Posted on 02/14/2003 4:27:31 PM PST by vannrox
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:56 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Russia delivered the latest batch of advanced SU-30MKK fighter bombers to China within the past month and additional jets are on the way, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
Russia's arms exports used to be public. But under pressure from Beijing, Moscow agreed to keep secret its major weapons systems transfers to China.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
What a load of B.S.
That is the hallmark of the narrow-minded, and prejudiced. And the guy who is setting himself...and his nation up for being surprised. It is an attitude of hubris that was previously epitomized by the French Generals (and policy-makers) prior to the German offensive that did their classic blitzkrieg against France...and with smaller and less capable forces (on paper) made mincemeat out of the French Army.
Your thesis accuses the Right of being unduly alarmist about revolutionary technological upgrades in the military forces of avowed adversaries of our nation, when we have 34 items higher on some list of priorities we should be addressing for security.
While I grant that there are some things we should be doing that we are not, usually some economic competition between allocation of resources is NOT the issue. The failure to be doing the other necessary things is usually a result of willful obstructionism by certain security-blind political forces (i.e., such as open-border illegal Mexican migrants, or the almost ostrich-like refusal to allow pilots to pack heat).
Not all text is of equal provenance and equally informative. To argue otherwise is to discard conservative notions of critical thinking and to replace them with postmodern-deconstructionist "thinking."
Your thesis accuses the Right of being unduly alarmist about revolutionary technological upgrades in the military forces of avowed adversaries of our nation, when we have 34 items higher on some list of priorities we should be addressing for security.
The fact that you felt the urge to describe the Su-30MKK and the DF-31 as "revolutionary technological upgrades" proves that you're alarmist.
The Phoenix missile is the Navy's only long-range air-to-air missile.(emphasis added) It is an airborne weapons control system with multiple-target handling capabilities, used to kill multiple air targets with conventional warheads. Near simultaneous launch is possible against up to six targets in all weather and heavy jamming environments. The improved Phoenix, the AIM-54C, can better counter projected threats from tactical aircraft and cruise missiles.
We lose the loiter capability of the F-14 to stay onstation even with far less refueling stress, and the incredible interception capabilities that it represents against cruise missile threats in particular. It provides the Navy with the practical equivalent of a tactical supersonic AWACS and a forward-deployed missile defense...able to handle salvos intended to innundate and overwhelm the battle groups.
I haven't... yet. But, clearly Bill Gertz and his inside defense Dept. sources feel that these deployments are militarily significant. And it is reasonable to classify them as revolutionary compared, respectively, to their previous best technologies, such as the Mig-21s, and the 24 or so liquid-fueled CSS4 ICBMs. This is because they do offer substantial and undeniable operational improvements in their war-fighting potential..... which poses increased military stress against our allies, and hence us too...since it is well known we are no longer able to fight two major wars at a time. [With apologies to Donald Rumsfeld, who was speaking contrarily for good and sufficient reasons. But not truthfully.]
I never denied that it was. I merely point out that, even with the significant improvements in capability that these weapon systems would afford, China still has a very weak military posture relative to ours.
I did notice that. I thought it was kind of odd. I guess they'll be depending more heavily on the AIM-120 AMRAAM since the long range AIM-155 project seems dead. Raytheon is slated to produce more than 6000 of the AIM-120 AMRAAM through 2012.
Although, the supersonic free flight tests of the new Northrop Grumman Miniature Air-Launched Interceptor (MALI) have been successful. This may be what will be filling the void after the AIM-54 is gone.
You probably saw Yuting (type 72 improved) class LSTs. In addition to these, the Chinese were building up a number of wing-in-ground-effect craft (sort of an aircraft-boat that "flies" just a few feet above the water) and ocean-capable air cushion vehicles (their type 724, similar to our LCAC) and putting the majority of them in storage (20 or so are deployed on the Yutings, but they have at least 4 times this quantity in storage). Combined with traditional naval assets, these units would be capable of performing an invasion of Taiwan (although probably not a successful one, see below), but not unless their quantities in storage are far in excess of what we believe them to be.
If we assume that what we "think" we know is correct, then they have about 100-150 of these "LCAC"s, each capable of carrying 10 soldiers. That is only about 1500 troops. Their ground-effect craft numbers are unknown, but it is not believed that the Guangzhou facility has started producing them in any significant numbers yet. If similar to the old Soviet designs, they would be expected to carry around 200-300 soldiers and a number of ground combat vehicles. But since we haven't seen any build up of such craft, we can assume that they have no more than a few prototypes. Assuming 5, that is still only another 1000 troops. In addition, they also have the eight Yuting class ships, each which can carry 250 troops. That is another 2000 troops. They also have seven of the earlier type 72 (Yukan) LSTs, each which can carry 200 troops. That is another 1400 troops, bringing the total to just under 6000 troops. When their Yuliang (Type 79) landing ships are added (they have around 30 of them, each with a capacity of 150 to 200 troops, although it would be a very uncomfortable ride), the total amphibious capability of the Chinese ends up being around 10,500 troops.
Of course, this number is probably insufficient for an actual invasion of Taiwan, but this is also ignoring other factors such as the close proximity of the mainland and the possibility of multiple "sorties", the hundreds (almost thousands) of smaller boats in the Chinese inventory, overloading capacity, possible use of "commercial" shipping, etc. In addition, we are also ignoring air transport capabilities. Still, considering the Taiwanese army is over 20 times this size, such an invasion would be unwise for the Chinese at this time. The Chinese are certainly improving their naval and amphibious assets (the Yutings are 1990s production, and more are currently being built), but I doubt that they will attack until their victory is essentially assured, and they are not quite at that point yet.
Which, absent a VERY large number of MIRVs, are pretty much useless.
The W-88 is what you need for a counterforce strategy. However, you need THOUSANDS of the things for a viable counterforce strategy against the United States.
The problem is that China can't AFFORD thousands of the things. And their nuclear strategy is based on countervalue--i.e., city-busting.
And using a W-88 for city-busting is somewhat akin to chartering a 747 to fly yourself from LA to San Francisco. It'll do the job, but there are MUCH cheaper ways of doing it.
Only currently. Not, however, after we continue on the continuing disarmament slope reducing our strategic deterrence forces...in all three legs of the triad, to get down to the 1,600 nuclear weapons GWB is hell-bent on. The number of aim-points for a first-striking enemy will be reduced by more than two-thirds. So if they were to casually switch to Russian strategic doctrine from their supposedly current counter-value strategy, then in the not-so-distant future, it will be relatively affordable for them to go counterforce. They can reasonably acquire sufficient W-88 warheads and the delivery capability to implement it within a forseeable time-frame of not decades, but perhaps only 5-7 years.
The only thing offsetting this vulnerability calculus would be deployment of an effectual THICK anti-missile screen by the U.S. This would blunt if not stymie a first strike, and permit the US to respond at its own choosing. Something we don't seem to be doing, despite the clear evidence it is a good idea.
Are you familiar with the term "Midnight Express?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.