China's Suspiciously American Arsenal: A Closer Look

04/21/201920 Comments

Have you seen the PLA Navy's latest whizzbang terror toy? Described as a "tactical laser system," it was recently featured in a PR puff piece on China's state-owned mouthpiece channel, CCTV. According to reports, it will be deployed on the PLA Navy's Type 055 destroyers as a replacement for the fleet's old HHQ-10 surface-to-air missiles.

Which is all well and good, but let me ask you again: Have you seen it? I mean, have you actually looked at it? Because when you do, you might notice something interesting. Namely, it bears a striking resemblance to the U.S. Navy's Laser Weapon System (LaWS).The LaWS is on the left and the Chinese laser system is on the right. Or is it the other way around? It's hard to tell the difference.

But it's not just this laser weapon. From drones to stealth jets to railgun prototypes, it seems all of the latest and greatest weaponry in the Chinese arsenal is suspiciously similar to (or is an exact duplicate of) an item in Uncle Sam's arsenal.

So what's going on here?

This week The Corbett Report Subscriber offers the complete beginners' guide to the imperial abdication in Japan and a subscriber video about hobbies and pastimes. For full access to the subscriber newsletter and to support this website, please become a member.

For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE.

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register here.

Existing Users Log In

Filed in: Newsletter
Tagged with:

Comments (20)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. zyxzevn says:

    Reverse engineering is hard. Many big companies have an entire branch devoted to it. Even if you can download some prints or source code, you still have to do a lot of work.

    Yet, paying some US politicians to get what you want is very easy. I heard that you can even get nuclear technology, if you pay enough. But probably they used the route through the CIA, where money does not leave traces. They probably were on the door-steps even before they asked for it.

    This situation also gives the military industry a good reason to continue innovating. You should never have weapons that are far better than those of the “enemy”. It is much better when they are building the technology that you are selling today, so you can sell newer and better stuff tomorrow.

    A win-win situation for all. 😉

  2. nawk says:

    A vacation! Good for you.

    We will be here ready to greet you when you come “home”.

  3. n4x5 says:

    I think the gist of the article is valid, but I’d just caution against a propensity to interpret cosmetically similar military hardware as being comparable in terms of capabilities. A deeper analysis may reveal that a lookalike PRC product may or may not have functional parity with the US model it resembles.

    Given the relative ease with which they are manufactured / copied, I’d also hesitate to use any instance of specific small arms in a nation’s inventory or manufacturing capacity as supporting evidence for deliberate technology transfers, especially models as ubiquitous as the AR-15 family. The rifle’s design isn’t proprietary to the American military or its contractors, and AR parts are produced by dozens (hundreds?) of small American manufacturing businesses. It isn’t far-fetched to believe that the Chinese at some point acquired, successfully reverse engineered, and began producing their own variants of these rifles with no American help.

  4. brent.b says:

    with regard to your china technology piece, george webb has been covering, in detail, exfiltration of us technology, especially nuclear technology by deep state insiders which has been traced back even 2-3 generations fromthe likes of robert mueller iiii etc. he is the current day antony sutton but no one seems to want to give him coverage.

  5. cat says:

    Two insightful relevant links:

    Yesterday’s Country – Not To Worry,They Can’t Innovate

    China’s “Revolutionary” Jews

  6. mik says:

    In case you missed it:

    Dr. Jordan Peterson & Slavoj Žižek – Happiness: Capitalism Vs. Marxism debate

    Does it worth watching it?
    Well, maybe, I don’t feel I wasted two hours plus.

    Actually, it was not a debate according to the title, because Žižek was obstructing and didn’t say much in defense of marxism, although Peterson started with his usual denigration of it by dissecting communist manifesto, in one way not so important Marx’ piece. Certainly Žižek is aware that now Marx is important as a critique of capitalism and not as an alternative to it.

    In one way Žižek was just what he is, a leftist gatekeeper, but he managed to transform a debate that could resemble boxing into interesting discussion and found a lot of common ground with Peterson.

    A debate became more interesting at 1:39:00 when they started direct conversation. At 1:47:00 Žižek asked Peterson to name a proponent of postmodern neomarxism who is actually a marxist. Peterson failed, of course, and escaped into looking for similarities between SJ and marxsism.

    Another interesting part is at 2:06:00 when Žižek asked why first to put your house in order because you can work on individual level and social level at the same time. Peterson saw that individual and social levels are intertwined, but he failed to notice they are also separated.

  7. Ukdavec says:

    Another informative Money video here

    In Money We Trust ?

    Special | 56m 48s

    In Money We Trust? asks & answers the question, “what is money” and explains how money provides a shared measure of value that facilitates trade and cooperation between strangers. Throughout history, trustworthy money has fueled human achievement from the emergence of philosophy to the high-tech revolution.

  8. CQ says:

    So MANY items to comment on this week — other than the IF editorial, whose subject I know nothing about.

    (1) Your subscriber video: Like you, James, I’ve had to turn off news I can’t stomach. Like watching baby elephants undergo horrible torture for days (in front of their desperate mothers!) until their spirits were so broken that they became submissive enough to be trained (for trekking, logging, dancing, painting — any money-making enterprise). And I had to permanently unplug from news about wild horses (for whom I’d been a bit of an activist) because I couldn’t bear to think about the abuse the BLM heaps on these “free spirits” during illegal round-ups on land that belongs to them (per the “Wild Horse Annie” act that Congress passed in the ’70s).

    (2) Your Recommended article on Einstein: Interesting that he was at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) in the ’30s, at the same time Abraham Flexner was its director. Interesting, too, that Einstein “became linked . . . in the public eye [with] J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, who after the war became the third director of the IAS.”

    Fellow Corbett Report followers may remember what James said about Flexner in “How Big Oil Conquered the World”: “In 1901, John D. established the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. The Institute recruited Simon Flexner, a pathology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, to serve as its director. His brother, Abraham, was an educator who was contracted by the Carnegie Foundation to write a report on the state of the American medical education system. His study, The Flexner Report, along with the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations were to shower on medical research in the coming years, resulted in a sweeping overhaul of the American medical system. Naturopathic and homeopathic medicine, medical care focused on unpatentable, uncontrollable natural remedies and cures was now dismissed as quackery; only drug-based allopathic medicine requiring expensive medical procedures and lengthy hospital stays was to be taken seriously.”

    After listening to a Red Ice Radio radio show that featured the author of a couple of critical books on Einstein, I must admit I began to doubt this media-sensationalized scientist’s reputation as a “genius.”

    (3) Your Recommended video “Mommy, where does money come from?”: Thanks to your earlier recommendation of a previous video by John Titus, I’d already gotten hooked on his documentaries and his “Mafiacracy” series (“Mommy” is its fourth installment).

    Hope I haven’t exceeded the word count.

  9. mathieu says:

    Hey James, been watching your show for years. Good stuff and keep up the hard work.

    You ever think of the Israel angle? I mean, isn’t the reason why China’s technology is so similar to America’s is because they give weaponry through the Israel channel?:

    According to the first two articles in 2013, it says that Israel has been feeding China techology for over ten years. America got “mad” but that did not seem to stop them considering the third article shows that in 2017, Israel still planned on sharing more technology with China. What you think?

  10. paul6 says:

    Quote: “The LaWS is on the left and the Chinese laser system is on the right. Or is it the other way around? It’s hard to tell the difference.”

    Is this some kind of belated April fool’s day joke?

    Even I as a complete stranger to engineering or military hardware can tell a lot of differences between those images. Ditto for the linked gallery of images.

    This article seems baseless to me. I think James should do some additional research on this one.

    • generalbottlewasher says:

      Paul6, baseless? You are not seeing the forest for the trees. These are billion dollar tools, weapons of the racketeers enforcers no more important than baseball bats. They* spread them around to guaranty equality of enforcement among themselves*, as much as the 99% who are the common fodder and source of revenue to buy their* creations for profit. They* profit from knowing that war between themselves* is bad for business. They* know their* competition are psychopaths and mutually assured destruction maintains a check on impulsive non-rational behavior. But mostly at the top. The rest is just business , you know , cull the herd of undesired impediments to business while profiting from it. Maintain order. Hardly baseless if you don’t know why they* spread the ballbats around so evenly. Hopefully we learn to recognize and know more of what’s before us than the length, color or weights of the bats the enforcers use to control the thing they* fearmostlythan the their* competitors, the real mob, us the 99%.

      * the powers that shouldn’t be ( TPTSB )

      • generalbottlewasher says:

        Paul6 , I ask you or any of the TCR readers or contributors a simple question, and if it can’t be easily answered I will submit it to Q4C.
        Has the ruling elite, the 1% , TPTSB , Members of the Round Table and their offshoots , the Chairman or officers of the banking elite to your knowledge ever been in or subjected to the horrors of war? Of course the wealthier have the resources to flee a conflict zone ahead of time, but have they ever been targeted or trapped by the conflagration on the ground? I would like to know. They have names and their roles are not all entirely secret. How far removed are they from these toys they supply their enforcers?

        • generalbottlewasher says:

          Just a reminder from another side of town and a slightly different definition of TPTSB. By no means is this the know all end all on this group but Yeah, that’s where all the bad toys come from.

  11. scpat says:

    Hmm. Interesting discoveries by Sutton regarding the Korean War. I have not dug into his work, so I can’t make a completely informed comment, but, I do have a personal perspective on that war. My grandfather, who is still alive today, fought in the Korean War, specifically in the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir, the most brutal fighting of the war. He was part of the 1st Marine Division, 7th Marine Regiment. Conversation about the war would come up occasionally when I was growing up, and I was told that the Chinese were hardly prepared or equipped with sufficient weaponry. They were undersupplied as far as rifles go, and maybe other equipment as well. They just had sheer numbers of people, which put enormous pressure on the Marines.

  12. FlyingAxblade says:

    Enjoy a hammock.

  13. M says:

    Some relevant information is in this book on the question why is this being allowed:

  14. alexandre says:

    I can’t even understand why should there be a debate about military “toys”. To me the word “military” refers to a kind of specie, or race, something like that, a common lunacy all over the planet. Are bees different in Japan than in Brazil? Probably some differences, but they’re bees. The do bzzzzz, sting and we say “motherfucker!”. If you look inside a Brazilian Tucano T-27, an airplane made in Brazil that is some kind of pride here among the Air force guys, it’s all written in English. What the hell. Why do countries have hymns? And why is it almost always a military march? And the lyrics are always the same patriotic idiocy about bravery, love for the country etc? What about the obligatory flags? This military dimension that underlies everything is what should be studied more deeply without the distracting differences. This global military specter spawns from some black hole that should be seriously researched. (Did I use “spawn” correctly?)

  15. LibertyCat says:

    The U.S. Government had pretty good relations with China in the 70s, and 80s. The U.S. used China to help bring down the Soviet Union, and purchased weapons from them. Wonder what else?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top