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.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Rahul M » 17 Oct 2019 00:39

abhik wrote:
chola wrote:...
Cheen can live losing Tibet. It can't live losing Shanghai or any part of the coast line. Those 1100 4th gen are stuck geo-politically a continent away from India. And they are facing hundreds of superior 4th gen fighters in the F-15s, F-16s and F-18s of the US and its allies. Never mind the impending arrival of hundreds of 5th gen F-35s.

To me this is complete hogwash, are we really expecting US or Japan to start a world war for ous? With 1100 4th gen fighters they can play the attrition game with us until we run out of fighters while still maintaining a deterrence position in the east, in fact we are in a more precarious position with the Pakis on our western flank.

Two points here,
a) they don't need to start a war. An adversarial force in being right on the doorstep of its civilizational heartland would be very difficult for PLA to ignore. It would be near impossible for them to move major assets from the eastern seaboard a continent away to protect what? Tibet ?
b) Tibet PLAAF infrastructure does not remotely have the capacity to absorb even a small fraction of that fighter fleet. The AAR assets do not exist in numbers required to support a large fleet flown in from neighbouring regions. So unless they are ready to bring in units peacemeal, I don't see how they can throw the full fleet at IAF.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Vivek K » 17 Oct 2019 00:44

Rahul M - should our force structure be based on under estimating the enemy? Or should it based upon a better estimate. India needs to build aircraft in numbers - LCA MK1s and Mk1As are an available solution.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1122
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Nikhil T » 17 Oct 2019 01:42

abhik wrote:
chola wrote:...
Cheen can live losing Tibet. It can't live losing Shanghai or any part of the coast line. Those 1100 4th gen are stuck geo-politically a continent away from India. And they are facing hundreds of superior 4th gen fighters in the F-15s, F-16s and F-18s of the US and its allies. Never mind the impending arrival of hundreds of 5th gen F-35s.

To me this is complete hogwash, are we really expecting US or Japan to start a world war for ous? With 1100 4th gen fighters they can play the attrition game with us until we run out of fighters while still maintaining a deterrence position in the east, in fact we are in a more precarious position with the Pakis on our western flank.


+1. No one is invading Shanghai and China won't find it acceptable to lose Tibet to India. That's just ignoring history.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the next Sino-Indian war will see Pakis enter the war. Ever since 1971, Pakis have nurtured the dream of doing a Bangladesh to India – Punjab, Kashmir, WB etc. are just examples of that dream. Combined with increasing radicalization of Pak elites post-Zia and its unholy partnership with China in last two decades, their Army will just not pass on a golden opportunity to strike a couple blows, when India is on the back foot fending off the Chinese. I don't blame them .. after all, what truly broke East Pakistan’s back in 1971 was the two front war that India was able to mount. Pakis would be stupid to pass on such an opportunity.

So while India has ~400 4th gen a/c, it will conceivably need to keep ~300 a/c (i.e. 20 squadrons) on our Western borders to deter Pakis, leaving a measly 100 a/c (5 squadrons) against China, who on the other hand does not face a direct threat to mainland from US. They know that US won’t enter the conflict on India’s behalf, atleast not in a short duration war.

For IAF, there's no alternate other than building 4th gen fighters in numbers, so we have enough deterrence against a joint China-Pak war. Unfortunately, we can't afford the required numbers of Rafales. The path forward is to induct Tejas and MWF in numbers, with small incremental changes, which is what IAF seems to be doing now finally.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 17 Oct 2019 10:21

Rahul M wrote:
abhik wrote:To me this is complete hogwash, are we really expecting US or Japan to start a world war for ous? With 1100 4th gen fighters they can play the attrition game with us until we run out of fighters while still maintaining a deterrence position in the east, in fact we are in a more precarious position with the Pakis on our western flank.

Two points here,
a) they don't need to start a war. An adversarial force in being right on the doorstep of its civilizational heartland would be very difficult for PLA to ignore. It would be near impossible for them to move major assets from the eastern seaboard a continent away to protect what? Tibet ?
b) Tibet PLAAF infrastructure does not remotely have the capacity to absorb even a small fraction of that fighter fleet. The AAR assets do not exist in numbers required to support a large fleet flown in from neighbouring regions. So unless they are ready to bring in units peacemeal, I don't see how they can throw the full fleet at IAF.


Exactly, those two points are ironclad. You can't change geography or physics. Cheen CANNOT deploy even substantial amount of airpower against India.

We need to accurately gauge the threat from Cheen in order craft a proper strategy. Without taking into account geopolitics and geography we could end up in an import trap where those with vested interests insist we need phoren here and now to deal with a "two-front war." What people don't realize is that even after Doklam Cheen could only muster some 24 fighter aircraft on the entire Tibetan plateau -- which is a some 300% more than pre-Doklam when satellite pictures could count no more than eight J-10 or J-11.

That is a few dozens with limited load in high altitude against hundreds of IAF aircraft from bases that allow full war loads.

Nikhil T wrote:For IAF, there's no alternate other than building 4th gen fighters in numbers, so we have enough deterrence against a joint China-Pak war. Unfortunately, we can't afford the required numbers of Rafales. The path forward is to induct Tejas and MWF in numbers, with small incremental changes, which is what IAF seems to be doing now finally.


Yes, without an accurate assessment of our (locally superior) position against the PLAAF the import lobby might not allow us to wait for our indigenous programs citing dire gaps based on numbers alone.

Cheen's real challenge is in its production not its warfighting. Its rise to power coincides with 40 years of not fighting yet building so many machines for sea, air and space that they simply overwhelm the claims of others.

In order to challenge this you have to either go to war and use better warfighting ability to whittle done their numbers or you create a MIC that matches them at their game. But the sheer size of their rapidly growing forces makes declaring war on them an unlikely option for every nation except the US.

The real answer for us is a competitive industrial base where we could build Tejas, MWF and AMCA in numbers approaching when they will in the J-10, J-16 and J-20. We're not going to declare war first on Cheen and Cheen won't fight first when its main advantage is outbuilding everyone else.
Last edited by chola on 17 Oct 2019 10:49, edited 2 times in total.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7353
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 17 Oct 2019 10:31

PLAAF has only deployed flankers in Tibet so far hasn't it? I doubt they'll bring in the Mig-21 copies unless absolutely required. In the event of a conflict, they might but they'll have enough flankers & J20s to rush from the East. SoKo & Japan aren't going to invade Beijing if there's a conflict on the Tibetan border. We cannot count on any other country to back us up in such a situation. So planning for nearly 3/4th of the PLAAF being available in Tibet might be a good start. Even if there is an altitude handicap. They can fly their H-6 bombers from lower altitudes in the east if needed.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 17 Oct 2019 10:57

^^^ There won't be actual fighting on the Tibetan border unless we start it. For all the saber-rattling at Doklam, they couldn't raise their forces to any appreciable amount. I wanted them to do something, the IA/IAF would have annihilated them. We outnumbered them 15 to 1 across the entire border. After Doklam, I've given up hope that we will ever actually fight Cheen. Both sides are populated by non-warrior short rice-eating peoples. The difference is they have perfected the ultimate SRE strategy of expansion without war with a historic industrial base.

But you know what, rakshaks? I quite like this challenge. I want us to race them at sea, in the air and finally into space -- they launched more craft into orbit than Unkil last year. They will be the kick in our pants though they are too SRE to deliver an actual kinetic kick.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7866
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 19 Oct 2019 04:20

A really nicely done briefing from Sean O’Connor on Chinese strategic air defenses..Sharing a few slides from the video presentation -

Image

Image

Small dark red circles and icons – HQ-2
Large red circles and icons – S-300P series
Yellow circles and icons – S-400E (250 km range displayed)
Orange circles and icons – HQ-9 series
Green circles and icons – HQ-12 and HQ-22
Ranges represent maximum engagement ranges for cooperative large-RCS aerial targets
Range rings are notional and do not account for assigned sectors or TER fields of view


Image

Image

YashG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby YashG » 19 Oct 2019 13:09

YashG wrote:Chinese defence achievements till now have been significantly assisted by their stealing of secrets from other countries. But that is now beginning to change- countries have become very conscious of Chinese espionage.
...............
But that will also reduce as US is cutting off their access. Chinese scholars are being given less access by the US research community.


I had earlier posted how China's days of stealing tech are over and I hope it will show in years to come. Here is more proof Uncle Sam is now absolutely done with China
Between December 2016 and January 2018, Li, who resided in China, worked with other Chinese nationals to purchase radiation-hardened power amplifiers and supervisory circuits and illegally export them from the U.S. to China, according to the DOJ.

The electronic components Li hoped to obtain are capable of withstanding high levels of radiation and extreme heat, rendering them particularly useful in military and space devices, the department said.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/chinese-national-convicted-export-military-technology-china

YashG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby YashG » 19 Oct 2019 13:53

abhik wrote:
chola wrote:...
Cheen can live losing Tibet. It can't live losing Shanghai or any part of the coast line. Those 1100 4th gen are stuck geo-politically a continent away from India. And they are facing hundreds of superior 4th gen fighters in the F-15s, F-16s and F-18s of the US and its allies. Never mind the impending arrival of hundreds of 5th gen F-35s.

To me this is complete hogwash, are we really expecting US or Japan to start a world war for ous? With 1100 4th gen fighters they can play the attrition game with us until we run out of fighters while still maintaining a deterrence position in the east, in fact we are in a more precarious position with the Pakis on our western flank.


Geography maybe on our side but numbers are not. It is wishful thinking that if need be China will not deploy numbers against us.
A. Tibet is too sparse to support heavy troop deployment & India can match china soldier for soldier - nearly.
B. Any Chinese navy flotilla will never get past our permanent naval ship - andamans ( subs may - bt with US intel, they are a roast)
C. So brief, ultra short Airforce skirmish over Tibet is the only way we fight Chinese.

So we need numbers by all means and lots of them. China will ramp up on numbers from here, to make up for its economic weakness & alienation.
I fully expect China to start showing up in public a lot more weapon systems and appear stronger than it is.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53394
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby ramana » 21 Oct 2019 21:50

[url=https://awin.aviationweek.com/ArticlesStory/tabid/975/Status/IPAddress/id/3e2a3b40-18c7-4a2e-9b63-2fed3b987b42/Default.aspx]Chinese DF-100 looks like high supersonic[/url



BEIJING, LOS ANGELES—A cruise missile featured in China’s Oct. 1 National Day parade appears to be designed for high-supersonic flight.

The presence of the weapon in the parade was indicated by markings on 16 mobile launchers that identified the unseen missile inside as the DH-100. The launcher configuration showed that the DF-100 is much larger than the subsonic DH-10 cruise missile that China revealed 13 years ago.

The DF-100 itself, not just its launcher, appeared indistinctly in a video released by the rocket force on Sept. 25. It was fired from a launcher of seemingly the same type as appeared in the parade.

Despite the clear marking of the launchers in the parade with the designation “DF-100,” the official television commentator called the weapon the Changjian 100 (which would be abbreviated as CJ-100).

“This type of supersonic cruise missile has high precision, long range and fast reaction,” the commentator said, giving no more information.

The image of the missile in the blurry video is difficult to interpret, but unevenness of the taper at the nose suggests it has an inlet there like that of the Boeing HyFly hypersonic missile demonstrator, tested a decade ago. The Hyfly inlet fed a ramjet that pushed the missile to scramjet takeover speeds in the range of Mach 3.5-4.0. This is suggestive of the possible speed of the DF-100 but hardly conclusive.

Toward the rear of the DF-100 main body (that is, ahead of the booster) are shapes that could be auxiliary ramjets. Conceivably, their role would be to accelerate the weapon between booster burnout speed and a velocity at which the main, cruise ramjet, fed by the nose inlet, could take over. Such externally mounted ramjet engines are increasingly common.

Along the body of the missile, seen on the left in the video, is a shape that looks like the casing of a belly ramjet, as in the configuration of a wave rider missile. But an engine in that location would be inconsistent with the engines in the other two locations. Instead, this shape could be a fin. There is another, less prominent shape on the other side, perhaps another fin that does not show up so well because of the angle of the light.

The DF-100’s booster is about half as long as the main missile body and appears to be of greater diameter. It is fitted with fins at its base.

The proportions of the launcher and missile canisters confirm that the weapon is large. Whereas four-axle launch trucks each carry three DF-10 subsonic cruise missiles, which are larger than Raytheon Tomahawks, the DF-100 trucks each have five axles and only two missile canisters. The implication is that two DF-100s weigh more than three DF-10s.

The DF-10 was first shown in a 2006 parade.

The DF-100 canisters appeared to be a little greater in diameter than the truck wheels.

The system’s prime contractor is evidently the country’s main missile maker, Casic, since that state group showed a photograph of the launchers at the parade on its web site. It is most unlikely to promote a weapon made by a rival.

The appearance of 16 launch trucks is a signal that the weapon is available in numbers and therefore perhaps operational—though there is no way of being sure that the canisters were filled.

On Oct. 18 the video had disappeared from the internet, but stills were preserved on unofficial web sites.

Just as the supersonic missile is being called both the DF-100 and Changjian 100, the DF-10 has also been called the Changjian 10 (CJ-10). “Dongfeng” means “east wind;” “Changjian” means “long sword.”




Not the very superficial analysis by the Aviation Week writers.

To me looks like Chinese version of Brahmos.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2922
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 21 Oct 2019 22:20

YashG wrote:Geography maybe on our side but numbers are not. It is wishful thinking that if need be China will not deploy numbers against us.
A. Tibet is too sparse to support heavy troop deployment & India can match china soldier for soldier - nearly.
B. Any Chinese navy flotilla will never get past our permanent naval ship - andamans ( subs may - bt with US intel, they are a roast)
C. So brief, ultra short Airforce skirmish over Tibet is the only way we fight Chinese.

So we need numbers by all means and lots of them. China will ramp up on numbers from here, to make up for its economic weakness & alienation.
I fully expect China to start showing up in public a lot more weapon systems and appear stronger than it is.

1. Even if chinese dont intend to move assets across theaters, it would be foolish to plan that ways. I am sure that has been thought through by guys whose main job is to plan such contingencies. If they havent then we are doomed any which way and the discussion on BRF would matter little.

2. Very unlikely that India is going to undertake an offensive operation in Tibet, even though we are preparing and will be prepared for that in coming years. The point is not just what each side can deploy, but what each side can support. I do not disagree that they have an advantage in aerial no.s but remember their pilots will be coming from far from the mainland possibly after refuelling or with much reduced pay load due to height of airfields. There was a video that Shiv did on this. Please dont pounce this hypothesis. I am aware that we do have T72s and T90s deployed somewhere up in the sky.

3. I dont think air fight would be our preferred way. Also, with chinese you have to look at their history and pattern of wars. Not being racist, however they are not very creative (unlike pakis) and they are very consistent in their behavior. Look into their previous wars or skirmishes.Unlike pakis, they are calculating and sequential. In my opinion, with India, they'll start like Dokalam or like '62 and dynamically check how's our overall prep. if we do not measure up to them, they'll proceed and open other fronts, else they'll squat, and then in diplomatic circles blame it on PLA ask for face saving measures and concessions.

This is not to say that i am advocating against keeping our powder dry. I am all for more desi masala and barood and more tejas, ATAGS, OFB guns, but deep inside i have this hunch that they will not take direct panga with India anymore even with a MMS type of leader as the army has enough credibility and capability.

IMHO, Air skirmish is way up the escalation ladder with chinese. Not to say this is not possible but very less probable. A single JF17, J10 or J20 kill by IAF would dent their sales prospects in the entire world. Right now the word in market about their maal is poor quality, but then it will also have the additional tag of not battle worthy or proven poorly in war. That narrative will be lapped by western media and russian media for different reasons.
So in my opinion, whatever value that holds, it will be all or nothing..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7866
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 21 Oct 2019 22:54

ramana wrote:
To me looks like Chinese version of Brahmos.


I would be very surprised if this missile isn't Solid Fueled, and in the 1000-2000 Km class.

YashG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby YashG » 22 Oct 2019 02:00

ArjunPandit wrote:
YashG wrote:

I do not disagree that they have an advantage in aerial no.s but remember their pilots will be coming from far from the mainland possibly after refuelling or with much reduced pay load due to height of airfields. There was a video that Shiv did on this. Please dont pounce this hypothesis. I am aware that we do have T72s and T90s deployed somewhere up in the sky.

..

I agree with what you say, faroff airfields, low weapons loads and so on...but what kind of ratio mismatch bw iaf and plaaf numbers will be offset by geography is the question..

Our superior geography will allows us same matchup in sky with half (0.5) the aircrafts...one-third (0.33) the aircrafts...Whats the number inferiority that wl b offset by geography?

I would be hard-pressed to blv that geography will allow us anything more than 2:1 mismatch ratio to maintain an even footing in sky. Gurus can make a better estimate. But currently our numbers mismatch ratio is the range of 1:3 or more (given Western theatre). I dn think geography or IAF creativity is enuf to take care of that.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1122
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Nikhil T » 22 Oct 2019 04:19

Let's not ignore that geography also means that the next Sino-Indian war will be a two front war. Pak is not going to sit idly by an opportunity like that and we simply do not have the numbers to fend off PLAAF + PAF in an all out war. However, for short conflicts where only a tiny portion of assets are used, we'll be more than a match for PAF + PLAAF, because of our investments in air bases along both borders.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 23 Oct 2019 07:10

This is supposedly a "Y-20U" or fuel tanker variant:
Image

Some pictures of the "fat girl" from a recent chini airshow:
Image
Image
Image

The Y-20 has become routine.

I think the chinis crossed a major threshold when they started mass producing something of this size. Far more impressive than any of their stealth fighters imho.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1957
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Manish_P » 25 Oct 2019 16:45

True to type

Chinese team disqualified for 'extensive cheating' at Military World Games

A Chinese team has been kicked out of its own Military World Games after other countries alerted judges to "extensive cheating" by the hosts.

Originally the Chinese athletes had taken the first, second and fourth places in the women's middle-distance orienteering competition, as well as second place in the men's, during the race on Sunday, according to a statement by the International Orienteering Federation (IOF).

But after a complaint by six European countries, including Russia and France, judges discovered that Chinese runners had been assisted by local spectators.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 25 Oct 2019 17:31

^^^ LoL Cheat, Lie and Steal

Now extrapolate that to something really important like an airliner to crack the Boeing-Airbus duopoly:

https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/building-chinas-comac-c919-airplane-involved-a-lot-of-hacking-report-says/


Building China's Comac C919 airplane involved a lot of hacking, report says
One of China's most brazen hacking sprees involved intelligence officers, hackers, security researchers, and company insiders.



This aircraft just had its 5th prototype take to the air the other day.

https://www.eturbonews.com/352980/chinas-c919-large-passenger-jet-prototype-completes-test-flight-in-shanghai/

Can't say being a cheat and all-around bad guy is an ineffective strategy. They went from a turd world backwater in the 1970s to building large jets.

YashG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby YashG » 25 Oct 2019 17:50

chola wrote:This is supposedly a "Y-20U" or fuel tanker variant:
Image

Some pictures of the "fat girl" from a recent chini airshow:
Image
Image
Image

The Y-20 has become routine.

I think the chinis crossed a major threshold when they started mass producing something of this size. Far more impressive than any of their stealth fighters imho.


Such a large jet should have a long testing cycle. Boeing and airbus with decades of experience still fall short of all round testing. How long a testing has this aircraft been seeing?

Also only communist china can afford to fly less teated large jets.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 25 Oct 2019 17:58

^^^ To answer your question, Yash ji:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi'an_Y-20
First flight: 26 January 2013
Introduction: 6 July 2016

Looks like almost no testing at all.

I guess it helps when you hack reams of test data from the C-17 program.

Also, it is considered a honor for the PLAAF to risk life and limb flying barely tested machines for the great peepul's leepublic.

YashG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby YashG » 25 Oct 2019 18:36

chola wrote:^^^ To answer your question, Yash ji:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi'an_Y-20
First flight: 26 January 2013
Introduction: 6 July 2016

Looks like almost no testing at all.

I guess it helps when you hack reams of test data from the C-17 program.

Also, it is considered a honor for the PLAAF to risk life and limb flying barely tested machines for the great peepul's leepublic.


3 years is a short testing cycle. Very short and yes if they just stole testing data, I wonder how far that should help. Im no expert at aircraft design and so i cant comment how useful stolen test data is- i just dont think it can go very far. Others on this forum know a lot more and they can comment.

But short testing cycle, quick inductions fit a pattern of communist china's behavior - your hardware is as good as in brochure unless tested in war. A lot that China does on military tech front is for display purpose. For posing purpose. They are building frigates like toasters on assembly line. Same goes for their other miltech stuff. They want to appear competitive to us military on paper but if u really look at the depth of US science and tech - Chinese are not even close. It cant be that they can build such things with testing periods even shorter than US.

In India we are behind but prc miltech capabilities! I lose perspective. I have noted on this forum before, worse their economy does, the more posing they will do. I'd really love to see some solid real world data on efficacy of chinese miltech.

Im two-three years from hence I look forward to see evidence of following:

1. Accelerated posing of new miltech hardware
2. Some signs of slowdown in their real tech development as they are cutoff from uncle sam from stealing tech. This cud tk longer...its a long term effect.
3. Desperate Chinese efforts to get miltech know-how - from Russia if they have to.

Bonus data - chink in the armor of their exported bogie hardware.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 25 Oct 2019 19:14

^^^ All fine points, Yash ji.

This is my take and I made this before:

1) Cheen (like practically every other non-gora state) is far behind Russia and the West; the fast iterations of development/testing/production is needed to catch up; they are on a compressed timeline; the goras will not wait

2) They are trying to compress the timeline for development by cheating (spying, copying, stealing); they are trying to compress the timelines for testing and production by taking major, deadly risks

3) They do not fight wars so the actual warfighting ability of their machines are mostly moot unless exported; as long as a machine can move from one spot to the next it is good enough for them; they have taken over the SCS without firing a shot by flooding the region with machines in numbers no one else can match

4) With Unkil crushing their export engines, they must expand jobs in their MIC; the introduction of new types and their mass manufacture will accelerate as their normal economy tanks.

We are behind in production and development because we refuse to cheat and we are adverse to risk. They will build more machines and more kinds of machines than us as a matter of course because we will not take those shortcuts.

We are far better at warfighting because we field tested and verified systems that buy from the West and Russia or were built by us in partnerships with them. In any actual war scenario with Cheen I would bet the house on India.

BUT they will not fight because they know their strength is in production not war and will simply overwhelm people with machines in peace time.
Last edited by chola on 25 Oct 2019 19:18, edited 1 time in total.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7353
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 25 Oct 2019 19:16

They've got a bunch of these just sitting there on the tarmac, fresh from the factory and not flying.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 26 Oct 2019 06:49

Prasad wrote:They've got a bunch of these just sitting there on the tarmac, fresh from the factory and not flying.


Yes, I posted this in June of this year. Production might be outstripping engines or crew. Or maybe they were returned by customers. lol

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1135818635581251584
@Rupprecht_A
@RupprechtDeino
Y-20A production seems to continue at a high level ... allegedly recent images taken at Xi'an/XAC (16 Y-20As), Chengdu-Qionglai (7 aircraft - 4th Transport Division) and at Kaifeng (1 aircraft - home of the 13th TD/37th AR ... but also Airborne Forces).
Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 26 Oct 2019 16:34

Interesting show on a recent chini helo exhibition. First real close look at the Z-20 Copy Hawk. Their rotary industry seems pretty prolific with quite a few helo classes on display.



https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1187770878454587392

@Rupprecht_A
@RupprechtDeino
A great CG of the Z-20F naval helicopter.

Image
Image
Image


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 29 Oct 2019 15:21

Possible that the helo crash might be one of their new Copy Hawks as the personnel were "testing" the aircraft.

A J-10 crashed in Tibet. This thing crashes a fair amount. I've been hearing crashes since when it was in development back in the days when it and the LCA were considered to be rivals. The Tejas has a spotless safety record.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3035249/fatal-crash-highlights-chinese-air-forces-flaws


Fatal crash highlights Chinese air force’s flaws, with drill and equipment problems implicated in deaths of three, including pilot who flew in National Day military parade



The deaths of three airmen in a helicopter crash and a second accident days later point to problems with training and equipment

The crashes happened within a span of 10 days, amid an increased number of intensive drills


Minnie Chan
Published: 11:00pm, 28 Oct, 2019

Engine flaws and a lack of training have been identified as the likely causes of two accidents that hit the Chinese air force in the space of little over a week – one of which claimed the lives of three airmen.

Deaths from the crashes, which happened within a span of 10 days, included a helicopter pilot who took part in the National Day grand parade at the start of the month.

A number of military sources said that as the air force stepped up its exercises – part of President Xi Jinping’s call to strengthen the “combat readiness” of the military – more accidents would happen as increased drills exposed technical problems and inadequate training.

...

“The three people were conducting some tests on the helicopter,” said a local source who declined to disclose where the crash happened and the nature of the test.

Media reports said that Gong had flown in this year’s National Day parade in Beijing, while Wen had been decorated for his participation in the 2015 parade in Beijing to mark the 70th anniversary of victory over Japan in World War II.

The three dead airmen have been designated as martyrs, the reports added.

The second accident happened eight days later on the Tibetan Plateau where a J-10 fighter jet on a low-altitude flying drill crashed into the mountain.

“Fortunately, the pilot ejected safely in time, but the J-10 crashed into the mountain,” said an informed source, who requested anonymity since no official announcement about the accident has been made.




nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2580
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 29 Oct 2019 20:37

The more I look at J20, more I feel it is quite back heavy. It does a very slow roll. Su57 is a much superior design despite it based on the same engine weight.

Even a simple side roll, it seem to roll as if standing on the engine. Unlike Su57/F22, which rolls the entire body.

No wonder they needed canard!

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2580
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 29 Oct 2019 20:50

Dear God, please let Pak get that FC31.. the fun we will have at those smoking engine...:rotfl:


fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3070
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby fanne » 29 Oct 2019 21:23

let's not underestimate the FC31 (or overestimate). The future engine will not be as smoky. If the frame otherwise is LO, it is a big big threat.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7866
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2019 21:27

The FC-31 is not a sanctioned program of record. It is a tech demonstrator or a prototype with no firm orders, domestic or export. There is not even an export configuration flying around that can be evaluated to see if it is actually worth worrying about. Could it be the first Chinese export 5th gen. product? Sure. But who knows if there is even an export market for a Chinese 5th generation aircraft that China itself doesn't field in huge quantities and that doesn't come with a Chinese engine.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 30 Oct 2019 16:21

^^^ For the FC-31 and JF-17, there are supposedly two engines.

One is the WS-13. This thing can be considered a failure. It test flew in a FC-1 a few years ago and is pretty much DOA with the pakis publicly rejecting it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mohsinsaeed761/status/667394020356841472

Mohsin Saeed
@mohsinsaeed761
Pakistan to stick with RD-93 engine for JF-17,no plans of replacement with Chinese WS-13 which is in testing phase


The WS-13 is rumored to be a RE of the RD-33 that was not officially funded either like FC-31 itself.

The other is the WS-19. This is the ground up chini designed medium-class low-bypass turbofan. The banter is this is the engine that the PLAAF/PLAN is waiting for. Their acceptance of the FC-31 depends on the availability of this engine.

https://mobile.twitter.com/dafengcao/status/1117805777496838149

dafeng cao
@dafengcao
First photo of WS-19 turbofan engine can be seen here, the woman on left is the chief designer Huang weina.

dafeng cao
@dafengcao
Benefitted from the design and materials of WS-15 engine, it only took one year to complete the design, took half a year to complete the experimental verification of 1st engine, took one third the time of engine manufacturing compared with before.

William Tan
@William02540246
·
Apr 15
Replying to
@dafengcao
Few years ago the engine design bureaus were consolidated under one organisation and now all engine designs are done at one location. Expertise and knowledge is pooled leading to faster design and development. This is the result as shown by fast development of WS-19 for J-31.
1

William Tan
@William02540246
·
Apr 15
Replying to
@dafengcao
This consolidation of design expertise allows for WS15 technology to be used in WS19. Development of new engines will now be faster.



So the WS-19 should be the focal point. It is the first officially sanctioned project connected to the FC-31.

That said, a lot of chinese mil watchers say PLAAF deliberately standardized on the heavy-weight engine because of the size of the chini land mass and there is little chance for the FC-31 in the PLAAF regardless of engine. Its best hope is for the chini carrier project or the paki 5th gen AZM. The WS-19's best hope might be the JF-17 later blocks.

These somewhat orphaned aircraft and engine project will be interesting to follow in the coming years. Not least because there is highly likelyhood of them being exported to the pukes.
Last edited by chola on 30 Oct 2019 16:31, edited 1 time in total.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11230
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 30 Oct 2019 16:29

This Re of an engine is pure BS, it is most probably TOT.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 30 Oct 2019 16:40

Aditya_V wrote:This Re of an engine is pure BS, it is most probably TOT.


I don't disagree in most cases but in this one why would the Russians give TOT on an engine that THEY are supplying to the pakis?

I think the chinis (or at least one branch of the chini MIC since the WS-13 might not be sanctioned) wanted to get a cut of the JF-17 engine market. The pakis publicly rejecting the WS-13 even when it was in testing phase tells me they wanted to keep the Russians happy.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 31 Oct 2019 07:13

Speaking of engines, confirmation of a new WS-10 variant in the J-20A. If the production line is being tooled for the older WS-10 then the super duper WS-15 which was supposed to power the J-20 is still a long ways off. Probably means no super cruise for many years to come.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1189518345856585728

@Rupprecht_A
@RupprechtDeino
Even if rumoured since several months and "confirmed" by some grainy images from far away, these are the first clearer images showing the WS-10B (WS-10C ?) powered J-20A allegedly from the second production batch.

Image
Image
Image


Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Manish_Sharma » 31 Oct 2019 12:56

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/118 ... 38048?s=09

Well, true or not.
Claimed that China to beging construction of Type-066F , a new gen DDGN by 2026 which is exactly similar to Zumwalt Class DDG of #USNavy https://t.co/wNoNWlXlUJ


https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/118 ... 38048?s=09

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/118 ... 38048?s=09

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2580
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 31 Oct 2019 15:25

chola wrote:Speaking of engines, confirmation of a new WS-10 variant in the J-20A. If the production line is being tooled for the older WS-10 then the super duper WS-15 which was supposed to power the J-20 is still a long ways off. Probably means no super cruise for many years to come.


I am now of the view, that J20 have got in more than they can chew. The Chinese used the AL31 dimension, which resulted in a big plane. And to match F22 in load out, resulted in more weight.

Now they have to design a engine of 120KN(dry) in the same dimension as AL31. It is probably not going to happen easily. If the engine end up being bigger, then they would have redesign the jet!

Fundamentally, J20 will be a under powered jet. It flies like a log, with absolutely no grace, that you associate with a fighter!

vivekmehta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 18:19
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby vivekmehta » 31 Oct 2019 15:36

Aggred they produced a log.. we still are 20 yrs from producing a log

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 01 Nov 2019 13:46

nam wrote:
chola wrote:Speaking of engines, confirmation of a new WS-10 variant in the J-20A. If the production line is being tooled for the older WS-10 then the super duper WS-15 which was supposed to power the J-20 is still a long ways off. Probably means no super cruise for many years to come.


I am now of the view, that J20 have got in more than they can chew. The Chinese used the AL31 dimension, which resulted in a big plane. And to match F22 in load out, resulted in more weight.

Now they have to design a engine of 120KN(dry) in the same dimension as AL31. It is probably not going to happen easily. If the engine end up being bigger, then they would have redesign the jet!

Fundamentally, J20 will be a under powered jet. It flies like a log, with absolutely no grace, that you associate with a fighter!


The chinis bite off a bit more than they can chew each time they attack a project with the initial model always underwhelming when it hits production. And then they rapidly re-iterate in tranches and variants. It is how they advance.

Undoubtedly they'll have a hard time with the WS-15. The specs (180kN wet) are ambitious. To their credit, they designed the J-20 in such a fashion that it'll go through three at least engines -- Al-31, WS-10 and WS-15 -- without much issue.

Standardizing on the Al-31/F110 weight class across the PLAAF allows this -- the WS-10 had been on all the J-11/16 Flanker clones and is now in production for the J-20A and J-10C.

Sometimes I wished we had gone for an F-16 sized fighter instead of the LCA. It could have shared an engine with the MKI and we make 75% of the AL-31 in India.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 01 Nov 2019 13:57

https://mobile.twitter.com/HenriKenhmann/status/1189551873537101824

East Pendulum
@HenriKenhmann

Nouvelle photo du J-20 propulsé par les moteurs chinois WS-10. A part les moteurs, la cellule présente également de légères modifications qui laissent penser que le chasseur pourrait être doté de poussée vectorielle dans un futur proche

Image

--- Google translated ---

New photo of the J-20 powered by the Chinese motors WS-10. Apart from the engines, the cell also has slight modifications suggesting that the fighter could be equipped with vector thrust in the near future.



The WS-10 TVC variant was demo'd at Zhuhai on a J-10B in 2018.

YashG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby YashG » 01 Nov 2019 19:33

YashG wrote:
....
I'd really love to see some solid real world data on efficacy of chinese miltech.

Im two-three years from hence I look forward to see evidence of following:

1. Accelerated posing of new miltech hardware
2. Some signs of slowdown in their real tech development as they are cutoff from uncle sam from stealing tech. This cud tk longer...its a long term effect.
3. Desperate Chinese efforts to get miltech know-how - from Russia if they have to.

Bonus data - chink in the armor of their exported bogie hardware.


I've written before that I'd love to see some real world data on efficacy of Chinese miltech hardware.
I realized one way *probabaly* to make guesses on their capability would be see the efficacy of the most complex systems that Chinese make in civilian domain.

For example Chinese dont write great consumer software but do they write great industrial software for complex systems - say ?
I would wonder how far the proxy of civilian sector could be used to judge efficacy of their miltech ( if at all)

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 02 Nov 2019 14:06

YashG wrote:
YashG wrote:
....
I'd really love to see some solid real world data on efficacy of chinese miltech.

Im two-three years from hence I look forward to see evidence of following:

1. Accelerated posing of new miltech hardware
2. Some signs of slowdown in their real tech development as they are cutoff from uncle sam from stealing tech. This cud tk longer...its a long term effect.
3. Desperate Chinese efforts to get miltech know-how - from Russia if they have to.

Bonus data - chink in the armor of their exported bogie hardware.


I've written before that I'd love to see some real world data on efficacy of Chinese miltech hardware.
I realized one way *probabaly* to make guesses on their capability would be see the efficacy of the most complex systems that Chinese make in civilian domain.

For example Chinese dont write great consumer software but do they write great industrial software for complex systems - say ?
I would wonder how far the proxy of civilian sector could be used to judge efficacy of their miltech ( if at all)


Hard to get real world numbers unless you get them from the users or poll their performance in wars. PAF and PLAAF are not likely candidates to divulge. And Cheen itself simply doesn't fight wars. But taking gauge of other importers is a way.

Their small arms, vehicles and artillery were used extensively by Sri Lanka to slaughter irregulars and civilians. They are also ubiquitous around the globe for insurgencies and terrorists. The Taliban and ISIS used mainly chini weapons.

So their small arms and vehicles are serviceable for the run of the mill riffraff.

For more expensive aircraft, drones, missiles and warships, there are a wide swath of turd world nations with the most advanced being probably Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Egypt and Malaysia.

My conclusion is their stuff is good enough for turd worlders to be used against other turd worlders (which includes the chinis themselves.)

But against nations wielding gora-made stuff then I would say they are definitely a notch below. We wield mainly gora-origin weapons.

Chinis are the Walmart of war equipment. They sell shite to the unwashed masses. West and Russia are the Nordstrom and Target respectively for the upper and middle classes.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atmavik, LakshmanPST, MeshaVishwas, VickyAvinash and 42 guests