i'm trying to find out if the navy is testing a locking nut and bolt system from tinslok.com.my request is for investment purposes only.

Posted by: dennis at February 13, 2008 04:23 PM

Major threat any SEAL Ops alone & for aiding Pirates.
Cant US back engineer one of these Hoverships for Use???
If China can, why cant we?
Now imagine Cuba having these?
No Korea.
Major threat to amphib forces.
No More IwoJimas or Normandy style assults.

Posted by: stephen russell at December 31, 2007 06:59 PM

The US has the means and power to settle the Taiwan issue. If it favours China it will be considered loss of face. On the other hand helping Taiwan could lead to war which frankly is not in the basic interest of the Bush gang.But you never know.
If Bush were intent on preventing China ever challenging the US in the future,now is a good time for CSB(US agent) to declare independence and let China attack which would galavanise the US to act with its military superiority.
Howewer the US would have to pay a heavy price with at least tow carriers destroyed and possibly ten major US cities reduced to ashes if it were to undertake the surgical dismemberment of China.
Of course China would not tbe around to haunt the US.The price for US victory goes up each day because the Chinese will getting stronger day by day unless the US has a secret weapon that can destroy China with too heavy a price.
But as the saying goes you never know .

Posted by: James Lim She Weng at October 19, 2007 04:30 AM

BT lives in a dream world.

While I hope to hell I am wrong I really believe China WILL invade Taiwan and China WILL use military force to get the raw materials it needs from Sibera.

And the U.S. WILL be in a war in China within the next 20 years, if not within the next 5 to 10 years!

In my view, after China kicks the worlds tail in the next Olympic's, (like Hiter wanted to do when Germany hosted the Olympics) Taiwan can kiss it's freedom good by.

China attacks Taiwan and the odds are WWIV is under way.

(We are already in WWIII with the Moslem fanatics who intend to take over the entire world and install a Taliban form of government, only most people are too clueless to know it.)

Posted by: Neil C. Reinhardt at February 25, 2007 03:20 PM

Well im all for alternative weapon platform,I love those quirky Russian thangs! Mind you, everyone got apoint about China's copying quality, sur given enough time you can do it right, but the Chinese always seem to leave out the good bits, unlike the Russians stuff, which always have the good points. All well, if it has to take China to make my fatasy of a Armoured Assault Hovercraft Fighting Vehicle, then bring it on. I hope they spit on everyone, when they get going, next up should be the copying of the Ka-52 and the ekranoplanes Wing-In-Ground Effect transporters! GET IN THERE!

Posted by: Onizuka-GTO at October 23, 2006 12:15 PM

what would it take to sink one of these? an atgm seems to small.

Posted by: aaron at October 4, 2006 08:59 AM

There's an old saying from poker that applies here: "Money talks and bulls**t walks."

This is another indicator that the Chinese are serious about developing the ability to project combat power outside the mainland. These types of hovercraft are massive overkill for crossing rivers or even sizeable lakes. However, they would be very useful for amphibious operations against Taiwan, the Vietnamese coastline, the Spratly Islands, the Korean coastline, and perhaps even Japan or the Russian Far East coast.

Capabilities aren't the same thing as intentions. However, without the requisite capabilities, even the most hostile intentions will never be implemented. With the required capabilities, its just a matter of the Chinese leadership deciding to use them.

For those who say that the Chinese have purchased too few hovercraft to matter now: You are correct. Now. Real military power projection capabilities take many years to develop. The first step is always to buy/build the necessary equipment and field test prototype units using the equipment. The Chinese have taken the first step.

We'll find out over the next few years if the Chinese take the next steps to field substantial Army/Marine units built around the super hovercraft. If they do, it will be a strong indicator that we can expect "interesting times" in East Asia.

Posted by: James Jones at September 14, 2006 01:32 PM

I am not anti-China. I am anti-tyranny.

China is going to become the 1st or 2nd most powerful country on the planet no matter what we do. That is not in the least bit worrisome. Taiwan will probably eventually merge back into China no matter what happens.

But that does not mean that I oppose the US's full support of Taiwan. Quite the contrary.

The way Taiwan merges back into China is of the most importance. It must not be by conquest. If it is by conquest, it won't stop there. China is and has been formerly a major imperial power. A good portion of what we think of as China is actually an empire of conquered states. Think Tibet.

The problem with any country that suddenly increases in power goes through some sort of imperial phase. The US did it in the late 19th century, and for the same reason - extraordinary economic expansion and sudden emergence of real military power.

What's important about China is that there social advancement keeps pace with thier military and economic growth. If it does, China will sooner or latter be an important ally. If it doesn't, China will continue to be a dangerous restless place at best, and will be a dangerous enemy at worst. Right now there is alot of reason to think that the social and political growth is lagging the economic and military growth.

There is no way I would endorse the support of tyranny against a free country, no matter how convienent it may be. That way lies my own chains.

Posted by: celebrim at September 14, 2006 08:36 AM

China is not going to take over the world militarily. They are however on the move for resources. Could I call them free-market Communists? Think about Clyde Prestowitz’s “Three Billion New Capitalists.” Then we have Tom Freidman, but I can’t stand that guy, so no plug for him. :(

Read my other comments, Taiwan has to go if necessary to keep the peace between the US and China. I reject all historical arguments, because there are none. I've heard them all. An actual war, or cold war, or trade war between the US, China, and Japan would be the DUMBEST event in the history of the planet. The level of ignorance on China in DC is amazing. Thank goodness of Henry Paulson.

I think it is generational because I see people attempting to create a Cold War containment strategy for China. An attempt to isolate China will not work and will actually isolate the US.

China is going to be the most powerful nation is Asia regardless of what we do. If you are over the age of 40 then it is probably hard to accept the new paradigm. The distant future may not be the Americanization of the world like all the anti-globalists/multi-culturists fear, but “Chineseization” instead. Scary.

Islamic Jihadists are our enemy now, and for the next few decades. There are NO Chinese suicide bombers!

Posted by: BT at September 13, 2006 05:21 PM

Yeah BT it IS abig deal..fear of a rising china is a generational thing I guess, for those who do more than worry about israel, jews the second coming, etc etc..the chinese are modernizing their armed forces because they can and should
the key is to look at how..they have budgets and priorties too..it is obvious that they are thinking about the taiwan scenario..they have a buildup in airborne forces and equipment, sealift, airlift, planes that can operate from rough unprepared strips.
thye have hundreds of short range missiles on the coast pointing at taiwan..they are building i believe dozens of new subs a year..some ideally suited for littoral operaations..thye have a long range plan, which taiwan and the US figure in to, as well as korea japan..
Denial of the seas, control of sea lanes, chokepoints to prevent our resupply either of korea japan..subs off guam..mrbms to hit guam pearl,etc..
They are like our military they gotta wargame something..and taiwan is most likely scenario..
they are securing fueling rights and increasing aid programs all thru micronesia, marshalls etc.
they ultimately want to bust out the taiwan straits, and become more bluewater..primarliy i believe to control key terrain to affect mvtment of us forces to taiwan,japan..
hey all power to them and us for preventing them
ahh chaps the great game begins again..tallyho

Posted by: browch at September 13, 2006 03:27 PM

I don't want to get off the subject, but sacrificing Israel for the greater good has crossed my mind. Nevertheless, Arabs will still be pissed off and dangerous and will try to kill Americans. That makes them my enemy, not China. Therefore anyone who wants to help us kill Arabs is an ally worthy of keeping, for now. Now let’s talk about the French. :)

China buying a few LCAC’s is not a big deal. I guess it would be better than the “million man swim”. Politicians should lose their outdated ideology and develop a global and temporal perspective, and then they will make pertinent decisions. DHS/TSA, need I say more.

I think the fear of a rising China is generational thing.

Posted by: BT at September 13, 2006 01:08 PM

"Moose, Robot.Economist said "hundreds or thousands", not "hundreds of thousands"."
Humble apologies. Small screen + 20-500 vision, I should have paid more attention.

Posted by: Moose at September 13, 2006 11:55 AM

"Its kind of sad when the PLAN has to duplicate a 20-year old foreign weapons platform because development at home went so poorly.

I don't see how this is news though. It would take hundreds or thousands of landing craft to move an invasion force to Taiwan. When you get into numbers like that, does the type of craft really matter?"

Damn your black soul for bringing insight and perspective to the discussion. I was getting all revved up for some by-the-numbers wailing about Munich and Chamberlain and, maybe best of all, Operation Sea Lion -- EAST. Oh, wait, C-Low's meeting quota....

Posted by: sglover at September 13, 2006 11:21 AM

BT

You don’t throw away your friends just because they are not as strong by themselves against your enemies. Taiwan is a democratic Ally that has bleed with our forces in both Korea, Vietnam. China is not Democratic it is Socialist at best and most definitely not an ally and has outright fought our forces on multiple fronts.

You don’t sit back and watch your friends be killed just because you don’t want to fight. What goes around comes around and tomorrow that may be you on the chopping block.

And of course once China realizes we no longer have the heart to stand with our friends what do you think will happen to Japan, S Korea, Australia, Thialand, Philipines? Why would those nations bother being our allies after we no longer hold our end of that alliance?

Posted by: C-Low at September 13, 2006 09:17 AM

Moose, Robot.Economist said "hundreds or thousands", not "hundreds of thousands".

Posted by: mr.x at September 13, 2006 09:13 AM

One thing we're all missing here is that these Zubrs are very different from the American LCACs. The American LCACs are supposed to be a bridge, a transportation link between the ships and the beach. They are short-ranged affairs to fit inside the dry dock of a ship.

The Soviets designed their hovercrafts differently. My understanding is that their hovercrafts are designed for independent operations. That's why they are so big and bristling with weapons. They need to survive the trip across the Baltic sea to open up the Northern Front of World War III.

If the PLA were to manufacture Zubr-esque hovercrafts, then it portends a significant shift in their amphibious doctrine. Right now, it is probably an experiment, to wargame the Zubrs against other amphib tactics.

Posted by: Jimmy Wu at September 13, 2006 03:54 AM

BT,

Clearly, economic interest is not be all, end all as far as US foreign policy goes. If that was a case, why in the world would we support Israel, at great cost, agaist the Arab nations in the region? There are 6 milion or so Israelies that GET billions of dollars from us. There are over 100 million Arabs who control the vast majority of the much-needed oil. From the population and economic standpoint, we should have "sacrificed" Israel long time ago.

Posted by: Siconik at September 13, 2006 03:20 AM

C-Low,

I don't make blanket statements. In this particular instance, a sacrifice is needed. Giving this small rogue republic the ability to start a war between the US and China is absurd, short-sighted and is dangerous to human race. Taiwan is going to merge back to the mainland anyway. Think about Hong Kong.

In my opinion economics is the pathway to positive change, not isolation. Democracy is not that important to most people in the developing world, but economics is.

I present my perspective in order to illicit a response from the anti-China crowd and their Cold War communist paranoia. People really need to visit; China is less Communist than say, San Francisco. LOL!

I love the China topics, because it splits the Republicans and Democratic constituents into pro vs. anti-China groups. It’s non-partisan.

Posted by: BT at September 12, 2006 03:00 PM

BT

"Peace at any cost" nice.

So I guess by that scale we can pretty much justify sacrificing most of our Democratic allies in Asia. Japan, S Korea, Philippines, hell then maybe when China actually achieves their sought after polarity with our forces we can give some real sacrifices like Australia followed immediately by the EU using your brilliant scale to sacrifice US/Guam, Wake, Hawaii, Aleutians.

Why not if it buys a couple more years of peace before the next sacrifice is due it’s all worth it right?

Posted by: C-Low at September 12, 2006 02:10 PM

"Hundreds of thousands" of landing craft? Well considering the Allies invaded Normandy with "only" 326,000 MEN i guess maybe its possible for one major power to make an amphibious invasion of another with jsut slightly less...62 years ago. Or did they each have their own boat?

So, China's till well short of the 4,100 allied boats from D-Day. But the 400+ "landing craft" the P.L.A.N. DOES have does bear some consideration. Combined with requisitioned civilian ships, and PLA craft, it's a sizable Force. So making the argument that we shouldn't consider a Sino war becuase the Mainland "Can't" invade Taiwan (or other disputed terriotory like the Spratlys) strikes me as particuarly insane. Its highly, HIGHLY unlikely, but it could happen and planning for such an occasion is far rfom beyond the pall.

The hovercraft buy is not itself a threat, but it does highlight the PLAN's inention to modernize from a Normandy-Style human wave invasion force to a more modern Mechanized force, which could potentially overwhelm a small, densley populated island like Taiwan. Which means maintaining a valid defense of Taiwan requires us to adjust our plans and capabilites accordingly.

As for the dumb comment on how well China copies Russian weapons: maybe we should ask some of the US and NATO soldiers killed in Afganistan by AKs origionally produced in China how well they were made? Or maybe that whole think about China replicating Russian ICBM and Exploration technology to put Yang Liwei into orbit was a sham? Given enough time and money even you could replicate a Russian Weapon.

Posted by: Moose at September 12, 2006 02:01 PM

It is another pro vs. anti China discussion.

Why every time China buys a military system, people assume China is going to invade Taiwan tomorrow? They are not. LCAC’s are useful in a variety of missions; as the US demonstrates over and over gain. Every country should buy a few. The "big war" crowd is always getting their panties in wad over China.

My controversial big picture view is the US Government's position is irrational. Taiwan has a population of 22 million and 346 billion GDP. China's population is 1.3 billion and nominal GDP of 2.2 trillion. The US population is 285 million, nominal GDP of 12.5 trillion. Which country should the US place precedence over?

If the crap did hit the fan, then I think it its logical that a certain country should be sacrificed for the greater good of the world’s economic system. I wonder who it would be.

I think there is a famous Vulcan phrase (Star Trek III) that applies to this situation. 

Posted by: BT at September 12, 2006 12:58 PM

Good Morning Folks,

Once again I can find no fault in the Robot Economists argurments. All that I can add is that if history is an indicatorof China's intent it is to try and reverse engineer the LCAT's the result as usual, well all of us have seen how well they can do in copying Russian weapons, not very.

Congress is about to tackle the budget for 2006/2007 and with 9/11 still fresh, well a China story is due, I guess this is just another reason why we need the F-22.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at September 12, 2006 12:45 PM

Its kind of sad when the PLAN has to duplicate a 20-year old foreign weapons platform because development at home went so poorly.

I don't see how this is news though. It would take hundreds or thousands of landing craft to move an invasion force to Taiwan. When you get into numbers like that, does the type of craft really matter?

Can't argue with their interest though, sealift hovercrafts are pretty sweet. I'd say it is money well spent.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at September 12, 2006 12:37 PM