Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China quietly gets ultra-cutting edge advanced SU-30MKK Fighter Bombers from Russia.
Notes from the Pentagon. (Washington Times) via Drudge Headliner ^ | 14 FEB 2003 | Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: advanced; china; military; plane; russia; sale; technology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-232 next last
To: belmont_mark
Yeah, they've got some old amphibs.

They aren't buying new ones to replace them.
81 posted on 02/20/2003 10:38:24 AM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
I have spent a lot of time on Taiwan ... there are many beaches there that are not "fortified" at all in the classic sense. They are protected by air assets, naval assets and rapid deployment forces ... but "fortified" as in major fortifications they are not.

You know, that's what we thought of more than a few islands in the Pacific.

The fortifications were most likely there, you just didn't (literally) trip over them (which is how you'd find them).

82 posted on 02/20/2003 10:40:48 AM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: belmont_mark
Combat Fleets indicates that they have something over 100 such vessels. But they would need many, many more.

I believe they are capable of building many, many more of those type vessels in short order if they plan it out in advance and have the infrastructure in place to do so.

We are helping them establish that infrastructure.

Given what we know of their overall plans from documents that they themselves have produced, we must presume that they are preparing to carry out those plans ... the development of such infrastructure is a necessary comnponent of such plans.

And this is not to mention the many hundreds, potentilly thousands of commercial vessesl they would force into service in such an event.

I address all of this in my book series ... albeit from the fictional standpoint of the scenario presented in the story.

83 posted on 02/20/2003 10:51:20 AM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Actually, we did not think that of Pacific Islands in the least.

We underestimated the method the Japanese intended to fight in a number of cases ... but we bombarded the hell out of what we thought was there.

My father was personally, directly involved as an officer with a flotilla of LCI's.

Ultimately the Japanese spent less time on immediate shore forticifcations and more time on inland fortifications where they could maximize their attrition of our forces once they landed. That happened over and over in the Pacific. Tarawa was one significant departure from this ... but in most others their after-the-beach plans were carried out to significant effect ... albeit in almost all cases they suffered much higher casuality rates than we did and neither method prevented the inevitable.

Taiwan, in a simialr fashion, has spent much more on inland fortifications in the mountains (2/3rds of the island is very mountainous). No doubt, Taiwan will be a tough nut to crack and hold. The very attempt by the Chinese, requires that we not be there to interfere as a given and that is the principle point IMHO.

84 posted on 02/20/2003 11:01:39 AM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
We underestimated the method the Japanese intended to fight in a number of cases ... but we bombarded the hell out of what we thought was there.

Key word bolded. I've been to Okinawa and Iwo Jima; you can see bunkers that we never knew were there until YEARS later. A friend of mine found one the hard way in 1986--he stepped onto dirt supported by rotting logs, and his weight plus the dirt's weight was too much. Got himself a busted leg for his trouble.

No doubt, Taiwan will be a tough nut to crack and hold. The very attempt by the Chinese, requires that we not be there to interfere as a given and that is the principle point IMHO.

The problem here is consequence management: WTF do the ChiComs do if they take their best shot...and miss?

85 posted on 02/20/2003 11:12:07 AM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Some items of interest in these regards:

A,B,C,D,E.

86 posted on 02/20/2003 11:20:00 AM PST by GOP_1900AD (Un-PC even to "Conservatives!" - Right makes right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Same thing the Japanese and Nazis did ... lose ... lose very badly.
87 posted on 02/20/2003 11:36:29 AM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: belmont_mark
China's military has held the largest maneuvers of its Dong Hai No. 7 exercises so far, with tens of thousands of militiamen mobilized to augment regular troops in amphibious landing drills along the southeastern coast, defense sources in Taiwan said yesterday.

The militiamen and an unknown number of civilian ships were the key elements of a series of intensive amphibious landing drills on islands off Fujian Province, mainly Dongshan island, during the last week of July, the sources said.

The Chinese military did not send a large number of regular troops to participate in the drills, they said.

The tens of thousands of militiamen are the cannon fodder to soak up whatever the ROC has ... the regular troops follow after the appropriate level of attrition is achieved.
88 posted on 02/20/2003 11:40:56 AM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Hmmmmm.... Wonder where they came up with the money for such fancy stuff?
89 posted on 02/20/2003 11:41:50 AM PST by dennisw ( http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: belmont_mark
Good posts. Thanks, I learned something.
90 posted on 02/20/2003 11:43:38 AM PST by dennisw ( http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: belmont_mark
This incongruity between the PLAN amphibious sealift capacity and the planning requirements for an invasion of Taiwan is likely behind the drafting of civilian cargo ships into auxiliary service. The difference in actual versus required capacity alone explains the study of commandeering cargo ships, and it may well explain the research into arming them as well.
Sounds like its right out of the pages of Dragon's Fury

In that series, I have the Chinese developing and building thousands of cheap, throw-away LCM's and augmenting them with hundreds of commerical conversions ... which they arm.

91 posted on 02/20/2003 11:46:33 AM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Poohbah; Noswad; HighRoadToChina; Orion78
Hey Poohbah, are you familiar with this program?
92 posted on 02/20/2003 11:48:43 AM PST by GOP_1900AD (Un-PC even to "Conservatives!" - Right makes right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: belmont_mark
The article has some notable inaccuracies; the biggest one is the claim that the Navy lacks a supersonic target drone; what actually happened is that the Navy opted to not replace the Vandal drones it's using today, because they perform better than the MA-31 ever could.
93 posted on 02/20/2003 11:58:39 AM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

Comment #94 Removed by Moderator

To: belmont_mark
Check this out!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/847930/posts

95 posted on 02/20/2003 1:03:29 PM PST by HighRoadToChina (Never Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
It's my understanding and correct me if this is otherwise, but that there is quite a degree of animosity and distrust concerning military units between the given regions of China, which has in the past adversely affected the capabilities of the PLA, and that this "regional" military adversity is a concern to the leadership of the party.
96 posted on 02/20/2003 1:16:05 PM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Fury
It's my understanding and correct me if this is otherwise, but that there is quite a degree of animosity and distrust concerning military units between the given regions of China, which has in the past adversely affected the capabilities of the PLA, and that this "regional" military adversity is a concern to the leadership of the party.

You're correct--additionally, there are signs that the further one gets from Beijing, Party control of the military becomes more theoretical than real.

97 posted on 02/20/2003 1:19:56 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
Moderators took out post number 94. And there wasn't even any cussing, racism, violence promotion or other stuff that was out of bounds. I guess whoever the moderator was that did it must be biased in favor of the cheap hawks? No doubt, 94 was a pretty stiff jab, but if we here are not men enough to take something on the order of what was posted there by High Road, that's pretty pathetic.
98 posted on 02/20/2003 1:27:28 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Un-PC even to "Conservatives!" - Right makes right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: belmont_mark; Jeff Head
That was me in #94. Just a comment about PooPoo and how we shouldn't waste time with such tools.
99 posted on 02/20/2003 1:46:05 PM PST by HighRoadToChina (Never Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
bump
100 posted on 02/20/2003 3:44:51 PM PST by winodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-232 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson