PLA Navy news, pics and videos

Hendrik_2000 said:

Who said that I have been posting on 1 year old thread sometime

Click to expand...

"Do not re-open threads more than six months old.." - popeye
M) Members shall not re-open a thread that has been closed for more than six months!. With the quickly advancing PLA there's no need to re-hash old subjects.

However.. If a member desires to respond to a post in a old long dead thread open a new thread on the subject..titled as such;

PLAN Destroyers II

Leave a link back to the old thread in your first post of the new thread.

Violators of this rule MAY be banned for a period to be determined by the moderators. The old thread will be closed or deleted as necessary.

The 815 thread was last edited on Feb 14. 2017

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinese-electronic-surveillance-ship.t4825/page-4#post-438633

I guess you're talking about this one. Gray area lol. It's 6 mths old however it is still an active thread. Personally I'm not a big fan of opening a totally new thread unless it was officially close or was a very high column thread b4 but I'm not the admin LOL.

Either way as per Popeye's instuctions, just open a new one but link it back to the original while using the same nomenclature but adding a numeral behind it like a .... 2, regardless I don't think you would've gotten in trouble anyway even posting in the original.

Unlike carrier, or some fancy new stealth toys it's not like there are much things to report on surveillance ships so your post there would be totally acceptable even if it's 6 mths old.

Iron Man said:

Obviously, since you just mentioned them in this thread. The JSM and SOM-J would be what I call "small" antiship missiles. "Medium" weight missiles would be missiles like Klub and LRSAM, while "large" would be missiles like Onyx/Brahmos, YJ-12, and Moskit.

The AARGM-ER does not yet exist. SOM-J hasn't even been tested either. And neither has the JSM. They are all either in development or still in concept stage. So again, there is no stealth fighter in the world that can perform stand-off strike or carry "medium-weight" stand-off missiles. There is no need to lament that the J-20 can't perform these missions when F-22, F-35, and Su-57 cannot perform these missions either. As for the future, who knows what big shrimps will be whispering in our ears a few years, or even a few months from now? China could easily be developing internally-carried antiship missiles for the J-20 as we speak, and in the future possibly for the J-31.

Also, what is considered "stand-off" has changed significantly as air defense missiles have increased in range in recent decades. Antiship and anti-radiation missiles with ranges less than ~200km are now putting their launch platforms within range of air defense missiles like S-300, S-400, HHQ-9, SM-2, and SM-6. This has to be clearly kept in mind when talking about what should to be considered "stand-off" missiles these days.

Click to expand...

I consider medium weight AShMs to be like JSM, SOM-J, Harpoon, YJ-83, with small/light missiles being like TL-10, Sea Venom, and large missiles being like YJ-62, YJ-12, Onyx/Brahmos, all the way up to Moskit and Shipwreck.

But for the purposes of this discussion we can just describe the missiles in question to be something in the class of JSM/SOM-J.


As for SOM-J, JSM and AARGM-ER being under development and not lamenting J-20 being unable to perform those sort of missions using JSM/SOM-J class weapons (previously described as "medium weight") -- well in the discussion I've been having with latenlazy, I haven't been lamenting that current land based J-20s inability to carry such weapons are a flaw.

Instead, I'm saying that if the future naval fighter is unable to carry those class of weapons which F-35s are designed to carry and very likely to carry in some form in the near future, that that would be a strategic oversight. The fact that current J-20s will likely be unable to carry such missiles is not the point of my argument -- my argument is that the naval 5th gen fighter should be designed in a way to carry such missiles internally.


And yes, what can be rightly considered "stand off range" by definition is increasingly becoming difficult to judge because of proliferation of 200km+ range SAMs, but at present weapons like SOM-J, JSM are still described as "stand off range" so I'm just going to go with it for the sake of this discussion. Again, consider replacing the name as "JSM/SOM-J class missile" if that makes the discussion more accurate.

latenlazy said:

Realistically a strike UCAV isn't feasible without significant developments in autonomy, *but* given the degree to which China is already developing UAVs with roles that would seem to require significant autonomy anyways I suspect work on this is already well under way. Two essential characteristics that should make the development of UAVs faster and more streamlined compared to conventional manned designs are that their core technologies are generally more modular, and in lieu of human support systems and structures tailored to any particular design they employ software that is both easier to iterate on and more generalizable. As I mentioned earlier, much of the work for a future stealthy strike UCAV may already be deep in development through other UAV platforms. While I agree that there are still capabilities that still need to be developed and matured, it seems to me that advances in this field have been pretty rapid. This is all very speculative on my part of course, but I don't think we should use conventional manned platforms as a template for gauging the feasibility and pace of UAV development processes.

Click to expand...

This particular strand of the discussion hasn't been about how difficult developing a stealthy strike carrier UCAV would be in an "absolute" sense, but rather how difficult it would be to develop such a platform compared to developing a naval 5th generation fighter.

I believe that the totality of the relevant experience and subsystems that have been developed for existing 5th gen fighter programs, allows the industry to be able to develop a more mature 5th gen naval fighter by say, 2025, versus the totality of the relevant experience and subsystems that exist which would be needed to develop a mature carrier strike UCAV platform by that same time.

Putting it another way, it's not the case that developing a stealthy carrier UCAV is absolutely impossibly hard -- but rather that I think it would be easier for them to develop a 5th generation naval fighter (keeping in mind the "how-mature-would-each-program-be-by-2025" thing)

Yes, naval variants already impose dramatic shifts to the original designs they're based on that will require a lot of reoptimization, but I'd argue that the different and increased design demands on naval variants would actually make including a larger weapons bay more difficult rather than easier. After all, a larger bay and intended payload puts even greater burdens on the ability to meet performance requirements, since they would be adding even more weight and dimension to designs that already must account for more structural strengthening than their non naval counterparts.

Click to expand...

Oh I'm not saying that the design demands of a naval variant means including a larger weapons bay would be easier -- I absolutely agree it would be harder.
However, what I'm saying is that if they're going to the trouble of developing a naval variant in the first place which confers significant design demands on their own, they should consider adding the extra task of increasing the weapons bay volume as well on top of it seeing as they're messing with the original design already.

There are always other ways to meet capability needs without forcing too many requirements into a fixed design. Perhaps you can develop longer range missiles with greater autonomy, or perhaps sensor platforms+datalink can guide a stand off missile without the need of a plane to play delivery, or perhaps you can develop stealthy weapons pods, or perhaps you can design a missile that conforms well enough to the shaping of the plane so that it doesn't dramatically add to radar cross section.

Click to expand...

I think we have some fundamental disagreements as to how important having the space to internally carry JSM/SOM-J class weapons is, as well as how much of a cost that would confer.

I guess we'll see ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Click to expand...

Tbh I don't expect the naval variant to field a larger weapons bay (or at least it would be a nice surprise if it did), but

This may have some relevance to China's submarine force in the future... Link to the journal article is at the end.



First underwater entanglement could lead to unhackable comms

By Devin Powell

The weird world of quantum mechanics is going for a swim. A team of Chinese researchers has, for the first time, transmitted quantum entangled particles of light through water – the first step in using lasers to send underwater messages that are impossible to intercept.

“People have talked about the idea of underwater quantum communication before, but I’m not aware of anyone who has done an experiment like this,” says at the University of Waterloo in Canada. “An obvious application would be a submarine which wants to remain submerged but communicate in a secure fashion.”

Entanglement starts with a beam of light shot into a crystal. This prism splits the light into pairs of photons with strangely linked behaviour. Manipulate one particle in a pair, and its partner will instantly react. Measure the first one’s polarisation, for example, and entanglement could ensure that its twin will have the opposite polarisation when measured.

These entangled photons can theoretically be used to set up a between two people, with privacy guaranteed by the laws of physics.

But this fragile quantum state can easily be disturbed by the surrounding environment. So far, entanglement has been maintained between particles separated by long distances after traveling through air, space and optical fibres.

To test entanglement in water, which is less forgiving toward light, and his colleagues at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China gathered saltwater from the Yellow Sea and placed it in a 3-metre-long container. They were able to transmit entangled photons through the water without disturbing their quantum link.

As the first experiment of its kind, it’s not clear whether this will be enough to . Three meters may not seem that impressive compared with the 1200 kilometres that a Chinese satellite recently down to Earth’s surface. “It’s not very surprising to me that if I send light through 10 feet of water it doesn’t get depolarised,” says at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

But Jin says this is only the beginning. His team’s calculations suggest that it should be possible to communicate over nearly 900 metres in water. set a more conservative limit of just over 120 metres.

“Because ocean water absorbs light, extending this is going to difficult,” says at the University of Missouri in Columbia. “One option would be to use relays, but right now this is very far removed from anything that would be practical.”

Journal reference: Optics Express,

Thursday at 7:17 PM

Jura said:

Aug 13, 2017

Jura said:

"Hefei" off the Dutch coast yesterday:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(I'm following the return trip, Friday at 4:46 PM predicted they would be back September 15 LOL)

Click to expand...

oh no LOL they'll circumnavigate Africa, I'll be off a lot:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

La localisation de la flotte chinoise, menée par le destroyer 174 Hefei (Type 052D), au 23 Août à 15h30 heure locale. L'Afrique de l'Ouest..

Translated from French by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The location of the Chinese fleet, led by the destroyer 174 Hefei (Type 052D), on 23 August at 15:30 local time. The West African...

Click to expand...

related:





052D Hefei fired in the South Atlantic.

Bltizo said:

This particular strand of the discussion hasn't been about how difficult developing a stealthy strike carrier UCAV would be in an "absolute" sense, but rather how difficult it would be to develop such a platform compared to developing a naval 5th generation fighter.

I believe that the totality of the relevant experience and subsystems that have been developed for existing 5th gen fighter programs, allows the industry to be able to develop a more mature 5th gen naval fighter by say, 2025, versus the totality of the relevant experience and subsystems that exist which would be needed to develop a mature carrier strike UCAV platform by that same time.

Putting it another way, it's not the case that developing a stealthy carrier UCAV is absolutely impossibly hard -- but rather that I think it would be easier for them to develop a 5th generation naval fighter (keeping in mind the "how-mature-would-each-program-be-by-2025" thing)

Click to expand...

And my point is that if the absolute difficulty for a stealthy carrier UCAV isn't high, the comparative maturity argument isn't prohibitive. I'm proposing (based more on conjecture than evidence of course) that even despite a maturity gap a carrier UCAV could compare favorably in development time, effort, and cost. After all, China's stealth fighter program should also have paid some dividends for the development of such a UCAV, as it undoubtedly has done for their stealth bomber program.

Oh I'm not saying that the design demands of a naval variant means including a larger weapons bay would be easier -- I absolutely agree it would be harder.
However, what I'm saying is that if they're going to the trouble of developing a naval variant in the first place which confers significant design demands on their own, they should consider adding the extra task of increasing the weapons bay volume as well on top of it seeing as they're messing with the original design already.

Click to expand...

Why exert more effort for a less optimal solution with potentially increased program risks?

I think we have some fundamental disagreements as to how important having the space to internally carry JSM/SOM-J class weapons is, as well as how much of a cost that would confer.

Click to expand...

It's not that I disagree that such a capability is important, but that I don't think trying to force this capability into an airframe that will already have to deal with other strict engineering demands is the best way to acquire the capability.

Tbh I don't expect the naval variant to field a larger weapons bay (or at least it would be a nice surprise if it did), but

Click to expand...

I know. You're just making a case for it. The case isn't unreasonable. I just don't think, all things considered, it's the best way to go about the function you're trying to fill. To that point, the F-35 can include the capability you're describing because it's already made the compromises. That doesn't make it the best way to go about it though.

latenlazy said:

And my point is that if the absolute difficulty for a stealthy carrier UCAV isn't high, the comparative maturity argument isn't prohibitive. I'm proposing (based more on conjecture than evidence of course) that even despite a maturity gap a carrier UCAV could compare favorably in development time, effort, and cost. After all, China's stealth fighter program should also have paid some dividends for the development of such a UCAV, as it undoubtedly has done for their stealth bomber program.

Click to expand...

Well in this case the issue of absolute difficulty does not have a direct relationship with comparative/relative maturity.
And I personally do not believe (based on my own conjecture rather than evidence as well) that a carrier UCAV could compare favourably in development time and effort in comparison to a carrier based 5th generation fighter, based on the starting point that China has to work with today.

This particular strand of discussion is a little bit redundant anyway, because I expect the Navy to seek both a carrier based 5th generation fighter and also a carrier based stealthy UCAV in time.

Why exert more effort for a less optimal solution with potentially increased program risks?

Click to expand...

On the contrary I consider enlarging the aircraft's weapons bays to be the optimal solution or at least more optimal than the alternatives.

It's not that I disagree that such a capability is important, but that I don't think trying to force this capability into an airframe that will already have to deal with other strict engineering demands is the best way to acquire the capability.

Click to expand...

Yes, and as I say in my previous reply, I think we have differing opinions regarding how much "cost" (in terms of engineering/performance cost) such a modification would cause.

I know. You're just making a case for it. The case isn't unreasonable. I just don't think, all things considered, it's the best way to go about the function you're trying to fill. To that point, the F-35 can include the capability you're describing because it's already made the compromises. That doesn't make it the best way to go about it though.

Click to expand...

Well F-35 was derived from the X-35, and the differences between the two are not minor either and compromises were obviously made between the two as well. There is no reason why a naval variant of J-20 or FC-31 cannot also go to "make the compromises" if the requirements are judged to be worth the cost (the crux of the argument really)


This is a bit of a tangent, but over the last year or so I've become to appreciate the F-35 as a much more successful program than I once did.

As an individual aircraft meant to excel in a specific role it obviously cannot compete with F-22 and likely Su-57 and J-20, but as a mass producible, multirole aircraft with immense sensor datalinking capability and upgrade future potential and the ability to field a variety of A2A and A2G weapons, and in terms of sheer numbers, I feel like the F-35 will easily be the most significant strategic and tactical air threat that Chinese military aviation will face in the future.

No other 5th generation will likely approach the F-35 in terms of production run, and I doubt there will be any fighter as multirole and as well networked with each other when compared to the leading edge block capability of the F-35.

And even with the problems that the B and C versions have faced, they will still provide V/STOL and CTOL carrier 5th generation multirole and networked/datalinking capability on a stealthy platform that multiple carrier sizes will be able to accommodate.

Bltizo said:

Well in this case the issue of absolute difficulty does not have a direct relationship with comparative/relative maturity.
And I personally do not believe (based on my own conjecture rather than evidence as well) that a carrier UCAV could compare favourably in development time and effort in comparison to a carrier based 5th generation fighter, based on the starting point that China has to work with today.

This particular strand of discussion is a little bit redundant anyway, because I expect the Navy to seek both a carrier based 5th generation fighter and also a carrier based stealthy UCAV in time.

Click to expand...

If it's expected then why force compromises on one platform when the capability can be filled by another that's going to happen anyways? If a stealthy carrier UCAV is already in the book, even assuming development time doesn't compare favorably to a naval stealth fighter it's unlikely to be too far behind.

On the contrary I consider enlarging the aircraft's weapons bays to be the optimal solution or at least more optimal than the alternatives.

Click to expand...

Consider these two scenarios. The first is a fighter with a larger weapons bay and a belly bulge, making some compromises to kinematic performance and stealth, but able to carry a JSM equivalent when needed. The second is a fighter that doesn't try to fit a larger weapons bay which helps optimize kinematic performance and stealth, but it can either carry a stand off missile shaped to limit impact on radar cross section externally or a standoff missile inside an external stealthy weapon container that can be ejected. Which is better from a capabilities standpoint? Which is better from a program management and program cost standpoint?

Well F-35 was derived from the X-35, and the differences between the two are not minor either and compromises were obviously made between the two as well. There is no reason why a naval variant of J-20 or FC-31 cannot also go to "make the compromises" if the requirements are judged to be worth the cost (the crux of the argument really)

Click to expand...

I'm not questioning whether they *can*, but whether they *should*. The F-35's development history doesn't make an encouraging case for the the question of ought.

This is a bit of a tangent, but over the last year or so I've become to appreciate the F-35 as a much more successful program than I once did.

As an individual aircraft meant to excel in a specific role it obviously cannot compete with F-22 and likely Su-57 and J-20, but as a mass producible, multirole aircraft with immense sensor datalinking capability and upgrade future potential and the ability to field a variety of A2A and A2G weapons, and in terms of sheer numbers, I feel like the F-35 will easily be the most significant strategic and tactical air threat that Chinese military aviation will face in the future.

No other 5th generation will likely approach the F-35 in terms of production run, and I doubt there will be any fighter as multirole and as well networked with each other when compared to the leading edge block capability of the F-35.

And even with the problems that the B and C versions have faced, they will still provide V/STOL and CTOL carrier 5th generation multirole and networked/datalinking capability on a stealthy platform that multiple carrier sizes will be able to accommodate.

Click to expand...

I myself think that the F-35 is a capable fighter, but one wonders if the US could have acquired a more capable fighter or greater capabilities with multiple designs for the same or less cost in a more timely fashion if they didn't try to stuff so many requirements into one general design.

latenlazy said:

If it's expected then why force compromises on one platform when the capability can be filled by another that's going to happen anyways? If a stealthy carrier UCAV is already in the book, even assuming development time doesn't compare favorably to a naval stealth fighter it's unlikely to be too far behind.

Click to expand...

Because of:
A: the "compromises" on one platform (carrier based manned fighter) I believe may not be substantial
B: the purpose of a stealthy strike UCAV and a 5th generation manned fighter capable of carrying JSM class weapons do not fill the same niche and can be very complementary to one another.

Consider these two scenarios. The first is a fighter with a larger weapons bay and a belly bulge, making some compromises to kinematic performance and stealth, but able to carry a JSM equivalent when needed. The second is a fighter that doesn't try to fit a larger weapons bay which helps optimize kinematic performance and stealth, but it can either carry a stand off missile shaped to limit impact on radar cross section externally or a standoff missile inside an external stealthy weapon container that can be ejected. Which is better from a capabilities standpoint? Which is better from a program management and program cost standpoint?

Click to expand...

I would prefer the former to be honest, because for the strike role I believe the RCS, and the adverse effects on kinematics will be worst for your second proposal rather than the first.

The first option will obviously limit the kinematics of the aircraft in A2A domains to a degree, and will result in a worse RCS compared to a "clean" second option, but I expect the naval stealth fighter to have strike as one of its primary missions rather than a secondary mission.
Meaning in terms of overall adverse effect on stealth and kinematics over the primary missions which the naval fighter will be expected to conduct, I expect the first option to have overall less adverse effect than the second option, simply because I expect the fighter to conduct strike missions fairly frequently as part of its mission requirements.

Of course, this is also assuming that we are comparing the "adverse" stealth and kinematic effect on the first option to be similar in degree to the transition between X-35 and F-35. That is to say, it won't suddenly mean that a naval large belly variant of J-20 will suddenly be incapable of supercruise if the land based version is capable of it.
As I said, I think we differ in terms of our opinion of how much the adverse effect on stealth and kinematics are.

I'm not questioning whether they *can*, but whether they *should*. The F-35's development history doesn't make an encouraging case for the the question of ought.[/QUOTE

Again, that's assuming F-35's development troubles are due to the modifications of F-35's performance requirements from X-35, rather than other program management factors.

I myself think that the F-35 is a capable fighter, but one wonders if the US could have acquired a more capable fighter or greater capabilities with multiple designs for the same or less cost in a more timely fashion if they didn't try to stuff so many requirements into one general design.

Click to expand...

I think if they had not forced a B variant into the F-35 so early, and if they had modified the procurement policy and if they had not porkbarrel'd the F-35, then I think the program would be much more successful.


I think the F-35's capabilities even on an individual aircraft basis are very great and couple that with all the variants they have and the overall number they will produce and couple that with the multiplicative effect of datalinking F-35s together with shared upgrades... I feel like the F-35 won't just be a "capable fighter" but will likely be THE most capable fighter type of its time, moreso than F-22, J-20 or Su-57 or others.

Click to expand...