China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 04 Nov 2019 11:37

On H-6N, ballistic missile carrier. This is tactical weapon against ships.

https://mobile.twitter.com/horobeyo/status/1191012279354920961/photo/1

逆襲
@horobeyo
·
14h
雑誌「現代艦船」2019年23期テーマーー爆撃機が海を支配する(via CD@oldcaticu44)https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2596066-1-1.html…
まともに考えると、確かに沿岸から長航続距離爆撃機の行動半径+対艦弾道ミサイルの射程を足すと、打撃範囲外の海域は全世界でも少ない訳だ(雑誌の内容にはあんまり関係のない話だが)

-------Google Translated from Japanese-------


Counterattack
@horobeyo
·
14h
Magazine “Modern Ship” The 23rd Theme of 2019-Bombers Dominate the Sea (via CD @ oldcaticu44) https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2596066-1-1.html
If you think about it, it is true that if you add the action radius of the long-range bomber from the coast and the range of the anti-ship ballistic missile, the number of seas outside the hitting range is small in the whole world. It ’s a story)

Image

Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 06 Nov 2019 11:18

Cheen never retires a production line :rotfl:

They are still building MiG-21 derivatives. The FTC-2000G.

Image

Image

Image

Even today there are turdworlders buying this crap. This and their other new trainer/light attack craft, the L-15, are cutting into the Pakis' potential Blunder sales.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7700
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Indranil » 06 Nov 2019 21:05

Why should they. What's wrong the above aircraft?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 07 Nov 2019 07:40

^^^ Obsolescence? Is that a trick question, Saar?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7700
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Indranil » 07 Nov 2019 11:13

Not at all. I really mean it. A modern Mig21 is a very economical mud mover. Cheap to acquire, cheap to maintain with very high availability.

Imagine one built around a M88. What's wrong? If your tactics are sound, it is not easy to take down a Mig21 Bis. Why would it be easy to take down this plane? With an economical modern engine it can easily deliver 2 450 kg PGMs 400 kms away. With a refueling probe and a buddy refueled, third world airforces can achieve a lot.

vimal
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 27 Jul 2017 10:32

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby vimal » 07 Nov 2019 11:23

Indranil wrote:Not at all. I really mean it. A modern Mig21 is a very economical mud mover. Cheap to acquire, cheap to maintain with very high availability.

Imagine one built around a M88. What's wrong? If your tactics are sound, it is not easy to take down a Mig21 Bis. Why would it be easy to take down this plane? With an economical modern engine it can easily deliver 2 450 kg PGMs 400 kms away. With a refueling probe and a buddy refueled, third world airforces can achieve a lot.


+108

A reliable low-cost plane produced in large numbers with decent enough payload and avionics should suffice for a lot of air forces around the world. Everyone does not need a F-35.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 07 Nov 2019 11:34

Indranil wrote:Not at all. I really mean it. A modern Mig21 is a very economical mud mover. Cheap to acquire, cheap to maintain with very high availability.

Imagine one built around a M88. What's wrong? If your tactics are sound, it is not easy to take down a Mig21 Bis. Why would it be easy to take down this plane? With an economical modern engine it can easily deliver 2 450 kg PGMs 400 kms away. With a refueling probe and a buddy refueled, third world airforces can achieve a lot.


But Indranil ji, if one were to build a MiG-21 around a modern turbofan like the M88 he would get a JF-17.

This FTC2000 though is still a MiG-21 (well maybe a F-5 from the same generation since it reworked the intake from the nose to the sides) complete with a throwaway 1960's style turbojet as a powerplant.

The reason I say they never retire a line is they already have the cheap single engine "modern" fighter in the JF-17. They also have the L-15 as another modern supersonic cheap jet. So it seems to me with the FTC2000 they are building things just to build things. I can see the rationale as a jobs program or for skills preservation.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1957
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Manish_P » 07 Nov 2019 14:13

vimal wrote:+108

A reliable low-cost plane produced in large numbers with decent enough payload and avionics should suffice for a lot of air forces around the world. Everyone does not need a F-35.


+1 with one small addition- Not everyone has a F-35 as an opponent either.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4288
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby srai » 07 Nov 2019 14:45

LCA Tejas fits perfectly in this export market segment. India needs to learn how to export its wares like the Americans, Russians, Europeans, and the Chinese. Much more than just selling a product. GoI needs to package some of its weight behind it.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3389
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby kit » 07 Nov 2019 15:56

vimal wrote:
Indranil wrote:Not at all. I really mean it. A modern Mig21 is a very economical mud mover. Cheap to acquire, cheap to maintain with very high availability.

Imagine one built around a M88. What's wrong? If your tactics are sound, it is not easy to take down a Mig21 Bis. Why would it be easy to take down this plane? With an economical modern engine it can easily deliver 2 450 kg PGMs 400 kms away. With a refueling probe and a buddy refueled, third world airforces can achieve a lot.


+108

A reliable low-cost plane produced in large numbers with decent enough payload and avionics should suffice for a lot of air forces around the world. Everyone does not need a F-35.


quite true , a few of the are looking at NEW F16s

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11230
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 07 Nov 2019 16:14

Agree with Chola , this FTC 2000 is more like J8, atleast JF 17 seems to have a stronger structure and more modern RD33 engine.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2922
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 07 Nov 2019 18:05

srai wrote:LCA Tejas fits perfectly in this export market segment. India needs to learn how to export its wares like the Americans, Russians, Europeans, and the Chinese. Much more than just selling a product. GoI needs to package some of its weight behind it.

i know it is OT, but that would be the last thing i would worry about ever about Indians. The day GoI decides to focus/put its weight behind, we'll sell better than China anyday everyday. From the weight, i mean, focus on getting the right talent to sell. We are not short on brochure makers, natashas, and salesperson. Perhaps we are woefully short of fanboys (outside BRF of course)

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7700
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Indranil » 07 Nov 2019 20:33

Look there are a few class of advance-trainers-cum-light-attack aircraft.
~30 kN of installed dry thrust like alphajet, Hawk and Mitsubishi T4
~50 kN of installed dry thrust like yak-130 derivatives
~40 kN of installed dry thrust and 65 kN of wet thrust like FTC2000 and mitsubishi T2
~ 50 kN of installed dry thrust and 80 kN of wet thrust like the L15, LCA trainer, F50 and the Boeing T7

I can't find a fault with any of these selections. The last two categories are almost fighters. What will India develop/adopt as its next trainer? I hope it is from the later two kinds.

YashG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby YashG » 07 Nov 2019 20:40

chola wrote:
Indranil wrote:Not at all. I really mean it. A modern Mig21 is a very economical mud mover. Cheap to acquire, cheap to maintain with very high availability.

Imagine one built around a M88. What's wrong? If your tactics are sound, it is not easy to take down a Mig21 Bis. Why would it be easy to take down this plane? With an economical modern engine it can easily deliver 2 450 kg PGMs 400 kms away. With a refueling probe and a buddy refueled, third world airforces can achieve a lot.


But Indranil ji, if one were to build a MiG-21 around a modern turbofan like the M88 he would get a JF-17.

This FTC2000 though is still a MiG-21 (well maybe a F-5 from the same generation since it reworked the intake from the nose to the sides) complete with a throwaway 1960's style turbojet as a powerplant.

The reason I say they never retire a line is they already have the cheap single engine "modern" fighter in the JF-17. They also have the L-15 as another modern supersonic cheap jet. So it seems to me with the FTC2000 they are building things just to build things. I can see the rationale as a jobs program or for skills preservation.


Fits into classic Chinese way of doing things. Build things for their parade value not for their utility. They want to continue adding numbers. This is the same country that stored over a thousand mig-19 in farm fields and counted them in its inventory!
(Though I remain ready to be proven wrong if concrete data supports efficacy of chinese models in real world - and Chinese miltech is not all a facade)

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/chinas-countryside-returning-to-poverty-report/articleshow/71878765.cms?from=mdr Chinese rural incomes had been depressing since 2014. Chinese miltech light & sound show will keep on getting fancier.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11230
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 08 Nov 2019 11:26

Similar approach was followed by Joseph Stalin till the winter war with FInland in 1939

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 08 Nov 2019 14:44

Indranil wrote:Look there are a few class of advance-trainers-cum-light-attack aircraft.
~30 kN of installed dry thrust like alphajet, Hawk and Mitsubishi T4
~50 kN of installed dry thrust like yak-130 derivatives
~40 kN of installed dry thrust and 65 kN of wet thrust like FTC2000 and mitsubishi T2
~ 50 kN of installed dry thrust and 80 kN of wet thrust like the L15, LCA trainer, F50 and the Boeing T7

I can't find a fault with any of these selections. The last two categories are almost fighters. What will India develop/adopt as its next trainer? I hope it is from the later two kinds.


Point taken, Sir. But the FTC2000 is the only one still using a turbojet. To me it seems they will be cannibalizing their own sales to two modern advanced/lead-in trainer types on the JF-17B and the L-15.

I had always liked the fact that they build such a wide variety of models for such a long time -- they were building brand new J-7s in the 2000's. But discussion in this thread with Karan and others had me thinking these obsolete models can't be that good for efficient use of treasure and resource. The US for example does not build F-4 or A-7 alongside the F-35 which what Cheen is essentially doing. The market pressures on the Amreeki MIC will not allow it. Cheen's MIC feels little pressure it seems and is pumping out obsolete stuff alongside fairly advance ones.

We already have the Hawk and working on the IJT. I like to see our advanced trainer/LIFT be the LCA two seater. HTT40 --> IJT/Hawk --> LCA AT --> LCA LIFT. The difference between LCA AT and LIFT could be less expensive avionics and maybe the removal of the radar for the AT?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 08 Nov 2019 15:11

It looks like the J-10C is currently being mass produced with a new WS-10 variant.

Number 431 indicates 4th production batch.
Image

Some discussion in the watchers community on whether it is still a J-10 "C" variant now that it has a new engine. But all reports indicates no model designation change. Some pointed out there were J-10Bs with WS-10s as well and the nomenclature never changed. This might mean that the J-10 in at least those two tranches can accept (or were designed to accept) either an AL-31 or WS-10. CAC is doing something similar with the J-20 which is already seen with the AL-31 and WS-10 and will eventually get the WS-15.

The same engineering options can exist for the Tejas in regards to engines? F404 to F414 should be an obvious upgrade path but maybe for the Kaveri or a M88 core alternative too. Plug and play with powerplants!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7700
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Indranil » 08 Nov 2019 23:46

chola wrote:
Indranil wrote:Look there are a few class of advance-trainers-cum-light-attack aircraft.
~30 kN of installed dry thrust like alphajet, Hawk and Mitsubishi T4
~50 kN of installed dry thrust like yak-130 derivatives
~40 kN of installed dry thrust and 65 kN of wet thrust like FTC2000 and mitsubishi T2
~ 50 kN of installed dry thrust and 80 kN of wet thrust like the L15, LCA trainer, F50 and the Boeing T7

I can't find a fault with any of these selections. The last two categories are almost fighters. What will India develop/adopt as its next trainer? I hope it is from the later two kinds.


Point taken, Sir. But the FTC2000 is the only one still using a turbojet. To me it seems they will be cannibalizing their own sales to two modern advanced/lead-in trainer types on the JF-17B and the L-15.

I had always liked the fact that they build such a wide variety of models for such a long time -- they were building brand new J-7s in the 2000's. But discussion in this thread with Karan and others had me thinking these obsolete models can't be that good for efficient use of treasure and resource. The US for example does not build F-4 or A-7 alongside the F-35 which what Cheen is essentially doing. The market pressures on the Amreeki MIC will not allow it. Cheen's MIC feels little pressure it seems and is pumping out obsolete stuff alongside fairly advance ones.

We already have the Hawk and working on the IJT. I like to see our advanced trainer/LIFT be the LCA two seater. HTT40 --> IJT/Hawk --> LCA AT --> LCA LIFT. The difference between LCA AT and LIFT could be less expensive avionics and maybe the removal of the radar for the AT?

Please drop the "ji" and "sir". I would like to earn it and I don't think I deserve it yet.

I am not talking of this particular aircraft and its engines. But, aircrafts of this class. What if we built a simple aircraft of this class around a modern engine? There are advantages of these airplanes.
1. Do you know which plane is scrambled by IAF now. Mig-21s?!!!! Why, because nothing can get in the air that fast. The primary delay in getting a Mig21 in the air is the men. IAF has regular drills where the Mig21s take to the air within 5 minutes from first alert. Nothing else even comes close. None of the advanced stuff. So, simplicity has its virtues.
2. And when they land, you can fuel them up, and they are ready to go again. The Israelis found that 4 decades back.
3. PLAAF doesn't need these planes. The truth is there govt. shells out much more money to them than ours. In fact, an order more. They do not need these planes directly. But they need these industries. These are great planes for airforces with lower capital.
4. I support these planes for the IAF too. I am thinking of writing an article about it. You see 'light' for USAF meant the F16 (now F35!!!!) because they are largely an expeditionary force. PLAAF is getting there. But, what are battles, that we want to fight. And how do we plan to support that fight, aka our industry? If we foresee fights with only our neighbors in the foreseeable future what should the our definition of light be? And light does not mean unsophisticated. LCA LIFT is not going to be cheap. It is cheaper compared to a Gripen. But, is this the best we can do, given the reality of our politicians, and the state of our industry?
4. Trainers by definition have to be cheaper aircraft to acquire and maintain. They fly twice a day on a regular basis. Should it be a LCA LIFT, or something even simpler? A case can be made for the latter. Imagine a Hawk class aircraft powered by modern afterburning engine like F125IN. Such a plane could easily reach 1.4M, with an endurance of 2 hours on internal fuel (for single seater versions), 3 hours with drop tanks. Strap on a scaled down Uttam onto it. With 7 hardpoints loaded with A2A missiles it will have a TWR of a Mig21. This would be our Mig-21 Bison replacement as an awesome point defense fighter which stays on our side of the fence. It will be 75% of the acquisition and 50% of the maintenance cost of an LCA LIFT. What's your opinion of having 10 squadrons of these? Together with the trainers, that is 250 aircraft production run for India alone, forget export orders. If HAL (or a private company) proposed this today, should GoI/IAF support it?

If you talk to F-16 pilots or Mig21 pilots, they will tell you it is NOT easy to take them down. First if they are flying towards you, it is very difficult to spot them. They are basically an engine flying at you. And every aircraft has its forte. The pilots of these airplanes will not leave their forte. Abhinandan actually left his forte and fought on the horizontal and it was still a draw (both aircrafts went down).

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 09 Nov 2019 04:39

^^^ Indranil, great discussion and point of view.

Who wouldn't want 10 squadrons of indigenous aircraft! But I really see that being the Tejas if I were being realistic. Yes, I know the price is an issue when thinking one for one replacement of the Bisons.

I think we are looking at a less expensive solutions in trainers with the IJT and the HAL Hawk (though this had turned out far more expensive than originally planned.) The Advanced "super" Hawk idea would have been that small trainer/fighter you envisioned.

But I think a true light fighter like a MiG-21 with a modern engine inevitably brings us back to a Tejas (or a JF-17 if we want to go cheap) with a medium-thrust turbofan like the F404 or RD-33.

They are the smallest fighters these days. Both have turbofans in the 70-80kN range. I don't think a single engined true fighter (not part trainer) with a 30kN class turbofan like the F125 exists. Maybe we can start a new trend? Looking up the F125, I see it was designed for a Taiwanese project the FCK-1 but that flies with two of those engines.

The Bison and the chini MiG-21s are powered by 65-70kN turbojets. They are cheap partly because they fly on disposable short-lived engines. If we had a turbojet industry, I would have loved this idea of yours. But we skipped the turbojet generation by going directly to the turbofan in the Kaveri. I think only Cheen makes mil turbojets these days with their WP series and thus can still continue building these MiG-21 variants.

That brings us full circle to what is a proper modern engine for an inexpensive single-engined plane? If it is the F404/414 then we are back at the LCA again. Maybe the smaller M88 or a less ambitous Kaveri? But they will not be cheap either -- the first will be expensive to import and the second will need huge investment to finish. If we have to spend money anyways I would go with the second option.

Finishing up the Kaveri would open up all sorts of possibilities. The original Kaveri specs were for an 80kN engine like the RD-33/F404 (we were aggressive in the 1980s!) Even if we could get it to 60-65kN we would be in the range of the Tumansky turbojets that gave the MiG-21 Mach 2 top speed. With composite skills learned from Tejas I think we can make this new desi MiG-21 you envisioned with the Kaveri. Of course, thrust might not be the main issue with the Kaveri.

This really makes me rue that we never developed a turbojet -- which is imminently more achievable by forgoing some of the material science needed for long-lived turbofans. Such a powerplant we could have produced in large numbers and plop into all sorts of designs.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3817
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 10 Nov 2019 19:55

We might be seeing a new era in Cheen aviation. After a few decades of slogging away at the WS-10, they might have finally gotten things right.

https://mobile.twitter.com/tkmeyer0524/status/1192915935247716353

Tom Meyer
@tkmeyer0524
Photos of a J-20 and J-10C serial number 04.31 equipped with WS-10 engine are released today. It is unclear, however, whether it involves standard equipment or simply flying test benches. Be that as it may, the era of Chinese engines has arrived ...



https://mobile.twitter.com/gnnalperr/status/1192063813731913728
Alper
@gnnalperr
WS-10 motor ailesinin gelişim evreleri ;

WS-10 – J-11 ( prototip )
WS-10A – J-10/J-11B
WS-10B – J-10C
WS-10B2 – J-16
WS-10B TVC – J-10B
WS-10H – J-15
WS-10C – J-20



They re-visited the WS-10 on the J-10 repeatedly in the last two decades. And the thing failed repeatedly until it didn't.

On J-10A 1004 prototype in 2000s:
Image

On J-10B 2nd production batch circa 2015:
Image

J-10B TVC 2018:
Image

J-10C 4th production batch 2019:
Image

sajaym
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 65
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby sajaym » 11 Nov 2019 11:45



After seeing this display it seems to me that the J-10B with TVC engine is almost like a Rafale & SU-30MKI rolled into one (for the cost of a single engine fighter!). With a decent avionics fit and reliable engine, this jet could be the ideal Paki counter for our Rafales & MKIs. The J-10B would suit their ‘Shoot & Scoot’ bhikaari tactics very well too.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18489
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 11 Nov 2019 11:46

All depends on how good their radar, EW, missiles are. I'd take French/Russian anyday over their weapons suites. They are still buying Russian S-4XX for their praetorian guard, i.e. their Beijing and other elite SAM units.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7866
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 11 Nov 2019 20:48

sajaym wrote:
After seeing this display it seems to me that the J-10B with TVC engine is almost like a Rafale & SU-30MKI rolled into one (for the cost of a single engine fighter!). With a decent avionics fit and reliable engine, this jet could be the ideal Paki counter for our Rafales & MKIs. The J-10B would suit their ‘Shoot & Scoot’ bhikaari tactics very well too.


I think you need to prove the "how" in "s almost like a Rafale & SU-30MKI rolled into one ". Does it have the range and the range/payload of the MKI? Does it have the ability to employ the large aperture sensors in a way the MKI does? Does it have the avionics and EW capability of the Rafale? It is hard if not outright impossible for any serious person to draw that conclusion based on a video. If you want a retrofit TVC chops video then go see what the F-16 VISTA and MATV programs demonstrated eons ago on a SEF. Where did that effort go? Nowhere. Because TVC only marginally improved combat effectiveness when one factors in the overall mission needs. It does not make the aircraft more survivable against a whole host of surface to air and air to air threats. It does not magically increase payload and range and it does not allow for additional survivability aids to be added.

Only thing it allows for is more "options" in the BFM side of the equation but that is a marginal capability enhancement when factoring in the entire scope of the multi-role fighter's mission sets. What's the point in being able to execute a high alpha manuever if you A) cannot recover in time, or B ) If you get shot down by a SAM from 150 km out. The Indian PGM and BVR machine and the IADS are the PAF's biggest threats i.e. between the R-77, Astra, and Derby, and a whole host of precision air to surface munition the IAF will have an enormous advantage. A TVC equipped J-10 does not solve that..This obviously assuming that they can sustain sorties once confronted with what the IAF can deliver in terms of surface to surface and air to surface fires. 99.9% of the forum discussions tend to focus on Air Combat and BFM which is probably less than 10% of how effective air and combined arms campaigns are executed. In reality, the biggest challenge confronting most AF's isn't going to be the ability to go slow and pull a high alpha display but rather to have enough aircraft up in the air and to sustain sorties amidst attacks and counter attacks..Every $ the Pakistani Military establishment spends on acquiring a Chinese platform for its AF should be a welcome sign for trying to compete with the qualitative and quantitative strength of the IAF is not a wise allocation of their resources.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], brar_w, vishal and 14 guests