China's Military modernization: the Russian Factor

[SinoIndusFriendship]

You cannot say that China is 40 years behind Russia because she has sent manned spaceship 40 years later.

By following that logic, i can also state that today's Russia is still behind US of 1969 because she has not accomplished the moon landing mission yet.

Moon Landing was a HOAX, the "Apollo Hoax" to be precise.

Do a quick search for videos and evidence that plainly shows it was a hoax. Photos of the actual studio (with space capsule, poster of moon surface, austronaught, equipment, moon rover, EVERYTHING!!!) are available.

Also use common sense: The gravity of moon is 1/6 or 1/7 about there of Earth but it lacks atmosphere. So how to manage a "soft landing" (with rover, capsule et al). Even more challenging is where the HECK does the capsule get enough fuel and control navigation to RETURN to earth????

Apollo moon HOAX is so pathetic once you use intelligence and common sense. Remember this was in the 60s, what type of tech do they have then? Also, do some basic physics dynamics and rocket calculations (basic 4th year physics student should be able to solve this easy calculation!).

 

[gambit]

I don't doubt the US is the leader in technology, but to say they dominate every field is simply not true. Does the US, for instance, have any equal to the S-400 let alone the still under development S-500?

I said it before and will repeat -- that there is no such thing as 'military technology', only the adoption and adaptation of technology for military uses. The S-400 or the Patriot or the THAAD are examples of the CREATIVE process of adoption and adaptation that result in those weapons systems. Of course there will be areas where one's creativity is clearly superior to his competitors, even when one's technological foundation may be inferior to his competitors, but in no way does that mean the technological foundations are the same. The US does dominate in every technological fields.

Was Iraq and Serbia modern? Most of their technology was 1960's-1970's era with just a handfull of modern technology, but of course they were so poorly trained and led that it wouldn't have mattered what they used.

The point i was trying to make was, Russian technology insn't as far behind as most people tend to beleive. I used the American military as an example that old Russian technology usually goes up against modern western technology. I definately didn't say the US military isn't capable of fighting a modern military.

The fighters that the US and NATO wielded over Yugoslavia were also from the same era. Look up when the F-16 first flew, for example. Sorry...But while there was a technological gap in favor of US and NATO over Serbian's Soviet era weaponry, the gap is not that great. Funny how great hoopla was made about a 1960s era SAM battery managed to 'detect' and 'track' an F-117.

Yes...It is true that the superpowers, US and Soviets, do hold in reserve the best while our allies, if they want to use our weapons, must settle for second tier products, it is also true that the performance envelopes of those second tier products, as demonstrated in combat, inevitably hint at the performance envelopes of the first tier products. Any gaps will be extrapolated as well.

Traditionally Russian pilots have been under strict control from the ground. The Russian pilots in Korea were no different, as a matter of fact they were not aloud to fly over enemy territory, fly over water or speak in Russian over the radio. But i fail to understand your point. We know American pilots have a high degree of freedom when they fly, and Russians don't or didn't at the time, but they still managed to shoot down Americans.

The point is that no matter how good is the hardware, if the software (human) is limited, the results will be limited and observers will be impressed, not necessarily in a positive way. Further, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, aka advantages his aircraft may have over yours, but by forcing him to fight under your rules, aka advantages your aircraft have over his. So if doctrines are limited in freedoms, your opponent have additional advantages not of his own, the result will be to your detriment.

It's easier said than done.

For instance, Lets take the AIM-120D, the most edvance and furthest range AIM-120 as of date. Its range is about 185 km some source say less. Its length is (12 feet). The K-100 has a range of 400km, and yes it is larger (about 19 feet) so the AIM-120D has a range of approximately 90km for every six feet, meaning if it was the same size as the K-100 it would have a range of about 270-280 km, so it's not as simple as making the rocket larger.

Absolutely it is easier. But sorry...It is not as simple as you posit. If we have technologically superior propulsion, even though we both use something as well established as solid fuel, it will be how superior the efficiency of the engine that we may not need equal size to achieve equal distance or power.

Example follow...

Rockets and Missiles - Solid Fuel Rockets

The shape into which the grain is formed is especially important in the operation of the solid-fuel rocket. The larger the surface area of grain exposed, the more rapidly the fuel will burn. One could construct a solid-fuel rocket by simply packing the rocket body with the fuel. However, simply boring a hole through the center of the fuel will change the rate at which the fuel will burn. One of the most common patterns now used is a star shape. In this pattern, the solid fuel is actually put together in a machine that has a somewhat complex cookie-cutter shape in its interior. When the fuel has been cured and removed from the machine, it looks like a cylinder of cookie dough with its center cut out in the shape of a seven-pointed star.

Howstuffworks "How Rocket Engines Work"

When you read about advanced solid-fuel rockets like the Shuttle's solid rocket boosters, you often read things like:

The propellant mixture in each SRB motor consists of an ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer, 69.6 percent by weight), aluminum (fuel, 16 percent), iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4 percent), a polymer (a binder that holds the mixture together, 12.04 percent), and an epoxy curing agent (1.96 percent). The propellant is an 11-point star-shaped perforation in the forward motor segment and a double- truncated- cone perforation in each of the aft segments and aft closure. This configuration provides high thrust at ignition and then reduces the thrust by approximately a third 50 seconds after lift-off to prevent overstressing the vehicle during maximum dynamic pressure. [source: NASA]

This paragraph discusses not only the fuel mixture but also the configuration of the channel drilled in the center of the fuel. An "11-point star-shaped perforation" might look like this:

HYBRID ROCKET MOTOR WITH ANNULAR, CONCENTRIC SOLID FUEL ELEMENTS - Patent application

the solid fuel grain 130 may have a "wagon wheel" cross-sectional shape such that the solid fuel grain is divided into wedge-shaped portions 136 that are arranged around a central port. It should be appreciated that the portions 136 do not have to be wedge-shaped and that any quantity of portions can be used.

So is it possible to have multiple shapes for different stages of a missile's flight? Yes it is possible. And I must leave it at that. For military purposes, the formulas for these rocket engines are just as secret as the guidance algorithms in the seeker heads.

Is tracking targets with a RCS of 3 square meters from 400 kilometers easy? Do you have proof the Irbis-E N035E has a low resolution? Because i have found otherwise.

NIIP Bars and Irbis series of radar for Su-30/Su-35

For a three-meters square target? For US? You betcha. And I do not even need to hint at the top secret stuff. Target RCS is the result of a combination of freq, power, distance and angular disposition with respect to the receiver. So to CREATE a three-meters square target at X distance, the simplest thing to do is to increase power. The target resolution criteria includes distinguishing multiple targets in separate resolution cells...

Definition: radar resolution cell

The volume of space that is occupied by a radar pulse and that is determined by the pulse duration and the horizontal and vertical beamwidths of the transmitting radar. Note: The radar cannot distinguish between two separate objects that lie within the same resolution cell.

The larger the beamwidth, the larger this resolution cell. The larger the resolution cell, the better the enemy can hide his true force. Against aircrafts that can fight as well as bomb, small resolution cells became the top three most important items in designing an airborne radar system. I would rather have high target resolutions than detection distance. Does anyone know if this Russian PoS PESA has just as good as our AESA systems? I doubt it and I do not believe the Russians will be forthcoming. They need the money too bad.

 

[gambit]

Moon Landing was a HOAX, the "Apollo Hoax" to be precise.

Do a quick search for videos and evidence that plainly shows it was a hoax. Photos of the actual studio (with space capsule, poster of moon surface, austronaught, equipment, moon rover, EVERYTHING!!!) are available.

Also use common sense: The gravity of moon is 1/6 or 1/7 about there of Earth but it lacks atmosphere. So how to manage a "soft landing" (with rover, capsule et al). Even more challenging is where the HECK does the capsule get enough fuel and control navigation to RETURN to earth????

Apollo moon HOAX is so pathetic once you use intelligence and common sense. Remember this was in the 60s, what type of tech do they have then? Also, do some basic physics dynamics and rocket calculations (basic 4th year physics student should be able to solve this easy calculation!).

Who said we need an atmosphere to have a 'soft landing'? Sounds like may be YOU should go to school.

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

Who said we need an atmosphere to have a 'soft landing'? Sounds like may be YOU should go to school.

Stop making a fool out of yourself.

So to use rocket boosters for a 'soft landing' you must add additional weight for both fuel and machinery PLUS stabilizers.

In all honesty probably half of physics undergrads and quite a few grad students will be unable to solve this basic principles problem. So no shame if you can't solve it. Well here's another hint:

You can't use simple momentum P=MV equation, must utilize derivatives to account for the reduce mass as fuel is consumed over time. Also must calculate the net gravitational effect of both Earth and Moon. Hope that helps!

 

[gambit]

Stop making a fool out of yourself.

So to use rocket boosters for a 'soft landing' you must add additional weight for both fuel and machinery PLUS stabilizers.

In all honesty probably half of physics undergrads and quite a few grad students will be unable to solve this basic principles problem. So no shame if you can't solve it. Well here's another hint:

You can't use simple momentum P=MV equation, must utilize derivatives to account for the reduce mass as fuel is consumed over time. Also must calculate the net gravitational effect of both Earth and Moon. Hope that helps!

This sounds awfully like you just hobbled something together. When people drag something out like 'hints' there is a strong possibility they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

This sounds awfully like you just hobbled something together. When people drag something out like 'hints' there is a strong possibility they have no idea what they are talking about.

I gave you a face-saving opportunity, but you just kept on digging.

Well dig a deeper hole for yourself is you wish.

 

[gambit]

I gave you a face-saving opportunity, but you just kept on digging.

Well dig a deeper hole for yourself is you wish.

Confirmed...You have no idea what you are talking about. You probably copied it from some loony conspiracy web site.

 

[gubbi]

This sounds awfully like you just hobbled something together. When people drag something out like 'hints' there is a strong possibility they have no idea what they are talking about.

You are wasting your time, replying. There are better posters worthy of your efforts.

 

[gambit]

You are wasting your time, replying. There are better posters worthy of your efforts.

So not only is the US but also the Soviets in on this moon landing hoax.

USSR - Luna 16

Luna 16 was the first automated vehicle to land on the Moon and return a sample of material to Earth. It was not, howeve, the first retrieval of lunar soil sample though. The Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 mission had already taken place by the time Luna 16 reached the Moon.

The Universe Today - Special Report: Luna 16

On September 12, 1970, the Soviet Union launched Luna 16 to Earth's moon in what would become the first successful return of lunar regolith by an automated probe: 101 grams from the Sea of Fertility.

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

So not only is the US but also the Soviets in on this moon landing hoax.

USSR - Luna 16


The Universe Today - Special Report: Luna 16

There's a BIG difference between landing-aka-crash-landing a vehicle and leaving it there

--- versus ---

landing 2 astronauts WITH a Capsule + Rover THEN launch off from the moon THEN navigate a trajectory towards the Earth THEN catch the Earth's orbit THEN land on safely back on Earth.

Do the fuel, weight calculations.

 

[gambit]

There's a BIG difference between landing-aka-crash-landing a vehicle and leaving it there

--- versus ---

landing 2 astronauts WITH a Capsule + Rover THEN launch off from the moon THEN navigate a trajectory towards the Earth THEN catch the Earth's orbit THEN land on safely back on Earth.

Do the fuel, weight calculations.

Big difference

By this 'big difference' argument, may be manned aviation has been a lie all this time but unmanned vehicles are the truth.

This is not about taking off later but about the landing phase. At this time, the astronauts' mass are part of the lander. So if the Soviets were able to land a smaller but unmanned vehicle on the moon, show the readers a credible source, and this is YOUR way out, that it is impossible to land a larger vehicle beyond a certain mass. By the way...My sources has Luna 16 RETURNED to Earth, not crash landed and left on the moon as you stated.

 

[ptldM3]

Yes. http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...logy-will-export-u-s-after-export-russia.html.

Not related to anything military, and we're not in the bussiness of building bullet trains.

Neither are LPD or air defense DDG. Sure you have the Kirov class, but that's a totally different class of ship. And ship from USSR era, not something Russia currently produce.

Russian DDG/LPD's class ships:

Sovremenny class destroyer - 12 ships
Udaloy class destroyer - 8 ships

10 in service.

LPD's (Landing Platform Dock) what's next? Are you going to ask if our ships have ping pong tables?

Guided missile destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China use foreign components in areas they aren't confident in, that's nothing new really. Russia intends to purchase Mistral class LHD, what volume do you think this speaks on the state of Russian ship building industry?

The possible purchase of the mistral is because of the Georgian conflict. The Russian navy doesn't want to wait years before such a ship is built. Russia will launch the Severodvinsk submarine next year and we plan to built six more. Submarines are alot more complex than ships.

Let's see who put a man on the moon next shall we? BTW, China's vision is at 2025-30 and Russia's at 2025. (correction)

Good luck with that.

Can we just clarify that the ABM test used KT-2 missile, which was developed from DF-21 and has ZERO Russian elements in there? .

Considering China has copied everything from small arms, to SAMs, to radars i would be suprised if it wasn't copied, and if it wasn't copied it could have used Russian engineers much like China has done in the past, but i'll leave it at that.

The missile was pioneered by Qian Xueseng, who returned to China from the U.S shortly after China's independence. So much for your Russian guidance system. .

China has copied Russian guidence systems before. Not related to the KT-2 but the following shows China copied Russian guidence systems and used Russian specialists:

Chinese LACM R&D is aided by an aggressive effort to acquire foreign cruise missile technology, particularly from Russia. China also seeks enabling technologies and subsystems from the United States and other foreign countries. It has been reported that that China transported cruise missile production facilities from Russia to a location in the vicinity of Shanghai in 1993, and recruited cruise missile engineering specialists from Russia in 1995 and. It is also reported that China has obtained technical data concerning a Russian cruise missile guidance system.

Land-Attack Cruise Missiles (LACM)

Our ballistic missile systems have no outside assistance, not from the former USSR and definitely not from Russia. It was developed during the time the Soviet was threatening to nuke China.

Because China has not received Russian technology or assistance since the callapse of the Soviet Union right?

KT-2 and your S-400 are totally different things. Your S-400 cannot do mid course interception because its service ceiling is only 30km. Midcourse interception are outside the atmosphere with altitude between 100km-1000km. The truth is there is nothing like KT-2 in Russian arsenal yet.

What's special about taking a proven rocket engine that's used for going into space a installing a guidence system on it? A guidence systems that may be of forign origin.

Considering the US mid flight interception has a success rate of only 53% i would take China's claims with a truck load of salt.

Russia still leads China in rocket, guidence, and SAM technology, so please stop with the, nonesense.

There's a BIG difference between landing-aka-crash-landing a vehicle and leaving it there

--- versus ---

landing 2 astronauts WITH a Capsule + Rover THEN launch off from the moon THEN navigate a trajectory towards the Earth THEN catch the Earth's orbit THEN land on safely back on Earth.

Do the fuel, weight calculations.

Astronauts, capsule, and rover shouldn't matter because all are taken into account when talking weight/fuel/distance. The moon has no gravity, so it would require little thrust to lift the capsule. Now that the capsule is off the lunar surface it can rely on kenetic energy from the thrust.

 

[Honor]

Not related to anything military, and we're not in the bussiness of building bullet trains.



Russian DDG/LPD's class ships:

Sovremenny class destroyer - 12 ships
Udaloy class destroyer - 8 ships

10 in service.

LPD's (Landing Platform Dock) what's next? Are you going to ask if our ships have ping pong tables?

Guided missile destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




The possible purchase of the mistral is because of the Georgian conflict. The Russian navy doesn't want to wait years before such a ship is built. Russia will launch the Severodvinsk submarine next year and we plan to built six more. Submarines are alot more complex than ships.





Good luck with that.





Considering China has copied everything from small arms, to SAMs, to radars i would be suprised if it wasn't copied, and if it wasn't copied it could have used Russian enginees like China has done in the past, but i'll leave it at that.




China has copied Russian guidence systems before. Not related to the KT-2 but still shows that China copied Russian guidence systems and used Russian specialists.



Land-Attack Cruise Missiles (LACM)



Because China has not received Russian technology or assistance since the callapse of the Soviet Union right?





What's special about taking a proven rocket engine that's used for going into space a installing a guidence system on it? A guidence systems that may be of forign origin.

Considering the US mid flight interception has a success rate of only 53% i would take China's claims with a truck load of salt.

Russia still leads China in rocket, guidence, and SAM technology, so please stop with the, nonesense.




Sound perfectly possible to me, remember space doesn't have gravity, thus less fuel is needed.

This thread is started by Indian and ended up Russian and Chinese pitting each other.

Let's stop the challenging.... there will be no end. Chinese modernization is assist by Russian. There is no doubt in it.

 

[maxx]

^I don't see anybody denying that. However, I think the author claims far too much credit for Russia. ptldM3, check your pm.

 

[desimorty]

Can we just clarify that the ABM test used KT-2 missile, which was developed from DF-21 and has ZERO Russian elements in there? The missile was pioneered by Qian Xueseng, who returned to China from the U.S shortly after China's independence. So much for your Russian guidance system. Our ballistic missile systems have no outside assistance, not from the former USSR and definitely not from Russia. It was developed during the time the Soviet was threatening to nuke China.

KT-2 and your S-400 are totally different things. Your S-400 cannot do mid course interception because its service ceiling is only 30km. Midcourse interception are outside the atmosphere with altitude between 100km-1000km. The truth is there is nothing like KT-2 in Russian arsenal yet.

Russia does have ABM technology. The've had it for a long time.
Today ABM technology is more reliable but on the other hand counters are more advanced as well.

Moon Landing was a HOAX, the "Apollo Hoax" to be precise.

Do a quick search for videos and evidence that plainly shows it was a hoax. Photos of the actual studio (with space capsule, poster of moon surface, austronaught, equipment, moon rover, EVERYTHING!!!) are available.

Also use common sense: The gravity of moon is 1/6 or 1/7 about there of Earth but it lacks atmosphere. So how to manage a "soft landing" (with rover, capsule et al). Even more challenging is where the HECK does the capsule get enough fuel and control navigation to RETURN to earth????

Apollo moon HOAX is so pathetic once you use intelligence and common sense. Remember this was in the 60s, what type of tech do they have then? Also, do some basic physics dynamics and rocket calculations (basic 4th year physics student should be able to solve this easy calculation!).

LMAO

I don't doubt the US is the leader in technology, but to say they dominate every field is simply not true. Does the US, for instance, have any equal to the S-400 let alone the still under development S-500?

Do you know why the US never deployed such long range SAMs? They are inaccurate at these ranges and unreliable. The US had more reliable air defence. Its called the USAF. If they wanted to shoot down missiles they can deploy many missiles and because of their tests they have the most succesfull ABM, THAAD and PAC3. Like it or not. I don't think there is anything more success full than the PAC3 whos seceret lies not in the missile but in the RADAR and networked computer.

The point is that no matter how good is the hardware, if the software (human) is limited, the results will be limited and observers will be impressed, not necessarily in a positive way. Further, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, aka advantages his aircraft may have over yours, but by forcing him to fight under your rules, aka advantages your aircraft have over his. So if doctrines are limited in freedoms, your opponent have additional advantages not of his own, the result will be to your detriment.

I have no idea why you or what you two are debating but while the Russians did have technological gap with the Americans, they took that into consideration with their losses and thus produced more aircraft, and artillery. Even their doctrine was built around losses and duds.

Considering China has copied everything from small arms, to SAMs, to radars i would be suprised if it wasn't copied, and if it wasn't copied it could have used Russian enginees like China has done in the past, but i'll leave it at that.

You don't need much to shoot down a sat or a preorchestrated dud warhead. Lets give them the benfit of the doubt. Now how much work do you think is left for the ABM to be field ready?