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

[Viktor]

no, this is what I wrote on it on my 054A article

I don't think it's copying anything, but it definitely true inspiration from Seamos and Goalkeeper and other systems. I don't think there is anything wrong with using existing systems as points of reference.


lol, have you taken a look at the naval technology between China and Russia? There are many subsystems and whole systems that China has at the current time, that the Russians just don't have. Of course, Russians still has certain advantages, but nobody would've been able to claim this 10 years ago.

Things of the top of my ahead in favour of China in aerospace + naval:
1. heavy torpedoes in Yu-6
2. medium range AAM PL-12 or R-77
3. Beidou - more accurate than Glonass
4. AESA AWACS - Russians have none
5. surveillance aircraft - generally Chinese ones use more modern radar
6. PGMs - a more complete package with SGBs, more accurate LGBs
7. ground attack missiles - KD-88 + YJ-91 over kh-31, kh-29/59
8. light weight anti-ship missile - YJ-83 vs kh-35
9. LSDs - 071 vs Ivan Rogov class
10. naval stealth technology
11. Aegis like system with MFR + CeC on 052C
12. gas turbine - QC-70/128 with 185/260 in pipeline compared to non-existent for Russia
13. 2D/3D air surveillance radar
14. naval radar
15. light weight helo
16. anti-air UCAV

I left out individual platform like fighters, frigates and destroyers since that's a little harder to quantify.

Well 15-20 years ago China had no airforce no navy no air-defence .. it was all about swarm tactics with masses of copy-pased Mig-21, Luda class, guns for air coverage (some old Russian copy pased systems) and masses of old tanks ... sudenly Russia decides to sell Sovremeny destroyers, Su-27, Subs, S-300 system, get involved in helping sub design, air-defence, fighters etc ... China does some cloning and sudenly all Chinese is batter than Russian and Russian is crap. ..LOL

Well let me tell you something while you where driving Luda class around , Russia was sailing with Kirov class armed like hell with Granit ram-jet missile uploaded by Legenda satelite targeting system ..

While you where flying copy-paste Mig-21 piece of crap , Russia was operating masses of MIG-31 Mach 3 interceptor with 230km R-33S missiles and doing supersonic bombing with it not to mention all other designes.

While you where shoting birds with rifles and had antiaircraft guns for air coverage togeather with some copy-paste old Russian SAM , Russia was operating integrated nation wide air defence network with modern S-300 systems like and operation A-135 ABM system.

Not to swarms of other systems.

So I guess thiss disscussion is prity pointless cozz china in no way can not be compared with Russia. Russia endured 10-15 years of harsh times and even if its not able to intorduce some advanced systems so fast like in old times that does not mean its not folowing and will not be able to introduced in the moment if needed.

-> Few more things. there is no point in comparing downgraded copy-paste version to a Russian ones. Tphuang you say Chinese copy-paste version is batter than Russian Kh-31A witch is wrong point of view cozz China could not make ram-jet antiship missile in the range of 600kg not in 20 years. ( EU tried and could not make it) besides Russian Kh-31P2 has 200km range and is faster than ever ... so :nutkick


-> Where is China designed fighter ... none .. besides copy-pased or highly influenced by Russian or western designers China has not able to produce jet-engine or its own plane.

Masses of Russian Su-27, licence produced J-11A and copy-pased verzion J-11B .. than J-10 - Lavi finished by Russian help coz China could not made it.

Subs the same ... story ... Airdefence ...LOL .. practicly China has not menaged to designed even one its own system .. all copy pased version or some build with Russian help ...


-> now you say Yu-6 torpedo is some example of China superiority ..

Russia has modernized most of its subsystems and weapons and still no info was said about it ...so its harly to judge or are you saying you know something no one does ?

Russian 650 mm TT-5 torpedo has 100+km range torpedo so it outranges you Yu-6 and SET-65 has being modernized in the mean time .. I had pics somewhere

-> You say PL-12 .. well I would take R-77 anytime and you have whole array of R-27 IC/pasive/actrive etc and same is suspected for R-77 with now R-77 ram-jet version entering service as well as other R-33S SARH 230km range and R-37M 300km range supermaneruvable and know K-100 400km range version showed at MAKS-2007 with Su-35BM


-> Antiair ucav ... LOL and what has China so far I have seen only paper models unlike Skat UCAV developt by Mig. so ???? as well as whole buntch of other compleated Russian UAV and UCAV .. remembe Russia was amomg the firs to use them.


-> Beidu ... where is that system ??? GLONASS has 18 operational satelites and 30 by next year (expanding) becoming global and talks are to combine them with Galileo EU one. I guss about accuracy China bedou has no one since its not even operational so its not woth mentioning

-> Ground atack missiles ...LOL ( KD-88 + YJ-91) You do realize here you are saying basicly that yo prefered export version copy-pased Russian made Kh-31 over export verzion Russian made Kh-31 ... I wont even coment on that nfloorl:

KD-88 subsonic 200km range stand off weapon Russia has tons of other mutch batter so what .. you made one missile ...good for you nfloorl:


-> light weight helo ... when has China made any hello ... Russia operates worlds heaviest with 20 ton lift capacaty and the smallest one that can fit in backpack for KGB special forces. China on the other thing must buy from poland and ask EU for help.

-> That Type 052C ... have you take a look at the British Type 45 destroyer with its excellent Sampson radar and notice where it is places and where is placed Chinese one .. enought said about capabilities.

-> I would take Kortik-Kasthan system over Type 730 any time :nutkick

-> Whose bomber design is China flying in ... remend me a little ..LOL


You may like to compare China with India or perhaps some western country even but Russia is by far in front and second only to US.

 

[Viktor]

@Crobado you are using the wrong logic there.

Look. Basicly you are sying Tu-16 is good enought so what more can you ask ..Tu-22M is not good enought for us. Why is China not buying from Russia if its so batter than China.


(Do you honestly thiink that Tu-16 can be measured in any term with supersonic Mach 2 bomber armed with three Kh-32 Mach 5 missile with 1000kg warheadnfloorl: ... not to menation Tu-160 ... and yb 2017 new stealth strategic bomber is being designed most probably on the basis of T-4MS and thats the future ... not so ICBMS and things like US X-33 or Russian Tu-2000 ... China can not imagine to designed anything like that)

Same logic can by applied vice versa. Why does not Russia buy China 071 LPD if its so mutch batter than Ivan Rogov. Well do you actualy belive Russia can not design something in its class perhaps batter perhaps worse.. its at the moment all about money, priorities, retooling and tactics. If Russia want great CBG "killer" it will designed Kirov and will be heaviest and best armed and it will have Legenda satelite targeting system (not to mention 42 000 ton nuclear subs) If it thinks Ivan Rogov will do yust fine well there you have it.

If Russia wants 5th generation air defence system and it will have by 2015 S-500 it will asigne money and there you go. It wants nation vide ABM/ASAT coverage and is doing testings and integrating and alocating money.

-> You guys mayfool yourselfs buy thinking that buy taking 5V55 missile , modifying radar with Russian name and assigning to it some Chinese name and clamimg it that its batter than anything it exists will do the trick ... but it wont.

China has made excellent progress but it still needs lots of catching up to do.



China is not on that level of tehnological acvance coz no matter how mutch money it allocates it still can not design such systems that make the whole difference betwen superpower and the rest.Russia even so it does not as mutch money as it would like to can make anything US can and that the big difference there.




-> You may think Russia sold most advanced stuff to China but it did not .. even during the harshest time Russia keept best for itself (few exceptions but not mutch acountable) .. If tiny Croatia makes modification on Strela missile and extends range of Fagot ATGM and than says it mutch batter than Russia its one big LOL coz in the meantime you have Metis-M , Kornet, Krizantemu, Hermes etc and same thing with missiles... dont dont delude yourself.

 

[Gollevainen]

no, this is what I wrote on it on my 054A article

Now, back to Type 730 CIWS. Interestingly enough, it uses different fire control system than Goalkeeper and Seamos. Goalkeeper uses one radar to search and another radar to do the engagements. Seamos uses Infrared seeker to do search and TV tracking camera to do the engagements. By comparison, I believe Kashtan uses one radar to search and engages with radar or TV tracker. Type 730 combined the strength of Goalkeeper and Seamos by using TR-47C to do searching and using the combination of TV tracking camera, infrared tracking camera and laser rangefinder to do the engagement guidance. It is certainly not cheap to add all these extra "eyes" to the system, but certainly makes the tracking/engagement of Type 730 better than the other two.


I don't think it's copying anything, but it definitely true inspiration from Seamos and Goalkeeper and other systems. I don't think there is anything wrong with using existing systems as points of reference.

And Behold! He open the book of armaments...
(In this case the mighty Naval Institute guide to World Naval Weapon systems, fifth edition; Norman Friedman)

According to this source Type 730 was based on the SAMOS. Also if you look closely to the prototype of the Type 730, the similarities are stricking. The book tells that chinese modified the design by reinforcing the turret, transfered the FLIR ball to the rightside and added the type 366 radar into the mount. This was done becouse chinese had experienced proplems with ofmounted type 347G controlling the earlier AAA guns. Reportetly the hull vibrations of the ship caused pallax proplems. Thus the reinforcements of the turret itself as well which makes the production version somewhat different appearance than the prototype and the orginal SAMOS.

You ruled out the possibility of it being based on foreing design by simply catalogizing the firecontrol systems of type 730 and SAMOS which true are different but by no means exclude the actual relation which comes from the actual gun and its mount.


Lets take a look of your list then: (I will however quote only the naval/ land force stuff, I feel too ignorad in the aviation field to discuss these matters. However some of the claims are bit queer, have you actually checked any sources for them or familiarized to the soviet/russian air-to-ground arsenal?)

Things of the top of my ahead in favour of China in aerospace + naval:
1. heavy torpedoes in Yu-6

By which logic? You seem to ignore almoust all Soviet era torbedo designs. Also interesting enough, Sinodefence does quote the Yu-6 as a "best indegenious torbedo"....

7. ground attack missiles - KD-88 + YJ-91 over kh-31, kh-29/59

?? How about Kh-35 or 3M54?? And by which logic a chinese produced copy of Kh-31P is superior to the orginal? And what exactly are the chinese equavalents to Kh-29/59 missiles?

8. light weight anti-ship missile - YJ-83 vs kh-35

Hardly. Yj83 is heavier and larger missile than Kh-35 and yet the improved 3M24M has for example identical range as the chinese missile. Interestingly enough Norman Friedman in his book depunks the reports that Yj83 would posses supersonic capability.

9. LSDs - 071 vs Ivan Rogov class

By which standarts? That soviets fielded similar type of evolutionary desing amphibious warfare almoust 30 years earlier with ship that has more advanced propulsion solution, better and heavier armament and far extensive sensor suite compared to the chinese ship and with approx. equal transport capacity??

10. naval stealth technology

Same frases, by which standarts? All the russian ships produced after mid 90's features equal/similar reduced RCS lines as the chinese ships. Both countries lacks true Shtealth designs.

11. Aegis like system with MFR + CeC on 052C

This is the sole case where chinese nomically have a lead. Yet again my newly aquired book makes few interesting comments about the herritage of
36N85 Tombstone and the chinese radar (couped as type 364). Almoust direct quete says: "It seems likely that the Petr Velikiy instalation was merely experimental. The full system may be the four faced radar installed on board the chinese Lanzhou class". Now this is only speculations of Mr. Friedman and one shouldn't focus too much on single source. Yet it cannot be completely denounced however. Also we hardly know the C&C capabilities of the chinese system nor their comparison to the latest russian C&C suites.

12. gas turbine - QC-70/128 with 185/260 in pipeline compared to non-existent for Russia

So what Gasturbines Russians have being putting on pr. 20380 then? Or what indegenious gasturbines chinese have fielded on their naval combatants? You can always play sarcasm with the fact that the Soviet Union's gasturbine production was left to the Ukrainians but it hardly hasen't stopped the Russians making gasturbine solutions to their new warship designs.

13. 2D/3D air surveillance radar

What particular radars?

14. naval radar

What particular radars?

15. light weight helo

Which particular light weight helo? Z-9? against Ka-60 for example??

16. anti-air UCAV

????????????????????????????

I left out individual platform like fighters, frigates and destroyers since that's a little harder to quantify.

Yeas they are indeed...dare to go to land warfare equipment/systems? Like to the stuff that actually makes the difference? Artillery perhaps:smooth

....And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and large chu... (From the holy grail)

 

[hallo84]

@Crobado you are using the wrong logic there.

Look. Basicly you are sying Tu-16 is good enought so what more can you ask ..Tu-22M is not good enought for us. Why is China not buying from Russia if its so batter than China.


(Do you honestly thiink that Tu-16 can be measured in any term with supersonic Mach 2 bomber armed with three Kh-32 Mach 5 missile with 1000kg warheadnfloorl: ... not to menation Tu-160 ... and yb 2017 new stealth strategic bomber is being designed most probably on the basis of T-4MS and thats the future ... not so ICBMS and things like US X-33 or Russian Tu-2000 ... China can not imagine to designed anything like that)

What's the use if the plane does not fit PLAAF doctrine? PLAAF never had a need for Tu-22M strategically or tactically. Strategically, to PLA there was no better delivery mechanism then a IRBM/ICBM compound that with the fact \ Tu-22M had limited utility.

The only requirement was for a heavy lift bomb truck not necessarily a M2 supersonic one. It's the same reason why B-52 is still useful for USAF. The fact that Russia can not deliver any new build Tu-22M meant a redesigned Tu-16 was inducted. Why wast money on expensive plane when the requirement calls for something less?

Same logic can by applied vice versa. Why does not Russia buy China 071 LPD if its so mutch batter than Ivan Rogov. Well do you actualy belive Russia can not design something in its class perhaps batter perhaps worse.. its at the moment all about money, priorities, retooling and tactics. If Russia want great CBG "killer" it will designed Kirov and will be heaviest and best armed and it will have Legenda satelite targeting system (not to mention 42 000 ton nuclear subs) If it thinks Ivan Rogov will do yust fine well there you have it.

071 is not only about size but the change in doctrine.

If Russia wants 5th generation air defence system and it will have by 2015 S-500 it will asigne money and there you go. It wants nation vide ABM/ASAT coverage and is doing testings and integrating and alocating money.

vapor ware

-> You guys mayfool yourselfs buy thinking that buy taking 5V55 missile , modifying radar with Russian name and assigning to it some Chinese name and clamimg it that its batter than anything it exists will do the trick ... but it wont.

Yeah so Patriot PAC2 is just the same as PAC1 since both use the same MIM104 missile. The engagement system is different which is relevant as to why we think the system is better.

China is not on that level of tehnological acvance coz no matter how mutch money it allocates it still can not design such systems that make the whole difference betwen superpower and the rest.Russia even so it does not as mutch money as it would like to can make anything US can and that the big difference there.

Keep saying it and maybe the rest will believe you too.

-> You may think Russia sold most advanced stuff to China but it did not .. even during the harshest time Russia keept best for itself (few exceptions but not mutch acountable) .. If tiny Croatia makes modification on Strela missile and extends range of Fagot ATGM and than says it mutch batter than Russia its one big LOL coz in the meantime you have Metis-M , Kornet, Krizantemu, Hermes etc and same thing with missiles... dont dont delude yourself.

Because Russia's most advanced stuff is vapor ware and china has no intentions of testing their luck unlike the Indians.

Plans such as PAK-FA only exist on paper and god knows how much cost overrun is needed to keep the project alive.

Plus Russia has no respect for keeping up a deal. The way IN was burned on Gorshkov, Brahmos and the Il-76MD fiasco is exactly why PLA chose not to deal with Russians anymore.

 

[Transient]

11. Aegis like system with MFR + CeC on 052C

4 arrays and all of a sudden China has something comparable to AEGIS. They spy a data-link on the 052C and therefore it must have CEC-like capabilities. throughly amusing.

 

[Viktor]

What's the use if the plane does not fit PLAAF doctrine? PLAAF never had a need for Tu-22M strategically or tactically. Strategically, to PLA there was no better delivery mechanism then a IRBM/ICBM compound that with the fact Tu-22M had limited utility.

The only requirement was for a heavy lift bomb truck not necessarily a M2 supersonic one. It's the same reason why B-52 is still useful for USAF. The fact that Russia can not deliver any new build Tu-22M meant a redesigned Tu-16 was inducted. Why wast money on expensive plane when the requirement calls for something less?

Yea you just use IRBM for your purpose while US and Russia have plans for Mach 6 bombers .... and by 2017 both countries are introducing new stealth bombers ... you should just keep on flying on those Tu-16 ...LOL when US and Russia introduce some space ship systems you will still fly on Tu-16 and keep saying they are good enought and that suits China military doctrine ... nfloorl:


-> You say Tu-22M3 have limited utility well thats you opinion BUT each of them carring 500-600km Mach 5 in therminal phase antiship missile with 1 ton warhead ... LOL not to mention swarms of other missiles and not to mention all of them will get modernized to M5 standard ... by your logic you should copy-paste thos US flying fortress will suit you just fine ...:nutkick

http://i27.tinypic.com/vpvnyd.jpg
http://i27.tinypic.com/dey6oy.png

071 is not only about size but the change in doctrine.

You missed the whole POINT.

vapor ware

You do realize China is using only Russian system for its air coverage and Russian copy-paste as well as one build with Russian help ... you should be more gratefulllll

Yeah so Patriot PAC2 is just the same as PAC1 since both use the same MIM104 missile. The engagement system is different which is relevant as to why we think the system is better.

Well by you logic I sugest you use even bigger missile for that purpose perhaps one from SA-5 would do ...

Because Russia's most advanced stuff is vapor ware and china has no intentions of testing their luck unlike the Indians.

Plans such as PAK-FA only exist on paper and god knows how much cost overrun is needed to keep the project alive.

Plus Russia has no respect for keeping up a deal. The way IN was burned on Gorshkov, Brahmos and the Il-76MD fiasco is exactly why PLA chose not to deal with Russians anymore.

Well Indians tested it against Pakistan and they proved they worth ..

two PAK-FA prototypes are being build and are 30% finished .. as well in a few months new tank will roll out Nizni Tagil

Whats wrong with Brahmos/Il-76MD you cant realy expect to get those stuff for free!!

 

[hallo84]

4 arrays and all of a sudden China has something comparable to AEGIS. nfloorl: They spy a data-link on the 052C and therefore it must have CEC-like capabilities. throughly amusing.

CEC-like capabilities is deduced from sensor fusion and data sharing console linking with data link, EW suit on board.

Quite comprehensive sub systems if you ask me.

 

[hallo84]

Yea you just use IRBM for your purpose while US and Russia have plans for Mach 6 bombers .... and by 2017 both countries are introducing new stealth bombers ... you should just keep on flying on those Tu-16 ...LOL when US and Russia introduce some space ship systems you will still fly on Tu-16 and keep saying they are good enought and that suits China military doctrine ... nfloorl:

-> You say Tu-22M3 have limited utility well thats you opinion BUT each of them carring 500-600km Mach 5 in therminal phase antiship missile with 1 ton warhead ... LOL not to mention swarms of other missiles and not to mention all of them will get modernized to M5 standard ... by your logic you should copy-paste thos US flying fortress will suit you just fine ...:nutkick

How much does it all cost and what is the role? Tu-22 have no loiter time, suck fuel like there's no tomorrow and literally cost an arm and leg to operate.

Their envisioned role of penetrating deep strike is now bogus due to long range ASM / LACM. Nuke truck is no longer needed nor economical.

You missed the whole POINT.

You missed the whole point. LST albeit a large one still can not provide OTH amphibious campaign. It is still stuck in 70s soviet doctrine.

You do realize China is using only Russian system for its air coverage and Russian copy-paste as well as one build with Russian help ... you should be more gratefulllll

Crap is crap I call it out as I see it.

Well by you logic I sugest you use even bigger missile for that purpose perhaps one from SA-5 would do ...

Diversion won't help you. FYI PLA still use SA-2 why?
Becuase their whole approach to missile is different. PLA envision missile to be modular design from the start even when they redesigned the SA-2. Current inventory of SA-2 has completely different guidance modules, engine and propellant. It is guided by the same home grown 3D PAR arrays PLA replaced for its S-300.

So the it looks like X and it must be X approach is completely inadequate for PLA watching.

Well Indians tested it against Pakistan and they proved they worth ..

two PAK-FA prototypes are being build and are 30% finished .. as well in a few months new tank will roll out Nizni Tagil

Whats wrong with Brahmos/Il-76MD you cant realy expect to get those stuff for free!!

What's wrong is Russians are being a dick and its business prospect is on the line because of it.

 

[Viktor]

How much does it all cost and what is the role? Tu-22 have no loiter time, suck fuel like there's no tomorrow and literally cost an arm and leg to operate.

Their envisioned role of penetrating deep strike is now bogus due to long range ASM / LACM. Nuke truck is no longer needed nor economical.

Cost??? Are you from out of planet. No matter its cost its MUTCH less expensive than aircraft carrier or destroyer or somthing and besides wholo buntch of nuclear and conventional weapons , smart and dumb can be carrier. etc bla bla ... dont want to disscuss this anymore if you are so shorsighted to see ..

I guess you fall in love in RUSSIAN Tu-16 and thats it ...LOL



-> You are saying Brahmos is crap ... LOL LOL

You are not from this world ... Mach 3 missile with 300 km range and true fire and forget capabilities , day and night and any weather conditions that comunicates betwen each other and performes manuevres at supersonic speeds and can be fired from land, ships, subs, planes at ground and sea targets and is poweres with ramjet engine all in 3000kg class with 300kg warhead ...LOL real crap ... keep using what ever C-xx you have ...


-> Yea I compleatly forget China is still using Russian copy -paste SA-2 nfloorl: nfloorl: real smart ... you just keep upgrading it nfloorl:

 

[Gollevainen]

You missed the whole point. LST albeit a large one still can not provide OTH amphibious campaign. It is still stuck in 70s soviet doctrine.

There you are wrong. Ivan Rogov class is has Landing ship dock capability and it was intended to be its main method transporting troops to ashore withn the help of Lebed class LCACs and LCUs. It also carriers 4 helicopters. In conceptual its similar to the 071, tough with soviet twist (like keeping the capability to perform beaching landing as well) and that it was introduced almoust 30 years before the 071 class.

Othervice don't bother with this Viktor, he is not worth of proper discussion...


Ps. I do however wish that all of you would not call any equipment, russian nor chinese a "crap" exspecially if you don't have first hand experienced from operating them. (To those who have, a privileg excuse should be given as they most likely have earned it )

 

[hallo84]

There you are wrong. Ivan Rogov class is has Landing ship dock capability and it was intended to be its main method transporting troops to ashore withn the help of Lebed class LCACs and LCUs. It also carriers 4 helicopters. In conceptual its similar to the 071, tough with soviet twist (like keeping the capability to perform beaching landing as well) and that it was introduced almoust 30 years before the 071 class.

Othervice don't bother with this Viktor, he is not worth of proper discussion...


Ps. I do however wish that all of you would not call any equipment, russian nor chinese a "crap" exspecially if you don't have first hand experienced from operating them. (To those who have, a privileg excuse should be given as they most likely have earned it )

How far off shore was it design to operate and how much cargo does it carry when in LPD role?

It is more inline with smaller Asian and European LPDs to support operations smaller than a battalion. It's too small and carry too little to be able to offer independent operations ability.

Conceptually it's interesting for its time but otherwise inadequate for current situations. Plus there is no OTH amphibious op embedded in soviet doctrine. All prep is still WW2 style storm the beach head.

If you take sino-russian exercise as a great example. Notice Russians did not even attempt to wow PLA with OTH landing.

 

[Firehorse]

My 2 cents: if each H-6K can carry 6 supersonic stand-off missiles, that's all that matters! Being able to produce it is better than buying 2nd hand Tu-22s that will be grounded sooner or later for lack of spare parts! That's perhaps why the RFAF placed many of them in storage in the 1st place, besides saving money!

 

[crobato]

And Behold! He open the book of armaments...
(In this case the mighty Naval Institute guide to World Naval Weapon systems, fifth edition; Norman Friedman)

According to this source Type 730 was based on the SAMOS.

Same guys said the 093 looks like a Victor III. Certainly didn't turn out that way.

You ruled out the possibility of it being based on foreing design by simply catalogizing the firecontrol systems of type 730 and SAMOS which true are different but by no means exclude the actual relation which comes from the actual gun and its mount.

The appearance of the SAMOS, which almost looks like the Goalkeeper, is actually dictated because two of the fundamental things that determined its appearance were in fact, came from a common source---the US. Both the turret/mount and the gun itself.

By which logic? You seem to ignore almoust all Soviet era torbedo designs. Also interesting enough, Sinodefence does quote the Yu-6 as a "best indegenious torbedo"....

The Yu-6 and Yu-7 are not Soviet era torpedo designs.

?? How about Kh-35 or 3M54?? And by which logic a chinese produced copy of Kh-31P is superior to the orginal? And what exactly are the chinese equavalents to Kh-29/59 missiles?

The YJ-83 is bigger, has a larger warhead, and is considerably has greater range than the Kh-35. Furthermore the YJ series are air, ground, and ship launched. The Uran is ship launched, and is only managed to be tested air launched as the Kh-35, and before that languished in years as a proposal trying to make a sale to the Indians. The 3M54 is noted to have reliability problems, and does not have an air launched version. Even if it does, the size and weight of the missile makes an impediment to the launch aircraft and seriously limits the number of missiles the aircraft can carry. The YJ-83 is in the perfect sweet spot when it comes to size, kinetics and platform adaptability, not too big, not too small, which has been the problem for Russian AshMs (mostly too big and the Uran too small).

What are the Chinese equivalents to the Kh-29/59 missiles? I like to answer that. That would be the KD-88 and KD-63 missiles. Let's add to that, they are also superior in range, since the KD-88 is really nothing more than the YJ-83 with a different seeker. The KD-63 goes even further.

The Chinese copy of the YJ-91 did not appear to enter service. Instead. you have passive versions of the KD-63 and KD-88, which does offer much greater range than the Kh-31P, although at the expense of speed.

The Chinese are able to produce from one missile design, into a prolific family, that includes active radar guided, electro-optical, and anti-radiation versions. That greatly saves in manufacturing cost, testing and development, logistics and training. The versatility of a single family not just means it has different seeker versions, but different platform versions as well.

Given that the Chinese have not adapted the Kh-29 to their own aircraft, nor attempted to make a copy of it, then they have no further use or requirement of any missiles to that concept. Rather they are now concentrating in Beidou positioned smart munitions like the LS-6.

The Kh-59MK was offered to the Chinese and in fact, the Chinese appeared to have sponsored it. But the program was cancelled. The Kh-59 series has some serious issues with RCS reduction. Unlike the YJ-83, which has its engine blades concealed by the missile's centerline, the Kh-59's engine blade face is fully exposed, making it easy to detect, easy to intercept.

Hardly. Yj83 is heavier and larger missile than Kh-35 and yet the improved 3M24M has for example identical range as the chinese missile. Interestingly enough Norman Friedman in his book depunks the reports that Yj83 would posses supersonic capability.

I never believed the YJ-83 has supersonic capability either, but remember, it was detected in testing by the US to have tested as far as 255km. The Switchblade can only do half of that.

Same frases, by which standarts? All the russian ships produced after mid 90's features equal/similar reduced RCS lines as the chinese ships. Both countries lacks true Shtealth designs.

What Russian ships produced after the mid 90s? I think you can call the Talwars somewhat stealthy. The 20380 has a better claim for stealth features but it looks a bit ungainly. Right from the beginning, these ships don't even have thermal masking on their funnels, which at least the Chinese ships from the 052B above make a serious attempt to deal with. And certainly there is no Russian ship or FAC that can be as stealthy as the 022.

This is the sole case where chinese nomically have a lead. Yet again my newly aquired book makes few interesting comments about the herritage of
36N85 Tombstone and the chinese radar (couped as type 364). Almoust direct quete says: "It seems likely that the Petr Velikiy instalation was merely experimental. The full system may be the four faced radar installed on board the chinese Lanzhou class". Now this is only speculations of Mr. Friedman and one shouldn't focus too much on single source. Yet it cannot be completely denounced however. Also we hardly know the C&C capabilities of the chinese system nor their comparison to the latest russian C&C suites.

Speculations are speculation and cannot be regarded as fact. Just like the alleged 093/Viktor III class connection and the very now debunked speculations Rubin helped with the Chinese.

As for the rest of the stuff, either the Russians are not selling, or the Chinese are not interested in buying. Does not matter how much more experience the Russians have with their LPDs, the Chinese are not looking to buy one---and there was never a single rumor to that effect in all these years as well.

 

[crobato]

My 2 cents: if each H-6K can carry 6 supersonic stand-off missiles, that's all that matters! Being able to produce it is better than buying 2nd hand Tu-22s that will be grounded sooner or later for lack of spare parts! That's perhaps why the RFAF placed many of them in storage in the 1st place, besides saving money!

That's truly all that matters. The planes are nothing more than winged trucks. BTW, all the variable winged stuff is a disaster when it comes to maintenance and when you have lower standards of production with poor levels of support, that goes from difficult to disaster. Even with the Russians, when it comes to sheer range and loiter, nothing beats their oldest design yet, the Tu-95. Its too bad, the Chinese were not able to get one. The Tu-16 is second place but at least they got them. I must prefer the Tu-95 rather than the Tu-22s which are logistical monsters.

The Tu-16 still has a lot of things going for it. To begin with, an internal bomb bay and a fuel capacity 3X greater than an Su-34. What it really needs are modernized engines.

Things are best when you stick to the old classic philosophy that made the T-34 so successful. But when you depart from those philosophies, chase excessive complexity, like the Tu-22, you stay away from it.

 

[kato]

Wait, are you talking about Tu-22 (B/R/K/P) or Tu-22M ? Distinctive difference there, after all.

And Lybia liked its Tu-22, from what i recall.

 

[crobato]

Wait, are you talking about Tu-22 (B/R/K/P) or Tu-22M ? Distinctive difference there, after all.

And Lybia liked its Tu-22, from what i recall.

Did they actually like it? I have doubts, especially when they're not asking more of it. The older Tu-22s don't offer much for the case of loiter. The concept of supersonic bombers going down the deck to deliver bombs is passe. What you need are aircraft that can stay long periods of time in the air that can be used either as cruise missile launch platforms, or act as search and targeting platforms.

 

[tphuang]

And Behold! He open the book of armaments...
(In this case the mighty Naval Institute guide to World Naval Weapon systems, fifth edition; Norman Friedman)

According to this source Type 730 was based on the SAMOS. Also if you look closely to the prototype of the Type 730, the similarities are stricking. The book tells that chinese modified the design by reinforcing the turret, transfered the FLIR ball to the rightside and added the type 366 radar into the mount. This was done becouse chinese had experienced proplems with ofmounted type 347G controlling the earlier AAA guns. Reportetly the hull vibrations of the ship caused pallax proplems. Thus the reinforcements of the turret itself as well which makes the production version somewhat different appearance than the prototype and the orginal SAMOS.

You ruled out the possibility of it being based on foreing design by simply catalogizing the firecontrol systems of type 730 and SAMOS which true are different but by no means exclude the actual relation which comes from the actual gun and its mount.

I don't see how that book would know anything extra that I can't get from my readings. Clearly, the fire control system on Type 730 is different. The gatling gun itself, I don't think they got it from studying SAMOS. The turret is certainly different. Don't get me wrong, I think they definitely learnt from SAMOS. But I wouldn't say it's based on SAMOS. I'd say took bit and pieces from numerous systems.

By which logic? You seem to ignore almoust all Soviet era torbedo designs. Also interesting enough, Sinodefence does quote the Yu-6 as a "best indegenious torbedo"....

kinetic performance on Yu-6 is supposed to be better than any of the 533 mm torpedoes from the Russians and comparable to MK-48 ADCAP.

?? How about Kh-35 or 3M54?? And by which logic a chinese produced copy of Kh-31P is superior to the orginal? And what exactly are the chinese equavalents to Kh-29/59 missiles?

I would say Club generally has been not that good. I've mean you've surely have seen those test failure stories. It's the combination of YJ-91/KD-88 that's better. Espcially, KD-88 has advantage in range and accuracy. If you've noticed, JH-7A has gone from kj-29/59 to using just KD-88 now.

Hardly. Yj83 is heavier and larger missile than Kh-35 and yet the improved 3M24M has for example identical range as the chinese missile. Interestingly enough Norman Friedman in his book depunks the reports that Yj83 would posses supersonic capability.

You can't really compare the range of land attack version to anti-ship version. The former of the same size is going to have longer range due to obvious reasons. I'm not really sure where Norman came up with YJ-83 not being terminally supersonic, so can't comment on that.

By which standarts? That soviets fielded similar type of evolutionary desing amphibious warfare almoust 30 years earlier with ship that has more advanced propulsion solution, better and heavier armament and far extensive sensor suite compared to the chinese ship and with approx. equal transport capacity??

are we talking about the Ivan Rogov class here. Because it was offered, but rejected by China. I think in terms of size and capacity, 071 has Ivan Rogov beat handily here. I mean, it's over 200 m in length as well saw on GE.

Same frases, by which standarts? All the russian ships produced after mid 90's features equal/similar reduced RCS lines as the chinese ships. Both countries lacks true Shtealth designs.

are you talking about their new corvette? That thing looks a lot less stealthy than 022.

This is the sole case where chinese nomically have a lead. Yet again my newly aquired book makes few interesting comments about the herritage of
36N85 Tombstone and the chinese radar (couped as type 364). Almoust direct quete says: "It seems likely that the Petr Velikiy instalation was merely experimental. The full system may be the four faced radar installed on board the chinese Lanzhou class". Now this is only speculations of Mr. Friedman and one shouldn't focus too much on single source. Yet it cannot be completely denounced however. Also we hardly know the C&C capabilities of the chinese system nor their comparison to the latest russian C&C suites.

we do know that you can't call tombstone a MFR and you can with 052C's radars.

So what Gasturbines Russians have being putting on pr. 20380 then? Or what indegenious gasturbines chinese have fielded on their naval combatants? You can always play sarcasm with the fact that the Soviet Union's gasturbine production was left to the Ukrainians but it hardly hasen't stopped the Russians making gasturbine solutions to their new warship designs.

they finally built their first gas turbine recently. So, they are no longer shut out, but Ukrainians is a sovereign country the last time I looked. There is no difference between China using Zorya engine and Russia using Zorya engine.

What particular radars?

What particular radars?

The YLC series and the sea eagle series, the other MFR being tested. Especially, I see a lot of what's been used/tested on Chinese ships right now as studying Russian ones and creating ones that look similar but are better in performance.

Which particular light weight helo? Z-9? against Ka-60 for example??

????????????????????????????

I was actually thinking of EC-120, Z-11, Russians simply doesn't have a helicopter of that class unless you are talking about ansat, but even that's larger.

Yeas they are indeed...dare to go to land warfare equipment/systems? Like to the stuff that actually makes the difference? Artillery perhaps:smooth

....And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and large chu... (From the holy grail)

you know I don't follow that area.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

 

[Gollevainen]

First Tphuang...

I don't see how that book would know anything extra that I can't get from my readings. Clearly, the fire control system on Type 730 is different. The gatling gun itself, I don't think they got it from studying SAMOS. The turret is certainly different. Don't get me wrong, I think they definitely learnt from SAMOS. But I wouldn't say it's based on SAMOS. I'd say took bit and pieces from numerous systems.

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?

kinetic performance on Yu-6 is supposed to be better than any of the 533 mm torpedoes from the Russians and comparable to MK-48 ADCAP.

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.

would say Club generally has been not that good. I've mean you've surely have seen those test failure stories. It's the combination of YJ-91/KD-88 that's better. Espcially, KD-88 has advantage in range and accuracy. If you've noticed, JH-7A has gone from kj-29/59 to using just KD-88 now.

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...

You can't really compare the range of land attack version to anti-ship version. The former of the same size is going to have longer range due to obvious reasons. I'm not really sure where Norman came up with YJ-83 not being terminally supersonic, so can't comment on that

.

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.

are we talking about the Ivan Rogov class here. Because it was offered, but rejected by China. I think in terms of size and capacity, 071 has Ivan Rogov beat handily here. I mean, it's over 200 m in length as well saw on GE.

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??

are you talking about their new corvette? That thing looks a lot less stealthy than 022.

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.

we do know that you can't call tombstone a MFR and you can with 052C's radars.

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.

The YLC series and the sea eagle series, the other MFR being tested. Especially, I see a lot of what's been used/tested on Chinese ships right now as studying Russian ones and creating ones that look similar but are better in performance.

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?

you know I don't follow that area.

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.

As to Crobato:

Speculations are speculation and cannot be regarded as fact. Just like the alleged 093/Viktor III class connection and the very now debunked speculations Rubin helped with the Chinese.

Yeas speculation are speculations. But how to determine which one's speculations are more closely to the truht? If you have very little facts you need to speculate and thus you need to look the given hints from as large spectrum as possiple. Many of you seem to stick mainly to the hints that shows china always in so magnificant light, and dulely ignoring all that might be against this image. Yet the truht lies in the between.

Lets take mr. Friedman for instance. You seem to denounce his saying simply becouse he said 093 reminds of Victor III when none (including him) had not seen the whole sub. His quess was wrong in that case. We all get the things wrong from time to time but one mistake doesen't make one completely non-worth-of-listen. You and Tphuang have both made silly claims once in a while, yet I still listen and register all what you say and not instantly consider them as BS. I still take alot of what you guys say for granted.

 

[crobato]

As to Crobato:

Yeas speculation are speculations. But how to determine which one's speculations are more closely to the truht? If you have very little facts you need to speculate and thus you need to look the given hints from as large spectrum as possiple. Many of you seem to stick mainly to the hints that shows china always in so magnificant light, and dulely ignoring all that might be against this image. Yet the truht lies in the between.

Lets take mr. Friedman for instance. You seem to denounce his saying simply becouse he said 093 reminds of Victor III when none (including him) had not seen the whole sub. His quess was wrong in that case. We all get the things wrong from time to time but one mistake doesen't make one completely non-worth-of-listen. You and Tphuang have both made silly claims once in a while, yet I still listen and register all what you say and not instantly consider them as BS. I still take alot of what you guys say for granted.

Regardless of your text, speculation is speculation and unless your speculations have a sounder record of being able to be proven right, then its still nothing but speculation.

In fact the same circumstances exist here as with the 093/Viktor III speculation---he has not especially seen what is inside the system. The first mistake in many speculation in the past, and it is a consistent fallacy is to base lineage according to appearance, when in fact there are so many real world examples to counter this. If you are basing on appearance, appearance itself is an open sourced information, and they may have just studied SAMOS, Goalkeeper, the Avenger gatling gun possibly even based on open information, without even physically acquisition and copying each part part by part. And for the most part, you have no distinction whether the relationship is merely inspirational or in a direct part by part copy.

Let's take for example, the JF-17's DSI. Did they actually base that on the F-35? Yet China had no physical access to F-35 or the F-16 DSI prototype.

Over the years, I have seen too many wrong things, said by too many people and too many reports. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The only thing being consistent is being wrong again, and again, and again. Ever figured out why analysis in Chinese affairs are never done right? Since 2004-2005, it was already looking that China is going to have a serious decline if not stopping in the purchase of Russian arms, and yet the media is only writing about it in 2008! In 2005, the first Sino-Russian Peace Mission was an ostentatious display of Russian hardware meant to seriously impress the Chinese in order to achieve some sales, and the only contract that came out of that was the IL-76 contract, which the Russians failed to deliver and the Chinese refused to renegotiate. That was a major handwriting in the wall, and yet so ignored by many writers because they have such an intellectual and emotional investment on the China buy Russia theme.

Here is a truly riveting example of someone who should have known better with his credentials. This is the same style of analysis, a classic example of speculation that is ram rodded in order to comply with stereotypical themes, this time, the China must invade Taiwan syndrome.

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/Signal_Article_Template.asp?articleid=1433&zoneid=222

"No other nation has missile catamaran boats with marine missions. Western observers may have difficulty understanding a Chinese design if it does not fit their blue water or littoral mission concepts. But the number one objective of the Chinese government is reunification by bringing the renegade island of Taiwan back into the Chinese nation. If this must be done by an invasion, then gunfire support of the amphibious landing is a gap in PLAN capabilities. The ideal U.S. Navy invasion gunfire support platforms were the U.S. Navy 16-inch battleship guns and 8-inch cruiser guns that provided crushing firepower in World War II. Use of the many PLA intermediate-range ballistic missiles located in Fujian province would destroy much of the Taiwan infrastructure, which would be counterproductive. On the other hand, the small missile catamarans need only travel from Fujian province ports to the Taiwan landing sites. Their design may make no sense to Western observers, but it meets China’s most important unique government and PLAN objective. The catamaran-based missiles could be used to support Taiwan amphibious landings.

So these mass-produced 022 catamarans simply could be replacements for the 210 scrapped Hegu and Huangfeng high-speed SSM boats. Intelligence and naval experts have been wrong in the past about what type of missiles were in naval missile cells. However, it also is possible that China deviously painted these PLAN boats with marine colors just to make Western experts try to figure out why.

James C. Bussert is employed at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Virginia, where he works on surface-ship antisubmarine fire control systems."

And in which you write in another forum.

"Type022 have nothing to do with Taiwan invasion, Like I allready stated it is coastal defence platform, tied into PLANs organic structure and purely defensive by nature."

Which I actually agree.

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.

These teething problems have been going on since the better part of the decade. If you have serious teething problems, you really should not put in a catalog and advertise to your customers as if its completely working. Try having show stopper "teething" problems with commercial drugs or cars. Again the Russians have no concept how to join the international commercial world---like in the recent case of the Norweigian company that canceled the tanker contracts with Sevmash---and cant' seem to understand that when you sign a contract and money is exchanged you are subject commercial standards and expectations, the least and most basic of all is to make sure it delivers as contracted, works, on time, and that the customer is satisfied. And there is a pattern arising from all these, when you see Indians, Algerians and Venenzuelans all complaining.

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.

Does not change the fact that China does not see any more need of the Kh-29 category (they bought lots of them for the MKK, far more than enough to study them and shoot them live in the range for practice. If they were impressed at first to buy lots of them, they must have outgrown the concept not to even bother with more followup orders or do a copy. The Kh-59ME in the form they acquired is more like a standoff missile. The closest thing China has for the Kh-29 is the C-701 which is purely an export item but works on the exact same principle and configuration. The difference of turning the C-701 into a ground weapon is only a matter of software. Simply said China now has LGBs, along with LT-2s, LS-6s and other Beidiou positioned munitions to do the same job more economically and with a bigger bang, literally and from the bucks ratio.

And none of that changes the fact that the Kh-59 has a poor design with an exposed engine face from the engine pod hanging in the rear. The way the intakes are angled on the Sunburn and Kh-31 series also seems rather questionable, as it seems better from a drag perspective to angle the intakes in to out rather than out to in.