China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 08 Jul 2018 15:44

yensoy wrote:^^^^ That would work when technology is static, but remember the target is always moving. New generation technology can run circles around the old, making the latter close to useless - whether for the consumer, industry or defence space. When you fighting for every 100g of extra payload, every km of range, every cm of RCS, all this matters.
Actually even Taiwan doesn't have any cutting edge tech - only the US and to lesser extents Korea (memory specifically) and Japan do, and they are not going to turn it over to the Chinese for love or money.


Again, it’s the same with jet engines. NOBODY is going to giving you latest technology so to have any generation is strategic because it gives you a greater level of self-sufficiency.

Taiwan’s hold on the chini market is a perfect example. They might not be at the level of Intel and Samsung but they still hold a massive share of the chini market.

All those hundreds of millions of cheap chini cellphones consumed in Cheen today do not need US, SK, Japan or even Taiwanese level of chips but they are using them today because they have no alternative.

Just like with jet engines, the vast majority of nations today cannot make chips of any generation. China’s pursuit of the chip is like our pursuit of the turbofan. Yes, the established players have been making them for decades but so what? They are not giving you the latest so you do what you can. Brazil is still pursuing the turbojet and they have an advanced aviation industry through Embraer.

souravB
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 74
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby souravB » 08 Jul 2018 16:21

yensoy wrote:^^^^ That would work when technology is static, but remember the target is always moving. New generation technology can run circles around the old, making the latter close to useless - whether for the consumer, industry or defence space. When you fighting for every 100g of extra payload, every km of range, every cm of RCS, all this matters.
Actually even Taiwan doesn't have any cutting edge tech - only the US and to lesser extents Korea (memory specifically) and Japan do, and they are not going to turn it over to the Chinese for love or money.

Yensoyji, for a better analogy they have been given the blue print of a gas turbine engine and not just making it from CSD kit.
granted it could be less effective than cutting-edge products but now they have the chance to improve upon it as they see fit and sell it to other parties whom previously USA had a strategic advantage.
and I am very surprised that there is not much being said about it in the states, given the fact that they blocked it once before.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6806
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 08 Jul 2018 17:06

They are poaching people from Taiwan and SoKo and Japan and others. More than espionage and tech transfer, they're getting personnel too with ridiculous compensation packages. Might or might not work, but throwing billions and a lot of effort into memory first. Other stuff will follow. Micron got banned last week fwiw

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 847
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby yensoy » 08 Jul 2018 21:34

souravB wrote:Yensoyji, for a better analogy they have been given the blue print of a gas turbine engine and not just making it from CSD kit.
granted it could be less effective than cutting-edge products but now they have the chance to improve upon it as they see fit and sell it to other parties whom previously USA had a strategic advantage.
and I am very surprised that there is not much being said about it in the states, given the fact that they blocked it once before.


Russia can build planes. At the top of the list, they have the Il-96 and Tu-204. The former is a 4 engine aircraft sort of similar to the A340, and the latter is somewhat like the Boeing 757.

Does anyone buy them? No (unless they are under an embargo). Not even the Russians are buying these planes. Production has ceased for all practical purposes. The Tu-204/214 is actually a decent product

Today's market doesn't care for last generation products, with poor support and unknown standards. These 2nd and 3rd tier entities can never put in the kind of R&D funding and brains (despite the big cheques written by the PRC) into the problem. They will only be also-rans.

Also-rans may be enough for a strategic nuclear device; but will be insufficient if it has to go head-to-head with the cutting edge.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4376
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Neshant » 09 Jul 2018 00:26

yensoy wrote:Actually even Taiwan doesn't have any cutting edge tech - only the US and to lesser extents Korea (memory specifically) and Japan do, and they are not going to turn it over to the Chinese for love or money.


Taiwan already turned over much of the semiconductor manufacturing tech it got from the US to China for a quick buck.
How do you think the China's semiconductor manufacturing industry sprang into existence.
Between the stealing of IP, this backdoor entry of US technology from trusted "allies" and the purchasing of US companies in the high tech field - China has managed to close the gap.

In that sense, so called allies of the US like Taiwan are burying uncle Sam faster than any of it's adversaries by handing out strategic technology and making money off it.

US has stopped trusting Taiwan as a result.

You gotta admire the Chinese hardwork and determination to close the gap between itself and the US. If they do find displace the US as a global superpower, it will be well deserved just based on the amount of effort they put in.

Meanwhile babuz in India are going on a multi-million dollar shopping trip to buy a foreign gun which apparently after decades we can't even produce. What a joke.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 09 Jul 2018 10:20

Neshant wrote:
yensoy wrote:Actually even Taiwan doesn't have any cutting edge tech - only the US and to lesser extents Korea (memory specifically) and Japan do, and they are not going to turn it over to the Chinese for love or money.


Taiwan already turned over much of the semiconductor manufacturing tech it got from the US to China for a quick buck.
How do you think the China's semiconductor manufacturing industry sprang into existence.
Between the stealing of IP, this backdoor entry of US technology from trusted "allies" and the purchasing of US companies in the high tech field - China has managed to close the gap.

In that sense, so called allies of the US like Taiwan are burying uncle Sam faster than any of it's adversaries by handing out strategic technology and making money off it.

US has stopped trusting Taiwan as a result.

You gotta admire the Chinese hardwork and determination to close the gap between itself and the US. If they do find displace the US as a global superpower, it will be well deserved just based on the amount of effort they put in.

Meanwhile babuz in India are going on a multi-million dollar shopping trip to buy a foreign gun which apparently after decades we can't even produce. What a joke.



I’ll tell you this. After a year of cheen mil watching, I have to say that as a desi you have to have some hope that the chinis are at least partially successful with the money and effort they put into leading technologies.

Why? Because if THEY can’t do this with their effort and their money then what chance does any other turd worlder have of ever catching up with the goras?

Just sign up for CAATSA right now and hope for god’s sake they can make us “honorary whites” like the Japanese and Koreans because it is hopeless to ever be on that cutting edge unless we have their blessing.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21557
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 09 Jul 2018 11:30

It is not just about commercial success but also about complete strategic autonomy in MIC.

If you are using a foreign Chip or Electronics or Aircrafts , Weapons the list is endless in which you have no control what goes inside and you are saddled with a black box then ( Hardware and Software ) in event of a conflict the adversary can use a kill switch or use other mechanism to deny that use or use inbuilt system to track its usage. Indeed many backdoor and malware has been found in such system.

You need complete independence and control over every thing that goes inside your system to be 100 % sure you are free from any foreign implant or system that can be activated by remote or bugs. The Russians knew about this for a long time hence they use all the system made locally it need not be on a 14 nm die a 28 or 128 nm should also do if you design and build on your own.

Same goes for chinese these would be aware of these backdoor traps specially when Snowden and Wikileaks have shown extensively how NSA had spied over Chinese and want to bullet proof their MIC from these kind of backdoors and bugs.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4376
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Neshant » 09 Jul 2018 14:27

With India's enormous size, it has the market to support the entire local supply chain ecosystem of any product.

But when disastrous decisions like importing planes, tanks, hell even basic stuff like guns and bullets are made with zero effort in many cases to encourage local companies to research and develop them (and not buying local even when it is produced), then there is no hope.

If national security is currently little more than handing over bags of money to foreign companies for expensive military goods after an expensive junketing trip.

The trip around the world to various foreign gun manufacturers is a good example of this failure.

In my opinion, the ministry of defence needs to be scrapped and something else put in it's place.

It's done a piss poor job of developing India's domestic defence R&D base with policies that keep the nation dependent on endless imports.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35640
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby SaiK » 09 Jul 2018 21:42

have you guys read the report on couple of space launches for pakis by china?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1228
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Khalsa » 10 Jul 2018 02:13

^
Yes
A remote sensing sat and something else perhaps a communications sat.
Both seem to have been built primarily in China.
China is building and launching for them.

Effing Pak can't even launch an under wear into space.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2538
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby kit » 10 Jul 2018 05:05

Khalsa wrote:^
Yes
A remote sensing sat and something else perhaps a communications sat.
Both seem to have been built primarily in China.
China is building and launching for them.

Effing Pak can't even launch an under wear into space.


built launched and maintained by Cheen .. paint job also by cheen in paki colors :(( .. best to say 2 more chini sats up :roll:

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1038
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby dinesha » 10 Jul 2018 13:39

Everything you need to know about the weapons China sells to Africa
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diploma ... hina-sells

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4376
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Neshant » 11 Jul 2018 13:04

dinesha wrote:Everything you need to know about the weapons China sells to Africa
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diploma ... hina-sells


They don't sell so much as give away much of these armaments to any African country willing to take it.

The longer term aim being to establish a (military) presence in such countries.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 11 Jul 2018 15:48

Neshant wrote:
dinesha wrote:Everything you need to know about the weapons China sells to Africa
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diploma ... hina-sells


They don't sell so much as give away much of these armaments to any African country willing to take it.

The longer term aim being to establish a (military) presence in such countries.


Overcapacity is a reality in their military industries as well. Jobs are more important than need, me thinks.

American opinion on this matter:
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/china-expanding-navy
The navy is expanding so fast that personnel planners must be hard-pressed providing crews for the newly completed combatants, let alone filling the inevitable proliferation of staff and technical jobs ashore.

It’s not just the thousands of fresh recruits needed for all those cruisers, destroyers and carriers but the shore staff and technical support as well.

I suspect the same thing for their air force.

With Trump intent on hitting their export industries, the military part of their industrial complex will grow even larger to create jobs.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1784
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby uddu » 11 Jul 2018 16:02

^^^ Half of their fleet is outdated. If manpower is an issue, wait and see how they will decommission older ships, subs and end up with a Navy that's pretty modern.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 11 Jul 2018 16:07

I posted this a while back.

A satellite photo of the factory grounds at Chengdu on Dec. 18, 2017. There are at 21 J-10s (along with a couple of Wing Loong UCAVs and a J-20.)
Image

The J-10 is an operational aircraft in service for years with many units flying them. These should have been absorbed into a frontline squadron as soon as they leave the assembly line.

To have that many stacked up at the factory means, IMHO, a breakdown between need and production. They keep these lines humming for jobs. The air force can’t train people fast enough to fly them.

This kind of waste is replicated across the entire MIC. For systems less strategic than fighter jets they are giving them away at “friendship” prices to turd world countries in Africa and beyond.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62459
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 11 Jul 2018 18:32

i think you are right. there is no cause for 20 new fighters to pile up unused. they would usually be delivered in small lots to use squadrons.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4376
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Neshant » 11 Jul 2018 18:47

Supposedly the J-10s have tons of engine problems with more planes returning to the factory for "repairs" than leaving it.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 11 Jul 2018 19:52

Neshant wrote:Supposedly the J-10s have tons of engine problems with more planes returning to the factory for "repairs" than leaving it.


I don’t think so. Chengdu builds new aircraft not engines. If there were repairs of the engines they would be at the PLAAF depots (if Al-31) or at one of the engine bureaus (if WS-10) instead of CAC.

But engines can still be a culprit if those J-10s are piling up because the chinis can’t get them engines in time. Again, a big disconnect between production and need. Twenty-one is a big number for any frontline aircraft to sit around the factory grounds.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3862
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kartik » 12 Jul 2018 05:14

More confirmation of the apparent move to dump the J-15 'Flying Shark' Su-33 knockoff. Apparently it isn't that easy even for the famed chors to reverse engineer such a complex piece of engineering and bring it into service in an accelerated fashion.

Beijing wants to develop a new carrier-borne fighter to replace its Shenyang J-15s, which have been plagued by safety and mechanical problems.

According to a report in the South China Morning Post, quoting Chinese air force lieutenant general Zhang Honghe, a “new carrier-based fighter to replace the J-15” is in development.

The report goes on to add that the type, a Chinese copy of the Sukhoi Su-33, has been involved in four crashes and suffers a range of mechanical problems. At one point, this resulted in the entire fleet being grounded four three months.


There has been persistent speculation that the developmental AVIC FC-31 will become a carrier-borne aircraft, but the aircraft’s status is unclear. AVIC has suggested that a foreign buyer is needed to move the type's development along.

The J-15 is the heaviest carrier-borne fighter in current operation, with an empty weight of 17,500kg (38,500lb), higher than the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's 14,600kg, but considerably less than the Grumman F-14, whose empty weight was 19,800kg.

China has one operational carrier, the Liaoning. Developed from a former Soviet Kuznetsov-class hulk, the Varyag. It recently launched an indigenously built sister ship, designated Type 001A. Both are short take-off but arrested (STOBAR) carriers, which limits the types of aircraft they can carry and their payloads.

In June, an image emerged on Chinese social media, apparently originating from a meeting of senior shipbuilding officials, of a new carrier design with three catapults. This fuelled long running expectations that Beijing is planning a more capable catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) vessel, similar to those operated by the US Navy.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 12 Jul 2018 08:05

Kartik wrote:More confirmation of the apparent move to dump the J-15 'Flying Shark' Su-33 knockoff. Apparently it isn't that easy even for the famed chors to reverse engineer such a complex piece of engineering and bring it into service in an accelerated fashion.


I don’t think they RE’d the J-15 or any Flanker in my opinion. The Russian were involved. If they were RE’d the Russkies would never have supplied the engines for those SU-33 clones.

The last true RE’d fighter were the turbojet MiG-21/J-7 variants and the Iranian F-5/Saeqeh. That is the upper limit of reverse engineering. The Iranians can’t RE F-14 and I’m pretty they allowed the chinis and Russians to have their cracks at it too.

There is no way the PRC could have RE’d any Flanker much less one that can take off and land on a carrier.

At any rate, they won’t be getting a new carrier aircraft any time soon. If they go with the J-20 or FC-31 then I’d say at least five years. Clean sheet? Maybe a decade?

They might have three carriers in five years. Maybe five carriers or more in 10. They’ve no choice but to fill those with J-15s no matter how much they crash.

And they know it. We’ve already posted in this thread the J-15D EW variant and the J-15T with the catapult tow bar.
Image
Image

And no way they’ll be getting a J-20 or J-31 off those two STOBARs they have. The J-15 might be a turd but there is no way for them to flush it any time soon. Lol

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 13 Jul 2018 16:40

Hey we sending anyone to these games with our Russki friends? Rare opportunity to get a first hand look at the enemy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/xinfengcao/status/1017605140105183233

PLAAF to send J-10A, JH-7A, H-6K, Y-9, Il-76 and airborne troops to participate in the International Army Games 2018 held in Russia.

Image
Image
Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 14 Jul 2018 15:51

When you can launch two 13K tons warship simultaneously, the optics can be very good even all the way to America.

CNN lathers like a teenager girl over a boyband.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/13/asia/china-new-destroyers-intl/index.html

China's new destroyers: 'Power, prestige and majesty'
By Brad Lendon, CNN
Updated 11:35 PM EDT, Fri July 13, 2018


Hong Kong (CNN) China's navy is getting bigger and better and doing it at a speed unmatched by any nation around the globe.

Earlier this month, the People's Liberation Army Navy launched two 13,000-ton Type 055 guided-missile destroyers -- Asia's largest, most sophisticated and most lethal combat ships.

"This ship in particular has a sophisticated design, stealth features, radars, and a large missile inventory. It is larger and more powerful than most US, Japanese, and South Korean destroyers," said Rand Corp. senior analyst Timothy Heath.



The double launching shows Beijing's unmatched military shipbuilding ability and its desire to project naval power far from Chinese shores, said Heath and other military analysts.

. . .

The new destroyers also boast a stealth design and high-end electronic battle management system to integrate Chinese aircraft carrier battle groups, the China Daily report said.

"This ship ... is designed for escorting Chinese aircraft carriers to more distant regions such as the Middle East," said Heath.

That would give China a so-called "blue water" navy, one that can operate far from homeland coasts, something that right now only the US Navy can do in overwhelming numbers across the world's oceans.

"The PLA Navy is progressively building a particularly well-defined 'blue water' fleet that will be in place at a certain date," said Peter Layton, a former Australian military officer and now fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute.

'The majesty of the Chinese state'

But through the Type 055's sheer size, it can send a message in waters closer to the Chinese mainland too.

"The Type 55As are big, very big," said Layton."The ships are a demonstration of the power, prestige and indeed majesty of the Chinese state and its ruling party," he added.


kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2538
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby kit » 14 Jul 2018 17:28

https://thediplomat.com/2018/06/all-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-new-stealth-destroyer/
Design

The Type 055 adopts a conventional flared hull with distinctive stealthy features including an enclosed bow, where mooring points, anchor chains and other equipment are hidden belowdecks. The bow armament adopts a similar configuration to the 052C/D, with the main gun located most anterior, followed by a 64 cell block of VLS, and the eleven barrel H/PJ-11 30mm close in weapons system (CIWS).

The main deckhouse is similar to the proven configuration that the preceding 052D adopts, with fixed four face phased array radars (PARs) arranged for overlapping 360 degree coverage. However, the mast atop the deckhouse is a more advanced integrated mast, with sensors and datalinks integrated into a single structure.

Similarly, the amidships area and the smoke stack is a continuous single structure extending from the main deckhouse. A continuous integrated structure not only provides additional volume for various uses (such as amidships RHIB davits), but also reduces deck clutter and the ship’s associated radar cross section. The single integrated smoke stack is notable, as it appears to shield the exhausts from the ship’s gas turbines to a greater degree, likely to reduce infrared signatures and radar cross section.

Moving posteriorly, there is a 48 cell block of VLS, leading to the aft helicopter hangar structure featuring two helicopter hangars. A step structure atop this hangar was once suspected to possibly accommodate a volume search radar, but instead will likely be equipped with a small dome or other electronics. A 24 cell HHQ-10 missile CIWS and four decoy turrets are equipped atop the hangar. A large stern helipad, greater in size than that on the 052C/D destroyers, accommodates the ship’s organic helicopter complement.

There have been some reports that the Type 055 may involve aluminium in its construction, however at this stage there are no credible indicators for this suggestion.

Armament

The bulk of the Type 055’s firepower – as in all modern surface combatants – resides in its missile armament that can be judged in its VLS.

The Type 055 uses the same universal VLS on the Type 052D, but with a larger total cell count of 112. As written elsewhere, the Chinese Navy’s universal VLS can fire missiles in a cold launch method, or a hot launch using concentric canister launch. Each individual square VLS cell has a diameter of 0.85 meters, significantly greater than that of the Mk-41 VLS at 0.635 meters or even the Zumwalt class’ Mk-57 PVLS at 0.71 meters. The universal VLS comes in three lengths, the greatest being 9 meters, which is longer than the Mk-41’s largest strike length variant at 7.7 meters or the Mk-57’s 7.81 meters. The Type 055’s beam and draft is likely sufficient for all 112 VLS to accommodate the largest 9 meter variant.

What this means in practice, is that an individual Chinese universal VLS cell can accommodate larger missiles than other international equivalents. In the case of Type 055, its 112 VLS count is lower than the Ticonderoga-class’ 122 or Sejong-class’ 128, but each cell has a larger internal volume, with the potential to carry a larger missile.

The Type 055’s VLS will likely field existing weapons that have been integrated into the Type 052D, such as the YJ-18 anti ship missile, and current variants of HHQ-9 naval SAMs (thought to be the B variant). But the nature of the universal VLS, means any future payloads could be potentially integrated into the system, such as future SAMs, AShMs, LACMs, ASROCs or even ballistic missile defense payloads.

Aside from VLS, the H/PJ-38 130mm main gun is the same type which equips the Type 052D, but curiously lacks a muzzle brake as opposed to the Type 052D. The aforementioned H/PJ-11 and HHQ-10 CIWS and decoy launchers provide last ditch air defense, and panels on the sides of the amidships region likely hide standard triple 324mm torpedo tubes for short range last ditch ASW.

Future Type 055 variants may alter the VLS count and adopt more exotic armament such as rail guns or directed energy weapons.

Sensors

The Type 055’s integrated mast is suspected to likely mount a type of X band active phased array radar in four fixed panels.

The Type 055 is equipped with a further evolution of the Type 346 active phased array radar, dubbed Type 346B. The original Type 346 was a dual band radar in the S and C bands, however it is unknown if the Type 055 retains the C band radar given the likely presence of an X band radar. There are some suggestions Type 346B may use Gallium Nitride technology, which would likely be within China’s current industrial capabilities.

Some publications have mentioned the low placement of the 055’s main Type 346B arrays as a limitation or flaw in its design, which warrants some consideration. Warships such as the Royal Navy’s Type 45 and Indian Kolkata-class mount S band arrays atop a high mast, to provide greater radar horizon detection range against low flying targets. However, mounting arrays in a higher position also limits the size of the array, meaning the absolute power of the radar system is also reduced.

The Type 055, Type 052C/D, and Burke class adopt a “lower mounted” configuration. Some ships such as the Japanese Kongo/Atago-class, and the Spanish F100 and Australian Hobart-classes mount their main radar arrays at a slightly higher level than Burkes, Type 052C/D or Type 055 but lower than Type 45 or Indian Kolkata-class destroyers.

For the Type 055, the limitations of mounting their Type 346B at the level of the main deckhouse does not inherently compromise the ship’s overall radar horizon range, as the integrated mast above the deckhouse will likely mount the aforementioned X band radar. X band radars are better suited for horizon search and discrimination of low flying targets compared to S band radars, and having a dedicated high mounted X band radar allows the benefits of a larger and more powerful S band radar in the form of the Type 346B. Overall, the radar configuration of any warship is a compromise between various competing requirements, and each configuration has different advantages and disadvantages.

Outside of radars, other arrays and mounts for ESM, ECM and EO sensors and datalinks have also been identified around the ship, but the designation of these systems are not known. Based on the external mounts that can be identified they are likely a newer generation than what was present on existing ships like Type 052D.

In terms of subsurface sensors, an opening in the Type 055’s similar to that of Type 052D and Type 054A suggests it contains a variable depth sonar, with a linear towed array sonar expected as well. Images during the launch of the first Type 055 also demonstrate a large bulbous bow indicate of a large bow sonar, significantly greater than what existing Chinese surface combatants have been equipped with.

Powerplant

The Type 055 does not field an integrated electric propulsion system.

For propulsion, the Type 055 is equipped with four QC-280 gas turbines, each rated at 28 MW, in a COGAG arrangement. For generating electricity, a brief view of a CAD image in 2017 indicated it is equipped with two pairs of three generators, likely small gas turbines, for a total of six generators. It has been suggested that these gas turbines may be QD50s rated at 5 MW, which would provide a total of 30 MW to the ship. By comparison, the Flight III Burke is equipped with three 4MW gas turbine generators for a total of 12 MW.

The greater power generating capacity is likely to supply the variety of new generation sensors aboard the ship, which are likely to consume substantial amounts of power. Future variants of 055 are expected to field IEPS, which would enable the ship to field even more powerful sensors and weapons such as rail guns and DEWs.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 14 Jul 2018 17:47

^^^ Thanks, Kit ji. Good post.

I really like this part:
Some publications have mentioned the low placement of the 055’s main Type 346B arrays as a limitation or flaw in its design, which warrants some consideration. Warships such as the Royal Navy’s Type 45 and Indian Kolkata-class mount S band arrays atop a high mast, to provide greater radar horizon detection range against low flying targets. However, mounting arrays in a higher position also limits the size of the array, meaning the absolute power of the radar system is also reduced.

The Type 055, Type 052C/D, and Burke class adopt a “lower mounted” configuration. Some ships such as the Japanese Kongo/Atago-class, and the Spanish F100 and Australian Hobart-classes mount their main radar arrays at a slightly higher level than Burkes, Type 052C/D or Type 055 but lower than Type 45 or Indian Kolkata-class destroyers.

For the Type 055, the limitations of mounting their Type 346B at the level of the main deckhouse does not inherently compromise the ship’s overall radar horizon range, as the integrated mast above the deckhouse will likely mount the aforementioned X band radar. X band radars are better suited for horizon search and discrimination of low flying targets compared to S band radars, and having a dedicated high mounted X band radar allows the benefits of a larger and more powerful S band radar in the form of the Type 346B. Overall, the radar configuration of any warship is a compromise between various competing requirements, and each configuration has different advantages and disadvantages.


That goes into the design choices and explains them. Good read.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62459
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 15 Jul 2018 08:32

the JMSDF Akizuki class DDGs meant to be anti-ASM escorts to the more AAW/TBMD focussed kongo & atago class also uses a high mounted radar at the 4 corners of the ship optimized to tackle low flying targets with salvos of ESSM upto 32*4
--

dual-band and multimode active electronically scanned array radar, and the other is the fire-control system. The FCS-3A is the derivative of the FCS-3 of the Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer, but with additional Local Area Defense (LAD) capability. An ESSM SAM VLS is integrated with the FCS-3A.

note the 4 panel placement high up in the corners giving excellent range and coverage without any blind spots

Image
a special high wall in the back houses the rear facing panels

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62459
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 15 Jul 2018 08:36

the larger one is a C-band radar for surveillance and tracking, the smaller one is a X-band radar as a fire-control radar. they come in pairs.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62459
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 15 Jul 2018 08:39

Type45 daring class and IN DDGs all have a big S/L band 3D search radar on the rear mast - something with all the aegis ships lack.
and they offer low compromise high mounted attack radar on the front mast.

the weak point of aegis ships in dealing with swarms of missiles at medium range is what Akizuki is designed to tackle.

the Type55 also tries to rectify that with its high mounted x-band array and low mounted S/L band.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19322
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Philip » 15 Jul 2018 21:40

Type 55 DDGs philosophy is overwhelm enemy anti- missile defences with massed salvoes and have as many anti- missile assets for defence.Such a capability comes at a significant cost too.These DDGs are twice the size of the first P-15s.Our later model P-15s however could do with more VLS silos.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 16 Jul 2018 07:20

Great posts on the design trade offs on radar location, Singha ji. Much appreciated.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 16 Jul 2018 07:46

The Russians go to bat for J-15.

Very curious. They didn’t just pan the ripoff but instead called it an “improved copy” and “powerful.” Sounds like a parent defending his child.

The J-15 was never just a chini clone. It would’ve never been able to take off and land on a carrier if it were. The Russians were fully involved in the J-15 like all the chini Flankers, IMHO.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201807141066350508-china-fighter-jet-expert/
China's Workhorse J-15 Fighter Jet Still Alive and Kicking – Specialist

OPINION
17:28 14.07.2018
(updated 17:30 14.07.2018)

. . .

When asked by Sputnik to comment on the conclusions made in the newspaper report, Russian military expert Vasily Kashin described them as premature, adding that with regular upgrades, the J-15 will continue to form the backbone of China’s carrier-based aircraft in the coming years and even decades.

...

“The very fact that the Chinese are developing a new generation of carrier-borne planes is nothing new and is not a sign of any serious problems with the current fighter. Developing a new generation of aircraft just as they prepare to mass produce a current model is a traditional modus operandi for China’s military aircraft industry,” Kashin noted.

For example, China was developing a sixth-generation fighter plane even before it launched mass-production of its fifth-generation J-20 fighter.

...

He added that the string of minor malfunctions that led to the crashes mentioned in the South China Morning Post’s story, which reportedly killed one PLA pilot and injured another, were not surprising at all.

“Years ago the Chinese decided to save some money and, instead of buying several Su-33s from Russia for their subsequent license production in China, they opted for a Su-33 prototype in Ukraine. Acquiring the plane which was not longer fit to fly, they started developing an improved copy,” Kashin said. “As a result, the development of the J-15 took more time and more money than expected and the first planes proved less than reliable.”

Vasily Kashin still believes that the basic construction of the J-15 suits the needs of a heavy carrier-based fighter as it is technologically similar to the J-11B/BS, J-16 and Su-30 currently in service with the Chinese Navy and Air Force.

“By spending some more time and money, the Chinese will apparently solve the problems they now have and will get a fairly reliable and powerful carrier-based fighter,” Vasily Kashin concluded.


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62459
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 16 Jul 2018 09:01

in code language - it means the chinese have signed a deal with OEM sukhoi to fix the issues and help its local team. that is outside of the much bigger J11 licensing deal.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62459
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 16 Jul 2018 09:14

with the LCS and zumwalt class being expensive failures and the DDg51 design maxed out in evolution and power generation, usn is moving towards adapting a watered down zumwaltish design for the ticonderoga replacement as the prime carrier escorts.

the guns will all be removed and traditional missile vls put in.
the zumwalt has only 80 peripheral silos, this thing could have 200.

but I think it need not be as large as the zumwalt.

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62459
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 16 Jul 2018 09:16

in parallel the san antonio class hull is being touted as a future arsenal ship of ABM role but it is 30% slower than a carrier task force hence useless in anti-ASBM role. perhaps this CGX will do anti-ASBM too.

no other nato nation has a large enough existing hull to adapt from

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 16 Jul 2018 09:17

Singha wrote:in code language - it means the chinese have signed a deal with OEM sukhoi to fix the issues and help its local team. that is outside of the much bigger J11 licensing deal.


I think it started far before these accidents even if it were outside the bigger J-11 deal. I think the Russians were involved from the very beginning. The SU-33 line was shut down so the Russkis involved had nowhere else to go anyways.

The base Flanker itself was impossible to clone with all its thousands of moving parts requiring extreme tolerances. But a carrier Flanker? No way they could have done this with RE when tolerances are even more extreme and a failure in any of the thousands of moving parts would endanger a capital ship with its crew of thousands along with the plane.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9641
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Jul 2018 10:27

Truth is much of the reverse engineering was nothing but H&D of the Chinese communist party to cover Russian Imports.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 954
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby RKumar » 16 Jul 2018 12:56

chola wrote:The Russians go to bat for J-15.

Very curious. They didn’t just pan the ripoff but instead called it an “improved copy” and “powerful.” Sounds like a parent defending his child.

The J-15 was never just a chini clone. It would’ve never been able to take off and land on a carrier if it were. The Russians were fully involved in the J-15 like all the chini Flankers, IMHO.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201807141066350508-china-fighter-jet-expert/


Nevertheless, its clear China has a long road ahead before they can fight a war over the sea. They can do the shows and make some nice movies without much meat. I would love to see what they do with their 3 aircraft carriers without a reliable fighter, they are leading the UK :rotfl:

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 16 Jul 2018 15:33

RKumar wrote:
chola wrote:The Russians go to bat for J-15.

Very curious. They didn’t just pan the ripoff but instead called it an “improved copy” and “powerful.” Sounds like a parent defending his child.

The J-15 was never just a chini clone. It would’ve never been able to take off and land on a carrier if it were. The Russians were fully involved in the J-15 like all the chini Flankers, IMHO.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201807141066350508-china-fighter-jet-expert/


Nevertheless, its clear China has a long road ahead before they can fight a war over the sea. They can do the shows and make some nice movies without much meat. I would love to see what they do with their 3 aircraft carriers without a reliable fighter, they are leading the UK :rotfl:



Yes but when was the last time they fought any war?

The carriers (and their endless corvettes, frigates, destroyers and cruisers) are meant to win them jurisdiction in disputed bodies of water and the global commons during peacetime not war. Their numbers make war even less likely as more and more contestants simply give up the challenge — take the Philippines for example.

http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/13/18/they-have-aircraft-carriers-what-do-we-have-enrile-backs-duterte-on-china-policy

'They have aircraft carriers, what do we have?' Enrile backs Duterte on China policy


If they can launch and land planes from those carriers, it is good enough for their strategy. Just searching youtube, it is obvious that the J-15 with whatever its faults could launch and land on a carrier with pretty good consistency.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 954
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby RKumar » 16 Jul 2018 18:50

+108

^ Even they don't have to perform landing & take off consistently. It is enough to show a movie or planned actions in a calm sea.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ssaravanan, Vamsee and 23 guests