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.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6773
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 19 Jan 2018 17:30

Prasad wrote:Actual warfighting aside, very interesting piece on the churning in the PLA leadership -
https://warontherocks.com/2018/01/xi-ji ... curiouser/

All told, since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, over 100 PLA general officers have reportedly been forcibly retired or placed under investigation. In another sign of the extensiveness of these probes, perhaps 90 percent of the PLA officers that attended last October’s 19th CCP Party Congress were first-time attendees. As long-time China leadership observer Cheng Li noted, this marks an unprecedented turnover in the top ranks of the PLA.

or the PLA, this is likely to mean a redoubled focus on implementing military reform and modernization. Whereas lining one’s nest and engaging in political machinations could lead to being cashiered, or worse publicly disgraced, executing the ambitious reform effort is more likely to lead to accolades. Given the extensive reforms that are underway, including further deepening joint interoperability, improving training, and extending civil-military integration, there is plenty of work to occupy the PLA’s officer corps. By 2020, when it is believed that the first phase of these reforms should be completed the PLA will be fielding more ships, naval infantry, and modern fighters. As important, they are likely to be better trained, more integrated, and have the support of a massive industrial and human capital base.

For American and allied planners in the Indo-Pacific region, this means they will be facing a much more capable potential adversary in a few short years.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 19 Jan 2018 17:49

srai wrote:^^^
The Chinese are offering these smaller nations a connection to their "one belt, one road" concept. They are building a lot of infrastructure in these poor countries to connect to their network. They are very efficient at it too from what I hear. They bring in their own people to do the road or other projects, and they do them really fast at a low-cost to the nations. Once connected, they flood these nations' markets with tons of their cheap Chinese products, including fake name brands. Overall, their policy is one of infrastructure development for keeping their people employed and opening up new markets to trade their wares. Eventually, they will also gain access for their military.


Exactly. A mercantile nation first and foremost. All these plans depend on long periods of stability and peace to allow infrastructure to be built and trade routes to be open. Their military is built up fast and in huge numbers to enforce a Pax Sinica.

Because the PRC does not go to war, the vast majority of nations except India sees it as positive. Who, especially the turd world, does NOT want infrastructure built? Unless we spend money as an alternative to OBOR then there is no way persuade them to not hop onboard the chini gravy train.

As a nation we need to seriously entertain war as an option to maintain our place in the IOR and head off Pac Sinica.

Just waiting and importing firangi weapons in a defensive posture will mean we allow OBOR to play out. It will mean we will simply wait until the IOR is pumped full of chini ships, ports and infrastructure because the PRC will never start a war.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 20 Jan 2018 15:34

Satellite intel.

Like damn pancakes: new planes fresh off the chini MIC.

The tarmac at CAC on Dec. 18, 2017: 21 J-10Cs, a couple of Wing Loong UCAVs and a J-20.
Image

Qionglai, PLAAF's 4th Air Base on Dec. 9th, 2017. This is in PLA’s Western Command which includes Indian border. New deliveries of Y-20 heavy transport.
Image
Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 20 Jan 2018 15:41

How the hell do you stack up 21 J-10s on factory grounds when this is an established frontline type that can go straight into units? Building more than PLAAF/PLANAF could train pilots for?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62170
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 20 Jan 2018 17:04

Perhaps their production has outrun their budget or capacity to train and absorb more crew? A plane needs a airbase, pilots, ground crew, fuel, housing, hangars, workshops, weapons all of which are continuous opex

Just building a plane is not a immediate increment to combat duty

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby srai » 20 Jan 2018 17:35

^^^

* Routine Maintenance?
* Based there?
* Awaiting pre-handover certification?
* MLU?

etc.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 20 Jan 2018 17:53

There is likely a depot attached to the factory where aircraft are overhauled or upgraded.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby shiv » 20 Jan 2018 19:31

Details of Chinese deployments in Doklam and signs of de-induction. Possible S-300 and HQ 9 or SSMs
https://youtu.be/tX4Rg3DFpSI

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2133
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby abhik » 20 Jan 2018 22:55

^^^
They look like structures/habitations rather than SAMs/MLRS, they are way too wide to be any type of vehicle. Besides why would you put such high value assets so close they they can be taken out even by short range 81mm mortar - though I would look for them further behind the lines.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby shiv » 21 Jan 2018 06:10

abhik wrote:^^^
They look like structures/habitations rather than SAMs/MLRS, they are way too wide to be any type of vehicle. Besides why would you put such high value assets so close they they can be taken out even by short range 81mm mortar - though I would look for them further behind the lines.

A comment on my channel says:
These are the AR3 artillery rocket, PLZ45 Howitzer and SR-5 Guided rocket systems. Their range is around 70km to 200km, which covers Gangtok, Kalimpong and SSiliguri. S300 is normally positioned in Xigaze and Nyingchi but not in the frontline.

Googling for AR3 - I find that the vehicles are big enough to fit the profile of 6 x 12 meters. In my initial searches I found on S-300s to have large vehicles. In any case the Chinese don't release specs and they have a bewildering variety of rocket forces. I'ts just that those structres are not tanks. They are not habitations or storage because they are in a parking lot with no tracks leading from them.

AR 3 a credible id. And yes S-300 is unlikely though I would not put it past the Chinese to take them up there. That said - the Chinese forces in Doklam are far far more dense and numerous than in any other part of the border that I observed in earlier studies of GE images. The Chinese will have to do a massive mobilization if they want to dump similar forces in all the 8-10 areas where they face Indian troops or come close to the border.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 21 Jan 2018 07:30

srai wrote:^^^

* Routine Maintenance?
* Based there?
* Awaiting pre-handover certification?
* MLU?

etc.



brar_w wrote:There is likely a depot attached to the factory where aircraft are overhauled or upgraded.



Possibly. But according to tweets by a couple of pretty reliable chini mil followers, including Henri Kenhman, these are the latest J-10C variants so won’t be in overhaul or upgrade.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 21 Jan 2018 07:44

Those equipment on the frontline in Doklam follow the same pattern as the Spratlies in the SCS. They are plopping equipment and infrastructure in disputed territory with Bhutan to create fait accompli.

They would be annihilated in any hostilities. But then again the same applies to the artificial islands they are creating.

In the end, they make the calculated risk that most nations will not bother with uninhabited rocks once the other guy had put stuff on it. It worked out for them with the Philippines. And if we do not escalate to war it would work for them with Bhutan as well.

The “disputed” Doklam Plateau is now occupied outright though they haven’t finished the road that we stopped them on over the summer.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19077
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Philip » 21 Jan 2018 13:34

Media today.India is saying that the Chin helipads, e tc. are 50 km away from the border, and in Chin territory so we can't object.But from Shiv's Google pics the infra is far closer than what has been officially stated by us.There seems to be a deliberate disinfo op on perhaps becos we aren't ready as yet for a full- blown clash as our infra is decades behind the Chin efforts, plus urgently reqd. material, weapon systems and even ammo .Secondly not to alarm the Indian population.But some definite anti- Chin measures must be taken, diplomatic and economic if military measures are the last resort.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby shiv » 21 Jan 2018 14:10

Philip that is not just disinfo but ignorance. Anyone with Google earth can see that China has helipads AT the border in a few places - and there are 2 runways within 30 km. Of course that may not mean much. We have dozens of helipads at the border - but the mythology and the blinds need to be removed from the way the media view China.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 926
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby RKumar » 21 Jan 2018 21:23

I think those could be SR-5 Guided rocket systems plus some defensive SAMs to protect the assets, the two other systems are export oriented so I am not too sure of those. Irrespective of exact id of an equipment, those are there for sudden first attack on Indian forces. So here we are walking on really tight rope, whoever will do the first attack will have massive advantage. Experts might suggest, how we can manage such scenario? As we dharmic country so will not fire first shot and Chini will use it against us.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19077
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Philip » 21 Jan 2018 21:31

A separate td. is needed for the "Chinese maritime threat",
which is of great concern amongst Asian nations let alone the US/West.Will start one tomorrow .The dimensions of this leg of the Chin mil. "triad" aimed primarily against India, is multi-dimensional and multi-regional stretching now from Djibouti/ Gwadar to the Sea of Japan,Taiwan,Guam, the Phillippines down to Indonesia and Oz.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby shiv » 22 Jan 2018 08:13

RKumar wrote:I think those could be SR-5 Guided rocket systems plus some defensive SAMs to protect the assets, the two other systems are export oriented so I am not too sure of those. Irrespective of exact id of an equipment, those are there for sudden first attack on Indian forces. So here we are walking on really tight rope, whoever will do the first attack will have massive advantage. Experts might suggest, how we can manage such scenario? As we dharmic country so will not fire first shot and Chini will use it against us.

Here is an informative article:
http://indianexpress.com/article/explai ... a-5033943/

Senior military commanders agree that the presence of Chinese troops and infrastructure means that status quo ante hasn’t been restored in the general area. But they also assert that it does not pose an enhanced military threat to India in Dolam, as India has the tactical advantage of terrain and the number of troops at the site. As the senior military commander put it: “These are all face-saving measures by the Chinese, where they have put a flag and a quarter guard in these shelters. It would be foolish of them to come again and make the road.”


A couple of other questions can be answered more satisfactorily now. Who in the Chinese hierarchy ordered the extension of the track in Dolam from the point it had been constructed up to in 2003, to the Jampheri ridge? Was it President Xi Jinping, the general staff in the Central Military Commission, the Western Military Theatre Command, or the Tibetan Military Commander?

Five months after the standoff ended, senior military commanders are certain that the track construction was ordered by General Zhao Zongqi, commander of the Chinese Western Theatre Command. General Zhao, who took over as Western Theatre Commander in February 2016 after being personally chosen by President Xi, had served in Tibet for over two decades, including as commander of 52 Mountain Brigade in the early 1990s.

Even before the faceoff in Doklam, Chinese border troops had been telling Indian soldiers in daily interactions at multiple points on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) that General Zhao had walked each of these tracks with military patrols over 20 years, and had been rarely confronted by the Indians. As the Indian deployment has increased over the past decade, General Zhao is unwilling to accept the challenge to Chinese claims. Not only in Doklam, but also at other places on the LAC, they have attempted track construction, representing what a senior Indian military commander said was “an ego issue for General Zhao”.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 926
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby RKumar » 22 Jan 2018 15:20

Thanks Shiv for the link ... it seems someone has to find bio-data of General Zhao. The ego of a soldier can be ignored but not of a General. It can lead to serious miscalculations. Let's keep in mind, last time Chini prepared for war for full 3 years. And this General was handling Tibet during his whole professional life, no wonder his ego is bigger than his title - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhao_Zongqi

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Theater_Command, interesting reference

http://tibet.net/2016/05/eye-on-india-c ... mand-rank/

Ananth Krishnan, India Today, 13 May 2016
Beijing, May 13, 2016: The move to raise the Tibet Military Command’s authority level would put it directly under the command of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) ground forces.
China has raised the rank and status of its western Tibet Military Command to widen its scope for missions and combat preparedness, in a move analysts in Beijing said was aimed in part at fortifying the border with India.

The move to raise the Tibet Military Command’s authority level would put it directly under the command of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) ground forces, the Party-run Global Times reported on Friday, and allow it “to shoulder more combat assignments”.

A military expert in Beijing told the newspaper that the command “bears great responsibility to prepare for possible conflicts between China and India”, but currently faced difficulties “to secure all the military resources they need”.


The move would raise its authority, including the designation of troops, but also “expand their function and mission”, the deputy director of the Political Work Department of the Tibet Military Command, Zhao Zhong, was quoted as saying. This would also boost their combat readiness, a military expert told the Global Times.

China announced sweeping military reforms in January and February, aimed at creating a more nimble fighting force and unified military command.

Following the reform, provincial military commands were placed under the control of a newly set up National Defence Mobilization Department under the Central Military Commission, which is headed by President Xi Jinping.

The Tibet Military Command, however, will be directly under under the PLA Ground Force, headed by General Li Zuocheng, who sits on the CMC.

The newspaper noted that “border disputes between China and India have not been completely resolved”, and in April when Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar visited Beijing, his counterpart had said China “reacted positively toward setting up a military hotline with India” which was agreed during the visit.

Song, the military expert, said the Tibet Military Command required “specialist mountain skills and long-range capabilities, which need the deployment of special military resources”.

“The promotion of the command’s authority level shows the amount of attention China places on the defence of its southwestern borders. The higher the authority level is, the more military resources the command can mobilise,” he said.


The Xinjiang Military Command may also be elevated in the future, the report said. Both commands are under the newly created Western Theater Command, the largest of five newly reorganised military regions of the PLA. Before the reorganisation, the Xinjiang command was part of the military region responsible for the western sector of the border with India and the disputed Aksai Chin region, while the Tibet command fell under the military region responsible for the eastern sector of the border.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 918
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 22 Jan 2018 18:57

By having the long range MBRL on the plateau, so close to our borders, not sure what are they planning hit?

It is not going to hit our troops near Dolam/Doklam. If they want to hit targets in our rear, why deploy on that plateau? where we can see them launch and neutralize it?

Moreover there is one main access road to the plateau, which would be needed to get the replenishment. Really don't understand what they are doing, other than showing off their "mizzle".

One more thing I noticed. Trenches. PLA was expecting us to attack.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 926
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby RKumar » 22 Jan 2018 21:03

My guess:
Their long range tube artillery (around 200 km) can target Kishanganj as well as Purnea from Doklam.
Their medium range tube artillery (around 70-100 km) can target Darjeeling and Siliguri from Doklam.

These could be advance deployment to inflict heavy damage with cheap cost and low risk. But I am quite sure, we will respond within 30 mins to few hours (Depending upon preparedness and authorization chain in place) - to wipe them off at least in Doklam.

But does that make any sense??

nam
BRFite
Posts: 918
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 22 Jan 2018 21:30

Targeting civilian target will not cause Indian troops to leave the plateau. The culprits will be right in front of our eyes and they are going to die a very horrible death, as we will throw the kitchen sink at them.

Morover, attacking cities will allow us to attack their cities with BM missiles as Han cities are not close by!

nam
BRFite
Posts: 918
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 22 Jan 2018 21:32

I think it is just show of strength. Get everything under the sun and try to scare us off.

Other reason: The may have trouble firing it from the valley. It would be tricky to fire from a valley on to a plateau roof. If it truely has the range claimed, then they could fire it from North Sikim.. may be it doesn't have the range.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1030
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 22 Jan 2018 23:44

I think targetting civilian centers is something chinese will not do, for if they do, they themselves will be at a bigger risk of being treated like terrorists and secondly unlike India their population is more concentrated

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6773
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 23 Jan 2018 12:46


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62170
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 23 Jan 2018 15:20

that valley is the worst possible place to target anything of military significance. within a hour, IAF planes will block that one road and IA will kill them down to the last man. chumbi valley is a death trap and they know it. I doubt they are carrying any ammo, it just increases the risk of a accident or fuel fire wiping off the whole tightly packed line of vehicles and tents.

its just de-facto showing of force like a satyagraha or flag march.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 23 Jan 2018 15:29

Singha wrote:that valley is the worst possible place to target anything of military significance. within a hour, IAF planes will block that one road and IA will kill them down to the last man. chumbi valley is a death trap and they know it. I doubt they are carrying any ammo, it just increases the risk of a accident or fuel fire wiping off the whole tightly packed line of vehicles and tents.

its just de-facto showing of force like a satyagraha or flag march.


Their purpose is to impose presence and thus jurisdiction on disputed land. It has nothing to do with actual warfighting.

The artificial islands off the Philippines are just as exposed and even more isolated. But Cheen has calculated that most nations won’t go to war once they put a mass of equipment or infrastructure on disputed territory.

Same here with Bhutan.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 23 Jan 2018 15:38

Prasad wrote:http://www.eastpendulum.com/jl-10-dernieres-nouvelles-de-lavion-dentrainement-chinois
JL-10 PLANs new LIFT


That’s their Yak 130 ripoff, the L-15. Nice looking plane, a supersonic version had been sold in Africa as a poor man’s T/A 50.

The PLAN’s main trainer currently is the J-7 evolved JL-9G. The JL-9 served as a low-risk and cheap backup to the modern JL-10. Still uses a turbojet. The chinis never retire an old design it seems. Alway tinkering and keeping lines around. I wish we could have done the same with the Marut.
Image

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9569
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 23 Jan 2018 15:52

chola wrote:
Prasad wrote:http://www.eastpendulum.com/jl-10-dernieres-nouvelles-de-lavion-dentrainement-chinois
JL-10 PLANs new LIFT


That’s their Yak 130 ripoff, the L-15. Nice looking plane, a supersonic version had been sold in Africa as a poor man’s T/A 50.

The PLAN’s main trainer currently is the J-7 evolved JL-9G. The JL-9 served as a low-risk and cheap backup to the modern JL-10. Still uses a turbojet. The chinis never retire an old design it seems. Alway tinkering and keeping lines around. I wish we could have done the same with the Marut.
Image


Rip Off A.K.A -Russian Import with limited manufacture of parts in China, it seems Russian MIC is running with Chinese money which is being Disguised for Chinese H&D purposes. No wonder most Western leaders are going after Russia and not China. Internet propaganda nothing withstanding, Chinese original designs are very far and few far between.

YAK 130 Rip off is like saying HAL assembled/ manufactured is a Hawk Rip off/ reverse engineered. The only difference the Indian system is transparent, the Chinese Seem to manage H&D very very well.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 23 Jan 2018 16:34

YAK 130 Rip off is like saying HAL assembled/ manufactured is a Hawk Rip off/ reverse engineered. The only difference the Indian system is transparent, the Chinese Seem to manage H&D very very well.


True to an extent but not entirely. The parts are mainly manufactured in Cheen for one and, more importantly, they control a license that allows them to make variants and sell abroad. This is true transfer of technology or a full product patent sale.

This is NOTHING like OUR “ToT” with Russia which consists mainly of local offsets for a single production run of a single variant. What we have is not ToT but subcontracting.

The Zambian L-15. Russian tech but license and IP controlled by Cheen.
Image

Years of assembling hundreds upon hundreds of MiG-21s, MiG-27s and Su-30s and we are not allowed to make a variant of our own and definitely not something we can export.

Now the British actually gave us a better contract and something similar to the TOT that Russia gives the Chinese (but won’t give us.) BAE allows HAL to design a variant, Advanced Hawk, and them sell it as a JV.

As far as original designs go, those really come from the Russia and the West (US/UK/France) onlee in the past century and from the US alone in this century. The J-31 or J-20 is about as original as any non-gora can get so I wouldn’t criticize their ability to design locally.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6773
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 23 Jan 2018 21:53

chola wrote:
Prasad wrote:http://www.eastpendulum.com/jl-10-dernieres-nouvelles-de-lavion-dentrainement-chinois
JL-10 PLANs new LIFT


That’s their Yak 130 ripoff, the L-15. Nice looking plane, a supersonic version had been sold in Africa as a poor man’s T/A 50.

The PLAN’s main trainer currently is the J-7 evolved JL-9G. The JL-9 served as a low-risk and cheap backup to the modern JL-10. Still uses a turbojet. The chinis never retire an old design it seems. Alway tinkering and keeping lines around. I wish we could have done the same with the Marut.


The JL-9 is the older one. JL-10 is the newer one. Also, read https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... pirations/
They're working on an EA/EW version of their J-15 using stuff developed for the J-16.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 918
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 23 Jan 2018 22:07

chola wrote:
Years of assembling hundreds upon hundreds of MiG-21s, MiG-27s and Su-30s and we are not allowed to make a variant of our own and definitely not something we can export.

Now the British actually gave us a better contract and something similar to the TOT that Russia gives the Chinese (but won’t give us.) BAE allows HAL to design a variant, Advanced Hawk, and them sell it as a JV.

As far as original designs go, those really come from the Russia and the West (US/UK/France) onlee in the past century and from the US alone in this century. The J-31 or J-20 is about as original as any non-gora can get so I wouldn’t criticize their ability to design locally.


I am not saying Russians are whiter than white, however my personal opinion, this is our problem. SU-30MKI is a Indianised version of Russian SU30. It is customized. The issue is, we want a variant... we ask the Russian and they do it for us!. On the other hand, the Chinis want to do it themselves.

When we have our back to the wall, then we get off our backside and work on it. Perfect example Brahmos integration. When Russians asked for a large bag of cash, we modified the SU30 airframe ourselves. Brahmos SU30 is a Indian variant of the base SU30!

We don't have a variant of Mig21, because IAF doesn't want a variant of Mig21, HAL doesn't want a variant of Mig21!
Chinis didn't have a choice.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1126
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Bart S » 24 Jan 2018 00:32

nam wrote:
chola wrote:
Years of assembling hundreds upon hundreds of MiG-21s, MiG-27s and Su-30s and we are not allowed to make a variant of our own and definitely not something we can export.

Now the British actually gave us a better contract and something similar to the TOT that Russia gives the Chinese (but won’t give us.) BAE allows HAL to design a variant, Advanced Hawk, and them sell it as a JV.

As far as original designs go, those really come from the Russia and the West (US/UK/France) onlee in the past century and from the US alone in this century. The J-31 or J-20 is about as original as any non-gora can get so I wouldn’t criticize their ability to design locally.


I am not saying Russians are whiter than white, however my personal opinion, this is our problem. SU-30MKI is a Indianised version of Russian SU30. It is customized. The issue is, we want a variant... we ask the Russian and they do it for us!. On the other hand, the Chinis want to do it themselves.

When we have our back to the wall, then we get off our backside and work on it. Perfect example Brahmos integration. When Russians asked for a large bag of cash, we modified the SU30 airframe ourselves. Brahmos SU30 is a Indian variant of the base SU30!

We don't have a variant of Mig21, because IAF doesn't want a variant of Mig21, HAL doesn't want a variant of Mig21!
Chinis didn't have a choice.


+1 It's a difference of mindset.

Our forces are professional and content with being so as long as they have their warfighting capability (nothing wrong in it - the onus really should fall on the HAL/OFB/DRDO type orgs), the Chini equivalents try to be makers. Though ideally they should be doing more to be involved in program management rather than just be hands-off and demanding customers.

It's the same in our general industry as well. Our IT majors are into services because it provides them the easiest way to make money and don't have the passion for product development and creating IP, due to which product companies are few and far between even in IT, our strongest tech area whereas Cheen is full of product companies. Our Reliance type investors/moneybags are anyday happy to adopt a trader mentality and leech margins off imported products (or services that they enable) rather than put in the effort to create anything. The whole cultural mindset seems tuned towards seeking out the easiest (in the sense of laziest rather than smartest) way out of problems. And the few that decide to be genuine creators (not just entrepreneurs opening some trading concern) have to struggle against the odds as the corrupt politician/babu goons suck the life out of them. The desire to roll up sleeves and build up expertise the hard way seems to be rare - I have seen mechanical engineers who are content to work in low-end IT tasks and who don't know to change a tire or look under the hood of their car!

Sorry for the OT rant.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3855
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kartik » 24 Jan 2018 06:23

And finally, it seems that news about the PLAAF's true issues with the J-10's single Al-31 engine are emerging. We still do not know the full scale of their problems, or the real attrition rate, but multiple crashes have been attributed to the engine in recent years.


Chinese fighter jet crash- incompatible Russian engine or Chinese industrial deficiency

[quote]
When a Chinese-designed jet fighter crashed, local media found fault with the imported Russian engine while praising the injured pilot for his “outstanding soldier’s conviction” during the incident.

According to a report by the Beijing-based Sina Military Network, the Russian-built engine used in the J-10 is prone to malfunction, having caused multiple crashes in recent years.

On Sept. 19. a J-10 fighter jet from northeastern China’s Shenyang Military Region crashed during a nighttime patrol mission, state-run China Central Television (CCTV) reported. The Russian-built engine had lost power at over 11,000 feet, said pilot Li Tong, who ejected at 1,000 feet following an abortive 198-second attempt to glide the aircraft to a local airfield.

Li survived with neck and spine injuries. Because he had avoided lit, populated areas when maneuvering his damaged plane, CCTV lauded him as a hero, saying that he had made no less than five “weighty decisions” to “avoid the loss of property and life among the masses.”

A distinguished military pilot, Li Tong told CCTV that his first priority was to save the jet, which at the time of engine failure was carrying 200 rounds of aircraft ordnance and 2.5 tons of fuel. As Li struggled to restart the engine, the plane fell to about 5,000 feet.

Why a Russian Engine?

The J-10 is a single-engine light fighter aircraft that was developed by the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation in the 1990s and put into service starting 2005. It is built around the powerful Russian AL-31 engine, which was originally intended for the two-engined Su-27 family of Soviet-designed fighter aircraft.

With its Western-inspired and locally-designed single-engine configuration, however, the J-10 suffers from severe compatibility issues in using the AL-31. At the same time, the Chinese-designed WS-10 aircraft engines have proven even less reliable than the Russian equipment.

Despite claims made in 2014 by a spokesman for the Chinese research institute tasked with the WS-10’s development that the engine was “fully operational and matured” for use in an upgraded J-10, a Sina report this August revealed that the Chinese aviation industry had yet to reduce the Taihang’s failure rate to within acceptable boundaries. The Chinese air force and in particular the J-10 jets will continue to run Russian engines.

According to Chinese naval publications cited by Sina, consultations with Russian providers to find a solution for the AL-31 compatibility issues have been delayed for want of funding.

“Measures to address failures from the perspective of design theory cannot be given,” the Sina report thus said.

Netizens found issue with the Chinese media reports and analysis of the September crash, saying that CCTV’s triumphant depiction of the pilot’s emergency actions drew attention away from the technical failings common to modern Chinese fighters.

A user in Guangdong Province contradicted the Sina analysis for its implication that the engine can simply be re-engineered, if only the Russians would help. “The engine is not like a graphics card that can be changed at will,” the post reads. “It is integrated with the entire airframe.”

“What if the aircraft was severely damaged, or if the pilot had no time to process the malfunction? Never make a trifle of human life,” a netizen from Shanghai said, criticizing the CCTV report for its rosy depiction of Li Tong’s flight and crash that “avoided residential areas.”

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby shiv » 24 Jan 2018 07:14

^^Only confirms that rhetoric and bluster do not aid jet engine reliability.

But this caught my eye:whaaaa? :shock:
According to Chinese naval publications cited by Sina, consultations with Russian providers to find a solution for the AL-31 compatibility issues have been delayed for want of funding.


China has money for everything they tell me.... Funnily enough I spent the last 50 years being told that the US has money for everything...

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 24 Jan 2018 07:50

shiv wrote:^^Only confirms that rhetoric and bluster do not aid jet engine reliability.

But this caught my eye:whaaaa? :shock:
According to Chinese naval publications cited by Sina, consultations with Russian providers to find a solution for the AL-31 compatibility issues have been delayed for want of funding.


China has money for everything they tell me.... Funnily enough I spent the last 50 years being told that the US has money for everything...


Oh come on. The chinis are just launched their 30th Type 054A and their 40th Type 056 corvette. The US Army has 3000 helicopters. Nobody has enough money for “everything” but they have a lot of money for a lot of hardware without doubt.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 24 Jan 2018 08:02

And finally, it seems that news about the PLAAF's true issues with the J-10's single Al-31 engine are emerging. We still do not know the full scale of their problems, or the real attrition rate, but multiple crashes have been attributed to the engine in recent years.


Known for years that the J-10 crashes frequently. It had always been one of the sticks we beat the 50-centers with in many a flame war. The most recent one killed a famous female member of the PLAAF August First, their equivalent of Surya Kiran.

There is a reason why the Russians don’t have a single engined plane considering the power of the AL-31.

Yet the AL-31 is still better off than the RD-33. Even though the PLAAF were willing to take hits with the J-10 on an AL-31, even they won’t accept the JF-17 on a single RD-33 variant. But Pakis have to. lol

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 24 Jan 2018 08:10

Prasad wrote:The JL-9 is the older one. JL-10 is the newer one. Also, read https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... pirations/
They're working on an EA/EW version of their J-15 using stuff developed for the J-16.


Check the FTC-2000/JL-9’s history, it started off as a cheaper and less risky competitor to the L-15/JL-10.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_JL-9
The FTC-2000, as the JL-9, competed with the Hongdu JL-10 to meet the advanced trainer requirements of the PLAAF and PLANAF. The JL-10 is more technologically advanced, but also more expensive, than the JL-9. In 2013, both had entered production.


From what I see, the chinis run backup projects for all of their major programs — whether it is the air frame or the engine. One project would be ambitious/advance while the other would be less ambitious and low risk.

Multiple projects competing is similar to the American way of doing things. It bodes well for them. Ironically, we follow the commie way of the PSU. It does not bode well for us.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 24 Jan 2018 08:20

When we have our back to the wall, then we get off our backside and work on it. Perfect example Brahmos integration. When Russians asked for a large bag of cash, we modified the SU30 airframe ourselves. Brahmos SU30 is a Indian variant of the base SU30!


Nam ji, I understand your point. But the Brahmos MKI is still just a modification of existing MKIs. We will take 50 of the 314 total MKIs we’ve order and modify them to fire aerial Brahmos. There is no separate line for Brahmos MKI. It is not a variant but a modification of the specific variant we’ve ordered.

This is entirely different from the J-16 or export version L-15 that can be produced brand new and in ad infinitum because the chinis have bought/negotiated full ownership of the base Russian technology.

I don’t just blame the Russians. We negotiate horrible contracts where offsets (and the resulting job creation) and the subsequent OEM guarantees of our local input are more important than gaining control of the technology. I point these ugly differences between our contracts with the Russians and the chini ones with the same Russians because I want our process to change.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 24 Jan 2018 08:40

Our forces are professional and content with being so as long as they have their warfighting capability (nothing wrong in it - the onus really should fall on the HAL/OFB/DRDO type orgs), the Chini equivalents try to be makers.


Bart, our forces have ALWAYS had some of the best systems money can buy.

Think about it.

The MiG-21 was a first rate frontline fighter when we first got it. Then the M2K, among the best multi-role fighter in the world. The iconic Harrier. The Su-30 MKI, arguably the best fighter on earth when it first came out. Now Rafale.

How the hell can they expect anything less after driving pinnacle equipment in their classes like that? And at the same time, how can HAL, DRDO, etc. possibly match stuff from P5 states with their infinite resources and their far, far deeper wells of infrastructure, expertise and experience?

The onus is not on the PSU’s nor the armed forces. It is on the GOI.

It is up to the nation’s rulers to mandate that the armed forces take some home-made solutions for the sake of the nation’s industries and MIC. And it is up to the GOI to make sure projects are timely and serviceable.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: navneeet and 23 guests