PinkoCan check th Youtube for J-15’s footage
PinkoTypical newbie behavior, not obeying the story I am telling you, you are anti-x/y/z or nationalist. What’s new except the id?
Russian Experts ‘Unconvinced by Cheonan Evidence’
Russian Navy experts who assessed the South Korean investigation of the sinking of the Navy corvette Cheonan, concluded North Korea cannot with absolute certainty be held responsible for the shipwreck, according to the Yomiuri Shimbun.
Citing Russia’s Interfax news agency, the Japanese daily said although the Russians examined the hull of Cheonan and other evidence, they concluded it was insufficient to implicate North Korea. This makes it likely that Russia, one of the North’s few allies, will offer little support in the UN Security Council to action against Pyongyang.
The four Russian submarine and torpedo experts arrived in Korea on May 31. They stayed away from the media and left on Monday.
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/06/10/2010061001164.html
PinkoI’m sorry Pinko but its clear that North Korea sunk the Cheonan with a torpedo. Mr Shin might be earnest but his experience is not relevent to the investigation, he stated that he has two years naval service as a gunnary officer and practical knowledge designing bulk carriers. On the other hand the international team sent to perform the investigation had 24 experts in their field. Also whilst you might argue the US and Korean experts might well be biased what about the Australian, British, Canadian and especially the Swedish. Certainly Russian experts could of been included but they would probably of supported the findings. I have read Mr Shin’s letter and frankly its not worth the paper its printed on, a few conclusions drawn from some pictures and the confused testonomy of some crewmen. The international team had access to the Cheonan!
As for the Cheonan radioing that she had grounded, perfectly reasonable! It would of been extremely confusing for the surviving crew members. In the circumstances how do you expect the crew to know what was happening? Their ship had just been blown in half, hardly a time for reasoned or rational thinking by the survivors!
I’m sorry Pinko that guilt is clear backed up with concrete evidence examined by a team of people who have expertise in the field of what happens when a ship gets sunk by a torpedo.
Take it easy, I’m not here to convince anybody to accept certain result, just like I wouldn’t force Jonesy to accept the ASBM existence although we crossed fire for that for many years. Time will tell.
Mr Shin is the civil investigator who of course as member of investigation assembly, had the right to access the sunken corvette. Do you feel anything that written in Shin’s letter being an act of “spreading rumors” as accused by his homeland’s authority? Why the relevant authority is so panic about somebody who dares to ask some questions according to his profession and based on proven matters? The unfortunate fate of Mr Shin itself is not worth pondering?
If Mr Shin was talking torpedo attack, of course it may carry less weight, however, what he concerns about, the scenario of “Aground”, is every gram relevant to his expertise. He dares to list his doubts based on objective observations to challenge the authority, you can’t just keep flashing how expert the same authority is to waive the concerns.
Finally, It should be always a good practice to respect other navy’s professionalism, The crew on board the Corvette are not civilians, they are trained professionals with exclusive expertise on ASW as it’s one of the main task of a patrol vessel. Consider the strong current up to 6 knot and shallow water (lowest to be 6-7meters), a 1.7 ton heavy torpedo can’t keep in a depth and slow speed to avoid detection. It’s impossible the sonar can’t detect the heavy torpedo close in range and closer to surface. And the comment that the ship already broken into 2 but still being report as “grounded” because of panic is particular disturbing to the innocent professional servicemen some of whom even died of this tragedy. So the real truth is important for settling the souls.
PinkoIndeed Wanshan, actually people are assuming that the Torpedo was fired in some form of homing mode or at high speed just like in a war movie.
Torpedos can be set to run at several speeds and depths, you can also aim it the old fashion way with an angle shot setting the torpedo to run at a pre selected depth and speed with no homing whatsoever. Actually the way the General Belgrano was sunk. If the torpedo was running slow in litoral conditions its more then possible that the torpedo wasn’t detected.
No active sonar required by the launch submarine it just lays in wait at periscope depth calculates a shot and fires.
You’d better say it’s just a human torpedo will be more convincing, look at the terrain described in Shin’s letter to Hillary, you wouldn’t jump the gun so conveniently.
PinkoNo Pinko they dont. Those articles are scarcely credible. The only point made is some contention that the recovered torpedo propulsion section isnt a precise match to a very generalised set of schematics representing the NK weapon type. It deliberately ignores the fact that the recovered propulsion section appears at the same site as the location of a vessel destroyed by a large under-the-keel detonation.
The other vessels indicated – no less than 5 AEGIS destroyers wasnt it? – were not in these waters supported by SSN’s. 60-90ft depth is marginal for SSK’s and, in the Yellow Sea, very risky for peacetime ops with an SSN. I have a hard time accepting that they had 5 destroyers working those waters with the SK corvette. A credible source showing the involvement of those vessels in confined waters would be needed!.
1. The websites certainly raised some interesting points, for example, the Shin’s report, to me, that’s enough.
2. About your doubts on those Aegis ships, well, I actually had expected a more constructive reply from you, When those Aegis ships were questioned of being in the vicinity of the accident, and officially by a party which is named the culprit, there should have some counter evidence from the plaintiff, right? Why should the plaintiff keep silent in this matter? I’m not quoting an unreliable source but an official one just from the other side you don’t like. So, where’s you reliable source to prove that those Aegis ships are NOT around the Scene?!
PinkoI really respect your input Pinko but the source you have linked to is a rather paranoid conspiracy site.
The idea it conveys that the Cheonan run aground is laughable.
Too many loopholes in both hypotheses, so which one is more laughable will only be revealed until last moment.
There’re just too many inconsistences from the South’s investigations so far.
1. the early test results of the metallic debris and chemical residue appeared to be German made now have been omitted
2. The assigned civil investigator by Korean National Assembly, Mr Shin now raised more interesting doubts:
a. The timing of the accident is in controversy, 9:15pm or 9:45pm, as the timing could determine at what exact location the corvette broke. And that location’s water depth could be crucial to the consequence of aground or Torpedo attack.
b. The 1st message the crew of “Cheonan “ sent to HQ is “ Grounded” instead of “torpedo attack”, and HQ to coastal guard as well “ grounded”. Those are well documented by the 1st hand TV interview and report. You mean those sailors even can’t differentiate a torpedo attack and “”grounded”?
For the rest, you could read Mr Shin’s letter to Hillary Clinton,
http://www.seoprise.com/~bu/dk/Letter_to_Hillary_Clinton_US_Secretary_of_State.pdf
The team who investigated the sinking of the Cheonan was made up of experts from the Royal Australian Navy, USN, Royal Navy, Swedish Navy and Canadian navy. These navies are going to send people who really know their stuff and certainly be able to tell the difference between a ship that has run aground and blown up by a torpedo. Actually 4 of those navies have direct experience of sinking ships in combat conditions as well as simulated. We also have parts of the torpedo, in the end North Korea did it there isn’t any other way of looking at it.
I’ll not question their expertise but their ground? If they just want to come out a report to convince themselves or other numbers in the group, whatever they said is fine, because with or without “Cheonan “ accident, the NK have long been sentenced to death. However, if just because such a group tabled something then need the other party outside the group to accept, that I hv to say, if it’s the case, the same group should have settled the Korea peninsular with Chinese some 60 years before. There’re other experts in China or Russia, but they’re not involved.
PinkoWell, the bubbles starting busted
PCC-772 Cheonan: An Unacceptable Provocation by the United States of America and the International Community has a Duty To Respond
Posted on May 27, 2010 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton
The Sinking of the Cheonan: We Are Being Lied To
Posted on May 24, 2010 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-we-are-being-lied-to/
PinkoIIRC Cheonan was alone. One doesn’t normally patrol ones maritime borders with a fleet. And in any case, for it to be given useful information from off-board sensors those sensors would have to have a better view than the sensors on board Cheonan.
…
Further check revealed not only the small covette “sokcho” was there, but also the presence in the war games on the fateful March 26 night of four Aegis ships, the USS Shiloh (CG-67), a 9,600-ton Ticonderoga class cruiser, the USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54), a 6,800-ton Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer, the USS Lassen, a 9,200-ton Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer and Sejong the Great, a 8,500-ton South Korean guided-missile destroyer, most probably supported by US nuclear and South Korean German Type 209 and 212 AIP submarines.
If one small boat’s sonar didn’t work accordingly, what’s the hell of whole bunch of top tier sonar systems didn’t work as well?!
PinkoThe type of NK torpedo in questions, what kind of guidance does it have. Wire guidance wouldn’t be affected in an accoustically difficult environment. Perhaps wake homing not either.
Hasn’t the south already obtained a brochure that details the design of the torpedo involved? And conclusion is the explosion occurred near the engine room which was emitting the noise? If logic works here, all point to an acoustic homing torpedo known to the ROK Intel.
Wake homing Heavy torpedo? Consider the speedy current then and shallow water, I never know the north suddenly possesses such top torpedo technology available to mankind.
PinkoIIRC Cheonan was alone. One doesn’t normally patrol ones maritime borders with a fleet. And in any case, for it to be given useful information from off-board sensors those sensors would have to have a better view than the sensors on board Cheonan.
A sub sitting still & silent would be very hard to detect with passive sonar, & as already said, the waters where Cheonan was operating is fairly shallow, with many islands, islets & rocks. It would be very hard to pick out a mini-sub with active sonar in that environment.
The Cheonan sister boat: Sokcho was nearby, which was the one shooting at “flock of birds” after the cheonan’s sinking.
Not convincing too much is why the Corvette’s own sonar didn’t even detect the approaching torpedo and its survived operators couldn’t give 1st hand testimony of the confirmed torpedo attack immediately after the accident? You could have missed the u-boat, but could never miss a torpedo whistling that hits you. Well, in this regard, only a sentry on the island can testimony that he saw a white splash 100m high , which becomes part of evidence that included in the ROK’s official, final investigation report.
It’s unfair to just highlight how a modern sonar was handicapped in a complicated littoral environment while an ancient sound tracking torpedo could overcome all the same acoustic obstacles and accomplish a job so precisely.
PinkoIf J-XX will be operational around 2018, the maiden flight of its prototype should occur soon, probably early next year.
RPT-New Chinese fighter jet expected by 2018: US intel
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON, May 20 (Reuters) – China is building an advanced combat jet that may rival within eight years Lockheed Martin Corp’s (LMT.N) F-22 Raptor, the premier U.S. fighter, a U.S. intelligence official said.
The date cited for the expected deployment is years ahead of previous Pentagon public forecasts and may be a sign that China’s rapid military buildup is topping many experts’ expectations.
“We’re anticipating China to have a fifth-generation fighter … operational right around 2018,” Wayne Ulman of the National Air and Space Intelligence Center testified on Thursday to a congressionally mandated group that studies national security implications of U.S.-China economic ties.
“Fifth-generation” fighters feature cutting-edge capabilities, including shapes, materials and propulsion systems designed to make them look as small as a swallow on enemy radar screens.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates had said last year that China “is projected to have no fifth-generation aircraft by 2020” and only a “handful” by 2025.
He made the comments on July 16 to the Economic Club of Chicago while pushing Congress to cap F-22 production at 187 planes in an effort to save billions of dollars in the next decade.
Ulman is China “issues manager” at the center that is the U.S. military’s prime intelligence producer on foreign air and space forces, weapons and systems. He said China’s military was eyeing options for possible use of force against Taiwan, which Beijing deems a rogue province.
The People’s Liberation Army, as part of its Taiwan planning, also is preparing to counter “expected U.S. intervention in support of Taiwan,” he told the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
He said the PLA’s strategy included weakening U.S. air power by striking air bases, aircraft carrier strike groups and support elements if the U.S. stepped in.
Attacks against U.S. “basing infrastructure” in the western Pacific would be carried out by China’s air force along with an artillery corps’ conventional cruise missile and ballistic missile forces, he said outlining what he described as a likely scenario.
He described China as a “hard target” for intelligence-gathering and said there were a lot of unknowns about its next fighter, a follow-on to nearly 500 4th generation fighters “that can be considered at a technical parity” with older U.S. fighters.
“It’s yet to be seen exactly how (the next generation) will compare one on one with say an F-22,” Ulman told the commission. “But it’ll certainly be in that ballpark.”
Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s No. 1 supplier by sales, is in the early stages of producing another fifth-generation fighter, the F-35. Developed with eight partner countries in three models with an eye to achieving economies of scale and export sales, it will not fly as fast nor as high as the F-22.
Gates has argued that the United States enjoys a lopsided advantage in fighters, warships and other big-ticket military hardware. Some U.S. congressional decisions on arms programs amount to overkill, out of touch with “real-world” threats and today’s economic strains, he said in two speeches on the issue this month.
“For example, should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America’s military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds?” Gates said on May 8.
“Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?” he added at the Eisenhower presidential library in Abilene, Kansas.
Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, discounted the gap between the timelines cited by Gates and Ulman. He declined to comment on whether China had made enough progress since last July to change intelligence on the next fighter’s debut.
Richard Fisher, an expert on the Chinese military at the the private International Assessment and Strategy Center, said Gates’ decision to end F-22 production is proving to be “potentially very wrong.”
“We will need more F-22s if we are going to adequately defend our interests,” he said in an interview on Thursday at the hearing.
Bruce Lemkin, a U.S. Air Force deputy undersecretary for ties to foreign air forces, told the commission he had visited Taiwan twice in his official capacity and that the capabilities of Taiwan’s aging F-16s, also built by Lockheed, were not “keeping up.”
Whether to meet Taiwan’s request for advanced F-16 fighters or upgrade the old ones was still under review by the Obama administration, he said before Ulman spoke.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2117451920100521?type=marketsNews
PinkoProblems of J-11B powered by WS-10 turbofan engines are now solved, the J-11B are taking to the sky again.
No only PLAAF is taking J11B, even PLANAF will soon be doing the same.
Pinkogents there is no need to troll each other both are fine vessels, and both wouldn’t last a minute against a Euro-frigate or DDG-51 :rolleyes:
So, you guys have already migrated to MARs, I last time heard that MARS attack can destroy earth in one min :diablo:
PinkoFCU-17 naval gun fire control unit of 054 FFG, receiving target designation from ship combat system, executes integrated fire control of all naval guns:
It’s hard to believe the improved 054A FFG doesn’t have the same or improved sensor fusion that we found in old 054 or those 053s exported to Thailand and Pakistan.
BTW, Shivalik is a really gd and sleek FFG. Grad another developing nation also starts featuring sth that modern feeling.
PinkoWell, at least 1 thing can be confirmed now, the J-xx driver will have HD in-flight entertainment. Is that also counted as one of benchmark of so called 5th G bird? :p
Sign In
