Russia in denial of china's anti-air missiles capability

[Fenrir]

Apart maybe from radar and electronics,plus drone tech(for sure) o dont agree with any of your points.

However, China is improving quite fast, i think in couple less than 2 decades from now they will ahead of Russia, as Moscow is still living off its soviet era investments.

Will you concede that China is ahead in ASAT, cyber warfare and ocean-going ships? Russia's shipbuilding capabilities have taken a major hit since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and an even greater one since their adventure into Crimea, their cyber capabilities are strong, but China's have a larger impact (and are outed more often, which means they aren't that good either. Compared to the US whose own actions aren't typically outed, even with the NSA disclosures, new leaks aren't occurring that put any light on US cyber warfare. Most "recent info, and even the NSA leaks, date back to around 2010.) and China's ASAT capabilities with kinetic and non-kinetic actions (such as lasers) are a step above Russia's too.

China's ballistic missiles lag those of Russia, especially battlefield missiles, I'd take Iskander-M over anything China is producing any day of the week, but in terms of strategic munitions, China's closing that gap too. Russia's subs are ahead of China's without question, I'm not even going to entertain the fantasies of some people here in this catagory.

Russia still has an edge in aircraft, both bombers and fighters, but China is well ahead in UAVs.

It's a mixed bag, neither has an outright edge over the other, but both do things better than the other too. But such is the natural progression of things and according to another thread, the UK is better at producing SSNs than is the US, everyone is good at something, no one has an outright edge in our modern world.

UK's 3rd Astute-class Sub Begins Sea Trials

I don't agree with that (the statements is the above thread), but what does my disagreement matter outside of this forum anyways?

It's best not to put too much stock in the comparisons being made here, many people have no idea what they're talking about. Such has always been the case on PDF and among amateur military enthusiasts.

 

[UKBengali]

Apart maybe from radar and electronics,plus drone tech(for sure).
I dont agree with any of your above points.

However, Cbina is improving quite fast, i think in couple less than 2 decades from now they will ahead of Russia, as Moscow is still living off its soviet era investments. but for now and short term future, Russia still has the lead

Ship technology - China is building Type-55 cruiser.

What is Russia doing?

 

[Gufi]

China shall boycott such event in future. China are not as extra there to promote Russian military products.

stop being so aggressive, the people who understand military hardware will not only see the results but closely monitor the procedures. It is very childish to think the world will just accept every result on face value, rather there will be a close watch on the actual performance. Do not think Chinese government will act like a child and boycott anything, rather they will continue to learn and develop their military capability.

 

[mike2000 is back]

stop being so aggressive, the people who understand military hardware will not only see the results but closely monitor the procedures. It is very childish to think the world will just accept every result on face value, rather there will be a close watch on the actual performance. Do not think Chinese government will act like a child and boycott anything, rather they will continue to learn and develop their military capability.

Dont mind some chinese members here, just angry his 'ally' Russia disapproved of their weapons, instead of praising them. .

 

[Gufi]

I don't agree with that, but what does my disagreement matter outside of this forum anyways?

I generally agree with most things you have said here, but at times the issue is not who has the better missiles but how many are there and how many can penetrate the other's defensive shield. Whether the ballistic missiles are better or not is just one part of the equation and I think you will agree.
As far as the air force goes China is catching up quickly but the main advantage it has now is the sheer numbers it can produce compared to Russia.

But such is the natural progression of things and according to another thread, the UK is better at producing SSNs than is the US.

That thread should be moved to the Jokes thread and a big lol added to the title.

(and are outed more often, which means they aren't that good either - compared to the US whose own actions aren't typically outed, even with the NSA disclosures, new leaks aren't occurring that put any light on US cyber warfare)

The American grip on the Internet and its ability to gain access into systems is without doubt unparalleled. The only issue here is the closed circuit of the Chinese government compared to the way the American system works.
The number of people privy to information and having different levels clearance or authorization in America is more than the Chinese and thus it is harder to gain access to information through cyber warfare. But the level of intelligence gathering and the tools that the US has it at a clear advantage.

ps tell Sven he is missed and I have no one to explain things to me as thoroughly as he did and we all wish him the best in his endeavours.

Dont mind some chinese members here, just angry his 'ally' Russia disapproved of their weapons, instead of praising them. .

we have some very nice Chinese posters here, and some are more patriotic and aggressive. I admire their loyalty to their country and do not mind at all.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

China's ballistic missiles lag those of Russia, especially battlefield missiles, I'd take Iskander-M over anything China is producing any day of the week, but in terms of strategic munitions, China's closing that gap too. Russia's subs are ahead of China's without question, I'm not even going to entertain the fantasies of some people here in this catagory.

Are you kidding me? Tell me what is so special that Iskander-M compared to this behemoth?

And you think that DF-41 is lagging behind of RS-24? And JL-2 is lagging behind of Bulava?

Then you must go back to study the specs of these missiles my friend.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The boy lives in fantasy.

Russia is ahead on the liquid fuel ballistic missile, but China is ahead on the solid fuel one.

That's my best answer.

 

[UKBengali]

Russia is ahead on the liquid fuel ballistic missile, but China is ahead on the solid fuel one.

That's my best answer.

What serious discussion can be had with people who think that Russia is any real competition for China?
China now spends more than the whole EU and Russia on military R&D in real terms.

The Type 093B is already comparable to the 688i or slightly better.

The versatile VLS and pump jet are featured for the Type 093B, and these things only appeared on 688i, not 688.

Even the 688i wasn't initially built with these things, but they were later modified in order to follow closely the Virginia class.

I agree that Type-093B is on the same level as 688i, maybe even a little better.

What I do not think is that it is possible for Type-95 to be equal to Virginia class yet - China will need a good 2 decades to
be able to match the US in SSN techonolgy - China will get there but it is not there yet.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

What serious discussion can be had with people who think that Russia is any real competition for China?
China now spends more than the whole EU and Russia on military R&D in real terms.

BTW, we respect Russia's military might and technology, they are our peer and a good partner.

Instead of arguing with those non-Russian trolls who attempted to create another flame war between China and Russia, we (both China and Russia) should look at the US.

Since the US still buit Virginia class and Arleigh Burke class like hot cakes, that's a serious challenge to both nations.

I agree that Type-093B is on the same level as 688i, maybe even a little better.

What I do not think is that it is possible for Type-95 to be equal to Virginia class yet - China will need a good 2 decades to
be able to match the US in SSN techonolgy - China will get there but it is not there yet.

According to our military analysts, the Type 095 is aimed at the Seawolf class, and the Type 093B is the test platform for the new technologies that will be later used on the Type 095.

Since China won't build anything in large number when it is not close to its US counterpart on most of the specs.

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

Russia is ahead on the liquid fuel ballistic missile, but China is ahead on the solid fuel one.

That's my best answer.

The liquid fuel ballistic missile is too huge to penetrate the GBI system. That is why we stoped developing DF-5 serials in 1980s and developed the solid fuel ballistic missile DF-31 serials from that time. But just as a threat to others and never being used anytime, a huge missile is more effective and frightening. So we developed the DF-5B after 2000 and first tested it in 2006, and we will see it in the parade this year.
We have a bunch of the counterparts of Iskander, such as DF-11 serials, DF-15 serials, DF-16 serials and M-20 for export that is called Chinese Iskander.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The liquid fuel ballistic missile is too huge to penetrate the GBI system. That is why we stoped developing DF-5 serials in 1980s and developed the solid fuel ballistic missile DF-31 serials from that time. But just as a threat to others and never being used anytime, a huge missile is more effective and frightening. So we developed the DF-5B and first tested it in 2006, and we will see it in the parade this year.
We have a bunch of the counterparts of Iskander, such as DF-11 serials, DF-15 serials, DF-16 serials and M-20 for export that is called Chinese Iskander.

Well, Russia has developed the liquid fuel SLBMs like Sineva and Layner, and I think they are ok to deal with the GBI system.

Also, Russia's new liquid fuel ICBM is quite advanced that the fuel can be stored for many years.

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

Well, Russia has developed the liquid fuel SLBMs like Sineva and Layner, and I think they are ok to deal with the GBI system.

Also, Russia's new liquid fuel ICBM is quite advanced that the fuel can be stored for many years.

Their liquid fuel is semi-solid state like wax which neednt be filled near launch. The reason that Russia/Soviet developed it was that their solid fuel tech development was lagging behind once.

 

[Fenrir]

Are you kidding me? Tell me what is so special that Iskander-M compared to this behemoth?

What's with you people and not reading?

China's ballistic missiles lag those of Russia, especially battlefield missiles, I'd take Iskander-M over anything China is producing any day of the week, but in terms of strategic munitions, China's closing that gap too.

Battlefield (short and tactical ballistic missile), not strategic.

Iskander-M is a battlefield missile

it's similar to ATACMS, but the US doesn't typically build long-ranged battlefield ballistic missiles, so ATACMS is out-ranged significantly by Iskander-M

If I wanted to compare strategic weapons, which I acknowledged China's progress towards a Russian level, I would have mentioned Topol-M, not Iskander-M.

Or RS-24 Yars

So no, I'm not kidding. You're just selectively (or really bad at) reading.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Their liquid fuel is semi-solid state like wax which neednt be raised near launch. The reason that Russia/Soviet developed it was that their solid fuel tech development was lagging behind once.

I initially thought that they gonna develop their own version of the DF-41, but later it revealed that they are going to develop the Sarmat which is another liquid fuel behemoth.

But being bigger is always going to be more intimidating, that could be some good new deterrence for Russia.

What's with you people and not reading?

China's ballistic missiles lag those of Russia, especially battlefield missiles, I'd take Iskander-M over anything China is producing any day of the week, but in terms of strategic munitions, China's closing that gap too.

Battlefield, not strategic.

Iskander-M

is similar to ATACMS

If I wanted to compare DF-41 to anything it would have been Topol

So no, I'm not kidding. You're just selectively (or really bad at) reading.

China's DF-25/26/27 are also used for the battlefield, especially the DF-27 with its 14x14 TEL, it is practically a tactical ICBM.

BTW, the DF-41 is much heavier and bigger than any Russian solid fuel ICBM which means for more range and payload.

Russia's coming Sarmat is even bigger than DF-41, but it is liquid fuel, so it is a different class of ICBM.

 

[Fenrir]

China's DF-25/26/27 are also used for the battlefield, especially the DF-27 with its 14x14 TEL, it is practically a tactical ICBM.

Think smaller, those (DF-25/26/27) are MRBMs, not tactical (battlefield) ballistic missiles. Impressive, but still not the comparison I was making.

DF-15/16

Would be a more appropriate analog to Iskander-K. Think missiles with a range greater than 200km, but less than 1000km. Those are battlefield ballistic missiles and the Russians build them well.