Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
US didn’t ‘engage’ China to make it rich and free; it profited off it
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/ar ... rofited-it
21 October 2021
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/ar ... rofited-it
21 October 2021
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 37444?s=20 ---> China's tech advances in cyber, space domains most worrisome, says CDS General Bipin Rawat.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
Depends on what the aerodynamic and FCS situation was, I'd imagine? If the FCS went completely kaput, then yes, it'd fall like a brick (recall our Su-30 crash from some years ago). But given the pilots seem to have ejected fairly close to the aircraft, and the brake parachutes too seem to have been deployed), it seems more likely to be FCS or equipment malfunction rather than the FCS going entirely dark.Larry Walker wrote:I saw a video of J-10S crash and it seemed like it had glided down and hit the river bank. I am not very technically competent but from what I have read is that most modern fighters are aerodynamically unstable to ensure superior combat manoeuvres and its the flight computer keeps them flying by continuously adjusting their air-flow areas. So does this incident indicate that J-10S is indeed aerodynamically stable and it can glide down in case of engine failure and if so what does it indicate about its design complexity in terms of why to design a aerodynamically stable fighter and incur all performance penalties ?
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
So from clubs and stones, they will now use actual weapons.
https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 48913?s=20 ---> Chinese CCP passes new law which states that Chinese military (PLA) will engage in 'enhanced activities close to border regions'.
https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 48913?s=20 ---> Chinese CCP passes new law which states that Chinese military (PLA) will engage in 'enhanced activities close to border regions'.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
Does this qualify as an indirect admission by PLA that they got clobbered by IA when the available "arms" were limited to clubs, stones, and fists? I think it does.Rakesh wrote:So from clubs and stones, they will now use actual weapons.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
I challenge this article i do agree if wasn’t for China US would have never been to compete with Europe and Japan in manufacturing. Outsourcing the manufacturing to China helped US companies a great deal and it also helped US consumers by keeping inflation low.Rakesh wrote:US didn’t ‘engage’ China to make it rich and free; it profited off it
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/ar ... rofited-it
21 October 2021
How ever I would say how China is behaving is exactly what US wants it to do. A charismatic Chinese leader and friendly China would have been game changer for US. Originally there was fears in Washington, Xi would be able to unite the world against US especially with Trump as president but all that challenged. China becoming the bogeyman the whole world is turning against.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
See this one John. I don't agree with the author, but an interesting perspective.
And this is Part 1 of the author's article. The second part is coming soon.
Taiwan Is Not About China
https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... out-china/
25 October 2021
By Peter Van Buren
And this is Part 1 of the author's article. The second part is coming soon.
Taiwan Is Not About China
https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... out-china/
25 October 2021
By Peter Van Buren
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 60202?s=20 ---> Chinese PLA continues to carry a variety of unconventional weapons such as tasers, sticks, clubs with metal spikes along with rifles during patrols along LAC. PLA troops also bring mace-like weapons attached with a sharp blade. India also procuring body armours & similar weapons.
https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 38349?s=20 ---> Report: Indian Army is training its troops at high altitudes in unarmed combat techniques and drills every day for three hours under ‘PLAN 190’ programme.
https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 38349?s=20 ---> Report: Indian Army is training its troops at high altitudes in unarmed combat techniques and drills every day for three hours under ‘PLAN 190’ programme.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
China's Massive New Maritime Patrol Ship Looks Like A Cruise Ship Inside
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... hip-inside
26 October 2021
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... hip-inside
26 October 2021
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
https://twitter.com/clary_co/status/1453372504001634306 ----->
Tajikistan Approves Construction Of New Chinese Base As Beijing's Security Presence In Central Asia Grows
"Tajikistan has approved the construction of a Chinese military base near the Tajik-Afghan border... The Tajik govt has also offered to transfer full control of a preexisting Chinese military base in the country to Beijing & to waive future rent in exchange for military aid..."
Tajikistan Approves Construction Of New Chinese Base As Beijing's Security Presence In Central Asia Grows
DUSHANBE -- Tajikistan has approved the construction of a new Chinese base near the country’s border with Afghanistan as Tajik officials warn of growing threats emanating from its southern neighbor.
In a separate development, the Tajik government has offered to transfer full control of a preexisting Chinese military base in the country to Beijing and waive any future rent in exchange for military aid from China, according to a communique sent from the Chinese Embassy in Dushanbe to Tajikistan’s Foreign Ministry and seen by RFE/RL’s Tajik Service.
The two developments paint a picture of a growing Chinese military footprint in the Central Asian country as Beijing and its neighbors in the region turn their attention toward an increasingly tenuous security situation in Afghanistan since the Taliban's mid-August takeover.
"This decision to build and jointly staff a facility is one of only a few known examples for China around the world," Raffaello Pantucci, a senior associate fellow at London's Royal United Services Institute, told RFE/RL. "The fact that we keep seeing this activity in Tajikistan shows the level of Chinese concern towards Afghanistan and the region."
China already operates a military base in Tajikistan in the Murghab region near the Afghan border in a remote stretch close to the Wakhan Corridor. The collection of facilities and outposts is believed to have been in operation for at least five years and was the subject of a recent investigation by RFE/RL that showed Chinese personnel taking on a growing role in the area.
Both the Chinese and Tajik governments have officially denied the base’s existence and few details about its ownership and operation are known. The documents seen by RFE/RL's Tajik Service say that Chinese personnel are operating at the base in Tajikistan, but that it currently is owned by Dushanbe.
According to the documents, the proposal to transfer ownership of the base to China was presented by Tajik President Emomali Rahmon to Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe when he visited the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, in July.
"This highlights how Central Asia is going to be a major focus of Chinese attention," said Pantucci. "Going forward, Beijing may struggle to avoid getting itself entangled in regional security problems."
The documents do not state if Beijing has agreed to the proposal put forward by the Tajik side, but they summarize an offer put forward by Rahmon in which China would provide increased funding to build up Tajik military points along the border with Afghanistan in exchange for Dushanbe transferring full control of the existing facilities to China and not charging any basing fees.
“For China, security on its border is crucial and is part of its core interests in Central Asia,” Temur Umarov, an expert on China in Central Asia at the Carnegie Moscow Center, told RFE/RL. “Expanding its security presence in Tajikistan is the most effective tool that it possesses right now.”
Construction of the new facility was approved in Tajikistan's lower house of parliament on October 27 as lawmakers voted on the agreement reached between Tajikistan’s Interior Ministry and China’s Public Security Ministry.
Tajik First Deputy Interior Minister Abdurahmon Alamshozoda said the facility would be located in the village of Vakhon in the country’s remote Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Province and that the base would be owned by the country’s Rapid Reaction Group -- special forces that operate under the purview of the Interior Ministry. Lawmakers said regular Tajik troops would also be present at the facility.
Tajik lawmaker Tolibkhon Azimzoda said in parliament that the new base would be built with Chinese funding and that the total cost would be $10 million, which he tied to a worsening security situation in Afghanistan since the Taliban toppled the Western-backed government.
“The construction comes amid the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan and growing security threats along the country's border,” Azimzoda said.
The exact function of the new base is unknown, although lawmakers said it would carry out policing duties focused on combating organized crime and that the facility would have “special equipment for the Interpol information system” installed from China.
Beijing is navigating a delicate security situation in the region since the Taliban takeover. China has a pragmatic working relationship with the group, but it remains to be seen how closely the Taliban will cooperate on counterterrorism issues with Chinese authorities.
For years, China has sounded the alarm about Uyghur extremists potentially using Afghanistan as a staging ground for attacks on Chinese targets in the region or in its western Xinjiang Province.
While the full scope of the threat posed by Uyghur militants is disputed, with many analysts saying the fighters lack coordination and numbers to launch attacks, the prospect of terrorist threats spreading from Afghanistan are a central concern for Chinese policymakers.
“Developments like this were coming, but the instability in Afghanistan has accelerated things,” Umarov said. “In the future, we might see Chinese military and intelligence cooperation intensify across the region.”
Written and reported by Reid Standish in Prague based on reporting by RFE/RL’s Tajik Service in Dushanbe.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
Take A Rare Peek Inside China's Expansive Joint Battle Command Center
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/1 ... and-center
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/1 ... and-center
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
Oops! China's 'Stealth Ships' Aren’t So Stealthy After All
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... hip-radar/
27 Oct 2021
https://news.usni.org/2021/09/27/this-i ... e-on-radar
27 Sept 2021
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... hip-radar/
27 Oct 2021
This is what a Chinese Stealth Warship looks like on RadarIt turns out that China's Type-022 missile boats aren't resistant to radar detection.
https://news.usni.org/2021/09/27/this-i ... e-on-radar
27 Sept 2021
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
https://twitter.com/CovertShores/status ... 87648?s=20 ---> How stealthy are Chinese Navy (PLAN) 'stealth' ships really? Ever wondered what they look like on radar? I did, so I got a high-res SAR satellite image of them. Nod to @capellaspace for the imagery. And @TheIntelLab for help in some of the analysis.
Although popularly described as ‘stealthy’, China’s Type-022 missile boat is clearly visible in Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellite imagery provided by Capella Space Inc. The bow (A) is discernable, as is the mast (B), missile launchers (C) and catamaran hulls at the stern (D). H I Sutton image used with permission.
Although popularly described as ‘stealthy’, China’s Type-022 missile boat is clearly visible in Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellite imagery provided by Capella Space Inc. The bow (A) is discernable, as is the mast (B), missile launchers (C) and catamaran hulls at the stern (D). H I Sutton image used with permission.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
China has started making the Same Mistakes as the Soviets
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... he-soviets
27 October 2021
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... he-soviets
27 October 2021
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
https://twitter.com/NarenMenon1/status/ ... 50051?s=20 ---> China’s power crunch seems to be far worse than earlier stated. Reports are emerging that power rationing started in Guangdong province as early as May this year. Guangdong has the biggest economy in China & is vital to the global supply chain
https://twitter.com/NarenMenon1/status/ ... 13121?s=20 ---> The crunch seems to be linked with a coal supply shortage. This makes me wonder what happened to the billions Chinese energy companies have been spending on sourcing energy sources at home & abroad. Where are those much touted tens of nuclear power plants?
https://twitter.com/NarenMenon1/status/ ... 62279?s=20 ---> Considering how paranoid the CCP are over energy security (a pillar of their national development plan) I’m perplexed how things got this bad. Or is this all posturing? We may never find out the truth.
https://twitter.com/NarenMenon1/status/ ... 39584?s=20 ---> As I told @OnlyNakedTruth in a separate conversation, it’s either the CCP has messed up real bad or they’re playing one hell of a con on the world. My heart wants to be believe the former but my brain says latter. What do you think?
https://twitter.com/NarenMenon1/status/ ... 13121?s=20 ---> The crunch seems to be linked with a coal supply shortage. This makes me wonder what happened to the billions Chinese energy companies have been spending on sourcing energy sources at home & abroad. Where are those much touted tens of nuclear power plants?
https://twitter.com/NarenMenon1/status/ ... 62279?s=20 ---> Considering how paranoid the CCP are over energy security (a pillar of their national development plan) I’m perplexed how things got this bad. Or is this all posturing? We may never find out the truth.
https://twitter.com/NarenMenon1/status/ ... 39584?s=20 ---> As I told @OnlyNakedTruth in a separate conversation, it’s either the CCP has messed up real bad or they’re playing one hell of a con on the world. My heart wants to be believe the former but my brain says latter. What do you think?
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
https://twitter.com/vinoddx9/status/145 ... 85743?s=21
The only way this adds up is that these new stealth fighters from china are propaganda planes. They fly just like j10 or j11 does.
Or indeed im unnecessarily doubting chinese advances. Me jealous yindoo.
Something doesn’t addup here. Cheen is developing fifth gen fighters at an scorching pace. But they are yet to be able to field same level of cutting edge avionics. Jf17 used aselpod - definitely cz cheen cant provide something as good. JF17 doesnt have an operational aesa or hmd. These are basic building blocks - you ought to have them if u are so far ahead in air tech.First flight
J-20 - 2011
FC-31 - 2012
FC-31V2 - 2016
J-20 twin seat - 2021
J-XY - 2021
The progress is incredible
The only way this adds up is that these new stealth fighters from china are propaganda planes. They fly just like j10 or j11 does.
Or indeed im unnecessarily doubting chinese advances. Me jealous yindoo.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
I'm finding it difficult to track this logic. If the JF-17 (a cheap export oriented 4th gen aircraft) doesn't have something, how does it imply that China doesn't have that technology or capability? China fields AESA radars on its 4+ fighters and the J-20. When this new J-35/31 becomes operational with the PLAN it too will have it. How good they are is anyone's guess (no one has flown with or against one) but you have to assume a certain minimum level of capability given their overall technology base and technology investments in electronics and other equipment that would directly lead to a design and production base for combat aircraft avionics and mission systems.YashG wrote:Something doesn’t addup here. Cheen is developing fifth gen fighters at an scorching pace. But they are yet to be able to field same level of cutting edge avionics. Jf17 used aselpod - definitely cz cheen cant provide something as good. JF17 doesnt have an operational aesa or hmd. These are basic building blocks - you ought to have them if u are so far ahead in air tech.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
^^^
If HAL had orders of some export variant of lca - say cheaper but same as jf17 costing and they had to downgrade uttam and they had a good 5-8 years at hand, wouldnt we be able to do it?
But aesa apart - indian spj pod is developed for mki and its smaller version is going on tejas. Similarly if chinese had something like good targeting pods, why wouldnt they be able to do a version for jf17. Pad is anyways paying for aselpod - fighter is cheap but not all components.
Same for hmd - they have 150 plane orderbook. Avionics are often shareable across platform. Going by the indian experience once a certain avionic piece is developed its adapted versions also come in short time for other fighters.
If HAL had orders of some export variant of lca - say cheaper but same as jf17 costing and they had to downgrade uttam and they had a good 5-8 years at hand, wouldnt we be able to do it?
But aesa apart - indian spj pod is developed for mki and its smaller version is going on tejas. Similarly if chinese had something like good targeting pods, why wouldnt they be able to do a version for jf17. Pad is anyways paying for aselpod - fighter is cheap but not all components.
Same for hmd - they have 150 plane orderbook. Avionics are often shareable across platform. Going by the indian experience once a certain avionic piece is developed its adapted versions also come in short time for other fighters.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
Why do you think China isn't able to do this if it wanted to? Do they own and operate the JF-17's? It is primarily a business/export venture for them. If they think they need it they'll add it. If not then they'll keep selling it at low price. That is completely different from the fact that they do have AESA radars on their own fighter aircraft, whether those are the Flanker clones, J-10C's, or the J-20 (or other non fighter types). Also, I believe China has recently begun marketing an AESA for the JF-17 so perhaps a variant will be purchased (or upgraded) by someone in the future.YashG wrote:^^^
If HAL had orders of some export variant of lca - say cheaper but same as jf17 costing and they had to downgrade uttam and they had a good 5-8 years at hand, wouldnt we be able to do it?
Do they have a problem equipping their own 4th generation aircraft with pods? If so then that is worth consideration. The argument that if the JF-17 doesn't have it then that must mean that China is incapable of producing it isn't really very logical IMO. There may be a half a dozen things that the JF-17 lacks that operational PLAAF aircraft (J-10, J-11, J-20 etc) may possess and that should only be a reflection of what China is currently selling with the JF-17 and not on their ability to equip their own types with that capability.But aesa apart - indian spj pod is developed for mki and its smaller version is going on tejas. Similarly if chinese had something like good targeting pods, why wouldnt they be able to do a version for jf17. Pad is anyways paying for aselpod - fighter is cheap but not all components.
I haven't looked into their HMD fielding or development advances but I know they've shown pictures of a J-20 flying with a HMD. They do obviously have access to Russian HMD's for their Flankers so could use those if needed on the J-11's etc but the J-20 HMD seems to be their own design.Same for hmd - they have 150 plane orderbook. Avionics are often shareable across platform.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
Since its a business to them - they should have figured a way to put a targeting pod and hmd on it. Not doing so that money is going elsewhere. Im also sure that they did offer pod and hmd but paf doesnt want their’s. The problem is likely it doesnt work well.brar_w wrote:business/export venture for them. If they think they need it they'll add it.
I haven't looked into their HMD fielding or development advances but I know they've shown pictures of a J-20 flying with a HMD. They do obviously have access to Russian HMD's for their Flankers so could use those if needed on the J-11's etc but the J-20 HMD seems to be their own design.
And thats my contention - its not that Chinese don’t have pod or hmd or aesa - they probably don’t have a good one.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
https://twitter.com/thewolfpackin/statu ... 63363?s=21 —> Ex CIA Chief Leon Panetta says that US has never been convinced about the security system of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
That's an opinion and a fairly substantial leap. What if they are fine selling it as is for now? How do you know they don't plan on offering more capable variants down the road that include things like AESA radars, HMD's, targeting pods which their own currently fielded fighters possess? Again, if the assertion is that they simply don't have these than that is easy to set aside as they field LDP/FLIR's, AESA radars and HMD's on their own aircraft.YashG wrote:Since its a business to them - they should have figured a way to put a targeting pod and hmd on it..
Maybe, Maybe not. No way to tell. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that every feature lacking on PAF's JF-17 is indication that it includes tech that the Chinese either don't have or have but is crap and not worth the PAF's money. That's certainly not a conclusion any operator preparing to deter the PLAAF would draw. Most would attribute at least a medium level of competence to them that is commensurate with the amount of investment they are making to advance their aerospace and defense capabilities. You work on these problems long enough and you are bound to develop a reasonable level of capability. It might not be best in class but it is also not likely to be dud.YashG wrote:Im also sure that they did offer pod and hmd but paf doesnt want their’s
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
^^^
I'm definitely with you when it comes to whether the chinese have all the kinds of avionics - they sure have pods, HMDs, AESA and all that needs to be there.
My contention is that whether their stuff is upto the mark - as you figured out.
Agreed that given the kind of investments they have done their quality should be atleast medium level. That is should be. As you've speculated in later part of your post that there is no way to tell; the only recourse is that we find proxies to check this out. Cheen is not an open society like ours where every shortcoming will be discussed, reported and dealt with. What are the proxies? Investments that they have done - yes. But also looking at the cheeni maal that has been exported.
When it comes to performance of cheeni maal - from Z series helicopters to their UAVs - Most have performed poorly. If anything Dhruv family has 65%+ availability in laddakh against 35% for their Z series.
Indeed the fable of investment proportional to capability is only partly true when it comes to cheen. Since their investment is publicly known to be inefficient. Just as an example - Since 2008 the growth in Chinese HSR has been of a similar nature as their growth in 5th gen programmes. Total blitzkreig - unheard of speed. their 10X investments in high speed railway has made them leaders in quantity but not made them cutting edge. But they lead in quantity not quality, yet.
So looking at their exports seems like the best way to judge their quality, thats my hypothesis.
I'm definitely with you when it comes to whether the chinese have all the kinds of avionics - they sure have pods, HMDs, AESA and all that needs to be there.
My contention is that whether their stuff is upto the mark - as you figured out.
Agreed that given the kind of investments they have done their quality should be atleast medium level. That is should be. As you've speculated in later part of your post that there is no way to tell; the only recourse is that we find proxies to check this out. Cheen is not an open society like ours where every shortcoming will be discussed, reported and dealt with. What are the proxies? Investments that they have done - yes. But also looking at the cheeni maal that has been exported.
When it comes to performance of cheeni maal - from Z series helicopters to their UAVs - Most have performed poorly. If anything Dhruv family has 65%+ availability in laddakh against 35% for their Z series.
Indeed the fable of investment proportional to capability is only partly true when it comes to cheen. Since their investment is publicly known to be inefficient. Just as an example - Since 2008 the growth in Chinese HSR has been of a similar nature as their growth in 5th gen programmes. Total blitzkreig - unheard of speed. their 10X investments in high speed railway has made them leaders in quantity but not made them cutting edge. But they lead in quantity not quality, yet.
So looking at their exports seems like the best way to judge their quality, thats my hypothesis.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
As far as the JF-17 is concerned, it first flew in 2007 and that was very early days for Chinese R&D in AESA radars. In the last 5-7 years China has made progress on multiple AESA radars as well as EW pods as shown most recently on the J-16 display at the Zuhai airshow in September this year. The Block 3 version of the JF-17 is supposed to get the KLJ-7A AESA radar, production beginning probably early next year. IMO China's export strategy regarding it's fighters is still evolving. They are offering the JF-17 to every country that is interested, specially now that they have an AESA radar on it, but have not offered the J-10, a much more sophisticated fighter, to anyone as yet. I am sure they realize that whether it's the J-17 or eventually the J-10 will be bench marked against comparable aircraft from Russia or the West and that time they will decide as to what level of technology should be offered on export fighters vs what to retain for themselves.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
Which in this case (avionics, fighter designs, mission systems) is of limited utility since none of the variants or the types they themselves fly are or have been exported. Instead they've created a low-cost JF-17 which uses very few but mostly excludes any of the higher tech. stuff the PLAAF itself fields so there is no way that it will serve as a very credible proxy to how good, or bad these sub-systems are. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a J-10C if objectively evaluated with full access to its systems, would likely fall short of the F-16 block 60, Rafale or a multi-role block of Typhoon etc. The real question is by how much? And does it matter to the Chinese who will field it in very large quantity and will be using it as a lower end fighter to its 4+ gen heavies and the 5th gen J-20 and its future iterations (not to mention that going forward (10-15 years out) they will have a heavy stealthy strike bomber in numbers as well..YashG wrote:Ceen is not an open society like ours where every shortcoming will be discussed, reported and dealt with. What are the proxies? Investments that they have done - yes. But also looking at the cheeni maal that has been exported.
Where is the 35% number coming from?YashG wrote:When it comes to performance of cheeni maal - from Z series helicopters to their UAVs - Most have performed poorly. If anything Dhruv family has 65%+ availability in laddakh against 35% for their Z series.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
That 35% availability number came from a tweet by wolfpackIN on twitter crossposted here on br iirc.
Exclusive: Chinese PLA Z-10 attack helicopters in Xinjiang and occupied Aksai Chin are facing very low availability rates (below 35%) due to sand filtration issues with their engines.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
What source is Wolfpack using ? Is there available readiness data posted on Chinese hardware? That would be a treasure trove.YashG wrote:That 35% availability number came from a tweet by wolfpackIN on twitter crossposted here on br iirc.
Exclusive: Chinese PLA Z-10 attack helicopters in Xinjiang and occupied Aksai Chin are facing very low availability rates (below 35%) due to sand filtration issues with their engines.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
Wolfpack never posts his source but in most cases some news item can be found out but not in this case. But often br posters have verified this handle to be credible.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
So we have no way to verify it, and yet there appears to be open source data (credible no less) on Chinese platform readiness rates. I find it hard to believe that folks are just sitting on this and yet no credible source is actually analyzing the data and it’s second order implications.YashG wrote:Wolfpack never posts his source but in most cases some news item can be found out but not in this case. But often br posters have verified this handle to be credible.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
Wolfpack's tweet doesn't seem to be completely made up.
Here's a picture of Z-10 from 2012.
Note the engine exhaust and inlet.
Here's a picture of Z-10ME (the export version of Z-10) from Nov, 2018.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-11-13/chinas-z-10me-showcased-increased-capabilities
Again note the exhaust and inlet. Same inlet but appears to be slightly bigger.
More details emerge on upgraded Z-10 helicopter variant
Now how much of a problem sand is in Xinjiang and occupied Aksai Chin, I'm not aware, or how much does it affect availability rates (but we know that it sure does 100%). Although I doubt the chinis would ever come out and say anything that casts a shadow on their uber platforms so there's likely never going to be an official source for this.
Here's a picture of Z-10 from 2012.
Note the engine exhaust and inlet.
Here's a picture of Z-10ME (the export version of Z-10) from Nov, 2018.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-11-13/chinas-z-10me-showcased-increased-capabilities
Here's a picture of an "upgraded" Z-10 from Sept 2020.Likely to target markets from the Middle East and Africa, the Z-10ME was represented in a sand and green camouflage livery and was refitted with sand/dust separation filters for its improved WZ-9 turboshaft engines, which are believed to provide 30 percent more power, at around 1,200 kW.
The engine exhausts are modified from the standard Z-10 sideward-facing exhausts to upward-facing exhausts, which decreases its infrared signature.
Again note the exhaust and inlet. Same inlet but appears to be slightly bigger.
More details emerge on upgraded Z-10 helicopter variant
So the upward-facing exhausts have been carried over from Z-10ME to Z-10 (or vice versa) but the upgraded Z-10 inlet seems to be the same. They however deemed it necessary to include a sand-filter for customers in Middle East indicating that sand filtration is indeed a big enough problem in sandy(?) environments with the base Z-10. Those same sand filters seem to be missing from even the upgraded Z-10s....and fitted with new engine exhaust outlets pointing upwards – instead of the previous outward/sideways configuration – in an apparent effort to reduce the helicopter’s infrared signature as seen from the ground.
Now how much of a problem sand is in Xinjiang and occupied Aksai Chin, I'm not aware, or how much does it affect availability rates (but we know that it sure does 100%). Although I doubt the chinis would ever come out and say anything that casts a shadow on their uber platforms so there's likely never going to be an official source for this.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
There seems to be a specific number for a specific type in a particular theater. 35% is the claim. Apparently, he is credible but doesn't like sharing a source of the report. No one , that I'm aware of, has reported on the details of Chinese readiness rates by type. Let alone during a depployment to a theater of operation (which would be highly protected information, the leak of which might get you shot). Needless to say if they had it then it would be a major scoop for those covering their military. I'm still looking for data on there various types but haven't found it anywhere else (though I'm mostly looking at fixed wing). So if we're going to treat that 35% as being even remotely accurate, we'd need a fairly credible source for that besides just a tweet. Yet someone tweets its, it gets repeated, and a few pages down it becomes an accepted fact which isn't a very logical way to look at it IMHO. This is no different from the Chinese on social media showing a grainy picture of something flying and claiming that it is equivalent to best in class and already fieldedm_saini wrote:Wolfpack's tweet doesn't seem to be completely made up..
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
I do think Wolfpack is "slightly" more credible than some random chinese dude saying any random thing somewhere. Also in my interactions, most chinese agree that even their best fielded fighters (J-20, J-10, 16s etc) are inferior to best in class though the general belief is that they will still somehow prevail. So I don't think this is correct unless you're being hyperbolic?brar_w wrote:...This is no different from the Chinese on social media showing a grainy picture of something flying and claiming that it is equivalent to best in class and already fielded
Regarding the 35% claim, it does seem far too particular especially since, like you say, there isn't any other source for the info. Still judging by the handle's previous tweets, if I were to take anything from the claim it'd be that the readiness rate for Z-10 in Aksai Chin etc is likely quite a bit lower than whatever the PLAF experiences on their east coast. More so since the problem with the dust filter is, imo, proven.
FWIW
Is global warming making Tibet dustier?; Phenomenon could speed melting of Himalayan glaciers
Yeah this is pushing it...Sediments taken from the bottom of a lake on the Tibetan Plateau suggest that changes in wind patterns caused by global warming may be making the area dustier.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
That may well be, but what is the basis of the 35% availability claim? We don't know. Is there a report that was actually published that highlighted that? We don't know. Can we see that report, what it claims, and what sources it cites? I don't know the answer to that but based on previous posts apparently not. So back to square one, where did the 35% claim originate from and how did it become something that was accepted as certain?m_saini wrote:I do think Wolfpack is "slightly" more credible than some random chinese dude
When reporting on something, if you present specific information, either you have access to the data (through your own sources if you are a journalist or analyst etc), have read a report that has access to the data, or are simply making it up. You can't say that while 35% may not be verifiable or true the rest of the tweet may be accurate (so they must be having issues). That may be the case, but unless someone presents something besides that it is far from an accepted fact. If some media outlet reported then we can scan the link, see who wrote it and see if it is credible. But apparently all roads are leading to a twitter handle that wrote something without providing a source. That's far from conclusive (and I can't find anything else out there that has that specific information).
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
We have to assume that their stealth aircraft are as good, if not better, than their Western counterparts. See below...brar_w wrote:This is no different from the Chinese on social media showing a grainy picture of something flying and claiming that it is equivalent to best in class and already fielded
Test pilot sees China's J-20 to get 2D thrust vectoring nozzles
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202104/1221492.shtml
19 April 2021
I find the logic puzzling to understand that China is not more technologically advanced than the United States. Now in the rest of the world, there is something called testing and validation. But since the Chinese don't seem to have such firewalls or obstacles, they make world class equipment that can, as the J-20 pilot said, surpass the United States. While the US 6th generation program is commendable, I heard the Chinese are skipping a generation and moving straight to 7th generation. If I were the United States, I would be concerned. But since India is far closer (geographically), I suggest the following course of action;The pilot who first flew the J-20 believes that China's most advanced stealth fighter jet will be upgraded with 2D thrust vectoring nozzles for its engines, according to a recent news report.
This means the warplane will receive enhanced maneuverability and stealth capability and SURPASS its US counterpart, the F-22, a Chinese military expert said on Monday.
https://www.verbling.com/learn-mandarin ... gLuZvD_BwE
Because I honestly do not see any hope for India. We might as well just fold and join the Xi collective. At least, in that way, we can avoid a mass bloodshed of innocent Indian citizens. To imagine that all those IAF pilots are going to die a horrible death at the hands of glorious and mighty PLAAF pilots when the invasion occurs...tsk...tsk. Really sad. All that training and all that new equipment...what a waste of money it was. Oh well, freedom and democracy was nice while it lasted. I am going to miss voting.
And the report on the fleet availability on the Z-10 is incorrect. I have to find the link (from a Chinese social media account)...but the Chinese have developed a unique paint technology that REPELS sand. So when the Z-10 flies, sand (and dirt in general) moves out or makes way for the Z-10. Unbelievable as it sounds, the Chinese have done it. If their J-20 can surpass the F-22, then anything is possible. That report on fleet availability was malicious and false, meant to only malign China.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
I don't think I implied that we should assume this so I don't see why bring globaltimes stuff into this. But here we are debating about a random tweet about 35% availability of the platform and taking it at face value despite no supporting material. How is that any different than the claims of Global times? So either we just take a tweet as evidence of how bad their stuff is, or we take it that they are better than anyone else because Global times says so. It can't be anywhere in between.Rakesh wrote:We have to assume that their stealth aircraft are as good, if not better, than their Western counterparts. See below...
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
Brar no apologies are needed. That was not the point of my post.brar_w wrote:I don't think I implied that we should assume this (apologies if it came across that I implied that they should be considered superior because globaltimes reported it).
We cannot base anything on some grainy picture, just as you said. However, neither can we buy into the Chinese statements that their equipment has somehow magically and divinely morphed into a superior platform vis-a-viv the F-22. No knows what the truth really is. But to suggest - as they claim - that they have surpassed the US in VLO, engine, sensors, radar...is not logically sound. I know I am preaching to the choir when I say this to you, but the US has a clear lead on this technology. And that lead has come from not years, but decades of R&D. So when I read Global Times and other such Chinese claims, we have to kinda take a pause and think through this logically.
Back during the Cold War, American generals would always paint a grim picture of advances in Soviet military technology to Congress. Then Viktor Belenko defected to the west. As you know the story, he flew into Japan with his MiG-25. That is when the Western world got their first look at the MiG-25. They were not overtly impressed and their fears were allayed. There will come a time when something similar will happen with the PLAAF. But creating a myth, a boogeyman is important for guaranteed funding of various military projects. So American generals are doing to Congress today, what their predecessors did. China is the new (and much improved) Soviet Union...old wine in a new bottle. So keep the gravy train alive. It is a hugely profitable business model...the Military Industrial Complex that is.
Agreed, we cannot take anything at face value. But the reality is that it lies somewhere in between. OSINT folks - as expected - don't know were exactly the in between is. Military Intelligence will have an educated guess, but they will not reveal their cards. These things - as they should be - are best left under wraps.brar_w wrote:I don't think I implied that we should assume this so I don't see why bring globaltimes stuff into this. But here we are debating about a random tweet about 35% availability of the platform and taking it at face value despite no supporting material. How is that any different than the claims of Global times? So either we just take a tweet as evidence of how bad their stuff is, or we take it that they are better than anyone else because Global times says so. It can't be anywhere in between.
Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread
Right exactly. It has to be a balanced approach looking at their systems, trajectory, and where they are in their development and operational experience with a said technology. Which is why I made the comparison (harsh that it may sound) that you can't take an unsubstantiated tweet from a twitter handle one may follow as an established source of truth, just as you cannot treat CCP propaganda as the truth.