China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

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

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

Kailash wrote: It is about money. Agreed money may not solve everything, but money shows your seriousness.
It is about money, time and patience when mistakes are made.

Money is always political and never free from strings. Talking money without talking about the strings like a car without wheels. Simply throwing money at a problem earns brownies, but without the socio-political ecosystem that understands science, tech and research, money per se is only one leg. You can put any amount of money you like, but unless really expensive mistakes are tolerated and encouraged without comparisons and derision, we are not going to get very far. And even after all that we may still be behind the best and need more money, more time, more mistakes. Failing to consider that possibility indicates ignorance of what jet engines mean

Research funding at its best is always money to make mistakes.
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1083
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Kailash »

^^^ Agreed that they are not to be let loose with unlimited funds. When researchers take risks, their efforts should be 100% on their goals. Money should not play in the back of their heads. Loss of personal credibility, patents, position/promotion, not being able to deliver the technology to their country etc should weigh in more than money. Money should at least give them the benefit of trying and failing. Either ways we are wasting thousands of crores on imports. They should feel that the entire govt is behind them when they fail. Be it CAG, RAW,politicians or the dork media.
shiv wrote:And even after all that we may still be behind the best and need more money, more time, more mistakes. Failing to consider that possibility indicates ignorance of what jet engines mean

Research funding at its best is always money to make mistakes.
The above statements are true now. Paltry funds will keep it that ways forever. It wont change it for the better.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by chola »

shiv wrote: This post is worth remembering. For the last decade I have been reading on BRF and Chinese sites that
  • The Chinese have successfully made a jet engine
  • The engine/s is/are in operation
  • WS 10 has come of age etc
What happened to all that?

This is not to mock the Chinese but the fact is getting a good, reliable jet engine working is not easy. Unfortunately I have heard too much self flagellation and comparison with the Chinese.
Self-flagellation is needed in this case because we have allowed ourselves to be lapped yet again. The WS-10 may be a piss poor engine but the questions you asked above have already come to fruition.

What is successful engine? Something that needs to match what Unkil has today? Sorry that is pipe dream standards. When only a handful of nations can produce an engine of any kind having something you can install en masse to your frontline aircraft is already a success. The thing's in operation and more important it has a damn base behind it. A base that is receiving ever more investment so it can tinker with and build better and better versions.

We don't have the same treasure (just hoping for a chini collapse is hardly a contingency plan) so we need to extract far greater efficiencies. But instead we made it worse for ourselves by throwing away investment poured into the kaveri because the IAF won't accept it. Because -- like our jingoes at BR -- they wanted US or Ruskie standards on our first go. It is a pipe-dream we should not inflict on ourselves.

So yes, in this case we need to self-flagellate. We are not pakis. We cannot be stupidly blind jingos onlee when they are pushing out these engines in the hundreds.

Their air force is willing to accept their own engines while ours is not. As I say again, unless we go to war in the near future to take advantage of our foreign engines over their domestic ones we will lose this race again because they have built an industrial base while we have not.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by deejay »

chola wrote:..
..
We don't have the same treasure (just hoping for a chini collapse is hardly a contingency plan) so we need to extract far greater efficiencies. But instead we made it worse for ourselves by throwing away investment poured into the kaveri because the IAF won't accept it. Because -- like our jingoes at BR -- they wanted US or Ruskie standards on our first go. It is a pipe-dream we should not inflict on ourselves.

...
Sir, any links on IAF rejecting the Kaveri.?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

chola wrote: So yes, in this case we need to self-flagellate.
:rotfl:
I have heard this so often on the forum over the last decade that I had created a special "China disclaimer" to avoid getting these lectures. Sadly the disk crash seems to have erased multiple copes of that disclaimer but it was something like this
  • Do not underestimate China
  • China is a 1 trillion dollar econony
  • China kicked Indian butt in 1962 and will do so again with one hand tied up
  • China is now the second suprpower, set to overtake the US
  • China has caught up with the US is stealth technology
  • China is rapidly closing the gap in engine technology
  • China has megaton bombs compared with our fizzles
  • Only stupid people will disagree with all this
Whenever I made this disclaimer I did not get these "Why we must all whine" lectures

Somehow this list is not as elegant as the old one was - but there you are - a new list for future reference to avoid typical Indian breastbeating about China and assumption that no one else knows about China and everyone is busy fooling himself and therefore warrants a lecture

Of course it will not stop the pathetic breast beating, but everyone is allowed to say what makes him feel better.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by chola »

Shivji, I've been here for over a decade. Between here and many other forums besides, I've done my share of chini baiting and bashing.

I had a lot of fun with the J-10 in the beginning. In fact, I dare say I propagated the "vaporware" tag for it and had great success shouting them down on their speculations. Then the pictures began appearing. This pattern repeated itself for their other crap too. Rumors, we pounce and then as pictures appear we move on to something else of theirs to dismiss. The ws-10 is just another one of us repeating the pattern as they plow ahead. We have our LCA for a decade and they go from J-10 to J-20 with all the countless flanker J's in between. We gave up on the kaveri while they have ws-10s on their J-11B, J-11BS,J-16, J-whatever-the-crap, etc

If not here then where else should we breastbeat? In all seriousness, BR is our clubhouse with no visitors but bharatis. So if we cannot whine here then where else? We have chini threads with no chinis so what would bashing really do for us?

If we bash, we should do it in forums where the lizard's is attending in numbers (which I have done successfully in my youth.) Bashing them in our forum to an empty outside audience feels stupidly paki to me.

I rather whine. If pointing out there are 100s of ws-10 installed when you asked "where is the ws-10 now" is a whine.

And no, I do not have a link that specifically states the IAF rejected the kaveri. But it goes to reason that if the kaveri was ahead of the Ws-10 when they were both testing in Russia that the IAF could have accepted a kaveri powered Tejas just as the PLAAF accepted the ws-10 in their countless flanker copies.

And if I am wrong and it was not the IAF but the kaveri itself that had failed so utterly then it again goes back to my assertion that accepting an inferior product to build a base, an ecosystem, will pay off in the end.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by deejay »

chola wrote:...
And no, I do not have a link that specifically states the IAF rejected the kaveri. But it goes to reason that if the kaveri was ahead of the Ws-10 when they were both testing in Russia that the IAF could have accepted a kaveri powered Tejas just as the PLAAF accepted the ws-10 in their countless flanker copies.

...
Sir, any link to IAF being offered Kaveri powered Tejas.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

chola wrote: If not here then where else should we breastbeat?
Are you coming here to express your anxieties because you think you cannot express them on forums that Chinese visit?

Not on this thread for starters.

Secondly - if you visit almost site you find whining, fear, anxiety and people telling others to respect China, not underestimate China. So this is an Indian national pastime. I could turn the question around and ask - where are Indians not grovelling with anxiety and fear of China? I would be happy to go there and not step out. I see it as a completely useless pastime mainly because people who talk about respecting and fearing China are welcome to do that, but 54 years after 1962, and 30 years after China started rising economically and militarily, it is time for Indians to stop assuming that no one else knows the threats that China poses, or that no one else understands how much China is to be feared. It is tiresome to see that everywhere. It is impossible to talk about anything without some Indian or the other launching into a tearful tirade about how we are screwed.

It is possible to absorb the idea that it is not necessary to whine and cry an keep warning others all the time about the dangers China poses as if a person who says something different is a blind fool. Everybody knows that - not just on BRF but anywhere you go. crying and howling is a pointless waste of time as your posts and my own replies will show if anyone reads this thread again in 1 year.

There is one more point I want to make and I make it with trepidation -lest another dozen China fearing people come and bash me up for saying something so blasphemous and disrespecting of China as I am about to say.

In my firm opinion China is on a two pronged path to dominate the world. One is to directly compete militarily and economically with everyone else. The second one is to use bluff and psy-ops means to scare others into thinking that China is further ahead than it might be. It may be impossible to differentiate between bluff and reality, but if we can stop whining and crying and tearing our hair out for a few minutes and recalling every reason why we must do exactly that and nothing else then we can spend some time in analysing where China may have got.

Jet engines is the one area where the Chinese claimed that they had caught up - and that claim was made a decade ago. It was clearly a bluff. The fact that they may catch up in future is beside the point. Up until now they have bluffed. I see other bluffs - including their rapidly appearing stealth designs.

Stealth aircraft are an interesting comparison between the US and China and I like to ask myself if the US has a tendency to bluff about technology or not. Typically the US bluffs a little, but actually produces technology. China claims to have nearly caught up with what they US took 30 years to do in just 10 years. So either the US is stupid or the Chinese are bluffing. I say the Chinese are bluffing. They are not where they claim to be.

It is extremely irritating to say such things and then face a barrage of people hitting me and howling and crying and telling me that i am stupid and blind and blinkered unless I also join the crowd in holing and weeping about our sorry state. And you say you come to BRF to do exactly that? Let me reiterate that I will always oppose incessant howling about China. Waste of time and prevents objective analysis


I will post my disclaimer again just in case..
  • Do not underestimate China
    China is a 1 trillion dollar econony
    China kicked Indian butt in 1962 and will do so again with one hand tied up
    China is now the second suprpower, set to overtake the US
    China has caught up with the US is stealth technology
    China is rapidly closing the gap in engine technology
    China has megaton bombs compared with our fizzles
    Only stupid people will disagree with all this
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

Please permit me one pore post to explain why I prefer dispassionate views of Chinese tech rather than emotional comparisons with India on this thread. I will try and explain in brief.

Whenever we get good news about India - say a missile or an LCA we cheer
Whenever we see a similar Chinese development - say J-20, we express anxiety and fear

Now suppose the news about India turns out to be premature. We then express great disappointment and anger
But when we figure out after many years that a greatly hyped Chinese tech is not yet mature we never analyse why that may be so. We simply remain anxious. We do not see this as a technological issue with China facing similar tech hurdles that India faces. We don't want to hear any of that. We are fundamentally afraid of China to such a deep extent that their delays are not delays due to technological or other reasons, but our delays are crippling because of our fundamental inferiority and blindness of our fellow countrymen.

We must have a thread for dispassionate discussion of Chinese developments without whining and moaning about how screwed up and bad loser India is. This thread should not be a place for expressing fears and anxieties and finding fellow Indian whose shoulders we share to shed tears and aggravate fears. The focus must be on China and views and news about China and not about how badly India is doing.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

And before anyone hits me on the head and asks me to shut up because I am so blind to China's greatness and want India to stay down by my ignorance:
http://alert5.com/2016/09/01/china-to-h ... um=twitter
China to help Ukraine restart production of An-225

China will get access to designs and technologies of the An-225 cargo plane after signing an agreement with Ukraine to restart production of the aircraft.
Image
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

More news
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ct-428949/
Ukrainian aircraft designer Antonov has agreed to cooperate with a Hong Kong-based Chinese company, intending first to revive production of a partially-assembled An-225 freighter and then restore the series production.

The agreement with Airspace Corporation of China signed on 30 August breathes life into the Soviet-era manufacturing programme for the world’s largest aircraft, which has remained dormant for 22 years.

In the late-1980s, Antonov completed the first six-engined An-225 by stretching the fuselage of the four-engined An-124, lengthening the wing and adding a split tail. The aircraft was designed to carry a payload up to 225,000kg payload either internally or externally. In particular, the An-225 was needed to carry the Buran, the Soviet space shuttle.

The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the cancellation of the space shuttle programme. The first An-225 was moved into storage for several years, while a second An-225, which is designed with a single, straight tail, was left uncompleted inside Antonov’s factory complex in Kiev.

The new agreement begins discussions to allow Airspace Corporation of China and Antonov to resume assembly of the second An-225 in phase one. A follow-on second phase would restart series production of the heavy airlifter in China under license, Antonov says. Both phases would be initiated after the signing of separate contracts.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

The An 225 used six D-18 engines of about 230 kN each totalling 1380 kN

Note that the latest Rolls Royce Trent engines designed for the A-380 each deliver over 350 kN each - so just 4 RR Trent 900 would deliver 1400 kN or more

The existing half built An 225 will have to be made flightworthy and a production line started in China. 6 engines add more maintenance headaches and more chances of failure than 2 or 4 engines. That aside I don't think An 225 has either FBW or FADEC engines both of which add greatly to overall performance.

Personally I don't think it is a good idea to produce An 225 in numbers. They will likely be a maintenance nightmare and will have very limited sales value. But the Chinese will certainly gain a 1980s production line that they can learn from.

Only one complete An 225 has ever been built.

http://johnweeks.com/an225/index.html
Despite its size advantage, the AN-225 has two key limitations as an airlifter. First, it doesn't have cargo doors that can be opened in flight, meaning that it cannot airdrop military vehicles or cargo pallets. Second, the AN-225 does not have a pressurized cargo deck, which means that crew cannot attend to or service cargo while in flight.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by chola »

shiv wrote:
chola wrote: If not here then where else should we breastbeat?
Are you coming here to express your anxieties because you think you cannot express them on forums that Chinese visit?
It is the converse, I am here for a dispassionate view of China among ourselves in our forum. And dispassionate breastbeating and self-flagellation where required.

Over the years, BR China threads have become nothing more than jingo bashing contests. We should save those for forums where there are actual chinis. We should be dispassionate here.


In my firm opinion China is on a two pronged path to dominate the world. One is to directly compete militarily and economically with everyone else. The second one is to use bluff and psy-ops means to scare others into thinking that China is further ahead than it might be. It may be impossible to differentiate between bluff and reality
Sorry shivji, that very statement sounds like a whine involving Indian anxieties. I can't see how the lizard can attempt to dominate the world with no overseas bases and a military that has not fought a war in decades. If it bluffs then it is a totally laughable and defensive one against the overwhelming force of Unkil on its doorstep.

Economically, it plays the third world card to cheat in trade. It likes to play itself as weak to shirk international duties and gain advantage. I see no bluffing in this arena where it is to their advantage to cheat as a weaker economy than it actually is.
Jet engines is the one area where the Chinese claimed that they had caught up - and that claim was made a decade ago.
To be perfectly honest, I have not seen this claim a decade ago since I was using their lack of engines to bash them. It was the easiest avenue of attack since they didn't have a turbofan in 2005 and everyone knew it. Just like the easiest avenue of attack on the J-10 were the photoshops. lol. Those were fun times.

That said, the pictures on the J-10 eventually did come and then pictures of all their other J's. So in this case, we saw a J-10 "bluff" which were dispelled by pictures and then some.

Now, if the chinis "claim" they have caught up in engines then why would they proclaim with great fanfare that they are putting massive treasure into building a competitive engine?

So this sounds more like your claim, not the chinis.

At any rate, arguing about "claims" and "bluffs" are fruitless and supremely stupid exercises worthy of pakis not bharatis. They are the opposite of dispassionate.
I will post my disclaimer again just in case..
  • Do not underestimate China
    China is a 1 trillion dollar econony
    China kicked Indian butt in 1962 and will do so again with one hand tied up
    China is now the second suprpower, set to overtake the US
    China has caught up with the US is stealth technology
    China is rapidly closing the gap in engine technology
    China has megaton bombs compared with our fizzles
    Only stupid people will disagree with all this

Yes, you made those claims three times by my count. No one else touched on 1962 or that China is set to overtake Unkil (laughable when the US surrounds the lizard with bases and allies and is squeezing it like a boa does to a gecko.)
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Philip »

Underestimating China is a disease called "Nehruvian". Unfortunately it still is around in the corridors of power.Myopic babus advising myopic politicos have allowed in the last 2 decades in particular,have allowed China to massively increase its mil capability and suddenly describe Indian territory like Ar.Pr as belong to it.It has begun to "occupy" POK too and is entrenching itself in the IOR region trying to encircle India with mil bases (Djibouti,Gwadar) and access to other countries/ ports like Hambantota in SL where its navy will have access to logistic support.The IOR and Indo-China Sea are going to be crucial to global domination in the coming decades.The Modi administration must accelerate development of the IN in all 3 dimensions with LRMP strat bombers like Backfires,increase in subs both conventional and nuclear and more multi-role amphib flat tops which could operate JSF type aircraft along with increased numbers of FFGs and corvettes.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by kit »

Philip wrote:Underestimating China is a disease called "Nehruvian". Unfortunately it still is around in the corridors of power.Myopic babus advising myopic politicos have allowed in the last 2 decades in particular,have allowed China to massively increase its mil capability and suddenly describe Indian territory like Ar.Pr as belong to it.It has begun to "occupy" POK too and is entrenching itself in the IOR region trying to encircle India with mil bases (Djibouti,Gwadar) and access to other countries/ ports like Hambantota in SL where its navy will have access to logistic support.The IOR and Indo-China Sea are going to be crucial to global domination in the coming decades.The Modi administration must accelerate development of the IN in all 3 dimensions with LRMP strat bombers like Backfires,increase in subs both conventional and nuclear and more multi-role amphib flat tops which could operate JSF type aircraft along with increased numbers of FFGs and corvettes.
The Backfires do look like coming to India .. 4 of them according to varying reports ..all loaded upto 4 to 5 Brahmos each ..can sanitize the entire IOR region from any Chinese expeditionary force
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

chola wrote:
shiv wrote: In my firm opinion China is on a two pronged path to dominate the world. One is to directly compete militarily and economically with everyone else. The second one is to use bluff and psy-ops means to scare others into thinking that China is further ahead than it might be. It may be impossible to differentiate between bluff and reality
Sorry shivji, that very statement sounds like a whine involving Indian anxieties. I can't see how the lizard can attempt to dominate the world with no overseas bases and a military that has not fought a war in decades. If it bluffs then it is a totally laughable and defensive one against the overwhelming force of Unkil on its doorstep.
Why is it a "whine involving Indian anxieties"? Why only "Indian"?

In fact, China has sufficient plans to build a "Marine" force to deal with hot spots (to defend their national interests across the globe). As a result, with so much "national interest" distributed across the globe how do you suggest they manage it? Seems you expect them to build bases across the globe. ????? Well, that is not part of their strategy. The way they have done it in the past is what Shiv has posted + using local thugs to police on their behalf (using inducements). The Marines are a bolted-on solution (which I doubt will work)(in the longer run).

It (the Chinese strategy)(not shiv's thinking) is "laughable" only because it is a very, very short sighted strategy - which has started to fail in some places. But, it is Chinese intent to use any means to get what they want without investing in actual warfare. Without firing a bullet. The only way to do that is bluff, spy-ops and thug-ism. For going to war will expose their hollow structure.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Indranil »

Whines and counter-whines!

Anyways, the plane itself may not be useful. But, certain technologies may be. The Chinese transports till date are a mish mash of reverse engineered/bought/stolen Russian/US designs. Credit must be given to them for being able to stitch all of them together. There is no reason why they cannot use the An-225 tech in their further designs.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

chola wrote: It is the converse, I am here for a dispassionate view of China among ourselves in our forum. And dispassionate breastbeating and self-flagellation where required.
dispassionate passion is an oxymoron
chola wrote: I can't see how the lizard can attempt to dominate the world with no overseas bases and a military that has not fought a war in decades. If it bluffs then it is a totally laughable and defensive one against the overwhelming force of Unkil on its doorstep.

Economically, it plays the third world card to cheat in trade. It likes to play itself as weak to shirk international duties and gain advantage. I see no bluffing in this arena where it is to their advantage to cheat as a weaker economy than it actually is.
That is much better I like it. You have stated a viewpoint and not insisted on saying how bad things are with India. This is the China military thread. Not the whine about India breastbeating thread
chola wrote: Yes, you made those claims three times by my count. No one else touched on 1962 or that China is set to overtake Unkil (laughable when the US surrounds the lizard with bases and allies and is squeezing it like a boa does to a gecko.)
No one else touched '62 is a very narrow viewpoint referring only to a few posts in our exchange. I am talking about the fact that it comes up every now and again and when I post it's not just about you. But I just used your example because you came up a pathetic wail insisting that that you must beat your breast here because there is nowhere else for you to do that. I am saying, sorry please don't use this thread for breast beating. Please try to stick to opinions minus the tears.

I vehemently dispute your view that this thread is used for jingoism only.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by chola »

NRao wrote:
Why is it a "whine involving Indian anxieties"? Why only "Indian"?
Yes it is an Indian whine. Only among Indians do we see such superhuman guile and ability in the chinis that they could endeavor to "dominate" the world with no military experience, no allies and no forward bases to actually apply force.

Only the Dragon can be so wily and "evil." As if avoiding war is evil!

Then in a fit of jingo triumphism we (meaning you) say they will definitely fail in this foggy "strategy" that we assign to them.
It (the Chinese strategy)(not shiv's thinking) is "laughable" only because it is a very, very short sighted strategy - which has started to fail in some places.
Yes, it is a laughable "strategy" of world domination where you see no power projection, no war experience and can only use bluffs. If we can assign stupid non-strategies to rivals then they will always fail!

Seriously, I'm scratching my head trying to understand what exactly is the world domination strategy you ascribe to the chinis.

If it is really their strategy (meaning it has no strategy) then we would have nothing to worry about anyways.

But, it is Chinese intent to use any means to get what they want without investing in actual warfare. Without firing a bullet. The only way to do that is bluff, spy-ops and thug-ism. For going to war will expose their hollow structure.
If they can get what they want without investing in warfare then I'm all for it! If only the rest of the world would do the same!

But we know the world doesn't work that way.

Domination is based on the application of kinetic power pure and simple. It is why the US is the superpower. Because it has fought a war in every decade since the 1940s and why it has bases around the world. Military power is underpinned and paid for by economic power.

Use Ocram's Razor -- among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

No forward bases, no war experience equals no world domination plan unless you make all kinds of assumptions about "thugs" and "bluffs" and things that can't possibly dominate anything more than a Kolkata neighborhood with your local godfather and mafia.
Last edited by chola on 02 Sep 2016 16:25, edited 1 time in total.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by chola »

shiv wrote: That is much better I like it. You have stated a viewpoint and not insisted on saying how bad things are with India. This is the China military thread. Not the whine about India breastbeating thread
Shivji, let's take a step back and ask ourselves why we have chini threads. China is a benchmark. We could compare outselves to the US or the various countries in the EU but we never do. They are too far ahead and we are satisfy to live with that knowledge because they are goras and they are fair and superior and that's that.

If it were not for China's rise, I dare say we would have been happy chugging along our leisurely pace under the Nehru clan. But the sight of the other piss-poor billion plus Asian populace rising lit a fire under us. In the years since the chini rise, we've compared, found things wanting and we improved.

To be perfectly honest, I like seeing China as our rivals. It is nice to be bracketed with a nation that the US views as a peer rival unstead of the porkis.

So that said, the breastbeating (as you call it) over the kaveri is relevant -- as a benchmark we can compare to.

When Kailesh remark that their investment the engine industry as a lesson, that too is perfectly understandable as a benchmark.

You asked where are the chinis with the WS-10. My answer is there are hundreds of them being chugged out and placed in hundreds of chini-flanker ripoffs.

Now should we not have mentioned the report from the kaveri team while it was testing in Russia that ws-10 was there as well? That the Kaveri development level at that time was ahead?

It seems the chini establishment was willing to support and accept a homegrown engine to establish an industrial base, an ecosystem for future development, so can we ask why couldn't we do the same for the kaveri?

Again if we can't ask those questions here, then where can we?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

chola wrote:
You asked where are the chinis with the WS-10. My answer is there are hundreds of them being chugged out and placed in hundreds of chini-flanker ripoffs.
As you can see, it is perfectly possible to have a dispassionate discussion without flailing and wailing. I dispute that "hundreds" figure.WS 10s have never been exposed to the outside world, and I just wonder how anyone can be so sanguine about something that has never been shown to the outside world. There have been several reports of crashes of single engine J-10s with WS 10 and I recall at least one report of WS 10 having a mean time between failure (MTBF) of 10 hours. That means the engine needs servicing after 10 hours of flying. Wiki currently quotes 30 hours for WS 10 versus 400 hours for the Russian engine.

The Chinese never admit any failures and your earlier assumption that there are no Chinese on BRF will soon be proven wrong. I predict that someone will either come on here and deny, or those Chinese who watch BRF will publish "statistics" of great MTBF of their WS 10. I wait for that to happen. But I said it first.

Having a low MTBF need not be a problem depending on your operational philosophy. Typically the Soviets used to have engines or other components which were so low on MTBF that they simply made hundreds of them and swapped them. Not surprised if the Chinese have made 100s of them and swap those engines every 10 hours. That way things will look hunky-dory. But guess what the Chinese sent to Turkey to exercise with F-16s? They sent the Russian built Flankers, not WS 10 powered J-11s. You can Google for that. There are a few nice images of Flankers in F-16 HUD gunsights

You are not forced to believe or accept what is in the article linked below, but if you are interested, please read
http://idrw.org/why-chinese-j-10-fighte ... ut-of-sky/
chola wrote: Now should we not have mentioned the report from the kaveri team while it was testing in Russia that ws-10 was there as well? That the Kaveri development level at that time was ahead?
That is a new one for me and is both surprising and mistaken on several counts.

Why on earth did the oh-so-advanced money-spending Chinese send WS 10 for testing in Russia? I do not want to provoke you needlessly by succumbing to my temptation to put LOL smileys, but no. The Russians are not going to test a Chinese copy of their own engine for China so whatever you read is certainly fake.

That aside, two engines being tested in Russia means nothing. the two engines could be in different stages of development.

There is an assumption that Indians will accept low standards for things made in India . That is not true. Across the board Indian agencies reject things that do not meet high standards, or complain bitterly when they don't. If Kaveri does not meet the thrust requirements for Tejas it will not be used. If it is found to have an MTBF of a few dozen hours it will be rejected. Heck the IJT program was delayed because the Russians refused to allow use of the Al 55I engines they supplied until they could certify an MTBO higher than 100 hours. Do Chinese accept low standards for their own stuff. How much information can you offer me to help modify my conviction that they often do, given that they don't even make many crashes public and publish no crash statistics like most "free" countries of the world? Their avionics and engines are not seen in airshows outside China. Why are they so shy if they are so great?

A one on one comparison makes sense if there is approximately equal information available about the two objects being compared. When such information is unavailable an emotional outburst admiring the unknown and a pathetic caterwaul about the one whose details are known is nothing short of stupid. I do not mean anything personal, but what I write is what I firmly believe
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

chola wrote: Seriously, I'm scratching my head trying to understand what exactly is the world domination strategy you ascribe to the chinis.
I suspect because what I said does not fit or relates to your model/thoughts. Invariably that is the reason.

However, if you need clarity in what I said let me know and I can perhaps phrase what I said better.

But, I cannot fit what I said into your thinking.

Or let it slide.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

Not "military", but "power" related:

Hangzhou G20: China's ambitions for global leadership
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote: I suspect because what I said does not fit or relates to your model/thoughts. Invariably that is the reason.
It is merely pretence of ignorance to claim, on the one hand, complete innocence of of any negative issues with Chinese military technology, laying wholesale faith in Chinese jingoistic claims, and on the other hand act as if the Chinese are showing no detectable signs of wanting to dominate every other country on earth.

As I see it one must admire China a great deal to fervently want India to be compared with China as a rival, to the extent that Indians need to be dubbed as blindly jingoistic for not grovelling in self pity and disagreeing with the idea that China is supremely deserving of such admiration. Whether we like it or not we are in military rivalry with Pakistan and China. However I would rather see India in a technological rivalry with the US/Europe/Russia and not China, because I am not convinced that the Chinese tech model is as genuine and robust as the US.

High tech is not easy, and money being spent is not the only difference between India and China. Indians admit failures even after money is spent. The Chinese do not admit failures unless they are too obvious and cannot be hidden, I would not like to see India being considered a worthy rival to China in that area.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by chola »

shiv wrote:WS 10s have never been exposed to the outside world, and I just wonder how anyone can be so sanguine about something that has never been shown to the outside world.
Shivji, the WS-10 was on global display here with a J-11BH barrel-rolling over a US Navy P-8 surveillance jet.

U.S. Furious After Chinese Fighter Jet Does Barrel Roll Over American Aircraft
http://time.com/3161228/china-jet-maneuver/

You can't really get more public than that.

chola wrote: Now should we not have mentioned the report from the kaveri team while it was testing in Russia that ws-10 was there as well? That the Kaveri development level at that time was ahead?
That is a new one for me and is both surprising and mistaken on several counts.

Really? It was on BR onlee, in our Kaveri thread!

viewtopic.php?t=6726&start=40

Quote from story by Ajit Dubey:

Four years ago, when Indian aero-engineers walked into the Gromov Flight Research Institute in Moscow, they were shocked to see Chinese engineers there. The Indians had come to flight-test Kaveri, India's first indigenous jet engine. The Chinese, too, had come on a similar mission.

. . .

Kaveri, which was developed at the Bengaluru-based Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), a lab under the Defence Research and Development Organisation, successfully completed the sub-sonic test in Moscow by flying a giant Ilyushin-76 aircraft. The Chinese test was a failure. Four years later, however, it seems the Kaveri story is going to have a sad end, while the Chinese are making steady progress with their project.


Why on earth did the oh-so-advanced money-spending Chinese send WS 10 for testing in Russia?
Your words not mine. If you can get pass your jingoistic mindset that any non-negative comment on china means chini worship then you will see that point concerns their perserverance not their oh-so-advance-ness.
Last edited by chola on 02 Sep 2016 22:53, edited 2 times in total.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by chola »

NRao wrote:
chola wrote: Seriously, I'm scratching my head trying to understand what exactly is the world domination strategy you ascribe to the chinis.
I suspect because what I said does not fit or relates to your model/thoughts. Invariably that is the reason.

However, if you need clarity in what I said let me know and I can perhaps phrase what I said better.
Yes, please help explain how a nation can hope to dominate the world with no forward bases, no war experience and with only bluffs and no real warfare.

The US already provides the world with a template to world domination just as the British did before them -- kinetic power in forward bases with alliances across the globe. This is damn common sense!

Unless the chinkies start doing the same then I see no "strategy." And if they do have such a plan then we have nothing to worry about since it is inexplicable and inapplicable.

Bluffing might protect you from an attack but you can't dominate anything without actually fighting for it.
malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by malushahi »

as always, the signalling song-and-dance-before-major-visit begins.

China's Top Secret Stealth Fighter Spotted In Tibet Days After It Warned India
Written by Vishnu Som

Days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi travels to China for the G-20 summit, an image has appeared of China's first stealth fighter, the J-20, reportedly at the Daocheng Yading airport in the high-altitude Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture which lies to the east of Arunachal Pradesh.

The image of the stealth fighter, one of Beijing's most closely guarded military projects, appeared on Twitter and on two defence websites http://www.abovetopsecret.com and http://www.alert5.com, days after China warned India against deploying the supersonic BrahMos missile along the Himalayas.

The Indian Army rejected those concerns, telling NDTV, "Our threat perceptions and security concerns are our own, and how we address these by deploying assets on our territory should be no one else's concern."

on twitter: https://twitter.com/xinfengcao/status/7 ... 0691159040

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

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

chola wrote: Shivji, the WS-10 was on global display here with a J-11BH barrel-rolling over a US Navy P-8 surveillance jet.

U.S. Furious After Chinese Fighter Jet Does Barrel Roll Over American Aircraft
http://time.com/3161228/china-jet-maneuver/

You can't really get more public than that.
Sorry. No cigar. Not all J-11s are powered by the WS 10. China placed huge orders for the Al 31 because the WS 10 is still failing regularly. The image does not conclusively show that the J-11 had WS 10 engines.

One barrel roll over some American plane is not proof of global display. If I may call out sanctimony when I see it, I find it amusing that one barrel roll constitutes a global display, but China cannot aspire to global power because it does not have enough bases. But the lack of bases and lack of aircraft engines are connected, as I will indicate below

chola wrote: viewtopic.php?t=6726&start=40

Quote from story by Ajit Dubey:

Four years ago, when Indian aero-engineers walked into the Gromov Flight Research Institute in Moscow, they were shocked to see Chinese engineers there. The Indians had come to flight-test Kaveri, India's first indigenous jet engine. The Chinese, too, had come on a similar mission.

Kaveri, which was developed at the Bengaluru-based Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), a lab under the Defence Research and Development Organisation, successfully completed the sub-sonic test in Moscow by flying a giant Ilyushin-76 aircraft. The Chinese test was a failure. Four years later, however, it seems the Kaveri story is going to have a sad end, while the Chinese are making steady progress with their project.


I did not understand how this example constitutes a Chinese success. You have referred to Paki behaviour earlier and the words of the article remind me of Pakis and the Rio Olympics where every Indian failure constituted a Paki success, never mind Paki's own failures. You post an example of what can only be called Lahori logic to argue for Chinese success. Thank you for giving me another bullet point to add to my disclaimer list posted repeatedly earlier: "Indian failure=Chinese/Paki success"

A reliable engine needs to be slung on a plane and if it is a fighter it needs to go on an airshow far away from the home country and do several days of aerobatics, demonstrating its reliability and maintainability far away from OEM. A civil engine needs to fly for hundreds of hours over ocean to foreign destinations and return without the benefit of home OEM support at a foreign airport.

Once again, on the question of why Chinese do not operate foreign air bases globally is because they do not have reliable enough engines to maintain aircraft in those foreign bases. Chinese civilian aircraft can be seen everywhere with non Chinese engines, but even PIA does that.

Ships don't sink from engine failure so the Chinese do have naval bases outside China, not air bases. Global power in the past was by naval power. Global reach via air power is a US monopoly, and to a lesser extent the former colonial power UK and France. Even Russia did not have global air power reach in the cold war, but you were not there back then to argue that the USSR was not a global power.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

chola wrote:
NRao wrote:
I suspect because what I said does not fit or relates to your model/thoughts. Invariably that is the reason.

However, if you need clarity in what I said let me know and I can perhaps phrase what I said better.
Yes, please help explain how a nation can hope to dominate the world with no forward bases, no war experience and with only bluffs and no real warfare.

The US already provides the world with a template to world domination just as the British did before them -- kinetic power in forward bases with alliances across the globe. This is damn common sense!

Unless the chinkies start doing the same then I see no "strategy." And if they do have such a plan then we have nothing to worry about since it is inexplicable and inapplicable.

Bluffing might protect you from an attack but you can't dominate anything without actually fighting for it.
What I said earlier holds, what I posted does not fit your model.


Multiple items of interest:

1) China, because she has no experience in warfare (as you stated) uses alternative methods, including psy-ops (NOT bluffing) to achieve the same end as the UK/US did until now. There are other dimensions in the mix - but that for some other time

2) IF China's methods were not working none of us would be concerned about what she thinks or does. The fact that India has altered course to undo what China has done on multiple fronts is an indicator that what China has done so far and what other nations think she may be able to achieve using her model is proof enough that whatever China is doing is making a diff

3) The US abandoned her "template" around 1995. In fact, recall the US thinking of a navy of a 1000 ships? How many exactly were the US going to provide? And a very recent statement that the USN and IN will send ships together into the SCS is another example of a changed "template". That "template" has long been disbanded. Due to cost

4) China studied the US "model" and has mimicked it to the best of their abilities, with a commie twist. Both the US and China intend using "partner"s to deal with adversarial threats. The main diff - as I see it - is that the US sees it in a Venn diagram, while China sees it as a distributed system (Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal, BD, etc, etc, etc) with central (China) control. BUT, neither can really do without their "partner"s. Also check out the latest from USAF - they have a very similar problem to the IAF - multiple fronts

5) But, since the Chinese cannot depend on their partners beyond a certain limit, China resorts to psy-ops (NOT bluff), economic inducements, threats, low tech armaments, etc. See the J-20 in Tibet story above

6) Unlike the US (or the UK), China has no intention to start a fight. On the contrary China makes enough threats to get the other to give in without a fight and make the opponent feel they won. Indian entry into NSG will follow this path
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by chola »

shiv wrote:
chola wrote: Shivji, the WS-10 was on global display here with a J-11BH barrel-rolling over a US Navy P-8 surveillance jet.

U.S. Furious After Chinese Fighter Jet Does Barrel Roll Over American Aircraft
http://time.com/3161228/china-jet-maneuver/

You can't really get more public than that.
Sorry. No cigar. Not all J-11s are powered by the WS 10. China placed huge orders for the Al 31 because the WS 10 is still failing regularly. The image does not conclusively show that the J-11 had WS 10 engines.
Sir, this one was and it was widely reported by the Pentagon because it came within 50 feet of the P8. It was a global display because the US made it public world wide.

If nothing else, it is an example of the WS-10 are being used in its frontline aircraft with that fact explicitly being photographed by the US military.

Now, it could be a completely crappy engine compared to the US, the West and the Russkies but it shows mass production, an industrial base and an ecosystem (demand, design, manufacture and consumption.)

If that is not a good benchmark then you have a pretty weak idea about the engine industry. Except for the US/West and Russia (the Euros are pretty much the same as the US block with interlinking technology sharing) no else has the same ecosystem.
chola wrote: viewtopic.php?t=6726&start=40

Quote from story by Ajit Dubey:

Four years ago, when Indian aero-engineers walked into the Gromov Flight Research Institute in Moscow, they were shocked to see Chinese engineers there. The Indians had come to flight-test Kaveri, India's first indigenous jet engine. The Chinese, too, had come on a similar mission.

Kaveri, which was developed at the Bengaluru-based Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), a lab under the Defence Research and Development Organisation, successfully completed the sub-sonic test in Moscow by flying a giant Ilyushin-76 aircraft. The Chinese test was a failure. Four years later, however, it seems the Kaveri story is going to have a sad end, while the Chinese are making steady progress with their project.


I did not understand how this example constitutes a Chinese success.
As stated above and in all my other replies, it is a "success" in that their perserverance had created an industrial base which (as stated in the article Kailesh replied to) they are planning to fund massively.

Here we have an engine at the time that was successfully tested while the ws-10 failed and yet today it is only the ws-10 that is mass produced.

Can I not point to that as an Indian or do I need be a chinki sympathizer (who cares.).
Ships don't sink from engine failure so the Chinese do have naval bases outside China, not air bases.
China has no naval base anywhere. Please research before making such a stupidly glaring error.

The idea that national strategic decisions like not having foreign air bases is determined by an engine is utter stupidity.

The chini navy's J-11BH's according the US Navy are based in the East and South China (Philippines) Seas are powered by the WS-10 and they come in constant contact with US, Japanese, Korean and ASEAN forces. If they are at rusk of falling out of the sky during those encounters, the publicity would match if not outweigh any from fireign bases.

Yet, as the P8 incident shows and US military news organization report, those encounters are numerous and (overly) aggressive.
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2164
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by wig »

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/09 ... 10-launch/


china long march rocket launch fails

excerpts
China has unofficially suffered its first failure of the year during the attempt to launch the Gaofen-10 remote sensing satellite from the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center on Wednesday. Launching from the LC9 Launch Complex at around 18:53 UTC, the Long March-4C (Chang Zheng-4C) failied for reasons not yet known.
Chinese Failure:
The loss of the Long March 4C is China’s first “orbital launch” failure of 2016. However, Chinese State media have yet to provide any acknowledgment of the loss.
China rarely provides live coverage of launches and only confirms missions once the satellinline photos showing debris from the rocket are not uncommon and it appears the debris is in a nominal location for expended stages.
However, the text associated with the photos claim there is a search for debris associated with the payload.
Coupled with the lack of any State media news on the launch, it would appear this mission has failed and the Chinese have so far opted not to report the failure.
Gaofen (“High Resolution”) is a series of civilian Earth observation satellites developed and launched for the state-sponsored program China High-definition Earth Observation System (CHEOS).
In May 2010, China officially initiated the development of the CHEOS system, which is established as one of the major national science and technology projects.te has been successfully inserted into its transfer orbit. For this mission, no news has been provided for over half a day.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

chola wrote:
Now, it could be a completely crappy engine compared to the US, the West and the Russkies but it shows mass production, an industrial base and an ecosystem (demand, design, manufacture and consumption.)

If that is not a good benchmark then you have a pretty weak idea about the engine industry. Except for the US/West and Russia (the Euros are pretty much the same as the US block with interlinking technology sharing) no else has the same ecosystem.
Sir please spare me the patronization. Your own knowledge of aircraft engines is pretty anaemic, but your failure to read your own post is what is remarkable, as illustrated below
chola wrote: Here we have an engine at the time that was successfully tested while the ws-10 failed and yet today it is only the ws-10 that is mass produced.
You have not read your own post. There is no mention of a WS 10 being tested in Russia. The Chinese were there for "similar reasons" is what you posted.
chola wrote: China has no naval base anywhere. Please research before making such a stupidly glaring error.
Djibouti
chola wrote: The idea that national strategic decisions like not having foreign air bases is determined by an engine is utter stupidity.
Please. It's not nice to keep using that word. You may be angry, but your ignorance shows. I could explain the connection between good engines and aircraft and then go on to explain the connection between aircraft and a foreign air base
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

chola wrote: China has no naval base anywhere. Please research before making such a stupidly glaring error.
It is not about where China has it now. It is about what China plans on having X years from now. AND, far more importantly, what the IN (and a few others) thinks about that Chinese plan. The 2016 IN strategy doc shows there are plenty of concerns WRT Chinese ports/bases. Especially within the IOR (which is where the Indo-Sino overlap occurs to the greatest extent).

Frankly, I think you are working off an older model - which is why your args are dated. May be need to catch up with current affairs?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

Chinese psy-ops continue.

China did not provide a proper stairway truck for Obama to alight from the upper deck of Air Force One. So, the President had to walk a floor down and alight.

Then a Chinese official blocked the National Security Advisor "from moving".

Typical Chinese political, small time mentality.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

Chinese ..........................

Heated Words and Awkward Surprises Accompany Obama’s Arrival in China
By MARK LANDLERSEPT. 3, 2016

Image
President Obama arriving in Hangzhou, China, on Saturday. There were arguments at the airport between White House aides and Chinese security officials who tried to keep back reporters. Credit Damir Sagolj/Reuters



HANGZHOU, China — Air Force One had a bumpy landing in Hangzhou on Saturday, but it was nothing compared with what happened after the plane rolled to a stop.

As the reporters who traveled to the Group of 20 summit meeting with President Obama from Hawaii piled out and walked under the wing to record his arrival, we were abruptly met by a line of bright blue tape, held taut by security guards. In six years of covering the White House, I had never seen a foreign host prevent the news media from watching Mr. Obama disembark.

When a White House staff member protested to a Chinese security official that this was not normal protocol, the official shouted, “This is our country.”

In another departure from protocol, there was no rolling staircase for Mr. Obama to descend in view of the television cameras. Instead, he emerged from a door in the belly of the plane that he usually uses only on high-security trips, like those to Afghanistan.

Witnessing the scene, Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser, looked baffled and annoyed. Joined by her deputy, Benjamin J. Rhodes, she ducked under the rope to make her way closer the president. The two were immediately stopped by the same Chinese official, who angrily challenged them. Asked later what happened, a diplomatic Ms. Rice replied, “They did things that weren’t anticipated.”

There were further surprises. At the West Lake State House, where Mr. Obama met President Xi Jinping, White House aides, protocol officers and Secret Service agents got into a series of shouting matches over how many Americans should be allowed into the building before Mr. Obama’s arrival. There were fears the confrontation would become physical.

“Calm down, please,” an American official said, according to a pool report. A Chinese foreign ministry official said, “Stop, please,” adding, “There are reporters there.”

To some in Mr. Obama’s delegation, it was reminiscent of the rough treatment he received on his first trip to China, in 2009. Then the Chinese refused to broadcast on state television a town-hall-style meeting; packed the hall with Communist Party loyalists; and censored an interview he gave to a Chinese publication. At the time, many viewed the treatment as a metaphor for a rising power flexing its muscles with a young president from a superpower in decline.

In later visits, the White House has pushed the Chinese for better news media access — with some success. In November 2014, the Chinese agreed to have Mr. Xi take questions at a news conference with Mr. Obama in the Great Hall of the People. When I asked Mr. Xi about the Chinese government’s refusal to renew visas for foreign correspondents, including some from The New York Times, he offered a curt lecture. When one’s car breaks down, he said, “perhaps we need to get off the car and see where the problem lies.”

On this trip, there was little threat of reporters making trouble. China has placed tight restrictions on foreign news media coverage of the entire summit meeting. When Mr. Xi took Mr. Obama on a leisurely stroll after dinner on Saturday, Chinese security cut the number of American journalists allowed to witness it to three from the original six, then ultimately to a single reporter.

“This is our arrangement,” a Chinese official explained to his American counterpart, according to a pool report.

“Your arrangement keeps changing,” the American replied.

A version of this article appears in print on September 4, 2016, on page A8 of the New York edition with the headline: Before Talks Even Begin,
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

I think this report is perfectly appropriate in this thread in the light of recent discussions of Chinese tactics, despite its ostensible lack of relevance here. Let me post a few thoughts.

First off, I have seen time and time again on BRF the comment that visit of some foreign dignitary to the US does not make it to the news in the US. But reporters are allowed because that visit makes news somewhere else - perhaps in the home country of the visiting dignitary. The US, to my knowledge, does not voluntarily censor news of a visiting VIP, but people living in the US do not find out and the visit is unimportant to them. And the signal that goes out is that the US is so big and so important that all these chota leaders visits don't make headlines in the US even if there is minute by minute coverage in the home country of the visitor.

Please allow me a minor digression here. International rules and protocols are made by the powerful and are often broken by the powerful. The US does it all the time. The US regularly puts US law over and above any "international law". Two questions arise from this:
1. Does the following of protocols and rules indicate weakness and subservience?
2. Does the breaking of protocols and rules indicate power?

Of these questions I will only look at the second one - breaking rules. Breaking rules and protocol may not indicate absolute power, but constitutes a challenge that asks others "So what are you gonna do about it?" Even North Korea breaks rules all the time. people laugh but NoKo is often testing the waters and asking "what are you going to do about it". Pakistan has done it time and again.

But China in recent years - perhaps over the last 10-15 years has been orchestrating these "Let me see you knock this chip off my shoulder" dramas time and again with the US in particular. China has regularly done such stuff to India and even 15 years ago Chinese on the Internet were contemptuous of Indians with jokes about "floppy dicks" and "curry breath" insults from Chinese Americans who were online with English back then. Very obviously and with great fanfare, China is doing this to the US now. And increasingly the Chinese are being cocky about the US.

The funny thing is that over the last 15 years or so, I have seen an increase in Indian confidence vis-a vis China when it started becoming apparent that the use of Pakistan a a proxy by the US and China was failing. But over the same period the "respect" that China gets from the US has increased manifold. The US media have had, over the years, a schizophrenic view of China. There is great wariness of the Chinese military and yet cockiness in the US, and the "airwaves" of the US started getting filled with China-awe even while other media continued to point out Chinese weaknesses.

None of this has deterred China from "claiming its place" as a leader of nations. (As an aside - people make fun of Indians who talk about "claiming its place" but show respect for China when the Chinese behave cocky). And those claims are shown by belligerent talk, arrogant advice, sabre-rattling warnings and a few cheap tricks as well. During the cold war the self proclaimed "free world" constantly railed about the secrecy and lack of openness behind the "Iron curtain". And history shows that the "free world" was right in some ways. The iron curtain hid good technology but a poor economy.

China was slightly mockingly termed by the west as a "bamboo curtain" until the US showed its anxieties and weakness by befriending China via Pakistan to oppose the USSR. Now China is trying to show the US who is top dog. Interesting times. Overall I see this as a decline of US power. For long I had stated that India's Pakistan problem can only head towards mitigation/solution if the US loses power. But if US power declines, other powers must rise. China is surely filling some gaps. India too will take up some of the slack.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by shiv »

Since the topic has come up, I would like to post a few thoughts on what any country needs to maintain an air base on foreign soil.

Obviously good relations with the host nation, land or a ready made airstrip, source of food and water and local security are the basic requirements. But then what?

No matter what aircraft the foreign air base is going to house - be they fighters, transports or helicopters - personnel to maintain the aircraft, a source of fuel (if no local supplies) and spares, support staff, construction equipment, storage, hangars, security, air defence equipment etc will all have to be brought in. Unless the air base is also a sea port a lot of supplies will have to be flown in by air, and flying things in by air means that the nation with a foreign air base must have a suitable transport fleet.

Of course the top nations in this business make their own transports and make their own engines to power those transports. The absence or one or both of these makes the aspiring power prone to sanction wherein the transport fleet itself gets paralysed, crippling the foreign air base.
Below is a brief Wiki sourced look at China's air transport logistics fleet, type and number

The maximum number are variants of the Tu-16 Badger bomber 120 in number listed as "bomber/transport). There are 20 Tu 154s, and 78 Chinese copies of the Antonov An-12, and 19 IL 76s

Of these only the Il 76s, the Boeing 737s and some of the An 12 copies (Y-8) that are not being used in other roles can be used for logistics. The L 72s and Boeings are all prone to sanctions and the Chinese have not yet developed reliable replacement engines. This leaves the PLAAF with precious little strategic airlift capability to maintain any air base off Chinese shores.

The bottom line is if you don't have a robust strategic airlift capability supported preferably by indigenous industry, or supported by loyal allies with such industry, you can kiss goodbye to foreign air bases even if you have the best fighters in the world
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by NRao »

Pak cabinet gives nod for security pact with China: Report
Alarmed by the growing Indo-US defence ties, Pakistan's cabinet has given the go-ahead for negotiating a long-term defence agreement and security cooperation with its all-weather ally China, a media report said on Sunday.

Pakistan's cabinet in a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on July 15 at the Governor House in Lahore gave the go-ahead for negotiating a long-term defence agreement with China, The Express Tribune reported. The cabinet considered the summary to initiate negotiations on a draft agreement between Pakistan and China on a long-term strategic framework agreement for enhancing defence and security cooperation in diversified fields.

The cabinet held detailed discussions on the proposed agreement before giving the nod of approval, the report said. The cabinet was informed that the draft agreement was based on principles of mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity, sovereignty, non-integration and non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and cooperation for mutual benefits, and peaceful coexistence for strategic gains in defence and security, including arms and technology transfers. It was also informed that input from ministries of foreign affairs, interior and defence production as well as the Joint Staff Headquarters had been obtained and incorporated in the draft agreement which was subsequently vetted by the law and justice division.

In April 2015, when Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Pakistan, the two countries agreed that their relationship had acquired greater strategic significance against the backdrop of complex and changing international and regional situations. They agreed to elevate the Pakistan-China relationship to the all-weather strategic cooperative partnership.

The reports of defence agreement surfaced a week after the US signed a key logistics agreement with India governing the use of each other's land, air and naval bases for repair and resupply. Pakistan had called the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement between the US and India as an agreement between the two sovereign states and hoped it would contribute to peace and stability.

"Pakistan would like to see that such arrangements do not contribute to polarising the region by disturbing the strategic balance in South Asia and escalating the arms buildup," Foreign Office spokesperson Nafees Zakaria told a news briefing on Thursday.

In 2011, the then prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani had expressed a desire to sign a defence deal with China during a trip to Beijing. At that time, the Chinese leadership advised Pakistan against such an agreement fearing that it might create a strain in Islamabad's and Beijing's relations with both Washington and New Delhi, the report said.

Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmed Chaudhry recently informed the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that Pakistan's growing strategic partnership with China was one of the main reasons behind the current strain in its ties with the US. The US was probably upset with the multi billion-dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project, according to him.
Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Liu »

J20`s appearing in Yunnan(Diqing is not in tibet but inYunnan) just for tests on highlands.


It is a routine for plaaf' s new birds to test on highland there,before full operation service.


So did Y20,too.

It just proves the case that J20 is to enter into service of PLAAF soon,which is earlier than most people thought.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - August 9, 2014

Post by Paul »

W/ Al-31 clone engine, when is WS-10 entering production?
Locked