"This is the new CX-1 Supersonic Anti-Ship Cruise Missile" Topic

"At Zhuhai China Air Show 2014, (which is currently being covered by our affiliate Army Recognition) Chinese defense company China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) unveiled the new CX-1 supersonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM). Navy Recognition is able to shed some light on this new supersonic missile that comes in two versions: The CX-1B that can be truck launched from land and the CX-1A designed to be surface launched from a vessel at sea.

According to CASC representatives at Zuhai Airshow 2014, the CX-1 supersonic cruise missile system is mainly intended for attack against ships but also has a secondary land attack capability. It can rapidly, precisely and flexibly strike the enemy's maneuvering surface targets at sea and strategic/high value targets on land (including semi-underground complexes).

The version designated CX-1A is intended to be fitted on board surface vessels and launched from oblique/slanted container launchers. The CX-1B is the land based version launched from a 8x8 wheeled truck. The vehicle can carry two missiles…"

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Damnation !!??! I wonder whose technology they stole for this contraption?

Because its impossible for to come up with anything by themselves?

Fatman

Fatman, totally agree.

The attitude on TMP is pretty awful when it comes to Russians or Chinese.

Maybe we should start making a big deal about how many modern weapons and tactics used by US and Co were pioneered by the Nazis?

The Chinese have ty quality control. That's not prejudice, that's fact.

I believe that the Chinese have improved their engines to not require an overhaul after 30 hours, but I don't think they've fixed the slow-to-spool issue.

Supersonic antiship missiles aren't exactly high-end gear, the Soviets have had them since the 1970s.

The Chinese have ty quality control. That's not prejudice, that's fact.

Donb't fly Boeing – most of their aircraft have huge amounts of Chinese built components.

I believe that the Chinese have improved their engines to not require an overhaul after 30 hours, but I don't think they've fixed the slow-to-spool issue.

Why are you so hung up on engines. They just use Russian ones.

The Indians, Brazillians and Swedes use American engines – so what.

Supersonic antiship missiles aren't exactly high-end gear, the Soviets have had them since the 1970s.

Chinese have also had indigenous ones in service since 1990s (e.g. C-803 or C-101).

Obviously they're looking at new improved ones.

It's kinda like saying, "new American F-35 isn't exactly high end gear as the Germans had jet fighters in 1944."

As for quality, 1 smacked into an Israeli corvette in 2006. So at least they're accurate enough to be used by a Hezbollah paramilitaries.

(Israeli ship had no EW on, but the missile still hit which is something, especially when you look at performance of old Silkworm missiles in 1980-88).

The attitude on TMP is pretty awful when it comes to Russians or Chinese.

Isn't it a fact that some of current Chinese technology was stolen from the US via espionage?

Isn't it a fact that some of current Chinese technology was stolen from the US via espionage?

Some but not all. It's quite racist to assume they can only steal.

The other thing people ignore is that the West sold them lots of technology and has helped improve their manufacturing base.

"Damn Chinese must've stolen the designs to radars and missiles." Oh wait, the Israelis, French, Italians and even US eagerly sold them the tech.

And lest we forget, Japan was in same position in late 19th century and then smashed the Russians in 1904-05. The Westerners still disregarded them as border line monkeys until they started smashing "culturually superior and more evolved" Westerners in 1941.

Haven't people learned not to underestimate your enemies?

EDIT: And if you look at things like J-20, the concept is very innovative.

Those "" learned that US air power's achilies heal are its tankers and air refuellers and designed a stealth interceptor designed to take them down.

No-one else has done that.

Or the DF21 anti-shipping ballistic missiles that's got the USN up in arms.

"Isn't it a fact that some of current Chinese technology was stolen from the US via espionage?"

Yes, but its also a fact that some current US technology was stolen from other nations via espionage. Sauce for the goose…..

To be fair, they do steal an awful lot of our technology, which is why they get a bad rap, though we are remiss to permit that. It should be better protected.

And, the Chinese didn't come up with the tactics to try to take down the air tankers and AWACS.

The Soviets planned to do that a few decades ago, and much of the Chinese air force and weaponry is either ex-Soviet/Russian kit, or is derived from it.

Well the wrong person has been DH'd here. I think that Fatman was being sarcastic but clearly the editors are unable to detect that.

I believe deephorse is correct

We live in a world where certain words, not their intent, are deemed offensive. Fatman has fallen afoul of this for good or ill.

I believe that the Chinese have improved their engines to not require an overhaul after 30 hours, but I don't think they've fixed the slow-to-spool issue.

Why are you so hung up on engines. They just use Russian ones.

I thought the Russians had stopped engine exports after the Chinese copied-without-a-license the Su27 series?

The Indians, Brazillians and Swedes use American engines – so what.

And if/when they take actions that the US doesn't like, the US stops sending replacements, parts or whole engines.

Supersonic antiship missiles aren't exactly high-end gear, the Soviets have had them since the 1970s.

Chinese have also had indigenous ones in service since 1990s (e.g. C-803 or C-101).

Obviously they're looking at new improved ones.

And these "new, improved ones" look an awful lot like a surface-launched AS3/Kh20. Or like a RIM-8 Talos with the more modern strake-and-cruciform-tail arrangement.

It's kinda like saying, "new American F-35 isn't exactly high end gear as the Germans had jet fighters in 1944."

No, it's like saying "this new American fighter looks like a Me262, and I don't consider that to be particularly advanced."

My original comment was meant to be facetious. All countries can produce just about any weapon they want. See Nuclear proliferation. But industrial espionage is a fact. And it has been going on for many many years. It used to be that the country who was the worst at trying to steal industrial information was France. But as systems have become more and more dependant on technology, trying to steal industrial knowledge has grown exponentially. It is not to say on a level with stealing the atomic bomb plans, but it is important. Often times countries have the ability to produce a system, but lack the knowledge to improve it. Instead of pouring millions (Billions?) into R&D, they try to steal it. And the Chinese are really good at it. It has been suggested that many countries have stolen (or been given) stealth technology. Could they have developed it on their own? Probably. But they can't afford to wait when they are competeing on a global scale. So they steal it. It has nothing to do with racial or other traits. It has to do with economics. Sorry I started this whole string.

Back in the days before Pearl Harbor the West believed that all Japanese were near sighted and therefore could not see properly They were bad jungle fighters Their airplanes and ships were junk.etc etc.

This mindset may have explained why the West did not take Japan seriously and were very unprepared both in equipment and attitude when the war did come

Are we doing the same thing with China today?

When the Mig29 came out NAT seriously underestimated its capabilities and only found out when Germany acquired some after the breakup of the DDR

Hubris is no substitute for intelligence

Are we doing the same with the Chinese?

Surely, we're not living in a world where the worth of a man and his self-esteem depends on whether this or that arbitrarily drawn line on the map produces a slightly better widget?

@Weasel: Nope, it's a cultural thing, not a national-border thing. The Japanese are culturally perfectionists. They either want to be the best in the world at (whatever it is), or they don't see the point in doing it at all. Oddly, the Chinese appear to not be culturally perfectionists, given their persistent quality-control problems.

When the Chinese figure out quality control and really make it a cultural/personal thing ("my own pride demands this of me" instead of "Boeing demands this of us"), that's when the Chinese military will be really, really scary. Until then, there's a whole lot of roar from a rather small tiger.

Ah, and I found the missile the CX-1 reminds me of: the SS-N-19 "Shipwreck," better known as the P-700 Granit link . And that's been in service since the 1970s. There are newer designs, like the P-800 Oniks/SS-N-26 "Strobile"/BrahMos, but I doubt that the Russian attitude towards China has suddenly thawed…

ThomasHobbes- you are the only one on this page saying the following:

""

The fact that you automatically assume that people are thinking that says a lot about you. You are making assumptions about people while admonishing them for making assumptions. Pot, Kettle, Black.

You have a point, but it sure doesn't gain you any friends when you go right to the extreme in making your argument.

The excuse you ascribe to your adversaries is that they are racist. What's your own?

It's quite racist to assume they can only steal.

On the other hand, isn't it logical to think that a known thief will steal again?

Well the wrong person has been DH'd here. I think that Fatman was being sarcastic but clearly the editors are unable to detect that.

The editors are fully capable of detecting sarcasm, but sarcasm cannot be allowed as an unlimited defense for breaking forum rules, for reasons that should be obvious to all.

<quote The editors are fully capable of detecting sarcasm, but sarcasm cannot be allowed as an unlimited defense for breaking forum rules, for reasons that should be obvious to all.</unquote>

Okay, replace "sarcasm" with "satire". Now does it make more sense as to the defence?

<quote> Isn't it a fact that some of current Chinese technology was stolen from the US via espionage? </unquote>

Replace 'stolen' with 'outsourced' and 'espionage' with 'cheaper labour'.

China's advanced cyber-espionage and cyber-warfare capabilities cannot be denied. The Chinese places high priority and puts tremendous resources into stealing tech secrets, with legions of cyber-warriors sitting at keyboards like 'PLA Unit 61398' or some other innocuous sounding unit. And quite a few Chinese or Chinese-American engineers or scientists in the defense industry have been arrested and charged with treason over the years.

But we shouldn't underestimate the Chinese either based on our biases and preconceptions since they can easily be misconstrued as 'racist,' or assume that the Chinese are incapable of QA/QC or true innovation.

sarcasm cannot be allowed as an unlimited defense for breaking forum rules, for reasons that should be obvious to all.

Well it's not obvious to me. If he was being sarcastic, and not racist, in order to point out racism as he saw it, then what rule has he broken? I can't see any rule that fits this scenario.

Whether sarcasm was obvious and intentional (or not), it lends itself to abuse and being misconstrued, so I kinda see where Bill's coming from.

People's perceptions, interpretations and sensitivities are all different.

The Soviets planned to do that a few decades ago,

The Russians never implemented any sort of anti-tanker/AWACS system.

The Su-27 was basically equivalent to an F-15. It lacked the ability to penetrate protected airspace.

The MiG-31 main role was an anti-bomber interceptor and as such only supplied to PVO (Air Defence Command) and not to VVS (Tactical Air Force).

It's high speed and altitude could've made for a decent AWACS/tanker interceptor but it was never used in this role that I am aware of.

and much of the Chinese air force and weaponry is either ex-Soviet/Russian kit, or is derived from it.

True and not denying this but quite a lot of it is Western derived too.

This is just some of the aerospace related stuff I'm aware of:

Helicopters
Z-8, Z-9, Z-11, Z-18, WZ-19 – Mainly French designs or dervied from French designs (SA321, AS350, AS365) – all under licence. Z-15 was developed jointly between Harbin and Eurocopter.

Z-20 – appears to be reverse engineered S-70 Blackhawk (US sold 24 S-70 to China in 1980s).

Russian equipment is Mi-17 (licence produced), Ka-27/-28/31 (off-the-shelf) and WZ-10 (attack helo developed with assistance from Russia's Kamov)

A2A missles – Most modern indigenous PLAAF A2A missiles were developed with influence from Italian Aspide (itself an upgraded AIM-7 Sparrow), Israel (licence produced Python 3), France (licence produced R550 Magic). Original influence was US AIM-7D Sparrow courtesy of North Vietnam.

Radars

Heavy influence from GEC-Marconi Skyranger (UK) and FIAR Grifo (Italian) as well as Russian systems.

And then there's the potential that technology came from Israel too courtesy of cancelled A-50I AWACS deal as well as IAI Lavi/J-10 technology transfers. Indeed the radar for J-8C was apparently based on the Israeli Elta EL/M 2035 though this version did not enter service. But the technology transfer was there.

Avionics
Bare in mind Chinese avionics are being built to US DoD Military Standard which means some degree of compatibility with Western systems. This means they've had brilliant access to Western coding standards, probably via Israel.

Fighter Aircraft
The J-10 is the best known developmenT with massive technology transfers from Israel's cancelled IAI Lavi fighter.

The US has also influenced Chinese fighter design in 1980s when Chinese and US military cooperation was at its highest.

There were several programs to Westernise Chinese aircraft such as J-8 Finback (Peace Pearl) and some work was done before weapons embargo in 1988-89.

Aircraft development
China has been licence producing British Spey jets engines and a number of French helicopter engines for quote some time.

China has also used technology from US CFM International CFM56s imported in 1980s as well in it's engine development.

Manufacturing, quality control etc

With numerous partnerships with Western companies like Boeing and Eurocopter, including codevelopment of new equipment and component manufacturer, it's clear that the Chinese are plugging into Western aviation manufacturing technology.

Apparently it's a similar situation in naval affairs with engines, sonars etc being based on Western designs.

A recent Reuters report on EU technology and component transfers to China.

in.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/breakout-submarines-special-report-pix-g-idINL4N0JJ0FM20131219

So whereas China may spy (and who doesn't) and buy a lot of Russian equipment, it's clear that Western military technology from legitimate contracts is making its way into the PLA

One can certainly quibble about whether the technology for this missile was "stolen," and it is probably best not to make that assumption at first glance. However the fact of Chinese cyber espionage aimed at the U.S. industrial base (especially the Defense Industrial Base) is well known. A quick Google search of "Mandiant" and terms like "Chinese cyber espionage" and "advanced persistent threat" will enable one to see some of the data in the Mandiant reports on this. Still that does not by definition imply this is a copycat weapon – and one should recognize that they may have taken some ideas from espionage and improved upon them.

I thought the Russians had stopped engine exports after the Chinese copied-without-a-license the Su27 series?

Apparently not. They're still slapping RD93 and AL31s into things.

Oh and Pakistan AF just came out with TBO for RD-93 – it's 800 hours. Not great but better than 400 often quoted here. AL31 gets a lot more life between overhauls.

And these "new, improved ones" look an awful lot like a surface-launched AS3/Kh20. Or like a RIM-8 Talos with the more modern strake-and-cruciform-tail arrangement.

And an F-15 from 1980 looks very similar to an F-15 from 2014.

Since 1980s it's been all about avionics, ease of maintenance and for missiles, rocket/engine performance.

The aerodynamics don't change much – after all these are prety much standard as they have to adhere to laws of physics.

One can certainly quibble about whether the technology for this missile was "stolen," and it is probably best not to make that assumption at first glance. However the fact of Chinese cyber espionage aimed at the U.S. industrial base (especially the Defense Industrial Base) is well known. A quick Google search of "Mandiant" and terms like "Chinese cyber espionage" and "advanced persistent threat" will enable one to see some of the data in the Mandiant reports on this. Still that does not by definition imply this is a copycat weapon – and one should recognize that they may have taken some ideas from espionage and improved upon them.

They make a big deal of Chinese espionage cause they're the new Evil Empire (though good ol' faithful Russia is doing its best to reclaim this title).

The Americans spy massively on everyone including close allies such as Germany.

The French do the same and were some of the most aggressive spies in the world in the 1980s-90s and got busted spying on electronics manufacturers such as Texas Instruments and IBM.

hanford.gov/files.cfm/frenchesp.pdf

No-one ever made a big deal of French espionage against the US because they are an ally and not someone the Americans needed to get propaganda brownie points against.

And then there's the Soviets – for example there was a reasonably known case of an American engineer being caught selling information about AN/APG65 radar (as used in F/A-18) in 1980s.

So in matter of cultural fairness, I now expect TMPers to brush every French and Russian military development as pilfering others people's tech.

True. When it's British, French, Israel or other ally it's called "technology transfer or exchange," but when it's potential adversaries like China it's espionage.

Agree.

Amicalement
Armand

Sorry, Thomas, but you are wrong.

The Russians did plan to go after our AWACS back as far as the 1980s, with SU-27s, Mig-25s, and Mig-31s.

They have produced very long range AAMs that have active-radar homing, and home on jamming capabilities, which would be very useful for such an engagement.