China to "cut army, boost air force, navy"

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
82
052C was a success. 051C that uses s-300 was a parallel development.
052Cs were laid down in 2002, 051Cs weren't laid down until 2004. That is not a parallel development, it is the follow on of a failed class. If it was so successful there would be more than two 052Cs.

NCO is afterall NCO. I don't think their words are weighted with as much authoriy as that of COs, especially in this matter.
Why would I care? I don't see my CO taking up your banner. :stinker:
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Vladimir79, I provide sources to back up the statements and views that I make. In post #26, I provided four sources. In contrast, you provide no sources to back up your statements.

Martian,

The United States and Soviet Union have been destroying satellites for decades. Shrouded in Cold War secrecy, they were forced to abandoned the practice because of the mutual politico-military fallout and the problem of debris.


Here for example is one source:


Washington said China fired a missile to destroy an orbiting weather satellite last week, making it the third country after the former Soviet Union and the United States to shoot down an object in space.

[...]

The problem of debris forced the US and Soviet Union to abandon the practice of shooting down satellites.

If confirmed, it would be the first case since the 1980s when the Soviet Union and the United States both destroyed satellites in space.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_Under_Pressure_To_Explain_Satellite_Missile_Strike_999.html


Further:

http://www.mahalo.com/anti-satellite-weapons
http://www.ndu.edu/library/ic6/93A106.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapo...nical_issues/a-history-of-anti-satellite.html


Furthermore, from Wikipedia:

USSR/ Soviet Union Anti-Satellite strategic program


The origins of the Soviet ASAT program are unclear. According to some accounts, Sergei Korolev started some work on the concept in 1956 at his OKB-1, while others attribute the work to Vladimir Chelomei's OKB-52 around 1959. What is certain is that at the beginning of April 1960, Nikita Khrushchev held a meeting at his summer residence in Crimea, discussing an array of defense industry issues. Here, Chelomei outlined his rocket and spacecraft program, and received a go-ahead to start development of the UR-200 rocket, one of its many roles being the launcher for his anti-satellite project. The decision to start work on the weapon was made in March 1961 as the Istrebitel Sputnikov (IS) (Interceptor of satellites, or literally "Destroyer of satellites").

The IS system was "co-orbital", approaching its target over time and then exploding a shrapnel warhead close enough to kill it. The missile was launched when a target satellite's ground track rises above the launch site. Once the satellite is detected, the missile is launched into orbit close to the targeted satellite. It takes 90 to 200 minutes (or one to two orbits) for the missile interceptor to get close enough to its target. The missile is guided by an onboard radar. The interceptor, which weighs 1400 kg, may be effective up to one kilometer from a target.

Delays in the UR-200 missile program prompted Chelomei to request R-7 rockets for prototype testing of the IS. Two such tests were carried out on November 1, 1963 and April 12, 1964. Later in the year Khrushchev cancelled the UR-200 in favor of the R-36, forcing the IS to switch to this launcher, who's space launcher version was developed as the Tsyklon 2. Delays in that program led to the introduction of a simpler version, the 2A, which launched its first IS test on October 27, 1967, and a second on April 28, 1968. Further tests carried out against a special target spacecraft, the DS-P1-M, which recorded hits by the IS warhead's shrapnel. A total of 23 launches have been identified as being part of the IS test series. The system was declared operational in February 1973.

Testing resumed in 1976 as a result of the US work on the Space Shuttle. Elements within the Soviet space industry convinced Leonid Brezhnev that the Shuttle was a single-orbit weapon that would be launched from Vandenberg, maneuver to avoid existing anti-ballistic missile sites, bomb Moscow in a first strike, and then land.[3] Although the Soviet military was aware these claims were false[citation needed], Brezhnev believed them and ordered a resumption of IS testing along with a Shuttle of their own. As part of this work the IS system was expanded to allow attacks at higher altitudes and was declared operational in this new arrangement on July 1, 1979. However, in 1983, Yuri Andropov ended all IS testing and all attempts to resume it failed.[4] Ironically, it was at about this point that the US started its own testing in response to the Soviet program.

The Soviet Union also experimented with large, ground-based ASAT lasers from the 1970s onwards (see Terra-3), with a number of US spysats reportedly being 'blinded' (temporarily) during the 70s and 80s. The USSR had also researched directed energy weapons, under the Fon project from 1976, but the technical requirements needed of the high-powered gas dynamic lasers and neutral or charged particle beam systems seemed to be beyond reach. The USSR also experimented with military space stations with a capability for anti-satellite duty in its Almaz program.

In the early 80s, the Soviet Union also started developing a counterpart to the US air-launched ASAT system, using modified MiG-31 'Foxhounds' (at least six of which were completed) as the launch platform. On August 2009, Russian Air Force had announced the resumption of this program.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon


You just say whatever you feel like; even when it directly contradicts the information in U.S. publications. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it on faith. There is nothing that I can do when you insist on living in your own world with complete disregard of real-world facts.

In my final attempt to convince you, I will quote another publication:

"Based on the hull design of the Type 052B (Luyang class) multirole destroyer, the Type 052C features an indigenously developed four-array multifunction phased array radar (PAR) similar to the Aegis AN/SPY-1 equipped by the U.S. Arleigh Burke class and Japanese Kongo class DDG." See http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/type052c_luyang2.asp

The Chinese Type 052C is not comparable to the Burke. The resemblances are only outward and nugatory. The Chinese ship has 48 VLS tubes versus a total of 96 for the Burke Flight IIA, which possesses a specially designed naval version of the quadpacked RIM-162 ESSM. The Burke will also possess a much larger number of SAM's, that will include a whole range of the SM-2ER or the RIM-174 Standard ERAM in development. The quadpacked Evolved Sea Sparrow will give the Burke an in-tight anti-missle defense that is unmatched by the Chinese destroyer. In contrast, the HHQ-9, based on S-300 5V55 series technology that will outfit the 052C is very large, bulky because of China's limited experience with solid-fuel rockets, and is pipped by the RIM-162 ESSM in both operational range and maximum warhead size (198 vs 180 lbs). It's potency (while still far better than anything China currently has) is ostensibly being hyped to advance the development of missile programs like the RIM-174. Finally, the Burke has much better sonar ( the AN/SQS-53 series hull-mounted sonar, the AN/SQR-19(V) towed array sonar, and the AN/SQQ-28(V) LAMPS Mark III shipboard electronics with the USW Control System Mark 116 series vs. the SJD-8/9 medium-frequency active / passive sonar, which is a development of French DUBV-23 sonar) and has the flexibility to carry TLAMs and VL ASROC as well.
 

Martian

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,624
Likes
423
[Does Russia have a KE ASAT or is the best that it can do is a more primitive "buckshot-like" effect?]

Rage, I had already acknowledged that Russia had the more primitive "buckshot-like" ASAT. My question was whether Russia possessed the more advanced KE ASAT capability. As far as I know, the Russian ASAT system is inferior. See http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/01/is_china_repeating_the_old_sov.shtml

China's test was the first KE ASAT test in more than 22 years; the last test was in 1985 when the United States destroyed an obsolete weather satellite. See http://cns.miis.edu/activities/070202forum.htm

I never said that the Chinese Aegis is just as good as the latest block US Aegis system. I was only trying to get Vladmir79 to acknowledge that the Type 052C destroyer is an Aegis-class destroyer that performs a similar function. I listed five U.S. publications that refer to the Type 052C as an Aegis-class ship (see posts #26 and #31).
 

mattster

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,171
Likes
870
Country flag
"I certainly wouldnt want to fly in a Chinese designed ARJ !!"

That is an irrational fear. China has decades of experience building military jets. They have also built civilian turboprops, such as the MA60. The ARJ-21 is basically a Chinese plane with GE engines. Safety shouldn't be an issue.

After all, Russia and India are already buying advanced Chinese technology.

"Russian power producer OGK-2 OGKB.MM turned to a consortium of Chinese engineering firms, led by Harbin Turbine Co., granting them a tender to build two 660 MW coal-powered turbines by 2012. It was the first such deal in the sector between Russian and Chinese firms."

"The domestic metallurgical and parts market simply cannot provide what we need," said Yury Lastochkin, general director of NPO Saturn, a leading Russian turbine maker.

See Chinese to rescue Russian coal-fired power expansion | Special Coverage | Reuters

I know India has also bought four 660 MW coal-powered turbines from China, but I have to go and look for the source.

Thambi......when a power turbine goes out - you lose a day or a few hours of electricity (Given that my family comes from that Commie state Kerala....who in India knows more about power failures than Keralites)

When a ARJ goes down......you lose your life. I will wait for Martian to fly about 1000 Chinese made ARJ flights, before I board that aircraft.....Thank You very much !!!

:noo1:
 

Martian

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,624
Likes
423
Mattster, it's true that I'm a risk-taker. Let's say 1000 ARJ flights will take about ten years. If you don't hear from me, don't get on that Chinese ARJ!
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Rage, I had already acknowledged that Russia had the more primitive "buckshot-like" ASAT. My question was whether Russia possessed the more advanced KE ASAT capability.

I'll let Vladimir answer you that. Frankly, I don't have the info myself to be able to.


I never said that the Chinese Aegis is just as good as the latest block US Aegis system. I was only trying to get Vladmir79 to acknowledge that the Type 052C destroyer is an Aegis-class destroyer that performs a similar function. I listed five U.S. publications that refer to the Type 052C as an Aegis-class ship.

Then that is correct. Although without several important components of the ACS like the TLAM's and the VL ASROC, and subcomponents of the AWS like the AN/SQQ-28 V LAMPS III absent, I don't see how it truly fits the bill of an 'Aegis class destroyer'.
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
82
Unfortunately, many of you and these news weenies do not know what AEGIS is. It is not just a SAM platform. It is an integrated battle management combat system that ties in all weapons to one C&C post. Even if this ship worked as advertised, which it doesn't, it would not be AEGIS.
 

Martian

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,624
Likes
423
Then that is correct. Although without several important components of the ACS like the TLAM's and the VL ASROC, and subcomponents of the AWS like the AN/SQQ-28 V LAMPS III absent, I don't see how it truly fits the bill of an 'Aegis class destroyer'.
I don't have any problems when your objection is specific. However, Vladimir79's objection was: "It is not AEGIS, it is Russian." Vladimir79 was driving me crazy. The sources that I cited, if he had bothered to read them, said the radar technology was indigenous.

How hard can it be to read the following quote and understand the plain English:

"The People’s Liberation Army Navy recently introduced two domestically designed and built guided missile destroyers that include Aegis-type radars and related technologies. Known as Project 052C guided missile destroyers (DDGs), the ships feature Aegis-type phased array panels, vertical launch systems, long-range missiles and considerable command and control. These capabilities were not found on any previous Chinese-built DDGs." See http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/SIGNAL_Article_Template.asp?articleid=992&zoneid=7

Let's look at the key words: Aegis-type radars and related technologies; Aegis-type phased array panels, vertical launch systems, long-range missiles and considerable command and control. Gee, it sounds an awful lot like an Aegis system. But wait! I must not be brainwashed by the facts. Vladmir79 says "it is not Aegis. It is Russian." What was I thinking reading all those articles. It is a Russian system! And yet, I've never seen a picture of a Russian destroyer with the distinctive phased-array radars of an Aegis-class ship.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Unfortunately, many of you and these news weenies do not know what AEGIS is. It is not just a SAM platform. It is an integrated battle management combat system that ties in all weapons to one C&C post. Even if this ship worked as advertised, which it doesn't, it would not be AEGIS.

Isn't the Type 052C's C&C system based on "a newly developed system with improved processing power to engage anti-ship missile threats", in turn based upon the "MIL-STD-1773 fiber optic databus standard" [developed, but not installed on the Type 052C "since the early 2000's"] ? That is atleast what the (presumedly) Chinese writers of the Wikipedia article on the boat have claimed.


I don't have any problems when your objection is specific. However, Vladimir79's objection was: "It is not AEGIS, it is Russian." Vladimir79 was driving me crazy. The sources that I cited, if he had bothered to read them, said the radar technology was indigenous.

How hard can it be to read the following quote and understand the plain English:

"The People’s Liberation Army Navy recently introduced two domestically designed and built guided missile destroyers that include Aegis-type radars and related technologies. Known as Project 052C guided missile destroyers (DDGs), the ships feature Aegis-type phased array panels, vertical launch systems, long-range missiles and considerable command and control. These capabilities were not found on any previous Chinese-built DDGs." See http://cns.miis.edu/activities/070202forum.htm

Let's look at the key words: Aegis-type radars and related technologies; Aegis-type phased array panels, vertical launch systems, long-range missiles and considerable command and control. Gee, it sounds an awful lot like an Aegis system. But wait! I must not be brainwashed by the facts. Vladmir79 says it "is not Aegis. It is Russian." What was I thinking reading all those articles. It is a Russian system!

Nothing's been demonstrated or verified, so let's wait yet. Amorphous distinctions such as "Aegis type" or "considerable command and control" [even older Chinese warships have the 'considerable' command & control of the French Thomson-CSF TAVITAC] based on physical appearences are not sufficient criterion to make the argument.


I'd like to hear why Vladimir thinks it cannot be equated with an 'Aegis class' DDG, or why its ACS: the defining core of an 'AEGIS class destroyer', can't be compared. I'm inclined to give his words more credibility than you are.


By the way, your link is to a different, unrelated article.


Keep in mind that these are the parameters you are evaluating w.r.t: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/ddg51_arleighburke.html
 

Martian

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,624
Likes
423
My bad on the bad link. I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out.

I just don't understand why Vladimir79 cannot accept that China is building advanced machinery without Russian help. China is already building plenty of other advanced items without Russian assistance. For example, direct ascent KE ASAT. See http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=4026 or Google "China ASAT Russia" for the link

"Two days after the January 17 test had been revealed by the United States, Russian Vice-Premier and Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov stated that such a test was impossible for China since they did not possess the capabilities to conduct it."

Second example, advanced coal-fired 660 MW power turbine. Third example, 500 km/h trains. See China's first 500km/h locomotive to be ready next year - People's Daily Online

I propose that Vladmir79 has the same mindset as Mr. Ivanov. Despite the fact that Russia does not have an Aegis-class destroyer, he's just going to keep insisting that China does not possess the technology and it is Russian.

Give me a break. Read the articles. Times change and things are now different. Face the fact that China has a bigger R&D budget than Russia.
 

Martian

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,624
Likes
423
Here is more info on the difference between the Chinese and Russian ASATs.

"The test makes it more difficult for the U.S. to ignore China's potential as a peer competitor in space and may have strengthened the hand of U.S. hawks opposed to a treaty banning the deployment of weapons in space."

"On January 11, 2007, China successfully carried out its first test of an anti-satellite weapon.[1] The launch was detected by the United States early that evening. According to Aviation Week and Space Technology, the test appeared to employ a ground-based interceptor missile, launched from a base in remote western China, which used the sheer force of impact rather than an exploding warhead to shatter the target satellite.[2] The Chinese test was the first time that a ground-based missile has been launched successfully to destroy an orbiting satellite.

Thus China entered a very exclusive club, as only two nations, the former Soviet Union and the United States, have previously damaged or destroyed spacecraft in anti-satellite tests, most recently the United States in the mid-1980s.[3] None of the Soviet tests resulted in a target's complete destruction.[4]"

See http://basicint.org/pubs/Notes/BN070316.htm

Vladimir79, you can keep disparaging China and say that it is decades behind the US and Russia. However, the fact is that China is funding a substantial R&D budget to give it a chance to chase the US.
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
82
I don't see why you keep going around this ASAT circle. It is old tech. KE kills on satellites are a space hazard which is why we went for explosive warheads. The Chinese test was nothing but a space menace. That one shot doubled the space debris in that orbit. After reviewing how collective ASAT was to the debris field and safe space operation, we signed a treaty. China doesn't care about anybody but themselves and you want me to praise them?
 
R

rockdog

Guest
I don't see why you keep going around this ASAT circle. It is old tech. KE kills on satellites are a space hazard which is why we went for explosive warheads. The Chinese test was nothing but a space menace. That one shot doubled the space debris in that orbit. After reviewing how collective ASAT was to the debris field and safe space operation, we signed a treaty. China doesn't care about anybody but themselves and you want me to praise them?
Same reason as following, sorry to "RE" your previous words ^_^

I don't see why you keep going around this Tu-95 patrol. It is old tech. This bomber is a useless which is why we went for explosive warheads. The Russian movement was nothing but a strategic menace. After reviewing how collective the bomber was to the debris field and safe sky operation, we signed a new N-treaty. Russia doesn't care about anybody but themselves and you want us to praise them?
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
[mod] don't get personal. Badguy that picture wasn't funny. [/mod]
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
82
Same reason as following, sorry to "RE" your previous words ^_^

I don't see why you keep going around this Tu-95 patrol. It is old tech. This bomber is a useless which is why we went for explosive warheads. The Russian movement was nothing but a strategic menace. After reviewing how collective the bomber was to the debris field and safe sky operation, we signed a new N-treaty. Russia doesn't care about anybody but themselves and you want us to praise them?
Tu-95 doesn't pollute anything except for sound. It is a noisy basterd. :wink:

If it was so obsolete why can it carry almost twice as much and outdistance your best bomber by a factor of 4? Not to mention the upgraded engines have a better cruising speed :rofl:
 

Martian

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,624
Likes
423
In post #9, I stated: "The Chinese are trying to catch a moving target. It will be extremely difficult. I have no idea if or when they can catch the US. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see them try."

In post #11, Vladimir79, you stated: "My guess is no time soon. They can't even catch Russia." In another thread, you stated that China is "30 years behind Russia's cutting edge."

The examples that I provided regarding a Chinese Aegis and direct ascent kinetic energy ASAT were an attempt to open your eyes to the fact that Chinese military technology has already surpassed Russia's in some areas. The idea that China is 30 years behind Russian technology is laughable.

In another thread, I pointed out that China's Julang 2 SLBM was already successfully tested in 2001; while the Russian Bulava has failed many of its recent tests.

In another thread, I also pointed out that China has been working on a Mach 10 anti-ship ballistic missile for 13 years and experts believe that it will be operationally deployed in 2 years. The article stated that the "Russians couldn't do it."

If the examples regarding China's Aegis, KE ASAT, Julang 2 SLBM, and anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) are not sufficient, I will give you another example.

As far as I know, China operates the KJ-2000 and Russia does not have an AESA AWACS.

"Modern AESA/MESA equipped aircraft are in service with Brazil, China, Chile,[8] Greece, India,[9] Israel,[10] Mexico, Sweden and planned for Australia, Pakistan, Singapore,[11] South Korea and Turkey." See Airborne early warning and control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whether it's aerospace (KE ASAT and KJ-2000) or on the high seas (China's Aegis or ASBM) or underwater (Julang 2 SLBM), I believe that I am fully justified in saying that it will be interesting to watch China chase the US.

I believe that you are incorrect in saying that China is 30 years behind Russian military technology and that "they can't even catch Russia." Only one of us is right.
 

Martian

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,624
Likes
423
Vladimir79, in post #30, you stated: "Shooting down satellites is childs play. We were doing it in the 1960s."

In post #52, you stated: "I don't see why you keep going around this ASAT circle. It is old tech."

If we are to believe your claims that KE ASAT technology is "child's play" and "old tech" then why is Russia trying to develop KE ASAT technology? Vladimir, I think General Valentin Popovkin disagrees with you.

The International Herald Tribune recently reported that Gen. Valentin Popovkin, former chief of Russia's space forces, said his country must develop ASAT weapons technology as well. "We can't sit back and quietly watch others doing that, such work is being conducted in Russia," Popovkin was quoted as saying. Russia already has some "basic, key elements" of such weapons, Popovkin said. See Foreign Policy In Focus | Arms Race in Space

The AP reports:

Russia is working to develop anti-satellite weapons to match efforts by other nations, a deputy defense minister was quoted as saying Thursday.

Gen. Valentin Popovkin said Russia continues to oppose a space arms race but will respond to moves made by other countries, according to Russian news reports.

"We can't sit back and quietly watch others doing that, such work is being conducted in Russia," Popovkin was quoted as saying.

See http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/ivan_building_new_asat_assets_1.asp

As far as I know, there are only two nations with KE ASAT. Does it sound like the Russian deputy defense minister is saying that "Russia is working to develop anti-satellite weapons to match" the United States and China? Or do you think the Russian deputy defense minister is saying that KE ASAT is "child's play" and "old tech?"
 

Martian

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,624
Likes
423
A reasonable question is why the big deal over KE ASAT? In simpler terms, KE ASAT technology is basically a "bullet hitting a bullet." The importance of KE ASAT is that if you can coordinate the kill vehicle of the ASAT with radars and command and control systems to guide a missile then you have the basic elements of a ballistic missile defense (BMD) system.

"Kinetic Energy Interceptors are missiles which are launched into space to take out enemy missiles by smashing into them, rather than by exploding near them. Kinetic Energy Interceptors also have potential applications as anti-satellite weapons, because the same technology is necessary to destroy incoming missiles and satellites." See http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/corporate/dd/spacetech.html#kei

We know that China successfully tested a KE ASAT in January 2007. We know that the US also has KE ASAT technology. The US has been busy forging ahead in building a BMD system. After their test in 2007, we can reasonably assume that China is also busy researching and developing a BMD. Where does that leave Russia? Russia has to develop KE ASAT technology before it can pursue BMD.

For many armchair generals, including myself, it is exciting to watch as the US endeavors to perfect its BMD technology. The Chinese tend to be secretive, but we wonder how much progress are they making towards their BMD. Finally, we wonder, will Russia successfully develop KE ASAT technology? This is a three-horse race. The US is far ahead. The Chinese will try everything to chase the US. And will Russia get out of the starting gate? Only time will tell.

I would love to turn the BMD pursuit into a four-horse race by including my Indian friends. However, it does not appear that India has been working on KE ASAT technology.

"Chinese R&D on fundamental AntiSATellite (ASAT) technologies has been going on since the 1960s." "A confused silence characterizes India’s response to China’s ASAT test of January 11...." See http://www.newsindia.com/editorial/15493.asp
 

Jagdpanther

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
29
Likes
0
It seems that China is following in U.S. footsteps of reducing troop numbers to free up the money to fund weapons development projects. Will India join the trend?

India would want to but are india capable to join the trend?

Supporting air force crafts and navy vessels cost money,lots lots of money. Take a look at the gap between two countries, now China is far ahead of India.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top