China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Dec 2013 09:20

Z-20 looks so similar to Black Hawk .....why did they wait this long to reverse engineer something they have been flying since mid 80s

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Dec 2013 09:27

they have established a licensed production line for the Mi17v with the most powerful spec engines. probably same engines would power this Z-20 and start production maybe 10 yrs from now when FOC is attained. from 1st flight to FOC of a helicopter could take around 10 yrs. chinese env in tibet is no less demanding than ours.

so Mi17v local production will continue for 15 yrs for sure to recover the investment and increase nos of medium helis.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 24 Dec 2013 10:12

Singha wrote:they have established a licensed production line for the Mi17v with the most powerful spec engines. probably same engines would power this Z-20 and start production maybe 10 yrs from now when FOC is attained. from 1st flight to FOC of a helicopter could take around 10 yrs. chinese env in tibet is no less demanding than ours.

so Mi17v local production will continue for 15 yrs for sure to recover the investment and increase nos of medium helis.

Don't think it'll take 10 years, the Z-10 only took 7 years and it's a much more original design. Then again, the PLA doesn't have as much of an urgency for medium lift helicopters given that they have access to the Mi-17/171 as you mentioned and also the AC-313 which has been undergoing flight testing since 2010.

As for why it took so long to reverse engineer it, I'm sure they could've replicated the shell easily, but the inner-workings is what counts and that likely takes quite a while. Heck, I think it's very likely that they still can't produce a proper engine for it, we'll have to wait for leaks in the future to determine just what's powering the Z-20. Perhaps it's as Singha mentioned, it'll be using the Klimov engines same as the Mi-17's, with perhaps future upgrades to the WZ-16 when it's ready. This is supported by the fact that one of the biggest differences between the Blackhawk and the Z-20 is in the engine area, which looks heck a lot more like the Z-10's than the Blackhawk's. The Z-10 was designed with the possibility of using the Klimov engines in mind (ended up using the WZ-9) as well as a possible future switch to the WZ-16, so it seems reasonable that the same is in the cards for the Z-20.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Dec 2013 14:03

Z-10 had kamov in the basecamp as well. Z-20 might be a more solo go-alone effort barring the engine maker.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 25 Dec 2013 09:58

China = QC disaster

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/08 ... qc-disast/

Chinese dependency on Russian arms deliveries and its arduous efforts to catch up with the Revolution in Military Affairs imply that China is far from the U.S. level of military prowess, especially in naval and aerial capabilities. A well-equipped and well-trained navy and air force is a necessary condition for exercising strategic influence in large parts of China’s Asian home region, such as the Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia, the Taiwan Strait and the Japanese isles. This goal remains out of China’s reach for several decades.

member_26535 · Post by **member_26535** » 27 Dec 2013 05:37

http://idrw.org/?p=31222#more-31222

2 more stealth aircraft projects ??

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Dec 2013 06:26

srikven wrote: 2 more stealth aircraft projects ??

Nice!! Another version of the same plane.

With the exception of how fast India makes decisions, I would prefer the route India has taken.

Chinese solutions will fall apart sooner or later.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Dec 2013 06:40

srikven wrote:http://idrw.org/?p=31222#more-31222

2 more stealth aircraft projects ??

its a satire piece. the source is credited as "want china times".
the J-25 description is also a giveaway.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 27 Dec 2013 06:50

Why do they need two more designs? The first ones did not work?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Dec 2013 09:06

Not sure how reliable IDRW is looks more that Fake news

member_26535 · Post by **member_26535** » 27 Dec 2013 15:59

The so called source " http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 8&cid=1101 ". Looks to be a taiwanese website

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 27 Dec 2013 16:31

VinodTK wrote:Chinese Army's secret of success? European engineering
If the People's Liberation Army went to war tomorrow, it would field an arsenal bristling with hardware from some of America's closest allies: Germany, France and Britain.

Most of China's advanced surface warships are powered by German and French-designed diesel engines. Chinese destroyers have French sonar, anti-submarine-warfare helicopters and surface-to-air missiles.

China's first aircraft carrier, which was renovated from an old aircraft carrier that China bought from Ukraine in 1998, is seen docked at Dalian Port, in Dalian, Liaoning province. REUTERS

Above the battlefield, British jet engines drive PLA fighter bombers and anti-ship strike aircraft. The latest Chinese surveillance aircraft are fitted with British airborne early warning radars. Some of China's best attack and transport helicopters rely on designs from Eurocopter, a subsidiary of pan-European aerospace and defense giant EADS.

But perhaps the most strategic item obtained by China on its European shopping spree is below the waterline: the German-engineered diesels inside its submarines.

Emulating the rising powers of last century - Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union - China is building a powerful submarine fleet, including domestically built Song and Yuan-class boats. The beating hearts of these subs are state-of-the-art diesel engines designed by MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH of Friedrichshafen, Germany. Alongside 12 advanced Kilo-class submarines imported from Russia, these 21 German-powered boats are the workhorses of China's modern conventional submarine force.

With Beijing flexing its muscles around disputed territory in the East China Sea and South China Sea, China's diesel-electric submarines are potentially the PLA's most serious threat to its American and Japanese rivals. This deadly capability has been built around robust and reliable engine technology from Germany, a core member of the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization
:
:
:

So much for the so called European Arms Embargo.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Dec 2013 09:30

Range of DF-21D for you:

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 02 Jan 2014 23:49

An old article, not sure if it has been shared before. Begs the question as to the vulnerability of desi technologies - I am sure Chinese would be interested in a few..

How China Steals U.S. Military Secrets
A spate of recent spying cases opens the lid on China's aggressive military buildup. What's most troubling: It is based largely on U.S. technology.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ws/3319656

...was an F110-GE-129 afterburning turbofan engine, built by General Electric to power America's latest F-16 fighter jet to speeds greater than Mach 2 (1500 mph). Over lunch in the Marriott's restaurant, 58-year-old Moo told the arms dealers who had arranged the purchase that he would soon be looking for additional engines--or even an entire F-16. But what the Chinese army wanted most of all was an AGM-129A, the U.S. Air Force's air-launched strategic nuclear-capable cruise missile. The stealth weapon, which flies at 800 miles per hour, can deliver a 150-kiloton W80 warhead to a target 1800 miles away.

....In June 2005, China began sea trials of its new Luyang II guided-missile destroyers. When the armaments were unveiled, jaws clenched in the Pentagon. The ships were equipped with a knockoff of the latest version of the U.S. Navy's Aegis battle management system, a critical command-and-control technology. The technology enables U.S.--and now Chinese--forces to simultaneously attack land targets, submarines and surface ships. It also runs fleet defense tactics to protect against hostile planes and missiles. Federal sources insist that the only way the relatively backward Chinese military could have developed such a system was by copying it.

....China has managed to "reverse-engineer some of [America's] most modern rifles, cannons and guns and produce them domestically," says Larry Wortzel, chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which reports to Congress. However, Chinese expertise in engine manufacturing has lagged, according to Wortzel, who spent 25 years working in military intelligence. "This is one of their biggest espionage targets," he says.

..."There are characters out there with laundry lists of stuff like this," says Mangione. Moo's list included nuclear missiles and jet engines, and also called for the "urgent procurement" of "2 to 4 sets" of a "Nuclear Submarine (nuclear reactor should be one unit, no noise) including ALL nuclear weapon systems." Acquiring an entire submarine might be a long shot, Mangione says, but "any specs, any photos, any anything they can get is more than they had before."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jan 2014 23:54

They certainly aim very high.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 03 Jan 2014 04:13

Frankly, with the level of Chinese espionage in US miltech routinely reported, I'm surprised they don't already have a fully working F110 knockoff.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jan 2014 08:09

Picture Chinese CBG

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/706262.html

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 03 Jan 2014 08:31

Austin wrote:Picture Chinese CBG

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/706262.html

Fleet getting more impressive by the day, eh? At least for the photo-ops!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jan 2014 08:58

the AGM129A has truly miraculous specs for its size....per wiki. with its gigantic range would be a ideal weapon if we could clone it.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 03 Jan 2014 09:16

Singha wrote:the AGM129A has truly miraculous specs for its size....per wiki. with its gigantic range would be a ideal weapon if we could clone it.

What say we stick with getting the Nirbhay operational in large numbers for now? 1000 km ranges first. Then the next step forward, no?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Jan 2014 10:24

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Singha wrote:the AGM129A has truly miraculous specs for its size....per wiki. with its gigantic range would be a ideal weapon if we could clone it.
What say we stick with getting the Nirbhay operational in large numbers for now? 1000 km ranges first. Then the next step forward, no?

Why?

India certainly has the AL-55I engine. As long as the flight is over 100 hours they would not have to worry about MTBO. And, what do you know, for the first time ever perhaps India would start such a project with an engine.

I would say a dream come true. Win-win, do not have to pay Russia to improve the MTBO, India owns that engine so she can produce as many as she wants, etc.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 03 Jan 2014 18:13

Austin wrote:Picture Chinese CBG

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/706262.html

Where are the fighters? Where are the helicopters? The carrier is floating around as big empty football field.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jan 2014 18:20

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Singha wrote:the AGM129A has truly miraculous specs for its size....per wiki. with its gigantic range would be a ideal weapon if we could clone it.
What say we stick with getting the Nirbhay operational in large numbers for now? 1000 km ranges first. Then the next step forward, no?

I wasnt *demanding*. one is allowed to look at pix of cindy crawford and lust a little bit no?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Jan 2014 18:37

Christopher Sidor wrote:
Austin wrote:Picture Chinese CBG

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/706262.html
Where are the fighters? Where are the helicopters? The carrier is floating around as big empty football field.

Yeah, it is a training ship. They might as well install some nets all around and play football

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Jan 2014 19:28

NR,at the last air show,there was a uniformed individual whose jaw dropped when he saw a micro-turbojet manufactured by an Indian co. who have been exporting it (in large number allegedly ending up in a country who supplies us with a particular aviation product) v.successfully for a few years now.He said that it was far smaller than the "Russian engine" and excitedly asked for details. This engine is perfect for stealthy cruise missiles and UAVs. The co. do supply some products to the DRDO but are fed up with that entity who just "talk and talk".Indian pvt. industry usually wring their hands at the minefield of babudom that they have to traverse in our quest for "indigenisation".

The relentless Chinese espionage "takeaway" of everything that they can lay their hands on from the west is unprecedented.The Chinese have just one goal in mind,"to win" by any means possible. Unless India also adopts some of the strategies of the Chinese ,remaining focussed on goals and deadlines in achieving them,we will be left far behind in the coming decades.Our first aim should be to set up our "Cyber army" as another branch of the armed forces,vitally important in the age of digital warfare.This is essential to protect our NCW assets as well as our arms of govt. and economic entities which are vulnerable to cyber attack.The cyber army should also develop offensive systems to knock out PRC intel and commn. sats apart from their regular branches of the military.The PRC has already set up their own cyberwarfare entity,a unit of which which was spotted recently as being the centre responsible for cyber attacks against western targets.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 03 Jan 2014 20:59

Austin wrote:Picture Chinese CBG
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/706262.html

None of the Ships have even a Whiff of smoke coming out? what gives... also this is the first time I am seeing the carrier without its mandatory Tug(s) alongside...

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 03 Jan 2014 21:02

Singha wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:What say we stick with getting the Nirbhay operational in large numbers for now? 1000 km ranges first. Then the next step forward, no?
I wasnt *demanding*. one is allowed to look at pix of cindy crawford and lust a little bit no?

Fair enough, sir-ji!

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 03 Jan 2014 21:06

NRao wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:What say we stick with getting the Nirbhay operational in large numbers for now? 1000 km ranges first. Then the next step forward, no?
Why?

India certainly has the AL-55I engine. As long as the flight is over 100 hours they would not have to worry about MTBO. And, what do you know, for the first time ever perhaps India would start such a project with an engine.

I would say a dream come true. Win-win, do not have to pay Russia to improve the MTBO, India owns that engine so she can produce as many as she wants, etc.

Saar, you are confusing my issue of "When" with "Why" and "How". I am not suggesting we don't work on such a project. My only concern is that we don't dilute our efforts trying to reach for the upper branches of a tree when low hanging fruits are available to pick off first. When the complexities of a long-range cruise missile have been sorted out via the Nirbhay project, and when it has entered series production, we can aim for the next leap forward.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 03 Jan 2014 21:09

Christopher Sidor wrote:
Austin wrote:Picture Chinese CBG

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/706262.html
Where are the fighters? Where are the helicopters? The carrier is floating around as big empty football field.

Cheen is behaving like a kid who has just bought a brand new car. Taking it places and showing off, not realizing that bigger dogs in the neighborhood are smirking at the whole comedy show.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Jan 2014 00:34

vivek_ahuja wrote:Saar, you are confusing my issue of "When" with "Why" and "How". I am not suggesting we don't work on such a project. My only concern is that we don't dilute our efforts trying to reach for the upper branches of a tree when low hanging fruits are available to pick off first. When the complexities of a long-range cruise missile have been sorted out via the Nirbhay project, and when it has entered series production, we can aim for the next leap forward.

Vivek, Nirbhay is run by ADE whereas the above LRCM program will be run by DRDL. Two different labs with different scientific groups. Though, there will be common modules leveraged by both groups (eg navigation systems developed by RCI).

Similarly, DRDL is apparently working on PGM kits, whereas ADE is working on Sudarshan and derivatives.
DRDL has Nag, ADE has CLGM.

One program doesnt necessarily impact the other as long as sufficient fiscal resourcing is available.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 04 Jan 2014 20:45

Karan M wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:Saar, you are confusing my issue of "When" with "Why" and "How". I am not suggesting we don't work on such a project. My only concern is that we don't dilute our efforts trying to reach for the upper branches of a tree when low hanging fruits are available to pick off first. When the complexities of a long-range cruise missile have been sorted out via the Nirbhay project, and when it has entered series production, we can aim for the next leap forward.
Vivek, Nirbhay is run by ADE whereas the above LRCM program will be run by DRDL. Two different labs with different scientific groups. Though, there will be common modules leveraged by both groups (eg navigation systems developed by RCI).

Similarly, DRDL is apparently working on PGM kits, whereas ADE is working on Sudarshan and derivatives.
DRDL has Nag, ADE has CLGM.

One program doesnt necessarily impact the other as long as sufficient fiscal resourcing is available.

Fair enough, Karan. Certain projects lend themselves to be easier to be worked on in parallel by different agencies. However, other projects do not. My suspect is that once the basics of the problem have been developed and experience matures via the Nirbhay project, then other projects can be done in parallel drawing from its experience and data. Else we will end up encountering situations where two or more labs are spending resources solving the same fundamental problems that need not be so.

Of course, this is one of those issues where I am happy to be proven wrong by the sneaky engineers of DRDL etc. and will happily provide mithai dabba for BRF folks if it succeeds. And depending on popular demand, a pic of me eating my own hat will also be provided.

kit · Post by **kit** » 10 Jan 2014 16:27

what gives ? business as usual

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurp ... 40110.aspx

French Arriel 2C engines (built under license in China) for the Z-9WE helicopter gunship and China being able to purchase over fifty German maritime (for ships) diesel engines and install them in new Chinese subs

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Jan 2014 16:50

vivek_ahuja wrote:Vivek, Nirbhay is run by ADE whereas the above LRCM program will be run by DRDL. Two different labs with different scientific groups. Though, there will be common modules leveraged by both groups (eg navigation systems developed by RCI).

Similarly, DRDL is apparently working on PGM kits, whereas ADE is working on Sudarshan and derivatives.
DRDL has Nag, ADE has CLGM.

One program doesnt necessarily impact the other as long as sufficient fiscal resourcing is available.

Fair enough, Karan. Certain projects lend themselves to be easier to be worked on in parallel by different agencies. However, other projects do not. My suspect is that once the basics of the problem have been developed and experience matures via the Nirbhay project, then other projects can be done in parallel drawing from its experience and data. Else we will end up encountering situations where two or more labs are spending resources solving the same fundamental problems that need not be so.

Of course, this is one of those issues where I am happy to be proven wrong by the sneaky engineers of DRDL etc. and will happily provide mithai dabba for BRF folks if it succeeds. And depending on popular demand, a pic of me eating my own hat will also be provided.

[/quote]

There will be commonalities but we are seeing a good thing in that there are two labs working on programs which have the same overall function but for different needs and users. They won't be replicating programs and competing with each other.
Similar case exists in EW: DRDL and DARE (both work on EW, but DARE is focused mostly on fdefensive avionics).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jan 2014 10:13

China Flies First Large Turbofan

kit · Post by **kit** » 11 Jan 2014 20:29

http://www.janes.com/article/32197/z-19 ... eaks-cover

The first images have emerged of a new variant of the Harbin Z-19 light attack helicopter, equipped with a new mast-mounted active millimeter-wave (MMW) radar that appears similar to the Lockheed Martin AN/APG-78 Longbow fire control radar fitted to the Boeing AH-64 Apache.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 11 Jan 2014 20:49

kit wrote:http://www.janes.com/article/32197/z-19 ... eaks-cover

The first images have emerged of a new variant of the Harbin Z-19 light attack helicopter, equipped with a new mast-mounted active millimeter-wave (MMW) radar that appears similar to the Lockheed Martin AN/APG-78 Longbow fire control radar fitted to the Boeing AH-64 Apache.

Mast-mounted radars on helicopter is not a small feat as there are lot of issues involved with vibrations coming straight from shaft.

By hook or crook, they got a vital technology.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jan 2014 21:45

If pictures of one radar on an aircraft means getting a vital technology..

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 11 Jan 2014 22:19

Sid wrote:
kit wrote:http://www.janes.com/article/32197/z-19 ... eaks-cover

The first images have emerged of a new variant of the Harbin Z-19 light attack helicopter, equipped with a new mast-mounted active millimeter-wave (MMW) radar that appears similar to the Lockheed Martin AN/APG-78 Longbow fire control radar fitted to the Boeing AH-64 Apache.
Mast-mounted radars on helicopter is not a small feat as there are lot of issues involved with vibrations coming straight from shaft.

By hook or crook, they got a vital technology.

Or they went ahead for psychological gain without resolving issues involved with vibrations coming straight from shaft.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 11 Jan 2014 23:25

until actual war all such stunts are psy ops for dhoti shivering folks. since no one can examine their systems we have to go by official words or publications (btw Janes is good).

and even if radar does not works, they can get Mast mounted sight on top and give it a role similar to Kiowa warrior ( by looking at their passion to ape America).

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 12 Jan 2014 03:21

....more russian-chinese aircraft........

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/c45a9e2db2e