China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Aug 2011 09:54

I have seen no good photos yet of the carrier going out for sea trials, but older pics indicate a mainmast with a inclined panel "podzeberovik/top plate" type radar and big panels lower down for the kind of phased array radar seen on one of their DDG classes (the ones that mount the revolver vls big SAMs).

so its likely this ship will follow the Kuznetsov model and mount a significant number of area defence and sr-sams and maybe even some silos in foredeck for YJ-xx type ASMs - though I think they will omit that and maximise the hanger.

nits · Post by **nits** » 11 Aug 2011 11:05

Multatuli wrote:A follow up to Anup Misra's post:

China began sea trials on Wednesday for its first aircraft carrier, a ship that has come to symbolize the nation’s growing military and maritime ambitions. ~ The aircraft carrier – a retrofitted former Soviet ship called the Varyag – has long been seen as the first step in China’s plan to eventually build a handful of carriers as part of a wider development of naval might. ~ On the same day China’s carrier set sail, Taiwan brandished its most advanced missile at the Taipei Aerospace and Defense Technology Exhibition. The display was accompanied by billboard calling the missle, Hsiung Feng III, an “aircraft carrier killer.” An image of it appeared alongside a picture of a craft closely resembling the Varyag crippled and aflame.
Picture of the stricken Chinese carrier.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arc ... 68666i.jpg

I have to compliment the Taiwanese both for their sense of humor and their balls.

We should buy couple of it to make Chinese feel better...

nits · Post by **nits** » 11 Aug 2011 11:08

China to launch satellite for Pakistan

China announced on Wednesday it will launch a communications satellite for Pakistan at an "appropriate time" in the coming days. It will be carried by a Long March-3B carrier rocket.

Both the satellite and rocket are currently in good condition, the official media quoted a spokesman of the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in southwest China's Sichuan Province, as saying.

The 30-transponder satellite will give Pakistan some strategic advantages in military and cross-border propaganda areas besides helping the country meet its communications needs, observers said.

It has been "manufactured exclusively" for Pakistan, the National Space Agency of Pakistan, said recently. It will work on both KU and C bands and controlled by earth stations in Karachi and Lahore, the agency said.

Pakistan is a member of the Beijing headquartered Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization, which is implementing a project sharing of remote sensing data among member states. Other members include Bangladesh and Iran, who will also share date on early warning and mitigating disasters and exploitation of resources in the APSCO circuit. China began assisting Pakistan's space program after signing a strategic cooperation agreement in 2007.

nits · Post by **nits** » 11 Aug 2011 17:15

US wants China to explain why it needs aircraft carrier

As China commenced sea trials of its first aircraft carrier, the US has sought an explanation from Beijing why it needs this kind of equipment and asked it to be more transparent about its power projections. "We have had concerns for some time, and we've been quite open about them with regard to the lack of transparency from China regarding its power projection and its lack of access and denial of capabilities," State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters.

China's first aircraft carrier set sail for sea trials, as concerns mounted about the country's rapid military build-up amid flaring regional disputes. "We want to see more transparency. We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment. As you know, President (Bareck) Obama and President Hu (Jintao) have stated together that they want a healthy and reliable military-to- military relationship."

Somehow i find this Question funny... Gurus may Disagree...

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 11 Aug 2011 18:58

Is it just me or do others also share the thought that US acts like the 'Dada'of the world.
I'm not on the side of the Chinese,but on one hand the US itself has 11 AC's but others can't even have one.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Aug 2011 19:02

well if someone is forcing China to fart loudly in their face, they will get their wish fulfilled.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 11 Aug 2011 19:04

ShauryaT wrote:
ramana wrote:Thomas can Tibet support 14 military airfields and 500K troops? I can see 17 radars stations as its mountainous and hence need more coverage but what are they looking at?
Ramana ji: The 14 number probably comes from FAS.org. The only way to support this is to include not just the TAR but large parts of the Sichuan and Quinghai provinces in it. This way, even Chengdu would have to be counted and most of these bases would be 500+ miles away from India. Although the word used is airfields and not air bases. One would think the number of airfields in TAR alone would be a lot higher. TAR has about six air bases. There is a good Google earth file (KMZ) file that notes all the air bases in PRC.

Very aptly put. I was struggling to say that

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Aug 2011 19:49

Would like to recall some previous dicussions we have had on this thread as well as posting some new info.

Tibet has average altitudes of 15,000 feet. About 30,000 years ago Tibetans evolved a gene that allows them to live at those altitudes. For others - ascent to that altitude can incapacitate up to 50% of them. Even after acclimatization it is recommended that these people should sleep at night at a much lower altitude (which can be simulated by oxygen enriched barracks that the Chinese are building in Tibet) Keeping 500,00 soldiers in Tibet fighting fit is not something the Chinese have now.

The other thing about Tibet is that food has to come from the lower regions because Tibet per se is not very productive. I would also like to quote soem figures from a book I have in front of me:

In WW 2 the artillery of a single corps fired 13,000 shells in one day - described as a "normal day". Some targets received 11 tons of shells per minute and the British 10 Corps fired 3800 tons of ammunition. There are lots of other figures but let me keep these as daily guesstimates for a hot conflict.

A rough estimate would be that 5 freight trains (25,000 tons) of material has to come into Tibet per day to maintain 500,000 men. Blow up one bridge along the way and the men will begin to starve in a few days. Unless the supplies have been built up in advance to feed and maintain 500,000 men in Tibet for 15 days. If the supplies have been built up and 500,000 men are being placed in Tibet - it will be visible in satellite images. If those men are not there in Tibet - they will need even more trains and suffer from altitude sickness and will need months to acclimatize. It is clearly a cock and bull story concoction to say that China is now maintaining 500,000 combat troops in Tibet.

Missile bases with "hundreds of missiles" - yes maybe. But what they heck are we going to do about them in response? wank off towards China? If those missiles are nuclear, china will get a nuclear response. if they are conventional, hundreds of missiles with conventional munitions is the same as (or less accurate than) dozens of aircraft taking in the same tonnage into Tibet.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Aug 2011 20:26

Then there is the PVNR "peace and tranquility" treaty of 1993 which makes both sides withdraw SSM from 150kms from the Lin of Actual Control(LAC).

To me the periodic reprots of excessive militarization of Tibet are US scare pieces to mkae India run into their treaties.

Invariably these reports come from US sources and are tom-tommed by known US foils.

Not to say they are all untrue, but they have to be taken into proper prespective.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 11 Aug 2011 20:38

ramana wrote:but they have to be taken into proper prespective.

Correct way to put that.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 12 Aug 2011 22:56

China converts the Aircraft Carrier Kiev into Luxury Hotel!!!

http://luxpresso.com/news-indulge/insid ... hotel/6969

dont know if it is true!

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 15 Aug 2011 13:49

there must be many more videos of the Shi Lang's sea trials on Chinese video hosts

this 1 uploaded on YouTube yesterday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GOfOX9FBaQ

DavidD where art thou?

---------------------------
Update

Ex-Varyag unveiling its fangs - Type 1130 CIWS, HHQ-10 RAM and UDAV-1 ASW-launcher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knGBLUH1egg

some recently uploaded videos
http://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%96%B ... 20&bih=936

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 15 Aug 2011 17:15

discovery channel had a programme on the lhasa railway - quite an impressive engineering feat, and despite being a single line railway - good throughput, and quite ingenious in how they've tackled technical problems like permafrost, waste disposal and oxygen for passengers; the track remains vulnerable though- but the point is that they can use the railway for pre-positioning heavy supplies ahead of hostilities

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Aug 2011 05:47

Lalmohan wrote:discovery channel had a programme on the lhasa railway - quite an impressive engineering feat, and despite being a single line railway - good throughput, and quite ingenious in how they've tackled technical problems like permafrost, waste disposal and oxygen for passengers; the track remains vulnerable though- but the point is that they can use the railway for pre-positioning heavy supplies ahead of hostilities

There are quite a few videos of the train IIRC and I even read a great travelogue of a chap who travelled up to Lhasa that gave me some interesting insights.

Tibet does not grow enough food or support enough wildlife to feed a population beyond a point. Food has to be shipped in as well. In any case those who want their pork as oppose to Yak's milk will need to have that shipped in. The internal security situation in Tibet is not necessarily China friendly it appears.

ranjbe · Post by **ranjbe** » 16 Aug 2011 19:32

Some thoughts on why the new aircraft carrier will turn out to be a headache for China from article in Asia Times:

But even without these deficiencies, China's southern neighbors will likely ensure that the South China Sea becomes too dangerous for China to risk sending its prized carrier into contested waters.

In the first week of June, an article in Vietnam's state newspaper, Nhan Dan, carried pictures of the world's fastest anti-ship missile, the Indo-Russian BrahMos, in a clear statement of procurement intentions and its navy's readiness to respond to incidents of Chinese aggression within waters it claims as its exclusive economic zone. With a speed of Mach 2.8, the missile is four times as fast as a US-made Tomahawk missile and would present a lethal threat to any vessel within its 300-kilometer range. (Even with exceptional anti-missile capabilities, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) navies would keep well out of range of this threat.)

BrahMos procurement requires joint Indian and Russian approval, and Vietnam is rapidly improving its relations with both nations. During a high profile defense cooperation visit to New Delhi by Vietnam's navy chief at the end of June, the Vietnamese government gave permission for Indian navy ships to drop anchor at Nha Trang, which has been off-limits to foreign navies since 2003.

Both Indonesia and the Philippines could also quickly develop powerful deterrent capabilities, and at relatively little cost by deploying anti-ship missiles to key outposts. Indonesia has already held discussions with India to acquire the BrahMos missile. The Philippines could either purchase US missiles off-the-shelf, or negotiate purchase of Taiwan's new ram-jet Hsiung Feng III anti-ship missile, unveiled with exquisite timing last week at the Taipei Aerospace and Defense Technology Exhibition against a mural backdrop of a burning carrier

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MH17Ad02.html

GelbOne · Post by **GelbOne** » 16 Aug 2011 20:45

Hi guys I'm new to this forum so forgive me if I make nooby mistakes,

I just wanted to point out that even if we and Russia have the BrahMos and other neighboring military forces increase their presence in the South China sea, China has barely started building the carrier support battlegroup that it would need to actually enforce any significant naval action. Right now, I believe only the keels of some of the support ships have been lain (correct me if I'm wrong). So what, about 5 years for manufacturing and then 3 more for integration? the carrier would be at LEAST 8 years old (not counting manufacturing and systems testing), and would probably require more upgrades to remain compatible at that time.

It seems like unless China can pull a support fleet out of thin air, the new carrier is just gonna be a waste of resources...

sum · Post by **sum** » 16 Aug 2011 20:50

At 300 meters long and displacing over 60,000 tons, the carrier is by far the largest warship of any navy in Asia. No other country in the region can operate fighter aircraft from a warship except Thailand, whose Chakri Narubet is less than a fifth the size

Ummm...Why doesnt the Viraat find a mention?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Aug 2011 20:57

At the risk of veering off into a geopolitical discussion I think that the carrier Shi_Lang whatever is not a waste. It's not a waste of time or resources even if we do not se a great threat from it.

If you are political leader in a country with hundreds of millions of people who have largely lived agrarian lives - the only way you can make an economy and make the people useful is to give them something to do. Both China and India are doing the same thing in a different way. China is building, building building. Building anything, and manufacturing.

China's social peace comes from giving its millions something to do to be useful and earn a living. One look at Pakistan and you get an idea of what happens in a country where you have a hundred million odd people who do not have any education or purpose in life. Such a population are ripe for being sold bullcrap like they exist as god's servants and should work for Allah when the truth is they exist only because momma and poppa had no condom. That's all.

ranjbe · Post by **ranjbe** » 16 Aug 2011 21:06

sum wrote:
At 300 meters long and displacing over 60,000 tons, the carrier is by far the largest warship of any navy in Asia. No other country in the region can operate fighter aircraft from a warship except Thailand, whose Chakri Narubet is less than a fifth the size
Ummm...Why doesnt the Viraat find a mention?

He probably means countries in the South China sea area, when he says "region".

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 16 Aug 2011 22:42

shiv wrote:At the risk of veering off into a geopolitical discussion I think that the carrier Shi_Lang whatever is not a waste. It's not a waste of time or resources even if we do not se a great threat from it.

If you are political leader in a country with hundreds of millions of people who have largely lived agrarian lives - the only way you can make an economy and make the people useful is to give them something to do. Both China and India are doing the same thing in a different way. China is building, building building. Building anything, and manufacturing.

China's social peace comes from giving its millions something to do to be useful and earn a living. One look at Pakistan and you get an idea of what happens in a country where you have a hundred million odd people who do not have any education or purpose in life. Such a population are ripe for being sold bullcrap like they exist as god's servants and should work for Allah when the truth is they exist only because momma and poppa had no condom. That's all.

samverma · Post by **samverma** » 16 Aug 2011 23:20

they exist only because momma and poppa had no condom.

zlin · Post by **zlin** » 17 Aug 2011 09:56

J20 new video

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Aug 2011 14:19

^^
Nice. The machine actually flies. Fairly low level aerobatics (plus) and piss poor camera work (minus). The second video is a tight turn, not a loop.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 17 Aug 2011 17:43

samverma wrote:they exist only because momma and poppa had no condom.

You mean to say that pakistan exists because Jinnah and Mountbatten lacked a condom ?

samverma · Post by **samverma** » 17 Aug 2011 17:47

gakakkad wrote:
samverma wrote:they exist only because momma and poppa had no condom.

You mean to say that pakistan exists because Jinnah and Mountbatten lacked a condom ?

The above post is a copy and my reaction to Shiv sir's quote...did'nt realize the quote was not highlighted...my apologies to you for any misunderstanding

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 17 Aug 2011 18:50

varyag in the pond

manum · Post by **manum** » 17 Aug 2011 20:05

shiv wrote:when the truth is they exist only because momma and poppa had no condom. That's all.

hehe... shiv I wont be surprised that with all the VIP targets in India, The add a Fatwa against you too...hehe, This is hilarious.

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 18 Aug 2011 00:14

read this article some days back. learnt why Russia does not have such a rich history of building & operating Carriers

What Soviet Naval History Can Tell Us About China’s New Carrier

http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/blog/in ... w-carrier/

apologies if this article was already posted. had Googled the forum using the post title, but found none

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Aug 2011 14:44

zlin wrote:J20 new video

I just had a thought.

The flight testing and proving of flight control software for a totally new airframe should be (in my guesstimate) - at least 500-600 hours of flight to get the control laws and software "pucca". Probably more. The data needs to be analysed after each flight and the flight control software modified and re tested. That is a slow, tedious process even if all goes well.

J-20 flew in Jan 2011 and 7.5 months later the above videos appear. That means the prototypes have been flying at least 2 hours a day without break for all this time. That is unlikely IMO.

I am guessing that the early prototype/prototypes have manual/conventional controls. Later versions will be FBW.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Aug 2011 15:19

no shivji ... you have the PAKFA flying at MAKS much more aggressively with 80 hours behind it.

The FCS would have been tested on a ground system ... it is the validation and refinement if necessary which takes time.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Aug 2011 16:06

Probably with a J-10 acting like VISTA type platform to test the flight control laws and ground based CLAW.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Aug 2011 16:20

^^^ most probably!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Aug 2011 19:33

indranilroy wrote:no shivji ... you have the PAKFA flying at MAKS much more aggressively with 80 hours behind it.

The FCS would have been tested on a ground system ... it is the validation and refinement if necessary which takes time.

He he he. Let's see...

80 hours you say? The PAKFA flew 1 year before the J-20 and they got in only 80 hours? At that rate the J-20 should have about 30 hours. 4 hours a month.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Aug 2011 19:56

^^^ I am just following the 80 figure that Austin sirjee provided on the PAKFA thread

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Aug 2011 21:51

To be precise its 84 flights *not* 84 hours , each flight might have variable number of minutes/hours depending on the test parameters and other factors.

brvarsh · Post by **brvarsh** » 19 Aug 2011 04:58

There is a news that Chinese army/border force damaged an Indian wall in the Tawang area. This wall was used for observation by the Indian army. Aren't these sensitive location 24x7 monitored electronically as some parts of our western border is done? If not then shouldn't this be a norm for border policing?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Aug 2011 06:37

IA will damage something somewhere. These things have been going on for some decades.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Aug 2011 07:03

Austin wrote:To be precise its 84 flights *not* 84 hours , each flight might have variable number of minutes/hours depending on the test parameters and other factors.

The Russians have long experience with aerodynamics - they produced FBW type maneuverability in the non FBW MiG 29 in the 1980s. The T-50 video is a fairly tame one. It is now 20 months since the first PAKFA flight and 8 months since the first J-20 flight.

Is there enough information here to say that either the PAKFA or J-20 are using FBW controls or manual controls? We assume that they are FBW. One, or both could be manual/mechanical controls, given the information we have so far..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Aug 2011 19:23

shiv wrote:Is there enough information here to say that either the PAKFA or J-20 are using FBW controls or manual controls? We assume that they are FBW. One, or both could be manual/mechanical controls, given the information we have so far..

No precise information but that would be one step backward for them considering they use digital FBW on their fighter atleast with the Russians the first quad digital FBW was introduced in 1995 with original Su-35 , prior to that the Flanker used analog FBW and Mig-29 as you mentioned had some manual control , the chinese may not be far behind with FBW ,wiki says J-10 uses quad digital FBW.

So the necessary knowledge and expereince do exist for digital FBW with both.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Aug 2011 20:36

Austin wrote: No precise information but that would be one step backward

It depends on the meaning of "forward" and "backward". If, for example the Chinese wanted to quickly get on with demonstrating flights and operational capability of the J-20 they could rapidly use their experience to make a conventional control aircraft fly and then take more time in developing the FBW control laws.

We would not know but I think the Chinese are sneaky enough to do just that for echandee.