China's Military modernization: the Russian Factor

[Ultimate Warrior]

China's Military modernization: the Russian Factor

Asian Defense News: Moscow Defense Brief by Mikhail Barabanov
January, 2010
The Chinese leaders hoped the military parade in Beijing on October 1, the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic, would showcase the success of communist China’s “Fourth Modernization” – that of its armed forces. The event was supposed to demonstrate that rapid progress in military technology has propelled the country into the ranks of the world’s most advanced military powers.

All the brand-new military equipment put on display in Beijing has produced the required impression on the patriotic Chinese public, as well as some Western observers now gushing about the newly modernized People’s Liberation Army.

A more careful look at China’s military capability suggests there is little ground for either excessive optimism or alarmism – depending on the observer’s attitude to the country – about China’s status as a great military power.

The fruits of new great friendship

For almost three decades between the Soviet-Chinese bust-up in the early 1960s and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, China was mired in technological backwardness. After the generous flow of military equipment from Moscow ended abruptly in 1961, the Chinese army was stuck with old Soviet technology dating back to the 1950s. The obsolete MiG-19 Farmer fighter jets manufactured under a Soviet license (Chinese designation J-6) remained the backbone of the Chinese fighter fleet. The adoption of the early versions of the MiG-21 Fishbed (J-7) fighter was excruciatingly slow and painful. The bulk of the bomber fleet was made of the Il-28 (H-5) Beagle aircraft, plus a few long-range Tu-16 (H-6) Badger bombers. The piston-engine Mi-4 (Z-5) Hound remained the main Chinese helicopter, the T-54 (designated in China as the T-59) the main battle tank, and the S-75 (HQ-2) the main SAM system. The Chinese navy relied on old Soviet designs of the 1950s, or their simplified clones. And the Chinese ballistic missile technology was based on the early Soviet R-2 (SS-2), R-11 (SS-1B) and R-12 (SS-4) missiles, which Nikita Khrushchev had given away as a gift.

China’s own attempts at weapons-building tended to yield either feeble contraptions such as the J-8 Finback fighter jet and the Ming class submarine, or slipshod modernizations of tanks and missiles that were obsolete even before they left the drawing board. The main thrust of the Chinese defense industry’s effort was therefore aimed at ripping off the more recent Soviet designs, which Beijing was smuggling in via third countries. That is how China had cloned the T-72 main battle tank by the late 1980s, as well as the BMP-1 armoured infantry fighting vehicles, the 122 mm and 152 mm self-propelled and towed howitzers, the 122 mm Grad MRL systems, the Malyutka (AT-3) anti-tank missiles, and the Strela-2 (SA-7) man-portable SAMs.

In the 1980s China managed to achieve a certain degree of rapprochement with the West, based on shared hostility towards the Soviet Union. That gave it access to some modern Western technology. From France, it licensed the Super Frelon (Z-8) and Dauphine (Z-9) helicopters, as well as the Crotale SAM system. Another SAM system, Aspide, was licensed from Italy. China also bought a number of other weapons systems from France and Italy, and signed contracts with US companies to retrofit Chinese planes with new avionics. Another key partner was Israel, which became instrumental in the development of the new J-10 fighter jet. But the Tiananmen events of June 1989 soon put an end to China’s imports of military technology from the West, and plunged the country’s defense industry into a new bout of technological isolation.

Fortunately for China, relations with the Soviet Union took a sharp turn for the better at about the same time, and new defense contracts with Moscow soon followed. In 1991, China signed the first deals to buy modern Soviet weapons, including 24 Su-27 Flanker fighters and two of the Project 877EK (Kilo class) conventional submarines.

This breakthrough was vitally important to China. It would not be an exaggeration to say that modern Russian weapons and defense technology bought after 1991 have been at the heart of the People’s Liberation Army’s modernization and the Chinese defense industry’s progress in recent years. For China, Russia has become an abundant source of almost every type of modern weapons technology.

Thanks to the massive supplies of the Su-27 and Su-30 families of fighter jets from Russia (a total of 178 by 2005), the Chinese Air Force has leapfrogged from the second to the fourth generation of combat aircraft. The launch of production of the Su-27 (J-11) jets in Shenyang under a 1996 license deal gave a similar fillip to the Chinese aerospace sector, which had acquired access to modern avionics, radars, engines and missiles.

Supplies of modern Russian jet engines became a real boon for the Chinese combat aircraft makers, hidebound as they were by the unavailability of powerful modern propulsion units. China has finally managed to launch mass production of the only two decent fighter jets that it has - the J-10 and the FC-1, fitted with the Russian AL-31FN and RD-93 turbofan engines, respectively.

A total of 12 Project 636 and Project 877 (Kilo class) conventional submarines have been built for China by Russian shipyards, in addition to four Project 956 (Sovremennyi class) destroyers. For the first time in its history, the Chinese Navy has got hold of some truly modern ships with advanced acoustics, radars, torpedoes and supersonic anti-ship missiles (Moskit and Club). And the Project 956 destroyers are the first Chinese Navy ships armed with medium-range air-defense missile systems (as opposed to short-range missiles).

Even more importantly than buying individual Russian-made weapons, China has been able to acquire and license a wide range of Russian military technology, and to make use of Russian military expertise to design some new weapons - indeed, sometimes entire new weapons systems - of its own. In the 1990s and the early part of this decade, many if not most of the Russian military design bureaus and research facilities worked for the Chinese, who had become their main customer. As a result, many of the latest Chinese weapons systems developed over the past decade bear the hallmarks of their Russian origins.

One example is the Bakhcha-U turrets of the new Chinese ZTD-05 armoured infantry fighting vehicles, which were paraded on October 1. It was designed for China by the Tula KBP bureau, using the fighting compartment of the Russian BMP-3 armoured infantry fighting vehicle as the starting point. The Kurgan machine-building plant was involved in the development of the rest of the vehicle, as well as the launch of its mass production. The same is true of the Chinese ZBD-03 airborne fighting vehicle.

China’s latest artillery systems are licensed and slightly modified versions of Russian designs - and even the modifications themselves were probably made by Russian designers. That includes the fighting compartment of the 155 mm PLZ-05 self-propelled howitzer (a version of the Russian 2S19M1 Msta-S), the 120mm PLL-05 self-propelled gun-mortar (2S23 Nona-SVK), and PHL-05, a 300mm MLRS based on the Russian 9K58 Smerch system. China has also licensed the Krasnopol guided artillery projectiles, the Basnya, Refleks-M and Bastion tank-launched anti-tank guided missile systems, and the RPO-A rocket infantry flame-thrower.

And the latest Chinese powered chassis are obvious licensed clones of the MAZ chassis. Another area of Russian involvement worth a separate mention is the development of the latest Chinese SAM systems. Until recently China was hopelessly stuck with the archaic S-75’s (SA-2) dating back to the Francis Gary Powers era. Since 1996, China has bought 28 battalions of the S-300PMU1/2 SAM (SA-20) SAM systems. What is more, it has also developed its own version of the Russian system, the HQ-9, with the help of the Russian Almaz-Antey group - although the Chinese are still having trouble launching mass production. The HQ-16 and HQ-17 systems also appear to be Russian designs, to all intents and purposes. China has also relied on Russian assistance in developing its short-range SAM systems (in addition to buying the Russian Tor SAMs) and radar stations.

In airborne weapons, China became the main importer of Russian air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles. It has also launched joint production of the Kh-31P/KR-1 (AS-17) anti-radar missiles (essentially those are just being assembled in China). And Russia’s MNPO Agat has developed an active radar homing seeker for the latest Chinese PL-12 air-to-air missile. The developers of the latest Chinese airborne and ground-based cruise missiles are also believed to have made use of Russian assistance, as well as of some related technologies and the Kh-55 (AS-15) cruise missiles bought from Ukraine.

Russia is known to have been heavily involved in the development and fine-tuning of the J-10 and FC-1 fighters. Russia’s Yakovlev bureau took part in the development of the new Chinese L-15 training jet, which appears to be a clone of the Yak-130.

The Chinese Navy has also made a colossal leap forward thanks to the acquisition of Russian arms and technology. It has bought a number of weapons and radar systems for its destroyers and frigates, such as the Rif-M (SA-N-20) and Shtil-1 (SA-N-12) SAM systems (the later includes a vertical launch version). The Chinese-built Type 051C and 052B destroyers, for which those systems have been bought, were themselves designed with the participation of Russia’s Severnoye bureau. The same bureau appears to have contributed to the design of the Chinese Type 052C fleet destroyers and Type 054 frigates, while the Rubin bureau was involved in designing the new Chinese subs. In the 1990s, Russia sold China the full set of designs and documentation for the Varyag heavy aircraft carrier cruiser. And the Nevskoye bureau has actually designed an entire medium-size aircraft carrier for the Chinese, which fact it announced with little fanfare in its annual report last year. China has also licensed the Russian 76 mm AK-176 naval artillery systems, and Russian companies have been developing torpedoes and mines for the Chinese Navy.

It is therefore clear that Russia has been the main engine of the Chinese army’s technological transformation, which fact has not escaped the attention of the experts who watched the October 1 parade. At least 12 of the key weapons systems put on display on Tiananmen Square that day have either Soviet or Russian origins. Russia has been both the main weapons supplier and the key weapons design bureau for China over the past decade and a half.

Trying to stand on its own two feet

In the past few years, however, it has become quite obvious that defense industry cooperation between Russia and China is on the decline. In the 1990s, China was the main importer of Russian weapons, accounting for up to half of Russian arms exports in 2004-2005. By 2007, that figure had shrunk to just 25 per cent. The projection for 2008-2010 is a mere 12-17 per cent. China has almost stopped buying complete weapons platforms from Russia. It is now interested only in components, subsystems, engines, and technical expertise. Once the final deliveries are made in 2010 under the S-300PMU2 contract, exports to China can be expected to shrink even further. Beijing has also chosen not to continue the licensed assembly of the Su-27 fighter jets.

China appears to have acquired all the technology it wanted from Russia, and its strategy now is to develop its own weapons systems based on this know-how. On the other hand, Russia has obviously been careful not to sell China its very latest weapons. Interestingly, some of these weapons Moscow has been prepared to sell to India, but not to China. Essentially, Russian-Chinese defense industry cooperation has hit a glass ceiling.

What is more, the Chinese actually believe now that in many areas their technology is sufficiently advanced to do away with Russian assistance. That has resulted in blatant attempts to clone some Russian weapons rather than license them. The most notorious example is China’s “indigenous” J-11B fighter jet made in Shenyang, which is actually nothing more than a pirated copy of the Su-27 jet previously assembled there from Russian kit.

However, this particular “achievement” has actually put in stark relief the limitations of China’s defense industry. Only a few samples of the J-11B appear to have been built to date. China’s attempts to end its dependence on Russia for jet engines also remain fruitless. The powerful indigenous WS10A turbofan engine, which was designed to replace the Russian AL-31F on both the J-10 and J-11B fighters (and which could itself be a partial clone of the AL-31F), is still struggling with teething problems. All this is forcing Beijing to swallow its pride and keep signing contracts for new shipments of the AL-31FN engines for its latest prime fighter, the J-10.

It would appear that by remaining the sole source of some key components, Russia is keeping its finger on the pulse (or its hand on the tap if you like) of a whole number of crucially important Chinese weapons programs. And many of the latest “indigenous” or licensed Chinese weapons systems still rely on Russian supplies. China’s ability to launch indigenous mass production looks especially uncertain where it comes to a number of modern missile systems, and SAMs in particular.

Careful study of China’s military capability and its latest weapons systems also leads to a number of other conclusions, which the Chinese would doubtless prefer not to hear. One obvious problem is the poor functionality and design of some of the Chinese weapons systems, which look half-finished. Another is the uninspired imitation of foreign designs, which points to a deficit of independent ideas in technology, strategy and tactics of warfare. There are gaping holes in some important areas of Chinese military capability. The air defenses of the parts of the country not covered by the Russian-made S-300PMU1/2 systems are a joke. Battlefield air defense also remains woefully inadequate. The anti-tank capability is rudimentary, and the country has no combat helicopters whatsoever; the Z-10 attack helicopter project is languishing because there is no indigenous engine it could make use of. The strike potential of the Chinese Air Force remains very limited, and the bulk of its fleet is made of the 1960s designs. The Chinese navy’s ability to defend against modern submarines is rated as very low, and on many important indicators that navy itself is nothing more than a coastguard fleet.

Finally, the bulk of the Army’s equipment remains obsolete. The handful of new vehicles of each type trotted out in front of Mao’s mausoleum do not change the bigger picture. Fewer than 300-350 of the latest Type 99 main battle tank have been built over the past decade. In order to be able to replace the ancient T-59’s, which still make up the bulk of the fleet, China has been forced to maintain production of the cheap, simplified and painfully obsolete Type 96. This kind of approach - i.e. producing a few modern-looking showcase pieces while the bulk of the output is made up of spruced-up old junk - exemplifies the current state of affairs in China’s defense industry. Even the Chengdu facility, which builds the latest J-10 fighters, also continues to churn out the J-7G model, a slightly updated version of the venerable MiG-21.

Meanwhile, the Type 99 tank is a fine example of the true level of Chinese military technology. It traces its lineage to Type 90, which is itself a heavily upgraded clone of the old T-72. Chinese military web sites and forums, as well as some Western observers who take all the patriotic verbiage at face value, sing the praises of Type 99. They describe it as world-class; some even go as far as to suggest that it outclasses the Russian T-90A.

The truth is, the armor system of the latest and greatest Chinese tank’s turret looks nothing short of ugly. Due to poor design choices, the thickness of the armor at the 30-35 degrees angle is a mere 350mm, whereas the figure for the latest Soviet/Russian tanks is about 600mm from all angles. Roof armor at the front is also weak, and the tank has inherited the weakness of the porthole and hatch areas from the old Soviet designs. The dimensions of the Type 99 turret make any substantial improvements in its built-in protection system all but impossible - witness the latest modification, Type 99A1. Meanwhile, the decision to use the powerful but bulky German MTU diesel engine forced the Chinese designers to add an extra meter to the tank’s length, bringing its weight to 54 metric tons despite the sacrifices made in armor strength. (Besides, the use of imported engines - or their assembly from imported components - seems to be the key reason why so few of the Type 99’s have been built so far.) So compared to the latest Russian designs, Type 99 is a bulkier tank with weaker armor, handicapped by poor engineering. The Chinese rely too much on superficial mechanical copying of individual design elements, which often do not fit together very well. This copying does not translate into any advantages compared to the original foreign designs, and in many cases leads to unexpected problems. Compared to the vast experience of Soviet/Russian tank designers, the Chinese are only making their first steps - and it really shows.

Finally, a few words about China’s nuclear potential. For all the achievements of China’s defense industry, the country remains a clear outsider among the five official nuclear powers in terms of its strategic nuclear capability. Beijing has no more than 40 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and about 120 intermediate-range ballistic missiles. The number of the new DF-31A (CSS-9) solid-fuel ICBMs manufactured each year is in the low single digits. China has only one Type 092 SSBN carrying 12 aged ballistic missiles of the JL-1 type. The sub has never been at sea on active duty. There are also the two recently completed Type 094 SSBN subs, but the JL-2 missiles they are supposed to carry are still in development. That means that the Chinese nuclear arsenal does not have a combat-effective sea-based component. The Chinese Air Force, meanwhile, does not have a strategic bomber. It has to make do with the H-6 (up to 100 units), a clone of the antiquated Soviet Tu-16 long-range bomber. Some of these aircraft are now being fitted with the DH-10 cruise missiles. That could make them a more powerful instrument - but they would still be a far cry from a proper strategic bomber.

China’s program of developing a new generation of strategic nuclear missiles has evidently hit some serious problems. Meanwhile, the existing arsenal, due to the limitations of its underlying technology, has insufficient potential and low combat-readiness. It is also highly vulnerable to a nuclear strike by the United States or Russia. That means that the Chinese nuclear arsenal is not fit for the purpose of either effective first strike or retaliation (since it would hardly survive the first strike against itself). And if the United States deploys even a limited ABM system, the utility of the Chinese nuclear deterrent will diminish even further.

The Chinese leadership (including the defense industry captains) as well as the ordinary Chinese seem to be unreasonably euphoric about their country’s touted advances in military strength. Mesmerized by the brightly painted ranks of their new tanks and missiles, the Chinese flag-wavers tend to ignore the fact that their country’s military technology achievements are fragile, tentative and scant. And most importantly, these achievements are primarily based on Soviet and Russian imports rather than indigenous technology. China has succeeded in importing a wide range of military know-how from Russia - but it is far from certain that the Chinese defense industry will actually manage to absorb all that know-how. There are questions even about China’s ability simply to replicate the technology is has already bought. The current strategy of scaling down defense industry cooperation with Russia could yet come back to haunt China, revealing the decrepitude behind its army’s high-tech veneer. And then Beijing will have to turn to its northern neighbor for help once again.
-----------------------------------------------------------

I hope above facts will clear propaganda about Chinese supremacy, technology advancement and self reliance.

Thanks

 

[oct605032048]

this article reminds me about how DRDO failed India's military.

if China's supremacy were propaganda than what about India, a country produces no more than 1/4.7 of electricity, 1/5.7 of coal, 1/7 of automobiles, 1/8 of cement, 1/12of steel...

 

[scuthan]

abstract: all chinese weapons are either bought from russia, or copy from russia, or believed to be derived from russian technology.

@ultimate warrior.
i am sorry to tell you that, though it does sound music to you, there is few correct in this article. most of content have been discussed for many times in this forum. the author is a layman or he is selectively blind.

 

[oct605032048]

The article below was posted about 15 months ago in rediff news, ( posting it today as most of us ( including myself ) have't read this earlier )
so it is for those who have't read it earlier



The difference between India's failure against Pakistan's success in their respective missile programmes is based on the purist mindset of the Defence Research and Development Organisation to develop indigenously all complex weapon platforms and Islamabad's intelligent alliance with China and the approach to achieve its goals 'by any means, fair or foul'! While Pakistan was pragmatic in its approach, India was merely pompous.

Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that India's Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme has been finally shelved. This marks an unceremonious end of an ambitious technological misadventure by the DRDO -- country's premier defence R&D agency. For nearly two-and-a-half decades, it doled out mere promises to the country's armed forces -- delaying their much- needed modernisation plans.

The armed forces were forced to resort to off-the-shelf 'panic buying' whenever they realised that the strategic balance was tilting in favour of their adversaries. Besides missiles, there are other equipments such as the Main Battle Tank Arjun, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Nishant, Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, INSAS rifles which have been thrust on the end users despite unsatisfactory performances during trials.

In the bargain, the military lost 25 precious years and the taxpayers' nearly Rs 2,000 crore by keeping the IGMDP programme under wraps to hide its inefficiency from the nation.

Even when the IGMDP was embarked upon, many pointed out that to successfully complete such a high-end technological programme, foreign collaboration would be needed. But the DRDO's obduracy prevailed and the programme dragged for so many years.

It is wasteful to try and 'reinvent the wheel', but that is precisely what the DRDO backed by New Delhi did for all these years -- trying to develop every system and sub-system indigenously and ending up developing practically nothing of substance.

The IGMPD started in 1983 after India failed to reverse engineer a Russian missile in the seventies, with A P J Abdul Kalam as the head. However, 25 years later the DRDO missiles remain off target. The army cannot rely on Prithvi, a battlefield support missile, unless technological issues affecting its launch readiness are resolved. Trishul, the quick reaction anti-aircraft missile, turned out to be a dud and is now being resurrected with the induction of foreign technology as a stopgap arrangement for the air force, till the Spyder missile systems from Israel finally arrives. Meanwhile this delay for the navy meant importing Israel's Barak missile. While Akash, the medium range surface to air missile with 27-km range, had its first user trial in end 2007, Nag, the anti-tank missile with 4-7 km range, is yet to begin user trials.

Meanwhile, the air force with depleting fleet of obsolete Russian SA-3 Pechora and OSA-AK missile systems, is in a quandary as to how to plug holes in its air defence system in the western sector as the DRDO has failed to deliver.

AGNI �I and AGNI-II with a range of 700 km and 2,500 km respectively, have been tested five times, which is inadequate to generate confidence in a nuclear capable missile. The end users of these ballistic missiles are army and the air force with 8 and 24 missiles in their arsenals but lack confidence in the quality of the product even as AGNI-IV is readied for trial in mid-2008 with a range of 6,000 km.

The tacit admission of the DRDO's inability must not be limited to the missile programme alone; a review of all projects under its aegis is needed for a reality check and course correction. The DRDO fault-line primarily is a result of lack of accountability, focus, and failure to develop scientific disposition.

The director general of DRDO wears three hats. He is also, secretary defence R&D and scientific advisor to the defence minister. These three inter-linked hats on one individual destroy the basic principal of accountability. Therefore, he is not answerable to anyone.

DRDO scuttled a contract that was on the verge of being signed by India in 1997 for the import of a Weapon Locating Radar as the latter promised to produce it indigenously within two years. Due to this negligence, the Indian Army could not neutralise Pakistan's artillery fire effectively in the Kargil conflict and suffered heavy causalities. Of course, the DRDO to date is not in a position to produce WLR and ultimately India bought it from the previously selected producer in 2003. In my view, DRDO should be held directly responsible for these unwarranted war causalities.

The DRDO actually produces in its Tezpur laboratory orchids and mushrooms, identifies the sharpest chili in the world with pride, while its lab in Pithoragarh develops hybrid varieties of cucumber, tomato and capsicum. It spends merrily from the defence budget on developing new strains of Angora rabbits and 'Namkeen Herbal Tea'! DRDO by indulging in such irrelevant activities lost its focus and sight of its primary responsibility.

Instead of building a scientific temper, DRDO from its inception indulged in empire building, spending a major part of its budget on world-class auditoriums, convention centres, conference halls, and hostels, while neglecting research work.

To remove DRDO's fault-line, New Delhi should rapidly transform India into a low cost, high end R&D centre of the world without neglecting its manufacturing sector. Fairly ideal demographic conditions exist along with favourable geo-political factors whereby international actors are willing to invest, as well as, set up shop in India. To maintain their technological lead, the West finds India as a logical destination for their defence industries, both as a potential market and also a base to develop low cost high-end research projects.

On the other hand, we need to leapfrog as well as piggyback technologically, as reinventing the wheel is not necessarily an answer to the yawning technological gap that exists between the western countries and India. Therefore, there are synergies that should be exploited. Enormous mutual benefits can occur to both, if New Delhi can develop itself as a world-class R&D centre and a global hub for manufacturing sensitive military equipment.

Due to the rapid march of technologies and huge costs involved in R&D, no single player is in a position to deliver next generation weapon systems. Whether it is Boeing, Lockheed Martin, DCN, Airbus, or HDW -- all of them sub-contract different assemblies and sub-systems globally to the most competitive and competent companies. The other interesting trend is the formation of trans-national consortiums of nations and companies to manufacture superior platforms like the Euro fighter or the Euro copter. The game, thus, is global as it is not feasible for a single player to manufacture or develop each item.

In the development Sukhoi SU-30 MKI, the major player was the Russian corporation IRKUT but without the help of France [Images] and Israel, the fighter aircraft could not have developed the decisive technological edge that it displays. Therefore, India needs to shed its inhibitions, diversify, and form international industrial alliances to leapfrog technological gaps, boost export revenues from its military industrial complex, and leverage this strength as a strategic asset in Asia.

In any case, defence technologies become obsolete by the time a country can reinvent the wheel. Therefore, radical shifting of strategic gears to a more advantageous position by opening up the field to private sector will stimulate self-sufficiency. Companies like Tatas or L&T can enter into joint ventures and where necessary import CEO's and employ foreign scientists to kick start complex projects.

In fact, to improve performance of the Public Sector Units there should be competitors making fighter aircraft, missiles, and warships in the corporate world. Such farsighted policy shifts will improve India's self�sufficiency in the shortest possible time frame. This in turn, will increase the stakes of multi-nationals in India's well being and marginalise sanction regimes.

The Indian Foreign Office took 58 years to grudgingly acknowledge the criticality of military diplomacy in international affairs. If DRDO can appreciate that a technologically advanced and vibrant defence industry is equally critical for India's security and its global aspirations, we will not replicate this mistake. In other words, it should be made to realise that it solely exists to support the armed forces and not vice versa. Therefore, New Delhi should force ruthless accountability, create focus and development of scientific temperament within DRDO and ensure fruitful collaboration with the Indian and international private sector, instead of permitting them to fritter away the defence budget on irrelevant and peripheral activities.

 

[Ultimate Warrior]

The article below was posted about 15 months ago in rediff news, ( posting it today as most of us ( including myself ) have't read this earlier )
so it is for those who have't read it earlier

This is a latest article published in Jan 2010 in Asian Defense News i can't publish the link because rules doesn't allow this.

 

[Ultimate Warrior]

this article reminds me about how DRDO failed India's military.

if China's supremacy were propaganda than what about India, a country produces no more than 1/4.7 of electricity, 1/5.7 of coal, 1/7 of automobiles, 1/8 of cement, 1/12of steel...

I think as per rules we can't discuss the infrastructure and manufacturing in this section, that will be off topic. So please stick to the topic. It's not about DRDO or India. So no trolling please.

 

[conworldus]

I think as per rules we can't discuss the infrastructure and manufacturing in this section, that will be off topic. So please stick to the topic. It's not about DRDO or India. So no trolling please.

Haha the Russians are just not happy that China builds a better thank than they do. Typical article that promotes Russian products. Maybe it is meant for India so it will buy more T-90?

 

[conworldus]

All I see is a desperate sales pitch. News to Russia: we choose what kind of weapon we need, not you. There is no need to badmouth our product.

 

[applesauce]

All I see is a desperate sales pitch. News to Russia: we choose what kind of weapon we need, not you. There is no need to badmouth our product.

well chinese products are cheaper, and unlike western systems that the world knows is superior to chinese systems, russia cant say the same confidently these bad mouthing chinese products compared to their own can help with sales

 

[ptldM3]

Haha the Russians are just not happy that China builds a better thank than they do. Typical article that promotes Russian products. Maybe it is meant for India so it will buy more T-90?

Can you tell me whats better?

The T-90 uses the worlds first tripple charge round, able to penatrate even reactive armour.

The fire and controle systems utilizes a digital balistics computer that takes into account even wind condidtions.

The T-90 comes with thermal imaging sights

Advanced armour coupled with reactive armour give the T-90:

32 inches of protection against kinetic penatrators and 48 inches aginst shape charged warheads.


The T-90 uses a three teir countermeasure suite. This system includes two infrared jammers on the front of the turret,[which burns through or jams the aggressors fire and control system, in essence blinding the aggressor] four laser warning receivers, two 3D6 aerosol grenade discharging systems and a computerized control system. The Shtora-1 warns the tank's crew when the tank has been 'painted' by a weapon-guidance laser and allows the crew to turn the turret to face the threat. The infrared jammer, the TShU1-7 EOCMDAS, jams the semiautomatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) guidance system of some anti-tank guided missiles, in essence making them worthless. The aerosol grenades can be used to mask the tank from laser rangefinders and designators as well as the optics of other weapons systems.

Funny thing, Saudi Arabia, a country that has always purchased Western technology such as F-15's, EF-2000's and Abrams battle tanks has chosen to purchase the T-90, they counld have chosen any other tank. However, they chose the T-90, the same for the Indians. They coud have chosen any western tank but they decided to go for the T-90.

Our RPG's sliced through Israeli Merkava like butter, and the Merkava is considered one of the best and most well protected tanks on earth. A T-90 packs alot more punch than an RPG and the Merkava is better protected than the Type 99...you know wear i'm going with this...

So how is the Type 99 better?

well chinese products are cheaper, and unlike western systems that the world knows is superior to chinese systems, russia cant say the same confidently these bad mouthing chinese products compared to their own can help with sales

First off, the whole Western technology superior to Russian is laughable. The West thought the R-77 was inferior to their missles untell they had a chance to examine East Germany's R-77's. The US also thought they had a more sophisticated guidence system on their ICBM's, that is untell an American engineer got a chance to examine a Russian ICMB. Lets see what else, oh the Americans use the Russian RD-180 engine to power their Atlas rockets, i beleive they payed a billion dollars for the RD-180 and to this day the RD-180 has no equal.

The West has never faced a modern army that is well trained that used Russian technology. The West has always faced 20-60 year old Russian technology, and that is suposed to prove their superiority? Reaseach Pakistani pilots flying Mig-21's or Russian pilots flying Mig-15's over Korea. 26 Russians pilots shot down almost 200 American aircraft, and Sabre pilots were ww2 aces, Chinese and Korean pilots made the Mig-15 look bad. However, Russian pilots proved it was quite the opposite, so this proves the right training can get you anywere.

russia cant say the same confidently

Yes we can. Just try to prove me wrong. You still purchase our equipment and utilize our technology, we , on the other hand, don't buy Chinese military hardware. We are one of the top arms exporters on earth, even the US has purchased technology from us, and last time i checked Myanmar chose the Mig-29 over the J-10. I think it's safe to say our technology is superior.

 

[oct605032048]

The article is quite right for the fact of last ten years, when the bomb of Belgrade shocked the Chinese from dreams. But the age that China purchase billions of Russian weapons have gone with the wind.

Take the navy for example, China produces about 7 or 8 frigate within 3 years while Russia produces 2 in a decade and even fallen low to a place to buy a French vessel for her navy. In the air, China used to buy Russian planes but J-10 with WS-10 will be the main force in the coming decades. And it is Russia that breaks the content to hand over Ir-76s but it is OK for Y-20 is about to come out. Today China still purchases RD-93 engines but that is for export——in the FC-1 body. When it comes to the ground, T-90 and type-99 have never met in the battle field, So we don't know which——tripple charge round or 99's tripple charge round——better.

China would never deny Russia's status in defense technology (anyway it is accomplished at the cost of a soviet union and countless resources) RD-180 is a great model and far better than any Chinese counterparts even competitive to the under-developing ones. But such technologies belongs to the 'never transfer to China' category. So China has to rely on itself, take the anti-missile test this month for example, China succeeded in the kkv tech witch even the 'big brother' had not made it.

China should thank Russia for what she learned from her(but we also paid a good price) in the last 20 years but in the future, the co-operation between the two countries will be in a more balanced way.

 

[gambit]

First off, the whole Western technology superior to Russian is laughable. The West thought the R-77 was inferior to their missles untell they had a chance to examine East Germany's R-77's. The US also thought they had a more sophisticated guidence system on their ICBM's, that is untell an American engineer got a chance to examine a Russian ICMB. Lets see what else, oh the Americans use the Russian RD-180 engine to power their Atlas rockets, i beleive they payed a billion dollars for the RD-180 and to this day the RD-180 has no equal.

We are talking about individual systems but overall level of WORKING or DEPLOYED technology across all spectrum, in civilian as well as military life. In commercial off the shelf technology (COTS), for example, the US is well ahead of Russia.

The West has never faced a modern army that is well trained that used Russian technology.

The West have faced modern militaries that uses not only Soviet technology but also its exported doctrines and tactics. Sorry...But that is not our fault.

The West has always faced 20-60 year old Russian technology, and that is suposed to prove their superiority?

Yes

Reaseach Pakistani pilots flying Mig-21's or Russian pilots flying Mig-15's over Korea. 26 Russians pilots shot down almost 200 American aircraft, and Sabre pilots were ww2 aces, Chinese and Korean pilots made the Mig-15 look bad. However, Russian pilots proved it was quite the opposite, so this proves the right training can get you anywere.

You are confused between airmanship and battle doctrines. Airmanship is about basic and advanced flight instructions or basic fighter maneuvers (BFM). But these pilot skills can be negated when doctrines demand the skillful pilot obey ground controllers instead of the high degree of autonomy Western pilots enjoyed and doctrines encouraged.

While we're on the subject of superior Western technology, tell me which Western air to air rockets have a range of 400 km?

So what? It is very easy to make an air-air missile travels several hundreds km.

Or how many Western or Chinese radars have a range of 400 km? Keep in mind 400 km is the Irbis-E N035E range, the NIIP AESA's details are still classified.

So what? It is very easy to make a fighter radar with several hundreds km detection range. But before you boast, look up the relationship between power, antenna dimensions and target resolutions. I would rather have high target resolutions over long distance.

 

[faithfulguy]

Can you tell me whats better?

The T-90 uses the worlds first tripple charge round, able to penatrate even reactive armour.

The fire and controle systems utilizes a digital balistics computer that takes into account even wind condidtions.

The T-90 comes with thermal imaging sights

Advanced armour coupled with reactive armour give the T-90:

32 inches of protection against kinetic penatrators and 48 inches aginst shape charged warheads.


The T-90 uses a three teir countermeasure suite. This system includes two infrared jammers on the front of the turret,[which burns through or jams the aggressors fire and control system, in essence blinding the aggressor] four laser warning receivers, two 3D6 aerosol grenade discharging systems and a computerized control system. The Shtora-1 warns the tank's crew when the tank has been 'painted' by a weapon-guidance laser and allows the crew to turn the turret to face the threat. The infrared jammer, the TShU1-7 EOCMDAS, jams the semiautomatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) guidance system of some anti-tank guided missiles, in essence making them worthless. The aerosol grenades can be used to mask the tank from laser rangefinders and designators as well as the optics of other weapons systems.

Funny thing, Saudi Arabia, a country that has always purchased Western technology such as F-15's, EF-2000's and Abrams battle tanks has chosen to purchase the T-90, they counld have chosen any other tank. However, they chose the T-90, the same for the Indians. They coud have chosen any western tank but they decided to go for the T-90.

Our RPG's sliced through Israeli Merkava like butter, and the Merkava is considered one of the best and most well protected tanks on earth. A T-90 packs alot more punch than an RPG and the Merkava is better protected than the Type 99...you know wear i'm going with this...

So how is the Type 99 better?





First off, the whole Western technology superior to Russian is laughable. The West thought the R-77 was inferior to their missles untell they had a chance to examine East Germany's R-77's. The US also thought they had a more sophisticated guidence system on their ICBM's, that is untell an American engineer got a chance to examine a Russian ICMB. Lets see what else, oh the Americans use the Russian RD-180 engine to power their Atlas rockets, i beleive they payed a billion dollars for the RD-180 and to this day the RD-180 has no equal.

The West has never faced a modern army that is well trained that used Russian technology. The West has always faced 20-60 year old Russian technology, and that is suposed to prove their superiority? Reaseach Pakistani pilots flying Mig-21's or Russian pilots flying Mig-15's over Korea. 26 Russians pilots shot down almost 200 American aircraft, and Sabre pilots were ww2 aces, Chinese and Korean pilots made the Mig-15 look bad. However, Russian pilots proved it was quite the opposite, so this proves the right training can get you anywere.

While we're on the subject of superior Western technology, tell me which Western air to air rockets have a range of 400 km?

Or how many Western or Chinese radars have a range of 400 km? Keep in mind 400 km is the Irbis-E N035E range, the NIIP AESA's details are still classified.

Moreover, everyone always credits the SU-30MKI's lethality to "Westren" avionics, but the fact of the matter is, the only western avionics in the SU-30MKI is: HUD, monitors, gps, and Jammer. Everything else is Russian. Keep in mind the Indian perchased the MKI in 1999 this was before Russian companies put in emphasis on gps, or fancy liquid cristal monitors. However, right now this is all standard on Russian fighters, and as a result the SU-35BM out-classes the SU-30MKI in every aspect.



Yes we can. Just try to prove me wrong. You still purchase our equipment and utilize our technology, we , on the other hand, don't buy Chinese military hardware. We are one of the top arms exporters on earth, even the US has purchased technology from us, and last time i checked Myanmar chose the Mig-29 over the J-10. I think it's safe to say our technology is superior.

Overall, its clear that US has superior technology over the Russian technology. If the US choose to sell F-22 to Russia, wouldn't Russia buy it? If you said you'll only buy one and try to make a better F-22, you just demonstrated US technology superiority. You are the first and only person that believe Russia has superior technology over the US. I thought some of the Indian members here are dilutional. You topped them all combined.

 

[stax]

Overall, its clear that US has superior technology over the Russian technology. If the US choose to sell F-22 to Russia, wouldn't Russia buy it? If you said you'll only buy one and try to make a better F-22, you just demonstrated US technology superiority. You are the first and only person that believe Russia has superior technology over the US. I thought some of the Indian members here are dilutional. You topped them all combined.

Russia sells China weapons. We thank Russia and hate US for the military sanction.

 

[faithfulguy]

Russia sells China weapons. We thank Russia and hate US for the military sanction.

Trust me, Russian weapns sucks. If China wants to copy, it should try to get the US ones. Failing that, it should get German, French or other European ones. If these are not possible, go for Israeli, South African, Japanese or South Korean weapons. If even these prove illusive, try the Indian weapon as these has western components. If Indian weapons are not available for copying, then Chicom can copy from the Soviets. Товарищ