What's new

South China Sea Forum

Dead Silence meets Chinese 10-MIRV-capable DF-41 ICBM test on July 24, 2012

The most interesting responses to China's 10-MIRV-capable DF-41 ICBM test on July 24, 2012:

1. "A Pentagon spokeswoman declined to comment on the missile test." The Pentagon does not discuss China's DF-41 ICBM test, 5,000km Underground Great Wall, JL-2 SLBM tests, or DF-21D "carrier killer" ASBM tests.

In other words, the Pentagon is useless to us for current information on the latest developments of Chinese military hardware.

2. All of the major American newspapers ignore the 10-MIRV-capable DF-41 ICBM test.

There is serious denial among the American media. China is transforming into a full-fledged thermonuclear power and the Western media pretend it's not happening.

I have to wonder if the timing of the DF-41 test is not accidental. It is possible China intentionally tested the DF-41 to warn the U.S. to stop meddling in the South China Sea. The message is: Don't make us build 500 DF-41 ICBMs and place 5,000 American cities and towns at risk.

Reference: http://freebeacon.com/manchu-missile-launch/
 
Dead Silence meets Chinese 10-MIRV-capable DF-41 ICBM test on July 24, 2012

The most interesting responses to China's 10-MIRV-capable DF-41 ICBM test on July 24, 2012:

1. "A Pentagon spokeswoman declined to comment on the missile test." The Pentagon does not discuss China's DF-41 ICBM test, 5,000km Underground Great Wall, JL-2 SLBM tests, or DF-21D "carrier killer" ASBM tests.

In other words, the Pentagon is useless to us for current information on the latest developments of Chinese military hardware.

2. All of the major American newspapers ignore the 10-MIRV-capable DF-41 ICBM test.

There is serious denial among the American media. China is transforming into a full-fledged thermonuclear power and the Western media pretend it's not happening.

I have to wonder if the timing of the DF-41 test is not accidental. It is possible China intentionally tested the DF-41 to warn the U.S. to stop meddling in the South China Sea. The message is: Don't make us build 500 DF-41 ICBMs and place 5,000 American cities and towns at risk.

Reference: http://freebeacon.com/manchu-missile-launch/

China's ICBM/SLBM will be tested periodically to ensure its reliability, just like Trident II SLBM has been tested in every year.
 
The South China Sea's Gathering Storm
August 19, 2012, 5:53 p.m. ET
By JAMES WEBB

Since World War II, despite the costly flare-ups in Korea and Vietnam, the United States has proved to be the essential guarantor of stability in the Asian-Pacific region, even as the power cycle shifted from Japan to the Soviet Union and most recently to China. The benefits of our involvement are one of the great success stories of American and Asian history, providing the so-called second tier countries in the region the opportunity to grow economically and to mature politically.

As the region has grown more prosperous, the sovereignty issues have become more fierce. Over the past two years Japan and China have openly clashed in the Senkaku Islands, east of Taiwan and west of Okinawa, whose administration is internationally recognized to be under Japanese control. Russia and South Korea have reasserted sovereignty claims against Japan in northern waters. China and Vietnam both claim sovereignty over the Paracel Islands. China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia all claim sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, the site of continuing confrontations between China and the Philippines.

Such disputes involve not only historical pride but also such vital matters as commercial transit, fishing rights, and potentially lucrative mineral leases in the seas that surround the thousands of miles of archipelagos. Nowhere is this growing tension clearer than in the increasingly hostile disputes in the South China Sea.

On June 21, China's State Council approved the establishment of a new national prefecture which it named Sansha, with its headquarters on Woody Island in the Paracel Islands. Called Yongxing by the Chinese, Woody Island has no indigenous population and no natural water supply, but it does sport a military-capable runway, a post office, a bank, a grocery store and a hospital.

The Paracels are more than 200 miles southeast of Hainan, mainland China's southernmost territory, and due east of Vietnam's central coast. Vietnam adamantly claims sovereignty over the island group, the site of a battle in 1974 when China attacked the Paracels in order to oust soldiers of the former South Vietnamese regime.

The potential conflicts stemming from the creation of this new Chinese prefecture extend well beyond the Paracels. Over the last six weeks the Chinese have further proclaimed that the jurisdiction of Sansha includes not just the Paracel Islands but virtually the entire South China Sea, connecting a series of Chinese territorial claims under one administrative rubric. According to China's official news agency Xinhua, the new prefecture "administers over 200 islets" and "2 million square kilometers of water." To buttress this annexation, 45 legislators have been appointed to govern the roughly 1,000 people on these islands, along with a 15-member Standing Committee, plus a mayor and a vice mayor.

These political acts have been matched by military and economic expansion. On July 22, China's Central Military Commission announced that it would deploy a garrison of soldiers to guard the islands in the area. On July 31, it announced a new policy of "regular combat-readiness patrols" in the South China Sea. And China has now begun offering oil exploration rights in locations recognized by the international community as within Vietnam's exclusive economic zone.

For all practical purposes China has unilaterally decided to annex an area that extends eastward from the East Asian mainland as far as the Philippines, and nearly as far south as the Strait of Malacca. China's new "prefecture" is nearly twice as large as the combined land masses of Vietnam, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. Its "legislators" will directly report to the central government.

American reaction has been muted. The State Department waited until Aug. 3 before expressing official concern over China's "upgrading of its administrative level . . . and establishment of a new military garrison" in the disputed areas. The statement was carefully couched within the context of long-standing policies calling for the resolution of sovereignty issues in accordance with international law and without the use of military force.

Even so, the Chinese government responded angrily, warning that State Department officials had "confounded right and wrong, and sent a seriously wrong message." The People's Daily, a quasi-official publication, accused the U.S. of "fanning the flames and provoking division, deliberately creating antagonism with China." Its overseas edition said it was time for the U.S. to "shut up."

In truth, American vacillations have for years emboldened China. U.S. policy with respect to sovereignty issues in Asian-Pacific waters has been that we take no sides, that such matters must be settled peacefully among the parties involved. Smaller, weaker countries have repeatedly called for greater international involvement.

China, meanwhile, has insisted that all such issues be resolved bilaterally, which means either never or only under its own terms. Due to China's growing power in the region, by taking no position Washington has by default become an enabler of China's ever more aggressive acts.

The U.S., China and all of East Asia have now reached an unavoidable moment of truth. Sovereignty disputes in which parties seek peaceful resolution are one thing; flagrant, belligerent acts are quite another. How this challenge is addressed will have implications not only for the South China Sea, but also for the stability of East Asia and for the future of U.S.-China relations.

History teaches us that when unilateral acts of aggression go unanswered, the bad news never gets better with age. Nowhere is this cycle more apparent than in the alternating power shifts in East Asia. As historian Barbara Tuchman noted in her biography of U.S. Army Gen. Joseph Stillwell, it was China's plea for U.S. and League of Nations support that went unanswered following Japan's 1931 invasion of Manchuria, a neglect that "brewed the acid of appeasement that . . . opened the decade of descent to war" in Asia and beyond.

While America's attention is distracted by the presidential campaign, all of East Asia is watching what the U.S. will do about Chinese actions in the South China Sea. They know a test when they see one. They are waiting to see whether America will live up to its uncomfortable but necessary role as the true guarantor of stability in East Asia, or whether the region will again be dominated by belligerence and intimidation.

The Chinese of 1931 understood this threat and lived through the consequences of an international community's failure to address it. The question is whether the China of 2012 truly wishes to resolve issues through acceptable international standards, and whether the America of 2012 has the will and the capacity to insist that this approach is the only path toward stability.

Mr. Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia.

James Webb: The South China Sea's Gathering Storm - WSJ.com
 
by the logic of many Chinese members here in the forum Vietnam never has a chance in a war against China.
 
Martian is ready to sacrifice himself to kill some of his nation enemy like you and bring glory to his nation.

Well the armchair general is I think American, I believe of Asian descent and I remember he mentioned he has a brother who is a US Army ranger and he even said he will fight Russian commies.

I could be wrong but that's how I remember it.
 
The video shows a recent trip on a (vietnamese made) vessel to Spratly islands. Some overseas Vietnamese are among the "tourists". Sorry all in Vietnamese, but you may get an idea when looking the video.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
However, Taiwan can crush both the Vietnamese and Filipino navies with little effort.

Taiwan's air force has 327 modern fourth-generation fighters (e.g. F-16s, Mirage 2000s, and indigenous FCK-1s). In comparison, Vietnam only has 39 and the Philippines has ZERO fourth-generation fighters.

Taiwan is more like a terrier. We're big enough to matter and too much to handle for Third World non-industrialized countries like Vietnam and the Philippines.

Taiwan also builds its own Hsiung Feng 3 supersonic missiles. Can you Third World Vietnamese and Filipinos make the same claim?

References:

Republic of China Air Force

Hsiung Feng 3

----------

8g9R0.jpg

Taiwan's FCK-1 (Fighter Ching Kuo)
If Taiwan truly has 327 4th generation fighters that can fire A2A missile of at least 100 km then they are more than a match for the PLA's 600 fighters. The fact that Taiwan constantly asking for more F-16 is a clear indication that out of those 327 fighters, very small numbers are functional enough to launch A2A missiles; Taiwan is just blufing about their number of functional aircrafts. I'll be generous and give out of those 327 fighters, only 30 or so are capable enough for launching long ranged missiles.

One Vietnamese Kilo-submarine (received in 2013) can easily devastate 2 ancient submarines of Taiwan and their Lafayete frigates with ease.
 
@Martian2:

1 unit of Type 054 frigate costs about $US 250 million
1 unit of SS-N-25 anti-ship missile costs about $US 0,5 million

Let take 2 missiles on 1 warship, so that would cost us about $ US 1 million. That would be a huge loss for the Chinese if they dare to send these costly warships into the SCS war zone.

I am not peaceful if it comes to a worst case.
Not really. It will get detected by ASEA first. Then the Missile will be tacked and gets blocked by EWS and if that fails it will get intercepted by H-9 ASM/AAM. Remember Yakhont missiles are Ramjets like Projectiles. It need Oxygen suction. If the missile passes though this tier of defense then the the F-2000 Missile comes to place. The F-2000 is like PAC-3, its can intercept missiles at close range. If it fails, then another tier of defense comes into place, which is Radar blinding, Flares and the last ditch attempt which is CIWS guns which has radar guidance rather than obtical

The Type 052D is designed for Missile defense. OMG it main propose was fleet protection from Missiles not Anti-shipping like other combat vessels. It's like the argies saying they can sink a UK Type 45 with a new Exocet and Harpoon block 2.
 
If Taiwan truly has 327 4th generation fighters that can fire A2A missile of at least 100 km then they are more than a match for the PLA's 600 fighters. The fact that Taiwan constantly asking for more F-16 is a clear indication that out of those 327 fighters, very small numbers are functional enough to launch A2A missiles; Taiwan is just blufing about their number of functional aircrafts. I'll be generous and give out of those 327 fighters, only 30 or so are capable enough for launching long ranged missiles.

One Vietnamese Kilo-submarine (received in 2013) can easily devastate 2 ancient submarines of Taiwan and their Lafayete frigates with ease.

not very smart are you?
not all 4th gens are made equal, early f-16 (a/b) which Taiwan has is not going to do too well against say a newer j-10(and of course the B model) or j-11b (especially since PRC has more fighters) and might as well be a fish in a bucket for the up coming j-20(and j-21 if real), not to mention PRC sam systems can cover all of western taiwan and with the new ships like 052c and D, all of eastern taiwan as well. but they are more than a match for vietnams 3 dozen or so fighters.

as for ur upcoming order of kilos, their not a new threat, ROC has been facing PLAN subs(including, surprise:blink:, the kilo subs) for decades and that's a primary reason for those dozen P3C's they ordered from the US. their 2 subs are crap, yes, but those lafayete class frigates are configured for ASW work, they would have a hard time fighting off a large plan naval assault but against vietnam? they stand a pretty good chance of feeding Vietnamese ships to the fishes.
 
not very smart are you?
not all 4th gens are made equal, early f-16 (a/b) which Taiwan has is not going to do too well against say a newer j-10(and of course the B model) or j-11b (especially since PRC has more fighters) and might as well be a fish in a bucket for the up coming j-20(and j-21 if real), not to mention PRC sam systems can cover all of western taiwan and with the new ships like 052c and D, all of eastern taiwan as well. but they are more than a match for vietnams 3 dozen or so fighters.

as for ur upcoming order of kilos, their not a new threat, ROC has been facing PLAN subs(including, surprise:blink:, the kilo subs) for decades and that's a primary reason for those dozen P3C's they ordered from the US. their 2 subs are crap, yes, but those lafayete class frigates are configured for ASW work, they would have a hard time fighting off a large plan naval assault but against vietnam? they stand a pretty good chance of feeding Vietnamese ships to the fishes.
Hello, Taiwan has been under "sanction" for years by weapon suppliers so its really stupid to believe that most of Taiwan's 327 fighters are even functional enough to fly and even launch A2A missiles beyond 100 km; that's why Taiwan constantly wants more new fighters despite having 327fighters and 700 Patriot missiles. In another words, Taiwan is just bluffing about their air force and its functional numbers.

Flying P3C for ASW, sure you can if you even have the luxury of sparing some fighters to escort them but the current state of Taiwan airforce will not permit it to do so. Vietnam's 36 Flankers are more than enough to devastate Taiwan's airforce and surface combatants with our capabilities to launch long ranged missiles like the R-27, R-77, and the 300-km Yakhont while the Kilo-sub is capable to firing 290-km Club-S missiles and God knows how many of this missile we have produced
t0xx_1334078869.jpg
 
Hello, Taiwan has been under "sanction" for years by weapon suppliers so its really stupid to believe that most of Taiwan's 327 fighters are even functional enough to fly and even launch A2A missiles beyond 100 km; that's why Taiwan constantly wants more new fighters despite having 327fighters and 700 Patriot missiles. In another words, Taiwan is just bluffing about their air force and its functional numbers.

Flying P3C for ASW, sure you can if you even have the luxury of sparing some fighters to escort them but the current state of Taiwan airforce will not permit it to do so. Vietnam's 36 Flankers are more than enough to devastate Taiwan's airforce and surface combatants with our capabilities to launch long ranged missiles like the R-27, R-77, and the 300-km Yakhont while the Kilo-sub is capable to firing 290-km Club-S missiles and God knows how many of this missile we have produced
t0xx_1334078869.jpg

thats just a flat out lie, taiwan has been supplied by the us for years, it is only the big ticket items that are not sold recently, but spare parts and small arms continue to be sold. and i already explained why they want new planes and stuff, its because they are out matched against the pla(in both tech and numbers), but they can outgun vietnam any day of the week.

the p3c will be vulnerable against the plan-plaaf but against vietnam, ROC can certainly send a dozen or 2 fighters to escort them and if this ever comes to pass you can bet your bottom dollar that PRC will be happy to stand aside and will do everything they can to lessen the pressure so that ROC can send out these assets without worrying about its western boarder with the PRC.

and again you are presenting threats that the ROC is very familiar with, the PRC has been operating the su-27/30 and the kilo subs for many years now, you bring no new threats to the table. and while you do have the yakhont, the version you have is land base only meaning they are useless in any conflict that is more than 300 km from vietnam and any naval engagment will almost certainly be a lot futher away than that.

mean while, what answers will vietnam have against ROC's sm2 missiles(numbering in the hundreds), tomahawks, HFIII missiles, P3c's, f-16s?
 
Back
Top Bottom