{"id":110919,"date":"2017-11-30T12:09:00","date_gmt":"2017-11-30T12:09:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-08T11:05:14","modified_gmt":"2023-01-08T11:05:14","slug":"replying-to-recent-signal-magazine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/11\/30\/replying-to-recent-signal-magazine\/","title":{"rendered":"Replying to a recent Signal Magazine article"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\" itemprop=\"name\"><\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\"> <\/div>\n<p>So, I just read an <a href=\"http:\/\/www.afcea.org\/signal\/articles\/templates\/SIGNAL_Article_Template.asp?articleid=1624&amp;zoneid=7\"><br \/>article on AFCEA<\/a> regarding China copying technologies from 956.  So, I think I will address this again.<\/p>\n<p>First,  let&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s exactly what China has been doing.  With the speed at which 093  and 094 are joining PLAN, it&#8217;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.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The Soviet\/Russian exporting of modern offensive systems to nations other than China has been obvious over several decades.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Secondly, the entire idea of China copying off the Russians has been overstated.  James begin with this quote.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Now, let&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;t know what&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s not imported  from anywhere.  As we&#8217;ve seen with the sonar suites on the latest  Chinese submarines, PLAN certainly doesn&#8217;t fancy Russian sonar over its  own indigenous developments.  There is no evidence at all that 054A&#8217;s  ASW suite got any Russian help.<\/p>\n<p>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?<\/p>\n<p>And even examining some of its  accusations toward the Western subsystems is kind of interesting.  We&#8217;ve  already went through the HH-16 VLS.  We&#8217;ve also noted that the diesel  engines and gas turbine are all legally produced under ToT in China.   Otherwise, I don&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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.<\/p>\n<p>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&#8217;s military complex benefited greatly  from cooperation with the Russians.  However, that doesn&#8217;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&#8217;t see this complaining stopping, this will likely be a major topic  on future posts for this blog.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>So, I just read an article on AFCEA regarding China copying technologies from 956. So, I think I will address this again. First, let&#8217;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 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110919"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110919"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110919\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}