SSK’s maybe, although how long they would last up against Virginia’s and Sea Wolfs could probably be measured in seconds

That, is hilarious. Not even the most dreamy members of the USN hold such ridiculous expectations. Not in the shallows near China where the Chinese captains will enjoy the home advanatge.

[/QUOTE]but the second bit is just hilarious. Firstly you have your terminology wrong, you should be talking about ASW warfare not ASuW which refers to anti surface operations.[/QUOTE]

‘Oh wow, a typo. Never seen one of those before!’ :rolleyes:

Secondly maybe you could explain where these hordes of ASW aircraft are going to come from?:rolleyes:

100 miles is well within range of land based ASW ac, even helos. Whats suprising about that? :confused:

You’d have seriouse FoF problems with just spamming SAMs into an area and letting their own seekers pick the targets.

Then there are all the targeting issues. Missile seekers have a very limited range, and without mid-course guidence, you are most likely going to have to fire them at where you think the enemy is going to be as opposed to where he is, which further complicates matters.

Then of course, there is a matter of surviverability. Cruise missile SSGNs can stay thousands of miles from their targets, thus making it almost impossible to retaliate against them, but such a boat filled with SAMs is going to have to get within a hundred miles or so of the target area to function. That easily puts it within range of hoards of SSKs and land based ASuW aircraft.

LOL. You have not been around do you?

Guilin is not exactly a remote part of China. There is a major city around the area and it is one of the most popular TOURIST SPOTS in China. And where you have tourist spots, you have cameras.

The fact of the matter is, the picture has lower resolution than 640×480, which is baseline VGA camera for low end celphones. As a matter of fact, a cheap digital camera has several times more resolution than this.

Just because there are better cameras does no mean everyone’s got them, or are even using them on max setting. There are plenty of people in new york or london or paris who have crappy digital cameras and worse photography skills never mind some random village in China.

BULL.

This is VERY LOW PROBABILITY.

When you multiply a bunch of low probabilities together, the low probability increases by a magnitude.

But it still does not equal zero, hence why you can’t rule it as fake on that alone. Its hardly a difficult concept to grasp.

Not only does the plane does not burn, what are the chances you have a crash of this magnitude without any fire control and police around it?

Depends on how far away the crash is from the nearest base. The further away, the longer it will take for the authorities to get there and the greater the window of opportunity for someone to take a picture.

Irrelevant. Take a look at the picture again, and it is NOT FARMLAND. You see crops eh?

Have you ever seen farmland? Its not like the postcards with fat stalks of golden corn all over the fields all the time you know. Depending on what they are planting and when they planted it, it can look pretty barren most of the year. But something to note is that in China, if there is a bit of flat, open land that can be used for farming, then it will be, especially in rural parts. Its true a lot of that land may not be fully cultivated these days on account of many of the young moving to cities to get better jobs, but rocks and stones don’t just magically appear out of nowhere. The soild will still be the same.

The intake tunnel should have been carved out of a sectional billet. That would have been the standard procedure in building this.

And that makes it indistructable?

Who cares? The guy who posted it originally claims it was a crash landing. That narrows it everything quite a bit.

Selective miopia, only seeing what you want to see.

Boy for someone who claims he had examined the picture thoroughly, you cannot even see that the intake tunnel is no longer there in the picture.

I can see something that looks a little like the intake tunnel, but with the resolution, I can’t be 100% sure if its there or not. Unless you are using some powerful imaging software, neither can you.

Oh and you cannot even see—despite your claim of having inspecting the picture so thoroughly—that the parachute brake is open. That means the plane is landing when the “incident” happened and after it deployed the parachute brake.

That’s clear evidence that an airbase be right nearby.

Lol, thanks for the chuckle. I was the very first person who spotted that the chute bay was open and pointed that out in my opening post. Also, there are J10 pictures out there that clearly shows the chute bay open without a parachute being deployed.

And that is what most people would considered to be evidence, but it doesn’t support your view at all.

And you claim its real because of what basis? You have no logical reason to claim its real except it looks “realistic” to you.

That’s not a logical basis.

No, what you are suggesting is a logical falicy. How can you prove any picture to be real? You can’t. Does that mean that the J10 itself isn’t real because so far no one here has seen it with their own eyes?

The fact remains that there is a picture, and it is up to those who say that it is fake to prove it. And you do that with incontravertable evidence. Either by finding the signs of digital manipulation or finding the composit parts used to construct that image. The J8II rardome case is a perfect example of how one goes about it.

Tell tale signs of manipulation and you can’t see it?

I have seen them all, and they are all inconclusive.

The angle of the tail is not aligned with the rear fuselage among things.

Notice the huge crack on the rear fuselage? It might not be aligned if its in two seperate pieces.

Bull****. You really have no idea how good these ‘bored kids’ are do you?

And you do?

Hypocritical selective use of evidence. If you are going to accept the picture as it is, you need to accept the claim posted by the person who posted it.

What kind of twisted reasoning is that? Unless the person posting it can prove that he took it, then his claims are just that, claims. I can take any picture on the net and post it with some **** and bull story to go with it and what does that do to the original picture? Absolutely nothing.

You have no way of knowing if the person who posted the picture took it somewhere else.

But if the story he posted looks and smells like bull, then I’m going to treat it as such. But just because the story is highly questionable is not excuse to paint the picture with the same brush.

You would certainly see a lot of farmers and onlookers over the spot, most certainly, though they won’t be dancing. But they would still be LOOKING.

So what are they doing in that picture then? Just went all that way to get that close to the wreck only to NOT look at it? You do realise that there is a difference between looking and rumaging right? :rolleyes:

False reasoning. You are inventing stories and scenarios in your head, inventing behavior.

What a laughably poor and transparent attempt to try and wish away something your can’t reconcile with.

The fact remains you cannot explain correctly the reason for the behavior of the people, or simply the lack of interaction.

I have already explained it. Its you who has his fingers plugged firmly in his ear while chanting ‘inventing behavior’ so you don’t have to deal with it.

Take a good look at the picture and you will even see a number of people even have their backs turned away at the wreckage.

What would be unusual is if they were all looking at it all the time. If you gathered up a bunch of Chinese farmers and put them in front of a fully operational F22 or B2, some of them would still have turned their backs to chat with their mates after a while. There is only so much stimulation you can get from staring at an inaminte object.

LOL. I already told you why its not probable.

And I have systematically taken your arguement to pieces and shown the fundermental flaws in your reasoning.

Picture is quite familiar and is similar to an accident picture.

Well post the picture of the accident and lets compare them.

A lot of people are already calling it a FAKE. You need to prove its real and not because you think it looks “realistic”.

A lot of people are still calling the J10 a LAVI clone. So what? And don’t invert the burden of proof simply because you lack it. The fact remains that this picture is in front of use. That is real hard evidence, and its up to those who have issues with it to prove that it is a fake.

It does not look realistic to begin with. I am wondering for example, how everything that is all wrecked up has all the same white color. In a real wreckage, the plane’s interior would be metallic or primer in color, and various components would have different colors. Gad, not only did the plane did not burn from a wreckage like that, but even the wreck inside remains all lily-white!

Unless you have a picture of another J10 crash to go by, or phones of the internals of the plane, you can’t know what the mangled plane should look like. Without that basic piece of knowledge, everything else you said is meaningless.

I am having a laugh at this. You are somehow claiming to be logical, and yet you choose to believe the picture but not the caption that goes along with it?

You know how stupid it sounds?

I’m laughing because you think thats funny. Maybe you want to come and join the rest of us in the real world for a change.

I do not beleive the caption because I saw the same problems you have and more about it. Everything about the number of farmers and lack of emergency services (both first pointed out by me) casts a lot of doubt on the claim that the crash was near an airbase. But as I have said before, that alone is no reason to also rubbish the picture, because that would be a baseless assumption, and making baseless assumptions would be the best way to make a fool out of yourself.

LOL. This is being selective with evidence. In any court of inquiry, this kind of method you are proposing would have thrown you out of court or debar you from law practice.

You a lawyer now? While I am not, I have studied law and I can assure you that what you are saying only ever happens in dramatisations.

Its especially funny you would use the courtroom case, because that is a perfect example of where every piece of evidence should be carefully examined by its own merit and not be influenced by circumstantial factors.

You claiming the picture is real because…

The person who posted the picture and described the event is lying.

It is possible that a plane with severed sections would not start a fire.

It is possible that a plane that has severed its wings and fuel bladders would not start a fire.

It is possible that a plane on a severe skid that would have compacted the underside and intake of the plane would not start a fire, despite all the sparks.

It is possible that a severe crash like that would have left very little debris.

It is possible that a top military fighter jet would have crash landed and the military police and fire control units would have deemed it too insignificant that they would take their time coming to the site, or maybe forget while that the whole thing occurred.

It is possible that you have people casually standing around conversing around the site of a military jet crash for quite a while, and acting as if well, its not very important or special. Without any police or yellow barriers.

And so on and on.

So when exactly and in which paralel universe was I supposed to have said all that? :rolleyes:

All I have said is that I cannot find any piece of damning evidence that would prove this picture to be a fake. Everything else was just to show you that the issues you have raised are easily explainable. You are the one desperately trying to reverse the burden of proof because you simply don’t have the evidence to support your theory. And the amount of emotion and determination you are showing in trying to rubbish this picture suggest to me there is a lot more then cold logic and intelectural curiosity driving your actions and judgements.

Do you know that each and every act is an exception rather than the norm? You can get a way with one but you cannot get away with all. Multiplying low probabilities makes an even lower probability by magnitudes.

Only one thing is excpetion, and that is the plane not bursting into flames. But even that is not all that unusual considering that facts:
– The pilot flew the jet in in a controled approach designed to maximise the chances of the plane surviving.
– The pilot very likely took many other measures to minimise the risks, such as dumping fuel, shutting down non-essential electronics etc.
– The plane landing in farmland, which is soft and without stones to strike sparks from.
– Etc

Everything else on that list has been shamelessly twisted and exaggerated by you to make it look incredible, often even after I had pointed out the flaws in you doing so.

Yet more evidence of a vested interest in proving that picture to be fake. That motivation alone casts doubts over any conclussions you may draw from the evidence.

The resolution is bad, which is another RED FLAG indicating photo manipulation. Bad resolution is essential to keep the picture from close analysis.

Or taken with a cheap camera/phone camera, you know, the kind you are most likely to find in a remote part of China.

It does not change the fact that this is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY it will when you break off the wings at the wing roots where the fuel bladders are.

Irrelevent. High probability does not equal certainty, and as such is not sufficient to rule this pictures as a fake just because the plane did not burn.

Wrong. It also happens on ground even with contact on rocks.

Again missing things that have already been pointed out. There are not sizeable rocks on farmland, hell, there shouldn’t be any rocks in farmland because the farmers would have sifted them out and got rid of them all generations ago.

If this is moist soft soil, the intake tunnel would not have collapsed since the intake tunnel is carved out of a single billet. That section of the aircraft would have appeared like an inverse 8.

Where does all this certainty come from? Do you know the strength of the intake tunnel? The speed and angle of impact? The composition of the soil? Temperatures? The list goes on. Even with all those variables and a thousand more a supercomputer would be hardpressed to produce a model of how the wreckage would look like that is even modestly accurate. Hell, can you even be 100% sure from that picture that the intake tunnel did collapse?

Yet what you are saying is that this piture is bogus because the wreck is not in the exact state you figure it should be even though you don’t know the most basic parametres of the crash or the plane itself?

Did it occur to you that the picture itself might be just a hoax? If you cannot trust the person posted the picture and gave this story, then you cannot trust the picture itself.

Yes, that was the first thing I did. I went and looked for all the tell tale signs of manipulation and fakes and didn’t find any. While that is not 100% garentee that the picture is real, the fact remains that the picture is here in front of us, and as such the burden of proof is on those suggesting that it is a fake to prove it. So far nothing has even come close.

This is a cold winter month. Lots of Chinese kids are staying at home with their PC getting bored. Already we are seeing an increased of “cloned” PS.

Circumstantial and very thin. If this picture is a fake, then it would be one of the better ones out there, far beyound the vast majority of these ‘bored kids’.

If you like to know the story given by the person who posted the picture, this is a J-10 crash at Guilin, Southern China, in one of the newest regiment conversions, 2nd Division. The plane skidded off from an crash landing on the base. So given the story, the plane cannot be far from its base, and given that much of the body is intact, it has to be descending from a shallow angle typical of a crash or belly landing.

Words are infinately easier to form and reform then a picture. Thats why I trust a picture over words. Have we forgotten all those uncountable cases where someone got a picture off the web and then reposted it with his own little caption that is completely wrong? Just as I try to check the authentiquity of pictures, I also try to check the validity of claims by others to see if it fits.

Really? Have you seen all those farmers right over on top of the remnants of the crashed F-117 in Serbia?

But this isn’t Serbia, its China. If an F117 or B2 or F22 crashed or was shot down over China for whatever reason, do you think you would see Chinese farmers dancing over the remains unless CCTV wanted to set up such a shot?

So where are the authorities?

As I have said at least two other times before, on their way purhaps?

So they’re not standing too close for fear of authorities even though there is total absence of authorities?

Do you need a policeman standing over the shoulder of every citizen to make sure they do not break the law? Even poor farmers have brains and would have enough wit to realise that when the authorities do arrive, they are going to be asking questions, and could very likely take a dim view of anyone who saw fit to go and temper with one of their toys without permission.

There might not be policemen at the scene, but there are lots of people, lots of witnesses who will probably tell the police everything they saw when asked, so its probably not a good idea to be seen messing around with a crashed military plane.

That’s what makes this picture a hoax. You bought it line and sinker bud.

So wait, its a hoax because the ‘crashed bus’ scenario you suggested doesn’t make any sense? :confused:

Reminds me of the J-8II with the crashed nose cone (the crash nosed cone was from an F-18).

So prove it to be a fake as was done with the J8 pic then. Find the evidence.

Believe it as real if you want to, despite all the obvious multiple flaws in the picture. Heck give me your selective believability, like you want to believe the picture but you don’t want to believe the story given by the guy who posted it.

None of your claims stick with even the mildest critical examination. And since when has not taking anything at face value become a charater flaw? :rolleyes:

The foundermental flaw of your entire case stems from the simple fact that you assumed that either the picture AND the caption posted with it had to be real, or they BOTH had to be fake. It seems it never even occured to you that one might be real while the other might be complete BS.

This isn’t a joint project, unlike JSF. It’s a straight buy, by India, from Russia Cost overruns on purchases are not generally passed on to the customer, unless they are due to changes to the original requirement, requested by the customer (e.g. the British Bay-class LSDs – but even there, one builder had a ship towed from its yard to be completed elsewhere, when it failed to meet deadlines & costs – the yard then went bankrupt & closed), or unless there are clauses in the contract allowing for specific cost increases to be passed on. In this case, the Indians are protesting about the Russian demands, & stating that they are not allowed for in the contract.

What is being suggested the Russians do is not unprecedented. Fixed-price contracts for what should be relatively straightforward builds are the norm. They even exist elsewhere, e.g. the much more complicated A400M development & production contract, which binds Airbus not only to a fixed price, but makes it liable to penalties for failing to meet delivery & performance targets. Such penalties are not unknown in shipbuilding contracts.

You are right, I should have had a more detailed look at the case before jumping to a conclusion. 😮

I think you guys are all getting a little misty-eyed over nothing. These are multi-billion arms deals we are talking about here, not some mass produced consumer product. Delays and cost overruns are almost garenteed, be it a domestic programme or ‘join ventures’.

Thats just the way the business works and everyone expects it except the politions and members of this forum it would seem.

Now, the Vikramaditya is a particluarly bad deal when it comes to skyrocketing costs and warping timelines, but it is not as bad as some here seem to suggest, and the Russians are doing what the norms expect them to – pass the bill onto the customer.

Even with its ‘special relationship’ with the US, the UK still has to pay extra to cover the cost overruns from Apaches to Chinook to the JSF. Yet people expect Russia, which has far less finanical muscles and a not-quite ‘special relationship’ with India to foot the bill for the cost overruns themselves? Get real.

Something that no-one seemed to have picked up on yet is the fact that the US dollar has depreciated significantly in recent years by between 30 and 40 percent.

Although a significant part of that devaluation of the dollar will be absorbed by the US economy in the form of lower wages and hence costs etc, much will still be left uncovered. That means anything sold in dollars needs to appreciate significantly if it is to keep its original value, especially on the international market.

Although basic economic theory argues that if a currency devaluates, exports from that country become cheaper, it does not directly apply in the case of the F35 as a significant part of the plane’s price tag would be used to recoup the development costs which has already been spent in yesterday’s dollars. Add to that the fact that anything imported and used in the constructure of the F35 would also rise in real value and it is not hard to see why the Americans could wish to revaluate the price of the planes so that it more accurately reflect the real costs of the programme.

If the yanks did a similar adjustment to the F22, I had no doubt its price tag would jump sharply as well. But since that is a domestic only bird and because of the air force’s desire to get as many of them as possible, there simply isn’t going to be anyone pushing for such a thing to happen. If anything, you can expect serious opposition from all fronts to any suggestion of revaluing the price of the F22 to more accurately reflect the current purchasing power of the US dollar.

Techno issues would undoubtably also play a part, but it will not be anywhere near as large as the raw numbers would suggest, thus talk of the impending doom of the F35, seem very premature in my view. Although such an eventuality is still possible, least we forget about the Commanche.

Are you seriously claiming that bombing a bridge is the same as murdering civilians in cold blood in death camps? The infrastructure can be re-built, try re-building those dead bodies. And the fact remains, if the Serb’s had backed off from their ethnic cleansing in Kosovo they could have avoided war, planning a genocide robs them of any claim to appeal for sympathy at what followed.

You seem to be unable to see the slippery slope even as you slide further down it!:eek:

Deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure is a major departure from the normal rules that govern the conduct of nations at war with each other. Once that first step has been made, it would be a lot easier to progress down that path.

So civilian infrasture are legit targets, did you ever consider the fact that civilians would almost certainly be using much of that infrastructure as the bombs come down? Are you going to drop leaflets telling people not to use XXX bridge at YYY time and date? If not than chances are people will be using it when you bomb it. What about that power plant you just leveled? You think it was robots or ethnic cleansers manning it? The list goes on.

If you deliberately target something used or run by civilians, and civilians die as a result, is that not cold blooded murder? And if those deaths can be justified as ‘collateral damage’, then whats stopping you classifying those killed by a flood after you blow up a damn as also collateral damage? How about patients in a hospital because said hospital were treating military casaulties?…

I mean thats all legit as what they done ‘robs them of any claim to appeal for sympathy at what followed’, we are merely giving them what they deserved.

If I had the time, I would find you an account with a very similar line of reasoning given by a Nazi war criminal or Serbs/Albanians/Muslims who were involved in ethnic clensing. But I’m afraid I do not have the time or energy for that right now.