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.
D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: China Military Watch

Postby D Roy » 21 Nov 2009 04:23

China Stealth -- Maybe, Maybe Not

“[With] what they've gotten from us, Japan, [Korea], Russia, and the European Union, they have access to all they need data-wise,” the intelligence official says. “Their only limitations are investment cash and the ability to work out production process engineering and integration, which we still do better than anyone. [Those skills] really reflect corporate culture and learning curve more than anything.”

“Right now, the only arms race China is really facing is with India, and [Beijing is] winning,” the intelligence official says.


Hmm.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Paul » 21 Nov 2009 06:18

http://www.security-risks.com/china_def.asp?rno=9

Conclusion

PLAAF capability in TAR is severely restricted and would remain so virtually for all times to come even if force multipliers from main land China join the battle, PLAAF would not be in a position to cause any significant attrition to Indian Ground or Air Force. However if the Diplomatic relations between Myanmar and China continue to improve and Myanmar allows PLAAF to operate from its bases, PLAAF shall pose a serious challenge. Thus PLAAF operating from TAR poses no significant challenge/threat.


This corrborates my thought in the war in tibet thread. If the conflict intensifies, expect the fulcrum of action to shift to the N->NE-> N of NE. Only effective Paki action in J&K will influence or hold this shift

NE is farthest from Indian heartland and close to their air bases in Chengdu/Yunnan etc.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: China Military Watch

Postby D Roy » 21 Nov 2009 06:51


PLAAF capability in TAR is severely restricted and would remain so virtually for all times to come even if force multipliers from main land China join the battle, PLAAF would not be in a position to cause any significant attrition to Indian Ground or Air Force. However if the Diplomatic relations between Myanmar and China continue to improve and Myanmar allows PLAAF to operate from its bases, PLAAF shall pose a serious challenge. Thus PLAAF operating from TAR poses no significant challenge/threat.


The PLAAF is not even permanently based in Tibet.


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Singha » 21 Nov 2009 09:54

serves the russians right. should have been more careful who they slept with.

for us, its one and the same threat - the Rus selling Su30 to PRC or PRC making its own clone. so nothing extra there.

Prasanth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 69
Joined: 30 Aug 2009 09:22

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Prasanth » 21 Nov 2009 17:21



Doesn't this piss you off. We were supposed to supply the spare parts to Malaysia. I think their military have links with the Indian Army since Independence. Why is the Chinese supplying the parts now??? :evil:

There were a number of serious incidents when Russian manufacturers could not execute their contracts with delivering spare parts to Malaysia. Malaysia had to refuse from the exploitation of MiG-29 planes. The promised technical center in India was never materialized either.


Their modus operandi is always like this. Buy, rip, copy, clone, export. Nowadays only a few jewels are left to be sold to them and I know Russia won't sell it, so basically the Chinis will bribe and steal for it. There are already many cases whereby poor Russian scientist had sold blueprints, some even relocated to China to do research and train Chinese scientists. Basically, they can produce the whole SU-30 from scratch without imports. I think they have even produce a duplicate engine WS-10A for it.

karthik
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 22 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: chennai

Re: China Military Watch

Postby karthik » 21 Nov 2009 18:37



I wonder how they managed to copy the engines! I am sure the thrust should be lower than the Russian designs.

According to our IAF air marshal Indian defence export is lesser than that of Pakistan!! It sickens me to hear such stuff and i want to use strong condemnation of Babus and Netas but there is always the fear being seen a paki in BR if i do!

Prasanth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 69
Joined: 30 Aug 2009 09:22

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Prasanth » 21 Nov 2009 18:46

karthik wrote:


I wonder how they managed to copy the engines! I am sure the thrust should be lower than the Russian designs.

According to our IAF air marshal Indian defence export is lesser than that of Pakistan!! It sickens me to hear such stuff and i want to use strong condemnation of Babus and Netas but there is always the fear being seen a paki in BR if i do!


It is the truth. Pakistan sometimes sell on behalf of the Chinese, they do produce some Chinese licensed weapons and sell to Islamic countries as 'halal' weapons. :shock:

I haven't seen any Indian exports except for Dhruv.

karthik
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 22 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: chennai

Re: China Military Watch

Postby karthik » 21 Nov 2009 19:38

Prasanth wrote:It is the truth. Pakistan sometimes sell on behalf of the Chinese, they do produce some Chinese licensed weapons and sell to Islamic countries as 'halal' weapons. :shock:

I haven't seen any Indian exports except for Dhruv.


http://news.oneindia.in/2009/11/20/indi ... e-iaf.html

Well at least thats what Air Marshal Barbora seems to think according to the above article! We export arms and ammunition to countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka that to the recent report says China has beaten us there. If we keep electing fools who came to earn money and know nothing about governance then we cant complain.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1061
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Kailash » 21 Nov 2009 19:59

We can cry fowl all we want. But the fact is Chinese are not going to wait for us to catch up.

Chinese are built their products despite the international community - not because of it. Not having access to the latest, they have learnt their lessons early. Did what they had to do, to get where they are now.

Now the Chinese can sustain an armed conflict longer than Indians if all international support is withdrawn to both sides. Same point the Vice Chief of the IAF raised a few days ago. Once you have the knowhow to make a product (by hook or crook), that knowledge can not be taken away - sanctions or patent violation or international disputes/isolation - dont change that.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 881
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: China Military Watch

Postby ParGha » 21 Nov 2009 22:27

Prasanth wrote:
karthik wrote:According to our IAF air marshal Indian defence export is lesser than that of Pakistan!! It sickens me to hear such stuff and i want to use strong condemnation of Babus and Netas but there is always the fear being seen a paki in BR if i do!

It is the truth. Pakistan sometimes sell on behalf of the Chinese, they do produce some Chinese licensed weapons and sell to Islamic countries as 'halal' weapons. :shock: I haven't seen any Indian exports except for Dhruv.

Off the top of my head, I can think of the following exports related to ground forces: HK G-3, MG3, MP5 and ammunition, Baktar-Shikan, Anza I and II, maintenance/modification services to some Gulf countries. The Paks also export civilian hunting ammo and other gear, curios etc to Western countries (mainly US). They have decent basic, low tech manufacturing technology and expertise, and they are building on it with exports.

India can neither play the Pakistani nor the Chinese game. Even small, second-hand exports to countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka draw down more trouble from from outside and inside than the effort is worth. Some people say, "screw their opinion". I disagree. Good PR is necessary, and one can work to build a good defense base without hurting one's own image. Indian companies can go after hundreds of mid- to high-quality dual-use products, build a huge manufacturing base, and export straight to countries which set the global opinion. How hard would it be to produce high quality winter clothing, outdoor hiking/fishing/hunting* gear, optical systems, automotive parts... you see where it is going? I love that SLI motto, Deg Teg Fateh! One can be victorious in both arts of peace and war, without necessarily being a constant annoyance in times of peace or a soft state in times of war.

* RE: Hunting Exports - I understand that strict controls are necessary in India on firearms for internal security reasons, but why the strangulation of exports?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 21 Nov 2009 23:29

karthik wrote:


I wonder how they managed to copy the engines! I am sure the thrust should be lower than the Russian designs.

the new engines are by reverse-engineering both the Al-31 and the CFM56 used in 737s.

karthik
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 22 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: chennai

Re: China Military Watch

Postby karthik » 22 Nov 2009 02:18

Rahul M wrote:the new engines are by reverse-engineering both the Al-31 and the CFM56 used in 737s.


I didnt think reverse engg is that easy, i mean if thats true why didnt we learn the same way from the engines we assemble in india?

I think its more likely they stole the prints or payed some Russian scientists to spill the beans.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Victor » 22 Nov 2009 02:48

karthik wrote: i mean if thats true why didnt we learn the same way from the engines we assemble in india?

Because we are very good boys and don't want to be seen as naughty boys. It's OK to get our teeth kicked in by naughty boys though. AM Barbora has suggested that we should become naughty boys from now on. Hope he has a long and successful career.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 22 Nov 2009 06:23

karthik, they haven't reached the same level of performance of those two engines AFAIK but that doesn't mean their engines are not useful or that they haven't learnt anything from this effort.
let's not forget that in the olden days the israelis were considered masters at reverse engineering tech, now no one even remembers that phase.
as to why we didn't, as victor says. our long term planning has always been pi$$ poor, it has improved but it is still poor.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Singha » 22 Nov 2009 08:28

one of the things about WS1x bombardment of fwd airbases and supply depots is they outrange by a long margin, the tube artillery. and due to long distance even if a counter battery missile is unleashed (supposing we had a smerch nearby), the TEL has plenty of time to loose a volley and move away.

only air superiority over the tactical battlefield can 'push back' such systems away from range of our vital fwd areas imo.

they cant be cheap systems unlike 122m rockets, but knowing the panda I am sure they have
invested plenty in building up nos.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 22 Nov 2009 08:36

the WS-1* are fearful systems, if accurate. that aspect has never been addressed in detail in available information.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Gaur » 22 Nov 2009 09:44

karthik wrote:
Rahul M wrote:the new engines are by reverse-engineering both the Al-31 and the CFM56 used in 737s.


I didnt think reverse engg is that easy, i mean if thats true why didnt we learn the same way from the engines we assemble in india?

I think its more likely they stole the prints or payed some Russian scientists to spill the beans.

True, reverse engineering isn't that easy.
But nor is is so difficult that it cannot be done by India. It is certainly "MUCH" easier than designing the whole product from scratch.

You ask why don't we reverse engineer the engines we assemble in India?
For every crucial stage of assembly, there are ALWAYS Russian supervisors present overseeing the whole procedure.
But though that makes any attempt to reverse engineer difficult, it certainly doesn't make it impossible. Then why do we no do it?
Well, lack of vision and will comes to mind.

Also, you think that perhaps China paid Russian scientists to spill the beans?
From what I have heard, they did even better.
After the break up of Soviet Union, the Russian defence industry suffered huge economic crisis. Hence, a large number of Russian scientists and technicians were laid off.
The Chinese pounced at this opportunity and hired them, while we,being our usual selves, could have cared less.
Take this with a pinch of salt because I cannot remember the source of this information (if information it is).

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9968
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: China Military Watch

Postby sum » 22 Nov 2009 13:21

After the break up of Soviet Union, the Russian defence industry suffered huge economic crisis. Hence, a large number of Russian scientists and technicians were laid off.
The Chinese pounced at this opportunity and hired them, while we,being our usual selves, could have cared less.
Take this with a pinch of salt because I cannot remember the source of this information (if information it is).


BK mentions that Russians offered their scientists to us at breakup of SU for a monthly salary of 1000-1500 $ but the plan was nixed by our babus since they felt it was too much money and would make Indian scientists feel uneasy that they were being paid lesser than the "imported" scientists.
So much for long term and strategic planning..

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: China Military Watch

Postby D Roy » 22 Nov 2009 13:57

the WS-1* are fearful systems, if accurate. that aspect has never been addressed in detail in available information.


even with TCS, MBRLs aren't all that great.
MBRLs are not able to shoot and scoot the way their brochures might suggest. they are essentially static fire mechanisms ( massed fire more like it ) and in mountainous terrain can be picked off by airpower using a variety of precision guided munitions. many of which the israelis develop.

I think somebody in some other thread talked about airpower and rocket artillery being more important than ULWHs at the tactical level along the LAC.

I will go further to say only airpower will really make the difference in any conflict with china which will be what we may call a "Beeg War" . and i think the government realizes that as well. which is why the IAF is being primed to confer an "asymmetric advantage" to India.


Traditionally countries weak in offensive airpower and having limited RSTA capability and incomplete training systems for their airmen "tank" up on tube artillery and MBRLs,. Examples include Iran , Syria , North Korea and of course China.

You can see the same pattern during the cold war in the US vs USSR standoff. ( I am talking in a relative sense of course. the US had more than many others combined but you should get the idea. Also as the cold war progressed the importance of airpower only grew in the eyes of the Pentagon culminating in the Gulf war.)

ULWHs come in handy in low intensity conflicts like Af stan because they are cheaper pound for pound than even USV flights and of course airpower. Moreover the high angle capability and new compatible cargo munition makes them very good for anti-personnel use in certain scenarios.


Artillery and roads are ultimately a symmetric response. they obviously should be built up over time. but the real war winning tool where we already have an advantage is the IAF. i am glad the GOI has realized this.
Last edited by D Roy on 22 Nov 2009 15:14, edited 1 time in total.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Gaur » 22 Nov 2009 14:46

sum wrote:BK mentions that Russians offered their scientists to us at breakup of SU for a monthly salary of 1000-1500 $ but the plan was nixed by our babus since they felt it was too much money and would make Indian scientists feel uneasy that they were being paid lesser than the "imported" scientists.
So much for long term and strategic planning..

Pardon my ignorance, but what/who is BK?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 22 Nov 2009 14:50

bharat karnad.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Kanson » 22 Nov 2009 15:49

sum wrote:
After the break up of Soviet Union, the Russian defence industry suffered huge economic crisis. Hence, a large number of Russian scientists and technicians were laid off.
The Chinese pounced at this opportunity and hired them, while we,being our usual selves, could have cared less.
Take this with a pinch of salt because I cannot remember the source of this information (if information it is).


BK mentions that Russians offered their scientists to us at breakup of SU for a monthly salary of 1000-1500 $ but the plan was nixed by our babus since they felt it was too much money and would make Indian scientists feel uneasy that they were being paid lesser than the "imported" scientists.
So much for long term and strategic planning..


The story is quite different. There are pros and cons to hiring the russian talents. Instead, India went through the least risk approach of JV. And there is a verifiable proof that India benefited most than China by this route. The only thing we "seems" to be lagging is in aero engine department. While China managed to use their home-grown engine even if it has not delivered 100% of the expectancies, our approach seems different, even though we managed around 85% of the design thrust.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7702
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: China Military Watch

Postby rohitvats » 22 Nov 2009 16:21

even with TCS, MBRLs aren't all that great. MBRLs are not able to shoot and scoot the way their brochures might suggest. they are essentially static fire mechanisms ( massed fire more like it ) and in mountainous terrain can be picked off by airpower using a variety of precision guided munitions. many of which the israelis develop.


Have you ever seen a MBRL battery in action to warrant the statement about not able to shoot and scoot? And what might prevent them from not being able to shoot and scoot? And which mountain terrain are we talking about? The Aksai Chin and sectors opposite Chusul-Dhemchok are flat as a pancake. You can very well expect the IA logistics nodes/ALG to come under serious firepower in the initial stages of conflict. And why do you think we are inducting the Smerch and Pinaka?

I think somebody in some other thread talked about airpower and rocket artillery being more important than ULWHs at the tactical level along the LAC. I will go further to say only airpower will really make the difference in any conflict with china which will be what we may call a "Beeg War" . and i think the government realizes that as well. which is why the IAF is being primed to confer an "asymmetric advantage" to India.


You do realize that ULWG/Artillery Systems are not exclusive to the requirement of more assets with IAF. The number of artillery system being talked about are the bare minimum required to support the armies field formations. Do not confuse the two.

Traditionally countries weak in offensive airpower and having limited RSTA capability and incomplete training systems for their airmen "tank" up on tube artillery and MBRLs,. Examples include Iran , Syria , North Korea and of course China. You can see the same pattern during the cold war in the US vs USSR standoff. ( I am talking in a relative sense of course. the US had more than many others combined but you should get the idea.


There is a reason thay Artillery is called the GOD of WAR. IIRC, in Kargil 86% of IA casualties were due to PA artillery systems. Just check the role of PA Artillery in 1965 and how it broke up attacks of IA repeatedly. Unless you are Uncle Sam and have a fleet of B-52 at your disposal, you cannot match the firepower density of an artillery regiment in any mud-mover role. For example: FH77BW L52 (Archer) has sustained rate of 75 rounds per hour. @42 kgs per shell, that translates to 3,150 Kg/gun/hour. A single battalion can rain down 56,700 Kgs in one hour of sustained fire. How many a/c would be required for this role? In every account of war that I've read, an infantryman's biggest nemesis has been artillery. The accounts of NLI troops in Kargil is ample testimony to that.

Also as the cold war progressed the importance of airpower only grew in the eyes of the Pentagon culminating in the Gulf war.


But did not diminish the importance of artillery in the eyes of US Military. The biggest fear that the NATO had from the USSR Army was the Operational Manoeuver Groups (OMG) of massed armor/mechanized and artillery system.

ULWHs come in handy in low intensity conflicts like Af stan because they are cheaper pound for pound than even USV flights and of course airpower. Moreover the high angle capability and new compatible cargo munition makes them very good for anti-personnel use in certain scenarios.


If you expect the IA to breach the PA defences, it will required massed firepower of artillery. There is a reason IA has Artillery Divisions and has opted for ACCCS system; to allow to concentrate maximum firepower at any one place.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 22 Nov 2009 16:41

there is no system in service or in planning that can come near the tube artillery in rate of fire, sustained fire, and last but not the least, cost effective fire.
aircrafts are not a replacement even if you are uncle sam, much less if you don't have his coffers.

while asymmetric capability should be built by all means, it can't be at the expense of some basic so-called symmetric capability. without a corresponding capability, arty in opposition hand itself becomes an asymmetric capability against us.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: China Military Watch

Postby D Roy » 22 Nov 2009 17:51

volume of fire is hardly the key to winning high intensity conflict anymore. If you want volume for "breakthorughs'" might as well use a nuke. In fact the chinese probably have nukes lined up for precisely thinking on these lines. :mrgreen: And NATO most feared WARPAC SP tube artillery because they were nuke capable and even today Russia has several tactical nukes ready for action.



Precision targeting and electronic attack are however central to warfare today. Airpower will quickly finish off all the high volume shooters. its like this , if high volume firepower has to be generated at a sustained rate "massing" will be required and this will always be susceptible to modern air attack. In kargil, apart from a few PGMs acquired from abroad, we had precious little of what is considered contemporary RSTA capability or precision fires. A single CBU-105 will take out a whole unit of 122mm D-30 clones being fielded by the Chinese.
We also suffered to counter battery fire because the Pakis had Fire finders while we did not. So if they could detect us and we could not, our artillery proved rather "immobile" and susceptible in the mountainous terrain, did it not?

Now imagine if we have the latest sensor capability in the air ( which we are trying to acquire) along with bunker busting ammunition and training. we will decimate opposing forces even before they can begin to respond. this is why the PLA is afraid to take us on even now. they are not attacking because they know they'll have to look at nukes just a few days into any conflict. their precious PLAAF will lose the skies to the IAF within a week and then the real dance will begin.

Even South Korea is only today beginning to build up the instrumentation ranges required for such capability. we are doing the same with Kalaikunda at the core.
On the other hand if ground based fires opt for a more shoot and scoot approach , then the point becomes moot anyway. even then airpower is the key. laser guided artillery shells haven't done to well in the mountains. and for a Ballistic missile or rocket to do very well it needs to approach the capability of the ATACMS T2Ku version in development right now.


For Rohitvats,

yes I am cognizant of MBRL mobility. and in the pancake terrain they are even bigger sitting ducks to airpower. At 50 km/hr you are still a bunny to modern precision fires. at least in the mountains they have some cover :wink:

Armies sometimes start acquiring ground based interdiction capability through long range MLRS and BMs to pressurize their own airforces on CAS.

Of course I am hardly arguing about why IA needs motorized howitzers/ SPH etc when it begins a tank assault on the PA. we are dedicated to the China front here.

And by the way I haven't confused anything. My post clearly says we should continue acquiring them. So of course their procurement should continue. but they are hardly the war winning tool they are made out to be.
Last edited by D Roy on 22 Nov 2009 19:53, edited 4 times in total.

karthik
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 22 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: chennai

Re: China Military Watch

Postby karthik » 22 Nov 2009 18:08

Victor wrote:Because we are very good boys and don't want to be seen as naughty boys. It's OK to get our teeth kicked in by naughty boys though. AM Barbora has suggested that we should become naughty boys from now on. Hope he has a long and successful career.


Well i guess thats a good thing in a way? Because the Americans sell us the F-414 engine because of our track record of not reverse engg or coping other patent rights.

If we copied everything others sold us would we have so many choices in the MRCA deal? In other words will these countries sell their ACs to China? I wouldn't think so but then in retrospect most of the American businesses ended up in China so i cant be sure of anything what these greedy westerners do.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: China Military Watch

Postby D Roy » 22 Nov 2009 18:27

I will make a larger point here.

There is a reason why veterans like KS do not want us to give up on Yamrika.

The IAF to its credit has probably learned more from exchanges with the Yamrikhans than even the Navy. they understand there is a need to complete the generational overhaul in terms of capability and being on the right side of technological warfare. Some of these technologies can be bought off the shelf if Yamrika agrees, some will be developed by our own DRDO.

However for the manufacturing, the IAF wants quality and timely delivery. which is why the rather candid statements about allowing more FDI in pvt sector Jand promoting private JVs that will not only absorb the newer technologies of war but also facilitate faster paradigm shift within the IAF.

The PLAAF is trying the same. But they are much less contemporary than the IAF. so leap frogging for the PLAAF is not that easy.
For the IAF it is easier because of the quality and training of its personnel. This is what Fali S major probably referred to when he said the Indian mind was superior to its Chinese counterpart.
Last edited by D Roy on 22 Nov 2009 19:22, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Surya » 22 Nov 2009 18:31

Let me say it one more time as this myth gets a new leg.


In Kargil our initial casualties due to ARTY were not due to FireFinder. It was because the pakis had visual overview and were directing fire.

Once they were evicted - casualties went down

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: China Military Watch

Postby D Roy » 22 Nov 2009 18:35

Fine,

thanks for dispelling the myth.

The fact is they had better target acquisition capability one way or the other. And their effectiveness went down once they lost it, going by what you just said.

But our own Army sure as hell thought they would have been better off with the artillery locating radars
and bought them off the shelf from Yamrika via FMS as soon as they could, didn't they?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 22 Nov 2009 23:51

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/11/subnoise.php

Image

By Hans M. Kristensen

China’s new Jin-class ballistic missile submarine is noisier than the Russian Delta III-class submarines built more than 30 years ago, according to a report produced by the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI).

The report, which was first posted on the FAS Secrecy News Blog and has since been removed from the ONI web site, is to my knowledge the first official description made public of Chinese and Russian modern nuclear submarine noise levels.


The report shows that China now has two Jin SSBNs, one of which is based at Hainan Island with the South Sea Fleet, along with two Type 093 Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN). The Jin was first described at Hainan in February 2008 and the two Shangs in September 2008. The second Jin SSBN is based at Jianggezhuang with the North Sea Fleet alongside the old Xia-class SSBN and four Han-class SSNs.

The report confirms the existence of the Type 095, a third-generation SSN intended to follow the Type 093 Shang-class. Five Type 095s are expected from around 2015. The Type-95 is estimated to be noisier than the Russian Akula I SSN built 20 years ago.


Patrol Levels

The report also states that Chinese submarine patrols have “more than tripled” over the past few years, when compared to the historical levels of the last two decades.

That sounds like a lot, but given that the entire Chinese submarine fleet in those two decades in average conducted fewer than three patrols per year combined, a trippling doesn’t amout to a whole lot for a submarine fleet of 63 submarines. According to data obtained from ONI under FOIA, the patrol number in 2008 was 12.

Since only the most capable of the Chinese attack submarines presumably conduct these patrols away from Chinese waters – and since China has yet to send one of its ballistic missile submarines on patrol – that could mean one or two patrols per year per submarine.


Implications

The ONI report concludes that the Jin SSBN with the JL-2 SLBM gives the PLA Navy its first credible second-strike nuclear capability. The authors must mean in principle, because in a war such noisy submarines would presumably be highly vulnerabe to U.S. or Japanese anti-submarine warfare forces. (The noise level of China’s most modern diesel-electric submarines is another matter; ONI says some are comparable to Russian diesel-electric submarines).

That does raise an interesting question about the Chinese SSBN program: if Chinese leaders are so concerned about the vulnerability of their nuclear deterrent, why base a significant portion of it on a few noisy platforms and send them out to sea where they can be sunk by U.S. attack submarines in a war? And if Chinese planners know that the sea-based deterrent is much more vulnerable than its land-based deterrent, why do they waste money on the SSBN program?

The answer is probably a combination of national prestige and scenarios involving India or Russia that have less capable anti-submarine forces.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1757
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: China Military Watch

Postby wig » 23 Nov 2009 08:52

apologies if this article has been posted. the article is published in the tribune, today.

it deals with mobile icbm's and with rahul m's guidance have managed to link it a few posts below 8)
Last edited by wig on 23 Nov 2009 09:29, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 23 Nov 2009 08:54

please give the link so that we can stay clear of CR violations.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1757
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: China Military Watch

Postby wig » 23 Nov 2009 08:59

rahul m ji,
sorry this is hopelessly offtrack.
i am not quite computer savvy. i am trying to link it since morning. but it just does not work for me. could you give the instructions to link for dummies?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 23 Nov 2009 09:05

yes, in reply to post below.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1757
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: China Military Watch

Postby wig » 23 Nov 2009 09:25

an article in the tribune on the testing of a mobile truck launched intercontinental ballistic missile
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20091123/nation.htm#5

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2323
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Prem Kumar » 24 Nov 2009 03:05

D Roy wrote:
they are not attacking because they know they'll have to look at nukes just a few days into any conflict. their precious PLAAF will lose the skies to the IAF within a week and then the real dance will begin.



Agreed overall with you in terms of air superiority being the single most important thing to aim for. However, we are not the U.S and dont have hundreds of daisy cutters. And even if we achieve air superiority, we have the S-300s and other SAMs to contend with. So the picture is not as clean as you state it.

Tube artillery & MBRLs give us the advantage of attacking from within the confines of our borders. In an attack by a Chinese division, I would much rather subject them to an arty barrage than call in for air support (even after achieving air superiority). Cant have an ice-cream only lunch.

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1278
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: China Military Watch

Postby chanakyaa » 24 Nov 2009 19:29

Rate Earth Elements (Interesting article, Source FT.com)
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/rare-earth-elements_426341.html

This is slightly off-topic but may be related to military. If unkil is worried, should India be?

Building a liquid crystal display? Then you'll need some europium. A compact disc? Minute quantities of dysprosium are a must. Fibre optics? You're sunk without erbium. These and 13 other rare earth elements (REE) are the most important substances you've never heard of, being absolutely vital for applications from hybrid cars to guided missiles. Arguably as important as oil to a modern economy or military force, their supply is far more concentrated. While the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries can make the world shudder with its 40 per cent of crude supply, China has 98 per cent of REE production, leading the late Deng Xiaoping to remark that "the Middle East has oil, but China has rare earths".
It was not always so. Until the mid-1980s, a single US mine was the world's main source of REE. Environmental concerns and low prices saw it shut and China cornered the market. It would take years to bring a handful of alternative sources onstream. This might not be a problem were it not for transparent Chinese attempts both to corner the market and to manipulate exports. Chinese firms have bought stakes in Australian and Canadian rare earths prospects and have tried unsuccessfully to buy the still idle US facility. Export tariffs and recent proposals from Beijing to lower quotas mean that technology companies have a greater incentive to move production to China. The Pentagon, meanwhile, has raised the alarm over the US military's vulnerability in the event of an armed conflict with China.
The rest of the world need not assume that China will press its monopoly economically or militarily, but remaining oblivious to the possibility is foolish, no matter how obscure or hard-to-pronounce these vital substances are. As Woody Allen once said, "Paranoia is knowing all the facts."

Prasanth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 69
Joined: 30 Aug 2009 09:22

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Prasanth » 24 Nov 2009 20:05

D Roy wrote:

Precision targeting and electronic attack are however central to warfare today. Airpower will quickly finish off all the high volume shooters. its like this , if high volume firepower has to be generated at a sustained rate "massing" will be required and this will always be susceptible to modern air attack. In kargil, apart from a few PGMs acquired from abroad, we had precious little of what is considered contemporary RSTA capability or precision fires. A single CBU-105 will take out a whole unit of 122mm D-30 clones being fielded by the Chinese.

Now imagine if we have the latest sensor capability in the air ( which we are trying to acquire) along with bunker busting ammunition and training. we will decimate opposing forces even before they can begin to respond. this is why the PLA is afraid to take us on even now. they are not attacking because they know they'll have to look at nukes just a few days into any conflict. their precious PLAAF will lose the skies to the IAF within a week and then the real dance will begin.


.


Self-deleted
Last edited by Prasanth on 24 Nov 2009 20:24, edited 1 time in total.

Prasanth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 69
Joined: 30 Aug 2009 09:22

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Prasanth » 24 Nov 2009 20:18

Rahul M wrote:http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/11/subnoise.php

Image



Rahul,

Thanks for this valuable info. Now we know the Chinese have problems with the reactor. Somehow, their reactors are emitting high level of noise. However, their conventional subs seems to be on par with Russian capabilities. I reckon it has something to do with the Kilos they bought.

Why do they build the noisy subs? Firstly, of course it's national prestige and next that only available technology, so why not build it for improvements, just like what they did to the Xia submarine. They have to start somewhere right?
Last edited by Prasanth on 24 Nov 2009 20:23, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests