Chinese weapons
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Should we be scared or not ?
and why ?
They are improving so much, are the equipment shit as their toys or no ?
Scared? No
China is generally defensive minded, the only time you'll be scared if America does something stupid and goes on the offensive while pinning it on China, then that's when you should be scared. As of now, there's a chance of America doing something like Ukraine, Syria or Iraq in the South China Sea so that's a hot point.
No because we're never gonna be at war directly only proxy war for large developed nations
Apparently the equipment of a Chinese soldier is shit. It costs less than 100 USD to equip one Chinese soldier, whereas a US soldier costs 20 times that. Idk about vehicles tho. Assume it's shit, compared to US stuff.
Their surface combatants are approaching world class standards, and the ASuW/AAW capabilities are pretty formidable. Their C&C and ASW is shit though, so for at least the short term future their navy is still not at a level comparable to the US. Obviously, any war would have geography in their favor so to the extent that the US worries about its position in Asia, there is some cause for alarm.
>>28702423
They have the potential to be a threat, but they've still got a long way to go.
We shouldn't become complacent, but it's not like the sky is falling. All of the technologies they're hyping up are at their heart defensive weapons, so all their bragging effectively amounts to
>you can't touch us on our soil
Rather than
>we can project our force halfway across the world and there's nothing you can do about it
In that respect, they haven't even reached the level of the Soviets in the Cold War.
>>28703152
well shittiest workers in US get payed approx 7$/hour
In china they get paid 1$/day
So money doesn't mean a thing
>>28703152
I'd love to see your sources for those numbers.
>>28702423
I'd give it ideally 30 years before they start threatening the United States and getting away with it.
Not really. They can't project power at all. Their main anticarrier weapon can't be used at all so they cant stop the US from projecting power. Some of their new hardware looks ok, but they are decades away from having the institutional knowledge necessary to catch up with the US military
The only thing protecting us from China is their shitty corrupt government. If they had a democratic government, they would be a huge issue.
>>28702423
>should we be scared of china?
No
>why?
Force projection and logistics, the US has then and vachina does not. Any war between the US and china will be fought in china. In their streets, destroying their infrastructure, their manufacturing base, bombing their civilians, ruining their economy.
>>28703152
Chinese soldier equipment cost: 1523 USD
US soldier equipment cost: 17 500
Average money spent on defence per soldier: US=2119$, China=70$
>>28704168
If they had a democratic government, they'd likely be allied with us anyways.
>>28702491
Bitch please. Shit was hotter with the Soviets. China will be the first one to make a mistake not USA.
>>28704350
Nah, they'd be butting heads over markets until they went to war.
>china starts war with US
>suddenly nobody wants to buy shit from china
>all those foreign companies that make their economy bail for India before shtf
>>28704559
So all of Chinese economy collapses overnight?
>>28704559
>all those foreign companies that make their economy bail for India before shtf
Already starting to happen
>http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/foxconn-to-set-up-new-facilities-in-india-in-6-months/193527/
Within 5 years none of your shit will come from China.
>>28705161
Not sure India can handle any more shit desu.
>>28704168
If they had a democratic government they would be a second India.
also they have opened clone facilites for human beings.
maybe theyr planning to build a huge service spot in the chinese sea for human design and other business bullshit to ensure the survival of their subhuman race and interests.
they just decided t help libanes and syria with new phone towers
As someone who is heavily interested in China's rise, not a fucking chance.
The PLA's doctrine is focused upon a modern version of Mao's "People's War" where an invader would be drawn deep into the Chinese heartland, and worn down through insurgency and guerrilla tactics. Whether that would work against a NATO-level force is a whole other question.
China's current level of procurement looks intimidating on paper, but thats because Beijing inflates its statistics to terrify potential adversaries.
As an anon mentioned, their C&C is abysmally bad. Like barely-got-the-concept-of-squad-radios kind of behind. This is, naturally, a byproduct of a rapidly-industrializing power, but also reflects PLA doctrine: don't forget that the "army" in China is basically the combat wing of the Communist Party. They don't take kindly to improvisation from their commanders, since they would be disobeying the party, and any disobedience could snowball into Tiananmen Mk.II: Election Boogeyman.
And finally: while their stuff may not be a threat to western interests in small numbers, it is far superior to anything their neighbours can offer. The Philippines doesn't really have a functioning navy, Japan's were (rightfully) castrated post-Pacific War, Vietnam is still going through major governmental reforms and Russia doesn't have enough troops in the Siberian/Eastern provinces to properly repulse a full PLA attack. Then again, those same countries are now looking for cheap ways to destroy China's advantage, not unlike what China is attempting to do to the US.
>>28704317
you well amercia doesn't have a billion soldiers to outfit, sheer number will win over your "high tech" in the end though.
>>28702423
Shit engines, shit avionics. Questionable designs.
It's probably worse than slavshit.
>>28706186
Good thing that the Japanese are militarizing again so they can reclaim Formosa and save them from the dirty mainlanders
>>28706218
>sheer number will win over your "high tech" in the end though.
Not if you cant get men and supplies to the battlefield.
Look at the IFV numbers for the PLA, and then for the US.
The US has more Bradleys than the PLA has all their IFV's and APC's combined.
>>28706250
oh no not some oversized helicopter destroyers
>>28702423
Hey look it's another shitposting thread.
>>28706092
Have you looked at them? They're all clones right now.
>>28706282
>I don't know what iz vapor
>>28706282
vapor vs smoke. Cool.
>>28704559
Wrong
>>28704633
No.
>>28705161
>one company moving a factory = the 300,000 factories in China moving
>>28705201
Funny post
>>28706092
Shitpost
>>28706186
Decent Source or you're a faggot.
>>28706247
>shit avionics worse than slavs
Odd you say that because their 4th gen fighters have AESA while Russia's don't.
The WS-10 is used on all J-10B's.
Shitpost thread complete.
>>28706272
aylmao
>>28706250
>>28706259
You're both kind of right. Japan has no major amphibious capabilities at the moment (and questionable logistics: apparently that American reformation in the 50's skimped in a few areas)
BUT
their air defence is god-tier. Those Kongo-class are roughly the equal of a Ticonderoga in the amount of things they can track and asplode. Combine that with rudimentary ASW capabilities, and there's the makings of an okay fleet.
Honestly, I'm more interested in Vietnam: they've basically the same doctrine as China when it comes to invaders, but with a hell of a lot more experience, and some high-quality Russian equipment strategically spread that's a match for whatever China sends down there.
>>28706309
>>28706331
>I-It is n-not visible! Just vapor!
>>28706342
WS-10, what's the lifespan on that thing? 200 hours?
>>28706348
>vietnam
>anything you said being accurate
>>28706363
Enough to replace the current Russian engines.
You're not responding to my avionics counterargument. Russia's planes are worse than China's in every aspect other than engines in 2016.
>>28706342
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF160/CF160.ch6.pdf
Have a source, scrub. There's debate, yes, but it's mostly centred on reformation
>>28706382
Probably both equally shit. If the Chinese claim it's AESA, that's probably a lie.
>>28706342
Shitpost
>>28706390
This looks like an early 2000's paper. It has no mention of Hu Jintao or Xi. It says Deng's reforms were 20 years ago.
How is it at all accurate to 2016?
>>28706392
It's AESA. Believe what you want. Debating this shit on /k/ is pointless, but Janes has published articles on it in late 2015.
Was posted in older PLA threads.
>>28706483
From Janes:
"Author's Note: During the research process on the J-31’s avionics (for the upcoming Threat Analysis of Foreign Stealth Fighters:J-31 Part II), it became apparent that very few credible, verifiable, and non-speculative English based source materials existed on the subject of PLA fighter radars. "
Until they start offering them for export, it's probably bullshit.
>>28706355
Nobody says the vapor/condensation is invisible.
>>28706392
yes
they bribed the swedish for better military flight simulation code last year
>>28706092
also many of their factoreis have almost completely replaced workforce with mechs and only keep superior and supervisors.
maybe they want to secretely create a new yellow man.
>>28702427
How fast do carriers painted on the ground move?
How long is the kill chain for a chalk outline in the desert?
>>28704317
What exactly are you using to compare the equipment cost of a standard US soldier?
M4/16 = $600-700
ACOG/Eotech = $400-700
BDU/Boots = $200
Mags, ammo etc = $200
These are all spitball numbers of course but even if we assumed the DoD pays full retail for their equipment (not very fucking likely) it's still nowhere close to $17,500.
>>28702423
> Should we be scared of a country that has to dedicate essentially all its military resources to operating in its immediately neighborhood?
No.
>>28704097
Nigger, ain't no where you can pay anyone that much to work.
From when I visited in 2011, min wage is about 3 dollars us per hour
>>28710100
What country are you from? Why do you think these min wagefags are trying to push for $15 minimum wage?
>>28706186
>it is far superior to anything their neighbours can offer
Sure.
>>28710265
Kanuksland
>>28709557
You forgot to mention that aside from the ammo and boots, all that other shit gets cycled to the next soldier when the initial one leaves the military.
So in reality, it would cost probably 1/4th that since rifles and optics get cycled out after 15-20 years.
>>28702423
A Chinee Kongo Donger!
>>28704175
>land war in China
That's stupid and suicidal, we might as well blow our own nuts with a shotgun while we are at it.
>>28706186
>Russia
>feeling threatened by China
Both sides agree that the Sino-Soviet split was the worse thing ever. You really think the Russians are threatened by China
>>28703679
Well, China really wants the Sparty islands and Taiwan, something that America might have to object to.
That said, their economy is collapsing while local agriculture is massively pressured by pollution. It's sort of a tossup if they will go global superpower or if it's going to turn into Africa 2: Africa Harder.
>>28711553
>A rifle in the military
>Lasting 20 years
Ech, you could technically try and force one to last that long but you'd be spending far more then the replacement cost to keep it around. After being issued and returned a weapon is assessed to see if it's worth keeping. It's the mileage, not the years, that matter, so there isn't really a ballpark but if a rifle is issued to a grunt that is going to carry it all day and shoot the fuck out of it on the range or, god forbid, a fight, it's lucky to last three years.
>>28709557
Body armor adds another $1200 to $2000 on top of that, while a radio can add another $1000 and other equipment makes it a crapshoot to guess how much a given solider's equipment might cost.
Let's say they put J-20's into island carriers in the south China sea, can F-35 launched from carriers ever hope to compete?
That's a gamechanger.
>>28714298
Since the other anon did not specify I was assuming he meant what every soldier regardless of MOS receives. Not everyone gets a radio, NVGs etc.
