China build-up includes missiles, jets, warships

cnn.netscape.cnn.com...

WASHINGTON, July 19 (Reuters) - China not only is massing forces facing Taiwan, but developing new long-range missiles and acquiring an arsenal of sophisticated jets and warships in an ambitious arms build-up, the United States said on Tuesday.

Over the "next several years", Beijing will deploy a DF-31 road-mobile, solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile and a JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile, the Pentagon said in an annual report to Congress on Chinese military power.

The current military focus by the People's Liberation Army stresses protecting Chinese borders and waters and intimidating Taiwan, according to the 44-page report, which lists a broad range of new armaments from fighter jets to submarines.

Here is a breakdown of some of weapons listed and a look at efforts by Beijing's huge PLA ground forces to slim down and mobilize:

- - - - -

Ballistic missiles:

About 650-730 mobile CSS-6 and CSS-7 short-range missiles in coastal garrisons opposite Taiwan. Deployment is increasing by about 100 missiles a year, including improved range and accuracy in newer versions.

The military is also modernizing its longer-range missile fleet with newer, more survivable versions including the mobile DF-31 and JL-2.

- - - - -

Air Power:

More than 700 aircraft within un-refueled operational range of Taiwan. Many are outdated, but Beijing continues acquiring sleek fighters from Russia, including the Su-30MKK multi-role and Su-Mk2 maritime strike aircraft.

New jet acquisitions are augmenting previous deliveries of Su-27 fighters and China is building its own version of the Su-27SK, the F-11, under agreement with Moscow.

Improvements to older FB-7 fighters will give them nighttime maritime strike capability and China has programs underway to deploy new protective electronic jammers on bombers, transports, tactical aircraft and unmanned spy planes.

The PLA is also acquiring from abroad, or developing at home, advanced precision strike weapons such as cruise missiles and air-to-air, air-to-surface and radar-destroying munitions.

- - - - -

Naval Power:

Includes 64 major surface warships, 55 attack submarines, 40 medium and heavy amphibious lift vessels and about 50 coastal missile patrol craft. Two-thirds of the fleet is located in the East and South Sea fleets.

China has deployed two new Russian-made Sovremennyy class guided-missile destroyers in the East Sea Fleet and an additional two are under contract. All are fitted with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles and air defense systems.

China's Song class diesel electric submarine has entered serial production. Last year, China launched a new diesel submarine, the Yuan class, and it is expected to field its next-generation nuclear attack submarine, the Type 093. this year.

Beijing is also acquiring eight additional Kilo class diesel electric submarines from Russia in addition to four previously-purchased boats. The new subs will include advanced SS-N-27 anti-ship cruise missiles and and wire-guided and wake-seeking torpedoes.

- - - - -

Ground Forces:

China has 375,000 troops deployed to three military regions opposite Taiwan and has been upgrading those units with amphibious armor and military vehicles, including tanks.

The PLA is expected to complete another round of downsizing -- slashing 200,000 troops by the end of this year -- to bring the size of the PLA to about 2.3 million, according to official statistics. But the pentagon said paramilitary, police and reserves boost that figure to 3.2 million.

China's 2004 Defense White Paper noted that China can also draw upon more than 10 million organized militia members.

The Army acquired additional M1-17/171 medium-lift helicopters from Russia last year and is developing its own attack helicopter, the Z-10, which could enter service in 2014.

© Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.

07/19/2005 18:36
RTR

I was wondering if this issue is new or not. Eventhough there were previous articles about china military build up however, it did not give any specific information. So this article link poped up from DrudgeReport, and this article gives more specific details on what type of build up the Chinese military is doing according to CNN. Though CNN may not be a reliable source for me.

So god who knows what will happen in the future. I am very concerned about issues like this but the internet seems to be random by alot.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by SuperTrashCan]

Originally posted by SuperTrashCan
I was wondering if this issue is new or not.

Not really. Lots of stuff here I (and I believe many others) already know for a looooooooong time.

I was unaware of the fact that the Chinese were massing troops facing tawain. That is something concrete that can not be denied. It's something everyone can see. The Chinese have passed laws laying the foundation for a war with Tawain. I just don't see how the Chinese think they could have a shot versus the US's Navy and Air Force...

In terms of world class A2A, the Su30MKK would be as good as a decent German/Indian/Russian MiG-29 (NOT any other country)
So the REAL Air superiortiy fighters IMO would be theSu-30MKK, Su27k and J-10 maybe..
depending on how good the J-10 really turns out to be..

the air superioty fighters china has is the J-8H J-7E J-11/SU-27 and the rest are multi-role

I think the new aquisitions are really to replace the outdated hardware
that should be in museums.

Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
I just don't see how the Chinese think they could have a shot versus the US's Navy and Air Force...

People thought the same before Chinese army marched into Korea.

bitterweb........
your example is dealing with mainly land warfare, you know, the Army, and has little to do with the Navy and Air Force aspects.

During the Korean War, it was nothing but a numbers ratio game with the Chinese. I suppose when you attack a position in waves and outnumber your enemy [ie: the US] in most case 10-20 to 1, something has got to give way, huh?

Interestingly, once the US/UN learned how to counter those mass attacking waves, how far back was China pushed back? Let me know, k?



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
bitterweb........
your example is dealing with mainly land warfare, you know, the Army, and has little to do with the Navy and Air Force aspects.

During the Korean War, it was nothing but a numbers ratio game with the Chinese. I suppose when you attack a position in waves and outnumber your enemy [ie: the US] in most case 10-20 to 1, something has got to give way, huh?

Interestingly, once the US/UN learned how to counter those mass attacking waves, how far back was China pushed back? Let me know, k?

seekerof

It was not that successful for Chinese by the end of the war, but neither was it for US. Otherwise I doubt they would have ever agreed to a truce.

I try not to be cliche. But using WMD might not be that impossible as many of you have imagined.

If China still couldn't make it after sufferring huge casualties and heavy loss of facilities, resorting to nuclear would be the only way (don't ever think they would stop short of getting over Taiwan strait after fireing the first missle). No Chinese leader would earth torch Taiwan but I'm sure many of them would love to first sink Japan. In terms of US, if they still got some bombs after dispatching Japanese, they might give some to Americans. But I wish not because, you may think funny, for many Chinese, US is not our strategic rival/enemy, but Japan and Russia.

Besides, we would not strike until ready, or nearly ready. US has superior air forces and navy, then what? We don't have enough fleets or aircrafts, but we have the resources and patience to build. Then, like in Korean, it doesn't really matter how many fighters we trade for one F16.

Originally posted by bitterweb
. But I wish not because, you may think funny, for many Chinese, US is not our strategic rival/enemy, but Japan and Russia.
.

Well many chinese(on ATS esp.) feel that Russia is more of a friend than a "strategic enemy" as compared to the US..

Do I sense a bit of disparity amongst you chinese?
It is kind of queer for you to purchase majority of your military equipment from your strategic rival aye?

Originally posted by Daedalus3


Well many chinese(on ATS esp.) feel that Russia is more of a friend than a "strategic enemy" as compared to the US..

russia has always been a rival of china. but as of now china needs russia for their oil and to balance US power. i couldn't care less if china was allied with russia. it makes no difference

Do I sense a bit of disparity amongst you chinese?
It is kind of queer for you to purchase majority of your military equipment from your strategic rival aye?

2billion doesn't buy you much. russian made equipment in chinas arsenal problay is no more than 5-10%of the whole chinese arsenal

Originally posted by Seekerof

During the Korean War, it was nothing but a numbers ratio game with the Chinese. I suppose when you attack a position in waves and outnumber your enemy [ie: the US] in most case 10-20 to 1, something has got to give way, huh?

The chinese tactics called for local superioty in numbers. split them up in little groups and kill them from there.

china never employed any human waves. they stragery was to lose the less amount of soldiers. and attack at night to avoid UN airpower.

if you look at the history of the korean war china actually had on par to american and UN forces but never had total superioty in numbers.

Interestingly, once the US/UN learned how to counter those mass attacking waves, how far back was China pushed back? Let me know, k?

seekerof

not as far back as what chinese forces pushed the americans

they made it to seoul and were totally exhausted. had to march from the yalu river to seoul on foot and fight there.. their supply lines were totally over streched.




[edit on 21-7-2005 by chinawhite]

I love the revisionist history you put up Chinawhite. It cracks me up. Perhaps if you ever cracked a history book not written by the Propaganda department of your government things would be a bit clearer.

No human wave attacks eh?

Chinese military 500,000 killed and/or missing
North Korean military 350,000 killed and/or missing
North Korean civilians ~700,000 to 1,000,000 killed and/or missing
en.wikipedia.org...

Please explain the large number of casulties? My Uncle was at Chosin Reservoir and can still describe the human wave attackes used to hit positions. Thats nearly twise the casulties of the US, UN and South korean Forces combined. ANd for all thier surprise, thier butts still got pushed back to where they started from.

Here is a little truth to you FredT, China had just come out of a 30 year civil war, with 35 million casulties from WWII and another more than a dozen million from the pre-WWII wars. PLA had no winter clothing, no automatic weapons, no tanks, no fighters, no warships. Most of our weapons are those captured from Japs and KMT. The first thing that PLA soldiers loot from dead ally soldiers are clothing and food utensils. Tech isn't everything, we kept a stalemate with Americans/UN with nothing but the power of the people and their willingness to die for their country and stability of the region. Korea is a place where you can say tech wasn't as important as it was, people fight the war, organized people win a war, Vietnam is another example of how a people's war can be fought.

Originally posted by FredT

No human wave attacks eh?


Chinese military 500,000 killed and/or missing
North Korean military 350,000 killed and/or missing
North Korean civilians ~700,000 to 1,000,000 killed and/or missing
en.wikipedia.org...

how much of this was from airpower? lack of supplies.? frost bite.?

offical chiense sources put the death toll at 390,000 but ill trust you on the 500,000k. here is the break down of the chinese source.

KIA: 110,400
DIED OF WOUNDS: 21,600
DIED OF SICKNESS: 13,000
CAPTURED & MISSING: 25,600
WOUNDED: 260,000
.......

During battles, western forces were usually incapable of correctly estimating the strength of PVA forces, often times, they greatly exaggerated the number of attacking PVAs, such as taking a PVA regiment as a PVA division. PVA mostly attacked at night, blowing bugles and wistles, shouting thrills, even play "sweet music" to cause psychological stress, the PVA tactics made western forces feel that the enemy was everywhere from every direction. Moreover, PVAs were masters of infiltration, they often sneaked in and attacked directly on command posts, generating shock and chaos. Western combat history always refered PVA attacks as "swarm of Chinese", "human waves", "Chinese hordes", as if PVA simply threw its men into the fire and let itself slaughtered, such a description indicated a great misunderstanding of the PVA tactics. As some military analysts pointed out, PLA rarely use dense formation in their attacks, it seeks to inflict maximum damage with mnimum casualty. At various stages of the Korean war, PVA nevered had a commanding numerical superioty against UN forces, in fact, during the 4th campaign, it was greatly outnumbered by UN (it was always outgunned), yet it could still outmaneuver UN forces and even managed to counter attack at X Corps. PVA could achieve all these with inferior firepower because it had smarter tactics and strategy.
www.centurychina.com...

Thats nearly twise the casulties of the US, UN and South korean Forces combined. ANd for all thier surprise, thier butts still got pushed back to where they started from.

they started from the yalu river and pushed the americans pass seoul.then got pushed back to the 38th. thats not even close to the yalu

[edit on 21-7-2005 by chinawhite]

well fredt was right about the chinese propaganda stuff..

At least thats what that century china is full of..

I read one thread topic which went a bit like this:

"India abuses human rights by crushing anti-india rebels"



And I suppose these posters feel that tiannemen was just a show of love then aye??

[edit on 21-7-2005 by Daedalus3]

what country doesn't have propaganda.

i can post some american propaganda of about the chinese and soviets.

so what

Yeah well if you've come here to post propaganda then you've quite missed the point of ATS and its motto..

i post the facts. unlike your friends stealthspy and mizra.

words most used are Maybe, based, influenced and my favorite hint*