Chinese Navy (PLAN) News & Discussions
- Thread starter AZADPAKISTAN2009
- Start date
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
NavWeek: Ballistic Bombast
Apr 13, 2015 by Michael Fabey
China may be able to take out an American aircraft carrier with its feared DF-21 antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) without even taking a shot.
For years the U.S. Navy has been warning of the potential of the DF-21 to strike a carrier as part of the justification for updating the systems and networks of shielding that protect the country’s most visible – and some say most vulnerable – military icons.
The Navy brass did a good job making its case. Maybe too good. Now some powerful people in DC are looking to reduce the fleet by a carrier or two in the belief that the DF-21 will make it too dangerous for the ships even to get close to Chinese territorial waters. Indeed, the thinking goes, the Navy won’t even be willing to risk a multibillion-dollar carrier and its air wing to get close enough to China to be operationally, tactically or strategically effective.
This would be Navy failure in an anti-access aerial denial (A2AD) scenario writ large. Cutting out a carrier from the shipbuilding or overhaul plan because of such concerns would strike at the heart of the nation’s forward-presence strategy, especially in the great maritime expanses of the Asia-Pacific.
The Navy is now doing a carrier study for lawmakers to analyze the cost and operations for the biggest U.S. ships. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, says he wants to look hard at carriers and their air wings.
It certainly makes sense to do so – and often. When ships alone start to cost $12.9 billion for a new model, the Navy and the nation need to make sure the vessels are worth the investment, especially if the DF-21 can do all that some fear it can do.
There’s something else to keep in mind as well. U.S. carriers would have more to worry about than one or two DF-21s descending from the sky. The Chinese have quivers full of missiles to fire from shore, sea and air – more, in theory, than the American ship shields could handle.
But the U.S. Navy has quite a few points in its favor, too. Carriers do not sail alone and unafraid anywhere. They are protected from missile attacks by Aegis combat systems on cruisers and, and from torpedoes by frigates and submarines. Navy officials have touted their “system of systems” for years now – it’s become a cliché. But that does not mean it’s ineffective.
The truth is that this is not the first missile rodeo the U.S. has had to face down. Aegis was developed and perfected in no small part to counter the threat of the Soviet Union on the high-seas. True, the American-Soviet missile minuet never played out, but the U.S. became very adept at gaming and developing strategies and tactics for such scenarios.
China has the benefit now of more money and better technology than the Soviets. But the U.S.S.R. had experience. They had proven their military mettle through the years. That’s what the U.S. Navy has going for it now as well: experience, history and training that provide an intangible but very real edge in a conflict with Chinese forces that have yet to step into a real ring, at least not like this. There’s little doubt that both sides would get bloody, especially in the early rounds. Veteran fighters – like the U.S. – know how to survive.
But one mustn’t forget that the Chinese are ancient masters of winning fights without even climbing through the ropes. This could prove to be the case with the DF-21, which has yet to track its first U.S. carrier.
NavWeek: Ballistic Bombast | Ares
Apr 13, 2015 by Michael Fabey
China may be able to take out an American aircraft carrier with its feared DF-21 antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) without even taking a shot.
For years the U.S. Navy has been warning of the potential of the DF-21 to strike a carrier as part of the justification for updating the systems and networks of shielding that protect the country’s most visible – and some say most vulnerable – military icons.
The Navy brass did a good job making its case. Maybe too good. Now some powerful people in DC are looking to reduce the fleet by a carrier or two in the belief that the DF-21 will make it too dangerous for the ships even to get close to Chinese territorial waters. Indeed, the thinking goes, the Navy won’t even be willing to risk a multibillion-dollar carrier and its air wing to get close enough to China to be operationally, tactically or strategically effective.
This would be Navy failure in an anti-access aerial denial (A2AD) scenario writ large. Cutting out a carrier from the shipbuilding or overhaul plan because of such concerns would strike at the heart of the nation’s forward-presence strategy, especially in the great maritime expanses of the Asia-Pacific.
The Navy is now doing a carrier study for lawmakers to analyze the cost and operations for the biggest U.S. ships. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, says he wants to look hard at carriers and their air wings.
It certainly makes sense to do so – and often. When ships alone start to cost $12.9 billion for a new model, the Navy and the nation need to make sure the vessels are worth the investment, especially if the DF-21 can do all that some fear it can do.
There’s something else to keep in mind as well. U.S. carriers would have more to worry about than one or two DF-21s descending from the sky. The Chinese have quivers full of missiles to fire from shore, sea and air – more, in theory, than the American ship shields could handle.
But the U.S. Navy has quite a few points in its favor, too. Carriers do not sail alone and unafraid anywhere. They are protected from missile attacks by Aegis combat systems on cruisers and, and from torpedoes by frigates and submarines. Navy officials have touted their “system of systems” for years now – it’s become a cliché. But that does not mean it’s ineffective.
The truth is that this is not the first missile rodeo the U.S. has had to face down. Aegis was developed and perfected in no small part to counter the threat of the Soviet Union on the high-seas. True, the American-Soviet missile minuet never played out, but the U.S. became very adept at gaming and developing strategies and tactics for such scenarios.
China has the benefit now of more money and better technology than the Soviets. But the U.S.S.R. had experience. They had proven their military mettle through the years. That’s what the U.S. Navy has going for it now as well: experience, history and training that provide an intangible but very real edge in a conflict with Chinese forces that have yet to step into a real ring, at least not like this. There’s little doubt that both sides would get bloody, especially in the early rounds. Veteran fighters – like the U.S. – know how to survive.
But one mustn’t forget that the Chinese are ancient masters of winning fights without even climbing through the ropes. This could prove to be the case with the DF-21, which has yet to track its first U.S. carrier.
NavWeek: Ballistic Bombast | Ares
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
Surface fleet on point in experts' war strategies
By David Larter, Staff writer 10:08 a.m. EDT May 2, 2015
The (US) surface Navy is starting to find itself outgunned by potential adversaries such as China or Iran.
That's the contention of two retired naval officers turned analysts, who recently told lawmakers about strategies to make the surface fleet relevant against adversaries armed with mines, jets and long-range anti-ship missiles.
Bryan McGrath, a retired commander and former destroyer skipper, told the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee hearing that today's surface Navy is less prepared to fight and defeat a sophisticated adversary than the Cold War-era Navy of 25 years ago.
The surface force has to adapt to compete with China and other foes who are seeking to block the U.S. Navy's access to key strategic points on the globe, McGrath said. And with that will come a fundamental rethinking of Navy strategy. Instead of encircling the aircraft carrier, McGrath said ships like destroyers and cruisers should be dispatched to gain sea control and clear the path for a carrier to launch airstrikes before moving elsewhere.
"In an era of little or no threat, the Navy packed its defenses around the carrier and positioned itself close to an adversary in order to generate maximal combat sorties," McGrath said at the open hearing on April 15. "Against a high-end, near-peer competitor, implementing an [anti-access, area denial] strategy, this is on longer possible.
"In the future the carrier strike group will have to fight its way into portions of the ocean from which it can then execute strikes. And then quickly retire and or relocate."
While the Navy has been focused on low-end missions, potential enemies such as China and Iran have adapted, said Bryan Clark, a retired Navy commander, who explained that their goal is to keep the U.S. Navy out of striking distance with a barrage of shore-based missiles that will overwhelm the defenses of an cruiser or destroyer.
An adversary could, with relative ease, force a DDG to shoot all its missiles and overwhelm its defenses — taking it out of the fight for about 1/10th the cost of the $1.8 billion Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.
'Legacy force'
The major disadvantage is that technology has advanced to the point where enemy aircraft, ships and submarines pack missiles that have a longer range than those on U.S. ships. For Clark, that means the Navy has to invest in new missiles that can hit the enemy before they are in range to fire their missiles; to shoot the archer before he looses his arrows.
"Today, the surface ships we deploy don't have weapons that are able to reach enemy aircraft ships or submarines until we are already well within range of their anti-ship cruise missiles" Clark testified. "The way you get out of that is you have to deploy some new weapons."
Clark said that some progress has been made. The cruiser Normandy, which deployed with the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, is packing SM-6 interceptors that can strike enemy aircraft outside of the range most current anti-ship cruise missiles.
"The anti-submarine rocket I've got on board a ship has a range of about 12 miles," he said. "Whereas the anti-ship cruise missiles that Chinese submarines can carry have a range of a couple hundred miles, and launched comfortably from a range of 100 to 150 miles.
"We need new weapons that allow us to extend the range," Clark added.
Clark said the Navy is developing a long range anti-surface missile, but that it needs to focus on anti-submarine missiles as well.
The other sea change for the surface Navy, Clark argues, is that it needs to stop shooting incoming missiles a hundred miles from the ship. That's a waste of missiles, Clark says, because the enemy is trying to get you to expend all the rounds in your chamber.
His alternate strategy: letting those missiles come within range of close-in weapons such as the new Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, CIWS Phalanx, or future weapons like a laser orhigh powered microwave to intercept them, saving missiles for longer-range strikes on enemy ships, fighters and shore targets.
Another mitigating strategy is to have missiles that can provide a dual function so ships can conserve real estate in their vertical launch magazines. For example, Clark said, the long-range anti-ship missile in development can be modified to function as a long-range strike missile as well. This eliminates the need to have separate cells for Tomahawk strike missiles and anti-ship missiles in an environment where every missile cell is a commodity.
Ultimately, McGrath argued, the Navy needs to see surface forces as offensive weapons, rather than air defense platforms to protect the flattop.
"I think we have to begin to question whether or not air superiority that's required for surface operations can be provided by the ships themselves," McGrath said in his closing statement.
"I'm not saying we should drive three-ship [surface action groups] into the Taiwan Strait, I'm saying that the Chinese [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] structure is not equally good throughout its entire volume, and there are places within it where surface forces will be able to operate, will be able to create mayhem, and will be able to hold [valuable] target at risk."
The approach that McGrath advocates, using sea control to penetrate an anti-access, area-denial environment has its critics. Retired Capt. Jerry Hendrix, an analyst with the Center for a New American Security, said sea control strategies aren't the best approach to an A2AD threat like the one posed by China.
Instead of investing in legacy forces, the Navy should invest in a new force that can project force and bring the full strike capability of the Navy to bear, he said. Such an investment would be a long-range drone that is capable of strike from outside the A2AD envelope.
"Today, despite the fact that we are building $14 billion aircraft carriers and we are spending $16 billion a year on aircraft, we are still not buying either an airplane or a ship that can consistently project power from outside the A2AD environment," Hendrix said.
"So what's being argued for is a justification for the legacy force, rather than investing in a new force that will allow us to continue a power projection strategy."
Surface fleet on point in experts' war strategies
By David Larter, Staff writer 10:08 a.m. EDT May 2, 2015
The (US) surface Navy is starting to find itself outgunned by potential adversaries such as China or Iran.
That's the contention of two retired naval officers turned analysts, who recently told lawmakers about strategies to make the surface fleet relevant against adversaries armed with mines, jets and long-range anti-ship missiles.
Bryan McGrath, a retired commander and former destroyer skipper, told the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee hearing that today's surface Navy is less prepared to fight and defeat a sophisticated adversary than the Cold War-era Navy of 25 years ago.
The surface force has to adapt to compete with China and other foes who are seeking to block the U.S. Navy's access to key strategic points on the globe, McGrath said. And with that will come a fundamental rethinking of Navy strategy. Instead of encircling the aircraft carrier, McGrath said ships like destroyers and cruisers should be dispatched to gain sea control and clear the path for a carrier to launch airstrikes before moving elsewhere.
"In an era of little or no threat, the Navy packed its defenses around the carrier and positioned itself close to an adversary in order to generate maximal combat sorties," McGrath said at the open hearing on April 15. "Against a high-end, near-peer competitor, implementing an [anti-access, area denial] strategy, this is on longer possible.
"In the future the carrier strike group will have to fight its way into portions of the ocean from which it can then execute strikes. And then quickly retire and or relocate."
While the Navy has been focused on low-end missions, potential enemies such as China and Iran have adapted, said Bryan Clark, a retired Navy commander, who explained that their goal is to keep the U.S. Navy out of striking distance with a barrage of shore-based missiles that will overwhelm the defenses of an cruiser or destroyer.
An adversary could, with relative ease, force a DDG to shoot all its missiles and overwhelm its defenses — taking it out of the fight for about 1/10th the cost of the $1.8 billion Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.
'Legacy force'
The major disadvantage is that technology has advanced to the point where enemy aircraft, ships and submarines pack missiles that have a longer range than those on U.S. ships. For Clark, that means the Navy has to invest in new missiles that can hit the enemy before they are in range to fire their missiles; to shoot the archer before he looses his arrows.
"Today, the surface ships we deploy don't have weapons that are able to reach enemy aircraft ships or submarines until we are already well within range of their anti-ship cruise missiles" Clark testified. "The way you get out of that is you have to deploy some new weapons."
Clark said that some progress has been made. The cruiser Normandy, which deployed with the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, is packing SM-6 interceptors that can strike enemy aircraft outside of the range most current anti-ship cruise missiles.
"The anti-submarine rocket I've got on board a ship has a range of about 12 miles," he said. "Whereas the anti-ship cruise missiles that Chinese submarines can carry have a range of a couple hundred miles, and launched comfortably from a range of 100 to 150 miles.
"We need new weapons that allow us to extend the range," Clark added.
Clark said the Navy is developing a long range anti-surface missile, but that it needs to focus on anti-submarine missiles as well.
The other sea change for the surface Navy, Clark argues, is that it needs to stop shooting incoming missiles a hundred miles from the ship. That's a waste of missiles, Clark says, because the enemy is trying to get you to expend all the rounds in your chamber.
His alternate strategy: letting those missiles come within range of close-in weapons such as the new Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, CIWS Phalanx, or future weapons like a laser orhigh powered microwave to intercept them, saving missiles for longer-range strikes on enemy ships, fighters and shore targets.
Another mitigating strategy is to have missiles that can provide a dual function so ships can conserve real estate in their vertical launch magazines. For example, Clark said, the long-range anti-ship missile in development can be modified to function as a long-range strike missile as well. This eliminates the need to have separate cells for Tomahawk strike missiles and anti-ship missiles in an environment where every missile cell is a commodity.
Ultimately, McGrath argued, the Navy needs to see surface forces as offensive weapons, rather than air defense platforms to protect the flattop.
"I think we have to begin to question whether or not air superiority that's required for surface operations can be provided by the ships themselves," McGrath said in his closing statement.
"I'm not saying we should drive three-ship [surface action groups] into the Taiwan Strait, I'm saying that the Chinese [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] structure is not equally good throughout its entire volume, and there are places within it where surface forces will be able to operate, will be able to create mayhem, and will be able to hold [valuable] target at risk."
The approach that McGrath advocates, using sea control to penetrate an anti-access, area-denial environment has its critics. Retired Capt. Jerry Hendrix, an analyst with the Center for a New American Security, said sea control strategies aren't the best approach to an A2AD threat like the one posed by China.
Instead of investing in legacy forces, the Navy should invest in a new force that can project force and bring the full strike capability of the Navy to bear, he said. Such an investment would be a long-range drone that is capable of strike from outside the A2AD envelope.
"Today, despite the fact that we are building $14 billion aircraft carriers and we are spending $16 billion a year on aircraft, we are still not buying either an airplane or a ship that can consistently project power from outside the A2AD environment," Hendrix said.
"So what's being argued for is a justification for the legacy force, rather than investing in a new force that will allow us to continue a power projection strategy."
Surface fleet on point in experts' war strategies
cirr
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Messages
- 17,049
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
New type of engine successfully developed and manufactured for use in the next generation of PLAN ships：
劳动托举“中国梦”
七一一所特种发动机团队荣膺“最美”
(2015-05-04) 来源：《中船重工》 阅读次数：135次
本刊讯（记者 徐元）4月24日，中共中央宣传部、中华全国总工会在中国网络电视台公开发布10位“中国梦·劳动美”最美职工榜单。中船重工七一一所特种发动机团队荣耀登榜，并成为受表彰的惟一团队。
七一一所热气机事业部特种发动机团队，40年来攻克了众多科研难题，研制成功“特种发动机技术及其系统”。这项具有完全自主知识产权的研究成果填补了国内空白，为我国舰船装载了“中国心”。团队还历时近１０年研制成功了拥有完全自主知识产权的新型发动机，与国外最先进的同类产品相比，功率提高了１１７％，已列入国家下一代舰船的应用计划。
发布活动现场宣读了中宣部和全总关于10位“中国梦·劳动美”最美职工的表彰决定，播放了反映他们先进事迹的短片，展示并诵读了反映他们先进事迹的楹联和诗词。关于他们的专题片将在人民网、新华网、中国文明网等网站展示。
劳动托举“中国梦”
七一一所特种发动机团队荣膺“最美”
(2015-05-04) 来源：《中船重工》 阅读次数：135次
本刊讯（记者 徐元）4月24日，中共中央宣传部、中华全国总工会在中国网络电视台公开发布10位“中国梦·劳动美”最美职工榜单。中船重工七一一所特种发动机团队荣耀登榜，并成为受表彰的惟一团队。
七一一所热气机事业部特种发动机团队，40年来攻克了众多科研难题，研制成功“特种发动机技术及其系统”。这项具有完全自主知识产权的研究成果填补了国内空白，为我国舰船装载了“中国心”。团队还历时近１０年研制成功了拥有完全自主知识产权的新型发动机，与国外最先进的同类产品相比，功率提高了１１７％，已列入国家下一代舰船的应用计划。
发布活动现场宣读了中宣部和全总关于10位“中国梦·劳动美”最美职工的表彰决定，播放了反映他们先进事迹的短片，展示并诵读了反映他们先进事迹的楹联和诗词。关于他们的专题片将在人民网、新华网、中国文明网等网站展示。
Electeric propulsion system?New type of engine successfully developed and manufactured for use in the next generation of PLAN ships：
劳动托举“中国梦”
七一一所特种发动机团队荣膺“最美”
(2015-05-04) 来源：《中船重工》 阅读次数：135次
本刊讯（记者 徐元）4月24日，中共中央宣传部、中华全国总工会在中国网络电视台公开发布10位“中国梦·劳动美”最美职工榜单。中船重工七一一所特种发动机团队荣耀登榜，并成为受表彰的惟一团队。
七一一所热气机事业部特种发动机团队，40年来攻克了众多科研难题，研制成功“特种发动机技术及其系统”。这项具有完全自主知识产权的研究成果填补了国内空白，为我国舰船装载了“中国心”。团队还历时近１０年研制成功了拥有完全自主知识产权的新型发动机，与国外最先进的同类产品相比，功率提高了１１７％，已列入国家下一代舰船的应用计划。
发布活动现场宣读了中宣部和全总关于10位“中国梦·劳动美”最美职工的表彰决定，播放了反映他们先进事迹的短片，展示并诵读了反映他们先进事迹的楹联和诗词。关于他们的专题片将在人民网、新华网、中国文明网等网站展示。
cirr
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Messages
- 17,049
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
AIP for next generation of conventional submarines。
Power output increased by 117% against the best the world has to offer now。
That means electric submatine can go 27-30knots?AIP for next generation of conventional submarines。
Power output increased by 117% against the best the world has to offer now。
cirr
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Messages
- 17,049
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
Maybe 5-6 knots underwater。
FFG 502 “Huangshi（Yellow Stone）” inducted 06.05.2015
[新闻直播间]海军：国产新一代轻型护卫舰黄石舰入列_新闻频道_央视网(cctv.com)
Arthur
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Maybe 5-6 knots underwater。
FFG 502 “Huangshi（Yellow Stone）” inducted 06.05.2015
[新闻直播间]海军：国产新一代轻型护卫舰黄石舰入列_新闻频道_央视网(cctv.com)
Which class?? type53h/54A??
Crappy corvette. We need to commission big destroyer.
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
Chinese warships just sailed to Russia ahead of a possible major arms deal between the two countries
Two Chinese warships are passing through the Black Sea towards the Russian port of Novorossiysk.
The guided missile frigates will arrive in Russia by May 9, likely in time to participate in Russian celebrations commemorating the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, Sputnik News reports.
The two Type 054A guided-missile frigates are part of the Chinese Navy's North Fleet. After docking in Novorossiysk, the pair will return to the Mediterranean where they will participate in sea drills with the Russian fleet in mid-May. This will be the first time that the two nations will hold drills together in the Mediterranean.
Beijing could be using these military exercises as a chance to showcase its 054A frigate. According to the Taiwan-basedWant China Times, Russian defense experts recently made waves by suggesting that Russia should purchase that model of frigate from Beijing to keep its fleet up to date as Moscow undertakes a long-term military modernization drive.
But according to USNI News, such a sale would actually be a source of embarrassment for Russia. Chinese frigate technology was largely based off of Soviet and Russian designs, so Moscow buying weapons from China would be a notable reversal.
“What this would say about the Russian shipbuilding industry would be a lot. Even smaller navies are able to build their own guided missile frigates,” naval analyst Eric Wertheim told USNI News. “If this is true, it would be such a black eye for the Russian shipbuilding industry.”
Still, the sale of 054A frigates to Russia would be mutually beneficial. Russia would be able to immediately replace its ageing frigates with a capable stand-in while it builds its own replacement. And China would further cement its reputation as one of the world's major weapons manufacturers.
Over the past 15 years, China's arms industry has expanded drastically. Beijing is now the third-largest arms exporter in the world, behind the US and Russia. Currently, China's sales have been limited almost exclusively to developing and rogue states and the sale of weapons to Russia would be a drastic boost to the prestige of Chinese-made arms.
The 054A frigates are "well-armed general-purpose frigates," according to IHS Jane's 360. The frigates are armed with a 76 mm main gun, two 30 mm turrets, two anti-submarine mortars, anti-submarine torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, and launch tubes for surface-to-air missiles.
Chinese warships visiting Russia - Business Insider
- Jeremy Bender
- 5th May,2015
Two Chinese warships are passing through the Black Sea towards the Russian port of Novorossiysk.
The guided missile frigates will arrive in Russia by May 9, likely in time to participate in Russian celebrations commemorating the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, Sputnik News reports.
The two Type 054A guided-missile frigates are part of the Chinese Navy's North Fleet. After docking in Novorossiysk, the pair will return to the Mediterranean where they will participate in sea drills with the Russian fleet in mid-May. This will be the first time that the two nations will hold drills together in the Mediterranean.
Beijing could be using these military exercises as a chance to showcase its 054A frigate. According to the Taiwan-based
But according to USNI News, such a sale would actually be a source of embarrassment for Russia. Chinese frigate technology was largely based off of Soviet and Russian designs, so Moscow buying weapons from China would be a notable reversal.
“What this would say about the Russian shipbuilding industry would be a lot. Even smaller navies are able to build their own guided missile frigates,” naval analyst Eric Wertheim told USNI News. “If this is true, it would be such a black eye for the Russian shipbuilding industry.”
Still, the sale of 054A frigates to Russia would be mutually beneficial. Russia would be able to immediately replace its ageing frigates with a capable stand-in while it builds its own replacement. And China would further cement its reputation as one of the world's major weapons manufacturers.
Over the past 15 years, China's arms industry has expanded drastically. Beijing is now the third-largest arms exporter in the world, behind the US and Russia. Currently, China's sales have been limited almost exclusively to developing and rogue states and the sale of weapons to Russia would be a drastic boost to the prestige of Chinese-made arms.
The 054A frigates are "well-armed general-purpose frigates," according to IHS Jane's 360. The frigates are armed with a 76 mm main gun, two 30 mm turrets, two anti-submarine mortars, anti-submarine torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, and launch tubes for surface-to-air missiles.
Chinese warships visiting Russia - Business Insider
Sasquatch
RETIRED INTL MOD
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,344
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Cirr will the J-15B be revealed this year ?
Similar threads
