Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

ExPB14_JAS-39_Gripen.jpg

ExPB14_Mirage2000.jpg

6_EXPB14_20140729_088_3_RSAF_F16s.jpg

5_EXPB14_20140729_143_3_RSAF_F-15SGs.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Chinese Military 2005

This is a discussion on Chinese Military 2005 within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Im trying to make a list of PLA equipment they have got in 2005. Like a easy refernece to equipment ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 4th, 2006   #1
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 148
Threads:
Chinese Military 2005

Im trying to make a list of PLA equipment they have got in 2005. Like a easy refernece to equipment instead of looking around webpages. I haven't put numbers on everything and i haven't covered everything so can the chiense members help fill it out


Here is a list of chinese equipment

The chinese armed forces are called the Peoples liberation army(PLA for short). The ground forces are also called the PLA the Navy the PLAN and the airforce the PLAAF.

China currently has 2.3 million men under arms. 1.6million being involed in ground operations and support whilst the remainder being in the navy and air force. Currently chinese forces are under going extensive moderisation and reform which by 2010 we will see a much more leaner PLA but more high tech also.

-------
PLAAF

The PLAAF is composed of 330,000 personnel. The PLAAF is in control of all airborne assets and Anti aircraft systems. The PLAAF currently operates 3,500aircraft and over 1000 SAM systems. It is going to be slimmed down soon and will have a lower pilot to aircraft ratio increasing the standard of training

Here is a brief break down on the aircraft and SAMs

J-10 - From engine purchases, we know that there are more than 40 J-10 in production or produced. Numbers for a plane like this is a big what if but my rough estimate is that by 2010 there will be 100+ in chinese service depending on more engine purchases on the WS-10A program

J-11- China has a confired figure of 90-100J-11s already produced with a possible 100 more depending if the contract is still valid. i roughly say that 70% will be upgraded to the J-11B standard

Su-27SK. A total of 76 aircraft has been confirmed. This is also a what if considering how well J-11B upgrades go. but i say about 70% of these will be upgraded

Su-30MKK - 76 of these multi-role aircraft have been confirmed and wouldn't recieve upgrades now or near future

Su-30MKK2 - This shouldn't really be included in this because it is a Anti-ship model and china is not going to get close to indias navy

Su-30MKK3 - It has been rumoured on the internet tat china will recieve its own MKI standard aircraft. But from all these new upgrades it seems unlikey that chian wil buy more aircraft but this cant be ruled out

FC-1 - It is quite possible that the PLAAF will recieve this aircraft. With all these new upgrades being rumoured it would be very attractive for the PLAAF to buy in bulk to replace F-6s and all early model F-7s and J-8s. This aircraft from its rumoured pictures looks pretty forminable. DSI and a little influence from the F-18 i wouldn't count it out.

J-7 - China has 500 of these planes which are upgraded and now able to fire AAM and do a little bombing. But it has very short legs

J-8II - This aircraft is still a mistery to me. What is the PLAAF going to do with this aircraft make more or leave and upgrade. 240 have already been built ranging from a primitive plane to the J-8H which fires BVR missiles.

-----

SAM

FT-2000 / HQ-9 - This SAM system range of 12 ~ 100 km. The FT-2000 is a anti-radtion missile and is used to hunt AWACS aircraft

S-300PMU - Russian SAM china has brougt numerous launchers. A possible anti cruise missile function

HQ-7 (FM-80) - A low attitude anti aircraft missile with limited anti missile capability. range of 15km

HQ-2- old ass missile all with upgrade electric gear.

----------

PLA

The PLA forces are divided into 7 military regions which are called the following

Shenyang MR
Beijing MR
Lanzhou MR
Jinan MR
Nanjing MR
Guangzhou MR
Chengdu MR

Here is a map
[img=564x563]http://www.wikiverse.org/media/e/e9/china_military_regions.jpg[/img]

The PLA is a large and mainly obsolete force consisting of 8,000 tanks, 4,000 armoured vehicles, and 25,000 artillery guns and multiple rocket launchers (MRLs). The PLA use to be focused on large numbers to overwhelm technolocially superior frces but nowdays like the other branches of the PLA are going through reforum and moderisation.

Chinas army is composed of 258,000 men trained to american standards with the rest supports this elite force. they are chinas RRU which leave to a crisis in under 24hours.



PLA TANKS

Type 98/G- This is the PLAs greatess tank. There are about 200 tanks in service according to forum chit chat. Stationed in the beijing military distict as a spearhead againest invading forces.

Type 96- This tank is the touted to be the main PLA tank for the majority of the PLA tank force. It is about the same standar as the T-98 but has a lower price and a little less sofiticated inside

Type 88/80 /Type 59/Type 79/69 - These tanks have about the same capability so i grouped them together(and because im to lazy). This tank is the back bone of the PLA tank force. Some are being upgraded some are not. And these upgrades will give any MBT a challenge

----

Anti tank missiles

The PLA has numerous ATGM in its arsenal and any invasion of chian will be met by thousands of them

HJ-9 - This is the PLAs newest anti tank missile with a Armour Penetration of 1,200mm. It is deployed on moblie platforms.

HJ-8 - The chinese milan. Not becauses its the chiense milan copy but it has similar cpabilities. Armour Penetration 800 ~ 1,000 mm

HJ-73- This missile has been involed enough to give it a new name. It has laser gudience on its newest version and a better warhead Armour Penetration: >500mm

PLA/parartroops/marines.

~ The PLA has numerous speical force units and gets the most funding out of all PLA branches. They are well equipped for their operations and are well trained.

~ chinas 15th Airborne Corps is its paratroops. It has three divisions of 10,000Men and its not known if the whole 15th airborne can be transported at once.

~ The Marine Corps has about 14,000 groups organised in brigades.
A typical marine brigade includes:

* An armour regiment, consisting of two tank battalions (Type 63A amphibious tank) and three mechanised infantry battalions (Type 86 IFV and Type 63/89 APC with special modifications for long distance swimming)
* A marine infantry battalion (about 750 personnel)
* A special operations force battalion
* A missile battalion (HJ-73/HJ-8 ATGM and HN-5 shoulder-launched air defence missile)
* An engineering and chemical defence battalion
* A communications and electronic warfare battalion


Each Military region in china has 1,000 or more RRP under its command they are used for speical operations and are well trained.

--------------------------------

Navy..

The PLAN has been getting the most funding from the PRC government out of all forces. It has been getting two different versions of destroyers instead of having to go for one type of system each. It was a mainly submarine fleet but in recent years has been getting more and more destroyers and large surface fleets.

PLAN vessel numbers in end of 2005

Destroyers (DDG)
2 x Type 052C Luyang II class
2 x Type 052B Luyang class
2 x Type 956 Sovremenny class
1 x Type 956EM Sovremenny class
1 x Type 051B Luhai class
2 x Type 052 Luhu class
16 x Type 051/G Luda class

TOTAL DDG = 24

Frigates (FFG)
2 x Type 054 Jiangkai class
14 x Type 053H3 Jiangwei I/II/III class
32 x Type 053 Jianghu I/III/V class

TOTAL FFG = 48

Conventional Submarines (SSK)
2 to 3 x Type 041 Yuan class
2 x Type 877EKM Kilo class
2 x Type 636 Kilo class
4 x Type 636M Kilo class
Between 10 to 14 x Type 039/G Song class
17 x Type 035E/F Ming class

TOTAL SSK = Up to 42

Nuclear Submarines (SSN)
1 or 2 Type 093 class
5 Type 091 Han class

Nuclear Submarines (SSBN)
1 Type 094 class
1 Type 092 class

TOTAL SSN & SSBN = Up to 9

Under Development (Acknowledged)
1 x Aircraft Carrier (Vargay)?
2 x Type 051C class DDG
1 x Type 956EM Sovremenny class DDG
1 x Type 054A class FFG (or more?)
6 x Type 636M Kilo class SSK
More Yuan and Song class SSKs?

PLAN Airpower in end of 2005
24 x Su-30MKK2 fighter-bombers
10 x JH-7A fighter-bombers
19 x JH-7 Block 02 fighter-bombers
18 x JH-7 Block 01 fighter-bombers
100 x J-8B/D fighters
120 x J-7EH fighters (Navy's J-7E)
?? x H-6D/M

Thanks to PLAMC for the navy section
chinawhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Opening up the Central Front , Jordan. Libyan Military Strategy and Tactics 29 August 10th, 2006 12:41 AM

Old January 4th, 2006   #2
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Dr Phobus's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinios, USA
Posts: 241
Threads:
Lightbulb Re: Chinese Military 2005

Question about Chinese air force:

Thanks for the article very interesting. It did strike me as showing the future of Chinese air power and it weaknesses. Yes a formidable force for sure:

they will be flying less than 300 Flanker in 4 variants,

FC-1 looks like the next "big" aircraft for the Chinese in terms of numbers, anyone have any idea what sort of numbers are being considered.

What happening in the J-10 ? so few numbers ordered, why ? i ask myself, any thoughts in this please ?

They have a force of 3500, what sort of numbers are they going to reduce themselves too ? It could be a 2 edged sword, to modernize will radically reduce the size of the air force, to what ? a 1000 truly "modern" platforms ? or will you see a 2 tier airfore, of 100's of FC-1's and fewer Flanker, J-10;s

thoughts please.
________________
Dr Carl D. Vincent
Dr Phobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2006   #3
the corporal
Master Sergeant
Gollevainen's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: somewere in Hame, Finland
Posts: 335
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

Well, artillery is the most important branch of ground forces and here’s a little presentation of it:

(I have posted the first part of this answer already in sinodefenceforum)

Chinese land forces are in the face of big changes as the old “quantity-over quality”- ideology is giving away to more modern military thinking. All branches of PLA are inflicted by these new winds and one of the most visible additions are the new mechanised brigades introduced along side whit the old-school divisions and regiments. These mechanised brigades are based on the idea of movement. Strategic mobility is a key element of these forces and it gives lots of new standards for the equipment in use. Some of the older PLA vehicles and weapons just no longer cope whit these new regulations.
One branch which clearly faces new problems and challenges is artillery. No longer can PLA rely on the mass of soviet based towed artillery. Artillery of these new brigades needs to change and come to update along whit the other fields. According to Dongfeng’s www.sinodefence.com sites section “Army order of battle”, a typical mechanised brigade consist one artillery regiment that is divided to one tube artillery battalion (122mm) and one MRL battalion. The 122mm tube artillery battalion is to my knowledge supposedly armed whit Type 89 122mm SP howitzers. But before we take closer look to the PLA’s mechanised brigades artillery force lets have brief summary about artillery in general, it’s role in the battlefield and current trends of development.

Artillery is still the main way to provide instant fire support to infantry and armoured troops (as in Finnish army, the armour is usually included under the infantry, so when ever I say infantry, I mean the front line field troops). Although different kinds of SOWs and heavy infantry usually gets most of the publicity in media thus igniting the imaginary of many young military enthusiastics, I like to remind that its the artillery that does the destroying and the infantry only manoeuvres. In all wars of the last century, the artillery has caused most of the damage inflicted in the battlefield. It has also been studied that among the veterans of the WWII, the artillery fire concentrations were the most feared factor in the battlefield. Artillery can cheaply provide war power able to destroy all enemy forces and installations whit in its range and therefore, in full scale warfare, no missiles or Ground support aircraft can replace the artillery branch.
As technology has gone forwards, so have the development of artillery piece. After WWII self-propelled artillery has become the main issue in all artillery discussion by giving much improvements to the old towed howitzers and guns. If few to be mentioned, tactical mobility and crew protection are most significant ones. Although many rich western world countries have almost completely dropped towed guns and howitzers out of their inventory, especially light towed howitzers have managed to gain their popularity among countries whit difficult environmental conditions. The cost of the SP artillery has also being great factor against them at least in less developed countries.
One of the revolutionary introductions has been the auxiliary power unit for towed guns. It has given almost equal tactical mobility to towed guns and howitzers compared to Self-propelled ones.

In Chinese inventory, so called modern artillery pieces are the new Type-89 155mm towed gun-howitzer. Though it’s only in limited service and lacks the APU and other modern features of artillery unit like computerised gyroscopic-navigation/fire aiming devices…But it’s a good start as it has the ability to fire western 155mm rounds and at least one export model featured APU. So its good basis for future innovations as there has been pictures of this gun mounted in truck-chassis and this direction is attractive choice over expensive SP guns in the modern type warfare. Unfortunately there is around 150 of them in service. But this low introduction numbers might be explained by the calibre switch from old soviet 152mm into modern western 155mm, which is a good way to go…

Of the modern SP artillery, China currently fields two existing systems, the 152mm type 83 and 122mm type 89 and they are basically par whit corresponding soviet 2s3 and 2s1, as they field the same main weapons type66/D-20 in the type-83 and type85/D-30 in type-89. These both are basic workhorses of old style soviet mass tank group army concentrations and follows along whit PLAs armoured and mechanised divisions and regiments/brigades. According to www.Globalsecurity.org there are roughly 500 of both of them in use thus making the total for (relevantly) modern SP system around 1,000. China has produced PLZ-45 for export and there are some indications that it would be fielded in PLA service as well. The System fields the 155mm gun similar as in the towed type 89. (This, however is my own assumption and may be incorrect) There is also news about the new PLZ-05 SP gun which seems to be the PLZ-45 with new turret very similar to Russian 2S19. The main gun also has a 52 cal tube which is the first one of such a gun that Chinese have produced. Some sources states that China has acquired few of those Russian systems, so the new SP gun may have inherited the Russian automatic loader system. The PLZ-45 and PLZ-05 are both, however still under development and are not to be listed in PLAs current inventory, but gives a glimpse of promising future.

There are also few older SP guns notably fielding 122mm D-30 or older howitzer fielded in APC chassis, but they are very few of them and as they don’t field much in terms of capability, they make little if no difference in PLAs artillery force.

But greatest bulk of Chinese artillery is old soviet based towed guns, namely 152mm type-66(D-20 copy) howitzers which numbers around 1,400, type-59-1 (M-46) 130mm guns whit some 1,000 in service and most numerically the 122mm type-85 (D-30 copy) and type-54 (M-1938 copy) howitzers. The later is old WWII design but type-85 is perfect workhorse for regimental/brigade level artillery, thought I’m being completely biased to say this as I have done my own military service mostly whit it . There are also few minor 122mm projects like the type-83 of indigenous (but rather rudimentary) design and type-60, a copy of soviet D-74.
________________
Once Gollevainen was biten by snake....

...after ten days of suffering the snake died
Gollevainen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2006   #4
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 148
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

Omg i wrote a one liner and was editing the message and wrote a long reply then someone deleted it and i lost it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Phobus
Thanks for the article very interesting
I wrote that

The question that comes to my mind is if the chinese airforce is trying to win the situation in the taiwan strait or is it acting as a deterrent.

As of now the most important fighter in the airforce is the Su-27 variants. They are the most capable fighters and have multiple abilites. Right now chinas has lots of these aircraft but they are using obsolete technology and cannot fire chinses missiles. What china is now doing is moderising them to the more multi-roled Su-30 standard which will be capable of launching SD-10s missiles instead of the R-77 and R-27 combo. The J-11s as of now are not so potent but when they finish their upgrades they will be more potent and upgradedble. Maybe a PD radar and diffinatly the WS-10A engine.

The reason for the cancellation of the J-11 contract is unknown now but it is assumed that china did not want to make obsolete aircraft anymore. So is it going to be a cheaper contract a more capable plane like the Su-27SM or the contract gone conpletly

The FC-1 is a light weight less capable fighter but the thing about this is its cheap and capable of BVR. New rumours and such are running wild about how capable this revised FC-1 design will be but my opinion it will get DSI a new paint job and a lot of internal changes like the electric gear.(im still not sure what radar the FC-1 was going to get anyway)

While the FC-1 might stand out as a logical replacment for the J-7s, J-8s and even some J-6s which are still in active service have anyone ever wonder if J-7s can replace J-7s?. The newer version of them are a lot more capable than the ones they will be replacing like the J-7B/C/D with someting like the J-7E/G which are already happening or the J-7FM [url=http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/7424/untitled6xy.jpg]Link to the picture[/img]. If we compare the prices to each other its 6 million for a J-7 model and at least 10million for a basic FC-1. Instead of diverting more funds away from more needed places like J-11 modernisation just make the same aircraft in areas which will not see to much action

But i would also like to add the FC-1 has a distinct advantage over the J-7. That is BVR and a more modern airframe design. Im not aware of any chiense variants being fitted or tested with a BVR missile and this is a large advantage if we consider china needs BVR capability all along its border. So i could really see the FC-1 being in more remote areas of china provding BVR. But i think the PLAAF is concentrating more on the J-10 as their main force multipled instead of the FC-1

The numbers of the J-10 are unknown but we can make assumtions about this like the 250 AL-31FN engines china ordered. So i think the J-10 will at least be around the 100 mark. But for a figure today i would have to say around 50. The J-10 bing bigger than the FC-1 equals being more able at certian task. The J-10 is being billed as one of the multi-roled aircraft which might mean basic LGB delivery or might mean Guided missile capability. I dont really know and i dont think anyone can say for sure what radar production version J-10s are reciving. But it would be safe to say that LGB would be one thing to be sure of.

The J-10 capability know is no higher than the Block 25 F-16s which are still prety cpable but it being a unknown and un-tested fighter we do not know its true capablities. But certainly the PLAAF is working for a F-16 type aircraft in the airforce for a high low combination

@ Gollevainen

Thanks for the Artillery section.

I took that into consideration when writing this(it was for a wargames). I throught ....umm will artillery be important in a potential conflict china will have. The answer to me was no so i decided not to write something about that

But will artillery play any major role in chinas future? I asked these questions.

Will china face a major land war in continantal asia
And will artillery be obsolete in the future of LGBS, guided missiles and new anti-artillery systems. Is china in the process of getting a SP force and trashing most of its towed artillery or is it going to have a balanced of modernized towed artillery MRLS and SP guns

Last edited by chinawhite; January 4th, 2006 at 09:43 PM.
chinawhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2006   #5
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,592
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
But will artillery play any major role in chinas future?
that depends on chinas view of what her military is intended for

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
Will china face a major land war in continantal asia
chinas principle threat matrices indicate and the change in her platform structures indicate a willingness to protect and project. That assessment was made in 1999 after the PLA and PLAAF did some work on chinas own RMA (based on the US successes in GW1). The scale and depth of development show a bias away from transcontinental engagement - and in real terms who is her principle threat at a transnational level?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
And will artillery be obsolete in the future of LGBS, guided missiles and new anti-artillery systems. Is china in the process of getting a SP force and trashing most of its towed artillery
artillery will not become obsolete just because of PGM's. eg PGM's don't provide persistence at an economy of scale level

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
or is it going to have a balanced of modernized towed artillery MRLS and SP guns
any power that is modernising is looking at platform mobility - and they will be rebuilding other things before emphasising MLRS and SPG's (eg).
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2006   #6
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 148
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
that depends on chinas view of what her military is intended for
A taiwan strait oriented situation for the near future or present future as the title of the thread suggest

Quote:
The scale and depth of development show a bias away from transcontinental engagement - and in real terms who is her principle threat at a transnational level?
'99? You mean the balkans conflict where the PLA was amazed by the brillance of laser guided objects?. In think in 1999 it showed the PLAs lack in percision strike with the magic laser weapons whih led the PLA to drive a moderization of its airforce.

While i think transcontinental stragery died out when Mao took power. China has not really tried to go continental as a power nor do i think the chinese leadership are trying to make them as a power. I think the PLA is more worried about her backyard than order places in the world.

To understand the Chiense stance and policy you need to understand the current situation of china. While it does seem as a big jolly nation it has many internal conflicts. Internal rebellion in xingjiang and tibet, while not as big or organized as other places it worries the chiense government because this could be a spark for bigger events and revolution. Just like the gap between rich and poor and human rights freedom of speech. All these are on the governments mind when they plan policies and maintance of stability is the largest concern. Taiwan is also a tigger event, If taiwan declares independence and the government cant do anything to stop them their is going to be trouble. taiwan after is chinese land and claimed by china so if it losses taiwan it could trigger widespread dissatisfaction almost chinese

So we see the PLA transforming from a large big slow moving infantry froce to one with legs to get their instead of letting the conflict escalate kill if when it starts that is a part of the RRU doctrime. So instead of using your large big tank that needs a lot of time to get their you use your light air portable wheeled IFV. Its kind of like the stryker concept. THis is not aimed at a nation but internally.

I dont see the grounds forces as the main force in the 20th century. But now air and water is how any future of conflict in chian will be settled. No country at this momment can nor will contemplate a ground invasion of china because of its vastness and its formidable ground forces. What the will do to chian is use their superior forces in the air and in the ocean where vastness and size does not matter as much. According to this china will have to face off with the US. China trying to expand from a basic coastal force to the first or second ocean chain will collide with the US seeing as how the US in in control of them now. So Ground forces will be limited because the lack of land and will require china to move away from its tradtional strong hold in continental asia to a sea and airpower to protect her trade routes.

I think the phase one is already made. that is the first island chain. Now you will see china buying more stratgic vs tactical equipment. A carrier supply ships large ships like a cruiser and long range planes and re-fueling capability which you are seeing now. It is how well china adapts to this new technology and tactics then you will see future ambitions eg carriers in the surrounding oceans. activly patrolling the region.

But that is the future plans and this is 2005

Quote:
artillery will not become obsolete just because of PGM's. eg PGM's don't provide persistence at an economy of scale level
ahhh... good point.

But will effectivness and speed of weaponary be better than economic value?. Well i can see the US leans towards the more effctive and costier way which brings fast results i can really see china using costly but more effective results combined with the RRUs to achieve quick victories verus economy and attrition?

In modern combat does attrition have a value?. Will we see two large armies face off with these force multipliers. or Offensive or Defensive. lot of questions to answer

Quote:
any power that is modernising is looking at platform mobility - and they will be rebuilding other things before emphasising MLRS and SPG's (eg).
But it is more cost effective to launch a LGB to destory a target faster or use a lower approch where you need to transport and build a carrier to deliver the projectile.

While the copperhead looks like it can revolutionize artilery it is not really practical if you cant get into the range to fire it. While SPG are not really suitble for a chiense possible conflict and more use in a european conflict It would be more use to china to deliver guided weapons instead of mass slow attacks.
chinawhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2006   #7
the corporal
Master Sergeant
Gollevainen's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: somewere in Hame, Finland
Posts: 335
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

Quote:
I took that into consideration when writing this(it was for a wargames). I throught ....umm will artillery be important in a potential conflict china will have. The answer to me was no so i decided not to write something about that

But will artillery play any major role in chinas future? I asked these questions.

Will china face a major land war in continantal asia
And will artillery be obsolete in the future of LGBS, guided missiles and new anti-artillery systems. Is china in the process of getting a SP force and trashing most of its towed artillery or is it going to have a balanced of modernized towed artillery MRLS and SP guns
Well i dont believe that any military planners would thing that artillery would become unnessery. In all future confontrations that china migth face in future is going to need artillery as any infantry/armour operations. Artillery is the basic way to give general and instant fire suport to the monouvre units from battalion level upwards. Wheter this is done by MRLS or SPGs or other ways its another issue but the generally it remains as artillery.

Even US military cannot replace basic heavy-mortar/ light battery fire whit airborne fire support.

But where china is to go...who knows? Really all that we armchair generals can say about china is based on what new toys they test as no offical defence plans are made intot he publick.

But in my obionion China is to go where quick results are to be gain. So best way to china to modernizes its artillery is to go on whit the existing new projects like the PZL-05 and whit Type-89, made it par whit best towed guns in the world, truck mounted low-cost SP platform is also atractive direction. In MRLS field, china should focus on bigger systems shooting beyond the range of conventional artillery, and to have capale to be armed whit multible disperence munitions.

Also in the basic regimental/battalion level, a self mobile automatic mortar is future. A system like Finnish/Swedish AMOS will increase the most important chain of the fire supporrt net.

And artillery isent just fireunits, HQ systems needs to be state of the art and thougth im not so well informed about chinese artillery batteryes/battalion level HQ systems. Fire direction is also important and new UAV technology will offer lot of advantage over existing systems. China has had a good start in UAV field and should not left itself behind from worlds general devolpments. UAV are future and in very forseeable on migth, /thougth may not offer realistic alternative to artillery as armed UAVs could fall under command of infantry/armour Battallion leader.

To have effective and balnced artillery does not mean that china should ignore the airsupport part, on the contrary Fire and movement are still the key elements in todays battlefield and in future also. Artillery is the groundfarces part of giving the 'fire'. And i dont think that Ground forces have lost theyr role in most importsant branch in the military. In every thinkable scenario that china migth face in future, the ground forces will bare the hardest burden. And when ground forces are fielded, artillery comes as natural as comes tail behind cat. It doesen phase out, while people playing war games forgets artillery completetely.
________________
Once Gollevainen was biten by snake....

...after ten days of suffering the snake died
Gollevainen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2006   #8
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,592
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
'99? You mean the balkans conflict where the PLA was amazed by the brillance of laser guided objects?. In think in 1999 it showed the PLAs lack in percision strike with the magic laser weapons whih led the PLA to drive a moderization of its airforce.
No. I'm referring to the initial paper presented in 1999 that was formulated around the implications of the 1st Gulf War. (Col Qiao Liang And Col Wang Xiangsui)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
While i think transcontinental stragery died out when Mao took power. China has not really tried to go continental as a power nor do i think the chinese leadership are trying to make them as a power. I think the PLA is more worried about her backyard than order places in the world.
which is what I am fundamentally trying to reinforce. China is a regional, continental, transnational power first and foremost. She is a long way away from being an intercontinental power. IMV the structures required to achieve an intercontinental level of sustained military engagement are at least 15 years - and more likely a generation away from achievement. that does not mean parity either - as the US will not be standing still.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
To understand the Chiense stance and policy you need to understand the current situation of china. etc etc............
agree + add in a situation where there could be a projected surplus of 100m adult unemployed males - and you have a significant problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
............... Its kind of like the stryker concept. THis is not aimed at a nation but internally.
agree. at this stage, china does not have the logistics capability and footprint to deliver force outside of an extended transnational conflict

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
I dont see the grounds forces as the main force in the 20th century.
the relevance of a force majeur type meeting engagement has diminished - but it still has some relevance depending on what the foreign policy objective is. "Sieze and Hold" is still a fundamental requirement for any military with an agenda of geographic containment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
But now air and water is how any future of conflict in chian will be settled. No country at this momment can nor will contemplate a ground invasion of china because of its vastness and its formidable ground forces.
There are any number of publicly promoted military assessments which show that the US has no interest in waging war with China at the continental level. Those assessments have been quite explicit as to why and wherefore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
What the will do to chian is use their superior forces in the air and in the ocean where vastness and size does not matter as much.
China still has a landlocked airforce - and she still lacks the capacity to wage war at the "hologrphic box" level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
According to this china will have to face off with the US. China trying to expand from a basic coastal force to the first or second ocean chain will collide with the US seeing as how the US in in control of them now.
The problem for China is that the 7th Fleet alone is larger than the next biggest navy in the world. The USN has 11-12 x CSF's and then another 8 x ARG/ESF's. Thats 20 battlefleets that are at the primary stages of full networked integration via concepts such as ForceNET. That is a non trivial force of some magnitude. That doesn't even factor in issues such as the USAF satellite base - which alone is 5 times larger than the rest of the worlds satellite systems together. Her military sat constellations are 4 times bigger than the next non US system - so there is no equivalency or concept of parallel force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
So Ground forces will be limited because the lack of land and will require china to move away from its tradtional strong hold in continental asia to a sea and airpower to protect her trade routes.
China still needs to maintain a large ground force system to deal with local dissent and possible renegade provinces. The logistics required to support just the landforces is going to be a significant burden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
I think the phase one is already made. that is the first island chain. Now you will see china buying more stratgic vs tactical equipment. A carrier supply ships large ships like a cruiser and long range planes and re-fueling capability which you are seeing now. It is how well china adapts to this new technology and tactics then you will see future ambitions eg carriers in the surrounding oceans. activly patrolling the region.
This gets back to what has been said before. Even assuming that China floated a Carrier today - it would take at least 3 years to get it to a work up level, fleet integrated, systems integrated, doctrine developed, processes in place etc.... One carrier is useless. To keep it on station you need at least a min of 4 if the PLAN intends to maintain such a vessel in both fleets, allow for rotation and allow for maint. the support assets are typically 300% of the cost of build and upkeep of the Carrier itself. She is a long long way away from being able to field a robust fleet even comparitive to the Indian Navy

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
But will effectivness and speed of weaponary be better than economic value?.
conflict at the intercontinental level is not going to be one of attition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
Well i can see the US leans towards the more effctive and costier way which brings fast results i can really see china using costly but more effective results combined with the RRUs to achieve quick victories verus economy and attrition?
look at the economies of scale and development in place for the US. they prepared for war against the Soviets and Russians for 50 years - and the Soviets were substantially more capable than any element of Chinas military footprint. The US is not running a greenfields operation - China is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
In modern combat does attrition have a value?. Will we see two large armies face off with these force multipliers. or Offensive or Defensive. lot of questions to answer
Thats not the way that the US fights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
But it is more cost effective to launch a LGB to destory a target faster or use a lower approch where you need to transport and build a carrier to deliver the projectile.
anywhere where there is a requirement to have a strong logistics arm means vulnerability unless the area is benign. The single largest dominant truism ever since 1861 is that the US is the King of logistics and speed of assault at the weapons delivery level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
While the copperhead looks like it can revolutionize artilery it is not really practical if you cant get into the range to fire it. While SPG are not really suitble for a chiense possible conflict and more use in a european conflict It would be more use to china to deliver guided weapons instead of mass slow attacks.
The only ones who are stuck in a temporal flux about using "Grand Armee's" were the Iraqis and the Iranians and presently the North Koreans.

Large armies are a nightmare once you go beyond the transcontinental engagement level. Unless you have complete battlespace dominance and unless you have absolute persistence - then you will lose.

To sieze and hold Taiwan will require a logistics footprint of 1000 tonnes per day of holding - thats why China is nowhere even anywhere near the capability to get feet on ground at a level which denotes dominance.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

Last edited by gf0012-aust; January 5th, 2006 at 05:42 AM.
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2006   #9
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 148
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

As i dont have the PM function as of now, I will have to write a message here.

I'll reply tommorrow. Whoever deletes this message can you forward it to gf0012-aust
chinawhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2006   #10
Super Moderator
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,133
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

chinawhite, your assessment of plaaf is quite a bit off.
J-8II - they are all going to get upgraded to F/H standard.
I'm guessing, that's about 240 such planes.
Mk3 - no way China is getting this when much more capable su-27kub and su-35 are being offered. Even getting those are questionable.
mk/mk2 - 76 + 24
sk/ubk - 76 (although a few are due to retire soon).
J-11 - only about 60 confirmed so far in active regiments, it's questionable that the first 95 are all built at this point. According to kanwa, China is still building sk at 17 a year. Not updatable to 11B standard, due to lack of WS-10A engines. Most likely upgrade all the existing J-11As with up to date avionics suite. I have doubts that they will all be upgraded to using KLJ-4 radar, since they will then be no longer be able to fire R-77.

There is also a regiment of JH-7A in service with plaaf. There should be 40 JH-7s in PLANAF.

As for J-10, you are even more off. There are around 70 to 100 J-10s right now. Although, still only 2 dedicated J-10 regiments. A lot of J-10s are sent to mixed regiments. Most likely, there will be 150 J-10s by the end of 2006. The current production rate is 50+ a year. As for J-10 being at most F-16 block 25, you gotta stop making me laugh here. TVC engine + better thrust + canards. avionics suite is better too. Do you think block 25 has quadriple FBW? You should read the latest kanwa article comparing Taiwan's block 15OCU to J-10 (btw, block 15OCU is actually BVR capable and are considered to be MLU standard http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article3.html). J-10 has that beat in every category.


Another part is SAM:
you are missing quite a bit here too.
HQ-9 and FT-2000 are not the same. One is for export and one is domestic.
S-300 - there are PMU, PMU1, PMU2 battalions. I'm not sure if China got S-300V.
Tor-m1
ks-1a
HQ-7 has FM-80 and FM-90 variant.
tphuang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006   #11
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 137
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

j-10 will have thrust vectoring engines sometime in the future? when? are you refering to that news articles of some months ago where russians sold some, what was it, 250 additional engines rumored to be versions with tvc?

as for sams, china defense forum are working with 4 regiments of s300, 12 regiments of s300 pmu1 and are mentioning theres a contract for 8 regiments of pmu2, which will be delivered in the coming months. with 8 launchers per regiment thatd make 192 launchers... not bad, but still far from enough for a country like china. of course, maybe the china defense forum people are just making all that up, i don't know myself.
Totoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006   #12
Super Moderator
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,133
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totoro
j-10 will have thrust vectoring engines sometime in the future? when? are you refering to that news articles of some months ago where russians sold some, what was it, 250 additional engines rumored to be versions with tvc?

as for sams, china defense forum are working with 4 regiments of s300, 12 regiments of s300 pmu1 and are mentioning theres a contract for 8 regiments of pmu2, which will be delivered in the coming months. with 8 launchers per regiment thatd make 192 launchers... not bad, but still far from enough for a country like china. of course, maybe the china defense forum people are just making all that up, i don't know myself.
China only really needs the S-300 and HQ-9 systems around the major economic zones and Taiwan. Basically, Beijing, Shanghai, Hongkong, Fujian and Three gorge dam.

J-10 is getting 100 additional engine with TVC not 250. Also, the status of WS-10 with TVC is still to be seen.
tphuang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2006   #13
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 148
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
No. I'm referring to the initial paper presented in 1999 that was formulated around the implications of the 1st Gulf War. (Col Qiao Liang And Col Wang Xiangsui)
Didn't it strike as odd when It was downloadable free on a CIA(CT one) website.?

Unrestricted should be refered to as the more right wing PLA government people not what mainstrean PLA thought. It generalizes more about unconventional warfare instead of continential war. eg possible things the chinese military can do to spread public anger in america over casulties. Well thats what the book is mostly about


Quote:
China is a regional, continental, transnational power first and foremost. She is a long way away from being an intercontinental power.
And at is what i said in my post beforehand. China is the greatness america is nothing etc... Im a realist

Quote:
agree. at this stage, china does not have the logistics capability and footprint to deliver force outside of an extended transnational conflict
Chinas modernizatio is not aimed at a transcontinental conflict and a smaller degree a transnational conflict. It is aimed at a quick victory so that china does not need to fight a large scale war. It is aimed directly at taiwan. To invade taiwan before america has the chance to intervene. And secondary at uprisings in chinas minority areas. Let a type of stop gap type of situation. Cut the head off the chicken


Quote:
"Sieze and Hold" is still a fundamental requirement for any military with an agenda of geographic containment.
You cannot hold the ground with ground forces over the ocean nor can ground forces hold airspaces over water. I see major conflict over air and sea instead of the traditionalland ground combat. A major conflict that will most probaly happen with china or america or influenced countries. The middle east will be a probable place but without a air presence or naval presence ground forces will be put through the meat grinder

Quote:
There are any number of publicly promoted military assessments which show that the US has no interest in waging war with China at the continental level.
Yes that is the whole point. In the future ground forces in china will see combat rarely so therefore artillery will be pretty much obsolete in china.

Quote:
China still has a landlocked airforce - and she still lacks the capacity to wage war at the "hologrphic box" level.
Aren't all airforces landlocked?

Quote:
The problem for China is that the 7th Fleet alone is larger than the next biggest navy in the world.
And the navy is what use?. To blockade.? Americas economy and the worlds is so intervened with the chinese economy it with cause a global meltdown if china leaves the global trade. China starts dumping US government bonds, people start losing confidence in the US economy and '29 again.

Or if the americans fire on a chinese ship. MAD doctrime starts to work. A few chinese generals made it clear if that happens

Quote:
China still needs to maintain a large ground force system to deal with local dissent and possible renegade provinces. The logistics required to support just the landforces is going to be a significant burden.
Thats what the RRUs are for. instead of slower overwhelming force rapid reaction to anything. that is one reason why china is investing in her transport fleet. Every military region in china has one and some have two. While the 15th airborne is active 24/7.

China at one tme was supporting 6milion men under arms. The PLA was responsble for most of the policing now it is the Chinese police force which has been rapidly expanded to deal with these events and leave the harder jobs to the RRU

Quote:
This gets back to what has been said before. Even assuming that China floated a Carrier today - it would take at least 3 years to get it to a work up level, fleet integrated, systems integrated, doctrine developed, processes in place etc.... One carrier is useless. To keep it on station you need at least a min of 4 if the PLAN intends to maintain such a vessel in both fleets, allow for rotation and allow for maint. the support assets are typically 300% of the cost of build and upkeep of the Carrier itself. She is a long long way away from being able to field a robust fleet even comparitive to the Indian Navy
No one said the PLA wants a carrier right away i said china will want/need a carrier in the long term. eg future plans to dominate the first island chain then the second island chain which will need a carrier. rough esitimates say about first island chain 2010 and 2020 for the second. Right now pictures of the Varyag show the PLAN supposely making it usable for active service

Right now the indian navy is the only country in asia with experience with carriers.. You cant buy experience like that. But you can throw money to build a lot of them. I think it is safe to assume that china will want and need a carrier

Quote:
conflict at the intercontinental level is not going to be one of attition.
Are you sure?.


Quote:
look at the economies of scale and development in place for the US. they prepared for war against the Soviets and Russians for 50 years - and the Soviets were substantially more capable than any element of Chinas military footprint. The US is not running a greenfields operation - China is.
Now dont forget that china was also preparing a fight against the soviets. It was fghting againest a superior enemy also. Most analyst will suggest china will be the top economy in the world by 2040-50 this is a conservative estimate. In other examples of extreme growth will be innovation compared to the soviets which were limited by their command economy.

Free market growth will see china finding more of the "firsts" and leaders in a field. The current china is not as big as the soviets but every year china is expanding its military and economy. China is a much more danger than the soviets

Quote:
Thats not the way that the US fights.
Never said it was

Quote:
anywhere where there is a requirement to have a strong logistics arm means vulnerability unless the area is benign. The single largest dominant truism ever since 1861 is that the US is the King of logistics and speed of assault at the weapons delivery level.
That ws then this is now. With that lead they had the economic advantage with that also. But lik i said china is different. Its not tring to focus on a military lead as a up and coming regional power but as a economic superpower.

Quote:
Large armies are a nightmare once you go beyond the transcontinental engagement level. Unless you have complete battlespace dominance and unless you have absolute persistence - then you will lose.
Thats the whole reason why artillery is obsolete. Artillery is noramlly effictive with large armies aganist large armies, while the world is gearing towards more limited combat with smart munitions

Quote:
To sieze and hold Taiwan will require a logistics footprint of 1000 tonnes per day of holding - thats why China is nowhere even anywhere near the capability to get feet on ground at a level which denotes dominance.
?. China easily has that amount with her current aircraft transport fleet.

This does not include her navy ships.
chinawhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2006   #14
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,592
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
Didn't it strike as odd when It was downloadable free on a CIA(CT one) website.?

Unrestricted should be refered to as the more right wing PLA government people not what mainstrean PLA thought. It generalizes more about unconventional warfare instead of continential war. eg possible things the chinese military can do to spread public anger in america over casulties. Well thats what the book is mostly about
There were two publications. One was on Unrestricted Warfare - the other was a post war analysis on the 1st Guld War and the need for China to undergo an RMA that could reflect US trends. I haven't seen the second publication in public circulation for years. It was listed at the Singapore Strat Studies Inst approx 3 years ago. It was also required reading in two other countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
And at is what i said in my post beforehand. China is the greatness america is nothing etc... Im a realist
I assume you're being facaetious? China is far from being military great - and thats across the 5 battlefield dimensions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
Chinas modernizatio is not aimed at a transcontinental conflict and a smaller degree a transnational conflict. It is aimed at a quick victory so that china does not need to fight a large scale war. It is aimed directly at taiwan. To invade taiwan before america has the chance to intervene. And secondary at uprisings in chinas minority areas. Let a type of stop gap type of situation. Cut the head off the chicken
China has to complete a surprise attack and obtain air, sea and land dominance in under a week. eg There are now 55-60 F-22's that at worst case (assuming prior warning) are within 4-5 hrs flying time. The 1st CSF is within a week, the second within 1.5 weeks and the other 5 tasked for joinup are within 3 weeks. The subs are always on station.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
You cannot hold the ground with ground forces over the ocean nor can ground forces hold airspaces over water. I see major conflict over air and sea instead of the traditionalland ground combat.
Unless you put the equiv of a division on Taiwans land mass within a week - and their attendant logsitics - then all you are doing is shelling the country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
A major conflict that will most probaly happen with china or america or influenced countries. The middle east will be a probable place but without a air presence or naval presence ground forces will be put through the meat grinder
The US doesn't commit land forces to force majeur conflict until they dominate the air and/or sea space. In the case of Taiwan, the need for massed bodies for island defence is not necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
Aren't all airforces landlocked?
Yes, thats why the US and UK understood the reasoning behind naval air. at the ruen of last century. The soviets/russians learnt it too late - and the PLAN is nowhere near the stage of developing a CSF - let alone the 3 that are required to support each other outside of the 2 existing fleets.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
And the navy is what use?. To blockade.? Americas economy and the worlds is so intervened with the chinese economy it with cause a global meltdown if china leaves the global trade. China starts dumping US government bonds, people start losing confidence in the US economy and '29 again.
and if the US stops buying at significant levels, then the chinese economy will overheat - its an incestuous relationship. China needs a US consumer market more than the US needs cheap chinese goods. She dealt with Japan and Taiwan in the early years - they can certainly gear up on any shortfalls. The vulnerability is not as one sided as portrayed.

[quote=chinawhite]Or if the americans fire on a chinese ship. MAD doctrime starts to work. A few chinese generals made it clear if that happensp/quote]

just curious if any of those generals have done the obvious math and worked out the yield and availability of US nuke platforms to Chinese options. At last count the US had something like a 300:1 yield advantage, a 500: 1 platform flexibility option, were at best case only 6 minutes away from strike and could also hit china anywhere of there choosing. China has none of the flexibility of those oprions. When people get excited at what china can do, it pays to do the real math.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
Thats what the RRUs are for. instead of slower overwhelming force rapid reaction to anything. that is one reason why china is investing in her transport fleet. Every military region in china has one and some have two. While the 15th airborne is active 24/7.
a RRU needs a benign or dominated environment for insertion. as soon as battlespace is contested, then light forces have only days if not hours to sieze and hold before the heavy options arrive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
Are you sure?.
conventional war since 1991 is about dislocation and decapitation. you don't need to go through a stalingrad or gettysburg to achieve return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinawhite
?. China easily has that amount with her current aircraft transport fleet.

This does not include her navy ships.
No she can't - not on the numbers that I've seen wargamed.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

Last edited by gf0012-aust; January 8th, 2006 at 04:23 AM.
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2006   #15
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 148
Threads:
Re: Chinese Military 2005

Im sorry for a misunderstandng here. I copied most of ths from a post i made in a war games and didn't read the information just general PLA information and where it is going.

And please excuse these quotes becase i am typing on a laptop. frustrating

Quote:
Originally Posted by tphuang
J-8II - they are all going to get upgraded to F/H standard.
I'm guessing, that's about 240 such planes.
All of the J-8IIs have been upgraded?. This is for 2005

Quote:
Mk3 - no way China is getting this when much more capable su-27kub and su-35 are being offered. Even getting those are questionable.
China has no been offered any of them. Su-30MK3 is the destination it will recieve once it ends up in PLAAF servie.

PS: If the Platypus was offered, dont you think the PLAAF would have jumped at that opputunity.

Quote:
sk/ubk - 76 (although a few are due to retire soon).
Retire? the J-7s need to be retired. Not these

Quote:
Not updatable to 11B standard, due to lack of WS-10A engines. Most likely upgrade all the existing J-11As with up to date avionics suite. I have doubts that they will all be upgraded to using KLJ-4 radar, since they will then be no longer be able to fire R-77.
I thought the whole purpose of the J-11B upgrade was to give it a multi-role capability and make the product indegenious. I think a radar is in development to utilze the Su-27s bigger radar dome.

THe WS-10A should have completed its testing by now. It was in testing since 2003

Quote:
The current production rate is 50+ a year. As for J-10 being at most F-16 block 25, you gotta stop making me laugh here. TVC engine + better thrust + canards. avionics suite is better too. Do you think block 25 has quadriple FBW? You should read the latest kanwa article comparing Taiwan's block 15OCU to J-10 (btw, block 15OCU is actually BVR capable and are considered to be MLU standard
maybe you should tell me the capabilites of the block 30.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...aft/f-16cd.htm

The J-10 as i know have not got guided missile capablity or persion strike. while the only equipment that china has which comes clos is on the Su-30MKK and Su-30MK2

The J-10 has better wet thrust while the F-1 has better dry thrut. You cannot use after burner for extended periods. I trust Kanwa as much as janes or newsmax. Anyway please link the article


Quote:
HQ-9 and FT-2000 are not the same.
The FT-2000 is a anti-radiation missiles

Quote:
As for J-10, you are even more off. There are around 70 to 100
And what are you basing this on? Engine purchases?. The J-10 design on got certifed in 2003
chinawhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:28 AM.