SinoDefence Forum

montyp165 · 01-26-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armand2REP

I'm all for it, not for the rationalisation of human rights abuse as advocated by the Council and American Congress, but for the rampant IP theft the PLA is guilty of. While the concept of selling China billions of French arms is appealing for our industries, we don't want to end up like Russia who has everything they sell them copied and competing with them on the open arms market. While China hasn't had much export success except to the third world, the quality of their equipment is increasing and at much cheaper levels than we can compete with. The first markets China will cut into are Russian, but it is only a matter of time before they get into the higher end. Selling them our equipment will only cut into our future exports. We would be selling out our future for a quick Franc.

Historically, all the major powers have done something of this sort, which makes sense to building up military capabilities, even the US has done so in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwiekie

What kind of military technology has EU to offer to China? Most critical technology has China already developed or obtained.

Not only that, the civilian economic product development spurs the faster development of military hardware too.

Armand2REP · 01-26-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwiekie

What kind of military technology has EU to offer to China? Most critical technology has China already developed or obtained.

Everything and anything... EU defence technologies are 30 years ahead of China.

rhino123 · 01-26-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armand2REP

Everything and anything... EU defence technologies are 30 years ahead of China.

You seemed pretty confidence about EU's technology... but could you enlightened us to what technology are there specifically and not just drop a general statement.

It is like saying US technology is 50years ahead China, but the thing is... what technology? Space? Radar? Missiles? what?

Armand2REP · 01-26-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhino123

You seemed pretty confidence about EU's technology... but could you enlightened us to what technology are there specifically and not just drop a general statement.

It is like saying US technology is 50years ahead China, but the thing is... what technology? Space? Radar? Missiles? what?

Pretty much all of it, Chinese capabilities are that of Soviet clones from the 1970-80s. They are having a really hard time catching up in turbofan/turboshaft engines, sonar, diesal electrics, avionics, quality steel, satellite communications, naval aviation, quiet nuclear turbines, AESA and a host of others.

tphuang · 01-26-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armand2REP

Pretty much all of it, Chinese capabilities are that of Soviet clones from the 1970-80s. They are having a really hard time catching up in turbofan/turboshaft engines, sonar, diesal electrics, avionics, quality steel, satellite communications, naval aviation, quiet nuclear turbines, AESA and a host of others.

well, it looks like you don't really know much. This is what I wrote on European embargo on my blog a while ago.

Quote:

Lifting European Arms Embargo
This was another story that really peaked in early 2005. At that time, China was still dependent on Russia for most of its military hardware. Just as it was about to be lifted, American and Japanese pressure on Europe + initial reluctance by several EU countries over the embargo thwarted the process. The American argument was that imports from Europe would significantly improve the capabilities of PLA and be harmful to US interests in a possible conflict with Taiwan. At this point, I don't think lifting the arms embargo would really mean that much, because PLA is unlikely to have access to too many systems that it needs and can't already obtain. That's probably why this issue has not been at the top of China's requests in its recent discussions with Europe. Even with the arms embargo on, China was still able to get key systems like Spey engine for JH-7 fighter bomber, key subsystems for Z-10 project, co-development of Z-15 helicopter, engines for Z-9G helicopter, Sky master surveillance radar, diesel engines for different ships, LR7 rescue submarine and key subsystems for diesel submarines. I think that lifting EU arms embargo at this point can still help China in different areas. I've always listed NH-90 helicopter, A330 tanker, advanced quiet technology for submarines, aerospace engines, Aster missiles and naval radar as things that PLA would be interested in from Europe that they can't already get. However, I'm not sure how eager European firms would be at supplying these systems. So I think that even if the EU embargo gets dropped, it's really not going to be a game changer. US and Japan will still protest this move, but it really isn't that significant militarily. There are obviously still certain subsystems that China would be interested, but they would be able to develop a less capable but still adequate version of that on their own. I think the most important gains from Europeans are from the civilian sector. China gained a lot from cooperating in hi-tech industry through joint ventures with Western companies. They gained quality control, production method and management skills that are just as important as the technology themselves.

As for soviet cloning, it has happened, but not as much as you think. Again, it seems like you are new to this forum, so have pretty much accepted a lot of common misconceptions. Please try to read through what a lot of more senior members write.

AssassinsMace · 01-26-2010

What happened to the guy that marched into this forum and declared, "China had no AWACS whatsoever!"

lilzz · 01-26-2010

China still has a need to peek at western standard arms.

Buy samples from EU for reverse engineering.

For example, the Chinese made sub , inside their systems and workmanship are sub par level. clearly showing lagging in industrialization level.

Have working sample of Eu system will set the standard for chinese industry to follow.

PLAN submarines Thread II

Armand2REP · 01-26-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by tphuang

well, it looks like you don't really know much. This is what I wrote on European embargo on my blog a while ago.

As for soviet cloning, it has happened, but not as much as you think. Again, it seems like you are new to this forum, so have pretty much accepted a lot of common misconceptions. Please try to read through what a lot of more senior members write.

Well, you can politely call me a n00b all you want but I can cite examples for each.

Turbofan, WS-10 as evidence by the need to continue to order from Russia placing one for 100 AL-31s as early as last year or the need for GEs on the ARJ-21, or the need for AL-222s on the L-15.

Turboshaft, the need to order PWs for the Z-10 prototypes or the need to team up with Russia for the MLH.

Sonar, they still rely on sonar models sold by France in the 90s for dipping helos and Song SSKs and newer models from Russia for other needs.

Diesels, Propulsion for Song and Yuan class are still German diesels.

Avionics, we don't have to go any further than PAF to see even they don't want Chinese avionics. If that isn't enough we can go to the Chinese satellite state of Burma and see a MiG-29SMT beating out J-10.

Quiet nuclear turbines, how many reports we have heard over the years, first from US Silent Service stories of Hans scaring the whales to the Shangs being detected by Japan before they even entered their territorial waters.

Quality Steel, all we have to do is look at the suspension on PLA IFVs, they couldn't handle the course in Chelyabinsk for Peace Mission 07.

Satellites, Thales makes most of China's com sats.

Naval aviation, that copy of a Kunetsov carrier exhibited at the Wuhan naval engineering college... on land. Or the recent failure to acquire Su-33 from Russia.

AESA, no AESA

And the list goes on...

bd popeye · 01-26-2010

Mods note >>> I've combined the EU Embargo threads dating back to 2005 in to this thread. Enjoy.Do not open any more EU embargo threads.

bd popeye super moderator

AssassinsMace · 01-26-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armand2REP

Well, you can politely call me a n00b all you want but I can cite examples for each.

Turbofan, WS-10 as evidence by the need to continue to order from Russia placing one for 100 AL-31s as early as last year or the need for GEs on the ARJ-21, or the need for AL-222s on the L-15.

Turboshaft, the need to order PWs for the Z-10 prototypes or the need to team up with Russia for the MLH.

Sonar, they still rely on sonar models sold by France in the 90s for dipping helos and Song SSKs and newer models from Russia for other needs.

Diesels, Propulsion for Song and Yuan class are still German diesels.

Avionics, we don't have to go any further than PAF to see even they don't want Chinese avionics. If that isn't enough we can go to the Chinese satellite state of Burma and see a MiG-29SMT beating out J-10.

Quiet nuclear turbines, how many reports we have heard over the years, first from US Silent Service stories of Hans scaring the whales to the Shangs being detected by Japan before they even entered their territorial waters.

Quality Steel, all we have to do is look at the suspension on PLA IFVs, they couldn't handle the course in Chelyabinsk for Peace Mission 07.

Satellites, Thales makes most of China's com sats.

Naval aviation, that copy of a Kunetsov carrier exhibited at the Wuhan naval engineering college... on land. Or the recent failure to acquire Su-33 from Russia.

AESA, no AESA

And the list goes on...

Sound like Europe is the same bind since you can't lift the embargo without the US because so many components come from the US.

Bltizo · 01-26-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armand2REP

Well, you can politely call me a n00b all you want but I can cite examples for each.

Turbofan, WS-10 as evidence by the need to continue to order from Russia placing one for 100 AL-31s as early as last year or the need for GEs on the ARJ-21, or the need for AL-222s on the L-15.

Turboshaft, the need to order PWs for the Z-10 prototypes or the need to team up with Russia for the MLH.

Sonar, they still rely on sonar models sold by France in the 90s for dipping helos and Song SSKs and newer models from Russia for other needs.

Diesels, Propulsion for Song and Yuan class are still German diesels.

Avionics, we don't have to go any further than PAF to see even they don't want Chinese avionics. If that isn't enough we can go to the Chinese satellite state of Burma and see a MiG-29SMT beating out J-10.

Quiet nuclear turbines, how many reports we have heard over the years, first from US Silent Service stories of Hans scaring the whales to the Shangs being detected by Japan before they even entered their territorial waters.

Quality Steel, all we have to do is look at the suspension on PLA IFVs, they couldn't handle the course in Chelyabinsk for Peace Mission 07.

Satellites, Thales makes most of China's com sats.

Naval aviation, that copy of a Kunetsov carrier exhibited at the Wuhan naval engineering college... on land. Or the recent failure to acquire Su-33 from Russia.

AESA, no AESA

And the list goes on...

WS-10's been put on the J-11B in production by images we've seen, the Al-31F's were prolly for the J-10 or replacing past engines (apparently they ahve short life spans). But it's obvious that China's got bottlenecks in the engine department, I don't think anyone's denying this.

The wuhan mockup's obviously based on the varyag - it'd be stupid to put a mock up of a carrier which doesn't exist. And obviously it's on land, they're not planning to test the seamen's (heh) sea sickness vunerability - should it be flying instead? 0.o

Nuclear subs - hmm do you have relaible reports of the Hans and Shang's being that freaking loud? Anyway the Han's would've been better since they've been upgraded to the G variant.

The Mig-29 deal was probably due to logistics (seeing as myanmar already operates the Mig-29) - if you're implying the Mig-29 won because of it's "performance" then I think you'd be mistaken. Quite a few weapon deals take in factors much more important than the mere capability of a platform I believe.
And you should take reports on PAF and J-10 with a huge grain of salt - perhaps current J-10 avionics aren't as good as European equivalents, becuase the PAF's facing India and they'd obviously want the best of the bunch, but we don't have 100% confirmed reports from reliable sources that they're wanting euro avionics yet.

As for AESA, the KJ-2000, KJ-200, Type 052C (most likely J-10B when it enters service) all show examples of indigenous AESA's.

I'm sure a few of the other more experienced members can rebut your other claims : / A few of my answers here might be wrong as well though, but a good portion of your assumptions are underestimative (lol if that's a word)

tphuang · 01-26-2010

hmm, I wouldn't say you are a noob, but you don't really seem to get the entire picture. It would helpful if you actually follow each of the situations below and you get an idea of their strength and weakness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armand2REP

Well, you can politely call me a n00b all you want but I can cite examples for each.

Turbofan, WS-10 as evidence by the need to continue to order from Russia placing one for 100 AL-31s as early as last year or the need for GEs on the ARJ-21, or the need for AL-222s on the L-15.

First for commercial grade turbofan engines, China certainly cannot match advanced Western companies, but Russian airliners are using Western ones. I certainly wouldn't say that Russians absolutely need Western engines. The point is as long as they have acceptable quality homemade engines, they wouldn't absolutely need European options.
Your mention of AL-31 and AI-222 only proves that China already has non-European options available, so European options are not required. For FWS-10, it is already in mass production for J-11B and will only be a matter of time before FWS-10A is ready for J-10. Mind you, even if FWS-10A is ready, they might still pick variants of AL-31FN, since the latter's improved variants could offer better performance. In that case, PLAAF would be picking based on performance rather than being the only choice.

Quote:

Turboshaft, the need to order PWs for the Z-10 prototypes or the need to team up with Russia for the MLH.

They do have a need for turboshaft, but they can certainly get it from the Russians if they need it. I would say PWC is the better option, but it's not European. And in the case of Z-10, they are actually delaying mass production until domestic turboshaft WZ-9 is ready.

Quote:

Sonar, they still rely on sonar models sold by France in the 90s for dipping helos and Song SSKs and newer models from Russia for other needs.

There is no question that China got a lot of help in the sonar department from the French in the 90s, but there is no evidence that the latest ones on 054A, Z-9C and 093 are still using that. In fact, we've seen posters showing Chinese developed TLAS that they are exporting and the domestic versions should be similar to that.

They are not using any Russian sonar on indigenous ships. The kilo subs they imported also don't have the flank array sonar you see on their SSNs and Yuan.

Quote:

Diesels, Propulsion for Song and Yuan class are still German diesels.

Yep and they obviously haven't needed the lifting of European embargo to use these engines, have they?

Quote:

Avionics, we don't have to go any further than PAF to see even they don't want Chinese avionics. If that isn't enough we can go to the Chinese satellite state of Burma and see a MiG-29SMT beating out J-10.

Please try to follow those threads first. China did not offer J-10 to Burma. JF-17 probably, but there is no reason SMT can't beat Mig-29. If China hasn't formally signed a deal to export J-10s to Pakistan, what makes you think Burma would jump the line? As for avionics, has PAF actually seen the latest China has to offer and chose what they got from Europeans ahead of that?

Quote:

Quiet nuclear turbines, how many reports we have heard over the years, first from US Silent Service stories of Hans scaring the whales to the Shangs being detected by Japan before they even entered their territorial waters.

That kind of stuff is strategic, not something Europe would export to China imo.

Quote:

Quality Steel, all we have to do is look at the suspension on PLA IFVs, they couldn't handle the course in Chelyabinsk for Peace Mission 07.

China believes that Baosteel is producing high enough quality steel to be used on their first indigenous carrier. They refused to import this from the Russians. I doubt they'd do it from the Europeans.

Quote:

Satellites, Thales makes most of China's com sats.

it's possible that they get some parts from the Europeans, but again, they are already getting all they need. None of the current launch plan are dependent on European embargo being lifted. A while ago, the Swiss refused to sell China their latest atomic clock for the compass navigation system, but China managed to get past that situation with their ground station I think.

Quote:

Naval aviation, that copy of a Kunetsov carrier exhibited at the Wuhan naval engineering college... on land. Or the recent failure to acquire Su-33 from Russia.

The got all they need from the Ukrainians regarding naval fighter program already. The domestic naval flanker has already made its first flight.
As for the naval carrier, it's built because they are planning to put Varyag into service and they need to train their naval personnel to operate it and test out the sensors in that configuration. It really has nothing to do with the Europeans or even the Russians at this point.

Quote:

AESA, no AESA

And the list goes on...

They got KJ-2000, KJ-200, Y-8 High New 4, the radar on 052C. btw, J-10B appears to be the first domestic fighter to use AESA radar. Care to point out which operational European fighter is using AESA radar?

Armand2REP · 01-27-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bltizo

WS-10's been put on the J-11B in production by images we've seen, the Al-31F's were prolly for the J-10 or replacing past engines (apparently they ahve short life spans). But it's obvious that China's got bottlenecks in the engine department, I don't think anyone's denying this.

WS-10As have been put on prototypes we've seen. We've also seen a complete squadron without any engines at all but no squadron with a full set of WS-10A. The AL-31Fs are indeed for the J-10, but if they can master an AL-31 replacement, there is no reason not to stick it on the J-10.

Quote:

The wuhan mockup's obviously based on the varyag - it'd be stupid to put a mock up of a carrier which doesn't exist. And obviously it's on land, they're not planning to test the seamen's (heh) sea sickness vunerability - should it be flying instead? 0.o

PLAN has been studying carrier design since long before 1985 when they purchased the HMAS Melbourne to strip her flight deck. It has been 30 years and the best they can do is copy Varyag inch by inch. The Kuznetsov design was a disaster from day one, copying it will only end with more trouble. Converting an engineering school into a land based ship model is beyond the naivety of avarice. I'm just waiting for the day they try to land a Flanker on it to collapse the roof.

Quote:

Nuclear subs - hmm do you have relaible reports of the Hans and Shang's being that freaking loud? Anyway the Han's would've been better since they've been upgraded to the G variant.

Let me dust off my old Jane's article...

"The Han-class SSNs are quite noisy and vulnerable to detection by ASW capabilities... Submariners have reported when the Han pings, it disorients whales and may cause them to beach. " Jane's Defence Weekly, 13 August 1997 p.14.

Not quite as I remembered but it is safe to say, the Han was a disaster.

Shang was detected off the territorial waters of Japan and ended up causing so much embarrassment for the Chinois they added an apology.

Beijing says tech glitch led to sub intrusion | The Japan Times Online

Quote:

The Mig-29 deal was probably due to logistics (seeing as myanmar already operates the Mig-29) - if you're implying the Mig-29 won because of it's "performance" then I think you'd be mistaken. Quite a few weapon deals take in factors much more important than the mere capability of a platform I believe.
And you should take reports on PAF and J-10 with a huge grain of salt - perhaps current J-10 avionics aren't as good as European equivalents, becuase the PAF's facing India and they'd obviously want the best of the bunch, but we don't have 100% confirmed reports from reliable sources that they're wanting euro avionics yet.

Well my prime example is Pakistan. PAF wants French radar and missiles for a reason, because they are better than Chinese. China must import engines for a reason, because they can't make them. Pak Army wanted Ukrainian engines, French auto transmission and thermal sights in MBT-2000 for a reason. Because Europe's are better. Why else would you pay more money when your dear ally is supposed to be equal to the West?

As for Burma, I don't know the details but they have been buying Chinese equipment outright for a long time, it is a bit of a coup for them to pick Russia when China has a good product in J-10. The export prospects of the current model aren't looking too good unless Pakistan gets it and sticks more EU avionics in it.

Quote:

As for AESA, the KJ-2000, KJ-200, Type 052C (most likely J-10B when it enters service) all show examples of indigenous AESA's.

Yeah, right... KJ-2000 is a failed attempt to buy an Israeli AWACs set, KJ-200 is in a million pieces, Type 052C is "supposed" to be an attempt at a high power X-band phased array. None of that is an example of an AESA.

Quote:

I'm sure a few of the other more experienced members can rebut your other claims : / A few of my answers here might be wrong as well though, but a good portion of your assumptions are underestimative (lol if that's a word)

Reason I'm here is to dig through the propoganda for evidence of China's rise. I know they are rising, but not as fast as everyone thinks.