China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17073
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 01 Jan 2013 22:06

Don wrote:Damn Chinese they are good for nothing I tell you. :rotfl:

India could easily teach them a lesson if it wants........ It will take 2 days to take Lhasa and 5 days to take Beijing. :wink:


Oh no, they are excellent at plenty of things. I know - have in-laws via some relations. Would not trade them for anyone.

Just not what matters in this thread.

Perhaps that is a reflection on some of the Chinese posters.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17073
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 01 Jan 2013 22:08

Don wrote:India could easily teach them a lesson if it wants........ It will take 2 days to take Lhasa and 5 days to take Beijing. :wink:


Hmmmmmmm................

Underestimation.

BTW, Happy New Year sir.

Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4414
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Mahendra » 01 Jan 2013 22:11

It seems that the Chinese bully is hell burnt on learning a new lesson, the lessons learnt in 78 (Vietnam) and 87(NE) seems to have been forgotten. Bring it on blothel.
With all this sooper dooper claims that the PLA makes, the only thing they seem to be capable of doing is throwing a few bones at rabid dog Pakistan and asking it to bite India.
You see, too much tiger dong soup makes missile long only, balls go up the wong wei.
Now get back to photoshopping and sourcing grainy pictures of XX serier sooper dooper aircraft and let us dhoti shiver in peace

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17073
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 01 Jan 2013 22:17

Don wrote:Damn Chinese they are good for nothing I tell you.


But, I am glad you said it. It is difficult to admit the truth. New year ............. a new beginning (I hope).

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_23370 » 01 Jan 2013 22:32

Ah no wonder the chinese brand new ASW plane looked so familiar. I remember seeing an rusted shell of one An-12 at CJB a while ago. Pity that china cannot get their hands on old P-3's while IN has moved on to P-8's. I guess pakis are not allowed to show their tallel than mountain blothels the old yankee ailclaft. :rotfl:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17073
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 02 Jan 2013 00:04

Ouch. Ouch ........................

Analysis: US arms sales to Asia set to boom on Pacific "pivot"

Analysis: US arms sales to Asia set to boom on Pacific "pivot"
By Reuters
Published: January 1, 2013

WASHINGTON: Strengthening treaty allies and other security partners is central to the White House’s “pivot” toward a Pacific region jolted by maritime territorial disputes in China’s case, and missile and nuclear programs, in North Korea’s.

The pivot “will result in growing opportunities for our industry to help equip our friends,” said Fred Downey, vice president for national security at the Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group that includes top US arms makers.

Demand for big-ticket US weapons is expected to stay strong for at least the next few years, the trade group said in a 2012 year-end review and forecast released in December.

Fears resulting from China’s growing military spending should lead to enough US sales in South and East Asia to more than offset a slowdown in European arms-buying, according to the forecast.

The trade group, whose members include Pentagon suppliers Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing Co and Northrop Grumman Corp, did not put numbers to its 2013 forecast. Nor did the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which has overseen a boom in worldwide deals under President Barack Obama.

The security agency, in response to a Reuters request, said sales agreements with countries in the US Pacific Command’s area of activity rose to $13.7 billion in fiscal 2012, up 5.4 percent from a year before. Such pacts represent orders for future delivery.

In 2012 there were about 65 notifications to Congress of proposed government-brokered foreign military sales with a combined potential value of more than $63 billion. In addition, the State Department office that regulates direct commercial sales was on track to receive more than 85,000 license requests in 2012, a new record.

Overall, the United States reached arms transfer agreements in 2011 totaling $66.3 billion, or nearly 78 per cent of all such worldwide pacts, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The 2011 total was swollen by a record $33.4 billion deal with Saudi Arabia. India ranked second with $6.9 billion in such agreements.

Rupert Hammond-Chambers, who consults for US arms makers through Bower Group Asia, an advisory with 10 offices in the region, predicted Southeast Asian defense budgets would expand steadily as a hedge against Chinese assertiveness in disputes in the South China and East China seas.

December election

December’s election of conservative, pro-American leaders in Japan and South Korea could further fuel sales, demonstrating US solidarity with allies and partners.

The Obama administration says arms sales are an increasingly critical and cost-efficient arrow in its quiver to defend US worldwide interests.

Such transfers reinforce diplomatic ties and promote long-term partnerships. They also are prized by Washington because they make it easier to fight side by side in places like Afghanistan and help allies do more for their own defense.

“This potentially reduces the burden that falls on our shoulders,” Andrew Shapiro, the State Department’s top official for partner strengthening, said in a December 5 speech.

The Pentagon is aiming to boost intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities in the Asia-Pacific along with the introduction of more unmanned systems.

Such dispersed capabilities would help avert accidents and misunderstandings while fostering cooperation, Navy Admiral Samuel Locklear, the Hawaii-based commander of US forces in the Pacific, told a forum in Washington.

Contractors such as Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop and Raytheon Co expect regional demand for their products and services to help them offset Pentagon belt-tightening forced by US deficit-trimming measures.

These four companies are best-placed to benefit because of their work with satellites, radar, tracking stations and missile interceptors, said Richard Whittington, an aerospace and defense research analyst at Drexel Hamilton, a broker-dealer.

Drone sales

In a move that could fuel a new market of its own, the administration in December formally proposed a $1.2 billion sale of Northrop Grumman’s high-flying RQ-4 “Global Hawk” spy drones and related gear to South Korea.

The Global Hawk carries cloud-piercing Raytheon sensors to scan large areas for enemy forces by day or night. It would boost Seoul’s ability to monitor North Korea.

Seoul had shown interest in the Global Hawk system for more than four years. The White House delayed proposing it until now, partly for fear of stirring a regional arms-race dynamic.

A Global Hawk purchase by Seoul would mark its first sale in the Asia-Pacific. Australia, Japan and Singapore each have shown interest as well, according to Northrop Grumman.

The notice of the possible South Korean purchase came less than two weeks after North Korea, on December 12, advanced its missile program with a long-range rocket launch that put a satellite in space, in defiance of UN resolutions. The North is banned from testing missile or nuclear technology under sanctions imposed after its 2006 and 2009 nuclear weapons tests.

Japan has emerged as the most important US partner in crafting a layered shield against ballistic missiles of all ranges and in all phases of flight.

The administration told Congress two days before Pyongyang’s rocket launch that Tokyo was seeking a potential $421 million “Aegis” system upgrade for a pair of guided-missile destroyers to better defend against ballistic missile attacks.

Japan also has agreed to host a second land-based X-Band radar station – a possible prelude to purchase of Lockheed’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, designed to intercept enemy missiles inside the atmosphere and in space.

F-35 joint strike fighter

The highest-profile US offering now is Lockheed Martin’s radar-evading F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, whose three variants make up the Pentagon’s costliest arms program.

Japan already has selected the F-35 to replace aging F-4s as its next mainstay fighter, a deal valued at more than $5 billion. The F-35 is being considered by Singapore and South Korea, which is also weighing rival bids from the Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle. The Korean competition is for a 60-plane order valued at more than $7 billion.

US arms sales to India, now at a cumulative $8 billion from near zero in 2008, are expected to keep on booming. India plans to spend about $100 billion over the next decade to upgrade its arsenal, partly as a counter to China. India and China fought a brief, high-altitude border war in 1962.

Retrofitting Taiwan

Taiwan, meanwhile, is retrofitting all of its 145 existing F-16A/B fighters with cutting-edge radar capabilities, advanced electronic warfare suites and other upgrades. Lockheed Martin received a $1.85 billion contract to start the work.

The White House is also mulling options to help plug a growing shortfall in Taiwan’s fighter aircraft versus Beijing’s forces, including a possible sale of advanced F-16C/D models long sought by Taipei.

Army Major General Sampson Lee, who heads the military mission of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington, said Taiwan would seek to go on buying defensive systems to meet “persistent military threats.”

China deems self-ruled Taiwan a breakaway province subject to a return to the fold, by force if necessary. The United States is committed under a 1979 law to supply Taiwan the arms it needs to maintain a “sufficient self-defense capability.”

Locklear, of the US Pacific Command, said central to his part of the “rebalance” to the Pacific will be to modernize and strengthen US treaty alliances with Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand – work that he said has already begun in earnest.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 560
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Avarachan » 02 Jan 2013 07:40

Regarding China's purchase of the production line for Russia's Tu-22M3, it reveals a lot about the mindset of the Chinese military. For all of the bluster regarding their new "cutting-edge" systems, Chinese planners are clearing hedging against the risk that their new weapons won't work. Why else would they be investing in Soviet-era systems (like the Tu-22M3) when their primary rivals (the U.S., Russia, and India) are moving on to next-generation systems? The U.S. is investing in the Next-Generation Bomber and the carrier-capable X-47B UCAV, Russia is investing in the T-50 and the PAK-DA, and India is investing in the T-50 (FGFA), loitering attack munitions (Nirbhay, etc.), and UCAV's like the IUSAV.

Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia is correct in saying that there is avionics-upgrade potential in the Tu-22M3. There probably is, but that doesn't change the fact that the M3 is a 1970's upgrade of a 1960's design. (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Backfire.html)
The fact that China, in 2012, is evidently willing to invest $1.5 billion USD to obtain the production line of a 1960's design, is telling.
Last edited by Avarachan on 02 Jan 2013 08:15, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Singha » 02 Jan 2013 07:55

yes but its still a big leg up from their even older H-6 model. its faster and can carry atleast the same payload.

also with a internal rotary bay they gain this vital technology as well. plus bits and pieces of useful stuff can be changed and modernized.

http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Tu-22M- ... -Eq-2A.png

while H6 was totally defenceless if detected in range, Backfires can attack and escape at much higher speed, complicating things for the defender and be able to use lots of cheaper shorter range missiles which H6 would be endangered in using.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 02 Jan 2013 08:31

The Tu 22M3's range was for high altitude flight probably at subsonic speed (No supercruise). The concept of swing wing was to increase lift at take off but decrease drag in high speed flight. Those huge box intakes were the classic unstealthy design with wing joints and huge tail providing great spots for radar reflections. A Wiki wing loading of 688 kg per sq mtr and a thrust weight ratio of 0.4 are probably among the reasons why even the Russkies thought it was obsolete.

I bet my left testimonial that the Chinese are not looking to manufacture the Tu 22 in its original form. They are not that stupid. they are looking for a production line that can have other uses. The Chinese are good at saying they want a casino but making an aircraft carrier instead. They may make a non swing wing bomber with stealth features as an experimental aircraft. Or else the tooling may double up and be useful for other aircraft.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17073
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 02 Jan 2013 09:24

Whatever the game plan, the fact remains they take one step forward and one step backward.

For ALL their noise about latest and greatest fighters, they want the Su-35 from Russia.

It shows they have no real R&D based product set. What they have is fit-and-start products. And, if they are happy with that so be it. But it cannot last for too long.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_23694 » 02 Jan 2013 09:57

NRao wrote:Whatever the game plan, the fact remains they take one step forward and one step backward.

For ALL their noise about latest and greatest fighters, they want the Su-35 from Russia.

It shows they have no real R&D based product set. What they have is fit-and-start products. And, if they are happy with that so be it. But it cannot last for too long.


So can we be rest assured that the J 20 and J 31 are mere propaganda m/c with not not much capability. My assumption is that the Chinese are pretty confident for the air frame area and with J-11 etc they could be having a 4th gen avionics capability and the reason for Su 35 is to speed up the availability of 5th gen avionics. It could be that they don't want to spend too much time in R&D for 5th gen tech and are trying to obtain as much as possible off the shelf or reverse engineering using the huge cash reserve at the their disposal to speed up these aircrafts development and deployment.
They don;t seem to care about the means or process but the end result which according to me is perfectly fine and seems to be working for them

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17073
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 02 Jan 2013 10:18

My feel is that these machines are of value - nuisance value? The reason being they will pose a threat for some time to come - after all some Western nation/company did conduct a great deal of R&D to produce them. However, since the R&D is not Chinese and they have no clue how these techs got there, they have no clue how to improve on them either.

Now how long will these techs last is the question. AA and such missiles could go on for a much longer span of time. Radars, sensors, etc, I would expect them to be of far lesser time span.

It would be interesting to follow Chinese client states and see how much they buy into these technologies. Pakistan for instance is already hedging her bets - want Western components in her Thunder (missiles apart).

Besides, outside of photos and youTube hits, how much do they talk about specs? I am sure they will come up with some spectacular specs, only to fade as time goes by.

It is very difficult to sustain anything without your own R&D. And, the J-20/31 could not have come about without stolen techs - simply because it too even the mighty US companies more than 10 years of evolute development. The F-22 itself went through some 10 iterative designs. They mist have had years of R&D prior to that. And, the Chinese can build something similar within a few years without any defmil base?

Look at the PAK-FA. Russians are no dummies at this game. They do not even have a "5th Gen" engine for that nice plane - yet.

??????

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_20292 » 02 Jan 2013 23:16

^^

Haan, true what you say. Its interesting to see how we react to them. Our media becomes hysterical.
We do too.

China does not consider India a big enemy. Even if it does, good, Himalayan fences, make good neighbours.

Don
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 09 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Don » 03 Jan 2013 01:45

Double post
Last edited by Don on 03 Jan 2013 01:49, edited 1 time in total.

Don
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 09 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Don » 03 Jan 2013 01:47

Deleted. Poster warned for trolling.
Last edited by Suraj on 03 Jan 2013 04:24, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Three warnings since Dec 2012: one month ban.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_23370 » 03 Jan 2013 02:04

Please do not insult the Mig-21. The J-31/20 garbage would be lucky if they saw any real or imaginary combat. Most likely like the attempted Jaguar clones it will enter a quiet service and die out in a decade as an obsolete aircraft right from the start dependent on russian engines. Tu-22 may or may not interest china but since they keep outdated and obsolete aircrafts from Tu-16 to An-12 it will fit in right with PLAAF or PLAN.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Boreas » 03 Jan 2013 03:43

Don wrote:Yes, J-20 and J-31 are mere propaganda machine. Actually they are nothing more than Mig -21 clones, India has nothing to worry about. :wink:

As for the TU-22 rumour its been debunked in another serious forum but you guys are really taking this seriously... :rotfl:

Do you have any specs to prove otherwise?

Without specs it has as much as chances of shooting down a F-22 as being shot down by a mig-21.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17073
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 03 Jan 2013 04:16

Boreas wrote:
Don wrote:Yes, J-20 and J-31 are mere propaganda machine. Actually they are nothing more than Mig -21 clones, India has nothing to worry about. :wink:

As for the TU-22 rumour its been debunked in another serious forum but you guys are really taking this seriously... :rotfl:

Do you have any specs to prove otherwise?

Without specs it has as much as chances of shooting down a F-22 as being shot down by a mig-21.


Simple logic escapes them.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_23370 » 03 Jan 2013 04:35

I am sure pakis would like to try their hand on these super duper planes and give an honest feedback. I am waiting for Pakis to try the J-10 and give an comparison with F-16.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_20292 » 03 Jan 2013 14:19

The chinese planes do not have either the electronics, nor the warfare tactics and technology, nor the operational excellence.

We have all of these, in all of our three service arms. Point 1.
Point 2. The chinese are rational people. They focus much more on the USA, Japan, Taiwan . Then comes South China Sea, Korea, Vietnam. Then come India, ASEAN etc. Descending order of enmity.
Point 3. Himalayas. Good fences make good neighbours.
Point 4. India strong. Popular kid in the school. Popular support from US, EU, Russia, Israel, and probably the rest of the world combined when it comes to a full scale war against China.

Based on 1-4, I think, that if we work hard and keep our current strategic position, and peaceful nature, we will be able to keep the defence of the motherland on a very good keel.

This defence, this strength, will allow us to then focus our hearts and minds on the one thing that really matter-- our economic race with China.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 560
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Avarachan » 04 Jan 2013 05:56

Vivek,

I thought this might interest you. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in November 2011 regarding the quality of spare parts used in U.S. military equipment. (Credit for the link goes to "The Boresight" blog, http://theboresight.blogspot.com/2009/09/some-thoughts-and-discussion.html.)

You can read through the report on your own, but I'll summarize it. The investigation is ongoing, but of the 7 parts they've tested, all 7 have failed to be authentic. All 7 were from China (pages 2-3).

This is not a trivial matter. Quoting directly from the report:

"An authentic part with this number is a voltage
regulator that may be commonly found in military systems such as the Air
Force’s KC-130 Hercules aircraft, the Navy’s F/A-18E Super Hornet
fighter plane, the Marine Corps’ V-22 Osprey aircraft, and the Navy’s
SSN-688 Los Angeles Class nuclear-powered attack submarine. If
authentic, these parts provide accurate power voltage to segments of the
system they serve. Failure can lead to unreliable operation of several
components (e.g., integrated circuits) in the system and poses risks to the
function of the system where the parts reside" (page 7).

Another example:

"An authentic part with this part number is an operational amplifier that may be
commonly found in the Army and Air Force’s Joint Surveillance and
Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS); the Air Force’s F-15 Eagle fighter
plane; and the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps’ Maverick AGM-65A
missile. If authentic, this part converts input voltages into output voltages
that can be hundreds to thousands of times larger. Failure can lead to
unreliable operation of several components (e.g., integrated circuits) in
the system and poses risks to the function of the system where the parts
reside" (page 8). (<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d12213t.pdf>)

Now, if this is the case for U.S. military equipment, I can only imagine what is happening with Chinese military equipment. The "Epoch Times" (March 18, 2010) has an informative article.

"AVICSAC former employee Ma Ming told The Epoch Times that beginning in the latter part of 2007, former plant manager Yang Yongying began subcontracting the production of parts for J-8 (Jian-8; NATO reporting name Finback) and J-8II, one of the most advanced all-weather interceptors in China, to eight private workshops to increase profits.

According to Ma, workers in those private workshops have no qualifications, training, or vocational certificates, or even basic technical knowledge. As a result, several serious accidents have occurred. However, workshop owners used payoffs to silence reports on those accidents, and Ma believes many aircraft equipped with such parts are in danger ….

Although there are several military representatives from the navy and air force who are supposed to oversee the management, Ma said that "they also took advantage of their military privileges to have their relatives run such workshops,” so in the end no one responded to Ma’s reports ….

After reporting the corruption to many levels of authorities without response, Ma posted the information on the Internet: "Yang is not alone. It is a bunch of corrupt officials. I want to teach them a lesson—at least I can constrain them from doing more bad things."

Yang has now stepped down from his position. Ma said it is probable that some higher authorities feared his case would lead to more trouble. To date, no media report has confirmed Yang’s removal." (<http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/corruption-jet-fighter-j-8-j-8ii-military-industry-31665-print.html> )

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5376
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby jamwal » 04 Jan 2013 10:41

From blog linked by Avarachan ji

China’s J10 Fighter – Up Close and Slow Motion Train Wreck

How Sino-Russian relations will be effected by Beijing’s theft of billions of Rubles (RUB) of Russian intellectual State property (PRC: J-11b, J-15, and WS-10 programs) – is unknown. The PCR may now be attempting replicate the Russian Su-34.

Programs that are part of China's modernization effort (produced or copied in China) will suffer at the hands of the PRCs own massive counterfeit electronic IC and component industry. This industry uses salvaged (consumer-grade) e-waste that is then deliberately re-marked/miss-marked and offered as “new” MIL spec items.The reduction in PRC military readiness and combat capability will be proportional to the degree of penetration of Chinese counterfeit electronic components into the PRCs own combat systems. This will include systems for international sale or developed by the PRC for others.

We expect Chinese electronic system failure rates on the order of 200% to 500% higher (higher) than Western or Russian systems/per operational hr. This could be an understated figure.

ashi
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby ashi » 04 Jan 2013 11:20

PLAAF and PLAN 2012 in Review

1. The Aircraft Carrier project
2. Emergence of type 052D class DDG
3. Appearance of Y-20 transport
4. Appearance and first flight of J-31 fighter jet
5. Introduction of Z-10 and Z-19 to the world
6. The continued high tide of PLAN
7. The 056 program
8. Success of Shenyang AC
9. The expansion of civilian maritime agency
10. Increased transparency


There are also stories that haven't been mentioned much, but are very important in my opinion. Below are the top 5 under rated stories of 2012:

1. Production of more 052C and 054A ships
2. Continued expansion of MCM ships
3. Ever increasing complexity of PLAAF exercises
4. The appearance of Y-8 High New 6 maritime patrol aircraft
5. Increase exports of naval and civilian patrol ships

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Singha » 04 Jan 2013 12:17

http://xbradtc.com/2012/06/27/chinas-ty ... s-insider/

cheen is in various stages of building 10 of these 1800t corvettes and 6 more planned.

also they have built around 60 of the catamaran hull FACs armed with 4 ASMs each for the littoral attack role.

the corvette falls below the jiangkai class and defn below the 054A class . the 054A class with vl SAM seem to be their standard new FFG and is being funded for more units.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2474
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby VinodTK » 04 Jan 2013 13:46

Cross posting from Intelligence & National Security Discussion
No churning on China

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_20292 » 05 Jan 2013 10:34

Related to the Chinese style of massed infantry attacks;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... death_toll

Look at the above table. As Indians, on an Indian forum, we are sort of insulated from the reality of the history of China. The reality is , that the CPC is sh*t scared of revolt in the countryside, because of the history of revolts and rebellions becoming a lot more, and degenerating into TOTAL WAR.

Looking at the wiki link above; it has 28 wars in a table, which have been listed as having had very large death tolls.
Out of those 28; China has had a hand, or has been the site of the war itself, in 11 of them. World War 2 saw some 20 million Chinese deaths. The great leap forward saw another 20-40 million deaths.
Earlier in time, the An Lushan rebellion saw 13 to 36 million people die, in the 8th century AD. The Mongol conquests in 1200 -1400 saw around 7-17% of the worlds population die, a significant part of them in China. In the 14th century, 30 million people lost their lives in China, 7% of the world’s population. In the 17th century, another 25 million people lost their lives, 4.8% of the world. In the 19th century Taiping rebellion, anywhere between 20 million to 100 million people died in China.

So, in conclusion;
1. China has had huge ups and downs in both economy and population size due to wars and disasters. A lot of them are hidden from scrutiny and spotlight.

2. They have a strong interest in keeping an internal, bold face of power, and stability. Since transition of power in China, has historically led to and been associated with HUMONGOUS amounts of bloodshed.

3. This leads me to conclude that the parasitic communist government is going to be in power, in China for the longest amount of time, since transition of power is so fearsome.

4. They will try and create a bold, rabid image of an external enemy, such that the focus of the population goes outward, from the CPC’s own deficiencies to the outside. The USSR had the USA, in the image of the external beast. Again, China has the USA as well as it does Japan.

5. India has to learn to stay out of the spotlight of this enmity of China. It has to, by a system of subtle intrigue; advance its interests and power and strength, without attracting too much malice from the Chinese. [ I love the way the Agni series is reported as being IRBMs :D The same weight & height and diameter as the French and American ICBMs of range 10K km.…but its range is JUST 2500 / 3500/4500 km :D . Atta bhara hua hai kya usme? Laddoo pede for the Chinese , I guess, that restrict its range :D ]

6. We’re on a decent path. Strategically, economically, socially. We’ve got to trust our democracy, trust the process of capitalism and the functioning of republics, and we will be able to surmount our challenges. It’s important to keep the faith in our path.

Jai Hind !

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Austin » 05 Jan 2013 11:05

China Confirms Y-20 Heavy Airlifter Program

Two Y-20 prototypes have been produced to date, one for flight-testing and the other for static tests. The Y-20 is a four-engine turbofan designed as a strategic airlifter and is controversially similar in configuration to the Boeing C-17. In February 2008, Greg Chung, an American citizen of Chinese origin who had worked for Boeing in southern California as a stress analyst, was charged with passing aerospace trade secrets, including those involving the C-17 program, to China. That same month, AIN published a CAD/CAM drawing of the Y-20 design, taken from a video promoting Avic, that Western analysts had previously overlooked. In 2010 Chung was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

The Y-20 is said to have flown for the first time last November, but other Chinese Internet sources have stated that the maiden flight will not occur until sometime this month. The prototypes are reportedly powered by Russian-made D30KP2s, which China has received thanks to its purchase of Ilyushin Il-76 airlifters. In late November, AIN reported that China is buying another 10 Il-76s from Russia. Our comment then, that China had abandoned its indigenous airlifter project, was evidently incorrect.

It is not yet known whether China will be able to equip production models of the Y-20 with its own turbofans. However, at the recent Zhuhai Airshow, officials from Avic reported significant progress in the development of indigenous turbofans. Production versions of the Y-20 could therefore dispense with the Russian powerplants.

The payload of the Y-20 is reported to be 60 tonnes, short of the 77-tonne capacity of the C-17. Its maximum takeoff weight is between 200 and 220 tonnes. The Y-20 is thought to be capable of carrying China’s main battle tank, the Type 99. Its range is reported to be 4,000 km, enough to cover the whole of China. If taking off from Shanghai, it could reach Guam.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Austin » 05 Jan 2013 11:06

Reason why Y-20 looks similar to C-17 good old love for motherland :)

From an older report http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... i-spy-case

The engineer, Greg Chung, 72, is a U.S. citizen of Chinese origin, who worked for Boeing in Southern California. He also faces charges of handing over details of the Delta IV space launcher. U.S. attorney Thomas O’Brien said Chung was motivated by love for “the motherland,” rather than a desire to get rich.

The fuselage and tail shown in the AVIC video look much like the C-17, but the wing and engine-mounting configuration differs.

asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby asprinzl » 06 Jan 2013 08:43

It is one thing to produce jet engines for fighter planes. It is totally another kind of ball game when it comes to producing low bypass turbofan engines for heavy lifters. What I meant to say is that it is a lot "easier" by long shot to produce the fighter engine. Looking at how "easy" it has been for China to come up with a decent fighter engine, we know how much "easier" it is going to be for them to build a working engine for their spanky new heavy lifter.

Just looking at the Kaveri experience is an eye openner regarding the complexities and difficulties in designing and building a fighter engine. Designing and building a low bypass turbofan engine for heavy lifting transport plane is several fold more complex and requires much more higher "science". China has been in the fighter engine making business since at least the 1960s and they are yet to have a decent domestic fighter engine. Their attempts at cloning Russian fighter engines.....is such a "great leap forward" success that they are still standing in line to buy Russian engines.

For the record there are only four international companies that have the ability to produce these giant engines: General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce and that Russian company whose name escapes me. Not even the French have this capablity for now and they have had a long history in aviation science. So....expect to see the Chinese flying these planes with Russian engines for a long time to come.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_20292 » 06 Jan 2013 09:21

asprinzl wrote:For the record there are only four international companies that have the ability to produce these giant engines: General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce and that Russian company whose name escapes me. Not even the French have this capablity for now and they have had a long history in aviation science. So....expect to see the Chinese flying these planes with Russian engines for a long time to come.


1. Snecma is collaborating with GTRE to make Kaveri. So, there is a French company, which makes the Rafale engine, and that is Snecma.
2. Russia --- Tumansky, Llyuka . And whoever makes the AL31 P, and the RD 33s....dunno their names.


BTW; Russia, despite being denigrated by the west, has some AWESOME technology, some of which has NOT BEEN seen in the US....no wonder they were shit scared of them.

We do want to buy some of these companies up now. How about GoI taking a small stake in UAC???

asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby asprinzl » 06 Jan 2013 11:54

Please re-read what I wrote. I am not talking about fighter engines. I am talking about the ginormous low bypass turbofan engines for gigantic transports like the C-17, Boeing and A380. Snecma is NOT in this market :eek:

There are only four entities world wide that make these. Two Yanks, One Brit and One Russian.

A fighter jet engine is easier to design and build compared the LBTE. If one is having such a difficulty with a fighter engine....just imagine the uphill task wrt LBTE.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Singha » 06 Jan 2013 12:04

er Avram, Snecma and GE are the joint owners of CFM which designs the CFM56 engines widely used in A321, A340 and KC135, E3, P8, RC135 and B737. 23000 such engines sold worldwide. they are also doing the LEAP engine to replace the CFM56 and infact our cheen biraders have chosen this engine for the C919!!

the aviadigitel PS90 is around 1.5X the thrust of the LEAP/CFM56 family so I suspect the IL76/Y20/C17 cannot directly use them, the plan must be steal and learn whatever they can from the D30, PS90 equipped IL476 order and the LEAP for the C919.

GE aviation on its down develops the bigger sticks like the GE90 and the GENx engine.
these are probably the biggest engines in wide service. the compressor diameter is that of a small house!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 19_254.jpg

these are probably representative of the state of art in big engines and khans crown jewel/munna pride/tip of spear technology....obviously guarded very very carefully.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17073
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 12 Jan 2013 06:39

India should send a P-8I (when they come) on a goodwill tour of the East China Sea region.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_23370 » 12 Jan 2013 10:58

They are not expecting a fight else Su-30 would have been sent not crappy J-10's.

tushar_m

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby tushar_m » 12 Jan 2013 17:56

Bheeshma wrote:They are not expecting a fight else Su-30 would have been sent not crappy J-10's.


current scenario between Japan & China can easily escalate to minor conflict so its true they were not expecting a fight......

sending any aircraft would be good enough for such time so i guess they were saving su30 flight time for India & USN...........& sending crappy planes for others..... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby vina » 13 Jan 2013 07:03

Posting this news here for obvious reason. Just imagine the R&D happening here if a similar news is reported.
F-35 testing halted after cracks discovered.

Now you know why the cloned Chinese ding-dong taking off from a carrier elicits loud yawns. Someone here quickly tell me that the cloned Chinese Su-33 went through 8000 hrs of stress tests. And of course the JF-17 did in Pakistan with Pindi-Chana gas being the main source of stress.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby RamaY » 13 Jan 2013 07:12

Vinaji

You are missing one key aspect of Chinese military doctrine. The Chinese do not expect their ACC launched fighters to return, so they don't have to go thru thousands of hours of testing. All they need to do is to take off once.

tushar_m

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby tushar_m » 13 Jan 2013 08:54

RamaY wrote:Vinaji

You are missing one key aspect of Chinese military doctrine. The Chinese do not expect their ACC launched fighters to return, so they don't have to go thru thousands of hours of testing. All they need to do is to take off once.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: ...........

member_23651
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_23651 » 14 Jan 2013 13:44

It seems like China is carrying out tests for new 105 mm light tanks in Tibet.

Image


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests