Debatable, Japanese text books have caused controversy in the past with their less than accurate accounts of World War 2. Lets avoid the speculation, and get back to the topic.

please, go read a little bit more on the history (all verson if possible) on this and you will easily see how wrong that assuption is.

who defeated and occupied japan after WWII? what parts of history (as in who it involves) is japanese textbooks trying to change? answer those question and you can easily see that this time tested rule of history is completely valid.

and dont be so brash as to brand anything remotely different from what you have become accustomed to as merely ‘speculation’ without carefully examing it.

They weren’t justifications at all, they were excuses. The Japanese had a grand plan, and the US was in the way. Germany lied to the world and said the Poles had attacked her border so they responded by invading! The rest was just not justifiable defence, it was conquest, pure and simple. I don’t see that happening again, not in the world we have today.

and did saddam have any WMD left after 91?

‘oopst, silly us, we are terribly sorry, but since we are here already, we cant just pack up and leave, its just not responsible. we’ll just stay as long as the government we put in power wants us to, to help them put down some rebles and terrirosts that oppose our..oopst again, their rule…’ :rolleyes:

history is written by the victors. would you have been taught the same lessons in class had germany and japan won?

sorry mate bad responce on my part but the whole “EVIL COMMIIEE” thing gets annoying.. I have not seen the use of that term to addresse the Chinese here in the UK and the first time i heard it was on this forum by GD himself. No need for it. No one thinks of China in those terms. (no one i know) people are weary of it specially governments but they have a reason to be it is one of the fastest growing economies with one of the biggest armed forces.

no prob. the term might not be used openly, for obvious reasons (anyone caught using it to as it was intended would be stripped of all credability). but that dont mean none-one dont believe in it, hence some people dream up fantastical ways of communicating the same idea without saying it, we just help to put them out of their misery by getting straight to the point. 😀

how do you know all aliens are bad? and how do you know if the invasion would be good or bad??? 😡

the first question you should have asked is ‘how do you know there are aliens?’ 😉 secondly, i never said all aliens are bad (if any exist that is).

as for the debate about whether invading aliens are good or evil. will, go and look up the word ‘invasion’ and i’m sure you can work it out from there. 😛

Vortex, no one can deny that the Japanese are historically prone to sneak attacks, including the two most well-known ones in the past century, Port Arthur and Pearl Harbor.

The commie Chinese actually warned the US first before collapsing the American 8th Army in Korea (MacArthur declared he dared the Chinese to attack because he would turn the assault to a massacre the “like of which the world has never seen”) 😉

Historic precedence predicts a Japanese sneak attack not a Chinese commie one.

interesting points GD, however i fear you are only wasting your time by replying to vortex, nothing short of ‘the evil red commies’ saving the world from alien invasion would convince him that the chinese arent an american-blood thusty evil race out to destroy all that is good and pure in the world. :rolleyes:

Those F-15s don’t shoot ARH BVRAAMs, while a substantial portion of China’s Flankers do. No direct evidence that AAM-4 is operational and no AMRAAMs either. No direct evidence that SD-10 is operational but they won’t be directly fitted on the Flankers not yet anyway (J-8IIs, J-10s and FC-1s get them first), but we do know they got R-77s for sure. Those AA-10E Alamo-Es (R-27E with 120km) also got better range than Sparrows, not to mention many of them got thermal seekers for a totally passive approach. And when the planes merge, we will bet on the Flankers not just being more maneuverable, but they got the unfair advantage of helmet sights and wide off boresight locking R-73 Archers, while the best the Japanese could muster are AAM-3s which is somewhat better than an AIM-9L.

Just on paper, the tables have long changed.

And China is clearly developing AWACS already, with at least one prototype (maybe more) flying. Better yet, it does have an extensive GCI network, and many of the Chinese planes, the Su-30s in particular and maybe the JH-7s, could have a tactical group datalinking of their own.

However, those disputed islands like in the Ryuku chain, and there is something called Taiwan in the middle before Chinese planes could get to them. So it’s not a mainland Chinese issue, but a Taiwanese one. It was Taiwan originally making those claims, not China; China went along for the ride with the logic whatever Taiwan claims, it should belong to China too.

So its more of a comparison between the ROCAF and the JASDF. But what can 200 Eagles do with Sparrows, against nearly 340 F-16s, Mirage 2000s and F-CK-1s with ARH missiles like AMRAAMs, MICAs and TK-2s? Those AMRAAMs are block Cs too, the best in the world. Japan has AWACs, but so does Taiwan. Without a direct air to air advantage, all those AWACS can do is vector the Eagles to certain doom in a massed Viper’s pit. The Japanese F-2s and F-4s won’t make a difference either; they don’t have ARH, and I doubt given the flight problems of the F-2, you’re not going to mix it up with a Mirage 2000-5 or an F-16A MLU.

The JSMDF is another story, but once the air cover is gone, it won’t be pretty on the ships even on the AEGIS equipped Kongo class destroyers. it should be noted that Taiwan’s Kidds could actually get newer missiles—only two of the Kongo class got Block III Standards, that all four Kidds would have, and the Kidds would have Harpoon 2s. Personally I don’t understand some of the decisions that went into the AEGIS/Standard systems. While magnificent, it’s mostly on an radar illuminator with semi-active homers like Sparrows. The whole system seems crying out loud to “ECM me”.

dont the F15Js have radar that can be easily upgraded to support the AMRAAM?

i wouldnt bet on the JDF not having a ARH AAM in any possible conflict scenario. if there are signs that tensions are mounting to a point where opent conflict is a real possibility, then the JDF would most likely order AMRAAMs from the US, which would be shipped to japan in no time. (any talk of china launching a suprise attack on japan are just the delusions of neocons trying desperately to draw paralels between the china of today and the evil japanese empire of WWII :rolleyes: )

what china has already managed to do is achieve an imbalanced conventional military parity with the JDF. in that i mean that unlike before, the PLA can now effectively deter JDF attacks on chinese assets close to, or on the mainland. whereas before, the only deterants to japanese military hostility were the political and economical reprecussions of such acts, and china’s nuclear card (which china has never used). and while, IMHO china’s land forces are the most powerful in the world in terms of raw fighting strength, the PLA is still some way behind japan in the fields that would count in any possible real life conflict scenarios-the airforce and navy.

It does matter. What it implies is that the engine was put in the a/c to test the engine not to replace the current engines with something better. Why trifle with something that works and has been acuired at considerable expense? Also we are left with Q2- will the Russians agree to have their airframe mucked around with?

the engine part has been adequetly refered to be others, so i wont repeat what has already been said. as for whether the russians ‘agree to have their airframe mucked about with’, well where have you been? J11s are already flying with WS10s, so i guess the russians didnt mind that much after all.

C’mon. These recent developments are pretty much cyclical; Evry few years a few fists are shaken, a few hostile words are spoken- but nothing much comes of it.
IMHO, the PLAAF will require far more than a few upgrades to win an air war over the ROCAF, backed as it will probably be by USN and perhaps USAF units. Also there is the Q of $, could the PLAAF afford to apply patches here there everywhere on a cointuous basis- or would it prefer a more phased uniform upgrade, no easy answers.

well if you paid a little closer attention to recent developments, you would realise that both sides have long past moved pased the ‘traditional’ ryhetotic and sabre rattling – things are as close to boiling over as they have ever been, and all parties know it.

as for the rest of your post, well that is just assemptions on your part, off-topic ones at that, and as much as i like to refute it, i am trying to keep to the new guidelines and not go off-topic so i wont go into it any futher here.

Logically said. I based my commnets on the recent PAF comments. They still dont consider the PLAAF avionics fits to be quite mature enough. Given their fetish for western avionics etc and their unfettered access to what China makes, their comments hold some weight.

well in the same sentence of that interview, the PAF commander also said that china had since showed great improvements and that chinese products were acceptable (ie, they at the very least met the mininum requirements), however, PAF still prefered western kit. that to me says that chinese equipment is on the same level as what the west is offering pakistan, however, obviously, western products are still better. but that is not what is being dicussed here is it?

its no secret that russia is some way behind the west in terms of radar and avionics, and russia is not offering its best kit to china, so its not a stretch at all to assume that chinese avionics and radars might be better then what the russians were willing to sell to china, hence, chinese equipment was chosen instead of russian ones.

There are other factors to consider and some of your data is regrettably misleading. For one, India does not have an export ban on it so it frequently purchases from others to nip the Russians. And another, that India’s aviation industry is structured different to China’s and possesses more depth in several areas of tech, thanks to considerable coop with Russia and Europe. In essence- the Russian leverage on India is hamstrung by the above. And as you note, its hamstrung on China thanks to Chinas budget and preference for Russian weapons. At the same time, a single vendor situation is hardly preferable.

sigh, please pay attention, we are talking about what can be done to re-negotiate a contract with the russians. sure india have the option of buying western kit, i said so in my last post! but western kit are always alot more expensive then russian ones, that coupled with the fact that india cant as of yet make any big ticket items completely indiginously, means that india doesnt have the same kind of bargining as china in using future procurement contracts to pressure the russians.

the russians knows that their kit is the cheapest on offer, and they know the costs of western kit, so they know know what india’s bottom line is – india will still buy russian as long as it offers the best value for money.

dont get me wrong, india’s situation offers it some advanatges that india is explioting. but those are in terms of the level of tech the russians are willing to offer, not the price (which is what the j11 indiginisation really boils down to).

Today the IAF is showing the russian offer of MiG29’S a polite finger and plumping for Mirages. Now could China do the same with the Su’s- which are the lance of its AF…? Once the JXXX’s start rolling in, perhaps, but till then the plaaf will have to play with some restrictions.

er…helo? isnt that what has been happening for ages now? JH7/J10 et ring a bell?

[QUOTE=Karna]

IYet the Chinese made it public they actually flew a J-11 with one domestic engine in one side, and the AL-31F in the other. Recently we got solid photos of a J-11 with both engines using the purported WS-10A.

That was for the J10 program was it not? Thats hardly comparable to shifting over to WS10’s for the J11 fleet overall.

and just why isnt it comparable to shiftung over to the WS10s for the J11s? its like saying that lockheed martine would not use F22 tech and systems on the F35 and would instead prefer to design brand new systems instead.

if the WS10s can be used in the J11s, then what does it matter what programme put the engine in the plane in the first place? if it works then the chinese can use it. the only thing stopping them would most likely be legal obligations in the contracts. however, these legal requirements are rarely, if ever written in stone and can almost always be changed. and if the WS10 is in the J11, then it looks like it has been changed hasnt it?

The rather surprising cold “consideration” the Chinese gave on the SKM upgrade proposal is another pointer that the Chinese are running their own project.

Not necessarily. They may be holding out for a better price or better specs or both..

unlikely, with recent developments in the tiawan straits, the PLA is effectively on a war footing, saving a few $m here and there pales in comparison to the potential of loosing tens of $bns worth in planes and hundreds if not thousands of pilots in combat if the equipment they are using are not quite up to scratch.

I would agree on that. However there are indications that the Chinese are not entirely happy with the N001VEP upgrade. It creates a modernized and upgraded product, but not a superior one that gives an edge over its enemy. With the ability to track while scan 10 targets, engage two simultaneously, and a range of 90-110km lockon against a 3m2 RCS target, its not any better than the radars used by its opponents across the Straits.

Not better perhaps, but still a handful by any means.

in an air war the second best is dead, the slightest of an advantage could mean the difference between shooting your opponent down or being shot down yourself. it makes zero sense for the PLA to merely want to give its pilots a comparable capacity when it can give them an edge for lightly more money.

NIIP Tikhomirov knows the problems and plans to change the antenna with the PERO phase array. But that may prove even more costly. China no appears to be going down the “Panda” radar proposal roadmap envisioned by Tikhomirov, and instead, on the Su-30MK3s, is going for a change of vendor—the Zhuk MSE by Phazotron. The Zhuks use slotted arrays.

Exactly. So the point is that Russia would still rather have its products on the Flankers and perhaps the PlAAF itself is waiting for the local upgrades to mature before it contemplates an expensive and time consuming transition.

well the PLA didnt just get their flankers yesterday. the first flankers arrived in china well over a decade ago, and even then they were far from state-of-the-art by russian terms. so whats to say the PLA didnt have the same idea you pointed out above, but over a decade ago, and now its the time that local products are coming into their own?

This may indirectly relate to the Chinese Su-27 upgrades; the Chinese may jump over the proposed N001VEP based upgrades in favor of a domestic solution using either a slotted planar array or even a phase array design. NRIET institute has made so many breakthroughs lately and China appears willing to exercise its newfound capabilities.

Again- what do we have apart from a handful of pics and few and far between reports? Breakthroughs? Sure, why not. But that still doesnt imply a tried and tested product from a manufacturer with a proven name (tried and tested wrt the lineage) and again we simply do not know whether the Russians will agree. In fact, given what I know of them I’d wager they’ll put a spanner in the works if China attempts to remod the Flankers on its own.

well with the chinese military, ‘a handful of pics and few and far between reports’ is the best that outsiders like you and i can expect. there werent even pics of the JH7 and J10 until they were almost ready for service. you can wait for your ‘written in stone’ confermations, but then you will always be a couple of years behind what is really happening.

these are the ‘rules’ with modern chinese military activities, if you dont like them, then the only thing you can do is give up and do something else, cos there is absolutely nothing any of us can do to change the way things work.

as for ‘tried and tested product from a manufacturer with a proven name (tried and tested wrt the lineage)’, well would any one of the world’s top companies meet those riquirements when they first started out? and its not like the likes of NRIET are newcomers in the chinese aviation industry either.

sometimes i think some people put too much emphysis on the company name. ‘mig’ was once one of the world military aviation’s top names and symbole for soviet combat ac. but how many now would prefer a mig over a suhoi or mirage?

im not trying to say that company names count for nothing, they will be influentual, but in the end what really matters is the product. its not like the PLA would commit to paper specs. the companies in question would need to deliver a finished product that goes through the same standard serious of tests, and if it performs better then products from more famous and established names, would you think the PLA would reject it merely because of the lable?

Save that for the negotiation table. You keep underestimating how much Sukhoi depends on Chinese business. Not counting the 1 billion Su-30 orders given out each year, China orders 200 million in spares and parts alone each year since last year. On the contrary, Sukhoi might be willing to accomodate or “let it slip” in order to keep that business. And China will reward Sukhoi with continued business. This is not to mention that China and Sukhoi may also have more unrevealed business.

So what. Many Russian enterprises are TOTALLY dependent on Indian largesse. But they still do everything to have things their own way.
Again we are speculating on “he said she said”. Do we have conclusive evidence either way?

the question is not about the degree of dependence but rather of opportunity cost.

china has a more developed aviation industry then india. that means that china has more cards at the table – it has a lower opportunity cost if it decides to shift purchases from russian to chinese products.

for india, often the only suitable alternative is a wester paltform, which is far more expensive then their russian counterparts, so for all the tough talk of the indians, the russians will always know that their bark is worst then their bite and india will not switch as long as they dont push the indians too far.

but switching (ie cancelling) contracts is only a worst case scenario. the much more likely approach would be that china is using future purchases as the main bargining chip. china can increase or decrease the numbers and/or types it wish to purchase to put pressure on or tempt the russians.

again, opportunity cost comes into play. if what the chinese are offering in terms of future contracts approaches or surpasses what the russians are expecting to make from things like radar upgrades, engine overhauls, munitions sales etc, then russia will go for the deal and allow china to put its own products onto whatever they want. its just all about numbers.