China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

chola · Post by **chola** » 27 Feb 2017 17:32

Yagnasri wrote:
Coming back to serious business, significant production capability of Chinese will be an issue. Whether they can train men to operate those units and if those units have quality is always an unknown factor. Party number lead destroyers and SSNs will be worth watching in the case of real shooting match with USN or even INS.

The overwhelming geo-political quandrary that the PRC faces also makes it unlikely that India will ever face much of their hardware. No matter how much they produce they'll need to throw everything they have against the US and its allies and it still won't be nearly enough. Japan alone can more than handle the PLAN never mind the USN which brings things to an overkill.

As we saw in the other thread about Chini resources in Tibet facing India: WE have the preponderance of force in numbers, armor, airlift and air assets.

The numbers on our side is even greater in the naval end. And will always be so as long as Japan and the US exist.

By not taking in the Chini geo-political situation, we simply give ourselves an excuse for dhoti shivering. In any war with Cheen we will dominate because the PRC's survival depends on making sure that its east coast is protected from Japan and the world's sole superpower and that Taiwan cannot declare independent. Both of which means the PRC's navy and air force and even army must face east with little to spare elsewhere.

We hold every advantage in a war with China. I only hope we have an offensive game plan in place once the the US and Cheen begin tap dancing in the PRC littoral.

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 27 Feb 2017 19:29

Chola,
playing the devils advocate, can you support why we have a preponderance in air lift capacity? Based on the number of transport aircrafts I would disagree with you, are you also including infra and heli supports? however happy to be proven wrong!

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 27 Feb 2017 20:41

https://www.ft.com/content/0c8a5a2a-f9b ... 969e0d3b65

Mystery deepens over Chinese forces in Afghanistan

Beijing confirms ‘joint counter-terrorism operations’ with Kabul

"A mystery over recent sightings of Chinese military vehicles patrolling inside Afghanistan deepened last week as Beijing denied its troops were in Afghanistan but confirmed it was undertaking “joint counter-terrorism operations” with Kabul.

The disclosure comes as China steps up its involvement with its western neighbour amid a gradual withdrawal by US forces from the war-ravaged country.

Ren Guoqiang, a spokesman for the People’s Liberation Army, was asked about reports of Chinese troops inside Afghanistan at a defence ministry press conference on Thursday. He flatly denied any military involvement but said that “the law enforcement authorities of the two sides have conducted joint law enforcement operations in border areas to fight against terrorism”, according to an official transcript of the remarks made available Friday.

“The report that the Chinese military patrolled in Afghanistan is false,” he said. An effort Friday to clarify whether there were any Chinese non-military patrols on the Afghan side of the border was met with the same response. "

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 27 Feb 2017 20:43

http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/exclu ... stan-8008/

Exclusive: Chinese security forces caught patrolling deep inside eastern Afghanistan

also

The curious case of Chinese troops on Afghan soil

https://www.cacianalyst.org/publication ... -soil.html

SS a penny for your thoughts.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Feb 2017 21:34

ranjan.rao wrote:Chola,
playing the devils advocate, can you support why we have a preponderance in air lift capacity? Based on the number of transport aircrafts I would disagree with you, are you also including infra and heli supports? however happy to be proven wrong!

China's airlift capability is not that good currently.
Here is a post I made last year
viewtopic.php?p=2041183#p2041183

Since the topic has come up, I would like to post a few thoughts on what any country needs to maintain an air base on foreign soil.

Obviously good relations with the host nation, land or a ready made airstrip, source of food and water and local security are the basic requirements. But then what?

No matter what aircraft the foreign air base is going to house - be they fighters, transports or helicopters - personnel to maintain the aircraft, a source of fuel (if no local supplies) and spares, support staff, construction equipment, storage, hangars, security, air defence equipment etc will all have to be brought in. Unless the air base is also a sea port a lot of supplies will have to be flown in by air, and flying things in by air means that the nation with a foreign air base must have a suitable transport fleet.

Of course the top nations in this business make their own transports and make their own engines to power those transports. The absence or one or both of these makes the aspiring power prone to sanction wherein the transport fleet itself gets paralysed, crippling the foreign air base.
Below is a brief Wiki sourced look at China's air transport logistics fleet, type and number

The maximum number are variants of the Tu-16 Badger bomber 120 in number listed as "bomber/transport). There are 20 Tu 154s, and 78 Chinese copies of the Antonov An-12, and 19 IL 76s

Of these only the Il 76s, the Boeing 737s and some of the An 12 copies (Y-8) that are not being used in other roles can be used for logistics. The L 72s and Boeings are all prone to sanctions and the Chinese have not yet developed reliable replacement engines. This leaves the PLAAF with precious little strategic airlift capability to maintain any air base off Chinese shores.

The bottom line is if you don't have a robust strategic airlift capability supported preferably by indigenous industry, or supported by loyal allies with such industry, you can kiss goodbye to foreign air bases even if you have the best fighters in the world

1. Boeing 737 - 11
2. Bombardier CRJ200 - 5
3. Bombardier CRJ700 - 5
4. Il 76 - 16+
5. IL 78 - 1+
6. Tupolev Tu 154 - 20
7. Variants of Tu-16 Badger (Jian H6 ) - 120 - this is no transport except for refueling
8. Shanxi Y9- 7+

9. Shanxi Y-8 - 78

10. Harbin Y-12 - 8

11. Harbin Y-11 - 20

12. Xian Y 20 -2
13. Xian MA 60 -9
14 Y-5 (An 2 copy) - 170

I leave it to you to look at IAFs airlift capability that is not germane to this thread and I don't want to start a whose dick is bigger exchange here.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 28 Feb 2017 16:50

shiv wrote:
ranjan.rao wrote:Chola,
playing the devils advocate, can you support why we have a preponderance in air lift capacity? Based on the number of transport aircrafts I would disagree with you, are you also including infra and heli supports? however happy to be proven wrong!
China's airlift capability is not that good currently.
Here is a post I made last year
viewtopic.php?p=2041183#p2041183
Since the topic has come up, I would like to post a few thoughts on what any country needs to maintain an air base on foreign soil.

Obviously good relations with the host nation, land or a ready made airstrip, source of food and water and local security are the basic requirements. But then what?

No matter what aircraft the foreign air base is going to house - be they fighters, transports or helicopters - personnel to maintain the aircraft, a source of fuel (if no local supplies) and spares, support staff, construction equipment, storage, hangars, security, air defence equipment etc will all have to be brought in. Unless the air base is also a sea port a lot of supplies will have to be flown in by air, and flying things in by air means that the nation with a foreign air base must have a suitable transport fleet.

Of course the top nations in this business make their own transports and make their own engines to power those transports. The absence or one or both of these makes the aspiring power prone to sanction wherein the transport fleet itself gets paralysed, crippling the foreign air base.
Below is a brief Wiki sourced look at China's air transport logistics fleet, type and number

The maximum number are variants of the Tu-16 Badger bomber 120 in number listed as "bomber/transport). There are 20 Tu 154s, and 78 Chinese copies of the Antonov An-12, and 19 IL 76s

Of these only the Il 76s, the Boeing 737s and some of the An 12 copies (Y-8) that are not being used in other roles can be used for logistics. The L 72s and Boeings are all prone to sanctions and the Chinese have not yet developed reliable replacement engines. This leaves the PLAAF with precious little strategic airlift capability to maintain any air base off Chinese shores.

The bottom line is if you don't have a robust strategic airlift capability supported preferably by indigenous industry, or supported by loyal allies with such industry, you can kiss goodbye to foreign air bases even if you have the best fighters in the world

1. Boeing 737 - 11
2. Bombardier CRJ200 - 5
3. Bombardier CRJ700 - 5
4. Il 76 - 16+
5. IL 78 - 1+
6. Tupolev Tu 154 - 20
7. Variants of Tu-16 Badger (Jian H6 ) - 120 - this is no transport except for refueling
8. Shanxi Y9- 7+

9. Shanxi Y-8 - 78

10. Harbin Y-12 - 8

11. Harbin Y-11 - 20

12. Xian Y 20 -2
13. Xian MA 60 -9
14 Y-5 (An 2 copy) - 170
I leave it to you to look at IAFs airlift capability that is not germane to this thread and I don't want to start a whose dick is bigger exchange here.

you should pay more attention to the case how many Y20/Y8/Y9 Xi'an aircraft company can produce every year, instead of the data of Chinese stock.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 28 Feb 2017 17:18

http://m.timesofindia.com/world/china/c ... 389451.cms

China undie in twist at SoKo buying Thaad. According to them South Korea should not have ABM while China can keep arming and supporting NoKo with nukes, rockets, chemical weapons. China is doing its best to isolate itself further.

On the other hand NoKo bumped Kim's 1/2 (or 1/4th) brother Kim in Malaysia and then angrily warning Malaysia not to investigate the murder!!

Both above behavior is similar.

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 28 Feb 2017 18:44

oh cumon rishi, you forgot playing with fire comment in case of Taiwan. After arming their tallel than mountain friends with nukes, subs in liu (pun intended) of their country they had the audacity to say that to india. They hypocricy of not allowing india in NSG after breaking every single non proliferation law that exists..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Feb 2017 20:42

Liu wrote: you should pay more attention to the case how many Y20/Y8/Y9 Xi'an aircraft company can produce every year, instead of the data of Chinese stock.

Judging from the language there is more than one person using the name "Liu". Makes it interesting and so Chinese...

The previous post was Liu "Angrezi". This Liu needs a different name - maybe Liu Jalfrezi?

Having got that out of the way - looks like I touched a raw nerve. Need to start looking at the performance of An 12 knockoffs

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 28 Feb 2017 20:45

X-posting.

Chinese have flow prototype of Wing Loong 2 (

) UAV...first flight. Apparent outside customers are Saudi Arabia apart from PLAAF.

Everything about it looks like a Reaper clone. To my untrained eye, I cannot make out any hard points for fitting pylons.

Here is an image of Reaper

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 01 Mar 2017 00:57

The Chinese have the following indigenous aircraft, choppers (List is from Wiki)

Fighter: J-10, J-11, J-15, J-20, J-31, J-16

Trainer: JL-9, L-15

Transport: Y-20

Bomber: H-6

Helicopter: Z-11, Z-15, Z-10

UAV: Plethora (too many to be listed ?)

All the above products belong to various units (or corporations) under Aviation Industry Corp of China (AVIC).

Some of the well known units are: Chengdu, Hongdu, Harbin (?), Changhe, Shenyang, Xian

According to Wiki, the total workforce of AVIC of China is around 550,000.

Question to the Chinese posters. What percentage of the above work force is involved in R&D/Design of products? Because the above is incredible amount of products to be involved with. Granted not all programs may be active and be receiving attention compared to others.

Also are there any private companies which are "supporting" state owned companies either with design, testing or production?

Just trying to get an estimate of the aero work force in China currently.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Mar 2017 13:37

China's AVIC Achieves First Flight of Wing-Loong II UAV

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ong-ii-uav

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Mar 2017 14:21

there is also a seaplane project. the largest seaplane when it enters service.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 01 Mar 2017 15:52

Zynda wrote:The Chinese have the following indigenous aircraft, choppers (List is from Wiki)

Fighter: J-10, J-11, J-15, J-20, J-31, J-16

Trainer: JL-9, L-15

Transport: Y-20

Bomber: H-6

Helicopter: Z-11, Z-15, Z-10

UAV: Plethora (too many to be listed ?)

All the above products belong to various units (or corporations) under Aviation Industry Corp of China (AVIC).

Some of the well known units are: Chengdu, Hongdu, Harbin (?), Changhe, Shenyang, Xian

According to Wiki, the total workforce of AVIC of China is around 550,000.

Question to the Chinese posters. What percentage of the above work force is involved in R&D/Design of products? Because the above is incredible amount of products to be involved with. Granted not all programs may be active and be receiving attention compared to others.

Also are there any private companies which are "supporting" state owned companies either with design, testing or production?

Just trying to get an estimate of the aero work force in China currently.

PRC's earliest aero industry workshops and R&D units(Shengyang,Harbin) are those in manchuria,which were set up in 1950s with the help of soviet.

at that time,soviets was the ally of china,so manchuria is the most safe place for chinese aero industry complex.

in 1960s~1970s,manchuria became a frontier,because soviet bacame the enemy of PRC.so china set up lots of 'backups' for aeroindustry in heartland china,which are chengdu,hongdu and changhe.

AVIC 's not only developes aerocrafts,but also others ,such as houses,material,autos.

in fact,AVic's revenue is more than many of Top 500 listed by fortune.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 01 Mar 2017 17:42

Liu, thanks for your response and some background on other aero labs. But still you did not answer my question. Just trying to get an estimate of how many bodies (workers) in China are involved with aerospace industry. How many workers (an approx percentage would be enough) the Chinese have got working on research, design & development of various aero products?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Mar 2017 18:27

Singha wrote:there is also a seaplane project. the largest seaplane when it enters service.

Hope it's bigger than this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 01 Mar 2017 18:52

Zynda wrote:Liu, thanks for your response and some background on other aero labs. But still you did not answer my question. Just trying to get an estimate of how many bodies (workers) in China are involved with aerospace industry. How many workers (an approx percentage would be enough) the Chinese have got working on research, design & development of various aero products?

Chengdu one has 14k emplyees,according to its official website.

chengdu as well as shengyang,xi'an might be the top 3 of AVIC's subs.

there are private aeroindustry enterprises in china.
but they are all small ones,producing low~tech light civilian ones.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Mar 2017 06:21

A call to ALL Ulaanbaataries to unit.

China Warned Mongolia For Taking India’s Help, But India Shocked Whole World with this Move

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Mar 2017 06:47

Liu wrote: there are private aeroindustry enterprises in china.
but they are all small ones,producing low~tech light civilian ones.

Civilian products are low tech in china? Looks like this is what is exported

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 02 Mar 2017 11:07

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Mar 2017 11:41

It is not surprising the number of look alikes that comes from China be it UAV or Aircraft or Transport it is part of their major success in hacking US system.

China Hacked F-22, F-35 Stealth Jet Secrets

Chinese national pleads guilty in California to hacking Boeing C-17 data

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... t-secrets/

The plea deal includes an admission by Su of conspiring with two people in China from October 2008 to March 2014 who broke into U.S. computer networks at Boeing and other defense companies.

The hackers stole large amounts of military information that was supplied to China, according to court documents and a statement by the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California.

Su was described in court documents as a wealthy Chinese businessman who owned a Beijing aviation technology company called Lode Tech. He was a permanent resident of Canada and owned homes in that country and China.

According to court papers, Su worked with two Chinese hackers who “engaged in clandestine computer and network reconnaissance and intrusion operations.” The two Chinese agents were not identified but were linked to “multiple organizations” in China, according to the court papers.

Michelle Van Cleave, former national counterintelligence executive within the office of the director of national intelligence, said the Su prosecution was a success but represents "a drop in a bucket that keeps getting bigger every year.”

“The Chinese have a sophisticated network of tens of thousands human spies and computer hackers targeting American military and technological secrets,” she said. "What they can’t acquire legally through trade, or creatively through mergers and acquisitions, they are prepared to steal. And it’s getting harder all the time to stop them.”

The two Chinese were listed as unindicted co-conspirators by prosecutors but were not identified by name or agency.

The two Chinese agents emailed Su with stolen defense contractor file directories listing data from U.S. and foreign company networks that China had hacked. Su then advised the two Chinese agents on which specific technologies to target from the companies. The three obtained details on “dozens” of military projects, according to an FBI criminal complaint.

Su also sought to sell the stolen U.S. technology obtained by the China-based hackers to state-owned companies in China.

The operation first gained access to some 630,000 Boeing computer files on the C-17 military transport aircraft technology in early 2009. The C-17 is the U.S. military’s main cargo aircraft. The data included details on the aircraft’s onboard computer.

Other stolen files included data on the F-22 and F-35 aircraft, the military’s most advanced radar-evading stealth fighter jets.

The F-22 data included details of an unspecified “training component” on the stealth jet used to launch missiles.

Other stolen data stolen by the Chinese spies included an unspecified “advanced United States military project” that the three men were attempting to steal blueprints and testing data.

SubinF-35 Regarding the F-35, the frontline U.S. jet fighter being developed in both Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps variants, the Chinese obtained the “Flight Test Plan” for the jet written by a U.S. defense engineer.

According to an FBI agent writing in the criminal complaint, Noel A. Freeman, a report by the spies stated that the stolen data would “allow us to rapidly catch up with U.S. levels” and will allow China to “stand easily on the giant’s shoulders.”

The court case provides additional clues to Chinese cyber theft of U.S. aircraft data disclosed last year in National Security Agency documents made public by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

An NSA document states that China obtained more than 50 terabytes—a huge amount of data—from U.S. defense and government networks, including the F-35 radar and engine secrets. The data included numbers and types of F-35 radar modules, and detailed engine schematics for the Lockheed Martin aircraft.

Chinese cyber spies also obtained export-restricted data through defense industrial espionage on the B-2 bomber, F-22, F-35, Space-based Laser, and other weapons.

Atmavik · Post by **Atmavik** » 02 Mar 2017 11:44

NRao wrote:A call to ALL Ulaanbaataries to unit.

China Warned Mongolia For Taking India’s Help, But India Shocked Whole World with this Move

we should send our three Khans back to thair khanate

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Mar 2017 11:48

I suspect most of the Spying by China in US is a way of US giving them things covertly when they cant do it overtly due to official ban , Else the amount of spying and the depth of it by the admission of NSA and FBI officials you dont find any one in US congress raising an eyebrow ,no ZNN MSM coverage either.

You cant really penetrate at the highest level and download terra bytes of data from the most secure facility just like that

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Mar 2017 13:33

Meantime the copycats at work again .. it's the harpy drone now

http://www.janes.com/article/68341/idex ... g-munition

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Mar 2017 13:35

They really did copy the brahmos as well .
Matter of time before S400 gets copied too

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Mar 2017 14:47

kit wrote:They really did copy the brahmos as well .
Matter of time before S400 gets copied too

Brahmos and Chinese variant have lot of visible differences so its not a copy of brahmos much like C-802 is not a copy of Exocet but they look similar.

Chinese are lic producing S-300 , they might do that for S-400 too.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Mar 2017 15:02

they to my knowledge have never made a ramjet missile and suddenly come up with a CX-1 out of thin air.
I feel sure russia has sold them a set of engines and is negotiating to sell them more, while letting them manufacture the airframe and fit their warhead and control system.

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Mar 2017 15:52

Singha wrote:they to my knowledge have never made a ramjet missile and suddenly come up with a CX-1 out of thin air.
I feel sure russia has sold them a set of engines and is negotiating to sell them more, while letting them manufacture the airframe and fit their warhead and control system.

for sure the Russians would be happy to oblige the Chinese for some money .. and of course deny it . The Indian navys new SAM requirement is particularly interesting

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Mar 2017 16:15

Singha wrote:they to my knowledge have never made a ramjet missile and suddenly come up with a CX-1 out of thin air.
I feel sure russia has sold them a set of engines and is negotiating to sell them more, while letting them manufacture the airframe and fit their warhead and control system.

China has been having Ramjet technology since 1980 , their first Ramjet missile is C-301 check the pics

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 1-pics.htm

They also have Ramjet Powered A2A missile PL-15 , Dont say they copied from Meteor

The Soviets have Ramjet since early 60's , The chinese since 80's there is nothing great in Ramjet technology its just that we got our one late via Akash program in 90's

The difference is Brahmos uses 2nd generation Ramjet Engine which is ducted ramjet and variable nozzle the first generation was used in SS-N-22 Shipwreck missile.

Variable nozzle means the use of conventional control surface can be made shorter as it will use TVC engine along with control surface for flight control and precision.

Just compare the Control Surface on the Brahmos look like C-302 missile the numbers of tail fins etc the the size and compare the same with Brahmos , you will realise Brahmos has shorter and less number of control surface ( fixed or moving ) compared to Chinese C-302 because of use of 2nd gen Ramjet engine with tvc like capability

The Engine itself was first tested in mid 80's , The Russias now have 3rd gen Ramjet engine which will impart Higher speed close to hypersonic ( ~ Mach 4 + )and you will see that in advanced brahmos under development , Remember what Dr Pathak told about intermediate Brahmos with speed greater than Mach 4

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Mar 2017 16:41

This is what I had posted on Brahmos Engine some time back in discussion with Ramana at BRF

Compare the 3D-80 Engine used on SS-N-22/Moskit Supersonic missile to that of 3D-55 Engine on Brahmos

Moskit engine is 3D-80 supersonic ramjet type with later variant ( 3D-81,82,82 ) upgrading on its capability introducing combustion stabilisation and dual position nozzle, it was developed by another design bureau in 70's i.e Zvezda Machine-Building Design Bureau

Brahmos/Onyx/Yakhont engine is 3D-55 developed by NPO Mashinostroyeniya , the key difference is t generational difference between the two engine , 3D-55 ramjet engine is fully-regulated movable nozzle duruing flight it can be throttled back to minimal thrust at optimum flight altitude then commanded to resume normal operation depending on the altitude its flying to conserve/optimise energy management.

The movable nozzle and throttled engine is the key reason Brahmos can attack target with high precession at high supersonic speed.

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Mar 2017 16:45

http://idrw.org/chinas-doing-some-serio ... ore-126563

one wonders whether they are digging and laying some sensors ??? .. like a SOSUS system

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 02 Mar 2017 19:12

last news from CD

china decided to sell Hq9 long~range airdefence missle to north korea.

quite interesting,isn't it?
it is the 1st time for Noko to acquire long~range modern defence missles

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Mar 2017 19:15

Liu wrote:last news

china decided to sell Hq9 long~range airdefence missle to north korea.

quite interesting,isn't it?

not really .. the North Korea serves as a buffer state to protect their population dense and industrially vulnerable east coast right from the Japanese and US forces .. in short .. the NK is to China what Ukraine is to Russia

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 02 Mar 2017 19:28

kit wrote:
Liu wrote:last news

china decided to sell Hq9 long~range airdefence missle to north korea.

quite interesting,isn't it?
not really .. the North Korea serves as a buffer state to protect their population dense and industrially vulnerable east coast right from the Japanese and US forces .. in short .. the NK is to China what Ukraine is to Russia

judging from military prospect, Noko is a meaningless 'buffer' to china, because USa has lots of ways to bomb china directly without passing through NOKO.

NOKO is just a political chip on Usa~china hegemony ~race table.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Mar 2017 19:30

Liu wrote:last news from CD

china decided to sell Hq9 long~range airdefence missle to north korea.

quite interesting,isn't it?
it is the 1st time for Noko to acquire long~range modern defence missles

That is hardly going to be a strong deterrent. Expect the South Korean and US ISR and ELINT assets to closely monitor the deployment of this system and unless they buy a boat load of them they will be your primary targets in a first day strike scenario using LO assets or stand off weapons. I think the more NoKo spends on this the less money to spend on offensive capability so I don't think the SOKO will mind..This may be a retaliatory response to the THAAD deployment which is going to happen in the summer and will have at least one battery permanently stationed there.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 02 Mar 2017 19:43

brar_w wrote:
Liu wrote:last news from CD

china decided to sell Hq9 long~range airdefence missle to north korea.

quite interesting,isn't it?
it is the 1st time for Noko to acquire long~range modern defence missles
That is hardly going to be a strong deterrent. Expect the South Korean and US ISR and ELINT assets to closely monitor the deployment of this system and unless they buy a boat load of them they will be your primary targets in a first day strike scenario using LO assets or stand off weapons. I think the more NoKo spends on this the less money to spend on offensive capability so I don't think the SOKO will mind..This may be a retaliatory response to the THAAD deployment which is going to happen in the summer and will have at least one battery permanently stationed there.

it is useless to yankees stealth fleet,but is a strong dererrent to Soko' f15/16 fleet.

ThAAD in SOKO can not bring more detterent to china too,in fact.

china also has THAAD as a chip to bargain with Yankees.

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Mar 2017 19:50

China has what THAAd ??

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Mar 2017 19:55

it is useless to yankees stealth fleet,but is a strong dererrent to Soko' f15/16 fleet.

In case you did not notice, South Korea is going to begin fielding the F-35A soon and are already considering ordering another squadron worth of aircraft. Moreover, they are developing both a stealth figther of their own and UAV/UCAV's. Furthermore, their F-15Ks are compatible with UAI which will give them access to MALD, MALD-Js and of course additional longer range missiles like the JASSM and JASSM-ER in addition to the Taurus 350K that they already possess .

This before any precission fires based solution. Unless you can bring up your and saturate the air space with these air defense systems and their interceptors you aren't going to worry the ROKAF even without the F-35.

Ground based highly capable air defenses work great in an integrated air, land and cyber environment with effective layering and command and control. A few notional systems sprinkled around will be targeted in the first few hours of any potential air or ground campaign. Those aren't going to bother anyone.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 02 Mar 2017 22:34

brar_w wrote:
it is useless to yankees stealth fleet,but is a strong dererrent to Soko' f15/16 fleet.
In case you did not notice, South Korea is going to begin fielding the F-35A soon and are already considering ordering another squadron worth of aircraft. Moreover, they are developing both a stealth figther of their own and UAV/UCAV's. Furthermore, their F-15Ks are compatible with UAI which will give them access to MALD, MALD-Js and of course additional longer range missiles like the JASSM and JASSM-ER in addition to the Taurus 350K that they already possess .

This before any precission fires based solution. Unless you can bring up your and saturate the air space with these air defense systems and their interceptors you aren't going to worry the ROKAF even without the F-35.

Ground based highly capable air defenses work great in an integrated air, land and cyber environment with effective layering and command and control. A few notional systems sprinkled around will be targeted in the first few hours of any potential air or ground campaign. Those aren't going to bother anyone.

SoKo's own "stealth fighter' is still a PPT.it even can not work out tech~demostrator ,let alone prototype.

it took usa/russia/china almost 10 years to turn prototype of their stealth bird to ones in service....

considering that soko's one is still a PPT, S.korea surely has to take much more time,if its own stealth bird project were not to abort.

so is the Turkey's stealth bird so called.

not every state has fund/tech to work out stealth bird.

nowdays,stealth bird is still beyond the tech&industry capacity of most countries,except USA.RUSSIA,CHINA AND EU（as a whole）

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Mar 2017 22:39

Liu wrote:
brar_w wrote:
In case you did not notice, South Korea is going to begin fielding the F-35A soon and are already considering ordering another squadron worth of aircraft. Moreover, they are developing both a stealth figther of their own and UAV/UCAV's. Furthermore, their F-15Ks are compatible with UAI which will give them access to MALD, MALD-Js and of course additional longer range missiles like the JASSM and JASSM-ER in addition to the Taurus 350K that they already possess .

This before any precission fires based solution. Unless you can bring up your and saturate the air space with these air defense systems and their interceptors you aren't going to worry the ROKAF even without the F-35.

Ground based highly capable air defenses work great in an integrated air, land and cyber environment with effective layering and command and control. A few notional systems sprinkled around will be targeted in the first few hours of any potential air or ground campaign. Those aren't going to bother anyone.
SoKo's own "stealth fighter' is still a PPT.it even can not work out tech~demostrator ,let alone prototype.

it took usa/russia/china almost 10 years to turn prototype of their stealth bird to ones in service....

considering that soko's one is still a PPT, S.korea surely has to take much more time,if its own stealth bird project were not to abort.

And NOKO's acquiring a high end SAM system is merely a Chinese news story. Besides, you totally ignored the other items I listed. Its common sense that SOKOs investment in its own fifth generation project is a medium to long term option. However they have plenty of short to medium term options as I have listed. Like I said, given North Korean economy and the chances of them getting a significant amount of these air defense system, this is nothing that they cannot neutralize using their existing F-15Ks.

As mentioned there are plenty of options available to those UAI compatible F-15Ks when it comes to SEAD, DEAD or medium to long range targeting. And as mentioned, a few of these systems without an integrated air, ground and cyberspace command and control is not going to seriously threaten the ROKAF or USAF positioned there. A few more of these systems if heavily discounted/subsidized may allow South Korea to allow another THAAD in on its land and then things can get really interesting especially if you have 2 TPY-2s deployed there.