hallo84Laughtable BS…yeas…and yet you claim that, in your own words 40m long and 12m wide ship is bluewater combatant….Just for curiosity, could you point out which other similar size ship is classified as such or have similar roles like you wish to give the type022?
Length of ship actually tells nothing about its sea fairing ability.
If you look at commercial Crabbing boats that brave the worst seas in the Bering Sea then you’d notice a lot of ships are in that size range.
hallo84Does anyone read about the new pentagon report about china? They keep stating (like in last year) that the DF-31a ICBM is fielded. However no one has ever saw photos or images of that missile. In fact there is no report of that missile ever been tested. There are even reports that its predessesor (the DF-31) was only sucessfully tested once (in 2006):confused:
We have seen new longer 16 wheel TELs. The question is if there is no missile then why develop a cart to carry one?
hallo84A company with close links to Beijing might be operating it, but China does not control it.
For example, see how long the canal will remain in Chinese hands if the PRC tries to prevent non-Chinese shipping from using it. On the other hand, if Uncle Sam decided to take control of the canal, there isn’t much China can do to stop it.
There is a big difference between ‘ownership’ and ‘control’ when strategic assets are concerned.
I never stipulated that China would deny use of the Canal but rather US has no legal basis for limiting the use of canal. Legally they have no control what so ever.
I don’t see how Uncle Sam can take control of the canal short of declaring war. In which case it isn’t about who controls the canal but rather a new diplomatic row in South America.
hallo84That is the really interesting question. They can either use large tankers and make a several thousand mile detour around South America, or they use rather small tankers that fit the Panama channel (which is USA controlled). For China Venezuela is somehow a useful allie with its socialistic attitude, however, China does not show any system preference when picking its allies (different than the Soviet Union during Cold War). China must consider that in case of a major crisis with the USA, the oil shipments from Venezuela are the first to stop (cause they are so easy to interdict by the USN).
Hun? get your facts right. Panama canal belong to Hutchison Whampoa which is a Hong Kong company that have close dealings with PRC.
effectively it’s under Chinese control.
hallo84JH-7A Low level flight.
Seems pretty low… I can see a shadow.
hallo84I wonder who come up with the idea of China-specific missile…?
India test fires submarine-launched ballistic missile
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India_test_fires_submarine-launched_ballistic_missile/articleshow/2817645.cms
27 Feb 2008, 0034 hrs IST,TNN
Print Save EMail Write to Editor
NEW DELHI: India on Tuesday tested its K-15 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) from a submersible pontoon launcher off Visakhapatnam, amid some indications that the test was “not fully successful”.
Sources said the missile, which has a strike range of 700km, did not meet all the pre-flight parameters laid down for the test conducted from the launcher submerged under the sea just before 1pm. On being contacted, DRDO officials refused to say anything, holding that only M Natarajan, the scientific advisor to the defence minister, could clear the position over the test-firing of K-15.
“A test like this, even though from a pontoon launcher and not an actual submarine, generates an immense amount of data… The exact position can be given only after a detailed analysis,” said an official. It has taken around 10 years for India to even come to this stage of testing an SLBM, which has remained the preserve of the Big Five countries – US, Russia, China, France and UK.
DRDO chief controller Prahlada had told TOI earlier this month that this test would be the final test of K-15, which would then be ready to be integrated with the “mother ship”. The “mother ship”, of course, is a reference to the three indigenous nuclear-powered submarines being built at Visakhapatnam in the 25-year-old ATV (advanced technology vessel) project, which will overall cost around Rs 20,000 crore. The first of the three 6,000-tonne ATVs, each designed to carry 12 vertical-launched nuclear-tipped SLBMs, will be ‘ready to go to sea’ for trials by early 2009.
It will, however, take two to three years for the two-stage solid-fuelled K-15 to be integrated with the first ATV and then be test-fired from it.
When this happens, India will finally achieve its long-standing aim to have an operational ‘nuclear weapon triad’. India already has Agni-I (700-km range) and Agni-II (2000-km-plus) ballistic missiles, as also the Agni-III (3,500-km) which has been successfully tested only once so far, as the land-based nuclear deterrent. Fighters like Sukhoi-30MKI and Mirage-2000s, which can be jury-rigged to carry nuclear weapons, constitute the air-based leg. But the absence of nuclear-powered submarines, armed with the capability of fire nuclear-tipped missiles from under the sea, has been a gaping hole in India’s strategic capabilities.
The first test of Agni-III missile in July 2006, incidentally, had flopped miserably. Though the second test in April 2007 was successful, it will take at least three to four tests more for this China-specific missile to be fully-ready.
hallo84Reminds me of a primary school I visited in the 1980s that had the latest thing… a desktop computer. It sat in a box in the corner of a storage room. Everyone went in and had a look at it and at the photos on the box but no one knew how to connect it up properly or how to use it.
What I was thinking when I read what you said Flex, which for clarity I have quoted above, was that having a netcentric plane in the Indian Navy is a bit like having one fully networked computer. The clear problem being that net centric planes are not much use on their own and need a network to operate within that includes other nodes that can take advantage of the information field created by the network.
It seems fairly clear that the Indians want to proceed with this deal… and if urgency was a criteria perhaps the lesson they can learn is spend less than 10 years negotiating the deal down to the last dollar and it might get done quicker. Of course it is a lot of money to be spending but if you want to be in the carrier business then that is never going to come cheap. Also the Russian shipyards need to take some of the blame as well… perhaps things like inflation and desperation to get work might have clouded their judgement too.
Does IN have similar projects along the lines of PLAN Y-8X network maritime patrol to provide for network nodes and target AQ?
Or does Ka-31 AEW provide some degree data linking?
Is there a common data link for IAF and IN so there is coop between land based air assets and naval surface assets?
hallo84thanks for putting up that chart. in any case, based off those figures, it seems that the J-10 is definitely a tad longer than the F-16C.30 and a bit heavier in its empty weight
Which in it self is another projection. Janes don’t have exclusive access to the plane, Neither does combat aircraft or air force monthly.
These numbers is just guesstimated on F-16 stats.
man I wish that when Gen. Pace asked to see J-10, Plaaf did show him. Then we wouldn’t have so many accusations now.
hallo84Currently there is no accurate way to predict debris formation. No one can predict the shatter pattern and trajectory of all pieces. All we have are some simple computer generated simulations based on best case scenario. Note the one in thousand chance that this stunt can bring down the ISS. Plus NMD has enough flak of being a space weapon. Now pentagon is going to prove it to the world for being exactly what people suspected. LOL what morons we have on capital hill. Virtually eliminating any moral high ground when they criticized the Chinese.
hallo84Since the Chinese aviation industry was as lame as their tank builders then it was either built off Soviet assistance or it never happened. The Chinese leaders of that period didn’t take such risks. They wanted something simple and proven – nobody in the Chinese hierarchy would of stuck their neck out on a unique creation.
People here have no idea of history or is intentionally ignoring it to further their lame argument.
During the period of J-8’s conception China and USSR was in tough relations. It was the only time PRC declared a state emergency and all levels of government to be dispersed within the public in order to prepare for all out nuclear war and yet people here still manage to lament on imaginary soviet assistance. mind boggling…
hallo84Yeah yeah Crobato in the comunist world you do not see that several factories built parts or equipment for others, since they are not capitalist enterprises but state owned the name does not matter, they will build equipement even if it is not made originally by them, this can happen when the original maker has over demand and under capacity to manufacture.
In fact see this
.
Founded on 29, June 1951, SAC is one of the backbone enterprises in the AVIC (Aviation Industries of China), CorporationⅠ. In the past half century, ever since its foundation, SAC is in the forefront of the manufacture, design and development of aerospace vehicles, including the first China-made jet fighter aircraft F-5, the first China-made jet trainer aircraft FT-1, the first China-made supersonic jet fighter aircraft F-6, the first China-made ground-to-air guided missile Red Flag No.1, the first China-made double Mach number jet fighter aircraft F-7, and the first hi-altitude and hi-speed fighter aircraft F-8.Wholly independently developed by the Chinese, the last 50 years have seen SAC building more than a dozen types of aircraft numbering several thousand , thus making a contribution of great importance to the build-up of China’s national defense, for which, SAC is known as the “Cradle of China’s fighter aircraft”.
http://sactrade.en.alibaba.com/aboutus.html
They say they have built several dozen types of aircraft in the last 50 years not only J-8, MiG-15s, MiG-19s even the F-7 a product by Chengdu;)
Shenyang Aircraft provided assitance to the Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation (HAMC) and Xian Aircraft Company (XAC) for the production of the H-6 (Badger) under a licensing agreement from the Soviet Union. Shenyang Aircraft provided assitance to Nanchang Aircraft for the production of the Q-5.
Did you ever work for the Chinese industry at the time? You speak as if you live and work there but have no clue of the infighting between different institutions. i can say for a fact Shenyang did not contribute any substantial help to Harbin or Xian as you so claim. The trouble isn’t in holding intellectual rights but maintaining the superiority of the plant so as to receive preferential treatment in distribution of funding and gov’t consessions.
You would never see a Sheng Yang engineer ever working on a Harbin project simply because he’s paid for by Sheng Yang not Harbin. His hukou is in Shengyang not harbin. He would only give pointers on how to run a hanger and provide technical expertise if needed due to the fact Harbin is new at the game.
Similarly Shengyang would not be producing Yak-18. period.
hallo84i think with the right tactics its perfectly plausable that the j-10 can get one over the j-11 in DACT, of course pilot skill is a big helper too, if the j-11 guy only had 500 hours logged and the j-10 pilot 2500 hours while not a garantee of winning it certainly helps to have the experiance advantage. I would imagine the j-11 has the advantage in BVR combat not just because of its sensor fit but also due to its (i presume) energy advantage, essentially flying faster,higher due to more fuel to eat it can get into position easier.
It’s the other way around.
J-11 pilots log way more hours than J-10. They had the flankers ever since early 90s while J-10 is just beginning to appear in regimental force.
Energy advantage? You mean top speed… But J-11A have twist cassegrain radar instead of the pulse dopplar on J-10.
Only the J-11B have an advantage over the J-10 in the size of radar, avionics(colour MDFs and wide angle holo hud), recent EW suit update and newer datalink suit.
hallo84Please man, undertand this, in all the things of what i read about chinese aviation i see the Russian presence all the time in fact almost every project you will see Russian presence in one way or another, it is too much of a coincidence that both aircraft look similar even to the degree that they followed and mirrowed the development of the MiG-21 and MiG-23, after the MiG-21 the Russians attempted to build the Ye-150/Ye-152 and the Sukhoi T-5 what does China do? well after the MiG-21 they developed a copy at least in concept of the Ye-152A, and later the copy the MiG-23 in the J-8II.
yeah that is what i call original thinking, the Ye-150 in Russia was a further development of the MiG-21 and the chinese did the same with their MiG-21 copies.
The R-11 that powers the J-8I is the same engine that powers the Ye-152A so it means in terms of power plant both aircraft used similar inlet arrangement and technologies, so the Ye-152A is not far from the same design of the J-8.
If china did not copy Russia in the J-8 the Ye-152A why then the J-8 has not a different design for example VG wings, shoulder mounted wings, but not we find that the J-8 mirrows the Ye-150A so you like it or not the Russian sources that claim relation are as speculative as your stand in the J-8 because having the same engine both aircraft share at least some technology
apparently you have no idea that there was multiple designs for J-8. The stretched J-7 design was most mature and safe.
When the J-8 was in the works, Sino – Russian relationship was **** poor…
I don’t know how your Russian assistance ever came into being considering Moscow was planning to nuke Beijing. LOL
hallo84disputes over little rocks which usually go unnoticed by Europeans in their own disputes.. are very explosive in countries like China, Korea, Vietnam, etc. I feel that such nationalism will continue to create much distrust between neighbors preventing them from seriously going anywhere on a major military project together.
Not when there’s oil deposits underneath these “little rocks”.
Plus these islands have political and strategic value.
Asia is composed of countries with total disparity in size, wealth and influence. Working on equal terms is just about impossible.
hallo84Dear All,
I really need your help!! Did anyone of you known the exact type of this a/c? I don’t know if this a/c is part of the Chinese AF. Picture taken at Zhuhaï (China) on November 1996.
Thanks for your help!
Chaïka12
Chinese superlite aircraft from a somall corperation in the city of Xia Men. haven’t yet caught on my the masses.
Definately not PLAAF funded, just play things for the wealthy.
But private aviation in China isn’t that easy to get into. PLAAF puts a lot of regulations on operations and flight routes. Most airspace is still restricted for military use only.
You’d see more private yachts than these.
Sign In
