The Great Chinese Thread-jack

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oscar_IHB
  • Start date Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I don't know which is funnier Peter, that you disputed the German invention of the jet or that you <em>did not</em> dispute that the British would invade Hong Kong (see above).



It is my understanding that Von Ohain received a patent in 1934, for an engine that was the same in theory but completely different in internal design. Either way, the Heinkel He178 was flying while the Pioneer was still on the drawing board. I'm not even going to bother pondering the possible bias of your "source", since I am sure that <em>"Coventry & Warwickshire's largest independent website"</em> would be completely objective in it's treatment of a favored son.



Would it help if I specified "jet plane" rather than just the generic "jet"?
 
[quote author="blackvault_cm" date=1231393034]Here is some military data.



Armed Forces Personnel

#1 China: 2,810,000

#2 Russia: 1,520,000

#3 United States: 1,366,000

#4 India: 1,303,000

#5 Korea, South: 683,000



Tanks

#1 Russia: 21,000 tanks

#2 United States: 16,000 tanks

#3 China: 11,000 tanks

#4 Poland: 3,200 tanks

#5 Germany: 2,300 tanks



Air force personnel

#1 United States: 370,300

#2 India: 110,000

#3 Korea, North: 85,000

#4 France: 78,100

#5 Germany: 76,200

<snip>

</blockquote>




Those are just production numbers, and doesn't reflect actual quality or numbers in service. China produced about 9,500 T-59's, but only half are still in service. The rest have been scrapped or sold. The Chinese military is in the middle of transition from old to new and you'll see a lot of slimming down in the future.



The only MBT in PLA's inventory that I'd consider to be "modern" are the T-96 & T-99, of which there are 2,000-3,000 produced (less in service). They're roughly comparable to Russian T-90 in quality. The rest of the MBT inventory is mostly upgraded T-59 & few hundred T-80/85/88, which are lightweight by today's standards.



China's air force has about 250,000 personnel and should be #2 on the list. But out of some 2,300 aircraft in its inventory (less in service), there are only 400 "modern" fighter aircraft (Su-27/30/J-10) by 1980's standards.



The Chinese Navy has about 10 modern destroyers and maybe 2 dozen modern frigates. By modern I mean having some kind of SAM for missile defense. The rest are either being retired (Luda) or converted to Coast Guard service (Jianghu). Of all the ships, only 4 Destroyers (051C/052C) and 2-6 Frigates (054A) have modern VL-SAM AAW capability.



If you want to play the numbers game, there are over 9,000 M1A1 & M1A2 tanks produced (~6,000 in service by US), over 4,000 F-16's produced, over 1,800 F-18's produced, and some 100 Cruisers, Destroyers, and Frigates in service. In the Pacific alone, the 7th & 3rd fleet has combined 5-6 aircraft carriers.



If this was a game of Star Craft, the US military would be like a massively build-up Zerg force on the world map. The traditional notion of Chinese armed forces being the "human wave zerg" needs to be re-evaluated.





<img src="http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/2/29/ZERG_RUSH.png&usg=AFQjCNH903KBiJlp-ng9MFWbBl6qTarbJw" alt="" />





For more information, I'd suggest visiting the SinoDefense & China Defense Blog web site & discussion forum.

<a href="http://china-defense.blogspot.com/">http://china-defense.blogspot.com/</a>
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1231409685]The Germans invented jets, but we supply the most planes to the world's airlines.</blockquote>


The first jet-powered (motorjet) aircraft was the Coanda-1910, built by Romanian inventor Henri Coanda & exhibited in Paris in 1910.



<img src="http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/bristol_coanda_1_500.jpg" alt="" />



<img src="http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/bristol_coanda_2_500.jpg" alt="" />



<img src="http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/bristol_coanda_3v_1_500.jpg&usg=AFQjCNFKQdb_HvdNcpSAnPn2QDTVzkELXQ" alt="" />



http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/bristol.html



<em>The "air-reactive engine", invented and built for the first time by Henri Coanda, composed of a piston-engine with four cylinders, cooled with water; it developed 50 HP (Horse-Power) at 1000 rotations/minute. This piston-engine was connected to a rod which rotated the rotation multiplier; the movement was transmitted to the compressor which gained a rotation speed of 4000 rot./min.. In front of the compressor was placed the obturator - a device very similar to that of a photo-camera; this device could be controlled by the pilot such that the quantity of air that entered the compressor could be regulated. The air entered the burning rooms, (that had a ring-like section and were placed on both sides of the fuselage), from which, through some tubes, burned gases of the engine were evacuated and the propulsion force was generated.



The propulsion force at sea level obtained with this engine was 220 kgf, much larger than that obtained if the piston-engine would have been acted by a propeller.



Many visitors were suspicious about the possibility that this machine could take off since it was missing the propeller. They had never seen such a strange flying machine and never heard about an airplane without a propeller.</em>





The "Coanda effect", which describes the tendency of fluid jets to stay attached to adjacent curved surface is named after Henri Conada. He applied it to the Conada-1910 design. Many decades later, the Canadian Avro Aircraft company would built a flying saucer based on the Conada effect theory to produce VTOL-like performance. Very interesting read:



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avrocar">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avrocar</a>





World's Most Unique Aircraft thread:

<a href="http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=138888">http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=138888</a>
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1231392333][quote author="skek" date=1231389581]I think I mentioned this a while back, but American military intelligence was surprised at the poor performance of the Russian army during the Georgian incursion -- even though Russia routed the Georgians, their ability to project conventional military power was anemic at best. The Russian army, through neglect and poor training, is at this point not much more effective than any other developing nation's military.



Obviously, the big caveat are the nukes.



China on the other hand is rapidly trying to develop a first world military, and they are doing it strategically. They have plans to develop and deploy an aircraft carrier, and other than the US, they are the only nation currently undertaking such a program (UK and France I believe have their plans on hold). Also, through aggressive espionage, they are working to neutralize American air and naval superiority by stealing our next generation stealth and sonar technology. I had the honor of visiting a naval carrier group at sea during exercises not too long ago and they told stories of the cat and mouse games they would play with Chinese subs. In short, the Chinese subs are rudimentary in firepower compared to ours, but they have the stealth capability to sneak up alongside an American carrier or into an American port. You can figure out what that means.



I don't think the US will go to war with either Russia or China on account of the nukes. Nor do I think Russia and China go to war because of the nukes. All three have too much to lose. If things go from bad to worse in the global economy, my prediction is one of two outcomes: (1) internal civil unrest that could destabilize either the Chinese or Russian governments, with all its attendant problems, and/or (2) a return to the Cold War meme of proxy wars and banana republics, with the added dimension of non-state, transnational proxies.



The new dimension that has all the foreign policy scholars fascinated is the economic interdependence that now exists between the US and China and, to a lesser extent, Russia. By all accounts, Russian belligerence caused foreign investment to flee the country which has crushed their economy and exerted more pressure than US diplomacy ever could. It remains to be seen how those three countries notch up their adversarial positions, while maintaining the trade they all require for survival.



For the record, I am more worried about Russia than China in the mid term (next 10-15 years). The Chinese trajectory is up, while the Russian trajectory is down. I see the potential for a rise in militant nationalism in Russia with fewer opportunities for economic growth and an increasingly desperate leadership trying to hang on to power by any means necessary. You want a doomsday scenario, imagine Russia as a Yugoslav-style failed state...</blockquote>
Russia faces NATO, and are therefore limited in their potential targets. I think proxy wars between Russia, the EU, and/or China are pretty likely if gas and oil continue to be used as a pawn by Russia.



You bring up a good point about the current Chinese military build-up being strategic. They could make quite an internal boost to their GDP with a heavy investment in military research and production. Given the current economic climate, I would suspect that "modernization" programs will be one area where China spends it surplus. I think the current lack of troop transports and support/defensive ships to guard them is rather telling.



From a strategic standpoint, Russia makes a better target for China than we do because they have something that we don't: actively productive oil and gas fields. At most, China will prepare to neutralize the American naval advantage to prevent our involvement in any war. But we weren't the only ones watching Russia's performance in Georgia. Furthermore, I think any instability in Russia would only invite a direct confrontation. It makes more sense to hit pre-selected targets when confusion reigns rather than when a government is unified and strong.



My thoughts are a bit scattered today, but I'm endlessly fascinated by China's potential on the world political stage. I'd love to read what other people think about it.</blockquote>


Sounds good on paper that China is upping the ante on military technology. But this is a country that is very corrupt and everyone of them is out to screw the next guy or ask for a bribe all for money which most worship. If they can not keep lead out of every consumer product along with a long history of knock offs and fake merchandise i find serious doubt in their overall superior military build up ambitions. Waiting for the next Chinese scandal, out...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top