China Military Watch

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Brando » 02 Feb 2009 11:04

Philip wrote:"Chinese cheaters".Someone should sell them designs of weapon systems which when made will fail miserably.That will then teach them a lesson!

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinte ... 90112.aspx
The Luck Of The Chinese


I dont understand why anybody would call this "cheating" ? They are doing whatever it takes to get what they need to defend themselves. That is very prudent and wise of them. India should follow their example. All this moral grandstanding is pointless and frankly ludicrous when the Indian military is suffering for basic equipment shortages like fighter planes, artillery guns and quality parts and ammunition.

At the end of the day, when they field these weapons in large numbers, nobody is going to ask them to show their originality in the battlefield. They use what works! They have set their sights on taking on the USA. That is a laudable goal but they have a LONG LONG way to go. Even the Americans catapulted technologically with massive investment in technology and with the help of Nazi Scientists and Nazi Gold that helped them come out on top, not to mention their own innate industriousness. The Chinese are following the same race towards technological parity with the USA.

Logically, the GoI should also implement similar approaches to at least give the Indian military its basic requirements in plenty. After those are met they can decide to invest in "research" for research sake. There are no points for originality in war. Only for victory!

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10018
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: China Military Watch

Postby sum » 02 Feb 2009 13:29

Logically, the GoI should also implement similar approaches to at least give the Indian military its basic requirements in plenty. After those are met they can decide to invest in "research" for research sake. There are no points for originality in war. Only for victory!

Absolutely, the era of moral high ground is long dead. No one gives a damn if the weapons are original,stolen or borrowed from martians as long as they work.
Last edited by sum on 02 Feb 2009 19:25, edited 1 time in total.

nsa_tanay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 96
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 16:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby nsa_tanay » 02 Feb 2009 15:55


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Philip » 03 Feb 2009 19:26

Sum,the problem does exist if we are to acquire foreign weaponry to meet our yawning gaps in our weapon system inventories for all the three services.The US wants end-user guarantees,etc. for its technology and so do the Russians/others want protection for their wares.If we go by this yardstick totally,there would be global anarchy.The entire basis of intellectual property rights would be destroyed by allowing and condoning whole scale commercial and military espionage, even though we know that it happens.In China's case,it has broken agreements and has cheated.It indicates the mentality of the Chinese "Middle Kingdom" mandarins,who are a threat to world peace with their overwhelming desire for Asian and global domination.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16946
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 04 Feb 2009 04:44

X-post.

sunilUpa wrote:Chinese navy sees off Indian sub

Feb 04, 2009
Chinese warships sent to fight piracy in waters off Somalia were stalked by an Indian attack submarine and the two sides became locked in a tense standoff for at least half an hour, mainland media reported yesterday....


some more titbits of google

The Chinese destroyers had picked up an unidentified submarine on their sonar, the report said. The Chinese navy soon identified it as a 70-metre-long


Rest of the story is for subscription only..

:shock: :shock: This is hot news..can any one find more details from 'mainland media'?


Posting the rest of the article which can be accessed behind the sign in wall. Admins, if this violates copyright, I'll take this post off...

Chinese warships sent to fight piracy in waters off Somalia were stalked by an Indian attack submarine and the two sides became locked in a tense standoff for at least half an hour, mainland media reported yesterday.

After rounds of manoeuvring during which both sides tried to test for weaknesses in the other's sonar system, the two Chinese warships managed to force the Indian submarine to surface. The Indian vessel left without further confrontation.

The incident was reported by Qingdao Chenbao yesterday and was widely carried by major mainland websites such as Sina.com and QQ. Both Beijing and New Delhi were silent about the matter.

This is the first reported military standoff between China and India since a bitter border war in 1962.

The incident took place on January 15 in waters near the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, which separates Yemen and Djibouti, at the western end of the Gulf of Aden. The Chinese destroyers had picked up an unidentified submarine on their sonar, the report said.

The Chinese navy soon identified it as a 70-metre-long vessel armed with 20 torpedoes. Although the report did not directly specify the model, it provided a file photo of a Kilo-class submarine belonging to the Indian navy, which fit the description.

The submarine tried to evade the Chinese warships by diving deeper. But the warships continued the chase.

The report said the Chinese ships sent an anti-submarine helicopter to help track the submarine, which had tried to jam the Chinese warships' sonar system.

But the two destroyers eventually cornered the submarine and forced it to surface. The report said the submarine had been trailing the Chinese ships since they had entered the Indian Ocean on the way to Somalia.

It said that at one point the Chinese commander even ordered the helicopter to have its anti-submarine torpedoes ready.

The Indian submarine is believed to have been collecting electronic signals and sonar data from the Chinese warships. Such information would be crucial in naval conflicts.

The two destroyers China sent to Somalia are among its most advanced warships. One of the destroyers, Haikou, was commissioned in 2005.

It is rare for mainland media to report such a close encounter between the Chinese navy and foreign warships. Although deemed a provocative and unfriendly gesture, it was not unusual for one country to send submarines to collect other navies' information.

In 2006, a Chinese submarine was detected stalking the US aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk near the Japanese island of Okinawa. The Chinese submarine eventually surfaced close to the US battle group.


the destroyers belong to the 052B luyang and 052C luyang II class.
the 052C ship, haikou features the HQ-9.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Brando » 04 Feb 2009 05:46

From the same website^^ this cartoon: http://www.scmp.com/files/SCMP/Opinion/ ... toon.6.jpg

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Vick » 04 Feb 2009 06:09

From AFP
Report: China Doubled Attack Sub Patrols in 2008
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 3 Feb 17:22 EST (22:22 GMT)

WASHINGTON - China nearly doubled the number of patrols by its fleet of attack submarines last year, surpassing Russia but still far behind the United States, the Federation of American Scientists reported Feb. 3.

The report, based on declassified information provided by U.S. naval intelligence, said Chinese attack submarines conducted 12 patrols in 2008, compared to seven in 2007, two in 2006 and none in 2005.

"While the increase in submarine patrols is important, it has to be seen in comparison with the size of the Chinese submarine fleet," said Hans Kristensen, director of the organization's nuclear information project.

"With approximately 54 submarines, the patrol rate means that each submarine on average goes on patrol once every four and a half years," he said.

The patrols may have been carried out by just the most modern and capable types of submarines in the Chinese fleet, the report said, noting that a new class of nuclear-powered Shang-class attack submarines is replacing the aging Han-class.

In an interview, Kristensen said the information, although sketchy, was a window into how Chinese naval operations are changing as it builds up its forces.

"We don't know where they went or for how long. But it certainly seems to be a new mission. They have been very modest in their patrols in the past," he said.

"The fact that from one year to another they have doubled their patrols seems that they have something new to do," he said.

"It could be, as we've heard for the last four years or so, an attempt to expand their naval defense barrier further eastward into the Pacific," he said.

In comparison with other major navies, a dozen patrols a year "are not much," the report said.

"The patrol rate of the U.S. attack submarine fleet, which is focused on long-range patrols and probably operate regularly near the Chinese coast, is much higher with each submarine conducting at least one extended patrol per year," it said.

"But the Chinese patrol rate is higher than that of the Russian navy, which in 2008 conducted only seven attack submarine patrols, the same as in 2007," it said.

China has yet to conduct a single patrol by a ballistic missile submarine, according to the report.

"The old Xia, China's first SSBN, completed a multi-year overhaul in late-2007 but did not sail on patrol in 2008," it said.

"Neither the Xia-class (Type-092) ballistic missile submarine nor the new Jin-class (Type-094) have ever conducted a deterrent patrol," it said.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1935
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: China Military Watch

Postby AdityaM » 04 Feb 2009 09:40

the two Chinese warships managed to force the Indian submarine to surface. The Indian vessel left without further confrontation.
The Chinese navy soon identified it as a 70-metre-long vessel armed with 20 torpedoes.
But the two destroyers eventually cornered the submarine and forced it to surface.


To the gurus:
How does one 'force a submarine to surface'? What does this mean (apart from the obvious surfacing of the vessel)?
Are torpedoes placed outside the hull that they can be counted? Does sonar have a xray like capability to see the innards of the sub? :?:

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: China Military Watch

Postby vivek_ahuja » 04 Feb 2009 10:04

AdityaM wrote:
the two Chinese warships managed to force the Indian submarine to surface. The Indian vessel left without further confrontation.
The Chinese navy soon identified it as a 70-metre-long vessel armed with 20 torpedoes.
But the two destroyers eventually cornered the submarine and forced it to surface.


To the gurus:
How does one 'force a submarine to surface'? What does this mean (apart from the obvious surfacing of the vessel)?
Are torpedoes placed outside the hull that they can be counted? Does sonar have a xray like capability to see the innards of the sub? :?:


You cannot force a sub to come up unless it wants to (or you could shoot at it). In any case, a submarine that is dependent on atmospheric air to replenish its engine capability (which was exhausted while it was submerged) must come up after every so often. It can also snorkel for the required air. But the point is that if you chase the submarine and force it to remain underwater long enough for it to expend its engine air supply, it must resurface.

This problem of course does not afflict nuclear submarines.

Other than that, the sub could also surface as a sign of showing its non-aggrsive stance to any given surface vessel that might otherwise be concerned about its intentions.

JMT

-Vivek

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: China Military Watch

Postby dipak » 04 Feb 2009 14:38


namit k
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 10 Jul 2008 21:58
Location: Diamant-Land

Re: China Military Watch

Postby namit k » 04 Feb 2009 22:06

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090204/119981492.html

Russian arms exports to China may drop significantly

MOSCOW, February 4 (RIA Novosti) - Russian arms sales to China could shrink from 40% to 10%, the head of a state-controlled arms exporter said on Wednesday.

In the past several decades Russia has been selling Su-27 and Su-30 fighters, Varshavyanka-class diesel submarines, and air-defense systems to China, among other types of weapons and equipment.

Rosoboronexport's general director Anatoly Isaikin did not say exactly when the Chinese share was expected to drop, stressing, however, that Russia was unfazed by the prospect.

"After all, sales volumes [across the world] are still high," he said in an interview with Nezavisimaya Gazeta.

He said Russia's cooperation with Beijing "is reaching a fundamentally new level - the development of dual-purpose products with high-tech components."

Isaikin said Russia had signed the first military contract this year for the delivery of more than 100 engines for the Chinese J-10 fighter.

He added that China would continue to buy military transport aircraft, fuel tankers, and aircraft engines from Russia, and was also interested in air-defense system and naval systems.


signs of piracy :twisted:
now rusis realize, sell what they cant easily copy

nsa_tanay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 96
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 16:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby nsa_tanay » 05 Feb 2009 16:58

Times of India epaper
India, China play cat & mouse
Navy Submarine Spooks Chinese Destroyers During Anti-Piracy Missions
Rajat Pandit | TNN


New Delhi: Jostling for the same strategic space in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), a cat-andmouse game reminiscent of the tussle between the American and Soviet navies during the Cold War is taking place between India and China in earnest.
Indian submarines, maritime reconnaissance aircraft and warships closely tracked and photographed two Chinese destroyers and a supply ship making their way to the Gulf of Aden off Somalia recently for anti-piracy patrols.
Chinese media reports, however, said the two Chinese destroyers, Wuhan and Haikou — which are among the most powerful in the fleet — “forced” an Indian Kilo-class submarine stalking them to surface after cornering it following a chase.
The Chinese warships even launched a helicopter, armed with torpedoes during the “tense standoff ” near Bab el-Mandab Strait, which separates Yemen and Djibouti, on January 15. After surfacing, the submarine left without any further confrontation, the reports said.
A spokesperson for the Indian Navy said: “No Indian submarine surfaced in that area. Moreover, nobody can force anybody to surface in international waters.”
But sources said the Indian Navy had indeed “spooked” Chinese warships several times during their transit, right from Malacca Strait to Somali waters. “Every advanced navy does it. Most of the times, it does not become public knowledge,” said an official.
The Chinese themselves engage in such activities. In October 2006, for instance, a Chinese Song-class submarine had popped up close to the huge American aircraft carrier, USS Kitty Hawk, in the Pacific Ocean.
It stunned the US military brass since the Chinese submarine had slipped undetected past several American warships with advanced sensors to surface right next to Kitty Hawk. Moreover, it indicated the rapidly-expanding Chinese submarine fleet’s growing sophistication.
The latest incident is not the first time the Indian Navy has spooked the Chinese. The navy had photographed three new Chinese submarines in the Mediterranean region as well as a new destroyer off Yemen’s Socotra island in 2006. “It’s an ongoing process. The idea is to record acoustic, propeller and electromagnetic signatures and data of foreign warships. The data is then processed by intelligence before ending up in a central library, accessed by all our platforms for future use,” said a senior officer.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7904
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Gerard » 06 Feb 2009 15:46

China-India Naval Duel? Not Quite
There's one small problem though. The story is apparently fiction. While there are reports of some jostling between the two navies, which would be expected given China's high-profile mission far beyond its waters, the story of the submarine surfacing appears to have come from a faked news report.

parshuram
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 28 Feb 2006 09:52

Re: China Military Watch

Postby parshuram » 06 Feb 2009 16:06

A Bit off topic though but can anybody revert back with status of construction of border roads by india along chinese borders .

namit k
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 10 Jul 2008 21:58
Location: Diamant-Land

Re: China Military Watch

Postby namit k » 06 Feb 2009 17:55

check this out
China increases submarine patrols - report
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_increases_submarine_patrols_report_999.html

it may be possible that they publicized this event to justify their sub patrols in Indian ocean

kancha
BRFite
Posts: 912
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 19:13

Re: China Military Watch

Postby kancha » 06 Feb 2009 20:05

Chinese and Indian Forces both a part of the UN Mission in Sudan

Must be a first time experience for our troops to have an exposure to the functioning of the Chinese as a part of a multinational force. They must have sent their best men / eqpt to avoid any H & D issues.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Philip » 07 Feb 2009 11:47

China's growing military power and its swift movement into a new global naval strategy (beyond the Taiwan zone) that has caught many analystst by surprise.We have been warning for years that China has been planning a drive into the IOR/Gulf for its navy and that all the noise about Taiwan was an exercise indeception.The recent expose of the secret Chinese naval and sub base on Hainan island caught the world by surprise.Constructing its underground nuclear sub pens couldn't have been built without years of planning.The "string of pearls" from Gwadar through the IOR has clearly indicated its ambitions and direction and the massive sub building programme indicates that China will follow the German example of WW2 and use its "80+" subs that will be in service within a decade's time extensively in the IOR with a view of disrupting enemy naval and tanker ops if required in a crisis.While it also has clear carrier ambitions,with at least three 60,000t carriers planned,It might use air bases in countries like Pakistan,Burma and Sri Lanka and on the African continent ,where it is investing very heavily in that continent,to support its naval forces in the IOR.India's anti-piracy plans for an air capability in Oman is an adroit step in countering a future Chinese encirclement of India.But first,we should "sanitise" Sri Lanka by signing the defence agreement with it which has been languishing for some time,after the LTTE is defeated.

The denial by the IN about an Indo-Chinese sub spat off Somalia,is a mischievous attempt by the Chinese to "equate" Chinese and Indian naval forces in their legitimate interest in the region.India should now maintain permanent patrols in the S.China sea and obtain base/logistic facilities from Vietnam for its naval forces in the Far East.It also demands another major increase in the defence budget for the IN and a swift and urgent increase in the number of warships,especially subs in its inventory.

http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/slot3_ ... .html?_r=1

Backgrounder: China's Military Power
By JAYSHREE BAJORIA
Published: February 5, 2009
Scope of the Threat

Since the 1990s, China has dramatically improved its military capabilities on land and sea, in the air, and in space. Recently, China has begun to project its military power beyond the Pacific Ocean by deploying a flotilla of small warships in December 2008 to the Gulf of Aden to aid in international efforts to fight Somali piracy. Historically, the United States is most concerned about the possibility of a conflict between China and Taiwan, though tensions between the two have lessened since 2008. But looking decades ahead, U.S. military planners clearly see the potential for China to develop as a "peer competitor." The U.S. Defense Department's 2008 report on China's military power says "much uncertainty surrounds China's future course, in particular in the area of its expanding military power and how that power might be used."

But experts say China is still decades away from challenging U.S. military's preeminence. Its ground forces field 1980s vintage armor and suffer from significant shortcomings in command and control, air defense, logistics, and communications. Its air force, too, lags behind those of Western powers, though China flies about one hundred top-end Russian Su-27 warplanes and has contracted to purchase newer Su-33s, which are capable of carrier-based operations. China plans to build aircraft carriers domestically, but currently has none under construction.

None of this, however, adds up to an arms race. James Mulvenon, director of the Washington-based Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis, says China's military modernization "makes perfect sense to me as a natural evolution commensurate with China's rise as a great power." The concerns expressed by Western military experts focus on longer-term motives. Kerry Dumbaugh, a specialist in Asian affairs at the U.S. Congressional Research Service, sums up these security concerns (PDF) in a 2008 report, citing China's lack of transparency in military funding and operations; recurring instances of espionage directed at obtaining U.S. military secrets; evidence of China's improving military and technological prowess; and Beijing's military and technological assistance to states like Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and others viewed as repressive or international pariahs. Many of these issues may become less contentious through a better military-to-military relationship and improved trust between the two powers, say experts. For instance, the increasing economic interdependence of the United States and China should provide a solid basis for avoiding conflict. But accidents between the two militaries, such as the midair collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter in 2001, or the accidental missile strike on China's embassy in Belgrade in 1999, could still spark a conflict neither side desires.

China's Modernization Agenda

China says it pursues a national defense policy solely aimed at protecting its territory and people, and in keeping with its concept of "peaceful development." The government's latest white paper on national defense says it will "by and large reach the goal of modernization of national defense and armed forces by the mid-21st century." The paper stresses China's hopes to create a more technologically advanced, capable military that will allow it to conduct and sustain operations at a greater distance from its border and says the country will make much progress toward that goal by 2020.

As part of this modernization agenda, China is acquiring advanced weapons systems from foreign suppliers as well as trying to develop its own. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, in a statement to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee in January 2009, said the areas of greatest concern are cyber- and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic missiles. "Modernization in these areas could threaten America's primary means of projecting power and helping allies in the Pacific: our bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that support them," he said.

China caused an international uproar in January 2007 when it launched a ballistic missile and destroyed one of its own satellites. The anti-satellite test displayed the growing prowess of China's space program and raised questions about China's intentions and civil-military relations within the country. In February 2008, U.S. destruction of a crippled U.S. spy satellite demonstrated that space may emerge as the new contested domain between the great powers. Yet the United States' relative space advantage will probably shrink as China strengthens its space capabilities over the next ten to twenty years, writes Bruce W. MacDonald in a September 2008 Council Special Report. The United States should champion an approach to space that emphasizes deterrence, he suggests, as well as consider new diplomatic initiatives aimed at preventing space from becoming a potential conflict zone.

The United States has also accused China of hacking into government computer networks at the U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, and Defense. Chinese electronic espionage has been alleged against British companies, as well as government agencies in France, Germany, South Korea, and Taiwan. In its November 2008 report to Congress, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission noted that cyberspace is a critical vulnerability of the U.S. government and economy. The report warns: "China is aggressively pursuing cyber warfare capabilities that may provide it with an asymmetric advantage against the United States. In a conflict situation, this advantage would reduce current U.S. conventional military dominance."

China has been modernizing its nuclear weapons systems and continues to emphasize its "no first use" policy on nuclear weapons. However, nonproliferation expert Henry Sokolski, in May 2008 testimony (PDF) before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, said if China were to increase its nuclear weapons deployment, it could prompt its immediate neighbors--South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan--to initiate nuclear weapons programs. Mulvenon says it is a concern for Washington that China has now finally deployed the DF-31--a solid-fueled, nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile to replace its aging liquid-fueled missiles. The DF-31 provides China with credible and secure second-strike capability, the ability to respond to a nuclear attack with powerful nuclear retaliation.

Beyond specific areas of concern, analysts express worry about discrepancies in China's defense budgets. China says its defense expenditure for 2007 was around $52 billion and its 2008 defense budget is $61 billion. However, the Pentagon says these figures are grossly underreported. In its annual report to Congress, it estimated China's total military-related spending for 2007 to be between $97 billion and $139 billion. China argues that its military budget was only 1.38 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2007, while U.S. defense expenditure was 4.5 percent of GDP. Experts also point to the absolute size of the United States' defense budgets to show the asymmetric comparison. The 2008 U.S. defense budget was $ 481.4 billion plus $141.7 billion for the "Global War on Terror."

U.S. Policy Response

While economic and trade relations between the United States and China have been growing, military to military relations remain relatively underdeveloped. Military conflict between the two is highly unlikely, but "not impossible" according to CFR Senior Fellow Adam Segal. Misperception or misunderstanding over an incident in the Taiwan Strait or the sudden collapse of North Korea might be the spark of a conflict neither side wants, he says.

The April 2001 "spy plane" debacle is an example of such a misunderstanding. Experts are worried there could be more incidents as the Chinese Navy and Air Force counduct exercises and patrols farther away from China and come into more frequent contact with the United States, Taiwan, and Japan.

But some experts see little prospect of a closer military relationship between the two countries in the near future. Admiral Timothy J. Keating, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told CFR.org it would be a "giant leap of faith" to believe the United States and China could develop a close military partnership any time soon. To improve the relationship, Keating says, will require "more transparency, a better understanding of intention on our part of the Chinese, and to get there we would need more active cooperation with the Chinese."

The United States has followed a two-pronged strategy in the military-to-military relationship, says Mulvenon. It engages with the Chinese military through senior-level exchanges, and it has sought to modernize and reform its own forces. A 2007 CFR Independent Task Force report (PDF), which was cochaired by Dennis Blair, the Obama administration's director of national intelligence, recommended a sustained high-level military-strategic dialogue to complement the "Senior Dialogue" started by the deputy secretary of state in 2005 and the "Strategic Economic Dialogue" launched by the treasury secretary in 2006. It also recommends that Washington strengthen its security partnerships with China's neighbors. As this Backgrounder notes, the United States has been forging closer relations with countries in the region, including India, another regional power. It concluded a groundbreaking nuclear deal with New Delhi in 2008, lifting a three-decade U.S. moratorium on nuclear trade with India. The United States has also been upgrading forward deployed naval and air forces in Guam.

How U.S. defense planners will respond to China's military buildup going forward is also dependent on the ongoing debate over the biggest threats to U.S. national security in the twenty-first century. Writing in the latest Foreign Affairs, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says the country now faces both conventional adversaries and irregular conflicts from insurgents and non-state actors, and it should "seek a better balance in the portfolio of capabilities it has--the types of units fielded, the weapons bought, the training done." However, in a situation of finite Department of Defense resources, some analysts argue that "striking the correct planning balance" (PDF) between operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror, and China's military modernization will be a key defense planning challenge.

Another report on China's sub plans.
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinajournal/2009/ ... lenews_wsj

From the Depths: China Invests in Submarines
China’s increasingly capable navy has been in the headlines lately for its first distant-waters deployment in modern history –- two destroyers and a supply ship dispatched to the Gulf of Aden to join the international battle against Somali pirates.

But what is really drawing attention from rival navies and the country’s neighbors is action below the surface, where China’s better-equipped submarine force lurks. China has been making substantial investments in subs -– buying some from Russia and building their own -– in an effort to offset the advantages of navies with bigger, stronger surface fleets, such as that of the U.S.

It’s part of a Chinese strategy of asymmetric warfare. In this case, U.S. planners see it as directed primarily against the aircraft carrier battle groups that are at the core of the U.S. fleet and America’s ability to project military power around the globe. The immediate aim, the U.S. military fears, is to delay or prevent U.S. intervention in any conflict between China and Taiwan.

On the surface: Sailors in the Chinese navy on review (Photo by AFP/Getty Images)
On Tuesday, the Federation of American Scientists issued a report saying that U.S. naval intelligence counted 12 “patrols” by Chinese attack submarines in 2008 -– double the number in the previous year and the highest so far recorded. The group received the information through a Freedom of Information Act request. It is unclear what constitutes a patrol, but it is thought to mean an extended voyage.

While well below the likely level of U.S. attack submarine patrols, the number appears to be higher than the number undertaken by China’s northern neighbor, Russia. China has a fleet of about 50 attack submarines as well as submarines designed to carry nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. Those missile subs have never gone on a patrol, according to U.S. intelligence reports received by the FAS.

In recent years, China has acquired new, so-called Kilo class diesel-powered submarines from Russia, adding them to a fleet that also includes home-grown attack subs, including some powered by nuclear reactors. The Kilo subs are especially stealthy and hard to detect when submerged.

But even China’s sizable number of outmoded submarine clunkers present a naval challenge – especially if China were to use them to flood the waters around Taiwan in the event of conflict there. Finding subs underwater is one of the hardest tasks for any navy and the shallow waters of the Taiwan strait make it even harder. The prospect of a torpedo hit from even a low-tech sub would likely be enough to slow down U.S. naval operations.

China’s investments in its navy and the rest of its armed forces have prompted calls from Washington and other capitals for more transparency on the part of Beijing. High-level dialogue between Chinese and U.S. officers has been essentially frozen since Washington approved an arms-sale deal with Taiwan last year.

So far, the U.S. Pacific commander says, there has been no thaw since President Barack Obama took office. “I have seen no change since the new administration came in,” Admiral Timothy Keating told Reuters in an interview in Washington Thursday. He said there are still contacts between the two sides, but that “We would much prefer it to be a more formal, a more regular and a more frequent dialogue than it is right now.”

– Gordon Fairclough

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: China Military Watch

Postby somnath » 08 Feb 2009 17:13

X-posting from the China thread in the other forum..

Interesting snippet..

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/natwa ... a/420766/0

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: China Military Watch

Postby dipak » 09 Feb 2009 15:36

http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/feb/09india-china-naval-standoff-report-false.htm

Reports claiming that Chinese warships had engaged in a standoff with an Indian submarine in the Gulf of Aden, which appeared on major Chinese Web sites last week, were false.

Subsequent investigations revealed that the details of the 'standoff' was actually from a Chinese military drill in 2008 and had no factual basis, the South China Morning Post reported on Monday.

The false report was given prominence by almost the all major Chinese news Web sites.

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Nayak » 14 Feb 2009 08:34

Russia Admits China Illegally Copied Its Fighter


By wendell minnick
Published: 13 Feb 12:29 EST (17:29 GMT)
Print Print | Print Email

BANGALORE, India - After years of denial, a Russian defense official conceded that China had produced its own "fake" version of the Su-27SK fighter jet in violation of intellectual property agreements.

"We are in discussions with China on this issue," said Mikhail Pogosyan, first vice president on program coordination, Russian Aircraft Corp., during a press conference here at the Aero India trade show.

In 1995, China secured a production license to build 200 Su-27SKs, dubbed J-11A, for $2.5 billion for the Shenyang Aircraft Corp. The deal required the aircraft to be outfitted with Russian avionics, radars and engines. Russia cancelled the arrangement at 95 aircraft in 2006 after it discovered that China was developing an indigenous version, J-11B, with Chinese avionics and systems.

China produced six J-11B fighters for testing, but despite efforts to produce a suitable replacement for the Russian engine, the new fighter was outfitted with the same AL-31F, said Andrei Chang, a China military specialist at the Kanwa Defense Center. One J-11A was outfitted with the indigenously-built WS10A Tai Hang turbofan engine, but the J-11Bs are still using Russian AL-31Fs due to technical difficulties, Chang said.

Pogosyan and Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov traveled to Beijing in December to attend the 13th session of a Chinese-Russian joint commission on military and technical cooperation and apply pressure to Chinese officials. Ultimately, China agreed to protect intellectual property rights and stop illegally copying Russian military equipment.

"I think this was a big step to make this issue more transparent and more precise in our future discussions," said Pogosyan, who also serves as the general director of Sukhoi.

Russia fears that China would mass-produce cheaper export versions of the Su-27 for the international market, and China feared that Russia would cancel future orders for advanced arms, such as the Su-33 combat jet for China's aircraft carrier program, Chang said. Chinese violations of the end-user agreement would be particularly upsetting to Russia's long-time strategic partner India, if Pakistan buys the Chinese-built Su-27 version.

However, Pogosyan downplayed the quality of the Chinese effort, saying a copy of a copy would not be a good aircraft.

"If we speak about the copy of the airplanes, I think that in this case, the original will always be better than a slightly modified copy," he said. "The original made by the designer who developed the product is always better, and it is a better start for a new program with the original designer and developer than making a fake copy."

He said buying copies makes it difficult to overcome problems occurring during the lifetime of the aircraft, while the original developer knows from experience how to deal with these issues.

Chang does not believe China will honor the intellectual property agreement, or any agreement with Russia, and will continue to develop the J-11B as a totally indigenous aircraft. However, China will move cautiously until it secures deals for the Su-33 carrier-based fighter. China is beginning to build its first aircraft carrier and needs Russian technology and experience, Chang said.

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Liu » 15 Feb 2009 21:04

Nayak wrote:Russia Admits China Illegally Copied Its Fighter


By wendell minnick
Published: 13 Feb 12:29 EST (17:29 GMT)
Print Print | Print Email

BANGALORE, India - After years of denial, a Russian defense official conceded that China had produced its own "fake" version of the Su-27SK fighter jet in violation of intellectual property agreements.

"We are in discussions with China on this issue," said Mikhail Pogosyan, first vice president on program coordination, Russian Aircraft Corp., during a press conference here at the Aero India trade show.

In 1995, China secured a production license to build 200 Su-27SKs, dubbed J-11A, for $2.5 billion for the Shenyang Aircraft Corp. The deal required the aircraft to be outfitted with Russian avionics, radars and engines. Russia cancelled the arrangement at 95 aircraft in 2006 after it discovered that China was developing an indigenous version, J-11B, with Chinese avionics and systems.

China produced six J-11B fighters for testing, but despite efforts to produce a suitable replacement for the Russian engine, the new fighter was outfitted with the same AL-31F, said Andrei Chang, a China military specialist at the Kanwa Defense Center. One J-11A was outfitted with the indigenously-built WS10A Tai Hang turbofan engine, but the J-11Bs are still using Russian AL-31Fs due to technical difficulties, Chang said.

Pogosyan and Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov traveled to Beijing in December to attend the 13th session of a Chinese-Russian joint commission on military and technical cooperation and apply pressure to Chinese officials. Ultimately, China agreed to protect intellectual property rights and stop illegally copying Russian military equipment.

"I think this was a big step to make this issue more transparent and more precise in our future discussions," said Pogosyan, who also serves as the general director of Sukhoi.

Russia fears that China would mass-produce cheaper export versions of the Su-27 for the international market, and China feared that Russia would cancel future orders for advanced arms, such as the Su-33 combat jet for China's aircraft carrier program, Chang said. Chinese violations of the end-user agreement would be particularly upsetting to Russia's long-time strategic partner India, if Pakistan buys the Chinese-built Su-27 version.

However, Pogosyan downplayed the quality of the Chinese effort, saying a copy of a copy would not be a good aircraft.

"If we speak about the copy of the airplanes, I think that in this case, the original will always be better than a slightly modified copy," he said. "The original made by the designer who developed the product is always better, and it is a better start for a new program with the original designer and developer than making a fake copy."

He said buying copies makes it difficult to overcome problems occurring during the lifetime of the aircraft, while the original developer knows from experience how to deal with these issues.

Chang does not believe China will honor the intellectual property agreement, or any agreement with Russia, and will continue to develop the J-11B as a totally indigenous aircraft. However, China will move cautiously until it secures deals for the Su-33 carrier-based fighter. China is beginning to build its first aircraft carrier and needs Russian technology and experience, Chang said.


Even airframe structure of J11B is redesigned and much different from SU27,although both look same.
the radar, aviation...etc are all different from Su27.

you can hardly simply call J11B "copy".

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: China Military Watch

Postby kmc_chacko » 15 Feb 2009 21:31



It is really strange that after all these Russians are still ready to supply Su-35s & 33s to China

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Liu » 15 Feb 2009 21:47

kmc_chacko wrote:


It is really strange that after all these Russians are still ready to supply Su-35s & 33s to China


The new SU35 has some edges on CHinese "J11B" ,but such edges are not enough to let chinese get moved and place orders.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Brando » 15 Feb 2009 22:47

kmc_chacko wrote:


It is really strange that after all these Russians are still ready to supply Su-35s & 33s to China


After the history they have with the Chinese, they cant justify selling them any weapons let alone join a quasi military alliance with them like the SCO.

This is just more proof that the Russians are cash starved and are ready to do business with ANYBODY.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Surya » 15 Feb 2009 23:04

To a certain exten it boggles the mind to what level some of the Russian corruption can sink to. The evidence has been out there for ages - right from early mig and Tu copies to every other thing the chinese copy.

But then again there were commanders who would sell their own men for slaves during the Chechen war - so aircraft kya baat hai.

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Liu » 18 Feb 2009 09:30

it is reported thaton Feb,14th,some officials of a certain African coutry visited CAC(Chengdu aircraft company) and watch the following performance of FC-1.
Image

http://bbs.cjdby.net/viewthread.php?tid ... a=page%3D1

AmitR
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 25 Jan 2009 17:13

Re: China Military Watch

Postby AmitR » 18 Feb 2009 11:46

Why can't India do the same thing? Why not get various weapon systems from Russia and then reverse engineer them and give them new Name and manufacture them locally. Will save us a huge amount of money and time.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1197
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Nihat » 18 Feb 2009 12:14

AmitR wrote:Why can't India do the same thing? Why not get various weapon systems from Russia and then reverse engineer them and give them new Name and manufacture them locally. Will save us a huge amount of money and time.


We must have tried but no matter how hard anyone tries , a reverse engineered product is never as good as the original and our defense forces are well fed on a diet of videshi samagri , therefore the need for such measures has never arisen.

China is a different story as they never had access to European , Israel or American Tech.

parshuram
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 28 Feb 2006 09:52

Re: China Military Watch

Postby parshuram » 18 Feb 2009 12:39

Nihat wrote:
AmitR wrote:Why can't India do the same thing? Why not get various weapon systems from Russia and then reverse engineer them and give them new Name and manufacture them locally. Will save us a huge amount of money and time.


We must have tried but no matter how hard anyone tries , a reverse engineered product is never as good as the original and our defense forces are well fed on a diet of videshi samagri , therefore the need for such measures has never arisen.

China is a different story as they never had access to European , Israel or American Tech.


i guess this reverse engineering is also one of the reason that europeans don't even give look to chinese options .. you lose credibility which india has tons ..

vavinash
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 22:06

Re: China Military Watch

Postby vavinash » 18 Feb 2009 12:55

China has had some access to american (S-70), Israeli (Python-3) and European (crotale etc) tech and tried their best to reverse engineer them. But they ended up with products far inferior to the original ones just like with F-7 and mig-21's. The only countries looking to buy chinese arms are poor african nations and cash strapped beggars like pakistan. Reverse engineering alone does not guarentee good results you need active R&D to create new cutting edge products.

AmitR
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 25 Jan 2009 17:13

Re: China Military Watch

Postby AmitR » 18 Feb 2009 15:41

vavinash wrote:China has had some access to american (S-70), Israeli (Python-3) and European (crotale etc) tech and tried their best to reverse engineer them. But they ended up with products far inferior to the original ones just like with F-7 and mig-21's. The only countries looking to buy chinese arms are poor african nations and cash strapped beggars like pakistan. Reverse engineering alone does not guarentee good results you need active R&D to create new cutting edge products.


There is eventually no other solution than to develop your own systems and technologies. But if you cannot do it in reasonable time and budget it is better to reverse engineer it. Even reverse engineering will lead to the development of important technologies which will help in future upgrades. On that point, Chinese products maybe be inferior but they still sell very well in the poorer third world countries. The money that you make is an added bonus which you can pump into your own research facilities. It never hurts to have more customers and more money. We should get off our high horse.

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Liu » 18 Feb 2009 15:51

AmitR wrote:Why can't India do the same thing? Why not get various weapon systems from Russia and then reverse engineer them and give them new Name and manufacture them locally. Will save us a huge amount of money and time.

well, reversing-engineering is not as easy as you thought. it needs the accumulation of expericence and the tech of machining&materials.

For example:
Chinese experienced 3 stages before they succeeded in work out J10.

copy(J7 and liencsed Su27)------Modificaton&improvement(J11B&J7)-------self-design(J8II,JH7 ,J10 and FC-1)

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10018
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: China Military Watch

Postby sum » 18 Feb 2009 15:55

AmitR wrote:There is eventually no other solution than to develop your own systems and technologies. But if you cannot do it in reasonable time and budget it is better to reverse engineer it. Even reverse engineering will lead to the development of important technologies which will help in future upgrades. On that point, Chinese products maybe be inferior but they still sell very well in the poorer third world countries. The money that you make is an added bonus which you can pump into your own research facilities. It never hurts to have more customers and more money. We should get off our high horse.

Absolutely.
Given Indian “high speed/express” procurement schedules, it is any day better to have 40-50 “inferior” machines on ground than having 20-30 super duper machines on paper.

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Liu » 18 Feb 2009 16:02

vavinash wrote:China has had some access to american (S-70), Israeli (Python-3) and European (crotale etc) tech and tried their best to reverse engineer them. But they ended up with products far inferior to the original ones just like with F-7 and mig-21's. The only countries looking to buy chinese arms are poor african nations and cash strapped beggars like pakistan. Reverse engineering alone does not guarentee good results you need active R&D to create new cutting edge products.


well, without decent industry base and machining&material tech, one country couldn't work out a decent airplane, even if it were gifted the blueprint of advanced airplane.


For example.
Today, even if USA gifted the blueprints of F22 to CHina right now, I don't think that China could work out F22 in 10 years.

That is what happened to China during 1950s-1980s.
China's industry base and machining&materical tech was so backward that Chinese industry complex couldn't "digiest" advanced design at all.

Of course ,the case is much different now. Chinese industry base and its machining&materical tech have made great progress and is still improving quite rapidly. that is why Chinese now could "digest" SU27 and work out J11B in 10 years,even when Russia refused to give the blueprint.
Last edited by Liu on 18 Feb 2009 20:35, edited 1 time in total.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby k prasad » 18 Feb 2009 16:22

Brando wrote:
Philip wrote:"Chinese cheaters".Someone should sell them designs of weapon systems which when made will fail miserably.That will then teach them a lesson!

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinte ... 90112.aspx
The Luck Of The Chinese


I dont understand why anybody would call this "cheating" ? They are doing whatever it takes to get what they need to defend themselves. That is very prudent and wise of them. India should follow their example. All this moral grandstanding is pointless and frankly ludicrous when the Indian military is suffering for basic equipment shortages like fighter planes, artillery guns and quality parts and ammunition.

Logically, the GoI should also implement similar approaches to at least give the Indian military its basic requirements in plenty. After those are met they can decide to invest in "research" for research sake. There are no points for originality in war. Only for victory!



Don't be so sad Brando. Just because we don't do it on the scale the Chinese do it doesn't mean that we are that Gandhian. :twisted: The Vidwansak comes to mind here... I do have a couple of examples of this, but they are definitely not for publicizing. Another example would be how we got a carbon winding machine for the Agni Nosecone, by using a textile front company to buy it (Weapons of Peace)...

Our method of development is quite different. The Chinese don't really have the best people ready to work with them - the Europeans have kept them far away, and the Russians are also keeping a distance. Additionally, their large market in the African and other 3rd world nations means that they cannot afford to license or pay royalties to the OEMs - the lower quality wouldn't bother their customers, so they freely steal, and then try and take their time to upgrade that, with mixed results (the J-10 needed EXTENSIVE russian help to get it in shape after the lethal crash in 1996).

Our own methods are different - we don't really hesitate to reverse engineer critical technologies, but that is rare, and usually unnecessary - instead, we are sufficiently advanced to develop our own technologies, and develop novel technologies that are on par with the state-of-art. In most cases, our tech is about 1-2 years behind the west, and we bridge that gap through JVs, which is becoming an increasingly popular method, as evidence points.

Your point about delays due to development are absolutely pertinent, and I'd fault the govt being conservative and babus sitting on funds for that. However, unlike China, we can develop weapons with a bit more time, and get a far better output. Additionally, since OEMs are not antagonized, we are able to get more and more advanced tech openly, rather than clandestinely.

sam_kamath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 57
Joined: 23 Sep 2008 22:53

Re: China Military Watch

Postby sam_kamath » 18 Feb 2009 16:31

Liu wrote:For example.
Today, even if USA gifted the blueprints of F22 to India right now, I don't think that India could work out F22 in 10 years.

.


so the high bar of development is to copy some one...wow ... hey so if your father in law has the blueprints please send it over to us we will definitely let you know what we can or cannot do...

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Liu » 18 Feb 2009 18:56

k prasad wrote:[


IMHO, if you has not expericenced "copy-modification-selfdesign", it is very hard to learn the knowhow.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16946
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 18 Feb 2009 20:33

Liu, stop the flame baiting (why is India being discussed here ? and PRC will make an F-22 if given the design ?? :wink: ).
sam, don't participate in this pi$$ing contest.
Rahul.

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Liu » 18 Feb 2009 20:36

Rahul M wrote:Liu, stop the flame baiting (why is India being discussed here ? and PRC will make an F-22 if given the design ?? :wink: ).
sam, don't participate in this pi$$ing contest.
Rahul.

ok. I have change my post,as some people wish..... :wink:
Last edited by Liu on 18 Feb 2009 20:36, edited 1 time in total.

vavinash
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 22:06

Re: China Military Watch

Postby vavinash » 18 Feb 2009 20:36

He is just displaying the usual inferiority complex. Let him be. His country will be reverse engineering a 100 years hence too with the same logic of catching up. :rotfl:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests