Pinko…
Or are the PAC-3s supposed to be an inner layer against long range missiles that have made it past the SM-3s? Can PAC-3 handle a target like that?
SM-3 is designed to intercept ballistic missile flying outside the atmosphere. Then the missile which “made it past the SM-3s” must be a BM in your assumption. If PAC-3 is intended for ship airdefense purpose, and supposed to “be an inner layer against long range missiles that have made it past the SM-3s”, then the BM past the SM-3s must be an AshBM. To be an AShBM theoretically, the Re-entry Vehicle itself must be maneuverable, if the RV is maneuverable, then my 2 cents is the PAC-3 is not likely to handle it.
PinkoNot entirely Chinese, but EC175/Z15 Helicopter project is 50/50 shared by Eurocopter & Chinese AVIC II. Now, EC175 helicopter has already made its debut in Heli-Expo 2008 in Houston and seems the future is quite promising.
Eurocopter receives 111 intentions of purchase agreements for new EC175
02.28.08, 9:13 AM ET
PARIS (Thomson Financial) – EADS unit Eurocopter said it has received 111 intentions of purchase agreements from 13 customers for its new civil helicopter, the EC175, at the Heli-Expo air show in Houston, in the US.
The customers want to use the helicopters to transport staff to oil platforms or for search and rescue operations, Eurocopter said.
The EC175 has been co-developed and jointly produced with Chinese company Avic II. The inaugural flight of the twin-engined helicopter of average capacity is scheduled for 2009.
Eurocopter also received 120 orders for its other models, for which 90 customers were based in the US and 28 were Canadian. Of these orders, the group said 43 helicopters are to be used for emergency evacuations or public order, 21 for transportation of VIPs, 49 for tourism and seven for the oil and gas industry.
PinkoPAF to induct 8 JF-17 Thunder aircraft by year-end: Air chief
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=12464
KAMRA: The Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed on Tuesday said the PAF would induct eight JF-17 Thunder aircraft by the end of this year.
Addressing the launching ceremony for manufacturing of JF-17 Thunder sub-Assemblies, marking formal assembling of the fighter aircraft, at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed said around 60 per cent of the frame of the aircraft and up to 80 per cent of the avionics to be fitted in the aircraft would be manufactured in the country by 2010.
He said the PAC had plans to make the JF-17 Thunder the world’s first weapon system that will be able to carry all types of conventional weapons targeting from air to air, air to ground, air to sea and to pound from the air.
He said this state-of-the-art, multipurpose, light combat aircraft, would be a complete combination of fighter and a weapon system, which would also have optional capability to carry non-conventional weapons. He said the PAF would induct 150 aircraft in its inventory in the first phase, in accordance with the already signed agreement with the Chinese company, cooperating with Pakistan in assembling and manufacturing the aircraft.
“Still we will require some 100 aircraft, as the PAC envisages to take the yearly assembly and manufacturing capability of the aircraft from at present eight aircraft to 15, then up to 25 by 2011,” he said. Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed said: “All JF-17 Thunders will be produced in Pakistan as the PAC has achieved the capability to assemble, paint the frame and aircraft besides conducting flight tests.”
He said on March 23, (Pakistan Day) the indigenously assembled aircraft would take part in the fly past, a routine feature of the Pakistan Day parade of PAF. He said around 40 to 50 aircraft would have avionics of Chinese origin while in the next batch these would have indigenously developed avionics. He said in the next decade, the aircraft would be available for re-export through China and the share in the financial receipts would be paid to Pakistan.
After formal inauguration of the sub-assemblies of the aircraft, the air chief told media persons that the PAC in the next two years would achieve the capability to make the fighter a “warfare suite” that would match the needs of most of the countries in the sector.
He said the alphabets “J & F” included as title of the aircraft denoting “Joint Fighter” and “we will prove that this Joint Fighter is the best available in the market.” He thanked the friendly country of China for extending all cooperation enabling Pakistan to achieve the cherished goal towards manufacturing of a fighter aircraft.
He said the JF-17 Thunder was a living example of Pakistan-China friendship and this will help further deepen the bonds existed between both the brotherly and friendly countries. Terming it a landmark achievement, he said it is not only a source of pride for Pakistan but also a measure of rare distinction for the country to have joined a selected group of nations having indigenous fighter aircraft production capability.
The project launched in 2000 has already made major strides, including first flight of prototype in August 2003, then in April 2004, and on May 10 2006 with fully integrated configurations.
PinkoFound this news at DefenseNews.com
China Developing Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles
BY WENDELL MINNICK
01/14/08 16:06
Print this storyTAIPEI, Taiwan — China is developing anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) that could sink U.S. aircraft carriers responding to a Taiwan Strait crisis, a development that has some defense analysts and former U.S. and Taiwan government officials envisioning scenarios like this:
In March 2012, Washington responds to Chinese threats to invade Taiwan by sending two U.S. aircraft carrier groups toward the Taiwan Strait. Rhetoric out of Beijing and Washington escalates with threats and counterthreats, then open battle.
On the second day, Taiwan and U.S. fighter aircraft engage Chinese aircraft over the strait in what one Taiwanese pilot describes as a hornet’s nest from hell. On the third day, two dozen ASBMs sink the aircraft carriers and several Aegis-equipped destroyers and amphibious warfare ships, killing more than 18,000 U.S. sailors and Marines. In just under an hour, the Chinese inflict four times the losses of the Iraq war.
“Based on Chinese doctrinal and technical publications, among the more interesting programs has been research and development on advanced conventional ballistic missiles with maneuvering re-entry vehicles and terminal guidance,” said Mark Stokes, a former country director for China on the U.S. defense secretary’s staff and a former military attaché in Beijing.
“Successful deployment of conventional medium-range ballistic missiles, such as the DF-21C, as well as extended-range short-range ballistic missiles (SBRM), with terminal guidance packages, could hold at risk U.S. carrier battle groups intervening in a crisis.”
The DF-21C — the road-mobile Dong Feng 21C (East Wind) medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,500 kilometers — is the most serious threat to U.S. aircraft carrier groups approaching the Taiwan Strait, said Lin Chong-Pin, former Taiwan deputy minister of defense.
“The DF-21 can be mounted with five kinds of warheads, all designed with U.S. aircraft carrier groups in mind,” Lin said. “Parenthetically, the humiliation felt by the People’s Liberation Army [PLA] after the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis provided the greatest impetus for Beijing to acquire these capabilities that have been deployed since 2004.”
In March 1996, the United States sent two aircraft carrier groups to the Taiwan Strait area in response to Beijing’s threats. During the crisis, China test-fired several DF-15 (M-9) SRBMs in the waters around Taiwan and vowed to deny access to the area to U.S. warships in a future conflict.“The PLA and China’s defense industry has been focused on being able to deter or disrupt U.S. intervention in a Taiwan Strait crisis for more than a decade,” Stokes said. “Authoritative Chinese writings indicate that a fundamental requirement would be to deny U.S. carrier battle groups and their logistics support access to the area of operations. To do so, the PLA would need an integrated system of sensors, survivable communication systems, and advanced weaponry to achieve the desired effects.”
Artillery Corps
The People’s Liberation Army Second Artillery, the heart and soul of China’s missile command, has roughly 1,300 DF-11 and DF-15 short-range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan.
China also has the Russian-built SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles outfitted on four new Russian refitted Sovremenny-class destroyers in the Chinese Navy. The Sunburn is designed to overcome cruise missile defenses by rising above the target and slamming down through the deck of an aircraft carrier.“The capabilities described above constitute ‘deterrence by denial’ and should be viewed in a larger context of China’s deterrence of U.S. aircraft carrier groups in order to seize the island with the least bloodshed and physical damage,” Lin said.
The United States is not without options. The U.S. Navy is armed with Standard SM-3 missiles and attempts will be made to deny Chinese access to GPS during a conflict. China’s positioning satellites, the geosynchronous Beidou, do not cover the western Pacific.
However, Lin said China’s possession of an ASBM will throw a wrench into Washington’s decision-making apparatus on what to do about the eruption of a Taiwan Strait crisis.
“To intervene or not to intervene, that is the question. While the U.S. National Security Council is deliberating with hesitancy, the PLA can seize Taiwan with its conventional forces in a quick war of paralysis rather than annihilation,” Lin said.
“The still larger context which I have mentioned is that the top priority of Beijing on Taiwan is to ‘absorb without war.’ The military option is the lowest, but under aggressive and speedy preparation. However, even the military option has never been to ‘strike the U.S. and to destroy Taiwan,’ but rather ‘to deter the U.S. and to seize Taiwan’ intact as much as possible.”
Could the U.S. Intervene?
Stokes said a “question many friends in Taiwan have asked is whether or not the United States would intervene, should the PRC use force against Taiwan. As time goes on, it may become more of a question of could the U.S. intervene with sufficient alacrity before being handed a fait accompli.”
Paul Giarra, a retired U.S. naval officer, strategic planner and defense analyst, believes it is debatable whether the U.S. Navy’s visions for fleet ballistic missile defense plans will be sufficient to meet this threat.
“This points to a strategic-operational campaign of slow reduction of Chinese operational capabilities from great distance, over a considerable period of time, rather than a rapidly concluded attack from forward positions with the advantage of exterior lines of communication and freedom of the seas,” he said.“Since the Air Force sneezes when the Navy catches cold in the Asia-Pacific aerospace theater of operations, this Chinese capability thereby will make it difficult for the U.S. military to operate close enough to employ not only its naval surface fleet, but its land-based air power as well, Giarra said. Chinese multiple-warhead [anti-ballistic missiles] will necessitate significant technical and operational responses on the part of the American military.”
“While history does not repeat, it does rhyme. A Chinese ASBM scenario would appear to bring us back to early 1942, and the start of the long advance on Tokyo.”
PinkoThe Type 054A comes alive in the below video. It seems the Sea Eagle Radar of 054A is undergoing test? I roughly calculated the radar spines @ around 12 rpm.
PinkoThat image could be just taken by a handphone, and its quality is deteriorated at 1st place, for this simple reason along, both of you should come to realize there wouldn’t be a definitely answer of true or false.
PinkoWhat’s big deal, Gents? It’s almost certain that one J10 has crashed, thanks god, the pilot ejected safely. For a near 100 strong fleet that has flown for 5-6 years, only 1 crash is not a bad record at all, taking into account how many flankers crashed during its introduction time in PLA. It shows 1st, many units of PLAAF now received J10, 2nd, those J10s are in intensive training. Accident is inevitable especially during new fighter jet induction to the different units all over China. So whether that image is genuine or not is not important at all.
PinkoARJ21 finally rolls out:
PinkoPinkoLOL just some american idiot pretending to be pinkov…
His argument that he is somehow he’s not Chinese just because he recieved his citizenship is rather funny. If he check his passport it would state his place of birth to be China. Especially if he applies for any official documentation he would be listed as Chinese Canadian. Emphasis on the Chinese identity pretty obvious.
BTw because there is overwhelming presence of Asians in Canada that caucasians have aquired the ability to distinguish Chinese from korean, vietnamese and Japanese. No one is going to mistake him for Japanese even if he pretends to not understand Chinese.
Look at this thread debating about What Pinkov said nuclear strategic H-6K, you know it’s really himself in the debating with some Chinese forumers. You can see his previous point that H6K is possible a supersonic bomber was totally rebuffed upside down. And funny enough, in this page#68 post, Pinkov now says H6K is not a strategic bomber, but why in Kanwa, the title for H6K report is “China attains nuclear strategic strike capability”:eek:
PinkoPinkov taking on the Chinese BBS
Cobrato, you are both over estimating and underestimating the control Chinese government exercise over these people who take photos.
If you check the Chinese BBS regularly, there are only so many regular contributers, and they always gets unprecedented access to equipments and have terrific equipment to take these shots.
The photos are these days all watermarked with thier names and sometimes even QQ address to them.
Even if some of the photos are not leaked intentionally, those phototakers all IMO have been contacted by AA (GuoAn) people who let them know which photos can be released and which can’t.
That is why for example even there were at least 5-6 “regulars” present during 054A launch in each instance, and apart from a single very shacky video from a cell phone, there were zero photos release of them while during the launch off the slipways or from the dock. Only before launch and after launch photos.
On another note, the Chinese BBS is now going to watermark the words 允许平克夫盗用 (Pinkov allowed to steal this pic) on new photos lol. Talk about quick minds.
Kanwa editor Pinkov personally registered a handle in Chinese military board to face off the Chinese military community. :diablo:
http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=111603&fpage=1&toread=&page=1
PinkoWith regard to RD-93, while there was so much stuff appearing in newspapers, all we heard from PAF officials was that ‘engine is no problem…its between China and Russia’ and no other concrete evidence-based statements as we like to see. Well if i remember correctly PAF officials also stated quite a while ago that China would also buy as many FC-1 as PAF. JF-17’s numbers are very important when it comes to keeping the unit/maintenance prices low, and unless the two can come to an agreement about these in some other manner, i think PLAAF/PLAN would end up taking JF-17/FC-1.
Chinese internet source recently revealed two pieces of important news. The source like before and always, it’s not official, but if you stay in this forum long enough, you know such sources are more credible than many western media speculations. If without such sources, we wouldn’t have known J10 prior to its official introduction, J11B, WS-10A turbofan engine, “Yuan” SSK etc.
1st news is on Sept 25, 07, Chinese traditional lantern festival, the CAC’s FC-1 powered by indigenized WS-13 turbofan took the maiden flight.
2nd, a new multi-role J10 prototype powered by WS-10A also took the flight for the 1st time as well. Probably PAF will procure this version of J10 or at least as the backbone.
My view is if CAC can successfully power the FC-1( JF-17 in PAF service) with the indigenized turbofan engine, then we can expect PLAAF or even PLAN will place valued order, at this moment, we have seen the 1st sign that PLA and AVIC1 have taken solid step to induct FC-1 into Chinese airforce. If modified test flight of FC-1 goes smoothly in the manufacturer’s place (like what is happening now), you can expect the manufacturer will pass the modified fighter to places like CFTE for joint Army & manufacturer’s evaluation. From there, the PLAAF may finally place the order, but again, who going to fund it, there’s still no sign, the PLAAF is paying the money? Maybe at this moment, AVIC1 is the sole funding source?
PinkoF-22 is 20 year old technology. The next revolution in air dominance will be the Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of brilliant weapons at a distance of 9,000 nautical miles in less than two hours. (Google “Darpa” & “Falcon”) Targets will never know when its coming due to speed, altitude and stealth. Even if you have spies at the base when it takes off, you’ll never know where its going to strike because if its 9,000 mile strike radius.
No, at least people will know only who can have a such a platform to deliver such a weapon. :diablo:
PinkoWell, I think those parties willing to discuss JF-17 further could kindly open a new thread.
PinkoYou state that you have no interest in tanks, and only the “navy and airforce”. But, I find no credibility in your statement, as you still have the cheek to make such definitive statements about what tanks China rejects and who ends up with these rejected Chinese tank projects, as if you were a member of the central planning committee of PLA or its industrial complex. You see, an armchair expert like you can easily make such definitive statements, just by reading blogs and BS released by authorities, for public consumption.
As for why should you see the real thing, and avail an opportunity of sitting in a brand new fighter like JF-17, examining its cockpit, asking pertinent questions from the people who know? – I agree with you – why should it matter to you, or any one else living in virtual world – the reality belongs elsewhere.
Sigh, sitting in some fine stuffs doesn’t let you speak loud as far as I’m concerned, I have sat in various modern fighter jets but none gives me the same clue that I can learn from literature and talking to some really knowledgeable persons.
As to who’s life revolves around this virtual world? A simple count of your posts in various defence forums would testify to your existence in virtual world. It is your thousands of posts versus my 20 something in total. I shall let others decide.
Rather than getting off your backside and doing something real, such as checking out if the JF-17 (or J-10 for that matter) cockpit is actually as good as it has been made out by Chinese / Pakistani authorities, you would rather prefer to make definitive statements from the absolute authority of your armchair.
INFINITELY MORE than the speculative BS spouted by various armchair experts, living in their little virtual worlds.
I do not know, and NOR DO YOU. Armchair experts, spending their lives in virtual worlds, can only regurgitate what the authorities or manufacturers shoved down their throats.
Typical petulant answer when can’t focus on points. Tphuang’s many points obviously are not his own casual making up in his mind, he actually has spent time and efforts to do researches in various sources, both from China and overseas, in Chinese or English.
All I was referring to was, that it was no less than Chinese Premier / vice Premier, who had to make special trip to a tiny country of less than 10 million, begging for the return of Harpy’s that a country of 1.5 billion had bought, actually paid for, and were there for upgrades.
If China was so advanced that it could have developed something better than Phalcons, then why go beg, and get turned down by the same little country. And then, you having the audacity to claim with such exuberant arrogance that China gives its “rejected projects” to other countries. Come on tphuang, continue amusing us, but spare us your arrogance, as CHINA IS NO AMERICA YET. Let alone America, it is not even the aforementioned little country of 10 million yet.
How good a comment “let alone America”! Obviously everybody can judge who is more ignorant by saying only China is begging a tiny country yet got rejected, for your basic information, the American president or Secretary of Defense requested or “beg” in your term, that that tiny country to cancel the deal, but falling in deaf ear. The Beg from the world most powerful country resulted nothing until solid step was taken, that is: sanction Israel to the project of JSF. Exactly the same powerful country also purchases military stuff from you mentioned tiny country, is that a shame?!
China has been stopped from your “monkey” products, like toys, being exported to America. It is exactly these Chinese “monkey” products that Pakistan does NOT want in its post 1st batch JF-17s. And it is exactly the Chinese “monkey” products like the tank diesel engines, transmissions, fire control electronics that I found missing from Al-Khalid production line.
Man. You are the only one here who charges China selling monkey product, which obviously is not the case. The fact is as long as the customer willing to fetch out the money, the best stuff is always available. Chinese Avionic systems won 1st run is obviously a consequence of stiff competition of various vendors, including French/Italian/South African, NOT because Pakistan wanted to give China a chance! If you hold such a belief that Orders given to China is because Pakistan preferred Chinese, then you’re seriously challenging the PAF’s professionalism.
OK, if as you said, PAF doesn’t want the post 1st batch of JF17, so as reported, French systems will be picked, Yes, French brand is well established and meanwhile as expensive as their champagnes & Fragrances. Let’s have a close exam, French systems utilizes DIGIBUS instead of original 1553B, so dramatic modification of JF17 is mandate. Otherwise, no existing US or Chinese munitions is compatible. Or, one can always buy extra expensive “made in France” munitions, get expensive modification & consulting services, purchase expensive French spare parts and systems, and finally, find enough fund to maintain & operate an expansive hundreds strong fleet. Well, I fully trust PAF’s procurement will have a full picture in mind for the best interesting of PAF, and the final outcome will be quite surprising, as usual, for a China unbieliver like you.
BTW, China rejected project is indeed unnecessary to be bad for other small and middle size countries, if let Pakistan in the shoes of China, it may well reject some of its current ongoing procurement or projects as well when you are listed potential military opponent no 1 by the only superpower. Also, it’s a common practice for countries taking out the very sensitive & essential part of technology from its own use weapon when it exports. It’s for own national interests, but Tphuang mentioned” different” can be in 2 way, as taking JF-17 for example, some technologies used in the avionics & cockpit is indeed the latest to the Chinese relevant industries. So what Tphuang meant “difference” not necessarily to be “monkey”.
Sign In
