China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 20 Apr 2011 17:23

China's Z10 Attack Chopper
http://ifile.it/om4usdl/Z10.zip

Zhuhai 2010
http://ifile.it/7ev1mch/ZHUHAI%202010.zip

nits · Post by **nits** » 20 Apr 2011 17:38

X-Post

Very Nice and informative Article; its a interview of strategic guru K Subrahmanyam. where he talks about Indian Nuclear Journey v/s Pakistan (and China) and how every Prime Minister reacted and handled it... Gives many inside information. A Gem to read

Part 1

Part 2

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Apr 2011 08:15

PLA Lessons from Foreign Conflicts

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 23 Apr 2011 03:49

Is China Developing a VSTOL Fighter ?

Is China Developing a VSTOL Fighter ?
By Wendell Minnick
Published : 22 Apr 2011

TAIPEI - China may have test-flown the J-18 Red Eagle vertical short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) fighter earlier this month, if chatter on Chinese-language military blogs is accurate.

China's defense industry is largely opaque and it is difficult to substantiate Internet chatter. However, Chinese-language military blogs reported the first test flight of the Stealthy J-20 Black Eagle fighter in January, much to the surprise of the Western media.

Now there are reports emerging of a test flight of the J-18. Tests were supposedly conducted earlier this month and the fighter is similar to the Sukhoi Su-33 carrier-based fighter.

"In 2005, a Chinese aviation industry source told me the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation was considering a F-35B-like program," said Richard Fisher, vice president of the Washington-based International Assessment and Strategy Center. "Given the PLA's naval power projection ambitions, it is probable there is VSTOL or STOVL [short takeoff and vertical landing] fighter program."

There are "many alleged programs in the Chinese blogosphere," Fisher said.

These include a J-16 built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC), which is a stealthier dedicated attack version of the J-11B (Su-27) multirole fighter with active electronically scanned array radar and an internal weapons bay, which will "reportedly emerge this summer," he said.

China is expected to begin sea trials for its first aircraft carrier this summer. Analysts believe the J-15 Flying Shark, a copy of the Sukhoi Su-33, will be China's first carrier-based fighter. SAC procured an earlier prototype of the Su-33 from the Ukraine in 2001 and the J-15 reportedly conducted its first test flight in mid-2009.

There have also been questionable Chinese-language military blogs providing sketchy reporting on J-17 and J-19 fighter programs. Reportedly, the J-17 is long-range fighter-bomber based on the Russian Sukhoi Su-34 and the J-19 is a heavy multirole fighter based on the J-11B.

WTF :-
• J-18 Red Eagle (VSTOL)
• J-15 Flying Shark (Copy of the Sukhoi Su-33)
• J-17 (Long-range fighter-bomber based on the Russian Sukhoi Su-34)
• J-16 (stealthier dedicated attack version of the J-11B (Su-27) multirole fighter)
• J-19 (Heavy multirole fighter based on the J-11B)
• J-20 Black Eagle

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 23 Apr 2011 09:40

Well,

there was in the mid-nineties a proposal from sukhoi to sell the UAE an "exotic" version of what was then the Su-35. it would have had an internal weapons bay and an active array. This was for the same requirement that was ultimately fulfilled by the Block 60. So a J-16 shouldn't totally surprise us.

Here's an impression from Paralay

http://paralay.com/bm/flanker2010.jpg

J-17, and J-19 are par for the course as they are simply (i.e if they exist) a Chinese re-badging of various existing members of the heavy Sukhoi family. J-15 of course is a pirate Su-33.

The J-18 would most likely be a development of the Yak-141 VSTOL fighter.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2011 11:00

interesting. so perhaps all the orphaned projects like Yak-141 and the half-baked rejects like silent flanker and further mods to the su34 would be purchased and carried forward by the PRC!

the J-20 is atleast their own airframe design (if we discount the obvious Mig 1.44 influence)...the rest seem to be like our MKI projects!

all these are big long ranged aircraft though, with heavy payloads and room for big radar and ECM kit...which clearly indicates they want to dominate the green water belt and the periphery of tibet in depth.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 23 Apr 2011 13:50

all these are big long ranged aircraft though, with heavy payloads and room for big radar and ECM kit...which clearly indicates they want to dominate the green water belt and the periphery of tibet in depth.

And they want to 'top up' their heavy fighters too. And that is why you see them scrambling to turn out tanker versions of various large aircraft ( including the Badgers in their inventory). I don't know but given the timelines for IL-476 delivery you might just see them turn to Airbus for a tanker.

Or , or , or they could develop the C919 into a tanker version as well.

Like it or not. they are becoming another FSU. They are taking the last good projects and trying to marry them with their own burgeoning defense electronics landscape. engines are still a huge problem of course.

I have a niggling feeling that the defense technocrats/industrialists in China are beginning to now overcome the judicious civil leadership. You now have a whole host of projects executed via rival design bureaus, machinists etc. You have investment into a gargantuan fleet of heavy fighters - never cheap to maintain.

You have saber rattling. Oh yes baby they are on a roll. But I wonder if their economy can keep generating surpluses for ever.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2011 15:01

indeed - all points to desire for a 750+ unit heavy fighter force backed up adequate number of tankers. the A321 which is assembled in Tianjin could become a tanker with chinese funding or they could buy up A330-MRTT say 25-30 for a start. each can offload round 90tons of fuel, presumably enough to feed 5 tons each to 7 flankers on the way out and 5 tons each to the same set on the way in after a lengthy mission, with some good reserve. we are looking at a combat radius of around 2500km with full bombload using this dual tanking method. ... thats enough to take off from deep in north tibet, attack hyderabad or even bangalore and fly back.

in comparison, sher khan has around 500 F-15 of all hues today probably and declining due to retirement of older C and E airframes. around 120 F22 and maybe 500 F-16. so superpower today has a AF staffed with around 1100 fighters...I think its down from 2500 at height of cold war.

ofcourse the USN brings around 500 more hitech fighters into the matrix ....and there's B1/B2/B52 bombers too; and sher khan has much better sensors , c3i and weapons for now...but prc are spending money like anything to catch up in these areas.

Don · Post by **Don** » 23 Apr 2011 15:13

D Roy wrote:
But I wonder if their economy can keep generating surpluses for ever.

Do they need supluses ? The United States economy hasn't generated a supluss for decades but they are still spending on defense like crazy.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2011 15:18

true, but the US has the worlds reserve currency, pliant ratings agencies, petrodollar recycling by gulf states, east asians buying dollars and ofcourse the biggest badass dollar printing press in the world

nobody has called their bluff - yet.

and they have enjoyed low inflation and low interest rates due to all the above ....

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 23 Apr 2011 16:08

military keynesianism anywhere is unsustainable.

You would note that the US is looking to shave 400 billion in the next decade from the def budget. This figure will in all likelihood grow as the US understands that a hard landing cannot be mitigated by soft measures.

Once China's growth falters a very difficult choice will be faced by its planners.

And how will it falter - simple excess capacity and over production - that's how any command economy( i.e growth targeting) falters ultimately.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Apr 2011 17:03

Don wrote:Do they need supluses ? The United States economy hasn't generated a supluss for decades but they are still spending on defense like crazy.

US economy is in heavy debt and eventually if they do not do any thing drastic about it like reducing expenditure including slicing the defence expenditure they will eventually run out , its a ticking timebomb for them. Although they are very much aware but Dem and Rep do not agree on the approach hence the deadlock.

China as we speak has 3 trillion dollar reserves and growing and is in very comfortable position ,unlike US they do not have bases around the world to manage or plan the next war to steal someones Gas and Oil , so they do not have to spend much as the US does each year , a defense expensiture of $100 billion per year would take care of its defence modernisation needs as they seem to be spending around those figure if DIA is to be believed ( dia says $140 billion ) ,official figure linger around $70 billion iirc.

Don · Post by **Don** » 23 Apr 2011 17:27

Austin wrote:
Don wrote:Do they need supluses ? The United States economy hasn't generated a supluss for decades but they are still spending on defense like crazy.
US economy is in heavy debt and eventually if they do not do any thing drastic about it like reducing expenditure including slicing the defence expenditure they will eventually run out , its a ticking timebomb for them. Although they are very much aware but Dem and Rep do not agree on the approach hence the deadlock.

China as we speak has 3 trillion dollar reserves and growing and is in very comfortable position ,unlike US they do not have bases around the world to manage or plan the next war to steal someones Gas and Oil , so they do not have to spend much as the US does each year , a defense expensiture of $100 billion per year would take care of its defence modernisation needs as they seem to be spending around those figure if DIA is to be believed ( dia says $140 billion ) ,official figure linger around $70 billion iirc.

Austin ji that is a great post. I agree with everything you said.

ashi · Post by **ashi** » 24 Apr 2011 00:45

WZ-10 closeup 1
WZ-10 closeup 2
WZ-10 closeup 3
WZ-10 closeup 4
WZ-10 closeup 5

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2011 13:19

From Vayu - LCH/WZ 10 comparison

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2011 13:28

Titbit from Vayu

What appears to have been straight forward reverse engineered is the optical-electronic pod on China's ZW-9 combat helicopter, which bears a strong resemblance to the Leo -II serial O/E pods produced by the Zeiss Company. Technical experts from the Zeiss company recalled that about seven to eight years ago Zeiss had exported two sets of an earlier variant of the Leo-II O/E pods to China, intended for use on helicopters, According to them the Chinese authorities explained that they needed a large number of this type of / pods for civilian helicopters, and therefore would like to purchase two sets initially for testing purposes The Chinese took no further action after receiving the test pods. Currently both the ZW 10 and the night attack version the ZW-9 are equipped with o/E detectors very similar to the Leo-II

Don · Post by **Don** » 24 Apr 2011 13:39

Juggi G wrote:Is China Developing a VSTOL Fighter ?

China is expected to begin sea trials for its first aircraft carrier this summer. Analysts believe the J-15 Flying Shark, a copy of the Sukhoi Su-33, will be China's first carrier-based fighter. SAC procured an earlier prototype of the Su-33 from the Ukraine in 2001 and the J-15 reportedly conducted its first test flight in mid-2009.

WTF :-
• J-18 Red Eagle (VSTOL)
• J-15 Flying Shark (Copy of the Sukhoi Su-33)
• J-17 (Long-range fighter-bomber based on the Russian Sukhoi Su-34)
• J-16 (stealthier dedicated attack version of the J-11B (Su-27) multirole fighter)
• J-19 (Heavy multirole fighter based on the J-11B)
• J-20 Black Eagle

J-15 on PLAN service, note the canards.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 24 Apr 2011 15:06

From Newbie corner thread,

Code: Select all

						  Augusta Westland A129 			       LCH		  					WZ-10
LENGTH           	    12.28 m (40 ft 3 in)           15.8 m (51ft 8in)            14.15 m
ROTOR DIAMETER          11.90 m (39 ft 1 in)           13.3 m (43 ft 6 in)          13.00 m
HEIGHT                   3.35 m (11 ft 0 in)            4.7 m (15 ft 4 in) 	       3.85 m
EMPTY WEIGHT            2,530 kg (5,575 lb)            2550 kg (5621 lb)            5,540 kg
MAX. TAKE OFF WEIGHT    4,600 kg (10,140 lb)          5,700 kg (12125 lb)            8000 kg
POWER PLANT             2×664 kW (890 shp ea.)        2×900 kW (1200hp ea.)         2×957 kw (1285shp ea.)
Power/Mass 				 0.524                          0.705           		        0.345

MAXIMUM SPEED	      278 km/h  (148 knots, mph)       330 km/h (178 knots, 207 mph)         300+ km/h
CRUISE SPEED	       229 km/h  (135 knots, mph)       260 km/h (140 knots, 161 mph)         270+ km/h
FERRY RANGE	      1,000 km    (540 nm, 620 mi)         800+ km
RANGE	              510 km    (275 nm, 320 mi)        700 km    (297 nm, 342 mi)	
SERVICE CEILING	  4,725 m     (15,500 ft)          	 6500 m    (21,300 ft)              6,400 m
RATE OF CLIMB	     10.2 m/s   (2,025 ft/min)	        12 m/s  (2362 ft/min)

The figures available on internet are a bit different from those published by Vayu

ranjithnath · Post by **ranjithnath** » 24 Apr 2011 20:15

^^^the vayu article quotes the empty weight as 5540 and MTO as 6000 kg.clearly there is a mistake.

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 24 Apr 2011 20:41

Austin,
You are forgetting that is the US economy goes down...trillions of China's US treasury bonds will also go down the toilet. While the US would be able to garner credit...aint nobody in hell is gonna extend credit to China especially because of their major expertise in creative banking and accounting.

manum · Post by **manum** » 24 Apr 2011 20:45

make the world so dependent on you that it can not afford you to collapse...is the policy USA works on, whereas China now realizing that repelling your immediate neighbours will only make them more independent, China is still a medieval country in terms of its policies...

arnabh · Post by **arnabh** » 25 Apr 2011 00:16

link deleted by moderator

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Apr 2011 01:07

therefore would like to purchase two sets initially for testing purposes

A fool and his intellectual property are easily parted

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 25 Apr 2011 04:03

Gerard...its not that easy. Japanese electronics companies still rely on Zeiss instruments for many of their applications mainly because they are unable to compete with Zeiss in certain areas. The Chinese may be able to reverse engineer here and there and produce an exact looking instrument but I highly suspect that they can perform as good as the original. Expertise in reverse engineering is dearly overrated these days.
Avram

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Apr 2011 05:19

Avram,

Are you trying to say that the J-15/7, VSTOL, is liable to tilt to one side on V-landing? Once in a while?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Apr 2011 07:30

I put it to my dharmic brothers that the Vayu table is correct

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 25 Apr 2011 08:59

Porkies training with Chinese on their MKKs (in Pakistani airbase).

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 25 Apr 2011 10:18

All I am saying is that you can replicate a steel part or a plastic plate or a gear box with your expertise in reverse engineering but the steel or the plastic or the precision in making the gear box will not be easily reverse engineered. And then there is the field of micro electronics. You can jump up and down from the tallest palm tree but all the reverse engineering expertise will be of little help. And then there is the field of lens crafting. It is not just lens crafting but the material needed to first make the glass (or whatever the combo is) which requires a stringent understanding in first melting the "stuff" and the cooling method. And then the expertise needed in cutting and crafting and coating. Karl Zeiss is top of the world when it comes to this. Chinese expertise in all these is nowhere near the Japanese and if the Japanese find it hard...

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 25 Apr 2011 10:31

Is China’s Carrier Aviation Program Kicking into High Gear?

Cross posting from the Managing Chinese Threat forum.

From the article

Chinese shipbuilding and military sources have indicated that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has plans to build two new Varyag style carriers, followed by two larger nuclear-powered carriers.
....
....
the massive carrier pilot training base at Huludao, Liaoning province appears to be a near duplicate of the design of NITKA (Ukrainian Nazemniy Ispitatelno—Tryenirovochniy Kompleks Aviatsii: Land-based Naval Aviation Testing and Training Complex). The NITKA facilities are state of the art land-based installations for operating one of the Russian-designed carriers that utilize a ski ramp for take-off instead of the steam catapult and arresting cable/tailhook landing system used on U.S. and French aircraft carriers.

So china is basically aiming for a 5 carrier fleet, with a mix of conventional and nuclear powered carriers.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 25 Apr 2011 10:40

Avram,
In the field of microelectronics, the chinese are feared. They counterfeit chips like nobody's business and its a worry for all chip manufacturers. Glass, precision grinding, opto-electronic systems should definitely be a lot more difficult though than reverse engineering chips.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Apr 2011 10:57

>> Chinese shipbuilding and military sources have indicated that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has plans to build two new Varyag style carriers,
>> followed by two larger nuclear-powered carriers.

my prediction was on the dot. they are going the pragmatic route by cloning and increasingly modifying the basic varyag design with two new units and then moving into virgin territory with new design bigger carriers. the risk of goofing things up majorly in the varyag class is much lower because nikolayev will assist them fully and the design is already proven at sea in the kuznetsov class and issues encountered in sea trials already known now. they can buy up machinery and parts from the same supplier chain who keeps the kuznetsov class up and running, while parallel doing the cloning and copying factory thing for the next class.

we will certainly get IAC1 and Gorshkov a decade before these varyagski's enter the fray

but our next class need to be bigger/better/badder than the 55000t varyag class for sure and the first pair need to enter service latest by 2025, which means the planning and design, selection of foreign partner (spain? france? usa?) , building a additional drydock and funding needs to start right now.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Apr 2011 11:01

Prasad wrote: In the field of microelectronics, the chinese are feared. They counterfeit chips like nobody's business and its a worry for all chip manufacturers.

Prasad - this is the first I am hearing of this "Chinese being feared" and I would like to hear more. The Chinese are feared as counterfeiters - and while I fear fake/unreliable counterfeit chips, I don't see, or have not noticed the Chinese producing the dead reliable electronics that form the bulk of sales.

I mean there is electronics and there is electronics. If you are looking at cutting edge, design and fabrication - I have not heard of any great Chinese threat. Yet. The real problem may be finished products with unreliable electronics filling the market - like the barely reliable (will work 6 months) DVD players and spy cams of Chinese origin that brought prices crashing down and made it cheaper in India to throw away a malfunctioning unbranded DVD player than repair a malfunctioning branded player.

My daughters laptop charger failed within its warranty period . Because of some urgency I bought a chinese replacement for 1/4th the price of the branded (but free warranty based ) replacement which came after 3-4 days (after a long weekend). That may have been Chinese as well. I don;t know. But I lost some money. The laptop suppliers lost some money and some cheeni made a few bucks. That is a business model, but not an indicator of high tech.

I fear the Chinese stuff I buy because of toxicity or unreliability. Manufacturers also fear the Chinese because they clone equipment and sell them both cheap and unreliable. But if the Chinese are putting that on their planes - they will be in trouble. You become a trillion dollar economy on counterfeit stuff - you have money. Not tech.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 25 Apr 2011 11:11

^^^^
Unless we have reliable reports which point to deficiency of Chinese built defense/military/naval equipment, we should not assume that the shoddy quality of generic Chinese product is carried forward to their armed forces too.
For example maruti manufactures a so-so quality car alto/m-800/omni and fantastic quality cars like kizashi or sx-4. But we tend to assume that just because the quality of alto is inferior to say a i-10 or a polo, sx-4 and kizashi will be equally bad compared to city/vento and other high end cars respectively. This is a fallacy.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Apr 2011 11:11

the only readymade 60000t carrier design with catapult provision is the anglo-french CVF class. the italians and spanish have nothing and neither is america interested (and even if they have the design, they are not building any so entire supply chain is a issue).

methinks we should base our new design on QE2 class....

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Apr 2011 11:14

shiv wrote: Prasad - this is the first I am hearing of this "Chinese being feared" and I would like to hear more. The Chinese are feared as counterfeiters - and while I fear fake/unreliable counterfeit chips, I don't see, or have not noticed the Chinese producing the dead reliable electronics that form the bulk of sales.

^^^ In that respect, you would be wrong shiv sahab.

They are not at the cutting edge of design. But they are well at par with the rest of the big names when it comes to fabrication. US's and others biggest worry is that the chips they use are made in China. What if they are rigged? They have huge research projects on the same.

Make no mistake, China is not very far behind the curve when it come to chip fabricating tech, and certainly far ahead than most in volume

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 25 Apr 2011 11:28

shiv wrote: Prasad - this is the first I am hearing of this "Chinese being feared" and I would like to hear more. The Chinese are feared as counterfeiters - and while I fear fake/unreliable counterfeit chips, I don't see, or have not noticed the Chinese producing the dead reliable electronics that form the bulk of sales.

I mean there is electronics and there is electronics. If you are looking at cutting edge, design and fabrication - I have not heard of any great Chinese threat. Yet. The real problem may be finished products with unreliable electronics filling the market - like the barely reliable (will work 6 months) DVD players and spy cams of Chinese origin that brought prices crashing down and made it cheaper in India to throw away a malfunctioning unbranded DVD player than repair a malfunctioning branded player.

Saar,
I'm not talking about the cheap chinese make torch-lights, personal fans or toys. Chinese counterfeiting of chipzilla,amd, qcomm chips is a very real and present problem. Chips i'm talking about are not just the intel dual core/quad core processors that everyone is very well versed with. Millions of chips used in network routers, switches, modems, modern vehicles, handheld devices, LRUs, radar - military, weather and on and on.. Taiwan is the biggest chipmaker today and manufactures chips for the biggest chip companies in the world. The chinis grab the latest chips and use stm or some other microscopy and counterfeit them in enough numbers that companies that manufacture systems using these chips are worried about whether they're being fed counterfeit chips. These subsystems are bought by major american defense contractors because, again its chini made, hence cheap. And its a very real concern. Grumbles are heard in many chip companies here in the us but not too loudly (due to large number of chinis working in them? dunno).

I fear the Chinese stuff I buy because of toxicity or unreliability. Manufacturers also fear the Chinese because they clone equipment and sell them both cheap and unreliable. But if the Chinese are putting that on their planes - they will be in trouble. You become a trillion dollar economy on counterfeit stuff - you have money. Not tech.

Oh they have no problem in getting tech. In this field, there are chinis, indians and koreans who make up the bulk of the workforce in major companies. Goras are there for sure, in most of the top positions and important ones but there is no dearth of tech knowhow amongst chinis who can always siphon knowhow back to the motherland. And the government is more than willing to get it and build fabs to churn out proper and counterfeit chips in the thousands.

Added later: This is an article on arstechnica from 2 years ago - http://arstechnica.com/security/news/20 ... rashes.ars

Not to mention the big hungama when Newegg (popular online retailer of computer hardware among others) shipped fake brand new Intel's Core i7 processors last year - http://www.pcworld.com/article/190983/i ... _chip.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Apr 2011 15:44

Russia has a real aid to China in the field of military technology - Chief of Staff of Army of China

BEIJING, April 25. (ARMS-TASS). Russia has been a real aid to China in the field of military technology, but U.S. and EU create obstacles to defense cooperation , in a meeting with the Chief of General Staff of Armed Forces Army General Nikolai Makarov, said on Sunday Chief of Staff of People's Liberation Army (PLA) Chen Binde.

"The U.S. and EU create obstacles to China's defense cooperation" - he said.

PLA Chief of General Staff pointed out that while "Russia has been a real aid to China in the field of military technology."At the same time, he said, "in this area in recent years there have been some problems."

"Our countries have identical positions on a wide range of international problems, most of them are impossible without the participation of Russia and China. The unity of opinion in our countries based on mutual respect and trust", - said Chen Binde.

In particular, as chief of General Staff said the PLA, we are talking about the positions of the two countries on the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue.

Chen Binde also told his Russian counterpart on how to implement the reform of China's armed forces, and expressed great interest in similar processes in the Russian army.

Nikolai Makarov, arrived in China to participate in the meeting of Chiefs of General Staffs of the SCO member countries, which will be held in Shanghai. Tomorrow morning he is also scheduled to meet with Vice President Xi Jinping.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 25 Apr 2011 19:25

I don't see how somebody who has only built something (but not designed) be in any way behind another who has neither built nor designed anything on the same level.
Also Shiv, I don't anybody should make the mistake of judging the quality of the Chinese industry by the quality of their fakes or ultra cheap products. For one the original quality "branded" maal is also made in China. And more importantly it is the counterfeiter's business model to make his products much cheaper than the original and hence of much lower quality. You cannot draw an inference on the quality of their Military hardware form the quality of most of their other products, unless the PLA wanted super cheap arms.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Apr 2011 20:17

abhik wrote: Also Shiv, I don't anybody should make the mistake of judging the quality of the Chinese industry by the quality of their fakes or ultra cheap products. For one the original quality "branded" maal is also made in China. And more importantly it is the counterfeiter's business model to make his products much cheaper than the original and hence of much lower quality. You cannot draw an inference on the quality of their Military hardware form the quality of most of their other products, unless the PLA wanted super cheap arms.

Frankly I hear too much of this and am skeptical. Too many people lecture me about how we should not dismiss rubbish because diamonds may be hidden.

Fact is - in this world - anyone who has technology sells it to others to make big money in the face of stiff competition. When the maal is really really cheap - anyone buys it and few are bothered about its quality because it is practically use and throw. but when you get down to really high tech - it is costlier to make anyway - even for the Chinese. So when people look for top of the line sensors and reliable, accurate and fail safe equipment (like medical electronics) - the really reliable guys end up achieving the biggest sales. Even if they source components from China - they will get crushed by the competition if the machines are not reliable.

At this level there are very few Chinese companies that have managed to break in. Perhaps it is simply because copied chips may be the simplest component of the equipment but integration of opto-electro-mechanical parts is a different ball game. I am the last person to take credit away from the Chinese if they are producing good stuff. But I am not seeing any of that, In the medical field - where tolerances, reliability and value for money are just as vital as in defence. Assembled in China is a lot different from totally made in China. the latter may be cheap, but still has the reputation for low quality and unreliability.

When KSA, Indonesia and Bangladesh start equipping their helos with Chinese made cheap opto electronic pods and putting Chinese radars in their aircraft then we are looking at something. Heck even Bandar uses Grifo.

Added later: As an aside - I admire the Chinese for trying which is better than we do here in India. The chinese developed a fiber optic endoscpe ages ago which they tried to sell really cheap in India. But no. those scopes were too low in quality and reliability and the Chinese company did not make headway. but full marks for trying. Indians are too naive even to copy the intestinal staplers that they are paying in dollars for making a lot of Indian pay through their nose. Sorry OT.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Apr 2011 20:33

indeed , its quite surprising in the vast field of medical electronics and diagnostic eqpt are there big chinese names to counter the likes of GE medical, Siemens, Philips ? or chip lithography eqpt from Applied materials or Nikon ? or doppler weather radars/ATC radars from raytheon?
all areas which demand quality and money is not the most important criteria.

the only "high tech" field I see them as having deeply made a mark so far is personal computers and telecom equipment(huawei and zte). but in both areas there are still strong outside competitors and they are having to offer things at throwaway prices to get deals in developing countries. perhaps the plan is to establish relations and footprint later to shut the gate on competitors.

certain other "medium tech" field like motors, ships, power generation plants , electrical and electronic parts, toys, textiles, plastic parts is where they have taken deep bites.