China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2011 16:45

wong wrote:India currently has a solicitation for small arms with colt, fnh, hk. Small arms. Enough said. Doesn't Indian import cartridges too?

That the PLAAF with its huge budget doesn't need Sukhoi anymore is a good indicator to me. And they did shop PAK-FA to China and China passed. Figure it out.


Figuring it out is easy. Lots of countries don't sell to China because they will copy and sell cheapo knockoffs to their own armed forces first and then to failed states that will buy them.

Tell you what is even more funny, A whole lot of countries are making a whole lot of money from India buying arms from them, Their own arms research and industries thrive because of India. India is an arms sellers dream. So how come China, that exports copied manufactured goods to everyone does not want to make India depend on China for ts arms? That would be a great idea to control India. That is because those Chinese arms just don't meet the specs for reliability and quality - like a whole lot of other Chinese exports.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2011 16:57

Here is a little titbit I had posted earlier
shiv wrote:Titbit from Vayu
What appears to have been straight forward reverse engineered is the optical-electronic pod on China's ZW-9 combat helicopter, which bears a strong resemblance to the Leo -II serial O/E pods produced by the Zeiss Company. Technical experts from the Zeiss company recalled that about seven to eight years ago Zeiss had exported two sets of an earlier variant of the Leo-II O/E pods to China, intended for use on helicopters, According to them the Chinese authorities explained that they needed a large number of this type of / pods for civilian helicopters, and therefore would like to purchase two sets initially for testing purposes :D The Chinese took no further action after receiving the test pods. Currently both the ZW 10 and the night attack version the ZW-9 are equipped with o/E detectors very similar to the Leo-II

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2011 17:10

http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/01 ... onry/1849/
China eyes South African weaponry
By Andrei Chang
Column: Military Might
Published: January 07, 2009
TOOLBAR
Print Story
Add Comments
Email a friend
Watch this writer

Font size:
Hong Kong, China — China has had a number of dealings with South African weapons manufacturers over the past decade, most of which have not resulted in actual weapons purchases. However, several recent China-made military technologies bear suspicious resemblances to their South African counterparts.

In 2008, China acquired a fourth-generation air-to-air missile equipped with a thrust-vector control engine. The PL-10, or PL-ASR, is comparable to the U.S.-made AIM-9X air-to-air missile, or AAM.

According to a representative from the South African Denel Group, the PL-ASR is almost a replica of its A-Darter AAM. The Denel representative told the author during an interview in Cape Town that the Chinese had contacted the company in 2001 to explore the possibility of importing fifth-generation A-Darter infrared-guided AAMs, which included a TVC propulsion system and pilot helmet-mounted displays.

In the end, Denel did not sell the technologies to China, which it regards as its key competitor in selling air-to-air missiles on the African market. Company engineers were therefore surprised to find that the Chinese PL-ASR is nearly identical to the A-Darter in exterior structure, tail engine and even the diameter of the missile body.

The company strongly suspects that China reverse-engineered its A-Darter AAM after acquiring its technological materials.

This fits a pattern that China has followed in acquiring military technologies from many sources. When seeking a new technology, China contacts a foreign manufacturer and requests substantial technical information about its product, supposedly with the intent to buy. Instead, Chinese engineers study the materials and imitate the relevant concepts and designs.

Something similar occurred in the course of China’s development of a combat helicopter. In 1996 China and South Africa signed a memorandum to jointly develop a combat helicopter, when China was in the process of building its ZW-10 helicopter.

After being given a focused inspection of the Rooivalk combat helicopter’s subsystems, China wanted to purchase one helicopter from Denel, but the South African company considered the purchase of a single aircraft the equivalent of giving away its technologies. As a result, Denel decided not to sell China the helicopter and the cooperation came to an end.

Another item that appears to have been copied from South Africa is the optical-electronic pod on China’s ZW-9 combat helicopter, which bears a strong resemblance to the Leo-II serial O/E pods produced by the Zeiss Company.

Technical experts from the Zeiss Company told the author that about seven to eight years ago Zeiss exported two sets of an earlier variant of the Leo-II O/E pods to China, intended for use on helicopters. According to the source, the Chinese side explained that they needed a large number of this type of O/E pods for civilian helicopters, and therefore would like to purchase two sets initially for testing purposes. The source said the Chinese took no further action after receiving the test pods.

Currently, both the ZW-10 and the night version, the ZW-9, are equipped with O/E detectors very similar to those on the Leo-II.

China’s interest is not only in the O/E pod technologies used for helicopters. Chinese manufacturers have also engaged in active discussions with South Africa in hopes of acquiring TV video cameras and second-generation thermal imaging cameras used in Denel’s Seeker II unmanned air vehicle surveillance system.

The top military technology that China aspires to acquire from South Africa is without doubt the unmanned air vehicle. China’s New Era Group Corporation had several rounds of negotiations with Denel on the possibility of producing in China two types of Denel UAVs, which were on display at the 2006 Zhuhai Air Show, called the Golden Eagle and the Seeker II.

China hopes to obtain the technologies to assemble these two UAVs domestically. However, according to a source from the Denel Group, negotiations on the UAV deals have come to a halt and the company has decided that unless substantial progress is made on these negotiations, the company no longer wants to spend time dealing with the Chinese.

Denel had a similar experience in trying to negotiate a deal with Chinese company Norinco for its Mokopa anti-tank missiles. The Chinese company expressed an interest in importing Denel’s technologies, but once again the negotiations ended with no result.

Since 2007, Norinco has attempted to contact the Denel Group again, saying that it wants to import the company’s G5 155-mm howitzer ammunition handling system. But Denel is not eager to enter into an agreement with China on this project; Chinese-made 155-mm howitzers have already appeared in quite a number of countries in Northern Africa, including Algeria, Sudan and Egypt.

The source from Denel did disclose that the company has successfully completed a deal with China for its 35-mm multirole machine gun. This technology in fact was exported to China 10 years ago. China seems to have upgraded this 35-mm gun to an air-defense machine gun.

China’s New Era Group Corporation has also been negotiating with Denel for the transfer of African Eagle UAV technologies. The Chinese introductory brochure of the cooperation program claims that the African Eagle UAV is capable of taking a payload of 500 kilograms, which could be six Mokopa anti-tank missiles or two Umbani MK 81 precision-guided bombs. The theoretical combat radius of the African Eagle is 750 kilometers.

China also hopes to obtain the South African Angel high-altitude and high-speed UAV attacker system. This attacker UAV is capable of carrying precision-guided weapons and attacking targets 1,400 kilometers away. The UAV is also capable of carrying A-Darter AAMs to launch unmanned aerial attacks.

The Angel attacker and reconnaissance UAV is equipped with aperture radar and is capable of conducting tactical reconnaissance missions. It can also be fitted with Mokopa active laser-guided anti-tank missiles to attack armored combat groups.

Nonetheless, the source from Denel disclosed that no substantial progress has been made on this project, indicating it may end up as one more failed deal. It remains to be seen whether China’s latest explorations with the company will yield technological information it can convert to its own purposes, however.

--

(Andrei Chang is editor-in-chief of Kanwa Defense Review Monthly, registered in Toronto, Canada.)

gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4475
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby gakakkad » 07 Sep 2011 17:19


China is banned from launching American satellites or sats with American components for fear of tech transfer. Before that, China had a booming business launching western satellites.




For your info ISRO was facing US sanctions which were only lifted off on november 2010.

Documents stating that 200 million worth of arms were transferred to libya from NORINCO . Needless to say that China denied the report .


Paki's are looking to get whatever helo a western company offers. Only when no one agree's to sell them does it look to you.

China's car market is bigger than US . But not the GDP . Reasons have been discussed in economy thread . There is a difference between market and economy.

As far as underground economy is concerned , people have absolutely no estimate of India's underground economy. It is the largest consumer of gold . Actual quantity of gold entering the country may be much more than the official figures . Besides last year it grew faster than China .

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Brando » 07 Sep 2011 19:17

milanforever wrote:To accuse an entire nation thugs, that's just plainly wrong. My English isn't good, but I guess you get what I mean.


People feel that your "nation" is a thug, not its people. There is a difference.

You can go to any nation's forum and you will find the opinion around the world overwhelmingly against China.

Conversely India is not seen as a threat to nations outside South Asia.

Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2036
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 07 Sep 2011 19:30

The border issue is not, and should not, be about the "McMahon line". It's about the state of Arunachal Pradesh, the people who live there, and the ideology, system, philosophy and culture of those people. China does not, never has, understood this idea. To them, it's all about empire, control, military, politbureau, domination and the driest, coldest legality, itself highly questionable.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Boreas » 07 Sep 2011 19:53

milanforever wrote:
You people are thugs by default.

If you travel to different countries in the world, you'll be really surprised that regardless of the skin color, language, religion, essentially we human beings are the same. For the majority of average people like you and me, life is about making good money, support the family, ,living a good life, things like that. There are good, honest, trustworthy people, also bad people in every country. That's what I found, having travelled in different continents and worked with people from different countries.

To accuse an entire nation thugs, that's just plainly wrong. My English isn't good, but I guess you get what I mean.


Various colours come together to make a painting. In the process each one of them loses there individual identity and the identity of the picture as a whole become identity of each one of them. They are identified as that picture.

Same is true for a nation. What individual do loses significance in front of the behaviour of the nation.

If the nation as a whole cheats is always unfair in its dealing, bullies weak neighbours, and the sole motivation of all its actions is greed. Then the nation is thug. And each and every one of its citizen have equal share in it.



On a separate note,

The reason I am never able to convince myself to take "China as A World Power" is simple - they will never be one. Either they will fail beforehand or At most they will be able to accumulate a disproportionate amount of power and cause a world war III. In the end they will never be able to "Get there and Stay" for a significant amount of time.

They simply lack the characteristics of a leader. No one is ready to take them as leader. No one wants them to be the leader. Who will they lead?

Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2036
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 07 Sep 2011 20:03

"They simply lack the characteristics of a leader. No one is ready to take them as leader. No one wants them to be the leader. Who will they lead?"

Excellent. China is all about expansionism, domination, ethno-centrism and totalitarianism. What kind of leadership is that. India is more likely to inspire and elevate. The US has done some bad things and has many negative characteristics. But the fact is, the US is progressive, democratic and pluralistic. No one wants to accept China as a leader, with the exception of Pakistan. India is more likely to be accepted, again with the exception of China and Pakistan. No one else has a serious problem with India.
Last edited by Varoon Shekhar on 07 Sep 2011 20:04, edited 1 time in total.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Boreas » 07 Sep 2011 20:04

Varoon Shekhar wrote:The border issue is not, and should not, be about the "McMahon line". It's about the state of Arunachal Pradesh, the people who live there, and the ideology, system, philosophy and culture of those people. China does not, never has, understood this idea. To them, it's all about empire, control, military, politbureau, domination and the driest, coldest legality, itself highly questionable.

It’s about time India should change its stand on Tibet.. slowly and steadily. That's the only way to counter stupid junk talks of china.

Let them talk about MacMohan line, we should start publishing text and maps showing ten neighbour states. Displaying Tibet as an independent state, and showing the reduced length of total border with China. It may or may not achieve anything for now, but it will surely irk them at a place where it hurts most. This is what they do with us, play crap mental games. If pursued for long enough time, it will give a wonderful negotiating stand for the future generations.

Kukreja
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 24 Aug 2010 19:28

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Kukreja » 08 Sep 2011 03:47

China’s Predator Drone Ripoff Crashes and Explodes
http://gizmodo.com/5837902/chinas-preda ... d-explodes

The copycat drone went down in a flaming wreck around the Chinese village of Huining, Chinese Defence Mashup reports, and was eagerly photographed by locals before the government locked the area down.


Image

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4111
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby hnair » 08 Sep 2011 04:12

customary vegetation blocks the view. It is like these Playboy center-spreads with the models getting photographed accidentally behind a thulasi-pot. Frequently happens 8)

Villagers have good cameras though.

wong
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 27 May 2011 19:21

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wong » 08 Sep 2011 13:35

shiv wrote:Figuring it out is easy. Lots of countries don't sell to China because they will copy and sell cheapo knockoffs to their own armed forces first and then to failed states that will buy them.

Tell you what is even more funny, A whole lot of countries are making a whole lot of money from India buying arms from them, Their own arms research and industries thrive because of India. India is an arms sellers dream. So how come China, that exports copied manufactured goods to everyone does not want to make India depend on China for ts arms? That would be a great idea to control India. That is because those Chinese arms just don't meet the specs for reliability and quality - like a whole lot of other Chinese exports.


If you can name a single Indian defense program that Chinese defense contractors like NORINCO or AVIC bid on or had solicitations, then your post would make more sense. I don't think India has ever inspected a single new modern Chinese weapons system so you have no idea about Chinese quality and reliability. It varies greatly depending on the amount of money you have to spend. High quality Chinese made consumer products (Apple, Miele, Bosch, etc) don't currently have a real market in India (due to your current degree of wealth).

As for your assertion that Indian money runs western defense R&D, all I can say is that you are clearly wrong. India currently isn't even a footnote in the financial statements of Lockheed Martin, Boeing Defence, BAE, etc. Not a rupee of your MMRCA program has flowed into the coffers of the western defence contractors yet and won't for at least a few more years. I hope they will get paid by India though, unlike your foreign CWG contractors.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 08 Sep 2011 14:58

wong wrote: It varies greatly depending on the amount of money you have to spend. High quality Chinese made consumer products (Apple, Miele, Bosch, etc) don't currently have a real market in India (due to your current degree of wealth).


Apple Miele and Bosch are not Chinese. :D They give China licenses to assemble, not manufacture and that stuff is quality checked. Other Chinese stuff I have a good idea about - much of it is copied illegally and trash. The claim that "expensive Chinese stuff is good" is nonsense. We are talking weapons here - not iPads. Where? Which Chinese weapon is not copied, expensive, high quality and on sale?

And remember that I never said "Western research" runs on Indian money. Its Russian research that has run on Indian money for years. But then again what would you know? You claim to have seen the blueprints for Su-30 and the footnotes of Lockheed Martin's finances. You are clearly making fake expansive claims. All that I am saying that that your fake expansive claims remind me of the way the Chinese make incredible claims while faking things.

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 121
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 08 Sep 2011 15:03

wong wrote:
shiv wrote:Figuring it out is easy........That is because those Chinese arms just don't meet the specs for reliability and quality - like a whole lot of other Chinese exports.


If you can name a single Indian defense program ............. High quality Chinese made consumer products (Apple, Miele, Bosch, etc) don't currently have a real market in India (due to your current degree of wealth).

As for your assertion that Indian money .......... isn't even a footnote in the financial statements of Lockheed Martin, Boeing Defence, BAE, etc. ........ I hope they will get paid by India though, unlike your foreign CWG contractors.


Oh! We seem to have hurt Mr. Wong's honour & dignity! He is very upset indeed. Anger is unhealthy. Meditation, contemplation, reflection etc., all will help him.

My humble submission is that we don't reply to Mr. Wong. He needs to cool off and we need a more constructive discussion.

Best regards.

gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4475
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby gakakkad » 08 Sep 2011 15:09

I have already explained in economy thread why apple won't do well in India. Bosch has a "manufacturing" and R&D centre in India unlike the assembling one in China . It registered 31% growth last quarter in India. Check its site. Indian and SOKO manufacturers top the Indian vacuum cleaner and washing machine segment . No room for miele . Indians don't look for a label calling the "product" high end . We look for functionality and cost effectiveness.

Unlike China we don't have people selling kidney to buy an I-Pad .

As far as weapons is concerned , apart from TSP who else buys your rust ?

gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4475
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby gakakkad » 08 Sep 2011 15:10


Meditation, contemplation, reflection etc




nahh.. too tibetan .Joo see religion is officially banned by CCP.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Boreas » 08 Sep 2011 17:45

wong wrote:If you can name a single Indian defense program that Chinese defense contractors like NORINCO or AVIC bid on or had solicitations, then your post would make more sense. I don't think India has ever inspected a single new modern Chinese weapons system so you have no idea about Chinese quality and reliability. It varies greatly depending on the amount of money you have to spend. High quality Chinese made consumer products (Apple, Miele, Bosch, etc) don't currently have a real market in India (due to your current degree of wealth).

As for your assertion that Indian money runs western defense R&D, all I can say is that you are clearly wrong. India currently isn't even a footnote in the financial statements of Lockheed Martin, Boeing Defence, BAE, etc. Not a rupee of your MMRCA program has flowed into the coffers of the western defence contractors yet and won't for at least a few more years. I hope they will get paid by India though, unlike your foreign CWG contractors.


Wong, what the hell are you talking about? Take this red goggle out of your eyes. See the real world.

What quality, reliability claims you are making. You made FC-1 aka JF-17, thats the outcome of a 100% CHINESE development cycle, 100% chinese product. And man your own genrals refused to buy any of them. You spreading all this bullshit of your quality. Where is it?

J-10 is lavi (immitation of israeli quality)
J-11 is Su-27 (immitation of Russian quality)
J-15 is Su-33 (immitation of Russian quality)

You name a single - one thing that you have made from scratch, and your own army (forget the global standards) is ready to come with it in the battle field.

You whole arm industry is a piece of carbon paper. As soon as one removes the original copy your "well nutrited" scientist faill to deliver anything worth a penny.

You got originals from israel/russia/ukraine you created a whole series of J's. All that left was to develop the engine. Where is it man?

Leve the Hi-tech, you even copy armed infantry vehicles.

Why we never hear about a chinese Missile Defense program? Because the original wasn't available anywhere to copy.

There is just one benchmark of CHINESE quality (cheap or costly) and that is JF-17, the day your pilots get guts to fly and die in one, come here and talk about quality. I'll atleat have some respect for your people that they hold courage to die with there countries junk.

The fact that you need to mention Apple and bosch only shows one thing you weren't able to find a single chinese name to prove your point. You don't have a TATA who own from Jagaur and Land Rover to Corus. Do you?

(It is really hilarious the way you put that Apple, Miele and Bosch are chinese high end products. Although he may slightly look like one, but everybody knows Steve Jobs is not chinese :) )

Samsung is a Korean product, Honda is a Japanese product and Apple is NOT a chinese product. FC-1 is.
Last edited by Boreas on 08 Sep 2011 17:57, edited 1 time in total.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Boreas » 08 Sep 2011 17:51

Here every bit of this page is an example of Chinese quality -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_aircraft_engines

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby vishvak » 08 Sep 2011 18:17

wong wrote:a single Indian defense program that Chinese defense contractors like NORINCO or AVIC bid on or had solicitations, then your post would make more sense. I don't think India has ever inspected a single new modern Chinese weapons system so you have no idea about Chinese quality and reliability. It varies greatly depending on the amount of money you have to spend. High quality Chinese made consumer products (Apple, Miele, Bosch, etc) don't currently have a real market in India (due to your current degree of wealth).

I hope they will get paid by India though, unlike your foreign CWG contractors.

My wild guess is that Chinese want to sell stuff to India, at a high price and claim high quality. Just a wild guess.

How about some Indian products sold in Chinese markets?

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Brando » 08 Sep 2011 20:14

wong wrote:If you can name a single Indian defense program that Chinese defense contractors like NORINCO or AVIC bid on or had solicitations, then your post would make more sense. I don't think India has ever inspected a single new modern Chinese weapons system so you have no idea about Chinese quality and reliability.


India didn't have single defense program that any Israeli defense contractors like IMI or Elbit bid on but the Indian government and the Indian military had a pretty good idea about the quality of Israeli technology.
The quality of technologies can easily be determined by China's civilians side where copying, stealing and reverse engineering are rife. Take China's so called profeciency in "high speed rail" that they "acquired" from Siemens initially by promising to partner with them in access to giving Siemens access to their domestic market. After a few years of "co-operation" and stealing their technology, they now claim their products are superior and are competing against Siemens through a cost advantage (since research costs to develop the technology was "free" ). This sort of thing doesn't endear other nations to respect the "quality" of chinese technology.
wong wrote: It varies greatly depending on the amount of money you have to spend. High quality Chinese made consumer products (Apple, Miele, Bosch, etc) don't currently have a real market in India (due to your current degree of wealth).

Yes, this is known to every Indian business executive who has ever dealt with China, but just because China can manufacture an Iphone doesn't mean that they have the technology to create the next generation of smartphones and change the face of telephony like Apple or Google. As to the "market" of Apple, even China doesn't have a "real market" for Apple (due to their current degree of wealth) when you compare the smartphone market in Korea, Japan or even the UK! If High quality "iphones" are the benchmark of Chinese technology then that is hardly an indicator of Chinese "technological" prowess in developing real technologies for defense that other countries won't share unlike the patented plans and designs to manufacture an Iphone .

wong wrote:Not a rupee of your MMRCA program has flowed into the coffers of the western defence contractors yet and won't for at least a few more years. I hope they will get paid by India though, unlike your foreign CWG contractors.

Well, I'm sure the Western defense manufacturers appreciate your thoughts about their finances and they trust your government will be equally generous in purchasing American Treasury bills to fund the next US defense budget however this concern hasn't stopped them from bidding aggressively and going out of their way to "win" the MMRCA contract.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Christopher Sidor » 08 Sep 2011 20:29

wong wrote:^^^^
The border issue between China and India is hardly this black and white. I am personally against China accepting the MacMahon line. Democratic Taiwan doesn't even recognize the MacMahon line. That being said, war with India over it is economically impratical. It would just provide an excuse for western sanctions and reprisals. An arms race though is another matter and I'm all for it, especially since China is clearly winning.


It is black and white. The only reason why Chinese refuse to recognize the line is that it was stuck between Tibet and India to the exclusion of the China. Yes Wong it was India, then ruled by British, which signed a treaty with an independent Tibet. If Tibet can enter and negotiate their boundary then it makes them de-facto independent of China. After all only sovereign nations have right to demarcate the border and enter into border negotiations.

If China agrees to macmohan line then it implies that in the period before the so called "peaceful liberation" of Tibet, Tibet was an independent nation. What it also says is that there was no "reunification" of the mother land in 1950. But what happened, in 1950, was an invasion of an independent nation, just like Hitlers invasion of Austria or the Nipponese invasion of Manchuria.

China will have to accept the macmohan line. This is non-negotiable. If this stand leads to a thousand years of conflict with China then so be it. I am not ready to sit and accept a solution imposed upon us, especially not by the Chinese. If it leads to a nuclear war, then also it is fine by me. That would be a small price to pay but macmohan line will be the border between our nations.

War between India and China is not economically impractical. It is going to happen. Economics has nothing to do with it. It may be like a hot war on lines of WWII or a cold war. But happen it will. And if you believe that China is clearly winning an arms race, I have no intentions of breaking your illusions. After all if your enemy has some misconceived perceptions, they end up hurting him or her more.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Christopher Sidor » 08 Sep 2011 20:54

Brando wrote:
wong wrote: It varies greatly depending on the amount of money you have to spend. High quality Chinese made consumer products (Apple, Miele, Bosch, etc) don't currently have a real market in India (due to your current degree of wealth).

Yes, this is known to every Indian business executive who has ever dealt with China, but just because China can manufacture an Iphone doesn't mean that they have the technology to create the next generation of smartphones and change the face of telephony like Apple or Google.


First thing first, China does not manufacture any of these things. What it does is assemble these things. i.e. their parts are manufactured in Japan or Korea or in Taiwan and then shipped to China for assembly. i.e. All the value add is done in the above mentioned three countries and china does the low value end. Just as lenevo got the low-value add of IBM's business, its PC business I mean. China is nothing but a sweat-shop-worker for the North Atlantic/Japanese/Korean companies. In the end it is a coolie. A coolie with a gigantic inferiority complex.

To get a true understanding of this look at where the value gets added take the example of Apple. The final value or most of the value that gets added is to the stock price of Apple, which is listed in US. Part of the value is also added to Samsung, which manufactures critical components in Korea. The value of Samsung gets added to its stock price, in Seoul and not in any city in China.

If you look at the trade figures between Japan and Korea to China you will see something startling. A Majority of the exports of Japan and Korea is not for consumption inside China, rather it is for re-export to other countries like US and blocs like Europe.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Boreas » 09 Sep 2011 07:03

Storm In East

Why so much hoo halah on one fake phone call? (which can be by anyone, anybody who wants it to turn sour between India and China.. some frustrated chinki or a US paid chinki) There was no Chinese ship in sight. Airavat continued its due course, nothing happened. Somebody put a penny on a public phone booth and made a call, nobody needed to know. Yet it was made public and that to done with a rather dispropostionate importance!

As the events and news reports are unfolding, it looks more and more to me to be a "US framed" incident, to cause dhoti-shivers in elephant land. All this probably to ulitmately get the elephant sail its ships in the 1000 ship navy of unkil.

Selamat Pagi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 05 Apr 2011 09:53

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Selamat Pagi » 09 Sep 2011 08:42

Christopher Sidor wrote:
It is black and white. The only reason why Chinese refuse to recognize the line is that it was stuck between Tibet and India to the exclusion of the China. Yes Wong it was India, then ruled by British, which signed a treaty with an independent Tibet. If Tibet can enter and negotiate their boundary then it makes them de-facto independent of China. After all only sovereign nations have right to demarcate the border and enter into border negotiations.



In 2008 UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband recognise Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Mr Miliband describes Britain’s old position as “based on the geopolitics of the time”—ie, the early 1900s, when British adventurers were entering Tibet from India and the Qing empire was disintegrating in China.

This will weaken India claims as Britain was involve in the border talks at that time.

Anyway nobody recognise Tibet as an independent country. Not India, not Europe and not even Dalai Lama.

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 994
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby DavidD » 09 Sep 2011 10:35

Boreas wrote:Storm In East

Why so much hoo halah on one fake phone call? (which can be by anyone, anybody who wants it to turn sour between India and China.. some frustrated chinki or a US paid chinki) There was no Chinese ship in sight. Airavat continued its due course, nothing happened. Somebody put a penny on a public phone booth and made a call, nobody needed to know. Yet it was made public and that to done with a rather dispropostionate importance!

As the events and news reports are unfolding, it looks more and more to me to be a "US framed" incident, to cause dhoti-shivers in elephant land. All this probably to ulitmately get the elephant sail its ships in the 1000 ship navy of unkil.


Didn't the Vietnamese government say something about it? It sounds more like their doing, trying to drive a wedge between India and China to get India in their corner.

Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2036
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 09 Sep 2011 10:41

"This will weaken India claims as Britain was involve in the border talks at that time.

Anyway nobody recognise Tibet as an independent country. Not India, not Europe and not even Dalai Lama."

It's not really a question of any 'claim. It's much more about the people, ideology, philosophy and system of governance in the current state of Arunachal Pradesh. And that is squarely with India, and totally compatible with India.

Things have thus gone far beyond dry, cold legalistic arguments about the legitimacy of the McMahon line or any British/ Chinese or British/Tibetan issues of the past.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Boreas » 09 Sep 2011 12:35

Selamat Pagi wrote:"This will weaken India claims as Britain was involve in the border talks at that time.

Anyway nobody recognise Tibet as an independent country. Not India, not Europe and not even Dalai Lama."


But then neither do anybody gives stapled visa to kasmiris. We are doing nothing, this is giving them advantage. You have to outsmart them in there game. It doesn't matter what majority does. It is our concern and we have to start the fire, only then others will join.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Christopher Sidor » 09 Sep 2011 21:56

I had recently been to middle east. For my trip to UAE, I was issued a tourist visa on paper. Yes the visa was mailed across to me. They did stamp my passport on exit and entrance. But even till this date my passport does not have a UAE visa.

Even Singapore issues stappled visa's or what is referred to as e-visa for certain categories.

Are we getting agitated over a trivial issue?

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10117
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby sum » 09 Sep 2011 22:01

For my trip to UAE, I was issued a tourist visa on paper. Yes and the visa was mailed across to me. They did stamp my passport on exit and entrance. But even till this date my passport does not have UAE a visa.
Even Singapore issues stappled visa's or what is referred to as e-visa for certain categories.
Are we getting agitated over a trivial issue?

Fine and dandy if same followed for entire country. Problem starts when only one province given the stapled thing and rest given different things.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Boreas » 09 Sep 2011 22:58

Christopher Sidor wrote:I had recently been to middle east. For my trip to UAE, I was issued a tourist visa on paper. Yes the visa was mailed across to me. They did stamp my passport on exit and entrance. But even till this date my passport does not have a UAE visa.

Even Singapore issues stappled visa's or what is referred to as e-visa for certain categories.

Are we getting agitated over a trivial issue?

As sum' already said, problem is with the fact that a person from delhi gets it on his passport and one from arunachal pradesh and now even kashmir gets on a stapled paper. Its not similar as the case mentioned by you.

It’s pretty straight forward. And it’s a direct challenge to the sovereignty of India. And it’s not trivial.

My point is the absence of any policy to engage and contain them, is only leading them to get more and more things to bargain with. We should not sit and watch. We should start putting things our way. Why wait, for something so terribly wrong to happen that it becomes eminent to respond, why not wake a little earlier and make it a level field.

wong
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 27 May 2011 19:21

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby wong » 10 Sep 2011 05:16

Okay, too many people to respond to so I'll just compile it in one post.

1. Yes, I know Apple, Miele & Bosch aren't Chinese companies. I said "Chinese made". I was just listing things off the top of my head around the house that are Chinese made and very high quality. The Chinese made Miele vacuum I own is now 15 years old and still looks and runs like brand-new. So China is capable of making the highest quality goods if you are willing to pay for it.

2. Samsung is Korean (not even sure why you brought up Samsung). Yes, I know. China is following exactly the same path as Korea and Japan. Samsung, LG and Hyundai were all junk brands when I was young.

3. JF-17 is a Sino-Pakistani joint venture designed specifically to match your LCA. That's why China doesn't use it. Chinese test pilots fly it all the time and they don't consider it suicidal. Your Mig-21 pilots are a different matter.

4. Tata isn't a big name outside of India. Then you named some Indian leverage buy-outs of UK companies like Jaguar and Corus. Obviously a source of great pride that you can borrow heavily to buy the companies of your former masters, I just don't see the relevance. Besides, China pays cash.

5. China is a coolie nation. Well, how does a coolie amass $3.5 Trillion, soon to be $5 Trillion in foreign reserves. The real coolies are in Dubai with their passport taken away slaving 12 hour days in the 120 degree desert heat building modern day pyramids for the Arabs. Not an econ thread, but I will refer you to the latest global competitiveness report for a dose of much needed reality.

http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-2011-2012/

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1879
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby VikramS » 10 Sep 2011 07:17

wong:
Please take this to the economic forum
viewtopic.php?p=1161316#p1161316

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 10 Sep 2011 08:30

wong wrote:3. JF-17 is a Sino-Pakistani joint venture designed specifically to match your LCA. That's why China doesn't use it. Chinese test pilots fly it all the time and they don't consider it suicidal. Your Mig-21 pilots are a different matter.

Chinese lose face if they admit crashes. There are no publicly released accident figures for Chinese rust buckets so it is easy to say that the crashes are all elsewhere. Your posts are a living example of exactly this tendency to go into denial when faced with the truth that China is not open and hides information that would cause embarrassment.

Besides even Pakistani pilots have been contemptuous of Chinese pilots - their views after a recent air show was posted on this forum. Chinese pilots don't fly much Those who don't fly much don't crash much. You can't crash if you don't fly can you?

This is from a forum run by China's favorite prostitute, Pakistan
hllp://www.defence.poak/forums/jf-17-th ... -show.html
The poster on Pakdef known as Eagle Hannan is a Pakistani engineer who works in Nanjing, China. He speaks both Urdu and Chinese fluently. He is a serious military aviation enthusiast. The city he comes from in China, Nanjing, is also the home of two of the J-10 pilots from the PLAAF that participated in the Zhuhai Air Show, 2010. He stayed at the same hotel as the PAF pilots and had many conversations with them as well as the PLAAF pilots. . Hannan attended all three public holidays and spent all three days with pilots and senior officers. Hannan has managed to collect a large amount of information and media and these have been cleared by senior personnel from the PAF for public release.

What follows is a summary of Eagle Hannan's posts from Pakdef.

Hannan describes the aerobatics display of the JF-17 as brilliant. The JF-17 flew twice every day of the air show. He notes that the weather conditions were very bad and hard to take videos in. He said that the J-10s did not perform particularly well. Hannan comments that in 14 minutes of display there was a single performance of 360 and three half-hearted loops. He observes that the rest of the displays by the J-10 were formation flights. He notes that one of the Sherdil pilots comments about the J-10 pilots in Punjabi that the old men of China cannot fly their own planes.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Christopher Sidor » 10 Sep 2011 08:56

wong wrote:Okay, too many people to respond to so I'll just compile it in one post.

1. Yes, I know Apple, Miele & Bosch aren't Chinese companies. I said "Chinese made". I was just listing things off the top of my head around the house that are Chinese made and very high quality. The Chinese made Miele vacuum I own is now 15 years old and still looks and runs like brand-new. So China is capable of making the highest quality goods if you are willing to pay for it.

Wong China does not make these products. It assembles them. There is world of difference. And you are right "China is capable of making the highest quality goods if you are willing to pay for it." But that is the point, china's effectiveness is at assembly and not manufacturing products. Even now the most prosperous consumers are not willing to pay the price of China "making" these products, only of China assembling these products. And would you be able to make components of same quality as a korean or better still Japanese at a price point less than these countries. I doubt it.

You listed on top of your head not a single chinese product. I would congratulate you on the Miele Vaccum. To have a vaccum which lasts for 15 years is fantastic. How many chinese have access or are capable of buying the same vaccum?

wong wrote:5. China is a coolie nation. Well, how does a coolie amass $3.5 Trillion, soon to be $5 Trillion in foreign reserves. The real coolies are in Dubai with their passport taken away slaving 12 hour days in the 120 degree desert heat building modern day pyramids for the Arabs. Not an econ thread, but I will refer you to the latest global competitiveness report for a dose of much needed reality.

http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-2011-2012/


Okie let us talk about global competitiveness. India takes in less than half of FDI which china takes in a year and produces a growth which has been 2-3% less. Who is more efficient in using capital? China gave a stimulus of half a trillion USD in the aftermath of the lehman debacle. Guess how much stimulus did India give? And then compare the growth rate of China and India especially in the year 2008-2011.

Now about the slaving 12 hour days in 120 degree sun, compare it with slaving more than 15 hours a day in a chemical laden factory somewhere in the eastern part of china and getting peanuts in return for one's effort. It is not Indians, but also Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Flipinos who slog away in the sun. But guess what they still earn more than a coolie slogging away in a factory in China.
Indians are free to go wherever they want to go, we live in a free society. We give our poor people the chance to go and earn money wherever they would want to go. Does china give the same luxury to its people, especially its poor? Or is this restricted to well to do or middle-income-group individuals?

A Coolie amasses 3.5 trillion USD of reserves because he cannot allow the same money to come inside his or her economy. If the coolie does that then his competitiveness gets destroyed. The coolie has to finance his customers, because by buying foreign bonds and keeping their currency, china is in fact subsidizing foreigners. China's amassing 3.5 trillion USD is not a source of strength but rather it is a source of weakness. If China sells US Treasuries it will get Dollar. If it sell the European Bonds it will get Pound or Euro. What it will not get is Yuan. What it will not get is Oil. And if there is a default by any one of the countries what will happen then? Add inflation to the mix, and value of foreign holding decreases every day. Having 3.5 trillion USD of reserves does not make china rich. It makes chinese policies the object of ridicule.


Again Wong, please do not take it to mean that Chinese, as opposed to China, have not made strides. You have made great strides especially after getting millions butchered in some crazy idea called "cultural revolution." And it is purely due to your compatriots hard work. But one has to ask the question, is China getting prosperous or are the Chinese getting prosperous?

Moderators many of the topics discussed are OT. I would request your indulgence in this matter.
Last edited by Christopher Sidor on 10 Sep 2011 09:13, edited 1 time in total.

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Boreas » 10 Sep 2011 09:07

wong wrote:1. Yes, I know Apple, Miele & Bosch aren't Chinese companies. I said "Chinese made". I was just listing things off the top of my head around the house that are Chinese made and very high quality. The Chinese made Miele vacuum I own is now 15 years old and still looks and runs like brand-new. So China is capable of making the highest quality goods if you are willing to pay for it.

"china made" is a glorified term. It will be more accurate to put it as "China is used to made". And its reason is purely economical, nothing to do with your tall claims. There are about 200 million chinese who are pleased to do anything for an hour for half a dollar. Yes that’s what you are paid $0.57 per hour. That’s 3% of what an average american manufacturing worker is paid. Its not a matter of pride its a state of meagreness, its a shinning example of constant inability of your red government to enhance abilities of your masses. Probably not enough funds are left after spending it all on painting good images of chinese development everywhere.


wong wrote:2. Samsung is Korean (not even sure why you brought up Samsung). Yes, I know. China is following exactly the same path as Korea and Japan. Samsung, LG and Hyundai were all junk brands when I was young.

Its ok that you don't understand everything, I am sure there will be some nutrition which affects human brain as well along with "height", tell ur highly invested R&D people to find one. Meanwhile as that will take a lot of time, I tell you why I wrote that.

I wrote that to make you realize what you can call your own, and what you can't.


wong wrote:3. JF-17 is a Sino-Pakistani joint venture designed specifically to match your LCA. That's why China doesn't use it. Chinese test pilots fly it all the time and they don't consider it suicidal. Your Mig-21 pilots are a different matter.

So, you are saying that China has designed and developed a fighter plane from scratch, just for pakistan. Because as you said you guys don't have any possible use for it.

Do you realise what that makes you sound like?

(I really want to know why you guys made a plane if you didn't wanted to use it, what could be the reason apart from fact that you made and then found it utter crap. And no one is willing to use. Except Pakis' well they are anyways well versed with the idea of suicide bombing.)


wong wrote:4. Tata isn't a big name outside of India. Then you named some Indian leverage buy-outs of UK companies like Jaguar and Corus. Obviously a source of great pride that you can borrow heavily to buy the companies of your former masters, I just don't see the relevance. Besides, China pays cash.

I don't expect you to understand, because your specialization lies in half a dollar per hour jobs, but its a good sign to expand by borrowing. Because not everyone is able to get money from market, specially of this scale, it needs a lot of "high" credibility. (and probably a bond that you are not chinese :mrgreen: )


wong wrote:5. China is a coolie nation. Well, how does a coolie amass $3.5 Trillion, soon to be $5 Trillion in foreign reserves. The real coolies are in Dubai with their passport taken away slaving 12 hour days in the 120 degree desert heat building modern day pyramids for the Arabs. Not an econ thread, but I will refer you to the latest global competitiveness report for a dose of much needed reality.

In india there are millionaire beggars

Boreas
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Boreas » 10 Sep 2011 10:01

wong wrote:5. ... The real coolies are in Dubai with their passport taken away slaving 12 hour days in the 120 degree desert heat building modern day pyramids for the Arabs. Not an econ thread, but I will refer you to the latest global competitiveness report for a dose of much needed reality.

Wong, I agree Indians are not globally competitive, infact I agree so much that I am going to write a whole list to show how much I am agreeing with you -

1. The loan dipped Tata's who somehow kept on borrowing and bought JLR and corus is the first example of Indian non-competitiveness.

2. Mukesh ambani and his RIL is another least competitive organisation, but wait.. isn't he the richest man in Asia, and also isn't china a part of asia, ohh shyt.. put the whitener on this line.

Also doesn't he owns the largest petroleum refinery in the world? Ahh that is only beacuse he is so non-competitive.

3. Another non-competitive Indian LK Mittal.. owns what the largest steel company in the world? Whitener again.

4. Isn't the Citi-Group CEO an Indian, and so is that of Pepsi co., and what about the one who headed vodafone few years back. Wong how the heck are these non-competitive Indians heading all the top notch organisations of world? Why can't I see any chinese anywhere near any place where salary is more then half a dollar per hour! Whitener all the way.

5. Ten out of Top 25 Richest people in Asia are Indians, 5 each are from Japan and Hong Knog. And to my great pleasure one of top 25 is from Mainland China. (last line in bold letters, will go in every red press poster)


Now few of those, you wont be knowing by yourself.

6. Ajit Jain, CEO, Reinsurance Division, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (I hope you know what Berkshire Hathaway Inc is?)

7. Shantanu Narayen, CEO, Adobe. (I am sure you will be using a pirated copy of it)

8. Harish Manwai, COO, FMCG giant Unilever.

9. Rakesh Kapoor, global CEO, Reckitt and Benckiser.

10. Ajay Banga former Mastercard CEO


Wong, no matter what the whole world believes, I am with you in this. All these facts are Indian propaganda, China and chinese are best and most competitive.
(even when half of them are paid half a dollar per hour, and even when they copy everything and even when they fail to "create" anything original all by themselves and when they do, no one is ready to use it)
I'll buy more whitener to hide all this propaganda, and i'll put in bold letters things like Chinese are growing taller day by day, and Chinese have all the J's (which russians are copying from you) and only China is capable of "making" high quality products like that of Apple, mille and bosch (beacuse probably only chinese know how to use screw-driver)

Red Salute.

Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2036
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 10 Sep 2011 10:26

What is Wong trying to prove here in this forum, with his surly, and propagandistic, posts?

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 121
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 10 Sep 2011 13:01

Varoon Shekhar wrote:What is Wong trying to prove here in this forum, with his surly, and propagandistic, posts?


There is a technique that is taught to youngsters appearing for Group Discussions, which are a part of the selection process for jobs across sectors and also for selections for higher education programmes.

The technique is usually used when two members of the group keep on talking and don't give others chance to speak. The theory behind the technique is that if in the same group, another discussion starts between folks who are not able to participate in the first one, the previous one tends to die down because more members are likely to take part in the second discussion. Second corollary to this technique is that for any conversation to happen, eye contact is necessary, and if one person is speaking too much, the rest of the group should stop looking into his eyes and should start a separate line of discussions by getting others to participate. Ergo, the speaker has to pipe down because no one is listening to him!

May I suggest, we use the internet version of the above techniques by not responding to Mr. Wong. His version of claims and style is similar to what Shiv had pointed out earlier, in a separated discussion on LCH - "My dick is bigger than yours". I think we should let him declare victory and go away. His claims and thoughts are irrelevant to us except to understand his mindset.

Best regards.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 560
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Avarachan » 10 Sep 2011 15:21

Wong should be allowed to continue posting. This insight into the thinking of a Chinese Communist is entertaining. When he claimed that Apple and Bosch products are "Chinese made," I nearly fell out of my chair, I was laughing so hard. :rotfl:

jagga
BRFite
Posts: 660
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 02:07
Location: Himalaya Ki God Mein

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby jagga » 10 Sep 2011 15:33

Wong is correct. Quality of Chinese products is very good. Ask Deepal and Tallel friend about "Dong Fang" locomotives.No matter what, Pakis always stick with Dong Fang locomotives. This proves Chinese product quality is excellent.
Pakistan Rail sticks with Dong Fang :lol:

Wong you are again correct, when you say It depends upon how much money you are willing to spend to get good quality Chinese product. Read bolded part. :rotfl:

Chinese locomotives are not used elsewhere in the world due to their inefficient energy consumption and high maintenance costs and critics claim corruption in Pakistan Railways led to the latest contract for 75 locomotives. Last year, Pakistan had refused to finalize the locomotive deal. Analysts say the engines will be cheaper only at the time of purchase, but their lifetime cost will be much higher than those of international quality.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests