RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Archive

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-21-2010, 08:38 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,358
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default Additional weapons for the PRC

Matt Wiser 01-20-2004, 07:01 PM One thing we've been forgetting is the various missiles, LGBs, etc. that the PRC will be buying for their aircraft, as well as SAMs, ATGMs, Anti-ship missiles, etc. As an example, the PRC Navy still has 1950's vintage Romeo-class subs and there is an American yard that refitted similar subs operated by the Egyptian Navy. (New sonar,more efficient batteries, Mk-37 torpedoes, Harpoon SSMs fired from TTs, new radar and electronics, etc.) I don't think the AMRAAM is going to be sold, but AIM-7M and -7R, Sidewinder Ls (all-aspect heat seekers), AGM-65 Mavericks, AGM-62 Walleye glide bombs (TV-guided), AGM-84 Harpoons for antiship,etc., along with AGM-45 Shrikes for anti-radar work.

The French will sell the Magic and MICA AAMs, while Israel will sell the Python-3 and -4 heat-seekers, and the Derby (AMRAAM-class) radar-guided weapons, plus the Gabriel anti-ship missile (whch Taiwan license-builds and would be another source)

TOW and Hellfire (for AH-1Ws) from the U.S, along with Stinger (which the PRC buids an unliscensed copy as the QW-1). Heavy SAMs would be I-HAWK (replaced in U.S. Army service by Patriot); again, I don't think the Patriot would be allowed for PRC purchase.

A-4s and A-7s are Maverick, Walleye, and Shrike capable.

For LGB use, Pave Spike, Pave Knife, or Pave Tack pods to designate targets would also go.

AV-8A/C at AMARC is a likely additional aircraft for the PRC, along with the older British Harriers displaced by the GR.7, which is the UK version of AV-8B.

Webstral, have you decided on what aircraft, armor, etc., the PRC does purchase?


Jason Weiser 01-20-2004, 09:20 PM Hmm,

There are also some other options. I don't see Javelin being sold to the PRC. But, the fact is, there are MOUNTAINS of Dragons sitting in warehouses, along with early model TOWs. I could see us selling early model Stingers as well. Along with mountains of M16A1 and M60 as the A2 and 240 production gets accelerated to reequip the Army and Marines for war (I don't buy the AR-18 being the weapon of choice, damn thing is a piece of JUNK!). As for tanks, definately some M60s, I dunno about M1s, perhaps early models or something similar to the Egyptian/Saudi "export" models. As for APC, tons of 113s? Perhaps the M115 was a Chinese request for a 113 with more "oomph"!

As for the Brits, plenty of Blowpipe, SLRs, and Milan.Perhaps even some Chieftains and FV432? Hey, they might even sell the Hawk dual-role Jet trainers? And how about Chinese pilots and ground pounders training in Canada as well?

The French; Anything and everything, especially Exocet for the PLAF (which will make life interesting for the Soviet Navy inshore). I also see a lot of AMX-30 and AMX-10P sales, perhaps some of the Eland and other French Armored Car series (Heh, there's a shock, when the Soviets meet their first AMX-10RC with Chinese crews) Eryx would be very popular with the Chinese.

Israel and others: Just about anything you could think of, heck, I'll be willing to bet the Israelis sell the Chinese improved RPGs (They have some nice RPG-7) upgrade packages.


Matt Wiser 01-21-2004, 01:17 AM The M-1A1s sold to Egypt, Saudi and Kuwait are the same as those for the U.S. Army and Marines, the Egyptians build from kits, but the Saudi and Kuwaiti tanks were new builds at the Lima OH plant.

ATGMs: Plenty of Dragons and early TOWs, assuming they still work after years on the shelf. TOW-2 almost certainly. Milans from the Euromissile consortium as well. Israel's MANPATS (a laser-guided version of TOW) is also likely.

UK selling the Hawk 200 single-set attack version is also likely; Chieftain maybe, but the PRC might want Challengers.

The C-801 ASM produced for the PLAAF and PLA-NAF is a reverse-engineered Exocet. It was offered to the Iranian AF in 1992, but after tests from an Iranian AF Su-24 it was summarily rejected. (poor quality control, improper fuzing among other reasons) C-802 is much better, according to ACIG.org.

China does build SA-6 missiles for Egypt after the Egyptians were cut off from Soviet resupply; the HQ-61 naval SAM is based on the SA-6.

The PRC does produce a 5.56mm assault rifle, does anyone know the designation for the weapon? It's a bullpup similar in style to the FA-MAS. Occasionally when you see Chinese troops on parade in Beijing they're seen on the news with the weapon.


Louie 01-21-2004, 02:00 AM Ok, I do agree with you guys (Matt & Jason) about the West pouring equipment into China but what about the logistics !!!!

I see the U.S. being the main supplier to China with Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea as the main players also. As for the French, they'll sell anything to anybody but maybe the French equipment (at least army vehicles) is going to Chinese armies facing Vietnam or India. I just don't see the mixing up of U.S. M-60's and AMX-30's on the same front. The strain on the already primitive PLA logistics system would be enormous plus the U.S. is going to be putting much more equipment into Chinese hands because of the distances (we share the same ocean) and our greater industrial potential.

As for the Brits aircraft yes and munitions yes but vehicles no. The Brits I believe would be either selling their Chieftains to Iran and Jordan or using them to equip expanded Territorial Army units (the Territorial Army tripled itself in WW I & doubled itself in WW II before the war started, I see no reason that this doesn't happen again) to at least get them up to speed on modern MBT's or both. The same goes for other armoured vehicles, however the private venture tanks like the Valiant might be offered (though again I believe they would go to the Middle East. (how about the U.S. and U.K. come to an agrement, U.S. handles the Far East and the U.K. the Middle East !?!?)


James1978 01-21-2004, 05:04 PM I'm thinking a little more low-tech. Just selling the Chinese trucks and HUMMVs/Land Rovers would allow them to increase the mobility of their leg infantry as well as inprove their logistics system.


James1978 01-21-2004, 05:08 PM Buying from Europe and the US is all fine and good, but how quickly could production be increased. Sure the US can increase production of land equipment easily enough, but what about everyone else? Just how fast can France increase LeClerc and AMX-10RC production and what kind of numbers are we talking about? Same for Mirage 2000s and Hawks.


Matt Wiser 01-21-2004, 05:54 PM The M-1 series plants usually work at about 30 tanks a month, with surge production of up to 150 a month. F-15 production takes normally a year for a single plane,but can be cut down to three months in extremis. Ditto for other aircraft, armor, etc. And in the case of the F-16, there are two overseas lines: one in Turkey for the Turkish AF and some of Egypt's F-16s, and another in ROK by Samsung Aerospace: everything but the engine and radar is built in the ROK. If the Japanese agree to covert supply of F-15s from the Mitsubushi line in Japan, there is another source for C and D Eagles, but the E is only produced in St. Louis.

Just about everything the PRC buys is going to be on the front lines in Manchuria: that's where they are needed. Not much need for heavy armor on the Indian or Vietnamese borders.


shrike6 01-21-2004, 06:26 PM I tend to agree with Louie and Jason on this. Would we really be sending M1A1s to the Chinese? Someone who could very easily turn our equipment against us, if the war should suddenly come to a halt, which we wouldn't know at that time. Let alone that but crews would have to be (re)trained to use the tanks effectively, which takes time. Also the M1A1 uses a 120mm Smoothbore round, a tank round that the PLA doesn't already have in there inventory. They'd have to buy a whole bunch of new ammo for the M1A1s. Seems like a waste to me when they could be buying tanks that are similar to what they already use and have guns that use the same ammo as is already in their inventory from a third party, M-84s from Yugoslavia or surplus T-54,-55 and -62s from the Israelis or Egyptians come to mind. I could see the US sending surplus M48s and M60s at least some of the PLA tanks use the 105mm Rifle cannon.


Matt Wiser 01-21-2004, 08:29 PM Regarding the M-1A1 to the PRC: The West Germans would no doubt be glad to sell the Leopard II to the PRC; French the LeClerc, Israel the Merkava III. All have the NATO-standard 120. If we don't sell the M-1A1, someone else will sell their respective products. And one can bet that the various congressional delegations where the tanks are assembled and subcontractors as well, would lobby hard for DOD/State approval of an M-1A1 sale. Older M-1s, M-60s, and M-48A5s would go first, but the M-1A1 would go in time, but once the U.S. gets in the war, any stuff for the PRC gets requesitioned off the assembly line or the factory storage lot. A new coat of paint, and the PRC armor goes to Europe as U.S. Army attrition replacements.

While the PRC uses the 125 and 105, the factories that produce that stuff have either been captured, destroyed/damaged in air and missile attack, or relocating and are thus OOP. The PRC will have to take 120mm and 105 mm rounds for their armor. Existing T-59s and T-69s with 100 will be upgunned to 105. And ammo for that is readily available; but they would want the first-shot kill capability that the 120 offers at 4000 meters: and I'm not taking on T-80s or T-90s with anything less than a 120. Advanced ammo like STAFF may or may not be offered: but I could see the Army wanting some PRC tankers to give that round a combat trial. Baseline M-1A1s would be offered, which is what the Egyptians, Saudis, and Kuwaitis have. They don't have the HA version with DU armor layers included with the Chobham armor.


shrike6 01-21-2004, 09:10 PM I still don't buy us selling any version of the M1 to the Chinese. Let's face it in this alternate universe, if the Soviets are public enemy #1 then Red China is diffenently public enemy #2. Why would we want the Chinese to win the war. I personally would want this war to drag out for as long as possible to a stalemate with no clear winner. There's something real appealling to me about watching my 2 biggest rivals beating the hell out of each other. You keep on bringing up that the Egyptians, Saudis and Kuwaiti have M1A1s, but do you know what the biggest difference is between those three countries and China is? Do you? As hard as this maybe to believe we actually consider those three countries our allies, I don't think we necessarily see China in that light at that time. As for the Israelis, if we told them not to sell the Merkava III to the Chinese I don't think they would. The Israelis know who holds the purse strings, think PHALCON. As for the West Germans, I'd think that they wouldn't want to bring attention to themselves, something to do with some rumored secret meetings with their East German counterparts or something. Although if they did I see Leopard 1s going first. As for the French, what can you say about them, the French are the French. Maybe they would sell LeClerc maybe they wouldn't. Personally I'd sell the AMX30s first but that's me.


Matt Wiser 01-22-2004, 12:46 AM The sentiment "my enemy's enemy is my friend" goes a long way to put aside old scores and slights (real or imagined). I would guess that those U.S. companies with holdings in China would be lobbying hard for military sales to the PRC-to keep their holdings out of Soviet or Soviet-sympathetic hands, and that while memories of Tianamen would still be lingering, memories of Danilov crushing the East Europeans would be stronger, as it was in the T2K universe, more bloody. Add to that the desire of the West Germans to find a way to stick it to the Soviets-and selling Leopards, Milan ATGMs, Kormoran Anti-ship missiles, would be a good way to start. Another factor is the U.S. (and Western) Trade Deficit with the PRC. Some $200 Billion in weapons sales from the West would go a long way to rectify that, not to mention a PRC promise to increase foreign investment post-war for reconstruction (obviously no one's thinking nukes at this stage).

Regarding the Merkava: While Detroit Diesel sold the engines to the Israelis, the gun was bought from West Germany, and the fire control and everything else was designed and built in Israel.

Israel sells to whoever'll pay, and unless the U.S. squawks very loudly, the sale goes thru: hence the 105 tank gun, Python series AAMs, Lavi technology (used on the J-10 fighter program), etc.

And M-1A1s to the PRC would not be a security risk: any possible war scenario with China would not involve the U.S. repeating the Soviets and invading the PRC. Even if they order the tanks, and I'm sure they will (as Webstral has indicated previously that they do order the M-1 and M-1A1) the chances are that their full order is not going to be filled come Dec of '96. And after July of '97 the issue becomes moot anyhow.


shrike6 01-22-2004, 11:38 AM Interesting and you may have a point but this is all assuming that Economic Globalization happens in this timeline as it has happened IRL, which may or may not be the case in this particularly in this timeline. How invested in China were US companies in 1995 in IRL? Would US companies invest in China on the scale as IRL with the Soviet bloc still looming large? How would events leading up to the Sino-Soviet War affect US investment in China?


Matt Wiser 01-22-2004, 12:46 PM The level of U.S. investment in China may have grown a bit smaller than it is in IRL, but the PRC government would have continued the transition to a market economy, but I'm guessing here as to globolization's extent, I'm a history major, not econ.

Clinton would have championed such policies in the T2K world, but they would not have gone as far as they did IRL.

Events leading up to the war and its outbreak: simple. Companies would have evacuated their Western employees and families, and the same thing for Embassy staff and tourists-get the latter out of Dodge ASAP and draw the Embassy staff down to essential personnel only and get the nonessential staff and dependents out. Oh, and remind the Soviets of their obligations under international law regarding third-country nationals caught up in the war zone; if any Americans or other Western and Japanese nationals are in areas under Soviet control, they should be handed over to their respective Moscow Embassy forthwith, or there could be some diplomatic...consequences. Given Ivan's desire to paint themselves as the infringed party, I don't think Danilov would allow the KGB or GRU to talk to such people. Besides, taking care of foreigners caught in the war zone looks good propaganda wise-something Saddam back in '90 forgot or didn't care about.


Jason Weiser 01-23-2004, 05:04 AM True,

Ok, one thing, Israeli aid to China would be huge, as the Israelis have a huge arms market there, and it would be twofold, one it keeps the Soviets too busy to rile up the Arabs or sell them more weapons. Second, it would allow Israel to make a BUNDLE. Heck, maybe they'd reopen the Kfir line?

I think we've probably covered our aid, and we'd be also fronting some generous loans so China could buy more weapons and if we didn't, our banks would. They'd become the new "third world devlopment loan" of the T2K universe.

About the embassies, one, I think we'd have evaced non-essential folks the minute we thought it was going to hit the fan. Though, the DoS tends to have a lousy track record of judging that moment. I also think that the Soviets are going to be wary of any westerner they come across, seeing them as either Western media, intelligence, or both. Also, accidents will happen, and I could see a western embassy or two getting hit by an "accidental" bomb or missile strike that would be reminicent of what we did to the Chinese embassy in RL. A sort of gentle reminder that one should "rethink their support of this bandit regime, the Soviet Air Force can't gaurentee your nationals safety". I could see the Sauronskites pulling this behind Danilov's back.

One other comment, if we go by the usual Soviet soldier and his record of behavior (Berlin 1945, Hungary 1956, Czechloslovkia 1968 and Afghanistan 1980) then we can probably expect the elite guys to behave alright, but the average motor rifleman? If I were a western national, and worse yet, a pretty female? I'd worry.


Matt Wiser 01-23-2004, 01:13 PM You might be right on an "accidental" strike on a Western Embassy or consulate. As for foreign nationals caught up in the war zone: remember, Danilov's KGB. All he has to do is issue an order that all foreign nationals be placed in the care of the KGB and passed up the line to Moscow so that they can be handed over to their respective embassies in Moscow or the Red Cross. Remember, the Soviet line is that they are the aggreived party, and mistreatment of folks who have nothing to do with the Sino-Soviet War doesn't make good propaganda sense. Even the Whermacht had orders with what to do with neutrals they encountered; treat them well, and put them on a train for Berlin and give them to the respective embassy. Danilov wants to counter the PRC's atrocity claims (and rest assured, there'll be plenty of those) with images and interviews with third-country nationals saying the Soviet Army was generous in their care and handling. Directives on how to handle foreigners would have been sent down the chain of command, and not just the military; Political Officers would certainly know, and any conduct counter to those directives, given Soviet military justice, violating them earns a ticket to a penal battalion if you're lucky, or a trip to a Gulag if you're not...And that's not just about this matter: Soviet battlefield justice in WW II was often swift, but not always sure. At Stalingrad, Ivan executed 13,500 of his own men for various battlefield offenses (real or imagined), and more went to the gulag.


ReHerakhte 01-23-2004, 09:52 PM A website that's worth having a look at regarding Chinese military forces can be found at http://www.sinodefence.com/

Although focusing on a lot of current gear and force structure, I'd say that the Chinese spent a lot of time building up to this level and therefore could likely have some of the more modern equipment shown, ready for production or very close to.

Something not mentioned in this discussion is the attitude of the Chinese people. I think they would offer as much assistance as they are capable of to their military regardless of the politics involved, I've seen a few TV programmes about military service in China and one big thing for the military is civil works and disaster relief. The Army is often employed as a source of labour for anything from road building to harvesting crops. The biggest thing to stand out however was the number of Chinese civilians arguing with Chinese soldiers over letting the civilians share some of the burden.

In one show, the army had been called out to build dykes and rebuild flood walls to prevent one town being flooded. The soldiers worked literally day and night and all the while, civilians were bringing them food and drink and giving them blessings and thanking them for saving their town. At one point, the soldiers had been working non-stop and many civvies were getting into arguements with the soldiers because the soldiers kept working and the civvies thought they should allow the civvies to assist and share the task. Both sides were proud and would not budge, the soldiers insisting that they were there to serve the public interest and the civvies insisting that they had already done enough and aquitted themselves with much honour but that they must take some time to rest and it would be a great honour for the civvies to assist the army in saving the town.

Another aspect shown up in the programme was the willingness of high command to sacrifice equipment to accomplish the task. One roadway was being gradually eroded and the only way to shore it up was to dump tonnes of rubble, rock and sand into the water, however as fast as they dumped the material, the flood would wash it away and the local resources began to run dry. High command ordered that the older series of transport trucks be dumped into the path of the floodwaters still carrying their loads of rubble. The TV programme showed them pushing about three trucks over the side of a dyke but the impression was that a few more were sacrificed in such a manner. In the end, they stopped the floodwaters from destroying the town.

China's logistics might be primitive in comparison to the West but given the willingness of the ordinary civilian to share the soldier's burden, I would argue that what the Chinese lack in modern transport would be practically made up for with manpacking by civilians.




Webstral 01-26-2004, 02:31 AM I can see us selling an export version of the M1 to the PLA for a couple of reasons. The first is that Congress will want the sales for US arms manufacturers once the French offer up the LeClerc. The lure of money is strong counterbalance to good sense. The reason not to sell the M1 is that it's giving the enemy our best weapons. This is good thinking, but how on-target is it?

We should remember that some of the most important things about the M1 can be taken out (or not installed). The electronics package can be re-designed to an export-acceptable level. The same can be said about the armor package. The Chinese probably won't want the turbine power plant. In all likelihood, they will want a diesel engine. Take away all these things, and what does one have left? A well-designed tank, to be sure, but nothing terribly special.

We should remember as well that the Chinese have some fairly sophisticated equipment. The Type 85II is a very respectable MBT, even by Western standards. Many of the differences between the PLA's best MBTs and the West's state-of-the-art tanks are differences in philosophy. Like Soviet tanks, Chinese tanks are designed to be used by troops who are not as uniformly literate as Western soldiers. Extensive maintenance can't be conducted at the same level as in Western mechanized armies, so the equipment is designed to last longer with less attention. The drawback to this practical application is that Chinese equipment frequently doesn't perform up to Western standards no matter how well it is maintained.

One problem the Chinese are going to have when they bring in all this Western hardware is maintenance. Not only is the equipment more demanding in terms of everyday upkeep, but it comes from several different sources. This is going to be a gigantic problem in 1996. The PLA can see this coming from the other side of the ocean. However, the Politburo wants to give the West a reason to keep China in the war--even at a detriment to battlefield performance.

Getting back to the M1, I see the US selling an export version. Call it the M1PRC. This tank would be up-gunned to either the 120mm or 125mm (a US firm could set up an assembly line in CONUS or buy the guns on the international market), and it would enjoy an electronic package comparable to the Type 85II.

Naturally, the US also dumps loads of M60s on the PLA. The PLA issues requirements equivalent to the M60A4, and the US is happy to meet them. Heck, IRL we've been giving them away to our allies, rather than spend the money to cut them up. Selling a thousand to the PRC (after upgrading them to A4 standards) helps pay for new M1s for the National Guard and Reserves.

I agree that the French and Israelis will sell whatever the Chinese want to have. The real limitations here will be the production levels these nations can achieve. I don't know what the factory capacity for the LeClerc is in 1995, but I find it hard to believe that the French can produce any more than 100 a month between November 1995 and April 1996.

Everybody is going to want to sell to the PRC, and the PRC is going to want everybody vested in keeping them in the war. I foresee the US, the UK, France, the FRG, Italy, Austria, Sweden, Israel, and Brazil selling equipment to the PRC. Japan and the ROK might get in on the action, too. With so many players, there will be some competition for the high-end items like fighters and MBTs. This will produce some incentive for the exporters to provide the PLA with something pretty capable.

The Chinese aren't going to be capable of equipping an all-mechanized army in the six months of the Winter War (11/95-04/96). OPERATION TCHAIKOVSKY is designed to prevent the Chinese from being able to manufacture anything like the materiel required for mechanized war. Even with the Western powers (and others) selling heavy equipment by the boatload, the PLA isn't going to be able to field more than half its nominal strength in divisions in heavy formations. By the end of December, the Chinese are thinking they'll be lucky to mechanize a third of their divisions. As a result, the Chinese are going to ask for as many man-pack missile systems of every kind they can get. I don't see them getting Javelin (which presumably would have been much further along), but they may get the top-of-the-line TOW. Dense, layered defenses with dug-in ATGM teams would take a terrible toll of the Soviets in 1996.

No doubt the Chinese will reverse engineer the Western missiles as soon as they get them. What of it? The Soviets are busy blowing the Chinese economy to bits at the end of 1995. The worst-case scenario is the Chinese winning the Sino-Soviet War and turning around and selling knock-offs of TOW-II, Milan, HOT, Stingers, and other advanced missiles. This is certainly possible, but it's far from a disaster. With battlefield results in hand, Western manufacturers will know how to improve their products and how to provide appropriate countermeasures. So long as the PRC doesn't acquire cutting-edge Western missiles, the West walks with a load of cash and lot of practical experience.

I have thought some about the PLAAF's acquisitions, but that's the subject of another post.



Matt Wiser 01-26-2004, 03:31 AM Webstral, how about the PRC Navy? Would they go for the sub modernization I gave above? Those Romeos are still their most numerous sub, although the Song and Ming classes are capable boats. New torpedoes (Improved Mark-37s), Harpoon 1A (60-80 mile range) fired from TTs, improved sonar, more efficient batteries, etc. would be the upgrade: Egypt has several Romeos and they were upgraded by an American yard in the mid-late 1980s. Selling warships would be out of the question, but older radars and fire control, ASW torpedoes, EW/ECM gear, etc. would be a good bet.

The PRC's Han-class SSNs are equivalent to a late 1960s Sturgeon or a Victor-I with some imported technology (the sonar's French). Getting them into the yard may be a problem as the PRC Navy may not want its only nuclear attack boats in the yard for any serious length of time. Only two missile boats: one is a Golf sold to the PRC in 1959 before the Sino-Soviet Split; it's used as a test bed for SLBM launches. The other is an Xia-class SSBN with 16 tubes for the JL-3 SLBM with a range of c. 1500-1800 miles with a 2 MT warhead. I doubt SOVPACFLT would be authorized to attack either missile boat as that would be an attack on a nuclear asset and the Chinese response to that may be...unpredicitable. (Although a USN fast-attack attacked the Xia and a Han escort in Tom Clancy's The Bear and The Dragon, and it did unnerve the PRC leadership in the book)


Webstral 01-30-2004, 06:19 PM I can't really remark too much on the specifics of PLAN purchases because I'm not nearly as familiar with naval hardware as I am with Army hardware (and, to a lesser degree, Air Force hardware). The big problem I see the Chinese having with major upgrades to their existing force is that their shipyards will come under heavy attack during the Winter War. With the start of TCHAIKOVSKY, Soviet operational patterns change to reflect the new thinking in the Kremlin: force China to sue for peace by destroying her national defense capabilities by conventional means. The Soviet Navy plays an important role in this endeavor, and so destruction of the bases and other support centers of PLAN is a high priority.

As a result, PLAN loses a lot of its ability to perform work on its ships. A lot of the Chinese tonnage is sunk by April 1996.

I do see PLAN headed in the direction of making and buying as many light combatants as they can get their hands on. They want small, fast, ships capable of launching missiles and laying mines. These ships are easier to camouflage in estuaries, inlets, and up-river than frigates and other capital ships. They will want the best radar and sonar they can get from the West to counter the Soviet subs prowling their coastal waters. The Chinese will also want lots of maritime patrol, ASW, and marine strike craft, too.

Once the US enters the war, China will be able to start thinking about rebuilding her capital ship fleet. I don't see a lot of meaningful progress on this before July 1997, though.



Matt Wiser 01-31-2004, 02:21 AM The Chinese already build some nasty small combatants: their Hudong missile FACs have been sold to Iran and North Korea, and they operate the Houjan and Houxin class FACs with the C-801. Plenty of patrol craft and PTs, but their biggest ships that are home-built are the Luda and Luhu Class DDs and the Jinagwei class FFs. SSs are the Ming (PRC unliscensed Romeo), and the Song (a new design with sub-launched C-801 from TTs)

SSNs are the five Hans, as mentioned previously.

PLA-NAF has J-6, J-7, J-8 fighters and A-5 Fantan attack aircraft. They are getting the JH-7 strike aircraft as a Fantan replacement IRL. Bombers are the H-5 Beagle and H-6 Badger with the C-601 ASM (an air-launched Silkworm). JH-7s were supposed to enter service in '94, but were delayed until 2001. Maritime Patrol is done by the SH-5 flying boat and the Y-8 ( a PRC version of the An-12 Cub with radar). (All info from Harpoon 4)

Small combatants for the PRC Navy: The French La Combattante class that they still build for export, and the Lafayette class FFs which have gone to Saudi Arabia and Taiwan are possibles. Avondale shipyard in New Orleans built a class of corvettes for Saudi Arabia, and I could see the PRC ordering some. Bhlom and Voss in West Germany builds the Meko-class of destroyers and Frigates: the 160 is the corvette, 360 is the destroyer, and they do custom weapons and sensor fits for customer requirements.

Israel builds their own corvettes and PCGs, and would be a logical choice for the PRC.

Naval Air: P-3Bs from AMARC with a weapons and sensor upgrade would fit the Maritime Patrol/ASW requirement, but Spain's Airtech 235 has an MP version, as does the Fokker F27-MP (OOP IRL since 1995 when Fokker went belly-up).They already operate versions of the SA-321 Super Frelon and the SA-365 for shipboard ASW; Surplus SH-3s from AMARC (displaced by SH-60 in USN service) along with AB-212ASW from Italy are possibles.

Maritime Strike aircraft: A number of aircraft mentioned for the PLAAF would fit this requirement: Surplus A-4Ms,A-6Es and A-7Es from AMARC, Tornado from BAE with Sea Eagle or West German made Komorans, F-16s with Norweigan made Penguin-3 ASMs, etc. A-6s are Harpoon capable, as is the P-3 and F/A-18.


Webstral 01-31-2004, 04:28 PM All good stuff, Matt. Thanks for making all this available.



shrike6 02-02-2004, 04:15 PM Dumb question but how long would it take for the EU countries to lift their weapons ban on China?



Webstral 02-09-2004, 03:05 PM Someone would have to break ranks first. If the US started selling weapons to the PRC, the defense manufacturers of Europe would start screaming for access. How long it would take depends on a bunch of factors that I can't talk about with much authority. However, I'm confident that after the first multi-billion dollar deal was struck between the US and the PRC, the British and French would put insuperable pressure on the rest of the EU to lift the ban.

The PRC could (and probably would) help this process along by soliciting weapons deals with everyone who manufactures something useful. If the PRC offered to purchase the Tornado, the Mirage 2000, the F1, the Challenger 1, the LeClerc, the Ariete, and the Leopard 1, they could get the UK, France, the FRG, and Italy demanding an end to the arms embargo. That would pretty much do it, I believe. How long does this take? Well, it would depend on how much money the European defense contractors thought they were losing by letting the Americans sell unchallenged in the Chinese market and how well the Chinese played their innocent-victim-of-Soviet-aggression role. I'm going with December 1995 so I can get at least some of the diverse weapons systems into China by April 1996.



Jason Weiser 02-09-2004, 07:08 PM A related question about Italy, in T2K, she sides with the Soviets...a wierd choice, even the most lefty of Italian governments maintained their links to NATO, so why the choice? Something screwy happened here. Perhaps there was a wide reaching scandal involving weapons sales to China?


Webstral 02-09-2004, 08:23 PM That's a great question, Jason. My operating assumption is that when Italy opts out of NATO at the end of 1996, the way is clear for the socialist elements to take control of the government. Not a coup, mind you--a legal re-orientation of the Italian government. Perhaps alliances between the various parties change, and so a new prime minister comes to power or some such. As a result, a non-NATO Italy can stand on the sidelines while NATO and the Pact duke it out in northern Europe.

I rather doubt that the Italian military was particularly keen to fight in Austria and Germany. The v1 chronology remarks that Italian successes in the first few months of the war were largely logistical in nature. I'd say that this gives us our answers to why the Italian Army did so well in Austria and southern Germany in the first few months of Italian involvement. The Italians shelled the hell out of Austrian and NATO troops, then rolled through the survivors. That's just a supposition, though. I haven't gotten that far in my chronology.



Jason Weiser 02-09-2004, 09:28 PM Oh gawd.

So Italian movies about the Twilight War substitute the following :

Bavaria for the North African Desert

Happy, but ill motivated Italian Alpini for Happy, but ill motivated

Italian Besleglaeri.

The Soviets as uptight, dangerous allies who turn on our heroes

in the end for the Germans who are uptight, dangerous allies

who turn on our heroes in the end!

The Germans and Austrians as the plucky defenders of a

besieged Munich for the Brits and Aussies as the plucky

defenders of a besieged Tobruk.

The Dutch I Corps who win it all in the end for the British 8th

Army who wins it all in the end.

Reply With Quote


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.