China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

sanblvd

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes I agree with you that it wont work, this is not the 19th century anymore, information flows like water, its not possible to hide an idea anymore and whats worse is that if you can think of it, so can your competitors, if you choose not to develop it, then you just get left behind.

That was a good article that point out many problems and the current reality, but the 3 advice the author point to the end of the article are not solutions.


First, the United States can start by adopting strategic pragmatism in picking its areas of technology deployment

Use less technology or focus effort into fewer sectors of technology won't stop Chinese progress, it will only stop yours.

Second, the United States should partner with industry to better understand a fast-changing global supply chain and the industrial base that supports it. Bolstering coordination between private-sector investment and defense-industrial base objectives is especially important

China is way ahead of US in this one, US has deindustrialized its manufacturing base to China, how do you plan to bring back the supply Chain when its already in China, and they will be more efficient than you and innovate faster? Not to mention China is aware of US's mistake and won't easily give it back to you.

Finally, the Pentagon needs to rethink the “valley of death” — the gap between technology innovation and implementation. Many lament this gap, arguing that too many technologies make it through the basic R&D phase but don’t survive the acquisition/integration process.

Again, this is a non-solution, China probably suffer from the same problem in its own development, but that does not prevent them from innovating, at best it makes it more efficient, but still won't be a killer advantage over other nations.

My personal recommendation are the following.

1. Have more accountability for US defense contractors, there is a lot of corruption in weapon procurement, so many company inflate cost with no punishments, sign clear contract on weapon requirements and have clear deliver stage goals, have more US military oversight and involvement in those weapon developments. And when overtime and over budgets happens, everyone should share responsibly, not just the government and taxpayers.

2. Manage project scope better, one of the problem with F-35 is that they keep pushing new sifi star war tech on the jet, which are very expensive and experimental and thus result in very high costs and a lot of problems. For example they replace the HUD with those helmets, but those helmets have so much problems, a few years ago they said were unusable because the images became a blur when pilot move their head or make high maneuvers and it also cause nausea as well, and just few weeks ago another report says those helmet's night vision don't work in a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
....

Technology like are good, but they should have a low budget but long period development in lab to get mature first then use for military applications, but they literally draw up the requirement for it from paper, and give it a very high budget and limited time to make it for F-35.

3. Strive for efficiency, not for politics, one reason F-35 costs so much because it has factory in 48/50 States in US, this is means its supply chains are totally starch out and not efficient, they did that because they want to make the plane to provide jobs as much States as possible to make it hard to kill in congress. This is pretty stupid, its like you like the hospital food, and to stay in hospital, you shoot your self in the foot.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Interesting, you mean like this part: "and U.S. military intervention in Kosovo in 1999,
during which the United States accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade". The only operation run by the CIA during the entire Kosovo intervention, and which resulted in the bombing of the embassy, is somehow an accident? I could understand if this was an official US government publication which means appearances need to be kept up, but since this is RAND, there is no need for song and dance or insertion of the word "accidentally" 16 years after the incident.

The USA suppressing the deliberate bombing of the Chinese embassy in Serbia is not just about appearances.

Even today, public acknowledgement that the USA deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Serbia would likely poison relations with China, and be brought up whenever there are China-USA negotiations.

The Guardian (of Snowden/Wikileaks fame) did a report on this

Nato deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the war in Kosovo after discovering it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications.

According to senior military and intelligence sources in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the US the Chinese embassy was removed from a prohibited targets list after Nato electronic intelligence (Elint) detected it sending army signals to Milosevic's forces.

The story is confirmed in detail by three other Nato officers - a flight controller operating in Naples, an intelligence officer monitoring Yugoslav radio traffic from Macedonia and a senior headquarters officer in Brussels. They all confirm that they knew in April that the Chinese embassy was acting as a 'rebro' [rebroadcast] station for the Yugoslav army (VJ) after alliance jets had successfully silenced Milosevic's own transmitters.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

delft

Brigadier
The USA suppressing the deliberate bombing of the Chinese embassy in Serbia is not just about appearances.

Even today, public acknowledgement that the USA deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Serbia would likely poison relations with China, and be brought up whenever there are China-USA negotiations.

The Guardian (of Snowden/Wikileaks fame) did a report on this
So this crime was part of the crime that let to the setting up of the failed state Kosovo.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Americans don't like admitting mistakes. They want to make people believe their record is perfect in order to prevent people from questioning them. Yes there are Americans who would rather admit to committing a crime than to admitting to a mistake or being wrong. Putting it out there unofficially that it was deliberate is about saving face to the American people who don't like admitting they're capable of making mistakes. Just look at the recent US Navy accidents. The story of what happened to the USS Fitzgerald was completely the opposite of what said initially. It doesn't matter if it was the media that lied or if it was the Pentagon (remember the lies over Pat Tillman), it's the culture where Americans don't admit to their mistakes hence why Trump is in office because he's the god of not admitting to being wrong. Yes Americans are very capable of deceit, but this is about what's worse in American eyes that happens to be the most plausible answer and that is they made a mistake and they don't want to admit it. We've seen it in this forum where no one can question US professionalism and American technology is flawless. Well one or both failed with the US Navy's bad luck lately. Then some Admiral comes warning adversaries not to take advantage. What? Start a war? No this Admiral said it because it's quite embarrassing what happened and he needed to give the American people confidence in them. Just like unofficially saying the bombing of the Chinese embassy was intentional. Better than a mistake. Radio communications is an excuse? NATO was winning the war and it made no difference if true. Like these radio communications were turning the tide against NATO? That's why they also use the shooting of the F-117 resulting in the J-20... after the fact! Simple logic just like bombing the embassy was because the CIA and the US military aren't as perfect as they think.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Americans don't like admitting mistakes. They want to make people believe their record is perfect in order to prevent people from questioning them. Yes there are Americans who would rather admit to committing a crime than to admitting to a mistake or being wrong. Putting it out there unofficially that it was deliberate is about saving face to the American people who don't like admitting they're capable of making mistakes. Just look at the recent US Navy accidents. The story of what happened to the USS Fitzgerald was completely the opposite of what said initially. It doesn't matter if it was the media that lied or if it was the Pentagon (remember the lies over Pat Tillman), it's the culture where Americans don't admit to their mistakes hence why Trump is in office because he's the god of not admitting to being wrong. Yes Americans are very capable of deceit, but this is about what's worse in American eyes that happens to be the most plausible answer and that is they made a mistake and they don't want to admit it. We've seen it in this forum where no one can question US professionalism and American technology is flawless. Well one or both failed with the US Navy's bad luck lately. Then some Admiral comes warning adversaries not to take advantage. What? Start a war? No this Admiral said it because it's quite embarrassing what happened and he needed to give the American people confidence in them. Just like unofficially saying the bombing of the Chinese embassy was intentional. Better than a mistake. Radio communications is an excuse? NATO was winning the war and it made no difference if true. Like these radio communications were turning the tide against NATO? That's why they also use the shooting of the F-117 resulting in the J-20... after the fact! Simple logic just like bombing the embassy was because the CIA and the US military aren't as perfect as they think.

My view is that the bombing of the Chinese Embassy was no mistake.

It wasn't about whether the Chinese Embassy rebroadcasts were making a difference.

It was that China was directly challenging US policy in an (illegal?) war.
It was also a warning to Serbia that outside powers can't help them.

Here's a followup article from the Guardian Special Report

Five weeks ago The Observer reported evidence gathered from sources within Nato - serving military officers who would be instantly sacked if named. Our account was denied by the CIA, by Albright and by Cook, who said there was not a `shred of evidence to support this rather wild story'.

The Observer has gone back to its original sources, and also spoken to other serving officers, from Nato colonels to intelligence officers to a military officer with the rank of a general. All are in agreement. The Chinese Embassy was deliberately bombed.

According to one of these sources, it was the fact that the embassy was being used to rebroadcast signals for Arkan and his White Tigers that swung the argument to hit the embassy. `The fact that it was an operating base for Arkan, an indicted war criminal, was something that convinced the Americans to strike. Had it just been a transmitter for the VJ (the Yugoslav Army), they might have held off.'
...
A senior French Defence Ministry official said bluntly that the building attacked on 7 May had been targeted precisely because it had been rebroadcasting Yugoslav signals - although the French insist they were never told the building was the Chinese Embassy.

Read more
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
My view is that the bombing of the Chinese Embassy was no mistake.

It wasn't about whether the Chinese Embassy rebroadcasts were making a difference.

It was that China was directly challenging US policy in an (illegal?) war.
It was also a warning to Serbia that outside powers can't help them.

Here's a followup article from the Guardian Special Report


I'm not one to read what the media reports as fact especially from the British. China didn't go along with the Iraq War. Where was China bombed for that since that's suppose to be a crime? Just because China didn't go along sounds extreme. Earlier WikiLeaks was mentioned... That's no proof either because all those diplomatic cables are the opinions of diplomats. Just because they wrote something bad of China doesn't make it true. Why would they label it TOP SECRET if it was negative on China? Maybe because they're only opinions and if China found out about them, they can be interpreted as official US government positions and China would work against US interests.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
No, the Guardian is pretty much the first newspaper that whistleblowers (like Snowden) in Europe and the USA go to, because of their reputation.

The rest of the media like the NY Times went with the official line that the embassy bombing was an accident.

And China wasn't bombed during the Iraq War because China was neutral and didn't actively oppose the USA.

In any case, the result is that the Chinese government and military believe it is deliberate. The biggest one being how China should behave when it has the world's largest military.

And Diplomatic reports should be a secret as a matter of course, otherwise they are just too embarrassing.





I'm not one to read what the media reports as fact especially from the British. China didn't go along with the Iraq War. Where was China bombed for that since that's suppose to be a crime? Just because China didn't go along sounds extreme. Earlier WikiLeaks was mentioned... That's no proof either because all those diplomatic cables are the opinions of diplomats. Just because they wrote something bad of China doesn't make it true. Why would they label it TOP SECRET if it was negative on China? Maybe because they're only opinions and if China found out about them, they can be interpreted as official US government positions and China would work against US interests.
 

Figaro

Senior Member
Registered Member
More than 1 mln Chinese college students sign up for army
Source: Xinhua| 2017-08-30 20:45:54|Editor: Xiang Bo
BEIJING, Aug. 30 (Xinhua) -- A total of 1.08 million Chinese college students have signed up for the army as of late August this year, up 5.58 percent year on year, according to an educational official on Wednesday.

The figure showed that more college students would like to devote themselves to national defense and serve the country, said Xu Mei, spokesperson for the Ministry of Education.

The ministry will help with physical and political examinations to recruit more soldiers from colleges, Xu said.

In July this year, the military asked to raise the proportion of college student recruits.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
More than 1 mln Chinese college students sign up for army
Source: Xinhua| 2017-08-30 20:45:54|Editor: Xiang Bo
BEIJING, Aug. 30 (Xinhua) -- A total of 1.08 million Chinese college students have signed up for the army as of late August this year, up 5.58 percent year on year, according to an educational official on Wednesday.

The figure showed that more college students would like to devote themselves to national defense and serve the country, said Xu Mei, spokesperson for the Ministry of Education.

The ministry will help with physical and political examinations to recruit more soldiers from colleges, Xu said.

In July this year, the military asked to raise the proportion of college student recruits.

Does college student mean high school student or Uni student?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top