Next generation Japanese destroyers, what it means for PLAN

crobato said:

You mean the IOUs? The reason why the Americans can still spend is because the Chinese and other Asians are pumping money back to the house of cards, only to suck it out again. Rinse and repeat.

Click to expand...

OK. But China's growth would come to a grinding halt without this setup. The house of cards will fall for everyone.

Not only did no one knew about the Yuan, they didn't know about the improved Song, they didn't know about the 052B, the 052C, the 054, and the Type 22 until they are already nearly assembled in the docks. No one also knew the KJ-2000, the KJ-200, the Y-8 variations, until all those photos leaked out in the Internet. What about the new IFV? Or the Type 98 and 99 tank until China either started parading them or showing in cable TV.

Click to expand...

Crobato. Oh dear Crobato. I was a part of US Naval service that worked interoperability issues, and joint issues. I remember the roundtable discussions I was a part of. None of these discussions were classified or anything. I can't speak for some of the Army stuff. But I'm sure my counterparts in those services may have had that info. But basically almost everything naval was a known attribute. The only thing I don't remember was anything about the Yuan SSK. But it does look alot like a Kilo, so it may just have been missed. And in regards to China's newer ships, there are no surprises at all. It was known that they would field better technologies, but the sources of the systems would be absorbed. And they are. What was in question was the workmanship. This seems to be better than it was thought to be. J-10 was also known. It was in development in basic form in the 80's.
The Type 22 (or a vessel like it) was also known, but not very well. It was only understood to be on the horizon. Since I've left, I really don't know when or how they discovered the presence of KJ-2000, Y-8, Y-9, or if they even knew about it at all. But I do know that almost everything naval China has demonstrated to date, is not really that much of a surprise at all. And alot of it has been open source info for years.

Concepts?

Big difference between concepts and implementation.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But still this Scandinavian technology had already been developed a long time before anybody really fielded them.

Sea Dog said:

......
Agreed. But still this Scandinavian technology had already been developed a long time before anybody really fielded them.

Click to expand...

Interesting discussion going on here.
Well, the next question would be that is this just an assumption on your part ? How do you know for how long have the Chinese and other non-Scandanavian nations have also had 'concepts' and developed the tech before finally fielding them ?

Schumacher said:

Interesting discussion going on here.
Well, the next question would be that is this just an assumption on your part ? How do you know for how long have the Chinese and other non-Scandanavian nations have also had 'concepts' and developed the tech before finally fielding them ?

Click to expand...

Well, the fact that I know for sure that the USN was interested in ceramic hull form material from this same program in the late 80's, we can say that this program was at least in existence then. I'm not sure when China had such a program, but there's no evidence at all that it was around the same time or before the late 80's. Unless you got something to prove otherwise?

Sea Dog said:

Well, the fact that I know for sure that the USN was interested in ceramic hull form material from this same program in the late 80's, we can say that this program was at least in existence then. I'm not sure when China had such a program, but there's no evidence at all that it was around the same time or before the late 80's. Unless you got something to prove otherwise?

Click to expand...

Do I have any evidence ? Not at all. But you're the one who I think is again trying to claim or at least imply China copied the tech, so I guess it's up to you to provide the evidence. And I'm afraid the lack of evidence on your part that China had any such programs in the 80s is far from sufficient to justify the conclusion you're trying to make, especially when we're talking abt the secretive world of military tech, and that of the secretive PLA no less.
Since I believe we're only talking abt development and concepts of the tech, I guess that only makes it more possible that such work existed without being known by others.

I emphasize I'm not saying who's right or wrong but merely pointing out u have not backed up ur arguments enough to come to the categoric conclusion ur making.
Like I said, I have no clue whether PLA had concepts of such tech in the 80s and I believe ur not much better off than me in this regard.

Sea Dog said:

OK. But China's growth would come to a grinding halt without this setup. The house of cards will fall for everyone.

Click to expand...

Much of China's growth happens to be domestic which is why every company is rushing to invest to access those markets. Well true, the house of cards will fall for everyone, and _it will come_. I don't think China can sustain the US debt bomb any further. There will be limits. Money does not grow from a bottomless pit and even from outside sources, there will be limits. This is not a matter of will. This is a matter of CAN'T. This is the matter of the debt bomb reaching a certain point something has to give. But this is not the place to talk about economics.

Crobato. Oh dear Crobato. I was a part of US Naval service that worked interoperability issues, and joint issues. I remember the roundtable discussions I was a part of. None of these discussions were classified or anything. I can't speak for some of the Army stuff. But I'm sure my counterparts in those services may have had that info. But basically almost everything naval was a known attribute. The only thing I don't remember was anything about the Yuan SSK. But it does look alot like a Kilo, so it may just have been missed. And in regards to China's newer ships, there are no surprises at all. It was known that they would field better technologies, but the sources of the systems would be absorbed. And they are. What was in question was the workmanship. This seems to be better than it was thought to be. J-10 was also known. It was in development in basic form in the 80's.
The Type 22 (or a vessel like it) was also known, but not very well. It was only understood to be on the horizon. Since I've left, I really don't know when or how they discovered the presence of KJ-2000, Y-8, Y-9, or if they even knew about it at all. But I do know that almost everything naval China has demonstrated to date, is not really that much of a surprise at all. And alot of it has been open source info for years.

Click to expand...

You're talking in vagueries. Type 094 and 093 has been speculated for a long time. J-10 is also well known. Frankly I have not seen anything at least from published Pentagon reports predating 2003, and certainly no word of it below the year 2000, that the PLAN for example, would attempt to create an AEGIS type destroyer in so short a time. There was talk about the 051B class aka Luhai 167 going VLS, but that was pretty good public speculation given the potential layout of the ship. Put two and two together from speculation you can come out with a lot of things and cover up grey areas with vagueries like "borrowed technology" that tell you nothing in specific. Maybe ONI knows more but since you are no longer in the service, I think all this is from your opinion and I don't think you represent ONI who isn't going to say anything.

Agreed. But still this Scandinavian technology had already been developed a long time before anybody really fielded them.

Click to expand...

And so, how do you think the Chinese were able to develop similar technologies in parallel?

That's the key question.

Technology isn't executed by looking at pictures. There is an entire mathematical framework behind concepts that is needed to turn them into executing realities. Maybe you can copy an "idea" from pictures (aka Chinese engineers seeing the serragated windows on the F-117) but to figure out how they work, you need to go into a lot of technical formulas, and that you cannot get from pictures alone.

Sea Dog said:

Crobato. Oh dear Crobato. I was a part of US Naval service that worked interoperability issues, and joint issues. I remember the roundtable discussions I was a part of. None of these discussions were classified or anything. I can't speak for some of the Army stuff. But I'm sure my counterparts in those services may have had that info. But basically almost everything naval was a known attribute. The only thing I don't remember was anything about the Yuan SSK. But it does look alot like a Kilo, so it may just have been missed. And in regards to China's newer ships, there are no surprises at all. It was known that they would field better technologies, but the sources of the systems would be absorbed. And they are. What was in question was the workmanship. This seems to be better than it was thought to be. J-10 was also known. It was in development in basic form in the 80's.
The Type 22 (or a vessel like it) was also known, but not very well. It was only understood to be on the horizon. Since I've left, I really don't know when or how they discovered the presence of KJ-2000, Y-8, Y-9, or if they even knew about it at all. But I do know that almost everything naval China has demonstrated to date, is not really that much of a surprise at all. And alot of it has been open source info for years.

Click to expand...

Well, This is the problem.

For decades, US's offiicial or semi-official views on China's military are just of 2 types:

A. When related to any type of arm purchase/sales issues, China's military is the super threatening evil, specifically for PLAN with the 2 Sov's 16 missiles for the last 10 years. (Now, some

B. When in other relaxed occations, China's military is crap.

NOW, as Sea Dog pointed out, in fact US gov/mil establishment knew the truth is somewhere in between. But they JUST WON'T TELL YOU.

In summary, they only tell you that China is a monster so you should pay more tax. OR, they will tell you jokes about China so that you pay more to buy newspaper or magazines.

As a result, I, (don't know about other people), come to internet, to get a different channel of information/news/rumors and I use my brain to analyse them without paying (besides my ISP)

That's why, on the internet, "I know that 10 years ago but I just wanted to blind you" is meaningless. Here we are not trying to convince any body (to pay), we are just trying to share some info.

So, if you can, rather than telling us that for years you know something we also know for years, how about telling us some thing new, e.g. details on the upcoming 054A Chinese frigates. What are the equipments? Which ones are foreign sourced and from where. (You don't have to give us a source or link to back them up, I trust my brain more than Google)

But I do want to make one point clear, I actually quite like reading your posts just like anyone else, although I don't agree with all of your opinions.

zyun8288 said:

Well, This is the problem.

For decades, US's offiicial or semi-official views on China's military are just of 2 types:

A. When related to any type of arm purchase/sales issues, China's military is the super threatening evil, specifically for PLAN with the 2 Sov's 16 missiles for the last 10 years. (Now, some

B. When in other relaxed occations, China's military is crap.

NOW, as Sea Dog pointed out, in fact US gov/mil establishment knew the truth is somewhere in between. But they JUST WON'T TELL YOU.

In summary, they only tell you that China is a monster so you should pay more tax. OR, they will tell you jokes about China so that you pay more to buy newspaper or magazines.

As a result, I, (don't know about other people), come to internet, to get a different channel of information/news/rumors and I use my brain to analyse them without paying (besides my ISP)

That's why, on the internet, "I know that 10 years ago but I just wanted to blind you" is meaningless. Here we are not trying to convince any body (to pay), we are just trying to share some info.

Click to expand...

Well, it's not so simple. Like I said,the US military knew alot of these things were coming, but these same people I used to discuss these things with made these assessments. These were open discussions and not of a secretive nature. But I find it amazing that the things I talked about with some of these people I worked with in 1995 and such seem to have come to pass in many ways. They were absolutely correct on alot of stuff.

I never heard.... "PLAN is going to field a ship they will call 052C which will field a PAR and vertically launched missiles in configuration X, and use these specific radars, etc, etc". No it's like how they now put it with type 093 submarine. We know there's a new nuclear SSN on the horizon, and we have a good guess at what level it will be. We've known about it for a long time. But right now there's no evidence the thing is even built at all yet. In 20XX, when we get a picture of it deploying we can say, "yes, there it is, we knew it was coming." Ya' see what I'm saying? China may be secretive, but they have not totally surprised anyone.

As far as the US's view of China's military, that also is not an "all or nothing" situation. The US military has respect for China's military, but is suspicious of it's modernization efforts. That's quite obvious. But yes, in many ways they have to overhype the issue to justify the spending on R & D for newer military technologies and newer equipment. So I would say the view is in the middle. The US military infrastructure has never made the assertion that China's military is crap, nor do I believe that. But the truth is China's military is in a modernization phase. And they have a long way to go before they match up to anything like the current USN. But they are making respectable gains.

But I do want to make one point clear, I actually quite like reading your posts just like anyone else, although I don't agree with all of your opinions.

Click to expand...

Thank you. That's what makes a forum interesting. Nobody says we all have to agree, right. Otherwise the discussion would be boring.

crobato said:

Goll,

Masts and long range radar is near useless in small boats anyway. You cannot have a mast high enough to suit the range of most longer ranged ASMs. Not to mention the mast will cost you your RCS. Better to focus the design into excelling in one basic function.

For ASMs you only need the targeting data as provided to you from the battle management network. Command guide the missiles then let them go autonomous in the final stage.

You have to understand that you reduce vibration by reducing surface contact and putting maximum load on those contact points. This is simiilar to the high wing loading principle in aircraft. The double hull catamaran design is a lot more stable at high speeds than conventional hulls, which is why they were picked for high speed boats.

When I was in China for a trip, I got to ride in a double hulled catamaran which is used as a river ferry in the same river or seas you see with those Type 22s. The speed and stability of the ship is amazing it's like riding a car over water.

Click to expand...

Offcourse Facs doesent need mast for long range and heavy radars, but for simple fire control and target illumators. But even those have suffered difficoulties.
And I have Also been onboard catamaran hulled ships of quite large size, on somewhat typical baltic enverioment, and those vessels did roll quite considerably if compared to normal ship hulled vessels that I have used to cross the finnish gulf... Perhaps the speed vibration migth get to be reduced, but the seaworthyness of all surface effect hulled ships arent par whit traditional hulled....Rivers customally doesent offer such sea-states as the crafts normal operational enverioment gives.

Sea Dog said:

Well, it's not so simple. Like I said,the US military knew alot of these things were coming, but these same people I used to discuss these things with made these assessments. These were open discussions and not of a secretive nature. But I find it amazing that the things I talked about with some of these people I worked with in 1995 and such seem to have come to pass in many ways. They were absolutely correct on alot of stuff.

I never heard.... "PLAN is going to field a ship they will call 052C which will field a PAR and vertically launched missiles in configuration X, and use these specific radars, etc, etc". No it's like how they now put it with type 093 submarine. We know there's a new nuclear SSN on the horizon, and we have a good guess at what level it will be. We've known about it for a long time. But right now there's no evidence the thing is even built at all yet. In 20XX, when we get a picture of it deploying we can say, "yes, there it is, we knew it was coming." Ya' see what I'm saying? China may be secretive, but they have not totally surprised anyone.

As far as the US's view of China's military, that also is not an "all or nothing" situation. The US military has respect for China's military, but is suspicious of it's modernization efforts. That's quite obvious. But yes, in many ways they have to overhype the issue to justify the spending on R & D for newer military technologies and newer equipment. So I would say the view is in the middle. The US military infrastructure has never made the assertion that China's military is crap, nor do I believe that. But the truth is China's military is in a modernization phase. And they have a long way to go before they match up to anything like the current USN. But they are making respectable gains.



Thank you. That's what makes a forum interesting. Nobody says we all have to agree, right. Otherwise the discussion would be boring.

Click to expand...

Thanks. In fact, I think sometimes your actually just want to keep the discussion hot.:coffee:

crobato said:

You're talking in vagueries. Type 094 and 093 has been speculated for a long time. J-10 is also well known. Frankly I have not seen anything at least from published Pentagon reports predating 2003, and certainly no word of it below the year 2000, that the PLAN for example, would attempt to create an AEGIS type destroyer in so short a time. There was talk about the 051B class aka Luhai 167 going VLS, but that was pretty good public speculation given the potential layout of the ship. Put two and two together from speculation you can come out with a lot of things and cover up grey areas with vagueries like "borrowed technology" that tell you nothing in specific. Maybe ONI knows more but since you are no longer in the service, I think all this is from your opinion and I don't think you represent ONI who isn't going to say anything.

Click to expand...

That's an excellent point. Here is the 2000 Annual Report to Congress on the Military Power of China:



It does not mention the new indigenous systems. There is no mention at all about the 052 series, and only one mention of the old 051 LUDA class. There is no mention at all about 093 or 094 subs. But the report does talk at length about the Sov's and the Kilo's.

The implication is that during this time period, the Pentagon saw China as only capable of fielding imported Russian gear.

Now compare that to the 2006 Annual Report, and you see how huge the leap has been (in perception at least).