China apparently seeking "Ka-50, MRLs and subs" from Russia next

[Gollevainen]

I agree that speculation is always speculations and we simply follow those who we personally see being the most accurate. This is done however almoust everytime from purely subjective point of view. In other words we belive what we want to belive.

I belive Friedman in this Type 730 matter. Before I had this book I already noticed the striking similarity between the SAMOS and the chinese system, exspecially between the prototypes. Those similarities were far stronger than be just "adopting featuers" like you and Tphuang states. If the case would be as you want to belive, then why does the Type 730 reminds so much for SAMOS, why not Goalkeeper? As Friedman descripes the changes made in the type 730, which explains why the production version appears slightly different, it makes my belive even stronger.

The 093 issue was different becouse not even Friedman had saw the images of the boat unlike the type 730 which we all have seen. He had based his quest on solely hearsay type of rumours.

Of the Club's proplems, I'm not aware of any other than the mentioned Gyroscope-issues. But with the case of Club you must recocknize the fact that the old soviet practise of extensive testing and trialling of weaponsystems and system intergrations are lost. The new missilesystem was first fitted on export design and sended to the otherside of the globe.

Of the issue of ASMs, so your claim is basically that PGMs can substitute ASM???

 

[tphuang]

First Tphuang...

The difference of the book and your writing is that you seem to focus on the difference of the firecontrol system and the book looked the system as a whole. The book clearly stated that it is based on SAMOS with descriptions of what exactly chinese have changed in the design. So its quite safe to assume that the gatling gun and other stuff was aquired from it. Or have you any other facts that can give us other contradicting information?

we don't have any evidences supporting that China got the gatling guns from the French either. From what I read, a lot of Type 730's requirements seem to be based on Goalkeeper. Type 730 was China's attempt to create like a Goalkeeper level CIWS.

Supposed...indeed. But what exactly are those performances? And to which russian torpedoes it surpasses? And what about the 650mm torbedoes? And what would be your comment on the sinodefence quote: "best indegenious torbedo"?? To me that sounds like there is better foreing torbedoes in service.

My comment to sinodefence would be that it's very obvious that it's better than other Yu torpedoes, but there is not enough open information to compare it to the ones from kilo.
One of the big shrimps mentionned that Yu-6 can go 27 nm at 50 knots and I think Yu-6's requirement was MK-48 ADCAP. That's certainly better than Test-71/96 and 53-65KE and about the same as the Russian's 650 mm torpedo. Having a digital 486 processor + generally a newer generation of seeker would point to being able to strike the target better.

Yeas Club has a proplems, mainly with the gyroscopic sycronise between the missiles inertial guidance tools and the launching submarine. These type of proplems are called thooting proplems you know. KD-88/YJ-91 are both completely different cathegory and scale missiles. KD-88 is a long range radar guided stand-off missile similar in concept to SLAM, where as Kh-59/29 are medium and short ranged TV-guided ASMs similar in concept to Mavericks. Comparing these two is like comparing howitsers and mortars. Both are mented for different missions, roles and targets.
Crobato said that the reason why chinese haven't copied those missiles is becouse the don't need that sort of weapons sounds alot of the good old logic where operational envelopes and doctrines are twisted around to suite the arsenal of chinese home produced systems. If china has none, then it doesen't need one and those systems are completely useless...

I think club has more issues than just that, the Russians would want you to believe it's only gryoscopics. Not saying KD-88/YJ-91 are same category of missiles, but these are the missiles that an attack aircraft would likely use in its missions. kh-29 is certainly like maverick, but kh-29 and KD-88 are very similar. The introduction of KD-88 has basically given plaaf something on the same level as SLAM-ER, which kh-59 has claimed to be equivalent to by the Russians, but is certainly not so. In terms of range, guidance and versatility, it's far superior.

The range of standart YJ83 is longer than standart Uran. But yj83 is larger missile than Uran. Norman wasen't too spesific in his claim, but he mentioned that the shape of the cone and the size and capability of the turbojet onboard wouldn't be adequate to supersonic speeds.

interesting, I guess this is one of the mysteries we will never know.

Now for the Ivan Rogov (all those whom with I've discussed can look here)
Ofcourse china rejected it, its almoust 30 years old ships. Its naturally wiser to build a new ship. But that doesen't whipe out the fact that Soviets did come up with similar conceptual ship 30 years earlier than Chinese did. And that ship still have features which are superior to the chinese new vessel.

Ivan Rogov had over-the-horizon landing ability. It had a docking well and LCACs as the chinese ship has now. Ivan Rogov also carried 4 Ka-29 onboard. But now you have to remember that transforming from the old tacktical landings in WWII style is not going to happen in overnight. you need to change fundamental doctrines and operational methods of entire branch of arms. Thus Ivan Rogov featured the beaching ability as well. The soviet vessel had much more intermission features than the chinese ship. China has exactly the same situation now as Soviets had back then. Their landing force is equally tied and structured alongside the WWII-era beach landings. As china in its usual way manuvres cautiosly it only build one ship for starters. It take equally long to change the overall doctrines of PLA marines as it did for soviet naval infantry. The approx. 10 years that soviets had wasen't nearly enough and soviets had four of such ships.

As for the transport capacity, what exactly the type 071 can transport? how much troops? How much tanks? these type of landing ships are often mented to transport a reinforced battalion and thats what the Ivan rogov did. Thats basicly what the Tarawa and Wasp classes does tough the US battalion is far larger than the soviet Battalion. Chinese battalion size is most likely the what the 071 can transport.
About the lenght, yeas 071 is longer, but then again due the different layout concepts, Ivan Rogov had its vehicle deck running the whole lenght of the ship (excluding the docking bay, as in all LSDs). how long is the vehicle deck of 071??

I'm sure they were discussing about a newly built, updated Ivan Rogov. I guess we will see with coming years, how they operate 071, but it certainly is larger, capable of accommodating more.
And is it my problem that the Russians haven't gone forward on this in the past 30 years?

Among. And ofcourse 022 looks more stealthyer as it has fewer gizmoes onboard so there is not as many surfaces that breaks the RCS. But if you compare ships of roughly same size and systemfits, there is no visual difference between Russian and Chinese ship when it comes to the sthealthynes.

well, does Talwar look more stealthy than 054? And the Russians haven't really built that many ship recently for me to be able to compare.

Well frankly we can tell only few things about the 052Cs radars. The apparent relation is that both uses basicly the same type of missileguidance/target illumation methods. The difference seems to be the search function which you assume that the 052C's radars would be able to perform as the is no other long range 3d airsearch radars onboard. Their performance however is still a mystery and the situation of the radars gives me doupts of their overall performance.

i guess you are talking about sea-skimmers. I think that would be the job of SR-64 + the sensors on Type 730 to track. And I think the idea of having something like 052C is to be able to take tracking data from AWACS, fighters and other ships and do engagements. I read posts by former PLAN sailors who said that the combat system on 052B/C are just newer and require more skills to operate than the ones on 956. It certainly indicates a more complex and modern air defense system.

So the chinese rip-of Fregat is superior now to the latest gen. Fregats? Any paraments to give to proof this? How about other chinese radars then? Type 364 against Positiv and Positiv-M? Where is the equalences for Flag, Podveronik or Topaz?

Looking at the pictures, the latest sea eagles certainly have more rows of smaller antenna than Top Plate. And the one official article I read on Sea Eagle was kind of interesting. It called Sea Eagle the "500-km" eye and also basically said this radar had to go through the longest and most intensive testing phase in the PLAN history. And of course, when China "clones" something and put it on a newer platform, it will always be including higher requirements. And seeing the latest set of sensors being tested on 891, with the new "orekh"-like FCRs, the new sea eagle + the new MFR, clearly, that's an even newer generation of radar compared to what's on 054A right now. You see this steady progression from the original Russian systems from 80s to what China really wants for the 21st century.
And when we are talking about SR-64 vs positiv, I see SR-64 as something that's clearly used to counter the modern supersonic sea-skimmers placed on top of the mast of every major ship. Whereas bandstand look-alike, is it even on the ships not using kashtan?

You should. Knowing even something about the whole picture gives you far better view and approach to the narrower single branch orientation and considerations that you now seem to conduct.

sorry, just the naval part is already too much to handle sometimes.

For those who have access, the latest Proceedings breaks down all the legacy systems that the PLAN have "learnt from".

I don't think its online yet as its embargoed to subscribers first.

that would definitely be a good read.

 

[gf0012-aust]

One of the big shrimps mentionned that Yu-6 can go 27 nm at 50 knots and I think Yu-6's requirement was MK-48 ADCAP. That's certainly better than Test-71/96 and 53-65KE and about the same as the Russian's 650 mm torpedo. Having a digital 486 processor + generally a newer generation of seeker would point to being able to strike the target better.

I guess the above statement is an example of why I have trouble with system based comparsions.

In the case of the ADCAP and even its baby brother the 50 there are vast differences in technology between them and other torpedo types.

• quad RISC processors (RISC is far better for this kind of dynamic computing at a mission delivery level). It also means a greater deal of weapons integrity is in place.
• on board database updated dynamically from host - thus using all the latest intel on target specifics in virtual real time
• an onboard processing cpability that would rival some major warships from even the last 10 years (certainly at a concurrent processing level their number crunching and vectoring capability makes them more sophisticated than even some sea based combat systems on destroyers and frigates)
• an ability to specifically hunt and kill in the littorals

I don't see any evidence of a combination of any of these modern symbiotic technical synergies in PLAN torpedoes.... - let alone all of them, Bear in mind that the 50 carries all of this capability bar the current CBASS enhancements.

 

[crobato]

I agree that speculation is always speculations and we simply follow those who we personally see being the most accurate. This is done however almoust everytime from purely subjective point of view. In other words we belive what we want to belive.

I belive Friedman in this Type 730 matter. Before I had this book I already noticed the striking similarity between the SAMOS and the chinese system, exspecially between the prototypes. Those similarities were far stronger than be just "adopting featuers" like you and Tphuang states. If the case would be as you want to belive, then why does the Type 730 reminds so much for SAMOS, why not Goalkeeper? As Friedman descripes the changes made in the type 730, which explains why the production version appears slightly different, it makes my belive even stronger.

Actually, 730 reminds me more of Goalkeeper, rather than SAMOS. Goalkeeper and SAMOS for the most part look similar, almost like twins. Goalkeeper also has similar features, e.g. radar and optic sensor on top of the turret. Turret has the same shape. Has the same gun. The gun and the mount for both are from the US anyway.

The 093 issue was different becouse not even Friedman had saw the images of the boat unlike the type 730 which we all have seen. He had based his quest on solely hearsay type of rumours.

Didn't stop him from making conclusions.

Does not change the fact either that you can't make conclusions based solely on appearance.

Of the Club's proplems, I'm not aware of any other than the mentioned Gyroscope-issues. But with the case of Club you must recocknize the fact that the old soviet practise of extensive testing and trialling of weaponsystems and system intergrations are lost. The new missilesystem was first fitted on export design and sended to the otherside of the globe.

I am fairly aware of the lack of extensive testing and trialing. Its a reason why the Chinese genuinely prefer the stuff the Russian armed forces are willing to use.

As for the Club, it may also have something to do with the fire control system.

Of the issue of ASMs, so your claim is basically that PGMs can substitute ASM???

I have not heard Mavericks being used for a while, in fact, for quite some time now. The Mavericks is the direct inspiration to the Kh-29. Instead, the US is more into using either LGBs (and less and less of that too) and GPS munitions (more and more of that).

 

[kato]

I have not heard Mavericks being used for a while, in fact, for quite some time now.

The AGM-65G is in operational use by the USAF in Afghanistan, by A-10 out of Bagram Airbase. Has been consistently for the past 5 years.

 

[hallo84]

I guess the above statement is an example of why I have trouble with system based comparsions.

In the case of the ADCAP and even its baby brother the 50 there are vast differences in technology between them and other torpedo types.

• quad RISC processors (RISC is far better for this kind of dynamic computing at a mission delivery level). It also means a greater deal of weapons integrity is in place.
• on board database updated dynamically from host - thus using all the latest intel on target specifics in virtual real time
• an onboard processing cpability that would rival some major warships from even the last 10 years (certainly at a concurrent processing level their number crunching and vectoring capability makes them more sophisticated than even some sea based combat systems on destroyers and frigates)
• an ability to specifically hunt and kill in the littorals

I don't see any evidence of a combination of any of these modern symbiotic technical synergies in PLAN torpedoes.... - let alone all of them, Bear in mind that the 50 carries all of this capability bar the current CBASS enhancements.

You don't have evidence period. Neither do any of us unless they work for PLAN. But if you comb Chinese Mil Ind research papers, you'll see a healthy plathora of capability demonstrations and different fesability studies. It is not without reason to consider that many have been implemented.

Don't make it out sounding like you know more about the Torp unless you can share what we don't know.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You don't have evidence period. Neither do any of us unless they work for PLAN. But if you comb Chinese Mil Ind research papers, you'll see a healthy plathora of capability demonstrations and different fesability studies. It is not without reason to consider that many have been implemented.

The fact that I am making specific technical comment indicates that I do have an awareness of UDT. Do you? Those that know me and know my real name from my tag know that my name appears at various UDT Conferences, and also know that I've been directly involved in submarine construction programmes, signal management for submarines and have worked on a couple of foreign (2) other submarine development programmes. What have you done?

Don't make it out sounding like you know more about the Torp unless you can share what we don't know.

Learn some manners or you will be short lived on here. I have no patience for dickheads. I'm hoping that your comment is inadvertent - and thus are not one that I need to pass short judgement on.

In fact, welcome to your First Warning - just in case. lets hope it's an unnecessary one.

BTW, Read the Forum Rules before posting any more responses - and if you're unhappy with my shortness of patience then you can PM me - don't bother to continue the debate in here.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But if you comb Chinese Mil Ind research papers, you'll see a healthy plathora of capability demonstrations and different fesability studies.

Just as the chinese go harvesting for technology briefings and developments, so does everyone else. Chinese publications are read as a matter of course. You're not creating a revelation by asking people (esp in the industry) to do their homework.

It is not without reason to consider that many have been implemented.

I see, please enlighten us as to why the Institute (and I assume you know which Institute on the mainland I am talking about) is still buying foreign (specifically Scottish) transducer technology for their own UDT solutions?

You do know what the relevance of transducer technology is for sub warfare and UDT in general? (esp torpedoes)

 

[qwerty223]

I think club has more issues than just that, the Russians would want you to believe it's only gyroscopic. Not saying KD-88/YJ-91 are same category of missiles, but these are the missiles that an attack aircraft would likely use in its missions. kh-29 is certainly like maverick, but kh-29 and KD-88 are very similar. The introduction of KD-88 has basically given plaaf something on the same level as SLAM-ER, which kh-59 has claimed to be equivalent to by the Russians, but is certainly not so. In terms of urange, guidance and versatility, it's far sperior.

Well, Kh-59 had a significant less range, a half of the SLAM-ER, and significant heavier than the baseline SLAM. As you can see, if only the Russians are idiot enough to think ppl around the world is more stupid than they are, they will not pose such claim that Kh-59 is an equivalent to SLAM-ER. And Chinese forumers tend to backstap Russian goods to highlight theirs, dont now why. :unknown

 

[hallo84]

The fact that I am making specific technical comment indicates that I do have an awareness of UDT. Do you? Those that know me and know my real name from my tag know that my name appears at various UDT Conferences, and also know that I've been directly involved in submarine construction programmes, signal management for submarines and have worked on a couple of foreign (2) other submarine development programmes. What have you done?

If you claim you know what subsystems and signal processing techniques then the burden of proof is on you.

Very simple logic here.

 

[tphuang]

Well, Kh-59 had a significant less range, a half of the SLAM-ER, and significant heavy than the baseline SLAM. As you can see, if only the Russians are idiot enough to think ppl around the world is more stupid than they are, they will not pose such claim that Kh-59 is an equivalent to SLAM-ER. And Chinese forumers tend to backstap Russian goods to highlight theirs, dont now why. :unknown

no, actually that's part of their marketing pitch, but the Western analyst often compound the issue by over blowing those products too. I mean I see it with Sunburn a lot, with Club missile and su-30s. It's not about backstabbing Russian goods. They had to buy them when they had no other A2G missiles, but now KH-59 is a generation behind the indigenous missiles being equipped.

I guess the above statement is an example of why I have trouble with system based comparsions.

In the case of the ADCAP and even its baby brother the 50 there are vast differences in technology between them and other torpedo types.

* quad RISC processors (RISC is far better for this kind of dynamic computing at a mission delivery level). It also means a greater deal of weapons integrity is in place.

sorry, from my previous RISC/CISC experience, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Also of note, the processor on Yu-6 might not be 486, but rather a Chinese processor with comparable performances to a 486.

* on board database updated dynamically from host - thus using all the latest intel on target specifics in virtual real time
* an onboard processing cpability that would rival some major warships from even the last 10 years (certainly at a concurrent processing level their number crunching and vectoring capability makes them more sophisticated than even some sea based combat systems on destroyers and frigates)
* an ability to specifically hunt and kill in the littorals

I don't see any evidence of a combination of any of these modern symbiotic technical synergies in PLAN torpedoes.... - let alone all of them, Bear in mind that the 50 carries all of this capability bar the current CBASS enhancements.

We don't have any evidence of the kind of processing that yu-6 does in general. From just a hardware point of view (not knowing the software involved), CBASS seems to have more powerful processors than on any other heavy torpedo out there and I was never comparing Yu-6 to CBASS to begin with. But if we are to compare the memory/processing power of Yu-6 now to ADCAP when it first came out in the late 80s and even the 90s, I just can't imagine you can get the same number crunching done with something of comparable processing power to first generation mac processors.

btw, this is a picture of the Yu-7 seeker, any thoughts?

 

[hallo84]

I see, please enlighten us as to why the Institute (and I assume you know which Institute on the mainland I am talking about) is still buying foreign (specifically Scottish) transducer technology for their own UDT solutions?

You do know what the relevance of transducer technology is for sub warfare and UDT in general? (esp torpedoes)

Only tells me institute 705 is interested. It could and very likely be to gage their own developments for comparison purposes no less.
The same reason why US purchased S-300V, Su-27 and Vera E.

The problems is proving its application on Yu-6.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If you claim you know what subsystems and signal processing techniques then the burden of proof is on you.

Very simple logic here.

LOL, you're another one of these kids who says that the proof is on the internet to validity??

• How do you think that sub signatures are collected (you betcha, the PLAN does it the same way)
• Feng has already said that they use 486's on their torpedoes, does he need burden of proof? If Feng is portraying the truth then it already shows that they are behind the 8 ball. Intel CPU's are fine for 1980's combat systems and logic boards, but they were abandoned years ago by everyone else due to an inability to deal with complex concurrent processing demands. (is that hard to understand ?)
• China has bought acoustic hardware - it gets listed in such publications as Ocean and Sea Technology - the tech that they buy has not been suitable for the environments that they have told the companies they need it for.

Yes, it is logic.

Debate the technical merits of my prev response or you are no more than a troll.

The style of debate you elect to display on here is tiresome - and we've all seen it before from other fan clubbers. If you don't like the answers - then tough.

Persist with it and you won't last long.

 

[gf0012-aust]

sorry, from my previous RISC/CISC experience, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Also of note, the processor on Yu-6 might not be 486, but rather a Chinese processor with comparable performances to a 486.

If you've been involved with RISC at a military level then you know exactly why its preferred over CISC

The fact that a CISC processor has been mentioned by you means that the FCS technology concepts are early 90's developments.

Again, I don't see any demonstration in any of the finishings and furnishings that are thrown on the table as examples of PLAN sophistication that demonstrate concepts beyond 1997.

Anyone involved with these types of systems will say the same. Pretending that they are doesn't change some fundamental design giveaways.

I'd love to know how they compare to ADCAPs when the ADCAP public data is unrepresentative of actual capability.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If you claim you know what subsystems and signal processing techniques then the burden of proof is on you.

Very simple logic here.

The issue of technical competency gets down to the quality and depth of technical debate. Its pretty easy to work out whether someone is topic competent or just paraphrasing something that they are actually unfamiliar with. The devil is always in the detail. Usually they travel the logic path of "you're not in the PLAN so you don't know what they have" etc.... Well here's a hint, furniture, finishings and collateral systems is always a pretty good clue as to how advanced a core system development path is.

But, once again, I am absolutely happy for you in that you believe that the Yu-6 is technology comparable to an ADCAP.

It may be a defining moment for you - its not for me.

BTW, the Chinese had systems on display at Pacific 2004 and Euro 2007 UDT's - and again, the quality and finish was atrocious. Maybe they've embraced the Soviet attention to detail rather than an export quality control attitude, but even their export material is embarassing in its finish.

Milspec equipment from Singapore and Sth Korea is miles ahead in quality and detail. QA attention to detail is a non trivial issue.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Only tells me institute 705 is interested.

Thats the wrong Institute.

They attend all of the Western and Sth East Asian UDT's

 

[Firehorse]

The beginning of the end for deliveries of Russian major conventional weapons to China

IMO, Russia now can, for the most part, compete on the Intn'l arms market only in prices. To stay in the game with China, they'll have to get into jointly developing & producing new hardware, for keeping win-win situation real.

 

[SPI]

The Chinese are not buying any of that stuff. They have their own now. The Russian defense industry might like to dream on but it ain't going to happen. The Chinese often pretend that they're "interested" but the real intention is to fish for information and specifications which they can use as reference for their own systems to better.

No the real problem is Russian is late in all there deliveres. That is why China has cut down.

 

[hallo84]

[*]Feng has already said that they use 486's on their torpedoes, does he need burden of proof? If Feng is portraying the truth then it already shows that they are behind the 8 ball. Intel CPU's are fine for 1980's combat systems and logic boards, but they were abandoned years ago by everyone else due to an inability to deal with complex concurrent processing demands. (is that hard to understand ?)

The only source I ever saw that states Yu-6 use 80486-class intel processors is Janes. Now where did Janes get that data? More like a guessing game based on Mk-48.

[*]China has bought acoustic hardware - it gets listed in such publications as Ocean and Sea Technology - the tech that they buy has not been suitable for the environments that they have told the companies they need it for.[/LIST]Yes, it is logic.

Proves nothing. Like I said could very well to be used as a benchmark.


BTW I don't like all the comparisons with CBASS. CBASS is a ongoing gig and only started focusing on hardware upgrades after 2001. Yu-6 requirement was hammered well before that. But with all the rumors of this being open architecture design then it might as well have constant upgrades.

I find it much more interesting that there are countless recent studies into the application of ADSP Tiger SHARC TS101S to not ring some alarms.

Yu-6 ran into some of the same troubles as Mk-48. Notable performing well in clean conditions but was rejected by PLAN for not performing well in actual combat conditions. MITLL is still working on ADSP for mk-48.
Comparable development?

 

[tphuang]

If you've been involved with RISC at a military level then you know exactly why its preferred over CISC

The fact that a CISC processor has been mentioned by you means that the FCS technology concepts are early 90's developments.

Again, I don't see any demonstration in any of the finishings and furnishings that are thrown on the table as examples of PLAN sophistication that demonstrate concepts beyond 1997.

Anyone involved with these types of systems will say the same. Pretending that they are doesn't change some fundamental design giveaways.

I'd love to know how they compare to ADCAPs when the ADCAP public data is unrepresentative of actual capability.

interesting, I guess this is one of those things where you have to be there for it to be apparent.

Well, it does seem like all of their newly developed systems will put in the provision to use the domestic Loongson processor, which according to online sources is a 64 bit RISC processor. But of course, a lot of the systems that came into service in the last 5 years were developed back in the 90s and early 2000s when this simply wasn't really yet.

As for ADCAP, I'm sure they do their own study and simulation based on whatever information they can get. When I say ADCAP, I don't mean the latest one, but rather something like Mk-48 mod 5. On a side note, it's kind of interesting to see some of the estimations they had for the RCS of F-22. It ranged anything from having angles with 0.1 sqm reflection to 0.0001 sqm reflection.

oh, and the pictures I posted actually seem to be ET-52 rather than Yu-7.

No the real problem is Russian is late in all there deliveres. That is why China has cut down.

no, other than large transports and aerospace engines, the Russians simply can't offer anything that justifies purchase at this point.