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.
Kengsley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 Aug 2018 11:40

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kengsley » 05 Dec 2018 15:44

Karan M wrote:
Kartik wrote:China seeking to offload surplus military equipment, including fighters and AWACS. JH-7As are on the list as well, which goes to show that these must have been pretty disappointing platforms.

link




Kartik, exactly. Disappointing, yet mass produced. This is exactly the issue with copying PRCs strategy. Imagine spending a huge chunk if a tight budget on fancy toys, only for the military to reject all of them and ask for imports noting they would lose otherwise.

Like I have said before China's strategy does two things, convince amateur observers who can't see through the smoke and mirrors, that it has arrived. Next, it keeps a huge domestic base happy.

I had once done an analysis of PRCs aviation industry. What appalled me, was the amount of wasteful expenditure in keeping far flung factory complexes running, which made nothing but obsolete aircraft and a handful of aerospace parts for civilian programs.

It was political employment so to speak to avoid labor unrest and meet party goals. Think of steroids in body builders, with long term consequences when misused, with huge capex to boot, using massive investment with no clear ROI but for a lot of show. In the west or any other market driven economy like Indias private sector firms, these organizations would never have been allowed to squander so many resources. For all our talk of ineffective and hopeless OFB, this was way beyond.

While we were all being tom tommed how successful J-10 was and how by copying Su-3x down to the last rivet, and PRC had arrived, I noted the propaganda campaign was a bit too convenient.

For instance, somehow PLA had the most successful SAM efforts, in the same LRSAM category, yet mass orders for for S-3XX and S-4XX were being placed, what gives?

And of course, then we hear of the Su-35 import attempt, with "previous gen" PESA, an aircraft which the China watchers like that Andreas guy were dismissive of.

So much for PRCs Flankers, superior to Russian ones.

Mark my words, for all the gas about J-20, I wouldn't be surprised if PRC tries to import the T-50 once it's ready. It serves many to hype up the PRCs arms factory to build up their own MIC, but few are as Frank as the IAF in conducting an analysis if the J-20 et Al and noting even "previous gen" Rafales are in reality quite equivalent and can hold their own, and the J-20 is not all it's cracked out to be.


Uhmmmm, no.

The JH7 and the KJ 200 where never "mass produced" mate.

The PLAAF rejected the JH7 outright and ordered Su30MKK's for its strike requirement. Not only is the JH7 underpowered, but it flies on Rolls Royce MK202 Spey turbofan, which the service did not have a regular supply of. The PLANAF inducted 18 pre production airframes, and later added 20 batch 2 aircraft between 2002 and 2004. Less than 40 airframes is not "mass production" in any sense of the word. Yes, the aircraft have been upgraded over the years with JL10PD radars, new datalink antennae and ECM pods for the EW roles, but production of JH7's never exceeded 40.

The PLAAF and PLANAF put in large orders for JH7A's which are significantly improved aircraft. They were inducted into the PLAAF in 2004 featuring new composite wings, and WS9 turbofans replacing the Spey's. Critically for the PLAAF, the JH7A brought precision strike capability to the table through LGBs, K/JDC01 laser targeting pods, the new (at the time) JL10A PD radar, and KL700A ECM pod for self defence during strike missions. It has also been integrated with the new KG800 ECM pod and YJ91 ARM as a dedicated electronic warfare asset.

ECM

Image

Several naval and PLAAF airframes have integrated receiver pods to facilitate the ELINT mission:

Image

More than 200 JH7A's have been produced for the PLAAF and PLANAF. Independent analysts have so far identified 158 distinct serial numbers in service with the two services.

Note that the airframes being offered for sale by Poly Technologies are the few dozens of JH7's; not JH7A's which still form the back-bone of PLAAF and PLANAF A2G capability.

Call it propaganda if you wish, but PLAAF JH7A's sent to Avidarts 2018 and 2017 beat out the Su34 in the precision strike competition, which included aerial reconnaissance, unguided munitions delivery and precision guided munitions delivery. Yes, the scope and rules of engagement where specific and a win in a competition does not imply that the JH7A is a superior platform to the SU34. However, the aircraft is still very competitive amongst fighter bombers, it is produced entirely within the Chinese MIC and it comes at a much lower procurement and operational cost than the larger Flanker.

Image

With regards to the KJ200. 11 airframes where delivered to the PLAAF and PLANAF (5 and 6 respectively), however, both services have voiced dissatisfaction with the aircraft's inability to deliver 360 degree surveillance due to its balance beam layout. As a response to this complaint, Shaanxi has added a nose mounted AEW radar to one of the airframes to allow for radar surveillance and tracking in the forward hemisphere.

Image

However, both the PLANAF and PLAAF have demonstrated a preference for the newer KJ500. The KJ500's three AESA arrays from the Nanjing Research Institute of Electronic Technology allow for 360 degree surveillance and tracking at greater ranges than what the 2nd generation AESAs on the KJ200 are capable of. Since 2014 the PLAAF has taken delivery of 7 KJ500 and the PLANAF has inducted 5. As satellite images of Shaanxi's production plant show, there are many more KJ500's being prepared for delivery.

Incremental improvements of aerial and naval platforms is something the Chinese armed forces have demonstrated repeatedly. Only platforms that have reasonably satisfied PLAAF/PLAN requirements are mass produced. 2 Type 054 frigates were inducted, the PLAN was not satisfied. When their requirements were met, the navy ordered 14 Type 054A's, then added another 16 Type 054A+ for a total of more than 30. The Type 052 series was inducted in batches of 1 or 2 per iteration until the PLAN ordered 6 Type 052C's; which was also developed further into the Type 052D which is now being produced by 2 different shipyards and is approaching 15 vessels. Even the relatively new Type 052D is being improved upon.

I'm not saying that Chinese platforms are the best in the world or even that they are better than what Indian forces have in service at the moment. However, attributing illogical mindsets to Chinese planners is a fool's errand. China most certainly faces a much more dire threat environment than India does. Japan and the US forces they host surround the Chinese mainland in a way that guarantees that China is certain to take heavy damage to its industrial and population centers at the very beginning of any future conflict with the US.

Why would military planners in such circumstances purposefully mass produce "disappointing" or "obsolete" weapons platforms in a "smoke and mirrors" attempt to scare military enthusiasts on the internet? Why would they spend billions of dollars for "propaganda" whilst leaving their homeland undefended? It's just not logical. I think you're working backwards from your conclusion here mate. The history and current reality of their weapons development programmes tell a different story from your bodybuilder theory.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1353
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Bart S » 05 Dec 2018 16:13

Kengsley wrote:
I'm not saying that Chinese platforms are the best in the world or even that they are better than what Indian forces have in service at the moment. However, attributing illogical mindsets to Chinese planners is a fool's errand. China most certainly faces a much more dire threat environment than India does. Japan and the US forces they host surround the Chinese mainland in a way that guarantees that China is certain to take heavy damage to its industrial and population centers at the very beginning of any future conflict with the US.

Why would military planners in such circumstances purposefully mass produce "disappointing" or "obsolete" weapons platforms in a "smoke and mirrors" attempt to scare military enthusiasts on the internet? Why would they spend billions of dollars for "propaganda" whilst leaving their homeland undefended? It's just not logical. I think you're working backwards from your conclusion here mate. The history and current reality of their weapons development programmes tell a different story from your bodybuilder theory.


LOL sounds exactly like the 'Why would Pakistan be involved in terrorist activities when it is a victim of terrorism itself' kind of logic/argument :lol:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 16:25

Looks like I struck a nerve and the damage control has started asap by Kengsley :lol: (the PRC version of Kingsley I presume, just like Nooke and Rabok?).

First off all, I am not your mate.

Second, the PRC's long history of staged propaganda shots is very well documented.

Are you going to tell us this is an example of awesome military planning? Forget demos at a parade or anything which other forces pull. The PRC has entire units full of ladies with the desire physical attributes... combat effectiveness for the win!

Image

Next, are you going to deny that the PRC as it stands is an authoritarian society which pulls stunts like this.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 48561.html

One million Chinese people 'move into Muslim homes to report on Islamic or unpatriotic beliefs'

And sure, this is not image-conscious at all?
President Xi Jinping's Sensitivity to Memes Makes China Ban 'Winnie The Pooh' Film

Which of course results in this spectacular episode.

Filipinos flood social media with Winnie the Pooh memes as Xi Jinping visits Manila
https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/presid ... 36135.html
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/11/20/f ... ts-manila/


Image

Seriously, whom are you kidding about the PRC Govt's ham-handed propaganda and their constant attempt to show face everyplace.

Now lets come to your propaganda.

With regards to the KJ200. 11 airframes where delivered to the PLAAF and PLANAF (5 and 6 respectively), however, both services have voiced dissatisfaction with the aircraft's inability to deliver 360 degree surveillance due to its balance beam layout. As a response to this complaint, Shaanxi has added a nose mounted AEW radar to one of the airframes to allow for radar surveillance and tracking in the forward hemisphere.


Which entirely backs up how cack-faced the entire PRC establishment is with their wasteful expenditure. 11 airframes produced AND then the PLAAF and PLANAF voice"dissatisfaction" about the aircraft's inability to provide 360 degree feedback. And a half baked effort is made to modify ONE of the airframes.

Whom are you fooling with this rubbish?

Which kind of idiot MIC wastes so much money and PRODUCES 11 airframes AND THEN REALIZES the basic requirement itself was not met?

I mean is this keystone cop level of stupidity or what? Don't the PLAAF and PLANAF set requirements which the designers have to struggle to meet (same as in every other country) and then accept a Mk1 design with limitations.

Nope, in PRC land, military planners produce ELEVEN of a design which NEVER met PLAAF/PLANAF requirements to begin with and then they put them up for fire sale.

Thanks for proving my point about how wasteful the entire PLAAF/PRC employment generation scheme is.


However, both the PLANAF and PLAAF have demonstrated a preference for the newer KJ500. The KJ500's three AESA arrays from the Nanjing Research Institute of Electronic Technology allow for 360 degree surveillance and tracking at greater ranges than what the 2nd generation AESAs on the KJ200 are capable of. Since 2014 the PLAAF has taken delivery of 7 KJ500 and the PLANAF has inducted 5. As satellite images of Shaanxi's production plant show, there are many more KJ500's being prepared for delivery.


And in 5 years time, we may end up seeing the 5 KJ500s on some tarmac offered for sale as the KJ500 could not see the eye of a needle or couldn't perform loops and the KJ600 offers that

More than 200 JH7A's have been produced for the PLAAF and PLANAF. Independent analysts have so far identified 158 distinct serial numbers in service with the two services.

Note that the airframes being offered for sale by Poly Technologies are the few dozens of JH7's; not JH7A's which still form the back-bone of PLAAF and PLANAF A2G capability.


I just luvvvvv the PRC propaganda machine and how you guys do Shanghai statistics.

So 200 JH-7As are in service, and "only a few dozen" JH-12s are up for sale (fire sale, junkyard sale etc).

So again, the PRC produces a flawed design en-masse, sticks a few pods on them and calls them successful ad puts up the previous generaton for sale.

How many exactly? A few dozen. Lets take 4 dozen as a number. 4 dozen is what % of 200 airframes?
Around 25%. Or 20% if you count them as all inclusive?

3 Dozen won't make this story any better BTW. Its still stupid.

Can you point out one other "developing military power" which is wasteful enough to junk a fleet, which is a quarter of its overall procurement, because of the original decision to base them off of a flawed engine (which is your explanation BTW).


Call it propaganda if you wish, but PLAAF JH7A's sent to Avidarts 2018 and 2017 beat out the Su34 in the precision strike competition, which included aerial reconnaissance, unguided munitions delivery and precision guided munitions delivery. Yes, the scope and rules of engagement where specific and a win in a competition does not imply that the JH7A is a superior platform to the SU34. However, the aircraft is still very competitive amongst fighter bombers, it is produced entirely within the Chinese MIC and it comes at a much lower procurement and operational cost than the larger Flanker.


IAF Su-30Ks and non-upgraded Mirage 2000s beat out F-15s flown by the USAF in A2A. Which clearly means the Su-30K is oh-so-credible as a frontline asset even today. Right? They were even superior to the F-15Cs the USAF flew down. Wait, the IAF could have stuck a few pods on them and they'd automatically be equal to the F-15C or F-15E in every respect. The IAF Bisons scored against USAF F-16s. Clearly, this means the MiG-21 Bison is very competitive amongst fighter bombers and it comes at a much lower procurement and operational cost than the larger F-16.

Incremental improvements of aerial and naval platforms is something the Chinese armed forces have demonstrated repeatedly. Only platforms that have reasonably satisfied PLAAF/PLAN requirements are mass produced. 2 Type 054 frigates were inducted, the PLAN was not satisfied. When their requirements were met, the navy ordered 14 Type 054A's, then added another 16 Type 054A+ for a total of more than 30. The Type 052 series was inducted in batches of 1 or 2 per iteration until the PLAN ordered 6 Type 052C's; which was also developed further into the Type 052D which is now being produced by 2 different shipyards and is approaching 15 vessels. Even the relatively new Type 052D is being improved upon.



Other Navies and services prefer to perfect their designs as much as possible before churning out designs, and then making even more of another bunch.

Sorry, but the only one you are fooling with your propaganda is yourself, it really is a fools errand to either believe in PRC's propaganda and believe the PRC does everything with the same belief system as the rest of the world does.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 16:33

Kengsley wrote:I'm not saying that Chinese platforms are the best in the world or even that they are better than what Indian forces have in service at the moment. However, attributing illogical mindsets to Chinese planners is a fool's errand.


Only a fool would state this:

China most certainly faces a much more dire threat environment than India does. Japan and the US forces they host surround the Chinese mainland in a way that guarantees that China is certain to take heavy damage to its industrial and population centers at the very beginning of any future conflict with the US.


Neither the US or Japan has any interest in a conflict with PRC. Only the PRC has a vested interest in provoking conflict and constantly coveting other countries territory or engaging in land, sea grabbing.


Why would military planners in such circumstances purposefully mass produce "disappointing" or "obsolete" weapons platforms in a "smoke and mirrors" attempt to scare military enthusiasts on the internet? Why would they spend billions of dollars for "propaganda" whilst leaving their homeland undefended? It's just not logical. I think you're working backwards from your conclusion here mate. The history and current reality of their weapons development programmes tell a different story from your bodybuilder theory.


Because your guys have bought into their "we are a nuke power, we are the middle kingdom and nobody better oppose us" rubbish.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3495
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby hnair » 05 Dec 2018 16:36

Karan M, maybe they heard it as "Bodhi-builder", you know, the ancient guy from <country_name_withheld>, who build up some monastery to give them decent training, but whose teachings got distorted by the locals into performance oriented circus rubbish we see nowadays. The first case of a ToT which took on chinese characteristics.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 16:41

HNair! LOL!

A millenia may pass, but the manner in which "TOT" was taken and then "used" never changes. Innovation with Chinese characteristics.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 16:58

PRC's bully-boy tactics are backfiring spectacularly worldwide.. but what's interesting is they LITERALLY have no idea on how to behave in a WW milieu.
For instance:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/ ... ts-office/

PORT MORESBY – Police were called when Chinese officials attempted to “barge” into the office of Papua New Guinea’s foreign minister, it emerged Sunday, as APEC summit tensions boiled over.

The Chinese delegates “tried to barge in” to Rimbink Pato’s Port Moresby office Saturday, in an eleventh-hour bid to influence a summit draft communique, but were denied entry, three sources with knowledge of the situation said.


...
Hold that thought. APEC, held in Papua New Guinea.. and the Chinese delegates attempt to browbeat the host nations top diplomat. And local cops hold them off. Just look at the level of thuggery, insecurity and paranoia on display.

Yep. This has nothing to do with the PRC establishment's desire to save face, even when its regards to a joint communique.

Kengsley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 Aug 2018 11:40

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kengsley » 05 Dec 2018 20:43

First of all, try being a bit less adversarial. What's with the bolded text? Do you have to "shout" your points? Even if I were Chinese, would that warrant being rude?

Second, I'm a military enthusiast. I'm not interested in the Winnie the Pooh joke or even their hot parade girls. I'm interested in military tech, their MIC and their procurement policy. Your "propaganda" accusations aside, if there are any falsehoods in the points I laid out about the JH7, the JH7A or the KJ200 and KJ500, please point them out.

You're arguing points without the benefit of context. When the KJ200 first entered service with the PLAAF, the entire Chinese airforce had only 2 KJ2000 AWACS. The PLANAF had no AEW capability aside from a 4 MPA's equipped with Searchwater AEW radars. Each service had hundreds of combat aircraft and little to no AEW platforms.

Both services had an enormous AEW platform requirement and still do. 11 KJ200's was an interim solution that was badly needed at the time. The KJ500 only entered service with the PLAAF in 2014. PLAAF and PLANAF procurement of KJ200's reflected their lack of AEW options. What would you have suggested they do? Monitor their airspace and direct hundreds of combat aircraft with only 4 AWACS platforms? Or import AWACs from... where?

Plus, the KJ200 was an important step towards Chinese AEW development. The development cycle for the JY06 AESA radar and its accompanying C3i system led to the filing of several patents for the 38th research institute; Shaanxi could not have just developed a KJ500 equivalent in 2006 out of the blue. So I don't understand how exactly you'd classify its development as a "waste".

As to the JH7A, you're making assumptions without doing any research. The upgrade from JH7 to JH7A was more comprehensive than "sticks a few pods on them and calls them successful". The JH7A was the first Chinese aircraft designed with CAM CATIA V.5 software. The number of hardpoints on the airframe were increased to 11 and the maximum external stores weight increased to 9 000kg. This due to the entire wing being redesigned. The JH7A is equipped with digital fly by wire controls, a glass cockpit and a single piece windscreen. The Type 232H multi-mode radar was replaced with the more modern (at the time) JL10A PD radar.

The bottleneck in JH7 production was its dependence on Rolls Royce MK202 Spey turbofans. The only reason Xian was able to produce a second batch of 20 aircraft is that they procured second hand engines from Rolls Royce. And as I;ve already pointed out, the PLANAF's JH7 fleet has been upgraded with new radars, new datalinks and new self defence and offensive jamming pods since they were first inducted in 1994. They are however, still 1980's platforms with 1950's tech like wingfences.

As to your Mig 21 vs F16 comparison; you're talking about air-to-air engagements. The Avidarts precision strike competition was in the A2G realm. 1 fighter-bomber won the competition based on time taken navigating to target and bombing accuracy with different types of munitions. You're grasping at straws to prove your point. No need to set up straw man arguments. Of course the JH7A is not superior to the Su34 in many aspects, but it has proven year after year to be competitive in A2G ops over successive exercises and competitions.

WRT incremental improvements on platforms before mass production and "other navies"... No other navy aside from the PLAN and USN is building a destroyer series past 8 vessels at the moment. JCNX is fitting out the 14th Type 052D and the 30th Type 054A overall Series production on that scale is an investment that requires long term planning due to long lead times. Initial iterations like the Type 051C destroyer or Type 054 frigate were laden with foreign sub systems and had yet to be tested fully by the end-user ie the PLAN. Why would they produce dozens of each then have to update them with newer local subsystems and weapons later at significant cost when they could have absorbed the cost of developing those systems and weapons through mass production later?

Try being a little more objective in your analysis.
Last edited by Kengsley on 05 Dec 2018 21:10, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6792
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 05 Dec 2018 21:00

I think the Chinese or Pro-Chinese analysts who are trying to benchmark Chinese systems with the best in class western or non-western systems need to realize that folks will push back and be skeptical in the absence of transparency or justification beyond just random pictures, brochure scans etc. If you are going to try to attribute mythical advances, capability that has skipped multiple generations of iterative design and technology development then you better show up with something more than just brochure claims and put forward the sort of transparent assessment of capability that happens in open societies.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 21:23

Kengsley wrote:First of all, try being a bit less adversarial. What's with the bolded text? Do you have to "shout" your points? Even if I were Chinese, would that warrant being rude?


When you make patronizing statements, then you warrant the same treatment. Lay off the "mate" this, that and making "fool"-ish statements, and then perhaps reconsider how you come across as? Stick to civility and you'll get the same in turn. Anyhow...

Second, I'm a military enthusiast. I'm not interested in the Winnie the Pooh joke or even their hot parade girls. I'm interested in military tech, their MIC and their procurement policy. Your "propaganda" accusations aside, if there are any falsehoods in the points I laid out about the JH7, the JH7A or the KJ200 and KJ500, please point them out.


LOL, nice divert, but the point is that the Winnie the Pooh issue, the hot parade girls, and their procurement policy are ALL interlinked. A national establishment that is so freaking insecure it censors memes in such a ham-handed manner, whose diplomats barge into simple meetings and convert them into shouting matches... such a MIC does not elicit any confidence of taking objective decisions, when it has a long history of propaganda and zero transparency.

That you can't see the obvious just speaks to your COMPLETE lack of objectivity. Anyone else though can correlate the obvious.

An authoritarian state which frequently makes the most stupid decisions in its international relations, goes out of its way to censor anything slightly non complimentary.. and you think this has nothing to do with how they project their "military achievements"?

You're arguing points without the benefit of context. When the KJ200 first entered service with the PLAAF, the entire Chinese airforce had only 2 KJ2000 AWACS. The PLANAF had no AEW capability aside from a 4 MPA's equipped with Searchwater AEW radars. Each service had hundreds of combat aircraft and little to no AEW platforms.

Both services had an enormous AEW platform requirement and still do. 11 KJ200's was an interim solution that was badly needed at the time. The KJ500 only entered service with the PLAAF in 2014. PLAAF and PLANAF procurement of KJ200's reflected their lack of AEW options. What would you have suggested they do? Monitor their airspace and direct hundreds of combat aircraft with only 4 AWACS platforms? Or import AWACs from... where?


I really wonder whether you even realize how pointless your arguments are. Do you seriously understand what a wasteful move it is to make 11 AEW&C and then junk them?

Do you think any professional military would do something SO BIZARRE and wasteful?

11 KJ-200s were an "interim solution"... do you think any other country which is not crazily militarized, has a functional mil-planner establishment which actually evaluates cost-benefit ratios, would agree to buying 11 - yes ELEVEN, not 1, not 2, not 3 aircraft and then junking them?

Second, import AWACS from where.. are you going to deny the PRC got AESA tech from the Israelis via the cancelled Phalcon import?

As to the JH7A, you're making assumptions without doing any research. The upgrade from JH7 to JH7A was more comprehensive than "sticks a few pods on them and calls them successful". The JH7A was the first Chinese aircraft designed with CAM CATIA V.5 software. The number of hardpoints on the airframe were increased to 11 and the maximum external stores weight increased to 9 000kg. This due to the entire wing being redesigned. The JH7A is equipped with digital fly by wire controls, a glass cockpit and a single piece windscreen. The Type 232H multi-mode radar was replaced with the more modern (at the time) JL10A PD radar.


So basically now you admit the JH-7 was a lemon, and many basic capabilities were first introduced on the JH-7A. So again, what was the point of making several dozen JH-7s?

Really, if the JH-7A was such an all-dancing and all singing aircraft, why is the PLAAF even bothering with adding strike capabilities to its J-10s or Flankers?

Why is it not sticking to the JH-7A alone?

I am sorry, but "research" is not required here, some common sense is. About how wasteful the PRC establishment is.

Other countries make do with a few testbed articles for some thing of the class of the platforms described. The PRC rushes them into service en masse, figures out they are junk, and then junks them.

Meanwhile, the next wunder-platform is hyped up as something great & awe-inspiring. Rinse, wash, repeat.

The bottleneck in JH7 production was its dependence on Rolls Royce MK202 Spey turbofans. The only reason Xian was able to produce a second batch of 20 aircraft is that they procured second hand engines from Rolls Royce. And as I;ve already pointed out, the PLANAF's JH7 fleet has been upgraded with new radars, new datalinks and new self defence and offensive jamming pods since they were first inducted in 1994. They are however, still 1980's platforms with 1950's tech like wingfences.


Why would anyone go ahead with a program which didn't even have its basics sorted?
And if the PLANAF could upgrade their JH-7s, why were these JH-7s junked? Funnily enough you don't even see the contradictions in your own posts.

Heres another comparison. The IAF is junking actually retiring its MiG-27s as they approach their TTL. They are difficult to maintain and fly, and its proceeding to retain & upgrade its Jaguars. These aircraft are older than your new-build JH-7s. And yet, here you are, junking them, with enough residual life that you think somebody may buy them.

So either you are junking perfectly good aircraft (wasteful expenditure to the T) or you had lemons which you want to get rid of fast, but can't admit it. Take your pick.


As to your Mig 21 vs F16 comparison; you're talking about air-to-air engagements. The Avidarts precision strike competition was in the A2G realm. 1 fighter-bomber won the competition based on time taken navigating to target and bombing accuracy with different types of munitions. You're grasping at straws to prove your point. No need to set up straw man arguments. Of course the JH7A is not superior to the Su34 in many aspects, but it has proven year after year to be competitive in A2G ops over successive exercises and competitions.



Thank you for missing the point entirely. Of course I was mentioning air to air vs A2G. What should have been also clear was that a few basic exercise victories don't really tell much about the entire platform.

You are the one grasping at straws here, in an effort to be purposefully obtuse. In the examples I quoted, in far more complex scenarios the IAF took on the USAF and "won". And that had a lot to do with tactics, exercise constraints & specific conditions.

Without even getting into the basic details, you state: "Of course the JH7A is not superior to the Su34 in many aspects, but it has proven year after year to be competitive in A2G ops over successive exercises and competitions.. hopefully you do understand that the Su-34 is in a different league as a strike platform considering the depth of payload, range, capabilities including self-defence capabilities. Since you do know english, you are implying the JH-7A is superior to the Su-34 in some aspects. Please go ahead and provide the specific details!

Right now you are busy grasping at straws and rhetoric to somehow claim that "participating in some exercise" makes the JH-7A equivalent to the Su-34 or a "competitive fighter bomber".

Go on then, please share such mundane details such as serviceability. About what complex missions the JH-7 has been able to perform, beyond high-level "time taken to navigate and bombing accuracy with different kind of munitions".. which munitions, what kind? How many were the kind of long range guided munitions the Su-34 can carry? The basics of the EW suite, the survivability features, the avionics?

Nope. The JH-7A was designed using CATIA.

Even a military enthusiast should realize that a MiG-21 Bison scoring virtual kills in an exercise on the F-16 using notional weapons or "capability" does not translate into its overall effectiveness in far more complex environments! And its relevance here!

That the Jaguars performed so well during the Cope Thunder exercise does not mean that they are anyhow superior or even equivalent to the Rafale!

WRT incremental improvements on platforms before mass production and "other navies"... No other navy aside from the PLAN and USN is building a destroyer series past 8 vessels at the moment. JCNX is fitting out the 14th Type 052D and the 30th Type 054A overall Series production on that scale is an investment that requires long term planning due to long lead times. Initial iterations like the Type 051C destroyer or Type 054 frigate were laden with foreign sub systems and had yet to be tested fully by the end-user ie the PLAN. Why would they produce dozens of each then have to update them with newer local subsystems and weapons later at significant cost when they could have absorbed the cost of developing those systems and weapons through mass production later?


The USN does make the occasional blunder in technology overreach, but lets be honest here.. its a pretty sad joke to compare the kind of mass production capabilities of the higher end tech the USN fields to what the PRC is doing. Where the US does go all-out, like the F-35, it has a host of exports lined up paying top dollar for top tech. The Japanese fork over an Islands worth of dinero for Aegis. Hey R&D gets paid up, the Saudis buy gazllions of bombs and F-15s, no problemo.

Y'all are producing away and burning through a lot of cash while putting up your top stuff for export and then hiding it behind smokes and mirrors.

That's your prerogative. Your tax money. Your Commie Govt's and Winnie-the-pooh's privilege.

But the rest of us all have the privilege of seeing and mentioning how wasteful the entire approach is.

Try being a little more objective in your analysis.


Try being less of a fanboy, then come and talk. Thanks much.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 21:26

brar_w wrote:I think the Chinese or Pro-Chinese analysts who are trying to benchmark Chinese systems with the best in class western or non-western systems need to realize that folks will push back and be skeptical in the absence of transparency or justification beyond just random pictures, brochure scans etc. If you are going to try to attribute mythical advances, capability that has skipped multiple generations of iterative design and technology development then you better show up with something more than just brochure claims and put forward the sort of transparent assessment of capability that happens in open societies.


I am horrified. You mean the J-20 can't shoot down the F-22 from 100 km away with its ramjet equipped IIR missiles, while the F-35s behind are targeted by the Ukrain.. err Chinese AESA on its Naval platforms while Guam is cratered via invincible Ballistic Missiles?

This is simply unreal.

And what is this open society pish-posh? Why would anyone need that, look to the left, hot parade girls, look to the right new shiny destroyers, and behind you, is that a WINNIE THE POOH sticker?!?!?!? RE-EDUCATION CAMP FOR EVERYONE!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5973
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Rakesh » 05 Dec 2018 21:41

Kengsley: Stop quoting entire posts and then type your reply at bottom. Please follow Karan's example on how to quote posts. I have edited your post. Thank You.

Secondly, the Chinese are more bark than bite. Lets have a realistic threat analysis of what Chinese capabilities are and let us call a spade a spade. Over-hyping the Chinese is what leads to Single Engine Fighter contest :mrgreen:

The Chinese are human like the rest of us. Mao's Communism does not make them super human.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 21:49

Rakesh wrote:
Secondly, the Chinese are more bark than bite. Lets have a realistic threat analysis of what Chinese capabilities are and let us call a spade a spade. Over-hyping the Chinese is what leads to Single Engine Fighter contest :mrgreen:

The Chinese are human like the rest of us. Mao's Communism does not make them super human.


http://delhidefencereview.com/2017/08/1 ... -in-sudan/

So I came across THIS 2015 news report, some days ago. A piece that I found ‘very’ interesting. The headline is catchy enough – ‘UN peacekeepers refused to help as aid workers were raped in South Sudan’. But it is the second part of the headline that caught my eye – Chinese troops abandoned their posts rather than engage in fighting and protect civilians.

Interesting, I thought. Did a little more digging around on the ‘www’ and came across another nugget of ‘very’ interesting information. Will come to that in the latter part of this blog post. But first let me share some thoughts on the piece above.

Firstly let us talk about the facts listed out in the news report above:-

The Chinese peacekeepers were entrusted with the responsibility of a one civilian protection site in Juba.

In the month of July 2015, fierce attacks were mounted by one of the rebel groups in Sudan, leading to ‘tens of thousands’ of civilians seeking safety from successive bouts of fighting, at that site.

However, the Chinese peacekeepers stayed on in their bases rather than protect civilians. Heck, even the Ethiopian troops had done far better, helping evacuate wounded civilians and returning fire when needed.

On the last day of the fighting, about 80 to 100 government soldiers attacked a compound in Juba where they raped and gang-raped at least five international aid workers and physically or sexually assaulted at least a dozen others.

All this happened when there was a UN Base manned by Chinese peacekeepers only a few hundred metres from the compound. However despite dozens of appeals for help from the besieged aid workers and personal visits from at least one who escaped from the compound, the Chinese peacekeepers simply REFUSED to leave the safety of their base.

During four days of fighting between the rival forces, artillery rounds and gunfire hit two UN bases, killing two Chinese peacekeepers. And what did the vaunted PLA troopers do? They not only failed to return fire, but in fact, RAN AWAY FROM THEIR POST. To add insult to injury, in their haste to save their skins, they even left behind their weapons and ammo – something a professional soldier would not even dream of doing. EVER.


So here is what I make of the entire issue – The PLA soldier didn’t move out of the safety of his compound, favouring his personal safety over his responsibility to his fellow human beings. To some extent (and I say this ‘coz I am not entirely aware of the rules of engagement they were bound by), this might be explained by the rules of engagement that MIGHT have prevented them from interfering in the factional fighting in the area. MIGHT have, ‘coz I am not sure it actually prevented them. More on that in the latter part of this piece. However, even the refusal to fire back in self-defence, more so when two of their comrades had been fatally wounded, reeks of cowardice. And then the biggest ignominy a professional soldier can heap upon himself – they abandoned their posts and ran away. Not only that, they left behind their weapons and ammo.

An entire post cowering behind the apparent safety of their compound walls instead of discharging their duty when humanity is being raped and murdered all around. When the compound too becomes unsafe, they just ran away! And this is the kind of manpower with which the PRC threatens the battle hardened Indian Army today!

Now coming to another interesting nugget I discovered when searching for more info on this incident.
I came across this India Today report. ::
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/sout ... 14802.html

It was the Indian Army that actually saved them. The report itself doesn’t mention the abandonment of posts by the PLA peacekeepers. Very ‘convenient’ omission, I say.

However, as per the report, INDBATT II, comprised by men from the 7th Battalion, of the Kumaon Regiment, who were held in reserve, were asked to take charge and restore the situation, which they did with extreme professionalism and ruthlessness.

Here’s a typically modest way the news report chose to describe their actions – ‘It was learnt that troops also secured the perimeter which was smashed by the IDPs and ensured the armed militiamen were weeded out.’ Yes, they ‘secured’ the perimeter and ensured the armed militiamen were ‘weeded out’. Such ‘modesty’ is typical of the way in which the Indian media’s undersells the achievements of its own countrymen. Or perhaps, something that they are so used to from the Indian Army, that they take it as a matter of course– Send in Indian troops, job will be done.


Btw, it was the same militiamen who had ‘scared the hell’ out of the famed PLA troops and routed them that the Kumaonis calmly ‘weeded out’. Rest of the report makes for an interesting read too.

So here it is. An Army that fought its last war in 1979, an army that has ‘won’ against an outsider only once in 5000 years of its nation’s history, in 1962, was exposed for what it was – shiny toys and scared brats afraid to wield them when time comes. (Regarding the ‘war experience’ of the PLA, that is for another time which will come soon).

Sabre rattling in front of apparently weaker neighbours is fine, but god save you if the ‘weaker’ neighbour draws out his own sword!


So, perhaps there is a factory in PRC which will soon be cloning Kumaonis!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 21:57

This is the original report from the Guardian, no fan of India.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ers-report

One UN base was only several hundred metres from the compound, but despite dozens of appeals for help from the besieged aid workers and personal visits from at least one who escaped from the compound, internal UN documents show no help was sent, the Associated Press reported in August.

The new report, based on about 100 interviews conducted in south Sudan, explains that though the UN gave orders for a peacekeepers to intervene, none “ever tried to leave their bases” with the Chinese and Ethiopian battalions refusing to go.

The UN has more than 12,500 troops from 61 countries deployed in South Sudan, which gained independence from Sudan in 2011 after decades of civil war. Under the UN’s terms of engagement, the force, which is equipped with armoured vehicles and heavy weapons, has the authority to take action to protect civilians and staff from imminent violence.

About 2,500 troops are stationed in two bases in Juba, backed by about 930 support staff and 350 police officers.

“The UN peacekeeping mission faced a challenging environment during the July violence in Juba, but it underperformed in protecting civilians inside and outside its bases,” said Federico Borello, the executive director of Civic. “To ensure that such problems are not repeated, it is critical that the UN be transparent about what went wrong and hold accountable any individuals or units that failed to live up to the protection mandate.”


In contrast, in another incident.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/i ... ssion.html

Subsequently, refugees putting up at the ‘Protection of Civilian Camp’ came under machine-gun fire.

To add to the woes, nearly 37,000 more people then sought shelter in the camp.

The army, deployed there under the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and recognised with the acronym IndBatt, took positions and fired back at the attackers to prevent the slaughter
.


Meanwhile, that evening, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) staff sought extrication after reports that armed men were moving towards the facility.

Using a mine-proof vehicle as a shield from the raging gunfire, the IndBatt-2 extracted 25 civilians to the safety of the UNMISS compound. Included were 11 patients who were subsequently treated within the base.

Kengsley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 Aug 2018 11:40

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kengsley » 06 Dec 2018 01:30

Karan M wrote:
Kengsley wrote:First of all, try being a bit less adversarial. What's with the bolded text? Do you have to "shout" your points? Even if I were Chinese, would that warrant being rude?


When you make patronizing statements, then you warrant the same treatment. Lay off the "mate" this, that and making "fool"-ish statements, and then perhaps reconsider how you come across as? Stick to civility and you'll get the same in turn. Anyhow...

Second, I'm a military enthusiast. I'm not interested in the Winnie the Pooh joke or even their hot parade girls. I'm interested in military tech, their MIC and their procurement policy. Your "propaganda" accusations aside, if there are any falsehoods in the points I laid out about the JH7, the JH7A or the KJ200 and KJ500, please point them out.


LOL, nice divert, but the point is that the Winnie the Pooh issue, the hot parade girls, and their procurement policy are ALL interlinked. A national establishment that is so freaking insecure it censors memes in such a ham-handed manner, whose diplomats barge into simple meetings and convert them into shouting matches... such a MIC does not elicit any confidence of taking objective decisions, when it has a long history of propaganda and zero transparency.

That you can't see the obvious just speaks to your COMPLETE lack of objectivity. Anyone else though can correlate the obvious.

An authoritarian state which frequently makes the most stupid decisions in its international relations, goes out of its way to censor anything slightly non complimentary.. and you think this has nothing to do with how they project their "military achievements"?.


Dude, westerners can go on the same diatribe about how Rusia is horrible and Putin is authoritarian and it has gaudy parades etc etc... Even if its all true, it doesnt translate to their military tech all being worthless and obsolete.

Karan M wrote:
You're arguing points without the benefit of context. When the KJ200 first entered service with the PLAAF, the entire Chinese airforce had only 2 KJ2000 AWACS. The PLANAF had no AEW capability aside from a 4 MPA's equipped with Searchwater AEW radars. Each service had hundreds of combat aircraft and little to no AEW platforms.

Both services had an enormous AEW platform requirement and still do. 11 KJ200's was an interim solution that was badly needed at the time. The KJ500 only entered service with the PLAAF in 2014. PLAAF and PLANAF procurement of KJ200's reflected their lack of AEW options. What would you have suggested they do? Monitor their airspace and direct hundreds of combat aircraft with only 4 AWACS platforms? Or import AWACs from... where?


I really wonder whether you even realize how pointless your arguments are. Do you seriously understand what a wasteful move it is to make 11 AEW&C and then junk them?

Do you think any professional military would do something SO BIZARRE and wasteful?

11 KJ-200s were an "interim solution"... do you think any other country which is not crazily militarized, has a functional mil-planner establishment which actually evaluates cost-benefit ratios, would agree to buying 11 - yes ELEVEN, not 1, not 2, not 3 aircraft and then junking them?

Second, import AWACS from where.. are you going to deny the PRC got AESA tech from the Israelis via the cancelled Phalcon import?.


Again, 1 or 2 KJ200's would not have satisfied PLAAF or even PLANAF requirements at the time...
I'll repeat, how exactly would either service support hundreds or fighters and bombers with 1 or 2 AEW platforms?

NRIET definately gained a lot of tech from the cancelled Phalcon programe, which is why they developed the Phalcon-like KJ2000 so quickly.

The KJ200's JY06 AESA however was designed by the 38th Research institute or CETC... If you weren't so dismissive of everything Chinese, perhaps you'd do a little research.

Karan M wrote:
As to the JH7A, you're making assumptions without doing any research. The upgrade from JH7 to JH7A was more comprehensive than "sticks a few pods on them and calls them successful". The JH7A was the first Chinese aircraft designed with CAM CATIA V.5 software. The number of hardpoints on the airframe were increased to 11 and the maximum external stores weight increased to 9 000kg. This due to the entire wing being redesigned. The JH7A is equipped with digital fly by wire controls, a glass cockpit and a single piece windscreen. The Type 232H multi-mode radar was replaced with the more modern (at the time) JL10A PD radar.


So basically now you admit the JH-7 was a lemon, and many basic capabilities were first introduced on the JH-7A. So again, what was the point of making several dozen JH-7s?

Really, if the JH-7A was such an all-dancing and all singing aircraft, why is the PLAAF even bothering with adding strike capabilities to its J-10s or Flankers?

Why is it not sticking to the JH-7A alone?

I am sorry, but "research" is not required here, some common sense is. About how wasteful the PRC establishment is.

Other countries make do with a few testbed articles for some thing of the class of the platforms described. The PRC rushes them into service en masse, figures out they are junk, and then junks them.

Meanwhile, the next wunder-platform is hyped up as something great & awe-inspiring. Rinse, wash, repeat..


"Admit"? I litteraly said that the PLAAF outright rejected the JH7 in favour of importing Su30MKKs in the 90's. It WAS a lemon. The only reason the PLANAF ordered it was it needed viable anti shipping and mine laying aerial platforms...

Please stop attributing silly strawman arguments to me. Nombre I my posts did I say the JH7A was an "an all singing all dancing" a2g platform. I said it was a good a2g platform, which is why both PLAAF and PLANAF have made it their backbone strike aircraft since 2007 till now. Yes, there are better, pricier more advance airframes for the a2g mission, but its good enough for them. Is the IAF not buying the SU34 an indication that the Jaguar is useless? Common sense please.

Karan M wrote:
The bottleneck in JH7 production was its dependence on Rolls Royce MK202 Spey turbofans. The only reason Xian was able to produce a second batch of 20 aircraft is that they procured second hand engines from Rolls Royce. And as I;ve already pointed out, the PLANAF's JH7 fleet has been upgraded with new radars, new datalinks and new self defence and offensive jamming pods since they were first inducted in 1994. They are however, still 1980's platforms with 1950's tech like wingfences.


Why would anyone go ahead with a program which didn't even have its basics sorted?
And if the PLANAF could upgrade their JH-7s, why were these JH-7s junked? Funnily enough you don't even see the contradictions in your own posts.

Heres another comparison. The IAF is junking actually retiring its MiG-27s as they approach their TTL. They are difficult to maintain and fly, and its proceeding to retain & upgrade its Jaguars. These aircraft are older than your new-build JH-7s. And yet, here you are, junking them, with enough residual life that you think somebody may buy them.

So either you are junking perfectly good aircraft (wasteful expenditure to the T) or you had lemons which you want to get rid of fast, but can't admit it. Take your pick..


Or the PLANAF is selling off basically a squadron's worth of jets because they have SU30MKKs, SU30MK2s, J15's and JH7A's to spare for the anti shipping and A2G roles. JH7s that are hard to maintain due to needing imports of MK202 spec Turbofans from Rolls Royce.

Karan M wrote:
As to your Mig 21 vs F16 comparison; you're talking about air-to-air engagements. The Avidarts precision strike competition was in the A2G realm. 1 fighter-bomber won the competition based on time taken navigating to target and bombing accuracy with different types of munitions. You're grasping at straws to prove your point. No need to set up straw man arguments. Of course the JH7A is not superior to the Su34 in many aspects, but it has proven year after year to be competitive in A2G ops over successive exercises and competitions.



Thank you for missing the point entirely. Of course I was mentioning air to air vs A2G. What should have been also clear was that a few basic exercise victories don't really tell much about the entire platform.

You are the one grasping at straws here, in an effort to be purposefully obtuse. In the examples I quoted, in far more complex scenarios the IAF took on the USAF and "won". And that had a lot to do with tactics, exercise constraints & specific conditions.

Without even getting into the basic details, you state: "Of course the JH7A is not superior to the Su34 in many aspects, but it has proven year after year to be competitive in A2G ops over successive exercises and competitions.. hopefully you do understand that the Su-34 is in a different league as a strike platform considering the depth of payload, range, capabilities including self-defence capabilities. Since you do know english, you are implying the JH-7A is superior to the Su-34 in some aspects. Please go ahead and provide the specific details!

Right now you are busy grasping at straws and rhetoric to somehow claim that "participating in some exercise" makes the JH-7A equivalent to the Su-34 or a "competitive fighter bomber".

Go on then, please share such mundane details such as serviceability. About what complex missions the JH-7 has been able to perform, beyond high-level "time taken to navigate and bombing accuracy with different kind of munitions".. which munitions, what kind? How many were the kind of long range guided munitions the Su-34 can carry? The basics of the EW suite, the survivability features, the avionics?

Nope. The JH-7A was designed using CATIA.

Even a military enthusiast should realize that a MiG-21 Bison scoring virtual kills in an exercise on the F-16 using notional weapons or "capability" does not translate into its overall effectiveness in far more complex environments! And its relevance here!

That the Jaguars performed so well during the Cope Thunder exercise does not mean that they are anyhow superior or even equivalent to the Rafale!.


Within certain rules of engagement, Jaguars are superior to Rafales at the A2G mission. And of course the cost per flight hour between the 2 is starkly different. A majority of Russian a2g sorties in Syria have been carried out by SU24s and SU25's even with SU34s in the same theater. Serviceability rates for Flankers are notoriously low...

Karan M wrote:
WRT incremental improvements on platforms before mass production and "other navies"... No other navy aside from the PLAN and USN is building a destroyer series past 8 vessels at the moment. JCNX is fitting out the 14th Type 052D and the 30th Type 054A overall Series production on that scale is an investment that requires long term planning due to long lead times. Initial iterations like the Type 051C destroyer or Type 054 frigate were laden with foreign sub systems and had yet to be tested fully by the end-user ie the PLAN. Why would they produce dozens of each then have to update them with newer local subsystems and weapons later at significant cost when they could have absorbed the cost of developing those systems and weapons through mass production later?


The USN does make the occasional blunder in technology overreach, but lets be honest here.. its a pretty sad joke to compare the kind of mass production capabilities of the higher end tech the USN fields to what the PRC is doing. Where the US does go all-out, like the F-35, it has a host of exports lined up paying top dollar for top tech. The Japanese fork over an Islands worth of dinero for Aegis. Hey R&D gets paid up, the Saudis buy gazllions of bombs and F-15s, no problemo.

Y'all are producing away and burning through a lot of cash while putting up your top stuff for export and then hiding it behind smokes and mirrors.

That's your prerogative. Your tax money. Your Commie Govt's and Winnie-the-pooh's privilege.

But the rest of us all have the privilege of seeing and mentioning how wasteful the entire approach is.

In terms of naval platforms, only the USN and PLAN are producing large tonnage vessels at 10+ hulls per class. That's just a fact. If you choose to look down your nose at the tech on Type 052Ds and Type 055 destroyers that's your prerogative.

Karan M wrote:
Try being less of a fanboy, then come and talk. Thanks much.


Out of the two of us, I've been referencing specific dates of induction, manufacturers, sensors and subsystems in support of my arguments. You on the other hand are basing your arguments on generalizations and anectodes.

Kengsley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 Aug 2018 11:40

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kengsley » 06 Dec 2018 01:58

brar_w wrote:I think the Chinese or Pro-Chinese analysts who are trying to benchmark Chinese systems with the best in class western or non-western systems need to realize that folks will push back and be skeptical in the absence of transparency or justification beyond just random pictures, brochure scans etc. If you are going to try to attribute mythical advances, capability that has skipped multiple generations of iterative design and technology development then you better show up with something more than just brochure claims and put forward the sort of transparent assessment of capability that happens in open societies.


China is the number 2 economy and the second highest defense spender. They filed 1 fifth of the worlds patent totals last year... The idea that a non westerner country can produce reasonable quality weapons tech shouldn't be such an alien idea.

Developing an AESA or a 1st gen Distributed optical aperture system is not an insumountable feat in the 21st century, especially for a country with the PRC's resources. They may not be equivalent, or as capable as 2nd or 3rd gen systems in west, but they have been developed and will be developed further.

The PRC is not an open society. Armed services or arms manufacturers will not be releasing declassified weekly briefings on newly developed weapons and sensors..that's just the current reality. Footage, images and manufacturers brochures and advertisements at air shows and defence expos are what Chinese and foreign military analysts have to rely on.

If you're going to dispute every Chinese weapons development or assume all Chinese produced weapons systems are "obsolete" or "propaganda", why bother with a China Military watch thread?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2018 04:45

Kengsley wrote:Dude, westerners can go on the same diatribe about how Rusia is horrible and Putin is authoritarian and it has gaudy parades etc etc... Even if its all true, it doesnt translate to their military tech all being worthless and obsolete.


Dude, westerners or easterners have every right to mock a system which parades around beauty contestants in fancy dress and calls them soldiers, or a state whose leader is so insecure that Winnie the Pooh is banned. Comparing the PRC to Russia is a joke. Is PRC able to pull off a Syria or is it exporting S-400s to Russia? And lets be honest, Putin and todays Russia are nowhere near the authoritarian basketcase PRC is. Read this,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_har ... s_in_China

So wherever you are sitting right now as a 2nd gen PRC guy.. are you ok with this? Do you realize how depraved and looney tunes an establishment has to be to pull this off, and you are counting on them supplying you accurate data about weapon systems, which are the lynchpin of their claim to global supremacy?

Seriously? This after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward.. are you even permitted to cuss out Mao openly in PRC today? Not in the US or Canada or wherever you are studying or located. In PRC, mind. Can you post those Winnie pics I just posted? Put them up in public.

Good luck in posting the reality about PRC military preparedness then.

Just saying this.. because whatever you read on some PRC board about 360 degrees etc was most likely BS. It was curated information designed to make the PLAAF decision appear all too reasonable and paint the developers and mil-planners in the best possible light. This is the whole issue with a lot of y'all who have a romantic attachment with their ancestral homeland. You go native, forgetting there was a good reason why your folks left to begin with (provided you are one of the 2nd gen types judging by your english).


Karan M wrote:
I really wonder whether you even realize how pointless your arguments are. Do you seriously understand what a wasteful move it is to make 11 AEW&C and then junk them?

Do you think any professional military would do something SO BIZARRE and wasteful?

11 KJ-200s were an "interim solution"... do you think any other country which is not crazily militarized, has a functional mil-planner establishment which actually evaluates cost-benefit ratios, would agree to buying 11 - yes ELEVEN, not 1, not 2, not 3 aircraft and then junking them?

Second, import AWACS from where.. are you going to deny the PRC got AESA tech from the Israelis via the cancelled Phalcon import?.


Again, 1 or 2 KJ200's would not have satisfied PLAAF or even PLANAF requirements at the time...
I'll repeat, how exactly would either service support hundreds or fighters and bombers with 1 or 2 AEW platforms?


So, PRC are junking 11 platforms which can control 100s of fighters and bombers.. 11 of them, because PRC are so rich in AEW right now, they dont need them anymore. Because... these AWACS can only see at the sides (like the mega failure SAAB Erieye which nobody likes).. do you even realize how illogical these PRC excuses are? You are claiming here PRC has a literal goldmine, but they are so awash in gold, that pshaw.. off they go. Wow. And there NATO was upgrading decades old E-3s. Must be good to be PRC, literally printing out cash and throwing it around. Good military planning, that. Would your current country, Canada or US or UK or wherever you are, do that? Think of that. A rich developed country wouldnt be so stupid. Oil money soaked Saudi Arabia wouldnt. Neither would Russia.. and you think PRC would? If not.. why does any country perforce give up assets? Could it be they just dont do their bit?

NRIET definately gained a lot of tech from the cancelled Phalcon programe, which is why they developed the Phalcon-like KJ2000 so quickly.

The KJ200's JY06 AESA however was designed by the 38th Research institute or CETC... If you weren't so dismissive of everything Chinese, perhaps you'd do a little research.


So wait, the PRC establishment is so fragmented that the labs wont even share tech amongst each other? After the nation spends bazillions on them?
Sounds pretty weird as well, because AESA magically appears on one platform and the other has to run to the Israelis. Do you realize how absurd this PRC line of argumentation is, given the Israelis basically transferred AESA design and production tech, which could be leveraged across multiple platforms? And that any sensible country would let all its orgs access it to speed up multiple programs. All this lab stuff is smoke and mirrors. Yes, they compete but on programs of national importance, the access opens up. Same case worldwide.

Karan M wrote:
So basically now you admit the JH-7 was a lemon, and many basic capabilities were first introduced on the JH-7A. So again, what was the point of making several dozen JH-7s?

Really, if the JH-7A was such an all-dancing and all singing aircraft, why is the PLAAF even bothering with adding strike capabilities to its J-10s or Flankers?

Why is it not sticking to the JH-7A alone?

I am sorry, but "research" is not required here, some common sense is. About how wasteful the PRC establishment is.

Other countries make do with a few testbed articles for some thing of the class of the platforms described. The PRC rushes them into service en masse, figures out they are junk, and then junks them.

Meanwhile, the next wunder-platform is hyped up as something great & awe-inspiring. Rinse, wash, repeat..


"Admit"? I litteraly said that the PLAAF outright rejected the JH7 in favour of importing Su30MKKs in the 90's. It WAS a lemon. The only reason the PLANAF ordered it was it needed viable anti shipping and mine laying aerial platforms...

Please stop attributing silly strawman arguments to me. Nombre I my posts did I say the JH7A was an "an all singing all dancing" a2g platform. I said it was a good a2g platform, which is why both PLAAF and PLANAF have made it their backbone strike aircraft since 2007 till now. Yes, there are better, pricier more advance airframes for the a2g mission, but its good enough for them. Is the IAF not buying the SU34 an indication that the Jaguar is useless? Common sense please.


If JH-7A was such a good platform, then why are J-10s and Flankers being equipped for ground attack? "Good enough" but apparently, not good enough.
Your arguments set up silly strawmen by themselves to be honest because as sincere you may well be, you are quoting PRC talking points, I dont even need to attribute anything. You claim the PRC think the JH-7A is oh so good, but the PLAAF and PLANAF are busy modifying other aircraft for the strike mission, after having bought Flankers galore, while having 200 JH-7As. Just think of how unreasonable that logic is.

Karan M wrote:
Why would anyone go ahead with a program which didn't even have its basics sorted?
And if the PLANAF could upgrade their JH-7s, why were these JH-7s junked? Funnily enough you don't even see the contradictions in your own posts.

Heres another comparison. The IAF is junking actually retiring its MiG-27s as they approach their TTL. They are difficult to maintain and fly, and its proceeding to retain & upgrade its Jaguars. These aircraft are older than your new-build JH-7s. And yet, here you are, junking them, with enough residual life that you think somebody may buy them.

So either you are junking perfectly good aircraft (wasteful expenditure to the T) or you had lemons which you want to get rid of fast, but can't admit it. Take your pick..


Or the PLANAF is selling off basically a squadron's worth of jets because they have SU30MKKs, SU30MK2s, J15's and JH7A's to spare for the anti shipping and A2G roles. JH7s that are hard to maintain due to needing imports of MK202 spec Turbofans from Rolls Royce.


So now we are down from several dozen JH-7s to a squadrons worth of jets and the PLAAF has Flankers galore for the A2G role, despite the JH-7A being a perfectly capable, good strike jet.
Funny how the numbers keep going all over the place. And of course would customers be stupid enough to buy hard to maintain aircraft which the PRC cant maintain itself.

Karan M wrote:
Thank you for missing the point entirely. Of course I was mentioning air to air vs A2G. What should have been also clear was that a few basic exercise victories don't really tell much about the entire platform.

You are the one grasping at straws here, in an effort to be purposefully obtuse. In the examples I quoted, in far more complex scenarios the IAF took on the USAF and "won". And that had a lot to do with tactics, exercise constraints & specific conditions.

Without even getting into the basic details, you state: "Of course the JH7A is not superior to the Su34 in many aspects, but it has proven year after year to be competitive in A2G ops over successive exercises and competitions.. hopefully you do understand that the Su-34 is in a different league as a strike platform considering the depth of payload, range, capabilities including self-defence capabilities. Since you do know english, you are implying the JH-7A is superior to the Su-34 in some aspects. Please go ahead and provide the specific details!

Right now you are busy grasping at straws and rhetoric to somehow claim that "participating in some exercise" makes the JH-7A equivalent to the Su-34 or a "competitive fighter bomber".

Go on then, please share such mundane details such as serviceability. About what complex missions the JH-7 has been able to perform, beyond high-level "time taken to navigate and bombing accuracy with different kind of munitions".. which munitions, what kind? How many were the kind of long range guided munitions the Su-34 can carry? The basics of the EW suite, the survivability features, the avionics?

Nope. The JH-7A was designed using CATIA.

Even a military enthusiast should realize that a MiG-21 Bison scoring virtual kills in an exercise on the F-16 using notional weapons or "capability" does not translate into its overall effectiveness in far more complex environments! And its relevance here!

That the Jaguars performed so well during the Cope Thunder exercise does not mean that they are anyhow superior or even equivalent to the Rafale!.


Within certain rules of engagement, Jaguars are superior to Rafales at the A2G mission. And of course the cost per flight hour between the 2 is starkly different. A majority of Russian a2g sorties in Syria have been carried out by SU24s and SU25's even with SU34s in the same theater. Serviceability rates for Flankers are notoriously low...


"Certain rules of engagement".. which said certainty is rarely if ever available in war, which is why the IAF prefers self escorting bomb trucks and considers them more versatile than the pure A2G Jaguar and is seeking to add more self-escort capability to the Jaguar.

Next, "serviceability rates for Flankers are notoriously low".. then why is PRC buying so many of them? Even the IAF with its far more complex Su-30 MKI is now able to manage 65 perc regular rates, and 90 perc plus in a surge scenario.
If anything, the OEM host nation, Russia would do better.

Karan M wrote:
The USN does make the occasional blunder in technology overreach, but lets be honest here.. its a pretty sad joke to compare the kind of mass production capabilities of the higher end tech the USN fields to what the PRC is doing. Where the US does go all-out, like the F-35, it has a host of exports lined up paying top dollar for top tech. The Japanese fork over an Islands worth of dinero for Aegis. Hey R&D gets paid up, the Saudis buy gazllions of bombs and F-15s, no problemo.

Y'all are producing away and burning through a lot of cash while putting up your top stuff for export and then hiding it behind smokes and mirrors.

That's your prerogative. Your tax money. Your Commie Govt's and Winnie-the-pooh's privilege.

But the rest of us all have the privilege of seeing and mentioning how wasteful the entire approach is.

In terms of naval platforms, only the USN and PLAN are producing large tonnage vessels at 10+ hulls per class. That's just a fact. If you choose to look down your nose at the tech on Type 052Ds and Type 055 destroyers that's your prerogative.



Out of the two of us, I've been referencing specific dates of induction, manufacturers, sensors and subsystems in support of my arguments. You on the other hand are basing your arguments on generalizations and anectodes.


Sorry, your specific claims are generalizations and hardly detailed enough to be considered valid. You are seeking to pass of your opinion as fact. Stuff like "11 AWACS were junked because they couldnt see 360 degrees"... these sort of generic claims are pretty vague and come across as PRC filibustering spread across fora and picked up by enthusiasts in order to avoid a PRC loss of face, possible inconvenient fact that those 11 platforms were lemons and the PLAAF couldnt wait to rid themselves of them.

Unlike the rest of the world, the PRC publishes no detailed audits of its weapons systems either, which is why you all manage to get away with making outrageously convenient claims about such equipment and seeking to pass it off as fact.

As mentioned before, dont throw some random buzzwords our way. Be specific. Tell us exactly how the SU-34 is inferior to the JH-7A in any specific mission. Mention avionics capabilities in detail. Mention the specific munitions used. Add a caveat about the training, ROE etc if you will. Just dont post a random story about "hey, 11 AWACS were junked coz they couldnt see to the front and the back and so yah, we dropped them all". That either shows the PLAAF are wasteful twits who cant manage a budget and will break the exchequer or PRC developers and planners are such fools that they forced a plane the PLAAF was completely oppposed to down its throat, and made 11 of them. And this wunderweapon which could manage 100s of fighters and bombers (how? did it even have datalinks to those platforms) is now being dropped post haste without any clear reason why.

I understand you dont have this data and you can't. But then you will understand why those of us who are used to this level of rationale, are so skeptical of the PRCs claims and will remain so.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2018 04:49

The more i see the PRCs smoke and mirrors show, the more thankful I am for CAGs serviceability audits which at least give our decision makers a wake up call to improve off of. Your lot is stuck in a PR game, and what will you do when the PR game starts being conflated with reality by your public and action has to be taken to save face? No matter the risk. US, Japan, Australia, India, Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea... congrats on pissing off many folks. Oh wait, Pakistan will support you.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2018 04:54

Kengsley wrote:China is the number 2 economy and the second highest defense spender. They filed 1 fifth of the worlds patent totals last year... The idea that a non westerner country can produce reasonable quality weapons tech shouldn't be such an alien idea.


You do realize that merely having a large economy and filing patents are by themselves not really any indicator that a nation is at the cutting edge of development as China keeps alluding to.. especially when it keeps importing stuff which is generations behind what it claims it can do? J-20s.. but hey, lets import the Su-35.

Developing an AESA or a 1st gen Distributed optical aperture system is not an insumountable feat in the 21st century, especially for a country with the PRC's resources. They may not be equivalent, or as capable as 2nd or 3rd gen systems in west, but they have been developed and will be developed further.


No doubt.. but what is also obvious is that they are nowhere near what the PRC shows them off as, which is equivalents to western/proven gear elsewhere. Su-35s with PESA being imported while China yackety yacks about J-20s with AESAs. S-400s while China brags about HQ-9s. The reality is obvious.

The PRC is not an open society. Armed services or arms manufacturers will not be releasing declassified weekly briefings on newly developed weapons and sensors..that's just the current reality. Footage, images and manufacturers brochures and advertisements at air shows and defence expos are what Chinese and foreign military analysts have to rely on.


In short, speculation and smoke and mirrors is what you go by and insist we do likewise.

If you're going to dispute every Chinese weapons development or assume all Chinese produced weapons systems are "obsolete" or "propaganda", why bother with a China Military watch thread?


Looks like the entire point of "Watch" as versus "unquestioningly admire" is being missed. The forum is not meant for unquestioning zombie like acceptance of whatever the PRC PR machinery puts out, there are many PRC fora for that. We are fully willing to give due credit where it is due, but it will come once the data backs it up. Merely churning out high numbers of glossily painted gear is not a metric of success. The FSU did that with even better and more proven gear, and it didnt end well for them either.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6792
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 06 Dec 2018 05:58

Kengsley wrote:China is the number 2 economy and the second highest defense spender. They filed 1 fifth of the worlds patent totals last year... The idea that a non westerner country can produce reasonable quality weapons tech shouldn't be such an alien idea. ....


Karan has replied to most of those points so to keep it short: Don't expect that argument to pass. In open societies with years --> decades of technological advancement you see open reporting, transparent sharing of information, and a glimpse into client feedback when it comes to the trials and tribulations of developing, fielding and improving cutting edge defense products. It is only by sort of looking at this process, and then overlaying the claimed combat capability and factoring in decades of history in the aerospace and military defense systems do most confidently attribute some sort of capability to a particular product that is used to benchmark.

As Karan points out, Chinese PR shows all is hunky dory with advanced military equipment, years of leapfrogging on things like radars, electronics, sub-systems, weapons etc etc but at the same time, systems are being imported with inferior capability if one were to take the Chinese claims at face value. The only real argument that you can put forward is to point everyone to the Chinese economy and others are supposed to make a leap of faith judgement without holding that kit to even remotely the same standard as we hold western and non western equipment. I mean look at the years of painstaking development, hard work, iteration, and discover-->correction loop the ATF--->JSF took. USAF and LM have been doing this process since 1990. Yet, we are to simply take the Chinese capabilities on the J-20 at face value and simply benchmark them with F-22/F35/T-50 despite of absence of any transparency on the program. Same applies to dozens of other modern systems being developed or fielded. I am sorry but your argument is not going to fly.

Folks will look at the uber claims of the J-20, J-11, and J-10's mythical capabilities and then look at the Chinese importing the Su-35 and read between the lines. Same can be said of umpteen other systems.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3495
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby hnair » 06 Dec 2018 07:37

Psst.... Karan M, the PLAAF has more latest equipment than Russian AF

Proof was already given, which you missed: the two dudes on left have later birthdays than the one on right, ergo more advanced

Image

(There is no other reason to post this irrelevant photo in this thread, where discussion is about why conduct a yard sale of JH-7A and EJ200 to "African nations", when your air force is not exactly brimming with world class crafts)

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3495
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby hnair » 06 Dec 2018 07:44

Kengsley wrote:If you're going to dispute every Chinese weapons development or assume all Chinese produced weapons systems are "obsolete" or "propaganda", why bother with a China Military watch thread?


um, because it is our forum and we laugh at what we want? If you are uncomfortable with that idea, so be it

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5973
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Rakesh » 06 Dec 2018 08:49

^^^ :rotfl: :lol:

Kengsley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 Aug 2018 11:40

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kengsley » 06 Dec 2018 14:33

brar_w wrote:
Kengsley wrote:China is the number 2 economy and the second highest defense spender. They filed 1 fifth of the worlds patent totals last year... The idea that a non westerner country can produce reasonable quality weapons tech shouldn't be such an alien idea. ....


Karan has replied to most of those points so to keep it short: Don't expect that argument to pass. In open societies with years --> decades of technological advancement you see open reporting, transparent sharing of information, and a glimpse into client feedback when it comes to the trials and tribulations of developing, fielding and improving cutting edge defense products. It is only by sort of looking at this process, and then overlaying the claimed combat capability and factoring in decades of history in the aerospace and military defense systems do most confidently attribute some sort of capability to a particular product that is used to benchmark.

As Karan points out, Chinese PR shows all is hunky dory with advanced military equipment, years of leapfrogging on things like radars, electronics, sub-systems, weapons etc etc but at the same time, systems are being imported with inferior capability if one were to take the Chinese claims at face value. The only real argument that you can put forward is to point everyone to the Chinese economy and others are supposed to make a leap of faith judgement without holding that kit to even remotely the same standard as we hold western and non western equipment. I mean look at the years of painstaking development, hard work, iteration, and discover-->correction loop the ATF--->JSF took. USAF and LM have been doing this process since 1990. Yet, we are to simply take the Chinese capabilities on the J-20 at face value and simply benchmark them with F-22/F35/T-50 despite of absence of any transparency on the program. Same applies to dozens of other modern systems being developed or fielded. I am sorry but your argument is not going to fly.

Folks will look at the uber claims of the J-20, J-11, and J-10's mythical capabilities and then look at the Chinese importing the Su-35 and read between the lines. Same can be said of umpteen other systems.


And the Chinese didn't put in "years of painstaking development, hard work, iteration, and discover-->correction loop" to produce the J20? Your "leap frogging" theory disregards Chinese tech's development history. There is plenty of peer reviewed material online that DOES NOT originate from China allowing anyone willing to research an insight into that history

Just because the first images of the first J20 prototype emerged in 2010 does not mean it was cobbled together in a shed 6 months earlier... The Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation and the Shenyang Aircraft Industry Corporation, in conjunction with No. 611 and 601 Research Institutes (respectively), competed to design the prototype for the program in the 90's. Design work like Dr Song Wengcong paper on the CAC prototype's aerodynamic configuration dates back to the late 80's.

The US Office of Naval Intelligence first reported that China was working on the J-XX project in 1997 and even predicted that the aircraft would be in service by 2015. Even Indian Army Brigadier Govinda M. Nair predicted the introduction of the J‐20 by 2015.

https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/China-Indigenous-Military-Developments-Final-Draft-03-April2012.pdf

China is not an open society and its military is even less so. Of course that alone warrants scepticism of their tech. However, using that reality to claim that Chinese weapons development efforts are just propaganda or a "smoke and mirrors" campaign is an extreme position.

Lastly, I do not make "uber claims of the J-20, J-11, and J-10's mythical capabilities". Or even ask anyone to "unquestioningly admire" any Chinese platforms. Those are just strawman arguments attributed to anyone who posts info on the Chinese MIC. I post information I can back up with source material.

The J20 has entered LRIP. It does have a distributed aperture system. Images show that said system and the rest of its sensor suite is being tested on AVIC's TU2014 avionics testbed. They are testing a TVC engine on a J10B test bed. Those are just verifiable facts, not "mythical capabilities".

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6792
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 06 Dec 2018 17:00

Kengsley wrote:And the Chinese didn't put in "years of painstaking development, hard work, iteration, and discover-->correction loop" to produce the J20? Your "leap frogging" theory disregards Chinese tech's development history. There is plenty of peer reviewed material online that DOES NOT originate from China allowing anyone willing to research an insight into that history

Just because the first images of the first J20 prototype emerged in 2010 does not mean it was cobbled together in a shed 6 months earlier... The Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation and the Shenyang Aircraft Industry Corporation, in conjunction with No. 611 and 601 Research Institutes (respectively), competed to design the prototype for the program in the 90's. Design work like Dr Song Wengcong paper on the CAC prototype's aerodynamic configuration dates back to the late 80's.



Right, and why not you devote a little bit of time and speak to the challenges associated with this development, where the performance challenges and trades were, how their first attempt at it has shortcomings (unless it doesn't because China is the second largest economy( what is the status etc etc etc rather than simply taking Chinese claims on face value and benchmarking to the equivalent western system just because China is the second largest economy that apparently likes to develop cutting edge system while actively pursuing importing supposedly inferior systems across the board (S400, Su-35 etc etc)? But do not expect wholesale performance or capability transparency in a land that doesn't even allow publishing of a cartoon because it apparently resembles their supreme leader.

Even the Japanese media, with known Japanese capabilities in electronics and semiconductors reported out that performance of their first fighter based AESA was suboptimal and it was not till around 2010 that a variant with appropriate levels of performance was introduced into the fleet of F-2s.

So what challenges and what performance shortcomings have the J-20's AESA radar had? What about its optical system..we know the pains through which the F-22 and F-35 went through what about the J-20? What is the status..does its stuff even work as advertised or are we to take your word for it because of your flimsy arguments?

Kengsley wrote:The J20 has entered LRIP. It does have a distributed aperture system. Images show that said system and the rest of its sensor suite is being tested on AVIC's TU2014 avionics testbed. They are testing a TVC engine on a J10B test bed. Those are just verifiable facts, not "mythical capabilities".


China introduced the Su-35 in 2016 that is just over 2 years ago when they had an aircraft a full half if not a generation ahead of it in serial production. :roll:

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1353
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Bart S » 06 Dec 2018 17:08

Kengsley wrote:Lastly, I do not make "uber claims of the J-20, J-11, and J-10's mythical capabilities". Or even ask anyone to "unquestioningly admire" any Chinese platforms. Those are just strawman arguments attributed to anyone who posts info on the Chinese MIC. I post information I can back up with source material.


What source material. There is only propaganda BS put out by a commie dictatorship.

And no, a hazy photo somewhere of a radar on a testbed says diddly squat about its actual capabilities, level of development or effectiveness. As others have pointed out, a country that goes to extreme lengths to censor stuff, engage in propaganda and puts out copious amounts of image-building material in various walks of life, can hardly be taken at face value at anything, let alone stuff that is known to take a certain level of skill/experience/time to achieve.

Kengsley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 Aug 2018 11:40

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kengsley » 06 Dec 2018 20:33

brar_w wrote:
Kengsley wrote:And the Chinese didn't put in "years of painstaking development, hard work, iteration, and discover-->correction loop" to produce the J20? Your "leap frogging" theory disregards Chinese tech's development history. There is plenty of peer reviewed material online that DOES NOT originate from China allowing anyone willing to research an insight into that history

Just because the first images of the first J20 prototype emerged in 2010 does not mean it was cobbled together in a shed 6 months earlier... The Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation and the Shenyang Aircraft Industry Corporation, in conjunction with No. 611 and 601 Research Institutes (respectively), competed to design the prototype for the program in the 90's. Design work like Dr Song Wengcong paper on the CAC prototype's aerodynamic configuration dates back to the late 80's.



Right, and why not you devote a little bit of time and speak to the challenges associated with this development, where the performance challenges and trades were, how their first attempt at it has shortcomings (unless it doesn't because China is the second largest economy( what is the status etc etc etc rather than simply taking Chinese claims on face value and benchmarking to the equivalent western system just because China is the second largest economy that apparently likes to develop cutting edge system while actively pursuing importing supposedly inferior systems across the board (S400, Su-35 etc etc)? But do not expect wholesale performance or capability transparency in a land that doesn't even allow publishing of a cartoon because it apparently resembles their supreme leader.

Even the Japanese media, with known Japanese capabilities in electronics and semiconductors reported out that performance of their first fighter based AESA was suboptimal and it was not till around 2010 that a variant with appropriate levels of performance was introduced into the fleet of F-2s.

So what challenges and what performance shortcomings have the J-20's AESA radar had? What about its optical system..we know the pains through which the F-22 and F-35 went through what about the J-20? What is the status..does its stuff even work as advertised or are we to take your word for it because of your flimsy arguments?


You keep expecting me to defend China's opaqueness and lack of official information around programmes like the J20.

The J20 has never been "advertised". What "Chinese claims" are you referring to mate? Fanboy claims made online, or claims from the actual manufacturer and/or operator? The PLAAF or CAC haven't even disclosed which institute the radars development was subcontracted to, or the specs of its optical sensors or anything else about it.

I'd love to discuss it's shortcomings, but we know 0 about the actual radar and I've never claimed to. I would actually prefer if there were "Chinese claims" on the J20's performance to reference as opposed to the absolute silence surrounding the program. If not for amateur photographers around CAC and PLAAF testing airfields, the outside world would know diddly squat about the different iterations of the jet and its evolving sensor suite.

brar_w wrote:
China introduced the Su-35 in 2016 that is just over 2 years ago when they had an aircraft a full half if not a generation ahead of it in serial production. :roll:


1. J20 is not in "serial production". Its in low rate initial production. All LRIP airframes(less than 10) are all based at the PLAAF's Dingxin Flight Test & Training Base and Cangzhou Flight Training Base. New prototypes are still being built, with the latest #2021 first flying in 2017 with new engines. CAC is still doing testing and development work with the 8 or so prototypes in its possession, despite the J20 being "in service" with the PLAAF.

J20 won't reach FOC until the mid or even late 2020's.

2. The SU35 purchase has more to do with the failure of SAC to deliver on its J11D program than it does with the J20 (as you are obviously implying). Both prototypes first flew in 2015, but issues with its fly-by-wire system and its radar have delayed its development to a point where the program might be cancelled altogether in favour of a J11B MLU program and additional purchases of J16's.

Image

The PLAAF will still be procuring 4th generation fighters into the 2020's. It would be economically unsound to try to replace the hundreds of J7's. J8's and Q5's still in PLAAF service with 5th generation jets. Pulse-line assemblies have been established for both the J16 and J10C. Even the order for 24 SU35's might possibly be increased.

The VKS is still ordering SU35's and SU30SM's concurrently with its recent order of SU57's. Is that a sign that the SU57 "doesn't work as advertised" or that its just "propaganda" and "smoke and mirrors"?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5973
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Rakesh » 06 Dec 2018 21:35

Kengsley wrote:The PRC is not an open society.

Kengsley wrote:China is not an open society and its military is even less so.

Kengsley, you have highlighted the disconnect yourself. China (and her military) are not open societies. In closed societies, there is censorship and propaganda to make up for that censorship. China gets full marks on both.

In open societies, everything is critiqued and looked at from different angles. The Rafale issue going on in India right now, would never happen in China. But that is what open societies do. We argue, we fight tooth-and-nail and we never see eye to eye on any issue. And that is how open societies operate. In China, the reverse is true. Recently, our Chief of Naval Staff - Admiral Sunil Lanba - said this, "We can match what forces China can bring to bear in the IOR. But in the South China Sea, the dice is loaded in their favour."

You see Kengsley, in open societies we state our strengths, but we also highlight our weaknesses. You guys have no weaknesses, because the Chinese propaganda state believes weaknesses are a display of vulnerability. And you do have weaknesses, but they are hidden under a propaganda curtain. It is "okay" to be vulnerable, however to "stay" vulnerable is wrong. And open societies work to correct those vulnerabilities. That characteristic is what makes open societies more successful.

So whatever claims you are making in this thread, will be met with a huge dose of skepticism. In the lack of verifiable data, you cannot expect an open society to blindly believe the propaganda machine. Open societies do not even believe the claims from their own countrymen, without verifiable data to back it up. On what basis, do you expect us to believe anything you say? The criticism that you are facing right now is justified, because you are regurgitating what the propaganda machine is telling you. What other source do you have besides what the PRC tells you?

Kengsley wrote:I'd love to discuss it's shortcomings, but we know 0 about the actual radar and I've never claimed to.

Bingo! Thank You for proving my point.

Now let us take your statement to its logical conclusion. Eventually the specs will come out. You think you will ever know what those shortcomings will be? :)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6792
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 06 Dec 2018 21:58

Kengsley wrote:.....


Again, you resort to a strawman argument to prove your point. How is the USN topping up F/A-18E/F wings to address depot backlog issues and over utilization analogous to the Chinese importing a completely new fighter type into their Air Force? Notice that nowhere in my comment did I mention Chinese acquisition or development around the J-10? Is the USN importing the Rafale or MiG-29K during the development and operationalization of the F-35C?

The Russians are having trouble finishing the T-50 program and have cut procurement of the Su-57 program in the short term. It is well documented and India most recently put its plans to fund its share on hold forcing Russia to go it alone at least in the short term. These things aren't a secret, they have been reported by Russian, and Western media. They are also buying Su-35 and Su-30s which they have in production and they are mature allowing them breathing room till such time that the Su-57 is fully developed and industrial capacity is created to begin rate production.

China has the J-10 and a Flanker clone and based on their PR they seem to be world class producers of AESA radars fitting it right down to their smallest fighter. So why in the world, would they in this late stage of the game introduce a completely new Flanker type, an imported one at that, when they themselves have 2 flanker clones of their own?

I thought the Chinese were using LRIP in the standard meaning of the phrase as in a production process, final assembly process exists and they are just producing at an initial low rate level. This is how LRIP is generally defined in the western world with pre LRIP being prototypes not using the established production process that will go into production. Only difference here b/w LRIP and FRP is the production rate.

Kengsley wrote:The J20 has never been "advertised".


There are multiple ways to bring to attention capabilities besides just putting out a white paper about them. Selective leaking, information at trade shows and using social media is one way of course unless one believes that there are just random people sitting behind shrubbery taking pictures of highly sensitive Chinese hardware.

I'd love to discuss it's shortcomings, but we know 0 about the actual radar and I've never claimed to.


And there in lies the problem. In the absence of any transparency, Chinese fanboys expect the world to believe that the capability can be bench-marked with the best western and non-western systems. That is a pretty big leap for most to take without anything substantial to back it up.
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Dec 2018 06:01, edited 2 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2018 22:46

Kengsley wrote:The PRC is not an open society.

Kengsley wrote:China is not an open society and its military is even less so.

Kengsley wrote:I'd love to discuss it's shortcomings, but we know 0 about the actual radar and I've never claimed to.


Image

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 996
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby RKumar » 07 Dec 2018 02:23

Kengsley wrote:The PLAAF will still be procuring 4th generation fighters into the 2020's. It would be economically unsound to try to replace the hundreds of J7's. J8's and Q5's still in PLAAF service with 5th generation jets. Pulse-line assemblies have been established for both the J16 and J10C. Even the order for 24 SU35's might possibly be increased.


Call it cherry picking, but I trust this is the truth - J11x, J10A, J10B and to certain extent J16 are troubled products. Now they have few hundred of J7-J11 copies to manage, so good luck.

I am certain, they are again having troubles with J16, J20 & J31 but these are better than earlier copies, so they are running against time to induct these. It will be painful to replace an existing junk, no matter what their internet warriors write. If technology wise they will be at par with western world they will not think twice to teach USA a lesson.

Stealing documents, doesn’t give knowledge. They will keep buying Russian stuff for next 10-15 years till they have 3rd generation of programs.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2018 03:40

Its been two decades since the J-10 emerged, and not a single Chinese designer will admit its a Lavi derivative. Not one. Reams will be written about paper projects which existed before and how they "led" to the J-10. With this level of insecurity, and lack of transparency, the PR claims of the PRC need to be taken with a truckload of salt.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5973
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Rakesh » 07 Dec 2018 05:35

You hit the nail on the head - INSECURITY. Well Said!

The PRC and their step child (Porkistan) have that trait in plenty.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9296
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Yagnasri » 07 Dec 2018 11:15

The more I read as a Mango Man the more I am convinced that China has got one thing right. Show the good number of aircraft, ships and massive parades regularly to the world and make everyone fear you. Most nations do not see beyond the glitter and even those who can and do see will be apprehensive to take action out of caution. China knows that other than the US no one really want to go to war with her and it has already brought lot of US politicos with cash. So there is no chance of real war with the US. So China is free to bully everyone including the US.

This is where the Doklam drama failed when they tried the same against us. All the noise and Anti India reports in Indian MSM, all the war mongering etc failed to move Indians from their stance. In the near future standing up to China without fear is the best way of dealing with them.

A bit OT but after seeing the babes in uniform, i remembered the recent move English "The Great Wall". Great Chinese uniforms and good looking girls fighting.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6977
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 07 Dec 2018 11:20

That and Trump's doubling down on the utaroing their chaddi in public has shown that you don't cave in but stand firm against the bluster of a bully. All the bluster against the first round of tariffs only led to the second round of tariffs with huawei cfo arrest now. What works to China's advantage is that since there is so much secrecy around the capabilities and numbers of their arms, everyone has a healthy factor of safety added to any evaluation of their capability. Naturally. So they get to be seen as greater than they truly are. If the americans or anyone else gets a true picture then you can see a more tailored response, be in SCS islands or on land at the border.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9876
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 07 Dec 2018 11:51

Yagnasri wrote:The more I read as a Mango Man the more I am convinced that China has got one thing right. Show the good number of aircraft, ships and massive parades regularly to the world and make everyone fear you. Most nations do not see beyond the glitter and even those who can and do see will be apprehensive to take action out of caution. China knows that other than the US no one really want to go to war with her and it has already brought lot of US politicos with cash. So there is no chance of real war with the US. So China is free to bully everyone including the US.

This is where the Doklam drama failed when they tried the same against us. All the noise and Anti India reports in Indian MSM, all the war mongering etc failed to move Indians from their stance. In the near future standing up to China without fear is the best way of dealing with them.

A bit OT but after seeing the babes in uniform, i remembered the recent move English "The Great Wall". Great Chinese uniforms and good looking girls fighting.


If you have the Miltary capability to back it up, After sabotaging the Army and Nationalism for 15 years, Nehru tried that in 1962 out of the blue and got our ass**s whipped, since they were militarily ready and we had no planning from our side.

in 1962, China from 1959 knew we had very poor leadership from a Miltary point of view along with poor infrastructure and ability to hit back, so they were sure they will win. The same thing happened by 2013 again both China and Pakistan were acting funny.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2018 12:48

Prasad wrote:That and Trump's doubling down on the utaroing their chaddi in public has shown that you don't cave in but stand firm against the bluster of a bully. All the bluster against the first round of tariffs only led to the second round of tariffs with huawei cfo arrest now. What works to China's advantage is that since there is so much secrecy around the capabilities and numbers of their arms, everyone has a healthy factor of safety added to any evaluation of their capability. Naturally. So they get to be seen as greater than they truly are. If the americans or anyone else gets a true picture then you can see a more tailored response, be in SCS islands or on land at the border.


Yes, well said. The Khan MIC has a vested interest in playing up PRC capabilities as does the military, but both will know the real state of affairs given HUMINT and TECHINT analysis of PRC programs. Only that the IAF Chief was blunt enough to point out issues with the J-20 configuration, but it's not as if Unkil of all places wouldn't know.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2018 13:00

Aditya_V wrote:
Yagnasri wrote:The more I read as a Mango Man the more I am convinced that China has got one thing right. Show the good number of aircraft, ships and massive parades regularly to the world and make everyone fear you. Most nations do not see beyond the glitter and even those who can and do see will be apprehensive to take action out of caution. China knows that other than the US no one really want to go to war with her and it has already brought lot of US politicos with cash. So there is no chance of real war with the US. So China is free to bully everyone including the US.

This is where the Doklam drama failed when they tried the same against us. All the noise and Anti India reports in Indian MSM, all the war mongering etc failed to move Indians from their stance. In the near future standing up to China without fear is the best way of dealing with them.

A bit OT but after seeing the babes in uniform, i remembered the recent move English "The Great Wall". Great Chinese uniforms and good looking girls fighting.


If you have the Miltary capability to back it up, After sabotaging the Army and Nationalism for 15 years, Nehru tried that in 1962 out of the blue and got our ass**s whipped, since they were militarily ready and we had no planning from our side.

in 1962, China from 1959 knew we had very poor leadership from a Miltary point of view along with poor infrastructure and ability to hit back, so they were sure they will win. The same thing happened by 2013 again both China and Pakistan were acting funny.


See slides 14 onward. The manner in which UPA defanged the forces is being reversed.
https://mod.gov.in/ebook-2018/mod-ebook.html#p=14

Total contracts of around 2,47,987 crore. That's around $33 Bn in arms procurement.
25,000 crores worth of ammunition purchased. That's ~$4Bn in purchases.
Equal amount in pipeline.
(@Rs75 to the $, taking an average high figure)

The services are being brought back to offensive fighting strength rapidly.

MII has been pushed strongly by the Govt.
Note Slide 26.

There has been a 60% increase in DRDO programs cleared for production (by value) in the past 3 years. Basically orders value of $14 Bn, in 3 years including orders of 34 "high value" products.

The NDA govt sucks at playing up its achievements.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2829
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 07 Dec 2018 15:02

Karan M wrote:
Prasad wrote:That and Trump's doubling down on the utaroing their chaddi in public has shown that you don't cave in but stand firm against the bluster of a bully. All the bluster against the first round of tariffs only led to the second round of tariffs with huawei cfo arrest now. What works to China's advantage is that since there is so much secrecy around the capabilities and numbers of their arms, everyone has a healthy factor of safety added to any evaluation of their capability. Naturally. So they get to be seen as greater than they truly are. If the americans or anyone else gets a true picture then you can see a more tailored response, be in SCS islands or on land at the border.


Yes, well said. The Khan MIC has a vested interest in playing up PRC capabilities as does the military, but both will know the real state of affairs given HUMINT and TECHINT analysis of PRC programs. Only that the IAF Chief was blunt enough to point out issues with the J-20 configuration, but it's not as if Unkil of all places wouldn't know.


In my opinion, we should have the same vested interest as Khan in playing up PRC capabilities for the sake of our MIC.

In fact, we have a greater need as our budget is smaller as a percentage of GDP than the US’s.

The IAF chief being blunt about the capabilities of our foreign gear (Bars and Rafale) over the J-20 points to us yet again using imports to match any perceived threat. It is an own goal by the IAF on the local MIC against the bean counters in the GOI. It will justify spending many multiples of billions on 57 RFI and MMRCA 2.0 over what will be spent on Tejas and AMCA.

I like Khan’s reaction more than ours. The US MIC is in hyperdrive right now and practically giddy that there is a national focus on a main rival. It will mean greater budgets, more R&D and newer systems. They and the PRC will drive themselves in an ever expanding frenzy that will separate them from the rest of the world.
Last edited by chola on 07 Dec 2018 15:29, edited 2 times in total.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2829
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 07 Dec 2018 15:21

J-20 at US airbase!!!

https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/07/what-appears-to-be-a-fake-chinese-j-20-allegedly-spotted-at-u-s-base/


Image
...
Based on these comparisons it is reasonable to suggest that something that looks at least somewhat convincingly like a Chinese Chengdu J-20 Mighty Dragon could have been parked in front of a building at the Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport (SAV), home of the Air Dominance Center ...
Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, ashthor and 28 guests