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

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 01 Feb 2018 19:31

Here is a clearer picture of the weapon in question (via twitter).

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62661
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 01 Feb 2018 19:35

It may be a shore bombardment high caliber low velocity howitzer for mounting on lst
Does not look like a rail gun to me

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

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 01 Feb 2018 21:49

There are multiple containers that have also shown up which would be consistent with an EMRG for both power supply and test and evaluation control center.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2514
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 02 Feb 2018 09:15

Yeah Brar, this thing is looking like it is a rail gun. But it could also be a “hilariously large” 400mm naval mortar of Singha ji’s initial impression.

What if the chinis have gone retro and are looking into redeploying battleship guns? They do have a goal of sea assault on Taiwan, 400mm would be equivalent to the USS Iowa class’ 16-inch guns. All big guns warship supporting sea-borne assault would be as thinking “out-of-box” in 2018 as a rail gun.

https://www.popsci.com/china-navy-railgun-warship

Looks like China just installed a railgun on a warship, beating the U.S. Navy to the punch
Railguns are another way the PLAN hopes to get an edge in 21st-century naval warfare.

...

Photos shared on Twitter show that the Chinese Navy's Type 072III landing ship tank (LST) Haiyang Shan, #936, has a new turret installed on its bow, replacing the H/PJ76F 37mm anti-aircraft turret. There are also three shipping containers.

...

The turret spotted indicates the presence of a railgun. It's large, for one, with a barrel that measures 26-33 feet in length and 12 to 20 inches in diameter. That's 2-3 times the cannon caliber of conventional tube artillery barrels, which generally have a diameter-to-caliber ratio of 1.25:1. Alternatively, a 350-400mm naval mortar could explain the the barrel diameter and length, but such a large mortar would be hilariously unnecessary.




Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62661
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 02 Feb 2018 09:49

if we compare to the old battlewagon 16" guns the barrel is relatively short and the turret also relatively small...granted tech has advanced in the course of time but the basic physics has not changed. if a gun it will be more like a low velocity mortar than a LR cannon. if a railgun it will be a shore bombardment type than a anti-missile/anti-aircraft that US navy is more interested in.

perhaps it will fire large depth charges onto approach lanes in coastal areas to break up submerged mines, barbed wires and concrete/metal obstacles near the invasion beaches to permit swarms of LSTs to approach the beach safely and disgorge Manchu red bannermen leading the 1st echelon :twisted:

it will surely hold some 1000kg of explosive charge each shell with a thin casing not needing any armour piercing ability. so a fairly cheap soln to sending aircraft with 1000kg bombs. a purpose built Punish-da-Splittist Class gunboat :oops: of this type could field two such mortars fore and aft and carry some 200 rounds per gun in deep well protected magazines.

it will make the Koksan howitzer of Noko fame look like a kids Nerf gun when used in some volume

Image

and given short range to target only 1 or 2 charges not so many as in pic , so breech can be simple and short.

Image

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1530
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Sid » 02 Feb 2018 10:53

It’s a legit experimental rail gun, as its being leaked by China deliberately.

Is it possible to discuss what goes into making a rail gun (theoretically), and what technical challenges ( metallurgy/power management/projectile/etc) one which may take years of R&D?

Because an effective em rail gun, with very high muzzle velocity should be able to make air defense weapons obsolete.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62661
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 02 Feb 2018 11:45

brar sahib knows more but recently the USN scaled back some of the agressive EM gun plans saying the tech needs some years to mature and they have been at it for 10 years now.
so atleast Cheen is starting on that road, and seems to already have a proto ready for field tests. this thing would surely have been tested some on land first.

the two applications seem to be ER shore bombardment (100 mile range) and AA (replace RAM+phalanx range CIWS weapons) needing two different kinds of projectile and guns.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 02 Feb 2018 12:04

The USN has not scaled back EM railgun plans. They just decided to integrate a EMRG into a weapons system as apposed to just testing a stand alone weapon on a High Speed Vessel. Rate of Fire trials are on going at the test site. It was the SCO effort that was scaled back in favor of 155mm guns and HVP that seems to have drawn the media's attention as if the USN was walking back its commitment from the program. As an S&T program the USN plans on demonstrating its objectives with the EMRG especially the larger BAE system weapon that is in rate of fire testing at the moment. However, proving out the system is a lot different from having something that is integrating into your weapon system and command and control. The integration portion, with the vessel and the C2 is really challenging..leave aside the doctrine portion.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1530
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Sid » 03 Feb 2018 12:36

And the striptease continues....

https://i.redd.it/yqu8nq0c6td01.jpg
Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21760
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 03 Feb 2018 12:41


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21760
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 03 Feb 2018 18:06


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62661
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 03 Feb 2018 22:37

sputnik news::

China’s fifth-generation J-20 jets took part in their first air combat drills at the start of January, according to a People’s Liberation Army Air Force announcement.

The exercises featured J-20 aircraft simulating aerial combat with older J-16 and J-10 fighters and involved H-6K long-range bombers in some capacity, the Diplomat reported Tuesday, citing the air force. The location of the drills, which lasted nine days, has not been disclosed, the news outlet noted.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 873
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby yensoy » 06 Feb 2018 09:50

Electromagnetic guns should be fitted on China’s new destroyer: experts

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1088221.shtml

This article is about a directed energy weapon, which I believe is not a railgun.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62661
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 06 Feb 2018 16:58

NDTV

BEIJING: China today announced that it has successfully carried out a mid-course ground-based missile interception test within its own territory, on a day when India test fired its short-range nuclear-capable Agni-1 ballistic missile.

The test of interception technology was conducted yesterday within China's territory and achieved the "preset goal", China's Ministry of National Defence said.

The test is defensive and does not target any country, China's state-run Xinhua news agency reported.

A ground-based interceptor missile was used to knock out a ballistic missile during the "mid-course" of its flight outside the earth's atmosphere, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported.

The test was in a location in China, but no other details were given

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2514
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 06 Feb 2018 17:23

I think this will have a very negative affect on our current superiority along the border if their AEW aircraft have reached the stage of mass production.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/singapore-airshow/2018/02/05/china-ramps-up-production-of-new-airborne-early-warning-aircraft/

SINGAPORE – China has ramped up production of its newest airborne early warning aircraft, in what an expert on Chinese military aviation says is a sign of the platform’s maturity.

Recent satellite photos show eight Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early warning and control, or AEW&C aircraft at the company’s factory airfield at Hanzhong, Shaanxi Province in mid-December 2017. The aircraft were undergoing testing before delivery to China’s military.
...
Three People’s Liberation Army Navy, or PLAN, KJ-500s were seen on satellite photos of the airbase at Lingshui on the Chinese island province of Hainan by December 2017, on the fringes of the South China Sea. Satellite imagery released by Stratfor has also revealed the PLAAF has deployed KJ-500s to Lhasa-Gonggar Airport in Tibet, 200 miles from the Doklam Plateau where a standoff between Chinese and Indian troops over the disputed border occurred in 2017.

Rupprecht told Defense News the dramatic ramp up of KJ-500 is part of pattern of similar increases in production of the Y-9 turboprop airlifter and its derivatives, which include anti-submarine, electronic warfare, and other intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance variants, adding that this is an indication that the KJ-500 design is mature enough to be the standard AEW&C platform in both the PLAAF and PLAN.


All courtesy of a 60-year-old turboprop simple enough that they could re-iterate in countless forms over generations.

Image

We need DRDO to step up its game on the AEW&C system and convert Embraers in numbers.

SiddharthS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 04 Sep 2017 15:45

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby SiddharthS » 06 Feb 2018 21:02

https://www.popsci.com/gaofen-4-worlds- ... ace#page-6

Image

In the Gaofen 4's case, its range of view is a 7,000km by 7,000km box of 49 million square kilometers of Asian land and water in and around China

The Gaofen 4 is the world's most powerful GEO spy satellite. It has a color image resolution of slightly less than 50 meters (which is enough to track aircraft carriers by their wake at sea) and a thermal imaging resolution of 400m (good for spotting forest fires). It may also have a lower resolution video streaming capacity. Because of its round-the-clock coverage of Chinese territory and near aboard, Gaofen 4 can provide instant coverage of earthquake or typhoon hit areas to support humanitarian relief. It will also allow China to monitor strategic foreign sites such as WMD facilities and naval bases inside its observation box.

The satellite is part of the dual use China High-Resolution Earth Observation System (CHEOS), which already has five other satellites (Gaofen 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8). This fits within a larger program of radar, imaging, hyperspectral and atmosphere monitoring satellites that will support Chinese civilian missions like agriculture, construction, disaster relief and climate change monitoring. Of course, the Chinese Aerospace Force (a new branch of the PLA following its December 2015 reorganization) could easily make use of such satellites during Chinese military operations. Also of interest is the Jilin LEO imaging satellites (sponsored by the Jilin Provincial government); the first four Jilin satellites launched in October 2015 and already have 80cm imaging resolution. By 2030, the Jilin constellation will have 138 imaging, high-resolution small satellites that provide all weather coverage of any point on Earth, at 10 minute intervals.

With a lifespan of 8 years, the Gaofen 4 will likely be superseded by future GEO observation satellites with higher resolution imaging capabilities. One intriguing possibility is revealed in a study from a Chinese engineering journal. Enterprising scientists propose that a future GEO spy satellite could deploy a foldable telescope lens of over 20 meters diameter, which could be powerful enough provide sub 1-meter resolution (similar to Ball Aerospace and DARPA's Membrane Optics program). Such a futuristic GEO spy satellite wouldn't just be able to find interesting targets like aircraft carriers and missile launcher trucks, it could beam back real time video streams of enemy forces underway.


Foldable Space Telescope from DARPA.


nam
BRFite
Posts: 1071
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 06 Feb 2018 21:23

chola wrote:I think this will have a very negative affect on our current superiority along the border if their AEW aircraft have reached the stage of mass production.


They could detect jet flying high, however they cannot easily cut the clutter that the Himalayas generate. And ofcourse cannot detect the jets flying in the valleys towards the tibetan plateau.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3871
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kartik » 07 Feb 2018 03:03

Fighter quandry bugs new Chinese carrier

In November 2017, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and several PRC defense industry officials made a number of claims about the next-generation of Beijing’s aircraft carriers. Currently, the PLAN operates one carrier, the CV-16 Liaoning, which was originally acquired in a partially completed state from Ukraine’s Nikolayev Shipyards.

Originally named the Varyag, this vessel had originally been built as a sister ship to the Russian Navy’s (VMF) single carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. The Ukrainian-built ship could not move under its own power, so it was towed halfway around the world before undergoing years of re-fitting and the installation of a new propulsion system at the Dalian shipyards in Liaoning Province.

This ship, which has been designated the Type 001 design configuration, has completed a set of trials at sea and has also conducted takeoffs and landings with the PLAN’s only carrier-capable fighter, the Shenyang J-15. This aircraft is another in a series of reverse-engineered clones of Sukhoi design bureau-developed fighter jets, in this case it is a copy of the Su-33 that is operated on the Kuznetsov.

The aircraft’s development was partially aided by the PLAN’s acquisition of one of the early Su-27K carrier fighter prototypes from the Research Institute of Aeroelastic Systems in Feodosia, Ukraine, which is on the Crimea peninsula that was annexed and remains occupied by the Russian Federation. The aircraft was purchased along with a substantial quantity of its design materials and test data on structure and performance.


Going Conventional

In the final years of the Varyag’s refit, the Dalian shipyards had begun building a second carrier, designated Type 001A and with the hull number CV-17. This ship will be a near-copy of the Liaoning design and will retain the same signature design characteristic of the Kuznetsov-class, which is a bow ski-ramp for the aircraft’s takeoff roll.

However, the third carrier to enter the PLAN fleet, designated the Type 002, will be a conventional flattop design and will be equipped with a catapult instead of using a ski-ramp for takeoff. But, the even more surprising statements about the newest carrier came in the summer of 2017 when PLAN Rear Admiral Yin Zhao and others said the Type 002 carrier would have an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) on board.

PLAN planners felt the inclusion of an EMALS catapult instead of the conventional steam catapult to be such a critically important part of the carrier’s configuration that the launch of the Type 002 ship was reportedly delayed in order for the new catapult system to be included in its configuration.

The limiting factor, however, is the carrier aircraft that is to be used on these carriers, the J-15. The design of the Su-33 it is based on is more than 30 years old. With a maximum takeoff weight of 33 tonnes (66,139 pounds) it is also the heaviest carrier aircraft operated anywhere in the world today. The next heaviest carrier airplane is the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet at 29.9 tonnes (65,918 lb).

A PLAN source who spoke to Chinese news outlets last November explained that the weight of the J-15 is such that even the U.S. Navy’s newest generation of C13-2 steam catapults, used on Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, would have trouble launching this aircraft effectively. Additionally, the empty weight of the Super Hornet is three tonnes lighter than that of the J-15, which means the wear and tear caused to the flight deck of any PLAN carrier is significantly more than that of U.S. Navy flattops.

These difficulties associated with the J-15’s weight have limited its effectiveness when operated off a ski-ramp flight deck and with no catapult. The aircraft has twelve hard points, but the combination of its heavy weight class and no additional takeoff energy from a catapult launch can limit it to only two CASIC YJ-83K ASMs and two PL-8 infrared-guided AAMs in some loadouts.

“There are limits to China’s J-15 as it was developed based on the Su-33, which was designed for the former Soviet navy’s Kuznetsov-class carrier, the predecessor of the Liaoning,” a source described as “close to the PLAN” told some of the same Chinese news outlets. This is seen particularly in how the aircraft cannot carry a full weapons load, but the decision to launch the carrier with a catapult raises a number of new problems.

There are plans under way to modify the nose gear of the J-15 to make it capable of being launched from a catapult. “This is possible with the proper changes to the configuration of the nose gear, as well as making some allowances for how the shock to the aircraft’s structure from the catapult launch will be channeled through the J-15’s load paths,” said a U.S.-based carrier design specialist who spoke to AIN.

The other factor is that the long-term effects and fatigue on the J-15’s structural integrity remains a significant unknown factor. “The record thus far of carrier-capable aircraft being operated in ways other than what they were designed for is one in which unhappy surprises end up appearing after a significant accumulation of flight hours,” said the same U.S. carrier design specialist. “Aircraft will begin showing cracks and other evidence that the airframe has been overstressed.”


A Potential Solution

The potential long-term answer to the problem exists in the form of the Shenyang FC-31 fighter. Design concepts of a carrier-capable version of the aircraft have been seen on Chinese outlets. However, the design of the land-based version has not been defined yet, and there remain questions about an engine that could provide enough power for the aircraft.

The Russian-made Klimov/Sarkisov RD-93 engines that were used in the initial FC-31 prototypes leave the aircraft underpowered. Moreover, the latest “ver 2.0” prototype is three tonnes heavier than the original design, making the issue of which engine and when it will be available an even bigger question mark.

Beyond these questions is the ability of the Shenyang design team to modify the aircraft with a wingfold to accommodate carrier ops and countless other changes required to make the design ready for sea-borne operations still remain. The J-15 could be the only aircraft operating off of the PLAN’s carriers for some time into the future.


The combination of a new generation of carriers, attempting to introduce EMALS technology and the adaptation of the FC-31 for carrier operations is an ambitious set of activities, said a former DoD official who spoke to AIN. “They will collectively be a “resource-intensive set of activities that are likely to consume more and make a bigger dent in the Chinese military budget than they have anticipated,” he said.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2514
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 07 Feb 2018 19:45

nam wrote:
chola wrote:I think this will have a very negative affect on our current superiority along the border if their AEW aircraft have reached the stage of mass production.


They could detect jet flying high, however they cannot easily cut the clutter that the Himalayas generate. And ofcourse cannot detect the jets flying in the valleys towards the tibetan plateau.



Having the IAF restricted to low altitude is already a massive loss strategically. Air/space is three dimensional and you always want to dominate the higher energy states at the top end.

During WWII, the US suffered debilitating losses in the beginning by trying to combat the insanely maneuverable Zero in turning fights on the same dimensional plane. Then it adopted a doctrine of power over maneuverability that depended on their planes reaching commanding heights above the maneuverable Jap aircraft where the high energy states of US planes will always dictate battle on American terms and that changed the air war in the Pacific. Supreme maneuverability in the Jap planes was meaningless against US planes zooming down from above and behind them because the US controlled the ratified air up top. It led to complete slaughter in the last years of the Pacific War.

If the preponderance of AEW assets forces the IAF low and the PLAAF hold the high energy up high then they command the initiative and hold the major advantage of energy. We would play the Japs and the chini would play the Yanks.

Falling behind in force multipliers like AEW is a very very bad thing.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby shiv » 07 Feb 2018 20:22

Cratering all airfields of note should really put the Chinese into a high energy state.

Here are the relevant airfields
https://youtu.be/bJKc4AwM6KA

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6826
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 07 Feb 2018 22:31

Let us not forget that they also have big static radar stations positioned high up that can see deep into Indian airspace already.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1071
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 07 Feb 2018 23:49

chola wrote:

Having the IAF restricted to low altitude is already a massive loss strategically. Air/space is three dimensional and you always want to dominate the higher energy states at the top end.

Falling behind in force multipliers like AEW is a very very bad thing.


It is true for in general air warfare. Not disagreeing we want more AEW, however in specific case of LAC, the Himalayan valleys are god's gift to us. Also technically they are flying at 4k mtr+.

Here is a snap how it looks from Tibet:
Image

The jets could be flying through the valley and pop up from any direction. The biggest threat to us are the SAM batteries. How are they going to keep an eye on jets which can pop up suddenly?

The Rafales are going to be based near LAC. And you know what they are famous for.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2514
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 09 Feb 2018 19:44

^^^ Erh, being forced to fly through a maze every time you sort is not an ideal situation, Nam ji.

And the exit points from the valleys to any target of value will be known and protected. And that is IF there are any reasonable exit points at all.

Just because mountain ranges have valleys doesn’t they are all clear from point to point or they lead to anywhere important.

No, losing the commanding heights is very bad, whether you are army or air force.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2514
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 09 Feb 2018 19:48

Singha wrote:sputnik news::

China’s fifth-generation J-20 jets took part in their first air combat drills at the start of January, according to a People’s Liberation Army Air Force announcement.



Singha ji, it is official now. The J-20 has been inducted into combat units.

http://www.uniindia.com/china-puts-stealth-fighters-into-combat-service/world/news/1133176.html

Beijing, Feb 9 (UNI) China has commissioned J-20 stealth fighter jets into combat units, boosting its air force capabilities, a spokesman said on Friday.
Read more at http://www.uniindia.com/china-puts-stea ... LV4fu0P.99

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10247
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby pankajs » 09 Feb 2018 20:18

AEW's are to be countered by missiles that bring those birds down. With China we always have to think asymmetric because of economic and MIC disparity.

1. We already progressing quite well in missile area especially SAM's with the recent progress in Barak and BMD missiles.
2. We are in the process of negotiating with Russia to get their latest S-400 missile system.

But there are concerns
1. Need to move faster on the SAM's under development.
2. Need to mass produce them and saturate the airspace along the LAC.

However the concerns regarding lack of AEW/AWACS is genuine and needs to be addressed but our defensive bet against Chinese AEWs should be missiles.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2514
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 09 Feb 2018 20:45

^^^ Yes, HARMs are the tactical counter to AWACS — once you get in range. And to find the enemy and get in range you need radar coverage.

See where this is headed? A big deficit in number of AEW aircaft cascades problems down the line to all aspects of the air war.

Airborne radar system are mobile. They can establish coverage along fronts that ground based radar can’t. And they are much harder to find and kill than stationary ground based ones.

If we are behind in AEW aircraft, we are at disadvantage everywhere — including the ability to queue up anti-radiation missiles to hit their AWACS. Conversely, they can hit our radar assets far easier with their HARMS than we would against them since from their commanding heights they can peer farther and deeper.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10247
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby pankajs » 09 Feb 2018 20:58

And where will the Chinese AEWs deploy?

1. Inside the Indian Territory?
2. Around the LAC?
3. 100 km or so back of the LAC?
4. Deep inside the Chinese Territory to avoid being spotlighted by our BMD radars.

What is the range for these AEWs and what is the range of our BMD radars? Swordfish and its derivatives were reputed to have a range of around 600 km. Don't tell me BMD radars that are good in tracking a Ballistic Missile against the sky are not good against AEWs. Their AEWs can peer farther and deeper is no good. Talk in terms of range.

Lets say our swordfish derived radars are deployed 100 km back of the LAC. It can still scan up to 500 KM into the airspace of the Chinese. Assuming the Chinese AEWs range is less than 500 km we are good against them provided we have the requisite missiles.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2018 21:12

What is the range for these AEWs and what is the range of our BMD radars?


A lot of the BMD radars aren't designed to also look for slow air breathing targets. The TPY-2 that supports the THAAD has no such modes at all (purely a BMD sensor). A lot others like AEGIS (Baseline 1 through 8 ) cannot support both missions concurrently. Regardless of what the Green Pine is capable of, it, being a BMD asset will first and foremost be looking at potential ballistic missiles so will be optimized for this mission. A very long range ground based radar designed to detect air-borne targets really need to be capable of 360 degree surveillance as there is a lot of airspace to cover and it is not optimal to have multiple high power radars looking at 90-180 degree sectors - those are better kept for fire-control sensors where you want very high revisit rates against challenging targets.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10247
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby pankajs » 09 Feb 2018 21:14

^
Switch out the Swordfish for S-400 radar that has a rage of 600 km. This should be optimized for slow moving targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system
The 30K6E is an administration system which manages eight divisions (battalions).[10][11][12] The 55K6E is a command and control centre based on the Ural-532301. The 91N6E[13] is a panoramic radar detection system (range 600 km) with protection against jamming which is mounted on an MZKT-7930. The S band system can track 300 targets.[14] Six battalions of 98ZH6E surface-to-air missile systems (an independent combat system)[15] can track no more than six targets on their own,[16] with an additional two battalions if they are within a 40-kilometre (25 mi) range. The 92N6E (or 92N2E) is a multi-functional radar with a 400-kilometre (250 mi) range which can track 100 targets.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2018 21:19

pankajs wrote:^
Switch radar of S-400 with a range of 600 km for Swordfish radar.


600 km against which target and flying at what altitude? Your surveillance radar range horizon maxes out at 400ish km against a target flying at 20,000 - 25,000 feet given simple calculations. It will be a lot less if terrain is an issue. Similarly, while you may be able to use a surveillance radar to see something (theoretically) at long range, you still have to pass that on to a fire-control radar which has to communicate that to a SAGG equipped missile. All but one of the S400's LR missile is active and that too has not yet been seen in the wild. There is a reason why the best approach for very long range intercept is to develop OTH targeting concepts either on land or sea. With Electronic warfare, RCS reduction and using terrain to their advantage the opponent can very easily negate a lot of the advantages of single point of sensor origination concepts.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10247
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby pankajs » 09 Feb 2018 21:22

For sure there are a lot of variable that will determine the effective range. This is just the brochure range but we have no better information on both S-400 as or the Chinese AEWs and there is no way to validate the competing claims. To that extent all analysis is hawabazi.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2018 21:29

Brochure range is still bound by the laws of physics. Lets say a radar is capable of detecting a target at 1000 km, this does not mean that it can detect an air breathing target flying at 30K feet at that altitude. These extreme ranges apply to ballistic missile warheads flying at high double digit or tripple digit altitudes (or more). Against a target flying at 20,000 feet the radar horizon itself is at 360 or so km's so and this gets a lot worst if you have terrain that creates gaps in your air-defense system coverage. The only way around that is to have dispersed sensors with the ability to provide fire control level data.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2514
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 09 Feb 2018 21:39

Pankajs ji, airborne radar systems will always be able to cover more area than a ground-based one.

First, the earth’s curvature restricts the ground radar but not the airborne one. It is worse in the case of the Himalayas since we are on the foot of a plateau with the altitude climbing towards Tibet and Cheen, meaning our view is even more restricted. (Chini ground radars peer from high ground over descending altitudes into India.)

Second, the airborne platform is mobile and as it moves it provides a far, far, far larger view than the ground radar which is restricted by the circumference drawn around a stationary point.

Third, the AWACS can go into areas where you have no coverage at all.

Different modes notwithstanding, the surface radar system will always be at a massive disadvantage no matter how powerful. This is why Amreeki aircraft carriers still need AEW aircraft like Hawkeye instead of just using a humongous radar system on their nuclear behemoths.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10247
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby pankajs » 09 Feb 2018 21:43

^
Meaning AEW/AWACS are range independent? Range does not matter?

Please quote range of the Chinese AEWs.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2018 21:46

pankajs wrote:^
Meaning AEW/AWACS are range independent?


Not sure what you mean by that but a surveillance radar mounted on an aircraft flying at 25,000 ft would be able to cover a lot more area given the horizon limitations of the ground based sensor.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10247
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby pankajs » 09 Feb 2018 21:47

^
Ok boss quote the rage as per the Chinese brochure. They must have given it assuming some elevation and not at ground level I hope. Also quote the elevation at which its brochure range is assumed.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2018 21:49

pankajs wrote:^
Ok boss quote the rage as per the Chinese brochure. They must have given it assuming some elevation and not at ground level I hope.


I don't think you got what I said. What the brochure range of a given sensor is does not matter when you have non sensor related limitations. You may not be able to see 200 km out in some instances irrespective of the type of ground based radar you have but you may be able to see 250 km out if you mounted a radar half as powerful on an aircraft and flew it to 20,000 ft.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10247
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby pankajs » 09 Feb 2018 21:51

I am getting that you are talking of the LOS, horizon, etc in the way of the ground based radar but what is the range of the Chinese AEWs at 25,000 ft or whatever height they have assumed for the range in their brochure.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 09 Feb 2018 21:56

I don't pay much attention to brochure ranges since they almost always lack the vital data required to gain an insight into performance. Things such as operating mode, target RCS etc etc. An AEW will perform a surveillance mission either in an offensive or defensive scenario. In the former you can probably get better performance by focusing on a sector and guiding helping your OCA assets protect a particular strike package. In a defensive scenario they too are likely to operate from further back at higher altitudes for most efficient airborne surveillance and away from ground based attack or enemy fighters. These things aren't going to be there all the time (this is true even for IAFs offensive missions to strike Chinese targets). They will come, and go in support of a mission and hang back in a purely defensive orbit. This is one advantage of a ground based radar, it can provide persistent surveillance over an area at a much lower cost but then they aren't really very mobile, and for best performance you would really want them to operate from pre surveyed areas.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby shiv » 10 Feb 2018 00:29

The Valleys in which Lhasa and other cities are situated are down at 3500 meters. The main part of the Tibetan plateau is not to the south of these places but to the north. To the south one finds the Himalaya mountains that rise from the 3500 meter valleys up to 5500 meters or even 6000 meters in places before plunging down into the Indian plains. So the idea that Tibet is a flat table which allows radars to sit at the edge and look down into India is only imagination going wild and guesswork being passed off as geography.

Also even AEW flying at 25000 feet over Tibet will first see the tip and tops of the Himalayan range which are over 5500 meters high and immediately behind those mountain tops there is a shadow area where the AWACS can see nothing. AEW aircraft are a threat but no point making up imaginary stories about them.

It was suggested on here that India must build/acquire more AWACS to counter Chinese AWACS. That is again rubbish. You don't counter a shield with a shield. You use something to break the shield. Indian AWACS will not counter Chinese AWACS. The answer to Chinese AWACS is the ability to shoot them down and take out airfields and tactics to avoid them using terrain masking - not more AWACS. The story that planes using terrain masking suffer from a kinetic energy disadvantage compared to fighters flying high up ignores the fact that if fighters are masked by terrain those high flying defenders will be blind and only have thumbs in musharraf. Tibet is NOT flat. Only north Tibet - away from India is flattish. Southern Tibet is high mountains that rise higher than the plateau and deep valleys that dip below the average plateau height. Nothing is 100% but the vehement dogma being peddled here as air combat gyan needs to be tempered.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sgopal and 20 guests