Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

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.
Post Reply
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

https://twitter.com/louischeung_hk/stat ... 5675184128 ----->
J-20 cockpit Smiling face with sunglasses
#China #Zhuhai2021

Image
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by wig »

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/09 ... er-launch/

Chinese Shiyan-10 satellite fails in orbit after successful launch
extracts
China launched the Shiyan-10 satellite on a Long March 3B/E rocket at 8:20 UTC on September 27, lifting off from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center. The name and purpose of the payload were not confirmed before the launch, however, an object was cataloged in orbit a few hours after the launch, confirming it reached orbit.

The payload was deployed into a 177 km by 40,104 km geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) with an inclination of 51.04 degrees. It was later confirmed that the payload of this launch was Shiyan-10, which experienced abnormal operating conditions during launch and was declared a failure. The Long March 3B launch vehicle was confirmed to have performed normally during the launch.
Shiyan Weixing spacecraft are technology test satellites that are built by different providers as a pathfinder for new satellite technologies. The first Shiyan satellite was launched in April 2004 on a Long March 2C rocket. After that, eight more missions followed to test more experimental technologies.

The last one was the Shiyan-9 payload, which launched on a Long March 7A (also known as Chang Zheng 7A) in March 2021 to a geostationary orbit (GEO). While the true function of this satellite was never revealed, it is speculated that it is used to perform high-resolution and high orbit optical remote sensing.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

This is What a Chinese Stealth Warship Looks Like on Radar


Image
Although popularly described as ‘stealthy’, China’s Type-022 missile boat is clearly visible in Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellite imagery provided by Capella Space Inc. The bow (A) is discernable, as is the mast (B), missile launchers (C) and catamaran hulls at the stern (D). H I Sutton image used with permission
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

Interesting. If the SAR image is available. Can it be used to create a radar profile for weapons targeting radar in ships threat library and can this information be used to discriminate between ships in the target area.

Because I assume that this boats would be hiding amongst the PRC civilian fishing fleet in times of high stress and periods short of war.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

Revisionist powers tend to become most dangerous when the gap between their ambitions and their capabilities starts to look unmanageable. When a dissatisfied power’s strategic window begins to close, even a low-probability lunge for victory may seem better than a humiliating descent.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/29/ev ... rty-state/

Quite an useful article on China - Chinese foolish acts are better explained by the premise of this article. What will a power thats losing the narrative do as its act of redemption?

German power had reached a stalemate after conquering europe minus UK. From that point with the passing of time, it only stood to lose out on the initiative. So in a desperate attempt for redemption, it lunged East into Russia (even though it was a low probability victory event).
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

China's attempt at a Growler

Image

Image

Image
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by kit »

Vivek K wrote:J-20A: China has upgraded its best stealth fighter jet with domestic-made engines
Good? Bad? Or signs of cracks in Russia and China's rapproachment?
Looks like their fighter engine tech has matured to the level of reliability equal to or better than the Russians
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Vips »

Good. China with its financial heft will go all out to grab the Non Western Block military arms market and will hurt Russia's export. Guess which country it will then try to court diplomatically, commercially and militarily?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 53703?s=20 ---> Report: Flag of China PLA has deployed two S-400 ADS batteries in occupied Tibet. It is also currently testing a 'Big Bird' phased array radar of the S-400 system at Gargunsa.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 98146?s=20 ---> IAF says there are "concerns over dissemination of western technology and tactics from Pakistan to China". IAF prepared to tackle two-front threat.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

Just as an hypothetical situation, if IAF was not prepared to tackle two front situation & the service chiefs/MoD/PMO knew we were not.

What would IAF chief say to the press in that case on two front war ?

No, We're not prepared for two front war. Even in that case they would say the same - "We're prepared to tackle two front war".

I think public statements on two front war are for morale & aam junta. It is not a data point for more keen observers of Indian Defence.
nits
BRFite
Posts: 1155
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nits »

YashG wrote:Just as an hypothetical situation, if IAF was not prepared to tackle two front situation & the service chiefs/MoD/PMO knew we were not.

What would IAF chief say to the press in that case on two front war ?

No, We're not prepared for two front war. Even in that case they would say the same - "We're prepared to tackle two front war".

I think public statements on two front war are for morale & aam junta. It is not a data point for more keen observers of Indian Defence.
Sir with No Dhoti Shivering in mind; fact is we are not prepared for 2 front war from logistics perspective. If we see tactics China is using against Taiwan where its sending waves of Fighter planes towards it - 56 to be precise; we should be worried

Assume China sending group of 50 or 60+ warplanes towards us; assets we have to move towards eastern borders to counter will for sure have impact on our numerical supremacy we enjoy towards Pak. Things will fall between cracks and we need to admit that though "we are prepared we are not well equipped"
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by k prasad »

nits wrote:
YashG wrote:Just as an hypothetical situation, if IAF was not prepared to tackle two front situation & the service chiefs/MoD/PMO knew we were not.

What would IAF chief say to the press in that case on two front war ?

No, We're not prepared for two front war. Even in that case they would say the same - "We're prepared to tackle two front war".

I think public statements on two front war are for morale & aam junta. It is not a data point for more keen observers of Indian Defence.
Sir with No Dhoti Shivering in mind; fact is we are not prepared for 2 front war from logistics perspective. If we see tactics China is using against Taiwan where its sending waves of Fighter planes towards it - 56 to be precise; we should be worried

Assume China sending group of 50 or 60+ warplanes towards us; assets we have to move towards eastern borders to counter will for sure have impact on our numerical supremacy we enjoy towards Pak. Things will fall between cracks and we need to admit that though "we are prepared we are not well equipped"
Assuming PLAAF sends not 60, but even 100 combat aircraft at us:

1) How much payload can they carry, given they'll be taking off from high-elevation airfields? The alternative is they'll take off from Chengdu, 1000 km from Tinsukia. Or from Hotan, which is closer, but at higher elevation (4500' MSL), but multiple sqns of combat aircraft deploying to an airbase so close to our borders will be caught by our surveillance.

2) How open will they be to early detection, given they're not able to fly nape-of-earth and pop up over the hump like we can?

3) How deep and ready are our available SAM defence layers? We've been improving this by leaps and bounds.

Most importantly, there's a fundamental difference between large-scale aerial incursion by PLAAF into the Taiwan ADIZ and incursions into Indian territory. Taiwan's ADIZ extends what.... 100 km? That's barely any warning time at all, and even then, these incursions could literally be a few kilometers into the ADIZ, which comes to a few seconds of actual incursion time.

Importantly, the amount of space between regular PLAAF patrol zones and the ADIZ line of incursion is quite small. On our border, this space is significantly larger - multiple sqns of PLAAF aircraft approaching a hundred km from our border, and at least a few hundred km from being able to target our assets will result in an immediate response. There is no plausible explanation for such a large deployment. Our air defence assets will go into immediate alert, with a much larger warning time.

In other words, if PRC intends to do damage, don't send dozens of aircraft into India... they'll need to send hundreds.

That said, this assumes that we have our act together on multi-layered SAM systems, early-warning detection (Radars, Aerostats, etc.), surveillance (satellites, etc), and intelligence (both strategic and military intel). AND we have a good system of datalinks and response protocols. A lot of Ifs here, but if we have these, a large-scale incursion is easier said than done.
RKumar

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by RKumar »

nits wrote:Sir with No Dhoti Shivering in mind; fact is we are not prepared for 2 front war from logistics perspective. If we see tactics China is using against Taiwan where its sending waves of Fighter planes towards it - 56 to be precise; we should be worried

Assume China sending group of 50 or 60+ warplanes towards us; assets we have to move towards eastern borders to counter will for sure have impact on our numerical supremacy we enjoy towards Pak. Things will fall between cracks and we need to admit that though "we are prepared we are not well equipped"
It is okay to keep flying a group of 50+ fighter without weapons because they are provoking Taiwan to fire the first shot and then use this excuse to invade the island. So it is a cat and mouse game, and no one in the world has the balls to spank the Chinese for their behaviour. World is silent even when Chinese virus has killed millions across the different continents.

In our context, the question is how many will go back? And how long they can keep sending 50+?
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

The plaaf threat is not about handling 50 aircrafts at half load. It is about being able to handle 500 - as their aircraft numbers increase, refuelling capacity and their airstrips available in tibet increase too.

If reqd india can send 100+ planes to both theatres at once. It not about 50 or 100 aircrafts.
nits
BRFite
Posts: 1155
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nits »

Agreed with both of you - i am trying to emphasis on a simple arithmetic problem we have at hand in terms of diversion of asset towards 1 side of border leaving other side challenging (if not vulnerable) with less them optimal size we will have in our hand.

We know if push comes to show - our strategy is to stop China and have credible deterrence and go on offensive in Pak but deterrence for china is a dynamic game depending on how hard they want us to push back
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

The Taiwan ADIZ incursions need to be seen in some context. This map of the ADIZ and the flight paths of the intruding aircraft had been shared by the Taiwan ministry of defence.

https://twitter.com/MoNDefense/status/1 ... 6171740165

Image

As you can see Taiwan's ADIZ is quite large and actually extends over mainland China. Technically, PLAAF aircraft flying over Fujian would also be violating the ADIZ. The Taiwanese obviously don't complain about those but it goes to show the very very short distances involved here. They only count incursions as those which cross the median line. Even then the flight paths were well away from the island itself.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 17028?s=20 ---> Exclusive: Chinese PLA Z-10 attack helicopters in Xinjiang and occupied Aksai Chin are facing very low availability rates (below 35%) due to sand filtration issues with their engines.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

https://twitter.com/InsightGL/status/14 ... 0556596224 ---->
-#Taiwan urgently building ‘#Chinese aircraft carrier killers’: Tuo Chiang missile corvettes
-#Taiwanese #navy has 2 ships & plans to take No to 6 by 2023
-Speed 40 knots Range 2000 NM
-High speeds & small size of such ships ensures survival in battle
-Time for #China acs to hide

Image
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by V_Raman »

We should sell Brahmos armed Kamorta to Taiwan for carrier killer capability!
RKumar

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by RKumar »

^ I doubt we will provide them with any arms, as they also believe AP is south Tibet and Ladakh is Chinese territory.

If any case if we provide, we should have a blow switch just in case Taiwan is run over by Chinese.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

kit wrote:
Vivek K wrote:J-20A: China has upgraded its best stealth fighter jet with domestic-made engines
Good? Bad? Or signs of cracks in Russia and China's rapproachment?
Looks like their fighter engine tech has matured to the level of reliability equal to or better than the Russians
Its either that or that they are trading low reliability and higher spares burn for higher thrust to offset the lack of performance with such a heavy fighter and older AL31Fs. Given Russia hasn't sold them what's on the Su-35.
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1714
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Lisa »

Chinese military storms a beach!

https://www.rt.com/news/537190-china-la ... ls-taiwan/

For all those who believe in chinese supermen, please see this video and tell me you still believe.

P.S. Nice boats, much faster than those I saw in Saving Private Ryan.
anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9203
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by anupmisra »

Lisa wrote:Chinese military storms a beach!For all those who believe in chinese supermen, please see this video and tell me you still believe.
Wow! Just plain wow! 180 kms of calm high seas in rubber dinghies. That is so awesome.

Are you shivering in your dhotis yet?
Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 632
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Anoop »

I don't understand the offhand dismissal of the Chinese beach landing exercise. All those rubber dinghies can be launched from a LPD too, no? Why do they have to sail across 180 nm of ocean?
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

k prasad wrote: Assuming PLAAF sends not 60, but even 100 combat aircraft at us:

1) How much payload can they carry, given they'll be taking off from high-elevation airfields? The alternative is they'll take off from Chengdu, 1000 km from Tinsukia. Or from Hotan, which is closer, but at higher elevation (4500' MSL), but multiple sqns of combat aircraft deploying to an airbase so close to our borders will be caught by our surveillance.
The PLAAF will play to it's strengths in the opening phase of any air campaign. They have about 200 H-6 bombers in various versions and production continues. The newer versions are the H-6K produced from 2007 onwards and the H-6N produced from 2019 onwards. The H-6K can carry 6 CJ-20 subsonic cruise missiles which have a range of about 2000 km on underwing pylons...3 on each wing. Or they can carry 6 YJ-12 supersonic anti ship missiles with a range of 400 km. The YJ-12 is roughly equivalent to the Brahmos. The newer H-6N can carry a single air launched ballistic missile, the DF-21D dubbed the carrier killer. Against India, a CJ-20 carrying H-6K can take off outside Tibet at low altitude with it's full load and need not get closer than 1000 km from the Indian border before launching it's CJ-20s. The PLAAF can easily deploy 50 to 80 H-6s against India, more than that if they decide to re-deploy from their Taiwan facing current positions. So IAF AD will have to intercept 300 to 400 Nirbhay type missiles if the PLAAF launches them in a salvo. An H-6 bomber or bombers can also target IAF airfields in the Andamans from missiles launched over the South China sea.

The PLAAF is not going to send in their tactical fighters like the J-10, J-11 etc. unless they feel confident that they have degraded IAF airfields. Hence the recent IAF exercises of using roads and other auxiliary airstrips assume importance.

Also if I am not mistaken when news of India's S-400 orders was reported the total number of missiles being ordered with the 5 battalions was something like 6000. I thought that was a shockingly high number, but given the threat posed by the sheer number of cruise missile carrying platforms that the PLAAF can muster, it makes sense. Those CJ-20s will have to be swatted away like flies because undoubtedly the PLAAF will attempt to fire repeat salvos of cruise missiles to overwhelm IAF AD and keep IAF airfields degraded.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3800
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Paul »

PLAAF Bombers targetting Car Nicobar overflying Myanmar cannot be ruled out.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

No discussion on the Chinese long range hypersonic test?
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

ramana wrote:No discussion on the Chinese long range hypersonic test?
The speculation is that this is a modern day variant or you could call it a modified version of the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) first developed by the former USSR from the mid 1960s, brought into a state of readiness by the mid 1970s and then de-commissioned in the 1980s. Two early designs of the Soviet system used a ballistic trajectory when de-orbiting, while the third design used a third stage which stayed attached to the warhead to provide maneuvering thrust and thus an unpredictable re-entry path making it difficult to intercept.

The advantage is that such a system can be launched in any direction and will reach it's target after circling the earth. No doubt that the principal objective of a Chinese FOBS is delivery of nuclear warheads to the US. And because it circumnavigates the earth it can be launched such that it would fly over the south pole and approach the US from the south whereas most US early warning systems are designed to look for missiles from the north. The reasons that the Soviets gave up FOBS was because it was designed during a time when the US relied on ground based radars in the DEW radar line in northern Canada and Greenland. With the US developed satellite based infra red launch detection capability from 1970 onward, FOBS lost a lot of it's raison d'etre for the Soviet Union.

US advances in missile launch detection have since grown by leaps and bounds and a new generation of missile launch and tracking satellites is now slated for launch by 2025.

I would couple this news with the other news reported a few months ago about China constructing new missile fields with a 100 silos each, at least two of them that were reported and potentially three such fields, giving them 200-300 new silos. Now think what if those 200 silos each contained a Long March 2C like launch vehicle such as the one that was used in the recent test, instead of ballistic missile such as the DF-5. A simultaneous launch of 200 such FOBS missiles will be tracked by the US but the question is whether the US will be able to intercept even a small fraction of them specially given the fact that current Ground Based Mid-Course systems are all geared towards intercepting ballistic missiles hundreds of kilometers high and all coming in from the north. While a FOBS could lob a hundred maneuvering warheads coming in from the South, South East, South West, West etc. And the Chinese test had a perigee of 160 km only and an apogee of 200 km only thus giving significantly less warning than a ballistic missile.

One more thing. The Long March 2C used as the launch vehicle for this test uses a hypergolic propellant much like China's other ICBMs. And quite unlike the Long March 7 series which uses cryogenic propellants or RPG. Make what you will of this.
Last edited by ldev on 19 Oct 2021 05:39, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:FOBS missiles will be tracked by the US but the question is whether the US will be able to intercept even a small fraction of them specially given the fact that current Ground Based Mid-Course systems are all geared towards intercepting ballistic missiles hundreds of kilometers high and all coming in from the north.
Trying to missile-defense your way out of a peer state ICBM threat is a losing proposition. That's why the US has never pursued robust architectures or capacity to do any thing like that (that level of arms race will bankrupt even the Pentagon). The best and certainly the cheapest "defense" against them is to have a deterrence capability and why the US is modernizing its entire triad and not moving to a dyad as some on the US political left or the arms control community want. This should be welcomed news as any strategic nuclear investment takes away from their conventional modernization investments which is great for anyone worried about their conventional capability. The US and Russia (FSU) invested in this capability long ago and have what it takes to field it. But the cost-benefit is just not there because the current level of deterrence is sufficient many times over. China may decide to have it in their toolkit (for parity) and never field it which is certainly a possibility.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:Trying to missile-defense your way out of a peer state ICBM threat is a losing proposition. That's why the US has never pursued robust architectures or capacity to do any thing like that (that level of arms race will bankrupt even the Pentagon). The best and certainly the cheapest "defense" against them is to have a deterrence capability and why the US is modernizing its entire triad and not moving to a dyad as some on the US political left or the arms control community want.
Agree.
This should be welcomed news as any strategic investment takes away from their conventional modernization investments which is great for anyone worried about their conventional capability.
I had not looked at it that way. However given how big their economy is and still growing, though with some cracks now showing, some would opine that they have money for both.

I think that this is a deterrent move on their part to reduce the perceived risk of a US first strike.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

ldev wrote:I had not looked at it that way. However given how big their economy is and still growing, though with some cracks now showing, some would opine that they have money for both.
No one has money to pursue every conventional and strategic capability that one may wish to pursue. Even during the Cold War, the US and FSU made constant trades between one and the other. There is ample evidence that China has prioritized its defense modernization focusing very heavily on its naval capability, and then airpower. Their land forces in comparison haven't received as much attention or as much capability leap. If they open a massive strategic modernization effort, it will impact be a drag on their conventional modernization. Economics, budgets, infrastructure, and R&D cost still applies to them. To think otherwise is foolish. Some R&D and even production is more expensive for them compared to the US given where they are starting from (and whether they have an established R&D or production base for it or must develop the entire thing from scratch).
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote: No one has money to pursue every conventional and strategic capability that one may wish to pursue. Even during the Cold War, the US and FSU made constant trades between one and the other. There is ample evidence that China has prioritized its defense modernization focusing very heavily on its naval capability, and then airpower. Their land forces in comparison haven't received as much attention or as much capability leap. If they open a massive strategic modernization effort, it will impact be a drag on their conventional modernization. Economics, budgets, infrastructure, and R&D cost still applies to them. To think otherwise is foolish. Some R&D and even production is more expensive for them compared to the US given where they are starting from (and whether they have an established R&D or production base for it or must develop the entire thing from scratch).
Agree with this. It epitomizes rational thinking. And whatever else they were, one could not accuse the Soviets of being anything but rational and that was a primary reason that the cold war did not become hot. But when it comes to China one cannot count on such a rational thought process. Specially at this moment in time. Xi Jinping believes that China's time has come and he is destined to fulfill that role. Plus there is a window of vulnerability which will close as the US modernizes it's triad. In the end China may prove to be a rational actor but there is a possibility however small that Xi may decide to gamble it all just like his predecessors did with the many gambles they have taken in the past.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

What window of vulnerability are you speaking about? The US never goes below a triad even during modernization. The same is true for Russia. M-III, Trident, Ohio-Class and B-2 are all available, and readily deployable even during this modernization as those platforms or weapons transition. M-III to GBSD transition will happen without a reduction in available ICBM's. Same for other elements including when the last Ohio class deployment occurs and when the first Columbia class deployment happens (they never dip below a threshold number of deployed nukes on submarines). Idea is not to reduce deployed capability at all and modernize while still maintaining readiness of the current force. Have a look at Russian and US deployed warheads, across the triad. That number is not going to dramatically change as capability is modernized. China knows this and there is no ambiguity here. Both Russia and US have enough capacity to have enough deterrence against China (many times over). That's not going to change as they transition to more newer weapons or platforms. If they want to pour money into this then that's fine and actually takes away from probably other priorities..and also provides a glimpse into their decision making.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

brar_w wrote:What window of vulnerability are you speaking about? The US never goes below a triad even during modernization. The same is true for Russia. M-III, Trident, Ohio-Class and B-2 are all available, and readily deployable even during this modernization as those platforms or weapons transition. M-III to GBSD transition will happen without a reduction in available ICBM's. Same for other elements including when the last Ohio class deployment occurs and when the first Columbia class deployment happens (they never dip below a threshold number of deployed nukes on submarines). Idea is not to reduce deployed capability at all and modernize while still maintaining readiness of the current force. Have a look at Russian and US deployed warheads, across the triad. That number is not going to dramatically change as capability is modernized. China knows this and there is no ambiguity here. Both Russia and US have enough capacity to have enough deterrence against China (many times over). That's not going to change as they transition to more newer weapons or platforms. If they want to pour money into this then that's fine and actually takes away from probably other priorities..and also provides a glimpse into their decision making.
My apologies, was in a hurry to go somewhere and since we were discussing nuclear forces I used the word "triad" without thinking. The vulnerability that I am actually talking about is not the triad but the three services lack of long range precision strike required for conventional targeting against China at this moment in time. That lack of long range strike will be mitigated once everything from the PrSM all the way to the LRHW, ARRW, surface to surface SM6 etc. and possibily the B2 in a conventional strike role and a long range NGAD come on line in numbers. In the meantime a conventional war over Taiwan will leave the US forces vulnerable. In my opinion China's fear of a US strike whether conventional or nuclear is not something unreasonable in their mind. That is the reason that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs made that soothing call to his opposite number which resulted in a lot of people getting upset. But the deployment of FOBS by China fast enough before US forces get long range strike options in sufficient numbers to blunt a full scale Taiwan invasion is probably a priority for them. However unreasonable it may seem because in my opinion the US will never initiate a US strike against China even in the face of a conventional reverse over a Taiwan confrontation, but China will not discount it. And hence FOBS deployment as an insurance policy. At least that is my take on it i.e. ideally China would like FOBS to be deployed before the US get's it's conventional long range strike in the Pacific region such that China can contemplate an invasion of Taiwan in a time frame when US forces are still vulnerable to large scale casualties and yet not fear the in their minds reasonable prospect of the US escalating that conflict into the nuclear realm.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

None of that makes any sense in any short or medium term Taiwan play. China doesn't have a problem with striking US targets in the US with nuclear weapons. That isn't going to change. The US isn't going to be able to defend against those with missile defenses so their triad is the assurance they need to make sure that a nuclear exchange doesn't occur. with a state like China or Russia (countries like NoKo or Iran are a different case as there is enough technology gap to allow for those strategies to work in a limited capacity). China doesn't need this capability to assure itself of striking US with nuclear weapons in either the short, medium or even the long term. There are enough strategic US weapons in silos, on submarines and with bombers that no FOBS capability will stop a retaliatory strike from wiping out Chinese targets. So it's purely a case of buying capability for the sake of having it which should be welcomed because this distracts them from their conventional capability build up.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... 31651?s=20 ---> Chinese aircraft surges are followed by significant downtime to fix their aircraft. Key points in the images. The bit about the turbine blades is an excerpt from a WSJ report on Chinese engines from several years back. A key reason to purchase the Su-35 was to evaluate its engine.

Image

Image

Image

Image
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by VinodTK »

China shows off drones recycled from Soviet-era fighter jets
Mike Yeo
Wed, October 20, 2021, 4:23 PM
MELBOURNE, Australia – China has for the first time showed off retired 1950s era fighter jets that have been converted to unmanned drones, with satellite photos of two of its east coast bases near Taiwan showing a large number of the jets on site.

The People’s Liberation Army’s Eastern Theater Command published the photos of two Shenyang J-6s on its Weibo social media account during a post about the ceremony marking the start of the training cycle for the second half of 2021 for a training brigade.

The photos were taken at an unknown airfield, with the ceremony also including a banner for the occasion that was digitally altered to remove the identity of the training brigade. The five-digit serial numbers on the J-6s that would identify the unit they belong to have also been digitally blurred.
:
:
:
Larry Walker
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 26 Nov 2019 17:33

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Larry Walker »

I saw a video of J-10S crash and it seemed like it had glided down and hit the river bank. I am not very technically competent but from what I have read is that most modern fighters are aerodynamically unstable to ensure superior combat manoeuvres and its the flight computer keeps them flying by continuously adjusting their air-flow areas. So does this incident indicate that J-10S is indeed aerodynamically stable and it can glide down in case of engine failure and if so what does it indicate about its design complexity in terms of why to design a aerodynamically stable fighter and incur all performance penalties ?
Post Reply