• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Actual Russian/Chinese Military Capabilities Versus Claimed | The False Image

NuclearID said:
I'll gladly make a thread and do a deep dive on Chinese hardware actual capabilities versus claimed. Once this whole regional war thing calms down. I do enjoy đź’© on China and sounds fun to make.
Click to expand...
That would be an interesting article. Once you make it, I'll look it over and see if we can post it on the main site for publication.
 
NuclearID said:
Many years of reading articles based on new Chinese weaponry that comes out seemingly every year. China talks a big game but their systems seem to have no game. All about the image not functionality.
Click to expand...
It's also about sheer numbers. A single American F-35 or F-22 is still going to lose if going up against five JC-10s.
 
NuclearID said:
Which is bad for Russia. They already on a leash with China. If they do this. Then they won't have any independence left. They will be for all intensive purposes a Chinese a lap dog.

If I were Putin I'd be watching my back door with Siberia. Because China will try and seize it when Russian hands are entirely tied. By China no less.

➡️China's been surging its own citizens into Siberia trying to make Siberia more Chinese then native Russian demographically. 👉You don't need an education to guess why.
Click to expand...
I’ve always believed a nuclear engagement would be more likely to occur between China and Russia than with US or Europe.
 
Publius said:
I’ve always believed a nuclear engagement would be more likely to occur between China and Russia than with US or Europe.
Click to expand...
China knows they would lose that fight, for multiple reasons. That being said, the relationship between China and Russia is complicated, and they could be allies or foes depending on the situation.
 
RiffRaff said:
It's also about sheer numbers. A single American F-35 or F-22 is still going to lose if going up against five JC-10s.
Click to expand...
In air war it’s also tactics, electronic jamming/spoofing. Combat range and of course numbers.

It’s not just head to head capabilities.
And the percentage of enemy fighters destroyed.
If the target is a major strategic importance. Yet the US looses 2 F-35’s and four F-18’s vs China 3 fighters. Yet the target is destroyed. That’s not a net loss, it’s mission accomplished.
 
RiffRaff said:
China knows they would lose that fight, for multiple reasons. That being said, the relationship between China and Russia is complicated, and they could be allies or foes depending on the situation.
Click to expand...
Historically I agree with you, but Chinas built a lot of nukes and Russias weak.
Logistics for delivering troops and armor will be key. Chinas built modern road systems to the west and north.
Chinas has a modern four lane right to the boarder of Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan’s oil has to be a big draw for China
 
Publius said:
Historically I agree with you, but Chinas built a lot of nukes and Russias weak.
Logistics for delivering troops and armor will be key. Chinas built modern road systems to the west and north.
Chinas has a modern four lane right to the boarder of Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan’s oil has to be a big draw for China
Click to expand...
I forget which book, but Tom Clancy wrote a novel about a war between Russia and China in which China refers to Siberia as the "Northern Resource Area," or words to that effect. Siberia is rich with natural resources that have largely been left untouched due to the impossible weather conditions. If China has the technology to mine those resources despite the harsh environment, I could see them making a move on Siberia. They would most likely be able to achieve that using conventional weapons, but Russia would eventually respond with nuclear weapons, and China would "lose." China delivering their nuclear weapons to the far west region of Russia where most cities and strategic targets are located is much more problematic than Russia carpet-bombing all of China with ICBMs.

Russia would get hurt, don't get me wrong. But China would cease to exist as a nation and would devolve into smaller territories.
 
RiffRaff said:
I forget which book, but Tom Clancy wrote a novel about a war between Russia and China in which China refers to Siberia as the "Northern Resource Area," or words to that effect. Siberia is rich with natural resources that have largely been left untouched due to the impossible weather conditions. If China has the technology to mine those resources despite the harsh environment, I could see them making a move on Siberia. They would most likely be able to achieve that using conventional weapons, but Russia would eventually respond with nuclear weapons, and China would "lose." China delivering their nuclear weapons to the far west region of Russia where most cities and strategic targets are located is much more problematic than Russia carpet-bombing all of China with ICBMs.

Russia would get hurt, don't get me wrong. But China would cease to exist as a nation and would devolve into smaller territories.
Click to expand...
Maybe that’s the real reason China is building up there delivery systems and warheads.
 
China’s military falters as its weapon systems fail in Pakistan and top generals get purged, exposing cracks in Beijing’s ambitions for global power.

www.orfonline.org

Dual Fault Lines in China’s Military: Weapons Fail, Generals Jailed

China’s military falters as its weapon systems fail in Pakistan and top generals get purged, exposing cracks in Beijing’s ambitions for global power.
www.orfonline.org www.orfonline.org
 
RiffRaff said:
It's also about sheer numbers. A single American F-35 or F-22 is still going to lose if going up against five JC-10s.
Click to expand...
I'm not at all convinced dogfighting is still a thing. And besides, fighter jets are just glorified booster engines for missiles nowadays. The strategic bomber still has a role as a heavy lift platform for large ordnance, but those F-22s... I'm not seeing the ROI for USAF for fielding them against Iran - if they're being fielded at all.

Cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones are the modern tools of air war. Fighters...? Not so much.
 
One other point that bears mentioning is that foreign weapons - particularly when rushed to an emerging warzone and placed in the hands of local combatants - run a risk of being misused, which may hamper their effectiveness.

I recall Konrad Muzyka (the Rochan guy), who - following one of his tours of the Ukrainian frontlines - remarked that the lower efficiency of HIMARS in this conflict compared to what was seen e.g. during the Gulf War is not so much due to Russian countermeasures as to the fact that the Ukrainian operators are not as proficient at operating the system as Americans.

The same may also be true for Iranians, should they receive new weapons systems from e.g. Russia or China. The world's fastest car will not win any races if it isn't driven by an accomplished racing driver - and likewise, advanced weapons need to be used in accordance with a well thought out doctrine, which directs when, where and how they are to be employed. Failure to do so may lead one to falsely conclude that there's something wrong with the weapons themselves.
 
Socom7 said:
One other point that bears mentioning is that foreign weapons - particularly when rushed to an emerging warzone and placed in the hands of local combatants - run a risk of being misused, which may hamper their effectiveness.

I recall Konrad Muzyka (the Rochan guy), who - following one of his tours of the Ukrainian frontlines - remarked that the lower efficiency of HIMARS in this conflict compared to what was seen e.g. during the Gulf War is not so much due to Russian countermeasures as to the fact that the Ukrainian operators are not as proficient at operating the system as Americans.

The same may also be true for Iranians, should they receive new weapons systems from e.g. Russia or China. The world's fastest car will not win any races if it isn't driven by an accomplished racing driver - and likewise, advanced weapons need to be used in accordance with a well thought out doctrine, which directs when, where and how they are to be employed. Failure to do so may lead one to falsely conclude that there's something wrong with the weapons themselves.
Click to expand...
agreed, a lot of this advanced equipment is not like a rifle, you can't just pick it up in a day or two, US military trains constantly with this equipment, to just hand it off and try and train people in a warzone it will take time for them to become proficient.

its easy to jump to the "its from such and such country so it sucks and will not work" but there could be a multitude of things wrong, untrained crews, issues directly connected to the environment the equipment was sent to, compatibility issues with host nations equipment.
 
also after thinking about it for a bit, I don't know what is in Iran or what is being tested S-300, S-400, S-500, HQ-9 , HQ-16, HQ-22, or what Radars YLC-8B or whatever, Russian or Chinese does not matter, if I was a pilot I would not want to count on "its Russian made" or "it's Chinese made" Or "its a cheap copy" or " or does not work" to keep me safe. you can bet even with the best aircraft from the US that I would be scared beyond all hell, so hats off to the pilots.

also one thing I forgot to mention above is i am sure whatever Russia and China gave Iran its not the most up to date/ does not have all the features with it. The US does the same thing, the aircraft we sell everyone you think we give them EVERYTHING? I doubt it. there is still stuff we keep very close to the chest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom