China and Farnborough air show

So, the Farnborough air show took place this past week with a lot of fanfare. The Russians unveiled their "new su-35" fighter and MS-21 airliner. Bombardier signed the agreement with SAC to build the fuelsage for the C-Series. And as expected, the Chinese airlines bought a bunch of Boeing/Airbus planes and CFM/IAE engines. At the same time, the Chinese aircraft makers achieved nothing as we expected.

We've known for a while that China wants to learn from the West in aircraft design and manufacturing. It has done so in its cooperation with Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and Embraer. The question is, do the Russians really have anything to offer to China? If you read the press release this week, the first thing that the Russians talked about were going through this project with China. You can see one of the reports for it here.

At the International Air Show in Farnborough outside London, which celebrates its 60th anniversary this year, Russian air companies are expected to sign a series of major deals with their counterparts.

The deals could cover both running projects, such as the Sukhoi SuperJet-100 civilian aircraft, and other upcoming projects. One of the latter is the MS-21 short- and medium-haul jetliner. Like the SuperJet, it is to be developed cooperatively with outside firms. In this case Chinese aircraft makers could become Russia's leading partners.

Alexei Fyodorov, head of Russia's United Aircraft Building Corporation, was somewhat cautious in announcing this news at Farnborough. Russia, he said, was not against a joint venture with China in the development of the "most ambitious Russian project."

This is not the first time the two countries have attempted to join forces in building an aircraft. In 2006, Russia proposed to China they both design and build a long-haul jetliner under a priority national project included in China's 2006-2010 five-year plan. As a starting point, Russia suggested the Russian-made Il-96-300. The results of this joint venture could compete with America's Boeing and Europe's Airbus.

Russia was clear about its motives. Its air carriers today need between 200 and 300 passenger liners of this class. Unfortunately, many of them cannot afford new models and opt for cheaper used foreign makes. This is why Russia needs overseas partners: to share the risk. The Chinese, however, declined the offer, and Russia had to cancel the program.

China's decision is understandable. They need aircraft designed for medium distances, and this is what they will build. One of them - the ARJ-21, seating 78-90 passengers - is expected to go into production in 2009. It was developed with the American firms and Ukraine's Antonov design bureau. Russia was left out in the cold.

Last year, China decided to build a medium-haul 150-passenger airliner, and in May of this year the Chinese Commercial Aircraft Company was set up in Shanghai.

But Russian producers have not abandoned hope. Sukhoi's General Director Mikhail Pogosyan visited Beijing late in May and said his company would cooperate with China in designing civilian aircraft. Now, at Farnborough, he is echoed by Irkut leaders, the corporation planning to build MS-21s.

Unlike Russia, China has never built its own passenger planes. The 1980 project to develop the 178-seat Y-10, a rival of the Boeing-707, ended in failure as did a later attempt to launch mass production of an airliner similar in design to a McDonnel Douglas model. It may be that the Chinese will now look more favorably at Russian proposals.

Russia needs cooperation. When Russian aircraft builders plan production quantities, they must know if their product will be in demand not so much in Russia as outside it. Industry and Trade Minister Viktor Khristenko said the domestic market in Russia is not large enough to make aircraft production commercially viable. In fact, Sukhoi Holding intends to sell 500 of the planned 800 SuperJet-100 models abroad before 2024. To make its position sure, it sold a blocking stake in its civilian segment to Italy's Alenia Aeronautica.

The importance of two large players appearing on the Russian aircraft market is hard to overestimate. They would be capable of eliminating the present shortage of short- and medium-haul airliners. In the next few years, the Sukhoi SuperJet-100 could replace the veteran Yak-42, as well as the Tu-134, which, in many cases, is being written off as scrap. The MS-21, once it enters the market in 2015, will not only replace the Tu-154 and Tu-204, but also the A320, which will have reached the end of its service life by that time. What's more, Irkut promises the MS-21 will be 15% lighter than its European cousin and consume 25% less fuel, a factor to bear in mind as jet fuel prices continue to soar.

Analysts say Russian air carriers will require 800 to 1,000 aircraft of various classes in the next decade. Russian aircraft builders will, unfortunately, be unable to prevail across the board. But medium-haul liners offer a glimmer of hope. Fyodorov says that the MS-21 and the SuperJet-100 can meet over 80% of domestic airline requirements for aircraft in this size range.

Next year, at another show in Le Bourget, France, Irkut is planning to announce the results of international tenders for the production of MS-21 components. It will perhaps be known by then if the Chinese will participate in the project or opt for building their own airliner.

It's understandable why Russia would want to involve China in MS-21 (or RRJ originally). China represents such a large market that it would allow any project to be successful. Despite having possibly the least capable of the 3 designs (ARJ-21, RRJ and MRJ), China's ARJ-21 looks like the most likely to succeed. With 171 orders from domestic carriers already + 7 firm and 20 optional for export, ARJ-21 is far leading the rest of the field. Despite Sukhoi blowing a lot of hot air claiming markets all over the world (including China), it has only received 12 oversea orders so far on top of over 100 Russian orders. The number of Russian airlines with needs for regional aircraft really shocked me as I am composing this blog. In the case of China, I don't think it can actually take any more orders (not enough production capability), but I don't think the same problem exists with Sukhoi. And even in the cases when Chinese airlines are not ordering ARJ-21, they are still ordering from Embraer instead of Sukhoi. At this point, I think MRJ is doomed to failure regardless of the number of technological advancements its claiming.

Back to MS-21, Russians are claiming 25% fuel efficiency over A320. Considering that Airbus and Boeing's next generation airliner are not coming out until 2020, logic would dictate that MS-21 would be the most efficient airliner in this class for 5 years. However, whether the Russians can really develop something that's as fuel efficient and environmentally friendly as the Western firms is questionable. At the end, they are not likely to want to share too much of their design "secrets" with China. This is not to say that the Russians are stingy in this aspect. They have shared far more of their aerospace technology with China than any of the Western companies. Based on the deal they struck with India for the 5th generation aircraft, I would think that Sukhoi would want to keep much of their core technology. China would get to do some outsourcing work and probably an assembly line. But, do they really want to continue to get the same deal that they already get from Airbus? Would the Russians really treat them as an equal partner in such a project? All the bargaining power rests with China in this case. Their market power attracts cooperations from all the major aircraft makers. They have made developing "large airplane" a national pride kind of project (along the line of project 921). If the Russians can't offer something that's better than the west, they would have no chance with China.

As for su-35, it was unveiled with much publicity this week. I guess the Russians have realized by this point that China is not interested in this aircraft due to their faith in the J-11 series. It's interesting that they are offering it to India. I wonder why would India even buy this aircraft with MKI project already so far along? And without these two large buyers, who else would be able to afford su-35 in large numbers? It will be interesting to follow the status of this project.

Responding to PKF's article on Asian Navy

Just to report on some news before we get to the main purpose of this post. There are some news from this week:

• EMAL catapult project has been confirmed by Qinghua alumni website
• LCAC in JN has apparently been launched
• Chinese WIG aircraft had its first lift-off/flight
• Latest Chinese conventional/nuclear subs are using all-electrical propulsion
• A prototype for a major project in CAC has recently passed through AVIC-1 examination committee. Not sure what this project is at this point.

And now, the article I've really been responding to is PKF's analysis to IN vs PLAN. This article appeared on the June version of Kanwa and then all over the Chinese military bbs. Now, it has even been spread to English webs with its appearance on UPI and Part 2. Now, I personally think PLAN is better in hardware than IN. But, my focus here is to look at the arguments of PKF rather than to do a comparison of PLAN/IN. With that in my mind, let's look at PKF's focus.

First, he states that China is far ahead of India in submarine. I don't think anyone can debate this part. Of course, he manages to understate the number of nuclear subs and conventional subs China has. We've seen at least 3 094s, 3 Yuans, 1 new 039B, 12 to 16 Songs and more than 2 093s (does he really think China will have the same number of SSNs as SSBNs?). Rather than consider the current force on both sides, he compares what China has right now to what India will have. And this is a theme that will be used in the rest of the article.

The second part is his comparison of frigates on both side. First, he totally ignores the excessive number of Jiangwei's that China has, but mentioned the 3 4500 tonne Type 16A frigate serving for IN. Of course, Type 16A are actually 3850 tonne in full load. And it doesn't seem to contain any sensor/weapons that are actually more recent than the recent Jiangwei. So, I would've ignored both. Just focusing on the relatively advanced frigates, China has 6 054/A, whereas India currently has the 3 Talwars. PKF believes that the construction is at a parity, with India slightly ahead in technology. I suppose that he is factoring in the 3 Project 17 class frigates, but there really is no telling that these ships will be completed before the next batch of 054As. Yes, we know that Project 17s are launched, but we've also seen 4 054As getting commissioned in less than 2 years of seeing the first pictures coming out. With the next batch of 054As already under construction in 2 shipyards, it's hard to see these ships actually coming out later than the Project 17s (considering how much delay Indian ships normally suffer). And it's also quite perplexing where this technological disadvantage for 054A comes from. We've argued for quite long that 054A's sensors/SAMs are upgrades over what is on Sov class. So, considering that Sov class's air defense suite is basically the same as the ones on Talwar and Project 17. PKF's belief must have originated from the Club missiles on these ships. We could spend all day arguing over and the sensors/missiles on these ships, but I think it's generally agreeable that they are in the same class. The upgraded Talwars on order are not going to change that scenario. So for the forseeable future, IN will have a maximum of 9 frigates in this class, but PLAN will have far more than that given the current rate of construction for 054 class.

And finally, he concluded his arguments by talking about Indian superiority in 6000+ ton warships. He starts by saying that China has a lead right now with the 052B/C, 051B/C and Sovs vs 3 Project 15s. However, he continued by saying that IN will have an absolute lead in quantity and quality in the future, because it is building 3 Project 15As and will take in 2 aircraft carriers next decade. I think it's pretty obvious by now that China is preparing a carrier group at Sanya. So, to say do the comparison without factor that in is not realistic. Also, he mentioned that the only major ship that China is building recently is 054A. He seemed to have forgotten the recently launched Type 071 LPD. At the same time, he is ignoring all the signs that China will be building its next wave of destroyers (successors to 052C) in JN very soon. The relocation of JiangNan shipyard did not really slow down PLAN naval expansion. It simply shifted the focus from destroyers to frigates, FACs and submarines. With the world's largest shipyard coming into line, I think the shift will come back to large warship in the coming 3 years. Of course, IN advantage in carrier operation cannot be underestimated. However, it is not the only determining factor when judging large warship strength.

A lot of PKF's arguments are made against the unknowns of PLAN's future expansion plan. However, we've seen that PLAN has managed a very comprehensive modernization/expansion plan. They have put the effort into improving all the areas that PLAN observers thought they needed improvement in. They built almost every type of warship that we've expected them to add. So, I don't think anyone should believe that their progress would just stop now. And I think he summed up the situation and negated his own point at the end by saying the following,
"In terms of shipbuilding technology and production craftwork, however, especially in such production processes as cutting, welding and spray-painting, the military vessels produced by China -- particularly those vessels built at the two shipyards in Shanghai -- are far superior to the Indian navy ships."
Although PKF did not want to admit to this, but you can same the same thing when compared to Russian built ships. That's why in the end, China has more concerns on the Eastern side with South Korea and Japan. These are the two countries that have well established shipbuilding industry and the economy to compete against a PLAN naval build up. China has the advantage of being able to simply outbuild most countries in the world due to its existing shipbuilding capacity and the high quality to cost ratio of the shipyards. It doesn't have this advantage against South Korea and Japan. All 3 countries are very competitive in the shipbuilding market because of this. Having said this, China is technologically behind South Korea in civilian shipbuilding, but that's not necessarily the case with military shipbuilding. For example, South Korea would not be better than China in submarine or aircraft carrier construction, because China has been investing/developing in these areas for much longer. In addition, I do think that China has the advantage in sensors/weapons, because it uses all indigenous products -> better cost to performance ratio than South Korea and Japan. And when compared to India, these advantages are even more pronounced.

PLAN's military hardware probably surpassed IN only in 2006, but it's hard to see IN reversing the trend and actually catching up. IN talks about building 1 scorpion a year from 2012 to 2017, but China is already building 3 yuan a year right now. The only thing that IN has over PLAN is its carrier operation. And certainly, this is one area that PLAN needs a lot of experience with in the next 20 years. We can certainly say the same thing about the other ships that it has been getting.

Chinese Patrol fleet

So, I noticed recently of a bunch of pictures of Chinese patrol ships coming out on Chinese bbs. I didn't think too much about them until Galrahn posted a note on this. You can see the English article on this here.

There are also a couple of Chinese articles that you can find here and here.

Basically, we can gather the following from these articles:

1. They sent out Haixun-31, the largest and most capable Chinese patrol boat, in this 5 day mission sailing through 17,000 nm.
   
2. Haixun-31's length is 112.8 m, beam is 13.8 m and draft is 4.38 m, the displacement is 3000 tonnes. The maximum speed is over 22 knots and it has a range of 6000 nm at 18 knots. It also has 40 days of endurance.
   
3. It's the only Chinese patrol boat with a helipad, a hangar and a flight control tower.
4. They also brought out Haixun-111, Haixun-113 and 60 other small patrol boats.
5. What's interesting is that they sailed in the East Sea around Chunxiao gas field. This is significant because it's the major dispute between China/Japan in gas exploration.

So, to give you guys an idea of how large the patrol boats are, I'm posting a picture of Haixun-31 and a picture of the small boat.



We know about the deal recently signed between Japan and China on exploration for Chunxiao, but this exercise may have been planned before that agreement. Anyhow, I don't think Japan will appreciate this one too much.

Varyag Pics + Congress on China

So, I got some apparently new photos of Varyag. Now, we at SDF are still not sure these are recent photos, because the island and the crane beside Varyag looked to be painted in the satellite photos. So keeping that in mind, these are some nice new photos to look at that were posted at the aftermath of the Varyag left Dalian rumour mill.






Also, found some new pictures of MCM ships sailing in Shanghai. It's kind of surprising that we haven't seen more of these pictures in the recent times.



And if you guys ever visit SDF, you might have noticed a thread that I started recently called PLA discussions in congress.
What I find kind of interesting is the wide variety of topics that were looked at. I'm impressed that the congress looked at PLA so comprehensively. Of course, they do still rely heavily on the annual DoD review on PLA + SIPRI report. And I certainly would not expect any of them to have the time to follow PLA any more closely than that. I get the impression that they still focus very heavily on Russia's support to PLA buildup. The Sov and Kilo purchases are obviously the main focus here. I found it interesting that they also started to realize that China is growing to a stage where it no longer needs Russia weapon. And I really think it's the fault of Pentagon + the people that come to these hearings that the commissions aren't more aware of this. I don't expect the congress or Dod reps to follow the individual platforms like the way that a naval geek like myself would. So, it was refreshing to look at PLA expansion/export to other countries from a political point of view. I would recommend everyone to at least gloss over the hearing that I posted in that link.

Update on PLA

So, I guess I haven't done any update for a while. The truth is that not much news have come out in the past 2 weeks. So, this will be my obligatory update.
First of all, one of the big rumours that came out speculated Varyag has left Dalian. This rumour was initiated by someone who apparently saw it disappearing on a flight to/from Shanghai. This caused quite a stir on Chinese online forum and SDF. After all, we've been wondering about what PLA was going to do with Varyag. The photographs for Varyag haven't come out as frequently as some of the other major projects. One could guess this indicates the importance of the carrier project or the inconvenient location of Dalian shipyard or the lack of exterior progress. In fact, many of my non-Chinese friends on SDF became interested in PLAN due to Varyag. So, the lack of progress and transparency on this issue has caused much frustration in the past 3 years. This week's speculations brought out some new energy on this. Jeff Head attached a recent photo that seemed to suggest that the island is painted. Some other photos came out later showed Varyag is still in the shipyard, but the island is not painted. So, that would indicate those photos were not taken recently. Either way, the original story that you can spot aircraft carrier with your own eyes from an airliner seemed to be outlandish. And, there hasn't been any photographic evidence to support it since. So at this point, I can only assume that this is a bad rumour.

The other big news that came out recently is the first flight of Prototype 03 of L-15. When 01 first flied, Hongdu said at that time 03 would be the final prototype due to budgetary constraints. We all know I'm not a big fan of L-15, so I'm not exactly as excited about this news as many people are. Here are some pictures:


Due to its lack of importance to PLAAF, the first flight of 03 has received as much transparency as 01 and JF-17 04. Basically, when a product like this do not get interest from PLAAF, the news media tend to have more photo opportunities and more official interviews. It's exciting because we get an unaltered look at these new planes. With the new engine AI-225K-25 and possible requirements of prospective customers, they made some changes from 01 to 03. Here are some pictures that show the differences between 01 and 03






After 03 flied, another interview was done with Hongdu, and I have provided a rough summary below of this article:

• Engine changed from DV-2X to EAI-222, providing a total of 42 kN in thrust with afterburner. The engine with afterburner is still under test, so 03 uses one without afterburner. Prototype 04 and 05 should have afterburners.
  
• They signed an agreement to assemble the engine in China. Engine availability shouldn't be a major issue.
  
• Major improvement in quality between 03 and 01. 03's finishing is much better, has less rough edges. It should help with aerodynamics.
• Compared to JL-9, L-15 is in a different generation, it uses turbofan engine with FADEC, has much longer service life, quadriplex FBW and glass cockpit. It gives feel closer to that of a 4th generation fighter jet.
  
• Much lower cost for flying L-15 than su-27, over 3 times the service life of su-27, so cheaper maintenance cost, lower operating cost (maybe 1/10 that of flankers)
• Talks about possibly using L-15/Yak-130 as attack aircraft to replace A-10/Su-25
• Also talks about converting L-15 into UAV, saying that the FBW of L-15 makes it a possibility. It's always easier to do something based on an existing product rather than a brand new product.
  
• Talks about making L-15 more stealthy, changes like having a V shaped vertical stabilizers instead of the straight one right now.
  

That's about it. I'm not really too impressed by it still. I guess L-15 would only prove itself after getting an order from PLAAF.

More on China & Russia military relationship

So, we dealt a little bit with the naval problems in the relationship. Now, we also got some more ammunition on the aerial part of the relationship. But to start of, we will go for a little lighter piece of news.

MOSCOW. June 6 (Interfax-AVN) - A plan is being developed for the
Chinese aircraft manufacturing industry to invest in a project to
develop a training aircraft on the basis of the Yakovlev Yak-152, a
Russian defense industry source said.
An agreement with China to that effect "is expected within the next
few months," the source told Interfax-AVN.
The plane would be fitted with a piston engine.

So, as you guys might have figured out from my past post, I'm not the biggest fan of Hongdu. This is another reason why I just cannot respect this company in spite of its success with K-8 exports. We know that L-15 has turned into a total failure up to this point. In some degree, it's excusable to struggle in developing an advanced trainer. However, they can't even get a basic trainer developed. They have to basically pay the Russians to develop an aircraft for them. That is just so sad. Even after all of China's recent success in aircraft development, they can't develop this simple aircraft.

Now, let's turn our attention back to J-11B and IL-76. It appears that Sukhoi's General Director has announced J-11B is not an illegal copy of su-27. You can find the video report of the news report in Chinese here. There is probably also some Russian reports on this. I'm sure it will soon propogate to more prominent news sources. From the beginning, I thought the Russians were just trying to get some money out of this. From sources I read so far, it seems like the Russians probably got some concessions (other contracts) from China in exchange for dropping this complaint. I think at the end of the day, it's better for both side to achieve some level of satisfaction and put this behind them. The bilateral relationship is way too important to be marred by this argument.

IL-76 issue is also getting close to being resolved according to this PKF Article. Now, this is a Kanwa article, so you will have to take it at its face value. It's easy to see the bias in this article. When Indians are considered to do the normal and reasonable thing to bend to the Russian blackmail over the entire Gorshkov fiasco, the author looses all credibility. There is no question that China got a good deal when the original IL-76 contract was signed, but that doesn't excuse the Russians. As a basic business practice, you must fulfill a contract regardless of how bad it may look to you. The Southwest airline got a deal where it's buying oil at $55 a barrel for 3 years. I suppose if it signed that deal with the Russians, the contract would be torn up by now. Normally, when a side cannot complete the contract in time, it will be penalized under the terms of the agreement. Not only do the Russians not offer compensation for violating the agreement, they expect extra compensation?

I wonder what the chances are for China to buy IL-76 if they anticipate the domestic copy will be ready in 5 years and this new factory is clearly not ready for production yet. If it takes 3 years to get the contract signed and equipments purchased. And then the first IL-76 come off the production line will already be around 2011-2012, would this deal be worth it? Pinkov certainly assumed right from the beginning that PLAAF can only get the plane from the Russians. I'm sure the Russians did the same way, so they expected China to eventually bend on this issue. It has probably caught them by surprise that China has held out this long over this issue. I think this deal has a chance of being revived if the Russians can offer a transport with better price/performance ratio than what SAC is capable of. PLAAF may still order 20 of the so called IL-476 if the price does not get out of hand. Either way, this is one deal that will forever harm the Chinese/Russian military relationship.

Replying to a recent Signal Magazine article

So, I just read an
article on AFCEA regarding China copying technologies from 956. So, I think I will address this again.

First, let's address the myth that Russia is no longer willing to sell China advanced weapons, because China is copying off them. James tried to make the point that the Russians are willing to sell products to India that are not available to China. One of his main arguments are the Akulas. The argument doesn't work in too many ways. Nuclear submarines are not allowed to be exported, so the Indians are only leasing the submarines. Since China already has the capability of designing and building its own nuclear submarines, it makes no sense for the country to lease the submarine for 10 years, pay a fortune and then have to return the submarine. It makes a lot more sense to use that money to continue indigenous development while getting help from outsiders. That's exactly what China has been doing. With the speed at which 093 and 094 are joining PLAN, it's clear that China is going down that path. With 095 getting launched in a couple of years, why would China be interested in Akulas? And previous entries have already cut into the notion that China is not getting the military hardware that it wants from the Russians, so I absolutely disagree with this statement.

The Soviet/Russian exporting of modern offensive systems to nations other than China has been obvious over several decades.

Secondly, the entire idea of China copying off the Russians has been overstated. James begin with this quote.

The answer to the question of why China produced only one or two of four recent new guided missile destroyer designs could be that China is trying to gain the capability of producing a 956-type ship so that no more expensive Russian imports would be needed.

I guess 052B could be considered a Chinese version of Sov in someways, but China still has not tried to gain the capability of producing a 956 type ship. The reason why they are only producing 2 of each class is because they are trying to reach the most advanced shipbuilding level in the world. An old design like Sov, that is overrated in every aspect, certainly does not fill that criteria. Anyone who follows PLAN should realize that 052C is a far newer design with a more stealthy hull, CODOG propulsion, a modern AEGIS like air defense system, long range SAMs and a more flexible missile launcher. In fact, the next generation of Chinese DDGs will likely feature more compact systems carrying more missiles in the same load.

Now, let's move to the part where he claims China is copying all the subsystems off Sov. The first mistake he makes is assuming that anything that have similar exterior are illegal copies. What people seem to always forget is the Sea Eagle radar on 051B. When we first got up-close photos of Sea Eagle on 054A, we noticed that it had different rotating base from Top Plate and had more rows of antenna. Later on, we saw an export poster that showed different versions of Volume search radar. From that poster, it appeared that Sea Eagle on 054A operates on a different band than Top Plate. We also know from past articles that the latest Sea Eagle radar went through the most intensive testing program in PLAN history. Would a cloned radar really need such extensive testing? And with the most recent Sea Eagle being tested on 891, it's clear that radar is different from Top Plate just by looking at the external appearance. The bandstand looking radar on 054A have also appeared on 052B/C and 051C. Coincidentally, they have also appeared on 891. We know that bandstand is used to support Sunburn on a Russian combat system. Whereas the Sea Soul radar is used to support YJ-83/62 on the Chinese ships. If they are copying something like this, would it be able to work with another combat system and different set of missiles like this? This is also something that they have tested extensively on 891 back when it was still 970. Would they really need to do extensive testing for a cloned system. The FCRs on 054A have also sparked suspicions of cloning from MR-90s. We don't know what's inside the cover, but we know the external cover looks similar and that having some sort of FCRs on 054A makes sense. They are suspected to be copied due to their external appearance. I certainly think that cloning is a possible scenario for the FCRs, but there is no proof for this. In fact, he even admitted that the MR-90 like FCR tested on 891 is a domestic version. And we've seen more MR-90s on 891 recently being tested with the newest radars. Why would a year long testing period be needed, if it's already a mature product like MR-90. And if they can develop their own radars, why would they have such a hard time developing FCRs that look like MR-90s. And finally, the claim that 054A uses MGK-335 is also very confounding for me. All we know about 054A is that it has hull mounted sonar with bow mounted dome. There is no evidence right now (other than guesses) that 054A has any kind of towed sonar array. How would anyone outside of China know the origins of the sonar in that dome if it's not imported from anywhere. As we've seen with the sonar suites on the latest Chinese submarines, PLAN certainly doesn't fancy Russian sonar over its own indigenous developments. There is no evidence at all that 054A's ASW suite got any Russian help.

And James also conveniently forgets to mention that China received ToT/production rights for AK-176 and AK-630. They also modified these gun systems for domestic use. If they are willing to pay for the guns, why would they not be willing to pay them for the radars? Another point he brought up also counters to his own external shape argument. The VLS cells on 054A look lie MK-41 on Aegis ships and also use hot launch. Does anyone really think that China would have access to MK-41? In spite of this, we still hear claims that HH-16 is a copy of Shtil VLU. Clearly, China is willing to create radar, weapons and launch modules that have similar exterior appearance to existing systems around the world. Due to its familiarity with Russian systems, it certainly makes sense that many such systems look similar to Russian ones. China has certainly shown a willingness to get ToT and license production for things like the diesel engines, gas turbines, guns, torpedoes and sonars. Why then would everything else they develop be copyright infringement suspects? They certainly are used to studying existing systems and developing domestic versions based on lessons learnt from those systems. Would those be classified as illegal copies though?

And even examining some of its accusations toward the Western subsystems is kind of interesting. We've already went through the HH-16 VLS. We've also noted that the diesel engines and gas turbine are all legally produced under ToT in China. Otherwise, I don't see why MTU and SEMT would bother doing business with China anymore. The SS-12 sonar and Z-9 definitely got full ToT and licensed production rights from the French. That's also why China still cooperates with Eurocopter and gets help from the French on sonar. The A244S torpedoes were certainly purchased legally from the Italians and that probably aided in the Yu-7 development. We've already discussed in previous post that Type 730 is a combination of ideas from multiple CIWS. To say that it is a copy of Goalkeeper would be ignoring the sensor difference, munition difference and the physical difference of the two naval gun systems. I guess the most blatant violation toward Western countries is the development of the HQ-7/FCR/Type 360 radar combination. Outside of that, I would say China has respected the subsystems that it bought from the Western countries.

At this point, it seems like any new Chinese platform that has physical resemblance to Russian ones will be called stolen copies by the Russians. The Yuan submarine, 054A radar suite, WS-10A, J-11B and a bunch of other systems all got such labels. There is no question that China gained a lot from the Soviet breakup. It got access and ToT to technologies it never had before. It simply could not have gotten the same ToT deals from Western companies, who are probably much better at protecting their own IP. So, China's military complex benefited greatly from cooperation with the Russians. However, that doesn't mean it should have to keep on buying Russian products why they are not making the cut. No amount of Russian complaining will change that. Since I don't see this complaining stopping, this will likely be a major topic on future posts for this blog.