could just be a cost saving measure to beef up the number of PLAN boats without really breaking the piggy bank.

there could also be a timing elemint. currently, the whole PLA is gearing up in preporation should the worst happen in 2006ish. the newer stealthy 054As, while clearly more advanced then the jiangweis will need some years to shake down and finalise the design, while the jiangwei design is already finished. crew training could also affect the timing, as training should be well established for the jiangweis while whole new doctorines and procedures may need to be devised to fully exploit the newer features offered by the 054A.

however, i am a little suprised that they didnt upgrade the CIWS (if the jiangwei’s current systems can be all that) with the newer type730 or AKs that are poping up all over the place these days.

A foot is more than I need :diablo:
Anyway, there are already other pictures showing the complete spine.
When higher quality pictures of the J-10B will appear, don’t be surprised if I’ll come and say “I told you so” :diablo:

just as the recent bush/kerry debate shows, its clear that there is a big difference between someone convincing themselves and also convincing others. :diablo:

we have been through all this before, and those blurry pics cant conclusively prove one theroy over the other, and this new pic doesnt show anything concrete either, so i really cant see the point in going through this all again and wasting yet more space.

when clearer pics come out, all this will be resolved beyond doubt and it will be someone’s turn to say, ‘i told u so’. just dont be too sure that that somebody will be u. 😎 😉

According to a Chinese-language posting on the J-11, the WS-10 was based not on the AL31 that some western pubs had assumed but from Chinese study of western (especially American) civilian turbofans for over two decades.

WS10A – F110 – AL31 – PB199 – M88-2
nation China – US – Russia – Europe – France
service entry year 2005 – 1987 – 1985 -_ – 1996
thrust/weight ratios 7.5 – 7.57 – 7.1 – 8 – 8.5
turbine wheels the temperature (K) 1747 – 1750 – 1665 – 1590 – 1850
thrust augmentations 全推力 (kN) 13200 – 13227 – 12500 – 9000 – 8000

According to some posts there are over 100 WS-10A examples built since 2003. The WS-10A factors greatly into the decision to not buy the Su-27SM upgrade.

interesting, but it doesnt seem to quite add up. if the WS10A was derived from studying western commercial turbofans, shouldnt china have been able to develop a sucessful commercial turbofan before a military one? :confused:

In this fictive scenario, the NATO troops fought alongside the mayority of population there (Kosovo, Bosnia similar). The simple shift in firepower and organisation have had nullified the Serbian advantages in that. That NATO had free use of third dimension. Under this circumstances the will of restiance from Serbian troops there goes down. They not idiots and die for what???? I do not exspect they play “Bora Bora”.
-There was no idea to inflict as many as possible military losses, just to show, there is no chance for a real military resistance, in that the NATO succided. There was more disappointing in the newspapers, similar in Gulf-wars.
If it helps the Serbian soul, in another war they may have achieved more resistance, of cause more dead and wounded too, hard to understand, why not, as long it is virtual like the messages before.

come on, a couple of spelling mistakes or occassional mis-use of gramma is ok, since we are all just doing this for fun, but i think a line has to be drawn when the meaning of the post becomes unintellegable. please have a little more consideration for others when posting in future, because i really cant see what u are trying to say in most of that post.

Playwolf, as far as I know NATO ground troops have trained over very similar terrain as found in Kosovo or Serbia. As much as they would have needed a little time to adapt, I don’t believe military operations against the Serbs would have been hampered in any fashion. Satellite imagery and other such systems would have allowed NATO troops to move forward and somewhat give enemy forces a good fight. I am sure that special forces outfits would have been involved (As I am sure that they were prior and during Operation Deliberate Force) and as much as Serb forces would have inflicted casualties to NATO troops, in the end they would have had no choice but to surrender.

well, i think u will find that there’s a gulf of a difference between spending a couple of weeks or months training in an area to having lived and fought there for years.

i also wouldnt place that much faith in sat imagery, SF or what else, because much of those assets were extensively used in the air campaign with minimal effect.

the major ‘killer’ for NATO ground troops had they went in would have been the dangerous overestimation of serb military loses inflicted by the bombing. some NATO reports were predicting close to 70% destruction of many serb units in kosovo, when in fact only about 20~30% had been destroyed (and even then we are talking mainly in terms of hardware, troop looses was probably even less.

as ground troops go in, no doubt forward air controlers would be able to call down CAS much more effectively. as i said before, NATO would ultmately win if there was the political will to see it through. but the cost to NATO in terms of lives would have been many times what it was, and who knows, if the cost was high enough, maybe some NATO countries will start having second thoughts and pull out before the job is done (after all, its not like it hasnt happened before).

I did look at those facts, but if you would be all that smart, you would also know that if you turn that crane, elevate it a few degrees, it’ll have much more trouble handling the missile.

and why would the crane want to do that? from the sequence of the loading pictures, it would appear that the crane places the missile onto the loader in the horizontal position as the first picture shows, and then the loader brings the missile to the vertial upright position for loading, pictures 2 and 3.

Weather, is indeed something with stability, but if you really want to take it that far, I can go a step further. Even in smooth weather, the weather we had when we were about to change those cilinder coolings, a warship would even move much more. The GM (distance Point of Gravity “G”of you ship to Metacenter “M” , measure of stability in small rolling up to 10°) of our tanker was 4.xxm, the one of the warship I sailed on was 1.7m, as you see that’s only half! This means the warship is a lot less stable, hence will very fastly start rolling (and doing smoothly so). Stabilising fins might help, but still…
The Slava crane argument happens to be 100% true… I don’t know where you got the idea of contradicting that, but it happens to be an ex-Soviet Navy commander saying that. (lots of them work for Cobelfret nowadays). There is no obvious reason to doubt that either. About the cranes, I suppose it’s like you mentioned before. You’re contradicting yourself. The Slavas do have a dedicated crane, the shore cranes aren’t. they can’t take that cilinder to keep it non-moving. The Slava crane can. I suppose you don’t really want to bang around with missiles too much and slide it in reall smoothly.

well, the point that i was making is that the crane on the slava, while stated as a ‘purpose reloader’, in fact operate like any other crane (bar some modifications). it lifts the missiles up via a cable or beam or what else and tries to position it on top of the cell and then lowers it. pretty much the same process the cranes building houses or loading stuff at ports does things.

the problem with that is, obviously, its almost impossible to control the movement of the missile within the accuracy needed to slot it into the cell if the ship is moving about. however, with the ‘loader’ on 170, u can see that that missile is firmly attached to the loader, which in turn is firmly attached to the deck. this means that whatever the deck’s movement’s the loader and missile will follow suit (except for really bad weather). and its just about rolling the missile down into the cell using the convayerbelt thingy (which is easy).

the only difficulty i can see if when transfering the missile from the crane, onto the loader, where the movements of the crane once again becomes a problem. but if i am right about the loading sequence, then putting the missile onto the loader will not be as difficult as trying to slot it into the cell.

as i said before, the movements of the ship will limite when the missiles can be reloaded, how much of a limitation is difficult to tell based on the limited info available.

however, from what there is to see as of now, the evidence seems to heavily favour the possibility of reloading at sea. now, unless u can use the available info to point out why reloading isnt possible, how can u be so sure as to rule out the possibility of sea reloading completely? are u so closed minded that u cant beleive something can be done unless the US or russia does it first? 😮

OL!! i cant believe anyone here could have said something as stupid as that.

did we miss the last couple of cenutries of military development? not since the napolian days have the world seen whole armies lining up in front of each other in duel style combat.

ever since then generals and engineers have tried their hardest to give their side the greatest possible advantage in combat. the current trend is to deny ur oppenent the chance to see u let alone shoot at u (ie by killing him first). in the words of a serving US general’ ” we dont want a fair fight, if we have to send our boys into combat, we’ll send them in with as much of an edge as we can possibly give them.”

against the US and NATO, few countries could even dream of giving its armed forces an advantage on the battlefeild. the best most can hope for is to deminish the US’ overwhelming military advanatge as much as possible (ie to try and make the fight fairer) and to at least give its troops a chance to shoot at the enemy before being killed. and thats exactly what NATO would have given the serbs had it sent in the grunts. the end result would still have been a serb total defeat, but it would have cost NATO hundreds if not thousands more death.

simple enough for u?

Maybe an unknown person wrote this before? 🙂

check the reports, NATO did far less damage to the serb military then it ever imagined, with the number of civilain casaulties matching or even suppassing serb military casaulties. it was only the threat of a NATO ground attack that convinced a couple of serb generals to turn over their president. which is just as well for NATO, because with the troop concentrations the surbs had left and NATO’s vast over-estimation of the effectiveness of its air campaign, had ground troop went in, the result would most likely have been a fair fight, with similarly heavy losses on both sides. :p

are u trying to make a point or do u just like the colour? 😎

I have seen all of these pictures long before. I’m a member at CDF too, so my background is there for sure. The 5° were not meant as a limit or anything. It was just to show that when you have even the slightest inclination, it is very hard to slide something vertically down. Basically, sliding a VLS canister inside its module isn’t all that different from sliding a cilinder in its canister, both are cilindrical object slided vertically into something! (hmm, sounds suspicious 😀 )
I know about these pictures, but then again, this is in port. You should not engage me this rapidly… Slava can do the same in port, there’s no doubt about that, otherwise they would have left all the expensive cranes out (that would save weight, money and would add to the ship’s strength, cause cranes are quite bad for a ship’s structure). So, Slava could do this, but when i port, it is comparable to a land ops, and as I said, at sea that’s a totally different story.

well, once again u are just repeating the same objections without looking at the facts.

sure, its next to impossible trying to get a massive cylinder into a very small hole on a moving ship with a conventional crane. but what u see on the 052Cs are two seporate pieces of kit, a crane to move the missiles around, and a dedicated loaded that seems to be attached to the deck somehow (meaning it moves with the deck, and so isnt particularly affected by the ship’s movements).

also, ur point about the slava’s crane’s only being used for port ops dont make sense at all. almost all ports have cranes that can easily lift the weight of an SM2/HQ9 missile, and at port, there is very little difficulty in slotting the canesters into their cells, so why the cranes at all? (que in the cost and structural complications arguments).

also, ur cooling cylinder example is not a good comparison since there is no dedicated crane and loader for changing the cooling cylinders.