China Military Watch

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
ashi
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 13:30

Re: China Military Watch

Post by ashi »

Report from the 2010 Chinese Defense Electronics Exhibition (CIDEX): Growing Industry – Advancing Technology
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/ ... detail.asp
2) Chinese Defence Products Today: State-of-the Art

Chinese defence products were once thought of as being moderately capable copies of previous-generation hardware that contained attributes of Russian, European and Israeli designs. Some of those bloodlines can still be seen in their designs, but the products now being seen at an expo like CIDEX show that Chinese firms have capabilities that approach first world industrial, state-of-the-art levels of sophistication.
Today the former students (the Chinese) have become the masters. Chinese industry now has the ability to produce components that the Russian electronics industry (after almost two decades of no investment by their government) is no longer capable of either designing or manufacturing.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

Austin wrote:
DavidD wrote:No, they don't understand respect for international IP, and they're perfectly OK with it. Like you insinuated, the Russians know that very well, so if they're offering the plane, then they must be considering TOT as well. The goal for the Chinese is indigenization, the plane isn't nearly worth as much as its technology(specifically the engine technology).
You assume a lot things , the fact is Defence relations has taken a beating between Russia and China because the latter blatantly reverse engineered stuff causing financial and IP loss of Russia , something Putin and other senior official have publicly stated.

So any new deal done between the two has to ensure that there is no IP violation and lic production ( no copy cat stuff ) revenue is given to Russia.

TOT does not mean they do not have to give Lic revenue , India too have deep tot of AL-31FP engine but has to lic manuf it in India
I don't see how the relations have taken a beating. As soon as China wanted something from Russia, whether it's an engine like the RD93/33, a helicopter like the Ka-28/31, or a transporter like the Il-76(they couldn't make it though), the Russians were willing to sell. Now China is interested in a new engine(117S), a new transporter(Il-476), and perhaps a new SAM(S-400), and guess what, the Russians are willing to sell.

I'm sure they want licensing revenue, but China will pay it in other forms, such as a higher price for TOT. You saw that in the new MRAP from South Africa. They knew China is more interested in the technology, so they sold the production rights to China and now China can build thousands of them if they want without paying royalty for each one individually. China will be seeking a similar deal with Russia, as they're more interested in the 117S technology than the 117S engine.

Besides, you're really exaggerating the money the Russians lost from the J-11. The only thing China reverse engineered from the Su-27 is the airframe, and I doubt Russia lost a lot of money from that. If they were so pissed, why did they deliver the rest of the Su-27 assembly kits AFTER they found out that China was building the J-11B? Why did they still sell China whatever they wanted as long as the Chinese ordered them in quantities?
shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shukla »

Inside Story - Modernising China's military

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shukla »

‘India, UK should keep eye on China military’
Hindustan Times
He said there was a case to examine China’s military transformation and strategic ambitions in view of its having crossed a certain threshold. India, along with the US and the UK, is concerned about how China plans to use its expanding military capabilities. Fox said, “China has a legitimate interest in building up its military capabilities. But when it builds up to a certain level, naturally there will be questions about intent. We’re just going to have to be vigilant and see how it uses this influence.” He is the first British defence secretary to visit India since 2005.

Shortly after meeting defence minister A.K. Antony on Tuesday, Fox said the issue of ambiguity surrounding China’s “strategic intentions” came up during discussions and the UK shared India’s assessment about the Beijing’s increased assertiveness, including activities in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. But he cautioned against jumping to “knee-jerk conclusions” about the implication of China’s growing military might. Strategic affairs experts point out that the swift rise of China as an economic powerhouse has enabled it to divert more resources for building military capacities. India is worried about the double-digit growth in China’s defence spending over the previous 20 years and its rising military engagement with Pakistan.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Pratyush »

Just one question. What interest the UK has in watching the PRC military growth. Do they still feel the need to guide us SDREs.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7831
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: China Military Watch

Post by rohitvats »

X-posting from Indian Army Thread (posted by Kanson):
orbat.com

Second batch of two Indian mountain divisions under raising The first batch of two was for the Northeast; the second division will complete raising in March 2011. The next batch of two is for Ladakh, and we thought they would be raised in 2012-2014, but but it seems raising is already under way, because the divisions have been assigned numbers. We will be unable to give numbers until Mandeep Singh Bajwa, or South Asia correspondent, confirms and says its okay.

We're wondering if Beijing realizes how unnecessary and how stupid its provocations and efforts to intimidate India have been. Previously, India had a true offensive capability against China only in the Sikkim/West Bhutan area. But now India is building a major offensive capability for Ladakh, for Middle Arunachal, and for the extreme Northeast. India is to also add an independent armored brigade and independent infantry brigade to its forces in Ladakh, with the result that from two brigades its capability will increase four-fold.

And these four divisions are only the start. The Indian Army has asked for seven more divisions, of which three are likely to be approved soon, the rest will probably wait till the next round of Chinese provocations.

How has any of this helped China? For years it has gotten by with just two brigades and frontier troops in Tibet; now it will have to respond with a major counter buildup - which of course the Indians have foreseen, which is why the Army has asked for another seven divisions, which will require China to do yet another buildup. The Chinese ego has been boosted by picking on India, but all that China has succeeded in doing is making its position in Tibet very much more difficult.

(India had a total of 11 divisions - one infantry and ten mountain - for deployment against China prior to 1971. This came down to 9 divisions by the 1990s. By 2012-13 it will be up to 12.
Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Mukesh.Kumar »

Analysis: US carrier visit a dilemma for China
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02168.html

Wonder what China's reaction will be. Would be interesting to see if we have a couple of Chinese subs suddenly popping up near the carrier. Will be an indicator of how much PRC is willing to push.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

shiv wrote:
ashi wrote:Some great video clips of 2010 Zhuhai air show.

J-10 (pretty impresssive)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE1b48w6AYk
Impressive? Sorry sir - that is a 3rd gen flying display.
I agree, the performance was quite disappointing. I wish the Chinese aerobatics team would push their planes harder, in practice they have plenty of maneuverability. Check out the 1:05 mark of this video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-BjkuDlph0[/youtube]
Don
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 09 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Don »

http://jdw.janes.com/public/jdw/index.shtml (needs subscription)

Jane's Defence Weekly


China's SD-10 claimed to be a dual-mode AAM.

Robert Hewson Jane's Air-Launched Weapons Editor - Zhuhai, China



China's SD-10 medium-range air-to-air missile (AAM), as exhibited at Airshow China earlier in November, may be a considerably more capable weapon than was hitherto believed, Jane's understands.

Officials from the SD-10's manufacturer, the Luoyang Electro-Optical Technology Development Center (LOEC), said the missile was designed from the beginning to function with a dual-mode seeker operating in distinct active and passive radar homing modes. If so, the SD-10 is the first AAM to enter service with this acknowledged capability.

There have been suggestions that the latest AIM-120D Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) developed by Raytheon for the US Air Force and Navy has a similar dual-mode seeker capability. The full capabilities of the AIM-120D remain classified, but its development has been problematic and it has yet to enter operational service.

The SD-10 - the current production version is the refined SD-10A - has been cleared for service on the Chengdu J-10 and late-model versions of the Shenyang J-8 combat aircraft. By the end of this year the missile is expected to be operational with the PAC JF-17s of the Pakistan Air Force.

In lengthy discussions with LOEC at the 16-21 November Airshow China exhibition, the operating modes of the SD-10A were set out to Jane's in detail. The missile has an active terminal homing capability, which has been openly described since the first details of the SD-10 were made public in the middle of the last decade.

What has remained unspoken until now is the missile's claimed ability to home in on radar or electronic warfare emissions from the target aircraft, without support from the launch aircraft or use of the missile's own active seeker modes.

A LOEC official told Jane's that the passive mode was not intended to be the missile's primary targeting mode and cited the risks to friendly aircraft of relying on passive guidance alone. It is not clear if the SD-10A's seeker can continually alternate between active and passive modes in flight or if it makes a less sophisticated 'one time' switch.

In the past, Russian sources have given Jane's a detailed account of the assistance supplied by Russian design bureaus in the development of the SD-10. A LOEC official hinted that this co-operation is continuing when he noted: "We [LOEC] have the capability to make the seeker ourselves, but obviously we want it to be the best it possibly can." He confirmed that the missile still relied on some unidentified components that were sourced outside China.

Within Russia the AGAT Design Bureau has developed several dual-mode seeker designs which it only began discussing in public in 2009. Senior AGAT officials have remained vague when asked by Jane's about who paid for these development programmes, noting only that there is no Russian application and no Russian state support for them.

During the 1990s China also gained access to the 9B-1032 passive seeker developed by Avtomatika for the Vympel R-27P (AA-10 'Alamo') AAM. A melding of these two design inputs might explain how China arrived at its SD-10 seeker design. According to a LOEC official, the dual-mode capability was designed into the SD-10 from its inception.

An SD-10A missile (underwing) is part of the weapons suite of a Pakistan Air Force JF-17 at November's Airshow China.
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Post by PratikDas »

DavidD, I think you meant this:
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

PratikDas wrote:DavidD, I think you meant this:
Ah, thanks!
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Austin »

I have yet to see a good video which show how manouverable J-10 is , all the videos that I have seen shows J-10 doing simple flying like any Mig-21 will do.

When I say good video i mean the kind of stuff Rafal,Typhoon,Flanker or Mig-35 would do in an air show , showing all its flying qualities.

Although i do not doubt that with its all moving canard and a powerful engine she can do some interesting manouvering but I have yet to see a good video.
rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1178
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: China Military Watch

Post by rkhanna »

>>>
I have yet to see a good video which show how manouverable J-10 is , all the videos that I have seen shows J-10 doing simple flying like any Mig-21 will do.<<<<


the PRC is not known to putting out their best stats in the public domain. A new Janes article puts the SD-10 up with the AIM-120D with a deal Seeker (passive and active) and a Song class sub managed to breach a USN Carrier group and come within torpedo firing range. If the chinese managed to build the J-10 like the israelis intended it is not going to be a slouch

China's SD-10 claimed to be a dual-mode AAM.

Robert Hewson Jane's Air-Launched Weapons Editor - Zhuhai, China

China's SD-10 medium-range air-to-air missile (AAM), as exhibited at Airshow China earlier in November, may be a considerably more capable weapon than was hitherto believed, Jane's understands.

Officials from the SD-10's manufacturer, the Luoyang Electro-Optical Technology Development Center (LOEC), said the missile was designed from the beginning to function with a dual-mode seeker operating in distinct active and passive radar homing modes. If so, the SD-10 is the first AAM to enter service with this acknowledged capability.

There have been suggestions that the latest AIM-120D Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) developed by Raytheon for the US Air Force and Navy has a similar dual-mode seeker capability. The full capabilities of the AIM-120D remain classified, but its development has been problematic and it has yet to enter operational service.

The SD-10 - the current production version is the refined SD-10A - has been cleared for service on the Chengdu J-10 and late-model versions of the Shenyang J-8 combat aircraft. By the end of this year the missile is expected to be operational with the PAC JF-17s of the Pakistan Air Force.

In lengthy discussions with LOEC at the 16-21 November Airshow China exhibition, the operating modes of the SD-10A were set out to Jane's in detail. The missile has an active terminal homing capability, which has been openly described since the first details of the SD-10 were made public in the middle of the last decade.

What has remained unspoken until now is the missile's claimed ability to home in on radar or electronic warfare emissions from the target aircraft, without support from the launch aircraft or use of the missile's own active seeker modes.

A LOEC official told Jane's that the passive mode was not intended to be the missile's primary targeting mode and cited the risks to friendly aircraft of relying on passive guidance alone. It is not clear if the SD-10A's seeker can continually alternate between active and passive modes in flight or if it makes a less sophisticated 'one time' switch.

In the past, Russian sources have given Jane's a detailed account of the assistance supplied by Russian design bureaus in the development of the SD-10. A LOEC official hinted that this co-operation is continuing when he noted: "We [LOEC] have the capability to make the seeker ourselves, but obviously we want it to be the best it possibly can." He confirmed that the missile still relied on some unidentified components that were sourced outside China.

Within Russia the AGAT Design Bureau has developed several dual-mode seeker designs which it only began discussing in public in 2009. Senior AGAT officials have remained vague when asked by Jane's about who paid for these development programmes, noting only that there is no Russian application and no Russian state support for them.

During the 1990s China also gained access to the 9B-1032 passive seeker developed by Avtomatika for the Vympel R-27P (AA-10 'Alamo') AAM. A melding of these two design inputs might explain how China arrived at its SD-10 seeker design. According to a LOEC official, the dual-mode capability was designed into the SD-10 from its inception.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Austin »

^^^ This is the dual active/passive seeker from Agat Dual Seeker Head

A dual seeker would probably help in having HARM type capability and dealing with emitting target like AWACS in passive mode.

Even if SD-10 is as good as a basic AMRAAM it will be a credible challenge , probably more investment will be needed on our part in equipping all aircraft with DRFM type internal jammers

I would expect the next evolution of SD-10 in couple of years will be with a IIR seeker.
Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Juggi G »

Indian Border Security Force Steps Up Modernization
Image
The BSF soon may be given the added responsibility to guard the unfenced 1,643-km. (1,020-mi.) India-Myanmar border to stop infiltration of arms and drugs and defend against militants that maintain their camps and training centers across the border.

This follows India’s Concern over Myanmar’s Plan to Construct a Six-Lane Road to Connect Kunming in SouthWestern China and Chittagong in Bangladesh.

The Road will Pass Less than 20 km. from Mizoram in Northeastern India.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

Austin wrote:I have yet to see a good video which show how manouverable J-10 is , all the videos that I have seen shows J-10 doing simple flying like any Mig-21 will do.

When I say good video i mean the kind of stuff Rafal,Typhoon,Flanker or Mig-35 would do in an air show , showing all its flying qualities.

Although i do not doubt that with its all moving canard and a powerful engine she can do some interesting manouvering but I have yet to see a good video.
Austin - I have been an aerobatics watcher since the days before F-16 and MiG 21 and have literally seen with my own eyes and videoed F-16s, F-18s, MiG 21, 27, 29, Jaguar, Mirage 2000, MiG 29 OVT (35) Su 30 and Su 30 MKI, Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen.

The J-10 and JF17 firmly belong in the category of MiG 21 or F-16. So does the Tejas for that matter unless something new crops up.

Mirage 2000, Typhoon, Rafale belong in another category and still another category are the MiG 29, MiG 25, Su-30 and the F-22 which I have not seen live.

Here is the Tejas, J-10, JF 17 comparison video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX4W-goLSIo

And the JF-17 vs MiG 21 comparison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvsVxwv79U

Also see:
MiG 27
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRY1aWw4lgY

MiG 29 in Rajiv Gandhi days (Tilpat)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKC6Wh_g2ds

So 30 Aero Indian 1996
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPQXN55T6LM

Su 30MKI Aero India 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lhBGOFOtK4

F/A 18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsoEKaYCFRo

Gripen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piiswDqIiuE

MiG 29 OVT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2teSidNYVA
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Austin »

The J-10 and JF17 firmly belong in the category of MiG 21 or F-16. So does the Tejas for that matter unless something new crops up.
Could it be possible that J-10 and JF-17 have their own issues of releasing full envelop ? I understand the latter is just partial FBW and so it may not be an issue , but J-10 is FBW aircraft and could have their own constrains.

Remember reading some where that Typhoon was the most unstable aircraft by design and should consequently be the most maneuverable as well.

Thanks for the videos
Don
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 09 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Don »

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

Second Wave Of Russian Orders From China Projected

Nov 19, 2010



By Reuben F. Johnson
ZHUHAI, China


Russian industry officials and aerospace specialists here at Airshow China 2010 are optimistically projecting what they describe as a “second wave” of orders from China for aerospace products. “There have been some points of contention,” said one Russian official news agency representative, “but generally people see this as now dying down and relations returning to a normal, congenial state.”

One of those firms hoping for just such a development is the Federal State Unitary Enterprise (FGUP) Moscow Machine-Building Enterprise (MMPP) Salyut. The company is historically one of the longest-running and most important exhibitors at Airshow China, and is one of the two major production centers for the AL-31F jet engine that powers the Sukhoi Su-27 (designated J-11 in Chinese service) fighter aircraft.

“We are not predicting for 100 percent to see another set of large Chinese orders,” said a Salyut representative, “but we have reasons to be hopeful about just such a development.” Cooperation with China, however, states Salyut, has changed from the early days of their engagement with Chinese industry.

“Whereas in the beginning we were instructing Chinese engineers how best to develop and service these engines, they now come to us telling us how they think our product ought to be designed.”

Another firm looking to place new product orders is Russia’s Sukhoi. Company officials are pushing both the Su-35 Super Flanker and the Superjet 100 commercial regional jet. Company President Mikhail Pogosian is not attending the show this year, but Russian officials state that “this is in no way implies that Sukhoi is not placing the highest priority on the Chinese market.”
shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shukla »

X-post

China's ASBM Programme Matter of Concern: Navy Chief
Outlook India
India today said China's programme for developing an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) is a matter of concern and that it needed to look at its deployment and put in place a mechanism to counter it. "As far as a weapon like ASBM is concerned, if it is operationally fielded, certainly it is a matter of concern," Navy Chief Admiral Nirmal Verma said at a press conference here on being asked about his assessment of China's programme in this regard. However, he said, India had to watch for the areas that these ASBMs would be operationally fielded and come out with an answer for this threat to its warships, particularly the two Carrier Battle Groups (CBGs) it plans to have in the future.
shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shukla »

Janes Defense Weekly
China discloses new SD-10 combat capabilities
China's SD-10 beyond visual range air-to-air missile (AAM) may be a considerably more capable weapon than has hitherto been believed. Officials from the SD-10's manufacturer, the Luoyang Electro-Optical Technology Development Centre (LOEC), say the SD-10 was designed from the beginning to function with a dual-mode seeker operating in distinct active and passive radar homing modes. If so, the SD-10 (and current production SD-10A) are the first AAMs to enter service with this acknowledged capability.

In lengthy discussions with LOEC at the Airshow China 2010 in Zhuhai between 16-21 November, the operating modes of the SD-10 were described to Jane's in detail. The missile has an active-radar terminal homing capability which has been public knowledge since the first details of the SD-10 were officially released in the middle of the last decade. What has remained unspoken until now is the missile's claimed ability to home in on radar or electronic warfare emissions from the target aircraft, without support from the launch aircraft or use of the missile's own active seeker modes.

A LOEC official told Jane's that the passive mode was not intended to be the missile's primary targeting method - and cited the risks to friendly aircraft when relying on passive guidance mode alone. It is not clear if the SD-10's seeker can continuously alternate between active and passive modes in flight, or if it makes a less sophisticated 'one time' switch.
shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shukla »

Janes Defense Weekly
China's air defences get mobile and multiply
Several new design approaches were in evidence as China's range of mobile and man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) continues to expand. Alongside the existing QW-18 shoulder-launched missile, details were given of an improved QW-18A with new electric servo control actuators for improved guidance and flight characteristics plus a laser proximity fuze not found on the earlier QW-18. Data from manufacturer China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) indicated that the QW-18A may have an imaging infra-red seeker, which it describes as "temperature-comparing discrimination".

A new CASIC MANPADS weapon, the QW-19, was also shown. It had all the enhanced performance features attributed to the QW-18A, including a new grip design (SK-19) with a revised battery and cooling system. It is possible that the data for the QW-18A was released in error and actually refers to the missile designated QW-19. A new variant of the QW-18 was fitted to the brand new FL-19 vehicle-mounted terminal air defence weapon system. The FL-19 has six single-shot missile tubes with an integral electro-optical (EO) target detection and tracking unit, all mounted on the rear section of an armoured light truck.
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: China Military Watch

Post by krishnan »

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 101206.htm
"She was interrogated by Chinese intelligence personnel about her employment in Dharamsala. She denied having been politically active and insisted that she had gone to Dharamsala for studies," the report claimed.

"In response to this, the intelligence officers pulled out a dossier on her activities and presented her with full transcripts of her Internet chats over the years.

"They indicated that they were fully aware of, and were monitoring, the Drewla outreach initiative and that her colleagues were not welcome to return to Tibet. They then released her and she returned to her village," the report claimed.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Austin »

Promise not to marry - Agreement with China on the Protection of Intellectual Property in the PTS so far gives a null result
In December 2008, following the 13th meeting of Sino-Russian inter-governmental commission on military-technical cooperation we have finally managed to sign an agreement with China on the Protection of Intellectual Property in the PTS, but so far that the result - almost zero: the old "clones" have not disappeared - and at the recent exhibition of Airshow China, they again demonstrated with the label "Made in China", and to replace them already fit "clones of the new generation."

So, this year, that is, under the current agreement, China was hoisted into the air "clone" of the Russian shipborne Su-33 - the plane J-15, as the basis for the creation of which has been taken acquired from Kiev in 2005, one of the prototypes.And Beijing is a long time, "expressed interest" in buying the Su-33, Russia: first - two cars, then - 12-14, but Moscow has kept it no less than about fifty.And, as stated in November of this year, Deputy General Director of Rosoboronexport, Alexander Mikheyev, in the end, taking into account the Russian position, this topic has been withdrawn. " It is clear now - why.
Examples of a unique - not even count. This happened, for example, with the Russian engine AL-31F, after careful study and exploitation of which the Chinese engine experts was established analogue - WS-10 "Taihang", which was first demonstrated at the last show in Zhuhai in November 2008. This engine is designed for Chinese fighter J-10, J-11B and J-15, but so far the characteristics still inferior to its "grandparent".
Another example - the Chinese Bypass Turbofan engine WS-13 "Taishan" is already standing on one of the prototypes of the FC-1 and created a "widespread use" technical solutions implemented by Russian engineers in the RD-93 engines. However, while the Chinese "version" must be tested and, judging by the individual publications in the foreign press too concedes "grandparent" in terms of reliability and compliance with the specified weight requirements.Therefore, purchases of Russian engine continues - in late 2009 was awarded a new contract to supply additional 48 RD-93, designed for the latest Sino-Pakistani light fighter FC-1/JF-17.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

Where does the persistent rumor of WS-10 being anything like the AL-31F come from? Is it just because they're both used to serve the same planes in the PLAAF? They don't even use the same core(the WS-10 is based on the CFM-56 I believe), only the nozzle of the WS-10 made use of some of AL-31F's design.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Pratyush »

CFM 56 is a sub sonic civillian engine.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

Pratyush wrote:CFM 56 is a sub sonic civillian engine.
No, it's a core which many engines are based on. It's derived from the F101's core, which is the same core used in F110--the engine that the WS-10 is designed to emulate.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Austin »

There is a general feeling even at the highest level in Russia that Chinese have blatantly copied and reverse engineered their design without paying them the license cost and worst they may just sell those reverse engineered design to 3rd countries and eat into Russian market.

This sentiments have been expressed by Popvokin,Ivanov and even the Russian industry as you can see from the above and many such similar reports.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

Austin wrote:There is a general feeling even at the highest level in Russia that Chinese have blatantly copied and reverse engineered their design without paying them the license cost and worst they may just sell those reverse engineered design to 3rd countries and eat into Russian market.

This sentiments have been expressed by Popvokin,Ivanov and even the Russian industry as you can see from the above and many such similar reports.
Well, they feel that way because it's mostly true :lol: I haven't seen much in terms of reverse engineered Russian equipment eating into Russian market though. Russian assistance, whether given willingly or unwillingly, has helped China develop its own military industry by leaps and bounds over the past 20 years.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Sagar G »

If Chinese policy makers base their R&D efforts only on reverse engineering then at long run I think this will benefit India as one can learn only upto a limit by reverse engg. whereas India is taking the painful path of learning by themselves doing which I believe will create a strong R&D base. The big obstacles that we need to get rid off in our R&D efforts is the funding and political will.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Cosmo_R »

The WSJ has an interesting article:

Not only have Chinese engineers cloned the prized Su-27's avionics and radar but they are fitting it with the last piece in the technological puzzle, a Chinese jet engine.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

Sagar G wrote:If Chinese policy makers base their R&D efforts only on reverse engineering then at long run I think this will benefit India as one can learn only upto a limit by reverse engg. whereas India is taking the painful path of learning by themselves doing which I believe will create a strong R&D base. The big obstacles that we need to get rid off in our R&D efforts is the funding and political will.
Obviously they're not gonna base ALL their R&D effort on reverse engineering, they're designing more and more things themselves. It's like trying to become a mathematician. You don't start by trying to solve the Goldbach's conjecture, you start by learning 1+1 from other people or books, and eventually you move on to solving theorems and creating your own models.

For example, the PLA's core from its inception is the army, and you can see the most self-reliance there, such as the new self-propelled 155mm/54 howitzer, the PLZ-04, is arguably the best in the world, as is the WS-2C/D MLRS. The new tank, the Type 99A2 is up there as well, and there are many more examples. Many of these weapons find their roots in Russian or other foreign designs, but it's difficult not to label them as Chinese now. Heck, even the Su-27/J-11 everybody is crowing about only really have their airframes in common, and even the airframe has been modified with more composite material and a redesigned intake.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

DavidD wrote: Obviously they're not gonna base ALL their R&D effort on reverse engineering, they're designing more and more things themselves. It's like trying to become a mathematician. You don't start by trying to solve the Goldbach's conjecture, you start by learning 1+1 from other people or books, and eventually you move on to solving theorems and creating your own models.

For example, the PLA's core from its inception is the army, and you can see the most self-reliance there, such as the new self-propelled 155mm/54 howitzer, the PLZ-04, is arguably the best in the world, as is the WS-2C/D MLRS. The new tank, the Type 99A2 is up there as well, and there are many more examples. Many of these weapons find their roots in Russian or other foreign designs, but it's difficult not to label them as Chinese now. Heck, even the Su-27/J-11 everybody is crowing about only really have their airframes in common, and even the airframe has been modified with more composite material and a redesigned intake.
What you write makes sense only from the Chinese viewpoint. Someone on this forum once posted a photograph of a Chinese made clone of an Indian motorcycle called the Bajaj Pulsar (and called it the "Gulsar" :shock: ) The arguments you have made could apply to the motorbike as much as to the Su-27/J-11

In the case of the Pulsar the Chinese were looking at cheating their way into a market by making decidedly substandard clones. Even if the clones ended up being as good the Chinese were merely eating away an established brand name and market using a rhetorical justification based on Sun Tzu or Confucius to explain away the sneakiness as cleverness.

However it is not sneakiness that I want to stress. I think that while it is merely interesting that that the Chinese are copying Western and Russian designs for aircraft and an Indian design for a motorcycle it is a significant pointer to the state of affairs that the Chinese are not producing any designs that the Americans, Russians or Indians want to copy - sneakiness or not. Justification of cloning and copying can be taken only so far and no further.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5873
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Kartik »

DavidD wrote:Heck, even the Su-27/J-11 everybody is crowing about only really have their airframes in common, and even the airframe has been modified with more composite material and a redesigned intake.
I don't know if you're Chinese and hence defending this, but the fact remains that it is the airframe design that is one of the most critical aspects of an aircraft. Just changing the avionics on board and calling it "indigenous" doesn't make it that. it is still very much a Russian design that they've cloned and added their own on-board avionics to come up with this new J-11B. Adding a few more advanced composites or re-designing a thing here or there isn't frankly, that big a deal. it is still theft of IP.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: China Military Watch

Post by darshhan »

^^Kartik , David D is a non resident chinese.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

Kartik wrote:
DavidD wrote:Heck, even the Su-27/J-11 everybody is crowing about only really have their airframes in common, and even the airframe has been modified with more composite material and a redesigned intake.
I don't know if you're Chinese and hence defending this, but the fact remains that it is the airframe design that is one of the most critical aspects of an aircraft. Just changing the avionics on board and calling it "indigenous" doesn't make it that. it is still very much a Russian design that they've cloned and added their own on-board avionics to come up with this new J-11B. Adding a few more advanced composites or re-designing a thing here or there isn't frankly, that big a deal. it is still theft of IP.
It's only indigenous in the sense that it can be wholly made in China from raw materials on up, its design is definitely not indigenous and I never claimed it to be. I was simply making the point that copying is a good starting point and not an end game for the Chinese.

Shiv:

Didn't India copy a Chinese touchscreen computer not too long ago? That made waves in the news if I recall. Either way, it doesn't really matter, China is in catch-up mode in all areas of aircraft design, I won't debate that at all. I'm not sure how far you think I'm going in justifying cloning and copying, but it seems to me like I'm only going as far as you think I am, so we should be on the same page here. I don't really see anything "clever" in this tactic, it seems to be a pretty well-established one. I mean, when you start a company making light bulbs, you don't begin by trying out every material like Edison did, you start out with Tungsten, no?
Last edited by DavidD on 07 Dec 2010 14:25, edited 1 time in total.
khukri
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 28 Oct 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by khukri »

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

DavidD wrote: It's only indigenous in the sense that it can be wholly made in China from raw materials on up, its design is definitely not indigenous and I never claimed it to be. I was simply making the point that copying is a good starting point and not an end game for the Chinese.
Well the reason I'm jumping on you is that the J-11 is the worst possible example of China at its worst in copying and claiming it's mine. Unlike a cake, the actual shape of the aircraft and size determine its flight characteristics. That is why you can build balsa wood, thermocole or plastic models of the Su 27 and get them to fly. You cannot eat a thermocole cake but if the shape is copied the plane is copied.

There are much better examples of China starting with copying something and moving on - the A-5 and the J-8 are developments of the MiG 19 and MiG 21 that are fairly different from the original. The J-10 and the FC-1 (JF-17) again are reasonably original pieces of work. But not the J-11
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Rahul M »

>> Didn't India copy a Chinese touchscreen computer not too long ago?

nope.
Locked