溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: 日本增6潛艇監視中國專家：20年內必有一戰 [打印本頁]

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-21 20:03 標題: 日本增6潛艇監視中國專家：20年內必有一戰

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2010-10-21 20:04 編輯

(明報)2010年10月22日星期五 05:05

[attach]10289[/attach]

日本防衛相宣布，計劃將海上自衛隊的潛艇數量從目前的16艘增至22艘，以監視日益活躍的中國海軍，這一決定將列入今年12月編制的新《防衛計劃大綱》。有軍事評論員認為，現時中日矛盾日益尖銳，如事態長期惡化下去，中日難免會有一戰，不過，目前中國海軍潛艇部隊的實力仍遠遠遜於日本。

共同社引述防衛省和自衛隊消息人士透露，防衛省決定把海上自衛隊的潛艇數量從目前的16艘增至22艘，並將寫入12月的新《防衛計劃大綱》。這是1976年後日本首次制定部署20艘以上潛艇的防衛計劃。報道稱，由於中國海軍在日本周邊海域乃至太平洋的活動日漸活躍，故有必要增加潛艇，擴大警戒監視海域，主要在東海。

日本現行防衛大綱指出，「有必要關注」中國軍隊的現代化及海洋活動範圍的擴大。今年4月，一隊包括潛艇和艦船在內的中國艦隊穿過日本沖繩和宮古島中間的公海進入太平洋，引發日本極大關注，而釣魚島撞船事件發生後，日本亦覺得必要有相關應對措施。

中國潛艇性能遠遜日本

軍事評論員黃東在接受本報訪問時認為，日本潛艇部隊的實力是世界第一流，此次宣布增加數量，對中國的威懾力亦大增，現時中日的矛盾已經很尖銳，未來還可能繼續惡化，「中日海軍在20年內必有一戰」。

黃東說，中國的艦船水平取得巨大的進步，防空水平亦穩步提升，但潛艇性能仍遜於日本，反潛能力更落後日本20年，加上美國會為日本提供空中支援，從現時實力來看，日本有極大優勢，「但20年後，中國海軍已經有時間取得進步，那時可能也會有航母」。

日本顧忌中國蒐水文資料

黃東解釋，中國東海艦隊的海軍原本是針對台灣，能否在短時間內轉為對抗日本仍是未知之數，「但中國海軍的重心不是在東海，而是在南海以及印度洋，那裏是能源運輸的生命線，中國也不會與美、日硬拼，因為實力擺在那裏，中國不會做傻事」。

但黃東指出，日本害怕的不是中國潛艇，而是中國現時大規模派出的海洋調查船，用於蒐集水文資料、水底地理情况等，調查船甚至曾環繞日本列島而行，一旦開戰，所擁有的地理數據將比日本豐富得多，這將在一定程度上抵消中國潛艇的劣勢。

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-21 20:11

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-21 20:31

回復 2# fy789

One more decade man...

作者: fm9610 時間: 2010-10-21 20:51

The Japs won't wait til PLA navy to mature; their
strategy is always killing us in the infancy.

If ...
fy789 發表於 2010-10-21 20:11

This is for the long term. In the short term, if they dare to come. let them have another A bomb. I think 3 is a good number for this stupid country who never learn its mistakes.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-21 21:00

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2010-10-21 21:04 編輯

回復 4# fm9610

If China dare to dump the A-bomb in Japan, to my understanding I don't think it's a "win"...

In modern world, A-bomb is totally useless other than "threatening"...

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-10-21 22:14

還我釣魚台! 還我釣魚台! 還我釣魚台!

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-10-21 22:40

20 years?
fxxk

can it just happen in 2 months?

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-10-21 22:51

20 years?
fxxk

can it just happen in 2 months?
快樂牛郎發表於 2010-10-22 14:40

你咁叻, 即管自己射個核彈過去引發戰爭law.

作者: soli 時間: 2010-10-21 23:02

其實都有機會。
牛郎可以租隻船同快艇去釣魚台玩搶灘同炸燈塔﹐不論成功與否最後都實會俾日本仔捉住﹐響拘留期間諗辦法扮俾日本仔用私刑打死﹐o甘就會有D機會令中日兩個月內開片啦~

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-10-21 23:25

其實都有機會。
牛郎可以租隻船同快艇去釣魚台玩搶灘同炸燈塔﹐不論成功與否最後都實會俾日本仔捉住﹐響拘 ...
soli 發表於 2010-10-22 15:02

駛唔駛要死得好慘果隻先至可以激起祖國人民既憤恨之心?

作者: Guy 時間: 2010-10-22 01:19

What are they waiting for?

WAR~WAR~WAR~WAR~WAR~!

作者: rockypath 時間: 2010-10-22 06:18

China navy needs at least 20 years or more to catch up the Japanese. To catch up US, I believe it will take 50 years.

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-22 06:27

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: rockypath 時間: 2010-10-22 07:24

回復 13# fy789

Yes, that is what China is doing and it is a smart move in my opinion. Otherwise, China won't have a chance to defend itself.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-22 08:16

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2010-10-22 08:41 編輯

回復 13# fy789

Chat is easier than act...

5-10 years on Navy and Air force... No way.

Even if China gets the first aircraft carrier in service, it still needs "at least" 10 years to form a REAL combat force. Marine is kind of weak for China...

On one side, aircraft carrier is a sharp assault weapon. On the other end, it's a NIGHTMARE in defense. It's a very ideal spot for testing missiles and torpedos. The defense shield for China navy is a "joke" - remember it's 3D...

IMO, not until China develops a STRONG (not looks strong) "nuclear" attack submarine force, the war just can't get started. Those modern China nuclear subs are 2 gens behind those by US/Russia and the numbers are few - I don't think they could even compare with the HMS Churchill class - those been used on Falkland Island warfare when I was still a kindergarten boy...

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-10-22 09:58

Regarding catch up.....say it takes 20 yrs to catch up US current technology....but in the meanwhile...US would still developing new/better stuff....so in reality...it may take longer to "catch up"....Although, you can argue that US is in poor economy so it may not put $ to military....but still...

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-22 10:06

回復 16# fibbi

We are not talking about "win", we are talking about "can fight"...

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-10-22 10:11

回復 17# lo_pak

everything is in "relative"...so in order for chinese to develop "can fight" navy...it can't be too far behind of other's military standard...just IMO...

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-22 10:24

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-22 10:28

回復 18# fibbi

We will know, you can tell from the military trading market...

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-22 10:29

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2010-10-22 10:45 編輯

回復 19# fy789

CCP is strong on land ONLY...

The air force is almost "touch" & "crack". You don't need to tell me how advance they are. Navy is a bit better if you don't face Japs/US...

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-22 11:37

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-22 11:56

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2010-10-22 12:03 編輯

回復 22# fy789

2nd artillery corps vs. Japs land self defense force on air defense... I bet the Japs will win.

Jet engine is one of the worst problem for China aviation, not the only one. Stealth bomber & fighter, it sounds like a dream if they rely only on self research. Wolf pack strategy with J7, do you really want to watch for a firework show?

Lack of raw materials and reserves, no problems, this time US is on your side (providing that you pay for the weapons and the field is far from their home)...

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-22 12:05

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-22 12:10

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2010-10-22 12:13 編輯

回復 24# fy789

Can you please provide me the stimulated aerial combat data for J-10?? I don't mind even if it's for J-11...

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-22 12:45

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-22 13:04

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2010-10-22 13:32 編輯

回復 26# fy789

Jes... Please don't compare JF-17 with F16, a normal fellow should know they are not the same class...

The biggest + of the JF-17 is the first-shot BVR capability of the aircraft because it will be fully integrated/mated to the SD-10 MRAAM. Until and unless AMRAAMs are released to Pakistan, the JF-17 will be the only aircraft with this capability.

IMO, J-10 will outscore F16A/B undoubtedly. I will say it's equivalent to or close to F16C/D.

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-22 13:56

Regarding catch up.....say it takes 20 yrs to catch up US current technology....but in the meanwhile ...
fibbi 發表於 2010-10-22 09:58

It takes 1yr to catch up 2-3 years. So if you are 20yrs behind, you need about 10 yrs to catch up. The leader is usually slower in advancing because the leader is already more advanced.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-22 14:09

回復 28# peter236

Another important components are training and tactics, there should be more stimulations and joint combat exercises... In China, pilots are way too "green"...

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-22 14:23

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-22 14:28

回復 30# fy789

That's $$$$$$$$$$... Training a "qualified" (western standard) pilot is so expensive.

That's why the US will spend whole lot money on Predators...

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-22 18:23

點解唔講下架未來轟10 TU-22M既？

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-22 18:43

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-22 20:07

回復 15# lo_pak

啱啱先拆左航母上面D對艦對空飛彈倉....佢地係咪真係對自己D 052好有信心呢？？？

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-23 06:56

回復 32# MoiRhapsody

I have never expect Russia would export "full" spec weapons to China...

For 轟10 - with high speed low level penetration, it's a really scared bomber of the time. I think you will need a dozen of those to form a solid strategetic attach unit.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-23 06:57

回復 34# MoiRhapsody

How many 052 do you think the proposed aircraft carrier fleet would need? I think 3 is properly the number...

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-23 07:21

本帖最後由 MoiRhapsody 於 2010-10-23 07:24 編輯

for anti-aircraft purpose?? 3....at least...質唔夠...量補救....
仲未計其他......

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-23 07:39

回復 37# MoiRhapsody

Make sure the systems are not overloaded...

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-23 08:29

回復 38# lo_pak

they need to worry about the commander more....

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-23 08:49

回復 39# MoiRhapsody

His last name is "Mao"??....

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-23 09:00

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-23 09:09

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2010-10-23 09:19 編輯

回復 41# fy789

You can tell 052D has quite a bit advancing in outlook. You can see they have cutoff so many reluctant outcrop structures...

BTW, what time can we have more reliable "直" instead of "卡"...

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-23 09:31

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://www.loyaukee.com/forum/)