Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 05 Aug 2015 12:59

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 593 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2014 09:42 
Online
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 12886
Link to last page previous thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5784&start=6640


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2014 10:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Jul 2014 20:27
Posts: 407
World Tank Biathlon

it seems chinese have brought 4 tanks according to this http://www.ecns.cn/2014/08-06/128120.shtml , one lost its track as of 2nd stage . They have brought tanks of same type in last years peace mission 2013 held in Russia so is the confidence for fielding their own tanks in this biathlon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Aug 2014 13:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Jan 2002 12:31
Posts: 362
Tiered Border Defence against China


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2014 19:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 May 2014 00:15
Posts: 2339
Appreciate China’s Big New Seaplane

Quote:
A good deal of polite Western snickering met the announcement that China was on the verge of building large seaplanes–an “old technology”, scoffed the haters, whose “heyday came and went with the demise of the Pan Am Trans-Oceanic Clipper”.

But at least one Chinese aviation commentator dispensed a bit of wisdom for the doubters:

“The old saying ‘A thousand days the country nurtures its soldiers and all for one day’s battle’ applies to the development of amphibious aircraft. People say such equipment is becoming useless, but will eventually realize they are indispensable in maritime operations,”

The lesson is pretty clear–don’t dismiss old-looking tech.

And he’s right.

What looks like a useless piece of equipment to many of Washington’s vaunted hunters of “fifth and sixth-generation opponents”, is, in reality, the poor man’s MV-22. When fielded, these big amphibious planes will do a darn good job of disrupting the modern maritime battlefield.


Tactical Inovation

Amphibious aircraft make a great, cost-effective means for littoral power projection.

Seaplanes also offer a great way to start building a corps of operators prepared to intuitively understand the speed and range advantages (and the attendant weaknesses!) of MV-22.

Seaplane users are not encumbered by prior rotary wing doctrine. And I’ll wager that seaplane drivers will grasp the utility of the MV-22 far faster than, say, your traditional rotary-wing expert (Observers have seen just how hard it has been in the United States to get the U.S. Marine Corps, the primary MV-22 customer, to really understand that the MV-22 isn’t a 1-for-1 replacement for a helicopter).

I mean, why do you think Japan “gets it”, and is moving so quickly to adopt the MV-22? I think that having been a long-time seaplane consumer (using Shinmaywa US-1a’s and US-2s to service and patrol dispersed island holdings) has a good bit to do with it. It is a better conceptual match. Yes, the MV-22 remains a pricey, high-tech and high-maintenance platform in comparison to the average seaplane, but it is arguably a better–and more utilizable–1-for-1 replacement for the seaplane’s niche mission.

Strategic Utility

There are also a few strategic components here that are worth considering.

First, the adoption of old-tech platforms is a neat means of exploiting a traditional U.S. habit of mirror-imaging and overlooking history. Call it a form of third-world stealth–employment of old-school tech almost guarantees the West’s vast intelligence-gathering and threat-detection infrastructure will dismiss the anomaly and pass on to more “exciting” targets.

Think about it. Before news of China’s South China Sea dredging projects broke, I discussed America’s failure to intuitively grasp the value of island holdings–by rejecting, out of hand, the potential for countries to engage in massive feats of environmental engineering, transforming reefs into airfields and harbors. I mean, who in the West, in this day and age of environmental regulation and environmental impact studies, even thinks of such stuff anymore?? And, well, guess what? American policymakers were taken by surprise when China set about terraforming their reef holdings.

What’s crazy is that the United States did exactly the same thing in the ’30s, ’40s…to the ’60s. America shouldn’t have forgotten. But Washington did.

That initial failure to appreciate history lost American policymakers an opportunity to get ahead of the South China Sea problem, shifting from crisis response into actively getting about seizing the initiative.

You see, American observers sure didn’t appreciate that Johnson Atoll, Tern Island, Midway, Wake and many other advanced Pacific Island airstrips built before World War II began as humble seaplane base dredging projects.

The spoil from those seaplane bases ended up making pretty serviceable airstrips (All that excess coral had to go somewhere, right?). Tern Island grew from a reef to an airstrip of just 30 acres, but it was a darn useful thirty acres.

America’s oversight contributed to what seems like another round of hasty, poorly planned reactions to Chinese provocations–I mean, is anybody really surprised this seaplane announcement came on the heels of a hasty request for a moratorium on development in the South China Sea?

If U.S. analysts had appreciated the historical trends in island fortification and development, America could have started managing the challenge. There were plenty of opportunities. When word started filtering out five years ago that China was developing large indigenous seaplanes….well, let’s just say that it was something of a mighty big “tell” and a sign of what was coming.

American South China Sea policymakers should have been alerted right then and there.

(Other tells just might also have been the recent surge in friendly Chinese investment in seaplane companies throughout the world–particularly after China’s tiny amphibious fleet suffered a “training” crash in 2013. My assumption is that China needed a little glimpse at how other folks were shaping their amphibian’s unique and tough-to-engineer landing surfaces.)

But that’s just water under the bridge.

And now, big seaplanes are getting ready to enter the Chinese arsenal–operating, certainly, from those nicely dredged channels around some of China’s seized South China Sea “sea features/future airfields”. So….get ready for more South China Sea fun, because these seaplanes offer some interesting disruptive potential.

Here’s what they offer:

Trial production of the TA-600 aircraft, formerly known as Dragon-600, will start in Zhuhai, Guangdong province, around the end of this year or the beginning of 2015, as the design has been completed, said Fu Junxu, a senior manager of China Aviation Industry General Aircraft, a subsidiary of Aviation Industry Corp of China, the country’s leading aircraft maker.

Fu said contractors will deliver large parts to the company before the end of this year, and the aircraft’s maiden flight is planned to take place in 2015.

The aircraft, with a maximum takeoff weight of 53.5 metric tons and a maximum range of more than 5,000 kilometers, will be larger than a Boeing 737 and could be used for a variety of operations such as passenger transport, marine environmental monitoring, firefighting and maritime search and rescue, Fu said.

Powered by four turbine engines, the TA-600 will be the world’s largest amphibious aircraft, surpassing Japan’s Shin Maywa US-2. It is designed to carry up to 50 people during search and rescue missions.

Don’t Dismiss Amphibious Planes:



To sum up, Western defense thinkers dismiss China’s new amphibians at their own peril.

Amphibious aircraft are not quaint throwbacks to a bygone era. They’re useful, and they’ll be a cheap Chinese surrogate for an MV-22-like capability in the Pacific. And their disruptive potential extends beyond the South China Sea, too. It’s high time to lock some folks in a room to consider how a rapidly-arriving force of seaplane-borne Chinese “Peacekeepers” might seriously complicate the too-oft-ignored geopolitical backwater that is the Pacific Basin. Lots of ethnic Chinese are out there, and anti-Chinese race riots are ugly, vicious and regular events throughout the Pacific.

Dismiss me as shrill, but I insist that there is a plan for these things. It’s just too darn convenient that design of China’s big amphibs got started in late 2009, just before China declared that the South China Sea was a “core interest”. These beefy amphibious transports may be old technology, but they have a whiff of being a well-thought-through requirement.

I sure hope I am wrong. But I fear this is just going to be another in a long line of otherwise unanticipated moves in China’s increasingly transparent effort to, essentially, assimilate Southeast Asia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Aug 2014 09:03 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 13 Apr 2014 02:04
Posts: 4
brar_w wrote:


TA-600 seaplane
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Aug 2014 09:27 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 38726
Location: P8I based in Socotra
nice piece of work. should be quite useful in flying men and materials around the disputed islands, dropping off marine commandos, CSAR and so on...seaplanes are far superior in CSAR than helicopters except in very stormy conditions where the helicopter has advantage of hovering and lifting people using the wire cage directly from troubled vessels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Aug 2014 10:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Posts: 968
Location: London
^^ looks like Chinese have successfully copied soviet beriev sea planes design !!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Aug 2014 16:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 May 2014 00:15
Posts: 2339
If this materializes I see Japan going in for a considerable amount of F-35B's for both its LHD types (Which it wants to acquire more of - as per its defense minister who toured USS Americas) and for dispersed airfields over disputed territory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Aug 2014 17:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 38726
Location: P8I based in Socotra
ashish raval wrote:
^^ looks like Chinese have successfully copied soviet beriev sea planes design !!


why copy when they could have hired bereiv to come with the design and validate. kamov designed a gunship helo for china and later revealed it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Aug 2014 09:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35
Posts: 710
China moves closer to testing underwater highspeed technology

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/china-moves-closer-to-developing-supersonic-submarine-report/articleshow/40858079.cms


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Aug 2014 15:05 
Online
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 12886
Photos of Chinese fighter J-11B, to intercept American aircraft P-8A

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/966673.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2014 00:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Nov 2000 12:31
Posts: 143
A very interesting quote ... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

>>
I was an Aircrewman on US Navy P3C Orions. We've dropped Sonobuoys for 60+ years in every Ocean and Sea in the World. The Chinese are being j$$$s.. they do NOT own "International Waters". They have **** equipment for their Navy.. we can spot them 500 miles away.. we can HEAR their subs with no effort at all. They need to put on their big "girl" panties and quit trying to be m$$$$s.
<<


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2014 12:20 
Online
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 12886
Chinese J-11BH 'aggressive' with USN P-8A, says DoD
Quote:
The US Department of Defense (DoD) and Chinese Ministry of National Defense (MND) are engaged in a war of words over an incident on 19 August when a People's Liberation Army Navy Air Force (PLANAF) Shenyang J-11 fighter harassed a US Navy (USN) Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft.

Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby told a press briefing on 22 August that the incident occurred about 135 miles (217 km) east of Hainan Island.

A Chinese MND statement published on 24 August confirmed the incident occurred 220 km east of Hainan. However, this statement also noted the involvement of two US aircraft - a P-8A and a Lockheed P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft - which the US did not mention.

Nevertheless, the interception marked an escalation in China's response to Washington's recent decision to reinforce with military elements its longer-standing diplomatic efforts to convince China to stop imposing increasing military control over the South China Sea.

During his press briefing Adm Kirby stated: "On three different occasions the Chinese J-11 crossed directly under the US aircraft, with one pass having only 50-100 feet separation between the two aircraft ... The Chinese jet also passed the nose of the P-8 at 90 degrees with its belly toward the P-8 to show its weapons load-out. In doing so the [Chinese] pilot was unable to see the P-8, further increasing the potential for a collision.

"The Chinese pilot then flew directly under and alongside the P-8, bringing their wingtips within 20 feet, and then, before he stabilised his fighter, he conducted a roll over the P-8, passing within 45 feet." Adm Kirby called the Chinese fighter's actions "very close, very dangerous ... pretty aggressive and very unprofessional".

Chinese MND spokesman Yang Yujun, meanwhile, urged the United States to "stop its close-in reconnaissance activities against China". He claimed that the US accusations were "groundless", that the Chinese pilot's operations were "professional" and that "the Chinese jet kept a safe distance from the US planes". Yang also said that the "US's large-scale and highly frequent close-in reconnaissance against China is the root cause of accidents": a possible warning that aggressive fighter intercepts of US aircraft may continue.

Imagery taken from the P-8A and released by the DoD showed that the fighter was a new Shenyang Aircraft Corporation J-11BH, marking the first reported encounter between these two aircraft.

The J-11B is a copy of Russia's fourth-generation Sukhoi Su-27SK fighter but with many modifications, including new radar and avionics, indigenous weapons, and a Chinese powerplant in the form of the Shenyang-Liming WS-10A turbofan engine. The J-11BH, which is the PLAN variant of the J-11B, started entering PLANAF units in early 2010 and may be equipping up to three units, including the 8th PLANAF Division at Jailaishi Airbase on Hainan Island.

The US imagery also showed that the J-11BH conducting the intercept was armed with Luoyang PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles (AAMs) and PL-8 short-range AAMs. Using Russian-designed electronics, the PL-12 has an advertised range of 70 km, but Western industry sources have told IHS Jane's that its range may be closer to 100 km. The Luoyang PL-8 is based on the Israeli Python-3 AAM and can be aimed off boresight with a helmet-mounted sight.

The J-11BH would be decidedly superior to the Shenyang J-8II fighters it is probably replacing and its large wing area and high thrust-to-weight ratio might confer performance advantages over the US Navy's (USN's) main carrier-based fighter, the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. While the latter has an edge due to its superior Raytheon AN/APG-79 active electronically scanned-array (AESA) radar, Shenyang is also known to be testing an AESA radar for future versions of the J-11.

The 17 August incident was not the first Chinese interception of a P-8A in the region. In late June and early July 2014 the USN sent P-8As to conduct patrols in the South China Sea, partially in response China's provocative stationing of an oil rig in Vietnam's exclusive economic zone and to monitor new Chinese island base construction. At the time China replied by sending PLANAF Shaanxi Y-8T turboprop-powered patrol aircraft to monitor the P-8A flights.

The USN's new P-8A maritime surveillance aircraft, which are based on the twin-turbofan Boeing 737-800 airliner with Series 900 wings, were first deployed to Okinawa, Japan, in December 2013 with squadron VP-16. This was part of Washington's response to China imposing its Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea on 23 November 2013.

On 22 August the USN announced the scheduled deployment of a second carrier battle group to the Pacific. This group will be led by USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), carrying about 48 F-18E/Fs, and includes a cruiser and three destroyers. It is due to patrol the "Western Pacific and US Central Command area of responsibility", meaning its Super Hornets could provide escort for P-8A patrols in the South China Sea.

ANALYSIS

China's 19 August interception of the P-8A is reminiscent of the 1 April 2001 incident that saw a PLANAF Shenyang J-8II fighter collide with a USN Lockheed EP-3 electronic surveillance aircraft 70 miles (112 km) off Hainan Island. This resulted in the loss of the Chinese pilot and fighter and the damaging of the EP-3, which was forced to land at Lingshui Airbase on Hainan, where the crew were detained for 10 days. The EP-3 was dismantled by China and exploited for intelligence before being returned to the US on 3 July 2011 on an Antonov An-124 transport.

This latest incident 13 years later also allowed China to demonstrate improved capabilities: not just its new J-11BH but also the new surface-wave over-the-horizon (OTH) radar known to have been placed on Hainan Island. These, plus the PLANAF's new KJ-200 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C), mean that China can conduct defensive and offensive aerial combat operations well into the South China Sea.

Washington is likely to proceed with more P-8A patrols in the region as China has rejected recent US proposals that it suspend its construction of new island bases in the South China Sea. China's 23-24 August statement indicates that it may continue to aggressively intercept US aircraft, setting the stage for further incidents. China may also be tempted to stage a collision to "capture" a P-8A, as this could assist China's development of an anti-submarine and maritime patrol version of its future twin-turbofan C919 airliner.

In the event of a collision, especially involving the loss of wing area or an engine, the faster and higher flying P-8A may have less of a chance of surviving than the slower, four-engine P-3C/EP-3. As well, the April 2001 incident might also make a US crew more likely to ditch a P-8A in deep waters rather than trying to land a damaged aircraft on a Chinese base, which could prompt a US-Chinese race to recover the wreckage.

Currently the US is not well positioned geographically to provide fighter escorts for future P-8A patrols, which would require extensive and vulnerable aerial refuelling support from Okinawa. Stationing a carrier group in the area would provide ready support, but this would entail a greater expense than land basing and the carrier eventually would require port calls.

However, Washington also has the option to rapidly add operational elements to the 27 April 2014 Philippines-US Enhanced Defense Co-operation Agreement, which allows for increased stationing of US forces at Philippine bases. This would allow the USN or US Air Force to station combat aircraft closer to P-8A patrol routes or to better support carrier-based fighters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2014 09:40 
Online
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 12886
Chinese new Long Range Anti Tank Missile AFT-10 with range of 10 Km similar to Spike with Fiber Optic guidance NLOS.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2014 10:51 
Online
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 12886
Two PLA Pilots Have Died Testing Fighters for Chinese Carrier

Image

[img]At least two People’s Liberation Army Air Force pilots have died in testing jets slated to operate from the Chinese carrier Liaoning, according a little noticed report published by Chinese state-controlled media.

“Two test pilots of the squadron sacrificed their lives during the tests,” read the Aug. 27 report that went on to list a series of citations for the test pilots who flew the Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark in testing on China’s first modern aircraft carrier.

The report provided no additional details on the dead flyers or the condition of their aircraft.

A Friday report in Jane’s Defence Weekly concluded it was, “likely that at least two aircraft have been lost.”

Naval analyst Eric Wertheim —author of U.S. Naval Institute’s Combat Fleets of the World — said the accidents were not out of the ordinary.

“It doesn’t surprise me,” he told USNI News on Friday.

“Carrier aviation is dangerous business, especially when you’re first starting out.”

Borrowing heavily on Soviet technology, China has taken tentative and deliberate steps toward creating a fully functional carrier-centric strike group using Liaoning as a technology demonstration platform ahead of a domestic carrier program

The J-15 is an unlicensed copy of the Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker designed to operate off of the Soviet designed and Ukrainian-built Liaoning.

The Chinese are reportedly learning carrier aviation from the Brazilian Navy pilots— who operate from a 1960s former French ship a third the size of a U.S. Nimitz-class carrier.

Still, the PLA is likely to learn the ropes of carrier aviation at a faster and less lethal clip than the U.S.

In 2013, Vice Adm. Ted Branch — then commander of the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic air arm now Director of Naval Intelligence — said the Chinese would “will learn faster than we did and they will leverage our lessons,” during a panel at the EAST: Joint Warfighting 2013 symposium in Virginia Beach, Va.

The U.S. lost thousands of pilots and aircraft learning how to fly jet fighters from aircraft carriers.

From 1949 to 1988, “the Navy and Marine Corps lost almost twelve thousand airplanes of all types
(helicopters, trainers, and patrol planes, in addition to jets) and over 8,500 aircrew,” according a section of the book “One Hundred Years of U.S. Navy Airpower” by Robert C. Rubel.
As for China, even the revelation of partial setbacks in the development of the China’s carrier ambitions is a rare admission from Beijing. Liaoning enjoys tremendous esteem in Chinese popular culture and the ship and its crew are highly revered throughout the country.

According to the report from Jane’s, Liaoning has recently left a four-month dry dock period and will likely soon resume flight tests.[/img]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Sep 2014 08:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 12303
Location: Revive Sanskrit
China's Island Factory


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Sep 2014 08:02 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 13 Apr 2014 02:04
Posts: 4
Austin wrote:
Two PLA Pilots Have Died Testing Fighters for Chinese Carrier

Image

At least two People’s Liberation Army Air Force pilots have died in testing jets slated to operate from the Chinese carrier Liaoning, according a little noticed report published by Chinese state-controlled media.

“Two test pilots of the squadron sacrificed their lives during the tests,” read the Aug. 27 report that went on to list a series of citations for the test pilots who flew the Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark in testing on China’s first modern aircraft carrier.


Apparently Global Times specifically denies that the deaths resulted from J-15 testing.

http://china.huanqiu.com/article/2014-09/5131211.html

多位军方知情人士告诉记者,获得荣誉称号的这个试飞大队有飞行员参加了航母舰载机试飞,但牺牲的两人是在以往的试飞中殉职,在舰载机试飞中没有人牺牲
Military sources told reporters, the cited unit had pilots who participated in carrier aircraft flight, but their death was from previous flight tests, no one died during carrier-based aircraft testing.


Two pilots from the CFTC were killed:

-1994 while testing a JH-7 prototype: http://ido.3mt.com.cn/Article/200801/sh ... c30p1.html

-2011 flying a JH-7 at the China International General Aviation Convention (CIGAC): http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/world/asi ... how-crash/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2014 14:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Sep 2011 02:13
Posts: 267
http://sikhsiyasat.net/2014/09/15/chinese-soldiers-surround-indian-soldiers-in-chumur-area-in-ladhakh-media-reports/

Quote:
Chinese soldiers surround Indian Soldiers in Chumur area in Ladhakh, media reports
September 15, 2014 | By Parmjeet Singh

Ladakh: Around Chinese 300 soldiers have reportedly surrounded some 100 soldiers of India in Chumur area in Ladakh. As per media reports Indian soldiers are not being allowed to move.

The latest incident follows yesterday’s incident where Chinese troops were reportedly seen camping 500 metres into the territory under Indian control in Demchok area of Ladakh. The Chinese soldiers had reportedly put up tents there.

“What makes the matter more serious is the fact that the face-off is happening well inside the Indian territory”, a Zee News report reads.

“As regards the Demchok incident, reports said some 30 Chinese soldiers have intruded 500 metres into Demchok area and put up tents there since September 11”.

To confront the Chinese troops, around 70 Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) personnel have been deployed in the area.

As per media reports, both the countries have sent more soldiers to the face-off site at Demchok.

Last month, Chinese troops had reportedly entered almost 25 kilometres into Indian controlled area at Burtse in Ladakh.

In 2014 alone, 334 incidents of Chinese troops’ intrusion into Indian border have been reported.

The incidents come just days ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to India.

Both countries have long pending differences on demarcation of boundaries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2014 15:40 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 38726
Location: P8I based in Socotra
Cheen has adoped the Namica which IA treated as a step-child. nice it see it bloom and grow with loving parents.

http://i.imgur.com/9I90cJt.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2014 15:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Aug 2014 15:14
Posts: 317
ZaoAn wrote:
Austin wrote:

Image



the pic is a photochop. there are not that many planes on that rust bucket yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2014 16:23 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 29 Apr 2014 11:45
Posts: 1197
Location: taleb muridke naal
^^^ Even I thought so, there is no recovery space for an aircraft for immediate recovery off an emergency. Even for Vertical landing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2014 16:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 25553
Location: Terrorists have no religion until it's time to hang them - then we find out the religion
deejay wrote:
^^^ Even I thought so, there is no recovery space for an aircraft for immediate recovery off an emergency. Even for Vertical landing.

Hey the entire ocean is there :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2014 17:23 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 29 Apr 2014 11:45
Posts: 1197
Location: taleb muridke naal
^^^ Indeed Dr. Sa'ab. The entire South China Sea. :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Sep 2014 06:22 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 13 Apr 2014 02:04
Posts: 4
J-15 Buddy line

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Sep 2014 06:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 12303
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Futoshoped. (Not saying it is not possible, but that picture is not the actual, composite one.)

You Chinese are getting worse at this art.

Never heard of syography?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Sep 2014 06:33 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 13 Apr 2014 02:04
Posts: 4
More pictures.

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Sep 2014 08:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 25553
Location: Terrorists have no religion until it's time to hang them - then we find out the religion
NRao wrote:
Futoshoped. (Not saying it is not possible, but that picture is not the actual, composite one.)

You Chinese are getting worse at this art.

Never heard of syography?

Good call. The angle of the shadows on the aircraft are different from the angles on the ship.

Why? Why do the Chinese need to do this if they are so technologically adept?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Sep 2014 11:02 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 16 Aug 2010 23:19
Posts: 47
Location: LCA Tejas - Cutest Fighter Plane
Ivanev wrote:


It seems China too have multiple power centers just like Pakistan. Their military pay no heed to Civilian leadership.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2014 09:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 2166
Location: Lone Star State
NRao wrote:
..You Chinese are getting worse at this art.
Something is not kosher with the Carrier and/or its airwing!!! if everything is hunky dory why go to great lengths to perform this Photo-chor... the first giveaway was crystal clear photos.. no peering thru fences or thru fog filled fore-ground...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2014 14:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Aug 2014 15:14
Posts: 317
shiv wrote:
NRao wrote:
Futoshoped. (Not saying it is not possible, but that picture is not the actual, composite one.)

You Chinese are getting worse at this art.

Never heard of syography?

Good call. The angle of the shadows on the aircraft are different from the angles on the ship.

Why? Why do the Chinese need to do this if they are so technologically adept?




Thats what gave it away? Not the fact that no one in their right mind will refuel at 10 meters above sea level right on top of a carrier?

Or the fact that 5 of those sized planes back to back would be longer than the carrier itself?

Forget the chibots photochop skills man. your photochop detection skills really worry me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2014 16:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Nov 2011 21:43
Posts: 585
That pic looks a very horrible photoshopped one in naked eye--
inspiration -- Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2014 16:45 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 16 Aug 2010 23:19
Posts: 47
Location: LCA Tejas - Cutest Fighter Plane
I don't understand. Why are people discussing photoshop capabilities of Chinese Army. Everyone is capable of graphics designing. This is just an act of fooling ourselves by underestimating China.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2014 19:11 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 5090
Interesting post Prithwiraj.

sarkar, no one is underestimating China, least of all on BRF. If anything, China is overestimated. But the question is not that. The question is why does China (or paid Chinese drones, or ordinary Chinese citizens) come up with this sort of crude photoshopping. Why does it need to? Can you think of a reason?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2014 19:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 12303
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Impress their citizens.

Like that poster.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2014 19:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33
Posts: 686
@JE Menon...there was once a american prof who answered this question... this is related to chinese nature ..ie not to appear inferior to competitors as it will result in loss of face... so everything has to be jazzed up... everything has to appear on a grand scale... also this is part of psychological wars which the *deleted* are extremely good at... to psych the enemy before the war even starts...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2014 21:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35
Posts: 710
Quote:
It seems China too have multiple power centers just like Pakistan. Their military pay no heed to Civilian leadership.



Sirji you would be highly mistaken if you believe that the CHinese powers that be had no hand in it. I am willing to wager that they specifically instructed the incursions to be "Expanded" and made more public specially with their Premier in the country.

Its playing psychological chess. They have been perfecting the art against the Japanese and Americans for 2 decades now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2014 21:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 May 2012 22:34
Posts: 623
Thats why I don't like this policy of letting them leave. Kill a few a and move brahmos and pinakas into the region. Let the up the ante further if they have the balls. Rest assured they will crumble under pressure


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2014 21:52 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 8268
And if they dont? Are we ready for a full scale war after a decade if UPA- the worthless MMS and the Saints tender ministrations?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2014 21:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 May 2012 22:34
Posts: 623
Yes and are they ready to see there 2 decades of progress wiped out completely? US and Japan would love to encroach more into SCS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2014 22:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35
Posts: 1152
Bheeshma wrote:
Thats why I don't like this policy of letting them leave. Kill a few a and move brahmos and pinakas into the region. Let the up the ante further if they have the balls. Rest assured they will crumble under pressure



Hardly the most intelligent solution to the problem, soldiers are not toys that their lives can be sacrificed to prove a point. The hue and cry in our media is a great thing and pushes the govt to reply, I have no doubt that this stand off will end peacefully once the premier goes back but long term I have faith in the likes of modi and doval to begin a shift in China policy.

I bet we'll here more and more of human rights, Tibet and xinxiang going forward, it might take a few years for the Chinese to realize our changed stance but they'll get it, sooner rather than later


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 593 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aditp, Austin, nits, P Chitkara, Varuna and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group