Russia says Chinese arms better than Russian arms

[marshall]

There are rumor that China got the blueprint of the Ulyanovsk supercarrier from Ukraine in 1990s.

Since the Soviets can never come out with the steam catapult system and the nuclear reactor for the supercarrier, then we will accomplish what they cannot accomplish before.

The Ulyanovsk carrier blueprint rumor is exactly that, a rumor that the Asahi Shimbun reported from "speculation" by unknown sources who were clearly guessing. We have proof that they were guessing because they claimed in the same interview that China would begin actual physical construction of 2 domestic non-nuclear carriers by 2009. Obviously, that did not happen. Second, assuming these sources aren't made up BS to fit the scaremonger narrative of the Asahi Shimbun article, why would China begin building Ulyanovsk carriers from blueprints in the 2020s, as claimed? By that time, China will almost certainly have far superior naval technology compared to the Ulyanovsk.

Why would China build carriers on a clearly outdated and inferior 1980s era Soviet design when the Americans will have deployed several Ford class supercarriers by then? China is in the midst of trying to catch up with the United States military technologically and will be greatly outnumbered by American carrier groups. It ABSOLUTELY needs competitive naval platforms if it is serious about extending control beyond the 1st island chain. Building on blueprints of the Ulyanovsk carrier, even if China really did have these blueprints, MAKES NO SENSE! It is much more likely that China will be taking bits and pieces here and there of various technologies and platforms to create a new domestic carrier design that would actually stand a chance of surviving 1-on-1 encounters with their American counterparts. At this point, such 1-on-1 battlegroup encounters would be suicide, end of story. That's 1-on-1 ignoring the gigantic naval superiority and regional air bases Americans have. It's smells like BS, and it is almost certainly BS.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The Ulyanovsk carrier blueprint rumor is exactly that, a rumor that the Asahi Shimbun reported from "speculation" by unknown sources who were clearly guessing. We have proof that they were guessing because they claimed in the same interview that China would begin actual physical construction of 2 domestic non-nuclear carriers by 2009. Obviously, that did not happen. Second, assuming these sources aren't made up BS to fit the scaremonger narrative of the Asahi Shimbun article, why would China begin building Ulyanovsk carriers from blueprints in the 2020s, as claimed? By that time, China will almost certainly have far superior naval technology compared to the Ulyanovsk.

Why would China build carriers on a clearly outdated and inferior 1980s era Soviet design when the Americans will have deployed several Ford class supercarriers by then? China is in the midst of trying to catch up with the United States military technologically and will be greatly outnumbered by American carrier groups. It ABSOLUTELY needs competitive naval platforms if it is serious about extending control beyond the 1st island chain. Building on blueprints of the Ulyanovsk carrier, even if China really did have these blueprints, MAKES NO SENSE! It is much more likely that China will be taking bits and pieces here and there of various technologies and platforms to create a new domestic carrier design that would actually stand a chance of surviving 1-on-1 encounters with their American counterparts. At this point, such 1-on-1 battlegroup encounters would be suicide, end of story. That's 1-on-1 ignoring the gigantic naval superiority and regional air bases Americans have. It's smells like BS, and it is almost certainly BS.

lol, we won't duplicate the Ulyanovsk class, but we did want to study its layout back in the 1990s since we got zero knowledge about the structure of an aircraft carrier.

Even the Nimitz class isn't enough for us today, and of course we need to build the aircraft carrier that is comparable to the Gerald Ford class.

 

[marshall]

Indeed, China also has considerably lower wage, so 600 billion yuan would pretty much do what 600 billion USD can do in China's military expenditures.

You're exaggerating the efficiency of Chinese military spending quite dramatically. If what you say were true, then China's current 2012 military budget of $106.4 billion [670.3 billion Yuan], would effectively be almost equivalent to American military spending of over $700 billion USD$ for this year. Nobody is deluded enough to believe China's military spending is equal to the United States. The sort of military spending efficiency that China may have is mostly related to personnel costs, distantly followed by operational costs which are not nearly as cost efficient. Even America's Pentagon estimates of China's effective military PPP spending is not this ridiculously exaggerated, and they are pretty ridiculous.

 

[marshall]

lol, we won't duplicate the Ulyanovsk class, but we did want to study its layout back in the 1990s since we got zero knowledge about the structure of an aircraft carrier.

These rumors of Ulyanovsk blueprints are based on pretty much nothing because everything those unknown sources the Asahi Shimbun quoted, has turned out to be false so far. These are the same sort of unsubstantiated rumors that we've been hearing about China forever which I believe is a big reason why every other Chinese military development is considered surprising.

Even the Nimitz class isn't enough for us today, and of course we need to build the aircraft carrier that is comparable to the Gerald Ford class.

If you're talking about Nimitz carrier battlegroups, that can be applied towards any American carrier class because of China's anti-ship/anti-carrier missiles and geographic advantages. However, 1-on-1 in the open seas from the 2nd island chain on, it's suicide. The only advantage the Shi Lang has is the 1030 CIWS.

Nimitz class carriers are far superior to the Shi Lang. They are nuclear powered, carry more aircraft, have proven naval fighters, are guarded by a superior supporting cast of AEGIS destroyers, Seawolf/Virginia nuclear attack subs, etc. China has zero chance of challenging this naval superiority beyond the 2nd island chain before 2030 at the earliest and that's being generous.

 

[marshall]

Well, we should also reflect to ourselves why we got humiliated by the West during the last two hundred years.

Since we stopped making the progression because of the incompetent and ignorant Qing Dynasty.

Therefore, we should never forget that lesson of being ignorant and becoming lazy of your previous achievement.

It started in the 1st Opium War in 1839 lasting to 1949, a total of 110 years. At the 200th anniversary in 2039, China won't be the richest but will probably be the most developed country in the world, assuming you don't consider multi-party democracy to be a prerequisite to being developed. lol

 

[Fantasy]

Zombie thread revived. China will have no more than 3 aircraft carrier by the end of 2030 that is guaranteed, and by that time the USA will probably have downsized theirs as they draw-down from third world theater and their costly overseas commitment to focus on new technologies like 6th generation unmanned stealth bombers, missile defense, cyber warfare, and ways to improve their space infrastructure and electronic system vulnerability to confront and win a higher tech one, their warfare structure will entirely change from aircraft carrier's to long range precision bombing hence maintaining bases in Korea, Japan, and Australia will be key if they were to have a technological breakthrough in the future of all these aspect, and the Americans will attempt to reduce the asymmetric parity that countries like Iran and China have against them in the coming years. Aircraft carriers will soon be a thing of the past and relegated to support warfare, the USA next war doctrine will not be based on invading a third world nation, it will be based on chocking off an adversary, both through soft and hard power, and denying your adversary the ability to chock you back as much as they could. Aircraft carrier is a novelty to the Chinese military, their focused are not on building the biggest and baddest looking warships money can buy but rather to resolve regional warfare as well as testing out new technologies and an attempt to expand the range their navy can operate. Chinese nuclear propulsion technology is still a ways behind Russia or the USA, they just got a little bit richer over the years so experimenting with new toys like an aircraft carrier, instead of sole focus on asymmetric warfare, is just a natural progression. China will end up with no more than 3 Aircraft carriers maximum and having any more will be redundant, and a waste of money, because sending those hulking mass anyway out of your sphere of security and your ability to protect them will only make it a sitting duck, a big **** ambassador to show off with, nothing more. China do not have the expeditionary force, navy might or logistics to support their navy outside of their own backyard. To end the silly comparisons, it's also pointless for Russia to prodcue state of the art aircraft carriers with it's military budget because it's not involved in expeditionary warfare and frankly, it's not needed for their security so they never took the costly step of mass producing any of it, it's all about practicality, not sure why people even bother to brag about something which in the end will be a relic of history.

 

[marshall]

China will overtake Russia in every fields in the military technology by year 2015.

- nuclear submarines (Yasen attack sub)
- strategic bombers (not even close, Y-20 is a transport)
- turbofan engines (let's see WS-15 status in 2015, high-bypass turbofans/turbojets?)
- turboshaft engines (not competitive to Russian equivalents)
- nuclear warheads (Russians rule from tactical to >200kt yield)
- miniature nuclear reactors (critical weakness of Chinese nuke subs)
- strategic missiles (questionable since JL-2 & DF-41 are still in testing)
- torpedoes (not competitive to Russian equivalents)

If Russia had an adequate military budget, it would regain the personnel to realize a commanding military technology lead over China. I don't think they could maintain such a lead even in this scenario beyond 2025, but saying China can overtake Russia by 2015 is simply not true.

 

[marshall]

Nowadays, China mostly relies on data link and control system, not on a single outstanding weapon.

Russia needs to jump out from this obsolete way of thinking from the Soviet Era.

Russian fighters datalink with each other and AWACs. They and many other Russian platforms don't work in isolation the way you are assuming.

 

[IND151]

You don't know how far about China's current SSBN and SSN, it may be better than you thought before.

China would even come up with the comparable strategic bomber to US, since SSBN always holds a higher priority in the development than the strategic bomber.

If China can come up with its own Ohio class and Trident II D5 missile, i just don't see how it can lag behind Russia in SSBN.

tanlixiang28776 is right

china has yet to build sub like typhoon or Akula.

it will take china at least 15 years to match current tech level of Russian Nuke subs

Nuke subs are very tricky

 

[indiafriendly]

India will CONTINUE to be THE WORLD'S TOP arms importer for decades to come !!!

Atleast we import...i mean we pay for what we buy....Not as donation like you....

 

[Developereo]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia saw a massive brain drain

I know it's a one year old post, but anyone know where these people went? The West and Israel, surely, but where else? I am sure India snatched up a few because of the decades long associations.

 

[marshall]

Do you seriously believe that mass is related to its size?
Try searching up the DBP87 heavy round and you'll see what I mean. It's standard for all QBZ-95 later variants as well as the QBZ-95G.
7.62 mm rounds have yaw forces when fired, which impedes its capability to penetrate body armor, due to the excess amounts of kinetic energy transferred from the bullet to the target (impulse momentum theorem).

Depends on how well the barrel works with the particular round. You'll normally see this problem with larger rounds fitted to shorter barrels but the same rounds are just fine with sniper rifles with long barrels, related to the amount of spin. That's why you have large caliber rounds for sniper rifles that have excessively long barrels. Those rounds are very long with a hell of alot of mass but still overcome the yaw problem with excessively long barrels to spin the round.

Wrong, buddy. Mid-course flight is different from mid-flight. Midcourse flight is when the ballistic missile's second stage kicks in and goes to the apogee of flight. This is the highest altitude of the ballistic missile's flight path.

To date, only the US and China has conducted mid-course interceptions.

I see your point since this would be more effective against warhead decoys and MARV warheads, a very important distinction. However, that doesn't mean the S-400 & S-500 are not anti-ballistic missiles. They simply intercept ballistic missiles differently but they still intercept them.

 

[IND151]

I know it's a one year old post, but anyone know where these people went? The West and Israel, surely, but where else? I am sure India snatched up a few because of the decades long associations.

right

Russian engineers are working on ATV since 1991

the Russian crew which came with Chakra 1 took high positions in ATV project

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...ject-open-literature-analysis.html?highlight=

 

[Audio]

some points id add:

Soviet electronics wasn't all that bad:
-for example MiG-31's had a data link ability.
-anti ship missiles also had datalink ability back in the 80's; for lack of a source more at hand ill use a quote from wiki:

The missile, when fired in a swarm (group of 4-8) has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. If the designating missile is destroyed the next missile will rise to assume its purpose. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an onboard computer. They will attack targets in order of priority, highest to lowest: after destroying the first target, any remaining missiles will attack the next prioritized target.

- Topol-M is widely regarded as one of the best ballistic missiles around.