Striving For An Achievable Force-Mix

Since the 1950s the Indian Air Force (IAF) has been striving for attaining a balanced force-mix of combat aircraft platforms, be they deep-penetration strike aircraft (DPSA), medium multi-role combat aircraft (M-MRCA), dedicated tactical interdiction/tactical air-support aircraft, air superiority combat aircraft, defensive counter-air combat aircraft, and light MRCAs (L-MRCA).

Consequently, in the DPSA category, the IAF took delivery of 104 English Electric Canberras between 1957 and 1970, and they were eventually replaced by 196 BAE Systems/SEPECAT Jaguar IS (built between 1982 and 2008, with each of them qualified for carrying 4.5 tonnes of offensive payload.

In the M-MRCA category, 140 single-seat Hawker Hunter FGA.9s and 20 T.66 two-seat operational conversion trainers were procured between 1957 and 1962 (these were decommissioned in 1996), followed by 59 Dassault Aviation-supplied Mirage 2000H/THs in the mid-1980s and mid-1990s (of these, 51 are now being upgraded). 

When it came to L-MRCAs, 110 Mystère IVs were acquired  since 1957 (they were decommissioned by  1973), followed by 205 Type-77 MiG-21FLs (procured between March 1965 and 1972 and decommissioned by 2006), 158 Type-88 MiG-21Ms between February 1973 and November 1981 (decommissioned by 2012), and 295 Type-75 MiG-21bis between 1977 and 1984, of which 125 were upgraded to MiG-21 Bison standard in the late 1990s and these will be decommissioned by 2017.

The IAF had also acquired, purely for defensive counter-air operations, 243 Folland Gnats and 89 Ajeets since the early 1960s, whereas for offensive air superiority operations, 46 MiG-23MFs served the IAF between July 4, 1983 and March 20, 2007 (logging nearly 32,581 flying hours), and these were augmented by 80 MiG-29B-12s (procured between October 1987 and 1995), of which 63 are now being upgraded to serve as M-MRCAs.

It is, however, in the dedicated tactical interdiction/tactical air-support aircraft category that the IAF went in for ambitious expansion since 1968, starting with the procurement of 220 Sukhoi Su-7BMKs (each qualified for hauling 3 tonnes of offensive payload), followed by 95 MiG-23BNs (serving between January 1980 and March 6, 2009 and having flown more than 154,000 hours) each carrying a 3-tonne weapons payload, and 175 MiG-27Ms (165 of which were licence-built by HAL between 1986 and 1992) each of which could haul a 3-tonne weapons payload. Of these, 40 were upgraded to MiG-27UPG standard—the upgrade work involving only the mission avionics suite.

From the above, it becomes evident that the IAF’s continuously evolving force-structure exercises (in response to the evolving threat perceptions) have resulted in an operational fleet inventory comprising about 180 DPSAs, about 180 air-superiority aircraft for both defensive counter-air and offensive air-escort missions, about 160 M-MRCAs, about 270 tactical interdiction/tactical air-support aircraft, and some 250 L-MRCAs. In other words, a total of about 1,040 combat aircraft (inclusive of war reserves) distributed among the authorised 42 squadrons (of these 12 being dedicated for operations along India’s northern frontiers in a two-front wear scenario). This was the situation till 1991.

Since the mid-1990s, a number of factors led to the IAF re-examining its force-mix of combat aircraft. Firstly, the advent of open-architecture avionics suites, higher-thrust turbofans and standoff precision-guided munitions (PGM) meant that existing (like the MiG-29 and Mirage 2000) and future M-MRCAs (like the Rafale, which can haul 9.2 tonnes of offensive payload) could easily take on the roles of deep interdiction and tactical interdiction and offensive air-escort, thereby doing away with the need for role-specific combat aircraft like the Jaguar IS, MiG-23MF and MiG-23BN/MiG-27M. Secondly, L-MRCAs, both existing and future acquisitions, would also stand to gain from such technological advances. 

Thirdly, the ‘game-changing’ availability of heavy MRCAs like the Su-30MKI and AEW & CS platforms meant that in the initial 96 hours of an offensive air campaign, the IAF would have the luxury of having its M-MRCAs escorted by H-MRCAs (with airborne battlespace management being provided by AEW & CS platforms) deep inside hostile airspace, and after air supremacy is achieved, the H-MRCAs, operating from medium-altitudes, too would serve as DPSAs and tactical air-interdictors. The L-MRCAs would, from Day 1 of hostilities, be assigned for both tactical air-support and defensive counter-air missions. 

So, the ideal 42 squadron force-mix—when dealing with a limited but high-intensity, sequential two-front war scenario—ought to comprise 30% of the combat aircraft being composed of H-MRCAs, 35% of M-MRCAs and the remaining 35% of L-MRCAs—these being backed up by no less than 12 AEW & CS platforms and 28 aerial refuelling tankers.    

In reality, however, matters started worsening from the early 1990s itself. While the Indian Army, due to political reasons, was prevented from implementing its Field Artillery Rationalisation Plan (which had called for the introduction of up to 2,900 155mm towed and self-propelled howitzers) and was also denied the opportunity to procure attack helicopters (despite a firm commitment in writing from the MoD way back in 1986 that acknowledged the Army’s need for such hardware), the IAF was hit with a double whammy: unavailability of the promised L-MRCA—the Tejas Mk1, and the sudden reason by the Russian Federation to decommission all members of its MiG-23BN and MiG-27M families and instead use the Su-25 family of close air-support aircraft as tactical interdictors as well.      

The twin-engined, subsonic Su-25’s R & D began in early 1968, and its maiden flight took place on February 22, 1975 (the single-engined, supersonic MiG-27M took to the skies for the first time in 1974). But Pavel Puthakov,  the Soviet Air Force Commander-in-Chief from 1969 till 1984, was more in favour of inducting supersonic tactical air-support aircraft in service and therefore chose not to order the Su-25. It was only in mid-1976, when Poland asked Russia if it could licence-build the Su-25, that Leonid Brezhnev, the then General Secretary of the Central Committee of the USSR’s Communist Party (from 1964 until his death in 1982) became aware of the Su-25’s existence and ordered its service-induction. The first production-series Su-25 was rolled out in 1979 and during its nine years of combat in Afghanistan, only 23 were lost out of 60,000 flights. 

It was also discovered then that compared to the MiG-27M, the Su-25, armed with a 4-tonne weapons payload, was five times better in terms of viability. No wonder Russia continues to swear by the Su-25 and has even developed a follow-on, upgraded version known as the Su-39, this meaning that the Su-25 family will remain in service till 2030 at best. One can therefore only guess why the Soviets never offered the Su-25 for export to India, and instead sold only the MiG-23BNs and MiG-27Ms, and why India, unlike Poland, never even asked the then-USSR to licence-build the Su-25 instead of the MiG-27M.

Due to the above-mentioned reasons, the IAF’s force-mix is quite lop-sided today and will remain so till the end of this decade, since close to 40% of IAF’s authorised combat force will be comprised of Su-30MKI H-MRCAs, 20% of upgraded M-MRCAs like the Mirage 2000Is and MiG-29UPG, and the rest with platforms like the Jaguar IS, MiG-27UPGs, MiG-27Ms and MiG-21 Bisons. Squadron-wise, this breaks down into 5 with Jaguar IS/IM, up to 13 with Su-30MKIs, 3 with MiG-29UPGs and another 3 with Mirage 2000Is, 4 with MiG-27UPGs and MiG-27Ms, and 11 with MiG-21 Bisons. The shortfalls are particularly critical in the tactical interdiction and close air-support arenas.

Squadron-wise, this breaks down into 5 with Jaguar IS/IM, up to 13 with Su-30MKIs, 3 with MiG-29UPGs and another 3 with Mirage 2000Is, 4 with MiG-27UPGs and MiG-27Ms, and 11 with MiG-21 Bisons. The shortfalls are particularly critical in the tactical interdiction and close air-support arenas.  

The obvious solutions include the procurement of six squadrons (189 units) of Rafales between 2017 and 2032 and use them as DPSAs, upgrade some 150 of the existing Jaguar IS DPSAs into tactical interdiction/close air-support platforms between now and 2020, convert some 60 of the 132 Hawk Mk.132 advanced jet trainers into the ‘Combat Hawk’ configuration to serve as close air-support platforms by 2019, and procure the IAF-specific version of the LCA (Navy) Mk.1 from 2017 onward to serve as the L-MRCA. 

This will ensure that by 2020 the IAF has some 350 Su-30MKI H-MRCAs, close to 50 Rafale M-MRCAs serving as DPSAs, and close to 210 aircraft for tactical interdiction and close air-support. However, the US$4 billion question still remains: how exactly should one go about the process of procuring the required 250 fourth-generation L-MRCAs comprising a mix of the IAF-specific version of the LCA (Navy) Mk.1 and the projected Tejas Mk.2 and in what kind of timeframe?

The IAF’s Perception Management Disconnect & Its Plans For TMD Network

The customary press conference given by the Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) of the Indian Air Force (IAF) every year prior to Air Force Day (which falls on October 8) by and large targets contemporary issues on the balance-of-airpower in the subcontinent and the more glamorous and glitzy issues regarding the IAF’s on-going force modernisation efforts and future plans. However, issues regarded as ‘esoteric’ by the mainstream media in India are very rarely raised and explored. This was exactly the case on October 3, when not a single question was asked, for instance, about the IAF’s thinking and desired forcer posture regarding theatre missile defence (TMD), or about the fate of the An-32RE tactical transport aircraft upgrade, or about the IAF’s roadmap for the large-scale induction of various types of simulation systems and part-task trainers for both frontline combat/transport aircraft and helicopters, as well as those related to standoff precision-guided munitions (PGM). Nor did the CAS, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, bother to throw any light on such issues through his prepared narrative that was read out by him prior to the question-and-answer session.  

Therefore, this is a honest effort by your’s truly to throw some light into the issues concerning the IAF’s desired TMD force posture, and future prospects for inducting into service an IAF-specific version of the LCA (Navy) Mk1 MRCA, along with the Rafale M-MRCA. But first, a few words about how the IAF failed on October 8 to undertake a successful perception management exercise. While the IAF has rightly touted its Su-30MKI heavy-MRCAs as being air-dominance platforms, this fact-of-life was totally missing in the IAF’s giant billboard that was displayed on the parade ground at Hindon on October 8. What was shown through an illustration was a Su-30MKI armed only with R-27R and R-77 BVRAAMs—no R-73Es, no Litening-2 LDP, and no PGMs.

This is inexplicable, given the fact that in successive Aero India and DEFEXPO expos since the previous decade, both HAL and BrahMos Aerospace have repeatedly displayed scale-models of the Su-30MKI armed with both AAMs and PGMs! So what prevents the IAF from showcasing similar exhibits? Your guess is as good as mine.

TMD Developments

Though the IAF had decided to acquire TMD assets way back in 1996, it was the MoD-owned DRDO that first got into the act of proposing a homegrown solution, for which it initiated the development of the PAD/PDV family of exo-atmospheric interceptor missiles and AAD family of endo-atmospheric interceptor missiles. For target acquisition-cum-engagement, two EL/M-2080 ‘Green Pine’ active phased-array L-band long-range tracking radars (LRTR) were ordered in late 1998 from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), along with two THALES-built Master-A MFCRs, and a TMD simulation testbed from Israel’s Tadiran Electronic Systems.

The primary threats—both then and now—stemmed from the Pakistan Army’s 80 solid-fuelled single-stage M-11 (Hatf-3/Ghaznavi/CSS-7 Mod 1/DF-11) 280km-range TBMs that were inducted into service on February 22, 2004, and 60 liquid-fuelled single-stage Hatf-5/Ghauri-1/Nodong-1 IRBMs of North Korean origin, was inducted into service on January 8, 2003 under the 47 Missile Group of the Pakistan Army’s Strategic Forces Command (SFC). Presently, the Pakistan Army deploys two Missile Groups each of the Ghauri-1 and Ghaznavi (grouped under two separate Artillery Brigades, these being the Hyderabad-based Missile Brigade South comprising Missile Groups 25, 35 and 40; and the Sargodha-based Missile Brigade North comprising the 14, 28 and 47 Missile Groups).

During hostilities with India, all these missiles will be armed with conventional HE or FAE-based warheads. Each such Missile Group comprises 18 Ghaznavi TELs each with one ready-to-fire missile and two reloads, and 18 Ghauri-1 TELs each with two ready-to-fire missiles and two reloads. A Group can also be divided into three Batteries (with six Ghaznavi TELs and six missiles plus two reloads and six Ghauri-1 TELs with 12 missiles and 24 reloads). Presently, Batteries of the Ghauri-1 and Ghaznavi are deployed at Gujranwala, Okara, Mangla Multan, Jhang, Sonmiani, Quetta and Dera Nawab Shah.

Unfortunately, despite 19 years of R & D effort, the DRDO has to date been unable to even offer a fully functional TMD system, leave alone a networked TMD network. The main problem has been the DRDO’s inability to develop hypersonic interceptor missiles and their internally-mounted Ka-band active phased-array radars for terminal guidance. Only homegrown X-band and Ku-band radar seekers have been designed and tested without demonstrable success.  

And that is precisely the reason why, two years ago, when a combined team from IAI and Russia’s JSC Almaz-Antey MSDB made an unsolicited presentation to the IAF on an improved version of the S-400 ‘Triumph’ LR-SAM (a generation ahead of what has been sold to China) that would make use of IAI’s latest EL/M-2090U UHF-band active phased-array LRTR, the IAF began making hectic plans for procuring such a system for TMD within the foreseeable future.  

Presently, the S-400 makes use of four different types of supersonic endo-atmospheric interceptor missiles (top speed of 4.8km/second): the 40N6E, the 9M96E2, the 48N6E3 and the 48N6E2, all of which are armed with HE-fragmentation warheads. What Russia has proposed for the IAF are two HYPERSONIC missiles, the exo-atmospheric 77N6-N and the endo-atmospheric 77N6-NI, having top speeds of 7km/second and also being the first SAMs of Russian origin to possess INERT warheads, i.e. warheads that do not contain any explosives and instead, are ‘hittile’, meaning they will destroy inbound TBMs, IRBMs or MRBMs by sheer force of impact.  

The most revolutionary element of the 77N6-N and the 77N6-NI hypersonic LR-SAMs will be their on-board nose-mounted, Ka-band millimeter-wave active phased-array radar seekers and their real-time discrimination algorithms required for fire-control and guidance of hit-to-kill interceptors. To this end, the radar seekers have been designed with a rigid mount and narrow beam to provide precise angle metric accuracy. The combination of metric accuracy, wide bandwidth, and high Doppler-resolution capabilities makes them excellent sensors for real-time discrimination, for they can provide extremely accurate identification-processing estimates of motion differences caused by mass imbalances on real and threat-like targets.

The 300-tonne EL/M-2090U ULTRA C-22 LRTR features an array of 22 UHF-band transmit-receive modules (TRM) in a single clustered unit that has been designed so that modules can be easily swapped. Using UHF, rather than the higher frequency bands, has particular application at long ranges since it suffers from less signal loss in the atmosphere. A discriminating innovation of the ELM-2090U is the digitisation of the signals at the TRM-level, which allows more flexibility in beam-forming and shaping. For TMD along a sectoral footprint, IAI has developed the EL/M-2090U’s ULTRA C-6 version, which has six TRM clusters. Each cluster can electronically steer its beam through +/-60 degrees in azimuth and across a 40-degree sector in elevation. In all cases, the array can be mechanically tilted through 30 degrees in elevation to provide a total elevation coverage of 70 degrees. The larger C-22 version comes mounted on a rail assembly that can be mechanically slewed through +/100 degrees to give 320-degree coverage.

As per the IAF’s projections, there exists a requirement for 12 Batteries of the S-400 (each Battery using four TELs each housing four cannister-encased LR-SAMs), plus 12 C-6 LRTRs and two C-22 LRTRs. In other words, as per the IAF’s appreciation, a total of 11 strategic sectors are required to be protected against inbound TBMs, IRBMs and MRBMs.

But does this all mean that the procurement of S-400 LR-SAMs is a foregone conclusion? Absolutely not. Significant questions still remain over the yet-to-be-demonstrated effectiveness of the hypersonic 77N6-N and the 77N6-NI missiles. In addition, a lot will depend on Russia’s ability/inability to ramp up series-production of such missiles over the next five years. Also, exercising the Russian option means that India will have to invest cost-prohibitive financial resources on deploying a network of space-based early-warning satellites, since Russia has diminished capacities in this arena. But most importantly, the US is not sitting by and let Russia and Israel have the cake and eat it as well. Since 2012, the US has been taking keen interest in India’s plans for acquiring exo-atmospheric/endo-atmospheric interceptor missiles, especially after the latter officially decided not to field a new generation of solid-fuelled tactical ballistic missiles—be they conventionally armed or nuclear-capable—for replacing the liquid-fuelled Prithvi-1 NLOS-BSMs of 1990s vintage. What this essentially meant, was that unlike Pakistan, India will not use ballistic missiles of any type that are conventionally armed, since such weapons have zero counter-force/counter-strike value. Pakistan, on the other hand, views conventionally armed ballistic missiles as weapons that can be employed as ‘terror weapons’ against civilian targets like large Indian cities as part of an effort to demoralise the civilian population residing in cities that are either India’s financial hubs, or technological hubs.     

Therefore, if Pakistan wants to secure the deterrent value of its strategic WMD arsenals against an Indian TMD shield, it can only do so if it formally adopts a ‘no first-use’ doctrine with universal applicability, at least for its strategic WMD inventory, if not for the short-range TNWs that are presently intended for use only in battlefields within Pakistan. Whether Pakistan will be willing to, or forced into adopting such a posture following the forthcoming meeting between US President Barack Obama and Pakistani Prime Minister Mian Mohd Nawaz Sharif (slated for October 22), remains to be seen. Prior to this meeting, however, there will be a series of meetings held in Washington DC between the Pakistan Army’s COAS, Gen Raheel Sharif and his SPD Director-General on one hand, and their counterparts from the Pentagon.

If Pakistan decides against adopting the a ‘no first-use’ doctrine, then the US will have two policy options to act upon: firstly, degrade and diminish the credibility of Pakistan’s nuclear WMD assets by offering to supply India with the hypersonic (Mach 8.2) Theater High-Altitude Air-Defence (THAAD) TMD system that has been jointly developed by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon; and secondly, initiate contingency planning along with India, the UK, Afghanistan and possibly Iran, for physically confiscating or destroying Pakistan’s entire arsenal of nuclear WMDs.   

It is in this light that one ought to view the symbolism of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meeting with the Chairperson of Lockheed Martin, Ms Marillyn Hewson, in New York on September 24, 2015. That India’s national security decision-makers will favour the THAAD over the S-400 is hardly in doubt, since they are already convinced about the superior performance parameters of the US-origin TMD solution. At the military-industrial level too, both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have already established their reputations in India as worthy industrial offsets partners and leading network-centric solutions providers. For instance, the systems integration software for the Indian Navy’s Gurgaon-based, Rs.452 crore state-of-the-art Information Management and Analysis Centre (IMAC), which was commissioned on November 23, was provided entirely by Raytheon, with the computing servers coming from CISCO. In future, the IMAC will morphe into the ‘nodal fusion centre’ of the Navy’s Rs.1,003 crore National Command Control Communications and Intelligence Network (NC3I).

For the IAF’s countrywide, quick-reaction TMD network too would such a ‘nodal fusion centre’ be required, along with the requirement for networking with the vast array of space-based early warning satellites that the US presently deploys. Therefore, if the IAF opts for the optimum TMD solution that makes use of THAAD, then India for sure will be required to ink the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA), which is the key to securing access to ballistic missile early warning alerts from the US Air Force Space Command’s satellite networks.

Next Thread: How & Why The IAF’s Force Structure Planning Process Went Awry 30 Years Ago

MAKS 2015 Show Report-1: Russia Is Stuck Between A Rock And A Hard Case

Moscow today is trying to deal with several crises at the same time. Firstly, there is the severe economic crisis brought on by the collapse in the price of crude oil and the continuing bite of Western economic sanctions brought on by the Russian annexation of Crimea and Russia’s support of the civil war in eastern Ukraine. With the Iran nuclear deal moving forward, it is highly likely that large amounts of Iranian crude oil will come on the market in the coming years. This in turn has caused futures contracts for crude oil to plunge, damaging Russia's ability to meet spending targets for its ambitious military goals. Moscow’s refusal to diversify its economy in the heady days of US$100 per barrel of crude oil is now coming back to haunt it. The war in eastern Ukraine shows no signs of stabilising anytime soon, either. In fact, the NATO alliance is claiming that upwards of 50,000 Russian troops are mobilised along the border with Ukraine. The Kremlin will face tough decisions in the near-term as social spending has already been cut dramatically and the threat of social unrest due to high military spending ($18 billion in 2015, or 4.2% of Russia’s GDP) in the face of further social security cutbacks is very real.  

Secondly, Russia’s population is declining in quantitative terms, which in turn is posing a severe strain on the availability of skilled human resources. And this is happening at a time when the Kremlin may well be required to launch low-intensity military operations against Estonia and Latvia in order to secure the interests of the Russian-speaking disenfranchised citizens of these two countries. Russia’s previous National Security Doctrine, which was signed into law in 2009 by then-President Dmitry Medvedev, has been superceded by the current military doctrine that President Vladimir Putin signed into law in December 26, 2014, which cited “NATO’s military buildup” as a key driver for the changes.

The new doctrine, beyond explicitly stating that NATO’s expansion is the main external threat facing Moscow, calls for reinforcing three geopolitical fronts that Russia sees as part of its existential security. In the coming years Russia will focus considerable resources in developing and maintaining a strong military presence in the Arctic, the recently annexed Crimean peninsula, and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Each of these three regions is vital for Russia’s goal of checking NATO expansion, while simultaneously maintaining access to potential natural resources, as in the case of the Arctic, and warm water shipping routes. Russia’s military expansion in the Arctic has been a major goal for Putin for much of the past decade. The new military doctrine officially puts special focus on the region and advocates a greater Russian role in the region to help ensure access to potential energy resources on the Arctic seabed against possible Danish, Norwegian, Canadian, and US claims. The US estimates that upwards of 15% of the world’s remaining oil, 30% of its natural gas, and 20% of its liquefied natural gas are stored in the Arctic sea bed. Moscow has undertaken a construction blitz across the Arctic in a bid to ensure that it remains the unchallenged military power in the region. It is presently building 10 Arctic search-and-rescue stations, 16 deepwater ports, 13 airfields, and ten airspace surveillance radar stations across its Arctic coast. Simultaneously, Moscow has created a Joint Strategic Command North (JSCN) from components of the Russian Navy’s Northern Fleet in order to maintain a permanent military presence in the region. It is likely that this command will ultimately become a fifth military district. Bottomline: Russia’s strategic focus in the years ahead will continue to be Euro-centric, and not not Eurasia-centric.

 

Thirdly, even though Russia is already the world’s second-biggest arms exporter (accounting for 27% of the global export market, with the US staying ahead with 31% market-share, and being followed by China with 5%, Germany with 5%, France with 5% and the UK with 4%), it is facing increasingly tough competition from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) with each passing day—especially in South Asia, the Middle East and Central America.

Fourthly, the PRC’s weapons manufacturers have succeeded to a large extent in back-engineering several weapons, sensors and fire-control systems that were on the drawing boards during the last years of the Soviet era, and whose production-engineering data were easily available from various countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Since 1991, the PRC had struck several military-industrial partnerships with several CIS-based original equipment manufacturers (OEM), especially in Ukraine, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan, for the purpose of obtaining critical research and development (R & D) inputs that are required for developing and producing new-generation weapon systems for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Consequently, Ukraine’s total arms exports grew steadily, from $20 million in 1994 to $600 million in 1997 and $1.5 billion in 2001. In 2002 the Industrial Policy Ministry of Ukraine and the PRC’s Commission for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND) signed a protocol on cooperation in the military-industrial arena.  In that same year, Ukraine became the world’s fourth-largest weapons exporter and sold weapons and military technologies to Beijing worth $700 million, which accounted for 31% of Ukrainian exports that year. In 2011, 43% of Ukraine-built weapons were sold to the PRC, while in 2013 Ukraine became the PRC’s second-largest trade partner in the CIS, while the PLA became Ukraine’s biggest military customer in Asia.

Since 2002, the following Ukraine-based firms/enterprises/R & D institutes have had military-industrial partnerships with the PRC: Aerotechnica-MLT Ltd, ARSENAL Central Design Bureau State Enterprise, ARSENAL State Enterprise Plant, AVIAKONTROL Joint Stock Company (JSC), AVIONIKA  Ltd, BURAN State Enterprise Research Institute, CHERNOMOSUDOPROEKT, Chernomorsky Shipbuilding (formerly the   Nikolayev South Shipyard Soviet Shipyard No. 444), Engine Design Bureau of Kharkiv (EDBK), FEODOSYA State-Owned Optic Plant, ISKRA Ltd, Ivchenko-Progress OKB, Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau, KVANT Research Institute, Kyiv Plant Radar JSC, LUCH KYIV State Design Bureau, LVIV State Plant, Motor Sich JSC, MORYE Feodosya Shipbuilding Company, ORDZHONIKIDZE Sevastopol Marine Plant, PROGRESS Zaporozhye Machine-Building Design Bureau, RADIONIX Ltd, Radioizmeritel Plant, Scientific Research Institute for Aeroelastic Systems, Scientific and Technical Enterprise Electronprylad JSC, State Enterprise Malyshev Plant, Ukroboronprom JSC, Ukrspetsexport JSC, Ukrspetstechnika JSC, YUZHMASH Southern Machine Building Plant Association, VIZAR ZHULIANY Machine-Building Plant, and Zorya–Mashproekt  State Enterprise.

Ukrainian officials in August 2001 had conspired in the illegal sale of 12 Ukraine-owned Kh-55 strategic cruise missiles—six each to China and Iran (known locally as the Soumar GLCM), plus four Kolchuga passive surveillance systems to the PRC. Also smuggled out of Kiev by August 2001 were detailed production engineering data packages of a long-range land-attack cruise missile (LACM) called Korshun, which had by then been developed by Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk-based Yuzhnoye State Design Bureau, with production tooling being built by the Yuzhnoye Machine-Building Production Association, or Yuzhmash. The Korshun’s powerplant was a redesigned RD95-300 turbofan that bore a strong resemblance to the 36MT engine developed by Russia’s NPO Saturn. This turbofan was subsequently re-engineered in the PRC by its 624 Engine Design Institute, or the China Gas Turbine Establishment (GTE), and its related Chengdu Engine Group. Dimensions of the Korshun, which was identical to the Raduga-developed Kh-65SE LACM (first displayed in August 1992), included a wingspan of 3.1 metres, length of 6.3 metres, diameter of 0.514 metres, and a mass of 1,090kg. 

Range of the LACM was then claimed to be 600km when carrying a 500kg warhead. By late 2003, the General Armaments Dept of COSTIND, the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp’s (CASC) 3rd Aerospace Academy (also known as China Haiying Electro-Mechanical Technology Academy or CHETA, or the 066 Base in Hubei) and 8359 Research Institute had, along with the Beijing University for Aeronautics & Astronautics, Shanghai Jiaotong University, China State Electronics Systems Engineering Corp, Sichuan Aerospace Industry Corp and the Tianjin Institute for Power Sources had completed fabrication of the first six prototypes of the 800km-range Chang Jian CJ-10 LACM (a direct copy of the Korshun), and on August 10, 2004 the first test-firings were conducted at an instrumented offshore range in the Bohai Sea. Its configuration features a cylindrical body with two retractable wings, four non-retractable tailfins as well as a retractable engine inlet. The CJ-10 made its first public appearance during the October 1 military parade in 2009. In early 2005, flight-tests of another variant of the CJ-10, having a range of 1,200km, were carried out. The CJ-10 has since been deployed by China with both conventional HE/FAE and tactical low-yield nuclear warheads, with the latter developed by a consortium of China’s 7th Research and Design Institute, owned by the China National Nuclear Corp, China Metallurgical Equipment Corp (CMEC) and China Southwest Institute for Nuclear & Fluid Physics.

CASC’s 3rd Academy’s Beijing Xinghang Electromechanical Equipment Factory (159 Factory) is the final assembly facility for the CJ-10, while Beijing Hangxing Machine Building Factory (239 Factory) and the Xinxin Factory in Shanghai produce the various on-board components of the CJ-10. The LACM and its ALCM variant carries a range of different 770lb or 1,100lb warheads. The GLCM variant of the CJ-10 has a length of 7.0 metres, launch mass of 1,350kg,  warhead mass of 300kg,  cruise speed of 0.9 Mach. Thus far, the PLAAF has operationalised 20 H-6K bombers capable of launching the CJ-10’s ALCM variant. There are presently three operational, road-mobile, CJ-10 Brigades: the 821 Brigade, 96215 Unit in Liuzhou, Guangxi Province; the 824 Brigade, 96317 Unit in Dongkou, Hunan Province; and a third Brigade in Jianshui, Yunnan Province

Another highly successful military-industrial partnership between the PRC and Ukraine concerns the PLA Navy’s Type 052C Luyang-class guided-missile destroyers (DDG). Each of these DDGs come equipped with six forward vertical launch stations (VLS) each containing six revolving long-range surface-to-air missile (LR-SAM) launchers (for 36 Hong Qi-16 LR-SAMs) located below the bridge and behind the main gun; and a rear VLS station equipped with 12 Hong Qi-16 LR-SAMs forward of the helicopter hangar. Thus, a total of 48 Hong Qi-16 LR-SAMs are carried on board. The two-stage HQ-16 LR-SAM is ‘cold-launched’ vertically from a tubular launcher. The missile’s first stage has a diameter of 700mm while the second stage has a diameter of 560mm. The total launch mass is 2 tonnes, while the missile’s length is 9 metres. It is armed with a 180kg HE fragmentation warhead and has a maximum speed of Mach 4.2. The HQ-16 has a slant range of 125km and a service ceiling of 30km. The missile’s proximity fuze has an effective range of 35 metres, which goes active when the missile is 35 metres away from its target. The HQ-16’s guidance mechanism comprises initial inertial navigation, radio command mid-course correction, and active terminal guidance. When in range for an effective lock-on with the on-board X-band monopulse radar, the terminal guidance phase, lasting 20km, gets underway. The HQ-16 has been developed to specifically counter incoming intermediate-range/tactical ballistic missiles and supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, and is therefore not cost-effective if deployed to counter only manned combat aircraft. For naval target tracking and engagement, the Jiangsu Province-based Nanjing Research Institute of Electronic Technology (NRIET, but also more commonly known as the 14th Institute) has co-developed with Ukraine’s the KVANT Research Institute, the shipborne Type 346 S-band multi-function active phased-array radar with four antenna arrays, each of which has a maximum range of 150km, a maximum resolution of 0.5 metres, and can  scan a 0-120-degree arc in azimuth and 0-90 degrees in elevation, with a peak power output of 1mWe. The HQ-16 LR-SAM itself is a re-engineered version of the Soviet-era 5V55R LR-SAM and Ukrainian companies that were consultants to the PRC for developing the HQ-16 and its land-based HQ-9 LR-SAM variant (the FD-2000 being its export variant and already sold to Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) were YUZHMASH and the VIZAR ZHULIANY Machine-Building Plant.

Other naval products that have been co-developed by the PRC with Ukraine’s assistance include the Type 382 radar (originally the Fregat-M2EM), Type 344 radar (originally the Mineral-ME), Type 345 radar (originally MR-90)—all of which were re-engineered by the Nanjing Marine Radar Research Institute/No 724 Institute; the SUR-17/Type 517B air surveillance radar with Yagi antenna that was re-engineered by the Yangzhou Marine Electronic Instruments Research Institute/ No. 723 Institute; and the Type 344 multifunctional fire-control radar that was re-engineered by the Xi’an Research Institute of Navigation Technology (XRINT) No 20 Research Institute. The Type 344 (Mineral-ME) and Type 382 (Fregat-M2EM) radars are installed on board the PLA Navy’s Type 054A Jiankai-class guided-missile frigates, while the Type 346s are on the PLAN's Type 052C/D Luyang-class DDGs and on the aircraft carrier Liao Ning. In addition, a seabed-based SOSUS network, developed jointly by Ukraine and China, has been under installation along China's territorial waters since 2012. 

The PLAN’s sole aircraft carrier Liao Ning too has been refitted and upgraded with Ukraine’s military-industrial help. In another development, the PRC’s Nanchang-based Hongdu Industrial Aviation Group (HAIG) inked a contract in 2009 with Ukrainian engine manufacturer Motor Sich for the supply AI-222-25F turbofans—each valued at $2 million—for its production-standard L-15 ‘Hunting Eagle’ lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT). The first tranche of 12 engines was delivered in 2011. The tandem-seat, twin-engined L-15, co-developed by HAIG and Russia’s Yakovlev OKB, made its maiden flight on March 13, 2006. The first L-15 prototype, powered by twin non-afterburning ZMKB-Progress (Lotarev) DV-2 engines, was rolled out on September 29, 2005. The third prototype, powered by twin DV-2F afterburning turbofans, first flew on May 10, 2008, and was powered by twin non-afterburning AI-222-25 turbofans. The fourth prototype first flew on June 8, 2009, and was powered by two afterburner-equipped AI-222K-25F turbofans. The sixth L-15 prototype, which was rolled out on August 15, 2010,  features a stretched nose that can house a multi-mode fire-control radar, HOTAS controls, and improved glass cockpit avionics with three AMLCD-based multifunction displays. Powered by two AI-222K-25F turbofans delivering enough thrust for sustained supersonic flight, its maiden flight took place on October 26, 2010. It features a three-axis quadruplex fly-by-wire flight control system. The L-15 has a maximum takeoff weight of 9,500kg, maximum speed of Mach 1.4, maximum climb rate of 150 metres/second, load sustenance of +8g/-3g, service ceiling of 16,000 metres, loitering time of two hours, and a structural airframe life of 10,000 flight hours. Unit price quoted for the L-15 is US$16 million. The L-15 is likely to be procured in future by the air forces of China, Myanmar and Pakistan.

Ukraine has also sold the PRC four Project 1232.2 Zubr hovercraft at a cost of US$315 million. While the first two were built (and delivered on April 12, 2013) by the Crimea-based MORYE Feodosya Shipbuilding Company in Feodosiya (now in Russia-annexed Crimea), the latter two are now being licence-assembled at the China State Shipbuilding Corp-owned Huangpu Shipyard in Guangzhou under the supervision of Ukrainian technicians. Ukraine has also helped the PRC upgrade its fleet of Su-27SK heavy multi-role combat (H-MRCA) aircraft by supplying kits for upgraded N-001 mlti-mode airborne radars (from RADIONIX Ltd), OMUT internalu jammers for Shenyang J-11B H-MRCAs, as well as  upgraded ZSh-7APN Sura-K helmet-mounted display systems (HMDS) and upgrade kits for the OEPS-27 infra-red search-and-track (IRST) sensors. 

In addition, Ukraine has also helped the Sichuan Changhong Electric Appliance Corp and its Luoyang Optical-Electronic Technology Development Centre (LOEC) to develop both an indigenous HMDS as well as the Hongguang-1 IRST sensor for the Shenyang J-11B, Chengdu J-10B and Shenyang J-15 MRCAs.

Lastly, Ukraine in 2001 supplied the PRC’s 601 Research Institute at Shenyang with one Su-33 carrier-based H-MRCA prototype (the T-10K-3) along with related production-engineering data as well as the source-codes (crypto-keys) for the aircraft’s fly-by-wire flight-control systems and its digital databus. The T-10K-3 aircraft had made its maiden flight on February 17, 1990 in the former USSR. Also sold by Ukraine were the production-licences for the LIMAN ground-radio jammers, mobile GPS jamming systems, and road-mobile troposcatter-based communications relay systems like the TS-504 and multi-point TS-510/GS-510 systems, which are re-engineered versions of Ukraine’s R-423-1 Brig-1 troposcatter system.

When it comes to military-industrial cooperation with Belarus, in 1998, in the Chinese city of Hubei in Siogan Province a joint assembly plant called ‘Sanjiang Volat Co Ltd’ for the production of multi-wheeled tractors and chassis for various purposes with capacity from 20 to 75 tonnes was established. The founders of the joint venture with a capital of 52.2 million Yuan were Minsk Wheel Tractor Plant (MWTP), with an authorised capital share of 30% and Sanjiang Aerospace Corp with the 70 % share. MWTP contributed technologies and accessories for building multi-wheeled heavy-duty vehicles. In accordance with the agreed-upon business statutes, in the first five years of operation 70 % of all components for the plant should have been delivered by MWTP. Subsequently, the share of Belarusian components was intended to be reduced to 30%. But the PRC, known for its outstanding talent for re-engineering, exceeded the plan, and now MWTP provides only the wheel-hubs. The production facilities of Sanjiang Volat Co Ltd are designed to produce 300 multi-axle vehicles per year to meet the needs of the defence, oil, construction, mining and forestry industries. The industrial partners have since September 2009 also created a joint production facility for hydro-mechanical transmission (HMT) of heavy-duty vehicles and wheeled tractors. This facility is known as the Wuhan Sanjiang Import & Export Company Ltd (WSIEC), a subsidiary of China Sanjiang Space Group (CSSG).

With Kyrgyzstan, the PRC has joined forces to develop an indigenous version of the VA-111 Shkval supercavitating rocket-propelled torpedo, which achieves a high velocity of 230mph (386kph). The Shkval is fired from the standard 533mm torpedo tube at a depth of up to 328 feet (100 metres). The torpedo exits the tube at 50 Knots (93kph) and then ignites the rocket motor, propelling the weapon to speeds four to five times faster than other conventional torpedoes. The weapon has an 80% kill probability at a range of 7,655 yards (7,000 metres). The torpedo is guided by an autopilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes. Manufacturing know-how for the torpedo’s cruise-control sub-systems has been procured from Ukraine, while Kyrgyzstan’s Dastan Engineering JSC has supplied the autopilot’s manufacturing know-how to the PRC. 

To Be Concluded