dark light

Haleyoneshoemak

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 421 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: ¡iPIC¡jNew Chinese J10B(twin seats) #2676993
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Originally posted by SOC
    If you produce the design yourself,
    it is indigenous. If someone else then takes that design and copies it,
    their product is not indigenous.

    On a serious note:

    By the standard given, I guess then that it is agreeable that while
    the J-4, 5, 6, 7, & 11 are copies (though serious modifications independent of MiG
    has been made/added hence)
    that the J-8s, 9s, 10s; the A-5 Fantans; the JH-7/FBC-1 i, ii, & iii;
    the JF-17/FC-1s, and many more, are “INARGUABLY INDIGINOUS”…

    Am I right or what???

    Or, might you have other ingredients
    that you would like to throw into the nay-Chinese-brew
    to make it “STILL” as otherwise???

    Yes! Where do you draw the line between
    birds that fly and items known as Beagles which just
    won’t accept second best for an answer :)???

    in reply to: China to aquire Tu-22M3 backfire?! #2678117
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Originally posted by SabreAce
    Oh goldendragoon, if it were’nt for those crappy russians, you would’nt be where you are today. I see a pattern of deluded nationalistic chinese and a few indians, trying to diss russian tech in lame attempts in trying to prove that they are better today! 😀

    Alternately, if it weren’t for the “P-39 Airacobra” which gave
    Stalin’s aviation industry it’s kickstart; and if it weren’t for engines from
    Rolls royce; MiG and Suhkoi likely also wouldn’t have existed.

    And, if it weren’t for that very first
    Salamander that crawled out of the swamps and into land, I doubt
    if you yourself would’ve existed also.

    So, where DO you draw the line???

    in reply to: China to aquire Tu-22M3 backfire?! #2678124
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Re: Re: Wasnt a good idea to buy Backfire

    Originally posted by PLA
    The US has continously tracking of every submarine in the world. Dream on.

    Interesting…

    Were they (US) the one’s who had
    informed the Japanese that a Chinese Ming class snoop sub was sneaking
    near their waters not too long ago???

    No wonder it had to surface!!!!

    in reply to: China to aquire Tu-22M3 backfire?! #2678127
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Originally posted by Vympel
    with sub-standard anti-ship missiles not worth the bother.

    Hmmm… You could have fooled me there…
    Because, I thought US Office of Naval Inteligence had predicted otherwise… The liars!!!
    Time to fire them all for making silly statements like that!!!!

    in reply to: China to aquire Tu-22M3 backfire?! #2678145
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Originally posted by Multirole
    “The Sum of All Fears” must have just hit theaters in China.

    “The Sum of All Fears”

    Actually, those backfires won’t even get within a 100 miles of
    those CVs, if it was for real. I mean do you really think that the USN, or the Chinese
    theatre goers, are really as simplistic as Clancy had portrayed of them???

    Don’t be silly!!!!

    in reply to: China to aquire Tu-22M3 backfire?! #2678162
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by xanadu

    1) Werent there some posts
    around in another thread that suggested that Russian tech was
    no good for the Chinese anymore?
    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    This is how I look at it: Picky picky picky them there Chicaps… :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:???
    I mean not happy with their Toyota Celicas??? And, wanting Mercede Sportsters instead???
    Who do they think they are anyway!!! Appetites, appetites, appetites…

    2) The Tu-22M3 is one mean bird.
    The Indian lease for four of these beauts is tied to the Gorshkov but
    they should get here eventually.

    Good for India!!! Incidentally, didn’t Putin throw in a CV freebie as well
    as an added incentive to lock-in the agreement??? Now, that’s what I’d say the Chinese
    should be learning from India — mastery in the art of wheelin’ and dealin’!!!

    3) The aircraft is able to penetrate
    enemy air defences at different flight altitudes and
    speeds, depending on its kind.

    Didn’t America show the world that if the defense
    perimeter of an opposing force has been decapitated that anything and everything
    can fly almost at will and almost anywhere it wanted???

    Hey! I’m no Westley Clark. So excuses please if I don’t make it to the Generals quarters!!!

    in reply to: China to aquire Tu-22M3 backfire?! #2678566
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Re: China to aquire Tu-22M3 backfire?!

    Originally posted by zheng1980
    Recent visit to Russian Test flight center Zhukovsky by People’s Liberation Army defense minister has stired up a rumor that PLAAF or the PLAN is to aquire the backfire. Chinese Feng Huang channel has openly suggested that Tu-22M3 and the Mig-31 may be on the new weapons purchasing list. Many Chinese military forums has also discussed the possibility of purchasing the back fire.

    Anyone here have anything to say on this issue? and any fellow Chinese here can tell me how this rumor started?

    With the JH-7, the Su-30’s, etc., etc., on the payroll, I doubt the
    Tu-22 would surve any real purpose anymore. The element of surprise now days is stealth
    and that’s not quite on the Chinese buffet table just yet.

    http://bbs.china.com/images/2003-12-28/10725981612003122717411335486.jpg

    For all others, with good air cover, the above would do the trick:

    in reply to: To Usher in The New Year… #2678571
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Originally posted by SOC
    Is that supposed to be a specific airbase they’re illustrating (minus the currently non-existant Chinese A-50, of course)?

    >>>Is that supposed to be a specific airbase<<<

    Beats me! As said previous,
    I call it only as I see it. And, without the politics of course. Hence my
    train set of olden day reference…

    in reply to: J-10 Comming Soon, 4 squadrons by 2k5 #2679199
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Originally posted by SOC who is the USN likely to go to war against in the near future? Nobody with any operational stealth aircraft necessitating an F/A-22 type response, that’s for sure.

    Hmmm… interesting thought!!!

    If so, then why the need to pour so much
    bread into it??? Weird logic, No??? Is this only your perception
    of how things are or is this officially USAF???

    By your account, the USAF
    wouldn’t even need F-117 and other stealth technology now.
    Is that what you are saying???

    in reply to: J-10 Comming Soon, 4 squadrons by 2k5 #2679469
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Becasue the F/A-22 won’t always be able to be there to defend the US Navy’s carriers.:D

    F-22’s verses Future F-18 Variants:

    For your information: This supposed Boeing contract was
    for the Hornet to fly the USN deep into the 2020 time frame. Or that was
    the theme of it all anyhow. Therefore, what we are talking about is an F-18 variant
    far superior to that of even the latest F-18A Super Hornet.

    And the question arising is this: Why won’t they put all their eggs
    into a navalized version of the F-22 basket instead of embarking on an all new F-18 copy
    supposedly more advanced than even the F-18A Super Hornet???

    I mean don’t you think that it would be more logical to
    concentrate on stealth technology instead since that’s what the future will be
    instead of having to concentrate on F-18 upgrades???

    Remember: if stealth have its way, none-stealth would become a thing of the past???

    An abstract thought here:

    If we question the legitimacies of the JH-7 because of the J-10B,
    then, wouldn’t this same line of questioning apply to the authenticities of the F-22 verses
    that of the super F-18 deal that Boeing was supposedly awarded???

    Just a thought!!!

    in reply to: J-10 Comming Soon, 4 squadrons by 2k5 #2679835
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Originally posted by plawolf
    and if u paid a little bit more attention to the subject, u would have realised that the ‘naval’ J10 in question is alot more then just a land based J10 with a landing hook, some anti-carosive paint, and maybe stronger landing gears. it is design to be a twin engined fighter instead of a singel engined a/c as is teh current J10. the difference between the J10A and the naval J10 would be much greater then the F18A~D and the superbug, and how long did it take to design the superbug? and we havent even talking abt pilot and ground crew training time yet.

    It was quoted today in CNN’s news brief banner
    that Boeing has just been awarded a huge contract to “UPGRADE” the
    F-18A Super Hornet for future incorporation to the Navy.

    But, “WHY” the need to do
    that when they have F-22 they can rely on as it’s
    fighter of the 21st century????

    Weird indeed!!! But, doesn’t it sound
    similar to the question raised here not too long ago
    concerning the JH-7 verses the J-10B???

    in reply to: Step aside, FC-1. Here's comes the FTC-2000!!! #2680102
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Originally posted by SOC
    No, it’s BASED ON the F-16 to an extent, just as this aircraft is based on the J-7 to an extent. Look at the aerodynamics. Examine the plan views of the T-50 and the F-16.

    By golly… Now, you are trying to tied the
    paper airplane to that of the sophisticated modern day a/c and
    it’s all because it was the first to take flight :)…

    Why? That’s like saying man owes its flight to the
    birds and the birds owe their flight path to the featherly dinasaurs
    of the Gerasic period, and so on and so forth!!!

    Where does life have its beginning and where will it draw the line??????

    And, it’s all because what we are dealing with here is Chinese stuff :),
    which, ironically and interestingly, the T-50 hence becomes that more supereror and
    considered that more uniquely and genuenly more distinctly indiginous…

    Yes, how convienent indeed!!!

    in reply to: Step aside, FC-1. Here's comes the FTC-2000!!! #2680166
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Originally posted by seahawk
    If you take a look at the intakes in the first pic you would see that is not an FTC-2000. At least not a variant that could fly …

    I’m no expert on the science of aviation and I don’t claim to be. Subject thus open for disscussion.

    in reply to: Step aside, FC-1. Here's comes the FTC-2000!!! #2680183
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Originally posted by SOC
    Eh, who knows? They are after all the Undisputed Masters Of FISHBED Reconfiguration! 😎

    Masters Of FISHBED Reconfiguration:

    I’m sure the ChiCaps 🙂 appreciates the vote of confidence and take it as
    a compliments, OC. After all, how many nations in this world have the ability, or the gift to make such
    outlandish reproductions — even if Masters Of FISHBED Reconfiguration!!!

    Can you think of anyone remotely as gifted with same, OC???

    in reply to: Step aside, FC-1. Here's comes the FTC-2000!!! #2680201
    Haleyoneshoemak
    Participant

    Originally posted by Arthur
    That model on the top pic doesn’t look much like the FTC-2000 at all. What the FTC-2000 mockup has shown is that it’s basically the fuselage of a MiG-21U/JJ-7 with a slightly raised rear cockpit mated with the nose and intakes of the FC-1. The nose on that model seems far too long, and the intakes look more like those dodgy scabbed-on ones of the sort you can see on the Kiran or HAL’s IJT.

    http://www.people.com.cn/media/200211/04/NewsMedia_219145.jpg

    Actually, the top pix shows how the FTC-2000 can be dressed up in its
    full combat gears — as jet fighter. I have a Buddy who is super in the Chinese
    language; he went through the article together with me; and he said the whole article
    itself is purely about the FTC-2000’s many functions which are as follow:

    a) as a trainer
    b) as a trainer/fighter or
    c) as a full fledge fighter

    Try Babblefish if you are
    in doubt or if skeptical that the top pic is
    that of the FTC-2000.

    And now — to Mushroom Cloud: 🙂

    As said: Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder….
    And that means that to some people, that anything/everything Chinese
    is either MiG-21, reverse engineered, copied, helped or assisted by people
    other than that of the country the item itself has originated…

    “How so convienient it is 🙂 !!!”.

    And, the T-50 an F-16???

    Yes, the T-50 is indeed a cool plane. But, saying that it’s an F-16
    is streaching the imagination a wee bit, don’t you think? I mean, by golly it’s almost not even
    supersonic!!! Therefore, definitely no sell there friend. In fact, and if I may say so,
    it’s not even in par with that of Taiwan’s IDF never mind the F-16…

    What then, is the T-50???

    In terms of capability, try categorizing it as an updated 21st century A-4 Skyhawk instead.
    And we all know that the Skyhawk is a first rated first class A/C because of its size in comparison to the load
    it can carry. And that means it indeed is a killer among planes but still no F-16 if you ask me!!

Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 421 total)