You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
China-Japan-Koreas
Russia hands over powerful warship to China
2006-09-29
ST PETERSBURG, Russia - Russia handed over to China a destroyer equipped with state-of-the-art weaponry on Thursday, finalising a $1.5 billion deal analysts say boosts Beijing’s clout in its stand-off with Taiwan. “The handover act was signed today, and a Chinese flag was hoisted on the ship,” a Russian defence industry source told Reuters, requesting anonymity.

The warship was the fourth Project 956E Â’SovremennyÂ’ (Modern) class destroyer built at the Northern Shipyard in RussiaÂ’s second city St Petersburg and sold to China under a 2002 deal through RussiaÂ’s state arms trader Rosoboronexport. In the late 1990s China bought two such ships under a separate contract.

“Rosoboronexport is interested in further sales to China, and we are not talking only about ships,” the defence industry source said. “The company is actively promoting its output in China. But there have been no new orders for ships.”

“Concern about these ships in both Taipei and Washington is justified by the fact that Taiwan and perhaps even the US Navy lacks an effective defence against the ship’s SS-N-22 Sunburn (3M-80E Moskit) supersonic antiship missile,” Washington-based think-tank the International Assessment and Strategy Center said on its Internet site www.strategycenter.net. “This missile travels at about three times the speed of sound and can perform violent manoeuvres that can defeat most defences designed to ward off subsonic antiship missiles.”

Apart from anti-aircraft missiles, the destroyer also carries a Ka-28 helicopter armed with rocket-propelled antisubmarine torpedoes.

In 2004-06 Russia built and sold to China six Kilo class diesel-electric submarines.
Posted by:Steve White

#24  BTW, I've been following the development of our missile defensive systems for quite a while, been interested since the first ABM's of the '60s!! Whatever the cost we need them now more than ever.
Posted by: RD   2006-09-29 23:29  

#23  There are many problems with Sovremeny class cruisers. Some were covered in the comments earlier. Let me add a few others.
1... They're uncomfortable as he$$. They're designed for Russian waters, which are much colder than even northern China. They have limited air conditioning, and their defenses against CBW is to shut down ALL but essential ventilation.
2... They've got so much sh$$ added on that they're topheavy and difficult to maneuver in tight areas.
3... Their electronics are mid-70's with some minor upgrades. IIRC, their fire control radars are the equivalent of IBM=360 technology, while we're using the latest multi-processor systems.
4... They're people-eaters. It takes twice as many sailors to man a Sovremeny class as it does to man an American AEGIS cruiser. Those people require extensive training, and their quarters are the pits.
5... Our electronic countermeasures against this class of vessel are excellent. Their radars are especially vulnerable to home-on-track/home-on-jam attacks.

That said, the Sovremeny class is still a decade more advanced than most Chinese-designed naval vessels.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-09-29 23:10  

#22  Don't forget to factor in how much it costs to rebuild a city - both for the defending and offending side. And the political hay made by the defending side.
Posted by: gorb   2006-09-29 22:35  

#21  make that 100 times more exspensive! LOL!
Posted by: RD   2006-09-29 21:58  

#20  Moose: we can add anti-missiles at 1/10th the cost. For example, the US anti-ballistic missile shield will effectively negate their current ballistic missiles, and for every missile they add to overcome our defenses, we can add anti-missiles at 1/10th the cost. So why not encourage them to build as many expensive as hell ballistic missiles?


ME: Moose could you elaborate on that one a bit? plz.

ZEN: Pretty simple math, RD. Anti-missiles cost a fraction of what a warhead-laden ICBM must run......


HUH? the basic math of an offensive missile vs. a defensive one is simple?

Time: *An offensive missile is fired at the time of the shooters attack, their choice of time if you will.

*A defensive or anti-missile system must detect a full on surprise attack, Exactly ON TIME. or else!

Target acquisition:
*An offensive missile has to acquire or be programed to hit a ship or a land target. neither move very fast.

An anti-missile must not only acquire it's target almost instantly but then it has to hit a fast moving target, either a high speed missile [ballistic or hyper], a cruise missile, or arty round. decoys aside.

There is a quantum difference in the radars, computers, software, sensors, and missile hardware needed to defend vs. attack.

My guess is that Moose has the formula exactly backward. Today our Defensive missile systems are closer to 10 [ten] times more expensive than their offensive ones.

Posted by: RD   2006-09-29 21:49  

#19  Moose could you elaborate on that one a bit? plz.

Pretty simple math, RD. Anti-missiles cost a fraction of what a warhead-laden ICBM must run. Freed of any need to convey a nuclear device and requiring a shorter range, their warhead and fuel requirements put them at below a tenth the expense of an ICBM.

DEW (Directed Energy) weapons promise even greater defense-offense cost leverage. With decreased response time, more agile targeting plus a better ability to discriminate between actual re-entry vehicles and dummy warheads, this new generation of anti-ballistic missile defense weaponry betokens even greater security for our nation.

Another development which really should have the Chinese shaking in their army boots is our hypersonic rocket technology. Traveling at almost 5,000 MPH (well over one mile per second), such vehicles could deliver nuclear payloads to anywhere in the world in a few hours at speeds that would defy all interception.

I certainly agree that the Chinese are wasting time and money buying Russia's crappy, outmoded technology. It fits with their typical modus operendi of imitation without innovation. Much like chess, where if you copy your opponent, you end up checkmating them one move behind when they checkmate you, China is playing a losing copycat game.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-09-29 20:47  

#18  "Why don't they sell this $hit to the Chechens?"
Why not?
Hey achmed you want wheels with that? perhaps some tracks?
No Ivan just drop it outside grozny she'll be right.
Posted by: pihkalbadger   2006-09-29 20:08  

#17  Jeeez, but the Aurora had a lotta portholes in the hull. I wonder if it affected the structural integrity.
Posted by: 6   2006-09-29 17:57  

#16  Heck, that's only worth an 12/8/5 attack/defend/movement on Civilization III. No worries. An Aegis crusier is worth a lot more.
Posted by: Mizzou Mafia   2006-09-29 15:04  

#15  Moose: we can add anti-missiles at 1/10th the cost.

Moose could you elaborate on that one a bit? plz.
Posted by: RD   2006-09-29 13:17  

#14  Looking at the photo posted by RD it is not stealth at all. That's bad for them.


Posted by: 3dc   2006-09-29 10:28  

#13  Especially when it's second class engineering you're reverse engineering.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-09-29 09:23  

#12  Actually, in long-term strategy, the US might quietly approve of this sale. We seem to be subtly encouraging the Chinese to spend more and more money on systems that we know we can beat.

For example, the US anti-ballistic missile shield will effectively negate their current ballistic missiles, and for every missile they add to overcome our defenses, we can add anti-missiles at 1/10th the cost. So why not encourage them to build as many expensive as hell ballistic missiles?

Well, that is our theory, at least, and it worked very well in bankrupting the Soviet Union.

So now they've spent $1.5b on a destroyer, money that can't be spent on other things, or even R&D. And you don't learn half as much by reverse engineering as you do in original research in the first place.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-09-29 09:08  

#11  Right now, it's cheaper to buy Russian at bargain basement prices than to build their own.

Mike, our Navy has plans, but much of it isn't much further along than 1985.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2006-09-29 08:26  

#10  It should work better than the last time - when Stalin helped Nazi Germany rebuild the German military, pointing Hitler at Western Europe.

Or so the Ruskies hope. However, a depopulating but resource rich Siberia already infiltrated by ethnic Chinese and defended by the tattered remnants of a Russian military with no technology not previously voluntarily sold to its enemy may soon present a more inviting and rewarding target for traditional terrestrial conquest than a war ravaged Taiwan invaded over the combined kinetic objections of its inhabitants, the Americans and Japanese.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-09-29 07:55  

#9  Now the chicoms can retrofit it with AEGIS technology that the Clinton Administration sold gave them.
Posted by: Glulet Unineting6551   2006-09-29 07:35  

#8  ..I LOVE the graphic, but as far as the story is concerned:

Dear China -

Welcome to 1985.

Love,
The US Navy

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2006-09-29 06:23  

#7  PRESIDENT BUSH: "I will answer the question. I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue.

There was no kind of diplomatic chit-chat, trying to throw each other off balance. There was a straightforward dialogue. And that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship. I wouldn't have invited him to my ranch if I didn't trust him."

I wonder if Bush would be willing to repeat the above statement about RasPutin today?
Posted by: Zenster   2006-09-29 06:15  

#6  In a fair world, the Russians would pay somehow if this scheme plays out. But it isn't, so there's no guessing.

This kind of political play I see from the Russians exactly mirrors the kind of insecure personality that pulls everyone around them down so they can validate their ignorant way of life instead of pulling themselves up and enjoying the company. Pathetic.
Posted by: gorb   2006-09-29 03:08  

#5  Gorb: Ugh. Can't the Russians do something more constructive to earn some dough?

They are. The idea is that China and the US fight a big engagement, perphaps over Taiwan, and Russia comes out of it with a weakened China, as well as a weakened Uncle Sam. What's not to like?

It should work better than the last time - when Stalin helped Nazi Germany rebuild the German military, pointing Hitler at Western Europe. That worked only until Hitler finished conquering Western Europe. This time it'll work out better. China is no Germany - which was at the time the No. 2 economy in the world, and a major technological innovator - there is simply no way that China could overcome Uncle Sam. Besides, if the Russians get lucky, the Chinese will go apeshit in a conflict over Taiwan and start chucking nukes at the US, which will mean the glassing over of thousands of Chinese cities and military installations, and the end of any Chinese threat to Russia.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-09-29 02:46  

#4  Article: “Concern about these ships in both Taipei and Washington is justified by the fact that Taiwan and perhaps even the US Navy lacks an effective defence against the shipÂ’s SS-N-22 Sunburn (3M-80E Moskit) supersonic antiship missile,” Washington-based think-tank the International Assessment and Strategy Center said on its Internet site www.strategycenter.net. “This missile travels at about three times the speed of sound and can perform violent manoeuvres that can defeat most defences designed to ward off subsonic antiship missiles.”

The problem with this missile is that it has a maximum effective range of 120 km*. A carrier group has coverage out to hundreds of miles. A Chinese ship carrying this missile would be sunk long before it came within range.

Let's face it - a guy with a machete is lethal to a rifleman once he comes within arm's length. But the rifleman would drill the machete-wielder full of holes before he got that close.

* It's a trade-off - the faster you go, the shorter your range. This is why jet fighters on missions don't streak over to their destinations at supersonic speeds - those speeds are for getting out of trouble.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-09-29 02:37  

#3  Ugh. Can't the Russians do something more constructive to earn some dough? Or are they still of a mindset that if they foster a militant environment that they will somehow benefit and never be harmed? Why don't they sell this $hit to the Chechens? Duh. They do more work and cause more misery by doing this kind of thing than if they just did the work they should do to develop a more complete economy.
Posted by: gorb   2006-09-29 02:28  

#2  Some mil bloggers believe that this could mark the end for unilateral sales between Russia and China, as China has acquired enuff tech transfer know-how to begin building its own systems. Russia, however, still is in the process of building or contructing several more KILO SUBS, plus at least two more SOV hulls, for the PLAN.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-09-29 01:58  

#1  
Posted by: RD   2006-09-29 00:37  

00:00