PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

Sujoy wrote:
HHQ-9B is a chinese copy of the Russian S-300N. This is what happens when you make cheap, substandard copies of the original system so that you don't have to pay license fee to the Russian designer.

You obviously don't understand what is being said to you.
It is a perfectly fine interception.
The practice target hit the water a moment before being struck by the missile.
Was it accidental or preprogrammed does not matter from the discussed perspective.

Behaving a 5y/o way won't heal your Indian butthurt toward the Chinese, but I am not quite sure if you will understand that either

HHQ-9B is a chinese copy of the Russian S-300N. This is what happens when you make cheap, substandard copies of the original system so that you don't have to pay license fee to the Russian designer.

Is this a test or an exercise?

For all we know the drone target might have been programmed to try to evade the SAM and its only evasion option was to ditch into the sea... which counts as a kill in my book.

If there was a problem I suspect they would not have posted that particular video.

A failure would be the target continuing on and the SAM missing or hitting the water near the target while the target continued flying.

Once the target hits the ground or the water the job of the SAM is over and it can't fail anymore.

Just for the records, because maybe you will get some warm tea Sujoy and calm down with your Chinese-oriented heatred, here is what a failed interception looks like.

https://t.me/boris_rozhin/66891

67 posts in 7 years is an achievement, so I salute it to you.

And I will give you a hint, free of charge.
You can't hit something that is not existing anymore.

WOW! how bizarre!  

A target drone that hit a water moment before interception can't be intercepted.

WOW! Unimaginable!

At least in India I guess        

If the target hits the water before the SAM could intercept it, why would you say the job of the SAM is over?

Its job is to destroy the target it is flying towards... if that target crashes into the ground or the sea before the SAM reaches it then the problem it was launched to solve has solved itself.

The job is done.

Are you saying that the SAM compelled the target to hit the water before the target could hit its intended target?

I am saying the job of the SAM was to hit the target and destroy it... the goal is to defeat the incoming target.

If it falls onto the ground or into the water while manouvering and trying to evade the SAM then the SAMs job is complete.

If the target drops to 50cm above the water and the SAM blows past and then the target pops up to a higher altitude and continues to its own target then the SAM has been evaded and has therefore failed, but that is not what happened.

If this is what you are saying then where is the need to send a long range SAM to intercept a target...wait for the target to get relatively close (to a ship perhaps) and then launch decoys or use electronic countermeasures.

That missile looked like an S-300 or S-400 copy which suggests the target was no where near the ship as both have minimum engagement ranges of at least 4-5km.

Leaving threats till they are right on top of your ship is a very bad strategy if it turns out your last line of defence fails because being the last line means if it does fail then you get hit.

Most ships will be trying to hit targets as far away from itself as possible so it can concentrate on other things like why it is supposed to be there in the first place.

Don't know about this Chinese SAM but S-300N was designed from the outset to hit an incoming missile in flight.  Not to force an incoming target (like AShM) to land in water.

It was designed to defend the ship... how it does that is not really important... a target that crashes trying to evade your SAMs is no longer a threat... that is a win.

Patriot intercepted Scuds during GW 1, yet the "intercepted" scuds were able to hit the target.

Intercepted means shoot down, so just like this missile didn't shoot down its target, those Patriots did not intercept those Scuds either... Patriots were designed to shoot down flying aircraft... not falling ballistic targets... if a Patriot hit the body or rear end of a fighter plane and shredded its engines then that fighter plane would crash and the plane could be said to have been intercepted. When the Patriots exploded near Scuds they made lots of holes in the body of the rocket and likely destroyed quite a few rocket motors but as those motors had already run out of fuel and were not running it made very little difference and the Scuds fell like bombs on targets anyway.... so they were not getting intercepted.

In sports terminology the other guy has the ball but in trying to evade you or because he made a mistake himself and steps out of the field of play... he is out... the play stops... if you were charging at him to tackle him... maybe even try to drive him over the sideline... if he goes out before you get to him you didn't fail... what you were trying to make happen happened and in the sport if you carried on and tackled him after he goes out and stops running... you would likely get some sort of a card for bad sportsmanship. Once the target is destroyed the SAM becomes redundant so hitting the water becomes a safety issue because interception is no longer possible.

BTW those SAMS certainly can hit targets sitting on the water but that is a different engagement mode with a different flight profile... coming in horizontally if you hit a target 3m above the water you might not impact the water for 50m because your flight angle is very flat, so normally with surface targets the SAM goes up very high and comes diving down on the target so if it misses by a metre or so the explosion will still do serious damage to the target.

How many years did they test them, and are they fully tested and operational or are their problems with these ships.

The F-35 is in service and production but it has multiple problems that are not being fixed... just painted over with excuses made, so new planes with known faults are being built without fixes or corrections or upgrades... but in your opinion that is a good thing.

China has had western investment to become the primary production sweatshop of the western world and therefore also for western exports to the rest of the world.

They have been very clever and taken advantage of this investment to develop and grow because that was never the intention of the west who of course wanted them to stay poor and reliant on western patronage to be able to produce things but the Chinese government was clever and the Chinese people are not stupid or lazy and only able to copy western stuff.

Chinese ambitions means they need a large strong navy and they have the funds to produce such a navy, while also producing civilian ships as well.

Russia does not have the production resources the Chinese have, nor do they have the need for that many ships that quickly.... even if they could produce ships that fast who would man them and where would they be based?

It is going to take time whether you like it or not... and that is not a bad thing.

The ships they are making are very good and the new systems and weapons seem to be rather good too.

I have looked at the Spiri website on arms exports and it seems these ships that China is building actually use Russian components including guns and missiles that they buy from Russia.

They likely also use components from western countries too and if everyone put them under sanction their production rate would slow down, as would the quality of what they are making.

They are doing an amazing job but they have different requirements and also that stuff they are pumping out is completely untested against a peer enemy or even a weak one.

No. The Chinese Navy ships use only Chinese components as far as I know. Has been this case for like a decade.
Some components are licensed production or reserve engineered but made in China.

China's MIC has been under sanctions from the West since 1989. About the only Western thing their Navy uses that I can remember are licensed Western diesel engines. Other Western cloned components you might see were likely licensed or acquired before 1989.

The original Type 052 destroyer was made before the 1989 sanctions. It used US gas turbines. It had European electronics, sensors, and weapon systems. The Type 052B was made after the sanctions so it used Ukrainian gas turbines, and licensed German diesels. It had Russian weapons systems and sensors. On later ships they cloned the Ukrainian gas turbines, cloned the Russian sensors, and weapon systems. They made their own VLS and their own electronics command and control systems and integrated all the reverse engineered systems together. Then they started making their own sensors like AESA radars. You can see this in the Type 052C and D.

Go to this webpage:

https://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php

Have a look at what pops up when you search with the settings of Russia for the source and China the destination and the time period 2000 to 2022...


Supplier Russia
Recipient  China

Ordered           Description                                            Year order    year delivery       comments

4                MR-750 Fregat air search radar (2001)     2004-2007      For 2 Type-051C (Luzhou) and 2 Type-052B (Luyang-1) destroyers
                                                                                                                                     produced in China; probably produ ced (possibly without license) in China


32               AK-176 76mm naval gun                 (2004)    2008-2019     For 32 Type-054A (Jiangkai-2) frigates produced in China; produced under licence as                                                                
                                                                                                                                    H/PJ-26

   
32                Mineral sea search radar                 (2004) 2008-2019     For 32 Type-054A (Jiangkai-2) frigates produced in China;
                                                                                                                                    probably produced (possibly without license) in China


8               AK-176 76mm naval gun                 (2005) 2007-2020       Chinese-produced H/PJ-26 version for 8 Type-071 (Yuzhao) AALS produced in
                                                                                                                                    China

72             AK-176 76mm naval gun                (2010) 2013-2021     Chinese-produced H/PJ-26 version for 72 Type-056 (Jiangdao) frigates produced in
                                                                                                                                    China

Etc etc...

2 MGK-335MS sonar systems, 136 MR-90 fire control systems, plus lots of naval missiles and torpedos.... as well as ships and subs.

The original Type 052 destroyer was made before the 1989 sanctions. It used US gas turbines. It had European electronics, sensors, and weapon systems. The Type 052B was made after the sanctions so it used Ukrainian gas turbines, and licensed German diesels

So it used foreign stuff before the sanctions and foreign stuff after the sanctions.... till they could copy them...

Not saying they are not clever, but I am saying no one can develop a brand new navy using their own technology in a decade.

That's it, I agree with everything and repeat what I really think; I'm not glorifying China, I'm glorifying (realistically looking at) Chinese efficiency. That is the key word - efficiency.

And that is what I am talking about, their results appear very impressive, but to call it efficient you need to know what resources and money and people they put into all this... if it cost 10 trillion dollars then it really isn't efficient at all... if they damaged their economy and stunted their own potential growth to make this stuff then it isn't efficient either... if they never use the ships and subs they have created and they end up rusting in port because no one knows how to use them properly then it is not efficient use of resources either.

It is amusing you think Russia is rubbish and China is perfect, almost like you live in the special world of the teenager where what you like is the best in the world and everything else sucks.

You basically confirmed what I said. The Chinese produce licensed or unlicensed clones of several pieces of naval equipment. But they are made in China at this point.

The radars on the Type 052C/D and Type 055 destroyers are designed and made in China. China currently has more modern radar technology than Russia. Which you can see by looking at the Type 055 destroyer. It has large AESA panels and integrated mast. Heck Chinese naval radars are more advanced in terms of hardware than US radars. Compare the superstructure of Type 055 with latest Flight IIA Arleigh Burke. I do not know about the software but the hardware is better. The only nation which might currently have better naval radar than the Chinese is Japan.

Heck Chinese naval radars are more advanced in terms of hardware than US radars. Compare the superstructure of Type 055 with latest Flight IIA Arleigh Burke. I do not know about the software but the hardware is better. The only nation which might currently have better naval radar than the Chinese is Japan.

So your claim is that engines and propulsion systems are foreign but copied and made in China now and the same for weapons and sensors and other hardware, but somehow China has become a world leader in radar design and production?

I don't doubt the latter, the west has been making lots of stuff in China and the Chinese are not stupid, but there is a difference between licence producing or reverse engineering equipment to producing brand new state of the art new equipment.

I would also suggest that the Russians are beyond just making a good AESA radar, and are making sensor systems that combine multiple frequencies and sensor types and combining their capabilities to make them even more effective and powerful by emphasising their advantages and minimising or eliminating their problems.

China is no doubt an economic and production superpower, but they aren't the military superpower that Russia is.