I thought its for some bullet train R&D facilities.

This is not shanghai’s transrapid maglev’s facility.

there is no HS train R&D facility in Shanghai.

if it was a R/D facility for a train I would expect a circular test track? :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should read the article before commenting/trolling..it has noting to do with attaining goals or testing of the Tejas.

This is an issue between HAL and the DRDO with regard to production rates.

Mod Edit: Don’t push your luck, i.e. ! 😉

anyways. back to the topic, fyi, I have read the article.

DRDOs think it has gotten all the experience out of Tejas thus able to move onto bigger and better things.

I caution against that.

I hate when people put the JF17 against the MiG-29s & F-16. JF17 is only made to fill the space & do replace [gradually] the ageing fleets of Mirages & Sabres that we had till 60s

quite right. packs a good punch too.
and the basic planeform is good enough to update to a new variant later if they want to.
what really counts is that they (PAC/CAC) have the engineering tools and critical people that are tried and true and proven, in place, to make that happen.

From the above PAC Kamra Link, it is amusing to note that they list this
as the JF 17’s Key feature ! 😮 :p

I don’t get it.
why it is amusing?

which of those statement is not true?

—-

bit more on the JF-17/FC-1 un-related to the pissing contest.

the current production variant of JF-17/FC-1 is specifically designed such that there would be no difficulties for Pak to build the airframe using the traditional alumnium alloy/”rivets and panels” manufacturing technology. ( although I have no visibility into PAK’s metal forging capability, which could potentially be a bottle neck)
cost is another constraint. maintainability was also specified by PAF. sure its empty weight is a bit heavier compare to its contemporaries, but what they trade weight-and-range for is mostly schedule and cost. and performance seems to be kept on target.

They achieved what they set out to do reasonablly on budget and time. which deserves praise by itself. because so many other programs in the world seems could not do just that.

in blue

Zero evidence of any of this existing.

yeah, those fins on the second stages are just for looks.
whatever you say mate, whatever you say.:rolleyes:

Well what you or PLA have “postulated” is not really relevant. The question is whether they can actually DO it.

bottomline is: You think they can’t and I think they can.
you are neither the guardian of the absolute truth nor do your knowledge base allow you to pretend you to be.
so it is safe just to leave it at that.

If you’re flying 100-150 miles away from the shores of Taiwan, you’ll have trouble doing much of anything unless you get a “bit” closer 😉

That’s what GCI and AWACS are for.

even back in the old Korean War days Mig-15s was able to climb and loiter high in manchuria and vector in on bomber groups over N.K. as they appear in their early warning radars.
for a jet flying at M 0.85 at 32000 ft (airliner speed) to cover 100 miles takes about 10 minutes. care to take a stab at how fast would it take if they lit the AB?

you still think that in air-combat to contest an airspace your fighters need to be physically in place before the fight?

ha, even in Battle of Britain Dowding was able to marshal fighters and rotate them in and out of battles just beyond the range of German fighters. sending them in against the bombers as they come over.

This is not some new tactics PLA thought up mate, this is old stuff. I am bit surprised you think 100 miles away is too far to contest air-superority.

WS-2 has an advertised accuracy of 600m CEP with inertial navigation
guidance. WS-3 has an advertised CEP of 300m.

and that’s with out any terminal guidance and mid-course update. inertia only. dumb down for export.

Sat navigation only exists on paper so far

I am sorry where do you get that from? go look up the website of the maker of these toys.

Do you have a lick of evidence of any of this existing?

go look it up on Sichuan Aerospace Industry Corporation’s own website.

PAC-3s have demonstrated 100% or close to 100% kill ratios in combat situations. Thats nothing to joke about.

When has PAC-3 has been fired in combat situations, what was their opponents? Iraqi Freedom? If i remember correctly the PAC-3 failed to hit some old modified silk worms in the same conflict.

also, how many launchers does TW likely to have? how many launchers does 2nd arty has opposing TW? not counting the Long Range arty rockets? like to bet who is going to run out of missiles first?

Regarding the Mistral, why does it, along with every other LHD in its class, only have a top speed of around 18-22 knots? And why do all of them except the LPX Dokdo have electric propulsion with azimuth thrusters?

not true.
WASP has Steam Boiler and turbines with two straight shafts, with last of the class has a LM-2500 plant.

the LHDs you are thinking about are Spanish/Italian/French LHDs.

I wouldn’t bet on tbms making it through every time either, but I’d certainly expect bmd to not intercept one ever time.
The 2nd arty has hundreds if not over a thousand srbms pointed at Taiwan, and you can bet your life they won’t all be the same as when they first entered sercice (ie: they would’ve gone through mlus and upgrades over time. Terminal guidance, gps/compass guidance etc). with terminal guidance df-15 can achieve a CEp of 35-50m, and I’d expect a similar CEp for upgraded df-11s. That kind of CEp is easily enough to strike a landing strip in a hit especially if with submunitions. That logic can be applied to other targets like naval bases, Sam sites, lack sites and what not.
If there was already a USN or us presence around Taiwan then yes 2nd arty BMs would have a harder time, but if it had gone to that then the pla would either already have fired off the missiles or they will choose not to.

And any pla lacm strike won’t be alone, it’d work in concert with swarms of other missiles or BMs. Sure they’d face the same problems taiwanese lacms will face but with the saturation of BMs taking out airbases…

They have prob radar imagers ( like those in old-pershings) in their BMs that are tasked for the high value must hit targets, even every Beidou Bird was shot down and GPS all shut off they would prob have no problem hitting the right part the the runway, or radar station, or docks, or…
the warheads are maneuverable and decoy ridden. best of luck to the TABMs and ship base aegis.

they may also fitted their LACMs with LORAN-C navigation.
and yes, they did get KH-55s. but the real-gold mine was those old engineers and scientist that came to china after collapse of Soviet Union. 😉
those i**** that think what they fly now is nothing but knock off KH-55s. ha.

in blue

The closest point in China is about 170km from Taiwan. Conventional artillery rockets?? What would the accuracy of such munitions be over 170+km ranges?

uh… ever wander to any of those defense shows where norinco has their booth and take a look at brochures. their have rocket systems that was pretty much limited by MTCR only.

And I guess Taiwan is a sitting duck with no means of retaliation?

spit ball?:o

What can I say! If PLA Daily says such claims, who am I to disagree.

actually PLA Daily etc never gives out any claims. you just have to read what they are actually doing and if you are in the field you would understand what their capabilities are.

Your “scenario” was that they would be loitering outside of SAM coverage. Well the Taiwan strait is pretty chocked with SAM coverage, and loitering there puts them in pretty good range for just about any type of aerial opponent too. So the only places “outside of SAM coverage” (assuming no naval units in this scenario), are out to sea. But its a silly scenario to being with.

Uh… another case of you being illiterate.
why would they loiter on top of the strait? they would be behind their own SAM coverage, marshalled in the hinterlands, vector in as situation needed to fire off their BVRs and then turn around and run back.

The difference is US aircraft over Taiwan, or US aircraft over Beijing. You see the difference here?

assume those US aircraft can make it to Beijing. and if they do, why you would think that there would be no consequences for US?

Hey! Go for it. See what happens.

a snarky response if there was a snarky response.

Already covered.

not covered at all…

The carrier-borne fleet of the USN is bigger than the entire PLAAF. THAT…is also a difference between the different levels of engagements of this hypothetical (and by this point incredibly silly) scenario.

wait, aren’t you the one that lament that this has turned into a dick measuring contest? 😉

;)[/COLOR][/COLOR]