy sharing my thoughts with you!:yahoo

 

[akinkhoo]

we have no choice but to allocate funds for them.

exactly, US weapon system ain't design to be effective, they are design to full-fill a specify role in which it may find itself in disadvantage cost-performance wise. US thus maintains it's advantage at a very high cost price to the country(half a trillion dollar). So long as the US can throw enough money at the problem, there is no problem! US biggest advantage is not carriers but it's economy.

 

[no_name]

Interesting, I havn't thought about it that way.

 

[gambit]

Interesting, I havn't thought about it that way.

You should not. It was nonsensical, especially the "ain't design to be effective" bit. In war, there are so many factors affecting the theoretical efficacy of a weapon system that it is pragmatically impossible for any weapon to be %100 effective as designed. The entire post was vaguely worded in a way to give the impression of knowledge but for those of us who actually have served in the military and know better, the post is exactly that -- nonsensical.

 

[gambit]

We can debate about the purpose of a military all day long till the cows come home, but the fact remains in today's geopolitical games it is use both to safeguard a nation and to acquire advantages to a country's interests. Good for China to build a fleet of Aircraft Carrier or whatever they want to keep the US hegemony away from her waters.

You need to be consistent. If aircraft carriers are 'toys' for the American military, it must also be 'toys' for the Chinese military as well.

Sure the low casualty count in Desert Storm due to high tech toys performance against a third world country. What about it's performance against say Russia or China?

Am not saying that the result in Iraq will be the same for Russia or China. But Iraq used a lot of Soviet and Chinese derived weapons and training. At the time of Desert Storm, the three countries were pretty much similar in terms of military capabilities minus the nuclear weapons. The Soviets was slightly ahead. But if we take into consideration combat experience, then Iraq was ahead of China because of the decade long Iran-Iraq War. The disparity between the US and Iraq was evident and it jolted China into a realization that if there is a shooting fight between the US and China, China would lose as badly as Iraq did. China then entered a modernization program to make her military more professional in line of the Western militaries.

All high tech toys depends too much on satellites for guided weapons and gps, war is still decided on an intelligent field commander.

That is like saying the Army depends too much on the rifle. I fail to see how 'smart' weapons have any relationship to on how the Army create or discover intelligent field commanders.

If a country needs good PR to sustain public support than it's not fighting a war, but more of a mercenary reality t.v.

For a democracy, and despite your unbelief that the US is a functional democracy, popular sentiment matter if the country is going to war. The point I was trying to make was that the restraint we have in Iraq was not because we were afraid of fighting but because IF we were to fight the way we want to win overwhelmingly, the PR fallout could be detrimental for the support of the war. Of course, you could always come out and advocate that we disregard popular sentiments altogether.

I have to disagree with you on this. I am believer in a strong, intelligent, and competent field commander can over come any obstacles even when the enemy has a more advance machines against his forces. Look at what General Vo Nguyen Giap did to the French and Americans when his Viet Minh and Viet Cong forces fought. He had just enough of modern weapons to deter and defeat his enemies in any ways possible.

Did you know that whenever Giap tried to fight the French in 'set piece' battles, despite his numerical superiority, he always lost? Same when Giap tried to fight the Americans later? Did you ever put an objective mind to the many analysis of the battle of Dien Bien Phu where they outlined how Giap was actually an average commander despite the facts that his forces held the superior high ground, outnumbered and outgunned the defenders, but the siege took months and he lost more men? Did you know that Giap nearly evicted the Chinese advisors from the battlefield because he had enough of their incompetence when they ordered only what they know best from Korea -- human wave attacks? Fort Sill Artillery's paper regarding Dien Bien Phu was the most generous to Giap, others from foreign armies were not as kind but all are worth reading.

Giap was a wily guerilla commander and deserve respect for that, but he was also wise enough of his own limitations that even though he planned the 1968 Tet Offensive he opposed its execution. Did you know that? This factoid is not a secret but a cynic would argue often deliberately omitted from many commentaries. Giap felt that the NVA/VC forces could not stand against the combined ARVN/US forces, despite the incompetency of the ARVN. Giap did not believe the South Vietnamese were so antagonistic towards their government that they would rise up in rebellion. The Politburo overruled Giap and ordered the offensive anyway. The offensive gained nothing and the VC was nearly wiped out. Before 1968, the VC was able to field battalion strength if they needed. After the failed offensive, so many South Vietnamese turned against the VC that they could muster up at best squad level. After the 'Vietnamization' of the war, by early 1972, most US Army forces were out of the fighting, leaving the ARVN and the USAF. Giap thought he could achieve easy victories. Once again he underestimated the effectiveness of air power like he did when he fought against France. Giap had no experience at coordinating ground and air forces, he knew of this inexperience but pressed ahead anyway. The result was his defeat in late 1972 at the Easter Offensive and South Viet Nam existed until 1975 when the US Congress refused to fund the war further. At no time during the war did Giap militarily gained the upper hand for long.

It was the weariness of the American public that eventually compelled their government that the war was not worth supporting, not that Giap was the military 'genius' that many hyped him up to be. If you have enough men and is callous for their lives, eventually you will wear down an enemy who does not have the same disregard for his own. So when a superpower like the US withdrew from Viet Nam without achieving its political objective -- the continuing independence of South Viet Nam -- naturally popular perceptions and conclusions will be that the US was militarily defeated by an intellectually superior enemy. There were many defeated Nazi generals but no one discredited them the way the American generals were discredited. The reason why the US was 'defeated' in Viet Nam was not because the ARVN/US alliance could not militarily defeat the NVA but because the American political leadership failed to grasp the fact that there was a great difference in political goal between the two sides: The communists wanted the whole country but the ARVN/US alliance wanted partition ala Korea.

The political goal set the military objectives. If both sides had the same political goal, which is to put the country under one regime, then the ARVN/US alliance would have overrun the NVA a long time ago with clearly superior firepower. But because the ARVN/US alliance was set on going no further north than the 17th parallel, that gave the communists a clear strategic advantage from the start because they knew that they will always have a secured place to retreat, regroup and rebuild. If they needed respite from the American bombing campaigns, all they have to do is plead for 'negotiations' and the ARVN/US alliance would respond. Everyone knew the game and how hamstrung the ARVN/US alliance was. Despite that strategic advantage, the communists still had to violate the territorial sovereignty of two neighbors, Laos and Cambodia, to create the Ho Chi Minh Trail to support the VC. This flanking movement was not possible with Korea so the Korean peninsula became divided.

I do not claim to be a ground troop movements or artillery expert but what I am is a patient reader. I read between $100-150 a month in non-work related books and news magazines. I have read enough of objective analysis, devoid of the fawning Giap military 'genius' myth, to know that while a competent and shrewd commander like Giap is valuable and should be respected, there come a time when the technological gap between the war contestants is so great, as in even Giap himself recognized how inferior his forces were compared to the Americans, that it will take a political disaster like the American political leadership's abandonment of an ally before the technologically inferior can claim victory.

Yes technology can help us, but we shouldn't depend on it so much that our concentration is more on keeping the machine working well instead of killing the actual enemy soldiers.

This generalization is indisputable. But I do not see this is happening in the US military. In fact, the goal have always been to make the equipment as 'field serviceable' as possible, even for aviation. Out West I am within one day's drive to Nellis, Mountain Home and several other USAF bases, the ways the kids today maintain their charges make me jealous.

To a certain extent it does force the enemy to our choosing, but when they go guerrilla style fighting on the ground and start sending agents to disrupt the peace in the homeland than it became a game of will and tolerance. As a result a new method to be involved..

Guerilla tactics have never won a war and please do not bring up the Vietnam War. The VC was an insurgent arm and a terrorist organization for the NVA. The various 'resistance' groups in WW II never drove out Nazi Germany. Same for the Pacific side of WW II against Imperial Japan. In mainland China, Chennault's Flying Tigers was the air equivalent of a 'resistance' group. A guerilla campaign is an acknowledgement that one side has lost the fight and has to resort to harassment tactics, not actual combat to defeat an enemy. This become a contest of long term will power.

 

[ViXuyen]

Am not saying that the result in Iraq will be the same for Russia or China. But Iraq used a lot of Soviet and Chinese derived weapons and training. At the time of Desert Storm, the three countries were pretty much similar in terms of military capabilities minus the nuclear weapons. The Soviets was slightly ahead.

Iraq in 1991 was pretty much similar in term of military capabilities with the Soviet? Is this the kind of myth that keeps repeating over and over again by the U.S and Western media to hide the fact that what the U.S defeated in 1991 was nothing but an ancient army with hardly any 4th generation aircraft?

Let's just face the truth that the U.S did not defeat a domesctic version of 1500 Mig31, Mig29, Su27, S-300 in the Iraq war of 1991. Iraq did not even have any long-ranged cruise missiles that can pound the hell out of every U.S base that their fighters operated from nor Iraq can shoot down all the U.S satellites like the Soviet could .....and yet Iraq shot down 57 coalition aircrafts with their ancient SAM and AAA.

 

[Dragon Emperor]

Iraq in 1991 was pretty much similar in term of military capabilities with the Soviet? Is this the kind of myth that keeps repeating over and over again by the U.S and Western media to hide the fact that what the U.S defeated in 1991 was nothing but an ancient army with hardly any 4th generation aircraft?

Let's just face the truth that the U.S did not defeat a domesctic version of 1500 Mig31, Mig29, Su27, S-300 in the Iraq war of 1991. Iraq did not even have any long-ranged cruise missiles that can pound the hell out of every U.S base that their fighters operated from nor Iraq can shoot down all the U.S satellites like the Soviet could .....and yet Iraq shot down 57 coalition aircrafts with their ancient SAM and AAA.

Yeah, in 1991 Iraq didn't have significant numbers of S-300S, CIWS, and did not have hundreds of accurate ballistic and cruise missiles with CEP below 50m. 1991 Iraq's air force also doesn't have more than 400 4th generation fighters like the China of today has, and Iraq's air bases doesn't have hardened shelters like most PLAAF bases. The PLA of today is beyond what USA can handle without using nukes.

 

[no_name]

I think Iraq's terrain is also conductive to a tank blitz. That would not be the case in southern china. At most US will take northern plain like the japanese did then it will be a drawn out conflict.