China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Troika

Junior Member
This is... interesting. I've never heard of China taking anything from the south africans before apart from maybe the A Darter...

This report is kind of damning.

Is it reliable?

It's UPI.

Seriously, this report claims the South Africans has a chance to closely inspect the PL-10. Which is pretty damned impressive because I am fairly sure nobody else has, even those inside China, given that there's no evidence the thing is even left the drawing board.

And then it refers to the 35mm Oerlikon *** as somehow a 35mm machine gun that's South African in some way, claiming it is somehow imported ten years ago, and not, say, 20, from Switzerland.

The whole thing is a jumble of technical error, speculations and completely unattributable quotes.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
It says that China asked for the technical specs to which they used to copy. Who hands over their blue prints so freely? They're just grabbing at straws.

They must be in a panic since that story of the Chinese ASBM came out. True or not, they really can't claim China stole it when no one else has it. Also UPI has egg on their face for publishing Pinkov's lie about the Su-33 deal being dead because of copying concerns when the Russians said China has put no offer on the table as of yet.
 

Troika

Junior Member
It says that China asked for the technical specs to which they used to copy. Who hands over their blue prints so freely? They're just grabbing at straws.

They must be in a panic since that story of the Chinese ASBM came out. True or not, they really can't claim China stole it when no one else has it. Also UPI has egg on their face for publishing Pinkov's lie about the Su-33 deal being dead because of copying concerns when the Russians said China has put no offer on the table as of yet.

To be fair, they say they asked about specifications - which is something you do before signing a deal. And it is useful to learn some basics about the general direction a design might go.

From that to reverse engineering, however, is a huge gulf. Reverse engineering is already a very difficult task with full manufacturing plans (but naturally have to make the tooling from scratch). It is harder still with only the blueprints. It is yet harder with only the article.

With only the technical specs?

They have completely lost their credibility when they make this claim.
 

Semi-Lobster

Junior Member
To be fair, they say they asked about specifications - which is something you do before signing a deal. And it is useful to learn some basics about the general direction a design might go.

From that to reverse engineering, however, is a huge gulf. Reverse engineering is already a very difficult task with full manufacturing plans (but naturally have to make the tooling from scratch). It is harder still with only the blueprints. It is yet harder with only the article.

With only the technical specs?

They have completely lost their credibility when they make this claim.

The A-Darter and the PL-10 though looke remarkably similiar though. UPI publishes some rather bad articles but there is probably some truth to them btu I find it strange how no specific names from the Denel, or Zeiss sources are given.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
It says that China asked for the technical specs to which they used to copy. Who hands over their blue prints so freely? They're just grabbing at straws.

They must be in a panic since that story of the Chinese ASBM came out. True or not, they really can't claim China stole it when no one else has it. Also UPI has egg on their face for publishing Pinkov's lie about the Su-33 deal being dead because of copying concerns when the Russians said China has put no offer on the table as of yet.
The Pinkov article came out about 10 days after the RIA one though, gotta give some benefit of doubt there.

Though I'm not sure if the RIA one was written by him as well..
 

Troika

Junior Member
The A-Darter and the PL-10 though looke remarkably similiar though. UPI publishes some rather bad articles but there is probably some truth to them btu I find it strange how no specific names from the Denel, or Zeiss sources are given.

All we have is a CG-image probably in an earlier stage of development... they may even have used an EXACT A-Darter 3D model to start off with. Trust me, it means very little until we have more details.

Anyway, see my next post on reverse-engineer based on sales pamthlets.

Short answer... it ain't happenin'.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
The Pinkov article came out about 10 days after the RIA one though, gotta give some benefit of doubt there.

Though I'm not sure if the RIA one was written by him as well..

After the Russians came out with the statement that the Chinese have never placed an order for Su-33s in response to the story of the Su-33 deal was dead because of copying is when Pinkov on his website posted a denial that this information came from him. He accused the media in China of distorting his article. So that pretty much is an admission that he wrote the first story.
 
Last edited:

Autumn Child

Junior Member
So i guess China's weaponry tech is equivalent to western tech in the 90's...

Nation on weaponry's cutting edge
Last Updated(Beijing Time):2009-04-13 08:01

China has developed some of the most advanced weapons technology in the world as a result of remarkable progress in recent years, the China Association for Science and Technology said in its annual report.

The report, which listed weapons technology for the first time, reviewed the nation's recent progress in nearly 30 scientific fields.

The report, which was compiled by the China Ordnance Society, a division of the nation's largest scientific organization, said that the nation had achieved leading positions in armaments, ammunition and weapons information, as well as ordnance materials and manufacturing.

China had developed its own technology and made progress in heavy armaments, such as high-power diesel engines, as well as fast-burning, high-pressurization and high-temperature cooling technologies, said the report.

These technologies play a key role in the design of fighter jets, aircraft carriers and spaceships, analysts said.

The report also said the country had developed a new series of missiles and cannons which boost the weapons capacity of the army, currently armed with the equivalent of world's top weapons in the 1990s.

China had greatly improved the firing range, accuracy and impact of its weaponry, while also making progress in torpedoes and depth charges.

Battle automation, detection and night-vision technologies had also reached the international level, the report said, pointing to the high standard of the nation's craftsmanship in latex materials used in missile and space technologies.

"The light weaponry used by China's armed forces ranks among the best in the world, but there is still an obvious gap between China and the world's state-of-the-art naval and aerial weapon technologies," Li Daguang, a weapons expert at the National Defense University in Beijing, told China Daily.

The report said China still lags behind the major powers in heavy armaments such as tanks, as well as information-based technology and tactics - areas that are deciding factors in modern combat.

The report suggested that China further upgrade the technological level of its weaponry, while developing new materials.

The country's arms producers are also encouraged to expand exchanges with foreign countries.

The report accurately reflects the current state of China's weapons technology, military experts said.

Wang Jinling, a Beijing-based military strategist, said tactics and information technology were more important to a modern army than sheer firepower.

"These advanced technologies showcase the capability of China's military industry, not the capability of China's military strength," Wang pointed out.





Source:China Daily
 

Troika

Junior Member
So i guess China's weaponry tech is equivalent to western tech in the 90's...

That doesn't sound too far off actually, as a general level, if we take 'Western' to be American. There are certain capabilities which China today STILL lacks compared to America of the first Gulf War, aircraft carriers and long-range bombers being the obvious items; clearly inferior in, such as attack helicopters, nuclear submarines, space flight and GPS; equivalent, such as frigates, tanks or maybe even precision strike weapons; and clearly superior in other areas, such as artillery, rockets, artillery, crew-served weapons and more artillery.
 

escobar

Brigadier
It is quite normal.China and the USA did not start the modernization of their army at the same time and with the same resources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top