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
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

A more meaning full threat for IA:

Organization of the PLA Mechanized divisions.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Div- ... ocId595771

PLA Mechanised Infantry Division Air Defence Systems
PLA Point Defence Systems
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ramana »

From above
PLA Armoured and Mechanised Infantry Brigade Structures[3]

The People’s Liberation Army’s 112th Mechanised Infantry Division was the first unit using the new structure and when unveiled in 2006 is claimed by the PLA to be two generations ahead of its predecessor.[4] The division is organised and equipped to fight as independent battle groups on mountainous and urban terrain, its equipment being lighter in weight and firepower than those of the PLA’s divisions tasked to defend the nation against aggressors equipped with main battle tanks. Its theatres of operation are Xinjiang and Tibet where the division’s lighter vehicles and support weapons can operate in areas where the communications infrastructure can be described as poor at best.

There are three mechanized infantry companies to the battalion and three battalions to the brigade with three brigades in the division giving a total of 351 Type 86 infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). These are supported by an artillery brigade of 72 PLZ89 122mm self-propelled guns and a tank battalion of 99 Type 96 main battle tanks. Type 89 armoured command vehicles are liberally provided throughout the division down to the company level to provide command and control. Intelligence and electronic warfare assets are held at the divisional level in a battalion and distributed as required. Although described as a light division the PLA generally classes wheeled units as light and tracked units as heavy.

The new mechanised infantry brigade has four mechanised infantry battalions, one armoured battalion, one fire support battalion, one engineer battalion and one communication battalion. Each mechanised infantry battalion has three mechanised infantry companies, each of three platoons with each company having 13 infantry fighting vehicles; four in each platoon and one headquarters vehicle.

Each armoured brigade has three armoured battalions for a total of 99 main battle tanks, one mechanised infantry battalion, one artillery battalion with 18 self-propelled guns and one air defence battalion of 18 AAA guns. Each armoured battalion has three armoured companies, each of three platoons with each company having 11 main battle tanks; three in each platoon and two headquarters vehicles. There are no tanks at the battalion or brigade headquarters. A complete armoured brigade contains 2,200 soldiers.[5]

The Type 86 infantry fighting vehicle, a Chinese copy of the Russian BMP-1, is being updated by replacing its existing 73mm low velocity gun turret with the new Chinese one man ‘universal turret’ containing a 30mm chain gun which has impressive performance against light armour, can disable many main battle tanks, and can be used in an anti-helicopter role.[6]

The other combat tracked vehicles in the division, other than the tanks, are based on the indigenous Type 89 armoured fighting vehicles. The support company of the battalion comprises one 100mm mortar company of 10 vehicles with one mortar per vehicle and a fire control vehicle, an automatic grenade launcher (AGL) platoon in two vehicles with two AGLs each; one anti-tank platoon in two vehicles sharing three anti-tank guided missile systems, normally the Hong Jian 8. There are a total of 18 Type 89 series armoured vehicles in each brigade providing 54 anti-tank guided missile systems in the division.

The wheeled units are equipped with the WZZ551 family of vehicles. In 1990 the first vehicle was introduced into service as the Type 90 (WZ551A) IFV was equipped with turreted 25mm automatic cannon, and in 1992 the Type 92 (WZ 551B) was introduced as a cheaper APC with the semi-open turret used on the ZSD89 APC. The WZ551D air defence version using the heat seeking PL-9 point defence SAM round was developed but not put into production. The Type 02 assault gun mounting a 100mm high velocity gun in a turret is in service and the self-propelled gun version mounting the same gun as on the PLZ89 is due into service shortly.

The division headquarters comprises an engineer battalion, an electronic warfare battalion, a chemical defence battalion, the division headquarters (company sized), an air defence troop and a guard company for HQ protection. Logistics is provided by corps assets attached to the battle groups as required.

Mechanised formations based on this model are well equipped with organic air defence assets, intended to deploy with the units and provide mobile point and limited area defence capabilities against opposing aircraft and helicopters.

Within each mechanised infantry battalion there is an air defence platoon of three vehicles with four Hongqi6 (HY-6) man portable air defence system (MANPADS) missile launchers per Type 89 APC vehicle, for a total of twelve. A division has 27 air defence vehicles and has 108 Hongqi6 MANPADS available for air defence at any time. They come under operational control of the air defence brigade commander.

The divisional air defence brigade comprises one battalion of 24 towed 57mm anti-aircraft guns and one battalion of 18 towed twin 37mm anti-aircraft guns. An air defence platoon of six Type 95 self-propelled combination AAA/SAM vehicles and one of light surface-to-air missiles are attached to the artillery brigade.

The Type 95 SPAAG/SAM system uses the same hull as the PLZ89 122mm self-propelled gun, with a turret mounting four 25mm automatic cannon and can be fitted with four QW-2 IR-homing, short-range surface-to-air missiles, the Chinese equivalent of the Russian Igla-1 (SA-16 Gimlet).

If heavier forces are required to augment the new division, these have been developed as well. These include the Sixth Armoured Division, which has a similar structure to the mechanised infantry division; an independent supporting artillery brigade equipped with 72 152mm Type 83 or the new PLZ45 155mm self-propelled gun, which uses the Chinese built version of the Russian KBP laser-guided round; the 16th anti-tank regiment, which is really the size of a small battalion and contains six PTZ89 120mm self-propelled Huatang guns and 18 Type 89 Hongjian 8 anti-tank guided missile tank destroyers; and an air defence brigade that contains a battalion of 24 57mm towed anti-aircraft guns and one of six Hongqi 7 SAM systems, the Chinese clone of the French Crotale system. The air defence and anti-tank units are light enough to go with the mechanised division into isolated areas. The PLA still depends on towed AAA despite having vehicles available to replace them. The 37mm and 57mm systems are still capable of causing considerable damage but are showing their age.
Basically, PLA has achieved the RAPIDs transformation that Gen Sunderji envisioned.
While China makes the Russian KBP round our folks want it to hit other side of the mountain and call it a fail.
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 »

A good set of tweets from Vice Admiral Arun Kumar Singh (retd), a veteran submariner of the Indian Navy.

https://twitter.com/subnut/status/14245 ... 62083?s=20 ---> Speaks very poorly of PLAN combat workup, if 3 of its "latest" (presumably these 2G SSNs are noisy) Shang class SSNs got detected by the UK lead CSG (2 by active sonar of screen ships & 1 by by passive sonar of UK SSN).

https://twitter.com/subnut/status/14246 ... 72609?s=20 ---> 2) Another possibility is that the PLAN SSNs did simulated SLCM attacks at very long range (cued by external data feed) & then attempted screen penetration for simulated torpedo attacks on HMS QNLZ. Such "games" are routine at sea. The truth will be known to the participants.

Chinese nuclear attack subs 'stalking' Britain's new aircraft carrier across Pacific
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/14739 ... royal-navy
09 Aug 2021
“China is growing its sub force at speed, and we must not underestimate them, but they do not have the combat experience that US and UK submarine squadrons developed as a result of Cold War operations in the deep dark spaces of the Atlantic,’ said a naval source last night.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by jamwal »

Detection by active sonar is no big deal. They can be considered noisy if they can be detected on passive sonars too.
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 »

One of them did get detected by passive sonar, as mentioned by the Vice Admiral. Regardless, AK Singh is a veteran submariner and knows this game in & out. Chinese boats are known to be noisy, so this is not surprising.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Manish_P »

Would be interesting to know the sequence of events. Was the Chinese sub first detected by active pinging by the carrier/escorts who then guided their own sub to home in on it and track it with it's passive sonar..

A nuke attack sub chasing a fast moving carrier group in the open ocean would be noisier than it would like to be.
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 »

Vice Admiral Shekhar Sinha (retd) responded to Vice Admiral AK Singh's tweet...

https://twitter.com/shekhar19541/status ... 89667?s=20 ---> Both sides will claim supremacy since there wouldn’t be joint debrief.

========================

And in an interesting turn of events, the PLAN got so hot & bothered by the media report, that they responded (question of their manhood!) :lol:

https://twitter.com/subnut/status/14247 ... 33700?s=20 ---> 3) As expected, the Chinese point of view on the UK CSG claims !!

Media report claiming UK carrier group spots PLA submarines ‘not credible’
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1230982.shtml
09 August 2021

https://twitter.com/shekhar19541/status ... 62663?s=20 ---> Admiral, when quantity is mistaken with quality, this is expected outcome.

https://twitter.com/KhyberQuill/status/ ... 20354?s=20 ---> Sir, this is good news indeed. But as Stalin and the Red Army proved "quantity is its own quality". The scale of Chinese buildup I think is worrying everyone.

https://twitter.com/CaptDKS/status/1424 ... 65124?s=20 ----> Bean counting only increases the unwanted weight.
The above tweet is from Captain DK Sharma, another Indian Navy veteran
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 ... 20003?s=20 ---> Chinese Navy (PLAN) will have a permanent Carrier Battle Group positioned in the Indian Ocean (possibly after it gets it's 3rd aircraft carrier).
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5462
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Cyrano »

Yeah moor their Tofu carrier to a poop island they are so used to creating these days and wait for delivrance
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 »

Their third carrier group will likely be stationed at Gwadar. Makes perfect strategic sense for them to have one of their CSGs in the Arabian Sea. Gives them a lot more open space versus the chokeholds they have thanks to all the various straits in the South China Sea. The downside is the US Navy is constantly monitoring the movements of their carriers. Anywhere they go, the US Navy will know their location. And the USN has a lopsided advantage vis-a-vis the PLAN.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by jamwal »

https://indianexpress.com/article/expla ... s-7471044/
An Expert Explains: Why is China building missile silos?
Satellite pictures have revealed what appears to be an ongoing Chinese project to prepare vast new fields of missile silos that could possibly be used to launch nuclear weapons at China’s adversaries, including the United States and India. Why is China digging these silos?

Satellite images have revealed that China is building at least three missile silo fields in Yumen in Gansu province, near Hami in Xinjiang province, and at Hanggin Banner, Ordos City, in Inner Mongolia.
It appears that China is constructing around 120 missile silos at Yumen, around 110 silos in Hami, and 29 in the Hanggin Banner field. Earlier this year, 16 missile silos were detected in the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Jilantai training area, also in Inner Mongolia.
FIRST, some Chinese political scientists believe this could be China’s attempt to move towards a launch-on-warning (LOW) nuclear posture. LOW refers to a launch at an adversary on detection of an incoming missile before the adversary’s missile hits its target.

China’s nuclear strategy has remained largely unchanged since 1964, when it first exploded a nuclear device. It is based on achieving deterrence through assured retaliation. The crucial requirement for this is the survivability of China’s nuclear arsenal following the first strike — conventional or nuclear — by an adversary. In order to move to the LOW posture, China would have to mate a few warheads with missiles, and keep them in alert status for a quick response. Currently, China stores its warheads and missiles in a de-alerted status separately under different commands.
Image
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/RealAirPower1/statu ... 96580?s=20 ---> A classy shot of Chinese jet fighters form the 60s onwards. That J-20 is HUGE.

Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

On the J-20 numbers discussion that we had a few months ago, I recently came across an estimate that estimates that the PLAAF J-20 fleet would surpass the USAF F-22 fleet (numerically) by 2031 and possibly as early as 2029 if some of their optimistic assumptions pan out. It was part of a Jane's analysis so was an estimate but they did have a fair bit of supporting evidence that went into estimating deliveries and timelines for future fleet end strength both with an optimistic and more realistic scenarios presented. They also claimed that the PLAAF would eventually field between 350 and 500 J-20's but this was internal to Jane's based on a deep dive into what they may wish to do (and not based on public statements or published PLAAF data).
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by jamwal »

It needs to be huge because of internal bays. If it is as good as what Chinese claim, then even 150-200 numbers are very optimistic. Machines like this don't come cheap.
kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by kvraghav »

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/RealAirPower1/statu ... 96580?s=20 ---> A classy shot of Chinese jet fighters form the 60s onwards. That J-20 is HUGE.
Where is the stealthy single engine?
Last edited by Rakesh on 01 Sep 2021 22:24, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Please do not repost images when replying. Thank You.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

jamwal wrote:It needs to be huge because of internal bays. If it is as good as what Chinese claim, then even 150-200 numbers are very optimistic. Machines like this don't come cheap.
Internal bays and internal fuel since combat radius requirements need to be met without EFTs. The Chinese rumor mill claims that the J-20 program will reach a production capacity of 48 J-20's by end of 2021 though this is not official and remains to be seen whether they achieve that anytime in the near term. But even if they achieve half of that number, and assuming that deliveries thus far have met their needs for test jets, training jets, and other non combat unit needs, then we can be looking at 120-150 fielded new J-20's (above what have already been delivered) by 2028 even if account for not reaching 24/yr till around mid stream.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

With the kind of defence production that china is doing, i can only wonder what kind of numerical advantage in terms of aircrafts and naval tonnage will china have over india. 3 times? 5 times ? Or more.

They are in race to catchup american numbers, atleast halfway if not fully. US has over 10K aircrafts.

We in another thread here on BR hovered around that we will barely be able to maintain 500-600ish fighters by 2030.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

China has a long way to go in terms of aircraft production, particularly advanced aircraft production. Their investments and urgency are primarily driven around replacing a ton of old and obsolete 3rd and 4th generation aircraft and their approach is to take everything they can whether that is Su-35's, J-10's, Flanker clones, and lastly the J-20. But they have ways to go before they catch up production wise. The US produces (current rates) or has the ability to produce and deliver more than 200 fighters a year, > 2/3 of them being 5th gen. China won't likely reach 1/2 5th gen production till well into the late 2030s but then their need to replace really old aircraft is more pressing so advanced or even basic 4th gen will work in many cases given what they may be replacing may be half a generation to a generation older. They could move a lot faster, but I think the CCP has dialed back on AF and Army modernization and focused more heavily on their Navy.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

I remember a twitter thread sometime in the October-November 2020 time frame which had the IAF Chief Bhadauria's comments on the J-20. He said, (paraphrasing), that it has good air to air missiles and avionics but has ways to go on the engine front. He also that that the IAF has integrated plans for handling the J-20 and that the IAF with the Rafale has "first shot" capability vs the PLAAF.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by jamwal »

brar_w wrote:China has a long way to go in terms of aircraft production, particularly advanced aircraft production. Their investments and urgency are primarily driven around replacing a ton of old and obsolete 3rd and 4th generation aircraft and their approach is to take everything they can whether that is Su-35's, J-10's, Flanker clones, and lastly the J-20.
Additionally, maintenance and cost per hour of flight of such expensive and complicated aircraft is much much higher. One just has to see the the figures for USAF and you can get a good idea about PLAAF too.

Even PLAAF with its black budget will find it prohibitively expensive to operate ~200 J-20s aircraft, let alone produce them.

Image
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Prasad »

That's why they're also building upgraded versions of the J-10. Single engined and a big enough airframe do a lot. F-16'ish analogue.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

I think the cost point of view is moot here, since budget wise China can outspend India & Our economic gap with them is only widening. So proportionally whatever they are able to maintain - we will be able to maintain a fraction only. But what is more important here is their production capability. If you can only make a certain number of engines or AESA radars per year then that is the bottleneck.

And the numbers gap isnt about just 5th gen aircrafts but also 4th or 4.5 gen numbers lead matters. Even by 2030 - most of the Indian aircrafts will be of 4/4.5th gen nature only. So if China churns out loads of J10/J11/J16 variants (even if 4/4.5th gen) and while we make few LCAs, the gap will widen.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

jamwal wrote:
brar_w wrote:China has a long way to go in terms of aircraft production, particularly advanced aircraft production. Their investments and urgency are primarily driven around replacing a ton of old and obsolete 3rd and 4th generation aircraft and their approach is to take everything they can whether that is Su-35's, J-10's, Flanker clones, and lastly the J-20.
Additionally, maintenance and cost per hour of flight of such expensive and complicated aircraft is much much higher. One just has to see the the figures for USAF and you can get a good idea about PLAAF too.

Even PLAAF with its black budget will find it prohibitively expensive to operate ~200 J-20s aircraft, let alone produce them.
Those USAF costs are not very relevant. A major chunk of those costs are indirect costs for depot capacity, persons/HC, PBL support, and other logistical support to sustain expeditionary operations. If an F-22A engine breaks down when the system is forward deployed in Guam or somewhere in Japan then the cost to fix that is going to be very different than if the F-22A was at one base in Florida, Alaska or Virginia. Same for every system that is mission critical that needs to be fixed, replaced, turned around or repaired/upgraded when forward deployed (you have to bake in the capacity to be able to do this). This is supported either by much larger depot capacities than required (for non expeditionary ops) or by having depots OCONUS for several critical combat aircraft components. The indirect cost of being able to sustain them on global deployments, and doing those deployments in Europe and Asia on a regular basis adds to the overall cost which then gets spread over the total fleet hours flown and leads to highly inflated (or scary looking) numbers.

More realistic costs are the direct cost reimbursement rates that the USAF has for its fixed wing fleet. The F-35A there costs around $17K there to operate. The rest of the cost that gets reflected in the $28K CPFH is the sustainment cost, that gets divided over the tails and hours flown, of the system needing to support global deployments that could last weeks to months. The first F-35A unit for example had forward deployed aircraft (on rotation) in the Middle East for 16 straight months. Now imagine the sustainment cost for that in contrast to the cost of supporting the same aircraft at their home base in Utah for the same 16 months. Since China isn't an expeditionary force, it can continue to sustain its 5th gen fighters at a handful of airbases and only deploy outside for shorter intervals. This will reduce both direct and indirect logistical and support costs and also reduce the number of depots required to support the fleet. Plus their manpower cost isn't likely a huge issue for them as it is for the US which is included in those numbers (the entire unit and depot level manpower cost is applied to US CPFH calculations thus inflating numbers for smaller fleets like the F-22 and B-2 which still require a fixed cost but have very few aircraft (and corresponding flight hours) in the denominator).

China has several really old types in its Air Force. Those don't need 1:1 replacement (USAF, NATO, RuAF, JASDF, etc have all shrunk force structure relative to the 1990's so China can do the same). Replacing them with modern 4+ or even 5th generation aircraft should actually reduce cost overall while improving capability so I doubt they'll be driven by O&S cost in the near-mid term as they modernize. They are probably far more limited by the numbers they can build (build rate) and sorting out their propulsion handicap.
Last edited by brar_w on 02 Sep 2021 00:05, edited 5 times in total.
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 »

Prasad wrote:That's why they're also building upgraded versions of the J-10. Single engined and a big enough airframe do a lot. F-16'ish analogue.
Tejas Mk2? :mrgreen:
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

YashG wrote:With the kind of defence production that china is doing, i can only wonder what kind of numerical advantage in terms of aircrafts and naval tonnage will china have over india. 3 times? 5 times ? Or more.

They are in race to catchup american numbers, atleast halfway if not fully. US has over 10K aircrafts.

We in another thread here on BR hovered around that we will barely be able to maintain 500-600ish fighters by 2030.
I will not worry about the absolute numbers of fighters they could have by 2030. I am concerned about the numbers of in-flight refuellers they can have by 2030.

If this number goes above 240 by that time. They can contest air on equal terms with the IAF any time they want.

We need to build a bigger airforce by that time. If we have to stand any chance of contesting a two front scenario.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

Pratyush, im trying to understand your line of reasoning here. What will 240 refuellers ensure. If we are at max 600 fighters with 70% availability and 30/70 split between western and eastern theatres and also adding another 10% for bi-theatre fighters - we are looking at 350 fighters available for chinese theatre.

Given chinese tibetan airfields will allow lower tow, lets say they will need to compensate by fielding twice as many fighters.

Which gives 700-800 fighters, all 4/4.5 gen as the number they need to make available in tibetan theatre for parity.

Lets say they keep another 1000 for their easter theatre, so at 2K 4/4.5 grn fighter number they will confortably reach parity for indian air force. Now if they reach 2.5K fighter strength by 2030, they will comfortably outclass us also they can freeup upto 500 fighters additionally from south china sea theatre, if needed.
Last edited by YashG on 03 Sep 2021 00:56, edited 1 time in total.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

Pratyush wrote: I will not worry about the absolute numbers of fighters they could have by 2030. I am concerned about the numbers of in-flight refuellers they can have by 2030.

If this number goes above 240 by that time. They can contest air on equal terms with the IAF any time they want.

We need to build a bigger airforce by that time. If we have to stand any chance of contesting a two front scenario.
How did you arrive at this (rather large) number of refuelers that they would need?
VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 724
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by VKumar »

We should aim for one AWACS and One refueller per fighter squadron.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Use of support aircraft and requirements are framed as per O plans and system requirements and not arbitrarily set like this.
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 »

brar, I would refrain from responding to him. He just trolls one liners like this in every thread.
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 »

Chicom propaganda. Just read the tweet below....

https://twitter.com/louischeung_hk/stat ... 72901?s=20 ---> PLA Xizang (Tibet) Military Command's PHL-03 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) fires 300mm rockets at mock targets during a live-fire training exercise. The rocket successfully hit the target 100 km away, Indian army will have no escape in case of war between China and India.

Image


Image

Image

Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

50 min podcast on Chinese AF

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-uxp7r-10cff58
ranneel
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 21:19

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ranneel »

Chinese Army Tactics Report ATP 100.3
Times Report:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/wor ... 969640.cms

Actual Document:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 1huRUtQPlo

Chapt 1: PEOPLE’S LIBERATION ARMY FUNDAMENTALS
Chapt 2: PEOPLE’S LIBERATION ARMY FORCE STRUCTURE .
Chapt 3: PEOPLE’S LIBERATION ARMY JOINT CAPABILITIES.
Chapt 4: TACTICAL SYSTEM WARFARE
Chapt 5: TACTICAL INFORMATION OPERATIONS
Chapt 6: RECONNAISSANCE AND SECURITY ACTIONS
Chapt 7: OFFENSIVE ACTIONS
Chapt 8: DEFENSIVE ACTIONS
Chapt 9: ANTITERRORISM AND STABILITY ACTIONS
AdityaM
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by AdityaM »

https://twitter.com/collinslkoh/status/ ... 14304?s=21 ---> PRC researchers tested manta ray-like biomimetic drone in the SCS, off Paracel Islands. The machine was said to be capable of diving 1025m during the trials.

https://twitter.com/CollinSLKoh/status/ ... 16577?s=20 --> This latest development is certainly part of PRC's multi-sensor, multi-domain ocean observation architecture, which also features biomimetic undersea drones, amongst various types of assets.

Image
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/CollinSLKoh/status/ ... 60?s=20---> You can read more about this "Blue Ocean Information Network" in this good AMTI piece published last year.

Exploring China's unmanned ocean network
https://amti.csis.org/exploring-chinas- ... n-network/
16 June 2020
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 »

So basically another xerox copy.

https://twitter.com/CollinSLKoh/status/ ... 80704?s=20 ---> A group of PLA officers reviewed the MQ-25A Stingray and concluded how unmanned aerial refueling will render a qualitative leap for the U.S. Navy's future war-fighting capability. This latest study may signal an intent to emulate for PLA Navy carrier-borne aviation development.
Armuan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 24 Oct 2016 01:56

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Armuan »

Rakesh wrote:Chicom propaganda. Just read the tweet below....
I thought MBRLs were area weapons. This shows seemingly pinpoint accuracy at 100 km?? Propaganda?
Last edited by Rakesh on 08 Sep 2021 17:43, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Please do not requote pictures when posting. Post Edited.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by kit »

Just like the Bohai shipyard churning out 6 to 7 nuclear submarines at a time!..seems China likes to inflate the size of what it thinks
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

nachiket wrote: How did you arrive at this (rather large) number of refuelers that they would need?
I am operating from an assumption that the PLAF will not be able to base it's full force from Tibet and that they will be approaching the north Indian and East Indian front from mainland China. In that case their tactical aircrafts will need to fly anywhere between 500 to 1500 kms to reach the Indian border to begin with.

Having placed the scenario. The PLA at the moment has nearly 2100 combat aircrafts of all generations. Not all of them have the range to reach the border from mainland China.

I am thinking, if an IL 78 can refuel 5 su30s 2000 kms from base.

What support will the PLAF need to generate 2000 to 2400 combat sorties per day @ 75% fleet availability.

They need to have 60 tanker orbits at any given point in time to manage offensive and defensive sorties at any given time of day.

If the endurance of the tanker is 6 hours on station at 500 kms from home base with the ability to fuel 5 air crafts then, in that time period they can manage 300 sorties depending upon the objective.

That translated into a 24 hours period requires them to have 240 tankers @ 75 % availability and 2 crews per jet minimum in order to support 360 tanker orbits over 24 hours period. Which in turn means that they can conduct 360*5 = 1800 sorties from the main land bases.

The IAF at the same time will be busy with both PAF as well as the PLAF. So it's ability to conduct any offensive action over Tibetan will be limited.

I hope this made as much sense to you as it did to me.
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 »

Armuan wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Chicom propaganda. Just read the tweet below....
I thought MBRLs were area weapons. This shows seemingly pinpoint accuracy at 100 km?? Propaganda?
Did you read the tweet? :)
Post Reply