The potential for joint Russian-Chinese collaboration

Read the forum code of contact

Profile picture for user Deino

Member for

21 years

Posts: 4,082

... in 2024 ...what they have right now.:very_drunk:

Ähhm .. you try to compare what they have right now with something that that you will eventually have in 2024???

Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

2 years 11 months

Posts: 376

Ähhm .. you try to compare what they have right now with something that that you will eventually have in 2024???

Do the Chinese have any radar in development passed 2020 in development? The only thing I see interesting is the s-500F and an/spy-6. Since everyone is talking about future cooperation between the 2 countries regarding ship designs I will choose s-400f and S-500F unless you have a reason not to?

Profile picture for user Deino

Member for

21 years

Posts: 4,082

Do the Chinese have any radar in development passed 2020 in development?

No the Chinese have surely Not any radar in development passed 2020 in development, since they are lazily sitting around?!

Come on, only since we don't know their exact designation to assume they don't gave anything in development is ridiculous. If this system then is better, worse or equal, is another question...

Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

2 years 11 months

Posts: 376

Come on, only since we don't know their exact designation to assume they don't gave anything in development is ridiculous. If this system then is better, worse or equal, is another question...

You don't have information on newer radars coming but assume its better and that the Chinese have to have a lead on developing the radars to provide the tracking capabilities of their ship? S-300Fs and S-400 Chinese purchases + future air defenses in development makes me with the majority of people on this board stick with the Russians developing the engines, radars and armament. Ohh and I hate to meme this to death but KRETs official also has suggestions of applying ROFAR in the future for ships but that depends between 2021-2023 of the serial production of FICS.

Profile picture for user Deino

Member for

21 years

Posts: 4,082


You don't have information on newer radars coming but assume its better and that the Chinese have to have a lead on developing the radars to provide the tracking capabilities of their ship? S-300Fs and S-400 Chinese purchases + future air defenses in development makes me with the majority of people on this board stick with the Russians developing the engines, radars and armament. Ohh and I hate to meme this to death but KRETs official also has suggestions of applying ROFAR in the future for ships but that depends between 2021-2023 of the serial production of FICS.

No I don't and You surely missed to read my lasg sentence:" If this system then is better, worse or equal, is another question.

oh and I hate to meme ... what sense gas this in my point esp. since I don't strictly disagree, I only question this point of view as if there is some sort of nature law "Russians are always ahead, they can never learn from Chinese!"

Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

2 years 11 months

Posts: 376

oh and I hate to meme ... what sense gas this in my point esp. since I don't strictly disagree, I only question this point of view as if there is some sort of nature law "Russians are always ahead, they can never learn from Chinese!"

I just look at different sources and draw conclusions off of those. For example I thought the Russians were ahead of electronics until AJ showed comparisons and between 2017-2018, RTI and KRET openly admitted they are behind 5-10 years. However I received a nice surprise that a company that admitted are behind plan to change the tide with FICs in which even Raytheon's project manager has plans for funding Arizona's university on this field back in 2017.

I don't see anything that is changing tide worthy from the Chinese, maybe scramjet missiles but what else?

Member for

9 years 5 months

Posts: 4,731

I doubt if The Chinese have much to learn from any country in these categories, except perhaps with hypersonic missiles. In fact, it seems as if Chinese Navy ships have more advanced AESA radars fitted than can be found on Russian Navy vessels?


There is Air-Sea-Space battle concept. just look at Tu-160M2. 24 hour flights will become normal.

https://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-defense-security-news/2019-news-aerospace-industry-air-force/january/4808-russia-to-increase-its-tu-160m2-fleet-and-to-upgrade-its-tu-160m.html
[COLOR=#616161][FONT=ABeeZee][SIZE=14px]The aircraft will have NK-32 engines of the second series to increase the range and flight duration," Shoigu said.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

Ships are limted by slow speed, limited radar horizon and a lot more manpower needed with limited strike potential.

Profile picture for user TR1

Member for

10 years 3 months

Posts: 9,579

It would be beneficial for the Russian side to be able to purchase Chinese components or even complete designs in some areas (especially in light of relations with sanctions), in fact they already have.

They bought Chinese engines for Pr. 21980 assault boats, project 22460 coast guard patrol boats, as well as Pr. 21631 missile corvettes.

One small problem is they managed to break down in every single one of those ship types.

Member for

5 years 3 months

Posts: 126


I only question this point of view as if there is some sort of nature law "Russians are always ahead, they can never learn from Chinese!"

This is the problem. You've entered a discussion with an agenda, or a chip on your shoulder. To defend your favorite country or aircraft, thats why you've became sensitive to any kind of discussion relating to it, whether positive or negative.

I know everyone here has a bias towards something, but that's not the right direction to go in a discussion. You look like you're trying to pick fights in the Indian section, Russian section, etc by inviting some kind of comment on China.

The pro-russians here, even if they have some bias, have shown willingness to entertain the idea of cooperation with China.

Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

2 years 11 months

Posts: 163

It would be beneficial for the Russian side to be able to purchase Chinese components or even complete designs in some areas (especially in light of relations with sanctions), in fact they already have.

They bought Chinese engines for Pr. 21980 assault boats, project 22460 coast guard patrol boats, as well as Pr. 21631 missile corvettes.

One small problem is they managed to break down in every single one of those ship types.

Thailand had similar engine problems and fire control problems for the ships they imported too.

hence China probably still has more to learn from Russia on hull and engine design for ships.

but China's ship yards have more production capacity. so a collaboration there is good.

Profile picture for user Deino

Member for

21 years

Posts: 4,082

This is the problem. You've entered a discussion with an agenda, or a chip on your shoulder. To defend your favorite country or aircraft, thats why you've became sensitive to any kind of discussion relating to it, whether positive or negative.

I know everyone here has a bias towards something, but that's not the right direction to go in a discussion. You look like you're trying to pick fights in the Indian section, Russian section, etc by inviting some kind of comment on China.

The pro-russians here, even if they have some bias, have shown willingness to entertain the idea of cooperation with China.

Hmm ... but where do I defend my favourite country (esp. since it is NOT MY country)? In no way I proposed the Russians to buy the J-20, nor to co-develop the FC-31!? I only question - based on my limited knowledge - the proposals made by others often enough with a reasonable explanation. If some don't like this or think this is a biased defence of my favourite country or against Russia, then it is not my problem, but at least it should be a basis for a decent discussion. This however is barely possible if most proposals are based on this attitude I mentioned. If others share this not, then let us debate, but statements from certain members like "Russia has to lead since only Russia knows and has ... " are IMO a bit narrow-minded. Also my proposals so far either were simply deliberately ignored or just turned down as a joke.

So let's try again:

- Il-96M: as a tanker IMO too late since the PLAAF will introduce a Y-20 based design. However as [USER="4563"]Trident[/USER] mentioned, it would have been a great option years ago.
- Tu-204: again the same issues ... China has now well established its Y-8/-9 family and I'm not sure if a Tu-204 based design would be preferred against a C919 based one. IMO the PLAAF will prefer an indigenous solution.
- carrier: again; why should China invest in yet another STOBAR carrier with ski ramp when it already has a CATOBAR carrier under construction. Here I would see the option for Russia to use this more modern design as a basis and add nuclear reactors. a win-win for both.
- LHD: The same with the Type 075 LHD
- co-development of a new STOVL carrier borne fighter
- rockets for space transportation, and space exploration

Deino

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 1,620

Good point on the STOVL fighter actually.
That is the one area regarding fighter jets where I think a collaborative venture might be beneficial to both sides...especially on the actual vehicle.
By its nature, the production runs would be small, so economy of scale with joint production would help.
Each country could then outfit it with their own avionics.

There has been announcements in Russia that a STOVL aircraft is being looked at, if I recall correctly.

Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

2 years 11 months

Posts: 163

Good point on the STOVL fighter actually.
That is the one area regarding fighter jets where I think a collaborative venture might be beneficial to both sides...especially on the actual vehicle.
By its nature, the production runs would be small, so economy of scale with joint production would help.
Each country could then outfit it with their own avionics.

There has been announcements in Russia that a STOVL aircraft is being looked at, if I recall correctly.

they're gonna bring BACK THE YACK!

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"0BR1TXH.jpg","data-attachmentid":3870363}[/ATTACH]

Attachments
Profile picture for user haavarla

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 6,441

It would be beneficial for the Russian side to be able to purchase Chinese components or even complete designs in some areas (especially in light of relations with sanctions), in fact they already have.

They bought Chinese engines for Pr. 21980 assault boats, project 22460 coast guard patrol boats, as well as Pr. 21631 missile corvettes.

One small problem is they managed to break down in every single one of those ship types.

Russia should look at the Type 55 Destroyers from China, and try to field them with thieir own set of Engines.
In time, China could buy Russian Maritime Engine for their fleet.

Profile picture for user LMFS

Member for

2 years 10 months

Posts: 484

Simply for the same reason, other cooperation projects were initiated, executed and successfully completed: to share resources, since ghe burden to carry on alone is much harder - and IMO this is the reason, why at least one if not both great European projects will fail - and eventually since it strengthens a political alliance.

That's why it is called cooperation.

I think that comparing the European projects with anything countries with real geopolitical burdens are doing is not the best approach. In Europe there is no need for self-defence and accordingly no real political will to develop military technology, in China and Russia is a matter or survival of the nation. Also their developmental costs are very much lower than in Western countries where the MIC's goal is to produce value for their shareholders, contrary to state-owned industry in Russia or China. So the focus is placed on getting the technologies that allow them afterwards to defend themselves and they try to offset them by accessing export markets without restrictions (full IP rights). Cooperation is no big help in terms of procurement, which is the lion's share of military expense in new HW. Having said that, there are niche products where what you say may apply, but as of today I couldn't easily name a single example of such approach in RU-CN cooperation.

Profile picture for user TR1

Member for

10 years 3 months

Posts: 9,579

Russia should look at the Type 55 Destroyers from China, and try to field them with thieir own set of Engines.
In time, China could buy Russian Maritime Engine for their fleet.

This makes no sense, as Russia has no issue making hulls and is in fact having engine shortages across the board right now.

Profile picture for user Deino

Member for

21 years

Posts: 4,082


... Having said that, there are niche products where what you say may apply, but as of today I couldn't easily name a single example of such approach in RU-CN cooperation.

And so we agree, making any realistic chances of a true Sino-Russian cooperation quite slim!

IMO it is limited to the AHLH (heavy-lift helicopter), eventually a new heavy-lift transport, a VSTOL fighter ...

Member for

9 years 5 months

Posts: 4,731

Also my proposals so far either were simply deliberately ignored or just turned down as a joke.

Dont you think your proposals are not joke?. They cannot certify 4600 km range aircraft on time and you are comparing there products with 10k to 20k range category
that's why no one take you seriously and I keep repeating the same in every reply.


https://simpleflying.com/comac-c919-2021-target/#comments
[B]Comac C919’s Certification Not Likely Until 2021
[/B]


So let's try again:
- Il-96M: as a tanker IMO too late since the PLAAF will introduce a Y-20 based design. However as Trident mentioned, it would have been a great option years ago


Trident does not know anything aviation. especially regarding IL-96M project.. look at his history about IL-476 vs An-70 discussion.
the word long range has different meaning than long range you used in common definition.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/page/146
Vladimir Putin: These are the things that need to be done methodically and as planned; I understand that for 2019–2020 there are going to be issues that need to be balanced, but you have to choose your priorities, and this is one of them. We have to build our own regional aircraft, otherwise we will always have to buy foreign aircraft in this segment. And we need a powerful engine, we need the PD-35, as you know full well. There are many aviation projects and ideas related to this engine.
Denis Manturov: It will be used both for a wide-bodied long-range aircraft and a heavy transport aircraft

I mean you can always increase thrust with PS90A1 or more efficiency with PD-14 but Playing around with Y-8/Y-9 is worthless for special mission aircraft. slow noisy and lower altitude cruising speed.


https://www.tupolev.ru/en/planes/tu-204/
[LEFT][COLOR=#818181][FONT=Roboto][SIZE=15px]Tu-204-100Ñ new generation cargo aircraft, which is based on Tu-204-100 modern passenger aircraft, is equipped with advanced PS-90A fuel-saving engines and designed to transport cargos up to 30 tons in International class containers for up to 3 900 km air paths or cargos of 15 tons for a distance up to 7 200 km.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Member for

7 years 2 months

Posts: 2,014

Russian has the experience, China has the funding, I personally would like to see China take on Russian canceled projects

Member for

21 years

Posts: 805

And so we agree, making any realistic chances of a true Sino-Russian cooperation quite slim!

IMO it is limited to the AHLH (heavy-lift helicopter), eventually a new heavy-lift transport, a VSTOL fighter ...

In aviation yes, in naval matters that’s another thing entirely. China would like access to Russian submarine technology. It would happily build them any surface ship for Yasen subs.