It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I highly doubt china has any plans In the near future or the even moderate future for a war with a major power. Not even Russia wants it with the US or china. Text
Yes and no, I could give you the complete plans to a 2014 Ford Mustang Shelby but you couldn't build it without the required production and assembly plants and knowledge. Plus there are really only a few ways you can skin a cat, and the high wing T tail layout has proven the most practical.
The Y-20 coming to fruition is undoubtedly the result of the plans it bought from a Boeing employee of the C-17
Now that is what I'm talking about, imitation being the most sincere form of flattery. Actually if you look carefully at the first graphic you posted (again, nice find) you can see much more in common with the Il-76, particularly the wing, wing box and wing to fuse mating area than the C-17. Undoubtedly those stolen plans helped but my suspicion is they would have used them for design cues on how to build lighter weight structures and more modern production assembly ideas.
a combination of design cues from their current An-70's and the Airbus A400m
originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
2.Russia is being surrounded from the eastern areas where NATO broke the promise that they wouldn't expand but did.
Russian claims that NATO promised not to enlarge
Russian officials claim that US and German officials promised in 1990 that NATO would not expand into Eastern and Central Europe, build military infrastructure near Russia’s borders or permanently deploy troops there.
No such pledge was made, and no evidence to back up Russia’s claims has ever been produced. Should such a promise have been made by NATO as such, it would have to have been as a formal, written decision by all NATO Allies. Furthermore, the consideration of enlarging NATO came years after German reunification. This issue was not yet on the agenda when Russia claims these promises were made.
Allegations about NATO pledging not to build infrastructure close to Russia are equally inaccurate. In the Founding Act, NATO reiterated “in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures.”
NATO has indeed supported the upgrading of military infrastructure, such as air bases, in the countries which have joined the Alliance, commensurate with the requirements for reinforcement and exercises. However, the only combat forces permanently stationed on the territory of the new members are their own armed forces.
Even before the Ukraine crisis, the only routinely visible sign of Alliance forces in the new members were the NATO jets used in the Baltic States for the air policing mission. These minimal defensive assets cannot be described as substantial combat forces in the meaning of the Founding Act.
Since the crisis, NATO has taken steps to increase situational awareness and bolster the defences of our Eastern members. This, too, is entirely consistent with the Founding Act and is a direct result of Russia’s destabilizing military actions.
Finally, the Act also states, “Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe.” Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is a flagrant breach of this commitment, as is its unilateral suspension of compliance with the CFE Treaty.
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
BS Russian propaganda should always be balanced with western propaganda:
Left unattended by the major Western powers following the May 22 coup, Thailand and China have quickly strengthened their relations - especially in longstanding defense cooperation.
During the brief visit to China last week of Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister General Pravit Wongsuwan, Thailand and China agreed to conduct a joint air force exercise for the first time within a year - and all three armed forces will now participate in full-scale bilateral military drills.
The new collaboration can pose a direct challenge to the all-weather US-dominated security exercises held regularly with Thailand over the past five decades. A new pattern China-led security network, which anchors on Thai-China friendship, could loop in neighbouring countries such as Laos, Cambodia and possibly Myanmar in the near future.
Truth be told, after the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1975, regional crisis such as the Cambodian conflict (1979-1992) and the Asian financial crisis (1997), as well as Thai political quagmire, have played important roles in boosting Thai-China relations. In the truest sense of the word, Beijing has proved it has been a virtual ally of Thailand.
However, from within, there has been some soul-searching among top military leaders on any move to approach the two prominent powers - China and the US - that would shape the future strategic landscape of Asia and Asean. The alliance with the US since 1954, which has been the country's biggest security asset, no longer holds the same value as in the past. After the coup, Thailand has become more recalcitrant towards the US. In the past, it has responded to US strategic requirements. However, from the Thai point of view, the lack of understanding and "hurtful" American responses, especially those coming from their diplomats stationed here, towards the internal situation was a barometer of Washington's disinterest and insensitivity.
The future of Chinese air force, the PLAAF, will be based on missiles that can cover ranges of up to 4000 km. DF-25, 26 and 27 missiles will be the benchmark for PLAAF. While the existing air force does have a healthy proportion of short range missiles, it is lacking in long range cruise and ballistic ones. Speed and maneuverability will be enhanced in the missiles in near future. PLAAF will also have a defense interceptor family, referred to as HQ-19 for air and land use. The navy version of the missiles will be called HHQ-26. Reports have been made about PLAAF working on developing electromagnetic systems such as spacecraft launchers and aircraft catapults. Weapons that will be powered by microwave and tactical lasers are also said to in line for PLAAF inclusion. Furthermore, anti-satellite and satellite combat systems, kinetic energy weapons and directed energy weapons, including particle beam weapons, will form the strength of PLAAF. These developments are expected to be ready for use by 2020.
Very high frequency (VHF) radars such as HK-JM and HK-JM2 are included in the air force fleet. Developments will take place on counter-network and counter stealth technology. The detection range of the radars will be 500 km. Owing to the development of these high powered radars, surveillance and tracking systems are expected to become more precise. China is also working on a technology that can detect crafts that do not emit radar-friendly waves.
The Chinese mantra for the future is: winning in advance. With brilliant strategic planning and development of new technologies, China will well achieve its ambition. Added to that is the fact that Chinese are not highly dependent on foreign technology. The country prefers to develop its own technology in all aspects of existence, which is a huge point in its favor. Despite being high on attack mechanisms and offence attacks, China is a major contributor to world peace, being an important member of the United Nations peace endeavors.
originally posted by: bjarneorn
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
BS Russian propaganda should always be balanced with western propaganda:
Actually, it *IS* correct ... this is one of the "under the board deals", that lead to the self inflicted collapse of the Soviet Union and the "stand down" of arms, in Yougoslavia.
NATO is the one, who is the aggressor ... always has.
The Russians "wanted" the deal, so they "took their word for it". They didn't learn anything from history, as they should've known that the US will never honor any deals.
ALL CURRENT WARS, are a result of broken deals by the US.
In WWII, Germany was so afraid of Russia that they ran to the US/Britain and cried their hearts out for a deal, to save them from the Russian madness. Knowing that they faced nothing but "extermination" from Russia, the sight of such the world has never seen before. Germany thought, to their own destruction, that the US would treat them better. The US "promised" the Geman's, they would NOT do "the Nurnberg trials", literally speaking. The entire world, knows they never honored that.
Remember, at this very point in time ... Germany was actually DEFEATING the US. The US/Britain invasion was successful at the beginning, and they advanced far, but eventually Germany countered them, and were "sending them back to dunkirk" II. Because of this, Germany thought they had a trumpf in the deal. They could "give" Germany to the US/Britain, stop Russia's advances, and come out of it ... alive.
Wrong, no sooner had they "surrendered", than they were stabbed in the back.
Same happened to Osama bin Ladin ... a guy who payed cash to fight a US/British war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, suddenly was a bad guy. And US/European TV was broadcasting old Afghanistan movies of the man, to create a "foreigner" for the people to hate. Playing on the psychological conflict of people, trapped between their "hate" and their "shame", they have used it as a means to war on Iraq, and ally Iran.
Make no mistake, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Quatar and Arab Emirates are the real ISIS states in the middle east. They ARE the wahabbist states in the Area. Yet, the US wars on the only state that ISN'T one ... Syria.
The bible tells you, "From their actions will you know them, not from their words". And this applies to the US and it's NATO allies.
They are traitors, they tell you one thing ... and do the opposite. Just take Ukraine as an example ... today there is a war in Donetsk, the Ukranian army is invading the pro-Russian area. But in western media, it's a "Russian invasion". There is not even a question as to "why should Russians invade their own pro-Russian area" ?
The US/NATO tell you one thing, and do the opposite ... and during the peace talks on Ukraine. Russian president Putin was busy in buying Forbes flattery, and thinking of himself as a big cahooney, while at the same time, NATO was arming Ukraine to the teeth, to make them advance on the eastern territories. While all the time, in western media ... saying "Russia is doing it".
It's an old trick, you accuse your enemy of it ... as a result, nobody will believe you of doing it. You take the weapons out of your enemies hands, long before they can use it.
Russia could say anything they want, bug whatever they say is just going to be a lot of whining ...
Russia should get rid of Putin, quickly ... even "physically" if he can't be removed peacefully. And then "do what they gotta do", which is either give up the area, or "bomb NATO to smitherenes". Putin won't do either, and as a result he'll lose Russia itself.
The man is so arrogant and stupid, that he thinks he can rely on China ...
That's his dumbest mistake ever.