China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Locked
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

Their 40K-ton helo-carrier is now tooling around the IndoChina Sea. 1500 miles from Shanghai where it was built.

The keel was laid down on March of last year onlee. The second of the class is in fitting and a third is under contruction and will launch in a few months at most.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HenriKenhman ... 0614189057
East Pendulum
@HenriKenhmann
Le 1er porte-hélicoptère chinois de Type 075 semble avoir été photographié près de Sanya, l'île de Haïnan, bordant la mer de Chine méridionale.

Image

----- Google Translate from French ------

The 1st Chinese Type 075 helicopter carrier appears to have been photographed near Sanya, Hainan Island, bordering the South China Sea.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

Not mil but definitely dual-use. The C-919 and ARJ-21 at the Jiangxi airshow. We'll be seeing mil versions in a few years, I reckon.

The ARJ-21 looks like a version of the McDonnell-Douglas MD80 that used to be assembled in Shanghai. And the C919? Could be a half-brother of the A320 which incidently had its 500th delivery from Airbus' Tianjin assembly plant in Cheen. Airbus's only plant outside Yurop and the US: https://simpleflying.com/airbus-china-fal-500/

They know how to leverage their market for technology transfer/hijacking. Period.

And no social distancing in Cheen it seems.

Image

Image

Image

Image
Dilbu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8328
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:53
Location: Deep in the badlands of BRFATA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by Dilbu »

Air Force video reveals Chinese fighter jet’s mysterious new missile
Chinese fighter jets are apparently getting a mysterious new type of missile, a recent recruitment video of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force shows. The unidentified missile could be an advanced anti-radiation missile or a new long-range air-to-air missile, and either possibility could significantly increase the PLA's capabilities in destroying hostile early warning aircraft, analysts said on Wednesday.

The Air Force video showed a J-11BS fighter jet carrying a type of missile previously unknown to the general public, reported Weihutang, a military program affiliated with China Central Television. This report was reposted by the PLA Eastern Theater Command on Sina Weibo on Tuesday.

Weihutang said that this missile could be a type of new long-range air-to-air missile, which could be used in shooting down high-value targets like early warning aircraft and aerial tankers from afar, or it could be an advanced anti-radiation missile similar to the US' AGM-88G.

An anti-radiation missile is a type of weapon that homes in on hostile radio emission sources, usually radars.

Ordnance Industry Science Technology, a defense magazine based in Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, said in a Tuesday report that since the screenshot of the video is not of sufficiently high quality, further details of the missile cannot be ascertained.

US media outlet thedrive.com said that it is more likely an anti-radiation missile.
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 909
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by MeshaVishwas »

Cheen is arming up rapidly
China's growing bomber fleet?

A little over 2 years ago, I put up this thread about China's fleet of H-6 bombers. Counting them using open-source imagery, I determined that they numbered almost 200, more than the 150 or so of most open-source estimates.
https://twitter.com/tshugart3/status/13 ... 51168?s=20
Go through the thread.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by brar_w »

An interesting, though still speculative , thread on the J-20 production rate which we had been trying to decipher a few months ago in this thread. A late 2020's numerical parity with F-22A fleet wouldn't be too far fetched and would also explain why the USAF was always interested in a 2030 F-22A replacement fighter as a target. Also explains why China is buying the SU-35, cranking out its flanker clones and the J-10 concurrently. They probably need close to 100 new build aircraft a year to recapitalize their 3rd and early 4th gen fighter fleet and scale production of stealth isn’t easy.

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/stat ... 4892058626
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by jamwal »

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-econ ... ir-us-tech

Roll-out of China’s home-grown passenger jet still up in the air as US tech restrictions expected to persist under Joe Biden

Concerns are growing over China’s access to key American-made components for the C919 passenger jet, due to a dependency on US exports
China’s answer to the Boeing-Airbus duopoly on passenger jets still has hurdles to overcome to meet its planned roll-out next year, and not all analysts think it will arrive on time

Image
The C919 relies on imports of a number of crucial parts, from its engines to its flight-control systems, so access to US suppliers such as General Electric (GE), Honeywell International and Rockwell Collins is vital for future deliveries of the new model.
Comac said last year that it aimed to get all of the necessary certificates for the C919 by the end of 2021 – a delay from the previous target of the end of this year – due to technical issues involving its design, manufacturing, airworthiness compliance and operational suitability.
However, Kevin Michaels, managing director of Michigan-based AeroDynamic Advisory, told the Post this month that he expects the C919 to be delivered later than the 2021 target – possibly in 2022 or even 2023 – due to obstacles involving technical issues and CAAC certification.

He added that it is impossible for China to develop its own jet engines, calling this a chronic “Achilles’ heel” for China. The CFM jet engine used on the C919 is 20 years or more ahead of Chinese technology, and was designed for reliability, he added.
Reuters reported in February that the Trump administration was considering blocking GE from selling the LEAP-1C engine to Comac, citing concerns over the possible military applications of the technology. But in the end, the US granted GE a licence to sell the engines to the Chinese company.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by jamwal »

https://thetaiwantimes.com/chinese-troo ... order/7342

Chinese Troops Struggle With Low Quality Winter Clothing On Indian Border
Despite having an advantage of the flatter terrain of the Tibetan plateau, the PLA troops are struggling to survive in sub-zero temperatures with poor quality of clothing and accommodation.

PLA commanders who have no prior experience in high altitude and winter deployments initially invited local garment manufacturers to produce winter clothing for their troops deployed in the Ladakh region.

As part of Chinese communist propaganda, the Global Times released a number of videos showcasing newly developed winter clothing being provided to the Chinese soldiers.
The McMahon Line forms the northern border of the area shown in red
However, the lack of combat experience across the entire PLA is so glaring that commanders and their political masters did not realize surviving in heights greater than 12,000 feet is totally different from equipping soldiers for operations at normal altitudes of up to 9,000 feet.

Also, there may have been a Napoleonic mindset at work attempting to eke out a quick victory before the winters set in.

Like Napoleon, this has turned out to be a logistical nightmare.

Having misread the logistics requirements, local Chinese garment manufacturers produced clothing that can at best be utilized by troops deployed at 9,000 feet.

Once the temperatures in the Ladakh region plummeted to minus 20 degrees and below in areas around the Pangong Tso and Kailash ranges, one could witness a steady line of emergency medical evacuations from the PLA positions.

Reports indicate that casualty evacuation of PLA troops through helicopters and stretchers has been observed on a daily basis.

It is also learnt that on an average one PLA soldier succumbs to altitude and temperature related ailments every day.

Morale and motivation at the posts has dipped below freezing point.

Currently, the PLA troops deployed in Ladakh are facing extreme shortage of specialised cold climate clothing and have been forced to go for emergency procurements.

This is the same PLA which was showing off its insular cabins and multipurpose jackets and pants just a few weeks ago on Chinese national TV.

Available input indicates that PLA Joint Logistics Support Force (JLSF) has constituted a Quality Supervision Team for emergency procurement of Extreme Cold Climate clothing.

This team has now been tasked to ensure good quality clothing and fast delivery to forward area troops.

Emergency plans such as the setting up of special working classes, scientific planning, factory supervision, on-site inspections and placement of military representatives in factories to supervise production have been put in place.

This team is reported to have been reporting directly to the Central Military Commission.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5799
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by Cyrano »

This is exactly what I was expecting, when I said in the border security thread that after occupying strategic heights around Pangong and in Chushul, India should be in no hurry to de-escalate and wait out the winter and make further moves next spring, to kick PLA's frozen butt out of Aksai-Hind.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Looks like the Chinese Y-20 flew with four WS-20 engines today to complete the C-17 look and feel:

Image

Image

This is where their IL-76-type limitation with engines on transport aircraft will disappear and merge with western designs. The WS-20 powered Y-20 design should be a lot more capable and efficient.

Steady progress overall on this program.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by Vivek K »

Sad to see our own stunted aircraft programs.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

^^^ The WS-20 was tested on an IL-76 platform that they bought from Gromov. Yes, the Kaveri was tested on the same model (or possibly even the same plane) in Russia.

They spared no expense on their engines. We ran on a shoe-string for ours (just $280M.) We spent $9.5B for 32 Rafales and hoped that the French can help us with the Kaveri. A billion or two on the Kaveri would have given us an engine, I'm sure of it.

Image

Image

Image
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

Interesting. They reversed engineered the CFM-56 to develop the core for the WS-10. The WS-10 variant for the J-20 is the "C" with a supposedly uprated thrust of 145/150kN.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HenriKenhman ... 5288183808
East Pendulum
@HenriKenhmann
Un J-20 équipé de moteurs WS-10, en livrée basse visibilité de l'armée de l'air chinoise, a été filmé dans l'usine d'assemblage de CAC à Chengdu.

Vidéo via 斯图卡98
Embedded video



Hapag
@fcf58053475
·
Nov 26
Replying to
@HenriKenhmann
The sound is quite different from Su-27. It's actually more similar to F-15. Probably due to the fact the the core of WS-10 is from CFM-56
1

日月同明
@onceggyy123
·
Nov 27
Yes, closer to f110
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by nam »

Reverse engineered means, the French must have sold the tech.

It cannot be that straight forward to sell M2K to Taiwan..
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by arvin »

The core of CFM 56 is GE contribution (HPC, Combustor and HPT) and is derived from B1 bomber and was built with Department of Defense funding. French dont have any contribution in that. Dont see any merit in that tweet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56
The work split between the two companies gave GE responsibility for the high-pressure compressor (HPC), the combustor, and the high-pressure turbine (HPT); Snecma was responsible for the fan, the low-pressure compressor (LPC), and the low-pressure turbine (LPT).[15] Snecma was also responsible for the initial airframe integration engineering, mostly involving the nacelle design, and was initially responsible for the gearbox, but shifted that work to GE when it became apparent that it would be more efficient for GE to assemble that component along with their other parts.[16]
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

^^^ The CFM-56 powers the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 which are ubiqitous in Cheen. They are familiar with it to say the least. The WS-10 being a RE of the CMF-56 is pretty reasonable not least in that the engine has a mil pedigree. Why wouldn't they target an engine they can easily get their hands on and has a core that was designed for an American warplane to boot? The chini MIC copies Amreeki whenever possible.

Whether the French might have helped is a legitimate question though. The engine is jointly built with the French and to this day, there are lot of French licensed built stuff in chini armed forces.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

J-20 prototypes 2021 and 2022 from 2017/2018 that tested out the WS-10C engines in current production models.

They really have a deliberate program with the WS-10. We've seen prototypes first and then full-blown production with the engine in the J-11, J-10 and now J-20.

The first copies of the WS-10 were horrendous that threw shards during tests and had a life of a few hundred hours, no better than a turbojet. But iteration after iteration has given them something useful enough that all their frontline aircraft are now being produced with it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDei ... 0883739651
@Rupprecht_A
@RupprechtDeino
Wow Astonished face ... Here is at least to my knowledge the first clear image of J-20A '2022' and it clearly shown that patch!

Any info when this image was posted first? Thinking face... and even more why I missed it? Smiling face with open mouth and cold sweat

(Image via @szheng615 from the http://lt.cjdby.net/forum)

Thanks to
@onceggyy123

Image
https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDei ... 7885020161
@Rupprecht_A
@RupprechtDeino
I must admit, Face with open mouth I'm surprised that I missed this image, but perhaps this is the second J-20A prototype no. 2022 powered by WS-10C engines. Thinking face

So far I knew only a hand-full of images showing no. 2021, which flew first on 19. Sept. 2017 and reports of a second one in Jan. 2018.
Image
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10206
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by sum »

chola wrote:J-20 prototypes 2021 and 2022 from 2017/2018 that tested out the WS-10C engines in current production models.

They really have a deliberate program with the WS-10. We've seen prototypes first and then full-blown production with the engine in the J-11, J-10 and now J-20.

The first copies of the WS-10 were horrendous that threw shards during tests and had a life of a few hundred hours, no better than a turbojet. But iteration after iteration has given them something useful enough that all their frontline aircraft are now being
Hats off to the Chinese for persistence and keeping at it relentessly with adequate funding
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

Y-20 apparently powered by 4 WS-20s. Looks like it is being filmed by J-11BS chase plane so this is probably a test flight or a prototype:
Image

(Caption on bottom is Japanese so this was first exposed by watchers from there.)
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

sum wrote: Hats off to the Chinese for persistence and keeping at it relentessly with adequate funding
Watch this space for the WS-15 and WS-19. I have no doubt now that they'll put them into mass use. It won't matter if the initial models are substandard or subpar. They'll get things working over time because they have a process and a track record for doing that now.

They should be a constant reminder, a kick in our pants to fund our own engine projects adequately. The 110kN medium engine for the AMCA is our next test. We NEED to carry it over the goal line and not give it a pittance (like the $280m onlee for Kaveri) while funding phoren MICs with billions.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by brar_w »

US Indo-PACOM Commander essentially confirming, on the record, that the recent Chinese DF-21 (DF-26?) exercise against a moving naval target was successful. Given the strong US ISR and BMD assets in the region (in Japan, South Korea, Guam, on ships and air and space) there is obviously going to be some strong intel generated by monitoring this within the limitations of the exercise involved (and what China did and didn't want to demonstrate).
Davidson confirmed, for the first time from the U.S. government side, that China’s People’s Liberation Army has successfully tested an anti-ship ballistic missile against a moving ship. This was done as part of the PLA’s massive joint military exercises, which have been ongoing since the summer. These are often called “aircraft carrier killer” missiles, because they could threaten the United States’ most significant naval assets from long distances.

“It’s an indication that they continue to advance their capability. We’ve known for years they’ve been in pursuit of a capability that could attack moving targets,” Davidson said. I asked him whether they are designed to target U.S. aircraft carriers. “Trust me, they are targeting everything,” he replied...LINK
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

^^^ The Unkil-Panda rivalry will play out in many things -- BMs and hypersonics are just a few pieces, look at the rail guns, EMALS, etc.

But this one will take the cake :shock:

Will we eventually see Captain America and the (Chicom) Red Skull battling it out? Do we need to actually create Krrish to keep up in the coming age of supermen?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... s-n1249914

China has done human testing to create biologically enhanced super soldiers, says top U.S. official


U.S. intelligence agencies didn't immediately respond to requests for comment about whether China seeks super soldiers like those in such films as "Captain America."

Dec. 3, 2020, 5:37 PM EST
By Ken Dilanian

WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence shows that China has conducted "human testing" on members of the People's Liberation Army in hope of developing soldiers with "biologically enhanced capabilities," the top U.S. intelligence official said Friday.

John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence, included the explosive claim in a long Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he made the case that China poses the pre-eminent national security threat to the U.S.

Last year, two American scholars wrote a paper examining China's ambitions to apply biotechnology to the battlefield, including what they said were signs that China was interested in using gene-editing technology to enhance human — and perhaps soldier — performance.

Specifically, the scholars explored Chinese research using the gene-editing tool CRISPR, short for "clusters of regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats." CRISPR has been used to treat genetic diseases and modify plants, but Western scientists consider it unethical to seek to manipulate genes to boost the performance of healthy people.

...
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by brar_w »

chola wrote:^^^ The Unkil-Panda rivalry will play out in many things -- BMs and hypersonics are just a few pieces, look at the rail guns, EMALS, etc.
Two things stood out and have far reaching implications. First that there is official, at the highest uniform level, acknowledgement of the success of the medium-intermediate range ASBM capability. Second is that they are just not carrier killers. As far as fleet implications, this reinforces that the large-surface-combatants aren't going anywhere. As a "fighting" posture the forward deployed surface combatants, with/without a carrier, need layered ballistic missile defense for both themselves, the vessels they are escorting and forward deployed troops. That and top notch C-ISR, and deception to deny long range tracking and targeting. The need for large magazines, and sensors isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote:^^^ The Unkil-Panda rivalry will play out in many things -- BMs and hypersonics are just a few pieces, look at the rail guns, EMALS, etc.
Two things stood out and have far reaching implications. First that there is official, at the highest uniform level, acknowledgement of the success of the medium-intermediate range ASBM capability. Second is that they are just not carrier killers. As far as fleet implications, this reinforces that the large-surface-combatants aren't going anywhere. As a "fighting" posture the forward deployed surface combatants, with/without a carrier, need layered ballistic missile defense for both themselves, the vessels they are escorting and forward deployed troops. That and top notch C-ISR, and deception to deny long range tracking and targeting. The need for large magazines, and sensors isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Brar ji, is this unexpected? The USN has pretty much planned for the DF-21 and its ilk for quite a while no?

Large ships in a navy with 67(!!!) Aegis destroyers and 22 cruisers is not a problem. The FFGX won't even make a mild dent in the composition profile of the USN so dearth of magazines and sensors is hardly a danger.

But for India, it is major. We have 8 modern destroyers built/planned in the P15A/B and 6 large FFGs in the P17A. And even those are rather lightly armed in anti-air capability never mind AB.

The magazine totals are so much lower than the PLAN counterparts. 36 cells of Barak 8 is not enough especially with Cheen building CBGs and the threat coming more from the air than surface ships.

I've had hoped that we will see plans on P18 or the Next Gen Destroyer but so far nothing. We need a large DDG or cruiser to realistically allow AB capabilities. Cheen looks like it is settling on the 13K-ton 112-cell Type 055 for a long run. They have 8 launched or in building already.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by brar_w »

chola wrote:Large ships in a navy with 67(!!!) Aegis destroyers and 22 cruisers is not a problem. The FFGX won't even make a mild dent in the composition profile of the USN so dearth of magazines and sensors is hardly a danger.
Not all destroyers or cruisers are BMD or dual capable. This means that the Flight III DDG-51 program will likely need to be expanded, and Flight II modernization accelerated so 100% of the DDG fleet becomes IAMD capable. Major expense (cost imposition). The FFG(X) is going to be a juicy target unless under the BMD umbrella of larger ships which sort of runs counter to their envisioned concept of employment. And they plan something like 20 (min) to 40 of those. It will have some limited capability given it will run a lite version of AEGIS but you still need the larger SPY-6 sensor net and the magazine can't handle the BMD threat.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

^^^I didn't realize they were looking for up to 40 FFGX! I knew they were looking for some volume on a per cost basis but I thought it was still a strategy that is a work in progress. For example, I read recently that the USCG is tagged for deployment in Asia. That would cut into part of the reasoning for the new frigate.

Brar ji, I want your opinion on the possibility that Cheen is trying to develop a Captain America type super soldier (and it sounds like the US positioning itself for new arms race in genetics)!
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by brar_w »

chola wrote:^^^I didn't realize they were looking for up to 40 FFGX! I knew they were looking for some volume on a per cost basis but I thought it was still a strategy that is a work in progress.
We don't have the 2021 30-year shipbuilding plan but there are certain influential planners talking about potentially doubling the future frigate fleet. They are probably needed in large numbers but they are not going to be adequate for the PACOM threat without a substantial LSC fleet.
tandav
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 08:24

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by tandav »

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/03/asia ... index.html

Chinese Weather modification technology already used to ensure clear skies over selected areas like Beijing on days of importance (Olympic games etc) can and will be weaponized... China may have the capability to selectively increase rainfall and flood areas of interest or create paths of interest in border areas.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by DavidD »

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote:^^^ The Unkil-Panda rivalry will play out in many things -- BMs and hypersonics are just a few pieces, look at the rail guns, EMALS, etc.
Two things stood out and have far reaching implications. First that there is official, at the highest uniform level, acknowledgement of the success of the medium-intermediate range ASBM capability. Second is that they are just not carrier killers. As far as fleet implications, this reinforces that the large-surface-combatants aren't going anywhere. As a "fighting" posture the forward deployed surface combatants, with/without a carrier, need layered ballistic missile defense for both themselves, the vessels they are escorting and forward deployed troops. That and top notch C-ISR, and deception to deny long range tracking and targeting. The need for large magazines, and sensors isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Large magazines aren't gonna do it, they need to step up on the other methods you mentioned. No matter how many missiles a shop can carry, a land-based attacker can always overwhelm with numbers.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by brar_w »

DavidD wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Two things stood out and have far reaching implications. First that there is official, at the highest uniform level, acknowledgement of the success of the medium-intermediate range ASBM capability. Second is that they are just not carrier killers. As far as fleet implications, this reinforces that the large-surface-combatants aren't going anywhere. As a "fighting" posture the forward deployed surface combatants, with/without a carrier, need layered ballistic missile defense for both themselves, the vessels they are escorting and forward deployed troops. That and top notch C-ISR, and deception to deny long range tracking and targeting. The need for large magazines, and sensors isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Large magazines aren't gonna do it, they need to step up on the other methods you mentioned. No matter how many missiles a shop can carry, a land-based attacker can always overwhelm with numbers.
Yes and No. There are no viable non-kinetic hard kill options for against this threat inside of 15 years.

But No one is/was/has been relying on large magazines alone. But a layered ballistic missile defense is almost becoming a criteria of entry given even Japan is adding more AEGIS BMD vessels to its fleet. It is one solution that is on the extreme right of launch. The things that you have to bring to bear are C-ISR, strike, soft kill (Electronic Attack), deception and target overload. The idea isn't just to sit around and let missiles come to you and defeat until you go winchester. You are correct in that if this was the approach (relying on interceptor magazine alone) then you are going to be at the loosing end of this exchange. The idea is to be in an at risk area, bring all your capability to bear, do what you have to do and get out. The USN/USAF has tremendous ISR and C-ISR capability in the region. Same for space and counter space. And a very large long range fires capability. And the USN fleet is upgrading its Electronic Attack capability rapidly. Even bi-static modes for the SPY-6 radar are being developed. So it is the collective whole that you have to move and advance in order to be better "defended" against medium and intermediate range targeting capability. Keep in mind that the ISR and fire-control chain at 2000-3000 km range is going to be substantially large for the PLAN. And this is where attack each element within that chain. This is how you win a missile exchange.

Just relying on your ability to shoot down these things kinetically isn't going to suffice by itself. You have to go after the kill chain using your own offensive and soft-kill capability. But certainly when it goes kinetic, you need a substantial magazine do all of those things. This is where how many VL cells you can employ within a region matters. Both on your sub-surface and surface fleet. You need magazines to shoot down satellites, long range AAW missiles to shoot down ISR assets, long range land attack weapons to shoot down terrestrial EW radars and ISR capability etc etc. An intermediate ranged anti-ship weapon is going to rely on a heavy ISR kill chain for targeting and discrimination (counter counter targeting etc). You can use your own intermediate ranged fires to deny or degrade that. At the end, a "salvo fight" comes down to how much total capability you have. If you have small magazines you are forced to make trades. If you can commit a large magazine to the region you bring both adequate offense and defense. The idea being to pace the threat in a way that maintains your ability to maneuver forces despite the threat of these intermediate systems. For that you need to attack the problem from multiple dimensions i.e. degrade your enemies ability to kill you by making the targeting more difficult, force the enemy to maneuver his forces to account for your offensive capability, and then ultimately have the ability to shoot down a portion of the magazine that your enemy possesses. The SM-3 family isn't just a long range BMD weapon. It is a proven and legitimate counter space capability especially with the newer blocks which significantly increase the defended area.

There is a good reason that the USN's first conventional hypersonic weapon is an intermediate ranged system. This is the type of offensive capability that you need to leverage to degrade the enemies ability to target you at those ranges. But again, whether that is how many submarines you have, or how many surface ships you have it all only works if you have a sizable magazine. Hence my emphasis on the large surface combatant force structure that has the magazine capacity where they can carry both offensive and defense in adequate amounts and not be forced towards trading one at the expense of the other. There are talks about adding the Virginia Payload Module's tubes on surface ships to allow for IR-CPS hypersonic weapon capability. You can't really do that on a Frigate even one as large as the FFG(X) without severely impacting its defensive capability. You can begin adding that to your future destroyers and cruisers or retrofitting on the few large surface combatants that you currently have that can accommodate that. So a large magazine, in and of itself, isn't a be-all-end-all solution. But a large and right type of magazine is certainly a starting point for all of your other capability to work. Without it you severely limit your choices and are basically kicked out of the region.

As air-defenders like to say - Air and Missile defense keeps you in the fight long enough for you to win it by other means. This is also true for ballistic missile defense. So it is a starting point.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

Their third LHD looks very far along with the island fully in place. The second one is the gray painted one in front.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDei ... 8389552131

@Rupprecht_A
@RupprechtDeino
Latest image of the third Type 075 LHD at the Hudong–Zhonghua Shipyard in Shanghai.

Image
The first Type 075 is in here in the chini "Hawaii" of Hainan:
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5420
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

So, it is getting increasingly difficult for the mighty USN with its super carriers and associated groups to manage in the ECS/SCS. But here is the Indian Navy dreaming up of Vishaal carriers when it doesn't even have basic support systems in place. :shock:
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

Cain Marko wrote:So, it is getting increasingly difficult for the mighty USN with its super carriers and associated groups to manage in the ECS/SCS. But here is the Indian Navy dreaming up of Vishaal carriers when it doesn't even have basic support systems in place. :shock:
Those are their littoral seas. The Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea are ours. The Vishal is important even if we never set foot pass the Malacca Strait.

Without a CATOBAR, we become a second rate navy even in the IOR with the US, France and UK crisscrossing our ocean with their carriers and a matter of time before a chini CBG arrives as well. What's at play for us is the IOR. How the US and Cheen play in the Pacific is frankly of secondary importance to the IN in spite of Indo-Pacific rhetoric.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5420
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

chola wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:So, it is getting increasingly difficult for the mighty USN with its super carriers and associated groups to manage in the ECS/SCS. But here is the Indian Navy dreaming up of Vishaal carriers when it doesn't even have basic support systems in place. :shock:
Those are their littoral seas. The Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea are ours. The Vishal is important even if we never set foot pass the Malacca Strait.

Without a CATOBAR, we become a second rate navy even in the IOR with the US, France and UK crisscrossing our ocean with their carriers and a matter of time before a chini CBG arrives as well. What's at play for us is the IOR. How the US and Cheen play in the Pacific is frankly of secondary importance to the IN in spite of Indo-Pacific rhetoric.
How will a single catobar change the situation in the ior any more than say, another vikrant class?
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2242
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by wig »

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/chi ... 30525.html

China conducted human testing to develop super soldiers, top US official
excerpts
US intelligence has revealed that China conducted "human testing" on members of the People's Liberation Army in hope of developing soldiers with "biologically enhanced capabilities," NBC reported citing top American intelligence official.

John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence, included the explosive claim in a long Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he made the case that China poses the pre-eminent national security threat to the United States, NBC said.

"There are no ethical boundaries to Beijing's pursuit of power," wrote Ratcliffe, a Republican former member of Congress from Texas.

"The People's Republic of China poses the greatest threat to America today, and the greatest threat to democracy and freedom worldwide since World War II," he wrote. "The intelligence is clear: Beijing intends to dominate the U.S. and the rest of the planet economically, militarily and technologically," he added. His office and the CIA did not immediately respond to the claims made by Ratcliffe against China. Last year, two American scholars in a paper examining China's ambitions to apply biotechnology to the battlefield, including that Beijing was interested in using gene-editing technology to enhance human -- and perhaps soldier -- performance.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

Cain Marko wrote: How will a single catobar change the situation in the ior any more than say, another vikrant class?
Marko ji, t'is a good question. It is a combination of operation plus perception. The CATOBAR, beyond being far more capable operationally (ability to launch fixed-wing AEW, DOD, ASW and, most importantly, full-load strike-aircaft), also represents a higher level of prestige. This is the Amreeki "Great White Fleet" concept that brings US power across the globe.

A small STOBAR like the 40K tonners we have is decidedly a step below the US and French CATOBARs in the IOR. The Britshits even though they too sail STOBARs, the QEs are 65K ton and armed with the latest F-35s.

When the PLAN begin operating their CATOBARs -- which are looking to be in the 100K tons range (see below) -- the Vikrant will be perceived as a starter carrier on the level of the Juan Carlos or the Thai Chakri Naruebet onlee.

A CATOBAR would signal to the sundry states in the IOR that we are still in the game and not being completely outclassed. There is a reason that the IN is so adamant in pushing for it.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by chola »

Progress on the Type 003. For perspective, the section of the drydock that the carrier is in had been measured at 350 meters. The carrier fills most of it. People are revising the initial estimate of 80K tons because this thing is looking like it has the dimensions of a Nimitz.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RupprechtDei ... 1941815302

@Rupprecht_A
@RupprechtDeino
Finally a clearer image of the Type 003 aircraft carrier.

Image
https://mobile.twitter.com/CovertShores ... 6261357577
H I Sutton
@CovertShores
What you are looking at. New viz shows roughly what #China Type-003 Aircraft Carrier looks like, when completed, in a new OSINT photo shared by
@RupprechtDeino

Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by brar_w »

chola wrote:A small STOBAR like the 40K tonners we have is decidedly a step below the US and French CATOBARs in the IOR. The Britshits even though they too sail STOBARs, the QEs are 65K ton and armed with the latest F-35s.
The RN also has the luxury of operating within NATO and a strong and closely aligned group of nations in the Pacific (US, Japan, Australia). And the fact that for the last many years they've aligned closely with the USMC and have integrated that service into its carrier operations. So much so that there is a USMC F-35B unit currently in the UK doing the workups ahead of the joint patrol next year. So the type of capability emphasized on the QE and its air-wings must be looked through the lens of Britain's security partnerships and expected usage.



Since this is relevant to China, I'm posting it here. Between the two QE class carriers, the America Class LHA's, the Izumo Class you have a new tier or underlayer of carrier operations being generated in the Pacific that sit below the big deck CVN's that will also be present in the region. I'm not including the South Korean F-35B "carriers" because those are unlikely to participate in joint patrols. But these are able to do a lot of things they do because they do indeed work alongside and as part of a larger carrier and escort footprint which is still led by the CVN and its escorts. The reach, and breadth of capability that that flotilla provides is not going to be replaced by these. But they complement both in wartime and in peacetime presence. And they are integrated so USMC aircraft operate off of RN ships, and the same RN F-35B's can utilize the Japanese F-35 depot level facilities in case they need to (RN has limited COD ability unlike the USN).

UK to send aircraft carrier strike group to waters near Japan

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The British navy will dispatch an aircraft carrier strike group to waters near Japan as soon as early next year, Japanese government sources said Saturday, in a rare development that comes amid the growing maritime assertiveness of China in the region.

The group, including the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, is expected to conduct joint exercises with the U.S. military and Japan's Self-Defense Forces during its stay in areas including off the Nansei Islands chain in southwestern Japan, the sources said.

It is unusual that countries other than those in the region as well as the U.S. keep an aircraft carrier operational in the western Pacific.

The move comes amid concerns over China's increasing assertiveness in the East and South China seas as well as about its handling of pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. It could trigger an outcry from Beijing.

During the dispatch, the British navy also plans to conduct maintenance on carrier-based F-35B stealth fighter jets at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.'s aerospace systems works in Aichi Prefecture, central Japan, the sources said.

Britain announced last year it will dispatch the carrier group to the Pacific and has since been in talks with Japan and other relevant countries, they said.

The carrier, commissioned in 2017, is "the largest and most powerful vessel ever constructed" for the British navy, weighing 65,000 tons and measuring 280 meters in length, according to the navy.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5420
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

chola wrote:Progress on the Type 003. For perspective, the section of the drydock that the carrier is in had been measured at 350 meters. The carrier fills most of it. People are revising the initial estimate of 80K tons because this thing is looking like it has the dimensions of a Nimitz.
chola wrote:
Marko ji, t'is a good question. It is a combination of operation plus perception. The CATOBAR, beyond being far more capable operationally (ability to launch fixed-wing AEW, DOD, ASW and, most importantly, full-load strike-aircaft), also represents a higher level of prestige. This is the Amreeki "Great White Fleet" concept that brings US power across the globe.

A small STOBAR like the 40K tonners we have is decidedly a step below the US and French CATOBARs in the IOR. The Britshits even though they too sail STOBARs, the QEs are 65K ton and armed with the latest F-35s.

When the PLAN begin operating their CATOBARs -- which are looking to be in the 100K tons range (see below) -- the Vikrant will be perceived as a starter carrier on the level of the Juan Carlos or the Thai Chakri Naruebet onlee.

A CATOBAR would signal to the sundry states in the IOR that we are still in the game and not being completely outclassed. There is a reason that the IN is so adamant in pushing for it.
Chola garu, another way of looking at this scenario is that at least optics/perception wise, a 65k Catobar like the QE (let alone the CDG) is not all that far off from the Vikad, at least visually. Showing the flag type activities can be done by all equally well. In any case, these will ALL be dwarfed by the 100k ton PLAN CV.

Operationally, the 65k Catobar will definitely provide advantages, however, it is not clear to me what these advantages will be in the IOR. the 65K ton CV will not offer anything substantially greater than Vik class for our purposes (sea control). If we are to use it to put an embargo on TSP or in the unlikely event that we need to bomb some regional nation, again the Viks can do the job. In the SCS and northward, a lone 65k CBG is just about as useful as a vikad. As we know, the Chinese now have enough ISR infra in that region that they can target USN/NATO CBGs. Might as well send in sneaky subs/fast bombers to do damage. In any case, practically speaking I don't see our role in that area as more than joining QUAD patrols for which a Vishaal type is unnecessary.

BIG issue is that there is hardly enough in the kitty to get bread and butter stuff - MCMVs, helos, subs et al. I'd be soooper happy if IN can get their hands on these things and get another Vikrant class. It'll be faster and cheaper.

On another thought - wonder if it would have been possible to acquire an Invincible class at throw-away prices, refit it for a billion $s, and put an F35C air group operational on it. Might be easier to get a Wasp class now.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by brar_w »

Cain Marko wrote:As we know, the Chinese now have enough ISR infra in that region that they can target USN/NATO CBGs
We haven't seen any strong indication of a credible, survivable and resilient space, air and land based targeting infrastructure and ISR network that the Chinese have created when pitted against the joint capability that the USAF and USN could put as far as C-ISR and counter targeting is concerned. That is their achilles heel at the moment. Doesn't mean that they aren't pumping money into this and won't eventually get there. But they are nowhere close to demonstrating that yet. It is not something easy to put together from both a technology and financial perspective over vast distances because everything you do is "contestable" and has to have layers of redundancy built in. And the other side is actively pursuing countermeasures aimed at degrading what you are attempting to do. There is a reason that as China beefs up its defenses and A2AD capability it is also boosting its carriers to a point where it will likely have half a dozen carriers within the next decade or thereabouts and is probably aiming to field 10-12 carriers in the long term. They've likely done their homework and realize that defending against that combined carrier capability is going to be just as difficult for their adversaries as it is for them so it isn't a binary (whether you can deny or not deny carrier ops and manueves) but more of a spectrum of risk that you can introduce that would have to be countered depending upon the other sides technological and financial limits.
Cain Marko wrote:Chola garu, another way of looking at this scenario is that at least optics/perception wise, a 65k Catobar like the QE (let alone the CDG) is not all that far off from the Vikad, at least visually
For the most part, an AC is only as good as the air-wing it houses and sustains. The QE is nearly operational with the first deployment going through the pre-cruise workups. It is capable of housing and sustaining up to three dozen 5th gen fighters and rotary winged assets. So while it isn't perfect, it does bring a unique qualitative capability within the confines of the national security needs of the user. Even the Vinson and subsequent Nimitz deployments won't field as many 5GFA as the QE will put out in each patrol. The CDG likewise can house and launch a ton of payloads including the E-2D which is a game changer with its ability to extend the battlespace, link up a much larger number of fleet ships and bring a huge swath of airspace into the carriers umbrella, not to mention increase the ability of the carrier to defend and sea control by leaps and bounds. And it is future proof in terms of UCAV's etc. The same will be the case for its successor.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5420
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Post by Cain Marko »

brar_w wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:As we know, the Chinese now have enough ISR infra in that region that they can target USN/NATO CBGs
We haven't seen any strong indication of a credible, survivable and resilient space, air and land based targeting infrastructure and ISR network that the Chinese have created when pitted against the joint capability that the USAF and USN could put as far as C-ISR and counter targeting is concerned. That is their achilles heel at the moment. Doesn't mean that they aren't pumping money into this and won't eventually get there. But they are nowhere close to demonstrating that yet. It is not something easy to put together from both a technology and financial perspective over vast distances because everything you do is "contestable" and has to have layers of redundancy built in. And the other side is actively pursuing countermeasures aimed at degrading what you are attempting to do. There is a reason that as China beefs up its defenses and A2AD capability it is also boosting its carriers to a point where it will likely have half a dozen carriers within the next decade or thereabouts and is probably aiming to field 10-12 carriers in the long term. They've likely done their homework and realize that defending against that combined carrier capability is going to be just as difficult for their adversaries as it is for them so it isn't a binary (whether you can deny or not deny carrier ops and manueves) but more of a spectrum of risk that you can introduce that would have to be countered depending upon the other sides technological and financial limits.
Cain Marko wrote:Chola garu, another way of looking at this scenario is that at least optics/perception wise, a 65k Catobar like the QE (let alone the CDG) is not all that far off from the Vikad, at least visually
For the most part, an AC is only as good as the air-wing it houses and sustains. The QE is nearly operational with the first deployment going through the pre-cruise workups. It is capable of housing and sustaining up to three dozen 5th gen fighters and rotary winged assets. So while it isn't perfect, it does bring a unique qualitative capability within the confines of the national security needs of the user. Even the Vinson and subsequent Nimitz deployments won't field as many 5GFA as the QE will put out in each patrol. The CDG likewise can house and launch a ton of payloads including the E-2D which is a game changer with its ability to extend the battlespace, link up a much larger number of fleet ships and bring a huge swath of airspace into the carriers umbrella, not to mention increase the ability of the carrier to defend and sea control by leaps and bounds. And it is future proof in terms of UCAV's etc. The same will be the case for its successor.
We are discussing this in the context of the IN - there is little doubt that PLAN have more than enough infra and assets to manage a lone Indian CBG (65k ton or not) in their neighborhood. The article earlier in the thread points to the fact that Chinese capability keeps on increasing - whether it is good enough to tackle the might of USN is questionable, but let us no kid ourselves, the IN is nowhere close to that kind of strength.. As far as QE class capability is concerned, nobody denies it (as indicated in my last post). One just questions its usefulness for the IN - if the main purpose is sea control, managing the IOR and TSP, and flag waving - what is the need for a 65k CV? Especially when crucial holes remain in operational capability.
Locked