crobatoMost probably Seersuckers or Krakens. The true Silkworms (HY-1) didn’t last long with both the PLA and in the exports. The missile the Western press calls colorfully as “Silkworms” are actually Seersuckers (HY-2) with an extended range due to the lengthened fuselage. The ones Iran fired in the Gulf are all Seersuckers.
However, you cannot rule out other missiles because both the Sadsack (HY-4) and the Kraken (YJ-6) are also based on the same airframe as the Seersucker. The YJ-61 is the last version of the Kraken.
crobatocant see the pic, the link isnt working.
It is now.
crobatoWhat exactly is this? The disk looks like a small focal plane radar antenna that fits inside a missile.
crobatoCrobato,why not make a bet with them abt J-11B? 😀
Useless. You cannot convince people who are already deadset on denial and would invent the most fallicious reasons to deny themselves the truth.
crobatoI’m not in any Chinese or US GAO so apparently I don’t exist too.
Hail almighty GAO, GAO is GOD, existance and truth determinate.
crobatoA GAO is one of the sources of information. Definitely better than PR and misleading info.
Does not refute that PR is also an important source of information, especially when admitting to something, and the GAO is not better source of information than PR. In fact, PR is a far more prolific source of information than a GAO, and for me, having some information is always better than no information at all. Will the GAO tell you what an F-22 can do? No. Biased as it is, PR still gives you far more info on the F-22 than the GAO. There is nothing wrong about putting something in the good light if it is good and justifies it. Does the GAO know more about the value of the F-22 than the pilots who have to fight in it? Certainly not. The GAO is nothing more than an accounting office, with an accountant’s view of things. What makes you think it can grasp military concepts and priorities? What is a better source of information about an F-22, the people who fly them, the people who built them, or the accountant trying to see justification of its costs?
As for Zhuhai, Zhuhai is invitation only. Sorry I’m not in the list. But it does not mean I don’t know what’s going on. And there is a lot of information on Zhuhai that is public knowledge, tons of pictures and articles.
crobatoThe Japanese don’t have any active AAM in service as they have not made clear the status of their AAM-4. A Hornet can carry loads of AMRAAM. The Japanese air force will be wiped out soon enough. Also, Japan does not have a lot of places to hide. Once your air force is wiped out, the navy goes next.
Japan loses, but not without a good fight and inflicting some significant casualties.
crobatoNo use arguing with a person bent on denial. It’s not even logical at all.
Which is pretty much what I can say about you and all those “ripple effects”. 😉
Ripple effects are facts. As real as a tsunami. By causality, the fact of a ripple effect means there is the reality of its cause.
As regards flying to the orient- so how many times have you even been to Zhuhai!
As regards the GAO- my point was clear- you have no first hand source of confirmed information, which is what even a GAO or whatever would be.
All the guesswork, all those personal attacks in the world- but hey, no attrition numbers for the PLAAF, as simple as they are.
PLA papers are a first hard source of confirmed—more like ADMITTED— information. So are corporate and institutional formal announcements. So are actual photographs. So are sat photos, sonar readings, etc,. As a matter of fact, intelligence gathering can be a lot more factual and comprehensive than the findings of a committee or oversight body which is still influenced by political, lobbying and ideological influences.
You keep fabricating in your mind that a GAO is the only source of confirmed information. It is not. HARDLY and not even close. You are only using the GAO as an excuse to deny the factual things that has happened. Do you need a GAO to confirm that Iran and N. Korea is working on nuclear weapons? Do you need a GAO to cofnirm that Iraq made chemical weapons? AS a matter of fact, the GAO isn’t even a first hand source of information—the information a GAO works is actually given to them by the military, political, and corporate bodies involved.
What is the point of bringing up attritional numbers of the PLAAF? What are you trying to prove? Still trying to compare them to the IAF? We do know crashes occasionally happen but we also know it’s impossible to catch every local newspaper that reports it so.
crobatoOk since you said it, so I’ll retire. 🙂
Crobato,
You’re quite wrong about that, since I’m in the US.
Which is exacly what I said. Far far away from the mainland.
And guess how many times I also fly to the Orient.
As China isn’t a democracy, it has no point having a GAO. And even if it has a GAO, the committee would still be bound in rules about releasing classified and covert information. Hence you’re back to square one again, since the commitee isn’t going to release stuff that isn’t known already.Which gives you no factoids to work with but only open source guesswork.
Open source is hardly guess work. You simply have no idea at all. What the PLA puts in their journals, books, what the government prints in the newspaper or shows in TV, is as much as ADMITTANCE as they are flag waving. They are not guesswork.
Pictures are certainly not guesswork either.
Actual events that happened are not guesswork. China stopping the kit orders, guesswork? Shenyang Liming announcing its major new engine plant is not guesswork. The mention of J-11B in PLA documents is not guesswork. The development of indigenous radar for the J-11 is not guesswork, nor is the development of indigenous engines and missiles.
They are certainly facts.
All I can say is that you’re just in denial. The point of you trying to make the GAO an issue is to make the GAO the sole source of factual information. Hardly at all. It’s also an abuse of the concept. The GAO does not choose or decide or control or is the sole source or orginator of reality. It’s just an accounting body.
No use arguing with a person bent on denial. It’s not even logical at all.
crobatoIn C&C Generals, those are MiG 1.44s.
crobatoTo put it plain and simple, the Russians believe in the furball and the low speed dogfight. The Americans believe the low speed dogfight and furball are not productive. The Americans love high exchange ratios 7:1 and better. This is accomplished best in small numbers involved in a dogfight and to keep the speed up.
Don’t generalize Americans. What you mean is the USAF. The USN still loves the furball and the low speed dogfight, e.g. Tomcat and Hornet.
crobatoYou’re quite wrong about that, since I’m in the US.
Yes, we know about checks and balances, but its also about politics and not about getting the job done. Oversight commitees in the US don’t necessarily reveal all details to the public (e.g. the 911 committee) in the interest of national security, and once you have stuff that is covert, you’re back to square one, which is speculation.
As China isn’t a democracy, it has no point having a GAO. And even if it has a GAO, the committee would still be bound in rules about releasing classified and covert information. Hence you’re back to square one again, since the commitee isn’t going to release stuff that isn’t known already.
crobatoOnly *one* J-7 crashed that entire year?
Like I said, we didn’t catch other newspaper reports. These things are like catching fish. You have to be there constantly to catch the news or they will pass you by.
C’mon Crobato, the PLAAF journal would stress upon the positive aspects of the PLAAF. Pretty similar to what the USAF official sites do with the USAF. Show me an unbiased report which points out the +/- of the J11 in PLAAF service. Not just the PR work here and there. I am sure there are some around?
It does not matter what the journal stresses. It mentioned the J-11B by name, admitting that the designation and the plane exists. Didn’t talk anything else. By implication, there should be a “J-11A” also.
As for the Su-27SK/J-11, everyone knows they had constant maintainability problems, poor support and occasional engine mishaps. On February 2004, it was reported that an Su-30MKK had engine problems. The PLAAF never made a secret of these problems. When the Kilos in the PLAN were called “Su-27SKs of the PLAN”, it wasn’t meant as a complement.
Excuse me, but the GAO *does* affect weapons development programs. It breeds transparency and can have developer claims brought back to reality. Overwatch is essential. Furthermore, in the context of the discussion, the GAO provides accurate data about the status of a particular program, without ifs and buts. In India the combination of the CAG and the PAC give a good overview of the relevant programs and by law the PAC’s reccomendations carry a lot of weight. This is not an India vs China comparison, but merely pointing out how important oversight is.
Oh, one bureaucracy watching another. How quiant. In the US, the GAO is heavily criticized for breeding ‘bean counters’ without essentially understanding the strategic issues involved. As they say, leave military policy to the accountants, not the generals.
Finally! A honest admission there! Much like in the FSU, many of the reports and “analysis” that goes on using them can be based on incorrect assumptions or half known facts. Many “analysts” spent a lot of time describing the T80 wondertanks etc, the reality was different.
You are talking about capabilities here. No one disputes that the T-80 exists. We don’t know the full capabilities or specs of the J-11B, we only know it exists.
“Chinese internet discussion” may accept a lot of things, but unless they are backed by solid, credible data- they remain speculative.
The J-11B is backed by solid credible data. It has been officially called by name. The J-11 with WS-10A has been been photographed and an account of its first flight was published. Shenyang Liming has announced the completion of a major new plant to manufacture a new engine. China has stopped importation of Su-27SK kits. J-11 radar is being tested on a Y-8 testbed and this has been photographed. A model of an Su-27 hangs in Shenyang corporate office with PL-12 missiles.
China will reveal this plane in due time when its ready, but it has left an obvious trail behind for anyone to follow.
crobatolong back I had punctured a huge hole in the “there is no comparison” theory propounded by GoldenDragon in the civil aviation subcontracting arena by posting from indian sources pretty much the same components being made in India under subcontract from abroad as the massive list he had posted from china.
Needless to say he never crossed my path again.
Are we to believe chinese base security is soooooo poor that any tom , ****, harry
can regularly crawl around in the bushes and take high quality photos of ‘secret’ a/c that arent even shown in their premier airshow.
That’s the common line for many Indians who wants to play denial about such pictures. making them appear like they’re intentionally propaganda and by saying so, think they can disappear.
Pictures are pictures, does not matter where they came from or how they were taken.
Many of the pictures are taken inside CAC and appears leaked from within CAC. If someone is doing propagandizing it seems people in CAC are doing it. J-10 pictures are however no longer classified since about 2002. Magazines and CCTV are even showing it. Just so long as you don’t leak technology information, you’re fine.
Many of the pictures are taken outside of CAC, with planes in landing approach. Urban development has long overtaken the city of Chengu and CAC company—factory 132 was built there in the fifites formerly because it was harder for the bombers of the Soviet Union and the US to reach it. Now modern highways crisscross the area, and hardly anything is isolated anymore. There is a park near CAC, and planes are often seen, including J-10s. Not related to the J-10, all the pics of the A-50I AWACS were all taken while the plane(s) are in landing approach or takeoff, with one picture on the ground, which appears to have been taken from a highway.
Unless you put your development in a remote desert, you cannot hide your aviation developments as sooner or later it will be seen in the sky. China does have a place in the Gobi desert when they test planes, but that’s where they test other planes, not J-10s.
The fault of the government of China is keeping it a secret. By so doing, only increased people’s curiosity about them. If Chinese government came clean with these developments in the start, there won’t be a lot of people trying catch shots. Look at the sheer number of photos being laid on the DDG 168 while it was on the yard. When the ship finally became official, the number of shots decreased.
So yeah, Chinese base security has lapsed, being outdated it could no longer keep up with the sophistication of the Internet and digital devices, while supposedly isolated factories and bases are overwhelmed by crowded urban development and modern highways that crisscross once green forests. China has outgrown its security apparatus, even when such apparatus becomes desperately needed like in the control of SARS.
crobatoThats what I said, your reliance on open source can only go to a certain extent.
It’s still valid enough to know that one J-7 crashed for the year.
Like I said, the way you depict things is your prerogative. However, you cant testify to anything with certainty, since you dont have access to first hand sources or even officially certified reports. You can do a honest bit of guessing, but thats where it stops.
There is no guess in the actual mention of the J-11B in a PLAAF journal, and the successful test flight of such last year, all of which are official. The building of a new engine plant by Shenyang Liming is official. The cancellation of Su-27 kit deliveries to China is official. We know for a fact that the J-11 flew with WS-10A engines, that was official, complete with pictures.
I dont speculate and when I do, I make sure that to indicate that its my opinion. On the other hand, I see many claims made about China without the certainty to back them up.
The stuff I mentioned above are official and has happened.
You are the one having trouble believing in them. I don’t see the point of you mentioning your GAO, I mean does such a body ever really affects outcomes of weapon projects in Europe and the US? We don’t need the GAO in the US to tell us if there are problems in the F-22 for example.
A lot of stuff in China remains speculative because of secrecy and the sensitivity of such reports. Much like what happened in the Soviet Union. So you do the speculation/analysis game. But all speculations begin with a seed of fact. A piece of evidence that leads here and there.
the speculation on the J-11B did not arise from a vaccuum. It arose from a whole pattern of evidence and reports, some of it were official. Speculation is actually a wrnog word for it now; it is now accepted as existed and fact in all Chinese internet discussion.
Sign In
