China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread

Discussion in 'Strategic Defense' started by swimmerXC, Mar 4, 2006.

  1. PanAsian
    Offline

    PanAsian Major

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    3,513
    Likes Received:
    4,155
    Not sure if we have a PLASSF thread so posting this article here.

    https://thediplomat.com/2018/12/chinas-strategic-support-force-at-3/

     
    bruceb1959, Equation and Hendrik_2000 like this.
  2. ILikeChina
    Offline

    ILikeChina Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    302
    For quite some time, we see the global times english articles about the Chinese military being more and more informative and profesional. I believe global times could be in the near future a non official source of information by PLA for foreign audience. (Global times is quite recognisable)
    Look here:
    https://twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1081114680477667329

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    N00813, Equation and davidau like this.
  3. Franklin
    Offline

    Franklin Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    2,075
    China now has her own mother of all bombs.

    http://www.sinodaily.com/afp/190104123004.3rsrhk46.html
     
    N00813 and Equation like this.
  4. CMP
    Offline

    CMP Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2019
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    438
    https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-wargames-heres-a-24-billion-fix/

    US ‘Gets Its Ass Handed To It’ In Wargames: Here’s A $24 Billion Fix
    Warships sink. Bases burn. F-35s die on the runway. Can $24 billion a year -- 3.3 % of the Pentagon budget -- fix the problem?
    By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on March 07, 2019 at 5:53 PM
    239 Comments
    2.2kShares
    [​IMG]
    M1 tank at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California.

    WASHINGTON: The US keeps losing, hard, in simulated wars with Russia and China. Bases burn. Warships sink. But we could fix the problem for about $24 billion a year, one well-connected expert said, less than four percent of the Pentagon budget.

    [​IMG]
    David Ochmanek

    “In our games, when we fight Russia and China,” RAND analyst David Ochmanek said this afternoon, “blue gets its ass handed to it.” In other words, in RAND’s wargames, which are often sponsored by the Pentagon, the US forces — colored blue on wargame maps — suffer heavy losses in one scenario after another and still can’t stop Russia or China — red — from achieving their objectives, like overrunning US allies.


    No, it’s not a Red Dawn nightmare scenario where the Commies conquer Colorado. But losing the Baltics or Taiwan would shatter American alliances, shock the global economy, and topple the world order the US has led since World War II.

    [​IMG]
    F-35 stealth fighters are hard to kill in flight, but lined up on the runway, they’re easy targets.


    Body Blows & Head Hits

    How could this happen, when we spend over $700 billion a year on everything from thousand-foot-long nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to supersonic stealth fighters? Well, it turns out US superweapons have a little too much Achilles in their heels.


    [​IMG]
    Robert Work

    “In every case I know of,” said Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense with decades of wargaming experience, “the F-35 rules the sky when it’s in the sky, but it gets killed on the ground in large numbers.”

    Even the hottest jet has to land somewhere. But big airbases on land and big aircraft carriers on the water turn out to be big targets for long-range precision-guided missiles. Once an American monopoly, such smart weapons are now a rapidly growing part of Russian and Chinese arsenals — as are the long-range sensors, communications networks, and command systems required to aim them.

    So, as potential adversaries improve their technology, “things that rely on sophisticated base infrastructure like runways and fuel tanks are going to have a hard time,” Ochmanek said. “Things that sail on the surface of the sea are going to have a hard time.”
     
  5. CMP
    Offline

    CMP Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2019
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    438
    (That’s why the 2020 budget coming out next week retires the carrier USS Truman decades early and cuts two amphibious landing ships, as we’ve reported. It’s also why the Marine Corps is buying the jump-jet version of the F-35, which can take off and land from tiny, ad hoc airstrips, but how well they can maintain a high-tech aircraft in low-tech surroundings is an open question).

    [​IMG]
    Anti-aircraft Stryker variant chosen by the US Army for its Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (MSHORAD) mission: 4 Stinger missiles on one side, two Hellfires on the other, with a 30 mm autocannon (and 12.7 mm machinegun) in between (Leonardo DRS)

    While the Air Force and Navy took most of the flak today at this afternoon’s Center for a New American Security panel on the need for “A New American Way of War.” the Army doesn’t look too great, either. Its huge supply bases go up in smoke as well, Work and Ochmanek said. Its tank brigades get shot up by cruise missiles, drones, and helicopters because the Army largely got rid of its mobile anti-aircraft troops, a shortfall it’s now hastening to correct. And its missile defense units get overwhelmed by the sheer volume of incoming fire.

    “If we went to war in Europe, there would be one Patriot battery moving, and it would go to Ramstein. And that’s it,” Work growled. “We have 58 Brigade Combat Teams, but we don’t have anything to protect our bases. so what different does it make?”

    Worst of all, Work and Ochmanek said, the US doesn’t just take body blows, it takes a hard hit to the head as well. Its communications satellites, wireless networks, and other command-and-control systems suffer such heavy hacking and jamming that they are, in Ochmanek’s words, “suppressed, if not shattered.”

    The US has wargamed cyber and electronic warfare in field exercises, Work said, but the simulated enemy forces tend to shut down US networks so effectively that nothing works and nobody else gets any training done. “Whenever we have an exercise and the red force really destroys our command and control, we stop the exercise,” Work said, instead of trying to figure out how to keep fighting when your command post gives you nothing but blank screens and radio static.

    The Chinese call this “system destruction warfare,” Work said: They plan to “attack the American battle network at all levels, relentlessly, and they practice it all the time.”

    [​IMG]
    The USS Harry S. Truman, which the Pentagon proposes retiring early to save funds for new kinds of weapons.

    The $24 Billion Fix — And Cuts

    So how do you fix such glaring problems? The Air Force asked RAND to come up with a plan two years ago, and, surprisingly, Ochmanek said, “we found it impossible to spend more than $8 billion a year.”

    That’s $8 billion for the Air Force. Triple that to cover for the Army and the Navy Department (which includes the US Marines), Ochmanek said, and you get $24 billion. Yes, these are very broad strokes, but that’s only 3.3 percent of the $750 billion defense budget President Trump will propose for the 2020 fiscal year.

    Work was less worried about the near-term risk — he thinks China and Russia aren’t eager to try anything right now — and more about what happens 10 to 20 years from now. But, he said, “sure, $24 billion a year for the next five years would be a good expenditure.

    So what does that $24 billion buy?

    [​IMG]
    A B-1 bomber test-fires a LRASM missile, the anti-ship variant of Lockheed’s JASSM

    To start with, missiles. Lots and lots of missiles. The US and its allies notoriously keep underestimating how many smart weapons they’ll need for a shooting war, then start to run out against enemies as weak as the Serbs or Libyans. Against a Russia or China, which can match not only our technology but our mass, you run out of munitions fast.

    Specifically, you want lots of long-range offensive missiles. Ochmanek mentioned Army artillery brigades, which use MLRS missile launchers, and the Air Force’s JAGM-ER smart bomb, while Work touted the Navy’s LRASM ship-killer. You also want lots of defensive missiles to shoot down the enemy‘s offensive missiles, aircraft, and drones. One short-term fix there is the Army’s new Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (MSHORAD) batteries, Stinger missiles mounted on 8×8 Stryker armored vehicles. In the longer term, lasers, railguns, and high-powered microwaves could shoot down incoming missiles much less expensively.

    The other big fix: toughening up our command, control, and communications networks. That includes everything from jam-proof datalinks to electronic warfare gear on combat aircraft and warships. The services are fond of cutting corners on electronics to get as many planes in the air and hulls in the water as possible, Ochmanek said, but a multi-billion dollar ship that dies for lack of a million-dollar decoy is a lousy return on investment.

    In the longer run, Work added, you want to invest heavily in artificial intelligence: not killer robots, he said, but “loyal wingmen” drones to support manned aircraft and big-data crunchers to help humans analyze intelligence and plan.

    [​IMG]
    Of course, you have to find the money for new stuff somewhere, which means either raising the defense budget even further — unlikely — or cutting existing programs. Ochmanek was unsurprisingly shy about specifics, saying only that the services could certainly squeeze out $8 billion each for new technologies.

    Work was a little harder-edged. He said cutting a carrier and two amphibious ships over the forthcoming 2020-2024 budget “seems right to me.” He argued the US Army has way too many brigade combat teams — tanks and infantry — and way too little missile defense to protect them. And he bemoaned reports the US Air Force will retire the B-1 bomber, one of its few long-range strike aircraft: If the Air Force doesn’t want them, he said, give them to the Navy, revive the old VPB “Patrol Bomber” squadrons, and load them with Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles to sink the Chinese navy.

    Pentagon leaders should challenge the armed services to solve very hard, very specific problems, Work said: Sink 350 Chinese navy and coast guard vessels in the first 72 hours of a war, or destroy 2,400 Russian armored vehicles. Whoever has the best solution gets the most money. Those are hardly easy goals, Work said, but they’re also doable with technology now in development.

    The immediate problems could be fixed with technology already in production, Ochmanek said. For $24 billion, “I can buy the whole kit,” he said. “It’s all mature technologies and it would scare the crap out of adversaries, in a good way.”
     
    #1075 CMP, Mar 12, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
    bruceb1959 and Equation like this.
  6. CMP
    Offline

    CMP Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2019
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    438
    IMO it's likely just another scam for defense funding so I wouldn't take it too seriously.
     
  7. Dolcevita
    Offline

    Dolcevita Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    944
    Likes Received:
    1,812
    Yep. Always works during budget season. Suggest they also put some pretty charts at fox for El president.
     
  8. bd popeye
    Offline

    bd popeye The Last Jedi
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    29,148
    Likes Received:
    22,680
    Not going to happen...

    "House Seapower chairman: Early aircraft carrier decom is a non-starter"

    The head of the House Armed Services Committee’s seapower subcommittee told Defense News Thursday he would block the early decommissioning of the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman when it comes before congress this spring.

    Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., told reporters he there was no chance the measure would be endorsed in his subcommittee this year during the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act markup.

    “This is really a 2021 issue in terms of timing, when the Truman has to go into its refueling,” Courtney said. “So I think in terms of it getting any endorsement in the seapower mark this year I think is zero.”
     
    N00813 likes this.
  9. Lethe
    Offline

    Lethe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    A SHORAD system consisting of four MANPADS-class missiles with at best 10km range… not exactly a Pantsir S2, is it?
     
    #1079 Lethe, Mar 14, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
    bruceb1959 likes this.
  10. Errys
    Offline

    Errys Just Hatched
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2017
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    16
    China develops anti-stealth radars

    [​IMG]
    Soldiers assigned to a radar station with the air force under the PLA Southern
    Theater Command checks the radar system after a heavy snow on December
    20, 2018. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Xu Hangchuan)

    Chinese arms companies recently made multiple terahertz radiation radar systems with a technology seen by experts as an efficient air-to-ground reconnaissance tool and a potential counter to stealth aircraft.

    A prototype terahertz radiation radar was successfully developed by a China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC) team led by scientist Li Yuanji, and a second-generation prototype is already in development, China Central Television (CCTV) reported on Sunday, citing a statement released by CETC.

    The development of terahertz radiation radar is a global challenge, according to the CETC statement.

    The CCTV report said that terahertz radiation has wavelengths between those of infrared rays and microwaves, a wide spectrum that would render current stealth technologies obsolete, making the radar able to detect stealth aircraft.

    Stealth aircraft usually use composite materials and radar wave-absorbing coatings, so normal radars cannot effectively detect them, Wei Dongxu, a Beijing-based military analyst, told the Global Times on Monday.

    Terahertz radiation, on the other hand, could penetrate those materials and expose metallic parts within the aircraft, lifting its cover, Wei said.

    He also noted that a terahertz radiation radar could also clearly trace the outline of an object, making it possible to even tell what type of object it is.

    Experts said the terahertz radiation decays very fast in the air, meaning, the effective range of the radar is likely low and not sufficient for detecting an advanced stealth fighter jet in time before it launches attacks from beyond visual range.

    While the anti-stealth aspect of the technology still needs time to be ironed out, the technology can be used for air-to-ground reconnaissance at great efficiency, Wei noted.

    China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) successfully developed China's first terahertz radiation video synthetic aperture radar, Beijing-based newspaper Science and Technology Daily reported in December 2018.

    The CASIC radar uses terahertz radiation to see through complicated environments like smoke, smog and dim lights, and can efficiently detect ground infantry targets in camouflage and disguise, the newspaper said, noting it has a stronger penetration capability than infrared vision devices.

    When placed on an aircraft or a drone, the radar would allow operators to clearly see battlefield situations and deliver precision strikes on targets that would be otherwise difficult to detect, Wei said.
    Targets will have nowhere to hide, said the newspaper.
     
Loading...

Share This Page