And I am sure you know about the military capacity of the “erstwhile” USSR?
Military is not all.Its a part of the equation.The US and west will win.Whether anybody likes it or not.

And when has West and USSR fougth against each other:rolleyes:
West doesen’t win this one, we are (unfortuanetly) past, china is future, you’ve miss your stop if keep such dreams….

…And the kids that I have banned from SDF should see me now:diablo:

PLANs modernisation is progressing, but yet we haven’t got any evidence that its coastal defence doctrines would have been under major reconstruction. Why?
PLAN doesent yet posess blue water fleet it needs to build up a sea controll even to its direct offshore elements. Its currently creating one, but that work has just begun and thus PLAN cannot simply scrap its current strategies before it reaches strength and presence sufficent to make one obsolete. Now, PLANs organisation echelon where it operates is stiff and unpractical, but yet well forged and deeply introduced into the ranks. You dont change those in over nigth. It takes generation to reform it, as it takes generation to move the PLANs presence into open seas. So therefore its natural that PLAN doesent go on for building coastal defence assets with modern western approach but simply takes out the best of its current infastructure and creates a craft that works best in it.

Type022 is classic in that sense, best possible platform for ground led army style organised organic coastal defence force of large air, ground and sea elements. Its like WWII era ultimate MTB, all what every captain of such organistion would want in its hands.
If PLAN would have changed its doctrine in coastal defences and begun reorganising it, we would have seen vessel more akin to the abortive Houjain desing mass produced.

No one shouldn’t try to see Type022 out of its contest. It is Fast attack craft, with emphasis on the words fast and craft. Its twin hulled to make it stable missile platform in high-speeds, and its sthealth as that is cheapest way to give it passive defences against air and missile threads, as the crafts are mented to operate in co-operation with other elements of the massive PLAN coastal defence force.
It has limited sensor suite and side armament, becouse its single purpose use. If it would have been mented for Taiwan, it would need to have capacities needed to operate in open seas: Stores and endurance. Type022 lacks them both. Its catamaran desing sacrifies lot for speed and handling.
It has limited bellow water space to carry effective stores for long patrols, and there isent simply enough volume or usable top weigth to store them in elsewhere. It has crew of 9 mens which doesent allow shift-sharing also needed on long patrols and Most notably, it doesent have sufficent armaments to survive against air and submarine thread.

These ships are far more flexible and dangerous then the glorified coast guard partol boats you seem to think they are.

That is almoust an insult;)
Type022 are very nice boats (thougth word flexibility has nothing to do with it) and I like them alot, simply becouse they are so pure as coastal defence platforms, which as a naval branch is closest to my heart.
You seem to have the same sort of approach to naval matters than many other westener, from big blue water navy stand point, but for PLAN that is completely wrong one. Quarter of century and all what PLAN needs in coastal waters is coast guard, but claiming coastal defence forces, with their mines and their FACs a coast guard is simply dump.

I suggest that you take futher reading on PLAN and expecially about Soviet VMF to which PLAN pays inheritage in its coastal defence orientation

As for Taiwan, All that matters is the how will the Taiwanese figth back. PLAN doesen’t have sufficent Amphibious forces, nor PLAAF close support, nor there is sufficent PLAN marines to operate in modern combat enverioment if ROCA put up an credible resistance.
And if we go to the root of this type of warfare and strip it down from PLAN and ROCA and focus on the scenario of army of nation A trying to invade nation B and there is no land between them. The A army has to put its amhpibious force against the whole army B and withstand the artillery elements of the B army without change of retreat nor reliefing supplies and reinforcements. The army A cannot use its own artillery nor has its support units with it. It is completely under the mercy of indirect fire-support from completely seperate branches.
The changes of succeed in such operation are all centered into the guestion of indirect fire and logistics. Now you can take look of PLA and ROCAs capacities and think of your own, how well do they perform.

IMHO as long as ROCA has meaningfull artillery, PLA is doomed in its efforts. (And this has nothing to do with my own branch-pride:D 😀 😀 )

Whilst im not saying Guantanamo bay is a nice place you know as well as do that camp x-ray and water torture are a pathetic comparison to human rights abuse in China, now maybe your just unfamilier with Chinese human rights and I simply dosn’t have the space or time available to go into detail here about it but do a bit of research on it – theres a wealth of info on the web about the subject, you will find a shocking picture one that water boarding and Guantanamo bay pale in comparison too.
Really when you play the moral equivilence game like that it only serves to display a huge lack of knowlege, i’m sorry if thats blunt and verging on rude but thats the way it is. If you’d like me to link some examples of appaling human rights abuses i will.

Ok, hit me with numbers there;) Im not saying that Guantanamo Bay presents US or west most proper way, But its foolish to think that PRC is all about HR reccord.
PRC has its faults yeas, but so does the west and when claiming of “morale superiority” You simply cannot make violations of your own as you at same breathtake bash others from it.
So Im eager to hear why you think US can torture and brake human rigths, as well as Why US is allowed resist all attempts to create common UN led War-crime tribunal, but PRC cannot?
Is west more equal than china?;)

we had our test and we survived… That what I mean that if you dont have capacity to defend yourself, you loose your rigth to be free. My army is as good where it stays;) Finnish hegemony will never come we are too small for it, so there isen’t any need to join others wars.

Use of morale values of individuals in nation wide scale isent proper, things doesent work that way, never has and never will. You have to keep your focus on what really goes on, not hang yourself into what in your obinion is rigth or wrong.
History has always worked so and I bet it will keep doing it in the future. If you are small and out numbered, then black and white thinking is luxury that you simply cannot afford.

Im Not saying that I like that Tibet is crushed, emotionally thats wrong, but emotions have no place in the world politics. As a weapon dealer you should understand it

Jesus H Tapdancin Christ. I boast because my country hasn’t the nerve to do the job properly. I have to be a sociological chauvinist because weapon sales makes me money. So long as they’re used on regimes I don’t like, it doesn’t matter to me who fires them off. And, I certainly DO have a moral superiority over such places, that’s easy, being a Westerner. However, there will always be objections to weapons being used, no matter how low down the scale the regime being eradicated is. It’s your right to object, it’s my right to wish to launch the attack. People in China DARE NOT say such things. Even the boy from Tiananmen Square (1989) was found 3 hours later, dead.

Well bravery of beeing out of range;) If your nation calls you up to go and beat the crap out of china, would you join the ranks?

As for the Tibet, The fate of any nation lays in the nations own need and urge to pursuit it. If Tibetians don’t want to figth for their rigth to be free or cannot do it, then the history shall doom them to extinct. Its only morale that we can effectively place upon international politics when speaking of nation wide levells. Mengeling of others into the situation would do no good to Tibetians, but only raises them as a pawn for hegemonical clash.

Im not denying that LCAC wouldn’t be usefull in wide range of operations, but people shouldn’t forget that even in normal “classical” war-scennario amphibious operations, LCAC/LPD combination offers unquestionable advantages. China has big coastline and offshore commitments, so every possible all-out war scenario brings situations where landing operations takes place.

Also, take notice that single LCAC and expecially single LPD dont make up a fleet ready to be used in distant invertion operations, not during the current hegemonical generation is on power. I wont go on speculating wheter that current regime has ambitions for operations that you mentioned, But that I can say, that PLAN is not yet capaple of execute them. First it needs to reform itself from organistational level, if it wants to function outside the army led coastal defence echelon, not to mention form troops capaple of exploiting the new amphibious concept that the LCAC /LPD presents.

**cough*Guantanamo bay***water-torture**…krhmm….
:diablo: