China Military Watch

[Austin]

Interesting Read from WSJ

China Clones, Sells Russian Fighter Jets

[sarabpal.s]

^^^check the link^^^

[Austin]

Link works but let me paste it else we loose it

China Clones, Sells Russian Fighter Jets
JEREMY PAGE

ZHUHAI, China—A year after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a cash-strapped Kremlin began selling China a chunk of its vast military arsenal, including the pride of the Russian air force, the Sukhoi-27 fighter jet.

For the next 15 years, Russia was China's biggest arms supplier, providing $20 billion to $30 billion of fighters, destroyers, submarines, tanks and missiles. It even sold Beijing a license to make the Su-27 fighter jet—with imported Russian parts.

Today, Russia's military bonanza is over, and China's is just beginning.

After decades of importing and reverse-engineering Russian arms, China has reached a tipping point: It now can produce many of its own advanced weapons—including high-tech fighter jets like the Su-27—and is on the verge of building an aircraft carrier.

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.

In the past two years, Beijing hasn't placed a major order from Moscow. Now, China is starting to export much of this weaponry, undercutting Russia in the developing world, and potentially altering the military balance in several of the world's flash points.

This epochal turnaround was palpable in the Russian pavilion at November's Airshow China in the southern city of Zhuhai. Russia used to be the star of this show, wowing visitors with its "Russian Knights" aerobatic team, showing off fighters, helicopters and cargo planes, and sealing multibillion dollar deals on the sidelines.

This year, it didn't bring a single real aircraft—only a handful of plastic miniatures, tended by a few dozen bored sales staff.

China, by contrast, laid on its biggest commercial display of military technology—almost all based on Russian know-how.

The star guests were the "Sherdils," a Pakistani aerobatic team flying fighter jets that are Russian in origin but are now being produced by Pakistan and China.

"We used to be the senior partner in this relationship—now we're the junior one," said Ruslan Pukhov, of the Russian Defense Ministry's Public Advisory Council, a civilian advisory body to the military.

Russia's predicament mirrors that of many foreign companies as China starts to compete in global markets with advanced trains, power-generating equipment and other civilian products based on technology obtained from the West.

In this case, there is an additional security dimension, however: China is developing weapons systems, including aircraft carriers and carrier-based fighters, that could threaten Taiwan and test U.S. control of the Western Pacific.

Chinese exports of fighters and other advanced weapons also threaten to alter the military balance in South Asia, Sudan and Iran.

China's military muscle still lags far behind that of the U.S., by far the world's largest weapons manufacturer and exporter. China accounted for 2% of global arms transfers between 2005-2009, putting it in ninth place among exporters, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

But no other Asian country has sought to project military power—and had the indigenous capability to do so—since Japan's defeat in 1945.

China's rapid mastery of Russian technology raises questions about U.S. cooperation with the civilian faces of Chinese arms makers.

The Aviation Industry Corp. (AVIC), China's state aerospace company, builds fighters, for instance. But it is also making a new passenger jet with help from General Electric Co. and other U.S. aerospace companies. A GE official says the company has partnered with foreign engine manufacturers for decades "with elaborate protections built in place" that have preserved the company's intellectual property.

There are also implications for U.S. weapons programs. Last year the Pentagon decided to cut funding for the F-22—currently the most advanced fighter deployed in the world—partly on the grounds that China wouldn't have many similar aircraft for at least 15 years.

But then Gen. He Weirong, deputy head of China's Air Force, announced that Chinese versions of such jets were about to undergo test flights, and would be deployed in "eight or 10 years."

The Defense Intelligence Agency now says it will take China "about 10 years" to deploy stealth fighters in "meaningful numbers."

For Moscow and Beijing, meanwhile, a dispute over the intellectual-property rights to such weaponry is testing their efforts to overcome a long historical rivalry and build a new era of friendly ties.

"We didn't pay enough attention to our intellectual property in the past," said a Russian defense official. "Now China is even competing with us on the international market."

Few things illustrate this more clearly than the J-11B, a Chinese fighter that Russian officials allege is a direct copy of the Su-27, a one-seat fighter that was developed by the Soviets through the 1970s and 1980s as a match for the U.S. F-15 and F-16.

Before the early 1990s, Moscow hadn't provided major arms to Beijing since an ideological split in 1956, which led to a brief border clash in 1969.

But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Kremlin was desperate for hard currency. In 1992, China became the first country outside the former Soviet Union to buy the Su-27, paying $1 billion for 24.

The deal was a coup for China, which had shifted its military focus away from a potential Soviet land invasion, and now wanted to defend territorial claims over Taiwan and parts of the South China Sea and East China Sea.

Efforts to upgrade its air and naval forces had been hampered by U.S. and European Union arms embargoes imposed after the 1989 crackdown on protesters around Tiananmen Square.

China's military modernization program grew more urgent after its leaders were stunned by the display of U.S. firepower during the first Gulf War, Western military officials say.

Beijing's breakthrough came in 1996, when it paid Russia $2.5 billion for a license to assemble another 200 Su-27s at the Shenyang Aircraft Company.

The agreement stipulated that the aircraft—to be called the J-11—would include imported Russian avionics, radars and engines and couldn't be exported.

But after building 105, China abruptly canceled the contract in 2004, claiming the aircraft no longer met its requirements, according to Russian officials and defense experts.

Three years later, Russia's fears were confirmed when China unveiled its own version of the fighter jet—the J-11B—on state television.

"When the license was sold, everyone knew they would do this. It was just a risk that was taken," said Vassily Kashin, a Russian expert on the Chinese military. "At that time it was a question of survival."

The J-11B looked almost identical to the Su-27, but China said it was 90% indigenous and included more advanced Chinese avionics and radars. Only the engine was still Russian, China said.

Now it is being fitted with a Chinese engine as well, according to Zhang Xinguo, deputy president of AVIC, which includes Shenyang Aircraft.

"You cannot say it's just a copy," he said. "Mobile phones all look similar. But technology is developing very quickly. Even if it looks the same, everything inside cannot be the same."

The J-11B presented Russia with a stark choice—to continue selling China weapons, and risk having them cloned, too, or to stop, and miss out on its still lucrative market.

Russia's initial response was to suspend talks on selling China the Su-33, a fighter with folding wings that can be used on aircraft carriers.

Since then, however, it has re-opened negotiations on the Su-33, although it rejected China's offer to buy just two, and insisted on a larger order.

Sukhoi Aviation Holding Co.'s official position now is that it remains confident about its business in China.

Indeed, many aviation experts believe AVIC is having problems developing an indigenous engine for the J-11B with the same thrust and durability as the original Russian ones.

Sukhoi is betting that China will have to buy the Su-33 on Russian terms as Beijing will struggle to develop its own carrier-based fighter in time for the planned launch of its first carriers in 2011 or 2012.

The company also hopes to sell China the Su-35—a more advanced version of the Su-27—if the J-11B doesn't perform well enough.

"We're just hoping our aircraft will be better," said Sergey Sergeev, deputy director general of Sukhoi. "It's one thing to make a good quality copy of a spoon, but quite another to make one of an aircraft."

The Russian and Chinese governments both declined to comment.

In private, however, Russian officials say they worry that China is about to start mass producing and exporting advanced fighters—without Russian help. China bought $16 billion worth of Russian arms between 2001 and 2008—40% of Russia's sales.

Photographs published recently on Chinese military websites appear to show engines fitted on the J-11B and a modified version—called the J-15—for use on aircraft carriers.

That has compounded Russian fears that China has reverse engineered an Su-33 prototype it acquired in 2001 from Ukraine, according to Russian defense experts.

At last year's Dubai Air Show, China demonstrated its L-15 trainer jet for the first time. In June, China made its debut at the Eurosatory arms fair in France.

In July, China demonstrated the JF-17—the fighter developed with Pakistan—for the first time overseas at the Farnborough Airshow in Britain.

China also had one of the biggest pavilions at an arms fair in Capetown in September.

"They're showing up at arms fairs they've never been to before," said Siemon T. Wezeman, an arms trade expert at SIPRI. "Whereas 15 years ago they had nothing really, now they're offering reasonable technology at a reasonable price."

China is generating particular interest among developing countries, especially with the relatively cheap JF-17 fighter with a Russian engine.

The Kremlin has approved the re-export of the engine to Pakistan, as it has no arms business there.

But it was enraged last year when Azerbaijan, an ex-Soviet republic, began talks on buying JF-17s, according to people familiar with the situation.

Also last year, China's JF-17s and Russia's MiG-29s competed in a tender from Myanmar, which eventually chose the Russians, but paid less than they wanted.

This year, both entered a tender from Egypt, with China offering the JF-17 for $10 million less than Russia's $30 million MiG-29.

That prompted Mikhail Pogosyan, who heads Sukhoi and the company that makes MiGs, to suggest that the Kremlin stop selling China the Russian engines for the JF-17.

The Kremlin hasn't done that yet, but Russian officials have suggested privately taking legal action if China exports more advanced jets like the J-11B.

Last month, Russia's government proposed new legislation attaching an intellectual property rights clause to foreign military sales agreements.

The issue was raised during a visit by President Dmitry Medvedev to China in October, according to people familiar with the situation.

"Of course we're concerned, but we also recognize there's very little we can do," said Mr. Pukhov, of the Russian Defense Ministry's Public Advisory Council.

Asked what advice he would give Western aerospace firms, Sukhoi's Mr. Sergeev said: "They should keep in mind what products they're selling—whether they're civilian or dual use. And most important is to prepare very carefully your contract documents."

While Russia worries about intellectual property, other countries are concerned about security. The arms programs China initiated two or three decades ago are starting to bear fruit, with serious implications for the regional—and global—military balance.

The J-11B is expected to be used by the Chinese navy as its frontline fighter, capable of sustained combat over the entire East China Sea and South China Sea.

Aircraft carriers and J-15 fighters would further enhance its ability to stop the U.S. intervening in a conflict over Taiwan, and test its control of the Western Pacific.

China's arms exports could have repercussions on regions in conflict around the world. Pakistan inducted its first squadron of Chinese-made fighter jets in February, potentially altering the military balance with India.

Other potential buyers of China's JF-17 fighter jet include Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Venezuela, Nigeria, Morocco and Turkey. In the past, China has also sold fighters to Sudan.

The potential customer of greatest concern to the U.S. is Iran, which purchased about $260 million of weapons from China between 2002-2009, according to Russia's Centre for Analysis of the Global Arms Trade.

In June, China backed U.N. sanctions on Iran, including an expanded arms embargo, but Tehran continues to seek Chinese fighters and other weaponry.

Milestones

• 1950s — Soviet Union allows China to copy various low-tech weapons

• 1956 — Ideological dispute leads to cutoff of Soviet military assistance

• 1992 — China becomes first country outside former Soviet Union to buy Su-27 fighter jet

• 1994 — China buys four Kilo class diesel submarines from Russia

• 1996 — China buys license to assemble Su-27

• 1997 — China buys two Sovremenny-class destroyers from Russia

• 2002 — China buys eight more submarines and two more destroyers from Russia

• 2007 — China unveils J-11B, which Russians say is a copy of Su-27

J-11B Specs

• ENGINE — Originally fitted with Russian AL31F engine, now being fitted with Chinese WS-10A

• RANGE — 3,200 miles (with one aerial re-fueling)

• SPEED — Mach 2.35 (1,600 mph)

• RADAR — Indigenous radar capable of tracking 6-8 targets, and engaging 4, simultaneously

• WEAPONS — PL-8 and PL-12 air-to-air missiles, LT-2 laser-guided bomb, LS-6 precision-guided glide bomb, 30mm cannon

• ESTIMATED NUMBER IN CHINESE AIR FORCE — 50

[Indranil]

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?

Pretty well established doesn't make it legitimate. If somebody spent a lot of hours and money and built something and you simply copied it without giving him his dues, it is violation of IP. Unfortunately somehow for China it is not a violation and is a "pretty well-established tactic". I simply don't understand how you could justify it as anything ethical.

With all due respect, if I copied my neighbor's answers in my exam, I would be called a cheat.

One can "learn" concepts (like tungsten in bulbs) and use them to build their product. One can't copy the product and say it's the right thing to do! How come none of he other countries are doing it. Why is India paying licensing rights for Jaguars, Su-30MKI when they are building them ground up at home and calling them JF-xx, JF-yy?

Well the answer is simple. Because it would be wrong!

[DavidD]

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?

Pretty well established doesn't make it legitimate. If somebody spent a lot of hours and money and built something and you simply copied it without giving him his dues, it is violation of IP. Unfortunately somehow for China it is not a violation and is a "pretty well-established tactic". I simply don't understand how you could justify it as anything ethical.

With all due respect, if I copied my neighbor's answers in my exam, I would be called a cheat.

One can "learn" concepts (like tungsten in bulbs) and use them to build their product. One can't copy the product and say it's the right thing to do! How come none of he other countries are doing it. Why is India paying licensing rights for Jaguars, Su-30MKI when they are building them ground up at home and calling them JF-xx, JF-yy?

Well the answer is simple. Because it would be wrong!

OK, you got me, it's wrong

[shiv]

I find the issue of cloning very interesting. One of the reasons why cloning has not been done with enthusiasm in India is that one must clone every single item down to nuts, bolts, rivets, screws, washers, valves and clips to the specification that are there in the original. For example if you have a right angled bend in a fuel pipe somewhere - that bend may need to be cloned to the same specs as the original. The issue may be a simple one to perform but uneconomical. If you have to build a production line to merely clone 300 examples of that pipe (for 200 aircraft plus 100 spares) then you will be spending a lot more money than actually importing 300 of them.

The sensible thing to do would be to either import (as India does) or to find some locally made replacement - not necessarily to those exact same specs.

The latter action has two side effects
1) It renders all maintenance agreements null and void
2) The part may not be as reliable as the original.

If the part is reliable. No problem. If the part is not reliable you start getting maintenance down time at best and a crash at worst. Multiply that by number of cloned parts. With China (and its whore Pakistan for that matter) being very secretive - all maintenance down time and even accidents are suppressed. Nobody even knows how serviceable that fleet of closes might be.

For most of us jingos on here the very existence of a fleet of aircraft is seen as a symbol of power. That may well be so - but for the people who have to fly those planes on missions the important questions are
1) Will this damn thing fly?
2) if it won't fly when will it be ready?
3) if it flies will everything work? Radio? HUD? Radar? Engine? Altimeter? Fuel pump? Aileron? APU? Gearbox? Brake?
4) If not what will it take to make everything work?
5) Out of my fleet of 20 aircraft under my command how many can I guarantee will be ready for action at any given time of night or day 24x7x365: Five? Ten? Eighteen? All twenty? In an average week what percentage of time can I ensure that at least 80% of machines are ready for action?

These are all state secrets of varying degrees. No Air Force will reveal exact details - but the more open societies reveal more. It is for this reason that we can sit here on BRF and laugh and mock at the Americans for needing 3 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight of an F-22. They reveal that without worrying about losing face. And because the Chinese reveal nothing we believe that their fleet of 250 cloned Su 27/J-11 are all 100% ready for combat 100% of the time.

While spying (sat photos to see how many fly in a given month)is one way of figuring out the state of reliability. Another method, albeit indirect, is to check how ready a country is to wage war. The US for all its whines and self flagellation is up and ready to wage war at any given time. China has not shown that eagerness to commit to war despite massive investment in a warfighting machine.

[Singha]

does anyone know the fate of the FBC-1 . this was a large strike bomber with RR Spey engines they chinese had obtained a supply of, but perhaps were trying a local engine at one point. it entered IOC around kargil time.

how many were produced and put into active squadron service?
what is its role and capability?
any follow on or just a one-off evolutionary dead end ?

and good points from Shiv - mocking the US is a worldwide 'sport' for internet users but within two weeks they can park around 250 carrier fighters off anyone's coast accompanied by around 10-15 nuclear submarines and a small troop of B52/B1 types firing ALCMs....nobody remotely touches that.

[suryag]

Shiv garu - while what you said might be true for mig15/17 makki-to-makki copy, i think the Chinese have learnt enough over a number of m2m copy process that they can now make a more intelligent copy. For example let us say that

mig 15 landing gear was designed to handle Xm/s descent rate for some y amount of load and mig 17 did y m/s for some z amount of load. Now since Mig 15/17 are made by the same company the chinese aerospace engineers will definitely have a greater understanding when it comes to the landing gear of mig 21 and they could possibly design one for themselves.

I think the j-11 might be more of an intelligent copy of su-27. The only thing that they could possibly find it hard to replicate is the metallaurgical process for some critical parts, it is here that your serviceability point comes into picture.

[DavidD]

does anyone know the fate of the FBC-1 . this was a large strike bomber with RR Spey engines they chinese had obtained a supply of, but perhaps were trying a local engine at one point. it entered IOC around kargil time.

how many were produced and put into active squadron service?
what is its role and capability?
any follow on or just a one-off evolutionary dead end ?

and good points from Shiv - mocking the US is a worldwide 'sport' for internet users but within two weeks they can park around 250 carrier fighters off anyone's coast accompanied by around 10-15 nuclear submarines and a small troop of B52/B1 types firing ALCMs....nobody remotely touches that.

I assume you mean the JH-7? They have built a total(JH-7 + JH-7A) of around 200 or so. Its role is basically a bomb truck, as it has similar range and payload as the Su-30 but nowhere near the maneuverability. It's much cheaper than the Su-30, so the PLAN has a lot of them and the PLAAF has a couple squadrons as well. There have been some rumored follow on, but I think it's mostly BS, so it's probably an evolutionary dead end.

Shiv, you made some good points. I think it would've been cheaper for China to buy upgraded Su-27/30's, perhaps with a different source for avionics so they can fire Chinese missiles. However, China's goal is self-reliance, so they tend to consider the ability to manufacture the plane themselves and the expertise they gained by learning from the copying process to be worth the price. Plus, imported planes will be more expensive than domestic ones anyway, so the price difference is mitigated a bit, and whatever money you do pay, they'll be paid to your own country's industries rather than to foreign ones. In the long run, China sees this process as both being cheaper to the country as a whole and an improvement for their own security due to the self-reliance and elevated technical capabilities.

As for your comment about willingness to go to war, I don't think that's a fair assessment. There are many, many reasons for a country going to war and the reliability of its military hardware is only one relatively small component(unless it's extremely drastic, obviously).

[Austin]

the Americans for needing 3 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight of an F-22

You mean 30 hours right

[shiv]

I think the j-11 might be more of an intelligent copy of su-27. The only thing that they could possibly find it hard to replicate is the metallaurgical process for some critical parts, it is here that your serviceability point comes into picture.

Not really. The quality of rubber or synthetic washers and the lubricants are equally important. But that apart - when any country fixes a washer or O-ring of X material in some place - the component gets tested in the initial years of testing and at the end of it even that washer/O-ring gets certified to last for 1000 hours or 5000 hours of flying basd on regular inspections and the knowledge that it works. That is because it has been inspected and testd during the design phase. If you willy nilly replace that with a "similar" thing - you may get away with it. On the other hand you might not get away. The only way you will know for sure is to go through the whole rigmarole of testing for that many hours. The same thing holds true for thousands of little parts - imagine a little hinge on a moving part that moves back and forth tens of thousands of times.

I think both you and I are making some assumptions here - but in the absence of public data released by China everyone is merely guessing. Nobody really knows how reliable or unreliable Chinese clones are. And the Chinese are not telling. Once in a while there is some news - like news of a J-10 that just about made it back after a catastrophic failure of the WS-10 engine.

[DavidD]

And the Chinese are not telling. Once in a while there is some news - like news of a J-10 that just about made it back after a catastrophic failure of the WS-10 engine.

When did you hear that? I don't think any J-10 has been equipped with the WS-10 yet, it would be quite a development if it's already begun fly testing.

[shiv]

When did you hear that? I don't think any J-10 has been equipped with the WS-10 yet, it would be quite a development if it's already begun fly testing.

My bad. J-11, not J 10

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/?p=3179

Mr. Lin Zuoming (林左鸣), the top head of ACIC (Aviation Industry Corporation of China), has to admit that China's "Taihang" WS-10 Turbofan engine is still unsatisfactory in its quality.

In one of his opening letter, he says that the military aircraft engine production has been the "chronic illness" in Chinese aviation industry and he urges that the solving of "Taihang" WS-10 Turbofan engine is the key step to reinforce the Quality Control Procedure in AVIC.

Now PLA Air Force has install some WS-10 engine on its J-11B dual-engine heavy fighters for evaluation. But the result is not positive. Some resources report that the quality of WS-10 engine is terrible and PLA Air Force has begun to lose patiency of purchasing more WS-10 engine.

n early March 2009, One Chinese PLA Air Force Pilot sucessfully made a forced landing of one J-10 fighter due to the air shut-down of AL-31F engine. As one kind of single engine fighter, J-10 is very dangerous when power system in trouble.

As a result, PLA Air Force has been knowing the stability of Russian engines and just imported AL-31F engines before the finish of WS-10 development. But the fact shows that the WS-10 engine just looks advanced but has no real advantages to AL-31F.

The forced landing accident warns PLA Air Force that the aviation engines has been the killing shortages of its J-10 and J-11 fleets. No combat aircraft after all can fight without reliable engines.

[Guddu]

On BRF it seems that Chinese subs are not very silent....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... faced.html

One possibility is the sub was sitting in the ocean before the exercise ?....or how else could they sneak in...

[Rahul M]

^^ chinese nuclear subs are considered noisy, because they are. not just on BRF.

this is a song SSK, based on the improved kilo class the 636. diesels are always quieter than nuke powered ones but lack the range or power of the former. the USN for example trains in ASW using the swedish gotland which is considered to be one of the quietest subs in business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland_cl ... tates_Navy

[shiv]

On BRF it seems that Chinese subs are not very silent....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... faced.html

One possibility is the sub was sitting in the ocean before the exercise ?....or how else could they sneak in...

How stupid is it to surface? Either it has been forced to surface or they did not know where they were coming up for a breath. The US fleet would have recorded every recordable thing about that sub after that. Sun Tzu or Tzutiyapanti?


Oh - I just realised the Source is Daily Mail - Her Majesty the Qyoon's mouthpiece.

[Airavat]

Chengdu Military Region Zhudian unit



(Google Translate) The force of these blood and iron man, the army was a good exercise and education, for the frontier of the motherland and dedicated youth national defense, and with his comrades forged a profound friendship. Men do not cry easily, and heavy tasks in difficult, dangerous and bloody sweat in front of them had not had shed a tear, but soon went to the East and West, bid farewell to comrades from morning till evening, when leaving the camp love, tears or deep again fell down.

Chengdu Military Region Lei Feng Corps of Engineers



Officers and men of the regiment has also actively participated in the resident organization planting trees, building roads and bridges, environmental control and other public activities, organizing medical teams rushed to the remote rural clinic services, building water conservancy projects for the poor villages, the development of aquaculture industry, has assumed the "Kunming - Yuxi" " South transit "corridors such as highway construction tasks. In support of western development, the team participated in the "blue - Chengdu - Chongqing" pipeline construction.

[shiv]

Further thoughts about the Chinese sub that surfaced in the middle of a US fleet. Let me do this in MCQ format.

Question 1
Here is the US Carrier battle group sailing along in peacetime in international waters and they detect an unknown underwater threat - probably a sub. What does the commander of the fleet do
1) Write a complaint letter to the UN
2) Nuke New Delhi
3) Blast the threat out of the water
4) Ignore
5) Wait and don't react till it comes close and then drop a few depth charges at some distance away as a warning to surface or be sunk

Question 2
What would the Commander of Chinese sub following US Carrier group silently do?
1) Does he keep tailing the ships silently?
2) Sink the carrier or any nearby ship
3) Nuke New Delhi
4) Surface in the middle of the fleet and sing "Happy Birthday"
5) Surface in the middle of the fleet because he was forced to do that?

[abhinavjo]

2) Nuke New Delhi

[Pratyush]

Further thoughts about the Chinese sub that surfaced in the middle of a US fleet. Let me do this in MCQ format.

Question 1
Here is the US Carrier battle group sailing along in peacetime in international waters and they detect an unknown underwater threat - probably a sub. What does the commander of the fleet do
1) Write a complaint letter to the UN
2) Nuke New Delhi
3) Blast the threat out of the water
4) Ignore
5) Wait and don't react till it comes close and then drop a few depth charges at some distance away as a warning to surface or be sunk

Question 2
What would the Commander of Chinese sub following US Carrier group silently do?
1) Does he keep tailing the ships silently?
2) Sink the carrier or any nearby ship
3) Nuke New Delhi
4) Surface in the middle of the fleet and sing "Happy Birthday"
5) Surface in the middle of the fleet because he was forced to do that?

Shiv,

Nuke New Delhi

"Surface in the middle of the fleet and sing "Happy Birthday" "Is also a good option.

As for question 5) Surface in the middle of the fleet because he was forced to do that?

He surfaced because he wanted to make a statement. That he could have sunk them but instead let them live.

The Khans ASW capability has reduced due to a reduction of the USSR's fleet Sub threat. But has not gone so tooth less to be surprised in the event of a shooting war. Which ATM is not happening.

Peace time is a seperate issue. They could not have done any thing about it. As any action would lead to a massive escalation in tensions. Some thing the Khans are keen to avoid ATM.

JMT onlee

[DavidD]

When did you hear that? I don't think any J-10 has been equipped with the WS-10 yet, it would be quite a development if it's already begun fly testing.

My bad. J-11, not J 10

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/?p=3179

Mr. Lin Zuoming (林左鸣), the top head of ACIC (Aviation Industry Corporation of China), has to admit that China's "Taihang" WS-10 Turbofan engine is still unsatisfactory in its quality.

In one of his opening letter, he says that the military aircraft engine production has been the "chronic illness" in Chinese aviation industry and he urges that the solving of "Taihang" WS-10 Turbofan engine is the key step to reinforce the Quality Control Procedure in AVIC.

Now PLA Air Force has install some WS-10 engine on its J-11B dual-engine heavy fighters for evaluation. But the result is not positive. Some resources report that the quality of WS-10 engine is terrible and PLA Air Force has begun to lose patiency of purchasing more WS-10 engine.

n early March 2009, One Chinese PLA Air Force Pilot sucessfully made a forced landing of one J-10 fighter due to the air shut-down of AL-31F engine. As one kind of single engine fighter, J-10 is very dangerous when power system in trouble.

As a result, PLA Air Force has been knowing the stability of Russian engines and just imported AL-31F engines before the finish of WS-10 development. But the fact shows that the WS-10 engine just looks advanced but has no real advantages to AL-31F.

The forced landing accident warns PLA Air Force that the aviation engines has been the killing shortages of its J-10 and J-11 fleets. No combat aircraft after all can fight without reliable engines.

Oh, that's old news. The WS-10 has indeed encountered many problems during its development, but that's to be expected given that it was China's first attempt in building a top echelon engine. I think those problems have mostly been resolved by now seeing as how the engine is finally being equipped on J-11's and should start trials on the J-10 soon as well.

[raghava]

Sun Tzu or Tzutiyapanti?

Classic; Sir - tip of the hat to you

[shiv]

Oh, that's old news. The WS-10 has indeed encountered many problems during its development, but that's to be expected given that it was China's first attempt in building a top echelon engine. I think those problems have mostly been resolved by now seeing as how the engine is finally being equipped on J-11's and should start trials on the J-10 soon as well.

The standard used by every country in the world bar China with regard to engine testing is a statement of hours of testing.

A Google search for "Kaveri hours of testing" is linked here (click)

A Google search for "F-135 hours of testing" is linked here (click)

A Google search for "WS-10 hours of testing" is linked here (click)

The number of hours is visible in the first link of the top two, but not the WS-10. No report that I can find mentions anything about the hours of testing the WS-10 has undergone. I don't suppose Chinese enthusiasts are curious about this. That is itself a curious finding seeing that engineering and technical education are so valued in China. However the reports do say this:

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/?p=1145

On May 11th 2005, the endurance life test of WS-10 engine started in 606 institute, which declared that the project is close to the designed approval of prototype. This period includes two important test-operations: endurance life test and then full life test. In the history of China’s engine development, WS-10’s created a series of top records in testing range, programs and hours. Those two tests are the most rigorous trials on engine’s reliability. November 10th 2005, WS-10 at last got across the full life test. WS-10 waltzed through 40 days’ trial without any failure.

"Waltzed through 40 days of testing?" What the hell does that mean?

Four years later, in 2009, in a report you say is "old" the WS-10 is still not ready.

Clearly there are problems. Everyone and his uncle knows that it is difficult to develop a jet engine. But China is nowhere near open and up front and we have claims from 2005 that it was almost ready and another report from 2009 that it is not yet ready.

How much of the information that comes out of China is being released by scientists who want to appear good on the world stage and save face (and save their asses) in China and how much is the real truth Nobody knows.

But to an outsider with some access to technical information these Chinese claims do not appear credible. We all know that there are jet engines and then there are jet engines. The CFM 56 has passed ten million hours of failure free flight. There are some engines (reputed to have been used on the MiG 29) that required changing after 100 hours of flight. But they were reliable for 100 hours.

Where is the WS-10 in this game? Nobody knows. Nobody with any technical knowledge will believe the amusing claims from China of "success" in 2005 and 40 days of waltzing and a belated report of difficulty and failure in 2009. Ultimately as China becomes more prominent as a power people will ask whether China is a big bluff or really has some substance; Hiding information and being cagey will fool no one. The people who hide things are the people who have the most shameful things to hide.

[Samay]

They hide because they fear , military/strategic objects are those things which should be hidden ,but hiding everything is insane.
The chinese had been hiding everything from the world since 50 yrs and now it seems they are best in only one thing i.e. Hiding

[Austin]

Harmony & Chaos: The Principles of China's Unrestricted Warfare

[Don]

Date Posted: 09-Dec-2010
Jane's Defence Weekly

Russia, China push fifth-generation fighter programmes to meet year-end milestones

Reuben F Johnson JDW Correspondent - Kiev

A second prototype of the Sukhoi T-50 (PAK-FA) fifth-generation fighter aircraft will make its first flight by the end of this year, according to Russian defence industry spokespersons.

As with the first prototype, this aircraft will be flown initially from the Dzemgi aerodrome adjacent to the Komsomolsk-na-Amure Aviation Production Association. After initial-acceptance test flights, it will be transferred to the Gromov Flight Research Institute in Zhukovsky.

Sukhoi's general director, Mikhail Pogosian, stated that a T-50 will also be flown in a display at the MAKS International Aviation and Space Salon in August 2011.

A source close to the programme told Jane's that "the end-of-the-year deadline may not be met, but the aircraft will fly very soon - either before the end of 2010 or just after the [beginning of the] new year". Russian aircraft programmes - even in Soviet times - have often had year-end deadlines for first flights that came down to near photo finishes.

Meanwhile, rumours have emerged from China's Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC) and the adjoining Aircraft Plant 132 that a Chinese-developed fifth-generation fighter prototype may also fly by the end of the year. Reportedly, two airframes - numbered 2001 and 2002 - have been assembled at the plant.

According to Russian industry sources, the programme - sometimes referred to as 'J-20' - is a joint design effort between CAC and the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, with Chengdu taking the lead on the development.


Related link: http://jdw.janes.com/public/jdw/index.shtml

[Austin]

^^^ I think Russia could be providing engine some advanced variant of AL-31 and other components ( radars,avionics etc ) for Chinese 5th Gen program hence would be aware of the status of its program much like it the case of J-10 where initial news and confirmation about the existance and advanced stage of development came from Russia sources.

Most of the available information on Chinese effort to develop 5th gen aircraft shows remarkable similarity to the cancelled Mig-1.44 MFI with delta/canard layout , it would be possible that since that program got abandoned Mig could have sold the design to the Chinese to recover the investment put into this program , much like one can see Israel Lavi influence on J-10 program.

[Singha]

if http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-MiG-MFI.html is what the Mig sold, the design is quite inferior to the Pakfa/F22 std - no room for internal bays for one - the chinese are no fools and might heavily modify the basic MFI layout to make it more competitive...like separating the air intakes to carve out room for a internal bay. rest of it looks very similar to front end of Typhoon and back of any flanker.

[Don]

^^^ I think Russia could be providing engine some advanced variant of AL-31 and other components ( radars,avionics etc ) for Chinese 5th Gen program hence would be aware of the status of its program much like it the case of J-10 where initial news and confirmation about the existance and advanced stage of development came from Russia sources.

Most of the available information on Chinese effort to develop 5th gen aircraft shows remarkable similarity to the cancelled Mig-1.44 MFI with delta/canard layout , it would be possible that since that program got abandoned Mig could have sold the design to the Chinese to recover the investment put into this program , much like one can see Israel Lavi influence on J-10 program.

We should wait until the real photograph comes out lets not jump to conclusion or speculations until then.

Some info on the avionics :

[Austin]

Singha , Mig-1.44 was a TD and precursor to production model Mig-1.42 and had won against S-37 FSW Berkut for Soviet MFI requirement. Much like the PAK-FA is a TD as a precursor to production PAK-FA.

As you can see from TD they have sufficient space below the intake for internal weapon bay and was a big aircraft in 35T class.

The production and definitive model was not suppose to be equipped with canard but had the same planform.
http://www.kommersant.com/photo/300/New ... -3view.jpg

Lets see what comes from Chinese Stable , much like you cannot deny Israel Lavi infulence on J-10 ,we will come to know if Mig-1.44 design ended up with Chinese.

Russia and China share a strategic relationship and share a common view on US and NATO ,plus beyond US and Russia no country has the depth of experience in developing a 5th gen fighter , i think it would be logical for China to approach Russia for help and Russia wont loose any thing by sharing an older but proven design which seems inferior to PAK-FA but still a capable design

[Raghavendra]

China's strategic highway to Indian border set for completion http://www.zeenews.com/news673891.html

[Singha]

and now that F22 and JSF are public, they can build scale models and copy liberally anything useful like DSI intakes (already done), that boat hull shaped f22 nose, saw tooth shape of all doors and seams etc etc. thats the benefit of not being the trail blazer...lot of info is gained for free...they can also work in anything useful looking from the Pakfa like the wing L-band radar and stealthy missile carrying wing bays.

their biggest problems are likely to be the big AESA radar and the big AL41/F119 class engine that would impart the speed and teeth to the plane. through their own means and industrial espionage/consultants/'cloning' the rest can be put together - weapons, shaping, avionics, EW

these two problems are precisely the ones we face for AMCA. if kaveri-eco doesnt make the cut, we need to line up plan-B whether it be F414-NG or AL41-mini or EJ220-v2

[chiragAS]

The cloth on the simulator... the way it is photographed looks like a mujahid

haven't been reading BRF for a while now...
btw

2) Nuke New Delhi

Shivji love your posts ...

[mohan]

http://www.economist.com/node/17601487? ... d=17601487

A report on the economist about China's military. It focuses on the possible options for how the US can respond..

THIRTY-FIVE years ago Deng Xiaoping accused the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of “bloating, laxity, conceit, extravagance and inertia”. Even so, three years later, when he set about modernising China, he put the PLA last in the queue, behind farming, industry and science. And when the commander of the navy in 1982 laid out his plans for China to become a world sea power, he did not expect his goal to be realised before 2040.

Later military modernisation became more of a priority, thanks to two demonstrations of American firepower. First, America’s use of precision weapons in Operation Desert Storm during the first Gulf war convinced China that it could no longer base its defence on the weight of numbers. Second, when the PLA was hectoring Taiwan with missile tests in 1996, President Bill Clinton ordered two aircraft-carrier strike groups into the region, one of them headed by the provocatively named USS Independence. China had to back down.

What does this amount to? Military experts in America, Australia and Japan think China’s new arsenals are a greater threat than its higher-profile plans to launch aircraft-carriers in the next decade or so. Alan Dupont, of the University of Sydney in Australia, says that “missiles and cyber-equivalents are becoming the weapons of choice for the conventionally outgunned.”

Other things being equal, China can project power into its backyard more easily than America can project power across the Pacific Ocean. At risk is what Mr Gates has called “the operational sanctuary our navy has enjoyed in the western Pacific for the better part of six decades”.

Third, although the United States is able to respond to China, it will have to overcome some obstacles first. America’s military spending in Asia is overshadowed by the need to cut overall government spending and by other military priorities, such as Afghanistan. Jonathan Pollack, of the Brookings Institution, points out that some ideas, such as replacing aircraft-carriers with more submarines, would inevitably run into opposition from the navy and from politicians whose constituencies would suffer. “For many officers the navy’s core institutional identity is indelibly tied to carriers and the power-projection mission they perform,” he says. “Reducing their numbers is going to be a very painful process.” Above all, big shifts in military planning take decades: America needs to think now about China in 2025.

[mohan]

Perhaps this is a useful image file.


http://media.economist.com/images/image ... src932.gif

[Austin]

Further thoughts about the Chinese sub that surfaced in the middle of a US fleet. Let me do this in MCQ format.

The USN is just exaggerating the incident of Chinese sub being forced to surface or just did it on its own will , if an unknown sub is detected it is signaled to surface and then the sub is escorted safely out of the area , such incident keeps happening and there is nothing extraordinary about it.

If USN forced the sub to surface ending the subs mission the commander of Chinese Sub will get a dressing down from his Admiral

[Austin]

and now that F22 and JSF are public, they can build scale models and copy liberally anything useful like DSI intakes (already done), that boat hull shaped f22 nose, saw tooth shape of all doors and seams etc

I think copying has its limitations , you can copy an idea from Russia or US or better be creative as develop their own ideas as one can see from many Chinese PS'd J-xx but at the end they have to take it to wind tunnel and verify its aerodynamics , build a engineering prototype and system engineer the whole thing , get the stealth thing going , get the internal bay working etc etc.

For US and Russia building a stealth was not an easy one step guide ,US has 3 decades of experience and couple of black project to get the stealth thing right , Russia similarly has X planes that did the ground work both countries built prototypes to get to where they are from a 4 gen to 5 gen design its a leap of faith ,sweat and blood.

Lets see what the chinese can come up with , may be their espionage helped them a bit but it would be interesting to see if they can get stealth working from prototype to production.

[Singha]

even if it doesnt work as well as the shape would indicate we will never know the real performance and uptime figures - same case as J-10/J-11/JF-17/any domestic chinese projects - they are always assumed to enter service on time and serve with no issues at all.

[Don]

even if it doesnt work as well as the shape would indicate we will never know the real performance and uptime figures - same case as J-10/J-11/JF-17/any domestic chinese projects - they are always assumed to enter service on time and serve with no issues at all.

I think there are plenty of Chinese projects that never came into service. They are not exceptional in that respect.

[Indranil]

^^^ Yes, and I like that method. I would like India to come up with a competitive model as well like US/Russia/China.

Also as much as I hate the copying business, the end products are not that bad. I must compliment the Chinese on how well they copied and tweaks they made. They are not earth-shattering, but they are definitely respectful.

I for one am very very interested in how the Chinese fifth gen fighter comes out as. With so many years of plane buildings is going to manifest in those interesting tweaks.