plawolfthis silly idea will never work. true power only comes from unity and determination. we alreay have the perfect counter example of this in the EU.
compaired to the US, it has a bigger economy; larger population; larger land mass (with all the advantages that goes with it); better state funded healthcare and education (in the establish members and not the newcomers)…all the ingredints for it to surpass the US in every way. but look at the sorry state its in. all because nobody has the power and/or the will to get ppl to make small sacraficies to do what should be done. 🙁
in the forseeable future (20~50 years), there are only a handful of nations that can challenge US supermicy. they are: a united states of europe (with the true power in the hands of a centrelised european parliament and elected president instead of individual states); china; india and maybe russia and brazil.
the one that can challenge the US the quickest would be the USE (5~10 years if they commite 100%), but i seriously doubt individual states will ever give that kind of power away unless something unimaginably bad were to happen or threaten to happen unless they did so.
next would be china. assuming there isnt a war in the taiwan straits, china should have the ability to go head to head with the US economically in 20~25 years time. military parity might coming in 30~40 years time.
india has the potential to match china in the speed of its assendence, but red tap and a weak centrel government is likely to hinder progress. it will most likely need 50+ years to match the US economically, and military parity may never be reached unless the indian government put greater emphysis on its secondary sector (manufacturing – cant achieve military parity if all ur best weapons are imported).
russia is more of a question mark in that unlike the others, its not a question of ‘when’ it will reach superpower status, but rather ‘if’.
without the fertile and resource rich centrel asian republics, it is hard to see where russia can find the money and resources needed to propell itself back to superpower status.
brazil is in a similar boat as india in that weak governments are not pushing throgh the kinds of far reaching but difficult reforms needed for the nation to have a chance to compete with china. so, unsuprisingly, like india, brazil is finding its hard to compete against china in manufacturing and is focusing on another sector (mainly primary as opposed to terciary in india’s case).
brazil is and will continue to grow at great speed, but its hard to see it overtaking china or india anytime soon, never mind the US and EU.
brazil’s time may have to wait until the next century.
plawolfthis pic from china.com should put the discussion of whether the pic is a PS out of dispute.
the ‘V’ shaped front is clearly visable.
plawolf….
Wolf, I’m not sure about that, what’s the use of a cruisemissile carrying SSK? It has to close up to the land of the other guy. Let’s assume that’s India, how are you going to get that SSK that far without being noticed? And even if you succeed in that, they have their own ASW units and submarines there… If you want to take Taiwan, that’s another thing, then it could be quite handy, although I suppose it would be a too large investment for just that one target…
Or is it Type093 😉
The Russian Lada/Amur also has that hump, it’s not really an indication of cruisemissiles… Don’t know why they do it, but I suppose it’s for arranging the ballast tanks and buoys.
well, for one thing, its alot cheaper and quicker to build then a full blown SSBN.
when u look at the current situation with the PLAN it makes even more sense.
right now the PLAN is desperately in need of decent SSNs and SSBNs in good numbers. that’ll pretty much tie up the yards at huludao for years to come. and u can be sure that no boat will be used solely as a cruise missile carrier until well into the production run (if china can afford that many that is).
this means that a nuclear power cruise missile carrying sub is most like a decade away at the earilest.
u are even denied the option of refitting old hans and xias as they will most likely still be kept in service even after newer SSNs and SSBNs become operational.
as for the usefullness of a SSK cruise missile carrier. well, it offers u plenty of advantages. the addition of such a ship or fleet of ships would force taiwan to redeploy its whole SAM network as it is currently focused almost completely on the east coast.
this will give cruise missiles coming from both directions, and attack ac and helos coming from the east, a far greater chance of getting to their targets safely (and also returning to base safely in the case of ac and helos).
these subs can also act as a major deterrance against US intervention by putting up a credible threat against US bases as far west as pearl, and also a powerful weapon against those said bases should the US decide to enter the fight.
with quoted ranges of between 3,000~4,000km, it will be alwfully hard for anyone to find the launch ship (nuclear powered or not) after missiles are detected (note missiles, as cruise missile launches are unlikely to be pinpointed at such ranges). the difficulty will also increase if a few automated course changes are programmed into the flightpath of the cruise missiles.
this means that such SSKs can be used to hit targets anywhere from india to hawii and probably further if needs be.
a very good investment in my view, as in the current world of limited wars, there is going to be a hell of alot of instances where a cruise missile is going to be alot more useful (not to meantion less risky) then a ballistic missile (convetionally tipped as we are only talking about limited wars here).
plawolfwith the humb-back shape of the boat, im starting to think that the ‘yuan’ might not just be another hunter-killer SSK. could it be a dedicated cruise missile launcher? would seem to fit with other reports anout new chinese LACMs that can be sub-launched coming on-line and also explain why the PLAN currently has three versons of SSKs under construction or order.
plawolfcheers for the articles google. 😉
its disappointing yet unsuprising to see that janes is making silly mistakes yet again. 🙁 it should be DongHai10 instead of ‘CongHai10’ as was refered to in the first article.
anyhow, im a little confused as to why the PLA is continuing to invest in SRBMs when far cheaper and far more accurate cruise missiles were available to them since 98. if the report is correct, then it would seem that the perfromance of the HongNiaoIII was below expectations (that would also explain the low production run).
i guess an indication to the performance of this new DongHai10 LACM could be estimated based on PLA SRBM purchases. if the PLA acclelerates BM purchases, then it could means that the DongHai10 is unsatisfactory or vise-versa.
in regard to the CCTV J10 pics. well looks like the central government is finially getting ready to blow the hatch and let the J10 out of the bag. 😀
this could support the claims of pakistan being given the green light to purchase the J10, or it could just be showing off, or both.
plawolfOr I shall say it has never been seriously persued. J7MF concept was proposed by Factory 132 (not Institute 611 or someone else. you guys
know the difference, right?). They have conducted some wind tunnel tests
but that’s it. PLAAF never had any interest nor did any potential foreign
customer. The project was quietly dropped.
didnt CAC privately fund the construction of a J7 with a chin intake similar to that used on the US A7s? that might be what the article was refering to when it said a J7MF already flew.
i have seen some pics of it, but never saved any cos i thought the design was ugly, but now i cant seem to find the webpages. 🙁
plawolfNo chance to do so, when I red the following before. 😮
what are u talking about now? :confused:
Impressed by multiple sources given by that, even the numerous links listed. :confused:
Impossible, you did this all by brain alone not even in need of a single reliable article/link to bolster your claims.
is that an attempt at sacrasm or just a sign of short term memory? :diablo: most if not all of the things i said came from articles and links given by ppl in this very thread, i see no need in reposting them just because u cant be bother to go back and look them up urself.
plawolfOr China shows the real thing in public. 🙂
oh yes, china really should do what the west does shouldnt it? like how the USAF unvailed the F117 right after it became operational. :rolleyes:
there are good reasons for giving out info on export oriented items, and that is being done by china. but there is zero logic in giving out info on domesticly oriented or even domestic only products to the world press. the only reason for doing that is to just show off, but showing off isnt logical is it? :diablo:
remember that a nation’s defence industry’s first and foremost priority is to ensure the security of its mother nation. selling weapons is only a secondary fringe benefit, and it is pure stupidity to go after the fringe benefit at the expense of the primary objective.
Posting infos from leaflets are no confidence builder either. Just hot air as a Russian general director said before. 😀
well, that general director must be pretty pi$$ed off about loosing contracts to ‘hot air’ projects then. 😀
A good point we can all live with. We are well aware that most infos are restricted in some way. My point is. Not to deny every opinion, when it does not fix in the “general” opinion first. To highlight what is based on single source information is sometimes very questionable. Like an optimistic claim or even about what becomes real hardware in service working “to full specifications”. In the West it does not happen always, so it is no insult to question the same for Eastern products.
it might do u some good to follow ur own advice then. there is only one source to the PL12/SD10=R77 with chinese motor theory (all the other articles with the same claim were just all copying or quoting). and that was given in speculation form by janes, which failed to take notice of the PL12’s marker’s specific denials that that wasnt the case. that claim itself was later deleted IIRC, after the russians also denied involvement.
maybe the russians were given a gag order by the chinese and told to lie, but that doesnt make sense.
why would any russian company give the chinese seeker tech to be used on a chinese missile that will compete directly with the said company’s own missiles on the chinese and international market? the russians have got to be pretty dumb to go alone with that arrangement. :rolleyes:
even if the russians were somehow desperate or dumb enough to go along with that, it would still not make sense, as in that case the FC1 should be using russian radars instead of chinese ones for SD10 intergration. the only way for china to get around that is if the russians also then gave them the codes for the missile. even more unlikely that the first assumption.
and if that were to also ring true, then china would be able to implement the J11/Su27 radar upgrade in country to add R77 ability instead of having to ship them back to russia.
so, looking at it from multiple angles reveils that the theory given in janes clashes with both common sense and other reports. meaning the possibility of it being true is extremely remote.
if u can think of reasons as to why the janes claim might be true and can bring in other reliable articles to cross-examin these claims, then please post them and we can dicuss it further. otherwise quite wasting time and bandwidth with stupid unspefic and unreative general statements that can apply to any number of circumstances.
plawolfIf the PL-12 is an indigenous “R-77” with better rocket-motor, there is no real problem to integrate such PL-12 into a R-77 capable Flanker. 😉
are u being silly on purose or sth? :rolleyes:
the PL12/SD10 is not merely an R77 with a chinese motor acording to ALL sources of reliable evidence. the mere speculation of some western aviation publications with zero insider sources within the chinese aviation industry is completely irrelevent, and will remain so in my mind unless they can prove their worth once more.
plawolfJANE’S DEFENCE WEEKLY – NOVEMBER 17, 2004
——————————————————————————–
China’s Su-27s may fall short in capability
Robert Hewson Editor Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons
Zhuhai, China
….
that article contradicts itself a little. first it says :’China has not made meaningful steps towards producing an ‘indigenised’ Su-27 fitted with Chinese-built engines, weapons, radar or avionics.”
then it goes on to say :’According to NIIP, China has not asked for PL-12 integration and the company has been given no technical information on the missile’s operating modes whatsoever. It has long been thought that PL-12 capability was a cornerstone of China’s J-11 upgrade plans.
China is also understood to be developing its own advanced fire-control radars, perhaps to pair with the PL-12. ‘
sounds like meaningfull steps in terms of fitting at least chinese radars onto J11s.
also, what is the J11 with twin WS10 engines suppose to represent then? a passing interest? :rolleyes:
plawolf🙂 That was Google ‘s info from 19 August 2004 quoting Jane’s Missiles and Rockets.
Underlined is the statement of Akopyan.
Bold “However, the Institute is not working with the Chinese, ….”
😎So why ask AGAT or Louyang about that again?
:rolleyes:China operates R-77 with AGAT seeker and has no relationship by that with AGAT??? :confused:
:diablo:
If AGAT did confirm this officially, it would show, they bypasses Russia by that. What answer is to exspect from AGAT/Akopyan about that.People have no problems in questioning infos from Jane’s and AW&ST, but do not the same with the words of AGAT/Akopyan. 😡
What have the first sentence of Akopyan for a meaning at all? :confused:
“Export contracts have conditions of confdentiality and information can only be released by the agreement of both sides, ..”
when, 😉
“the Institute is not working with the Chinese, …” :p
i think by ‘working with’, they mean joint development or ToT. just building stuff falls into the ‘working for’ category.
plawolfProbably some anti-torpedo rocket launcher. Rather surprising it’s carrying that many!
well, it think its for shore bombardment, that is consistant with the presence of the second main gun at the rear. that old boat doesnt have anything resembling decent sonar (if it has sonar at all). and if this was an ASW conversion, the aft deck space should really have been cleared for a helo or a towed sonar arry.
plawolfEh? Didn’t agat deny any involvement? :confused: :rolleyes:
well, thats not the only gaff in the article. he also said :’Presently, the Chinese navy is reliant on Russia for its surface-launched, long-range antiship missile capability in the shape of the Raduga 3M-80 Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn).’
what happened to the C80X family of missiles then? :rolleyese:
not very impressed by the lack of effort put into the article. 🙁
plawolfi thought i wasa PS too at first, but looking at it more carefully, i appears that the unusually look is just light playing tricks on our eyes.
focus on the sail and u can see that the sub is actually pointed directly at the camera (or vise versa really, couldnt be bothered to go back and change it). its just the contract between light and shadow and enhances details on one side of the ship while hiding it on the other that is creating the ‘bent’ impression. 😉
plawolfHere’s an interesting report!
According to a Chinese forum, a recent issue of mainland mag called the “The Chinese Air Force,” FC-1 prototype 01 ran into some trouble on July 1, 2004 in Chengdu during a test flight.
Chief test pilot Liang was driving the 01 machine when the fuel gauge began dropping extremely fast. In seconds it dropped from from 700 liters to 200. Liang judged it to be a tank leak. At this time the airplane was still 20 kilometers away from the airport.
Liang managed to glide the ship into Chengdu’s home airfield with the fuel guage at zero. No harm done except the plane handled very well under duress.
Put this under rumors for now. Haven’t heard it corroborated anywhere else.
there was actually an article about it in china.com a few days back, but i didnt have time to post it.
its basically the same thing, only bit of extra data is that 01 got a couple of flat tires as a result of the emergency landing, and only stopped 300m from the end of the runway.
Sign In
