China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Dec 2017 18:58

chola wrote:^^

Thanks for the description of how the thing works. The US never went with TVC in the F-16 or any of the later Teen variants. The trade-off in complexity and, I assume, maintenance versus more maneuverability is not worth it?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2240230#p2240230

chola · Post by **chola** » 28 Dec 2017 19:49

Dalian shipyard in northern Cheen. At least 3 of Type 052D (64 VLS) and two of 055 (112 VLS)

The two hulls in the drydock in front of the Type 055s might be 052Ds as well.

So seven destroyers in one shipyard alone. The one in Shanghai is even bigger.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Dec 2017 20:36

They are building large ddg at a unprecedented rate.
Idea may be get to 50 quickly to match the us navy
Weapons and sensors can always be mlu later

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Dec 2017 21:01

In their domain and AOR they will easily develop superiority so are probably aiming for numerical advantage over regional US and allied large ship presence in the area. Overall they'll take longer to catch up. The USN will have 90 large cruisers or destroyers in service in 2025-2027 (vs 80-85 now) if they simply stick to the shipbuilding plans laid out by Obama and not increase shipbuilding activity as Trump intends to.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 28 Dec 2017 21:43

See this and shiver in your dhotis

Very handy in downtown cities i guess

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 28 Dec 2017 21:58

Here we are taking 10 years to build a smaller 15B destroyer. Credit where it's due, they are one industrious people.

chola · Post by **chola** » 28 Dec 2017 22:38

Singha wrote:They are building large ddg at a unprecedented rate.
Idea may be get to 50 quickly to match the us navy
Weapons and sensors can always be mlu later

More than the available weapon/sensor fit, the USN don’t think the PLAN could even adequately train and crew this many ships in such a short period so actual warfighting is suspect.

But fighting wars is not the game they are playing, they are using their MIC to win in the “gray zone” not their military to actually win in a war zone. The intimidation factor of destroyers and frigates flooding a targeted zone makes war even less likely in their estimation I imagine so poor crews matter not unless war actually kicks off.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 28 Dec 2017 22:41

The rate at which they building ships is bonkers, Once they get the basic design right they will produce the hell out of it. From wiki below is their past record:-

Type 22 missile boat
First Commissioned: 2004
In Service: 83
Apparently all were added in a 7 year period for an average build rate of 10+/year

Type 056 corvette
First Launched: 2012
In Service: 37
Average build rate: ~7/year

Type 054A frigate
First commissioned: 2008
In service: 25
Average build rate: 2.5+/year

Type 052D destroyer
First Launched: 2012
Total launched till date: 13
Average build rate: ~3/year

Type 039A conventional submarine
First Commissioned: 2006
In Service: 15
Average build rate: ~1.5/year

Basically they are adding the whole IN fleet equivalent every 4-5 years.

We are now seeing the some of the focus moving to the higher end of the spectrum, starting with the Type 055 destroyer. Another high priority item where they have been lagging is SSN, I'm sure we'll soon be hearing of 2-3 SSNs being added to the fleet once they they have the fundamental design in place. Also large amphibians and off course aircraft carriers - I'm expecting at least one to be built every 3 years.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Dec 2017 22:54

More than the available weapon/sensor fit, the USN don’t think the PLAN could even adequately train and crew this many ships in such a short period so actual warfighting is suspect.

China is playing the long game. In time the crew competence and training issue will also be addressed. For them it is far more expensive to design and build at scale which they seem to be addressing nicely, other chips can fall in place over time. [ Must add that this is their approach. It may or may not work but this does seem to be their plan and how to go about modernization]

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 28 Dec 2017 23:12

When Indian ITvity majors can expand headcount 10X in less than 15 years, why not PLAN hain ji?

chola · Post by **chola** » 29 Dec 2017 01:47

abhik wrote:The rate at which they building ships is bonkers, Once they get the basic design right they will produce the hell out of it. From wiki below is their past record:-

Type 22 missile boat
First Commissioned: 2004
In Service: 83
Apparently all were added in a 7 year period for an average build rate of 10+/year

Type 056 corvette
First Launched: 2012
In Service: 37
Average build rate: ~7/year

Type 054A frigate
First commissioned: 2008
In service: 25
Average build rate: 2.5+/year

Type 052D destroyer
First Launched: 2012
Total launched till date: 13
Average build rate: ~3/year

Type 039A conventional submarine
First Commissioned: 2006
In Service: 15
Average build rate: ~1.5/year

Basically they are adding the whole IN fleet equivalent every 4-5 years.

We are now seeing the some of the focus moving to the higher end of the spectrum, starting with the Type 055 destroyer. Another high priority item where they have been lagging is SSN, I'm sure we'll soon be hearing of 2-3 SSNs being added to the fleet once they they have the fundamental design in place. Also large amphibians and off course aircraft carriers - I'm expecting at least one to be built every 3 years.

We are seeing the greatest expansion of naval power during peacetime since Bismark and the German buildup prior to WWI. The US and, at some point when our economy has caught up, India will be joining this race.

As far as the SSNs, they have just finished building a massive structure with parallel assembly lines to put together four nuke subs currently.

This structure was built with a timeline that anticipated introduction of the new Type 95 SSN and Type 96 SSBN.

The latest news of the sub factory is here in French:
http://www.eastpendulum.com/production- ... es-chinois

Translation:

China seems to produce "mass" nuclear submarines next generation, it is in any case what do know, subtly, the latest publications Bohai Shipyard.
...
At this event, LI Tian Bao (李天宝), CEO of the shipyard Bohai, delivered a speech in which he says his team will do everything to "realize the dream of several generations", ie "produce large series of a project, "and that the military products remain the top priority for the company.

Similar sentences were also used during his visit of November 2 to another site , where he talked about "schedule and construction missions and testing both charged and difficult", and now "in a future close ".

Here is the fact that the construction of the new production line, which seems to be dedicated to the assembly of nuclear submarines, coming to an end, it suggests that "certain project" both in reality new Chinese SNA 09V type and SSBN type 09VI .

Knowing that the 719 Institute, a subsidiary of Chinese naval group CSIC and consulting firm specializing in the design of nuclear submarines, began the design of the new generation of submarines since 2012, it seems to be consistent to see the start cutting the first sheet incessantly shortly, as we have already suggested in a report published in April this year .

So it seems we will be seeing mass production of their SSNs very soon as well. They plan years if not decades ahead on not just the design but on the actual production of whatever they are designing.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 29 Dec 2017 04:25

I am not sure how China can afford so much military expenditure and also invest so much elsewhere in the world. I believe something Ponzi is happening with their economy. They might have borrowed massively to have such breakneck expansion. Not possible otherwise. It is one thing to build something and but there is additional same amount required over two decades to maintain them. Applies to everything built.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2017 06:31

A bunch of usn tico cg and the earliest lot of mid 80s burke ahips will be retiring soon i think
Would be tough for usn to get to 80 or 90 large hulls i think

And with making enemies of russia and iran
Some will always need to over there

So if they can assign even 50 to west pacific the plan will catch up soon i think from 052 055 classes they are at 26 hulls now
With some 15 or so 052d and 4 055 to build or building and masses of smaller 054 ffgs plus carriers

They will severely outmatch japan even today

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2017 06:35

We need to stop bs ing around with 3 of each type,
Establish larger yards or go distributed and churn out dfg and ddg of a standard hull design to keep them in sight

And we still lack the cheen trump card of a domestic uvls that can take up any missile from
Sam asm lacm families

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Dec 2017 07:54

Singha wrote:A bunch of usn tico cg and the earliest lot of mid 80s burke ahips will be retiring soon i think
Would be tough for usn to get to 80 or 90 large hulls i think

The USN is also building new ships as well and depending upon the numbers you look at (Obama's 308, or the Trump Navy's 350 odd) you are looking at b/w 88 Large Surface Combatants (Destroyers and Cruisers) and 104. There is a fairly comprehensive analysis done by the US Naval Institute that looks at the LSC number and it hovers around the low to mid 80s for most of the next decade and peeks to the high 80s around 2027. Overall, the USN will need to produce 23 more ships in their published 30-year ship building strategy to get to 104 destroyers and cruisers overall but then there is an entire cruiser replacement class that they are going to have to decide upon by early next decade. Regardless, the DDG-51 program is in full swing with both docks and will only add steam since it is produced under a Multi-Year Procurement plan, much like the Virginia SSN. Buy rate for DDG-51 will likely hold steady at 2 a year or increase to 3 a year like the Congress did by adding a third ship to the FY18 purchase requested by Trump. 3 DDG-1000s will be added in the short term as well. They could without any investment in the yards take the Burke buy rate to 4 a year if they decide to move cruiser replacement to the right. The USN is also looking a service life extension for some of the older Burke's.

At the moment, they have 87 destroyers and cruisers in the active fleet with one ship class (new large surface combatant to replace the Tico's) not yet announced. DDG-51 production rate, and the future combatant's induction will be linked closely with the overall fleet target and recapitalization requirements. It will dip slightly and then rise as ships retire and new ones come onboard.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 29 Dec 2017 07:56

Singha wrote:And we still lack the cheen trump card of a domestic uvls that can take up any missile from
Sam asm lacm families

Given the size difference of BrahMos and Barak-8, wouldn't it be a waste of deck space if you use UVLT for large and smaller sized missiles?

chola · Post by **chola** » 29 Dec 2017 08:22

ashish raval wrote:I am not sure how China can afford so much military expenditure and also invest so much elsewhere in the world. I believe something Ponzi is happening with their economy. They might have borrowed massively to have such breakneck expansion. Not possible otherwise. It is one thing to build something and but there is additional same amount required over two decades to maintain them. Applies to everything built.

A ponzi scheme takes standing wealth and spread it as interest to members to attract more members and wealth but produces nothing material. The chini economy overproduces material stuff so technically it is the furthest thing from a ponzi. Overborrowing makes more sense here. You can overproduce on borrowed money if someone is willing to lend it to you.

But no one is lending the PRC a trillion here for the HSR, a trillion there for the PLAN and a trillion everywhere else for OBOR. Besides, Cheen is a creditor nation overall on the global financial markets not a borrower.

So that leaves printing money as the final and most reasonable option. This is how the developed West, especially the US and Japan, fund their national infrastructure and underpinnings including their military.

Once you get to the printing press then your upper limit is hyperinflation. You can print as much and for as long as you want providing you don’t tip your economy into inflationary death spiral. The PRC has a lower rate of inflation than we do. They are nowhere near their upper limit if we look at inflation.

You ever wonder how the US can afford to build 10 supercarriers and 90 CGs and DDGs? Or 3000 helos for just their Army? Or the F-35 project estimated at $1.5T?

The Printing Press.

chola · Post by **chola** » 29 Dec 2017 08:39

Karthik S wrote:
Singha wrote:And we still lack the cheen trump card of a domestic uvls that can take up any missile from
Sam asm lacm families
Given the size difference of BrahMos and Barak-8, wouldn't it be a waste of deck space if you use UVLT for large and smaller sized missiles?

Smaller missiles like the ESSM (Barak equivalents) are quad-packed on American VLS.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Dec 2017 09:38

Manish_P wrote:See this and shiver in your dhotis

Very handy in downtown cities i guess

Nice skill. But tanks have 0 turn radius. You can drive a tank straight into a space and make a spot turn

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 29 Dec 2017 10:51

Exactly why i classified it as dhoti shivering proprog type video Saar

chola · Post by **chola** » 29 Dec 2017 16:25

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/89 ... ump-us/amp

China conducts 'WORLD FIRST' nuclear missile test that could hit target in SECONDS

CHINA has conducted a “world first” ballistic missile test that can come “within metres” of its target, US officials have confirmed.

In November, China’s People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force conducted two flight tests of a new ballistic missile that was attached to a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV).

A HGV is a form of aircraft that is capable of reaching speeds five times faster than the speed of sound, allowing it to deliver nuclear weapons to their target in a matter of seconds.

According to the US official the test was “the first HGV test in the world using a system intended to be fielded operationally”.

...

The HGV tested on November 1 is said to have been specifically designed for a medium-range ballistic missile called DF-17 and landed “within metres” of its intended target.

A second test of the missile took place on November 15.

According to US officials the missile is expected to become fully operational by 2020.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Dec 2017 16:47

^ See THIS and the post just below it. This is a full on race.

chola · Post by **chola** » 29 Dec 2017 16:54

brar_w wrote:^ See THIS and the post just below it. This is a full on race.

Yes, and it will be fun to watch along with the naval and aircraft build outs by both sides.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2017 17:08

What is advantage of the hypersonic weapon being very
Hot and only mach6 vs the faster mach10 of a traditional irbm?
Does it delay getting tracked by abm radar and is more manouverable via some preset library? Due to buildup of so called plasma around nose can it acquire or send rf signals for passive ew and active radar scans? I believe the pershing2 was doing a radar scan...

Apart from navy and planaf, cheen also has the entire
Plaaf lined up on land incl from bases deep in interior out of reach of any sea launched cruise missiles of the thawk or jassam er type. Only the big russi kh101 and kh55 types have the range needed to probe deep within cheen i think.

On other sides cheen is surrounded by nations that do not allow any usa presence or overflight like india tsp and the russian managed car stans and mongolia

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2017 17:11

We do need the nirbhay for torpedo tube use but also a meatier cm with more fuel for a 2500km kind of range fir us options are ships ground and vl sub tubes

Massa had a boeing alcm now retired different from thawk with a fixed dorsal intake that had a massive range . B52 used to carry it. They will likely bring something back

War will be waged from undersea to space and on continental scale

2032 is the year bloomberg predicts cheen will become no1 sized eco

Same report says 2027 we will cross japan to be no3 and next year we cross france and uk

So three big Yoddhas are converging on kurukshetra for 2030s showdown

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Dec 2017 17:40

Singha wrote:What is advantage of the hypersonic weapon being very
Hot and only mach6 vs the faster mach10 of a traditional irbm?
Does it delay getting tracked by abm radar and is more manouverable via some preset library? Due to buildup of so called plasma around nose can it acquire or send rf signals for passive ew and active radar scans? I believe the pershing2 was doing a radar scan...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2241024#p2241024

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 02 Jan 2018 00:41

Time for New year dhoti shiver
Dont forget to Look at the comments for real dhoti shiver

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jan 2018 13:25

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomac ... ts-enemies
China’s underwater surveillance network puts targets in focus along maritime Silk Road
Hi-tech system will help Beijing protect its growing network of interests and investments from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean, experts say

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 03 Jan 2018 05:03

China reportedly tested a ballistic missile with a hypersonic glide vehicle

Somehow i am not able to access the content of the link.
Can anyone print the relevant parts.

Thanks

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Jan 2018 10:15

Ind .Exp. front page headline news.China again sending in troops and bulldozers into Indian territory, 2 bulldozers seized. Intrusions near Bishing, eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation!
X-posted from the Start. page.

Ck the map in the link.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 42996.html
After Doklam, India-China faceoff in Arunachal Pradesh
By Prasanta Mazumdar & Sujan Dutta | Express News Service | Published: 03rd January 2018 07:53 AM |

Last Updated: 03rd January 2018 12:00 PM |

The military faceoffs have increased in recent years with India pacing up development of border infrastructure. (ENS)
GUWAHATI/NEW DELHI: Troops of Indian and Chinese security forces are locked in an eyeball-to-eyeball standoff near Bishing in Arunachal Pradesh’s Upper Siang district for close to a week now, sources in the security establishment have confirmed to The New Indian Express.

The standoff began after Indian troops involving the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and the Indian Army were informed by local villagers that a Chinese road-building team had entered India with bulldozers.

“My friend was driving to a place which lies beyond Tuting. He was stopped by the Army, who said he cannot go further because a standoff between Indian and Chinese soldiers is on. The locals there too had confirmed this to my friend,” an Arunachal-based lawyer-activist said.

Engaged with China on issue of Kailash Mansarovar Yatra via Nathu La: Government
India-China hold border talks; discuss confidence building measures after Doklam standoff
Doklam defused, India and China return to talks table

At least three sources have independently confirmed to TNIE that two dozers have been confiscated. A source in the security establishment said the standoff began before the new year and “is continuing as we speak”.

Another source said, “We do not want to escalate matters and make a Doklam out of it. So the government has asked us not to go public.”
*(I was told the same thing a few days ago by a reliable source,but no details of where was given)

He was referring to the 72-day standoff between Indian and Chinese troops at Doklam in Bhutan last year that had escalated tension between the neighbours.

The armies disengaged after China promised to make “necessary adjustments” to their troop deployment, and Indian troops withdrew to their posts in Sikkim.

In a narrative pieced together from sources in Arunachal Pradesh, it is understood that last week, probably around December 28, the Chinese road-building team was spotted by villagers. The team included civilians as well as uniformed personnel.

The villagers informed a local policeman, who in turn alerted the ITBP deployed in Medog, near Bishing. The area is north of the Yarlung Tsangpo river, called Siang in India, after it enters Arunachal in an “S” bend.

The ITBP reached the spot and asked the Chinese to return. There was an exchange of words but the Chinese refused to yield. The Indian Army also sent a patrol to the faceoff site, where it continues to stay.

Though the site is part of the ITBP’s area of responsibility, the Army is heavily deployed in the region. In December 2016, the Army and the Air Force re-activated an Advanced Landing Ground at Tuting where military cargo planes can fly from a short runway. The faceoff site is near the Gelling subdivision.

There are two accounts on the standoff. According to one, the civilians in the road-building team retreated to Chinese territory and the faceoff dissipated. Another account says the standoff is still on and it occasionally involves bargaining over the custody of the dozers. There are more Chinese soldiers now since the road-building party was intercepted.

The district authorities as well as the Arunachal Chief Minister’s office expressed ignorance on the incident. Local MP, Ninong Ering, too, did not have knowledge of the faceoff. “The Army is not letting people go beyond Gelling village, which is the next administrative circle after Tuting town towards the international border,” said the lawyer-activist.

A comparison with Doklam is easy but it is incorrect. This is because Doklam involved a third country, Bhutan. In this case, the standoff is firmly within Indian territory, about 4 km from the McMahon Line.

chola · Post by **chola** » 03 Jan 2018 14:47

WTH?! Four kms from the McMahon line? We should be going to war right now unless the LAC had shifted 4 kms from the McMahon Line decades ago after 1962.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 03 Jan 2018 14:56

chola wrote:WTH?! Four kms from the McMahon line? We should be going to war right now unless the LAC had shifted 4 kms from the McMahon Line decades ago after 1962.

We should be ready for that? No need Forward policy mistakes. Build MIC first. After the internal sabotage in 2004-14.

chola · Post by **chola** » 03 Jan 2018 15:16

Aditya_V wrote:
chola wrote:WTH?! Four kms from the McMahon line? We should be going to war right now unless the LAC had shifted 4 kms from the McMahon Line decades ago after 1962.
We should be ready for that? No need Forward policy mistakes. Build MIC first. After the internal sabotage in 2004-14.

MIC for “war” in the gray zone.

Our Army and Air Force for real war along the border where we still hold major advantages in men and equipment.

If they are 4 kms inside the LAC then we should be fighting right now. If the McMahon is not the LAC in this sector then we can bide our time.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 03 Jan 2018 15:44

Better to wait, Xi seems in Hitler mode, whoever gives them the excuse first will be attacked, better to take them on once they fight their war with Taiwan, Korea, Philipines, Soko or Japan. They are provoking every one to see who takes the Bait. Quite frankly US should have gone to war when they stole thier drone and supplied weapons to Noko, but I guess the wall street guys have advised US govt to go slow with respect to Chinese provocations.

chola · Post by **chola** » 03 Jan 2018 15:51

Aditya_V wrote:Better to wait, Xi seems in Hitler mode, whoever gives them the excuse first will be attacked, better to take them on once they fight their war with Taiwan, Korea, Philipines, Soko or Japan. They are provoking every one to see who takes the Bait. Quite frankly US should have gone to war when they stole thier drone and supplied weapons to Noko, but I guess the wall street guys have advised US govt to go slow with respect to Chinese provocations.

It would be ideal if NoKo war broke out. But son’t see any change in the SYRE practice of avoiding real war to steal in the gray zone. Now they stuff they do, capturing a drone, supplying nukes to NoKo constituted war? Sorry not only Wall Street but the average soccer mom can tell you that those wouldn’t be worth war.

But if Cheen were 4 desolate kms inside Alaska? Shanghai would be smoking from a few dozen TLAMs.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 03 Jan 2018 20:40

Quite frankly, you talk of war in such a cavalier fashion. I am no peacenik, but if we can stop with arresting and seizing assets rather than open a 2 front war at this stage.

chola · Post by **chola** » 04 Jan 2018 16:32

Aditya_V wrote:Quite frankly, you talk of war in such a cavalier fashion. I am no peacenik, but if we can stop with arresting and seizing assets rather than open a 2 front war at this stage.

Not cavalier, territorial integrity is paramount. Again, if they are 4 kms inside our territory we should be fighting.

Also with the PRC, war is an option we must consider while still hold advantages along the border and on the ior.

The waiting game points to a massive PRC advantage going forward whether it is a buildout of the navy, aircraft, hypersonics, OBOR, AI, drones or robotics.

One of the hopeful scenarios we have is that we will close the gap as our economy grows. But the truth is the opposite, the gap will grow larger in our lifetime because our faster growth is overwhelmed by their maturing industries. They will be solving their aircraft engine issues soon with a dozen different turbofan projects that is in prototype or better. They have erased our advantage in carriers. They will be building bases in the IOR as OBOR rolls on.

The situation is this: if we fight now, we will win, we hold advantages in numbers and equipment. If we don’t fight, the relentless drumbeat of the chini industrial complex will mean Chinese equipment and infrastructure spilling over into the IOR.

chola · Post by **chola** » 04 Jan 2018 17:04

The PRC has just ordered 24 of the IEPS 054B frigate as followon to their 054A.
https://mobile.twitter.com/xinfengcao/s ... 6686157830

The numbers are simply insane and they plan far ahead to keep their MIC humming.

There are 32 054As in water or building with the 29th being launched this past weekend.

Plus 24 of the 054Bs mean 56 current and planned modern FFGs of a type that serves their main workhorse doing anti-piracy patrols in the IOR no less.

Compare that to our total of 14 current frigates and the 7 P17As planned. With our rate of production vs theirs, I won’t be surprised if their first 054B beats the first P17A out of MDL.

That’s just the FFGs. The comparative situation is even worse with our destroyers. And carriers if we don’t sort out IACII soon.

Not only is there no chance of making up ground against the current PRC fleet, the trendlines are showing an even greater gap that will grow massively for the foreseeable future.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 04 Jan 2018 17:13

I would argue the other way, India is now getting started with technologies maturing and Govt understanding what needs to be done, Gap may increase in the very short term but long term the Gap will only decrease. Better to bide our time now.

chola · Post by **chola** » 04 Jan 2018 17:55

Aditya_V wrote:I would argue the other way, India is now getting started with technologies maturing and Govt understanding what needs to be done, Gap may increase in the very short term but long term the Gap will only decrease. Better to bide our time now.

My heart hopes the same as you. The numbers tell my brain that the opposite is happening.

If “very short term” means around 20 to 30 years then maybe, just maybe, you have a valid argument.

For example, carriers have massive lead time. At least 10 years. The IN is still begging the MoD to accept a design while the chinis have their Type 002 and 003 set. The carrier gap is certain to go up in the next two or three decades.

We have been waiting on the first P15B since 2013. They are building at least five Type 055 concurrently and they are still pumping out Type 052D. The numbers are four future Visakhapatnams versus at least five 055s (with twice the tonnage) and around 26-30 052Ds (the equivalent class to the Vis.) How are we going to close that gap? I can’t see the MoD ordering 20 of the followon to Project 15 — even if we had started that design today.

The frigates situation is already discussed in the previous post. The numbers are overwhelming.

There is nothing that tells me that this gap will not grow for the coming decades. We simply do not have the MIC currently to match up. And it will take decades to just build up.

Now the one good thing with being import heavy is that we enjoy better quality in equipment across the board at this very moment. That is our advantage over the chini MIC. Imported weapons are not worth much unless used while a MIC building even inferior weapons has the ancillary benefits of creating jobs, an industrial base and heavy numbers. War benefits the nation importing the latest weaponry. Peace gives the advantage to the MIC over time.

So bide our time?