Read: Worst Case War Scenario, WWIII: East Asia...., page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 13-5-2005 @ 01:04 AM by Daedalus3
Those wargames taht you're having with russia are for this purpose:

The purpose of the military exercises is to test the reliability of signal communication ... so as to prevent possible dangerous military activities in the border areas and maintain peace and stability in the region," official media on Friday quoted Liu as saying.


Its a bl00dy failsafe of sorts.. no training of troops..

the indian airforce stats are not going to go past 190 hours if it did it would
write 190+. it didn't say max 180 hours just said 180 hours and with those 180hours chinas 228 su-27 and 90-100 j-11 and 176 su-30 planes would easily overcome the small indian airforce thats 494 su fighters with 180 hours training againest indias 30-40 su-30s.



Well then they can't say 181+ also then can they?? Maybe FAS knows thats ita 181.78 hrs or something..
What 180+ means is is its definitely more than 180 hours but the figure is unknown..
And what one trains in those 180 hours or less is v. v. important too..
What flight regime does china employ..
Mostly probably russian.. (correct me if I'm wrong with a source)
The IAF has found numerous shortcomings in the Russian engaging techniques and has incorporated a meld of many enagaing techniques (french/british/Israeli) to get the most out of it..
Thats why we see those arabs/yugoslavs getting shot down soo easily against their american counterparts.. They probably use the russian regime too..

And you got to train with tthe french/british etc etc. to prove one self worthy of "exchanging" engaging techniques...Can't do it sitting at home..
thats why the americans were stunned at Cope India and Cope thunder for they expected the IAF to stick to russian engagements methods

The exercise you got planned with Russia was as mentioned above no "exercise" but a sysytem put in place to avoid accidental skirmishes..
Also the Russians and the chinese HAVE (be happy ) planned in 05 I think but its purely naval..that I can assure..
Same with the French thing.. purely naval.. We have naval exercises with
the US, Russia, UK,France...
But our concern is tibet and navies don't come into the picture..

Now to address your Su-30 claims..
the IAF will have over 150 Su-30 MKIs soon.. not 40 etc..

THe Su-30 MKI is considerably superior to the chinese Su-30MKK in air
superiority roles..
U2U w4rlord and ask him.. the chinese ones are purely meant for anti-ship/naval roles.. thats where the sunburn comes in..
The PLAAF has NO TVC, and has the Zhuk radar which is inferior to the N0-11M onboard the Su-30 MKI...
So the MKI is superior to the MKK in BVR,MVR and VR combat..
game, set, match..

Here are w4rlords statements:

About the Su-30s,i thought i'll bring it up,The Su-30MKKs were meant for anti ship and as a fighter-bomber,not as an aerial supremacy fighter like the MKI,so you cannot compare those two going one on one,likewise for anti-ship or bombing capabilities the MKK would win.It seems like I am the only Chinese/Indian person not to get warned



what areas are you talking about the chinese indian border is in two places. ones mountainous(very hard fight. difficult to advance) and the other is jungle.


huh??!! come again??
jungle or mountainous.. IAF bases are MUCH closer to the Indo-China Border than PLAAF ones.. Even a five year old can tell that!!!
And did you FIND Yinchuan finally?

THIS SHOWS YOUR COMPLETE MISUNDERING OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT. BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF SMALLER COUNTRIES IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA THAT FEAR THE RISE OF CHINA IT WOULD BE STUPID TO SEND A LOT OF MILITARY PERSONAL OVERSEAS. EVEN IF ITS HUMANITARIAN. IT LOOKS LIKE A ACT OF AGRESSION. you dont get military experience from peace keeping (except iraq)


What is wrong with you??!! one more statement like taht and you WILL get on my ignore list!!

UK UN operations abroad:

UNFICYP (Cyprus): 431
MONUC (Congo): 6
UNMEE (Ethiopia/Eritrea): 3 including 1 observer
UNOMIG (Georgia) 7 observers
UNOMSIL (Sierra Leone): 21 including 14 observers

ARe they scared of someone.. well used to be scared of the USSR but not now..


I won't even include US ops under UN..

. you might be fighting militants(big deal) or pakistan but your helicopters are going to be useless againest hand-held SAMs.
our chinese RAMBOs got these babys
The Qian Wei-1 (QW-1) is the second-generation shoulder-launched, IR-homing, 'fire-and-forget' air defence missile of the PLA. The missile was developed in the early 1990s as a successor to the HN-5. The missile entered service in the mid-1990s in a small number. The missile is said to be similar in designs and performance to the U.S. FIM-92A Stinger.



And what do think the militants/Pakistanis have for anti-air.. bows n arrows??
Twigs?? stones??
Do you know what handhled missiles these militants operate??
The best of US and Russian stuff...
How do you think all those US helis keep going down in Iraq??
The militants have stingers,IGLAs.. the best the world has to offer in hand held jazz..
And in contrast to the US in Iraq... The IAF lost JUST ONE Mi-17 in Kargil and preve anti insurgency ops..just 1..

And yes those chinese helis dont look so good ..

Wait they're modified civil helis!!
modified Eurocopter AS365N1 Dauphins!!




Check out the Mi-24s and Mi35s respectively in contrast!




The Mirage 2000H..Yes..Thanks for the pic its a good one..
The Mirage2000H plain is comparable to the F-16 blk 50/60 types..
The IAF ones have many Israeli/Indian upgrades for avionics radar etc..
I'd say a pretty good jet..

Maximal armament weight : 5,900 kg [Mirage 2000C]
6,200 kg (9 store stations) [Mirage 2000D]
Power plant / Thrust : SNECMA M 53 P2 jet engine / 9.7 t with afterburner
Maximum Speed Mach 1,2 [low altitude]
Mach 2,2 [high altitude]
Rate of Climb 17,000 m/min
Ceiling Above 50,000 ft / 16,500 m
Combat Radius
* 800 nm (1,475 km) w/
4 250-kg bombs
* 1,000 nm (1,850 km) w/
2 1,700-liter drop tanks
* 1,800 nm (3,335 km) max fuel w/
2 1,700-liter + 1 1,300-liter drop tanks
In-Flight Refueling Yes
Fuel capacity : [Mirage 2000C]
3,950 l internal / 8,000 l maximal / in-flight refuelling [Mirage 2000D]
3,1 t internal / 6,2 t maximal / In-flight refuelling
Sensors RDI radar (interceptor), RWR, Advanced bombsight
Drop Tanks 1700 L drop tank 1358 kg of fuel for 188 nm of range
1300 L drop tank 1038 kg of fuel for 144 nm of range
Armament
* Cannon : 2 GIAT DEFA 554 de 30 mm
* Air-air : missiles MICA, Magic 2, Super 530F,Super 530D Sky Flash.
* Air-ground bombs : BGL 1000, BM400, BAP 100
* Air-ground missiles : Durandal, Belouga, Armat, Apache, Scalp, AS30L, AM39, ASMP
TYPICAL LOADS
2 AM.39 Exocet, 1 1300 L drop Tank (855 nm)
1 1300 L drop tank, 2 ARMAT, 2 R.550 Magic (885 nm)
1 1300 L drop tank, 2R.500 Magic, 2 R.530D (885 nm)
4 Belouga, 2 1700 L drop tank, 2 R.550 Magic (1094 nm)
18 EU2 250 kg bombs (756 nm)


Don't know how the J-10 compares but you can compare stat for stat if you like.. I'm too tired now..

As for the flying coffin bit..
Well yes there is a problem with convrsion from sub/transonic jets too and that is sorted out by the Hawks..
Its got nothing to do with pilot skills once they get the hang of the MiG21..
It a problem with the sub to supersonic conversion for rookies..
So the skills issue is not affected..
an excerpt from one of the articles you gave links too..

But there is no denying the fact that the MiG 21 poses a real challenge to a young trainee pilot with around 250 hours of flying experience on docile trainer aircraft like the HPT 32 and the Kiran. Due credit must go to those who fly this difficult machine smoothly.


the indian airforce doens't have alot of mirage and mig-29s
IAF contains 40 Mirage 2000-5 aircraft, 40 SU-30MKI aircraft[7], 93 Mig-29 interceptors and 88 Anglo-French Jaguar deep-strike attack aircraft


Man thats a lot of aircraft.. I doubt any other country has those many aircraft of the abv mentioned types except for the parent countries themselves..
And remember at least 140 Su30 MKIs..50 as of now only..
Plus all the abv mentioned aircraft are upgraded w.r.t. avionics,radar & missiles..
ALL of them are comparable to PLAAF aircraft as good as the J-10 or better..

MiG21 bis in the IAF are actually better than the FC-1..will dig up info on both and then post...

And we haven't even included the 126 jets the IAF's is going to get very soon
They could be Rafales/grippens/F-16/Mirage 2005s..
All superior to the J-10..

Then there's the LCA in 2007..Again I will compare it to the J-10 and then post..

Finally.. recent wars DO help in exponentially improving a militarys strike capabilities.. we have a thread on that right here at weaponry ATS..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Listen chinawhite..

I repeat.. Im not saying that this hypothesized Indo-China war will be a hands down victory for India..
All I'm saying is that its more or less even..
You say chinese AA and SAMs are better than those of India..
I agree.. thats true as of now.. But we have the Brahmos,Nag,Akash,Trishul all being inducted soon..
All I'm saying is Indo-china miliary strengths are not as one-sided as you may haved perceived earlier..

phew.. haven't done this kind of posting since the tibet threads!!
v v tiring!!

And W4rlord..India doesn't come into the pic with Taiwan or NK..
Infact if the US attacks China over Taiwan then IMHO, considering present relations, India will most probably stay out of it..
We do not perceive the US as an 'ally/friend' as such..
Russia will do the same too IMO


[edit on 13-5-2005 by Daedalus3]


reply posted on 13-5-2005 @ 01:53 AM by chinawhite
THe IAF doesn't have 150 su-30mki only 40 check your sources..
I wrote how much su fighters to compare how much fighters each nation has.

it might have a better radar but the same missiles.

both see each other like say 100km they can only fire the missiles from like 70km how much more superior can it be

2. i copied and paste what was on FAS it just said airbases. DID I EVER SAY THE CHINESE AIRBASES WERE CLOSER.
closer= artillery fire

3.
THIS SHOWS YOUR COMPLETE MISUNDERING OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT. BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF SMALLER COUNTRIES IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA THAT FEAR THE RISE OF CHINA IT WOULD BE STUPID TO SEND A LOT OF MILITARY PERSONAL OVERSEAS. EVEN IF ITS HUMANITARIAN. IT LOOKS LIKE A ACT OF AGRESSION. you dont get military experience from peace keeping (except iraq)

What is wrong with you??!! one more statement like taht and you WILL get on my ignore list!!

UK UN operations abroad:

UNFICYP (Cyprus): 431
MONUC (Congo): 6
UNMEE (Ethiopia/Eritrea): 3 including 1 observer
UNOMIG (Georgia) 7 observers
UNOMSIL (Sierra Leone): 21 including 14 observers

ARe they scared of someone.. well used to be scared of the USSR but not now..


whats this all about..??

4. Are you trying to say that the militants in the kargil war were well equipped. freedom fighters not army units. how are they going to get stingers. leftover from afganistan and russian missiles whos going to sell them russian hand-held sams. do you know that stingers have a use by date.

what Sams do the iraqis have Sa-7s. the insurgents use leftovers from the iraqi military.

5. wait a sec are we talking about the mirage 2000H. its a thried generation fighter. what the the f-16 block 50/60 is very advanced

the mirage 2000N is comparable to the VIGGEN AJ-37 hardly a f-16 block 50

6. well lets see in the future if its pilot error or aircraft.

7. when was the last time india upgrade their mig-29 or mig-23/mig-27.

If the mig-21 bison is better than the FC-1 than its also better than the LCA.

The JF-17 Thunder, whose performance is matched only by F-16s in the Pakistan Air Force's current inventory, would be replacing the aging fleet of Mirage, F-7s and A-5s. The aircraft is being considered as a match for the Indian Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which is expected to form the backbone of the Indian Air Force in future. There are, however, some features like advanced and futuristic avionics and cost effectiveness that give the JF-17 an edge over the LCA.


[edit on 13-5-2005 by chinawhite]


reply posted on 13-5-2005 @ 04:00 AM by Daedalus3

THe IAF doesn't have 150 su-30mki only 40 check your sources..
I wrote how much su fighters to compare how much fighters each nation has.
it might have a better radar but the same missiles.
both see each other like say 100km they can only fire the missiles from like 70k how much more superior can it be



The IAF had 40 the last time artcles were updated..
They have a plant a Ozhar in Nasik, Maharashtra.. the first Indian Su-30MKI pulled out a few months ago..
There's one being produced every month as of now...They plan to make taht 2/3 a months..150 is not far away..

Ask me... I live in Pune, Maharashtra.. Lohegaon AFB..
Home of the Su-30 MKI..

And how can both see each other at 100km when one's radar is inferior to the others??!
Whoever has the first sighting can plan for angles of attack/approach so as to have a better firing solution when target is in missile range..
Again at MVR and VR the MKK has no TVC..
Dude the MKK is inferior to the MKI.. Its not an air superiority fighter..
ITs anti-ship..how many times to tell you....
The Su-27 would be better than the MKK at air superiority..

i copied and paste what was on FAS it just said airbases. DID I EVER SAY THE CHINESE AIRBASES WERE CLOSER.
closer= artillery fire


Stop it!! You're killing with this nonsense!!
The air bases aren't closer than 200km from the border!! China got artillery with that range??!!
crazy stuff you post man..

Are you trying to say that the militants in the kargil war were well equipped. freedom fighters not army units. how are they going to get stingers. leftover from afganistan and russian missiles whos going to sell them russian hand-held sams. do you know that stingers have a use by date.


Militants in Kargil were well equipped.. go check it up.. I'm tired of looking for links to spoonfeed you..
They were supplied by lines running from across the border..
Infact there were army requlars in those militants.. India has sent the bodies back..
Pakistan Northern light infantry to be precise..
Kargil was a proper war kiddo.. miltancy we've been handling ever since 1989..


Who's going to sell them russian hand held sams??!!
Who sold the arabs russian hand held sams??!
Until 9/11 every arab nation (except Iraq/Iran) supported the "mujahideen" in Kashmir..They regularly supplied them with sams..
The bl00dy pak army trained them in PoK, gave them weapons and sent them
across the border!!
Its a known facT!!!
Everyone on this board knows this except for you!!
"freedom fighters" are produced within the land only..
Those who claim to be them and a sent across the border are nothing but insurgents..

do you know that stingers have a use by date


no I'm sorry.. I didn't know that!!..
Perishable weaponry!!


wait a sec are we talking about the mirage 2000H. its a thried generation fighter. what the the f-16 block 50/60 is very advanced
the mirage 2000N is comparable to the VIGGEN AJ-37 hardly a f-16 block 50



enlighten yourself:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

here's the Viggen:

here's the M-2000


Stats M-2000:

The Mirage 2000 is very similar to the Mirage III/5 and 50, though it is not a variant of the Mirage III/5 or 50 but an entirely new aircraft with advanced interceptor controls. In its secondary ground-attack role, the Mirage 2000 carries laser guided missiles rockets and bombs. There is a two-seat version of this aircraft, the 2000N (Penetration) which has nuclear standoff capability.

The wings are low-mounted delta with clipped tips. There is one turbofan engine mounted in the fuselage. There are semicircular air intakes alongside the fuselage forward of the wings. There is a large, single exhaust which protrudes past the tail. The fuselage is tube-shaped with a pointed nose and a bubble canopy. There are no tail flats. The fin is swept-back and tapered with a clipped tip.

The Mirage 2000-5 is a multi-role single-seater or two seater fighter. It differs from its predecessors mainly in its avionics; its new multiple target air-to-ground and air-to-air firing procedures linked to the use of RDY radar and its new visualization and control system. As a multi-role combat aircraft with versatile air-to-air mission capabilities, the Mirage 2000-5 integrates the state-of-the-art of the know-how based on the experience gained from the previous Mirage 2000 versions (Mirage 2000 DA, Mirage 2000 E, Mirage 2000 D) and is designed for the most-advanced armaments.

The Mirage 2000 D, derived from the Mirage 2000N operated by the French Air Force, is a two-seater air-to-ground attack aircraft. The Mirage 2000D tactical penetration two-seater fighter carries air-to-ground high precision weapons which can be fired at a safe distance, by day or by night. Its navigation and attack system enable it to fly in any weather conditions, hugging the terrain at a very low altitude. Beyond the nuclear-weapons capabilities adopted for the Mirage 2000 N, the Mirage 2000 D armament includes laser-guided weapons, low-drag bombs, and the aircraft can also carry the APACHE cruise missile. The Mirage 2000 D geometrical characteristics and the main performance data are the same as those of the Mirage 2000-5.

IAF MiG 29s are upgraded.. What more can I say..
www.geocities.com...

Latest Mig 29 are fitted with the Zhuk -M radar..
The same one on your chinese Su-30MKKs

The Mig 23/27 will be replaced by the new 126 fighters to be purchased..

I read your global security quote on the aircraft forum..
let us continue this LCA:FC-1 comparision there itself..

That PLAAF article's been written by an Indian.. the irony.. good for the PLAAF if they're improving training. they REALLY need too.. Maybe they should take part in actaul war exercises..

chinawhite I got a response to every you post.. on the other hand you post weird stuff which borders on comedy at times..
I can keep this up for as long as you like..
I've done it THROUGHOUT the tibet threads..
w/o posting ANY vague illogical rubbish..


reply posted on 13-5-2005 @ 04:05 AM by chinawhite
However, there is some speculation as to why the PLA did not play a greater role in the Chinese relief effort. Beijing must have faced a dilemma over deploying the PLA. Certainly, there were some within the government and military who advocated a limited mobilization to "show the flag". However, there were several practical and political considerations that prevented the government from ordering the PLA to send troops. First and foremost, any decision to deploy the PLA is politically very sensitive to the Chinese leadership. China has long avoided involvement in other nation's affairs, only joining the UN special committee on peace keeping in 1988. There was significant concern that sending PLA ships or troops would rekindle concerns about "the China threat", both in the region and in the United States, potentially undoing significant investment in the effort to sell China's "peaceful rise" to neighbors. The decision to deploy might also have risked unfavorable comparisons to other nations, which have better equipped and technologically more advanced units. Furthermore, China maintains security interests in the Indian Ocean. The Chinese leadership perhaps calculated that a military response might not be the best way to pursue those interests. In the end, though, the only real dilemma for China's leadership is that a failure to act might be interpreted by some as the inability to act.

That said, one should not discount the significant practical reasons why the PLA was not in a position to deploy in any meaningful way. Without invitations from affected countries, the military could not even consider responding. The PLA does not regularly operate outside its own waters and lacks a robust logistics infrastructure and the experience to support missions taking place outside its borders. Perhaps most importantly, the PLA decision making process is slow and deliberative, particularly in a crisis. The PLA was not apt to react quickly to an overseas disaster, particularly considering their measured decisions to deploy troops to domestic disaster relief efforts in the past such as the 1998 floods.


this is what i was talking about. if the PLA was deployed to other countries then it looks like a threat. or maybe they didn't deploy them for practical reasons. but if they wanted to they could in small numbers.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



Colt Commander, finally failed
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags
Laser Firearms
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
US Army Launches Phase II of competition to replace M4
  Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags
America\'s Next Bomber: Unmanned, Unlimited Range, Aimed At China
  Posted 16 days ago with 3 member flags
Military Vehicle ID Help
  Posted 8 days ago with 1 member flags