alokgupt wrote:JCage wrote:It is upto to you provide the data to show that those airfields can support 272 Flankers. Currently the Scramble site and other sites clearly show they cant. Please educate yourself about the basics of what even ONE Flanker squadron requires before posting arguementative drivel.
Wrong.
Why? Not used to people pointing out the glaring loopholes in your claims are you!
Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is, or stop spamming this forum with your silly one liners.
No- you tell us what all they have crossed! You cant, because YOU dont know. Nobody does. It just suits your silly arguement to fix an arbitrary date and manufacture evidence accordingly. But that is NOT good enough.
No data. Discarded.
Its up to you to provide the data. You are the one making bizarre claims.
Your silliness knows no bounds. Sunil has already posted an article showing that there MAX production rate is at 17 a year. Your lack of knowledge is also evident from the fact that you dont even realise that the newer Flankers are to use Chinese engines which would entail even longer development, manufacturing timelines not to mention operationalization.
Some data but wrong again.
Ah, so the UPI article is wrong then. Why? Because it proves you were lying?
Your behaviour gets more and more bizarre. The above is an Irkut document. China's Flankers are from Knaapo. Know the difference?
Yet you persist with your make believe claims. By 2011, India aims to field another 13+15+15+16+40 Flankers of its own- actual HAL production numbers. But you havent even considered those, or their capabilities vs the PLAAFs older Flankers. Why would you, since you debate using manufactured claims!
When I do the ratio do I include projected Flankers for PRC? No. I did the ratios based on current numbers for both IAF and PRC. So nothing manufactured. If you want to do ratio based on 2010 projected numbers, be my guest. It is you who seem to be desperate to manufacture things.
You made up numbers assuming that PRC would get 400 Flankers by 2010. When you couldnt justify those, out came the backtracking. The numbers above show that your manufactured claims of the PRC getting automatic air superiority in the 2010-11 timeframe were bilge. Deal with it.
Are you even aware of the operating height at which that payload is achieved? Please investigate further- I would have provided the data, but your silly arguementative behaviour evokes no reason for me to do your work for you.
What happened? You don't have data to back up your claim. You said Q-5 is not usable in Tibet. Why don't you provide data to back it up pretty boy?
No "pretty boy", you do it. Secondly, please lay off the double entendres - I am not interested in knowing which way you swing and whom you hit on.
You were the genius who didnt even know operating altitude matters. This forum is not meant to spoonfeed every child who walks in and treats everyone else with disrespect. Heres a source, so that you dont go bawling- check out Janes All the Worlds aircraft 2001-02 on the Q5.
Once again, you blithely assume that the entire PLAAF can be shifted lock stock and barrel vs the IAF. Were things were that simple! You are yet to prove that even a fraction of that number can be staged from the area- kindly look into the other thread to understand the effort necessary to make airfields transferrable for multi-ops! Second, you demonstrate your ignorance again by assuming that huge escorts have to be provided- all that is needed is to hold off a PLAAF force while the strikers attack, and there is no evidence that PLAAF even has a credible night attack capability! Whereas the IAF will attack at night.
It is totally clear you basing your analysis on just assumptions. What makes you think it cannot? Hold off PLAAF force while stikers attack? And how do you hold off the force by putting ropes is it? Wouldn't you send fighters to "hold off"? And how do you assume that IAF will achieve air superiority over Tibet with the numbers as above?
Your ignorance is not only baffling - it is shameful. You cant even point out that the PLAAF can field all its Flankers in theater, and you dont even understand the basics of air warfare. Escorts arent there to win air superiority, they exist to hold off the attacking force. Go ask some actual strike pilots about tactics or at least read about previous conflicts, including Shlomo Alonis works or Tom Coopers books.
The Scramble list is available in the thread. Go ahead and mark them yourself.
No I am not going to mark it for you. If you want to back your argument provide data. Otherwise here is my response - discarded.
I am not here to spoonfeed you after your shameful ranting on the forum. If you want to connvince people on this forum that you are capable of worthwhile analysis apart from copy and paste, then do some legwork. Otherwise, you are the usual troll who rants and raves but responds with abuse when asked to justify his claims.
Of course its related. It proves your great source is prone to errors. And about 1998, FAS et al did muck raking about all tests. Please educate yourself about who runs FAS and what FAS stands for.
Wrong again. Goes to show how much you know!
Yelling wrong, wrong with your hands over your ears may work on a playground. It wont work with me or this forum.
Please do us all a favour and research some basics before posting. If you had any evidence that the PRC had actually made a huge investment in logistics and air to air refuelling (bar the handful of H-6s they have now) to move the entire Flanker fleet vs India *if need* be, your comments could be taken seriously.
I think you are the one who is in need to undertaking basic research. You haven't provided single data so far.
I have provided enough data- it is you who is too juvenile to look at it. If you had a tenth of the capability of the other posters on the forum, you would have been able to dig out enough info to fill this thread. It is clear you cant. Since you want spoonfeeding, heres some more- try looking at the logistics requirements of a Single Flanker, do back of the envelope calculations and come back. Please dont waste my time and this forums with your silly claims.
India doesnt dream of invading Bangladesh and Bangladeshs military strength is pitiful. PRC otoh has built up exactly to overwhelm ROC and it will safeguard enough units so as to retain a balance vs the ROC. It will not wipe away decades of work over nothing.
So you believe that ROC will attack PRC if PRC moves its entire air force for fight with India. Well that explains why you think India does not have to fight the entire PRC air force....moron
I normally dont indulge in name calling, but I think the entire forum can make out who is a moron and who is attempting to set the moron straight.
Your stupidity is beyond reason. If it is still not clear enough for you, the PRC CANT move its entire AF to attack India and secondly, it will hoard assets for a possible ROC conflict. It cant not denude its bases and relocate them against india. If you understand the basics of how logistics work and the depth of issues in even the most basic of moves, you wouldnt be wasting our time with your drivel.
Hardly exactly. The line was reopened because they needed a counterpoint to strong defences. And FYI all bombers ARE dead ducks unless air superiority is achieved. Please read up about how and when bombers have been used till date.
Big "unless". See you suddenly realised they are useful afterall.
Your lack of command over the English language is wonderful. In your world perhaps, when someone tells you that they disagree with your hyperbole you pat yourself on your back about how correct you are and how everyone agrees with you. In real life, I am telling you that your bombers are dead ducks vs a reasonable air defence and they exist only because the PRCs regular AF is severely lacking in precision strike. Keep patting yourself on your back, but it doesnt make it the reality.
Your nonsense knows no limits- try honesty for a change, it will be refreshing. I said your claims of 400 Flankers are an utter exaggeration, and so they were. You should be ashamed of posting such tosh, but you obviously lack the moral fiber to even admit your mistake. Your Sinodefence site posts maximal figures AND even there the numbers dont add upto 400 but 250 odd- in case you have issues with the English language, odd means a rounded figure approaching the number mentioned!! I talk about serviceability for the PRC because I know they fudge and hide figures - even so I even gave them the benefit of the doubt and assumed a high 70% figure overall.
What is your projection of Flanker fleet in PRC by 2010? Just keep your empty rants to yourself and provide the data. Where did you pull out 250 number from?
JCage confusing himself. You seem to have an IQ of a bird.
Your stupidity reaches new depths. If you could care to read Sunil Upa has posted a UPI article with a clear estimate of the PRC Flanker fleet. Kindly read through it and educate yourself.
No, I wont keep my "empty rants" to myself given I have an aversion to reading absolute drivel passed off authoritatively as you have been doing.
And I see that you have now withdrawn from your claims of 400 Flankers by 2010- looks like you bit off more than you could chew.
Learn how to read into context. You are the one who was scaremongering about India getting bombed- all of North India you said! Who cares if the PRC has better SAM coverage to protect Beijing as long as we dont go there.
And what limits PRC from deploying some of those systems to provide coverage for force in Tibet? Just your imagination.
Dont shift the goalposts sonny boy- I never said that the PRCs SAMs are not a threat to India. In fact, Austin, I & others discussed it a few threads back. You otoh were as usual engaging in flamewars and ruining threads.
Second, you were making the claim that the PRC would be bombing all of northern India. When I proved you wrong by showing your absymal lack of knowledge about India's ADGES, you sought refuge by claiming that the PRC had SAM systems too.
These kind of second grade debating tactics wont work here.
And what does an Indian division bring to the fight vs a PRC unit?
What?
Exactly what I said. Go on, tell us. Since you are the johnny come lately font of wisdom that BRF has to tolerate from time to time, its upto you to even do some basic research.
Ah, so the US militarys filibustering to get more funds is now grounds for fear. Grow up, will you.
So sinodefence is kiddy site. FAS is laughable. US military report to congress is fillibustering. PRC military doesn't even know basics of fight. IAF Air Marshal asking for 60 squadrons is just asking AF asking for things. But JCage must make the decision. You in one post discarded sources from sinodefence, globalsecurity or fas, IAF, US military. This got to be new record. Can it can get any more ridiculous?
Your silliness is incredible. The IAF has not asked for 60 squadrons son, they have asked for a full complement of 39.5 and a possible enhancement if necessary.
Sinodefence is run by some Chinese kid- probably your equivalent, no doubt. FAS is dead and gone as far as its webpages are concerned. Its talent and the man who set it up have shifted to Global security and they themselves admit that they dont have the resources to be accurate either. Your ignorance is not just startling, its shameful, the manner in which you wear it on your sleeve and respond in a juvenile manner when somebody attempts to correct you. If you were in any manner a mature individual, you would attempt to determine which sources are updated frequently and how reliably they can be used. No, what we are dealing with is a troll who isnt here to learn but to abuse. We must count ourselves so lucky.
It is the job of the AF to ask for more. It is the job of adults to understand what is being said and why, and not scaremonger.
Yeah of course you know more than IAF.
I know what the IAF wants because I treat them with the respect they deserve. Grow up, and perhaps you can understand the kind of effort that goes into source analysis. No, I dont know more than the IAF but I do put effort into understanding what their aims are and what they need. Something which is lost on you, with your 400 Flankers bilge.
Your self gratification amuses me, but your learning comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. In plain English, concern is good- useless panic and hyperbole (the kind you have indulged in) is worthy of contempt.
After your comments above I don't think your posts deserve any more response.
Mores the pity then that you have been spamming this thread and replying to me, with your ridiculous, abusive and nonsense filled posts which seem to be more a reflection of your ego and "I shall not lose face", rather than any serious concerns.
If thats the kind of debate you are used to, I am sure the internet is wide enough to accomodate you.
And kindly stop with the fevered one line replies- not only are they rude, your referring to the chinese as chinks and chinkland whatever is downright racist.
Oh yeah...did it hurt you when I called them Chinks?
[/quote]
No, it didnt hurt me.
It hurts BRFs reputation to have abusive, racist children like you post on the forum and treat it with disrespect.
If you wish to rant using racial epithets, there are other places on the internet, but kindly spare this forum and website. It has far more to its credit than people like you, who use it as a sounding board for their rants, but neither contribute anything to do it but even sully its reputation by inference, thanks to the garbage they dump on the forum.
