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.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4747
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Neshant » 23 Dec 2018 11:49

chetak wrote:The male female ratio in cheeni is badly skewed.

There are much more than 30 million males in excess over the females, leading to unwanted social tensions etc.


The ratio must be way worse in India.

Apparently China's interest in Myanmar extends to stealing women from there to address the shortfall in women in China.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2337
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby darshhan » 23 Dec 2018 11:57

chetak wrote:
chola wrote:
But I wonder is that really anyone’s impression? I think most nations see them as an untested military whose government had been unwilling to commit to battle in decades. I don’t think any of the nations taking loans from them is afraid of a chini military takeover. That is why they take the loans. They suffer little consequences if they don’t pay them back — except no new loans.

What gives them influence is the buildup of their navy in the global commons (not the actual wielding of naval power in a war) and weapon sales (frigates to Pakiland, subs to Thailand, fighters to Burma.) That power comes from their MIC not their military.

I don’t see Cheen being able to send the single child L’il Emperor generation in wave attacks. At any rate they are cutting their manpower massively for more machines. Their soldiers show little will to fight (Sudan) and their government has shown no will to commit them (last military actions in the 1970s.)


the cheeni MIC is owned by the cheeni military.

Where exactly is the difference between the two??


MIC means the building component and military means the fighting component which espouses certain warrior like qualities such as eagerness to shed blood.

Their building or manufacturing component is doing wonders no doubt. If anything it is hardly unexpected as China being the manufacturing powerhouse of the world is certain to have a positive side effect on their military equipment production.

But the question is whether their new age snowflake kids willing to lay down their lives in the line of fire.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17885
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chetak » 23 Dec 2018 12:40

darshhan wrote:
chetak wrote:
the cheeni MIC is owned by the cheeni military.

Where exactly is the difference between the two??


MIC means the building component and military means the fighting component which espouses certain warrior like qualities such as eagerness to shed blood.


In cheeni, the MIC is owned by the military, a situation that does not exist in any other state in the world. the MIC is thus dependent on the army to bribe, buy, steal, spy, and otherwise foster innovation.

The cheeni army may be more than a little gun shy since they have such delusions of grandeur and also a self generated pretension of invincibility. They are trying to overcome their known doctrinal shortcomings by going for a battle from a distance concept that they have nil experience with. Catching uighur beardos and forcibly shaving off their islamic facial fungus does not any battle experience make.

They cannot even learn much from the paki army because there is an almost insurmountable world of difference between the origins, traditions, ethos and operations of the two armies.

Even their PLAN navy "fighting" component is taking tuitions from the russkies in the operation and training of their carrier aviation element.

the PLAN army has assiduously avoided battle and is coasting on the alleged legends of their predecessor long march days. Those people and the situation obtaining then no longer exists today and in the present scenario will not be seen again.

I understand where you are coming from but at the same time we need to see the very peculiar situation in cheeni.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17885
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chetak » 23 Dec 2018 12:42

Neshant wrote:
chetak wrote:The male female ratio in cheeni is badly skewed.

There are much more than 30 million males in excess over the females, leading to unwanted social tensions etc.


The ratio must be way worse in India.

Apparently China's interest in Myanmar extends to stealing women from there to address the shortfall in women in China.


A war where they can afford to lose 30 million is also another practical solution.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 23 Dec 2018 16:50

chetak wrote:
darshhan wrote:
MIC means the building component and military means the fighting component which espouses certain warrior like qualities such as eagerness to shed blood.


In cheeni, the MIC is owned by the military, a situation that does not exist in any other state in the world. the MIC is thus dependent on the army to bribe, buy, steal, spy, and otherwise foster innovation.

The cheeni army may be more than a little gun shy since they have such delusions of grandeur and also a self generated pretension of invincibility. They are trying to overcome their known doctrinal shortcomings by going for a battle from a distance concept that they have nil experience with. Catching uighur beardos and forcibly shaving off their islamic facial fungus does not any battle experience make.


The CCP owns the MIC not their military. Considering they don’t go to war, the CCP has no delusions of grandeur about their military. If they were like the pakis then we would have seen multiple wars during their rise.

We cannot treat them as delusional in this regards at all because they just don’t act it.

Now why is it important to realize the difference between the MIC and the military? The first can be used effectively in peacetime while the second, if dependent on small numbers of high quality machines, can’t really. Countering this requires a far different strategy than enhancing warfighting (which is what we are doing with imports of top notch but expensive phoren gear like the Rafale and Israeli radars.)

Quantity of machines and crews to put into space and create regions of de facto jurisdiction is far, far more important in peacetime than quality of warfighting. This kind of strategic quantity can only come from a developed MIC. The reason they own the SCS today is because they can put more ships, more aircraft and more island-making dredgers there than anyone else.

I don’t see any issues with excess males in Cheen because of the timid and effeminate nature of the chinese male. They are herbivores and will not cause much trouble to an authoritarian state that is providing them with an ever growing entertainment industry of games, movies and sex mannequins.

Unless countered with numbers, their MIC will continue to flood grayzones and global commons with their machines. I don’t see them going to war and having their numbers attrited. If the chinis were dumb and delusional about their military and actually fought wars then they would not be much of a challenge. But they are not and wars are impossible to come by with them.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 23 Dec 2018 17:25

From another thread

https://home.isi.org/whose-civilization-which-clash

Comment by a reader

MPC 15 days ago
As an American, I feel that beyond the West, India is our most obvious valuable natural ally. Our distance and India's general insularity insures we have little to quarrel over, and we both have powerful common interests against both China and the Islamic world. Further, we mostly respect each other's values - a legacy of the British inheritance in both countries. I hope my country's leaders begin to do more to build long term partnership and coordination with India.
I agree also with your perception that Islam is for the most part comfortable with China. Shared opposition to US hegemonic behavior is surely a prime driver, but they must also benefit from limited proximity to each other. Besides the Uyghurs, there's little contact.
A big question now is will the US and Russia humble themselves enough to realize that soon they are going to need each other again. Especially the US. It still hasn't woken up to how vulnerable it is becoming. As soon as US hegemonic pretenses evaporate, Russia will return to what it always was in US power considerations before the defeat of Nazi Germany - a natural friend and counterbalance to American rivals. Anyone with a brain should see that. 12 year olds with a Risk board would see that. But pride deprives people of brains, and there is a lot of ego in Washington.
My geopolitical dream would be a collaboration of America (declining power), India (rising power), and Russia (Russia), plus the states of SE Asia, Australia, and Korea/Japan. Only that would be enough to strangle China and change the course that world geopolitics has been going. We did it to bottle up rising Germany - we can do it again. The question is if America, like Britain before it, is able to humble itself and prepare for not the world as it wishes, but the world it in reality faces before it's too late.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 23 Dec 2018 17:49

My geopolitical dream would be a collaboration of America (declining power), India (rising power), and Russia (Russia), plus the states of SE Asia, Australia, and Korea/Japan. Only that would be enough to strangle China and change the course that world geopolitics has been going.


He is a rare American who thinks so, to be perfectly honest.

Trump is strangling Cheen on his own economically and the US is far more than a match for cheen militarily. Throw in US allies — Europe, Japan, Korea, Oz — and what chance does Cheen possibly have?

Adding in India and Russia would be overkill by a very wide margin.

The question is what happens next after Cheen is out of the way. lol

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 23 Dec 2018 19:41

Cheen is not going to fold over and implode like ussr

It can be contained and its tentacles damaged

Japan and india are only heavies in your lineup

Aus is too far too light except as a unsinkable logistics base

Russia will not join anti china alliance

Soko is a manchurian agent and so is taiwan their eventual allegiance will be to dragon lords only

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 25 Dec 2018 09:30

Singha wrote:Cheen is not going to fold over and implode like ussr

It can be contained and its tentacles damaged

Japan and india are only heavies in your lineup

Aus is too far too light except as a unsinkable logistics base

Russia will not join anti china alliance

Soko is a manchurian agent and so is taiwan their eventual allegiance will be to dragon lords only


Perhaps but the perception right now is the US can helm in Cheen by itself, as long as the allies stay in line. There is little need for the US to bargain.

The UK, France and Germany are heavyweights in every sense of the world including membership in the P5 for the former two.

SoKo and Taiwan are manchurian candidates and US sanctions keep them in line as well.

And all that doesn’t even factor in the US being a third larger than Cheen economically by itself and three times larger by defense budget.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 25 Dec 2018 11:15

uk, france and germany are not able to project much power anywhere anymore, even in the mediterranean sea.
uk and france had to run squealing to big brother after running out of PGM stocks after a few days of bombing libya

I dont think they can even mount something like the suez canal invasion anymore, let alone fighting with china. they bring nothing extra to the fight that US cannot supply on its own.

a few "rapid reaction brigades" and posturing in norway, poland and ukraine vs the grinning cuddly brown Bear is all they are good for.

that way India is far more useful for any anti-cheen coalition in location, resources and motivation.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 321
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby titash » 25 Dec 2018 12:15

Singha wrote:uk, france and germany are not able to project much power anywhere anymore, even in the mediterranean sea.
uk and france had to run squealing to big brother after running out of PGM stocks after a few days of bombing libya

I dont think they can even mount something like the suez canal invasion anymore, let alone fighting with china. they bring nothing extra to the fight that US cannot supply on its own.

a few "rapid reaction brigades" and posturing in norway, poland and ukraine vs the grinning cuddly brown Bear is all they are good for.

that way India is far more useful for any anti-cheen coalition in location, resources and motivation.


Yes and No. For expeditionary forces that won't be fighting on their home turf, the ability to deploy powerful naval and air forces (and backed by a nuclear deterrent) is pretty much all that matters if you aren't planning a boots-on-ground occupation, rather just delivering a bloody nose.

The Royal Navy till very recently had 10-12 SSNs (down to 7 now) and the French deploy 6. The Royal Navy has been operating SSNs of multiple generations continuously for 55 years and the French for almost 40...not to mention cold war practice with the big boys on both sides. That's a LOT of experience. The Royal Navy will soon have 2 super-carriers with the most potent air group outside the USN. Hell, the French are the only ones with a fully worked-up CATOBAR outside the USN, and a potent air group to boot.

What do we bring to the table outside of defending our own borders? Push comes to shove, will we even contemplate putting a few ships and aircraft in harm's way (if we aren't invaded directly)?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 25 Dec 2018 13:38

the EU air forces have shrunk badly. and their sub fleet is unlikely to be as highly available as the usn and Russian.
experience is lost, due to lack of budget and investment. for example netherlands has retired all of her tank fleet and is nanga now. belgium which had a large fleet of F-16 in cold war has almost nothing now. german army is a pale shadow of its cold war depth.

UK is planning to mothball her second QE2 carrier immediately on induction to save funds and buy only 1 carrier worth of JSF :)

the french have no money to build their PA2 carrier.

other than being scampering flag wavers on the heels of USN , no I dont think they can do anything east of suez now. their logistical tail simply has withered away with the force numbers.

this is the net sum of the navy that once ruled the waves around the world :rotfl:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... ilhouettes

they cannot fire any nukular weapons or even the conventional tomahawk SLCM without express US permission and programming by US staff @ faslane.
massa keeps a tight grip on those tridents.

time and further budget cuts will surely shrink the french and uk nuclear sub fleets. 6 will become 4 .... then 3 .... then argument will be made that 2 is enough - one on patrol one in dock.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1603
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 25 Dec 2018 14:35

titash wrote:
What do we bring to the table outside of defending our own borders? Push comes to shove, will we even contemplate putting a few ships and aircraft in harm's way (if we aren't invaded directly)?

Ability to open a new front on their Western borders which they have been playing might for decades. Just imagine few practice artillery barrages within our borders. Or few pricks to their forces. They'll be forced to deploy

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7014
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 25 Dec 2018 15:32

One look at Euro aerial tanker fleet will tell you the story. Check out tanker details from the Libyan campaign and who brought how many.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 25 Dec 2018 17:13

i think they managed to scrape together some 10 for the bomb serbia campaign. usaf sent some 100 between the active duty and air national guard reserve fleet.
things have fallen off even further from those days...

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 25 Dec 2018 18:06

^^^ Both the UK and France will be sending FON patrols to the SCS. The UK will do it with a carrier.

Europe is also a massive technology source and market for Cheen. Just for the military end of things — the UK provides jet engines and radars, France helo and engines and Germany naval propulsion. Involvement in the civilian sector is many times greater.

Japan, SoKo and Taiwan are even more engaged and exact even more leverage.

The US itself is heavily engaged and that is why Cheen is squealing like a stuck pig right now with the American tariffs.

The US can pull the strings of all those allies mentioned above (and Canada and OZ as well, who despite being small are critical to Chini global trade.)

We cannot provide any of those leverage points because we are simply not engaged in the Chini world anywhere near the Euros — not to mention the American-backed Far East nations and the Anglo-sphere itself.

The US has Cheen in a vice-like grip with or without war. Because of this you won’t see them giving up anything in deals with third parties in regards to Cheen.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 25 Dec 2018 23:56

At any rate, their MIC continues along at an insane pace even as their military does no fighting. This is the paradox and paradigm of chini competition.

https://mobile.twitter.com/tshugart3/status/1077410113961558016
Thomas Shugart
@tshugart3
Imagery from the Xi'an Aircraft factory dated 9/10. 13 new Y-20 heavy transport aircraft and 19(!) new H-6 bombers visible. Oh, and 3 J-20 stealth fighters, too.



https://mobile.twitter.com/dafengcao/status/1076843479156674560
dafeng cao
@dafengcao
The speed hasn't slowed down, 1 055 and 3 052DG are being built in one dock.
Image

Kengsley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 21 Aug 2018 11:40

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kengsley » 26 Dec 2018 00:09

The all composite airframe version of the Wing Loong I has made its first flight.

Image

Image

The The Wing Loong I-D display at Airshow China

Image

A specification comparison of the most prominent Chinese MALE UCAVs including the Wing Loong ID courtesy of Henri K from eastpendulum:

Image

AVICs Wing Loong I production line has also recently rolled out its 100th Wing Loong I for export:

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22313
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 26 Dec 2018 18:09

"Threat from Russia paled in comparison to China" - BBC News


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22313
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 26 Dec 2018 18:12

Good Effort by DT to focus US effort on Chinese threat , The Demps were on bed with China before DT came , All espionage cases even those related to JSF were just brushed inside the carpet by BO and in his tenure he virtually transferred all US economy to China and gave them a free hand probably Chinese have deeply penetrated the Demps with money power. The Demps were happy to focus all US attention towards Russia to divert attention from China.

If DT looses in 2020 then China would be left off the hook if Dems come to power.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22313
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 26 Dec 2018 21:09

Is war between China and the US inevitable? | Graham Allison


Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4747
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Neshant » 27 Dec 2018 06:36

Another obor debt trap scheme unfolding..
-------

China To Take Over Kenya's Largest Port Over Unpaid Chinese Loan

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12- ... inese-loan

Kengsley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 21 Aug 2018 11:40

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kengsley » 27 Dec 2018 21:06

The so far unnamed second PLAN carrier has left Dailan for her 4th builders sea trials:

Image

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22313
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 27 Dec 2018 21:23

Most likely the Aircraft carrier are like IN Air Defence Ship , In the sense they are there to provide Air Cover to CBG with its fleet of ship and re-enforcing ASW and SAR ops. Their role in offensive warfare is quite limited both in terms of carrier they can operate at any point in time and operational experience.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1099
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby rkhanna » 28 Dec 2018 14:47

Some interesting take and observations:

Stop Obsessing About China
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-09-21/stop-obsessing-about-china?cid=int-flb&pgtype=hpg

But this emerging consensus is wrong and the policy response misguided. China is not about to overtake the United States economically or militarily—quite to the contrary. By the most important measures of national wealth and power, China is struggling to keep up and will probably fall further behind in the coming decades. The United States is and will remain the world’s sole superpower for the foreseeable future, provided that it avoids overextending itself abroad or underinvesting at home.


The main piece of evidence typically cited for China’s supposedly inexorable rise is its large gross domestic product (GDP), along with various other statistics that are essentially sub-components of GDP, including industrial and manufacturing output; trade and financial flows; and spending on military, research and development (R&D), and infrastructure. These gross indicators, however, are terrible measures of a country’s power. As I show in a new book, they fail to track the rise and fall of great powers over the past 200 years and perform little better than a coin toss at predicting the winners and losers of international disputes and wars.

In fact, by these very measures, China was at the top once before: in the nineteenth century, China had the world’s largest economy and the largest military. It also ran a trade surplus with other great powers. Yet many Chinese citizens today think of this era as a “century of humiliation” during which their country lost huge chunks of territory and most of its sovereign rights to smaller rivals, most notably the United Kingdom and Japan. Similarly, nineteenth-century Russia had Europe’s largest GDP and military, but it suffered a series of crushing defeats by the United Kingdom, France, and Germany that culminated in the collapse of the Russian empire in 1917. In the last century, the Soviet Union outpaced the United States by most measures of gross resources, including industrial output, military and R&D spending, and the number of troops, nuclear weapons, scientists, and engineers. It still lost the Cold War.


To become a superpower, by contrast, a country needs to amass a large stock of economic and military resources. To do this, in turn, it must be big and efficient at the same time—not one or the other. It must not only mobilize vast inputs but also extract as much as possible from these inputs. In short, a nation’s power stems not from its gross resources but from its net resources—the resources left over after subtracting the costs of making them.


To get an accurate sense of a country’s overall power, then, analysts need to account for these costs. In recent years, the World Bank and the United Nations have taken up this task and published rough estimates of countries’ net stocks of resources. Their analyses focus on three areas: produced capital (man-made items such as machines, buildings, fighter aircraft, and software), human capital (the population’s education, skills, and working life span), and natural capital (water, energy resources, and arable land). In addition, the investment bank Credit Suisse has published data on countries’ net stocks of privately held wealth. Although these three databases use different data and methods, they largely paint the same picture: the United States’ net stocks of resources are several times the size of China’s, and its lead is growing each year, possibly by trillions of dollars.

It gets even more astonishing. These numbers are conservative estimates, because they rely on Chinese government statistics, which exaggerate China’s output by as much as 30 percent and ignore numerous costs that erode its wealth and military capabilities. Chinese businesses, for instance, use roughly two times more capital and five times more labor than U.S. companies to generate the same level of output. More than one-third of China’s industrial capacity is wasted. More than half of its R&D spending is stolen. Nearly two-thirds of its infrastructure projects cost more to build than they will ever generate in economic returns. China also spends hundreds of billions of dollars more than the United States every year to feed, police, and provide social services to its population.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 28 Dec 2018 16:47

^^^ The US exaggerate the Chini mil threat to give itself goals and not rest on its laurels. Nothing wrong with that unless it lead to war and lives are lost in grand scale.

The threat of Cheen eclipsing the US in production (of everything — including things like Hollywood) is real though and is a function of population. It will happen at some point because Cheen is four times larger.

The key to alleviating the effects of this inevitability is to keep Cheen on US standards in tech and finance — US patents and the USD. This is what the trade war is really about — not the deficit (the imports are from US and allied corporations manufacturing in Cheen anyways.)

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1696
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 28 Dec 2018 17:14

The trade war is about hitting the Chini's funding pipeline. In terms of technology, as long as the funds keep coming, Chinis will be able to keep catching up. It may not be TFTA as US, however they will be nearby and create a deterrent value. US wants to hit this tech funding source.

Example: Hypersonic. As long as Chinis have cash pumped in, one day they will achieve hypersonic vehicle. US is now alone in terms of major funding in to future tech. European don't have money, hence the constant US cries about upping the defence budget of European NATO members.

Since China has breached the 10-12 trillion mark, it allows it lot of money to be pump in to these program. Even if you are 1 trillion or 10 trillion, if hypersonic cost say 5 billion, it is very easy for a 10 trillion economy, compared to 1 trillion.

We need to breach the 5 trillion mark, as soon as possible.

Kengsley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 21 Aug 2018 11:40

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kengsley » 29 Dec 2018 01:42

The third C919 prototype has performed its first flight:

https://twitter.com/COMACAmerica/status/1078722224415227904?s=19

Image

Image

Image

Image

The forward fuselage for the 4th prototype arrived for assembly at COMACs Shanghai assembly facility on the 25th from the company's Nanchang Aviation City manufacturing complex.

Image

Image

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1696
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 29 Dec 2018 18:46

Surprisingly detailed production video of VT4. This tank is not going into PLA.

At 35:46, a turret view and we can see the side thickness with space armor. The frontal armor seem to have pointed base armor as well, on top of which ERA is placed.

Another aspect is some of the workers in millitary fatigues. Are PLA troops involved in Prod lines?


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 29 Dec 2018 20:11

^^^ The workforce looks really old. Workfloor looks old too. Surprising compared to the TFTA aircraft assembly lines I’ve seen.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22313
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 29 Dec 2018 23:49

Kengsley wrote:The third C919 prototype has performed its first flight:

https://twitter.com/COMACAmerica/status/1078722224415227904?s=19

The forward fuselage for the 4th prototype arrived for assembly at COMACs Shanghai assembly facility on the 25th from the company's Nanchang Aviation City manufacturing complex.

Looks good A-320 NEOski :lol:

Interesting aspect that I came to know today is they are making a Local high bypass turbofan CJ-1000AX for C919 with Rolls Royce help besides LEAP that is flying. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... up-448721/

Smart move by Chinese , Eventually they will simply buy out all the RR technology for this engine

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 30 Dec 2018 02:03

A new fat variant of the Z-8 heavy helo.

Image

Chini obsession with all things Amreeki? Looks like the same form as the USN/USMC CH-53.

Image

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 532
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Avarachan » 31 Dec 2018 11:32

This is a very interesting article regarding how outsourcing to China has compromised the American military-industrial base.

November 4, 2018
"The Pentagon Realised What It Has Done – the Chinese Put the US Army on Its Knees"

http://thesaker.is/the-pentagon-realise ... its-knees/

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20937
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prem » 01 Jan 2019 04:16

https://sputniknews.com/science/2018123 ... shortening
China About to Deploy Brand-New Lightweight Battle Tank

The innovative vehicle was previously tested last year, as China and India sought to reconcile over the contested border territory near Doklam, simultaneously claimed by three Asian countries, including Bhutan.The new-generation tank, identified as Type-15 by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), was displayed for the first time at an exhibition last month that marked the 40th anniversary of China’s sweeping reforms, thereby demonstrating the country’s technological and military breakthrough.Chinese media reported that the tank boasts a 105 mm gun that can fire armour-piercing shells and launch guided missiles, and is separately equipped with a hydro-pneumatic suspension system that ensures good manoeuvrability and survivability in mountainous regions. The Type-15 tank is remarkable for its 1,000 horsepower engine and low weight as compared to the PLS’s other main battle tanks currently in service: the vehicle is 32 to 35 tonnes, which is lighter than the Type 99 tank, for instance, which may vary in weight from 54 to 58 tonnes, The South China Morning Post reported.It is noteworthy that the newly-developed tank has already undergone an extensive combat exercise on the Tibetan plateau, as in June last year Chinese and Indian troops engaged in a close 73-day-long standoff at Doklam, a contested area between Tibet's Chumbi Valley to the north, Bhutan's Ha Valley to the east and India's Sikkim state to the west.At the time, Indian troops opposed the construction of a road by Chinese soldiers near the border, as it was too close to the main highway, the Chicken Neck corridor, connecting the northeast with the rest of India. The soured relationship normalised after the PLA brought the contentious road construction to an end.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 01 Jan 2019 08:58

Type15 seems like the usual cheen work creation cum psyops scheme? Why is a 1000hp engine needed

How do these small fast tanks plan to deal with atgm and artillery fires? Every platoon will be packing f n f Atgm in such scenarios

Use speed to evade and overrun defence lines ?

Or they are kind of gun only raider model ifv but tracks mean long range patrols are not on

Seems to me a heavy armoured wheeled tank would be more useful for Tibet plateau and economical to run .engine can be 300hp

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2777
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby fanne » 01 Jan 2019 10:49

How many tank motorable roads/front are there b/w India and China?

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3535
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby hnair » 01 Jan 2019 11:03

Cheen will heavily depend on UCAVs against us, since their troops cant do ground combat under the shadow of HAPE, unlike the seasoned locals on our side.

In that circumstance, for ground targets, instead of heavy or light tracked armor, collaborate with KMW for a lot of those nimble (and adorable) off-road scout vehicles that can dart around the high passes and plains of Tibets, festooned with heavy optronics, jammers, quad-ATGM, basic airdefense (20 mm turret), targeting solution systems and of course, satellite comms. Add some active countermeasures plus dazzlers/smoke grenades. Once targeting is ready, let the heavy punching be done remotely by other wheeled vehicles carrying NLOS cannons on trucks, MLRS, dedicated heavy-ATGM carriers etc or airborne shooters like LCH/Rudras, Rustom type UCAVs. Most of cheen's mobile targets are not worth wasting money and fuel on armour up there.

Hundreds of heli-portable scout vehicles with good sensors would make cheen's sit-rep story complicated.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 01 Jan 2019 13:15

kmw already has such a vehicle - the fennec. good piece of work per accounts.

publicity video
the venerable hummer should also be suitable - we can ask the muricans to drop them off at the iran border and we truck them to india via chah bahar route and fit our own sensors.

IA still does not have a heavy and light 4x4 kind of scout vehicle, let alone mini wheeled tanks of the cv90 type , after we retired all the BTR 60,70 we had in the past.

the domestic automotive industry can easily source and develop a solution for this, we dont need really any kmw

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 873
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby ParGha » 01 Jan 2019 17:23

Singha, the higher power engines are needed to climb in steep mountain roads. And IA battalions in mountain configuration don’t carry ATGMs.

All that said, the most useful and flexible cavalry in the mountains will be UCAVs and helo-gunships. In a Dragoon role, you need ATGM detachments deployable by helos and ATVs.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2337
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby darshhan » 01 Jan 2019 17:39

ParGha wrote:Singha, the higher power engines are needed to climb in steep mountain roads. And IA battalions in mountain configuration don’t carry ATGMs.

All that said, the most useful and flexible cavalry in the mountains will be UCAVs and helo-gunships. In a Dragoon role, you need ATGM detachments deployable by helos and ATVs.



Shouldn't carl gustavs be enough for these light tanks?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austin, Google [Bot] and 55 guests