GoldenDragonTo TinWing:
Why the J-10 and LCA? Why not the J-10 and the T-50? Why pose a question that you know will result in a flamewar?
There is hardly any connection between India and China. They’re in different regions and has almost NOTHING to do with one another.
Why not discuss the Taiwanese, Korean or Japanese industries in comparison to China?
The Indian industry has absolutely no impact on any product on the Chinese sales list (K-8, Y-12, J-7, FC-1, Y-8, etc.) It’s neither a rival nor competition, not even in the aviation markets of neighboring Sri Lanka, Burma and Bangladesh.
So what reason is there to compare India to China and vice versa?
The J-10 doesn’t officially exist and the LCA is a non-entity in the aviation world. It’s the shadow versus the irrelevant.
GoldenDragonThe XF-85 Goblin
GoldenDragonim dislexic so spelling and putoation isn’t so good
No prob, Harry. Sorry, I didn’t know before 🙂
so most of the g8 eu could perform the assalt on the falkland islands. is it relinet of ship born power?
As far as the G8 is concern, only the US, UK and probably France can conduct that invasion. Russia in better times could. Probably not today.
The other G8: Canada, Japan, Germany and Italy won’t be able to do it. Each has capable enough navies in its littoral but doubtful they could support an assault and then supply the troops afterwards.
could a small contrey like austrailer at great cost win or its it more relinet on LPH, LPD and aircraft carriers, would japan be able to win as well i know there a self defence forece but should they be capable of wining.
Australia can invade islands the same size as the Falklands around its littoral. It can’t conduct an invasion of the Falklands against Argentina.
GoldenDragonDon’t be silly GD, The Fish would sink Collins rather than it’s assigned target.
The Aussie navy have any old straight runners left? You know, the reliable kind that the RN used to sink the Belgrano.
GoldenDragoni was thinking as it was near the 25 anerveriery which other contreys exluding the USA and and UK could france, italy , spain fight a falkland style war agaiset an modertly powrefull contery ocpping a small island.
would any other contery apart from the uk and usa
Hey I’m no stickler for proper grammar but fully two-thirds of that short paragraph was mis-spelled. I felt I had to comment after reading that. It was like an online equivalent to nails on chalkboard.
GoldenDragonThis is my point exactly. If you deal in research or you deal with lawsuits – you must have data/facts to back up your statements.
I already backed up my statements with overwhelming proof. I listed them.
China was threatened by nukes THREE times and not in a retaliatory second strike manner that the USSR was threatened with. China had NO nuclear weapons in all three instance.
That was just the hard evidence. Threats were make towards an Asian country which did not have nuclear weapons. No threats were made on an European nation except as retaliation in a nuclear exchange.
In American court, circumstancial evidence is enough to convict because smoking gun is very rarely there. There was proof positive of American racial policy towards blacks and Native Americans and other non-whites. In fact, in that very point in time, the US had Jim Crow’s laws.
If we have a trial of whether the three direct nuclear threats issued to a non-nuclear China was racial and the mountain of circumstantial evidence of American racial attitude affecting policy would end in a conviction.
Because beyond just the nuclear threats to China, the US supported both France and the UK, who were obviously in the wrong in holding on to their colonial possessions, over the native peoples in both Asia and Africa. Those were clearly evidence of racial preference.
Again, evidence of the “blood is thicker than water” mentality which exemplified by American Commodore Josiah Tatnall when he broke neutrality and fired on the Chinese during their fight with the British at the Taku forts.
Don’t talk “law” with me when I’ve brought evidence after evidence of obvious American mistreatment of non-whites. All of these are circumstancial evidence enough to convict.
But even beyond the circumstancial evidence, I already gave you the smoking gun. The three threats on a non-nuclear country which are exactly the same modus operandi of the Native American genocide. Out of proportion threats leveled at a non-white people who was in no position to even threaten the US in turn.
In court, it would be a slam dunk.
GoldenDragonPros
– make exactly what you want
– be independent of foreign suppliers and the pressures they can exert
– create jobs
– may earn some money by export
Jobs and sovereignty are the main ones. As a revenue maker, an aircraft industry is a non-consideration. It’s a money sink. Only after you spend tons building up an industry do you have a chance to recuperate some costs by exporting.
Also, exporting for countries like the former USSR, China and the US has more to do with political influence than making money. Selling aircraft (and other weapons) cement ties with the militaries of foreign countries.
Then there are countries who build or attempt to build their own aircraft because they are under embargo and have no choice. They are forced to develop in isolation with whatever they had when the cutoff began. Those are the most interesting industries!
It’s fascinating to see where Iranian aviation (based of some of the best US technology around when the embargo began) would go.
Cons
– probably cost you a lot more money than buying off-the-shelf
– may end up buying hugely expensive fighters but inferior to foreign competitors
Money is always a concern in whatever development scheme (military or otherwise.)
There are only a few aircraft manufacturers in the world that can build end to end and in volume and those are the P5 of the UN Security Council. Most countries pursuing home programs end up buying critical pieces from those nations as well.
A truly indigenous industry that can survive total embargo is few and at this point in time, limited to the P5.
So the cons of money and resources expenditure is almost universal among the 180 odd countries in the world.
Small to mid-sized countries like the Netherlands, Poland and Czechoslovakia could equip its air force with mostly indigenous fighter types in the 1930’s.
Even until the 1930s, a large percentage of frontline aircraft were made of canvas and wooden frame. A world-class force like the Royal Navy was flying a bi-plane which was good enough to death blow the Bismarck‘s rudder with a torpedo.
The airplane was not that much more sophisticated than a car back then (in fact, some of them weren’t when compared to American cars like the Packard 😀 )
All that changed during and after WWII.
I’d appreciate if anyone could enlighten me if the Dutch had ever toyed with the idea of developing an indigenous _JET_ fighter after WW2 and if there had been a voice within the IDF or defence industry that called for more Kfir fighters instead of importing more American ones.
Cheers,
Sunho
Holland had one of the great companies in military aircraft history – Fokker. Builder of some of the most dominant fighters during WWI. It was lapped by the US, UK and German companies in the years between wars.
After WWII, it basically concentrated on prop passenger aircraft. It licensed built a few Brit planes (Meteors, Hunters?) and the F-104 but not homegrown designs except for a series of trainers.
The jet age basically changed everything for the smaller countries, even very rich ones.
Sweden is an incredible exception to the rule. 8 million people (a country with a pop the size of New York city) creating a first class aviation industry. But it does have access to American engines, ordnance and technology running the whole gamut.
GoldenDragonNice comparison, Cabbageman. The IDF on paper should have a higher top speed.
The prototypes and initial production machines (when I was following it in the mid 1990s) went mach 1.2 for top speed not sea level. It was widely blamed on the engines.
BTW, the Hsing Fung AShM was designed and tagged as a major weapon for the IDF not just the A2A suite of the TC I and II. It carries three of the AShMs. The anti-ship mission is just as important for the type.
GoldenDragonSink it with a torp from a Collins. Let’s see if that thing works.
GoldenDragonMach 1.2? I think that’s a bit low.
I’m pretty sure it’s mach 1.2. I’ve been following the F1Ck since the mid-90s. The low speed was major concern. Maybe the engines are more optimized recently.
Then again, I’m remembering things from years ago on the a/c. Twas an exciting time for Chinese enthusiasts when it came out.
Mach 1.7 is what I’ve seen from most sources, and when you think about it, that makes sense.
The F-CK-1 is very similar in design to the Hornet, and when you compare the intakes the airflow going to the engines combined with a similar TWR ought to give it a similar top end speed to the Hornet.
Not really, if you have heavy engines with weak thrust, similarities in design goes out the window.
Designing a brand-new fighter that only does Mach 1.2 (when non-afterburning aircraft like the Super Etendard does Mach 1.3) doesn’t make much sense.
The design (like the F-18) was actually pretty good at carrying ordnance. Which was why it performance degraded little with a full compared to the M2K and F-16. But you can’t top speed with just design you need thrust.
Mach 1.7 still doesn’t outperform your J-7 in speed so don’t worry about it. 🙂 (By the way cool avatar…make me one of the F-4…lol)
Probably pretty close when both are fully loaded and fueled. Fully swept deltas, even tailed deltas degrade rapidly with load. Though the E and PG with the double-delta probably carries weight better.
If I find time I’ll post a F-4 lobbing a Genie nuclear AAM, how about that?
I too am confused about the lack of power argument when the F-CK-1’s two engines make the same amount of power roughly as the Gripen, and the aircraft is at the same weight.
Need to look that up to be sure.
GoldenDragonSo how does the IDF compare to an agility contest with the ROCAF’s own F-16 Block 20s and the Mirage 2000-5?
Not too good. At least not if all three aircraft were tested under clean flight conditions. The F-1-CK is underpower compared to the F-16 and Mirage 2000. But so are lots of other aircaft. The Falcon and M2K are at the upper end of the evelope.
The engines are Garrets and probably more suited to attack and trainers. But there’s two of them which compensates, I guess. Top speed is low at Mach 1.2 but under full load its perfomance supposedly does well comparatively.
GoldenDragonI guess that attitude disappeared when we went in to help rebuild Japan, right? Japan ended up having more modern manufacturing facilities than a good deal of the US.
The attitude had definitely moderated in the 1960s. More so in the 1970s when Nixon went to China. Even more in the 1980s and 1990s when KFC and the NBA began cracking the Chinese market and here we are today in the new millenium talking as equals 😀
Come on, Sean. You’re Irish. You’re one of us. A child of the formerly oppressed. When Jonathan Swift wrote a “Modest Proposal” in 1729, your people were treated as animals as mine were from the 1840s to the 1960s.
So attitudes and mores, happily, change over time. Still, it is downright silly to ignore the conditions of the past.
GoldenDragonWe had nukes, China didn’t, so threatening nuclear attack made sense from a strategic point of view.
Interesting point.
Iran, North Korea and every other third world nation had better get nukes FAST because the US only threatens those without nukes. :rolleyes:
It pretty much validates all the reasons why every single country should get nukes if what you say is the accepted American course of action.
It’s not or else the US has absolutely no legs to stand on during the current talks with North Korea.
It is obvious that threats to China during the 1950s was a result of American attitude towards Asians in that point and time. It is not the attitude of the US today. Or I hope not.
We had nukes, the USSR did too, so threatening to nuke Eastern Europe made little sense, didn’t it?
Come on, Sean :rolleyes: Everyone knows that it is intrinsically wrong to threaten a non-nuclear nation. It is against everything the US stands for: the powerful threatening the weak is always wrong.
Americans ALWAYS supported the underdog.
Except when it comes to another race. This is why it was okay to threaten the weak Chinese with nukes. Why it was okay to bomb the crap out of the Vietnamese (two million dead from a “police action.”) Why it was okay to kill off the American Indians.
COme on Sean, you’re a smart guy. You’re not a demagogue. You know what I say is intrinsically true.
Man! 😀 All this over a very simple statement that American attitude in the 1950s allowed American leaders to threaten nuking China three times.
GoldenDragonNuking anyone was pretty acceptable in the 1950s as we didn’t have a full understanding of the effects of radiation, or the concept of fallout. Why you think this was a racial issue is beyond me.
:rolleyes: All I said was that the attitude of the times made nuking Asians an easy thing to do. Just like the attitude during the 1800s allowed the mass murder of the Sioux and Dakotas.
Again, it had nothing to do with China being Chinese or Asian. They were Communist, and McCarthyism was alive and well.
If you want to be naive (or selectively blind,) go right ahead. During the great period of American freedom (post-Civil War,) the US killed Filipinos while taking over those islands from Spain and murdered Chinese along the waterways of China itself during the colonization drives.
It was the attitude of the times.
There is no way that the racist attitude that allowed Jim Crow did not have the same affect on the US government.
It did.
And we see it when China was threatened with nukes three times by US leaders. No explicit threat of nuclear strike over a conventional fight was ever issued to an east European country. Only the hint of retaliatory strikes if the US was ever nuked.
With China, the US nuke threats were strictly over Chinese conventional actions in Korea and Kinmoy and Matsu.
Deliberate nuclear threats to China over CONVENTIONAL actions:
1. 1950, MacArthur open threat to nuke China over Korea
2. 1953, Eisenhower open threat to nuke China over the Taiwan Strait
3. 1958, Eisenhower open threat to nuke China over the 2nd Taiwan Strait crisis
China had no nuclear arms during that period.
Name the presidents who threatened to nuke a non-nuclear-armed East European nation.
You can’t. Because it never happened.
How many of them did we run over with tanks…
:rolleyes:
Try 33 million Chinese who were killed after the US and the UK and the rest of the West began its invasion of China in the 1800s.
Were it not for that invasion, there would be NO communism which, lest we forget, is a western invention. Without the white invasion of China, there would be no scourge of communism in China or the rest of Asia.
BTW, also try the 500,000 in Indonesia who died in a CIA backed pogrom against Chinese ethnics.
GoldenDragonLika, you have a fantastic collection of pictures!
Sign In
