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.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 800
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby k prasad » 02 Sep 2020 06:34

Vivek saar... I don't disagree with his point. Just the tone.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2330
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby vivek_ahuja » 02 Sep 2020 06:39

@Chola: what is the timeline for the various carriers and amphibious assault mini-carriers that the Chinese have in play?

I count two ski-jump carriers in the 65k tonnage, plus the Type-003 which is already well under construction towards the 80-100k tonnage fully loaded.

When is the Type-003 expected to hit the water?

And they have a Type-004 in planning? -->is this just rumors or verified?

Plus two large amphibious assault Type-75s, one of which has now entered sea trials and the other well under construction.

I think a few years of training and fixing bugs and features on these ships based on trials should get them kitted out reasonably well (considering the energy with which the Chinese are attacking this problem). Naval pilot training will take more years, but still, around 2030 or so we can expect a large global Chinese naval presence second only to that of the US Navy. Is that a fair assessment?
Last edited by vivek_ahuja on 02 Sep 2020 06:51, edited 1 time in total.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2330
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby vivek_ahuja » 02 Sep 2020 06:45

The Chinese naval AEW is a fascinating aircraft in its own right. It is a rip-off of the Hawkeye, sure, but it gives the Chinese a solid platform to start getting their experience on operating such a class of aircraft. Besides, who else was going to sell them one of those Hawkeyes?

Image

If this thing turns out to be half-as-capable as the Hawkeye, it will be a big leap forward for the Chinese Navy carrier forces.

The Chinese are working hard to solve these problems and seem to have a long yet methodical plan for it. Almost triggers some envy.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 02 Sep 2020 17:09

k prasad wrote:Vivek saar... I don't disagree with his point. Just the tone.


Prasad ji, I apologize for my tone. I do not take these lightly and it is more gallows humor than anything flippant. But your point is well taken. For people like me to look forward to war while others make sacrifices is unconscionable.

I do feel that the Chinese military is designed to intimidate and coerce as its main objective and to fight only as a secondary by product. The modern PRC is a first industrial power. But it is a third rate fighting nation. Given a choice, it will always chose to overwhelm you with their machines during peace time instead of honorably facing you in war.

Therefore against such a foe, it is probably better to fight than to engage in an industrial arms race. And it is better to fight sooner than later before the numbers being pumped out from their industrial complex becomes too overwhelming. Which is why my views and tone can be seen as warmongering.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 02 Sep 2020 17:28

Vivek ji, here is my assessment -- illustrations mostly from Twitter.

There are actually three Type 075s. One that just finished two weeks of sea trials. Another that is fitting out. A third that is being built in dry dock. The biggest pieces to its air wing would be the new Z-20 CopySeaHawk general purpose and AEW models and the new helo UAV shown here in mockup.

Image

Image Image

Image

After the third 075, there is the report that Cheen will go into a new class of LHD in the Type 076.This one could be groundbreaking for them. It supposedly will include an EMALS system that will launch fixed wing aircraft. There is speculation that the 076 will be geared towards UAV launches as well as helos. In fact, some say that while the 075 is a traditional LHD geared toward helo operations, the 076 will occupy a new conceptual role of UAV carrier. UAVs and drones being an area that Cheen had invested in heavily and is seen as an advantage for them.

Image

The Type 003 is looking like it could launch sometimes next year based on the rate this thing is coming together. As you rightly pointed out the KJ-600 is a big part of the suspected complement. The others are the J-15T CATOBAR variant, the J-15D "Growler" and the Z-20 naval variants. The KJ-600 airframe would have COD and ASW versions too.

Image

Image

J-15D
Image

COD and ASW based on KJ-600 airframe:
Image

There had been rumors that Dalian (the yard that built their Type 002) has started building modules for a sister 003 or the new Type 004. But there has been no solid evidence yet.

Overall, their march towards a carrier arm had been planned meticulously. Since the refurbished Varyag (Type 001) came online for them in 2012, we have seen development of ships and aircraft in a steady stream. The many Type Z-8/18 variants on their Type 001 show that R&D had preceded many years before 2012 as well.

Z-8 variants on CV 16 (former Varyag):
Image

Nothing is hapzard. We saw the CATOBAR J-15 variants years ago. They have an inland training/testing center that mimics a carrier. The island and deck would change of this building would change. It had a ramp when the Type 002 was being built. Now the ramp is removed and the island altered with the 003 coming up. We first saw the KJ-600 program when a mockup appeared on the deck of this center. If you follow chini mil, you can see these things coming together years in advance.

Image

The rumored plan now is for 10 carriers in the fleet. Whether that means 10 CV/Ns or CVs plus "light" carriers (the EMALS-capable 076) is among the things being discussed in the watch community. Earlier rumors suggested 6 CVs (the 2 STOBARS plus 4 CATOBARs.) Ten fleet carriers seem overkill but with their kind of building capacity and speed of construction it doesn't seem out of reach.

When we launched Vikrant in 2013, I fully expected us to keep the lead with two carriers over their one. I never thought that they would have two in operations and a third building before Vikrant is even commissioned. People here always say that we'll catch up once the economy reaches $X trillion. But the gap actually widens every year because the plans they put in place for systems and infrastructure are coming online year after year and their capacity grows along with it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 02 Sep 2020 19:16

China Is Ahead in Ship, Missile & Air Defense Tech: DoD Report

The Chinese military has already pushed ahead of the US in areas like shipbuilding, missile defense, ballistic and cruise missile construction, the Pentagon warned today in a blunt new assessment.

One of the consistent themes of the annual China Military Power report is that much of the Chinese modernization effort remains a work in progress. The People’s Liberation Army, or PLA, is an “increasingly modern and flexible force” that relies on China’s civilian industrial might and its robust tech sector to drive improvements to build a force aimed at rivaling the US military by mid-century.

As part of that push, the PLA is moving forward on its own nuclear triad, recently revealing the new H-6N as its first nuclear-capable air-to-air refuelable bomber, giving Beijing land, sea and air-deliverable nuclear weapons for the first time.

China is expected to double the number of its nuclear warheads over the next decade to around 400, the Pentagon analysis says, a key reason the Trump administration has been so eager to include — albeit unsuccessfully — China in arms control talks along with Russia.

While China has so far refused to discuss the issue, the American estimate of 200-odd nuclear warheads currently in the Chinese stockpile marks the first time the US has publicly estimated the number of Chinese nuclear capabilities, a signal of Washington’s growing unease. Even with that expected growth, of course, China’s nuclear force would still be dwarfed by the estimated 3,800 US warheads in active and reserve status.

The nuclear modernization is just part of a larger effort, however.

Underpinning the entire military buildup is the blending of the Chinese civilian and military industrial bases and tech innovation sector — driven by its Military-Civil Fusion Development Strategy — which allows the military to pick the best and most fully developed technologies for its own use.

There’s “not a clear line between the PRC’s civilian and military economies, raising due diligence costs for U.S. and global entities that do not desire to contribute to the PRC’s military modernization,” the report states.

The Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for China, Chad Sbragia, said at an American Enterprise Institute event today that the Chinese military is “not intended to be merely a showpiece of Chinese modernity” but is a tool for the government to press its advantage diplomatically around the globe.

“The Communist Party has spent the last several years completely tearing out and rewiring the PLA organizationally with the goal of transforming into a joint force that is more combat ready, innovative and global,” Sbragia said.

Critical to this is the Military-Civil Fusion Development Strategy, which the Pentagon tellingly spends some time detailing in today’s report.

It is meant to link “China’s defense industrial base and its civilian technology and industrial base,” the report states, while “integrating and leveraging science and technology innovations across military and civilian sectors.” By blending military and civilian expertise and knowledge, the PLA has built a system which inserts military requirements into civilian infrastructure, and includes “all relevant aspects of its society and economy for use in competition and war.”

Those structural advantages have led the Pentagon to conclude that China has already achieved parity with—or even exceeded—the United States in several areas, including shipbuilding. The Chinese navy is already the largest in the world, with about 350 ships and submarines. While it has never been tested in combat and cannot claim to be a blue water navy yet since it has rarely strayed too far from its home ports.

The Pentagon is also concerned about China’ 1,250 ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles, with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The US currently fields a single type of conventional ground-based ballistic missile with a range of 70 to 300 kilometers and no ground launched cruise missiles. The PLA also “has one of the world’s largest forces of advanced long-range surface-to-air systems,” the report notes, including Russian-built S-400s, S-300s, and domestically produced systems.

Given the alarming assessment, Sbragia cautioned today that “the report does not claim that China’s military is currently 10 feet tall, nor, I think, certainly does China either. It clearly faces a number of challenges, and Beijing is working to overcome those, which is really an important point.”


Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2434
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Manish_P » 02 Sep 2020 21:45

Sounds suspiciously like 'Give us more money', like the heady days of the cold war..

Incidentally have they coined a term for the US-China struggle for domination thingy yet? The Noodle war - keep pulling to see how much the other can stretch before breaking

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 02 Sep 2020 21:51

Manish_P wrote:Sounds suspiciously like 'Give us more money', like the heady days of the cold war..



China has the largest navy in the world. And it isn't gunning just for numerical (ship count) superiority, but also, more importantly, VLS capacity superiority. And probably Aircraft Carrier parity by the mid to late 2030s. Its missile force is miles ahead of the US. The US currently fields ZERO Medium or intermediate ranged systems (conventional). China basically modeled its DF series on the Pershing II that the US happily destroyed to comply with treaty obligations. China has a geographic advantage in air-defense and defending itself from US weapons. The US can't match that without coming up with an offset strategy, likely involving a LEO constellation (not enough land to place survivable radars and radars are inherently not as survivable when confronted with a fires mismatch that will likely persist) or some other way to take care of the "sensor" portion of defending itself and its interests in the pacific.

None of the points made are even remotely controversial. Like the article states, the report isn't attempting to paint China as 10 ft tall. But even a cursory look at the capability they've fielded and one can see how they have put distance between what they field and what the US fields. In some areas they are miles ahead. It isn't all doom and gloom. The FSU had a quantitative advantage over the US, in many areas, for most of the cold-war. But one has to be "honest" abut the capability your enemy is fielding or developing so that you can devise your own strategy that maintains that conventional deterrence and prevents conflict.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1980
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby AdityaM » 03 Sep 2020 04:03

Any idea what the flying rope trick is called. Plays at 1m:30s

https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/sta ... 73153?s=21

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4041
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 03 Sep 2020 04:09

The cost factor from being local, allows the Chinese to field a very large force. Sadly for us, although we have the same advantage, GoI is more interested in saving it's DPSU empire, than provide kit at economical cost..

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2434
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Manish_P » 03 Sep 2020 09:14

+1

At the time of WW2, a largely insulated (rather non battered like the Europeans) economy helped the US create and power its MIL-IND complex to churn out unmatched numbers of war weapons.

Post war they shifted to quality (powered by research, disruptive tech) to not get into a numbers game with the SU.

It's not that the industry (now powered by automation) with capability to churn out numbers has been lost entirely. It's just a strategy to stay ahead in the quality game, while getting 'allies', who are neighbors of the dragon, to assist in reducing some of the numbers deficit, while getting exposed to the first hits.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2330
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby vivek_ahuja » 03 Sep 2020 09:20

Part of the problem is that while India is a capitalist country with private ownership of industry, the government behaves like that of a socialist country, handing vital defense projects to public sector units. We all know how that works out. We retain the slow-moving decision process of a democracy to top it all.

On the contrary, China being a true socialist country behaves like capitalist country when it comes to industry and defense. And they bring the dictatorship-style rapid decision-making to bear.

The contrast could not be more dysfunctional from our perspective.

Until the Tata and Mahedra start behaving like Boeing and Lockheed, and when the GoI starts shedding its socialist management styles, I expect no change. Good luck trying to convince a politician of any party color to discontinue DPSUs in favor of private industry.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 03 Sep 2020 13:44

AdityaM wrote:Any idea what the flying rope trick is called. Plays at 1m:30s

https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/sta ... 73153?s=21


Looks like an anti-mine system. A string of explosives to clear a path.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 03 Sep 2020 14:21

vivek_ahuja wrote:Part of the problem is that while India is a capitalist country with private ownership of industry, the government behaves like that of a socialist country, handing vital defense projects to public sector units. We all know how that works out. We retain the slow-moving decision process of a democracy to top it all.

On the contrary, China being a true socialist country behaves like capitalist country when it comes to industry and defense. And they bring the dictatorship-style rapid decision-making to bear.

The contrast could not be more dysfunctional from our perspective.

Until the Tata and Mahedra start behaving like Boeing and Lockheed, and when the GoI starts shedding its socialist management styles, I expect no change. Good luck trying to convince a politician of any party color to discontinue DPSUs in favor of private industry.


Tata and Mahindra are more like conglomerates with a wide net of industries. Boeing and Lockheed are giants in a specialized segment of industry. It is harder for conglomerates to lead in a specialized, supremely technical and monumentally investment-heavy field like aerospace. Also the government has to support them with persistance purchases in the billions year after year and even subsidies (Airbus.)

Cheen actually forces their PSUs to act like Boeing and Lockheed. Chengdu won their stealth fighter contest for the PLAAF with the J-20. Shenyang is trying to win the PLAN's next gen carrier fighter with a self-funded design in the FC-31. But once they win a contest they are rewarded with big numbers. They've ordered 500+ J-10s from
Chengdu and another 500+ sino flankers from Shenyang. We have the insanity of the IAF negotiating price of the Tejas with HAL and haven't even formalize the order for 83 Mk1A despite cutting the buy price by a third. I highly doubt that the PLAAF and PLAN need to bargain with their PSU suppliers.

You need private sector for efficiency, dynamism and innovation but you also need government commitment to provide a stable market and funding. Tata can become a factor in aerospace for example if the government provide steady purchases should they win a contract. The Korean chaebols are private sector conglomerates like Tata. They receive massive government support through purchases. Hyundai famously builds cars but also builds many of South Korea's warships and is an exporter of naval ships the world over.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 03 Sep 2020 14:39

A private sector firm develops a drone that uses a piston-driven biplane built by a MIC factory for 70 years and puts it into commercial use.

The private-public, civ-mil meld in Cheen is far along.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HenriKenhmann/status/1296806035877838848

East Pendulum
@HenriKenhmann
Le drone-cargo FH-98 du géant logistique chinois SF Express a réalisé son premier vol commercial aujourd'hui, entre le Ningxia et la Mongolie-Intérieure.

Dérivé de l'avion de transport Y-5B, le #drone peut transporter jusqu'à 1,5t de marchandise sur une distance de 1200 km.

Image
----- Google translation -----

Chinese logistics giant SF Express's FH-98 cargo drone made its first commercial flight today, between Ningxia and Inner Mongolia.

Derived from the Y-5B transport aircraft, the #drone can transport up to 1.5t of cargo over a distance of 1200 km.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 03 Sep 2020 18:18

Manish_P wrote:
It's not that the industry (now powered by automation) with capability to churn out numbers has been lost entirely. It's just a strategy to stay ahead in the quality game, while getting 'allies', who are neighbors of the dragon, to assist in reducing some of the numbers deficit, while getting exposed to the first hits.


The ability to churn in numbers is not the issue here. Just look at the F-35 production rate, and the total brand new 4.5 or 5th gen figthers the US buys each year (in the 110-120 range which will grow to 150 in a couple of years). The issue is A) getting out of treaty obligation and the cold-war mentality and focusing on the threat in the Pacific. Russia is not a military or economic threat and you can easily out produce it and be ahead in quality and quantity (and that's a NATO issue). and B ) Being invested in the right systems, technology and mind-set that will ensure that the balance of power does not heavily tilt towards one side in that region. China has some geographic and regional advantages so the US cannot linearly grow systems and expect parity or superiority. This involves air-defenses, command and control and strike. The Pacific is vast, it is greatly seperated from the US homeland and the US controlled regions are concentrated and therefore likely to be obliterated during the first few phases of any conflict. So how do you provide air-and missile defenses under such a scenario? How do you ensure air-superiority? And how do you hold targets at risk? These are all the things that are totally unique to that theater and the Chinese threat. Only way to restore that balance is to answer those questions and obtain those capabilities. And for the most part, you just can't do that by building the next generation radar, the next generation fighter, or the next generation missile delivery system. It needs a fundamental look at how you do all these things and whether how you've traditionally done these missions makes sense given the new realities.

As I mentioned, the US has pretty much zero medium to intermediate range ground launch fires. Decades of complying to the INF ensure that. They should have exited the treaty when China first started its DF series rate production. Can they out class the DF series? That won't be very difficult to do given where they were in the 70's and 80's even if one were to assume that they took a holiday (which they didn't). But that requires political will. Does the political will exist to field a hypersonic conventional prompt strike (Medium to Intermediate range) inventory of say 2000-3000 missiles? What about double or triple that? There seems to be a rapid push to industrialize hypersonic production at scale and field a conventional hypersonic triad. Let's see where that goes. Industry is being set up so they have no problem delivering but such decisions are escalatory and therefore require long term political backing. But this mindset needs to extend past that into other traditional missions that cannot be performed in that theater like they have been in the past, or are likely to be performed in other theaters.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2434
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Manish_P » 03 Sep 2020 18:55

brar_w wrote:But that requires political will. Does the political will exist to field a hypersonic conventional prompt strike (Medium to Intermediate range) inventory of say 2000-3000 missiles? What about double or triple that? There seems to be a rapid push to industrialize hypersonic production at scale and field a conventional hypersonic triad. Let's see where that goes. Industry is being set up so they have no problem delivering but such decisions are escalatory and therefore require long term political backing.


Exactly that

Without going into the 'Deep State' hole, it has been seen in the past that the political will in the US seems to get pretty much in sync with the MIL-IND wont (not won't) real fast, especially when the chips are down. Part of it comes from a good number of folks in politics/governance coming from a military background (very unlike India).. though certainly nowhere near the same scale as the overt or veiled dictatorships like the erstwhile SU or China.

Anyway OT for this thread/forum, better discussed in the Strategic forum

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 05 Sep 2020 15:54

Beginning of their industrial assault on space. Watch this "space" in the coming years. If we don't get our MIC in order, in a few decades we might be watching them colonize the moon without any recourse.

You think building a 65K ton CATOBAR is too expensive?

https://www.wionews.com/world/china-carries-out-secretive-launch-of-reusable-experimental-spacecraft-325258

China carries out secretive launch of reusable experimental spacecraft

WION Web Team Beijing, China Sep 04, 2020, 07.39 PM(IST)

China on Friday successfully launched a reusable experimental spacecraft whose mission details have been kept secret.

...

SCMP said staffers and visitors to the launch site have been warned against filming the lift-off and even discussing it online. The document also says "all units should strengthen personnel security education and personnel management during missions to ensure that there is no leakage of secrets."

After a period of in-orbit operation, the spacecraft will return to a predetermined landing site in China.

A Chinese military source said it was similar to the US X-37B.

The X-37B is an unmanned space plane that operates like a smaller version of the Space Shuttle, which is launched by a rocket and cruises back to earth for a runway landing.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 05 Sep 2020 18:08

chola wrote:Beginning of their industrial assault on space. Watch this "space" in the coming years. If we don't get our MIC in order, in a few decades we might be watching them colonize the moon without any recourse.


The X-37 proved that the most sensitive space payloads can be made more survivable, and upgradable if they weren't always in a predictable orbit or could otherwise be easily targeted by ASAT capability. It was only a matter of time before this proliferated. As a US top military scientist commented in a recent podcast "nothing coming out of China is innovative stuff..it is just a copy"..probably often a bad copy. They don't seem to have made the leap to producing unique systems that out innovate what everyone else seems to be doing. That makes their responses quite predictable.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 05 Sep 2020 18:39

^^^ Brar ji, the issue is not their innovation (which I won't bet against given time) but their ability to take less than cutting edge technology and make them fiscally feasible with economy of scale.

It would be like Betamax vs VHS or the Panther vs T-34. In both cases, the former were the innovative tech but the second reached economy of scale and dominated its theater at the end.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2434
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Manish_P » 06 Sep 2020 08:54

There is a saying - 'Nakal ke liye bhi Akal chahiye', roughly translated it means even to copy you need brains.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 06 Sep 2020 13:29

Manish_P wrote:There is a saying - 'Nakal ke liye bhi Akal chahiye', roughly translated it means even to copy you need brains.


Yes. And more importantly brawn too. You can copy documents with a single Canon or HP machine. In order to copy an airplane you need an aerospace industry and entire eco-system. So saying they are just copying completely covers up the real threat that comes from them and it's their MIC.

I think they are copying mostly ideas and theories at this point. That is the reason for such speed in the introduction of new classes of ship, aircraft and spacecraft. If they were copying everything from screws up it would take them decades for each new class -- ie. the CopyHawk.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2434
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Manish_P » 06 Sep 2020 15:36

But of course, Chola saar!

An astute china watcher such as yourself would well know that the chinese didn't merely copy the products (earlier FSU/Russian, then the Western)... they also copied/duplicated/replicated the MIC (first the soviet type, then the western style, mashing it into their own hybrid type). That akal is providing the muscle for todays shakal

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 06 Sep 2020 21:29

chola wrote:^^^ Brar ji, the issue is not their innovation (which I won't bet against given time) but their ability to take less than cutting edge technology and make them fiscally feasible with economy of scale.


I wouldn't bet for or against anything. Especially not when knowing next to nothing (same with you) on how good their tech is. Same with taking "less than cutting edge technology and making it feasible". Who knows what level of institutional inertia, party politics and corruption is forcing them to sustain their current military modernization and how much of it is the result of the operator making that trade. Fielding capable systems requires rigorous involvement and technical testing and support from the SME's and operators. How this is executed in a communist system where allegiance is to the party and party survival is paramount is quite unknown especially in the Chinese way of doing business .

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 06 Sep 2020 21:50

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote:^^^ Brar ji, the issue is not their innovation (which I won't bet against given time) but their ability to take less than cutting edge technology and make them fiscally feasible with economy of scale.


I wouldn't bet for or against anything. Especially not when knowing next to nothing (same with you) on how good their tech is. Same with taking "less than cutting edge technology and making it feasible". Who knows what level of institutional inertia, party politics and corruption is forcing them to sustain their current military modernization and how much of it is the result of the operator making that trade. Fielding capable systems requires rigorous involvement and technical testing and support from the SME's and operators. How this is executed in a communist system where allegiance is to the party and party survival is paramount is quite unknown especially in the Chinese way of doing business .



True Brar ji, my observations and most of those in the watchers' circles are really influenced (or clouded) by our knowledge of their commercial endeavors. We know they are able to take less than cutting edge tech in the civilian space and make them viable and feasible enough to capture a good chunk of the global market. We don't know if their stuff on the space and military end follows the same pattern.

That said, the argument I've seen made is that an industry that gets to the point where it is producing a jet or spacecraft that can actually fly and return to earth in one piece is unlikely to get brain freeze in the final stretch of design and innovation. Ninety percent of the hard work is getting the industry set up. If they had issues with R&D, they would never had gotten the aircraft made or have it fly off the ground in the first place. That's the argument anyways. The sample size of nations mass producing aerospace vehicles is extremely small. None of which can be called innovation laggards maybe Cheen is the exception.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2330
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby vivek_ahuja » 07 Sep 2020 00:16

On the issue of Chinese copying culture:

An interesting comment I heard on an interview of the former Google VP for China: he said that the copying culture is so ingrained in Chinese industry that it is impossible for a new startup there to raise VC money without the product being a direct copy of something already invented in western society. They even embed it in their VC questions. For example, one of the questions commonly asked by a VC from a startup after hearing their idea/business-plan: "Who has validated this business model?" In other words, "who are you copying and what has their success been like?"

The Google VP guy even said that the Chinese don't see this as being dishonorable in the way the western culture expects them to feel. Hence the "shamelessness" of their direct copies of technology.

Against this type of industry culture, are we really surprised that the spillover to military looks and feels the same?

I actually feel bad for the younger Chinese; some of whom are extremely well educated and intelligent. Given the right environment, you would see very innovative solutions from them. But you won't see that in their home country, though.

It does mean, however, that their copies should be considered relatively good and not cheap knock-offs. Especially as the copy matures over a period of time and takes on a robust and unique Chinese identity.

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby DavidD » 07 Sep 2020 03:00

China mostly care about money. If copying makes money, they'll copy. If innovation makes money, they'll innovate. The Chinese since the cultural revolution do not have any guiding principle except for the pursuit of wealth.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8915
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Mort Walker » 07 Sep 2020 03:24

^^^When you have to feed over 1.4 billion and maintain a standard of living, there is no choice. Many of us wish India would do much the same for its industry, particularly the MIC.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2480
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Vivek K » 07 Sep 2020 05:14

Totally agree. The speed with which the Chinese throw new designs into the air is quite amazing. Compared to our ability to even roll out in production LCAs, the difference is stark. The danger is in laughing this development off. This is how the Japanese automakers became kings of the auto sector. Soon a day will come when there will be no more western aircraft to copy and the Chinese would be forced to use their skills in developing original designs.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 991
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Guddu » 07 Sep 2020 08:45

Looks like a purge may be coming..the Ladakh crisis may not be going well...She taking steps
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/xis-political-rivals-run-cover-purge-coming-be-careful

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 07 Sep 2020 13:11

vivek_ahuja wrote:On the issue of Chinese copying culture:

An interesting comment I heard on an interview of the former Google VP for China: he said that the copying culture is so ingrained in Chinese industry that it is impossible for a new startup there to raise VC money without the product being a direct copy of something already invented in western society. They even embed it in their VC questions. For example, one of the questions commonly asked by a VC from a startup after hearing their idea/business-plan: "Who has validated this business model?" In other words, "who are you copying and what has their success been like?"

The Google VP guy even said that the Chinese don't see this as being dishonorable in the way the western culture expects them to feel. Hence the "shamelessness" of their direct copies of technology.

Against this type of industry culture, are we really surprised that the spillover to military looks and feels the same?

I actually feel bad for the younger Chinese; some of whom are extremely well educated and intelligent. Given the right environment, you would see very innovative solutions from them. But you won't see that in their home country, though.

It does mean, however, that their copies should be considered relatively good and not cheap knock-offs. Especially as the copy matures over a period of time and takes on a robust and unique Chinese identity.


Vivek ji, I think we overlook some of their bleeding edge stuff because it doesn't fit our narrative concerning them. They're the first one to have quantum communications from satellite to ground for goodness' sakes. Their commercial drone industry practically created the global market.

That said, I think we overvalue supposedly groundbreaking innovation when historically the power of mass industrialization and economy of scale often simply overwhelmed leading edge technology. This happens in both economic and military competition.

Look at Germany in WWII, it enjoyed a lead in innovation across nearly all fields (save the Bomb) -- Panther, Tiger, Me262, Type XXI U-Boats, Bismarck, V-2, Type 88, etc. In fact, most of the list above but especially the Me262 jet fighter and V-2 were revolutionary. But they were conpletely overwhelmed and ground down by the mass produced T-34s, Shermans (far inferior on a 1-on-1 basis to the German tanks), P-47s, P-51s, KVs, Yaks, etc.

Unless the mass producer is putting up spears to the innovation side's machine guns, the mass producer will ultimately gain the advantage. And the very fact that a nation is powerful enough to create a mass production capable industrial complex guarantees it will never be that far off from the bleeding edge. It takes major technical prowess to build that MIC in the first place.

I think that applies to Cheen's civilian products and IMHO it is also present in their mil ones. The J-20, Y-20, Type 052 and 055, Type 071, FC-31, the Beidou GPS constellation and the spacecraft which just orbited two days and landed are all functional and at least within striking distance of the other systems within their respective classes. They are not spears to the other side's machine guns.

It is silly to imagine they will not take advantage of the feedback loop that will inevitably lead to better and more innovative products. You build things in the hundreds and thousands for demanding customers and eventually you'll get good at it. The number of marks for all of their frontline systems -- J-11, Z-9, 052, etc. -- hint that they are doing this. Their J-10s are at C variant now and everything has changed from A including the engine.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 07 Sep 2020 13:29

Chola -> you are wrong with respect to world War II- Soviet Union had mass produced Aircraft and BT-26 tanks etc. before world War 2 but got smashed by the Germans in 1941-42 . Only when T-34 with radios and Germans began running out of oil and all diversion in Africa and forced to Defend France due to minor operations like Dieppe they started to Struggle.

Britain was able to defend itself with lesser aircraft and radar Technology. US and UK had access to 100 Octane fuel which decimated German Fighters, Germans had access to 86 Octane fuel and the Soviets access to only 70 and 76 Octane fuel.

It was the German concentration of the Eastern front allowing the British and US to develop 1000 Bomber raids which ensured Germany lost along with Race theories.

The turning point was Germans failing to produce Oil at Maikop by the time of Dec-42 when the Soviet operation Uranus and little Saturn forced them to withdraw from the caucuses. This was brought home when the Germans while concentrating the Luftwaffe on the Eastern front saved Model's Army in the Orel Sector through Supreme sacrifice from 19 to 22 Jul 1943, this meant very few fighters for defending Germany from the West when the British pummeled Hamburg from 23-Jul 43 to 30 Jul 43. After that everyone knew Germany had lost it, the only question was for how long.

The Germans over Next 3 months moved the Luftwaffe with ground crew back to Germany which caused unacceptable loses to the British and the AMericans who stopped thier major Bombing raids from Oct 43 to Mar 44. Meanwhile without Luftwaffe support , the Soviets smashed the Germans in the Eastern from and took most of Ukraine after Kursk and took back resource rich Ukraine.

Germany main Battle Tank in World war 2 was the Panzer IV which was upgraded to 75mm. Tiger -1 , Tiger 2 and Panther were for only Elite units.

It was just not mass production but Germany fighting Britain, Soviet Union and USA at the same time which did them in, no technology could allow them fight everyone and anyone at the same time.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 07 Sep 2020 13:49

Aditya_V wrote:It was just mass production but Germany fighting Britain, Soviet Union and USA at the same time which did them in, no technology could allow them fight everyone and anyone at the same time.


Aditya, it is exactly this. Numbers do matter and the technological advantage one major power has over others cannot make up for numbers.

The Royal Navy has a technological advantage over the PLAN but it would be crushed trying to do a Falklands repeat for Hong Kong and it never tried.

And in our case, India does not enjoy substantial technological advantages over Cheen (even with the 5 Rafales) so the fact that they copy doesn't really do anything to diminish the power of that MIC. We can say that their Y-20 is just a copy of the C-17. Well, they have scores of the copies to our 11 Amreeki originals and we won't get any more -- while they will likely add an unlimited number in the future because copies or not they have the industry to supply large transports.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 08 Sep 2020 12:17

Talking about WWII, this is the biggest movie in the world right now. A chini WWII flick with a box office take of $350M.

It is not about the PLA.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HKGTranslator/status/1296744181961039874

HK Gov News Translator / 棟篤笑政府新聞網
@HKGTranslator
You know the Summer Blockbuster #TheEightHundred Beijing is promoting as patriotic? Well...

The soldiers were from the Nationalist Army, not the Communist.

After the war, these heroes were prosecuted by the CCP during the Cultural Revolution.




Strangly enough, the nationalist chini army were dressed like ze Germans.
Image
Image
Image
Image

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4041
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 08 Sep 2020 14:04

The nationalist army had bought military kit from Germany before/during the war. There are actually 2 other German army, other than the real one. The Chileans(even today!) and Chini nationalist army.

So the movie, I guess is technically glorifying the current Taiwanese army.. :rotfl:

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 08 Sep 2020 20:26

^^^ Nam ji, this got me researching the flick and the chicommies actually banned the movie. Only because their movie industry was clobbered by the Wuhan virus did they allow this picture to see light.

Surprised that they would even let it be made. But possible that there are many who do remember the nationalists and thus a known draw.

https://variety.com/2020/film/asia/eight-hundred-film-finally-given-china-release-date-1234723185/


Delayed by over a year for mysterious political reasons, epic Chinese war film “The Eight Hundred” has finally locked down a date for release in theaters.

...

Its story centers on the sacrifices made a ragtag group of Chinese soldiers in 1937 Shanghai as imperial Japanese troops advanced. Their operations were once praised by Mao Zedong himself as a “classic example of national revolution.” The theme would have appeared to have been in keeping with the patriotic message that the Beijing government wants to promulgate last year to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic.

...

Despite having been approved by censors in the normal fashion, and given clearance to play a state-backed festival, the film appeared to have fallen foul of other, previously unknown, political considerations. The incident revealed a new dimension to the censorship and approvals system.

A group of Communist Party scholars and experts, calling themselves the China Red Culture Research Association were shown an advanced copy of the movie and subsequently lobbied against it.

...

The film industry has been harder hit by the COVID-19 fallout than most other business sectors and is desperate for help. Cinemas were closed from Jan. 23 until July 20, and some are still only now reopening their doors. To date most films released in Chinese theaters have been re-releases and a mix of small-scale local and international titles.

“ ’The Eight Hundred’ is the first Chinese-language tentpole to help the film market recover,” said a source close to Huayi.


vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2330
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby vivek_ahuja » 09 Sep 2020 00:35

Chola, nam: careful that you guys aren't accidentally derailing the purpose of this thread. Do we really need full-size movie posters in your comments?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 09 Sep 2020 08:45

^^^ Back to the usual stuff, Vivek ji.

Pakis' AZM "Fifth Gen" -- if they actually can fund it -- is tied to the FC-31 according to most accounts.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ForumStrategic/status/1303509808432271360


Pakistan Strategic Forum
@ForumStrategic
Update on China's Shenyang J-31/FC-31 "Gyrfalcon" Flag of China Eagle

Latest image of the evolved J-31/FC-31 fighter No. 31003.

Intresting updates.

a) Turn on the afterburner Chinese-made WS-13E turbofan engine, & finally it is no longer as black as the first "31001" J-31/FC-31.

b) The new wide-angle narrow frame diffraction head-up display in the cockpit, FC31 is the same as J-20.

c) Canceled the nose airspeed tube, so it is possible to install AESA Radar.

d) The FC-31 mass-produced J-31 fighter jet will be equipped with a WS-19A engine in the future.

e) This might be the export potential variant of Shenyang J-31.

Image


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 09 Sep 2020 08:50

https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1302953855815159808

@Rupprecht_A
@RupprechtDeino
One again an image of a production J-20A with WS-10C engines was posted; not sure however how recent this image is.

Image

rpartha
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 24 Sep 2016 00:04

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby rpartha » 09 Sep 2020 17:47

I am Xposting in Chinese military thread too...

Interesting...

https://twitter.com/BharatShaktiBSI/sta ... 07137?s=20


The reaction of PLA/CCP military leadership by summoning Commander of the area to Beijing & subsequent change of Cdr reflects poor/rudderless leadership& their nefarious unethical designs. Loosers


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sagrawal, srin, TKiran and 49 guests