You are mistaken completely. The GOI had kept defense production completely in the hands of a unionized DPSU labor force, overtime, strikes, all that rubbish. As the private sector gets into production, working with Naval labs, DRDO etc, the pace of production will pick up. This year itself, 8 ammunition types have been cleared for pvt sector production. OFB now has competition. The Tatas, L&T all now have electronics & sensor production clearances and are landing orders, hitherto the preserve of BEL. The Indian MIC is being freed from artificial shackles.chola wrote:There is nothing that tells me that this gap will not grow for the coming decades. We simply do not have the MIC currently to match up. And it will take decades to just build up.
China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Yes, I’ve posted incessantly about the need to get the private sector involved. I even got banned for pushing the private sector’s case (too voceriforously)!Karan M wrote:You are mistaken completely. The GOI had kept defense production completely in the hands of a unionized DPSU labor force, overtime, strikes, all that rubbish. As the private sector gets into production, working with Naval labs, DRDO etc, the pace of production will pick up. This year itself, 8 ammunition types have been cleared for pvt sector production. OFB now has competition. The Tatas, L&T all now have electronics & sensor production clearances and are landing orders, hitherto the preserve of BEL. The Indian MIC is being freed from artificial shackles.chola wrote:There is nothing that tells me that this gap will not grow for the coming decades. We simply do not have the MIC currently to match up. And it will take decades to just build up.
So yes, I think that would be the best start for our MIC. But I’m realistic enough to know, even with a best case scenario here, it will still take decades to build up and in the foreseeable future the numbers will show an ever widening gap.
But I hope I’m wrong and that, in the near future, we can starting ordering frigates and destroyers by batches of 20 or more to match Cheen’s.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
The question is not of the gap IMHO - but of quality. As the Z-10 case shows, the PRC may be rushing out the numbers, but its a different case if they are of the right quality!
One poster on a Pak fora laments that the current LY-80/HQ-16 SAMS purchased by PAK (some 8 batteries) can't target receding targets and this capability will be added in the future.
IMHO, PRC is adept at churning out systems - their QA or even all up testing for all valid conditions, leaves a lot to be desired.
One poster on a Pak fora laments that the current LY-80/HQ-16 SAMS purchased by PAK (some 8 batteries) can't target receding targets and this capability will be added in the future.
IMHO, PRC is adept at churning out systems - their QA or even all up testing for all valid conditions, leaves a lot to be desired.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Very important story. Chinis are automating their ammo production. While we have to deal with OFB strikes.
https://futurism.com/robots-replaced-hu ... factories/
https://futurism.com/robots-replaced-hu ... factories/
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
One constraint as has been discussed in the previous posts is the sheer inefficiency of our production processes and MIC (in its current DPSU form) when compared with Cheen. Hopefully that situation should improve.
However the other big constraint (which will reduce as our economy rises) is money. Each of those ships cost around the $1B mark fully equipped and there is only so much that we can spend, even if we had the capacity. So we need to be realistic there, while still modernizing and building in efficient processes and capacity (should the need arise, as it will when we have more money) to build in scale.
Along similar lines, how can our R&D compete with the massive depth and breadth of Cheen's R&D? As Chola has pointed out in the past much of this is done with the goal of overwhelming opponents psychologically and pushing them to give up, without firing a bullet. So the last thing and most disastrous one for us would be to give up and not try to compete, at the same time we cannot realistically spend the same kind of money chasing them. I think we have to play it smart and continue developing core areas that we need in full strength, on advanced tech continue working on them (at least as science/demonstrator projects) so that we have skin in the game when we have the funds+need to productionize, and leverage other powers such as the US for sharing some resources (for e.g the undersea monitoring network for the IOR and Indo-China Sea etc). Israel is a good example, of course we don't need to limit ourselves to what they have done, but the point is that we can focus on advanced electronics and software technologies that don't require the same level of investment in scale and that are force multipliers. Of course, some things like engines/turbines/propulsion, need to be brute forced with money and manpower and an independent management structure like ISRO and needs to be done NOW.
However the other big constraint (which will reduce as our economy rises) is money. Each of those ships cost around the $1B mark fully equipped and there is only so much that we can spend, even if we had the capacity. So we need to be realistic there, while still modernizing and building in efficient processes and capacity (should the need arise, as it will when we have more money) to build in scale.
Along similar lines, how can our R&D compete with the massive depth and breadth of Cheen's R&D? As Chola has pointed out in the past much of this is done with the goal of overwhelming opponents psychologically and pushing them to give up, without firing a bullet. So the last thing and most disastrous one for us would be to give up and not try to compete, at the same time we cannot realistically spend the same kind of money chasing them. I think we have to play it smart and continue developing core areas that we need in full strength, on advanced tech continue working on them (at least as science/demonstrator projects) so that we have skin in the game when we have the funds+need to productionize, and leverage other powers such as the US for sharing some resources (for e.g the undersea monitoring network for the IOR and Indo-China Sea etc). Israel is a good example, of course we don't need to limit ourselves to what they have done, but the point is that we can focus on advanced electronics and software technologies that don't require the same level of investment in scale and that are force multipliers. Of course, some things like engines/turbines/propulsion, need to be brute forced with money and manpower and an independent management structure like ISRO and needs to be done NOW.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
BartS - well said. We cannot compete gun for gun and ship to ship with PRC, that way (fiscal) disaster, lies.
IMHO we have to focus on better quality indigenous gear & ramp up production at decent QA, with the quality of the services training, we have a huge advantage right there. As our economy ramps up, the indigenous R&D has to be funded proportionately.
Instead of penny packet Mirage 2000s or Herons, if we can imagine larger numbers of AMCAs and Rustoms with high uptime and a large array of indigenous weapon stocks, our capabilities are much better enhanced.
At the same time, for niche capabilities - eg bleeding edge stuff we need to import as necessary, US/Russia/France etc.
IMHO we have to focus on better quality indigenous gear & ramp up production at decent QA, with the quality of the services training, we have a huge advantage right there. As our economy ramps up, the indigenous R&D has to be funded proportionately.
Instead of penny packet Mirage 2000s or Herons, if we can imagine larger numbers of AMCAs and Rustoms with high uptime and a large array of indigenous weapon stocks, our capabilities are much better enhanced.
At the same time, for niche capabilities - eg bleeding edge stuff we need to import as necessary, US/Russia/France etc.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Karan M wrote:The question is not of the gap IMHO - but of quality. As the Z-10 case shows, the PRC may be rushing out the numbers, but its a different case if they are of the right quality!
One poster on a Pak fora laments that the current LY-80/HQ-16 SAMS purchased by PAK (some 8 batteries) can't target receding targets and this capability will be added in the future.
IMHO, PRC is adept at churning out systems - their QA or even all up testing for all valid conditions, leaves a lot to be desired.
^^^ EXACTLY!BartS - well said. We cannot compete gun for gun and ship to ship with PRC, that way (fiscal) disaster, lies.
Quality matters in the war zone. Quantity matters in the gray zone.
The same with crew training.
If we do not come to blows, better quality weapons and superior training means little when they have numbers to impose jurisdiction in say, the IOR, through heavy presence.
War, and early war at that, is unfortunately our best option with a mercantile and production heavy opponent like the PRC.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
There isn't anything remarkable about that, and most of our automotive manufacturing is robotic anyway. Of course they are heavily investing into the technologies and companies that build robots (like Kuka robotics of Germany), which we aren't but that is a different discussion.nam wrote:Very important story. Chinis are automating their ammo production. While we have to deal with OFB strikes.
https://futurism.com/robots-replaced-hu ... factories/
Point is that our MIC has to be reformed and without that critical step nothing is possible. Do you really imagine unionized OFB workers supporting robotic production (even if they had the aptitude to work in that environment)? The only way is to privatize and private companies will get all this stuff together or employ them in the right mix to maximize efficiency.
We have a massive and world class auto-ancillary industry that should be leveraged more for defense production (in fact Bharat Forge comes from that category). Companies like Motherson Sumi or TVS can really do wonders for defence production and it's a win-win as they get higher margin products and more diversification.
But all this takes us back to the first step, which is removing the monopoly of DPSU/OFB on production and freeing it from the diktats of the corrupt MOD.
Last edited by Bart S on 04 Jan 2018 20:37, edited 1 time in total.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
The issue is not about technology, which is not path breaking. It is the fact that Chinis are making their ammo production efficient and automated.
They will not easily run out of ammo and which means Pakis will easily replenish their ammo.
Plus the ability to scale.
They will not easily run out of ammo and which means Pakis will easily replenish their ammo.
Plus the ability to scale.
Last edited by nam on 04 Jan 2018 20:39, edited 1 time in total.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Dont worry.nam wrote:Very important story. Chinis are automating their ammo production. While we have to deal with OFB strikes.
https://futurism.com/robots-replaced-hu ... factories/
Read more at:The proposed complex will be a world-class facility with automated guided vehicles and industrial robots for material movement and handling.
BEL also plans to expand this facility for the creation of a military industrial complex to set up the necessary ecosystem for manufacture of electronic components and equipment for various upcoming Defence projects in collaboration with SMEs as part of the government's Make in India initiative.
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49141599.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Already happening as we speak.BartS wrote:We have a massive and world class auto-ancillary industry that should be leveraged more for defense production (in fact Bharat Forge comes from that category). Companies like Mothersun or TVS can really do wonders for defence production and it's a win-win as they get higher margin products and more diversification.
But all this takes us back to the first step, which is removing the monopoly of DPSU/OFB on production and freeing it from the diktats of the corrupt MOD.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 184468.cms
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/com ... 629685.ece
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/com ... 965520.ece
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
The Pakis actually have done better on that front, all their critical ammo is locally manufactured, and they were ahead of Indian DPSUs by at least a decade on some fronts like artillery shells! Of course in the case of a full-fledged war with India their production facilities will be destroyed and their supply routes will be cut off as well.nam wrote:The issue is not about technology, which is not path breaking. It is the fact that Chinis are making their ammo production efficient and automated.
They will not easily run out of ammo and which means Pakis will easily replenish their ammo.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
^^ I am not sure if that's the case anymore. We match the TSP guys and more in most of the ammo stuff. OFB is a different matter altogether and even there clock is ticking.
L&T, Premier, Solar, Bharat Forge are all racing to get into the munitions business.
L&T, Premier, Solar, Bharat Forge are all racing to get into the munitions business.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
I think numerous wars in the past have shown that unless the quality difference is on the level of guns vs spears quantity is quite important.chola wrote:Karan M wrote:The question is not of the gap IMHO - but of quality. As the Z-10 case shows, the PRC may be rushing out the numbers, but its a different case if they are of the right quality!
One poster on a Pak fora laments that the current LY-80/HQ-16 SAMS purchased by PAK (some 8 batteries) can't target receding targets and this capability will be added in the future.
IMHO, PRC is adept at churning out systems - their QA or even all up testing for all valid conditions, leaves a lot to be desired.^^^ EXACTLY!BartS - well said. We cannot compete gun for gun and ship to ship with PRC, that way (fiscal) disaster, lies.
Quality matters in the war zone. Quantity matters in the gray zone.
The same with crew training.
If we do not come to blows, better quality weapons and superior training means little when they have numbers to impose jurisdiction in say, the IOR, through heavy presence.
War, and early war at that, is unfortunately our best option with a mercantile and production heavy opponent like the PRC.
As for your previous question, I think the CG makers are a mix. Most are just fan boys, but some clearly have some inside info. A very accurate CGI of the J-20 leaked in 2009, over 2 years before it was actually revealed, for example.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
^^^ Kudos to both your fanbois and propagandists for fabulous artwork.
What does this one say?
What does this one say?
Last edited by chola on 04 Jan 2018 23:43, edited 1 time in total.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
India purchases in adequate numbers and those numbers will only increase as it sources locally.
The point is that matching PRC vessel to vessel is a fools errand, I would rather India focus on crew training, vessel and sensor sophistication and serviceability.
The point is that matching PRC vessel to vessel is a fools errand, I would rather India focus on crew training, vessel and sensor sophistication and serviceability.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Nothing revealing, "close look at the white chrysanthemum". Mostly it's just a more detailed drawing of the new engine nozzle. People who draw these pics for example most likely have inside info, since they come out before real pictures are made public.chola wrote:^^^ Kudos to both your fanbois and propagandists for fabulous artwork.
What does this one say?
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
There are two sides to this argument from the Indian perspective. An editorial in the latest issue of Vayu argues that India cannot churn out frigates/other ships fast enough because the service wants the "latest" to be incorporated into newer ships - so the design changes after just 2 frigates are built leading to delays. This has been contrasted with China which will simply go ahead and build 10-12 even with older specs before new build is commenced. Technology keeps moving faster than aircraft/ship designs can incorporate them - so if we need numbers we have to accept a degree of "relative obsolescence to be upgraded in due course" rather than moving the goalpost every 2-3 years.Karan M wrote:The question is not of the gap IMHO - but of quality. As the Z-10 case shows, the PRC may be rushing out the numbers, but its a different case if they are of the right quality!
One poster on a Pak fora laments that the current LY-80/HQ-16 SAMS purchased by PAK (some 8 batteries) can't target receding targets and this capability will be added in the future.
IMHO, PRC is adept at churning out systems - their QA or even all up testing for all valid conditions, leaves a lot to be desired.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
As per many CHinese, they never needed Su-35 as they produce better aircraft than the Russians with now J-20 and J-31.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
The Su-35's probably fill a different role and likely allows them to bump up the capability of their future flanker clones . Besides, it will be years before the J-20 is mature enough and has the sheer number and diversity of weapons the Su-35 can carry. IMHO, the J-20 in their force structure will remain an Area Denial tool rather than a multi-role aircraft like the Su-35. The J-31 does not seem to have any interest from the Chinese armed forces and is being treated as an independent effort led by the OEM from what I have gathered.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
could be quid pro quo - fund more build of Su35 to make it profitable for sukhoi in exchange for russian help/TOT on AL31 engines tech to be ported into WS-xy family. russians can surely help cheen overcome the last remaining humps to make it reliable , efficient whatever
any S400 deal should also be viewed from that POV.
we had come to know by surprise that kamov had done the entire design of the WZ10 from some shelved design it had. kind of like Lavi.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... gn-383147/
this is from kamovs chief designer speaking on the record in las vegas, not some CT/lose-face yindu play
any S400 deal should also be viewed from that POV.
we had come to know by surprise that kamov had done the entire design of the WZ10 from some shelved design it had. kind of like Lavi.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... gn-383147/
this is from kamovs chief designer speaking on the record in las vegas, not some CT/lose-face yindu play
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Quite Frankly as discussed, Flanker clones are nothing but Licensed production in China. Why would the Russians be supplying engines if the Chinese have managed to copy everything. Only thing in China truth and alternate views are stamped out and thus they are always on the cusp of the next great revolution in military affairs waiting to dominate the world.
In the late 50's and early 60's everybody thought they had bombers who could do round the clock bombing raids, hence we did use our airforce in 62. 5 years ago everyone thought they had soo many S-300 Chinese reversed engineered versions that the moment an IAF aircraft got anywhere near Tibet, s-300's will be flying in high numbers and taken them down, But during Doklam crises they were relying on Sa9's. Similarly even the Pakis are rejecting the Z-10 .
I agree China has been making great progress but they have a propaganda which makes every one believe they are always on the edge of Revolution in military affairs at all times
In the late 50's and early 60's everybody thought they had bombers who could do round the clock bombing raids, hence we did use our airforce in 62. 5 years ago everyone thought they had soo many S-300 Chinese reversed engineered versions that the moment an IAF aircraft got anywhere near Tibet, s-300's will be flying in high numbers and taken them down, But during Doklam crises they were relying on Sa9's. Similarly even the Pakis are rejecting the Z-10 .
I agree China has been making great progress but they have a propaganda which makes every one believe they are always on the edge of Revolution in military affairs at all times
Last edited by Aditya_V on 05 Jan 2018 17:29, edited 1 time in total.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
one thing is the russians must be devious in the extreme about masking their IP if after 30 years of licence building flankers and engines and throwing money at it, the WSxy engines are still not production std and instead of stabilizing one engine they keep jumping from a to b to c always promising the n=n+1 will be better and worth it than actually mass producing ver=n.
I suppose if someone gives a superalloy or carbon fibre part I can xray and cut it all I want, but if its the culmination of 20 different processes applied on the raw material unless I could backfill all those details and do it correctly I will end up with something that looks similar but not in reality. the simple metal and wood planes of WW2 were quite possible to take apart and reverse engineer 90% of it, the russians "cloned" the B29 in that way
I suppose if someone gives a superalloy or carbon fibre part I can xray and cut it all I want, but if its the culmination of 20 different processes applied on the raw material unless I could backfill all those details and do it correctly I will end up with something that looks similar but not in reality. the simple metal and wood planes of WW2 were quite possible to take apart and reverse engineer 90% of it, the russians "cloned" the B29 in that way
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Su-35 almost certain to be TOT but of the airframe onlee. Russia export ac engines directly to keep control. Their supply of engines to the PRC’s main programs is like a vice grip applied on the chinis’ family jewels.
They got (according to the Russians) the best Flanker out there but so far the contract is only for 24. Their previous import from Roos IS Su-30MKK which ended up with a Shenyang counterpart called the J-16. Almost certain we’ll see a J-something based off the Su-35 at some point, IMHO.
The J-20 and J-31 are like the Z-10 (which even their deepest and tallest Paki friends have rejected.) They look nice and modern and can fly. But would you want to actually fight in one?
On the J-31, no interest from the chini military so not officially a “J” but FC-31. This is a Shenyang funded project. From what I read, the L-15/JL-10 trainer was a corporation-funded project as well before being accepted into the PLAAF/PLAN.
The fact that their ecosystem is throwing up self-funded projects and prototypes bodes well for their future. So is their multiple engine projects to break the Rooskie grip on their collective balls.
They got (according to the Russians) the best Flanker out there but so far the contract is only for 24. Their previous import from Roos IS Su-30MKK which ended up with a Shenyang counterpart called the J-16. Almost certain we’ll see a J-something based off the Su-35 at some point, IMHO.
The J-20 and J-31 are like the Z-10 (which even their deepest and tallest Paki friends have rejected.) They look nice and modern and can fly. But would you want to actually fight in one?
On the J-31, no interest from the chini military so not officially a “J” but FC-31. This is a Shenyang funded project. From what I read, the L-15/JL-10 trainer was a corporation-funded project as well before being accepted into the PLAAF/PLAN.
The fact that their ecosystem is throwing up self-funded projects and prototypes bodes well for their future. So is their multiple engine projects to break the Rooskie grip on their collective balls.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Singha ji, as I wrote in the Kaveri thread, they are both very wide (many different engines/engine projects) and deep (multiple variants of production engines) compared to our singular fighter engine program. So it is easy to confuse what they are doing because of so many WSxy projects.the WSxy engines are still not production std and instead of stabilizing one engine they keep jumping from a to b to c always promising the n=n+1 will be better and worth it than actually mass producing ver=n.
But they are doing EXACTLY what you are suggesting:
they have stabilized and standardized the WS-10 with the type powering hundreds of their frontline J-11B/BS/J-16.
Then they uprated the WS-10 with new variants that included the ones on the recent J-20 as well as the AVEN variant on the J-10.
The TVC WS-10 variant on the J-10 if nothing else shows that they have stabilized the engine to the point it can be installed with an experimental vectoring nozzle on a single-engine aircraft (and one that has a pretty bad crash record at that.)
Now, the question is whether the Russians had helped them in the engine arena? I don’t think so. I believe they did help the chinis in incorporating the WS-10 into the J-11B airframe. The re-engine of the Flanker happened too quickly without input from the OEM — Su-27 contract in 1998, J-11 with WS-10 first seen in 2002.
The WS-10 has a CFM-56 RE’ed core. It had taken the chinis since the 1980s to copy this civvy engine and turn it back into a mil one. The Russians might or might not have advised on it but it is definitely not a AL-31 derivative.
To be perfectly honest, the more I delve into their engine industry, the more impressed I am with it. They are dogged in their pursuits. They do not give up on a system and will pursue for decades but still hedge things by sprouting off a multitude of programs to back things up just in case the ideal one fails.
I think they are on the edge of a breakthrough in engines. We’ll see in the coming years where they’re at with the engines on the J-20, Y-20 and FC-31 (which is now linked with the WS-19 and possibly their carrier program if successfully re-engined.)
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
chrysanthemum has bawasir ?chola wrote:^^^ Kudos to both your fanbois and propagandists for fabulous artwork.
What does this one say?
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
lol. Goodha is burning from something.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
China's third domestic aircraft carrier likely to be deployed in Indian Ocean
https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/ ... 340550001/
^^^ Read the above and then visit these links....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_a ... _programme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_001A ... ft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_002_aircraft_carrier
- Type 001A - construction started in 2013 and was launched in 2017. The Chinese launched a 70,000 ton (at full load) aircraft carrier in four years. Commissioning is expected in 2020.
- Type 002 - to be launched in 2020 and commissioning in 2023. She will be bigger than Type 001A at 85,000 tons full load.
The Chinese are churning out aircraft carriers like pancakes. How effective and reliable they are is another matter, but still.
https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/ ... 340550001/
^^^ Read the above and then visit these links....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_a ... _programme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_001A ... ft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_002_aircraft_carrier
- Type 001A - construction started in 2013 and was launched in 2017. The Chinese launched a 70,000 ton (at full load) aircraft carrier in four years. Commissioning is expected in 2020.
- Type 002 - to be launched in 2020 and commissioning in 2023. She will be bigger than Type 001A at 85,000 tons full load.
The Chinese are churning out aircraft carriers like pancakes. How effective and reliable they are is another matter, but still.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
This should not really be surprising, most of the worlds largest (non military) ships like Maersk Triple E-class, Oasis-class cruise ship etc. were built 2-3 years flat. Even most of the Nimitz class were built in around 5 years.Rakesh wrote:China's third domestic aircraft carrier likely to be deployed in Indian Ocean
https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/ ... 340550001/
^^^ Read the above and then visit these links....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_a ... _programme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_001A ... ft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_002_aircraft_carrier
- Type 001A - construction started in 2013 and was launched in 2017. The Chinese launched a 70,000 ton (at full load) aircraft carrier in four years. Commissioning is expected in 2020.
- Type 002 - to be launched in 2020 and commissioning in 2023. She will be bigger than Type 001A at 85,000 tons full load.
The Chinese are churning out aircraft carriers like pancakes. How effective and reliable they are is another matter, but still.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Shiv, the PRC economy dwarfs India. We cannot spend at the same rate as them. So if they churn out 10 ships out of which only the last 2 are worthwhile, and we try to do the same, we will go bankrupt.shiv wrote:There are two sides to this argument from the Indian perspective. An editorial in the latest issue of Vayu argues that India cannot churn out frigates/other ships fast enough because the service wants the "latest" to be incorporated into newer ships - so the design changes after just 2 frigates are built leading to delays. This has been contrasted with China which will simply go ahead and build 10-12 even with older specs before new build is commenced.
IMHO, we have to adopt the Israel approach - I will talk about this more later in some specific thread - we have to get out of our manpower oriented or 1:1 matching fixation and start unshackling our innovation to deal with our opponents. This does not mean every plane or ship has to be a silver bullet, but at the very least, we cannot just mass produce and hope for the best. About PRC's efforts - yes, they are huge and awe-inspiring at first glance, but I wonder how much of that is substance as versus reality.
Agree completely, my concern is whether we can afford the numbers and upgrades, both. I suspect we can't.Technology keeps moving faster than aircraft/ship designs can incorporate them - so if we need numbers we have to accept a degree of "relative obsolescence to be upgraded in due course" rather than moving the goalpost every 2-3 years.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
That's what they claim about everything, yet they continue to import Su-35s and S-3XXs for the praetorian guard duty of protecting the valued Central Party bigwigs in Beijing. If they had really advanced, they wouldn't be buying Russian.chola wrote:Singha ji, as I wrote in the Kaveri thread, they are both very wide (many different engines/engine projects) and deep (multiple variants of production engines) compared to our singular fighter engine program. So it is easy to confuse what they are doing because of so many WSxy projects.the WSxy engines are still not production std and instead of stabilizing one engine they keep jumping from a to b to c always promising the n=n+1 will be better and worth it than actually mass producing ver=n.
But they are doing EXACTLY what you are suggesting:
they have stabilized and standardized the WS-10 with the type powering hundreds of their frontline J-11B/BS/J-16.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
abhik wrote:This should not really be surprising, most of the worlds largest (non military) ships like Maersk Triple E-class, Oasis-class cruise ship etc. were built 2-3 years flat. Even most of the Nimitz class were built in around 5 years.Rakesh wrote:China's third domestic aircraft carrier likely to be deployed in Indian Ocean
https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/ ... 340550001/
^^^ Read the above and then visit these links....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_a ... _programme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_001A ... ft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_002_aircraft_carrier
- Type 001A - construction started in 2013 and was launched in 2017. The Chinese launched a 70,000 ton (at full load) aircraft carrier in four years. Commissioning is expected in 2020.
- Type 002 - to be launched in 2020 and commissioning in 2023. She will be bigger than Type 001A at 85,000 tons full load.
The Chinese are churning out aircraft carriers like pancakes. How effective and reliable they are is another matter, but still.
The Carrier Types 001A, 002 and 003 get confused sometimes by the media.
But this Asia Times article is talking about two Type 003 carriers being built concurrently in Shanghai and Dalian:
According to the wiki, Type 003 is a 100K ton nuke behemoth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_00 ... ft_carrier
I don’t think even the chinis are that fast with the designs. I think the concurrent carriers being built are the conventional 85K ton Type 002.
http://www.atimes.com/article/february- ... e-carrier/
Whether those are Type 002 or 003, we could see up to five chicom carriers and their battlegroups in the coming decade.Chinese news portal Sina says that two “next generation” Chinese carriers, from a program called Type 003, are rumored to have done away the upward-curved ramp on the bow for a more advanced electromagnetic launch system. These may be built concurrently at the Dalian facility and the Jiangnan Shipyard on Shanghai’s Changxing Island.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
So what if they are not really advance? They are still cranking out hundreds of heavyweight WS-10 turbofans for their Flanker clones, no?Karan M wrote:That's what they claim about everything, yet they continue to import Su-35s and S-3XXs for the praetorian guard duty of protecting the valued Central Party bigwigs in Beijing. If they had really advanced, they wouldn't be buying Russian.chola wrote:
Singha ji, as I wrote in the Kaveri thread, they are both very wide (many different engines/engine projects) and deep (multiple variants of production engines) compared to our singular fighter engine program. So it is easy to confuse what they are doing because of so many WSxy projects.
But they are doing EXACTLY what you are suggesting:
they have stabilized and standardized the WS-10 with the type powering hundreds of their frontline J-11B/BS/J-16.
Every engine they build increases the experience and ability of their engine industry.
They sold hundreds of UAVs to the MiddleEast on some chitty turboprops that are far, far less advance than the Honeywells on the Reapers. But in the end of the day, they were able to produce and sell those UAVs because they can make the engines.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
And what is the lifetime of those clones, do they really work or are they for political consumption? PRC seems to be the modern day FSU, churning out various systems for the same task, some of which work, some of which don't - all driven by byzantine politics and backroom deals incomprehensible to a rational planning system.
And the point remains. If the HQ-XX were so great why buy Russian S-3/4XXX in quantity? If the J-20 is on the cusp of entry with its all new AESA, stealth and fancy TVC, why go running to Russia for a Su-35 buy?
Something stinks, and its not the fish-sauce.
And the point remains. If the HQ-XX were so great why buy Russian S-3/4XXX in quantity? If the J-20 is on the cusp of entry with its all new AESA, stealth and fancy TVC, why go running to Russia for a Su-35 buy?
Something stinks, and its not the fish-sauce.
Building Ambassadors for decades didn't transform the Indian automotive industry, neither did making MiG-19s or MiG-21s by PRC transform them into an aviation powerhouse. Point is simple mass manufacture of an obsolete or non working design has its uses and fulfills a role, but by itself, just because something is mass produced does not make it successful.Every engine they build increases the experience and ability of their engine industry.
They can do all that, but its a different question altogether as to what are the actual qualities of those items, as versus ME or African countries buying these systems on the cheap and because western/israeli firms wont sell to them.They sold hundreds of UAVs to the MiddleEast on some chitty turboprops that are far, far less advance than the Honeywells on the Reapers. But in the end of the day, they were able to produce and sell those UAVs because they can make the engines.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
"Its more like witchcraft..one has to be an apprentice and toil long and hard with a master to be any good" .. no half baked "TOT" or "reinventing the wheel"Singha wrote:one thing is the russians must be devious in the extreme about masking their IP if after 30 years of licence building flankers and engines and throwing money at it, the WSxy engines are still not production std and instead of stabilizing one engine they keep jumping from a to b to c always promising the n=n+1 will be better and worth it than actually mass producing ver=n.
I suppose if someone gives a superalloy or carbon fibre part I can xray and cut it all I want, but if its the culmination of 20 different processes applied on the raw material unless I could backfill all those details and do it correctly I will end up with something that looks similar but not in reality. the simple metal and wood planes of WW2 were quite possible to take apart and reverse engineer 90% of it, the russians "cloned" the B29 in that way
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
one of those will likely be deployed in the Indian ocean ..most probably a new base near Gwadarchola wrote:abhik wrote: This should not really be surprising, most of the worlds largest (non military) ships like Maersk Triple E-class, Oasis-class cruise ship etc. were built 2-3 years flat. Even most of the Nimitz class were built in around 5 years.
The Carrier Types 001A, 002 and 003 get confused sometimes by the media.
But this Asia Times article is talking about two Type 003 carriers being built concurrently in Shanghai and Dalian:
According to the wiki, Type 003 is a 100K ton nuke behemoth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_00 ... ft_carrier
I don’t think even the chinis are that fast with the designs. I think the concurrent carriers being built are the conventional 85K ton Type 002.
http://www.atimes.com/article/february- ... e-carrier/
Whether those are Type 002 or 003, we could see up to five chicom carriers and their battlegroups in the coming decade.Chinese news portal Sina says that two “next generation” Chinese carriers, from a program called Type 003, are rumored to have done away the upward-curved ramp on the bow for a more advanced electromagnetic launch system. These may be built concurrently at the Dalian facility and the Jiangnan Shipyard on Shanghai’s Changxing Island.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Enough shipyards , modular construction and a efficient transport system to move them around .. surplus capacity i suppose does help !Rakesh wrote:China's third domestic aircraft carrier likely to be deployed in Indian Ocean
https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/ ... 340550001/
^^^ Read the above and then visit these links....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_a ... _programme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_001A ... ft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_002_aircraft_carrier
- Type 001A - construction started in 2013 and was launched in 2017. The Chinese launched a 70,000 ton (at full load) aircraft carrier in four years. Commissioning is expected in 2020.
- Type 002 - to be launched in 2020 and commissioning in 2023. She will be bigger than Type 001A at 85,000 tons full load.
The Chinese are churning out aircraft carriers like pancakes. How effective and reliable they are is another matter, but still.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
kit, please dont quote an entire post for a one line response.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Sir, in both cases, those production set the stage for the current industries.Building Ambassadors for decades didn't transform the Indian automotive industry, neither did making MiG-19s or MiG-21s by PRC transform them into an aviation powerhouse.
In what sense is the PRC not an aviation powerhouse? I would rank them no lower than fifth in the world after only the US, Russia, UK and France.
Just as I would rate India’s car industry in the top 10.
Out of 200 odd nations in the world, they are not aviation and automobile powers?
Erh, churning out multiple systems for the same task is a core advantage of free market systems. The market decides the best solution. Not the damned state planning and creatng one solution. In fact, it is awfully scary that this commie system not only plans (obviously) but also has a competitive, free market culture as well.PRC seems to be the modern day FSU, churning out various systems for the same task, some of which work, some of which don't - all driven by byzantine politics and backroom deals incomprehensible to a rational planning system.
Take a serious look into their industries (aircraft, shipbuilding, aerial engine) and you’ll see they are hardly incomprehensible. In fact, they follow plans that are pretty much damn common sense. Multiple indigenous designs to back up each other, TOT wherever possible until the local program is ready and cheat, lie and steal until you have a product you can sell to someone, somewhere.
Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016
Really? India's building gazillion ambassadors didn't turn it into an automotive powerhouse. Similarly, churning out mass copies of J-7s didn't do that much for PRC - as versus investing all-in into the Lavi project and calling it the J-10, flush with money off of the economic boom enjoyed by US and western FDI.chola wrote:Sir, in both cases, those production set the stage for the current industries.
Rankings are all very well, but they have a long way to go.In what sense is the PRC not an aviation powerhouse? I would rank them no lower than fifth in the world after only the US, Russia, UK and France.
Same for India.Just as I would rate India’s car industry in the top 10.
Again, IMHO, you are using the term power very loosely. A 70's era upgraded MiG-29 is better in most respects than PRC's cutting edge J-10. The maker of the J-20 imports earlier gen Su-35s. PRC is simply not there yet in terms of being really what its image hackers claim it is at. A real power, if PRC was that, would not brown its pants each time India and US talk or India buys weapons from the US, or throw a hissy fit over ROC getting F-16 upgrades. The SU was a power. And it bankrupted itself trying to give free weapons to everyone, while running a repressive system back home. I wish the PRC good success on its own path to achieve the same result, while its export driven economy faces more hurdles from rising common sense and import controls.Out of 200 odd nations in the world, they are not avuation and automobile powers?
PRC seems to be the modern day FSU, churning out various systems for the same task, some of which work, some of which don't - all driven by byzantine politics and backroom deals incomprehensible to a rational planning system.
On the contrary, the PRC military is not a free market but a captive one and hence constrained to sub-optimal local systems. The best of Russian gear is not available to PRC, but a level slightly below. When the next gen Russian system gets into advanced gear, the previous gen one is open for export to PRC. The western gear is entirely off limits, no talk of F-16s, Rafales or Gripens let alone F-35s. In most NATO nations, in India, in Israel - the local gear has nine times out of ten, had to cross a hurdle of both meeting trial results and cost-effectiveness, established by a much more established import capability from the world wide market.Erh, churning out multiple systems for the same task is a core advantage of free market systems.
The PRC military has no such benefits. They have to take what's on offer or lump it. And every now and then, despite massive claims of local success in a program which is a virtual competitor, they go back to Russia and buy in bulk.
Beijing has rings of S-3XX SAMs, not their local variant. It speaks volumes. The local products have to be subsidized in bulk and laws put in place to force local manufacturers to get a leg up even against WW competitors. Clearly, in a level playing field, the procurement would not have been to Beijing's benefit.
In a way we are lucky PRC has begun to throw its weight around so early even before its actual transformation occurred waking the greedy west/naive east up to what its power aims are. But that also means the free flow of easy tech and FDI into critical areas is gradually being stopped & hence the easy ride for the PRC is over. By all means, they can yet become a true power, but they aren't there yet. Several countries with a fraction of the resources, a messy & corrupt bureaucratic political structure, technology denial have shown far more independence in terms of their local designs, as versus PRC which continues to take western or russian systems, clone them & attempt to mass manufacture them.
Err, big difference between a free market and a captive one in which local production is linked to state pride and politics.The entire messaging about national strength is all about that.In fact, it is awfully scary that this commie system not only plans but also have a competitive, free market culture as well.
Done that and I can assure you their mass market production of basic designs is profligate. I'd rather India is not stupid enough to fall for that path.Take a serious look into their industries (aircraft, shipbuilding, aerial engine) and you’ll see they are hardly incomprehensible.
Which is another example of wasteful profligacy and exactly why I said the comparison with the former Soviet Union is germane and you aren't familiar clearly with the FSU, hence you missed it. The FSU also had this multiple designs fetish. Making T-72 variants along with T-80s while some factory churned out T-64s.In fact, they follow plans that are pretty much damn common sense. Multiple indigenous designs to back up each other
Before the fall of the FSU, everyone ascribed it to a rigid planning culture, some amazing example of foresight. Later on, it became clear it was to keep competing factories, worker unions, bosses, political players & a byzantine network of power centers happy. That profligate expenditure is what led to the fall of the FSU. Even with all the money PRC has, it is limited. Whenever one reads of FC-31 and J-20 and yet Su-35 imports (showing the reality of both designs as it were) and the vast array of "successful" indigenous designs while Flanker knock-offs keep appearing, it really isn't that different from what happened in the Soviet Union.
By all means, let the PRC follow this haphazard policy, I only wish that India not follow it, because we don't have the financial wherewithal to be so wasteful. We can of course develop competing prototypes etc, but then to launch multiple systems into production, without any clear customer & then tout them, just shows the level of sops the PRC Govt has to pass to its own version of trade unions to prevent civil unrest and keep the system going on.
They are doing that & also a lot more all over the place, without any clear aim & design. Seems to be very much a replica of the Soviet Union era empire building albeit backed up by a lot more cash & hence will be more dangerous.TOT wherever possible until the local program is ready and cheat, lie and steal until you have a product you can sell to someone, somewhere.
But for all the progress, they have to rely on more and more intrusive control & shows of strength, yet get rattled by countries like US and India merely holding exercises together. Speaks volumes about real strength.