China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

wrdos · Post by **wrdos** » 01 Jul 2012 18:31

If u know Chinese u'd found that people standing there not for witnessing the plane but because their side of the expressway was closed.

It is really something that is very important. An export model could not afford such police existence, and never.

wong · Post by **wong** » 01 Jul 2012 18:33

What makes you think they want to be discreet about it?? That's not the vibe I'm getting. They've got a new toy that they want the Americans to know. I'm getting the "send SEAL Team 6 and we'll be waiting" vibe.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 01 Jul 2012 18:34

If u know Chinese u'd found that people standing there not for witnessing the plane but because their side of the expressway was closed.

Why cant they do at night?

It is really something that is very important. An export model could not afford such police existence, and never.

What can harm the plane? The locals cant run away with the plane.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 01 Jul 2012 18:38

What makes you think they want to be discreet about it?? That's not the vibe I'm getting. They've got a new toy that they want the Americans to know. I'm getting the "send SEAL Team 6 and we'll be waiting" vibe.

Why looking for approval from the Americans? Surely the Chinese know how advanced it is

Nobody is getting worried over a SEAL Team in burqa

wong · Post by **wong** » 01 Jul 2012 18:57

^^^^

Nothing to do with Anglo-Saxon approval. That's your thing.

There are complex geopolitics at work like the sale of new F-16s to
Taiwan that's recently up for reconsideration.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 01 Jul 2012 19:02

There are complex geopolitics at work like the sale of new F-16s to
Taiwan that's recently up for reconsideration.

Would it not accelerate the reconsideration process? It is not as if stopping the sale of F-16s to Taiwan will slow down the development of new aircrafts in China. The Taiwanese will ask for more weapons. How does that help China?

S_Prasad · Post by **S_Prasad** » 01 Jul 2012 20:36

I am not interested in the parade/mockup, but look at the convoy, all those BMW's, AUDI's and a land rover for police cars!! They are sitting on a mountain of money!!!

rajithn · Post by **rajithn** » 01 Jul 2012 20:57

S_Prasad wrote:I am not interested in the parade/mockup, but look at the convoy, all those BMW's, AUDI's and a land rover for police cars!! They are sitting on a mountain of money!!!

But thats exactly the point. It looks like a nice choreographed act. One RR, one Beemer and an Audi thrown in for good measure.

some ccp wonk thought it up. And the amount of trouble someone has gone to - to wrap tape around just so the shape can be discerned.

So many better ways to do things, if you are serious about what you are developing rather than thirsting for international acknowledgement and approval of your R&D.

Move it in the dark.
A weighted tarp all around that conceals

Truly, the tallel than tallel, deepel and deepel friends, nay brothers, deserve each other.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jul 2012 21:00

wong wrote:J-21/F-60 Caravan

http://www.youtube.com/embed/lS9GSVGO7yo

The person filming had no clue as to what was going to go past, and, even when it did had no idea as to the value of what rolled past. Seems to me that he hopped out of his car only because his side of the traffic had stopped and saw some vehicles with flashing lights pass by and decided to film something - not know what he might encounter.

zlin · Post by **zlin** » 01 Jul 2012 21:11

It's funny that policemen in the patroling car shouted "Don't take pictures!", then the man put his finger on camera.

wong · Post by **wong** » 01 Jul 2012 21:34

rajithn wrote:
S_Prasad wrote:I am not interested in the parade/mockup, but look at the convoy, all those BMW's, AUDI's and a land rover for police cars!! They are sitting on a mountain of money!!!
But thats exactly the point. It looks like a nice choreographed act. One RR, one Beemer and an Audi thrown in for good measure. some ccp wonk thought it up. And the amount of trouble someone has gone to - to wrap tape around just so the shape can be discerned.

So many better ways to do things, if you are serious about what you are developing rather than thirsting for international acknowledgement and approval of your R&D.

Move it in the dark.
A weighted tarp all around that conceals

Truly, the tallel than tallel, deepel and deepel friends, nay brothers, deserve each other.

What RR?? You realize most official cars in China are Audis, right ?? And BMW is starting to show up in Police cars?? And all are Made in China.

Yes, China needs to learn "serious" military program development from India.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 01 Jul 2012 23:29

wong wrote:Yes, China needs to learn "serious" military program development from India.

Sorry, you are wrong: there is nothing for China to learn from India. China is already the best in the world at stealing technology developed by others.

When you find a Pakistani brave enough or stupid enough to get airborne in a J-21, I expect you will no longer have to satisfy yourself with images of a plane being trucked around (albeit with great show-shah).

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 02 Jul 2012 00:50

wong wrote: What RR?? You realize most official cars in China are Audis, right ?? And BMW is starting to show up in Police cars?? And all are Made in China.

Yes, China needs to learn "serious" military program development from India.

Wong, it takes either a very silly level of reflexive nationalism, or a personal stake in the system to defend such obvious official corruption. Especially when Chinese academics and citizens are busy calling for reform.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/08 ... s-20120108

China Communist Party bureaucrats like their cars high end
A remnant of a decades-old Communist Party perks system, the luxe wheels are a conspicuous target of growing public outrage over the privileges of the elite. Angry Chinese have started posting photos.
January 08, 2012|By Barbara Demick

Reporting from Beijing — Even the police are driving Porsches.

Chinese officials love their cars — big, fancy, expensive cars. A chocolate-colored Bentley worth $560,000 is cruising the streets of Beijing with license plates indicating it is registered to Zhongnanhai, the Communist Party headquarters. The armed police, who handle riots and crowd control, have the same model of Bentley in blue.

And just in case it needs to go racing off to war, the Chinese army has a black Maserati that sells in China for $330,000.

"Corruption on wheels is an accurate description of this problem," said Wang Yukai, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Governance in Beijing, who has been advocating restrictions on officials' cars for years.

A remnant of a decades-old party perks system, the luxe wheels are a conspicuous target of growing public outrage over the privileges of the elite.

Armed with cellphone cameras, angry Chinese have started posting photographs of the expensive government cars — identifiable by their license plates — on a microblog site called Anti-Official Cars Extravagance that was set up in August. (Government censors shut down an earlier version of the same site.)

The Chinese government doesn't release figures, but automobile industry analysts here say that spending for cars tops $15 billion annually, while some scholars believe the figure is many times that amount.

Even at more conservative estimates, the figure is greater than that allocated for low-income housing or for scientific research and development.

Not to speak of the funding for school buses.

Interesting note - Mao early on purged as 'ultra-leftists' those who refused Party provided perks commensurate with their rank. It was seen as a breach of party discipline and solidarity.

What has changed in the last 20 years is that the cars have gotten much nicer. Of course this doesn't even begin to scratch all the vehicles bought by the families of Party members in China and overseas with 'personal' funds.

I for one am perfectly happy that the Chinese Communist Party is wasting billions on luxury Western cars every year -even the lower end ones made in China - rather than investing them in say, developing a robust commercial aircraft industry. Carry on please.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Jul 2012 02:02

All this hoopla and psycho stuff aside.

My feeling is this. This is a well planted video by the Chinese government (otherwise we all know that it would have gone offline by now).

There is a plane round the corner. And the Chinese want the world to know.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 02 Jul 2012 03:03

indranilroy wrote:All this hoopla and psycho stuff aside.

My feeling is this. This is a well planted video by the Chinese government (otherwise we all know that it would have gone offline by now).

There is a plane round the corner. And the Chinese want the world to know.

Something like that, it sure seems like something is about to be revealed. Pictures have been floating around for a few days now, I just thought most of you have probably already seen it. These are some I found:

http://i.imgur.com/ygg9w.jpg
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn22 ... /dD1gI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Qo8dS.jpg

The wings probably can't be removed ala the F-35, the tail wings probably aren't attached. Earlier on the rumor was that it was heading toward Tianjin, but I think the latest news says that it's headed to Yanliang, where the PLAAF traditionally tests its planes. The first J-20, 2001, is supposedly there as well. For both planes, not a peep has come out since they arrived there.

wong · Post by **wong** » 02 Jul 2012 03:47

Johann wrote:
Wong, it takes either a very silly level of reflexive nationalism, or a personal stake in the system to defend such obvious official corruption. Especially when Chinese academics and citizens are busy calling for reform.

I'm not defending the system. It's naive to think corruption only exists in the Chinese form of government. Open your eyes, there are 1 percenters everywhere and in every country. In the US, government corruption isn't so blatantly obvious, but it most definitely exists and for far larger sums than a Bugatti or Maserati.

Johann wrote:
I for one am perfectly happy that the Chinese Communist Party is wasting billions on luxury Western cars every year -even the lower end ones made in China - rather than investing them in say, developing a robust commercial aircraft industry. Carry on please.

Is it really mutually exclusive?? Did China not fund the COMAC C919 or Airbus Tianjin because it ran out of money buying Audis?? We will carry on. Thank you.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jul 2012 07:28

looking at how far back the wings are, and their relatively small size, seems to be another J20ish config with canards to be added.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 02 Jul 2012 08:17

Singha wrote:looking at how far back the wings are, and their relatively small size, seems to be another J20ish config with canards to be added.

I don't think so. It will have standard elevon type configuration with the trailing edge of the elevon extending far behind the trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer. All in all, this design is looking very aerodynamically impressive.

As much credit as which goes to the Chinese Aerospace engineers, from my perspective its sad that we are relegated to viewing these advancements from the other side of the fence with nothing to show in return. As an aerospace engineer, I am interested in seeing this bird fly in the near future. As an Indian however, I will mark that same day as a defeat for the Indian aerospace industry. And based on what the Chinese aerospace students and industry experts present in terms of research findings (The mass of these reports is in itself impressive and indicative of the exponentially growing local industry over there) with alarming regularity in US Aerospace Conferences, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that we should look to see more really cool stuff come out of their homegrown industries.

I still see a lot of BRFites talking about how the Chinese steal/copy outside tech, but what needs to be realized is that they have learnt quickly and these days it has more inputs from its local research results rather than copies of western designs. It is a very serious underestimation to consider these designs as knock-down copies of western designs. If it looks similar it is probably because its a common solution to a common problem as far as aerospace design is considered.

Just some thoughts.

-Vivek

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Jul 2012 09:02

okay, what you are saying is a fact.. we should care a hoot for how they get these technology - beg, borrow or steal.. what is important is that they got it!.

good enough to be concerned, and deeply concerned on our approaches towards niche technology requirements. we simply would not steal, while we are likely to do the other two. if we can scope our source within the country, then nothing like it.

keep your heads up!.. i think, we are almost there.. it is only an issue of gov+user commitment here, that is going to decide the fate of AMCA etc.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 02 Jul 2012 13:39

Well said Vivek. We tend to forget that the Americans and Russians copied British and German designs wholesale to arrive at today's capabilities in aerospace. The Chinese did not have that luxury and busied themselves copying Russian designs to incrementally digest and master every step. That took humility and perseverance in the face of taunts and barbs but is now paying dividends. Our ex-VCOAS Borbora was quite vocal about our needing to urgently copy and reverse engineer to achieve our goals but it seems that was not a popular message in Delhi.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 02 Jul 2012 16:07

Victor wrote:Well said Vivek. We tend to forget that the Americans and Russians copied British and German designs wholesale to arrive at today's capabilities in aerospace. The Chinese did not have that luxury and busied themselves copying Russian designs to incrementally digest and master every step. That took humility and perseverance in the face of taunts and barbs but is now paying dividends. Our ex-VCOAS Borbora was quite vocal about our needing to urgently copy and reverse engineer to achieve our goals but it seems that was not a popular message in Delhi.

Those who talk of Chinese copying capabilities should least point out others copying too.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jul 2012 16:34

copying of materials that empower a high MTBF EDE engine with superb T:W and SW "personality" that gives life to a flying brick that is a modern FBW fighter is hard.

I feel its the decades of sustained investment in somewhat inferior domestic skill building projects that were then deployed enmasse by the PLAAF under political direction incl fairly impotent ones like the F6, F7, A5, FBC1... , the timely hiring of 100s if not 1000s of technical personnel from eastern europe starting early 1990s and overall general higher importance of domestic projects due to lack of easy imports that are more important factors.

and they still need imports and help from Rus/Ukr in ample measure which shows just how hard building a modern full-spectrum mil-ind complex is.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 02 Jul 2012 17:46

Singha wrote:...shows just how hard building a modern full-spectrum mil-ind complex is.

No arguments there. What is noteworthy is not the exact percentage indigenization of the MIC but rather the exponential increase in rate at which the replacement of imported by local components is happening and also the dramatic quality improvements we are starting to see here as time goes by.

What impresses me the most is that as much as their ideology refuses to accept privatization of industry, they have proven remarkably adept at justifying it and accepting it with all its advantages when it comes to their aerospace industry. If you look at how their companies are structured for competition, its remarkably similar to the local Aerospace Industry setup in the USA.

And in a perverse irony, India being democratic in ideology has for all practical purposes converted its entire MIC complex into a Soviet socialism style PSU based foundation with no sense of competition between projects/organizations.

-Vivek

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jul 2012 18:53

>> but rather the exponential increase in rate at which the replacement of imported by local components is happening and also the dramatic quality improvements we are starting to see here as time goes by.

I think there is a inflection point beyond which the desired outcomes are attained more rapidly , 'network effects' or whatever its called. we have seen this in india missile programs in last few years and some other building blocks as well.
being a inherently high risk and 'wasteful' expenditure, the degree of risk and 'waste' goes up higher up the food chain you go for - a LRU vs a complete a/c for example...they are pouring a lot more money into it and as you mentioned, have organized themselves better into multiple agencies to foster some competition and redundancy and scale in the aerospace MIC.

Don · Post by **Don** » 02 Jul 2012 18:59

MBT-3000 another tank for export only :

The tank can reach speeds up to 42 miles per hour with a cruising range of 500 km. It has a fording depth of four to five meters and a trench of 2.7 meters. The maximum gradient is 60 percent.

Engineers mounted a 125mm smoothbore gun onto the MBT 3000. The main gun can fire APFSDS, HEAT and HE shells and gun launched missiles with a maximum missile range reaching 5,000 meters.

MBT 3000 also features a 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun and a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. Tankers can also fire from 8 76mm smoke grenade launchers and 4 76mm shrapnel grenade launchers.

It carries 38 rounds of main ammunition with a loading speed of eight rounds per minute with 22 rounds on the loader. An un-cooled thermal imagery is installed for the driver while a second generation cooled thermal imager is provided for gunner and the tank commander.

The engine is a water-cooled turbocharged electronic-controlled diesel engine with 1300 horsepower.

The tank is fully digitized with inertial navigation and GPS. Engineers also built a new fire extinguishing and explosion suppression system.

– Mike Hoffman

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/06/14/china ... z1zTKKzG1u
Defense.org

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 02 Jul 2012 19:27

^^^ why i am thinking it is similar to t90?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 03 Jul 2012 01:05

Singha wrote:copying of materials that empower a high MTBF EDE engine with superb T:W and SW "personality" that gives life to a flying brick that is a modern FBW fighter is hard.

I feel its the decades of sustained investment in somewhat inferior domestic skill building projects that were then deployed enmasse by the PLAAF under political direction incl fairly impotent ones like the F6, F7, A5, FBC1... , the timely hiring of 100s if not 1000s of technical personnel from eastern europe starting early 1990s and overall general higher importance of domestic projects due to lack of easy imports that are more important factors.

and they still need imports and help from Rus/Ukr in ample measure which shows just how hard building a modern full-spectrum mil-ind complex is.

Singha,

Take a look at the in depth US report I posted on the improvements to the Chinese MIC in on the previous page.

The scientific and industrial institutions that design and produce the Chinese nuclear deterrent have always done the best.

Next come the industries that are allowed and encouraged to compete commercially as part of the global marketplace and supply chain have seen the most rapid improvements since the reforms of 1998.

The aircraft industry, unlike shipping and commucations industry does not currently fall into that category. If China is able to start getting into the co-production/export sector in a big way working with established market leaders like Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Bombardier, Rolls Royce, Snecma, GE, PW etc we're likely to see a major shift.

A really hungry company, offered preferential access to the Chinese market may not be able to turn it down, and may be able to work around or lobby against US regulatory objections.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Jul 2012 05:55

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Singha wrote:...shows just how hard building a modern full-spectrum mil-ind complex is.
No arguments there. What is noteworthy is not the exact percentage indigenization of the MIC but rather the exponential increase in rate at which the replacement of imported by local components is happening and also the dramatic quality improvements we are starting to see here as time goes by.

What impresses me the most is that as much as their ideology refuses to accept privatization of industry, they have proven remarkably adept at justifying it and accepting it with all its advantages when it comes to their aerospace industry. If you look at how their companies are structured for competition, its remarkably similar to the local Aerospace Industry setup in the USA.

And in a perverse irony, India being democratic in ideology has for all practical purposes converted its entire MIC complex into a Soviet socialism style PSU based foundation with no sense of competition between projects/organizations.

-Vivek

In an authoritarian state, any and every contradictory notion can coexist as long as the powers that be, deem it ok.

Coming to the rest..

Their industries are not really structured for competition per se, not if you compare it to the US. There is a huge amount of overlap and porkbarrel work that is going on if one looks at the sheer wastage of resources that is the AVIC consortium. If we take a look at the number of companies involved, the scale of vertical integration, the resources given, the achievements are actually underwhelming.

A sort of HAL several times over, but unable to match the output of a much smaller Sukhoi and still stuck at reverse engineering at some levels. Their much touted missile systems apart, they were busy importing S-300s till yesterday and are now poised to switchover to S-400s. All this tells me that showpiece projects aside, they do have serious lacunae in warfighting capabilities and hence the actual bulk is with Russian origin systems for the most part. Still..

Finally, Indian industry is being unchained, we will see the results in a decades time.

Where China has succeeded is thanks to their economic impetus. The huge ecosystem built up by US, European and Japanese firms to meet their industrial and consumer requirements, has been adroitly tapped by Chinese mil-industry for their requirements. Otherwise, if we seek to replicate the Chinese approach, we are headed for disaster. Its a complex system of patronage, PSU style fat cats and endless amounts of money to make the system work. Far too wasteful.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Jul 2012 06:04

Johann wrote:Singha,

Take a look at the in depth US report I posted on the improvements to the Chinese MIC in on the previous page.

The scientific and industrial institutions that design and produce the Chinese nuclear deterrent have always done the best.

Next come the industries that are allowed and encouraged to compete commercially as part of the global marketplace and supply chain have seen the most rapid improvements since the reforms of 1998.

The aircraft industry, unlike shipping and commucations industry does not currently fall into that category. If China is able to start getting into the co-production/export sector in a big way working with established market leaders like Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Bombardier, Rolls Royce, Snecma, GE, PW etc we're likely to see a major shift.

A really hungry company, offered preferential access to the Chinese market may not be able to turn it down, and may be able to work around or lobby against US regulatory objections.

Johann, I have to add some more details to your point about the aircraft industry. Thanks to stringent offset programs, the Chinese have ensured that technology flows like anything into AVIC and other organizations. As a result of which Boeing and Airbus, last I remember, were acquiring billions in equipment from these firms (AVIC subsidiaries). Most items may be build to print, but theres little doubt that they would have gained immensely in terms of manufacturing processes and QA/QC.

The west has shot itself in its own foot, by transferring technology wholesale to China.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 03 Jul 2012 06:34

Hi Karan,

Would be interested to hear more about the kind of offsets offered to Chinese aviation industry.

What the report made clear was that the Chinese push towards making its more defense conglomerates more competitive, more commercial, and more managerially autonomous both from the PLA and the Ministry and making bidding for weapons contracts more competitive has paid dividends by changing corporate culture.

For whatever reason AVIC and the aviation industry in general seems more insulated from these changes and these pressures. Offsets are a start, but theyre not enough yet thankfully. AVIC itself, especially its core activities doesnt seem to be under pressure to be commercially profitable.

I don't know how much the PLAAF has to do with this - its possible that they're just the bottom of the pile after the 2nd Arty, PLA and PLAN, and so arent able to generate the right pressures on AVIC etc. They just haven't invested in the same way in the full spectrum of air power as they have for example with naval power. I would even say the PLAAF has never recovered since Lin Biao died in 1971 after his attempted coup against Mao.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 Jul 2012 08:57

Hi Johann,

Many western reports are often a curious combination of patronising claims and outright alarmism. I haven't read the one you cite, but one theme seems common in many of these. When the nation is rising, they ignore it. Or they ignore the trend itself as it is politically inconvenient and rocks the boat. Later, they wake up and suddenly act as if they discovered it. Then they get alarmed.

Anyways, unlike India, which realized the values of offsets rather late in the day, and has had all sorts of self proclaimed experts oppose the concept on 2 grounds (more costs get baked in, and PSUs will take it all etc)..China picked up on it pretty early. They have been asking for 30% of TCV offsets for a while now. Meanwhile, this occurred: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FI03Ad05.html
Note the climb has been consistent: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ina02.html

Note these are old links but indicate the scale of work done a long time back. Note the willingness to transfer the production of a rudder to China in 2005. The same fellows who belabour HAL for being a PSU and only manufacturing doors etc, don't quite get the fact that a strong state can ensure the right kind of manufacturing comes to the designated firm!

http://pra-blog.blogspot.in/2011/10/reg ... -deal.html

or..

However, it has been sourcing components from more than 35 suppliers in China, including tail sections, vertical fins and horizontal stabilisers, and operates an aircraft conversion joint venture. Mounir expected the number of suppliers to grow.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/09/2 ... LW20110921

Some of these PRC deals have gone through, others haven't, but what has counted is that the PRC Govt has very strongly made the case that if companies wish to survive in China, they have to localize. Its a combination of plain old coercion, backed up by compelling incentives in terms of cost sharing offers, tax breaks, subsidies etc. The end results have been that Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier all have invested heavily in China. The amount of tech., that has flowed into China is staggering.

Now a bit about AVIC - as I recall, it broke up into AVIC1 and AVIC2 and then was reorged into AVIC again, with COMAC hived off to access western technology as Chinas commercial aircraft program was suffering thanks to lack of access to western tech.
Here too, the ARJ-91 and C919 programs have been savvily run. They have a plethora of western suppliers lined up and the PRC Govt has been insisting that for these orders to be placed, localization has to occur, namely either Chinese owned subsidiaries or rather JVs have to supply the systems. In most cases, these so called subsidiaries will be AVIC owned and as the UTC case demonstrates, in the hunt for future business, existing rules may well be given a go-by. GE was also in the news for codeveloping next generation avionics systems along with China.

The point is all these technologies are essentially dual use. The Chinese claim to be targeting Boeing and Airbus commercially, and that may well turn out to be a complete flop, but what is being transferred in terms of quality manufacturing, quality control measures, state of the art equipment and training for labor, will directly translate to the sort of stuff the J-20 needs.

What has basically worked for China is the very GOVT interventionism that this forum decries. Vivek Ahuja, one of our most informed commentators points out the structure of the Chinese aircraft industry mimics the US, well actually the competition between Shenyang and Chengdu is sort of artificial, the sort that currently exists between MiG and Sukhoi in UAC, though MiG is struggling to survive. The point is that the Chinese Govt has poured money in amounts that would stagger the average BRF member into its aerospace industry primes to keep them alive, but even so, they were struggling. What allows Factory 187 part of XIAC (to quote an apocryphal example) survive, is the orders via offsets thanks to China's billion dollar purchase of yet another Boeing tranche.

So this sort of investment has kept their factories upto date.

Now, to develop a J-20, China has to go beyond just decently competitive factories, as you well know. It needs ancillary manufacturers, the kind DRDO has struggled so painfully to develop (and which has been the entire purpose of the LCA). These have been helped by the Chinese commercial industry boom, I'm afraid. For instance, a company that makes networking equipment for Huawei, or some other Chinese firm, can move into adjacent electronics equipment and end up supplying to LETRI or one more of the eponymous acronym firms.

The move to mil standard production has been helped immeasurably, in my opinion, by two players - Israel and Europe. China's current move to AESA, which basically makes them actually a threat to US VLO supremacy, is directly the result of Israel, which basically showed them how to a)make AESA modules b) produce them at quality in numbers and c) test them - this was in an interview at Chinadef,mashup with an interview with the Chinese designers.

Similarly, the use of software packages like CATIA from Dassault bypasses the entire business of purpose designed simulation-design-development-engineering-manufacturing packages that were hitherto the secret sauce for US/Western efforts during the Cold War. The availability of both indigenous foundries also means that the PRC can churn out custom gear at limited volumes.

The other story is that of Russia. Its been my belief based on some digging around, that Russia pretty much kept its MIC running on the back of contracts for Chinese industry. They, in a very mercantile way ensured that as long as the price was right, the Chinese got whatever they wanted. 1 Gen behind whatever USSR had in the labs or was next to ready. The massive rise from where the PRC was in the 1980's to where it rose by ~2000, cannot be explained by own work - the Indian example, and that of many nations shows it takes pretty much 3 decades + to mature own technology. The PRC just skipped a decade on the back of Russian expat labour & ctrl+c and ctrl+v design work.

I wouldnt be in the least surprised if Russian institutes played a huge role in the design of the J-20 as well, handling everything from design contracts for RCS reduction, to supplying materials and subsystems. We know the engines are Russian now.

Now, where they lack is simply the complex interplay of design-materials-experience that is jet engine manufacture. This is something the Russians have resolutely refused to give them.

Here there approach has been twofold - buy whatever is available from the Russians, and spend like there is no tomorrow on local programs, with somewhat lackluster results till date. Mind you, the big difference between India and China is this, the Govt interventionism again, in terms of fiscal support.

People may recall the Kaveri flying on a Gromov Il-76. Well, the Chinese, a few years back, purchased one of these custom made Il-76's. Their huge investment in research and infrastructure facilities dwarfs that of most places worldwide, and eerily mimics the manner in which the Europeans, US, Russians built up during the Cold War.

My point is overall, their approach can be bucketed into four methods:
1. Keep overall control with AVIC etc, the state rules supreme- no matter how inefficient, feed them offset programs and lavish funding to keep the entire apparatus alive. Degree of vertical integration is remarkable. Very inefficient from the ROI point of view but also allows for massive resources on scale, available. Somewhat like the bench system employed by the Indian software industry.

2. Develop local ancillary industries to supply to AVIC et al. Offset programs percolate but so does funding via flagship programs like the J-10. While a state owned firm may make the avionics, modules and harnesses come from private vendors.

3. International cooperation wherever and whenever possible.
Ignore IP, beg borrow and steal - self evident here
Cooperate with Russia, Israel (now stopped by the US which basically built the modern Israeli industry by transferring tech and knowhow from umpteen programs of the 80's and 90's in many cases the losing bids domestically) and Europe. Cases in point, engines from Europe, an entire series of naval systems from France and even the Crotale SAMs reverse engineered later on, the codevelopment of the HQ-9 with Russia..

What they have done with the Su-27 is somewhat similar to our work with Project Devil in the 70's..its a one to one copy outside, but within, all new, domestic systems. Of course, our issue was the SA-2 was already obsolete, in their case, the Flankers basic systems worked well, so I'd wager with Ukrainian assistance, they reverse engineered a lot more and only changed stuff like the mission avionics, FBW etc.

4. Invest, invest, invest.

This is most evident in their remarkable investments in infrastructure. Spread out all over China, often replicated, and wastefully so. The point is very simple, this is a country with megalomaniacal super power ambitions, and since military strength is the currency of power, it is willing to do whatever it takes.

Now the million $ question is, how much of this is actually at first world standards. And by first world standards, lets face it, war is organized brutality, and nothing beats the first world in killing first, oft giving it a humane spin.

Looking at India:
Now India inherited the manpower intensive training process from the British, and over time, owned it and then improved on it/localized it to actually not just train soldiers on its own but have them operate as part of a larger system attuned to local needs. Over the past two decades, despite the bellyaching of this very same group which ignored its own history (i.e. the birth pangs pre-1962 and the hard won success beyond), the Indian MIC has also slowly transitioned into one which can provide reasonably modern systems in most cases. What is now expected is to provide cutting edge systems on par with the best of what international consortiums provide. This is the challenge being faced head on, and which is why a Tejas MK1 is only ordered in 40 units despite being a worthy replacement of the Bison & useful. Compromises will not be made, and hence a Tejas MK2 is required. This is where India differs from say the PLAAF.

In China - the book, "Poorly made in China", shows the rampant quality fade that is the bane of Chinese made goods. The author became so paranoid that by the end of his tenure with a Chinese cosmetics firm, he had stopped using soap and other stuff, in his own life, seeing the stuff the Chinese did to adulterate it.
A recent article in Foreign Policy, mentions the rampant corruption that is there in the Chinese military as well.

Bottomline, I expect that while their stuff will work, they are nowhere near the ability of the west or russians yet, in terms of integrated platforms. The sort that India is buying in the Rafale for instance, and which will become the de facto standard for the AMCA to beat. The kind that India will operate in the FGFA for instance, whose performance will dwarf the Su-35, which aircraft China can still not build on its own.

My take is that for India to compete with China, it has to follow its own path.

1. Reinforce Success - this means to scale up DRDO and the SME approach. What works, works. More investments into AMCA, proper funding on a timely basis to make the Kaveri family become a reality, fund DRDO to get whatever infrastructure it requires for test and for high end items. A foundry for instance, even if process wise it is at current tech., and not next generation. Unfortunately, all this takes vision and commitment at the MOD level and the GOI level. To expect the current UPA Govt. which is amongst the worst administrators to ever run this country, to show this kind of commitment of course is asking for the impossible. But one can hope. DRDO is basically the single tech generator in India and balances out the lack of corporate R&D spend in India. Its capabilities are unique and must be carefully husbanded. Its like a combination of Thales, Safran and MBDA all in one. Which means enormous synergies in terms of weapons development and leveraging common technologies and modules. Which is what allows DRDO to develop a Prithvi, and then a BMD system reconfiguring a Prithvi as a target missile, and then work on radars leveraging work from its BMD program. More SMEs the better. SEZs dedicated to SMEs are also a good idea.

2. Open up manufacturing to private players. Thanks to the TATRA fiasco, this has finally happened. But it must be carefully husbanded. There are reportedly 180 make projects in the pipeline (for make projects, the local company is funded to the tune of 80% of the project by the MOD for prototypes and development, and it has to demonstrate a product which is at least 30% indigenous, presumably by value, the beancounters delight). This is excellent news. India's biggest weakness is its OFB and weakness in basics like quality small arms production, ammunition, artillery etc. Many firms are required.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/06/f ... -ficv.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/04/p ... ucial.html

3. Safeguard offsets and do not dilute FDI. Both play into the hands of foreign OEMs which want complete ownership of their technology transfer and continue to fob off hand me down tech to India. As the Chinese example shows, a strong spine and consistent national message ensures that the vendor will meet Indian national aspirations. Given India is not a rogue proliferator, and has been overly concerned with protecting IP and not even reverse engineering, this is small fry. A FDI cap of 26-49% is perfectly fine. No nation grew up by outsourcing its weapons development to local subsidiaries of foreign powers, especially if that nation like India is not a member of a bloc like NATO and wishes to remain non aligned. Again, these offsets etc can feed into SMEs. and large players.

4. Start National Groups or Commissions for Aeronautics, Land Systems and others, which ensure user participation and commitment. Both coordination and resource allocation of prime national projects - like the LCA, Arjun etc must rest or be vetted by such groups. Transparency breeds competence, competence breeds confidence, confidence will give results. And neither the user nor manufacturer can leave the designer in the lurch based on own priorities. All will be on same page.

5. International cooperation, wherever possible in a speedy manner. But each must be tied to either stringent offsets or tech transfer or local coproduction, or exports. Tangible benefits. Just reducing Time to market and giving the Indian Armed forces a product on time, budget is not enough. More should be expected.

Finally, from the Armed forces end, we have to speed up procurement procedures as well. Theres little point in deciding on a Rafale and then taking 2 years to sign the contract. Or taking five years to join the FGFA. etc.

Based on 1-5, I think we can outcompete and outfight China.

The Chinese have relied too much on state driven interventionism to sustain massive institutions. Saying they compete is all very well, but at what cost? I'd rather India run a lean machine, which is driven by business and economics.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Jul 2012 10:36

Great post

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 03 Jul 2012 10:45

Karan, thanks for that excellent, comprehensive writeup.

ashi · Post by **ashi** » 03 Jul 2012 11:27

To summarize Karan's looong post:

1) Made in China is low quality
2) China buying all of her advance military technology from RU and Israel, including J-20 and AESA. China is mainly doing ctrl-c and ctrl-v work
3) Even China buying her military technology, those stuff will only work but won't work great. J-20 no match for AMCA.
4) India has high standard unlike China, that's why Tejas MK1 is not inducted yet. India MIC has provided reasonable modern systems in the last two decades.
5) India will outcompete and outfight China. Don't worry, have curry!

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 03 Jul 2012 12:03

The summary of Karan's brilliant post:

1. China is good at low tech and outdated systems like aircraft trainers and 60-70s era planes and tanks, and even good at mass producing them.
2. China has luxury of using dual-use technology, since it is a mass producer, and even good at copying and/or spying.
3. Yes and no, while China proudly exports a degraded copy of S-300 (HQ-9), it will still imports updated versions of S-300 MPU and S-400. J-20 is definitely no match for FGFA.
4. China is good at mass production of outdated equipment (which it sells cheaply to African and to its Asian friends), India is good at integrating best of all worlds, Indian-European-Isreal-Russian.
5. At present it can hold on China, but in future if we get a monolithic political/military power like CPC definitely we can outfight.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 03 Jul 2012 13:42

Take Pride in your LCH because they obviously did not make their from ground up.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.co.nz/2012/0 ... velop.html

Slowly and steadily we will achieve our objective and win the race

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 03 Jul 2012 13:52

Do you really believe all that success in space programs came without any help ???

member_20163 · Post by **member_20163** » 03 Jul 2012 15:56

Amazing post Karan M - Highly appriciate it..

wong · Post by **wong** » 03 Jul 2012 16:46

Couple quick observations for Karan from the Chinese perspective.

1. There is no economics in the research and development for military programs. The only difference between Lockheed Martin and AVIC is private profit-public loss vs. public/state profit-public/state loss. The cost-plus 15% guarantees Lockheed will make money every time regardless of delays or huge overruns. General Dynamics still made money from huge failures like the Crusader and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. And the F-35 could be delayed another decade and Lockheed will still make plenty of money on the program for its shareholders.

2. The Indian system is really the worst of both worlds. Invest huge sums in an indigenous program and then eventually import it from foreign defense companies anyway. The list is huge, but all the jet and basic trainers is but one example.

3. The arms embargo has been the best thing to ever happen to the Chinese defense industry. I hope it stays for another decade.

4. The Chinese space program was founded by Hsue-shen Tsien, the co-founder of JPL. He was one of the original guys that debriefed von Braun, so China got its start in the space program the same as the Soviets and Americans.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jul 2012 17:40

I read the Shenzhou spacecraft design was based on Russian Soyuz design but slightly modified and bigger , the russian designer helped then built the module.