Naval and Defense News

[kevinkins]

Thanks for the link Dysta. I doubt something as dreadful as WW3 or a mainland invasion would ensue out of the ongoing island dispute. However, if China keeps pressing to a point where freedom of navigation is threatened, the US may pose an ultimatum regrading those artificial ones. "Get out or we take them out" sort of thing. I am not sure how well they would stand up to a several flights of B2s. Perhaps they are stronger than I think. Any loss of life on the ground could escalate the matter. But like you say, lots of scenarios to consider.

Kevin

[Hongjian]

http://www.eastpendulum.com/sous-les-mo ... s-missiles

Henri.K on the recent Chinese media release that confirms that the Underground Great Wall (UGW) was, in fact, continuously growing in the past 40 years, adding more tunnels, storage caves and more hidden launch sites to the already very large complex of at least 5000km length.

The CCTV report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_Mjg7JjoMc

The tunnels depicted are probably in the mountainous areas of South China and are made large enough to house mobile ICBMs. The commentator in the footage specifically talks about their role in "reducing the damage caused by enemy weapons". These tunnels are at times 100 meters below rocky ground.




Henri.K writes:

In the organization of the Chinese rocket forces, formerly called the "Second Artillery Corps," there is a very special brigade. Their main weapons are neither missiles or nuclear warheads, but shovels, concrete and explosives.


The Chinese underground network estimated by the United States (Source: The Washington Post)
Since the late 1970s, tens of thousands of soldiers of this brigade have built a vast network of silos, tunnels and fortifications, which stretches several thousand kilometers under the mountains, in the four corners of China , To house the country's ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.

This strategic priority program has several names, but the best known of all is the "Great Underground Wall". Declassified documents have spoken from the bottom of some silos of launching which is almost 100 meters under the rocks.

And nearly 40 years after the launch of the project, the work is still in progress, at least that's what they suggest several videos recently broadcast on the military channel of local television CCTV-7, Following.

Indeed, journalists of the chain were able to enter one of the sub-networks that is currently under construction, even during the Chinese New Year period. For obvious reasons of confidentiality, the exact location of the work was not revealed, but the commentator indicates that it is in the south of China. It can also be seen in relation to the vegetation and the clothing of the people filmed.

The videos in themselves are not particularly interesting, we see technicians, sometimes naked torsos given the heat that emerges during the solidification of cement, which work to build tunnels of different sizes.

But based on two revealing elements that have been mentioned in these reports, it is believed that the place is designed to house mobile ballistic missiles.

The first element is a " room of tests that may contain missiles erect " appeared 02 to 00 minutes of video. If we use the concrete mixer truck which generally measures 4 meters high as a reference object, the height of the room actually did nearly 14 meters, enough for a TEL type MRBMs DF-16 and DF-21 see an ICBM DF-31 , stands inside.

Then, around 3:07 in the video appeared " the diffusion chamber ", also in full work. The commentator points out at that time the importance of this piece, which is used to " reduce the power of the enemy weapons ". It is therefore believed that this is a network of chambers and tunnels to channel and reduce the shock wave generated by the assault weapons explosions.

Finally, although the television reports do not specify the exact location where they were shot, given the revealed clues and the current location of launch sites for the Chinese rocket forces, it is assumed that they are either Base No. 53 based in Yunnan Province with DF-21 or Base No. 55 stationed south of Hunan Province. Both are found in mountainous regions.

The current worsening of security situation around China would have probably prompted an even faster pace of expansion of the UGW, as well as the possible resumption of the Third Front Project, which is basically the deployment of production facilities for conventional and nuclear weapons into these tunnels.

In any war, the US would have to expend quite a lot of their warheads to destroy these tunnels in the mountainous areas of China, which in turn would make them more vulnerable against Russia's arsenal.

This, of course, again raises the question whether the decade old western estimates of China's warhead stockpile is anything close to the reality. 5000km of hardenend tunnels for just 260 nukes and a few dozen ICBMs?

[jtoatoktoe]

On-board video of Saudi Frigate being hit last week by suicide boat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2KObg4gAC4

[SASR]

New strike UAV that has emerged from the LCASD program: XQ-222




-$2-3 Million per aircraft
-1500 nm combat radius w/ internal carriage of 2 GBU-39s
-limited life; runway independent takeoff and recovery
-V-tail design, low observable
-50 - 45000 feet altitude interval
-0.85 Mach
-2018 flight

The fact it is so cheap, so long range, and can be used and recovered without runways makes this a very, very interesting concept

http://ir.kratosdefense.com/releasedeta ... eid=978805
http://www.kratosusd.com/capabilities/u ... ems/xq-222
http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft ... -offensive

[Dysta]

XQ-222

A bit like Chinese WJ-600 in functionality, but stealthier and have more endurance. (900nm compare to 1500nm)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASIC_WJ
http://defence-blog.com/news/turkmenist ... hicle.html

[Dysta]

In addition to the grounded hornets news, US Navy will have to cut flight hours and ship availability if the budgetary for maintenances is still out of question.

In contrast to the USAF's stealth aircrafts' fix and upgrade, Navy's aircrafts and ships receives way more intensive operations and still below the level of treatment as USAF has.

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/07/vcno-n ... hip-avails

-snip-

“We would be just flat out out of money to be able to do that. I think everyone here knows in ’17 the Navy took a $5-billion cut in its topline, if that comes to fruition that’s $2 billion of readiness cuts we’re going to have to take, which is immediately applied to things like ship avails.”

Five attack submarines would see their maintenance availabilities canceled this year and be put at risk of being decertified if no supplemental were passed out of Congress, Moran added, in addition to similar cuts to surface ship maintenance availabilities.

Assistant Commandant Gen. Glenn Walters said “we would stop flying in about July” without a supplemental. He clarified that forward forces would continue to operate, but for units training at home, “all training would cease without a supplemental, and that includes the parts money and the flying hour money.”

Even if the supplemental – which could total between $30 and $40 billion for all the armed services – is passed in a timely manner, the Navy and Marine Corps still face massive readiness issues that money can’t immediately address. Shipyards and aircraft depots face work backlogs stemming from the 2013 start of sequestration and the hiring freezes, furloughs and funding cuts it brought. Though the Navy has tried to hire thousands of people to conduct maintenance on aircraft carriers and submarines at its four public shipyards, the yards are still unable to keep up with the workload the fleet gives them.

Moran described the cycle of effects the fleet sees from this workforce challenge, using aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush’s (CVN-77) 13-month maintenance availability – which was scheduled to last eight months – as an example.

[Vici Supreme]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

XQ-222

A bit like Chinese WJ-600 in functionality, but stealthier and have more endurance. (900nm compare to 1500nm)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASIC_WJ
http://defence-blog.com/news/turkmenist ... hicle.html

More like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Barracuda (by the looks at least[8D])

[mikmykWS]

Wow they look exactly alike.

Mike

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Supreme 2.0
More like EADS_Barracuda

Of course, by the looks of it.

Barracuda is way too big and heavy, and looks more like an aircraft than a missile shaped UCAV. A fast-deployable UCAV should be small enough to take off in multiple ways, while having limited payload for at least two (if not more) SDBs or mini-missiles.

Most importantly is endurance and reusability, still. Even it's really as cheap as a million dollars, ditching it after a single use is still too costly.

[FoxZz]

ORIGINAL: Supreme 2.0

ORIGINAL: Dysta

XQ-222

A bit like Chinese WJ-600 in functionality, but stealthier and have more endurance. (900nm compare to 1500nm)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASIC_WJ
http://defence-blog.com/news/turkmenist ... hicle.html

More like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Barracuda (by the looks at least[8D])

Which looks like the Dassault SlowFast/MoyenDuc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault-Sagem_SlowFast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_LOGIDUC

When it comes to stealthy drones, the designs often ends up looking similar.

[Dysta]

The two first vehicles, AVE-D and AVE-C, are scale model 1/100 (50kg) and 1/10 (500kg) stealth "tactical drones" (UAV), while the final version was to be a full-scale (5,000kg) prototype stealth "combat drone" (UCAV).

Even bigger than Barracuda. Well, French and Germany doesn't like short lifespan and smaller combat drones. In such degree, the bigger flying wings design like nEUROn, Taranis and Ray are more beneficial if they need substantial payload and endurance, as well as focusing on maintenance instead of making more new drones.

Am I missing something about the miniature UCAV?

[Vici Supreme]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Well, French and Germany doesn't like short lifespan and smaller combat drones.

Why should a country like Germany invest in short lifespan combat drones? Terrorists were the biggest security threat for Europe in the last decade (and still are to this day) and therefore dictated requirements and capabilities for an army. The economic feasibility of using expandable UCAVs, one million apiece, to fight cavemen with AKs is self-explanatory I think. Only until very recently, the focus started to shift back towards having a credible conventional warfare capability.

[mikmykWS]

Hat trick!

Assume the design is good if they're all using it..[:)]

Mike

[Dysta]

Scenario opportunity: China's second superfamine in near-future because of the over-reliant of food import, and global repercussions against Chinese illegal fishing activities in the globe.

It is more likely causing military actions by agricultural disasters, than the recent economic shock when food import was barred by export countries, especially US and other western countries with proper regulations. If food production and safety in China cannot ensure more than a billion lives out of protein shortage and poisoned guts, then the Chinese authority will be the first and last thing to blame with.

Hence the SCS, ECS disputes, as well as illegal fishing worldwides:

http://chinapower.csis.org/china-food-security/

[Zaslon]

AEGIS capability – categorised as International AEGIS Fire Control Loop (IAFCL)

The F-110 Frigate is the Spanish Navy’s next generation, multi-mission surface vessel due to see operation in the next decade. While Navantia will build the frigates, Lockheed Martin and Indra are among the industry team members supporting the programme’s combat system. Mönch's US correspondent Marty Kauchak gained insights on Lockheed Martin’s role in the F-110 programme from Mike Koch, the company’s Business Development Manager for International Programmes. Highlights of their discussion are provided.

More, here.

[kevinkins]

In the news this morning.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-china-mili ... 15624.html

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

In the news this morning.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-china-mili ... 15624.html

The usual China-US aircraft escalations keep reminds me: what if there's no 9/11, and US decided to launch the attack against China because of her belligerence?

Maybe US fares better chance to fight in 2001 than 2017, as well as avoided the Afghanistan deathtrap? Wish there's a grand scenario of US-China WW3 in 2001 to find out. Back in the day, the 'Raptor killer' J-10 and 'Carrier killer' DF-21D aren't in service yet.

[Hongjian]

KJ-200 intercepting a P-3?
I don't think so. Probably just a coincidence.

[Dysta]

Yea, I said escalations, not confrontations.

-----------

Chinese media found both WSJ and NI are making contradictive reports in 2 days regarding Chinese shipbuilding industry, and never address the main issue of US shipbuilding for better comparison:

http://military.china.com/important/111 ... 45537.html (Simplified Chinese)

Originals:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-shi ... 1486552896 (Need subscription to read)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... d743f56552

The government has warned that almost one-third of the country’s remaining shipyards must close as Beijing wrestles with overcapacity in a range of heavy industries.

Shipbuilding became a symbol of China’s industrial might in the early 2000s, when Beijing vowed to transform its modest shipbuilding sector into the world’s largest producer by 2015 — then did it five years ahead of plan.

But China’s rise to pre-eminence coincided with a slump in global trade that gutted demand for new container ships, oil tankers and bulk carriers used for transporting commodities, just as a glut of new orders placed by over-bullish shipping lines was flooding the market.

In 2015, Premier Li Keqiang identified shipbuilding as one of the heavy industries on which he said China must “ruthlessly bring down the knife” to eliminate overcapacity.

The result is that China’s private sector shipyards have been virtually wiped from the map, while Beijing is keeping only the most viable state-run yards alive with subsidies.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chi ... ?page=show

In part through this fast follower approach—building on a massive economy—China has or is developing formidable capabilities and capacities in all shipbuilding-relevant areas (including steel, aluminum, structural and dynamic engineering, electronics, electrical power systems, engines—albeit with European licensing and Russian and Ukrainian assistance, and civilian nuclear technologies). Moreover, in entering industries, China tends to destroy pricing and introduce deflation. While potentially counterproductive regarding profitability and wealth in commercial shipbuilding itself, such “bending the curve” might allow Beijing to continue to afford a massive fleet buildout in ways that earlier shipbuilding powers never managed. If a Chinese juggernaut can truly succeed in changing the structural cost of sea power and naval warfare in a way that places the United States on the wrong end of a costly capabilities competition, the ramifications for the USN will be serious indeed.

[Dysta]

On the tangent, shipyards themselves are also battlegrounds, but more for workers than soldiers. They are also important just as the US Navy.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-hu ... 1792237803

-snip-

OSHA has the power to fine companies that are negligent in upholding safety, but another branch of government can award them contracts worth millions of dollars at the same time. We all love to discuss the nuances of how ships are built and what they can do, but we rarely discuss the dangers involved in putting one together. Seventy-six people have died in the private shipbuilding and repair industry between 2005 and 2015, according to the report. And shipbuilders face an 80 percent higher chance of injury and illness than construction workers.