China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Apr 2016 04:39

They shifted to an AESA on the B but I haven't seen a detailed article the sheds any light on how advanced they are when it comes to their Gaa's PA's and their T/R module performance in general. Their research institutes and universities are publishing a ton of material on the subject matter however.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Apr 2016 10:59

Boom.

Chinese military aircraft makes first public landing in South China Sea

And .......the reason:

n a front-page story, the official People's Liberation Army Daily said a military aircraft on patrol over the South China Sea on Sunday received an emergency call to land at Fiery Cross Reef to evacuate three seriously ill workers.

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 22 Apr 2016 21:55

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... heads.html

China tests ballistic missiles with the longest range in the world, capable of striking US or Britain with TEN nuclear warheads

China has tested a weapon which could be used to strike London and the United States with nuclear warheads.

The Dongfeng-41 missile, which has the longest range of any ballistic rocket in the world, can carry up to ten nuclear warheads.

US Pentagon officials are said to have slammed China for testing the 'intercontinental weapons', which have a maximum range of around 8,700 miles.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Apr 2016 00:28

A few more months.

Meanwhile, India needs a Xifeng.

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 25 Apr 2016 00:24

http://www.janes.com/article/59623/dsa- ... g-munition

DSA 2016: China details CH-901 UAV and loitering munition

Richard D Fisher Jr, Kuala Lumpur - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

19 April 2016

China's Poly Defense has provided details about its CH-901 man-portable tube launched unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and loitering munition, similar in concept to the US AeroVironment Switchblade.

The CH-901 designation likely means it is a product of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC).

A Poly official said it has been in development for "several years" and that both versions have been acquired by China's People's Liberation Army. This official added that while "several friendly countries" have shown interest, there have been no foreign sales so far.

One operating system weighs 45 kg and consists of three UAVs, one launch tube and a laptop computer control system. It is man-portable or can be carried by a small SUV.

The 1.2 m length aircraft weighs 9 kg, flies at a speed of 150 km/hr and has an operating radius of 15 km or a search endurance of 120 minutes.

Its small search and tracking camera is able to detect targets out to 2 km. The electric motor is credited with "low noise" that helps concealment. The aircraft has a life span of 20 sorties or 10 years.

Poly officials declined to provide details about the warhead of the loitering munition version.

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 27 Apr 2016 02:34

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_e ... t_999.html

China exported military drones to 10 nations: report
by Staff Writers
Beijing (AFP) April 21, 2016

China has exported military drones to more than 10 countries in deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and plans to sell unmanned craft capable of launching laser-guided bombs, state-run media said Thursday.

Chinese drones "have bigger payloads, which means they can carry more weapons" than their competitors, Shi Wen, chief drone designer at the China Academy of Aerospace Aerodynamics, told the China Daily newspaper.

Chinese companies dominate the global market for commercial drones, but the rare interview is a sign Beijing is seeking to promote itself as a manufacturer of unmanned military surveillance and killing machines.

Shi did not specify the countries involved, the numbers sold or the total value of the deals, but said the academy's most valuable sale was worth "hundreds of millions of US dollars".

The drones are named Cai Hong, or Rainbow, with the bestselling CH-3 capable of firing missiles 10 kilometres (six miles) from a target and staying in the air for more than 10 hours, the report said.

"One of our clients in Africa uses each of its CH-3s about 100 hours on average each month," Shi told the newspaper, which is published by the government.

The academy is seeking an export licence for a new CH-5 model capable of launching air-to-surface missiles and laser-guided bombs, Shi added.

The drone made its first test flight in August, the newspaper said.

China has also exported smaller unarmed search aircraft, it said, citing a report last year that the academy would export about 200 drones.

China has leapfrogged both France and Germany to become the third-largest source of major arms globally, with its exports up 88 percent in the 2011-15 period compared to the previous five years, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

SIPRI's February report added that Chinese weapons chiefly went to other Asian countries, with Pakistan the main recipient

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Apr 2016 03:43

^^^

Looks like India will be encountering the same weapons in a two-front war with Pakistan and China.

member_28700 · Post by **member_28700** » 27 Apr 2016 16:10

The drones are named Cai Hong, or Rainbow, with the bestselling CH-3 capable of firing missiles 10 kilometres (six miles) from a target and staying in the air for more than 10 hours, the report said.

Wouldn't such drones come under MTCR? These drones if they fiy for 10 hours would clearly have a range of more than 300kms. I am pretty sure the African country to which these armed drones are sold would not be part of MTCR.
Or is MTCR only for namesake and anyone can violate it for economic gains?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Apr 2016 16:14

China isn't an MTCR member.

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 27 Apr 2016 18:17

vaibhav_kumar wrote:
The drones are named Cai Hong, or Rainbow, with the bestselling CH-3 capable of firing missiles 10 kilometres (six miles) from a target and staying in the air for more than 10 hours, the report said.
Wouldn't such drones come under MTCR? These drones if they fiy for 10 hours would clearly have a range of more than 300kms. I am pretty sure the African country to which these armed drones are sold would not be part of MTCR.
Or is MTCR only for namesake and anyone can violate it for economic gains?

Drones are not missile they are more like planes so I don't think its falls under the MTCR as far as I know.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Apr 2016 18:33

srai wrote:^^^

Looks like India will be encountering the same weapons in a two-front war with Pakistan and China.

This is a good development. Now possibly Indians will do, rather than indulge in continuous analysis.

I can now see some innovation coming out of India. Unless of course the JV crowd makes more noise or succumbs to some all pervading Deep State.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Apr 2016 18:49

Drones are not missile they are more like planes so I don't think its falls under the MTCR as far as I know.

That's a grey area that is open to interpretation. The US has for example made efforts to change its export policies recognizing the difference between the two but it remains a politics and policy driven thing..

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/02/what ... lly-means/

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 28 Apr 2016 03:14

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... c-missile/

China Successfully Tests Hypersonic Missile

Seventh test of new DF-ZF glider tracked over northern China

BY: Bill Gertz
April 27, 2016 5:00 am

China successfully flight tested its new high-speed maneuvering warhead last week, days after Russia carried out its own hypersonic glider test, according to Pentagon officials.

The test of the developmental DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle was monitored after launch Friday atop a ballistic missile fired from the Wuzhai missile launch center in central China, said officials familiar with reports of the test.

The maneuvering glider, traveling at several thousand miles per hour, was tracked by satellites as it flew west along the edge of the atmosphere to an impact area in the western part of the country.

It was the seventh successful flight test of the revolutionary glider, which travels at speeds between 4,000 and 7,000 miles per hour.

U.S. intelligence officials have assessed that China plans to use the glider to deliver nuclear weapons through increasingly sophisticated missile defenses. The DF-ZF also could be used as part of a conventional strategic strike weapon capable of hitting targets around the world within an hour.

Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Bill Urban declined to comment on the latest DF-ZF flight test. “But we do monitor Chinese military modernization carefully,” Urban said.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower, said China’s hypersonic missile tests are a concern.

“China’s repeated test of a hypersonic glide vehicle demonstrates Beijing is committed to upending both the conventional military and nuclear balance, with grave implications for the stability of Asia,” Forbes told the Washington Free Beacon.

Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, said Jan. 22 that the new hypersonic glide vehicle is among an array of high-technology missiles and weapons, both nuclear and conventional, being developed and deployed by Beijing.

China “recently conducted its sixth successful test of a hypersonic glide vehicle, and as we saw in September last year, is parading missiles clearly displaying their modernization and capability advancements,” Haney said.

China has kept details about the DF-ZF program secret. In March 2015, a Defense Ministry spokesman confirmed one of the hypersonic missile tests after the test was reported in the Free Beacon. The spokesman said the missile test was not aimed at any country and was done for scientific research.

Earlier DF-ZF tests were carried out Nov. 23, Aug. 19, June 7, and on Jan. 9, 2014, Aug. 7, 2014, and Dec. 2, 2014. During at least one test, the maneuvering glider conducted what a defense official said were “extreme maneuvers” at speeds between Mach 5 and Mach 10.

All the tests were first disclosed by the Free Beacon.

Extensive testing and reported successes are indications the new weapon is nearing initial operating capability, although deployment may be years away.

The congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated in its most recent annual report that the hypersonic glide vehicle program was “progressing rapidly” and that the new strike weapon could be deployed by 2020.

A powered version also is in development and could be fielded by 2025.

“The very high speeds of these weapons, combined with their maneuverability and ability to travel at lower, radar-evading altitudes, would make them far less vulnerable than existing missiles to current missile defenses,” the commission report said.

Li Bingyan, a researcher at China’s National Security Policy Committee, stated in a defense industry journal article published Jan. 27 that hypersonic weapons offer increased speed of attack. “Only by matching the real-time information with the zero-time firepower can one achieve the operational result of destruction upon detection,” Li stated.

China also is taking steps to strengthen its underground missile silos and facilities to withstand precision strikes by hypersonic missiles, such as those planned under the Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike program.

The latest Chinese hypersonic glide vehicle test was conducted three days after Russia carried out a flight test of its experimental hypersonic glide vehicle. That glider test involved the launch of an SS-19 ballistic missile fired from a missile base in eastern Russia.

The two tests highlight what many analysts have called a new hypersonic arms race among China, Russia, and the United States. India also is working on hypersonic arms.

As radar, sensors, and missile interceptors used to counter missile threats increase in capability, hypersonic maneuvering missiles are viewed as a technological leap in strike capabilities to overcome them, analysts say.

Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon strategic forces specialist, said the new Chinese hypersonic glider is a serious threat.

“In testimony before the congressional China commission, an Air Force intelligence analyst revealed that it is nuclear armed although there could also be a conventional version,” Schneider said.

“The Chinese probably see this as one of their ‘assassin’s mace’ weapons which are designed to defeat the U.S.”

According to Schneider, a National Academy of Science study concluded that hypersonic speed was the equivalent very high levels of radar-evading stealth features against air and missile defenses.

“Hypersonic speed also gets you to the target very fast which may be decisive in dealing with mobile targets,” he said.

Retired Navy Capt. Jim Fanell, a former Pacific Fleet intelligence director, said the latest flight test of the DF-ZF represents another demonstration of China’s commitment to aggressively develop asymmetric power projection capabilities and a weapon that could undermine U.S. missile defenses.

“The threat of hypersonic missile attack not only impacts conventional warfare scenarios like we are seeing develop in the South and East China Sea, but it also puts U.S. nuclear defense strategies at risk as well,” Fanell said.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told the newspaper Kommersant in October 2012 that the nation that masters hypersonic weapons first would revolutionize warfare. He compared the strategic significance of the high-speed weapons to development of the first atomic bombs.

By contrast, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency is doing little to deal with the emerging hypersonic missile threat.

Vice Adm. James Syring, the agency director, told a Senate hearing April 13 that two countries he did not name have created major worries about the growing hypersonic missile threat.

Syring said for future missile threats, his agency is looking at upgraded Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, missile defenses.

Yet despite its $7.5 billion budget for fiscal 2017, the agency has not funded any direct programs to counter hypersonic arms. In the current budget, $23 million was requested for a low-powered laser capable of targeting hypersonic missiles, Syring told a House hearing.

The first test of the laser, however, is not planned until 2021, after China is expected to field its first DF-ZF.

Compared to China’s seven tests, the April 19 hypersonic missile test was the second known test of Moscow’s new high-speed glider.

Stephen Welby, assistant defense secretary for research and engineering, said the Pentagon is increasing investment in hypersonic weapons by 50 percent. The increase is intended to “take those systems from being technology demonstrators to being no-kidding weapons that we could actually think about deploying with our force,” Welby told a Senate hearing April 12.

U.S. hypersonic arms are part of a Pentagon strategy to use highly-advanced technology to enhance U.S. strategic military advantages. Other technologies include robotics, biotech, cyber defenses, and electronic warfare weapons.

An Army hypersonic missile blew up shortly after launch in August 2014.

Other U.S. hypersonic weapons include a missile-launched glider and a scramjet-powered strike vehicle.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Apr 2016 03:27

y contrast, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency is doing little to deal with the emerging hypersonic missile threat.

Vice Adm. James Syring, the agency director, told a Senate hearing April 13 that two countries he did not name have created major worries about the growing hypersonic missile threat.

Syring said for future missile threats, his agency is looking at upgraded Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, missile defenses.

Yet despite its $7.5 billion budget for fiscal 2017, the agency has not funded any direct programs to counter hypersonic arms. In the current budget, $23 million was requested for a low-powered laser capable of targeting hypersonic missiles, Syring told a House hearing.

The first test of the laser, however, is not planned until 2021, after China is expected to field its first DF-ZF.

Compared to China’s seven tests, the April 19 hypersonic missile test was the second known test of Moscow’s new high-speed glider.

Stephen Welby, assistant defense secretary for research and engineering, said the Pentagon is increasing investment in hypersonic weapons by 50 percent. The increase is intended to “take those systems from being technology demonstrators to being no-kidding weapons that we could actually think about deploying with our force,” Welby told a Senate hearing April 12.

They can field THAAD ER within a decade including other upgrades not related to the anti TBG weapon systems. The only thing that will cause them slight delay would be the fielding of an appropriate target to test out some of the characteristics of the Chinese threat they are trying to defeat without having to expend half of the current launcher load out (thats what a TBG is likely to take with the existing interceptors, and still not guarantee a kill) However, the problem is that they can't really commit resources until it really becomes a larger pressing threat than regular ballistic missiles that the other resources are supporting. THAAD defends much smaller footprints in the terminal phase, while the other investment priorities (SM3 IIA, Sensors, and the GBI) defend more numerous potential threats. As long as the threat remains strategic, they'll take their time..Conventional TBG's however will make them accelerate the effort, and this was discussed in the Congress recently, in terms of allowing Qatar and the UAE to contribute to MDAs development of the THAAD ER capability allowing them to begin right after the current review concludes later this year. Regardless, they can't delay past FY19 (they are hammering out the FY17 budget right now) since that is the time when all of the MDA's terminal based programs would conclude.

TBG threat aside, THAAD ER will be a lower cost way for them to replicate at least some footprint of the SM3 IA/B without having to put an AEGIS ashore facility at every desirable place. Its a very large increase in footprint over the existing THAAD interceptor, which itself has a 200 km range. The TPY-2's radar have now received 3 significant upgrades including GaN. They are also now 100% interoperable with AEGIS, and the one sensor in Turkey operates in forward deployed mode, in support of AEGIS ashore, and ships supporting EUCOM.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5092&start=2320#p2001158

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 May 2016 08:25

“There have been no instances of incursions by Chinese troops into Indian territory,” Parrikar informs Lok Sabha

nits · Post by **nits** » 12 May 2016 16:10

As per discussion (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7107&start=1840) in Indian missile Dhaga 4-5 S-400 are able to cover both fronts for India. But for China who is procuring 6 S-400 will face challenges to cover its vast borders and considering the disputes it has

See comparison of huge vast border it has to cover; does china has anything local made like S-400 to cover its whole front ?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 12 May 2016 17:23

brar_w wrote:
Drones are not missile they are more like planes so I don't think its falls under the MTCR as far as I know.
That's a grey area that is open to interpretation. The US has for example made efforts to change its export policies recognizing the difference between the two but it remains a politics and policy driven thing..

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/02/what ... lly-means/

MTCR is a club of prviledged rich folks who thinks rules don't apply to them.

Storm Shadow has been sold to SA/UAE twice screwing over MTCR again and again. It's business.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 May 2016 09:28

What is the best online discussion forum for Chinese armed forces? Or websites? Any BR equivalent? Thanks.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 May 2016 09:38

rohitvats wrote:What is the best online discussion forum for Chinese armed forces? Or websites? Any BR equivalent? Thanks.

CDF https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 13 May 2016 16:55

China elevates military command along Indian border: Report

BEIJING: In a surprise move, China has elevated the rank of Tibet's Military Command which looks after the security along its border with India by putting it under the jurisdiction of PLA ground forces, suggesting it may "undertake some kind of military combat mission in future."
READ MORE ON THE WEBSITE.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 May 2016 21:08

I guess the Chinese didn’t get the memo that stealth was dead

Second radar cross-section test range identified in China – Jane’s Defense Weekly - Sean O'Connor, Indianapolis

IHS Jane's recently identified a radar cross-section (RCS) test complex in China. Airbus Defence and Space imagery captured on 24 April shows a recently completed test range northeast of Dingxin Airbase (AB) - the second new test site to be identified in the East Asian nation. The first one is located southwest of Beijing near Gaobeidian. A third possible site, predating the new complexes, is situated near Luoyang.

The location near Dingxin AB is well suited for a signature evaluation complex, with flat terrain and a lack of man-made or natural obstructions near the facility. Additionally, the configuration of the J-20 full-scale RCS test article present suggests design changes may be forthcoming to China's fifth-generation stealth fighter.

Along with the Gaobeidian RCS complex, the Dingxin RCS complex illustrates China's increasing attention to low-RCS aircraft design. The Dingxin RCS complex was constructed after the Gaobeidian site, which was built in the 2009 timeframe - perhaps in an effort to establish an RCS test range in a more secure location.

The J-20 full-scale RCS test article present at the Dingxin RCS test complex appears to differ from current J-20 prototypes. These differences suggest either a new variant of the aircraft under development or further refinements to the design. The J-20 test article maintains the same length and wingspan as J-20 prototypes.

However, the J-20 test article differs from current prototypes as follows: the test article lacks the wing trailing edge extensions adjacent to the engine nozzles; the test article features a longer chord wing no longer possessing leading-edge root extensions (LERXs); and the test article appears to have redesigned air intakes with rearward rather than forward sweep on their leading edges.

It is possible that some of the apparent design changes relate to the expected equipping of the J-20 with indigenous WS-15 turbofans. The WS-15 is intended to offer thrust vectoring, and a removal of the tail extensions would be beneficial for accommodating thrust vectoring in the yaw (lateral) plane. Redesigned air intakes may relate to differing airflow requirements for the WS-15. The redesigned longer-chord wing suggests an increase in internal fuel capacity.

If the design changes are unrelated to the WS-15, they could represent a new J-20 variant: a 'JH-20', optimised for long-range strike missions. Increased internal fuel capacity and design changes with improved RCS in mind would be logical for such a platform. However, this remains speculation.

Whatever the case, the design changes, particularly those in the rear quarter, possibly resulted from rear-quarter signature evaluation undertaken in September 2015 at Gaobeidian. This highlights the importance of observing RCS test complexes, as information obtained on signature evaluation processes can lead to an understanding of future design changes or areas of concern.

The presence of a possible new variant or redesigned airframe will not necessarily affect the initial service entry of the J-20. The J-10, for example, entered service in its basic form, while the improved J-10B underwent development. As such, current J-20 prototypes, including the recently appeared airframe numbered 2101, probably represent the initial in-service configuration.

The possibility exists that the J-20 test article is merely incomplete, lacking certain components such as the tail extensions. However, this does not explain certain features observed, such as the longer-chord wings, the absence of LERXs or the redesigned air intakes.

China's J-20 programnme is believed to be at the pre-series production stage. Two such airframes were seen undertaking taxiing tests in December 2015 and early January.

Bhaskar_T · Post by **Bhaskar_T** » 04 Jun 2016 21:17

Probably India gets after China.

Russia Has No Plans to Deliver S-400 Missile Systems to China Before 2018, 3rd June 2016

http://sputniknews.com/military/2016060 ... z4Ad9cyw8b

China will get Russian S-400s no earlier than in 2018, the Rostec head said.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Russia will not supply advanced S-400 Triumf air defense systems to China before 2018, head of Russia’s state technologies corporation Rostec Sergey Chemezov said.

"We have a rule: first we supply our own army with weaponry and then we sell weaponry abroad. A lot of customers ask for earlier deliveries for their orders, but we warn them of the time frames and delivery order right away," Chemezov said in an interview with the Russian Kommersant newspaper.

In April, a military source told RIA Novosti that Russia could start delivering S-400 air defense systems to China by the end of 2016.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jun 2016 11:58

China may be struggling to establish a sea-based nuclear deterrent

http://www.janes.com/article/60924/chin ... -deterrent

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 07 Jun 2016 20:09

Al-Qaeda attack Chinese UN post in Mali

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomac ... k-al-qaeda

In all, 3,000 Chinese peacekeepers are serving in 10 regions, including 2,400 in Africa. Most are engineers, transport experts, police and medical staff. The forces sent to Mali in 2014 were China’s first overseas combat troops. President Xi Jinping promised in September to provide 8,000 personnel for UN peacekeeping operations.

Chinese soldiers are part of a United Nations peacekeeping mission that has been stationed in northern Mali for three years since separatists joined jihadists to seize the region from the government in Bamako. The peacekeepers were hit by rockets or mortars fired at their site in Gao. Four people were killed and more than a dozen wounded.

http://china-defense.blogspot.nl/2016/0 ... ttack.html

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 08 Jun 2016 03:26

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chi ... 222?page=2

China's 'Undersea Great Wall'

Beijing will build its next line of defense on the ocean floor.

Lyle J. Goldstein

May 16, 2016

Tweet Share  Share
Printer-friendly version

The above developments should serve as a warning that Beijing is not simply willing to yield to American undersea dominance. The recent RAND “Scorecard” report on the evolving military balance in the western Pacific does actually attempt to model certain aspects of a hypothetical undersea-warfare battle. For example, an evaluation of U.S. submarines operating against a Chinese amphibious force invading Taiwan yields the conclusion that growing Chinese ASW forces might kill 1.82 U.S. submarines per week of the campaign (p. 213). If the campaign lasted two weeks, therefore, the U.S. Navy could presumably expect to lose approximately three to four submarines.

But this conclusion, entailing very significant U.S. losses, could actually be too rosy. Bathymetry (water depth) would mean very shallow and tight spaces for comparatively larger U.S. submarines. China could employ unconventional platforms like coast guard vessels or even fishing boats to patrol adversaries’ submarine operating areas and report on periscope sightings and missile launches. In creating such a low-tech ASW targeting system, the Chinese would know well that such nonmilitary vessels would not be worth the expenditure of even a single precious American torpedo since submarines are well known to have comparatively limited magazines, nor any easy solution for resupply.

What is most troubling about the RAND study is that it does not seriously grapple with the problem of sea mines and their likely employment against U.S. submarines. Ten of fifty-two U.S. submarines lost in the Pacific War were likely destroyed by sea mines. It is well known, moreover, that China has deployed and continues to work diligently on ASW-optimized sea mines. The undersea observation system discussed above presents yet another challenge to U.S. undersea superiority that did not figure into the RAND estimate of losses.

True, these waters may be so shallow and noisy as to limit the value of these new undersea sensors for Beijing. But Chinese scientists are hard at work trying to master the principles of shallow-water acoustics, and such breakthroughs cannot be ruled out.

Lyle J. Goldstein is Associate Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The opinions expressed in this analysis are his own and do not represent the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of the U.S. Government.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Jun 2016 03:41

Sid wrote:...

MTCR is a club of prviledged rich folks who thinks rules don't apply to them.

Storm Shadow has been sold to SA/UAE twice screwing over MTCR again and again. It's business.

more on this.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/ ... -the-mtcr/

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Jun 2016 05:26

Wrong Way Wong Wei II

Pls look on the video of the tanker plane with 2 fuel booms trailing: the fighter coming to get fuel have canards. What sort are those? Chinese tankers and planes?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 08 Jun 2016 09:26

UlanBatori wrote:Wrong Way Wong Wei II

Pls look on the video of the tanker plane with 2 fuel booms trailing: the fighter coming to get fuel have canards. What sort are those? Chinese tankers and planes?

PLAAF H-6 (aka Tu-16) air refulers and J 10. CNN is using stock pictures as usual.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 16 Jun 2016 22:07

First operational Y-20 has been handed over to the PLAAF

kit · Post by **kit** » 16 Jun 2016 22:17

DavidD wrote:First operational Y-20 has been handed over to the PLAAF

maybe Antonov can work out a similar one for joint production in India !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jun 2016 22:43

Huge step fwd for china

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jun 2016 07:17

Second operational Y-20. Image from Twitter. It does not appear to have a rear loading ramp. No cargo palette capability yet?
Engines appear to be the same as Il 76

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Jun 2016 07:59

DavidD wrote:First operational Y-20 has been handed over to the PLAAF

This looks like a spitting image of a C17. Well, great move forward for CHinese industry. But still no engine. Looks like a Soviet era IL-76 D-30 engines. Not even the new PS-90 engines. The Bear sure does make sure that it doesn't give out it's newest to create competitors.

The newest IL 76s of course have the high bypass PS-90.

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 17 Jun 2016 08:02

shiv wrote:Second operational Y-20. Image from Twitter. It does not appear to have a rear loading ramp. No cargo palette capability yet?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClHdH6GUYAAtl0f.jpg

Engines appear to be the same as Il 76

Even all the prototypes have loading ramp.

http://www.janes.com/article/61026/chin ... t-aircraft

China needs 'more than 1,000' Xian Y-20 transport aircraft

Richard D Fisher Jr, Washington DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

07 June 2016

During a 1-7 June technology innovation exhibition in Beijing, an official from the state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) told the People's Daily newspaper that China required "more than 1,000" Xian Aircraft Corporation (XAC) Y-20 heavy strategic transport aircraft and that the country also plans to build transport aircraft comparable in size to that of the Antonov An-225 Mriya.

"More than 1,000 Y-20s will be needed," Zhu Qian, head of AVIC's Large Aircraft Development Office, told reporters, referring to the 200-tonne, 50- to 60-tonne cargo capacity, four turbofan-powered transport aircraft that first flew in January 2013.

While Zhu stated that this estimate "was based on the experience of the United States and Russia", he did not provide any further details. In 2014 the People's Liberation Army (PLA) National Defence University issued a report stating that China might require up to 400 Y-20 transport aircraft.

The People's Daily also quoted a technical evaluation by China's Aerospace Knowledge magazine as saying that the Y-20 can fly 5,200 km with a payload of 51 tonnes when fully fuelled. "This means it can reach everywhere in Europe and Asia, the US state of Alaska, Australia, and North Africa," the paper said, adding that the aircraft has a maximum payload of 66 tonnes and a maximum take-off weight of more than 200 tonnes, according to military sources. The high payload means it can carry the PLA's heaviest tank, the 58-tonne Type 99A2 main battle tank.

Zhu told the newspaper that China also plans to build "300-tonne, 400-tonne, and even 600-tonne aircraft". In this context a 600-tonne aircraft would approach the size of the Antonov An-225 Mriya and the Airbus A380.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jun 2016 08:45

MANNY K wrote:
shiv wrote:Second operational Y-20. Image from Twitter. It does not appear to have a rear loading ramp. No cargo palette capability yet?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClHdH6GUYAAtl0f.jpg

Engines appear to be the same as Il 76
Even all the prototypes have loading ramp.

I don't see it in the image
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClHdH6GUYAAtl0f.jpg

These images for instance clearly show where the closed doors are
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/47a25f56d5c94 ... eg5bef.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gpwnq5n0XXg/T ... rcraft.jpg
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/ ... did_l5.jpg

Airbus A 400
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/imag ... VEneDcmsCu

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 18 Jun 2016 15:49

Unlike An-32 or C-130, these large transports have their rear loading ramps are faired over:

Above ofcourse is a C-17 which has a large ramp

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jun 2016 16:54

Even in the above image the ramp door edges are discernible as lines.It is difficult to hide huge doors in hi res images. I still have not seen even that in the two Chinese prototypes. So what does this mean?
1. The doors are there but I can't see them - but I need to see them before I believe that
2. The doors are planned for a future date but the first two aircraft have been handed over for induction nevertheless.

If the latter is correct it will tell us something about how the Chinese induct stuff made at home - not fully ready, but not useless by any means. Would that be an example to follow for anyone?

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 18 Jun 2016 17:06

vina wrote:
This looks like a spitting image of a C17. Well, great move forward for CHinese industry. But still no engine. Looks like a Soviet era IL-76 D-30 engines. Not even the new PS-90 engines. The Bear sure does make sure that it doesn't give out it's newest to create competitors.

The newest IL 76s of course have the high bypass PS-90.

I think it looks more like the C-17 and the IL-76 had a baby. While the tail sure looks like the C-17, the "hump" where the wings attach to the fuselage is very much like the IL-76. Here's a nice pic of the 3 planes side by side. There are drawings available online that allow for better comparison, but this is the only pic of the real planes together that I can find: https://theaviationist.com/2014/11/07/y-20-at-zhuhai/

As for engines, the WS-20 has been undergoing flight testing for a couple of years now, shouldn't take too much longer for it to be installed: http://www.popsci.com/chinas-new-more-p ... -takes-sky

As for the doors, it's just the dark color of the aircraft making them harder to see. Kinda like how the first two J-20 prototypes which were really dark and you couldn't see any of the joints. Look closely at the pictures in the first link I posted, you can make out the loading ramp door as it's a much lighter painted aircraft. Here's another pic, a bit easier to see the door. http://www.ausairpower.net/PLA-AF/Xian- ... ell-01.jpg With that said, the need for large transport is huge, it was only a few years ago when the PLA had to resort to buying second hand IL-76s because Ilyushin couldn't deliver new ones fast enough, so they'll start induct planes as long as they're good enough. For example, they're certainly not waiting for the WS-20 to become ready, even though they clearly intend to use them on the Y-20 eventually.

kit · Post by **kit** » 20 Jun 2016 17:26

The Y-20 is the first cargo aircraft to use 3-D printing technology to speed up its development and to lower its manufacturing cost.[12] Model-based definition (MBD) is also used, and it's the 3rd aircraft to utilize MBD technology in the world, after Boeing 787 (2005) and Airbus A380 (2007).[13] A project team to implement MBD for Y-20 program was formally formed in October 2009, and after the initial success in application on the main landing gear, MBD application was expanded to the entire aircraft and became mandatory for all contractors and sub contractors of the Y-20 program.[13] The implementation of MBD was initially met with strong resistance, with only a third of suppliers agreed to implement MBD, but the general designer of Y-20 declared those who refuse to do so will be banned from participating in Y-20 program, thus forcing everyone to comply, resulting in increase in productivity.[13] The implementation of MBD greatly shortened the time required, for example, without MBD, installation of wings takes a month or two, but with MBD adopted, the time is drastically shortened to just a few hours, and in general, the design work reduced by 40%, preparation for production reduced by 75%, and manufacturing cycle reduced by 30%.[13]

In addition to 3-D printing, Y-20 is also the first aircraft in China adopting associative design technology (ADT) in its development, the second aircraft to do so in the world, after Boeing 787.[13] Headed by the deputy general designer of structural design, Mr. Feng Jun (冯军), the initial attempt to implement ADT actually failed after two months spent on application on the nose section. It was only after the second attempt that took another three months on the application on wings did ADT became successful.[13] The adaptation of ADT greatly shortened the development time by at least eight months, and modification of wing design that previously took a week is shortened to half a day.[13]

Cargo is loaded through a large aft ramp that accommodates rolling stock. The Y-20 incorporates a shoulder wing, T-tail, rear cargo-loading assembly and heavy-duty retractable landing gear, consists of three rows, with a pair of wheels for each row, totaling six wheels for each side. The structural test was completed in 194 days as opposed to the 300 days originally planned, thanks to the successful development and application of an automated structural strength analysis system.[13] In comparison, similar work for Xian JH-7 took a year.[13] According to the deputy general designer, the shortest take-off distance of Y-20 is 600 to 700 meters.[7] Y-20 incorporates a total of four LCD EFIS, and the development of EFIS for Y-20 utilizes virtual reality via helmet mounted display.[7] Eight types of different relays used on Y-20 are developed by Guilin Aerospace Co., Ltd. a wholly own subsidiary of China Tri-River Aerospace Group Co., Ltd.(中国三江航天集团), which is also known as the 9th Academy of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC).[11]

source : wiki

kit · Post by **kit** » 20 Jun 2016 17:29

http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/20/11975 ... taihulight

93 petaflops

The TaihuLight is comprised of some 41,000 chips, each with 260 processor cores. This makes for a total of 10.65 million cores, compared to the 560,000 cores in America's top machine. In terms of memory, it's relatively light on its feet, with just 1.3 petabytes used for the entire machine. (By comparison, the much less powerful 10-petaflop K supercomputer uses 1.4 petabytes of RAM.) This means it's unusually energy efficient, drawing just 15.3 megawatts of power — less than the 17.8 megawatts used by the 33-petaflop Tianhe-2.

More significantly than its specs, though, is the fact that the TaihuLight is built from Chinese semiconductors. "It’s not based on an existing architecture. They built it themselves," Jack Dongarra, a professor at the University of Tennessee and creator of the measurement system used to rank the world's supercomputers, told Bloomberg. "This is a system that has Chinese processors."