Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Seriously?They have 79 of those aircraft currently in inventory.
Threads wander into different areas of the same subject. People starting posting about Chinese military airlift being a means to get around the US submarine force, and I replied to that notion in that I don't believe China has sufficient airlift capability which is surely related to the topic and the post I was replying to.
Apparently you have a policy that when threads aren't going exactly how you wish you just adopt a strawman argument policy and generate opinions for others to attack.
When did they change the geography of Taiwan to reduce the width of the strait to 50 miles?
Either way you greatly underestimate how much aerial tonnage of airlift capability is required to transport and supply even a division sized military force, and the criticism of China's airlift ability is amount of tonnage they can move versus the size of the army they'd need to move.
They might someday with that new C-17 imitation they've been fooling around with but right now the dozen or so large transports and whatever prop planes aren't sufficient, they would need to manage the bulk of any Taiwan invasion across the water both for troops and equipment.
Sigh.
China has multiple long range guns that are more than capable of hitting Taiwan without ever leaving China. They also have air superiority to overwhelm China, and even an aircraft carrier. This gives them a tactical advantage which negates the need to put massive amounts of boots on the ground to invade Taiwan. If you want an example of how that actually works feel free to look back at our invasion of Iraq in the First Gulf War. We won despite the fact that Iraq had all the advantages on the ground because we took advantage of the air power we had. The need for boots on the ground was just to wipe up minor pockets of resistance.
China has actually demonstrated the ablity to airlift a full battalion in the past, and their airlift capability has improved sine then. They are not nearly as good as we are, but they have the ability to actually take Taiwan if they want, and there won't be much we can do about it in the short run because we aren't prepared to deal with an all out assault if China launches it. Pretending otherwise just makes you one of the people with his head in the sand. Like I said earlier, read the PDF I linked to if you want to see why you are wrong.
Taiwan is 112 miles across the straight from China so I really doubt the Chinese have an artillery piece capable of reaching Taiwan. They didn't have Gerald Bull working for them...
However, their tactical airlift capability is fully capable of airlifting a full parachute battalion across to take and hold whichever piece of ground they want to.
Hah I thought of the exact same guy.They didn't have Gerald Bull working for them...
I couldn't find any reference to it in his paper but I might have missed it. Another possibility is since Quantum thought the strait was only 50 miles across he was in error in guessing artillery ranges, although that would be a hell of an artillery piece too.
Seriously?They have 79 of those aircraft currently in inventory.
Isn't that an IL-76? This shows them only have 10 as of Jan 2013: Il-76MD Transport Plane Delivered to China | Business | The Moscow Times
This shows 14:
People's Liberation Army Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seriously?They have 79 of those aircraft currently in inventory.
Isn't that an IL-76? This shows them only have 10 as of Jan 2013: Il-76MD Transport Plane Delivered to China | Business | The Moscow Times
This shows 14:
People's Liberation Army Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They had 20 of them on inventory in 2006. They have been buying them at a much increased rate of late.
You said to look in the paper you referenced regarding your claim Chinese guns can hit Taiwan without leaving China, and now it becomes a link to a speculative article about a satellite photo of a test site that says:
I don't know man, that linked article shows first delivery in 2013.They had 20 of them on inventory in 2006. They have been buying them at a much increased rate of late.
Actually in a economic war China's export driven economy might suffer far more, the amount of US debt they own probably isn't as significant as you think:If America was stupid enough to attack China in any significant way, China would dump its trillions of Dollars worth of bonds on the market, causing total collapse of the US economy.
You said to look in the paper you referenced regarding your claim Chinese guns can hit Taiwan without leaving China, and now it becomes a link to a speculative article about a satellite photo of a test site that says:
"Although the Baotou pieces appear similar in design to the Bull 'supergun' concept, it seems unlikely that they are intended for long-range artillery barrages or anti-satellite operations"
That is the artillery you speak of? Come on man seriously?
In the 1990s it was revealed that China had built a long-range 'supergun' technology testbed similar to the Iraqi Project Babylon supergun designed by Gerald Bull. IHS Jane's Land Warfare Platforms: Artillery & Air Defence notes that Bull was heavily involved in designing long-range Chinese artillery systems for Norinco in the 1980s.
I don't know man, that linked article shows first delivery in 2013.They had 20 of them on inventory in 2006. They have been buying them at a much increased rate of late.
You said to look in the paper you referenced regarding your claim Chinese guns can hit Taiwan without leaving China, and now it becomes a link to a speculative article about a satellite photo of a test site that says:
"Although the Baotou pieces appear similar in design to the Bull 'supergun' concept, it seems unlikely that they are intended for long-range artillery barrages or anti-satellite operations"
That is the artillery you speak of? Come on man seriously?
I suggest you check into the credentials of Jane's before you unilaterally dismiss something they say.
That said, the post I responded to specifically said they didn't have access to the specialized knowledge of
Gerald Bull. My link specifically disproves that statement.
In the 1990s it was revealed that China had built a long-range 'supergun' technology testbed similar to the Iraqi Project Babylon supergun designed by Gerald Bull. IHS Jane's Land Warfare Platforms: Artillery & Air Defence notes that Bull was heavily involved in designing long-range Chinese artillery systems for Norinco in the 1980s.
Keep posting though.
You said to look in the paper you referenced regarding your claim Chinese guns can hit Taiwan without leaving China, and now it becomes a link to a speculative article about a satellite photo of a test site that says:
"Although the Baotou pieces appear similar in design to the Bull 'supergun' concept, it seems unlikely that they are intended for long-range artillery barrages or anti-satellite operations"
That is the artillery you speak of? Come on man seriously?
I suggest you check into the credentials of Jane's before you unilaterally dismiss something they say.
That said, the post I responded to specifically said they didn't have access to the specialized knowledge of
Gerald Bull. My link specifically disproves that statement.
Keep posting though.In the 1990s it was revealed that China had built a long-range 'supergun' technology testbed similar to the Iraqi Project Babylon supergun designed by Gerald Bull. IHS Jane's Land Warfare Platforms: Artillery & Air Defence notes that Bull was heavily involved in designing long-range Chinese artillery systems for Norinco in the 1980s.
Janes is an excellent source. I was unaware of Bulls involvement in their research. That being said, those guns are useless for what you want them to do. Their size makes them very good at launching projectiles high in the atmosphere, but as an artillery piece they are more trouble than they are worth.
Even Bull realized that. I have his book on the Paris gun and his HARP project. Yes they can shoot them a long way, but there is no way to know where they will land with any precision.
I suggest you check into the credentials of Jane's before you unilaterally dismiss something they say.
That said, the post I responded to specifically said they didn't have access to the specialized knowledge of
Gerald Bull. My link specifically disproves that statement.
Keep posting though.
Janes is an excellent source. I was unaware of Bulls involvement in their research. That being said, those guns are useless for what you want them to do. Their size makes them very good at launching projectiles high in the atmosphere, but as an artillery piece they are more trouble than they are worth.
Even Bull realized that. I have his book on the Paris gun and his HARP project. Yes they can shoot them a long way, but there is no way to know where they will land with any precision.
I agree, they are pretty much useless as artillery pieces, unless they were specifically designed to bombard Taiwan from fixed positions as the first step of a phased invasion.
The source I was referring to was this about shipping the first ten in 2013:Wiki is not a good source.
Actually in a economic war China's export driven economy might suffer far more, the amount of US debt they own probably isn't as significant as you think:If America was stupid enough to attack China in any significant way, China would dump its trillions of Dollars worth of bonds on the market, causing total collapse of the US economy.
I'm not doubting the credentials of Janes, I'm dismissing that is backs up your claim that if China invaded Taiwan Chinese guns could hit Taiwan without even leaving China.I suggest you check into the credentials of Jane's before you unilaterally dismiss something they say.
This is a classic appeal to authority, pointing to anonymous "people in the know" doesn't convince me that China can destroy the US economy by manipulating the debt they hold.Take a look at what those in the know say about Chinese Dollar holdings; they all say it would damage America for many years and end the Dollar's domination of world markets for ever.
This is a classic appeal to authority, pointing to anonymous "people in the know" doesn't convince me that China can destroy the US economy by manipulating the debt they hold.Take a look at what those in the know say about Chinese Dollar holdings; they all say it would damage America for many years and end the Dollar's domination of world markets for ever.
So as proof that if we challenged China they could simply collapse the US economy by selling their US debt, you provided:I've posted this many times before, and it's really easy to find on the net.
I'm amazed anyone still comes up with your pathetic non argument.
Start with these, and research from there.
China just sold almost $50 billion in US Treasurys? But don?t panic just yet ? Quartz
What if Russia Dumped U.S. Debt?
It?s Official: China Will Be Dumping US Dollars | Zero Hedge
And that took years and was a response to an attack on US occupied Hawaii.
This would be an interference in two foreign nations, neither being a threat to America.
Yeah it took years because everyone had the same level of tech back then. And you couldn't just lob a missile up someone's ass. What is your point?
They also have missiles, easily enough to destroy a lot of major American cities.
Would you care to tell me how America would have won if New York and Washington are both piles of radioactive rubble?
That's the problem with the American concept of war; as is usual with bullies, you only attack those who can't hit back - China can, big style.
