Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    China MIC issues

    Share
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5341
    Points : 5556
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Jun 21, 2015 3:38 pm

    Calling China a military joke of asian continent is like calling Russia a military joke on european continent or even world stage.

    There is not a single country in entire asia with an almost completle Military Industrial complex that can produce to almost its entire capacity everythign they need, while most Asian countries are lucky to have some fire arms and ammunition facilities in their country. Yes, sure call China a military joke, maybe that is the reason why US the so called super duper power tries to contain China (unsuccessful). China producing little islands around its country as AFB shows that everyone else is a military joke in the entire hemisphere.
    avatar
    2SPOOKY4U

    Posts : 281
    Points : 294
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:13 pm

    Werewolf wrote:Calling China a military joke of asian continent is like calling Russia a military joke on european continent or even world stage.

    There is not a single country in entire asia with an almost completle Military Industrial complex that can produce to almost its entire capacity everythign they need, while most Asian countries are lucky to have some fire arms and ammunition facilities in their country. Yes, sure call China a military joke, maybe that is the reason why US the so called super duper power tries to contain China (unsuccessful). China producing little islands around its country as AFB shows that everyone else is a military joke in the entire hemisphere.

    China has become an economic powerhouse thanks to all the investment, it has its GDP because of it being the manufacturing center of the world.

    There is a single asian country with a complete MIC, Russia.

    China is a military joke because it has never produced a single 4th generation fighter of its own, now trying and failing to produce a 5th generation fighter, forced to import engines directly to power it.

    China producing little islands? Sounds like their aircraft have some shitty ranges.

    No matter how large its navy or airforce or army gets, they are trinkets compared to the power of the Force hypersonic weapons.

    In this area, Russia is king, no Emperor rather.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1169
    Points : 1174
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:18 pm

    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    China has become an economic powerhouse thanks to all the investment, it has its GDP because of it being the manufacturing center of the world.

    There is a single asian country with a complete MIC, Russia.

    China is a military joke because it has never produced a single 4th generation fighter of its own, now trying and failing to produce a 5th generation fighter, forced to import engines directly to power it.

    China producing little islands? Sounds like their aircraft have some shitty ranges.

    No matter how large its navy or airforce or army gets, they are trinkets compared to the power of the Force hypersonic weapons.

    In this area, Russia is king, no Emperor rather.
    contin.
    but it has produced a 4th gen fighter- the J-11/Su-33 clone, and are in the process of making two 5th gen fighters. that is not what i call a joke.

    and military strength is ultimately derived from economic power- Russia is an oddball because of the way its relatively small GDP is structured(something like a large part of its manufacturing is MIC-based), everyone else are subject to this fact.

    as for the little islands they are building, those have huge impact in the balance of power in the SCS. a huge bulk of the world's sea traffic crosses there - with an unsinkable carrier in the middle of it cockblocking other navies from this area is much, much easier. and their aircraft have ok ranges on them- they pretty much obtained near mastery of 4th gen aircraft engines, its the next gen ones they are having much trouble with.
    avatar
    2SPOOKY4U

    Posts : 281
    Points : 294
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:05 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:how did i miss this part in my last post( drunken )? i vehemently disagree that China is a joke. to follow...

    Disagree all you want.

    collegeboy16 wrote:contin.
    but it has produced a 4th gen fighter- the J-11/Su-33 clone, and are in the process of making two 5th gen fighters. that is not what i call a joke.

    and military strength is ultimately derived from economic power- Russia is an oddball because of the way its relatively small GDP is structured(something like a large part of its manufacturing is MIC-based), everyone else are subject to this fact.

    as for the little islands they are building, those have huge impact in the balance of power in the SCS. a huge bulk of the world's sea traffic crosses there - with an unsinkable carrier in the middle of it cockblocking other navies from this area is much, much easier. and their aircraft have ok ranges on them- they pretty much obtained near mastery of 4th gen aircraft engines, its the next gen ones they are having much trouble with.

    I believe their 5th generation fighter prototype still uses Russian AL-31s no?

    How many of their fighters have been sold on the international markets?

    They have not developed a single fighter that has not been copied from us.

    Again, no matter what China has or in what quantity, they are toys to what Russia has now and will have in the future.

    India has better future prospects in terms of Brahmos II.


    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7177
    Points : 7457
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:16 pm

    China faces an issue of catching up, and the quality of their J-11's have been in question for a long time due to constant failures. J-10 on the other hand, which seems like a much more fair development of China's, on the other hand, is far better in terms of quality and development. Also, it isn't exported and not because people didn't want it, but because China seems more reluctant to sell it, even if it is powered by Russian engines.

    A huge portion of China's development is thanks to Russia. Most of China's radar development is based upon Russia's with of course China's eventual transition to GaAS T/R modules for its AESA radars. They still use Russian engines (nothing wrong in that) and subsystems of their own which I expect China can develop quite well thanks to its strong electronics industrial base.

    China suffers more in terms of quality than anything else. But, that doesnt mean that they are laughable. In all fairness, China is extremely strong and a real force to reckon with. Their 5th gen jets are not going to be like PAK FA or whatever, but they will definitely be powerful and useful for China and its friends. Their tanks are the same, but I do question their capabilities simply because of what was said about their poor performance at the tank biathlon and such. But China does something Russia does not - takes a page from the Americans and bolster their military gear by media. Eventually, this will outdo Russia because of such tactics and Russia is very behind in trying to promote their products.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2737
    Points : 2779
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  Mike E on Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:52 pm

    The propellant case looks a whole long longer than what you mentioned... One source claimed it was a bit over one meter in length alone, I'll try finding that again

    I base that simply on the fact the T-95 was cancelled... Clearly it wasn't fit for service, and I refuse to believe the "lack of money" talk.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  Guest on Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:33 pm

    sepheronx wrote:China faces an issue of catching up, and the quality of their J-11's have been in question for a long time due to constant failures.  J-10 on the other hand, which seems like a much more fair development of China's, on the other hand, is far better in terms of quality and development.  Also, it isn't exported and not because people didn't want it, but because China seems more reluctant to sell it, even if it is powered by Russian engines.

    A huge portion of China's development is thanks to Russia.  Most of China's radar development is based upon Russia's with of course China's eventual transition to GaAS T/R modules for its AESA radars.  They still use Russian engines (nothing wrong in that) and subsystems of their own which I expect China can develop quite well thanks to its strong electronics industrial base.

    China suffers more in terms of quality than anything else.  But, that doesnt mean that they are laughable.  In all fairness, China is extremely strong and a real force to reckon with.  Their 5th gen jets are not going to be like PAK FA or whatever, but they will definitely be powerful and useful for China and its friends.  Their tanks are the same, but I do question their capabilities simply because of what was said about their poor performance at the tank biathlon and such.  But China does something Russia does not - takes a page from the Americans and bolster their military gear by media.  Eventually, this will outdo Russia because of such tactics and Russia is very behind in trying to promote their products.
    I beg to differ on the last part honestly. I think the Russian media does a very good job at promoting Russian weapons and such but that is mostly for homeland consumption. But Russia's customer base for its weapons continues to expand and the biggest reason for its success is that Russia's clients have a great deal of success using Russian built systems. But for some products like the Armata and to a smaller extent the PAK-FA, there is no need to promote because it is almost painfully obvious that those systems will be game changers.

    China has very little success with developing its own MIC as an alternative to Russian, American, or even European weapons manufacturers overseas. Sure, part of it is due to them almost not wanting to compete, but even where they have sold weapons their customers are looking at other sellers. Let's look at Pakistan. We all heard rumors that the Pakistanis preferred the Soviet designed and Ukrainian built T-80UDs over the Chinese designed Al-Khalid tanks. Or the Russian arms deal with Pakistan suggests that Pakistan's military is not completely satisfied with the Chinese built (and Kamov designed at that) WZ-10 and the Pakistani Military also wants a few of the proven and venerable Mi-35s in their fleet.

    Anyway, the last time I can think of that the US mainstream media actively bolstered a major weapons system was with the M1 Abrams because it had rolled over a bunch of inexperienced Iraqi soldiers using heavily downgraded Soviet export tanks. Otherwise, the US mainstream media is quite critical of the US MIC look at the F-22, F-35, Stryker APC, and so on and so forth. Thanks to the mainstream media, people are under the impression that the US government just likes to waste billions of dollars for the inferior weapons systems.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 4014
    Points : 4037
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:33 pm

    We all agree that China has to be taken seriously.

    No matter if their guns are inferior, if the margin is slim, the consequences might become massive.

    The numbers might simply do the trick as always. However, i strongly disagree about the Chinese MIC. It's there and has been a priority especially through dual use components, theft, RI etc...this country isn't AS bellicose as the guys from the West. But they don't have their hands in their asses. Quite the contrary.

    Russia should also try and obtain THOSE dual use components, they won't have access because of current sanction regime, that pose the less backdoor risks.

    In a sense I'd be more confident on the Chinese than on the South Koreans. And trying to milk out of israel as much as Russia can.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5341
    Points : 5556
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jun 22, 2015 1:42 am

    China has become an economic powerhouse thanks to all the investment, it has its GDP because of it being the manufacturing center of the world.

    In this area, Russia is king, no Emperor rather.

    This china bashing i read here is similiar to what i can read and everyone can read since past 10-15 years on different forums mp.net/f-16/ar-15 or keypub mainly from ignorant 14 year old kids from the west calling everything russian rusted junk, that is unreliable, uneffective and at least 50 years old. This china bashing is on the same level and one has just to see to what the Superpower USA is doing right now in regards to China, they are trying to change post war constitution of Japan so they can go ballistic against china, along with them they are using and abusing South Korea, Indonesia, Philipine, Thailand, trying to do the same with Malaysia, Vietnam,Taiwan etc etc. They are orchastreting Hong Kong coup de etats with some "chinese guy" oligarch with the very revealing name Edward Chung. The fact that not Russia, nor US could attack china in a conventional warfare even if they had 10 times the logistics they currently have they could not do jack shit against China. I am not overestimating or not underestimating Russia or US, that is just the current case, land forces of China is beyond the logistics or numbers of Russia (in logistical terms deployable) and of course several time folds above US land force capability in logistics.

    You can read one off the public available US analysis and military doctrines in Asia, they are very concerned with China and its progress.

    There is a single asian country with a complete MIC, Russia.

    Russia is not exclusive asian nor european, but counting them either or both would still make China 2nd biggest and most capable army on asian continent even European continent. The entire European sphere except of russia has no MIC sufficient or independend. Germany, France, UK, Spain and Australia rely on each other, they can't build a single damn aircraft without one of the countries i've listed. This is of course not just to blame on those countries, it is a policy pushed by SHAPE /SMAD on countries like Germany which is occupied, that is even writen in our so called "constitution" Grundgesetz, that the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe)  and SMAD or SMAG (Soviet Military Administration Germany) is above our "constitution" GG 139. From the SHAPE Germany is not allowed to have a working MIC, so it is kept low and dependend on other European countries... but that is the current state of those countries they do not have a MIC to speak off, if a single member off them refuses to supply the entire aircraft will be sitting in hangar untill that country either provides technology to someone else or the dispute is settled that is the reason why EU countries plain and simply suck at military equipment, they are even less reliable then US.

    China is a military joke because it has never produced a single 4th generation fighter of its own, now trying and failing to produce a 5th generation fighter, forced to import engines directly to power it.

    China is the 3rd biggest MIC on this globus, there is not a single other country after US and Russia that has a military industrial complex capable of developing aircrafts of even the 3rd generation without being dependend on other countries, they do not have the capability to design or sustain prodction numbers due lack of facilities and independance on 3rd party suppliers like Sweden which produces Aviation parts for Rafael and Eurofighter, despite not being NATO member and dare NATO ever when Sweden gets a leader with a spine that is not forcing Sweden into NATO  and against Russia and hurting its citizens and national security.

    They are catching up and that very fast, you just have to watch where they were just 20 years ago, in such a short time they have managed what US and Russia took 40 years to get.

    No matter how large its navy or airforce or army gets, they are trinkets compared to the power of the Force hypersonic weapons.

    I respect you and what you have contributed before on other matters, but that is just simply ignorant and not really thought through, only a full would suggest numbers and logistics won't matter in war, that is actually everything that matters in war, if one off these two things does not work you will not shift the tide even with Zhukov/Rommel/Patton,Clausewitz ^100 strategy geniusness. The other point is the constant china bashing or the perception that some seam to be swollowed by off the so called retardation "Made in China" = Shit. China is not the best in Airforce or ground forces, but not being the best does not mean they are the worst or not comparable, such black and white thinking is the main reason why people support confrontation with expecation that they win 100:0. Similiar believes of kids who played to much Call of Duty, where every 2nd or 3rd soldier got a weapon and the rest got ammunition. It is simply toxic to objectivity.

    China producing little islands? Sounds like their aircraft have some shitty ranges.

    USA having aircraft carriers, making their planes look just like that, not having good range...but unlike USA, china is not seeking for global domination and full military projection with two full blown wars at the same time at every corner of this planet. They just seek to protect themselfs from the uncountable NATO (US) bases surrounding China, again for those who might ignore it, logistics is always the key to military operations and those airforce based islands are the key to sustain exactly that the effective supply chain and keeping US effeciently away from its borders and shifting the military projection further away from its mainland is one off the basic thousand year old strategies that are forming the basis of echelon based defense which US is doing since decades.

    I believe their 5th generation fighter prototype still uses Russian AL-31s no?

    They are trying to get their own engines since years and engine technology is one the biggest technologies for MIC, even US and russia suffer from the magnitude of technological burden which comes with modern high advanced turbines and rocket engines. See US is dependend on Russia, while Russia is the world leading in missile and engine technology, but it took time to get there. The Chinese are producing WS-10A and WS-16 engines which will be fully domestically produced and replacing russian engines such as AL-31. They are not sitting on their arses and just wait for technologies to fall into their hands they actually have a working R&D off a significant proportion.


    How many of their fighters have been sold on the international markets?

    That does not really matter, the technology of Mi-28N is superior to AH-64E and it was sold less times same for Ka-52, just because some technologies lack exports does not make them junk and in this cases it is exact opposite. Coming with this constantly reappearing nonsense "look how much they have sold" is the same nonsense i keep hearing about abrams or Apache "they are battle tested, everything else is obsolete for that reason". Those factors are not even factors, they do not change the technology or its effeciency not even to a single percent.


    They have not developed a single fighter that has not been copied from us.

    Rewerse engineering, is not something that everyone can do, to do that you have the need off a full working MIC which China has, they have to cut short to catch up and not taking the same root like Russia and investing bln's into projects to research something that others already have, playing that way they would always be behind Russia or US, but they goal is to catch up and then to achieve superiority, there is not other way except like they are doing it otherwise they could only hope for Russia or US to get in russias 90's back so they can actually catch up by "playing fair". The question here isn't about copy or not copy, the question is how much time russia or US has left after having someone in their neck that is not just economically superior to both together but also being military capable beyond a point where any off those countries could counter a chinese military projection if they ever seek such military projection like the US.

    Again, no matter what China has or in what quantity, they are toys to what Russia has now and will have in the future.

    Again that is just some childish talk with absolutley zero connection to reality.

    India has better future prospects in terms of Brahmos II.

    India can be lucky if they manage to actually get success out of their failed projects like Arjun or the flat lined patient Tejas.

    Brahmos isn't some Indian technology they made themselfs, it is based like lot of technologies on russian and with russian help.

    The Indians need russia for everything in aviation while constantly paid yellow paper journalists are bitching about Russia being jackass slow in manufactoring PAK-FA...boohoo try to make a 3rd generation fighter on them own like they are doing with almost flatlined Tejas but bitching around because of PAK-FA, the chinese actually achieved something, Indians are not even on the level of germany and germany depends on other countries in aviation, there is a reason why India is the biggest military importer and not exporter.


    The new gun is laughable, they have not even tried to mount it, the barrel life must be pathetic, ammunition is subpar to everything in the West, not even to mention the newer rounds in Russia.

    You base that on a research paper or published data available or on the sole perception of "Made in China" = garbage?

    China has very little success with developing its own MIC as an alternative to Russian, American, or even European weapons manufacturers overseas. Sure, part of it is due to them almost not wanting to compete, but even where they have sold weapons their customers are looking at other sellers. Let's look at Pakistan. We all heard rumors that the Pakistanis preferred the Soviet designed and Ukrainian built T-80UDs over the Chinese designed Al-Khalid tanks. Or the Russian arms deal with Pakistan suggests that Pakistan's military is not completely satisfied with the Chinese built (and Kamov designed at that) WZ-10 and the Pakistani Military also wants a few of the proven and venerable Mi-35s in their fleet.

    Where did you get this from? I heared nothing like that, the fact that china gave pakistan 3 Z-10 Attack Helicopters for free, to ease the tender and deal making with Pakistan for its goal to acquire modern Attack Helicopters, so there were no strings attached to it so far. Pakistan is also searching for Mi-35M because of their capabilities which is absolutley unique and no other CAS aircraft provides such capabilities, so Pakistan will most probagbly go with two helicopters and not just one anyway.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2737
    Points : 2779
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  Mike E on Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:55 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    They have not developed a single fighter that has not been copied from us.

    Rewerse engineering, is not something that everyone can do, to do that you have the need off a full working MIC which China has, they have to cut short to catch up and not taking the same root like Russia and investing bln's into projects to research something that others already have, playing that way they would always be behind Russia or US, but they goal is to catch up and then to achieve superiority, there is not other way except like they are doing it otherwise they could only hope for Russia or US to get in russias 90's back so they can actually catch up by "playing fair". The question here isn't about copy or not copy, the question is how much time russia or US has left after having someone in their neck that is not just economically superior to both together but also being military capable beyond a point where any off those countries could counter a chinese military projection if they ever seek such military projection like the US.

    Again, no matter what China has or in what quantity, they are toys to what Russia has now and will have in the future.

    Again that is just some childish talk with absolutley zero connection to reality.

    India has better future prospects in terms of Brahmos II.

    India can be lucky if they manage to actually get success out of their failed projects like Arjun or the flat lined patient Tejas.

    Brahmos isn't some Indian technology they made themselfs, it is based like lot of technologies on russian and with russian help.

    The Indians need russia for everything in aviation while constantly paid yellow paper journalists are bitching about Russia being jackass slow in manufactoring PAK-FA...boohoo try to make a 3rd generation fighter on them own like they are doing with almost flatlined Tejas but bitching around because of PAK-FA, the chinese actually achieved something, Indians are not even on the level of germany and germany depends on other countries in aviation, there is a reason why India is the biggest military importer and not exporter.


    The new gun is laughable, they have not even tried to mount it, the barrel life must be pathetic, ammunition is subpar to everything in the West, not even to mention the newer rounds in Russia.

    You base that on a research paper or published data available or on the sole perception of "Made in China" = garbage?
    Reverse engineering is something Iraq managed to do...and it resulted in the Asad Babil.  lol1 On a more serious note, resorting to reverse engineering is not per se "a good thing" and neither dose it show off your MIC prowess. 

    I'd say that is not far off from the truth, just compare the systems both countries have. China's systems will be capable, but almost always end off being inferior to the Russian contemporary. 

    Or based on the fact this new gun...is a joke. They stuck a longer barrel onto their 125's, with more propellant, and are (going to be) claiming it's revolutionary. It's not. - And try fitting one to a tank...
    avatar
    2SPOOKY4U

    Posts : 281
    Points : 294
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:34 am

    Werewolf wrote:This china bashing i read here is similiar to what i can read and everyone can read since past 10-15 years on different forums mp.net/f-16/ar-15 or keypub mainly from ignorant 14 year old kids from the west calling everything russian rusted junk, that is unreliable, uneffective and at least 50 years old. This china bashing is on the same level and one has just to see to what the Superpower USA is doing right now in regards to China, they are trying to change post war constitution of Japan so they can go ballistic against china, along with them they are using and abusing South Korea, Indonesia, Philipine, Thailand, trying to do the same with Malaysia, Vietnam,Taiwan etc etc. They are orchastreting Hong Kong coup de etats with some "chinese guy" oligarch with the very revealing name Edward Chung. The fact that not Russia, nor US could attack china in a conventional warfare even if they had 10 times the logistics they currently have they could not do jack shit against China. I am not overestimating or not underestimating Russia or US, that is just the current case, land forces of China is beyond the logistics or numbers of Russia (in logistical terms deployable) and of course several time folds above US land force capability in logistics.

    You can read one off the public available US analysis and military doctrines in Asia, they are very concerned with China and its progress.

    So bashing China is the same as bashing Russia?

    Sure thing.

    Werewolf wrote:Russia is not exclusive asian nor european, but counting them either or both would still make China 2nd biggest and most capable army on asian continent even European continent. The entire European sphere except of russia has no MIC sufficient or independend. Germany, France, UK, Spain and Australia rely on each other, they can't build a single damn aircraft without one of the countries i've listed. This is of course not just to blame on those countries, it is a policy pushed by SHAPE /SMAD on countries like Germany which is occupied, that is even writen in our so called "constitution" Grundgesetz, that the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe)  and SMAD or SMAG (Soviet Military Administration Germany) is above our "constitution" GG 139. From the SHAPE Germany is not allowed to have a working MIC, so it is kept low and dependend on other European countries... but that is the current state of those countries they do not have a MIC to speak off, if a single member off them refuses to supply the entire aircraft will be sitting in hangar untill that country either provides technology to someone else or the dispute is settled that is the reason why EU countries plain and simply suck at military equipment, they are even less reliable then US.

    Russia is both European and Asian, that is the legacy of its Empire, its size, its strength, and its glory.

    Sucks to be Germany btw, however I would not be dismayed if I had to use Rafales or Leopards.

    No one really deals death like the old imperial powers.

    Werewolf wrote:China is the 3rd biggest MIC on this globus, there is not a single other country after US and Russia that has a military industrial complex capable of developing aircrafts of even the 3rd generation without being dependend on other countries, they do not have the capability to design or sustain prodction numbers due lack of facilities and independance on 3rd party suppliers like Sweden which produces Aviation parts for Rafael and Eurofighter, despite not being NATO member and dare NATO ever when Sweden gets a leader with a spine that is not forcing Sweden into NATO  and against Russia and hurting its citizens and national security.

    They are catching up and that very fast, you just have to watch where they were just 20 years ago, in such a short time they have managed what US and Russia took 40 years to get.

    China is may be the third biggest MIC on the planet, they still can't develop 4th gen fighters on their own.

    Sweden has bigger things to worry about, like having a rape rate higher than all of the countries in Afrique except Lesotho.

    Werewolf wrote: respect you and what you have contributed before on other matters, but that is just simply ignorant and not really thought through, only a full would suggest numbers and logistics won't matter in war, that is actually everything that matters in war, if one off these two things does not work you will not shift the tide even with Zhukov/Rommel/Patton,Clausewitz ^100 strategy geniusness. The other point is the constant china bashing or the perception that some seam to be swollowed by off the so called retardation "Made in China" = Shit. China is not the best in Airforce or ground forces, but not being the best does not mean they are the worst or not comparable, such black and white thinking is the main reason why people support confrontation with expecation that they win 100:0. Similiar believes of kids who played to much Call of Duty, where every 2nd or 3rd soldier got a weapon and the rest got ammunition. It is simply toxic to objectivity.

    I respect you as well, and I appreciate all the photos and reports as well. You have saved me the trouble of translating things numerous times and have assisted many non-Russians on this forum that needed help when information was only available in Russian. You have been nothing but a contribution to this forum.

    Unfortunately, in this situation, you are wrong.

    Russia's combination of the most advanced and numerous IADS in the world, with the its current near-hypersonic weapons and future hypersonic weapons make it the pinnacle of military power.

    I advise you to go to Mindstorms profile, and click on "Topics posted in" and read any thread in its entirety that has anything to do with hypersonic weapons, or IADS.

    Hypersonic weapons are the future, and in this case, Russia is sprinting ahead, while others struggle to walk.

    Werewolf wrote:USA having aircraft carriers, making their planes look just like that, not having good range...but unlike USA, china is not seeking for global domination and full military projection with two full blown wars at the same time at every corner of this planet. They just seek to protect themselfs from the uncountable NATO (US) bases surrounding China, again for those who might ignore it, logistics is always the key to military operations and those airforce based islands are the key to sustain exactly that the effective supply chain and keeping US effeciently away from its borders and shifting the military projection further away from its mainland is one off the basic thousand year old strategies that are forming the basis of echelon based defense which US is doing since decades.

    To be honest, I was grasping at straws when I wrote that.

    It is an interesting idea, but again, hypersonic weapons.

    Islands may be an unsinkable carrier, but it is a stationary carrier easily seen by everything and very wide open.


    Werewolf wrote:They are trying to get their own engines since years and engine technology is one the biggest technologies for MIC, even US and russia suffer from the magnitude of technological burden which comes with modern high advanced turbines and rocket engines. See US is dependend on Russia, while Russia is the world leading in missile and engine technology, but it took time to get there. The Chinese are producing WS-10A and WS-16 engines which will be fully domestically produced and replacing russian engines such as AL-31. They are not sitting on their arses and just wait for technologies to fall into their hands they actually have a working R&D off a significant proportion.

    I agree, they are not waiting for tech to fall into their hands.

    They are using those hands to write cheques so that the tech arrives in their hangars.

    Werewolf wrote:That does not really matter, the technology of Mi-28N is superior to AH-64E and it was sold less times same for Ka-52, just because some technologies lack exports does not make them junk and in this cases it is exact opposite. Coming with this constantly reappearing nonsense "look how much they have sold" is the same nonsense i keep hearing about abrams or Apache "they are battle tested, everything else is obsolete for that reason". Those factors are not even factors, they do not change the technology or its efficiency not even to a single percent.

    Actually, at the time of the India tender for an attack helicopter, the Apache represented the best purchase at the time.

    But I do see what you are saying, however the fact that every time the Chinese version of something went up against its original, it has always lost.

    Exports do say a lot you know, I would not shrug them off, and I would not equate what I say to nonsense on Western forums.

    I am no COD player.

    Werewolf wrote:Reverse engineering, is not something that everyone can do, to do that you have the need off a full working MIC which China has, they have to cut short to catch up and not taking the same root like Russia and investing bln's into projects to research something that others already have, playing that way they would always be behind Russia or US, but they goal is to catch up and then to achieve superiority, there is not other way except like they are doing it otherwise they could only hope for Russia or US to get in russia's 90's back so they can actually catch up by "playing fair". The question here isn't about copy or not copy, the question is how much time russia or US has left after having someone in their neck that is not just economically superior to both together but also being military capable beyond a point where any off those countries could counter a chinese military projection if they ever seek such military projection like the US.

    Everyone can do reverse engineering. Iraq did it.

    China will be playing catch up for a very long time.

    Werewolf wrote:Again that is just some childish talk with absolutley zero connection to reality.

    It has every connection to reality.

    There is no country in the world capable to stop an Iskander strike, save Russia.

    There is no country in the world capable to stop a massed cruise missile attack, save Russia.

    There is no country in the world capable target submerged submarines with nuclear ICBMs with satellite systems, save Russia.

    I could go on, but my point is that you underestimate the vastness of Russian strategic and tactical superiority.

    Werewolf wrote:India can be lucky if they manage to actually get success out of their failed projects like Arjun or the flat lined patient Tejas.

    Brahmos isn't some Indian technology they made themselfs, it is based like lot of technologies on russian and with russian help.

    The Indians need russia for everything in aviation while constantly paid yellow paper journalists are bitching about Russia being jackass slow in manufactoring PAK-FA...boohoo try to make a 3rd generation fighter on them own like they are doing with almost flatlined Tejas but bitching around because of PAK-FA, the chinese actually achieved something, Indians are not even on the level of germany and germany depends on other countries in aviation, there is a reason why India is the biggest military importer and not exporter.

    I agree here, India is a fat bitch who thinks she can become the most important thing in the world by buying everything, then claiming she didn't have to while at the same time begging for more.

    But, India has been the coddled child of the USSR and Russia for a while.

    Soviet/Russian foreign policy towards India was always to strengthen India and gain a strong ally in South Asian hemisphere.

    Projects like BrahMos I/II,FGFA, MTA etc are to spoonfeed India and make it very relevant on a strategic scale.

    Whatever India cannot make, which is a lot, not going to lie, will be provided by Russia in either direct export/ToT licence, or joint projects with institutes.

    Anything India has that was made in cooperation with Russia, will be head and shoulders above its Chinese equivalent.

    Werewolf wrote:You base that on a research paper or published data available or on the sole perception of "Made in China" = garbage?

    I base it on the fact that China does not have the advanced level of manufacturing knowledge nor equipment to make such a weapon feasible on a tank.

    Or not mounted on a tank, for that matter.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1169
    Points : 1174
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:21 am

    Mike E wrote:The propellant case looks a whole long longer than what you mentioned... One source claimed it was a bit over one meter in length alone, I'll try finding that again
    doubt it- just scale it to the HE projectile or its diameters.
    Mike E wrote:
    I base that simply on the fact the T-95 was cancelled... Clearly it wasn't fit for service, and I refuse to believe the "lack of money" talk.
    again believe what you will but screencap this if in 20 years the T-14's spec. sheet sounds like those planned for T-95's Twisted Evil .
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5341
    Points : 5556
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:31 pm

    2SPOOKY4U wrote:

    So bashing China is the same as bashing Russia?

    Sure thing.

    Bashing is silly.

    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    Russia is both European and Asian, that is the legacy of its Empire, its size, its strength, and its glory.

    Sucks to be Germany btw, however I would not be dismayed if I had to use Rafales or Leopards.

    No one really deals death like the old imperial powers.

    The quality of european puppet states isn't even to debate here, anykind of quality is always overshadowed by the fact that one off those countries refuses to supply spare parts and your entire aircraft is useless, Mistral style.

    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    China is may be the third biggest MIC on the planet, they still can't develop 4th gen fighters on their own.

    Sweden has bigger things to worry about, like having a rape rate higher than all of the countries in Afrique except Lesotho.

    They can and they have developed 4th gen fighters, they also do the same with 5th gen fighters, even if those fighters are 10-30% less capable which is already a huge junk, that makes them still highly capable and gives them basis to achieve their military goals. War isn't some plain simple statistics where 100 vs 100 aircrafts the side with aircrafts that is 10% better wins all 100 engagements, that is not how it works.


    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    I respect you as well, and I appreciate all the photos and reports as well. You have saved me the trouble of translating things numerous times and have assisted many non-Russians on this forum that needed help when information was only available in Russian. You have been nothing but a contribution to this forum.

    Unfortunately, in this situation, you are wrong.

    Russia's combination of the most advanced and numerous IADS in the world, with the its current near-hypersonic weapons and future hypersonic weapons make it the pinnacle of military power.

    I advise you to go to Mindstorms profile, and click on "Topics posted in" and read any thread in its entirety that has anything to do with hypersonic weapons, or IADS.

    Hypersonic weapons are the future, and in this case, Russia is sprinting ahead, while others struggle to walk.

    Russia's leading role in IADS does not overshadow any other brench and warmachinery of a military. Each asset like IADS, Ground forces (tanks& infantry) or Naval forces have their own objectives, tactical and strategic purpose, one brench regardless off how capable does not overcast other branches, especially when in such scenarious a full blown war is rather more the case than some isolated "surgeon strikes" like the west had us believed to be the case. Guided missiles and bombs will be depleted in no time and then every side is pretty equal in modern technology, because they will have to rely on dumb bombs, clusters and huge HE payloads to achieve their objectives, at that point it doesn't matter how well a guided JDAM performce or how well KH-31/59 performce.

    I've read lot off posts from Mindstorm with joy, but this discusion isn't about technology vs technology, this is a different layer of Military overall performance, while you are understimating it, the US does not and the US is world known to be the most ignorant country on earth, but off course the decision makers and military analysts are not the ignorant ones. They take their job very serious and never underestimated their opponent even during Cold War were every american soldier got fed up with propaganda of how bad russian tanks were with millions of arm eating autoloaders etc etc. The CIA saw it how it is and reported that Soviet armor is outperforming US armor by a big margin, not just in quantity of 4:1 but also in quality which made NATO weapons obsolete with entrance of T-64. Again Hypersonic weapons are just one relative small military asset of mainly Airforce, there are still other branches that do not and never will have hypersonic weapons but still are important on the battlefield.

    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    To be honest, I was grasping at straws when I wrote that.

    It is an interesting idea, but again, hypersonic weapons.

    Islands may be an unsinkable carrier, but it is a stationary carrier easily seen by everything and very wide open.

    And i did not believe that you would be so ignorant, just in a ranting mood. Wink

    The difference is that those AFB islands are stationary supply chains with far higher capacity to support chinese fleet then any US carrier could provide for whatever fleet they see necessary to deploy in China seas to force against china. Logistics is key role in offense and defense and the US can't win against China in logistics, not in their own territory and that is all that matters.



    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    I agree, they are not waiting for tech to fall into their hands.

    They are using those hands to write cheques so that the tech arrives in their hangars.

    Playing fair is something for Monopoly at a family evening not politics or military which is politics with raw force measures.

    To behave or letting it to appear that China is only bribing, stealing and spying on other technologies is also a wrong behavior, they do have their own R&D facilities and constantly improving what they can achieve when they have no other meanings, of course they can't get their hands on every technology to copy, they are very intelligent with enough know how to succesfully reverse engineer aircrafts which is the highest MIC branch a country can get (PVO and RKO) are counted into this field aswell. This isn't a question off how far behind they are the question is how much time do other countries have left untill they overtake several fields.


    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    Actually, at the time of the India tender for an attack helicopter, the Apache represented the best purchase at the time.

    Yes, at that time, but also the fact that Mi-28NE and Mi-28N were not identical is also a flawed point of Mil proposal on international market, while Kamov proposed finished and polished products like Ka-50-2 in Turkish tender in cooperation with IAI Israel or Ka-52 in later tenders. However such tenders are never without political influence, which we could see in India MMRCA tender which doubled the budget for a fighter from a country with destroyed reputation today that is unreliable and the fighters performance is lower than any russian fighter of the same class and production year while the costs are unreasonably high.


    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    But I do see what you are saying, however the fact that every time the Chinese version of something went up against its original, it has always lost.

    Yes, but again i am not discussing technology vs technology but the overall military performance. The point that some maybe miss here is the deceiving language and terminology that is plagued in every our field of hobby, the point is you have Tank A and Tank B, the Tank A can be 1% better than Tank B which makes it defacto superior and this kind of language and terminology is always used to sell their items or just to suggurate the superiority off someone or something over another. This single percent however has no virtualy effect on the battlefield.


    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    Exports do say a lot you know, I would not shrug them off, and I would not equate what I say to nonsense on Western forums.

    I am no COD player.

    Exports do not say much when exports and markets are devided into camps of NATO and Russia mainly, because virtually those are the only markets we see. We know that tenders and export hosting countries usually are not without political influence. Some tailor the entire competition and tender to one single candidate like india did with MMRCA and CH-47 transport helicopter tender, despite both candidates were outperformed by others and were also much better in cost/effeciency. Another point is tenders like Turkey which was seeking for a helicopter that was sold with ToT (Transfer of Technology) so they could develope their own MIC to someday end their dependance on military imports from other countries. We know very well the A-129 isn't even close to be the best plattform, but this decision was made for a higher cause not for the technology itself. If US or russia would offer full ToT license to turkey they would have never even looked a second time on Mangusta helicopter but would take Apache, Havoc, Alligator or Cobra.


    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    Everyone can do reverse engineering. Iraq did it.

    China will be playing catch up for a very long time.

    Iraq was under sanctions, without know how, no expertice, no workforce that had traditions in that fields. China is not sanctionable, china has know-how, the facilities, the technologies to produce composite armor while Iraq had to rely on steels without any standards of even RHA steel.

    China will overtake some fields in next 15-20 years, quite a short time considering they started just 30 years ago to develope their MIC.


    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    It has every connection to reality.

    There is no country in the world capable to stop an Iskander strike, save Russia.

    There is no country in the world capable to stop a massed cruise missile attack, save Russia.

    There is no country in the world capable target submerged submarines with nuclear ICBMs with satellite systems, save Russia.

    I could go on, but my point is that you underestimate the vastness of Russian strategic and tactical superiority.

    Maybe you have ignored on not read what i have wrote about the strategy of US with their ABM shields in Europe towards and against russia?

    The point here is, such highly modern missiles are very low in numbers, less of 100 Topol-M's (which will be not used in confrontation like the US seeks), Iskander and Iskander-M missiles are less then 60 in service, even less deployed in the necessary range to cripple US and NATO bases and logistics located in central europe which is the entire plan off both sides to decapitate each other. Russia needs to tactical nuke NATO logistic assets located mainly in Germany, France and UK, while further decapitating US nukes in Netherland, Germany, Italy, Turkey and the military facilities of UK and France which have also nukes. The US counts on exactly that, sending stupid europeans into meatgrinder while Russia would not dare to use ICBM's because everyone would die, so they are absolutley bound to nuke NATO logistical bases in Europe to stop any advancing attack towards it for plain survival. That is the strategy, the US knows about russian hihgly capable IRBM's and other tactical nukes cruise missiles etc, but those numbers do not even exceed 300, which after US analysts is the necessary amount of tactical nukes on Operation Gladio level to succeed with such a risky strategy against each other. Russia does not have 300 theatre/tactical based nukes right now. The US will happily see EU destroyed and russians, that is how they fight Divide et impera style.



    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    I agree here, India is a fat bitch who thinks she can become the most important thing in the world by buying everything, then claiming she didn't have to while at the same time begging for more.

    But, India has been the coddled child of the USSR and Russia for a while.

    Soviet/Russian foreign policy towards India was always to strengthen India and gain a strong ally in South Asian hemisphere.

    Projects like BrahMos I/II,FGFA, MTA etc are to spoonfeed India and make it very relevant on a strategic scale.

    Whatever India cannot make, which is a lot, not going to lie, will be provided by Russia in either direct export/ToT licence, or joint projects with institutes.

    Anything India has that was made in cooperation with Russia, will be head and shoulders above its Chinese equivalent.

    So you are bashing China for not having technologies to the same degree as russia but relative mild over India which has virtually no MIC at all that could even reverse engineer. While China invests huge amoutns of money and attempts to become self sufficient and catching up with rest of Superpowers russia and US, you find it ok when a nuclear power and economical strong India remains an importing bitch? My personal believe is that every country should attempt to get as independent as possible, military, politcally and economically to stay safe against any kinds of threats, sanctions and hostilities from abroad, you do not have such a warranty and feeling safe and strong by staying in someones shadow and being dependent on someone else.

    China is doing wonders while India is struggling to even produce Arjun despite having years insight of T-90S tanks to learn from it, but fail to get a good product by trying to cheat designs by borrowing parts of designs from Leopard and T-90 and trying to combine them while they are based on different philosophies of how to design a tank.
    The chinese do not do this, they are relative soviet style in keeping their tanks modified which they succeed, still not on the same level but that is just a quesiton off time.



    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    I base it on the fact that China does not have the advanced level of manufacturing knowledge nor equipment to make such a weapon feasible on a tank.

    Or not mounted on a tank, for that matter.

    So you are basing it on your perception not on data nor on knowledge based on their capabilities. That is called perception, even tho i do not know their true capabilities for sure, but i also do not tend to underestimate them for a relative simple technology for such a developed MIC, even the US has to license produce german L44 while having the biggest MIC in the world, while the much smaller MIC which is only fire arms, some navy assets and tank developing in germany, can.



    Reverse engineering is something Iraq managed to do...and it resulted in the Asad Babil. lol1 On a more serious note, resorting to reverse engineering is not per se "a good thing" and neither dose it show off your MIC prowess.

    I'd say that is not far off from the truth, just compare the systems both countries have. China's systems will be capable, but almost always end off being inferior to the Russian contemporary.

    Or based on the fact this new gun...is a joke. They stuck a longer barrel onto their 125's, with more propellant, and are (going to be) claiming it's revolutionary. It's not. - And try fitting one to a tank...

    Iraq didn't had jack shit to reserve engineer anythig succesfully. Iraq was over 2 decades under sanctions, they had no know-how, no experience and no resources to manufactor even WW2 tanks. They had to use steel that was subpar to RHA that was close to WW1 HHA steel, any T-34 had better armor than Asad Babils. Comparing Iraq with China is just as silly as boasting the Abrams to "best tank" because it destroyed those Asad Babils and Monkey Models...big deal.

    Reverse engineering isn't about showing off, there is nothing to show off when you have to catch up first, no one will show off something when they are behind, they can't catch up by playinf far just not possible, if you start the run decades after the first runners have left the start you won't catch up without cutting short, plain and simple and no shame in there. This isn't some sports, it is politics with different measures.

    Calling something a joke without even knowing any specifications of that gun is the exact thing how such simpletons like David Axe and other paid tableoids by MIC work.
    avatar
    2SPOOKY4U

    Posts : 281
    Points : 294
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:17 pm

    Werewolf wrote:Bashing is silly.

    Bashing is fun

    Werewolf wrote:The quality of european puppet states isn't even to debate here, anykind of quality is always overshadowed by the fact that one off those countries refuses to supply spare parts and your entire aircraft is useless, Mistral style.

    I am in agreement here.

    Werewolf wrote:They can and they have developed 4th gen fighters, they also do the same with 5th gen fighters, even if those fighters are 10-30% less capable which is already a huge junk, that makes them still highly capable and gives them basis to achieve their military goals. War isn't some plain simple statistics where 100 vs 100 aircrafts the side with aircrafts that is 10% better wins all 100 engagements, that is not how it works.

    They have developed fighters based off of Russian 4th gen designs.

    I have lots of doubts on their abilities with 5th generation designs.

    Werewolf wrote:The difference is that those AFB islands are stationary supply chains with far higher capacity to support chinese fleet then any US carrier could provide for whatever fleet they see necessary to deploy in China seas to force against china. Logistics is key role in offense and defense and the US can't win against China in logistics, not in their own territory and that is all that matters.

    I agree, the islands provide a logistical advantage,

    but muh hypersonic weapons.

    Werewolf wrote:Playing fair is something for Monopoly at a family evening not politics or military which is politics with raw force measures.

    To behave or letting it to appear that China is only bribing, stealing and spying on other technologies is also a wrong behavior, they do have their own R&D facilities and constantly improving what they can achieve when they have no other meanings, of course they can't get their hands on every technology to copy, they are very intelligent with enough know how to succesfully reverse engineer aircrafts which is the highest MIC branch a country can get (PVO and RKO) are counted into this field aswell. This isn't a question off how far behind they are the question is how much time do other countries have left untill they overtake several fields.

    Playing fair is for plebs, I agree.

    They do have R&D facilities.

    Copying gets you no where near a successful MIC, and I won't start holding my breath for China to overtake in several fields.

    Werewolf wrote:Yes, at that time, but also the fact that Mi-28NE and Mi-28N were not identical is also a flawed point of Mil proposal on international market, while Kamov proposed finished and polished products like Ka-50-2 in Turkish tender in cooperation with IAI Israel or Ka-52 in later tenders. However such tenders are never without political influence, which we could see in India MMRCA tender which doubled the budget for a fighter from a country with destroyed reputation today that is unreliable and the fighters performance is lower than any russian fighter of the same class and production year while the costs are unreasonably high.

    Tejas sucks, agreed.

    My point is that exports of products are important.

    Werewolf wrote:yes, but again i am not discussing technology vs technology but the overall military performance. The point that some maybe miss here is the deceiving language and terminology that is plagued in every our field of hobby, the point is you have Tank A and Tank B, the Tank A can be 1% better than Tank B which makes it defacto superior and this kind of language and terminology is always used to sell their items or just to suggurate the superiority off someone or something over another. This single percent however has no virtualy effect on the battlefield.

    The thing is, Russian tanks aren't 1% better than Chinese tanks.

    They are on another plane of existence with the T-14.

    Werewolf wrote:Iraq was under sanctions, without know how, no expertice, no workforce that had traditions in that fields. China is not sanctionable, china has know-how, the facilities, the technologies to produce composite armor while Iraq had to rely on steels without any standards of even RHA steel.

    China will overtake some fields in next 15-20 years, quite a short time considering they started just 30 years ago to develope their MIC

    China is rather dependent on western consumerism.

    China will catch up in certain fields in the next 15-20 years.

    Their MIC has an advantage, everything they are doing now, has already been done.


    Werewolf wrote:aybe you have ignored on not read what i have wrote about the strategy of US with their ABM shields in Europe towards and against russia?

    The point here is, such highly modern missiles are very low in numbers, less of 100 Topol-M's (which will be not used in confrontation like the US seeks), Iskander and Iskander-M missiles are less then 60 in service, even less deployed in the necessary range to cripple US and NATO bases and logistics located in central europe which is the entire plan off both sides to decapitate each other. Russia needs to tactical nuke NATO logistic assets located mainly in Germany, France and UK, while further decapitating US nukes in Netherland, Germany, Italy, Turkey and the military facilities of UK and France which have also nukes. The US counts on exactly that, sending stupid europeans into meatgrinder while Russia would not dare to use ICBM's because everyone would die, so they are absolutley bound to nuke NATO logistical bases in Europe to stop any advancing attack towards it for plain survival. That is the strategy, the US knows about russian hihgly capable IRBM's and other tactical nukes cruise missiles etc, but those numbers do not even exceed 300, which after US analysts is the necessary amount of tactical nukes on Operation Gladio level to succeed with such a risky strategy against each other. Russia does not have 300 theatre/tactical based nukes right now. The US will happily see EU destroyed and russians, that is how they fight Divide et impera style.

    You have ignored what I have said.

    IADS is the single most powerful weapon available.

    Its importance lies in the fact that it allows for offensive elements to stay intact.

    Just wait until 2020 Werewolf, then you shall see.

    Werewolf wrote:So you are bashing China for not having technologies to the same degree as russia but relative mild over India which has virtually no MIC at all that could even reverse engineer. While China invests huge amoutns of money and attempts to become self sufficient and catching up with rest of Superpowers russia and US, you find it ok when a nuclear power and economical strong India remains an importing bitch? My personal believe is that every country should attempt to get as independent as possible, military, politcally and economically to stay safe against any kinds of threats, sanctions and hostilities from abroad, you do not have such a warranty and feeling safe and strong by staying in someones shadow and being dependent on someone else.

    China is doing wonders while India is struggling to even produce Arjun despite having years insight of T-90S tanks to learn from it, but fail to get a good product by trying to cheat designs by borrowing parts of designs from Leopard and T-90 and trying to combine them while they are based on different philosophies of how to design a tank.
    The chinese do not do this, they are relative soviet style in keeping their tanks modified which they succeed, still not on the same level but that is just a quesiton off time.

    China has a better domestic MIC than India.

    Agreed.

    What I meant to say is that current prospects for a hypersonic weapon than China, thanks to cooperation with Russia.

    Werewolf wrote:So you are basing it on your perception not on data nor on knowledge based on their capabilities. That is called perception, even tho i do not know their true capabilities for sure, but i also do not tend to underestimate them for a relative simple technology for such a developed MIC, even the US has to license produce german L44 while having the biggest MIC in the world, while the much smaller MIC which is only fire arms, some navy assets and tank developing in germany, can.

    Adding length to a gun, then increasing the propellent is not exactly a standard to be proud of.

    sheytanelkebir

    Posts : 533
    Points : 550
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:38 pm

    Apologies for interjection. But iraq never actually produced any asad babil tanks. All the tanks they had were assembled from complete ckd kits supplied by buman labedy of Poland. I thought this would be common knowledge. Iraq did produce some consumable parts for the tanks though... Barrels tracks batteries etc...


    Last edited by sheytanelkebir on Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2737
    Points : 2779
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  Mike E on Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:42 pm

    sheytanelkebir wrote:
    Apologies for interjection. But iraq never actually produced any asad babil tanks. All the tanks they had were assembled from complete ckd kits supplied by buman labedy of Poland. I thought this would be common knowledge.
    The Babil was a direct copy of the kits sent by Poland AFAIK. So it was produced in Iraq

    sheytanelkebir

    Posts : 533
    Points : 550
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:44 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    sheytanelkebir wrote:
    Apologies for interjection. But iraq never actually produced any asad babil tanks. All the tanks they had were assembled from complete ckd kits supplied by buman labedy of Poland. I thought this would be common knowledge.
    The Babil was a direct copy of the kits sent by Poland AFAIK. So it was produced in Iraq

    Absolutely not. Not a single tank was produced in Iraq. I would love to see evidence of even one complete iraqi built tank. Asad babil is a name given to locally assembled kit of T72m1 tanks imported from poland. Nothing more. Lest we veer too far off topic. More can be seen here.

    http://iraqimilitary.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=110


    http://iraqimilitary.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=44


    Last edited by sheytanelkebir on Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2737
    Points : 2779
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  Mike E on Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:49 pm

    sheytanelkebir wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    sheytanelkebir wrote:
    Apologies for interjection. But iraq never actually produced any asad babil tanks. All the tanks they had were assembled from complete ckd kits supplied by buman labedy of Poland. I thought this would be common knowledge.
    The Babil was a direct copy of the kits sent by Poland AFAIK. So it was produced in Iraq 
    Absolutely not. Not a single tank was produced in Iraq. I would love to see evidence of even one complete iraqi built tank. Asad babil is a he name given to llo ocally assembled kit of T72m1 tanks. Nothing more.
    By the end of the conflict Iraq was resorting to producing its' own parts in place of Polish ones...which resulted in the Asad. It was even made using different steel *as produced by the Iraqis*. 

    Off Topic

    sheytanelkebir

    Posts : 533
    Points : 550
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:00 am

    Mike E wrote:
    sheytanelkebir wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    sheytanelkebir wrote:
    Apologies for interjection. But iraq never actually produced any asad babil tanks. All the tanks they had were assembled from complete ckd kits supplied by buman labedy of Poland. I thought this would be common knowledge.
    The Babil was a direct copy of the kits sent by Poland AFAIK. So it was produced in Iraq 
    Absolutely not. Not a single tank was produced in Iraq. I would love to see evidence of even one complete iraqi built tank. Asad babil is a he name given to llo ocally assembled kit of T72m1 tanks. Nothing more.
    By the end of the conflict Iraq was resorting to producing its' own parts in place of Polish ones...which resulted in the Asad. It was even made using different steel *as produced by the Iraqis*. 

    Off Topic

    Which is a work of fiction. The Iraqis working on taji themselves say that not one tank was ever built from iraqi steel... And every single tank was a kit assembled.  Read the links I put up (Google translate it). They did however make their own ammo and consumable parts. As well as overhaul and assemble the tanks. But all hulls turrets and engines were imported complete.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2737
    Points : 2779
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  Mike E on Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:07 am

    They claim it was an "upgrade"... They took Polish parts and threw them on top of Iraqi ones. Either way the "T-72's" were *built* in Iraq.

    sheytanelkebir

    Posts : 533
    Points : 550
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:11 am

    Mike E wrote:They claim it was an "upgrade"... They took Polish parts and threw them on top of Iraqi ones. Either way the "T-72's" were *built* in Iraq.

    What upgrade? The only upgrade was a Chinese dazzler.dazzler on turret. Everything else is standard imported T72m1 with imported parts. Metal and down to screws and nuts. What iraqi parts? Consumables and ammo? Yes. Anything else? No. Iraq continued to need importing parts for T72 and cannibalising tanks to keep some operational when irreplaceable parts were destroyed or worn out during the embargo years. Like I said this little myth of the iraqi T72 needs to die. sorry for veering off topic.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2737
    Points : 2779
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  Mike E on Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:18 am

    sheytanelkebir wrote:
    Mike E wrote:They claim it was an "upgrade"... They took Polish parts and threw them on top of Iraqi ones. Either way the "T-72's" were *built* in Iraq.
    What upgrade? The only upgrade was a Chinese dazzler.dazzler on turret. Everything else is standard imported T72m1 with imported parts. Metal and down to screws and nuts. What iraqi parts? Consumables and ammo? Yes. Anything else? No. Iraq continued to need importing parts for T72 and cannibalising tanks to keep some operational when irreplaceable parts were destroyed or worn out during the embargo years. Like I said this little myth of the iraqi T72 needs to die. sorry for veering off topic.
    It wasn't an upgrade...but it was an "Iraqi modification" and that's what the people in that forum were getting at. 

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment-intro.htm Not the best source but nonetheless it claims "based on Soviet parts, Iraqi technology, and it was *produced* in Iraq". 

    You can't say it ain't true if there's nothing to go on...

    If you want to continue just PM me so we don't bloat this thread.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2349
    Points : 2512
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  Cyberspec on Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:50 am

    Off Topic
    Maybe you giys should take this discussion to the Chinese thread on this forum.....just throw my 2 kopeks worth...I share the view of Werewolf on this topic because as usual, most undersestimate China's latent power and huge potential.

    ____

    Oleg Sienko (gen Manager of UVZ) on the Armata:

    "We are now starting the trials, we hope that the trials will end in the next year after which to get the appropriate letter 'and to begin mass production", - said the head of the corporation...

    http://vpk.name/news/134302_gendirektor_uralvagonzavod_nadeetsya_zavershit_ispyitaniya_armatyi_uzhe_v_2016_godu.html

    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 4014
    Points : 4037
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:05 am

    Mike E wrote:
    sheytanelkebir wrote:
    Apologies for interjection. But iraq never actually produced any asad babil tanks. All the tanks they had were assembled from complete ckd kits supplied by buman labedy of Poland. I thought this would be common knowledge.
    The Babil was a direct copy of the kits sent by Poland AFAIK. So it was produced in Iraq

    It was assembled in Iraq. Iraq had three kits from Poland/Czechoslovakia and from the USSR. At some point the Iraqis stopped importing M1's from the Czechs and started stacking the type 69's and 79's for the war with Iran.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1169
    Points : 1174
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:10 am

    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    Adding length to a gun, then increasing the propellent is not exactly a standard to be proud of.
    if it was that easy as you implied then everyone would have done it by now...

    i know it may come as a surprise to you but gun systems(yeah systems!) are actually very sophisticated pieces of technology.
    critical components like the barrel and the chamber are already nearly at their limit when firing high powered apfds rounds; in fact users are instructed to avoid using such "magnum rounds(propellant that is a lot more powerful is in the same amount as weaker one)" when they are too hot or else the gun fcks them up too. and, its the reason why insensitive propellants are thing.
    not to mention the associated systems are also affected. the gun control system, unless future proofed like the T-14's with 152 mm gun is already built up to the level of the current gun's maximum capacity of recoil forces in most cases, so you have to upgrade it too. so, no adding powder isnt very easy thing to do. and, to a lesser extent extra weight from a longer barrel also negatively affects the gun control system. again, the power traverse and stabilizers are optimized for the current and lighter barrel so unless they are future proofed the gun/turret movement is gonna be slower, possible less precise or they can keep up and cook themselves in the process.

    Sponsored content

    Re: China MIC issues

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat May 26, 2018 5:52 pm