2025 Victory Day parade thread (workup, 3rd Sept)

[ACuriousPLAFan]

That Yankee mentioned during the livestream that when it comes to hitting Taiwanese military infrastructure, there's practically no difference between 5m and 1m precision. I kinda get the logic—maybe the DF-17 wasn't designed for mobile/high-precision targets in the first place, so even if it has that level of accuracy, it wouldn't really impact its combat effectiveness. If you want the kind of results you're talking about, then the PLARF probably has a whole different system specifically built for that role, rather than trying to force the DF-17—which wasn't optimized for it—into the mission. That kind of design would be way too "middle-of-the-road"—not cheap enough, not efficient enough.

In contrary, I do believe that the DF-17 is meant to engage mobile targets. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother setting up target platform-on-rails in the middle of nowhere in Western China.

However, the key distinction would be said mobile targets would be larger-sized, such as a warship that is at least FFG-sized. This means that if the DF-17's CEP is - Let's say, 5 meters instead of 1 or 2 meters - A damaging hit is still going to be guaranteed, as long as the missile is aimed largely at the central regions of the warship.

I mean, technically you could also use a DF-17 to target, say, the Wanwanese rebel leader's motorcade. But why bother with that 1 or 2-meter CEP, when the warhead is big enough to generate a large enough fireball and shockwave that would engulf and devastate the key segments of the motorcate, as long as the missile strikes in the immediate vicinity of the VVIP cars carrying the targets? Let alone the fact where there are plenty of better options available at the PLA's disposal jobs like this.

I think that while everyone wants the best possible parameters and solutions for everything, but reality rarely enables that.

 

[Blitzo]

The right way to handle cost is through engineering innovation and manufacturing scaling rather than gimping the system. The improved capabilities of the weapon expands its mission set from hitting large, fixed installations to targeting mobile/small time sensitive targets. This makes it a much bigger problem to enemy planners than a more limited system would be.

It also seems to me that most of the cost is paid up front to develop the sensors and flight control laws to steer an HGV; once that's paid, it's just a matter of printing the sensor electronics and loading the FCS. There would be very little savings now in limiting the DF-17.

Considering most of the upfront development was already done, of course it is a case that there is not much reason to actively try and limit the DF-17 now, however it is logical to look back on the development of DF-17 and realize that if they perhaps committed less upfront money to certain components, subsystems or tests, then they could have resulted in a missile that still met their requirements while being a bit more affordable than what they have now.

That is to say, this isn't a cost issue per se, but rather something to feed back into future project development to better match performance with requirements.

In this case, DF-17 seemingly exceeding its requirements has not been greatly detrimental to the program or the military service as a whole because they've still been able to procure it at relatively good scale. But one can also easily imagine if they'd developed it in too ambitious a manner, that they ended up with a product which per unit may be a highly capable system and greatly exceed their requirements, but is too expensive to be procured at the scale that they want, and where "engineering innovation" and "scaling" is unable to practically bring the cost down to an acceptable margin within the bounds of what was allocated to fund the project as is.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Considering most of the upfront development was already done, of course it is a case that there is not much reason to actively try and limit the DF-17 now, however it is logical to look back on the development of DF-17 and realize that if they perhaps committed less upfront money to certain components, subsystems or tests, then they could have resulted in a missile that still met their requirements while being a bit more affordable than what they have now.

That is to say, this isn't a cost issue per se, but rather something to feed back into future project development to better match performance with requirements.

In this case, DF-17 seemingly exceeding its requirements has not been greatly detrimental to the program or the military service as a whole because they've still been able to procure it at relatively good scale. But one can also easily imagine if they'd developed it in too ambitious a manner, that they ended up with a product which per unit may be a highly capable system and greatly exceed their requirements, but is too expensive to be procured at the scale that they want, and where "engineering innovation" and "scaling" is unable to practically bring the cost down to an acceptable margin within the bounds of what was allocated to fund the project as is.

I'd argue this is the right way of looking at a project like the DF-17 if you're America. You don't graduate many STEM people, and those you do graduate go to Silicon Valley or Wall Street and do crypto and platform monopoly. In addition, you've got legions of middlemen taking a cut every time you breathe. You don't have many resources and you're burdened with a lot of inefficiency, so every project is going to balloon in cost or end up cancelled.

America showed uncharacteristic wisdom in canning its naval 6th generation fighter fairly early.

This is entirely different if you're China. You've got ungodly masses of scientists and engineers, a bonanza of research facilities and infrastructure, efficient and disciplined state-owned companies (yes, really), and ironclad long term funding. You can and should gold plate systems with the expectation that costs will eventually be wrestled down.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Elon and LiDAR. If Chinese EV companies hadn't entered the ADAS game as strongly as they did, then Elon would have been right to ignore LiDAR as it would be far too expensive. But China innovated and scaled LiDAR down to the point where it's regularly fitted on mass-market cars.

To sum it up, if you're China just go for it and trust the process.

 

[Blitzo]

I'd argue this is the right way of looking at a project like the DF-17 if you're America. You don't graduate many STEM people, and those you do graduate go to Silicon Valley or Wall Street and do crypto and platform monopoly. In addition, you've got legions of middlemen taking a cut every time you breathe. You don't have many resources and you're burdened with a lot of inefficiency, so every project is going to balloon in cost or end up cancelled.
=

This is entirely different if you're China. You've got ungodly masses of scientists and engineers, a bonanza of research facilities and infrastructure, efficient and disciplined state-owned companies (yes, really), and ironclad long term funding. You can and should gold plate systems with the expectation that costs will eventually be wrestled down.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Elon and LiDAR. If Chinese EV companies hadn't entered the ADAS game as strongly as they did, then Elon would have been right to ignore LiDAR as it would be far too expensive. But China innovated and scaled LiDAR down to the point where it's regularly fitted on mass-market cars.

To sum it up, if you're China just go for it and trust the process.

No, what I described applies to everyone. China does not have limitless resources nor limitless industrial capacity and research infrastructure.

I strongly recommend you reconcile the fact that the PLA's relatively successful modernization efforts over the past few decades is not merely a reflection of having sufficient investment and resourcing into industry and technology and human resourcing, but also due to having disciplined and cautious procurement strategies and priorities such that they are rarely overstretched. This means that they pick specific platforms and capabilities where high end requirements are necessary and other platforms and capabilities where high end requirements are not.

If you genuinely believe what you're writing, do you really want me to write another tirade in the idiocy of chauvinism and triumphalism?
The reason the PLA advanced as it did, was due to vigilance and caution. Abandoning such a mindset would signal the beginning of a long decline in procurement common sense, industry health and warfighting capability.


As for ADAS, while the proliferation of LiDAR is fine and all, the example is not a great one considering a recent comprehensive test of ADAS equipped cars in China actually had Tesla at the top, exceeding many LiDAR equipped cars. That is not an inherent judgement as to what the best sensor fit, but likely a reflection of Tesla's greater base of data and algorithms at play, and with enough time and resourcing I'm sure that cars with more comprehensive sensors (inclusive of LiDAR) would do better than Tesla's imaging only pursuit. But of all the comparisons you could have chosen to make your point, you picked a rather bad one.

America showed uncharacteristic wisdom in canning its naval 6th generation fighter fairly early.

I wouldn't count your chickens on that yet.

 

[bsdnf]

The right way to handle cost is through engineering innovation and manufacturing scaling rather than gimping the system. The improved capabilities of the weapon expands its mission set from hitting large, fixed installations to targeting mobile/small time sensitive targets. This makes it a much bigger problem to enemy planners than a more limited system would be.

It also seems to me that most of the cost is paid up front to develop the sensors and flight control laws to steer an HGV; once that's paid, it's just a matter of printing the sensor electronics and loading the FCS. There would be very little savings now in limiting the DF-17.

Just as we observed with the DF-21C/D, various levels of missile warheads have adopted similar structures, so we may see a variety of HGVs.

The guidance system of the DF-17 is too expensive, and its accuracy within the missile's range is too high? It could be mounted on the DF-26 or DF-31.

Using the DF-17 to target convoys is indeed wasteful, so could it be mounted on heavy air-launched munitions like the Beijing Heavy Hammer or on SRBMs?

Seeking more cost-effective methods does not necessarily mean restricting the DF-17 itself. There are alternative approaches to spreading the R&D costs through broader application, beyond merely procuring more DF-17s. These are also existing platforms.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

The right way to handle cost is through engineering innovation and manufacturing scaling rather than gimping the system. The improved capabilities of the weapon expands its mission set from hitting large, fixed installations to targeting mobile/small time sensitive targets. This makes it a much bigger problem to enemy planners than a more limited system would be.

It also seems to me that most of the cost is paid up front to develop the sensors and flight control laws to steer an HGV; once that's paid, it's just a matter of printing the sensor electronics and loading the FCS. There would be very little savings now in limiting the DF-17.

I actually think China using long range expensive ballistic missile itself to strike any target is a waste of money cause these missiles are too expensive for a total war scenario where 100k missile might be needed to be produced. This was maybe the case 20 years ago when China lacked a proper air force and could only count on ballistic missile to strike at US and its allies. Its kinda similar to the strategy Iran employs now.

The right strategy is what US does, which is to use cheap air launched missiles with much smaller range, lower cost. The idea is to use overwhelming air power to destroy all air defenses and then bomb with impunity with cheaper munitions.

China should not pursue the strategy of a weak country of the past. China needs to pursue the strategy of a dominant country with overwhelming air power. Strategy needs to change with time, Rocket force is likely to become less important as Air power becomes more and more dominant.

 

[vincent]

As for ADAS, while the proliferation of LiDAR is fine and all, the example is not a great one considering a recent comprehensive test of ADAS equipped cars in China actually had Tesla at the top, exceeding many LiDAR equipped cars. That is not an inherent judgement as to what the best sensor fit, but likely a reflection of Tesla's greater base of data and algorithms at play, and with enough time and resourcing I'm sure that cars with more comprehensive sensors (inclusive of LiDAR) would do better than Tesla's imaging only pursuit. But of all the comparisons you could have chosen to make your point, you picked a rather bad one.

Lots of people argued the test scenarios avoid conditions that are not favourable to vision only ADAS.

 

[Blitzo]

Lots of people argued the test scenarios avoid conditions that are not favourable to vision only ADAS.

Out of all of the parts you've chose to reply to, you've picked the most offhand part of my reply to him lol.

My point was not to argue about the specifics of that particular set of tests, but rather to demonstrate that he's used a poor example in context of recent news, and thus it is far from decisive at this stage to current Chinese ADAS systems (inclusive of LiDAR) being superior to Tesla vision only ADAS, and therefore a poor example to cite if one is wanting to argue that consistent "better equipped" hardware will always result in better outcomes for military hardware as well, because there are other factors that matter.

 

[arthur2046]

As for ADAS, while the proliferation of LiDAR is fine and all, the example is not a great one considering a recent comprehensive test of ADAS equipped cars in China actually had Tesla at the top, exceeding many LiDAR equipped cars. That is not an inherent judgement as to what the best sensor fit, but likely a reflection of Tesla's greater base of data and algorithms at play, and with enough time and resourcing I'm sure that cars with more comprehensive sensors (inclusive of LiDAR) would do better than Tesla's imaging only pursuit. But of all the comparisons you could have chosen to make your point, you picked a rather bad one.

That automotive media outlet generates profit by charging automakers for advertising, lacking objectivity and impartiality. The more carmakers invest in advertising, the higher they tend to rank. It has long suffered a poor reputation, leading some Chinese manufacturers like Huawei to terminate collaborations with it. In contrast, a German company once conducted rigorous testing of self-driving capabilities among various brands in China, where Chinese automakers outperformed Tesla in the rankings.

 

[Blitzo]

That automotive media outlet generates profit by charging automakers for advertising, lacking objectivity and impartiality. The more carmakers invest in advertising, the higher they tend to rank. It has long suffered a poor reputation, leading some Chinese manufacturers like Huawei to terminate collaborations with it. In contrast, a German company once conducted rigorous testing of self-driving capabilities among various brands in China, where Chinese automakers outperformed Tesla in the rankings.

See above.

I don't really have a dog in the whole ADAS affair, except to convey that at this stage the current state of play has yet to be settled, and is therefore a poor example to cite if one wants to make a case for "more expansive Chinese industrial capability" (even if in the long run, it is true).


===

Further posts on this matter in this thread will be deleted.