hallo84*YAWN*…excuse me….
Anyway…
JL-1 Warhead? From HobbyShanghai A.K.A HSH
hmmm I was aware that HSH is up again…
Since when were they off the black list?
hallo84Kind of looks like a towed array sonar without the covering.
Linear TAS array. Most probably the same one offered for export.
hallo84Why would you waste shooter assets tooling around looking for targets when their job is to get the missiles into firing position?.
Clarification…
PLAN and PLAAF does use shooter assets for recon. There are JH-7A and J-8H recon versions. Not exactly real time but still employed.
hallo84From the CDF 022 thread…
Not exactly my favourite PLAN vessel
Looking at the ASCM it certainly is atleast a YJ-82
looks to me like a air intake. my guess is its a yj-83.
hallo84There are somany factors in a China Us confrontation that complicates things much more than what is said here.
No one even stops to consider rules of engagement.
Is it realistic to assume that MPA will be engaged upon contact?
Unless the carrier battle group is not focused in the vicinity of Taiwan what is its purpose. If it is then the general location is rather limited in relation to its targets.
hallo84Canada apparently still do basic training in house maybe since we have such a small air force…
Primary flight training is done at 3rd CF Flying Training School at Portage la Prairie, Manitoba with 17 wing.
hallo84Cow manure.
Alaska… not US mainland
Washington is already giving Russian **** for even thinking about basing bombers in Cuba.
hallo84Ignore the JF-17, give the display team “older” J-10s with AL-31FN engines after reequipping their units with new jets with WS10s, and move on.
I’m sorry Ba Yi never get old planes. If I recall correctly, in the 3 times that they changed airframes all were new builds.
hallo84There are pictures of the gate guardian in the PLAAF speculation thread. I’m not too such about the Ba-Yi (August 1st) display team getting J10s. J10s seem way too new and valuable to be used as such and besides, the Ba-Yi only just got their custom J7Es a few years back so it just seems a little too soon to replace them.
It certainly is a possibility as the J7E is not the most sexy of machines and might not give the impression of modernarity the higher-ups want for the games. But a far more sensible thing to do would be to equip them with JF17s, as that will be much cheaper, the plane looks pretty modern and cool, the team would be helping to market China’s flagship export fighter and could push the plane to show its fully capacities and go displaying abroad without too many security concerns.
Didn’t they get the J7E five years ago?
Considering high G force we expect from a display team then wouldn’t you say the plane could be on the list to be replaced??
hallo84Development of new systems in china is probably less transparent than in Western countries. There’s no clear public budget nor is the development journaled with every test and every failure. Basically, i believe they work in silence, away from prying eyes, and when its done they show it off. Multi year or even multi decade development is still very much there.
you wish ever try getting funding in China?
It is not much easier than applying for funding in the US. Multi decade development (unless supported by hot shot project managers) end up in the dump faster than you can say wow.
hallo8416 passenger helicopter in 2011 is not in Mi-17/Ka-32 class. u need 30 passenger to match that with single engine power in emergency to lift loads to high altitude.
I am not even going into heavy lift Mi-26.
Z-8 has the same payload as Mi-17.
Z-15 as utility chopter
Or better yet just buy more AS332L2
god knows PLA already owns them.
hallo84how many do u have in operations?. If u had got Mi-17/Mi-26/Ka-32 license in 90s. By now u would have more than 1000 of them. u lost big time. Just Russia exported more than 1000 in mean time.
News for you.
June 11 (Bloomberg) — China’s military commanders said they
will push for the development of rescue helicopters for use
during disasters because a lack of equipment hampered their work
after the country’s strongest earthquake in 58 years…may need 1,867 helicopters worth $4.9 billion by 2013, according to the government’s forecast….
State-owned China Aviation Industry Corp. II agreed in 2005
to invest 600 million euros ($931 million) with European
Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co.’s Eurocopter SA unit to build
helicopters in China.
Eurocopter and Avic II plan to produce a medium-size
helicopter capable of carrying 16 passengers by 2011, according
to a September 2006 European Commission statement approving
French government aid to the project.
So basically Cheap Mi-17 doesn’t cut it anymore. PLA is going to get funding for better planes.
hallo84Poor ignorant fool. Never heard of “Operations Research” eh?
There ain’t nothing like paper wars eh? Operations research is a poor mans attempt to consider some of the factors of engagement and ruling out all others. This is not even the case here.
LOL. You self-contradictory fool. First you insist that BMs can be used against airfields, then you insist that PLAAF has no jurisdication over them and is used as long range artillery.
And using them as long range artillery only reinforces the conclusion that ballistic missiles cannot realistically be used against airfields.
If you can’t understand English then just say so. There’s no need for you to be a prune.
Read my reply again.
Again, brilliant display of your ignorance. Why do you think PAC-3s were purchased if not for use against ballistic missiles?
For the kick back and the brilliant explanation to the people that PAC-3 are needed to protect them against missiles. LOL
Considering that theres willfully inadequate amount of pac-3 to make a difference.
No, but the PLA isn’t as stupid as you. They understand the need for air and sea superiority, even if only for the duration of the assault. Air superiority is a basic requirement for amphibious operations because the enemy must be suppressed during the transit and landing phase.
PLAAF and PLAN is well up for the job. BTW only local air superiority(duration of the assault) is needed for PLA to attempt an attack. Missiles are just extra.
Sorry, practical SAM coverage from mainland doesn’t extend to Taiwan’s shores. And shipborne SAM coverage is still pathetic with only 2 052Cs capable of providing area air defense. Their capability to provide SAM coverage over land will also be degraded unless they have a system like the E-2D & SM-6 combination.
S-300 coverage piratically covers the whole straight. You can forget about attacking during the transit stage and with the advent of AAAV amphib PLA can launch an assault well beyond visual range of the shore battery.
LOL. Where did I say anything about ‘unlimited amount of fighters scrambled’? Please don’t assume others are as ignorant as you. I remember some poor idiot (hmm, who might that be?) ticked off by a canadian LCol. for thinking exactly that. Now that same idiot is trying to use the same lines as the LCol. LOL. Let’s have a quick look shall we?
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/political-discussions/5041-us-encircling-china-8.html
Too bad you don’t go back anymore. Too hot to handle eh?
I wasn’t considering the losses or C&C but rather just suggesting the concept of saturating the airspace as an obscuration before the main assult.
I was being polite and not wanting to argue with a mod.
An act to which you have no clue.
hallo84That was a response to claims by CIBs that Air Superiority could be achieved through SRBM attacks on airbases.
Very good idiots arguing with idiots. What a waste of time.
And we’re to take your word for it?
The whole assertion that you can use an equation to determine an out come of an engagement is absurd simply because there is so many factors you can not account for.
How can air operations be suppressed if what must be taken out to deny operations on the Taiwan side isn’t taken out? If suppression is to be used in a manner similar to that of artillery fire, which implies small quantities of missiles fired with each time over a long period of time, then that is equally pointless since Taiwan’s anti-ballistic missiles can intercept the incoming missiles and give a window of opportunity for aircraft to scramble.
ALL assumptions.
Look If it is a coordinated attack of BM and a follow up with fighter bombers then ROCA has little time to prepare for emergency scramble. BTW this is not how the missiles are envisioned to be used. You don’t even understand the basic principle that PLAAF don’t own the missiles and have no jurisdiction to call on them. The missiles are long range artillery to PLA and it will be used to soften landing zones or be used as coordinated attacks pre PLA push inland.
And no every military specialist agree with me that no missile will be wasted by ROCA to engage BM with dubious outcome. Missiles would be saved for engaging PLAAF fighters.
So you think China can conduct a successful amphibious invasion without aerial superiority? LOL. I applaud your stupidity. Too bad the PLA doesn’t agree with you.
And you are a military planner in the PLA?
No where have I ever read in any source which states PLA require full air superiority in order to strike. No only does this counter historic examples but also goes against quintessential PLA doctrine of achieving the political objective first whatever the cost.
Yes PLA will need to advance without air superiority but it does not mean PLA will be a push over to take out. PLA has its own air cover in the forms of SAM.
BTW in any aerial engagement in Taiwan will be dictated by the available airspace for air combat. Newbies like you always assume there can be unlimited amount of fighters scrambled but rather in reality only 40 fighters can safely engage each other in an area of 100km2
Which really means all 20 ROCAF fighters will need to engage the 20 PLAAF. Virtually none will be spared for bombing runs.
What makes you think there would even be a “second wave” of PRC troops left considering any amphibious lift is probably going to be part of that 70%? Of course, that’s assuming what he says can be relied on. You people only cherry pick what you want to believe from the Taiwan side.
Not cherry pick but a direct quote from the defense minister.
Yeah ignoring him is gonna help your argument… LOL
hallo84I personally would rate the Ching Kuo being higher than the LCA and FC-1
Only the upgraded version though. F-CK-1 has had quite a few nasty crashes and basically there was no funding available to fix any of them until recently.
Sign In
