Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+49
ALAMO
Mir
ChineseTiger
Finty
JeremySun
tacticalBattalion
QuakenBush
IPCRquad
MiddleKingdomer
lancelot
Yugo90
bren_tann
Backman
AzMann
MarkD
Tai Hai Chen
Tsavo Lion
Isos
Sujoy
magnumcromagnon
franco
Viktor
ATLASCUB
Kimppis
verkhoturye51
George1
Hole
slasher
GarryB
Labrador
d_taddei2
Admin
miketheterrible
PapaDragon
walle83
Pierre Sprey
Tom Cruise
AlfaT8
Airman
JohninMK
KiloGolf
max steel
Werewolf
nemrod
medo
higurashihougi
type055
Cyberspec
Flyingdutchman
53 posters

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6279
    Points : 6371
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  ALAMO Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:39 pm

    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.

    GarryB likes this post

    Sujoy
    Sujoy


    Posts : 2285
    Points : 2445
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India || भारत

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Sujoy Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:59 pm

    ALAMO wrote:You obviously don't understand what is being said to you.
    No! That's your problem.

    Backman likes this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6279
    Points : 6371
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  ALAMO Tue Oct 11, 2022 8:00 pm

    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 scratch
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  GarryB Wed Oct 12, 2022 12:54 am

    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.

    Tolstoy likes this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6279
    Points : 6371
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  ALAMO Wed Oct 12, 2022 7:33 am

    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

    GarryB and Hole like this post

    Tolstoy
    Tolstoy


    Posts : 225
    Points : 219
    Join date : 2015-07-12

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tolstoy Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:03 pm

    GarryB wrote:Once the target hits the ground or the water the job of the SAM is over and it can't fail anymore.
    If the target hits the water before the SAM could intercept it, why would you say the job of the SAM is over?

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

    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.
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6279
    Points : 6371
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  ALAMO Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:20 pm

    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!  Shocked

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

    WOW! Unimaginable!

    At least in India I guess  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Twisted Evil

    Broski and Podlodka77 like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  GarryB Fri Oct 14, 2022 6:33 am

    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.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5824
    Points : 5780
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Oct 14, 2022 9:31 pm

    https://asiatimes.com/2022/10/china-can-now-deploy-hypersonic-nukes-on-its-carriers/?mc_cid=6efed0cb72&mc_eid=5455568640

    IMO they can now or in the near future deploy them on subs too.

    GarryB likes this post

    avatar
    walle83


    Posts : 968
    Points : 978
    Join date : 2016-11-13
    Location : Sweden

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  walle83 Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:59 pm

    A new type of warship has been identified under construction in the Shanghai shipyard. Could be the new larger Type-54B frigate.

    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3208207/china-makes-progress-advanced-warship-bigger-type-054a-frigate-according-new-satellite-images

    China makes progress on advanced warship bigger than Type 054A frigate, according to new satellite images
    Vessel in Shanghai shipyard could be long-rumoured Type 054B but with mast design similar to Type 055 destroyer, according to analysts
    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 2589
    Points : 2591
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Podlodka77 Sat Apr 29, 2023 6:30 pm

    This is how everything looks when there is a plan and order, as well as discipline when implementing the plan.
    The number of ships built and the years since which a certain class of ship has been operational;

    * Type-055; EIGHT Type-055 destroyers; the class is active from January 12, 2020.
    * Type-052D; TWENTY-FIVE Type-052D destroyers; the class is active from March 21, 2014,
    * Type-052C; SIX Type-052C destroyers; the class is active from July 18, 2004. The first two ships in the class were operational from 2004 and 2005, while the next 4 ships became operational from 2013 to 2015.

    IN TOTAL; A total of 39 destroyers, of which only two Type-052C destroyers are older than 10 years. I did NOT include destroyers older than the Type-052C in the list.

    * In the period from 2013 to 2019, 17 Type-054A frigates were put into active service, while another 13 were put into service in the period from 2008 to 2012.
    IN TOTAL; 30

    * In the period from 2007 to 2021, China introduced 6 Type-094 strategic submarines into active service in its navy. In the period from 2007 to 2017, 6 Type-093 SSN submarines entered active service. That's a total of 12 nuclear submarines, at least that many.

    The eighth Type-055 destroyer.
    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 B5ba5910

    xeno dislikes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  GarryB Sun Apr 30, 2023 7:59 am

    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.

    sepheronx and Belisarius like this post

    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 2589
    Points : 2591
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Podlodka77 Wed May 17, 2023 9:35 am

    Garry,
    Look at it this way, the first two Type-052C ships became operational in 2004 and 2005 and that's the only longer break - the only one.
    Four more Type-052C ships were then built and reached active status in the period from 2013 to 2015.
    Then it is completely switched to Type-052D (the first one has been active since 2014), of which 25 are currently in active service.
    Finally, add 8 Type-055 destroyers to all that. That's 33 destroyers in 10 years. I will not even mention the ships of other classes.

    With that, you got the answer to the question "how long did they test them for?"
    You cannot produce dozens and dozens of destroyers without first thoroughly testing all equipment.
    We see the exact opposite case with project 22350, which has been under construction since 2006 and only two frigates are operational. The justification for "Russia was left without turbines due to the cessation of deliveries of turbines from Zorya-Mashproekt" is no justification - Russia is to blame for allowing this to happen and for not starting the development of turbines earlier.
    And far smaller project 20380 corvettes were built only 9 (one of them is project 20385) in the past 15 years.
    Russia's ONLY advantage is in nuclear submarines, the construction of which is again terribly slow, and I mean the 885M Yasen-M.

    Not much politics and wisdom there Garry, China's military industrial complex is impressive as is China's construction industry.
    I am not glorifying China, I am glorifying Chinese efficiency.

    And not just ships, jets, missiles, buildings, bridges, but also this..

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  GarryB Wed May 17, 2023 1:01 pm

    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.

    Backman likes this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2554
    Points : 2552
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  lancelot Wed May 17, 2023 1:20 pm

    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.

    Podlodka77 likes this post

    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 2589
    Points : 2591
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Podlodka77 Wed May 17, 2023 9:36 pm


    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. Whether it is the construction of a building, a bridge, a ship or anything else, the Chinese have efficiency and order and discipline in the implementation of the plan. They are lagging behind in some important categories, such as submarines, the number of attack helicopters and ICBMs, but I have no doubt that they will solve that problem as well.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  GarryB Wed May 17, 2023 9:43 pm

    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.
    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 2589
    Points : 2591
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Podlodka77 Wed May 17, 2023 10:08 pm

    Garry

    No, Russia is very efficient at producing missile systems of all kinds; anti-ship, anti-aircraft, anti-tank, anti-missile defense. I just think that the Russians are the best in the world at this. I will add helicopters and EW systems there. I write that the production of advanced Soviet platforms is good (planes created from the Su-27 family or improved T-72/80/90, BMP-3, BTR-82, diesel-electric submarines) while the production of fundamentally new systems has either not reached mass production or production is slower; AESA radars, AIP propulsion, T-14, 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV, Kurganets-25, Boomerang, Il-112, Il-276, 22350 frigates. I think the Su-57 and Il-76MD-90A are coming out of that gray zone, while the Yasen submarines have entered that zone - gray zone. Russian navy (and shipbuilding industry) has many problems and it is the weakest link of the Russian army.

    zardof likes this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2554
    Points : 2552
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  lancelot Wed May 17, 2023 11:00 pm

    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.
    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 2589
    Points : 2591
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Podlodka77 Wed May 17, 2023 11:13 pm

    Arleigh Burke destroyers were designed in the eighties, so I also think that Type-052D and especially Type-055 destroyers are technologically more modern than Arleigh Burke. The USA also has big problems with new platforms, and this can be seen from the fact that there are no new cruisers, the frigates were ordered in Europe, so the only one under construction is the Arleigh Burke. The Chinese have caught up and probably overtaken the US in radars, as well as anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38475
    Points : 38975
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  GarryB Wed May 17, 2023 11:30 pm

    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.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11233
    Points : 11203
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Isos Wed May 17, 2023 11:55 pm

    Arleigh Burke have different versions... they still produce them with upgraded tech.

    Chinese haven't a reliable radar tech. Export customers aren't that happy with them. I remember an AD guy from SAA on twitter complaining how shitty chinese radars were compare to advertisements. He said radars always do worse than what their ads say but for the chinese it was the worse.
    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 2589
    Points : 2591
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Podlodka77 Thu May 18, 2023 12:03 am


    Have you ever heard of the word logic? You are a man who believes that the Rafale is a black hole in the sky, so your writing about the "unreliability" of Chinese radars is plain nonsense in your style. Realize, it is impossible to put 33 destroyers into active service in 10 years without all the equipment being thoroughly tested.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11233
    Points : 11203
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Isos Thu May 18, 2023 12:10 am

    Russian AD was thoroughly tested yet ukro drone goes easily in their bases hosting fighters...

    Chinese radars are shittier than US.
    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 2589
    Points : 2591
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Podlodka77 Thu May 18, 2023 12:29 am

    I am writing to you again that what you write has no logic, because there is no and it is impossible to put dozens and dozens of destroyers, frigates or corvettes that do not have reliable radars into service. If the case was as you describe it, then the Chinese ships would be in shipyards for repairs, but they are not. China is efficient and the Chinese feel it and you can see that they are proud of their efficiency. On the other hand, in the West, they are effective in protests, tents and increasingly poor infrastructure. It is enough for me to see the city that has developed the fastest in the history of mankind, that is, Shenzhen, then to see the shouted New York and to see who is who.
    It's over for the West, it's over

    Sponsored content


    PLA Navy and Naval Air Force - Page 32 Empty Re: PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Feb 23, 2024 2:30 am