How can and How should PLAN improve it self?

Roger604 said:

Plus, if the Russians are offering their best technology for the SSBN, there is no reason why they would not offer their best technology for the SSN.

Click to expand...

Chinese Proverb: "There is no such thing as a permanent friend and no such thing as a permanent enemy."

If Russia was hessitant to sell Backfire bombers to China, what makes you think she will sell her SSN technology.

The country that gets the best Russian technology is India. I think it is rumored that Russia is building an Akula II sub for her.

Roger604 said:

Oops. Mig you're right. But here's some info that might fill in the gaps.



This is from Richard Fisher

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If this is true, then the Type 094 may be much more advanced than we expected. Plus, if the Russians are offering their best technology for the SSBN, there is no reason why they would not offer their best technology for the SSN.

Click to expand...

That bit is complete speculation... essentially he is saying that a design which nobody's ever seen (094, and certainly not in 2004), seems 'similar' to another design which nobody's ever seen (Borey class - that's seen numerous major revisions since then). And since I doubt they had the full design schematics to either, they are saying that the launcher assembly looks 'similar' from the outside.. Hell, even number of SLBMs is different. Borey mounts 20 and later 12. 094 is rumoured to mount 16... I won't call this decisive evidence exactly.

IDonT said:

Chinese Proverb: "There is no such thing as a permanent friend and no such thing as a permanent enemy."

If Russia was hessitant to sell Backfire bombers to China, what makes you think she will sell her SSN technology.

The country that gets the best Russian technology is India. I think it is rumored that Russia is building an Akula II sub for her.

Click to expand...

That quote is in fact closer to what was said by British Lord Palmerston, when he was foreign secratery " We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are perpetual and eternal and those interests it is our duty to follow." If I recall well it was in 1848.

And the same applies to Russia. India has the best of Russian technology because it is willing to pay for it and that we have at present no direct conflict with them, and that it makes the Chinese more willing to buy from us. They are useful to counterbalance China, a little. It is not that we do not trust China. At present it is our belief that more or less it is in China's best interest to deal fairly with us, and that she also believes that. But some leverage is always good.

As India continue to try to get a place in central Asia, however, you may well see the sales being more problematic - though sales to the navy may likely continue apace - the Indian Navy is hardly likely to ever cross paths with us.

Finally, I do not believe it to be true that we are building Akula for India, or the Shuka class as I think you are actually thinking of. There were rumours of leasing of Shuka (number of two), but none of actually building for her.

IDonT said:

Chinese Proverb: "There is no such thing as a permanent friend and no such thing as a permanent enemy."

If Russia was hessitant to sell Backfire bombers to China, what makes you think she will sell her SSN technology.

The country that gets the best Russian technology is India. I think it is rumored that Russia is building an Akula II sub for her.

Click to expand...

russia is not hesitant to sell backfires anymore. They are actually promoting the aircraft, along with the tu-95. In the early ninteties, russia was afraid backfires would disturb the strategic balance in the region. Not anymore though. Russian scientists will do anything for MONEY. That is what drives them. It is already pretty clear russia assisted with the 93's development. The reason india gets the best russian weapons is because india demands them, where as china builds her own.

石家庄舰.

Click to expand...

Yes, the name shijiazhuang has been specualted for a while now.

MIGleader said:

russia is not hesitant to sell backfires anymore. They are actually promoting the aircraft, along with the tu-95. In the early ninteties, russia was afraid backfires would disturb the strategic balance in the region. Not anymore though. Russian scientists will do anything for MONEY. That is what drives them. It is already pretty clear russia assisted with the 93's development. The reason india gets the best russian weapons is because india demands them, where as china builds her own.

Click to expand...

This is oversimplification. Military sales still has to be approved by the Committee for Foreign Military-Technological Cooperation, and it is not a great leaking sieve. 'Company funding', it is important, but it isn't anywhere close to omnipotent yet. If nothing else the arms companies themselves have self interest. Sell too much too fast and reverse engineering will also occur fast. That is one of the rationale, in fact, of massive Russian assistance of certain arms development and of course Russia's sounding out of straight co-operation programmes. The reason goes since they will learn and reverse-engineer anyway we might as well sell it to them while we can.

my view toward the akula is that the Russians are leasing it to the Indians so that they have money to build them and once they have used it for a while, the lease will be over. Works out for both parties, the Russians get someone to fund for the new Akula and the Indians get some experience with SSN.

As for SSN, I think China is getting help through COTS products from many countries whose export controls are not as strict as the American ones. For example, the Chinese SSK subs have been using French sonar even though the arms ban is supposed to be in place. I'm sure it got design help and certain parts from the Russians, but it's hard to comment more than that. Just like most Chinese systems, there is a lot of guessing going on.

Some things to consider:

Among the 5 memebrs of the UN Security Council (US, Russia, China, France, UK):

* China is the only one that lacks operational aircraft carrier
* The other 4 powers have at least 4+ SSBN's each
* Comparred to others, China does not have an effective nuclear secondary strike capability
* US, France, and Briton have oversea territory or leased bases, Russia is losing hers and China has none.
* China has been importing military hardware from abroad since Qing Dynasty and has lagged behind in technology.

I think the most pressing concern is the shortage of SSBN's. The Xia-class boat is getting old and, with more countries getting nukes, you need an effective secondary strike force by sea that can be deployed globally. IMO PLAN should field 4-8 SSBN's.

If we look at the new PLAN ships today, it's a mix of domestic trial platforms mixed with imported stop-gap platforms. Typically only 2 ships per class are built and we see domestic (HQ-9) and imported (RIF-M/S-300F) systems on different ships.

I think the mix & match of different weapon & launch systems make them look a bit like the British Type 23 Frigates (though PLAN's ships look more modern). Perhaps it's because the PLAN doesn't have a mature platform yet for serial production. But I'd like to see eventual standardization like the US Mark 41 VLS system. The Mk 41 can launch air-defense missiles, anti-submarine rockets, & land-attack cruise missiles.

China also has more money than Britain, France and Russia. But it appears china has been investing here naval money into different stuff, like SSKs and new DDGs. Neither russia, britian(until type 45), or france has serviced a vessel like the 52c. France's laffeyette may be stealthier, but it is a smaller FFG. Britains type 42 may have similar systems, but it is not stealthy. Russia's vessels may have more...missles, but thats it.

I do not see how china;s nuclear force is less capable than britain's or frances. The lack of ICBMs might be it, but why? China has the ability to build many more if it wants, but it doesnt.

I do not see how china;s nuclear force is less capable than britain's or frances. The lack of ICBMs might be it, but why? China has the ability to build many more if it wants, but it doesnt

Click to expand...

And that's really a political decision. The civies decided they wanted a minimal deterence to hedge against nuclear blackmail but avoid the cost of an arms race. The same can probably be said of all the other weapon systems and spending. If you look at comparisons of CBG, SSBN, and overseas bases, China is inferior in comparison to the other 4 UNSC members, but perhaps part of it is China's perception of what it needs (of course, the other part is China's ability to produce or procure what it wants).

By building more SSBNs, China will be viewed as a threat to Asia and an arms race would ensue.

I think CVBGs are more symbols of national pride for most nations. China is being very practical and realistic currently by first building a first rate surface, submarine and air force before trying to combine these aspects into on big CVBG.

sino52C said:

By building more SSBNs, China will be viewed as a threat to Asia and an arms race would ensue.

I think CVBGs are more symbols of national pride for most nations. China is being very practical and realistic currently by first building a first rate surface, submarine and air force before trying to combine these aspects into on big CVBG.

Click to expand...

Not nation is allowed to have more than 16 SSBN's, and East asian countries can have none. Thus, an arms race is impossible. China shall be the sole operator of SSBNs in the region.

National pride or whatever the reason, carriers are usefull. But your right, china is going to get everything else right before getting a carrier.