China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 17 Feb 2019 15:20

Singha wrote:Imo those kind of numbers need them to double down the already high rate of naval construction spend, training , opex and weapon budgets

Somehow i am not too sure how long the current frantic pace can be kept up. Need to yearly track the startt of constructions and look for taper


The list doesn’t even include the 60(!) 1500 ton but heavily armed Type 056 corvettes built since 2013 onlee. These patrol the East and South chini seas so the larger ones can go blue water.

As I wrote previously, their MIC will need to provide jobs now that Trump is going after their export engine. Training workers to build ships and aircraft provide more jobs per yuan than training sailors and airmen.

I don’t see their production tapering off. Flooding machines with barely trained crews works well enough in peacetime to create fait accompli.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65244
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 17 Feb 2019 18:38

But from 054 upward things are not really cheap or simple to be turned out like facs if you want quality equipment .
Even for a fleet in being the numbers mentioned are very large

Anyway the number of fresh keel layings next 2 years will be canary in coal mine

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 17 Feb 2019 20:36

I hope someone actually goes into the weeds and does a qualitative analysis of the capability in terms of their ability to integrate surface, sub-surface and air domain into one cohesive unit in order to project power or employ their forces in blue waters much beyond their shores. They also do not have anything remotely resembling AEGIS on their LSC side to protect convoys, SAG's or even project air and missile defense bubbles to land forces when deployed. Not only is their a qualitative deficit there but they also don't test and verify capability as often as AEGIS does from land or at sea.

Without a robust developmental and operational test program you don't really inspire much confidence in the ability of the system to actually deliver. Finally the weakness is most apparent in the sub-surface which reflects on the surface side because they are unlikely to dominate the undersea war against their primary competitors hence need to have more quantity on the SSC and LSC side to compensate for their adversaries domination in the undersea domain. Just consider the number of SSN's, and SSKs being put out each year by the US and its Pacific partners, India and other nations which China may consider adversarial to its strategic expansion. Blue water operations with an integrated mix of surface combatants requires combating that which means widely dispersed and deployed undersea capability and ASW assets both in the air and on the surface. Working and delivering on some of these things will take them beyond 2030s, possibly another decade.

Also, by growing rapidly over a small time they also give up on the ability to either integrate rapid innovative changes in Naval warfare (like directed energy, hypersonic weapons or other areas) or effectively counter them. When you move this fast you lose the ability to adapt as others would who are building more gradually. Finally, if you buy at a very high rate, you must also replace the fleet at the same high rate to hold capability constant therefore in the early 2040s they will encounter a shipbuilding bow-wave when it comes to replace some of this fleet (similar to what the USN encountered when it came time to replace the fleet built up during the Reagan build up in the 1980s - The USN won't recapitalize and achieve its desired sub numbers till well into the 2030s primarily because they bought only 2-3 submarines in the 1990's once the USSR collapsed).

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 18 Feb 2019 13:27

^^^ The buildup is mainly to provide jobs and then secondarily to provide overwhelming numbers in the gray zones and to deter actual conflict from anyone protesting those gray zone infractions. Don’t expect anything up to par operationally from a nation that simply doesn’t go to war.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 18 Feb 2019 13:58

What the Japanese deal with — Chinese warships and Russian warplanes. Pictures from intercepting JASDF aircraft.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HenriKenhmann/status/1097140379818745858

Originally in French; I’ve google translated:

According to the Japanese Ministry of Defense, 1 destroyer Type 052D and 2 frigates Type 054A of PLA Navy crossed last Friday, the strait of Tsushima to enter the Sea of Japan. Note that the announcement appeared 2 days after the facts, quite unusual ...
and the Russian army also sent 4 Su-35S fighters and 4 Tu-95 bombers around the archipelago on the same day. It is not known if there was some coordination between the Russians and the Chinese, or a Sino-Russian joint exercise was being prepared, or ...

Image
Image
Image


I rather India deal with rational great powers on consistent basis than theocratic subhumans with tenets from the Dark Ages. But there are no regular intercepts between Bharati and chini ships and aircraft for all the acrimony. I envy the Japanese — at least their pilots and sailors interact with proper rivals.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1890
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby AdityaM » 22 Feb 2019 16:52

Russia's S-400 missiles lost in storm during transportation to China
the ship that was carrying the missiles on board, ran into a gale and the missiles had to be subsequently destroyed because they were damaged. Now Russia is making new missiles that will be delivered to China soon.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65244
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 22 Feb 2019 17:08

the japanese learn nothing from these routine intercepts except burn money and get stretched.
neither the americans learn anything useful, the useful stuff they learn from RC135, P8A and submarine snooping.

I am glad the TSPians have no budget to be doing swarming tactics and come up in "operation khabardar" only when pressed.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 22 Feb 2019 17:47

AdityaM wrote:Russia's S-400 missiles lost in storm during transportation to China
the ship that was carrying the missiles on board, ran into a gale and the missiles had to be subsequently destroyed because they were damaged. Now Russia is making new missiles that will be delivered to China soon.



I hope the Russkies do what they always do (R-77 sensors way past due date, brand “new” MiG-29s with old parts, etc.) and recycle this “destroyed” stuff for Cheen. lol

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 22 Feb 2019 18:00

Singha wrote:the japanese learn nothing from these routine intercepts except burn money and get stretched.
neither the americans learn anything useful, the useful stuff they learn from RC135, P8A and submarine snooping.


That’s when the chinis have to intercept THEM. So the lesson is to make the other guy intercept you. lol

Y-9JB intercepted and photographed by JASDF F-15J — bad:
Image

J-11BH photographed while intercepting USN P-8 — good!
Image

Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Avinandan » 25 Feb 2019 19:06

Unable to understand why China is buying Ansat (LUH) helicopter from Russia ?
What else they have not got so far ?
https://www.azernews.az/region/145962.html

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10269
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 25 Feb 2019 19:20

Simple, Chinese far too often classify Russian imports/Russian TOT linked production as reverse engineering, thus creating shock and awe. In a communist regime problems are swept under the carpet.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 26 Feb 2019 16:02

Aditya_V wrote:Simple, Chinese far too often classify Russian imports/Russian TOT linked production as reverse engineering, thus creating shock and awe. In a communist regime problems are swept under the carpet.


“Shock and awe” by being laughed at as a copycat? lol

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 26 Feb 2019 16:08

Interesting. A good sized drone that can operate from a warship. Looks like hybrid quadcopter/rear pusher.
https://twitter.com/dafengcao/status/1100311702166327296

dafeng cao
@dafengcao
UAV deployed aboard Destroyer Lanzhou.

Image

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10269
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 26 Feb 2019 16:17

chola wrote:Interesting. A good sized drone that can operate from a warship. Looks like hybrid quadcopter/rear pusher.
https://twitter.com/dafengcao/status/1100311702166327296

dafeng cao
@dafengcao
UAV deployed aboard Destroyer Lanzhou.




UAV yes, but what kind of Radar, light torpedo, sonar or any useful payload can it carry?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 26 Feb 2019 16:29

Aditya_V wrote:
UAV yes, but what kind of Radar, light torpedo, sonar or any useful payload can it carry?


Probably pretty hard to lift much load vertically certainly not a light torpedo. Imagine it to be mostly optical surveillance/targeting and one or two of those cute liliputian ordnance chinis make specifically for UAVs.

AR-1, AR-2:
Image

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10269
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 27 Feb 2019 10:58

Even that is doubtful, it cant even probably take high speed winds, its a nice toy, it can probably carry a small camera but doubt it has range also given its size, its nice to show but really useless for a Navy.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 27 Feb 2019 16:31

Here we go. SD-40 Sea Cavalry (LOL)

Not a combat drone. Just surveillance with EO and small aperature radar. Low ceiling.

More interesting it is made by yet another company. With a name like Han’s Eagle, it’s a private firm.

Image

John
BRFite
Posts: 1998
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby John » 27 Feb 2019 18:07

Aditya_V wrote:Simple, Chinese far too often classify Russian imports/Russian TOT linked production as reverse engineering, thus creating shock and awe. In a communist regime problems are swept under the carpet.

Yea they are not reverse engineered find it interesting almost everyone plays along. Russia transfered the tech clearly with under the table deals. Reportedly those dealing far exceeded the actual arms deals and helped fund a lot of things like Sochi. Kickbacks from deal to Chinese communist party members help fund nice multi million dollar condos in places like NY.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 27 Feb 2019 18:37

That thing has a 40 KG MTOW so it isn't really going to accommodate any significant quality RF or EO/IR sensor allowing it to go up high or contribute much beyond what small drones like the scan eagle already do. DARPA is working on a MALE UAV for DDG class vessels under its TERN program. That is something that has the potential to, if successful, operate at altitude, with long loiter and combat radius and the ability to carry payload and even weapons.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 05 Mar 2019 13:42

China hikes defence budget by 7.5% to $177.61 billion

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... aign=cppst

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 05 Mar 2019 13:42

Would be more relevant to see how much of Defence Budget of India and China compare on PPP Term

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7106
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 05 Mar 2019 14:36

That is only part of the story. What we really need to compare is the R&D budget. That is where weapons of tomorrow come from.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 05 Mar 2019 17:42

Prasad wrote:That is only part of the story. What we really need to compare is the R&D budget. That is where weapons of tomorrow come from.


They have both government projects like the Tejas (J-10, J-20) and private ones (FC-1, FC-31.) The RnD from the private sector or from unsupported prototypes in state firms can only be amortized after sales to the chini military. It is probably their biggest advantage over us.

If you want to see how this split industrial policy works then look into their drone industry. It grew mainly out of private ventures. Their biggest sellers to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. (the CH-3/4/5 series) were never supported or bought by the PLA.

They are attempting to replicate the US system where Boeing and LockMart compete. Research and design are organic to the industry. The government mainly procures while the corporations invent. If the FC-31 beats the J-20 for their naval fighter program then it would be a major win for an unsupported prototype.

We are also missing the integrated design teams in our manufacturers. Boeing and LockMart do not need a bureau like ADA for their designs. Neither do Chengdu or Shenyang. The FC-31 was internally designed and funded by SAC.

Imagine if we had HAL proactively using its experience from the MKI and building a desi SU-33 prototype to challenge the MiG-29K and NLCA as a platform on the upcoming Vikrant and IAC-II.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7112
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 05 Mar 2019 18:15

chola wrote:The FC-31 was internally designed and funded by SAC.


SAC is a subsidiary of a State Owned enterprise. What cash flows can it generate on the civil/non-military or Military export side that can sustain these sort of "truly" independent ventures and since it is state-owned doesn't it effectively amount to the state controlling where it invests internally?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65244
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 05 Mar 2019 18:37

>> We are also missing the integrated design teams in our manufacturers. Boeing and LockMart do not need a bureau like ADA for their designs. Neither do Chengdu or Shenyang.

that is just a matter of org structure - russians do just fine with TSAGI and gromov flight test instt as separate from sukhoi, ilyushin, saturn, etc... it was tsagi which apparently did the basic template of the mig29 and Flanker shape. maybe they are like NAL of russia.

our issue is not org structure so much as lack of funds and large scale capability at the higher end of things.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 06 Mar 2019 16:39

FBI boss: Never mind Russia and social media, China ransacks US biz for blueprints, secrets at 'surprisingly' huge scale

'Espionage and criminal investigations ... almost all of which lead back to Beijing'


Speaking at the RSA Conference in San Francisco this morning, Wray said the scale of Beijing's government-orchestrated online espionage is greater than that of any other nation state. The Middle Kingdom's spies are attacking US corporate computer networks, and plundering systems for blueprints and other top-secret intellectual property, at an unprecedented rate, the FBI boss claimed.

"Of all the things that surprised me since taking on the directorship, it was the breadth and depth and scale of the Chinese counterintelligence threat," Wray said.

"We're investigating espionage and criminal investigations in nearly all 56 FBI field offices, almost all of which lead back to China. For too long, the US has been focused on the threat China poses. There's nothing like it."
:shock:

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 06 Mar 2019 17:16

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote:The FC-31 was internally designed and funded by SAC.


SAC is a subsidiary of a State Owned enterprise. What cash flows can it generate on the civil/non-military or Military export side that can sustain these sort of "truly" independent ventures and since it is state-owned doesn't it effectively amount to the state controlling where it invests internally?


Yes Shenyang is a PSU but the FC-31 was not sanctioned and had no specified funding for it from what I read. SAC also sells aircraft parts to COMAC, Boeing and Airbus. The parent company also makes cars and trucks too I believe. So the revenue streams come from things related to the firm but not necessarily the central government.

In the end, it means an extra source of innovation besides a center funded and led project. Because these prototypes must be competitive in nature (no guaranteed sales) they can force better accounting of the supported project at the very least.


Singha wrote:>> We are also missing the integrated design teams in our manufacturers. Boeing and LockMart do not need a bureau like ADA for their designs. Neither do Chengdu or Shenyang.

that is just a matter of org structure - russians do just fine with TSAGI and gromov flight test instt as separate from sukhoi, ilyushin, saturn, etc... it was tsagi which apparently did the basic template of the mig29 and Flanker shape. maybe they are like NAL of russia.

our issue is not org structure so much as lack of funds and large scale capability at the higher end of things.


You need a developed industry that can organically RnD and develop prototypes. Right now for us, it is a center-led project or we go buy phoren.

It is chicken or egg. Yes, we need more funding but we need the products to buy. But we can't have these products unless we give the industry more funding.

If the countless $billions we put into the coffers of Rus, France and Unkil for the MKI, MiG-29K, Rafale, Mirages, Jaguars, C-17, P-8 and Apache were given to the domestic industry it would be flushed. We are the greatest arms importer on earth bar none -- supporting many MICs except our own.

As far as organization of external design bureau versus an internal design team within the manufacturer, I can tell you as an analyst that the internal team will ALWAYS know the capabilities of the manufacturer better than an outside organization.

The outside bureau will design in a lab. The organic design team will design something its parent can actually make and make in numbers.

Roos' design bureaus work well enough for it during the Cold War with brute force funding of half the USSR's economy. But it is at a virtual standstill after the Cold War when compared to Cheen's. Chini projects proliferated like lemmings after they went red capitalism in the same period.

Take the new industry of UAVs. Cheen has countless models from countless firms both PSU and private. Russia nearly none. Or look at 5th gen aircraft. Cheen has one in service and another one competing for its naval contract. Rus has something that scared off the IAF.

The Amreeki model of organic firms (which Cheen mimics) is superior. And this model should be even more productice in India because we are a free state. The Russki outside-design-bureau/PSU/center-led model stifles our creativity.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2759
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby kit » 07 Mar 2019 04:36

Austin wrote:FBI boss: Never mind Russia and social media, China ransacks US biz for blueprints, secrets at 'surprisingly' huge scale

'Espionage and criminal investigations ... almost all of which lead back to Beijing'


Speaking at the RSA Conference in San Francisco this morning, Wray said the scale of Beijing's government-orchestrated online espionage is greater than that of any other nation state. The Middle Kingdom's spies are attacking US corporate computer networks, and plundering systems for blueprints and other top-secret intellectual property, at an unprecedented rate, the FBI boss claimed.

"Of all the things that surprised me since taking on the directorship, it was the breadth and depth and scale of the Chinese counterintelligence threat," Wray said.

"We're investigating espionage and criminal investigations in nearly all 56 FBI field offices, almost all of which lead back to China. For too long, the US has been focused on the threat China poses. There's nothing like it."
:shock:


The chinese are literally vacuuming all sorts of tech from advanced countries especially the US using every source available., Huawei is just the tip of the iceberg , as the Germans said its either the chinese or the americans , both do it , just that china is literally brazen in its effort , quite perhaps they have the feeling the window of opportunity is closing ..fast ?!!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 07 Mar 2019 11:16

Nice interview with FBI director on Chinese spying


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 07 Mar 2019 11:19

IF Chinese are spying so much on US , How much will they be spying on EU and UK

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 07 Mar 2019 14:55

Austin wrote:IF Chinese are spying so much on US , How much will they be spying on EU and UK


And don't forget the conduits in Japan and South Korea and Taiwan. And some are bought illegally against embargo and other enticed or blackmailed for market access.

Can't blame them for doing what they must to catch up. I hope our agencies do the same to be perfectly honest.

The "noble savage" who eschewed the white man's weapons and fought with native bows and arrows were annihilated just the same. No mercy for not copying the goras' technology.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2759
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby kit » 08 Mar 2019 00:23

Austin wrote:IF Chinese are spying so much on US , How much will they be spying on EU and UK

i personally dont care ; the us and russia stole the whole lot from the germans ; japan copied a whole bunch from the americans but decided to be subordinate to them, China did not

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 08 Mar 2019 15:10

Here's an uncommon sight, the Z-19. Looks TFTA but nothing more than a re-working of the Z-9 which in turn is a licensed produced copy of the French Dauphin. There are endless variants of the Z-9 which they can export. Why don't we get those kinds of TOT licenses?

Image

Image

Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 08 Mar 2019 16:34

Intel:

Don't quite understand how they will get the thing to water. Dredge that section in front?

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1103961939267514369

@Rupprecht_A
@RupprechtDeino
New images of the Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai showing the Type 003 aircraft carrier under construction.

Image

Image


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 12 Mar 2019 21:43

Poor chini pilot dudes, a water tower just up and decided to jump in front of them . . .

RIP

https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1105455372012118016

Carl Zha
@CarlZha
Breaking: Chinese PLA Navy fighter jet crash in Ledong County, Hainan Island on morning, March 12th, 2019. Jet hit a water tower. Both pilots died. No civilian injuries..


Carl Zha
@CarlZha
·
2h
I heard the crashed PLAN fighter jet is a Naval Aviation JH-7A aka
FBC-1 Flying Leopard. JH-7A entered service in 2004...
Image


vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby vivek_ahuja » 15 Mar 2019 11:29

Chola: I just wanted to add my two cents to the work you do in keeping tabs on the Chinese military enhancements. Keep up the good work. It has made this thread the one-stop shop for the latest tid-bits of information coming out of China for those of us who lack the time to scour the net forums and tweets.

The Chinese are making leaps and bounds, but there is a long way to go. They will get there, however, given enough time (and money, which they seem to throw into the fires using shovels!). Some of their aircraft programs are just fascinating to watch from the outside. They are not going to be fighting a war anytime. So their military projects are honestly irrelevant in the long run. Their civilian aerospace projects (especially the wide-body airliners), however, have the potential of shifting the CG of that market.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23046
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 15 Mar 2019 11:35

In testimony, Shanahan underlines it’s ‘China, China, China’

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/20 ... ina-china/

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3205
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 15 Mar 2019 16:15

vivek_ahuja wrote:Chola: I just wanted to add my two cents to the work you do in keeping tabs on the Chinese military enhancements. Keep up the good work. It has made this thread the one-stop shop for the latest tid-bits of information coming out of China for those of us who lack the time to scour the net forums and tweets.

The Chinese are making leaps and bounds, but there is a long way to go. They will get there, however, given enough time (and money, which they seem to throw into the fires using shovels!). Some of their aircraft programs are just fascinating to watch from the outside. They are not going to be fighting a war anytime. So their military projects are honestly irrelevant in the long run. Their civilian aerospace projects (especially the wide-body airliners), however, have the potential of shifting the CG of that market.


Thank you for the kind words, Vivekji. As a veteran of the old LCA/J-10 flamewars two decades ago, it was painful to look at their stuff initially. I only had the courage to start in earnest a few years ago. But like Pavlov's dog, the hint and reward cycle of chini mil watching is highly addictive and fun once you are drawn into the community (which is large, active and international.) I would encourage more desis to watch. They are after all a neighbor and rival.

I think it is best to see their aircraft (and ship) projects, both mil and civilian, as industry development and jobs creation endeavors. They start and finish many projects, far more than even the established gora powers because they simply haven't done those things before (trainers, fighters, AWACS, MPA, airliner, etc.) that the established powers had done years ago. And they will cheat, lie and steal to catch up.

And they are mercantile so that at every level they have a cheap copy ready to sell. Just having products to sell is critical to any industry. I don't care if its chapatis or flying saucers you need to have products.

How many non-watchers would know this? They've quietly sold this cheap little trainer around the world.

Image

The K-8 is just one product out of many offered in the entire range of aircraft classes from turboprop utility to transports to even stealth fighters (Y-12, L-15, FC-2000, MA-600, Y-8, FC-1, FC-31.) Selling anything creates a positive feedback loop for the industry.

They are THE model non-gora ac industry that we can draw lessons from, IMHO. The traditional gora makers are so advanced and so experienced that their model is much harder to emulate. Basically they had over 120 years of experience that can't be emulated. The chinese one is far more compressed.

In fact, Cheen is the only non-gora seller of note in the mil aviation world. That is why watching is so interesting. Even the Japanese had never sold much in terms of aircraft and certainly not in such a wide range (though the Koreans and Turks and ourselves have made a push in one or two categories recently.)

I like their constant tinkering with their platforms. Every aircraft type has many variants.

The Y-8 family of AWACS and search aircraft:
Image

I am sure that not every one of the variants is a center-led project. This really bodes well for their industry, I think. Something that we are finally seeing with the LCA proliferating into Mk1, Mk1A, NLCA and MWF.

Yes, their civilian projects of the ARJ-21, C919 and CR929 are potentially market moving and definitely worth watching. But there are also their turboprops which had been sold for years now on the overseas civilian market -- the Y-12 and Y-7 variants (MA-600/700.) Again, it is getting a product into every niche.

And that is just aircraft. Ships are possibly even more fun to follow.

I hope this doesn't get viewed as simply dhoti-shivering but as a challenge to our own industries to get better. At the very least, they've shown us that the goras can be caught up to (as long as you employ every method available.)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16687
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 16 Mar 2019 05:20

Thanks to V_Raman - a detailed look at some of the "showpiece" PRC projects and the real challenges (behind the glittering exterior).

V_Raman wrote:
Karan M wrote:^^ We do have stuff that is comparable and probably not the best time to discuss it either.

BrarW
Have you seen this, or do you have access to this? Interested in seeing what these guys make of the J-20A.

https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/ab ... ec_a_00337


Synopsis:

J-20 rushed to forces due to increasing tensions in SCS
Several design flaws on the sides and rear resulting in reduced stealthiness and air-to-air limitations

Usage of canards is poor design for 5th gen fighters - exact words for canards below
Moreover, the J-20 displays two small wing projections (canards) forward of the main wings. Generally intended to help the longitudinal equilibrium, and static and dynamic stability, of an aircraft, the canards also increase its frontal radar cross section, thus limiting its overall capabilities. From an industrial perspective, that the J-20 carries canards suggests poor design. As noted, little can be done about poor designs, which, once adopted, can be improved only marginally


Inability to develop a reliable TVC turbofan engine - switched back to russian engines - Kaveri is critical here - productionize it!
These more advanced engines have experienced “critical problems,” however, including an explosion during a ground test in 2015. According to an anonymous source, as of 2018, “engineers had failed to find the key reason for these problems,“and apparently ”there was no fundamental solution to overcome them.“


Avionics J-20 continues to face issues - here is where LCA achievement is no mean feat and that too without copying!
Software problems, in fact, are very difficult to anticipate: testing and refining must continue until the software is perfected, given that when the aerospace software fails, it fails “cat-astrophically.” Because China has thus far been unable to copy U.S. aircraft design and engines, there is little reason to believe that it has been more successful in this much more challenging realm.


Not successful in developing reliable 4th gen fighter as well - despite deep TOT and copying - again LCA is no mean feat!
The production process did not go smoothly, however. For example, at “one point the [Chinese engines] were reportedly requiring overhauls every thirty hours of flight time, compared to four hundred hours for … the Su-27.” Similarly, according to U.S. sources, some variants of this aircraft have been “in big trouble,” as technical malfunctions have led to several crash landings.


Cost advantage of only 10% to 20% over F-22. This is even less impressive given that F-22 is operational for 12 years
Overall - China has been unable to copy US stealth designs and technology. Limitations of copying seems to been reached
Lag one or two gens behind depending on the area and narrowing the gap in near-term are slim

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16687
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 16 Mar 2019 13:04

Some time back, moi had done an analysis of the PRC aviation complex. As part of the background research, remember one quote about how badly performing huge (think OFB on steroids, yes that big) complexes were still funded and launching all sorts of projects with no viability.. which PLAAF wouldnt buy. One chief of one of these "complexes" which on paper was under AVIC, said to the researcher "the mountains are big, and Beijing is far away", apparently a popular old time Chinese phrase. In short, as long as the communist party had to sustain its local dudes, he was untouchable and he was too far away for Beijing bigwigs to actually understand or care about how he ran things. It was actually Beijings problem to keep the gravy train flowing. Despite all our problems we are gradually moving from the archaic DPSU onlee model to one where the pvt sector is competing head on & working with DRDO to design & now make products. Third phase, which is also happening is where DRDO does the initial layout, design, provides guidance but detailed work is done by industry.
That process, despite Rahul Gandi's filibustering, won't stop. Anyday preferable to a situation wherein the party rules everything & party loyalty decides what gets made and what gets funded. Might also explain insane investment in some sectors shipbuilding etc, as versus areas where more funding may result in disproportionate gains.
We just have to elect the right Govt and ensure MOD again doesn't become a den of vested interests who prioritize imports over everything else.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: banrjeer, brar_w, darshand, Google [Bot], madhu, ritesh, sgopal, suryag, VikasM, vivekmehta, wasu and 136 guests