China Military News & Updates
- Thread starter Skynet2
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,149
- Likes
- 1,377
I'm asking this question for a while and still no one answered.
-What is the general structure of PLA ground forces?
-Strength of each army group,regiments,division/brigades?
-How many artillery and armored pieces for each regiment or division?
-What is the general structure of PLA ground forces?
-Strength of each army group,regiments,division/brigades?
-How many artillery and armored pieces for each regiment or division?
J20!
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,748
- Likes
- 1,546
https://redsamovar.com/2017/08/20/dossier-sukhoi-su-33-le-flanker-marin/
T10K, Su-33, Ukraine and China
Internet is a great place, you can read everything and its opposite and generally do not even bother to check if the facts read are verified and / or credible. The history of T10K and China is symptomatic of this situation.
Let's go back a little.
In the early 1990s, China no longer hides its military intentions and is seeking access to the high seas. If the intention is present, technical and scientific capacity is not yet available. This is why China will first try to get hold of the aircraft carrier 1143.6 Varyag . The latter, abandoned in Ukraine while it was completed at 65%, and out of financial reach for the new Russia is offered for sale for the new Ukrainian state. After contact with India and China, the price demanded by the Ukrainian authorities was obviously exorbitant, no one wanted this ship.
The aircraft carrier 1143.6 Varyag when towed to China. [email protected]
A few years later the Varyag was auctioned off and sold for USD 20 million in 1998 to a company registered in Macau and owned by a Chinese businessman who wanted to turn it into a hotel and casino. This sale, particularly incredible at every level, saw the ship go round the world and end up in the hands of the Chinese Navy. Why and how, this is a very fun topic that has no place here.
However, during this sale, the buyer also acquired 8 trucks (!!!) of documents related to aircraft carriers, catapults, embedded systems, etc ... all acquired at very democratic prices from Of Ukrainians in trouble of foreign currencies ...
The T10K-7 shortly after its commissioning. [email protected]
When it became evident that China was not contemplating turning the Varyag into a casino but re-employing it for military purposes, Russia jumped at the opportunity to offer for sale a batch of modernized Su-33 and Su-27KUB In order to equip the future ship.
China, interested in negotiations with the Russian and Sukhoi authorities, seemed to be struggling with the amount requested and certain technical aspects of the proposed aircraft. Starting with the idea of acquiring two "evaluation" aircraft, the Russians were pushing for the sale of a batch of 50 new aircraft to reopen the production line at KnAAZ.
The 2004 Russian proposal was divided into two parts: a first batch of 14 Su-33s, allowing the Chinese to train and control the aircraft before a second batch of 36 Su-33s were "modernized" with Performance much better than the Su-33, part of the equipment developed for the Su-30MK2 being taken over and installed in the Su-33 "enhanced".
Photo allowing to see a team of Chinese specialists (?) Posing the T10K-7. Photo@?
And this is where chance (or the conjunction of the stars?) Will strike ... Following the discovery "by chance" of two devices left in Ukraine: the Chinese will change their guns. Abandonment of the proposed purchase of Su-33 and Su-27KUB and acquisition of the two aircraft present in Ukraine by China on 26 August 2004.
But what is it concrete? Remember, we talked in the long list of T10K prototypes of the existence of a prototype abandoned in Ukraine after the fall of the USSR following the technical impossibility of transferring it to Russia. This prototype numbered T10K-7 was therefore abandoned on site with the prototype T10-3 (Flanker A) used for the landing and take-off tests at Saki.
The same team as above, seen in front of the T10K-7. Photo@?
The two planes, in poor condition due to their storage in the open air for more than 10 years, will be summarily revised and transferred discreetly in China. They will be disassembled in their entirety and will be used to create the Shenyang J-15 on the basis of reverse engineering. The Chinese had just found an easy and inexpensive way to have a first embedded device and related technological bricks.
The question of the prototype actually resold in China has regularly raised "insider debates" worthy of the Valladolid controversy . The prototype T10K-3 is regularly cited as the device resold to China and not the T10K-7. As we saw earlier, the T10K prototypes have had various fortunes; Some have been lost (T10K-1 and T10K-8), some have been dismantled or stored in museums (T10K-6, T10K-9), some have been used as a parts bank for serial devices, etc. Depending on the source, some quoting without checks, it is either the T10K-3 that was resold in China or the T10K-7.
Worse, some reliable sources do not even distinguish between T10-3 and T10K, yet they are two planes are impossible to be confused!
It is still difficult to confuse a T10 (Flanker A) such as the T10-3 with a T10-K ... Photo @?
Certainly this kind of discussion may seem anecdotal or even comical and this is indeed the case. However, it is thus that "urban legends" are born and that afterwards it becomes impossible to carry out rigorous and serious follow-up work since the sources diverge and the information becomes unverifiable.
The prototypes T10K-3 and T10K-7 were characterized by strong similarities: identical camouflage, absence of Bort number, few photographs of illustration making it possible to clearly distinguish the devices. However, the fate of both aircraft is known and partially documented: the T10K-3 returned to Russia shortly after the fall of the USSR. He carried out a series of test flights before being permanently grounded in August 1994 and will end his life as an organ bank for the other prototypes and series. Its carcass is visible in the company of other carcasses of prototypes at the KnAAPO factory.
The T10K-7 will be abandoned on the Saki base in Ukraine in 1991. The reason is simple: the aircraft suffered a failure on the PNK-10K flight system, which required replacement of a component and testing before Refurbished. The problem was that the component had to come from the country where it was produced: Belarus.
The T10K-7 stored in a museum somewhere in China. Photo@?
In short, with a potential operator (Russia) having no money to repatriate it, a coin vendor (Belarus) only provided after payment "ruby on the nail" and an owner (Ukraine). 'Having no use for the apparatus: the fate of the apparatus was thus sealed. Taking the dust until the rust made its effect seemed to be the only possible future for the latter.
In the end, China's takeover of the T10-3 and T10K-7 enabled them to once again fulfill their initial role of developing an on-board aviation.
But not in the USSR nor in Russia ...
In conclusion
As we have seen, the Su-33 had the misfortune to fall into the wrong place at the wrong time. The program was severely impacted by the disappearance of military budgets related to the Navy and industry; Moreover, the test center of Saki was not in Russia but in a new independent republic which did not especially carry the Russians in his heart ...
The plane also had the misfortune not to be able to benefit from the budgets allowing it to become a real multi-role apparatus. Although in Soviet and then Russian doctrines these aircraft had the task of ensuring the air defense of the fleet: Su-33 still lacked a real air-to-ground capability only to become a credible and effective carrier aircraft.
It is of course obvious that the small number of planes produced as well as the pure and simple abandonment of the training version (Su-27KUB) did not help the Russians to credibilize a variant already losing speed before even Its commissioning.
But it is still interesting to see that China was able to develop a local variant of the aircraft (J-15) on the basis of prototypes bought in Ukraine, to derive a two-seater version (J-15S) And a catapultable version. The Soviets had developed a version catapultable for the ex-future Ulyanovsk however this last, like its vector, was never realized ... This demonstrates nevertheless the quality of the initial design as well as its capacities of evolutions which were never Exploited by the designers.
T10K, Su-33, Ukraine and China
Internet is a great place, you can read everything and its opposite and generally do not even bother to check if the facts read are verified and / or credible. The history of T10K and China is symptomatic of this situation.
Let's go back a little.
In the early 1990s, China no longer hides its military intentions and is seeking access to the high seas. If the intention is present, technical and scientific capacity is not yet available. This is why China will first try to get hold of the aircraft carrier 1143.6 Varyag . The latter, abandoned in Ukraine while it was completed at 65%, and out of financial reach for the new Russia is offered for sale for the new Ukrainian state. After contact with India and China, the price demanded by the Ukrainian authorities was obviously exorbitant, no one wanted this ship.
The aircraft carrier 1143.6 Varyag when towed to China. [email protected]
A few years later the Varyag was auctioned off and sold for USD 20 million in 1998 to a company registered in Macau and owned by a Chinese businessman who wanted to turn it into a hotel and casino. This sale, particularly incredible at every level, saw the ship go round the world and end up in the hands of the Chinese Navy. Why and how, this is a very fun topic that has no place here.
However, during this sale, the buyer also acquired 8 trucks (!!!) of documents related to aircraft carriers, catapults, embedded systems, etc ... all acquired at very democratic prices from Of Ukrainians in trouble of foreign currencies ...
The T10K-7 shortly after its commissioning. [email protected]
When it became evident that China was not contemplating turning the Varyag into a casino but re-employing it for military purposes, Russia jumped at the opportunity to offer for sale a batch of modernized Su-33 and Su-27KUB In order to equip the future ship.
China, interested in negotiations with the Russian and Sukhoi authorities, seemed to be struggling with the amount requested and certain technical aspects of the proposed aircraft. Starting with the idea of acquiring two "evaluation" aircraft, the Russians were pushing for the sale of a batch of 50 new aircraft to reopen the production line at KnAAZ.
The 2004 Russian proposal was divided into two parts: a first batch of 14 Su-33s, allowing the Chinese to train and control the aircraft before a second batch of 36 Su-33s were "modernized" with Performance much better than the Su-33, part of the equipment developed for the Su-30MK2 being taken over and installed in the Su-33 "enhanced".
Photo allowing to see a team of Chinese specialists (?) Posing the T10K-7. Photo@?
And this is where chance (or the conjunction of the stars?) Will strike ... Following the discovery "by chance" of two devices left in Ukraine: the Chinese will change their guns. Abandonment of the proposed purchase of Su-33 and Su-27KUB and acquisition of the two aircraft present in Ukraine by China on 26 August 2004.
But what is it concrete? Remember, we talked in the long list of T10K prototypes of the existence of a prototype abandoned in Ukraine after the fall of the USSR following the technical impossibility of transferring it to Russia. This prototype numbered T10K-7 was therefore abandoned on site with the prototype T10-3 (Flanker A) used for the landing and take-off tests at Saki.
The same team as above, seen in front of the T10K-7. Photo@?
The two planes, in poor condition due to their storage in the open air for more than 10 years, will be summarily revised and transferred discreetly in China. They will be disassembled in their entirety and will be used to create the Shenyang J-15 on the basis of reverse engineering. The Chinese had just found an easy and inexpensive way to have a first embedded device and related technological bricks.
The question of the prototype actually resold in China has regularly raised "insider debates" worthy of the Valladolid controversy . The prototype T10K-3 is regularly cited as the device resold to China and not the T10K-7. As we saw earlier, the T10K prototypes have had various fortunes; Some have been lost (T10K-1 and T10K-8), some have been dismantled or stored in museums (T10K-6, T10K-9), some have been used as a parts bank for serial devices, etc. Depending on the source, some quoting without checks, it is either the T10K-3 that was resold in China or the T10K-7.
Worse, some reliable sources do not even distinguish between T10-3 and T10K, yet they are two planes are impossible to be confused!
It is still difficult to confuse a T10 (Flanker A) such as the T10-3 with a T10-K ... Photo @?
Certainly this kind of discussion may seem anecdotal or even comical and this is indeed the case. However, it is thus that "urban legends" are born and that afterwards it becomes impossible to carry out rigorous and serious follow-up work since the sources diverge and the information becomes unverifiable.
The prototypes T10K-3 and T10K-7 were characterized by strong similarities: identical camouflage, absence of Bort number, few photographs of illustration making it possible to clearly distinguish the devices. However, the fate of both aircraft is known and partially documented: the T10K-3 returned to Russia shortly after the fall of the USSR. He carried out a series of test flights before being permanently grounded in August 1994 and will end his life as an organ bank for the other prototypes and series. Its carcass is visible in the company of other carcasses of prototypes at the KnAAPO factory.
The T10K-7 will be abandoned on the Saki base in Ukraine in 1991. The reason is simple: the aircraft suffered a failure on the PNK-10K flight system, which required replacement of a component and testing before Refurbished. The problem was that the component had to come from the country where it was produced: Belarus.
The T10K-7 stored in a museum somewhere in China. Photo@?
In short, with a potential operator (Russia) having no money to repatriate it, a coin vendor (Belarus) only provided after payment "ruby on the nail" and an owner (Ukraine). 'Having no use for the apparatus: the fate of the apparatus was thus sealed. Taking the dust until the rust made its effect seemed to be the only possible future for the latter.
In the end, China's takeover of the T10-3 and T10K-7 enabled them to once again fulfill their initial role of developing an on-board aviation.
But not in the USSR nor in Russia ...
In conclusion
As we have seen, the Su-33 had the misfortune to fall into the wrong place at the wrong time. The program was severely impacted by the disappearance of military budgets related to the Navy and industry; Moreover, the test center of Saki was not in Russia but in a new independent republic which did not especially carry the Russians in his heart ...
The plane also had the misfortune not to be able to benefit from the budgets allowing it to become a real multi-role apparatus. Although in Soviet and then Russian doctrines these aircraft had the task of ensuring the air defense of the fleet: Su-33 still lacked a real air-to-ground capability only to become a credible and effective carrier aircraft.
It is of course obvious that the small number of planes produced as well as the pure and simple abandonment of the training version (Su-27KUB) did not help the Russians to credibilize a variant already losing speed before even Its commissioning.
But it is still interesting to see that China was able to develop a local variant of the aircraft (J-15) on the basis of prototypes bought in Ukraine, to derive a two-seater version (J-15S) And a catapultable version. The Soviets had developed a version catapultable for the ex-future Ulyanovsk however this last, like its vector, was never realized ... This demonstrates nevertheless the quality of the initial design as well as its capacities of evolutions which were never Exploited by the designers.
Last edited:
J20!
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,748
- Likes
- 1,546
Two Type 054A frigates part-taking in gunnery exercises in the South China Sea:
The target:
76mm Main Gun:
Type 730 CIWS
Ship to ship transfer of materiel:
FFG579 Handan launching an S200 target drone designed by the NRIST instistute:
The target:
76mm Main Gun:
Type 730 CIWS
Ship to ship transfer of materiel:
FFG579 Handan launching an S200 target drone designed by the NRIST instistute:
Last edited:
Khagesh
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2015
- Messages
- 1,274
- Likes
- 870
Pinaka diameter is 214 mm (8.4 in or 21.4 cm) in the Barrels
Akash SAM diameter is 35 cm or 350 mm or 13.7796 inches.
Now tell me it Akash SAM can also take the tactical nuke along or would you still disbelieve it.
Why anyone would want a Nuclear SAM?Pinaka diameter is 214 mm (8.4 in or 21.4 cm) in the Barrels
Akash SAM diameter is 35 cm or 350 mm or 13.7796 inches.
Now tell me it Akash SAM can also take the tactical nuke along or would you still disbelieve it.
Kshatriya87
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2014
- Messages
- 10,212
- Likes
- 16,124
In case of "Independence Day", if Will Smith's plan doesn't work.
Sent from my Redmi 4A using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
- Messages
- 7,950
- Likes
- 7,911
But Pinakas are still inferior to Chinese 200+ km range Mlrs
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
Our answer to that would be Prahar.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
- Messages
- 7,950
- Likes
- 7,911
prahar is a tactical missile
and it's fielded as a single unit not as MLRS like Chinese 6 units
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,780
- Likes
- 2,682
fun fact!
Both the US & Russia have already tested and deployed nuclear SAMs during the cold war, do read up on
1)MIM-14 Nike Hercules
2) SA-2E
3) RIM-8 Talos variants
4)ABM-3 GAZELLE
sayareakd
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 17,734
- Likes
- 18,953
Ok not to worry, we have nukes on Akash
Twinblade
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,578
- Likes
- 3,231
Start counting....
Tata made this TEL on 12x12 truck for Prahar, Nirbhay and Brahmos.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
- Messages
- 7,950
- Likes
- 7,911
And that's how much km? 150kmStart counting....
Tata made this TEL on 12x12 truck for Prahar, Nirbhay and Brahmos.
weishi rockets are deployed already 300+ km range
Twinblade
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,578
- Likes
- 3,231
Bhai 2-3 zero aur add kar le, jab dhoti geeli karni hi hai to dhang se kar le. Nevermind that smerch upgrade with gps enabled rockets will also put our rockets in 200 km range. A larger Pinaka variant will also fall in the same viscinity, because that range quoted for next pinaka is for the unguided variant.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
- Messages
- 7,950
- Likes
- 7,911
Bhai jab ho jaye bata dena... tab dhoti sukha lunga..
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
These NUKE sams were design to intercept and destroy enemy balletic missiles outside atmosphere, the down side is the EMP waves disrupt or worst fried up electronics down earth and satellites nearby ..
=============
Pinaka can reach 200+ or even more, but range is not everything ..
Pinaka priority is to replace Grad and BM-30 from service ..
=============
Pinaka can reach 200+ or even more, but range is not everything ..
Pinaka priority is to replace Grad and BM-30 from service ..
@bengalraider apart from this, just look at the time frame when it was done. During cold war an EMP burst would have brought down an aircraft.
When India fielded Mirage in initial years, it was much touted as nuclear capable. But all knew the fact that if something like that have to be done, then it would have been a one way trip for it. Even Enola Gay was specially coated and had hardened electronics to carry out Hiroshima raid.
But now a days, every other aircraft is able to deliver nuclear payload, means they are hardened enough to withstand an EMP blast of any such SAM. So IMO nuclear SAM is not a viable option now. But it may be for someone like Pakistan who would even dream of nuclear health drink for their forces.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
- Messages
- 7,950
- Likes
- 7,911
No that's not very valid
Any EMP pulse would immediately bring down radio communication and other radio instruments on any aircraft within seconds and there will be completely blackout
