Theoretically: Chinese military VS Japanese military. Who would win?

jbi · Oct 15, 2012

Oozlefinch said:
Then by your definition, the Wright Flyer is still a functional aircraft, as is the Boeing Model 1.

Can a Wright flyer carry cruise missiles?

Oozlefinch said:
Because "Touch and Go" are not landings. The aircraft does not actually land, it simply touches the deck in passing.

Now when they make actual "landings", where the aircraft comes to a full stop, then they have actually accomplished the first major step in "Naval Aviation". They are not even to that step yet.

Yes they are

Touch-and-go landing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are not a "full stop" landing, but they are still considered a landing and I can testify as a private pilot myself I have to pay landing fee's every time I touch and go at my local airport.

jbi · Oct 15, 2012

Oozlefinch said:
And which H-6 is this? Can you even tell me?

FYI, that is the H-6H and H-6M. They are believed to have around 25 of them in service. However, they are still pretty limited as bombers. Each of these can carry 2 cruise missiles, and removed all defensive weapons in order to operate. With no defensive weapons, these things would be pretty big targets before they get within range.

And trust me, China would not be getting "air superiority" off of Japan. Period. Not gonna happen.

H-6k can carry 6 anti-ship/land attack cruise missiles with 500km and 250+km ranges respectively. What kind of defensive weapons would a bomber honestly carry? Short range machine guns are redundant and removed on all modern H-6's

Oozlefinch · Oct 15, 2012

jbi said:
This is a model of the Liaoning built in around 2008 on top of a naval technology academy in Wuhan

The Chinese have been training ground crews/ flying planes onto this fake carrier deck for 4 years now.

And once again, by your definition if I can play Asteroids, I can then help save the world from armageddon.

And yea, that training center is not news at all. And trust me, nobody has evern flown a plane off of, nor have they ever landed an airplane on that training mock-up.

I mean, look closely. It is the roof of a building!

That is mostly used by ground-crews so they can familiarize themselves with moving aircraft, helicopters, and other things around on the deck of a carrier. That is not used to actually train pilots to take off and land from! And while it is true that helicopter pilots could use it (maybe), since it does not move it provides them no benefits over landing anywhere else.

Concrete Aircraft Carrier Building Discovered In Wuhan – chinaSMACK

But please, find me some proof that they have actually launched aircraft from that roof! And show me how well the tailhook arrestor wire landings on that roof have gone.

Once again, you find some pictures, and then make up a whole bunch of nonsense. And I am sorry, I do not think based on propaganda and nonsense, I like to see hard facts. Not imaginary boogiemen.

Sorry, but this simply can't simulate the real thing. Once again you have drunk from the Chinese Propaganda Kool-Aid, and do not really understand what you are looking at. So once again, I guess by your definition, if I build a rocket ship into the roof of my house, I then am trained and capable of building and flying rocket ships.

Oozlefinch · Oct 15, 2012

jbi said:
Indeed, so can you provide me with some evidence that the H-6 is more compromised than another heavy bomber?

Yes, because the H-6 is not a "Heavy Bomber". It never was. It was from day 1 a "Strategic Bomber". While yes, some strategic bombers are also heavy bombers, not all are.

Oozlefinch · Oct 15, 2012

jbi said:
Can a Wright flyer carry cruise missiles?

Once again, the shifting definitions. You do not like something so you change the definition, then change it yet again.

So is that your definition of what is not an obsolete aircraft now, that it can carry a cruise missile? Well guess what, almost every aircraft ever built is suddenly obsolete!

And dude, I am glad for you. You have done touch and go's, so have I. Does that mean you think you are now capable at piloring an aircraft and landing it on a moving target that is barely wider then your wingspan?

Once again, it seems that to your definition, conducting this operation means that the carrier is operational. At least, that is the spin that China is putting out, and you seem to accept that as a fact. But guess what, this is not news, and some of these photos were previously released (you even posted them yourself!). So once again, nothing new, just a re-vomit of the same old stuff so that people think more progress has been made then it really has.

Oozlefinch · Oct 15, 2012

jbi said:
H-6k can carry 6 anti-ship/land attack cruise missiles with 500km and 250+km ranges respectively. What kind of defensive weapons would a bomber honestly carry? Short range machine guns are redundant and removed on all modern H-6's

Yes, they have a handfull of the H-6K, with more being built. Big whoop-de-doo. We have had that capability (and more) with the BUFF for decades.

And what kind of "defensive weapons" would I like to see? Well, how about flare and chafe dispernsers? Because those were part of the "Defensive Weapons" removed.

But do not be so sure of the obsolescence of the machine guns. Over Vietnam, B-52s shot down at least 3 MiG-21s in 1972. And even if the guns do not actually hit or bring down an attacking aircraft, it makes attacking it more dangerous and harder for any forces that try to lock on with it's own guns.

jbi · Oct 15, 2012

Oozlefinch said:
Yes, because the H-6 is not a "Heavy Bomber". It never was. It was from day 1 a "Strategic Bomber". While yes, some strategic bombers are also heavy bombers, not all are.

H-6 is indeed a heavy bomber

Heavy bomber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

jbi · Oct 15, 2012

Oozlefinch said:
Yes, they have a handfull of the H-6K, with more being built. Big whoop-de-doo. We have had that capability (and more) with the BUFF for decades.

And what kind of "defensive weapons" would I like to see? Well, how about flare and chafe dispernsers? Because those were part of the "Defensive Weapons" removed.

But do not be so sure of the obsolescence of the machine guns. Over Vietnam, B-52s shot down at least 3 MiG-21s in 1972. And even if the guns do not actually hit or bring down an attacking aircraft, it makes attacking it more dangerous and harder for any forces that try to lock on with it's own guns.

Chaff dispensers have not been removed... where did you pull that one from?

How many B1's have machine guns fitted?

jbi · Oct 15, 2012

Oozlefinch said:
Once again, the shifting definitions. You do not like something so you change the definition, then change it yet again.

So is that your definition of what is not an obsolete aircraft now, that it can carry a cruise missile? Well guess what, almost every aircraft ever built is suddenly obsolete!

And dude, I am glad for you. You have done touch and go's, so have I. Does that mean you think you are now capable at piloring an aircraft and landing it on a moving target that is barely wider then your wingspan?

You have still not told me why the H-6 is obsolete... just thrown a load of ad hominen nonsense my way.

A landing is still a landing... can' you admit you were wrong?

jbi · Oct 15, 2012

I tell a lie... H-6k is actually armed with 6 CJ-10 cruise missiles with a range of 2,000—2,200 km

CJ-10 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiggen · Oct 15, 2012

jbi said:
This is a model of the Liaoning built in around 2008 on top of a naval technology academy in Wuhan

The Chinese have been training ground crews/ flying planes onto this fake carrier deck for 4 years now.

Does the fake aircraft carrier move? Either forward or up and down?

Wiggen · Oct 15, 2012

jbi said:
Can a Wright flyer carry cruise missiles?

Yes they are

Touch-and-go landing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are not a "full stop" landing, but they are still considered a landing and I can testify as a private pilot myself I have to pay landing fee's every time I touch and go at my local airport.

Speaking as a guy who served on a helicopter carrier for three years, let me assure you that touch and go landings are not landings. And that was with helicopters. Jets are another universe entirely.

jbi · Oct 15, 2012

how did the J-15 get into the hangar?

it wasn't winched aboard

Oozlefinch · Oct 15, 2012

Wiggen said:
Speaking as a guy who served on a helicopter carrier for three years, let me assure you that touch and go landings are not landings. And that was with helicopters. Jets are another universe entirely.

I am pretty much giving up here. The China Fanboy has almost no connection with reality. He can't even respond to questions, just makes 6 new one or two sentence posts which really don't answer the questions.

I am still waiting for proof that they have been launching and landing fighters from the roof of the building for the last 4 years.

Oh, and that J-15 on the deck? It is simply a mock-up. It is not a real fighter, it was brought abord by crane.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=369

EagleAye · Oct 15, 2012

jbi said:
A landing is still a landing... can' you admit you were wrong?

Exactly how much good will a touch and go landing do for a Chinese pilot with not enough fuel left to reach land? China needs to learn ow to do REAL landings. Until they do, they don't have a carrier, just another cruiser.

apdst · Oct 15, 2012

Oozlefinch said:
Uhh, what? They sent over 1.3 million soldiers there. That is more then all of the other combatants (including UN forces, and North and South Korea) combined. The main reason they did not send more was political, since they wanted a "plausible deniability" that they were actually fighting in the war.

Plausible deniability? Where did you learn that? I would love to see that source, because China never made any attempt to hide the fact that they sent troops into Korea. Hell, the Soviets even provided air cover for the crossing of the Yalu River

Oh yes, because we all know atht he PATRIOT, F-15, F-15, and M-1 tanks have never been tested in combat.

And, how many M-1 Abrams MBT does the Japanese Defense Force have?

apdst · Oct 15, 2012

Oozlefinch said:
That is correct. And no matter what one person does in here, by posting pictures of either aircraft tails or mockups, and aircraft flying low over the deck try to imply, not a single fixed wing aircraft has landed on or taken off from this thing since China has owned it.

And trust me, if they had, China would have made 20 press releases over the fact and had 20 YouTube streams showing this feat! Because watch, when they do eventually decide to try doing it, the video will be almost instantly released to the world.

And I agree. But we are still talking about an aircraft that the Russians retired decades ago because it was functionally obsolete.

And yea, if they want to terrorize their own population or their smaller and weaker neighbors (which have few real air assets), it is a very functional aircraft. But for use against a nation with a modern Air Force, it is as obsolete as the B-29. But go ahead and continue with some snazzy pictures and sales brocure information.

Guess what, i can take and put composite materials on my 1968 Toyora Corona, put in a newer fuel injected engine, but it is still just a 1968 Corona when all is said and done.

Oh, and the M-60 was not just a "US copy of the MG-42". It was an entirely new design, that incorporated some concepts from both the MG-42 and the FG-42. It also pulled heavily from the US made M1941 Johnson machine gun. So when somebody tries to imply that it was just a copy of another gun, that is nowhere near factual information. The M-60 was a weapon that was in development for over 10 years, and combines concepts from a great many weapons. And of course some of the concepts are from German weapons. And also US weapons, even the French and British weapons that inspired others.

Do not confuse inspiration and copy. Otherwise you might as well say that the 2013 Ford F-350 is nothing but an updated Model T truck.

I don't know where you got you info, but it's not exactly accurate.

M60 GPMG - General Purpose Machine Gun - History, Specs and Pictures - Military, Security and Civilian Guns and Equipment

Oozlefinch · Oct 16, 2012

apdst said:
Plausible deniability? Where did you learn that? I would love to see that source, because China never made any attempt to hide the fact that they sent troops into Korea. Hell, the Soviets even provided air cover for the crossing of the Yalu River

Have you ever heard of the "People's Volunteer Army"?

"Officially", the "troops" that entered North Korea from China were not soldiers at all, they were volunteer forces (much like the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan). They were not connected to the PRC, nor the PLA.

Of course, this was only a technicality, but it was done in order to help prevent the UN from taking actions and sanctions against China. In addition, it was to help prevent the US from percieving itself as being at war against China.

But you want sources, there are tons of this. This is not exactly a secret you know.

People's Volunteer Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People's Volunteer Army - Maoist Wiki

ABC-CLIO SCHOOLS

Sorry, but I suggest that you learn more about this conflict, or actually check things yourself before simply saying I am wrong and demanding references. China never denied that individuals from China went to fight in the Korean War. What they denied is that it was the PLA that went into Korea. According to their official claims, they were all volunteers, and there was no official connection to the Chinese military.

And I guess they stole the tanks, artillery, and jets that they fought with as well.

apdst · Oct 16, 2012

Oozlefinch said:
Have you ever heard of the "People's Volunteer Army"?

"Officially", the "troops" that entered North Korea from China were not soldiers at all, they were volunteer forces (much like the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan). They were not connected to the PRC, nor the PLA.

Of course, this was only a technicality, but it was done in order to help prevent the UN from taking actions and s anctions against China. In addition, it was to help prevent the US from percieving itself as being at war against China.

But you want sources, there are tons of this. This is not exactly a secret you know.

People's Volunteer Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People's Volunteer Army - Maoist Wiki

ABC-CLIO SCHOOLS

Sorry, but I suggest that you learn more about this conflict, or actually check things yourself before simply saying I am wrong and demanding references. China never denied that individuals from China went to fight in the Korean War. What they denied is that it was the PLA that went into Korea. According to their official claims, they were all volunteers, and there was no official connection to the Chinese military.

And I guess they stole the tanks, artillery, and jets that they fought with as well.

I suggest you read your own source, because you seem to be misintepreting the information.

EagleAye · Oct 16, 2012

apdst said:
I suggest you read your own source, because you seem to be misintepreting the information.

From the first link:

the People's Volunteer Army was separately constituted in order to prevent an official war with the United States. The People’s Volunteer Army entered Korea on October 19, 1950, and completely withdrew by October 1958

This appears to validate what Oozlefinch is saying. What did you read that says different?

apdst · Oct 16, 2012

EagleAye said:
From the first link:

This appears to validate what Oozlefinch is saying. What did you read that says different?

There's nothing there that support OF's suggestion that China sent troops into Korea secretly, hoping for plausible deniability. When the chicoms crossed the Yalu river, it was no secret and everyone knew they were Chinese troops.

EagleAye · Oct 16, 2012

apdst said:
There's nothing there that support OF's suggestion that China sent troops into Korea secretly, hoping for plausible deniability. When the chicoms crossed the Yalu river, it was no secret and everyone knew they were Chinese troops.

Yes, everyone knew they were regular troops. But they were listed as "Volunteer" army, having no connection to the PLA (even though everyone knew they did). The "plausible deniability" comes in when China only sends 1.3 million. If they sent the whole PLA, they they could hardly claim it was a volunteer force. So to maintain "plausible deniability" of an all volunteer force, they sent a smaller force. It doesn't matter if the link doesn't use the term "plausible deniability." The gist of what he is saying matches the sources.

Oozlefinch · Oct 16, 2012

apdst said:
There's nothing there that support OF's suggestion that China sent troops into Korea secretly, hoping for plausible deniability. When the chicoms crossed the Yalu river, it was no secret and everyone knew they were Chinese troops.

I never said they were sent in secretly. I said that the army was not officially connected to the PLA or the Chinese Government, the claim was that it was a spontanious movement that formed and went to fight there on their own. That was the "Plausible Deniability" part.

obvious Child · Oct 17, 2012

apdst said:
Post for us, the offensive op-plans that Japan has in place. Whatcha wanna bet they have none? If those plans and doctrines don't exist, then no, they have no offensive capabilities.

I'm not part of the Japanese Defense Force military. Nor do I possess the hacking skills to get into their systems to post their plans. You have this notion that a country that spends billions of dollars a year on defense, trains with NATO but has absolutely no actual contingency plans for a war with China.

Is that intelligent? You tell me.

apdst · Oct 18, 2012

obvious Child said:
I'm not part of the Japanese Defense Force military. Nor do I possess the hacking skills to get into their systems to post their plans. You have this notion that a country that spends billions of dollars a year on defense, trains with NATO but has absolutely no actual contingency plans for a war with China.

Is that intelligent? You tell me.

According to Japan's constitution the miltary is forbidden from persueing offensive military campaigns, is the point I was making. I don't where you get that from. Try reading my posts vice putting words in my mouth.

Theoretically: Chinese military VS Japanese military. Who would win?

Equal Opportunity Hater