
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bny8p6nALhE
Kanson maybe I need a kick up my backside to wake me up. But as I see it - a bigger fighter consumes more fuel to stay in the air. And at the time of hostilities they will be required to spend more time in the air. That will mean good back up support because the amount of fuel carried (in the ship) is limited. Hit the support ships and flights are reduced. To protect the support vessels far away from home, you need a huge flotilla as well as submarines for protection from underneath. That means a carrier task force. A single carrier by itself means little - even if we are scared of China. We need to see how they will create a self protecting self sustaining carrier force far away from the brown waters off China. They will no doubt want to do that and we have to wait and see. Kicking ourselves in the butt is no substitute for watching and learning what the Chinese are up to.Kanson wrote:
This video probably clarifies why we have not chosen Su-33 for our carrier Gorky(And there is a write-up from ex-CNS Arun Prakash on this). Even for this big carrier, margin of error is not much.
And yet you guys want Chinese trains. See the flaws in your circular logic or over your head ??Bheeshma wrote:True and now after using chinese locomotives , pakis are desperate to beg or lease from India
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bny8p6nALhE
wong wrote:And yet you guys want Chinese trains. See the flaws in your circular logic or over your head ??Bheeshma wrote:True and now after using chinese locomotives , pakis are desperate to beg or lease from India
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bny8p6nALhE
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-new ... 62895.aspx
You're wrong Wong. We want Chinese trains so that we will learn a lesson when they break down as they do in Pakistan. We need the Chinese to teach us lessons. Like 1962. We must learn to fear Chinese trains.wong wrote: And yet you guys want Chinese trains. See the flaws in your circular logic or over your head ??
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-new ... 62895.aspx
Grow up! What are you 12yo?? I didn't write it. It's your Hindu Times.shiv wrote:You're wrong Wong. We want Chinese trains so that we will learn a lesson when they break down as they do in Pakistan. We need the Chinese to teach us lessons. Like 1962. We must learn to fear Chinese trains.wong wrote: And yet you guys want Chinese trains. See the flaws in your circular logic or over your head ??
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-new ... 62895.aspx
I must be 12 because you seem to enjoy interaction only with people you can dominate and bully. Yes it is the Hindu Times but the Hindu Times could not prevent Chinese rust buckets from breaking down in Pakistan and neither could the Chinese communist party stop the shiny plastic from cracking in Pakistan. Even a 12 year old can see that no? I learned a nursery rhyme in school today "All the Han's horses and all the Han's men couldn't put rusty together again"wong wrote: Grow up! What are you 12yo?? I didn't write it. It's your Hindu Times.
The point was that China sold substandard goods to Pakistan (greatest ali) and failed to provide support on maintenance and spares. China let down Pakistan on this sale and yet you make your pompous and arrogant claim about selling best quality to Pakistan.wong wrote:And yet you guys want Chinese trains. See the flaws in your circular logic or over your head ??Bheeshma wrote:True and now after using chinese locomotives , pakis are desperate to beg or lease from India
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bny8p6nALhE
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-new ... 62895.aspx
You should take a ride on your Mumbai subway trains.Harshad wrote:
The article simply says that China is one of the country India has an interest in working with. Others being Britain, Italy and Japan.
Dont get too excited. Hindu Bania Times are experts at spin
People ran yet still runs a $40 billion deficit with China and the deficit is still growing?Bheeshma wrote:LOLAgreement mean nothing. Chinese make crappy bikes were being sold for 10,000 rs in India but people ran after seeing their quality. This will go nowehere. Rest assured.
"
Ouch ...ashi wrote:People ran yet still runs a $40 billion deficit with China and the deficit is still growing?Bheeshma wrote:LOLAgreement mean nothing. Chinese make crappy bikes were being sold for 10,000 rs in India but people ran after seeing their quality. This will go nowehere. Rest assured.
"
Why not? Just as in technologies China steals, in economics China controls her currency to her advantage. Outside of dumping below cost - subsidized by the GoC.ashi wrote:People ran yet still runs a $40 billion deficit with China and the deficit is still growing?Bheeshma wrote:LOLAgreement mean nothing. Chinese make crappy bikes were being sold for 10,000 rs in India but people ran after seeing their quality. This will go nowehere. Rest assured.
"
Amid all the Noise, finally some Signal. The US carrier task forces come with mind-boggling air defence and anti submarine defence capabilities (and all sorts of electronic warfare magic). If the Chinese carrier were to pony up in the Arabian Sea for a show down with the IAF, I would be way more comfortable operating Sukhois and Rafales out of Lohegaon (with AWACS and refueller support) than CTRL C CTRL V Sukhois off a slow moving boat in the middle of the sea!shiv wrote:A single carrier by itself means little - even if we are scared of China. We need to see how they will create a self protecting self sustaining carrier force far away from the brown waters off China. They will no doubt want to do that and we have to wait and see.
Waylan, ashi: unfortunately for you, the joke is on the Chinese economy, although it is a joke that your leaders appear to enjoy. Maintaining a current account surplus by manipulating one's currency and denying foreigners access to your markets ultimately hurts the Chinese economy. It means that your consumers are denied access to goods and services of the optimal price and quality.Waylan wrote:Ouch ...ashi wrote: People ran yet still runs a $40 billion deficit with China and the deficit is still growing?
Current Account Deficits: Is There a Problem?
The current account can also be expressed as the difference between national (both public and private) savings and investment. A current account deficit may therefore reflect a low level of national savings relative to investment or a high rate of investment—or both. For capital-poor developing countries, which have more investment opportunities than they can afford to undertake because of low levels of domestic savings, a current account deficit may be natural. A deficit potentially spurs faster output growth and economic development
Okay, whatever you say.eklavya wrote:
Waylan, ashi: unfortunately for you, the joke is on the Chinese economy, although it is a joke that your leaders appear to enjoy. Maintaining a current account surplus by manipulating one's currency and denying foreigners access to your markets ultimately hurts the Chinese economy. It means that your consumers are denied access to goods and services of the optimal price and quality.
Leaving that aside, a "current account surplus" is by definition equal to a "capital account deficit" i.e. you (China) invest less than you save. Also, a "current account deficit" is by definition equal to a "capital account surplus" i.e. we (India) invest more than we save. Investment drives growth. China's current account surplus with India is funding India's growth ...![]()
I think you will not believe me (Economics can be quite counter-intuitive). Read this:
Current Account Deficits: Is There a Problem?
The current account can also be expressed as the difference between national (both public and private) savings and investment. A current account deficit may therefore reflect a low level of national savings relative to investment or a high rate of investment—or both. For capital-poor developing countries, which have more investment opportunities than they can afford to undertake because of low levels of domestic savings, a current account deficit may be natural. A deficit potentially spurs faster output growth and economic development
Whatever....Karan M wrote:^^ Says the child who spends most of his time, posting obvious propaganda pics, barely there flamebait posts in the Indian eco threads & no worthwhile thoughtful statements.
Many of the people in this forum dwarf you in terms of real world achievements & abilities. If you don't like it, tough sh*t and you are welcome to hike it back to one of your China stlong forums. You are a guest here, understood? Don't push it with your patronizing rubbish.
Airbus wins 60-plane China order after EU carbon retreat
Bloomberg / Shanghai Nov 25, 2012, 00:30 IST
Airbus SAS won an order for 60 A320 planes from state-backed China Eastern Airlines Corp, less than two weeks after the European Union backed down in a dispute with the government in Beijing over jetliner-emission levies.
China Eastern received a “substantive” discount to the list price of $5.4 billion for the single-aisle planes, it said in a statement from Shanghai yesterday, adding that Toulouse, France-based Airbus also agreed to take 18 regional jets off its hands.
EU plans to impose carbon dioxide-emission fees on flights in and out of the bloc were suspended on Nov. 12 after countries including China, India and Russia threatened retaliatory steps. Airbus parent European Aeronautic , Defence & Space Co. had said the levies might cause China to refuse to take its planes.
“I suspect there’s a message there,” said Sandy Morris , an analyst at Jefferies International in London with a “buy” rating on EADS. “China has been light on A320 orders for a while now and it looks like Airbus held some production slots back until this was resolved. It’s called looking after your customer.”
The A320s, due to arrive from 2014 to 2017, will be used mainly on domestic routes, according to China Eastern, which last year switched an order for 24 Boeing Co. 787s wide-body planes to 45 smaller 737s because of waning long-haul demand.
Regional deal
The airline will sell eight Bombardier CRJ planes and 10 Embraer SA regional jets with a book value of 1.5 billion yuan ($241 million) to Airbus, it said in the statement.
China was pleased with the EU move to suspend the plan for emissions charges, Xia Xinghua , deputy director of its aviation regulator, said Nov. 13. The Asian country’s airline association said in June that carriers would snub a deadline for filing emissions data and that the government would support them.
Three calls to China Eastern’s offices outside regular office hours yesterday went unanswered.
Airbus Chief Executive Officer Fabrice Bregier said in September that China was withholding signature on 35 to 45 wide- body A330 planes because of the emissions dispute. A contract for those aircraft would have given a “bigger signal” regarding current Chinese attitudes, Jefferies’ Morris said.
Airbus, which has an A320 assembly plant in China, won an order for 50 of the planes from the leasing arm of state- controlled Industrial & Commercial Bank of China in August.
China and other nations had said the EU should wait for a global emissions program being drawn up by the United Nations’ aviation agency rather than push ahead with a regional plan.
The levies are designed to curb C02 output associated with global warming.
Typical response really....and then the standard drone copy paste of 1 more "China success" below when it has nothing to do with Chinese military aviation & comes with no real input from you. Jeez, you guys are too predictable. Just copy pasting stuff from Chinese forums & your databases to somehow impress folks here..Don wrote:Whatever....
Its worth remarking that if Chinese technology was even half as good as claimed, the Pakistanis would not be so desparate to spend their Forex on F-16s or upgraded P3Cs - all of which are Tier-2 western items versus the top of the line systems available from the west. The F-16 is no EF/Rafale, the P3 is now superceded by the P8 ...Bheeshma wrote:LOL Chinese technology scares the crap out of the poor users like PAF and PN more than any adversary.
:
:
:
There is an increasing feeling in India that negotiations have dragged for too long. Adding to India’s discomfort is the fact that even after many unilateral concessions, China has shown little inclination to compromise. For example, in 2005 the two nations agreed to settle the territorial dispute in a manner that the interests of settled populations would not be bothered. Whereas the Western sector under Chinese control has no permanent populations and is absolutely barren, the Eastern sector under Indian control has a substantial population of Buddhists as well as other tribal communities. Clearly, the idea behind the 2005 declaration was to resolve the border dispute by making de jure the de facto control of existing territories. However, by 2007, the Chinese Foreign Minister had repudiated any such compromise.
China also seems to have included the border dispute within its concept of ‘core interests’, a euphemism which it reserves for Taiwan and South China Sea. Irrespective of the disputes in high seas, China has settled its border disputes with all its neighbours except India and Bhutan. Even with Vietnam, with whom China fought a bloody war in 1979, the border dispute has been negotiated peacefully.
Three reasons might explain China’s reluctance to resolve the India-China border dispute. First, China would like to settle its territorial disputes in the east and South China Sea before any resolution of the conflict with India. By postponing any ultimate resolution of the border dispute, China makes sure that India remains anxious and avoids any collective balancing with other littoral states such as Japan and Vietnam who also have territorial disputes.
Second, China's claims on Indian territory are linked to consolidating its rather shaky rule in Tibet, where an indigenous movement for greater autonomy and independence still thrives. Prevaricating on the border dispute helps China’s fix its Tibet problem by keeping the pressure on India not to support any notions of Tibetan independence and clamping down on any pro-independence activities from Tibetan leaders and refugees living in India. This is also linked to the institution of the Dalai Lama. China would very much like to control the Tibetan spiritual authority and is therefore anxiously waiting for an opportunity to appoint a puppet once the incumbent Dalai Lama passes away. However, the nightmare scenario for China would be the appointment of the next Dalai Lama from regions outside its control. In fact, the successor of the Dalai Lama can come from the Indian state of Arunanchal Pradesh as it is culturally an extension of Tibet. Keeping the conflict alive, therefore, is a strategy to coerce India into submission as far as any challenge to China’s Tibet policy is concerned.
Third, given China’s close alliance with Pakistan, the strategy of indefinitely extending boundary negotiations allows Beijing to contain India in the South Asian tinderbox, preventing the country from exerting global influence as would be expected of any rising power. Also, by keeping the conflict open on India's borders both with Pakistan and China, it helps to effectively divide India's military power by keeping alive the possibility of a two front war and hence, diluting India’s effective military capability.
:
:
:
So the Pakistanis were right in describing the Chinese as "old men" when they saw how the did their flying displays in Zhuhai?Don wrote:All of you need to grow up, this forum is like a bunch of teenagers in a class room.
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.
The Soviet "layer cake" design was tested on August 12, 1953 with the thermonuclear weapon "Joe-4,"or Reaktivnyi Dvigatel Stalina in Russian (Stalin's Rocket Engine). Created by physicist Andrei Sakharov, it got its name from its "layering" of fusionable material (tritium and deuterium) and fission fuel (uranium). The result was something that more resembled a "boosted" fission bomb than the "true" hydrogen bomb the Soviet's claimed it to be.
China is moving up the power ranking FAST and challenging the No.1 position in certain areas, and this bounds to upset someone along the way. It is just the way it is. Regardless of all the mocking, deriding and threatening, China is determined.Singha wrote: for all the talk of Sun-Tzu strategy, to me it seems Cheen strategy in the last 15 yrs has been a spectacular failure in reducing the level of threat to Cheen from its periphery.
they are struggling to keep Pakistan "volunteers" from consuming Uighurs using iron fisted measures.
To China's credit is that at least in public there is no blanket assumption by the Chinese that someone is too big to beat or that the Chinese are not good enough. It may actually be true that China is not good enough and is blowing its trumpet too loudly, but the Chinese will not say that about themselves. Chinese spokespersons, such as yourself, (rightly or wrongly) express supreme confidence in China all the time.ashi wrote: China is moving up the power ranking FAST and challenging the No.1 position in certain areas, and this bounds to upset someone along the way. It is just the way it is. Regardless of all the mocking, deriding and threatening, China is determined.