China depends less on Russian Technology

Baibar of Jalat said:

I disagree to an extent with the article. Even though China is not buying complete systems like SU 30s which result in alot of media attention. There is still significant trade in components and sub systems and other incomplete systems. There is also joint collabrations in the various fields of science. If we do not hear or see them in the media does not mean trade has come to a halt.

I am basing my view largely on the belief both countries keep their purcurements or exports a secret. Unless it is a complete weapon system like su 30 or naval destroyer. For the Russians highlighting the trade would bring publicity.

Click to expand...

Actually the component purchases are not secret. There has been a number of component purchases in the past, such as ship radars. But even these are coming to a halt. The Russians have every reason to highlight the trade for their own marketing purposes.

Also some of the trade are not with the Russians but Ukrainians (ship turbine engines) and other former Soviet republics. For example, the tech for the Skval lies in Kazakhstan, not Russia. Unlike the Russians, people like the Ukrainians and Belarussians are not as selective as to what they can and cannot export to China.

One by one, the windows for component purchases are being closed. For example, the IRST for the Su-27 and Su-30. Its entirely localized now for the J-11B.

Digital beamforming radars will likely find their first homes on ships that track missile threats to U.S. fleets. Those threats will come from ballistic launches hundreds of miles away or from high-speed missiles launched from submarines or warplanes. The Russian government has been busy selling sea-skimming, antiship missiles to China that are designed to overwhelm the U.S. fleet’s radars, so the ability to track multiple, fast-moving threats could become vital in the Taiwan Straits. But a digitized phased array radar can handle many incoming signals at once, and should be able to discern real threats from bits of metal or shaped decoy balloons.So somewhere a Chinese admiral is frowning at Lockheed’s news, and a Taiwanese general is smirking.

Click to expand...

Has China ever felt secure up against the US that it would be in an arrogant position to be destroyed by this news? Sort of irrelevent unless the US is planning to attack first. Time is on China's side unless you're one to believe that any potential adversary of the US doesn't have the intellectual capability to develop and/or counter this without Lockheed Martin's help. But then that kind of limited thinking is why the alarm always seems to come from the other side surpised by developments in China.

Another thing to consider is the role of Russian weapons in the domestic procurement programs.

How quickly would the Chinese have perfected the 039G and introduced the 039A design without buying the Kilos?

How quickly would the HQ-9 have been fielded without purchasing the S-300PMUs?

J-11Bs? ZBD-97s? LS-500Js? Powerplants for the FC-1 and the J-10? Newly-unveiled anti-aircraft systems? How about the SAMs on 052Bs?

My point is, even though these Russian systems are becoming increasingly outshined by their Chinese counterparts, they have served and still serve an integral role in the whole scheme of things. The acqusition of these systems not only filled the avoid before domestic systems had rolled out, they also accelerated the R&D process for future platforms. IMO, China got every penny she paid for from these deals.

Actually the Song has very little in detail that is in relation to the Kilo. It can be perfected without using the Kilo as a technical reference. The same can be said of the Yuan. There are so many technical details that differ greatly between the Song/Yuan and the Kilo that any implied technological genetic relationship is not there. The entire 039 class has a lot more to do with Western sourced technologies, such as the German engines and the French inspired (the designs are indigenous) sonars. The only thing the Yuan has in common with the Kilo is the nose, but then a whole bunch of subs have similar nose designs too. Once you start looking at the limber holes, the sail design, the plane and fin configurations, the proportions, everything becomes seriously different. The AIP system for the Yuan runs on a Stirling principle, which you have to look to Sweden for inspiration. Russia's first attempt at AIP is based on fuel cell technology, which is German derived. Given China's connections to the Germans, its not likely China's fuel cell technologies would be inspired from the Russians.

The problem is that the Russians have run out of things to sell to the Chinese for the Chinese to model from. The Chinese actually went ahead on a number of things. For example, the Chinese have put their A-50 derived AWACS into operational service with electronic steering phase array radars and the Russians have not even completed their own yet with phase array.

Russia's most advanced SSK is the Amur/Lada. Its also the first one to have flank sonars, which only brings it to the same level as the Song already did years ago. Given the fact that the Yuan which is launched earlier is also bigger, the Yuan would have certain advantages in its design the Lada lacks. Not to mention the Lada has not finished its trials yet, but the Yuan has.

Another Russian inspired system where China has gone ahead is the HH-16. Although it seems inspired from the Shtil, the Chinese have already put them into VLS form and that into operational service, when the Russians don't even have a working system of the Shtil VLS.

And when you look at all the new PLAN ships now, they all look modern, clean and stealthy. The Sovs look like dinosaurs when set next to them. I seriously doubt that the Udaloys or a modernized Krivak like the Talwars have anything like the RCS of the Jiangkai II.

The Russians now have to look for gaps in the Chinese armament spectrum. Among such gaps are helicopters, hence the Mi-171 and the Kamovs are still good sales to China, though you can forget about the attack helicopters with China having the WZ-10. The Irbis is also interesting but towards the turn of the decade, I don't think China would be pursuing a PESA. Some of the Russian concepts are still interesting. The modernized Sunburn using Tarantuls, even though they look like dinosaurs compared to a Houbei, can make good use of China's large Sunburn inventory. The Project 20380 corvette for me is a model of what a PLAN corvette or littoral combat ship should be, although I think it's too expensive.

In many ways, Russia's nuclear submarines have a depth of more experience in design than China's, although the relationship between Chinese nuclear submarines and Russian are vastly overstated by analysts (they in fact have little in common other than broad features like double hulls). China can still learn from the Russians, but surprisingly, the Chinese are not approaching them, given that Rubin have said they were never approached by the Chinese for advisement. Well not surprisingly actually because in some ways, China's nuclear sub fleet is also meant as deterrent against Russia's nuclear forces; the Xia was a Cold War artifact that was meant against the Russians, not the US. And the Russians know that, which is why this region of technology is not open to sale. One particular area is where the Russians have semi-mastered Lead Bismuth cooled reactors, which they used on the Alfa class. This particular type of reactor has superior power to density output over conventional Pressurized Water Reactors.

Does not matter really. China is buying so much oil from Russia that Russia is becoming rich on that, and the Russians might as well use the petrodollars to beef up their own forces.

crobato said:

Does not matter really. China is buying so much oil from Russia that Russia is becoming rich on that, and the Russians might as well use the petrodollars to beef up their own forces.

Click to expand...

I think that's the correct attitude. The wrong attitude when we look at the current and past state of military transfers between China and Russia is to complain about how lousy the Russian systems are and boost about how great China's systems are. For one, those Soviet platforms, like the Su-27s and the Sovremennys, are relics of the cold war, and just are beginning to be surpassed by Chinese systems being introduced 20-30 years later. Two, don't forget the state of affairs between the mid-90s through 2004 in the Taiwan Strait. Without these old workhorse weapons, which is really the only credible conventional deterrent that China had, who knows what the consequences might have been.

Should the day come when Taiwan is unified, these Russian platforms will receive their proper recognization for serving China at its weakest moment.

crobato said:

I can't agree though. The S-300 has its own faults. For example, it lacks the 360 degree coverage of the HHQ-9 system used on the 052C.

Click to expand...

That could probably be rectified if the radar arrays were removed from the pedestal and placed on the superstructure. The S-300FM currently uses what is basically a TOMB STONE radar taken from a MAZ-543 and stuck onto a boat, after all.

crobato said:

Large long range missiles don't do well intercepting a smaller more evasive missile (for antimissile interception, its a good rule that intercepting missile must be smaller than the target missile). The 5V55 and 48N6E are too big for their britches against something like a Harpoon, hence why the smaller 9M96E is offered.

Click to expand...

The HHQ-9 would have the same faults.

crobato said:

The modern trend for ship born AAW is to put the radars as high as possible. This gives you superior "look down" over the radar horizon, extending the engagement range of the radar against sea skimmers, as compared to an arrangement lower in the ship. The radar on the superstructure typified by AEGIS is passe, and so is the revolving radar pedestal style of the RIF-M. Better to put a smaller radar on top of the highest mast, even if the smaller radar has less range. This arrangement has better peer down over the radar horizon. The Euro ships are taking to this---Daring class, Horizon class, all the new MEKO frigate and destroyer designs like the Saschen, F100 and De Provincien.

Click to expand...

The S-300FM isn't meant for close-in defense.

At any rate, that doesn't even touch the land-based S-300PMU-2 or potentially the S-400s which would definitely be of great use to the PLAAF. Three PMU-2 sites will pretty much own the Formosa Strait unless every single Formosan fighter jet decides to head across the water at the exact same time. Replace them with three S-400 batteries...and instead of engaging 18 simultaneous targets, you're up to 36. That's a great asset, as it will also reduce the workload of the PLAAF interceptors, provided the air defense network can deconflict targets effectively (otherwise you've got SAMs and AAMs chasing the same targets!).

FugitiveVisions said:

The wrong attitude when we look at the current and past state of military transfers between China and Russia is to complain about how lousy the Russian systems are and boost about how great China's systems are.

Click to expand...

Good point. The Russian-made SAM systems are still the best in the world, and China's aerospace industry got a great shot in the arm by being able to import and examine high-performance fighter aircraft like the Su-27, whose airframe still stands up well today. Chinese military weapon systems are becoming more and more complex and capable, and are able to now compare to some of the best the West has to offer for the first time in history. They still lag in a few areas, notably in SAM systems and probably submarine design given some of the issues they've had recently, but if you look at where China is today compared to where China was 20 years ago, there is no contest. China today is rapidly becoming a modern, well equipped fighting force. Now that they don't have to rely on sheer numbers of mostly obsolete systems to dominate the battlespace, China is a far more credible threat to nearly every country with an interest in the region apart from the United States. Given where they were 20 years ago, that says a whole hell of a lot about the competence, ability, and products of the Chinese defense establishment.

-SOC said:

That could probably be rectified if the radar arrays were removed from the pedestal and placed on the superstructure. The S-300FM currently uses what is basically a TOMB STONE radar taken from a MAZ-543 and stuck onto a boat, after all.

Click to expand...

Not for an array of this size. You will have some serious supporting, balancing and top weight issues.

Also the Russians were not able to implement data fusion, which is to take the information from all four arrays and make that appear as one. This is not to say it is technically possible for the Russians to do sensor-data fusion, but with regards to the RIF-M, they have not done that homework or has any deliverable product with such a feature.

The HHQ-9 would have the same faults.

Click to expand...

Not really. The arrays can be reduced in size, and it won't be an issue with the HH-16. In any case HHQ-9 already has sensor and data fusion in an operational level which the RIF-M doesn't.

An example of a downsized implementation is the smaller AEGIS SPY-1F (F for frigate not the D version for Destroyer) that are being put on top of the mast in the German MEKO frigates.

The S-300FM isn't meant for close-in defense.

At any rate, that doesn't even touch the land-based S-300PMU-2 or potentially the S-400s which would definitely be of great use to the PLAAF. Three PMU-2 sites will pretty much own the Formosa Strait unless every single Formosan fighter jet decides to head across the water at the exact same time. Replace them with three S-400 batteries...and instead of engaging 18 simultaneous targets, you're up to 36. That's a great asset, as it will also reduce the workload of the PLAAF interceptors, provided the air defense network can deconflict targets effectively (otherwise you've got SAMs and AAMs chasing the same targets!).

Click to expand...

I have heard before that the HQ-9 is capable of engaging up to 48 targets, and in any case, if it does not do so, the millions of dollars you can pour into buying an S-400 system can be spent on the HQ-9 to improve its capabilities.

Good point. The Russian-made SAM systems are still the best in the world, and China's aerospace industry got a great shot in the arm by being able to import and examine high-performance fighter aircraft like the Su-27, whose airframe still stands up well today.

Click to expand...

Its not the airframe that's the problem. It's the electronics. The J-10 vs. Su-27 encounters highlights another weak spot, which is the vulnerability of the Russian systems to electronic countermeasures. If the PLAAF meets the ROCAF in the air, they better pray that the ROCAF doesn't have the EW/ECM capabilities of the J-10 or updated to the 21st Century. (The EW/ECM capabilities of ROCAF fighters are essentially frozen at the mid nineties.) What is worst is that the Russians dont' seem to know what is going on with EW. You can read Tom Cooper's observation about a Russian attache that told him that two PLAAF pilots were working with the Russians and the Russians were surprised what the pilots knew and what the Russians themselves didn't know. It probably stands that the Su-27s and J-11s in Chinese service may have their EW equipment customized to their own needs.

Whatever the Russians have contributed to the Chinese development effort, the Chinese have outgrown it and is shedding them like caterpillar skin. Cold War relics are not going to cut it in a future war from 2020 and above, certainly not. The Russians only have a few systems that can be said not to have roots in any designs from the Cold War, and these systems are still facing funds shortage to finish their development because despite the improvement in their economy, the Russians have not downsized their own military in the needed manner so they end up paying more for overhead, and less for development effort. (The PLA's own modernization effort came with some serious and painful manpower downsizing in all three branches.)

There is also the question of the entire spectrum of EW/ECM capabilities whether or not the latest Russian systems have what it takes to counter similar systems in the West. Does not matter how good your platform or system is on paper, if you get F----d up by ECM, you're F---D up. The PLA takes EW/ECM very seriously, so that they always emphasize the use and mention of heavy ECM environments in their exercises.

The theme is not about acknowledging Russian contribution to the Chinese modernization effort but what can the Russians still contribute in the next ten years or so. Being "thankful" for the past is not a good reason to continue buying these systems or so. In any case the Russians got the money from China to make their defense industry survive and they should be more than thankful to their customers too.

ok So how far would You put chinas military behind the west on an individual basis eg

aircraft engines, sams, aams,ssms,radar, electronics, avionics, and last of all their training. Strategy Page suggests that training especially in the naval services eg submarines is still sub par., And Chinas stuff is about 2oyrs behind. (Do u rally think so) It would be very hard to judge how good chinas designs are as they are only sold to the third world countries who r unlikely to take on major powers.
What Im trying to get at is that based on previous wars and skirmishes,usa aircaraft and weaponry have bettered those of the russians,but what if the migs and sukhois were flown by pilots, with the same skill level and sense of purpose as the opposing side.
im not trying to start a flaming situation, its just that we dont see Russian equipment capabilities in a,true light

Strategy Page is (one of) the worst sources you can turn to for military info. It's extremely biased...
The 20yrs behind thing is exaggerated...only equipment like early models of J-7, J-8, Q-5, Ming and Romeo class subs are that old. There are also new improved variants of those models in service 2day, which they conveniently dont mention...
China's new toys like 093, 094, Songs, Yuans, J-10s and Flanker variants are definitely not 20yrs behind their western counterparts.

What Im trying to get at is that based on previous wars and skirmishes,usa aircaraft and weaponry have bettered those of the russians

Click to expand...

Not necessarily true...reminds me of AK-47 coming out on top of M-16 in Vietnam. US equipment generally comes out of an engagement better than Russia's cos US crews are much better trained.

China's submarine fleet needs to train farther off shore. So far they train mainly in close waters. This limits their reach, although they can be very competent in defending their shores. I get the sense that the PLAN gets surveillance shy because they don't want their subs to get tracked, which will happen once they leave off to bluer waters.

As far as missiles and radars go, China has demonstrated cutting edge telemetry, navigation systems, flight control, and tracking with its space programs and ASAT test. For example, the Shenzhou reentries are only 2 to 4km off the mark. That's some precision reentry, you can check with the history of space flight to see how far or near off the mark the reentries of various manned space programs go.

China's progress is uneven. Some things are pretty much in the forefront, like guided MLRS (WS-2), the AshMs, the short range ballistic missiles. Some are a little behind but still near the edge, like the DF-31A mobile ICBMs. Some are beginning to progress rapidly like the AAMs. Some are moderately behind but fast catching up like the SAMs. Some are things that China is just starting to learn but appears to be learning quickly, like the ARMs.

China has no problem with rocket motors and steam turbines. As far as rocket motors are concerned they seem to be right on the edge. China is progressing rapidly on nuclear reactors. It is the only one in the world with a pebbled bed reactor, one of two in the world for an HTGR, and currently has the world's biggest Tokamac for fusion energy research. But its just starting its stride on gas turbines. On the other hand it has neglected more conventional power forms like diesel engines, preferring to license them from outside sources, to go for the "sexy" stuff.

The situation for radars can be more controversial, but the gap seems to be closing to like 10 or even less years. I don't think China has any radar comparable to the AESAs like in the Raptor, the F-15 and Super Hornet upgrades, or the Captors of the Typhoon. But against the latest versions of common slotted array mainstays like the APG-63, -66 or -65, the gap may have narrowed considerably, and has reached parity against the earlier versions of said radars. That's my opinion. With ship and surveillance radars, not yet against the cutting edge in the West, but a lot better compared to the equipment of the Soviet Union at the time the Cold War ended. Probably looking at 5 to 10 years gap also. For telecommunications and data linking, that gap may even be much narrower. China's internet routers need to handle that sheer volume of traffic which is the highest in the world, would put them right at the state of the art.