tphuangIs that wise on the part of Brazil??? As it gets much of its Carrier Equipment and Training from France and the United States. I doubt either would be happy with Brazil assisting China with its Carrier Development…………..
I don’t see why French cares, it’s only the US that would be really bothered. Brazil is not stupid. It has the most cooperation with French and it’s obviously convinced that the French aren’t going anywhere.
tphuangYawn
Yes China has made significant accomplishments in it’s own right in this field and they should be congratulated for that.
They should however NOT be congratulated for espionage, theft and outright illegal use of intellectual property in this field (J-11, PL-12, WS-10, etc. etc.).
Be proud China of your accomplishments, but be a little more humble about how you got there.
while the original post was a flamer. Your post certainly just shows the ignorance.
We have many posts here explaining why theft claims of J-11B is not correct. It would help if you actually read a couple before listing it. PL-12 is certainly different from R-77 in dimension and also seeker technology. WS-10 claim is even more incredulous. If China really had the technology to copy a modern turbofan engine, it would’ve done so with Spey (a much older engine that it had to buy ToT for), all the commercial turbofan engines from the west. It’s simply to difficult to copy without the blueprints, the necessary tools and the instructions on how to use them.
tphuangonly because of the fact that we’ve been to war in 1962 and, China has aided, armed it, including providing it its nuclear blueprints, and been a staunch ally of Pakistan, India’s biggest enemy. I don’t suppose it should be difficult to understand why Indians do not like China when its obvious that Chinese have played Pakistan up to keep India engaged in conflict.
it’s totally understandable. And I doubt this is going to change in the future since both countries are sort of in this power becoming superpower stage. And I really see neither side submitting to the other side in the future. And when you have one side (China) wanting to be the top dog in the hood and the other side (India) not wanting to be second, there are going to be conflicting interests. And I don’t really buy this democracy = natural ally talk. If China was democratic, it would still have same issues it has with US and India.
I am sorry but if you look at past conflicts you will say that when fundamental issues are in question, then economics will always take back seat. A country with natural resources can sell it to anyone, China or another country for that matter. If Australia did not fear China it would not outline the 2030 budget plan. Like I stated above, I do not believe a hot war is going to happen, what I think will happen is the regional powers spending more and uniting to put a united front against china, which will act as a credible deterence till the end of the next cold war.
There was a paper published by the US intelligence community I believe which stated five likely scenarios for the future ie. 2030. None of which had a close relationship between China and United States. Yes there is economic co-operation now but that is nothing but a measure against a global catastrophe. Russians sided with the West against the Nazis, Western help was sough with Chernobyl, this is also something that affects the whole worlds and china and America co operating on that means virtually nothing.
If you look back at history from the time of Chinese independence to the Indo Chinese war. India stood by China in every move. It did not do anything with the Tibet invasion. It was offered China’s seat in the security council but refused to accept it. The current animosity has a lot to do with China’s insistance in not considering India a strong regional player. As for Japan I do not think America wil desert here, and India and Australia will aid her. She will not be alone fi she has to face up to China.
This recent economic depression (which I think will last 5 years minimum in America) is changing the world we know. And I don’t think a lot of military people realize that yet, but a lot of things will change. The way for Australia to have a strong economy/stable future in the future is through China, so it can’t afford to alienate China no matter how much its military establishment think the other way. Even the Howard gov’t realized this when it said it wouldn’t join any kind of Taiwan scenario, but it’s more obvious than ever that this is the way for Australia to go. I can go through economic situation with US and China too, but it’s the same idea.
tphuangThat is acceptable, I was just pointing out Taiwan as one instance. It is essentially for the people of Taiwan to decide.
If you follow Chinese strategy you know they plan to expand their control well outside the Taiwan region, Taiwan is only the first step, the second stage includes control of the seas up to Philippines and the third even to Japan. She is also making serious inroads to Indian power base of South Asia especially Indian ocean.
To prevent aggression there is a need for India United States and Japan (possibly Australia once the Sinophile is off power) to form an alliance. Such an alliance will keep China in check and prevent future wars. China is more likely to be aggressive towards some one who is weaker than her, like India or Japan or Australia but not against an alliance of these countries and the U.S which would be more than a match for her.
You are missing the economic picture.
Under DPP, Taiwanese gov’t was seeking economic independence from China by trying to initiate more relationship with India and Japan. Guess what, none of that helped. The Taiwanese businessmen chose to all invest in mainland due to culture and language issues and just greater market access. And now under KMT, it’s actually favouring engagement with mainland, so this will only end up with more economic dependence on China. The current economic downturn has only shown how much Taiwan really need China. And I think eventually they will be able to come to an agreement similar to the one with Hong Kong, although with Taiwan getting more sovereignty because it does have more bargaining power. Really, China needs to re-unite with Taiwan so that it’s fleet no longer has to face that Taiwan naval/air force blockage before reaching the first chain.
Australia has far more to gain in the future by not favouring US over China, since it looks like China will become the world’s largest economy in 20 years. Even in the recent economic downturn, the first spring awakening Australia is seeing right now is due to renewed Chinese demands. The biggest obstacle I think is the military community. Who has a natural alliance with USA and doesn’t seem to realize that China has nothing to gain by threatening Australia.
As for US, I really don’t see US as a long term enemy of China either. The short term conflict between the two is Taiwan and the long term conflict is power struggle in Pacific ocean. Provided the Taiwan situation is resolved, that will dramatic lower chance of hostility. In the long term, I think US will accept the economic power of China due to the economic dependence of the two countries. It really isn’t a coincidence that each US administration has become more and more friendly toward PRC as trade grew and American dependence on Chinese credit grew. And with that, the 7th fleet will have to eventually accept that it has to share space with PLAN. US is already abandoning Japan by embracing China as its partner to bring the world out of this economic depression. If anything, US should be more worried about CNY taking over USD as the world’s de-factor currency rather than a military conflict. I could go on and talk about why these two countries really need each other, but it’s getting really late and I’m not even making sense to myself right now.
Which brings us to Japan and India. There are actually historical reasons for future animosity between China and Japan. And I don’t think that’s going to change, so I always thought there was a greater chance of China going to war with Japan than Taiwan. You see, nobody in China wants to get in a war with Taiwan, but they do want to whip Japan. And it’s clear that Indians on this board really don’t like China (and I assume this reflects the general public view or at least the view amongst the ruling elites). So, I’d think Japan would be most willing to partner up with you.
tphuangI’m not sure I understand this comment clearly?. For all vessels there are routine maintenance jobs that require the hull to be out of water to complete. Someone commented that this ship had been in Chinese yards for 7yrs. In 7yrs I dont recall the last time she was drydocked.
If its been that length of time, including the delivery transit, that she’s not had her hull coating or the stern seals/seacocks etc inspected and serviced then it is to be expected that drydock time would be scheduled. That would be just to preserve the ships watertight integrity.
The issue will be how long she stays in dock for. It is by no means straight-forward that this period is definitely either a Chinese maskirovka or clear evidence of the vessels progress to PLAN service entry. Clearly there is some purpose intended for the vessel going forwards and, regardless of whether that is to be a fleet unit or merely just one more floating casino, the under-hull maintenance would be necessary.
Well, it just seems illogical to me that they would even bother to spend money, put all the containers out on the flight deck to just keep Varyag the way it is. If this ship is not meant for service somewhere down the road, then why would they bother to keep it at floating state. I mean have you seen China putting the Minsk carrier into dry dock and it’s been serving as a museum for quite a while now. A shipyard like Dalian has enough backed up orders that it is extremely financially burdensome to service a vessel just so that it can spend more time sitting pierside.
Then what? You bring it back to the docks a third time to do the real work needed to bring it back to service? Why would they not do it those work at this time then?
I would agree with that assessment. In this case though I think the PLAN would wish that it werent the case if they want it to ever move under its own propulsion!.
Installed but unconnected the steam turbines, if they’ve not had careful and loving servicing, after this time will likely be siezed solid. The boilers may be largely functional, but, there will be hundreds of valves/seals that will need close inspection/replacement. In many ways it may be easier to have started with empty spaces and a soft patch in the hull alongside!.
this is what the Chinese side is saying too.
tphuangStudy is a use for which one would possibly want to preserve the ship (not forever, but untill such time as no new insights can be gained without physically taking her apart).
Let me rephrase: untill there is a clearer insight into what work was/is actually done on her (not just now, in dock, but overall), I’m not going to assume anything about her future beyond that there are different possible scenarios and that these scenarios differ in their likelihood, with some scenarios being more likely than others.
I’m saying that the idea of preservation is illogical. They can do all the preservation and study they need when it’s not in the dry dock. Clearly, they had no problem preserving it. So, either they are doing this as a grand illusion or they are trying to put this back in service. I’m just a little disappointed that you have this view, since I think you’ve followed Chinese naval shipbuilding for a while now.
tphuangThere have been no exterior changes, that”s for sure. What’s going on inside is anybody’s guess (unless of course you have some good, verifiable source on that). I’m keeping all options open. That includes mere preservation and the possibility that it is all a grand deception.
I mean, sure they could be doing it for grand deception, that’s a possibility. But other than that, the only other possibility is they are trying to do things to put it back in service. They are not going to do it just for mere preservation. Why would you preserve something that you are not going to use? That has no logic. And besides, I’m pretty sure you’ve followed Chinese shipbuilding (if you are who I think you are on CDF), so you should have an idea of their shipbuilding process.
tphuangAh, but therein lies the rub, doesn’t it. So far, the only visible work on the ship has been exterior (paint, mostly). What work is known (“beyond reasonable doubt” > i.e. visible or if not visible then confirmed from multiple independent sources) to have been performed on Varyag?
Put differently, even if she is not to be inducted into service and used for study purposes only, she would still require such work in order to be preserved.
I actually don’t put much hope in Varyag, but it’s clear that some serious work is done here that’s not just the exterior. Are you actually trying to say that they put it in the dry dock for just studying purposes?
tphuangThose containers have been there (near where the missile launchers used to be) for a long time, I don’t think they signify anything new.
if you take a look at this picture
I could be wrong on this, but I don’t think they had nearly this much before. And even if they did, it was very recently.
tphuangWhy is it such a issue to just fit the ex-Varyag with new engines…………As she never had them to start with.
they are probably fitting more than just engines, a lot of changes under water. We saw pictures with a bunch of containers on the flight deck. Looks like they are going to do some work to allow it to sail off on its own power.
tphuangAustralian Prime Minister Keven Rudd has slashed the Australian defence budget effectivly ending hope for a fourth Hobart class Destroyer.
Other items on defence bill that have been effected are:
- Susspension of F-35 order, and possible cuts to the number ordered
- Cutting the 3% defence increase
- Mothballing the Collins Class subs
- And delaying the P-8 buy
There had been a lot of speculation here about buying a fourth AWD, but this is the first conformation we have of one actually having been ordered.
Same too with the P-8, till now only a speculation- perhaps our AP-3C’s will get the re-winging after all, but how this will work with the purchase of UAV technology is still a matter for debate.
The F-35 order is an on going up and down project, to the point where the Australian people now really don’t care what happens with the machine. What is becoming critical is the replacement of the Hornets, by 2015 the planes will be at the end of their useful service lives and delays in this program have severe remifications across the board.
Mothballing the Collins fleet would be a considerable money saver but a major loss in defence capabilities in terms of reccon and strike options. Sure the fleet has had it’s problems, but to give the whole game away to save money- lunacy.
Another problem faced by the RAN is staffing, trained staff are way down on operational requirements with over 8000 positions in desperate need of filling. So in all, the cutting back may actually save the money required and also give the RAN a chance to build up it’s numbers.
they are thinking of mothballing the entire collins fleet? Then, what else do they have left in the submarine force?
tphuangI understand this must be very challenging in developing such a weapon both from the real time target solution POV , ability to maintain the integrity of the RV after reentry and still be structurally sturdy , the seeker should be capable to track , discriminate a moving target which perhaps would also be using RF countermeasures to jam/deceive it and manouver to zero onto it.
But if the question is Do you believe , than I would say its a leap of faith.
But seeing is believing , they should release some actual test footage of this new extraordinary weapon system called ASBM.
Austin, this is certainly one of those systems that would be such a technological breakthrough that it’s hard to believe without seeing. All we can at present time is judge this based on evidence we are given. You are never going to see actual test footage of any PLA missile system. What we do know for sure is that they are working extremely hard at it, they are in the process of establishing C4ISR needed to detect, locate the target, send updates to the missiles. I personally think by far the hardest part is re-entering, discriminating the target (made harder due to the speed of the missile) and not get fooled by ESM. They can certainly launch more of these missiles since at the moment, they are not likely to have high hit rate.
I’m personally a recent convert, because I’ve read so much on the Chinese side who said they’ve managed to develop such a seeker. But obviously, this is something that will be continually upgraded through time. We don’t know if this system is ready now or in 5 years. But it’s clear that with faster processor, more advanced signal processing software and powerful seeker, this will become more and more likely.
And I think the most important part right now is not whether or not it works, but what USN thinks. Certainly, if USN thinks this is a major threat, it would have to prepare for it through upgrading more ships with BMD, upgrading BMD to deal with ASBM. In wartime, they might have to operate further away from Taiwan while they clear out the UAVs, take out the OTH-R facilities and use anti-satellite measures to disable recon/communication. And if they can’t do this in time, they have to operate further away from the battle-zone, thereby reducing sorties.
And the other significance is that if ASBM have small CEP, then that would also put air bases like Kadena and Andersen under threat in a war scenario.
tphuangObviously, that is not the only source, for example, USNI analyst Raymond Pritchett also quoted Vice Admiral Bernard J. “Barry” McCullough ‘s testimony to congress
Rapidly evolving traditional and asymmetric threats continue to pose increasing challenges to Combatant Commanders. State actors and non-state actors who, in the past, have only posed limited threats in the littoral are expanding their reach beyond their own shores with improved capabilities in blue water submarine operations, advanced anti-ship cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. A number of countries who historically have only possessed regional military capabilities are investing in their Navy to extend their reach and influence as they compete in global markets. Our Navy will need to out pace other Navies in the blue water ocean environment as they extend their reach. This will require us to continue to improve our blue water anti-submarine and anti-ballistic missile capabilities in order to counter improving anti-access strategies.
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/SPEF073108/McCullough_Stiller_Testimony073108.pdf
basically, Ray is the lead contributor to the blog entry that I talked about. Due to certain inquiries by his contacts in the navy, he asked me to write about a really well researched blog entry in Chinese. Which is what formed this.
The ASBM seems to be a figment of someones imagination , if at all it may just be a klub type missile with a ballistic type profile , firing either a torpedo or anti-ship missile , the surface launch klub 91RE2 though carries a torpedo.
But this whole idea of a BM doing a reentry and then finds a moving carrier and accurately attacking it is just some ones imigination.
If you read the Pentagon China report, you’d see their section on China’s ASBM effort including a very basic diagram from Second Artillery Engineering college on carrier group with ASBM. If you read the blog, you’d know there are numerous public research papers in Chinese in the past 10 years regarding hitting moving targets with ballistic missiles.
In the now infamous interview on page 22 of the October edition of Ordinance Technology, the naval base designer interviewed basically came out and said that China has now developed the seeker needed to be fitted onto a ballistic missile to hit moving target.
I guess the entire question comes down to this:
Do you believe that with OTH radar providing initial detection (however inaccurate), EO-satellites and HALE UAV can be redirected to scan the area to provide usable data for targeting?
Do you believe upon re-entry, the seeker of a missile the size of the warhead of DF-21 can find a carrier group from with a circumference of 10 nm from 150 nm away?
Do you believe after detecting the carrier, DF-21 will be able to keep track on it and hitting it?
And again, a lot of this is personal opinion, since nobody here actually believes something written not in English.
tphuanghmm, i hate having to defend this everywhere I go, but it’s important for people to read the original source.
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/03/plan-asbm-development.html
the usni article is a vast distortion of the original content.
tphuangbecause there is an assembly line for MiG-29Ks that is currently running. There is none for the Su-33s. the MiG-29Ks are multi-role, modernised and are capable of all the roles that the Russian Navy could need including fleet defence, anti-shipping, recon and strike. and because the IN will operate MiG-29Ks for the next 3 decades, hence they will be able to find a partner source for funds to keep the MiG-29K modern and updated.
the only thing they’ll lack is the range on internal fuel that the Su-33 will provide. But, the Su-33 is a dedicated fleet defence fighter, and will need a lot of work to bring its avionics and weapons up to multi-role standards like the Su-35.
If the Russians restart Su-33 production, they obviously will get an upgraded one using modernized avionics like what you see on su-35, or maybe just MKK2. But either way, Mig-29K can’t compete with su-33 if the later does get Russian backing.
As for China and su-33, it probably just end up not happening. Of course as before, all the sources are still Russian, so you only get one side of the story.
Sign In
