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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 26 Nov 2018 11:12

chola wrote:
Karan M wrote:Note how they dont mention anything about foreign assistance such as the import of the Ukrainian radar tech, the Israeli TOT for Phalcon AESA and how suddenly in half a year, the sea clutter issue was resolved. It's all about how hard they worked. Sealing a radar in a GFRP dome to protect against corrosion,
Which has been done for donkeys years worldwide is a Chinese innovation. Truly masters of propaganda.


So saying it is just propaganda helps us how?

When Amreekis they see something this, they go to Congress and cranks up more funding.

What do we do? Proclaim Rafale is superior to any chini aircraft and we just need to import it to maintain our edge (never mentioning that we already have superiority based on numbers in the theater alone.)

We have either irrational fear (see Doklam; we hold at least a 10 to 1 manpower advantage and still fear an attack instead of initiating an attack) or irrational disdain (it’s all propaganda.) Nearly nothing in between.

It seems our reply comes down to importing some damn gora system and proclaiming victory because our imported stuff is better.

Far better to use the Chinese threat as a kick in the pants for our MIC — like the Chinis use their Amreeki threat and the Amreekis do with the chinis in turn.

Match their AEGIS and Phalcon equivalents by egging on our own. Right now we are putting in Israeli systems on the upcoming P15B and P17A.


When you dont know about Indian systems development why are you making pointless posts alternately shivering in your pants and alternatively wailing about Indian superiority?

It seems spending too much time on Chinese fora has made you buy into their rubbish without any introspection.

Go through the multiple threads on this fora and you will realize india is no slouch in radar systems and has equivalents to most PRC systems at a fraction of the cost.

Dont use this fora as a dumping ground for your pet peeve of war mongering -lets attack PRC when you have no skin in the game, and alternatively making sky is falling claims about PRC propaganda leading to advances which are oh so great.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 26 Nov 2018 11:15

nam wrote:Another video on Chinese radar.. now something we will be interested in.

Chinis tested out a AESA land based radar on top of Ganbala mountains south of Lhasa. Apparently a lighting bolt hit the radar, frying it's electronics!

The crew were there for 16 months, with some of them falling sick due to high altitude by the time tour ended.

Watch it all here.



Virtually a replica of the Indian Rohini, form and function wise. Difference, you won't find any shakinah videos about how IAF took Rohini for trials in it's high alt locations and the effort it took. Yet, over 37 units are in service, some deployed against the PRC.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 26 Nov 2018 11:22

nam wrote:One of the prime reason for many versions from Chini, is because of number of entities involved, who bring out their version of a product to sell.

There are two electronics research houses in China competing among themselves. Other entities use their tech to create their offering and try to sell it to Chinese forces or export.

Here everything has to be done by DRDO, who are fund and human capital limited. Our DPSU hardly spend effort to even take DRDO products forward.

BEL should have taken DRDO's AESA programs further and create at the least a land based radar which can be exported. Private entities are starved of orders and they don't want to venture in to this.


Have you thought about the reverse? How much it costs the Chinese to keep two houses running, even with similar systems and keeping one chugging even if its products are inferior. The Russians tried this for decades with Phazatron and NIIP, and Leninets. Now all have been consolidated under one group. In India, LRDE is backed up by several private firms which are investing into radar development and manufacture.

Next it's pointless to blame BEL for not taking DRDOs designs forward when they are actually involved cent per cent, in productionizing DRDOs current designs. Right now, DRDO has around a dozen AESA programs in play, all with BEL engineers working along with DRDO counterparts.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 26 Nov 2018 11:26

To claim private entities are fund starved and don't want to venture into this is completely mistaken. L&T, Tata and a bunch of smaller pvt firms are all into DRDOs programs and are working with JVs to introduce radars for Indian service requirements. On the one hand, they work with DRDO for IDM programs and they also collaborate with Foreign OEMs for immediate orders.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2830
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 26 Nov 2018 12:17

Karan M wrote:
chola wrote:
So saying it is just propaganda helps us how?

When Amreekis they see something this, they go to Congress and cranks up more funding.

What do we do? Proclaim Rafale is superior to any chini aircraft and we just need to import it to maintain our edge (never mentioning that we already have superiority based on numbers in the theater alone.)

We have either irrational fear (see Doklam; we hold at least a 10 to 1 manpower advantage and still fear an attack instead of initiating an attack) or irrational disdain (it’s all propaganda.) Nearly nothing in between.

It seems our reply comes down to importing some damn gora system and proclaiming victory because our imported stuff is better.

Far better to use the Chinese threat as a kick in the pants for our MIC — like the Chinis use their Amreeki threat and the Amreekis do with the chinis in turn.

Match their AEGIS and Phalcon equivalents by egging on our own. Right now we are putting in Israeli systems on the upcoming P15B and P17A.


When you dont know about Indian systems development why are you making pointless posts alternately shivering in your pants and alternatively wailing about Indian superiority?

It seems spending too much time on Chinese fora has made you buy into their rubbish without any introspection.

Go through the multiple threads on this fora and you will realize india is no slouch in radar systems and has equivalents to most PRC systems at a fraction of the cost.

Dont use this fora as a dumping ground for your pet peeve of war mongering -lets attack PRC when you have no skin in the game, and alternatively making sky is falling claims about PRC propaganda leading to advances which are oh so great.



One, there is no sky is falling prediction in my part. It is the exact opposite. I actually detest the constant dhoti shivering about the “two-front” war. I said REPEATEDLY that we own overwhelming advantages in every likely theater of war. If we go to war with Cheen we win, it’s that simple. So I have no goddamn idea how the hell you put that label on me.

Two, the fact they are making ships, aircraft and the radars that go in them should be a driver for us to kick things up a notch. That is what the US is doing with the China threat and what China does with the American. We win if we go to war but if we don’t then they will win with their MIC pumping chit into the gray zones and global commons and as exports to every one of our neighbors.

Three, just calling their products propaganda does us absolutely no damn good. Being dismissive doesn’t stop them from flooding their crap — drones, subs, tanks, etc. — across the width and breadth of the IOR.

Four, tell me which Indian radar will be installed in our landmark projects coming up? The P15B? The P17A? The IAC 1? The Tejas? I beg and hope for the Uttam somewhere down the line but who the hell knows. If not those then where do you see our lab experiments? The AEW&C, the CABS AWACS? Let me know after we deal with the Embraer inquiry and figuring out whether we can combine a damn tanker with the AEW radar. I’m no damn child, Karan.

Five, I believe in our position as great power that is practically invulnerable right now. We can afford to put our indigenous systems into service and work out the kinks which is what Cheen does.

Six, I believe in competition and in self-confidence. Insisting that just because I point out certain things that Cheen does well suddenly means I’m saying the “sky is falling” has a lot more to do with your confidence in our nation than mine.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2830
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 26 Nov 2018 12:34

It seems spending too much time on Chinese fora has made you buy into their rubbish without any introspection.


I’ll agreed to that, Karan ji. Though I don’t know or read Chinese and the watchers are highly international we do agree that it is easy to become addicted to their chit. It doesn’t matter if you are German, French, Japanese or desi, you’ll end up buying into their endless leaks, cartoons and artwork.

I’ll think more carefully in what or when I post from now on.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 26 Nov 2018 13:30

chola wrote:One, there is no sky is falling prediction in my part. It is the exact opposite. I actually detest the constant dhoti shivering about the “two-front” war. I said REPEATEDLY that we own overwhelming advantages in every likely theater of war. If we go to war with Cheen we win, it’s that simple. So I have no goddamn idea how the hell you put that label on me.


OTOH, you buy into their propaganda unquestioningly. Second, you make aggressive, verbose posts when anyone points out flaws in their propaganda. Next, you aggressively war monger asking for a conflict which doesn't serve India's interest at this point of time. So either take a breather or tone your behavior down a huge notch.

Two, the fact they are making ships, aircraft and the radars that go in them should be a driver for us to kick things up a notch. That is what the US is doing with the China threat and what China does with the American. We win if we go to war but if we don’t then they will win with their MIC pumping chit into the gray zones and global commons and as exports to every one of our neighbors.


It would be STUPID of us to ape anyone because they are doing things a certain way. We have a budget, certain needs and we proceed according to that, ending up like the former soviet union, broke and "powerful" may be your idea of success, it sure isn't India's.

Three, just calling their products propaganda does us absolutely no damn good. Being dismissive doesn’t stop them from flooding their crap — drones, subs, tanks, etc. — across the width and breadth of the IOR.


It absolutely does every damn good, because unlike your breathless posts tom tomming every chinese agit prop video or picture as an example of great success or how they have achieved something remarkable, we need to aim for tangible aims for our resources.
We need to look beyond their rubbish PR and see what is the actual threat. Which is what the IAF, DRDO et al do and which gets drowned in your constant refrain about how great they are, how lousy India is, how far behind we are, and how we must be like the PRC, and yet we are currently more powerful and should fight them.

Four, tell me which Indian radar will be installed in our landmark projects coming up? The P15B? The P17A? The IAC 1? The Tejas? I beg and hope for the Uttam somewhere down the line but who the hell knows. If not those then where do you see our lab experiments? The AEW&C, the CABS AWACS? Let me know after we deal with the Embraer inquiry and figuring out whether we can combine a damn tanker with the AEW radar. I’m no damn child, Karan.


You are behaving like an angsty teenager, constantly asking for war or complaining we are so far behind, there is no hope etc etc. Its a yo-yo swing betwee extreme emotions. You have no clue of our radar programs yet call them lab experiments, when the reality is unlike those Chinese brochures you are touting, each & every one of the DRDO radars advertised as production ready, has actually gone into service, the test articles are clearly mentioned as such & the DRDO/Navy/AF et al keep a close lid on the specifics of what they are inducting and when. There are currently some 5 DRDO AESA radars in induction, minimal fuss. More than double the number in development, with several in trials already. Without any bragging or huge fuss. At the same time, the services are inducting radars from worldlwide OEMS, whose tech the PRC would give their organs for.

Having observed the Indian establishments MIC for over 2 decades now, I have ample evidence to state that for all their warts, they have made tangible progress at a fraction of the cost of the PRC. They are acutely aware of what the PRC has, what India does, where the gaps are & they make their case strongly to the political establishment.

Unlike the PRC, we are not buying obsolescent local designs en masse and churning them for employment. We buy specific numbers of local equipment, backing them up with higher capability imports, while seeking to upgrade the local base in the meanwhile.

As we speak, while you were busy screaming about the "lack of Indian radars" in "our landmark programs", the DRDO has focused its efforts on strategic programs like the BMD, the IAFs ADGEs & its systems are already in production. While there half a dozen other AESA radars in trials for more pressing needs. The Navy already has AESAs which dwarf the PRC ones via its JVs with Rafale & SAAB, while the DRDO can rapidly switch to Naval systems as it's already built up competence with the Naval 3D surveillance program which has been inducted as well.

Its all a question of priorities & technology access. I don't see the reason to hyperventilate about the constant state of progress. PS: Thanks to the Embraer program, we now an AWACS program capability as well, while larger Phalcons are already available ex-import. Unlike PRC, we are in a position of plenty viz. tech access.

Those GRFP cabins which the PRC was touting as an achievement, were fielded by India in the 1970's and 1980's for its radar programs. Have some awareness!

Five, I believe in our position as great power that is practically invulnerable right now. We can afford to put our indigenous systems into service and work out the kinks which is what Cheen does.


We are anything but. War has economic and social costs. Plus our inventory is nowhere where we need it to be, for that matter neither is the PRCs.

Six, I believe in competition and in self-confidence. Insisting that just because I point out certain things that Cheen does well suddenly means I’m saying the “sky is falling” has a lot more to do with your confidence in our nation than mine.


My nation is India. Which country's citizenship do you hold again, before giving me sermons on confidence in my nation? Before advocating war constantly, please come back to India, enroll in the military get some skin in the game before constantly hankering for conflict.

Next, your behavior is completely and totally bizarre.

You constantly claim that PRC is weak. Yet take over the top umbrage when their propaganda is punctured. You constantly insist India is strong, while bemoaning its weakness, yet claim it should go to war at the drop of a hat.

I am sorry, but this sort of excitable behavior is NOT suitable for any measured discussion or BRF. Please temper your behavior and bring some maturity and gravitas in your commentary.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 26 Nov 2018 13:37

chola wrote:
It seems spending too much time on Chinese fora has made you buy into their rubbish without any introspection.


I’ll agreed to that, Karan ji. Though I don’t know or read Chinese and the watchers are highly international we do agree that it is easy to become addicted to their chit. It doesn’t matter if you are German, French, Japanese or desi, you’ll end up buying into their endless leaks, cartoons and artwork.

I’ll think more carefully in what or when I post from now on.


Please do. I don't hand out warnings or censure at the drop of a hat, which is why I haven't done so till date, but this forum is not a place to simply tom tom whatever the PRC is doing uncritically.

The fact this forum sees through that propaganda is essential. Your constant refrain that nobody should puncture their propaganda is not in India's national interest.

The PRC is doing what the TSP did, constantly proclaiming their unquestioned superiority, and attempting to pre-decide conflicts without winning a shot by intimidating observers.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 26 Nov 2018 13:49

nam wrote:Along with the missiles,radar is one domain we have done well. All thanks to BMD program. When there is funding, we are able to get things done.

We should have been cranking out AESA radars in numbers and make it cheaper to operate and export. We have a great base with AESA, alas we have not been able to use this advantage.


Guys, we have to meet our own needs first and foremost.

LRDE had a breakthrough in AESAs with its AEW&C and Arudhra plus Aslesha programs. No TOT, designs done in house. BMD program was done with Israeli/French assistance which we indigenized. Our current systems are a league ahead.

As of current, five "public" AESA programs are in production/ have cleared trials - the Arudhra, Aslesha, Ashwini, Bharani Mk2, AEW&C (it was at TRL 7 several years back itself). The combined numbers are around 100 plus. These all rely on S-Band module tech which we perfected via the AEW&C and then Arudhra. The HPR which is being developed for the IAF likely takes Arudhra even further (https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/II ... -radar.pdf). These will be the backbone of the IAF ADGES.

Apart from this via Uttam, India developed X-band modules. These are in production for the Army's QRSAM and ADFCR and likely in production for BMD systems. Plus there are other programs for the Navy, AF et al which will likely use these modules. There is Akash NG which will also likely have new AESA radars.

Then there are other developments, many of them for pending requirements. IAC, AWACS India, et al. For instance, India just purchased 66 ADFCR from Israel. Our total requirements are 240 plus, probably double the number. All that has to come from Atulya. Just one of the examples.
Even as things stand (snapshot from the MOD DRDO report, over a year old, when Uttam was just in barebones form).
Image

Our own requirements are so huge, the BEL-DRDO-private sector complex will be busy for a decade to come. I am fairly certain over 90% of our radars will be locally sourced. As we speak, the IAF is likely keenly evaluating Uttam & drawing up plans as to how it may be leveraged.

Once the IAF gave the HPR order to DRDO, the cats out of the bag, even the most complex systems are being locally sourced.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1078
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby rkhanna » 29 Nov 2018 17:28

China’s Untested Military Could Be a Force—or a Flop

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/27/ch ... or-a-flop/

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2830
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 29 Nov 2018 18:13

rkhanna wrote:China’s Untested Military Could Be a Force—or a Flop

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/27/ch ... or-a-flop/


It’s been decades since the PLA fought a war. Does that matter?


Their very rise came within 40 years of peace, single child policy and little emperors. Why would they change a successful strategy for a risky one like actual warfare?

Their goal is to win through their strength which is not warfighting but industrial production.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/11/29/china-aims-to-defeat-the-us-air-force-without-firing-a-shot-heres-how/
A new study highlights China’s growing air power, and warns that China is looking to build out its Air Force to the point that the U.S. would not be willing to take it on in direct conflict.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1576
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 29 Nov 2018 19:24

Big economic powers don't fight direct war. Lessons from WW2.

They do bush wars. Wack some hapless country. Like Syria, where every one is fighting to the last Syrian.

I expect China to get in to a bush war. It is required to increase the arm sales. Some African country is going to get it, as they are easy target.

Other places like Middle east are too hot. Asia, there are no easy targets.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63609
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 29 Nov 2018 22:17

Cheen could start uparming iran ?

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 870
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby ParGha » 30 Nov 2018 00:12

The opening for the "rise" was a high-risk gamble -- they basically drew away 30+ Soviet Divisions from European Theater on behalf of the West, and risked losing all of North China (and probably Tibet, if the USSR demanded India to open up a Southern Front) in the process. Opening of the Western markets was the reward for risking it all. What got them to #2 will not get them to #1, therefore the strategy will begin to change.
Last edited by ParGha on 30 Nov 2018 00:17, edited 1 time in total.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2312
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby darshhan » 30 Nov 2018 00:16

Singha wrote:Cheen could start uparming iran ?


Chinese would love to arm the Iranians. The only problem is the ability(or rather inability) of the iranians to make the payments.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1576
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 30 Nov 2018 00:27

Singha wrote:Cheen could start uparming iran ?


They just did a big deal with the Saudis for oil. Must be to buy their silence on Xinjing and in return not to fully arm Iran & reduce oil import.

News floating Iran might go for FC1. Make money by selling export kit.

They would still need a proper war to show off their fighters & tanks. Like Rafale went for glory in Libya...

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1576
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 30 Nov 2018 00:32

ParGha wrote:The opening for the "rise" was a high-risk gamble -- they basically drew away 30+ Soviet Divisions from European Theater on behalf of the West, and risked losing all of North China (and probably Tibet, if the USSR demanded India to open up a Southern Front) in the process. Opening of the Western markets was the reward for risking it all. What got them to #2 will not get them to #1, therefore the strategy will begin to change.


I would say they knew what they were doing. Soviets wanted to nuke China. They asked US to not escalate it. US refused. Without US nod, they could not nuke China.

The Chinese knew this deterrent would work. They build up enough conventional forces to make it hard for the Soviets, if they take the non-nuke path.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6977
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 30 Nov 2018 00:44

Next gen war will be fought with next gen tools. However the west still has the advantage that China's power is still very top down like the Soviets.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2830
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 30 Nov 2018 05:11

Prasad wrote:Next gen war will be fought with next gen tools. However the west still has the advantage that China's power is still very top down like the Soviets.


Top down can work with peasants and the proles like the Soviets and Chicoms of bygone eras.

I doubt the Lil’ Emperors will charge up a hill if the order came down from the top.

In Sudan, their Blue Helmets scattered like chickens when attacked by some ragtag African guerillas.

In fact, our Jawans saved their formation from being overrun entirely:

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2017/08/13/did-indian-army-troops-save-chinese-troops-in-sudan/

the 7th Battalion, of the Kumaon Regiment, who were held in reserve, were asked to take charge and restore the situation, which they did with extreme professionalism and ruthlessness. Here’s a typically modest way the news report chose to describe their actions – ‘It was learnt that troops also secured the perimeter which was smashed by the IDPs and ensured the armed militiamen were weeded out.’ Yes, they ‘secured’ the perimeter and ensured the armed militiamen were ‘weeded out’. Such ‘modesty’ is typical of the way in which the Indian media’s undersells the achievements of its own countrymen. Or perhaps, something that they are so used to from the Indian Army, that they take it as a matter of course– Send in Indian troops, job will be done.

Btw, it was the same militiamen who had ‘scared the hell’ out of the famed PLA troops and routed them that the Kumaonis calmly ‘weeded out’.


The real challenge from Cheen is their MIC not their military.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1350
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Khalsa » 02 Dec 2018 02:37

Image
Chinese SH-15, 155mm wheeled SPH under evaluation in PAKISTAN

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 03 Dec 2018 00:09

Any reason why our radars are named after the nakshatras, what is the connection I'm missing? Or do they plan to have 27 different types/programs?

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4663
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Neshant » 03 Dec 2018 16:19

<POOF>

Admin Note: How is this related to "China Military Watch". There are other threads for this sort of news

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3977
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kartik » 05 Dec 2018 04:28

China seeking to offload surplus military equipment, including fighters and AWACS. JH-7As are on the list as well, which goes to show that these must have been pretty disappointing platforms.

link

China is intent on selling off a number of technologically advanced aircraft, including radar platforms and interdiction and attack aircraft that apparently have fallen short of People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) expectations after just a few years of operational service. After being decommissioned, the aircraft have been handed over to Poly Technologies, a company licensed by the government, for rework into exportable versions and subsequent release to would-be foreign clients.

During the 12th China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition, better known as Airshow China 2018, held earlier this month in Zhuhai, the company had a large outdoor exhibition to showcase its wares. Large-format banners and posters were devoted to the KJ-200, JH-7, A-5, J-7, and K-8, describing them as decommissioned equipment available to interested foreign countries after repair, upgrade, and rebuild.

While the Chengdu J-7 and Hongdu A-5 and K-8 have been in PLAAF service for many years and are considered obsolete, the KJ-200 and JH-7 represent modern and still highly capable aircraft. Most intriguing is the offer of the Shaanxi KJ-200 airborne early warning aircraft, which entered PLAAF service as recently as 2009. Based on the platform of the Shaanxi Y-8, a localized Antonov An-12 transport, the KJ-200 features a large active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar mounted above the fuselage in a manner resembling the Saab Erieye. According to Poly Technologies, the system can detect, identify, and track aerial and seagoing targets with a compensation for ground clutter, and provides situational awareness, command, and control functions.

It seems that a handful of KJ-200s have become redundant after the more advanced KJ-500, based on the evolved Y-9 platform, became operational in 2015. While similar in dimensions, the newer 65-tonne-gross weight aircraft is attributed to the next generation and differs in having a non-rotating circular dome with three AESA arrays in place of the KJ-200’s balanced beam antenna.

Poly Technologies is also promoting the Shenyang JH-7 interdiction aircraft that has had a production run of some 270 copies, most of which remain operable. Developed in the 1980s, the initial version gave ground for development of the far more advanced JH-7А, which became operational in 2004. Apart from being China’s first computer-aided design, the 28.5-tonne jet featured a glass cockpit and digital fly-by-wire flight control system. Most of the earlier airframes were upgraded to the JH-7A standard.

Poly Technologies describes the aircraft as a twin-engine, tandem-seat, supersonic fighter-bomber able to carry a bombload of up to 6.5 tonnes and capable of long-range strikes with precision-guided munitions. The type was briefly marketed for export as the FBC-1 Flying Leopard, but all production examples went to the PLAAF and PLANAF (Chinese naval aviation). Now, with Shenyang having mastered production of the Sukhoi Su-30 twin-seat multirole fighter as the J-16, the JH-7A is being phased out and thus has become available for export.

Unlike the JH-7, the Hongdu Q-5 low-level attack aircraft was delivered new not only to the PLAAF (from 1970) but also to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, Myanmar, and North Korea, with the export designation A-5. Last year, the type was withdrawn from Chinese service but remains active with the last three of the overseas customers mentioned. These and others may be interested in acquiring the A-5L, the most advanced version with the ability to use laser-guided bombs.


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2830
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 05 Dec 2018 05:06

^^^ According to French watcher Henri Kenhmann, the JH-7A was able to “beat” the SU-34 at the 2017 Aviadarts tournament between chinis and russkies.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HenriKenhmann/status/895776155999113218
Tournoi Aviadarts :
* Su-35S bat J-10B
* Su-25SM bat JL-10
* JH-7A bat Su-34
* J-8DF bat Su-24MR
* H-6K bat Tu-22
* Z-10K bat Ka-52 et Mi-28


Could be just propaganda.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6980
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Indranil » 05 Dec 2018 05:13

How does a H-6k beat a Tu-22?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2830
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 05 Dec 2018 05:20

Indranil wrote:How does a H-6k beat a Tu-22?


No idea. Or the Z-10 over Ka-52.

But at the same time, hard to think the russkies would just hand them a propaganda victory.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3977
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kartik » 05 Dec 2018 05:22

Prodyut Das' wet dream, the FTC-2000G

Image

FTC-2000G fighter debuts at Airshow China 2018

Following its first flight on September 28, AVIC’s FTC-2000G fighter made its show debut at Zhuhai's Airshow China in October.

The flying prototype was painted in the People’s Liberation Army Air Force’s (PLAAF) standard blue-grey camouflage, flying on the first day of Zhuhai airshow and remaining on static display thereafter.

The preceding FTC-2000 is an advanced trainer for lead-in fighter and tactical countermeasures training, with an added capability as an interceptor and ground-attack aircraft.

The FTC-2000G, meanwhile, is described as a multi-purpose aircraft with its primary mission being ground attack and the secondary role being air combat and training for fighter pilots. AVIC says that the aircraft can perform reconnaissance and electronic warfare tasks, for which it can be equipped with the relevant mission equipment or pods.

The FTC-2000 has roots in the JL-9, the latest mutation of the Chinese derivative of the Soviet-built MiG-21 twin-seat operational trainer.

The new version features a reworked canopy with improved glass and an extended field of view, and the wing was inherited from the second-generation of the Chinese MiG-21 clones, featuring a higher degree of sweep closer to the fuselage and a medium degree of sweep for the outer section.

The wing comes with leading edge slats that drop downwards at slow speeds for delay of stall and for better handling, although the biggest departure from the original design is the introduction of side air intakes, which replaced a nose inlet with a central body protruding from it.

The JL-9 was developed at the turn of the century to meet the PLAAF requirement for a supersonic jet trainer but lost the competition to the Hongdu L-15. Even though the PLAAF declared the JL-9 operational in 2015, the customer procured only a handful of deliverable airframes. Apparently, its role is limited to pilot training for those units that still fly the older-generation fighters—such as the J-7 and J-8—in anticipation of repopulating with more modern types.

To save the program, the manufacturer developed the FTC-2000, which, while regaining two seats in a tandem layout, was intended for ground attack and interception of air intruders. This version was also exportable.

From time to time, the FTC-2000 appeared at airshows and still remains on offer, and it includes recently introduced optoelectronic pods and containers that expand the use of the aircraft, especially via the use of air-launched guided munitions, which are now mass-produced by the Chinese defense industry.

The number of under wing weapon stations in the G-model has increased from four to six, enabling carriage of up to three tons of air-launched munitions including missiles and guided bombs.

The engine remains the same (the legacy Liming WP-7/WP-13F series), and a bigger wing resulted in the maximum Mach number drop from 1.5 to 1.2, and service ceiling by one kilometer down to 15 km (nearly 50,000 feet).


While the maximum flight endurance remained unchanged at three hours, range rose by one hundred kilometers to 2,500 km (1,350 nm).

Although customers for the FTC-2000 are yet to present themselves, it is widely believed that these might come from the African countries that cannot necessarily afford alternative contemporary fighters.


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 07:18

Kartik wrote:China seeking to offload surplus military equipment, including fighters and AWACS. JH-7As are on the list as well, which goes to show that these must have been pretty disappointing platforms.

link

China is intent on selling off a number of technologically advanced aircraft, including radar platforms and interdiction and attack aircraft that apparently have fallen short of People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) expectations after just a few years of operational service. After being decommissioned, the aircraft have been handed over to Poly Technologies, a company licensed by the government, for rework into exportable versions and subsequent release to would-be foreign clients.

During the 12th China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition, better known as Airshow China 2018, held earlier this month in Zhuhai, the company had a large outdoor exhibition to showcase its wares. Large-format banners and posters were devoted to the KJ-200, JH-7, A-5, J-7, and K-8, describing them as decommissioned equipment available to interested foreign countries after repair, upgrade, and rebuild.

While the Chengdu J-7 and Hongdu A-5 and K-8 have been in PLAAF service for many years and are considered obsolete, the KJ-200 and JH-7 represent modern and still highly capable aircraft. Most intriguing is the offer of the Shaanxi KJ-200 airborne early warning aircraft, which entered PLAAF service as recently as 2009. Based on the platform of the Shaanxi Y-8, a localized Antonov An-12 transport, the KJ-200 features a large active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar mounted above the fuselage in a manner resembling the Saab Erieye. According to Poly Technologies, the system can detect, identify, and track aerial and seagoing targets with a compensation for ground clutter, and provides situational awareness, command, and control functions.

It seems that a handful of KJ-200s have become redundant after the more advanced KJ-500, based on the evolved Y-9 platform, became operational in 2015. While similar in dimensions, the newer 65-tonne-gross weight aircraft is attributed to the next generation and differs in having a non-rotating circular dome with three AESA arrays in place of the KJ-200’s balanced beam antenna.

Poly Technologies is also promoting the Shenyang JH-7 interdiction aircraft that has had a production run of some 270 copies, most of which remain operable. Developed in the 1980s, the initial version gave ground for development of the far more advanced JH-7А, which became operational in 2004. Apart from being China’s first computer-aided design, the 28.5-tonne jet featured a glass cockpit and digital fly-by-wire flight control system. Most of the earlier airframes were upgraded to the JH-7A standard.

Poly Technologies describes the aircraft as a twin-engine, tandem-seat, supersonic fighter-bomber able to carry a bombload of up to 6.5 tonnes and capable of long-range strikes with precision-guided munitions. The type was briefly marketed for export as the FBC-1 Flying Leopard, but all production examples went to the PLAAF and PLANAF (Chinese naval aviation). Now, with Shenyang having mastered production of the Sukhoi Su-30 twin-seat multirole fighter as the J-16, the JH-7A is being phased out and thus has become available for export.

Unlike the JH-7, the Hongdu Q-5 low-level attack aircraft was delivered new not only to the PLAAF (from 1970) but also to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, Myanmar, and North Korea, with the export designation A-5. Last year, the type was withdrawn from Chinese service but remains active with the last three of the overseas customers mentioned. These and others may be interested in acquiring the A-5L, the most advanced version with the ability to use laser-guided bombs.




Kartik, exactly. Disappointing, yet mass produced. This is exactly the issue with copying PRCs strategy. Imagine spending a huge chunk if a tight budget on fancy toys, only for the military to reject all of them and ask for imports noting they would lose otherwise.

Like I have said before China's strategy does two things, convince amateur observers who can't see through the smoke and mirrors, that it has arrived. Next, it keeps a huge domestic base happy.

I had once done an analysis of PRCs aviation industry. What appalled me, was the amount of wasteful expenditure in keeping far flung factory complexes running, which made nothing but obsolete aircraft and a handful of aerospace parts for civilian programs.

It was political employment so to speak to avoid labor unrest and meet party goals. Think of steroids in body builders, with long term consequences when misused, with huge capex to boot, using massive investment with no clear ROI but for a lot of show. In the west or any other market driven economy like Indias private sector firms, these organizations would never have been allowed to squander so many resources. For all our talk of ineffective and hopeless OFB, this was way beyond.

While we were all being tom tommed how successful J-10 was and how by copying Su-3x down to the last rivet, and PRC had arrived, I noted the propaganda campaign was a bit too convenient.

For instance, somehow PLA had the most successful SAM efforts, in the same LRSAM category, yet mass orders for for S-3XX and S-4XX were being placed, what gives?

And of course, then we hear of the Su-35 import attempt, with "previous gen" PESA, an aircraft which the China watchers like that Andreas guy were dismissive of.

So much for PRCs Flankers, superior to Russian ones.

Mark my words, for all the gas about J-20, I wouldn't be surprised if PRC tries to import the T-50 once it's ready. It serves many to hype up the PRCs arms factory to build up their own MIC, but few are as Frank as the IAF in conducting an analysis if the J-20 et Al and noting even "previous gen" Rafales are in reality quite equivalent and can hold their own, and the J-20 is not all it's cracked out to be.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 07:24

darshhan wrote:
Singha wrote:Cheen could start uparming iran ?


Chinese would love to arm the Iranians. The only problem is the ability(or rather inability) of the iranians to make the payments.


Iran is very picky. They don't want to waste money on entire platform purchases when they can get Russian. Their IRGC buys Chinese but the main force is armed forces have limited themselves to PRC subsystems ie radar components, fighter upgrades, AShMs and so forth. Apparently the j7 experience was pretty bad, reliability wise. Iran is still trying for Flankers and S-3XX.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 07:41

Indranil wrote:How does a H-6k beat a Tu-22?


Needs to be taken with a pinch of salt and in context. The H-6K may well have more upgraded avionics than a standard Tu-22 with limited upgrades, allowing it to perform a limited set of tasks better.

In the Indian context, much was made of the Bison having better radar in terms of A2A range, than non upgraded Mirages. We all know of the big picture though , the Bison radar lacked performance in A2G modes and platform wise, is there even a true comparison between the Mirage and MiG-21.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3495
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby hnair » 05 Dec 2018 07:53

Karan M wrote:
Kartik, exactly. Disappointing, yet mass produced. This is exactly the issue with copying PRCs strategy. Imagine spending a huge chunk if a tight budget on fancy toys, only for the military to reject all of them and ask for imports noting they would lose otherwise.

Like I have said before China's strategy does two things, convince amateur observers who can't see through the smoke and mirrors, that it has arrived. Next, it keeps a huge domestic base happy.

I had once done an analysis of PRCs aviation industry. What appalled me, was the amount of wasteful expenditure in keeping far flung factory complexes running, which made nothing but obsolete aircraft and a handful of aerospace parts for civilian programs.

It was political employment so to speak to avoid labor unrest and meet party goals. Think of steroids in body builders, with long term consequences when misused, with huge capex to boot, using massive investment with no clear ROI but for a lot of show. In the west or any other market driven economy like Indias private sector firms, these organizations would never have been allowed to squander so many resources. For all our talk of ineffective and hopeless OFB, this was way beyond.

While we were all being tom tommed how successful J-10 was and how by copying Su-3x down to the last rivet, and PRC had arrived, I noted the propaganda campaign was a bit too convenient.

For instance, somehow PLA had the most successful SAM efforts, in the same LRSAM category, yet mass orders for for S-3XX and S-4XX were being placed, what gives?

And of course, then we hear of the Su-35 import attempt, with "previous gen" PESA, an aircraft which the China watchers like that Andreas guy were dismissive of.

So much for PRCs Flankers, superior to Russian ones.

Mark my words, for all the gas about J-20, I wouldn't be surprised if PRC tries to import the T-50 once it's ready. It serves many to hype up the PRCs arms factory to build up their own MIC, but few are as Frank as the IAF in conducting an analysis if the J-20 et Al and noting even "previous gen" Rafales are in reality quite equivalent and can hold their own, and the J-20 is not all it's cracked out to be.


Excellent post with significant points that I wish to highlight

- Your bodybuilder analogy is excellent - it is the difference between a person who develops athleticism because they believe it makes them stronger overall vs going to the gym alone and buffing up to portray a certain image based on pop-culture. Chinese military programs, including the myriad drones are all based on shadowing what they believe to be global trendsetters, than as a well-thought out solutions to a defined chinese military problem.

- The current chinese model of "theft, copy and create" are not getting them anywhere in the matter of operational aircrafts that can be thrown into strenuous warfighting environments. Every last Tier1 program has issues. Be it carrier operations by J15 or J20's most significant aspect, its stealth, their issues are too numerous. We know the issues with brit's Type45, but we never hear of issues with their Lanzhous, although most of them seem to be moored around and they have already got excited over to the next one, the 55s, while another 13 odd 52Ds are budgeted! what a waste.

- Lack of accepting or publicizing failed programs is what makes the chinese look childish, despite ample proof of failures. Khan, despite its aversion to fight with serious opponents, have thrown itself into ruggedising their gear and being upfront about failures in doing so and cancellation when it did not make sense. Not so with chinese. For example, the balancing beam KJ200. Despite all sorts of claims, it must be a huge failure in its performance or why retire these expensive to develop, integrate and build systems? Why not having them as second-string equipment for radar-picket operations? Must really really suck!

- T-50 is going to be imported, there is no doubt about it. Probably one reason why we suddenly lost interest, after being tepid for a decade. The chinese showed keen interest from beginning and russians told IAF as much.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 08:08

Kartik wrote:Prodyut Das' wet dream, the FTC-2000G

The JL-9 was developed at the turn of the century to meet the PLAAF requirement for a supersonic jet trainer but lost the competition to the Hongdu L-15. Even though the PLAAF declared the JL-9 operational in 2015, the customer procured only a handful of deliverable airframes. Apparently, its role is limited to pilot training for those units that still fly the older-generation fighters—such as the J-7 and J-8—in anticipation of repopulating with more modern types.


To save the program, the manufacturer developed the FTC-2000, which, while regaining two seats in a tandem layout, was intended for ground attack and interception of air intruders. This version was also exportable.

From time to time, the FTC-2000 appeared at airshows and still remains on offer, and it includes recently introduced optoelectronic pods and containers that expand the use of the aircraft, especially via the use of air-launched guided munitions, which are now mass-produced by the Chinese defense industry.

The number of under wing weapon stations in the G-model has increased from four to six, enabling carriage of up to three tons of air-launched munitions including missiles and guided bombs.

The engine remains the same (the legacy Liming WP-7/WP-13F series), and a bigger wing resulted in the maximum Mach number drop from 1.5 to 1.2, and service ceiling by one kilometer down to 15 km (nearly 50,000 feet).

While the maximum flight endurance remained unchanged at three hours, range rose by one hundred kilometers to 2,500 km (1,350 nm).

Although customers for the FTC-2000 are yet to present themselves, it is widely believed that these might come from the African countries that cannot necessarily afford alternative contemporary fighters.



Yet another example of the zombie PRC MIC and how it keeps chugging along.

Twenty years since the fighter has been introduced. No real substantial orders beyond PLAAF token support.

Yet continues to be kept alive with some "improvements" to keep the factories chugging. Wing changed, cockpit changed, new weapons added etc.. and what was the net result, altitude of ops dropped, weight increased, range increased by a whopping 100km.

And twenty years later, hope remains some African nations (which contrary to stereotypes and tropes, are quite willing to pay for good tech) will save the program.

No wonder lemons like the JH-7A get produced - which platform, we are all told by the PRC watchers was "the equal of and superior to the Jaguar". Yet today, the IAF is busy adding more capabilities to the Jaguar and sees them as continuing to be a frontline strike asset right into the 2030s. While the PRC is busy hawking its new build JH-7As on the tarmac asking them to be fobbed off to any customer. "Hopefully an African country".. which will have the option of picking up from cutpiece Mirages or early gen Gripens as well.

We can all thank ourselves that our much ballyhooed, incompetent Indian decision makers were smart enough not to fall for the PRC ploy. We'd be like the former Soviet Union, a shell filled with rotting corpses of rusting military equipment while the economy collapses paying for the burden of so much junk.

The PRC has used up a lot of its easy export earnings like this, selling in dollars, setting up in Yuan and churning out low grade junk en masse. We don't have that luxury.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 08:22

hnair wrote:Excellent post with significant points that I wish to highlight

- Your bodybuilder analogy is excellent - it is the difference between a person who develops athleticism because they believe it makes them stronger overall vs going to the gym alone and buffing up to portray a certain image based on pop-culture. Chinese military programs, including the myriad drones are all based on shadowing what they believe to be global trendsetters, than as a well-thought out solutions to a defined chinese military problem.

- The current chinese model of "theft, copy and create" are not getting them anywhere in the matter of operational aircrafts that can be thrown into strenuous warfighting environments. Every last Tier1 program has issues. Be it carrier operations by J15 or J20's most significant aspect, its stealth, their issues are too numerous. We know the issues with brit's Type45, but we never hear of issues with their Lanzhous, although most of them seem to be moored around and they have already got excited over to the next one, the 55s, while another 13 odd 52Ds are budgeted! what a waste.

- Lack of accepting or publicizing failed programs is what makes the chinese look childish, despite ample proof of failures. Khan, despite its aversion to fight with serious opponents, have thrown itself into ruggedising their gear and being upfront about failures in doing so and cancellation when it did not make sense. Not so with chinese. For example, the balancing beam KJ200. Despite all sorts of claims, it must be a huge failure in its performance or why retire these expensive to develop, integrate and build systems? Why not having them as second-string equipment for radar-picket operations? Must really really suck!

- T-50 is going to be imported, there is no doubt about it. Probably one reason why we suddenly lost interest, after being tepid for a decade. The chinese showed keen interest from beginning and russians told IAF as much.


Thanks HNair!

The affectation to "appear strong" vs being strong. The scruffy, bearded Indian operators with mismatched bandannas, discreetly hidden but useful equipment, as versus the goggle wearing, spiffy PRC soldiers standing straight in their PR shoots, aiming to "be as visually impressive as possible"..

Yes, the desire to "show the world they have arrived" is taken to ludicrous extremes. Note the extreme PR video with guys copying US carrier procedures to a T, colored flags, drills, the works - and only for the world to hear the J-15 flying shark was a flying lemon.

Zero transparency. Can we imagine the PRC ever putting out the kind of excoriating audit the CAG did on OFB production efficiency or MiG-29K serviceability or the transparent Standing Committee reports noting "x of weapon not available". Thanks to these, even the ruling party of the day, NDA or INC, has to take corrective action. No such incentive in the land of the 11!

The Balance Beam AWACS failure is a particular case in point. In India, CAG has just whacked DRDO for not choosing a heavy duty platform to hoist its radar on for the AEW&C, and hence they had to put a smaller radar than originally planned.. yet, the performance of the platform is sufficient enough that the IAF was in talks with the DRDO to take even the 3rd platform (which was originally meant for R&D test bed activities) off of its hands into IAF service. For all our warts, our system is relatively transparent and cost-effective.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2830
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 05 Dec 2018 13:31

Karan M wrote:The affectation to "appear strong" vs being strong.


Appearing strong might be the proper strategy of a SYRE nation that hadn’t fought in decades and is showing increasing indications of softness with each generation of little emperors (see performance in Sudan.) Being actually strong is helpful when you actually fight. But appearing strong might be good enough for a 800-pound Cheeni gorilla that doesn’t engage in fighting.

Read American literature, the size and speed of the chini MIC is meant to discourage a fight while they flood a gray zone like the SCS or the global commons like the IOR during peacetime.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/11/29/china-aims-to-defeat-the-us-air-force-without-firing-a-shot-heres-how/
A new study highlights China’s growing air power, and warns that China is looking to build out its Air Force to the point that the U.S. would not be willing to take it on in direct conflict.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/asia/south-china-sea-navy.amp.html
China’s Sea Control Is a Done Deal, ‘Short of War With the U.S.’


The sad truth is their strategy is working in the real world. They’ve taken over a major body of water in the last few decades by just appearing strong. And they are poised to flood others, the IOR foremost among them.

They’ve rightly calculated that no one is willing to block their questionable ships and aircraft with barely trained crews as long as they are pumping things out in intimitating numbers. Whether things actually work in warfare becomes irrelevant when there is no fight.

That calculus would completely break if someone actually engages them in a fight. But if you don’t fight them then the problem with confronting such a strategy is you need numbers and in the long term that means an expensive MIC of your own.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 14:08

That strategy only works when their opponent can't see through their posturing.

Forget "American literature", here is what happened locally.

https://www.dailypioneer.com/2017/page1 ... xpert.html

And after all the PRC posturing, in recent days, Trump has engaged in an open display of strength vis a vis the PRC and hasn't backed down either with Pence giving open whacks against PRC as well. This is after all the "american literature" of not ever doing this, the end of the world, the horrors of a trade war and so forth.

All the "American literature", via pliable academics the PRC has purchased or spooked doesn't really count when folks with real world experience of dealing with local busybodies or thugs don't back down.

Crap in the NYT about how strong PRC is, how weak India is, how US should and must be XYZ is ignored by the powers that be. They don't give a darn what the morons at NYT believe especially after the same jokers constantly run down India, Indian faiths, Indian interests.

So where does all this posturing take the PRC? It doesn't take a fight to see through them either and I suspect this will happen more and more, as countries stand up to the PRC.

Further, what is often ignored is all this posturing is not for the international community alone. The PRC has a very well connected citizenry whom the communist party has to convince about how great the party's leadership is. How strong the PRC is. This smoke and mirrors crazy as heck build-up serves to do that as well.

Nine of ten PRC citizens believe in how great the PRC is, that may be even better than "deterring" other countries.

The PRC has done a great job in purchasing academics and coercing a lot of folks into buying their line. It doesn't work with establishments like India's when the right leadership is around.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 14:32

PRC continues winning with yindoos having piddly yindoo 750km SLBMs (please believe that..please!).

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2830
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 05 Dec 2018 14:39

Karan M wrote:...

All the "American literature", via pliable academics the PRC has purchased or spooked doesn't really count when folks with real world experience of dealing with local busybodies or thugs don't back down.

...

Nine of ten PRC believe in how great the PRC is, that may be even better than "deterring" other countries.


Karan ji, that American literature comes from the Hawks and the anti-China wing of people like Kudlow, Navarro and Lighthizer. They take chini propaganda at face value to kick start American responses. Chini claims are met with real American budget increases. The US rather err on the side of caution when taking in chini claims. The J-20 is not dismissed, it is met with hundreds of F-35s.

“Seeing through their strategy” is unlikely to stop physical assets like ships and aircraft in the gray zone. The US FON patrols are meant to put physical assets in their way. In the end, you still need numbers.

I love the American way of response under Trump. When he forces Eleven to capitulates then their citizens might be less confident but your assessment of their citizenry is correct. Wall Street studies have Cheen (and India) among the most optimistic populations year after year.

The rivalry between Cheen and Unkil will continue far beyond Trump. It will drive both to greater and greater heights imo.
Last edited by chola on 05 Dec 2018 14:45, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 14:44

Chola, those guys you mention have a vested interest in playing up PRC for domestic and international consumption. The J-20 didn't exist, it would be the T-50 to justify hundreds of F-35s or the S-400 or whatever. I am old enough to recall the famous joke of a US Admiral at USNI making a huge presentation on the Soviet Threat saying trillions of dollars required to meet it. So, a guy asks him, what happens if the Soviet Threat wasn't there? I'd get me a new set of slides, comes the response.

PRC has a vested interest in playing up PRC for domestic and international consumption. PRC strong!

The brilliant wall street caused 2008. Great analysis. Yes, Indian population is optimistic.. but I suspect not very optimistic when it comes to wall street.

I'd rather focus on what the reality is, and so far the Indian "real" focus on developing their own capabilities and putting them in place is far more logical than aping the PRC or falling prey to the literature hype factory.

As far as numbers go, in the past decade, the IAF's entire sensor and SAM network has been refreshed. The airframe issue is finally getting more seriousness. IA's warfighting lacunae in ammo, arty is being addressed. Navy is getting the critical missing pieces - ALTAS, choppers, LRSAM.
Meanwhile, IA/IAF/IN have a record number of joint training ops with countries worldwide. Indian economy & bureaucracy is being made to jog.

In short, we are fixing what needs be fixed. But political continuity is important, and we need Modi back in 2019 for that. And that is something unpalatable to the turds at NYT etc, who'd rather India remain a subservient servile nation forever dependent on some mythical unkil security umbrella. Boo hoo for them.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 05 Dec 2018 14:57

This is a perfect example of PRC engineering. Great for arms shows. What happens to those very neatly stowed charges, shells on the sides just beside the wheels going across rough terrain? Note the awesome ground clearance of the entire platform.

Yep - but nice matte paint, and oh-so-great compact packaging. Carry on! And one interesting thing. Note the manner in which the shells have been stored, individual canisters, with locking mechanisms? They think that will be enough to protect the shells from small arms fire, and local shrapnel, never mind where the entire ammo has been placed. Great..(lets ignore the placement though).

Remind y'all of anything? Such as the yindoo Arjun Mk1, only difference being its hull ammo, behind armor with a stated aim to prevent 2ndary fires from shrapnel which comes in after the armor array .. with SDREs squatting and getting things done, which of course can't be good enough. The PRC will copy anything from anywhere.. whether they apply it the way it was originally meant to be used though.. well, jury's out on that.

Image

Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2830
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 05 Dec 2018 15:14

^^^ LOL. Absolutely no clearance.

As I said before, they are a SYRE not a warrior nation so you can’t expect them to get things right for battle conditions!

But the “reality”, as you like to point out, is that all their inferior quality is meaningless unless someone puts them to the test in war and the quantity of warships and aircraft pumped out by their MIC has already created a real physical reality of control in the SCS and presence in the IOR. If they don’t build those systems then neither would have been possible and we would have no worries.

They are following a pretty good strategy for a non-warrior but industrial race, imho. Their biggest threat is their MIC not their military.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ravishankar and 37 guests