Take Note, America: 5 Weapons of War China Should Build Now

[sicsheep]

1941 after pearl harbor, US had troops had way less experience than Japan, but US was able to turn the war around just 6 month later at Midway.

Same goes for JSDF now, they have not had fought in a large scale conflict since 1945, but does not mean they are weak.



lol that is why they let most West Point graduate fly in Apache's anyways, not afraid to die doesn't make you a better fighter, yet a better commander. if you go by this mentality jihadist should win every war.
what's important is fighting spirit, certain country always teach their solider how to say "i Surrender" in the native tongue before sending them to war

so you are saying they could have won if they had encouraged surrendering? they lost but that's gotta nothing to do with their spirit.

 

[Steakhouse]

No amount of training can replace the actual feel for the real live and dead inside the battle field, the threat of being kill can weight heavily on your psych. However soldiers can overcome the initial shock in the battlefield after they personally experience it and their instinct will allow them to adapt to the condition for their own survival. Military training provide the soldier as close to the real war scenario as possible, soldier learn all set of skill arise from the war situation to effectively adapt to the problems the face. Also better to prepare and train for the worst condition as much as possible, war is a complete chaos with the total destruction in it path that require a physically strong and tough minded to survive and win in the battle, nothing can be beaten by the strong will to die for the cause.

 

[Zarvan]

China's military is certainly developing some deadly capabilities. Here are five ways it could become even deadlier.


Robert Farley

January 21, 2015

View attachment 185588

What weapons should China be developing and building right now? There’s an inherent tension between defense procurement and innovation. On the one hand, the Chinese military needs platforms now in order to fulfill the increasing scope of its responsibilities. On the other hand, funds committed to production and operations don’t go into innovation, or to the integration of new weapon systems.

With this trade-off in mind, this article takes a look at five kinds of weapon that China can develop in the short, medium, and long terms. China needs systems to secure its borders, ensure the defense of its trade routes, and potentially challenge the United States in the Western Pacific. The list concentrates on systems that enable these missions, with a focus on weapons that other countries either already have or are developing.

Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers:

Chinese naval aviation has developed in impressive fashion since the commissioning of the Liaoning (CV-16). The PLAN has done good work with the J-15 navalized Flanker, as well as several support aircraft. In the short-to-medium term, we can expect China to press forward with the construction of conventionally powered carriers currently on the slips (reportedly a pair of Type 089 conventional carriers, although accounts vary). These ships will give the PLAN a real, operational naval aviation capability, and will provide the service with additional experience in carrier operations.

In the future, however, China may have need to defend its interests in the Indian Ocean, especially given India’s advantageous position along China’s energy routes. For its long-term carrier force, China should think nuclear. In the Cold War, the United States could take advantage of a host of friendly local naval bases to operate large conventional carriers around the world. China, with fewer such bases, will need to reduce the logistical requirements of its carrier forces as much as possible.

China might also consider the construction of nuclear-powered support vessels, along with the variety of aircraft (early warning, transport, support) needed to maintain presence on distant postings.

Cruise Missile Nuclear Submarines or SSGNs:

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union developed a type of nuclear attack submarine dedicated for surface warfare, sprouting an array of cruise missiles designed to attack NATO carrier battle groups. The SSGN, or cruise missile nuclear submarine, has expanded its purview for land attack and other missions. Towards the end of the Cold War, the United States re-designed its 688 attack subs to carry Tomahawk cruise missiles in vertical tubes. The United States also modified four of its Ohio class ballistic missile submarines to launch cruise missiles.

The PLA has developed a dizzying array of cruise missiles designed for land, air, surface, and sub-surface launch. And to be sure, the PLAN has already begun to equip its nuclear attack submarines with cruise missile capabilities. The Type 093B may carry a 24 cell Vertical Launch System (VLS), and the Type 095 is also expected to sport VLS cells. China should continue production of these vessels, but may also consider the construction of larger submarines in the future.

By comparison, both the Oscar class SSGN and the Ohio class SSGN are over twice the size of the largest Chinese boats. The Oscars (still in service with the Russian Navy) carry 24 cruise missiles, albeit much larger than those carried in the VLS of the Chinese subs. The Ohio class SSGNs each carry up to 154 Tomahawks. Large Chinese submarines could threaten extensive cruise missile strikes against U.S. ships and U.S. land-installations, and could also serve as platforms for deployment of special forces teams, or as motherships for undersea unmanned vehicles.

Air Superiority UAV:

Although the Chinese military has devoted considerable attention to developing drone technology, it has not thus far fielded a large number of drones. In the short term, China should step up the production and fielding of surveillance drones, such as the BZK-005 Giant Eagle, Chengdu Sky Win III, or Guizhou Soar Eagle, which will allow it to maintain a presence over disputed island territories, and provide the eyes that the PLA’s reconnaissance-strike complex needs.

In the longer term, China should consider pursuing the development of autonomous air-superiority UAVs. This represents not so much a leap of technology, than the development of a system of technology and doctrine that will allow the PLAAF to fight with autonomous vehicles. While the complications associated with autonomous air-superiority UAVs remain significant, the cost of the next generation of manned fighter aircraft could prove too high even for China and the United States.

Of course, the legal context of autonomous weapons remains murky. Air superiority UAVs require a degree of autonomy because of the threat of electronic disruption, and because of the potential for communication delays and breakdowns. But China can play a productive (or unproductive) role in the formulation of international laws for regulating autonomous weapon systems.

Sea Control Ship:

The PLAN has enjoyed great success with its Type 071 amphibious transport dock. One of the ships (among the largest and newest in the fleet) recently made a goodwill visit to the United Kingdom. If China is to maintain and increase its ability to threaten Taiwan with invasion, as well as its capacity to seize and hold islands in the East and South China Seas, then it will require more such ships.

For the future, China could consider pursuing a light carrier capability more seriously. A large flat deck amphib, perhaps on the scale of the Australian Canberras or the Japanese Izumos, could enhance the PLAN’s amphibious capabilities while also fulfilling several other roles. These ships could offer China the enhanced anti-submarine capability that the PLAN so desperately requires, as well as giving China local presence when its large carriers are occupied.

The United States Navy believes that it requires high end carriers, flat-decked amphibs, and amphibious transport docks. As the responsibilities of the PLAN grow, it may also find that combination useful for projecting power and influence around the world.

Heavy Lift

China is poised to make two major steps forward in airlift capability. Until recently, the Chinese military has relied on aging, obsolete Soviet-era transport aircraft that did not match the growing needs of the PLA.

This is starting to change, however. On the one hand, the development of the Shaanxi Y-9 promises to give the PLA an aircraft similar to the U.S. C-130, or the Airbus A400M.

On the other, China is ready to make a big move into heavy airlift with the Y-20 transport. Reminiscent of both the C-17 and several large Antonov aircraft, the Y-20 could offer the PLA the serious heavy airlift capacity that it has thus far lacked.

Air transport is an area in which the demands of the present and of the future are in close accord with one another. China can use Y-20s as soon as they begin rolling off the assembly line, and the plane (assuming that engineers can resolve engine problems) will serve Chinese interests for the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

We can draw the production/innovation divide too starkly. The Chinese military industrial complex has long concentrated on incremental innovation, learning as much as possible from a platform, then incorporating improvements in new designs. This ties innovation and production together, although the lack of wartime experience means that many systems are never tested under combat conditions.

Still, even China faces a tension between solving current security problems, and solving projected future defense problems. International conflict is unpredictable, and both the East and South China Seas have flashpoints that could draw the PLA into war much earlier than it expects.

Robert Farley is an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce. His work includes military doctrine, national security, and maritime affairs. He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money, Information Dissemination and The Diplomat.

Wait it means China still don't have Submarines which can fire cruise Missiles ?

 

[hans]

submarines are for Torpedo attacking or SSBN. China has both SSBN and attacking submarines.
Cruise missile is not main function of submarines..
If you want to fire Cruise missile, ships, planes or mobile land launcher are all OK.
why you want to fire Cruise missile from submarines..

Wait it means China still don't have Submarines which can fire cruise Missiles ?

 

[Keel]

The biggest weapon needed, outside more nukes, is the SSGN.

The SSGN is the single most devastating offensive/defensive combined platform there is in close-packed waters. It can fire 24 huge cruise missiles carrying warheads that can 1 shot carriers, destroyers or large buildings like power plants, or 100+ smaller cruise missiles that can take down numerous smaller targets. Likewise, a single SSGN with can defend against an entire fleet from hundreds of km away as long as there's sensors to guide its missiles.

Acquiring an SSGN would be a game changer bigger than type 055 and conventional subs combined. Those are incremental capabilities,while SSGN would add a new dimension to offensive PLAN warfare.

I agree SSGN is very important and should be ranked high on the list of key weaponry developments

On another notion:

Modern warfare needs a combination of different functions of weaponry which cater for fast changing environments in war

Do we need aircraft carriers, and nuclear ones？ of course

An aircraft carrier is as we all know a floating airbase. It helps provide options in distant deployment of troops in SCS; and they are more important if our land-based runways are destroyed. If you have a sense of the radius of our current combat aircrafts and their reach to some sensitive war-prone areas, then you will concur on the need for aircraft carriers in our arsenal

You can never tell if we have to protect our sealanes in the Arabic sea / Malacca Strait for our oil supply route

Also, an aircraft carrier can hold dozens of helicopters which can surely support our amphibious operations through Zubr and other LCACs, LSTs, LPDs

 

[Cossack25A1]

As long as the Chinese auto industry produces 22 million+ vehicles a year...

2013 Statistics | OICA

As long as there are roads and highways spreading across Asia...

China will control the entire Asian mainland within this century just like the Mongol Empire did during the 13th century. The Mongols built their empire with horses and cavalry. They never had much of a navy.

No carriers are needed at all. It won't take several decades for China to prepare for war. The PLA can annex large portions of Asia right now if Xi Jinping ordered it. Stop getting your information from crap Western articles and do some critical thinking for once.

China will have 99A2s on the ground.

J-20s in the air.

Millions of Chinese soldiers will be armed with ZH-05 OICW.

How do you stop the world's largest army from expanding across Asia during WW3? That is the question you need to answer.

The arrogance on this one is strong.

 

[jhungary]

so you are saying they could have won if they had encouraged surrendering? they lost but that's gotta nothing to do with their spirit.

you were quoting yourselves so i did not get any notification

I did not say we encourage surrendering, there used to be a law in UCMJ outlaw an officer to surrender, even today, if an officer surrender, he or she may be court martialled for conduct unbecoming or command failure.

What i said was, if an situation become untenable, you bug out, and if you cannot, then you should surrender, thats a common military consense that you live to fight for another day, better than dying on the battlefield when all hope is lost, diem bien phu maybe a very touching story and it did make good movie, but the tactical result and the tactical impact is zero toward the french when they lose the entire garrison to the Vietnamese.

What if they bug out before eline outpost was being overrun? They could have savage 20k + troop and that numher would have impact other battle positively.

Then when you look at how French and British saved 300,000 troop from dunkirk evac? Without those 300,000 troop, the D Day landing would jave been prospone and gods know what german can do?

No amount of training can replace the actual feel for the real live and dead inside the battle field, the threat of being kill can weight heavily on your psych. However soldiers can overcome the initial shock in the battlefield after they personally experience it and their instinct will allow them to adapt to the condition for their own survival. Military training provide the soldier as close to the real war scenario as possible, soldier learn all set of skill arise from the war situation to effectively adapt to the problems the face. Also better to prepare and train for the worst condition as much as possible, war is a complete chaos with the total destruction in it path that require a physically strong and tough minded to survive and win in the battle, nothing can be beaten by the strong will to die for the cause.

Do you know what is the worse thing that could happened in battle?

If you understnad that question, then you will have a glimse of how far from reality, aka Real War, when you are in training.

One can train, and learn from many thing, but in the end when you are training for it, it follow a certain scope. A certain script. In War, there are no script for you to follow, everything happens in an instant, it does not matter how you train for a certain situation. It would never be the same. Blood and Gore aside, yeah, you can get over them. But what if when you are in a situation where no one is coming to help you? No one is standing next to you and tell you what to do? You cannot train at those kind of scenario.

Coming back to my original question, the one single challege faced by any infantryman is how to keep his cigarette dry, cos when there is a time after everything thats your enemy threw at you, and you want to light a cigarette and its wet? That would make your day. And if you understand this then you probably will have a glimpse on how much different between actual war and training

 

[Steakhouse]

you were quoting yourselves so i did not get any notification

I did not say we encourage surrendering, there used to be a law in UCMJ outlaw an officer to surrender, even today, if an officer surrender, he or she may be court martialled for conduct unbecoming or command failure.

What i said was, if an situation become untenable, you bug out, and if you cannot, then you should surrender, thats a common military consense that you live to fight for another day, better than dying on the battlefield when all hope is lost, diem bien phu maybe a very touching story and it did make good movie, but the tactical result and the tactical impact is zero toward the french when they lose the entire garrison to the Vietnamese.

What if they bug out before eline outpost was being overrun? They could have savage 20k + troop and that numher would have impact other battle positively.

Then when you look at how French and British saved 300,000 troop from dunkirk evac? Without those 300,000 troop, the D Day landing would jave been prospone and gods know what german can do?



Do you know what is the worse thing that could happened in battle?

If you understnad that question, then you will have a glimse of how far from reality, aka Real War, when you are in training.

One can train, and learn from many thing, but in the end when you are training for it, it follow a certain scope. A certain script. In War, there are no script for you to follow, everything happens in an instant, it does not matter how you train for a certain situation. It would never be the same. Blood and Gore aside, yeah, you can get over them. But what if when you are in a situation where no one is coming to help you? No one is standing next to you and tell you what to do? You cannot train at those kind of scenario.

Coming back to my original question, the one single challege faced by any infantryman is how to keep his cigarette dry, cos when there is a time after everything thats your enemy threw at you, and you want to light a cigarette and its wet? That would make your day. And if you understand this then you probably will have a glimpse on how much different between actual war and training

True in a real war if one can't adapt to the situation, no amount of training will keep them alive, war one mistake mean you be dead instantly. You won't be dead at the end of your training but you probably be dead in the war that the different when everything matter of death or alive.

You are force to accept the reality of dead to fight yourself out of any predicament, no time to think but react to the situation at hand.

 

[jhungary]

True in a real war if one can't adapt to the situation, no amount of training will keep them alive, war one mistake mean you be dead instantly. You won't be dead at the end of your training but you probably be dead in the war that the different when everything matter of death or alive.

You are force to accept the reality of dead to fight yourself out of any predicament, no time to think but react to the situation at hand.

the thing is, you will.still be dead even if you did everything right, as long as someone in your unit did something wrong.

And the problem is, you can only control what you do, but you cant control what the other do, as different people react to war differently, and no training can prepare you for that

 

[Steakhouse]

the thing is, you will.still be dead even if you did everything right, as long as someone in your unit did something wrong.

And the problem is, you can only control what you do, but you cant control what the other do, as different people react to war differently, and no training can prepare you for that

Everyone wire differently, in combat bullet fly pass and over your head that no sane person completely rely on their partner action in the battle field.

 

[jhungary]

Everyone wire differently, in combat bullet fly pass and over your head that no sane person completely rely on their partner action in the battle field.

then you are wrong....In battle when bullet flies over your head like that? The person next to you with a rifle is closer than your brother. Cause he will he there when you need it and your ow brother wont

You cant do everything alone in battle, if you have spend a night in an 2 men OP in your NDO then you will understand.

 

[Steakhouse]

then you are wrong....In battle when bullet flies over your head like that? The person next to you with a rifle is closer than your brother. Cause he will he there when you need it and your ow brother wont

You cant do everything alone in battle, if you have spend a night in an 2 men OP in your NDO then you will understand.

I know when the action in the hot conflict zone with everyone engage in the battle, I do understand you must have the complete trust for your partner because he provide you the eyes and ears to spot out your enemy and provide fire cover for you. What I mean you can't prevent your partner not to make the mistake that can place both of your life in danger.