When i was in China in 2001, i’ve been in a town where they were just having elections for a municipal government. I’ve also seen a Falung Gong demo in Beijing – no police rallying against them, even though they were watching.
If you consider the PRC to be a repressive dictatorship, i suggest people visiting Singapore. I know in which one i would enjoy most freedom…
Also, people tend to forget that it lasted until well into the 1980s before the RoC actually became a democracy. Prior to that it was effectively a semi-military dictatorship under the Guomindang, with occasional repressions of student uprisings not unlike the Tienanmen incident (the same is true for South Korea until only some ten years ago). The freedom on Taiwan is a very recent one, and the PRC is definately heading in the same direction.
There is a huge difference between people who’ve been to China and still be critical like Arthur. And those who are simply anti-Chinese because of some Cold War illusions like Grey Area.
The PRC doesn’t want war with Taiwan and most Chinese see themselves as a third world power under pressure from an US that is intent on separating China from Taiwan.
Most Chinese believe that given time, the two nations will be united in one form or another. As long as there isn’t an outright declaration, there won’t be war.
This is in spite of US intervention that separated Taiwan from China in the first place.
Now, PII, why did you bring up this subject? Do you want a flamewar?
Taiwan/China always brings up the worse from Chinese speakers on either side of the strait and from Cold War Americans and Britons who go on their tirade about “evil” Chinese.
Newsmax also reported that there were 800,000 (yes, eight HUNDRED THOUSAND) PLA troops in the Sudan.
A “news” org of right-wing numbnuts.
Oh yeah.
Thanks for the COOL J-10B picts, Hyperwarp!!!
Looks like the deal was never finalized indeed. Instead, it appears that China ordered only a number of A-50I without the radar, on which the Chinese will fit their own radar.
I believe the system datalinks not just the J-10, but also the J-8II, J-7s, JH-7s, SU_30MKKs and SU-27s.
As posted earlier in this thread:
“in entire operational period F7E and Su-27 8-2 closes the airborne radar approach, guides the medium range spatial – spatial missile interception invasion goal by JH7.”
If that post on a recent exercise is to be believed then at least some of the JH-7s, Su-27s, J-8-2s and J-7Es are already datalinked.
Note on the Chinese AWACS projects, according to the Chinese boards, the A-50I was declined no only because of the Phalcon and the current IL-76 based roto-dome project in Nanjing. But also because of the Y-8 AWACS projects, especially the “balance-beam” which supposedly had been successfully tested since 2001. The Y-8 AWACS projects include as many as four versions based on the Y-8 transport.
Because of the need for large numbers of aerial surveillance and control over water (out of range for ground radars which serve the PLAAF,) the Y-8 projects have Navy funds and Navy specs. They are looking for an AWACS system that can be mass produced.
Hmmm, the nose isn’t one of the 8xx family.
I would guess it’s a C-611 or related family member.
Take note, especially, of the rear section of the blue shelf. The shelf is separated into different control surfaces acting like a tailplane.
This is basically taking the biplane concept to the modern age. Two major lift areas, one on top of the other.
It would seem exceptionally maneuverable with the canard and all the different lift and control surfaces.
But strangely, it’s designed as a two-seater which means strike craft (or maybe trainer.)
So the main purpose of the shelf is probably for maximum load, lift and short takeoffs and landings rather than simply maneuverability. Because of this, I think the CY-1’s designer, Superwing, is angling for the PLAAF’s Q-5, light attack market.
top
view
The CY-1 won’t be using just its canards to control its flight. If you look just above the wing and behind the canard (in the first CY-1 picture), you can see a blue control surface. That is what it is supposed to use to control its airflow and manouvre.
Edited for clarity
Yes, it is a very interesting concept. The following two photos from older photos give one a better view of the lift shelf.
The Viggen was a very advance plane for its time, considering that it first flew in the late 1960s! It’s the forerunner of today’s canard deltas. (Of course, the second generation Swedish delta canard, the Gripen, also beat the other canard-deltas to service.)
It’s amazing how far ahead the Swedes were considering the small size of its population. If you look at Sweden’s need to operate planes in a harsh condition and a small budget – because there is only so much you could tax 8 million people, no matter how rich they are – you could see that they are forced to designed planes that are robust, capable and easily maintained and inexpensive to run.
CY-1 is actually a concept design forwarded by a new group, SuperWing 😀
It is not part of CAC who makes the FC-1 or any of the traditional Chinese design houses.
The CY-1’s main innovation is the large lift surface that hangs above the wings and runs from inlets to tail like a shelf. They have control devices on this shelf and can effect high maneuverability and short takeoffs and landings. Fisher reported that SuperWing have made a flying scaled model and the PLAAF has expressed interest.
SuperWing is too new and untested to have any effect on FC-1 decisions.
GD,
I always wanted you to do me a J-8II (complete with PL-11 and PL-8’s) and an F-4E (with AIM-120 & AIM-7 plus AIM-9).
How come you didn’t? 🙂
Because it’s always hard to go back to old projects 😀 I tend to model things that interests me at a particular time. Like something new like the Saeqeh.
But since you asked for a F-4, here’s my old low-poly F-4J (I tend to like) 😀
Maybe I’ll hang a few AIM-7s and sidewinders on it when I rework it.




The PL-4 was designed as the main weapon of the canard delta interceptor J-9. Both projects began in the 1960s and were intended as a pair.
Both the original J-11 and, of course, the tiny J-12, the smallest jet fighter to carry AAMs (3), were designed as regular fighters and would have used the PL-2. In those days, there is a clear divide between interceptors and fighters.
The J-9 was canceled in the 1980s in favor of the parallel J-8. Actually, it was the J-8II that made the J-9 project redundant (the revision to side intakes allowed a large radar for the PL-4.)
The PL-4 was canceled soon after. It was considered a successful project but took so long because of the Cultural Revolution that is was obsolete after its first batch. China decided to arm the J-8II with a second gen western SARH missile, thus the Aspide.
I think it would be safe to model the J-11 with a PL-2s, Deino 🙂
Here is an interesting item.
The ad poster for the J-7’s HUD.
I believe that is a mockup for the proposed J-8IIM cockpit. I’m pretty sure I saw that before.
I will be looking forward for the saqeh80 😀
It would be extremely interesting to see how much the Iranians are able to build along the lines of western technology while being isolated. When the break with the US happened in the late 70s, Iran had among the best the western technology of its time, the F-14, AIM-54 and the AN/AWG-9.
So it’s a great experiment of a country developing technology along its own line. They’ve already fielded a F-5 derivative and a homegrown trainer already and i would guess the saqeh80 will be derived from western tech too. The Shafagh seems to be the one project that is Russian related.
Someone get a picture of the saqeh80 and I’ll model it 🙂