China lands jet on first aircraft carrier
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern Jessieland
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I was a bit mangled - you'd posted that pic just as I'd put up the first half of the note.
I was simply curious about the Sea Harrier accident itself as to how the aircraft had rolled off on the it's last flight when the asymmetry had been increasing on each launch and the pilot hadn't noticed. I was wondering if there could be something else that contributed.
And Mr Farley you know that easy for you may be a bit challenging for others - you always did seem to have a special agreement with the Laws of Physics in the hover.
I also came across this http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...essLanding.jpg http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...essLanding.jpghttp://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...essLanding.jpg just after reading Eric Browns account of the "rubber" deck landing trials he did.
I was simply curious about the Sea Harrier accident itself as to how the aircraft had rolled off on the it's last flight when the asymmetry had been increasing on each launch and the pilot hadn't noticed. I was wondering if there could be something else that contributed.
And Mr Farley you know that easy for you may be a bit challenging for others - you always did seem to have a special agreement with the Laws of Physics in the hover.
I also came across this http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...essLanding.jpg http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...essLanding.jpghttp://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...essLanding.jpg just after reading Eric Browns account of the "rubber" deck landing trials he did.
Last edited by Plastic Bonsai; 28th Nov 2012 at 18:57.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China is the one that holds more US$ than the USA - they'll only invade if their investment looks dubious........
Well I agree with that too China and the US are so linked financially that a scrap is beyond unlikely.
I don't really understand where this idea that India and China would be allies comes from. China and Pakistan are economic and political allies I believe so I can only the imagine the political storm that would erupt if any Indian governent went there. I mean India and China had a war about borders, trade between the two has only recently started to increase in the last couple of years.
India has Pakstan above and China to the right with China trying to establish naval bases in the Indian ocean the Indian navy is updating it's fleet and building boomers and leasing nuclear SSKs as well as aircraft carriers. They seem to be buying and planning for three sided conflicts.
Mind you the rate China is going their navy is going to be a very modern force in short order.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plastic
I have no inside knowledge of the Yeovilton Ski jump test accident. As it happens I was in the States at the time doing AV-8B stuff.
However (in common with what we do on PPRuNe) I will speculate based on no knowledge of the event but my own experience. Flying ski-jump launches one would perhaps be wound up about possible pitch control/nozzle issues rather than lateral ones. In my experience the axis that you are expecting to be difficult is the one that gets most concentration while you operate instinctively in the other two. As an example 40 odd years ago I was asked in an early GR1 ship trial to do a flat deck launch from the angle of HMS Eagle. For reasons that don't matter pitch problems were expected. In the event I had the stick pinned on the front stop for several seconds before things returned to normal. At the debief I was asked about the other two axes. "No problem I replied" Then they laid the aileron and rudder traces on the table. I had used 90% plus of both and been totally unaware of this because the jet was responding to my satisfaction in roll and yaw but not in pitch. That was just one of several examples in my life where the instrumentation showed how wrong I had been.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps he just responded to more and more lateral out of trim instinctively without noticing the issue until the ailerons hit the stop. I just don't know.
I have no inside knowledge of the Yeovilton Ski jump test accident. As it happens I was in the States at the time doing AV-8B stuff.
However (in common with what we do on PPRuNe) I will speculate based on no knowledge of the event but my own experience. Flying ski-jump launches one would perhaps be wound up about possible pitch control/nozzle issues rather than lateral ones. In my experience the axis that you are expecting to be difficult is the one that gets most concentration while you operate instinctively in the other two. As an example 40 odd years ago I was asked in an early GR1 ship trial to do a flat deck launch from the angle of HMS Eagle. For reasons that don't matter pitch problems were expected. In the event I had the stick pinned on the front stop for several seconds before things returned to normal. At the debief I was asked about the other two axes. "No problem I replied" Then they laid the aileron and rudder traces on the table. I had used 90% plus of both and been totally unaware of this because the jet was responding to my satisfaction in roll and yaw but not in pitch. That was just one of several examples in my life where the instrumentation showed how wrong I had been.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps he just responded to more and more lateral out of trim instinctively without noticing the issue until the ailerons hit the stop. I just don't know.
Last edited by John Farley; 29th Nov 2012 at 15:46.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern Jessieland
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That does make a lot of sense. Thanks.
I often had a lot of fun trying to correlate pilot debriefs with flight traces but it was amazing the number of ways the instrumentation could mislead as well.
I often had a lot of fun trying to correlate pilot debriefs with flight traces but it was amazing the number of ways the instrumentation could mislead as well.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
"Any resemblance to the Su-33, dead or alive, is purely coincidental..."
China says its jet technology not a copy
I/C
China says its jet technology not a copy
"The assertion of China copying a foreign country's aircraft carrier technologies is unprofessional, if not an intentional attack," said [a spokesman for the Chinese Defense Ministry]. "It is not surprising that some western media quickly responded to the inspiring news with criticism and taunts, since the J-15, with an unfinished coating during the exercise had a similar aerodynamic shape with the Russian Su-33 jet."
"Any resemblance to the Su-33, dead or alive, is purely coincidental..."
Ukraine sold China the T-10K-3 Su-33 prototype approximately ten years ago.
Images at following links.
Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums - View Single Post - The take-off aircraft carriers.
Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums - View Single Post - The take-off aircraft carriers.
Ukraine sold China the T-10K-3 Su-33 prototype approximately ten years ago.
Images at following links.
Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums - View Single Post - The take-off aircraft carriers.
Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums - View Single Post - The take-off aircraft carriers.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: china
Age: 61
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just spent 2 years flying in China. Once, I saw an cargo plane (_AN something or other), take off and climb to altitude. Other than that I never saw a military aircraft of any type do anything but touch and goes, and even those were rare. I never saw a fighter taxiing. Ever. Maybe twice a week two French made helo's would fly a real wide pattern, in VERY wide formation, around the landing pattern. Our home base airport was closed then for "military activities".
I was also living very close to a Navy base. I never saw a Naval vessel move. Ever. Once a month a bunch of sailors would leave the base and go across the street to the beach. They all had "floaties" on their upper arms. They would stand in formation on the beach and make swimming stroke motions with their arms for about 15 minutes. They would never enter the water. That was their monthly swimming lesson I guess.
Everything in China is just for "show". The Chinese military is just a corrupt business, and their is no money in burning jet fuel for training. The big secret of the Chinese military is that it is fake. Just like everything else in China. They might have some shiny toys, but unless you train, they are worthless cannon fodder for any adversary.
I was also living very close to a Navy base. I never saw a Naval vessel move. Ever. Once a month a bunch of sailors would leave the base and go across the street to the beach. They all had "floaties" on their upper arms. They would stand in formation on the beach and make swimming stroke motions with their arms for about 15 minutes. They would never enter the water. That was their monthly swimming lesson I guess.
Everything in China is just for "show". The Chinese military is just a corrupt business, and their is no money in burning jet fuel for training. The big secret of the Chinese military is that it is fake. Just like everything else in China. They might have some shiny toys, but unless you train, they are worthless cannon fodder for any adversary.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USMCProbe, seeing nothing has been the reality even for better informed people. The western analysts where embarrassed twice in two yrs when they said stealth was at least 5 yrs away, then it was just mock-ups, then it was a one off, and then the Chinese were totally dependent on Russian engines. All proved wrong within weeks.
The Chinese are working on a carrier based fleet.
Heavy helicopter "Super Frelon"
Kamov-31 Helix AEW (bought)
JZY-01, carrier AEW
Harbin Z-9C ASW/Multirole Helicopter
Chenghe Z-8K Super Frelon Combat SAR variant
And of course the J-31 that is supposed to fly from carriers in the future.
The big question of course is, why develop / build / buy all these aircraft when only 1 carrier is build? The answer is obvious, more carriers down the line.
2 are said to be under construction on the Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai, and they are have been working on a electromagnetic catapult for some time.
The Chinese are working on a carrier based fleet.
Heavy helicopter "Super Frelon"
Kamov-31 Helix AEW (bought)
JZY-01, carrier AEW
Harbin Z-9C ASW/Multirole Helicopter
Chenghe Z-8K Super Frelon Combat SAR variant
And of course the J-31 that is supposed to fly from carriers in the future.
The big question of course is, why develop / build / buy all these aircraft when only 1 carrier is build? The answer is obvious, more carriers down the line.
"If we consider our neighbours, India will have three aircraft carriers by 2014 and Japan will have three carriers by 2014, so I think the number (for China) should not be less than three so we can defend our rights and our maritime interests effectively." General Luo Yuan
Last edited by keesje; 30th Dec 2012 at 13:57. Reason: add responds
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
J-15/Liaoning Barricade Testing + Chinese EMALS
I would have thought that land testing of the barricade would be a lot safer - USN have a facility at Lakehurst, NJ for such things:
Barricade Test using Jet Car Track Test Site — Lakehurst
http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/~crose...s_9Sep2011.pdf (3.3Mb)
Click thumbnail:
Chinese J-15 fighter to make emergency barricade landing test on Liaoning
Chinese J-15 fighter to make emergency barricade landing test on Liaoning
"Deng Yudong, who is the business director of Shenyang Aircraft Industry Group Company (SAC), recently said that J-15 is going to be involved in a series of tests, including emergency barricade landing test on Liaoning Aircraft Carrier.
Deng Yudong summarized that recent J-15′s successful landing test on Liaoning aircraft carrier is accomplished by the fighter arresting hook catching ship-based arresting gear. When a landing aircraft engages a deck pendant, the force of the forward motion of the landing aircraft is transferred to a purchase cable which is routed via sheaves to the arresting engine, located in a machinery room below the flight deck or on either side of the runway.
He says that if a normal (pendant) arrestment or landing cannot be made, the barricade can be the last safety net for carrier-based fighters. To rig a barricade, it is stretched across the flight deck between stanchions, which are raised from the flight deck. The barricade webbing engages the wings of the landing aircraft, wherein energy is transmitted from the barricade webbing through the purchase cable to the arresting engine.
Deng also revealed that J-15 will carry other follow-up tests will be carried out, including aircraft maintenance on the aircraft carrier and weapon loading, beside of the emergency barricade landing test....
...According to the People’s Liberation Army Daily claimed in a 28 April report in 2012, Chinese engineers are reportedly trying to develop an electromagnetic catapult system for China’s future aircraft carriers, the report said that General Ma Weiming, a professor at the PLA Naval University of Engineering, is said to have led the efforts to develop the system, which seeks to emulate the development of the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) in the United States.
Some resources also disclose that China has developed a conventional steam-driven CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) system for its second or third aircraft carrier."
Barricade Test using Jet Car Track Test Site — Lakehurst
http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/~crose...s_9Sep2011.pdf (3.3Mb)
Click thumbnail:
Chinese J-15 fighter to make emergency barricade landing test on Liaoning
Chinese J-15 fighter to make emergency barricade landing test on Liaoning
"Deng Yudong, who is the business director of Shenyang Aircraft Industry Group Company (SAC), recently said that J-15 is going to be involved in a series of tests, including emergency barricade landing test on Liaoning Aircraft Carrier.
Deng Yudong summarized that recent J-15′s successful landing test on Liaoning aircraft carrier is accomplished by the fighter arresting hook catching ship-based arresting gear. When a landing aircraft engages a deck pendant, the force of the forward motion of the landing aircraft is transferred to a purchase cable which is routed via sheaves to the arresting engine, located in a machinery room below the flight deck or on either side of the runway.
He says that if a normal (pendant) arrestment or landing cannot be made, the barricade can be the last safety net for carrier-based fighters. To rig a barricade, it is stretched across the flight deck between stanchions, which are raised from the flight deck. The barricade webbing engages the wings of the landing aircraft, wherein energy is transmitted from the barricade webbing through the purchase cable to the arresting engine.
Deng also revealed that J-15 will carry other follow-up tests will be carried out, including aircraft maintenance on the aircraft carrier and weapon loading, beside of the emergency barricade landing test....
...According to the People’s Liberation Army Daily claimed in a 28 April report in 2012, Chinese engineers are reportedly trying to develop an electromagnetic catapult system for China’s future aircraft carriers, the report said that General Ma Weiming, a professor at the PLA Naval University of Engineering, is said to have led the efforts to develop the system, which seeks to emulate the development of the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) in the United States.
Some resources also disclose that China has developed a conventional steam-driven CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) system for its second or third aircraft carrier."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 31st Dec 2012 at 03:44. Reason: Text Edit
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: china
Age: 61
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Chinese are working very hard on the APPEARANCE of having a carrier force.
They really need to spend time and money on training. I might recommend that they start by having their sailors enter the water during their "swimming" lessons.
They really need to spend time and money on training. I might recommend that they start by having their sailors enter the water during their "swimming" lessons.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They really need to spend time and money on training.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QIUUvUSvS8
It's just an observation.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter
TAIPEI — In an unusual departure for mainland Chinese-language media, the Beijing-based Sina Military Network (SMN) criticized the capabilities of the carrier-borne J-15 Flying Shark as nothing more than a “flopping fish.”
On Sept. 22, the state-controlled China Daily Times reported the new aircraft carrier Liaoning had just finished a three-month voyage and conducted over 100 sorties of “various aircraft,” of which the J-15 “took off and landed on the carrier with maximum load and various weapons.” This report was also carried on the official Liberation Army Daily. Contradicting any report by official military or government media is unusual in China given state control of the media.
What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons, “effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.”
The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a weapons “load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carrier’s ski jump ramp.” This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles. To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons while fully fueled. “This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and two PL-8 missiles,” thus the “range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN [People’s Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.”
Losing the ability to carry the PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles will make the J-15 an “unlikely match” against other foreign carrier-based fighters. “Even the Vietnam People’s Air Force can outmatch the PL-8 short-range missile. Without space for an electronic countermeasure pod, a huge number of J-15s must be mobilized for even simple missions, a waste for the PLA Navy in using the precious space aboard its sole aircraft carrier in service.”
Built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, the J-15 is a copy of the Russian-made Su-33. China acquired an Su-33 prototype from the Ukraine in 2001. Avionics are most likely the same as the J-11B (Su-27). In 2006, Russia accused China of reverse engineering the Su-27 and canceled a production license to build 200 Su-27s after only 95 aircraft had been built.
Vasily Kashin, a China military specialist at the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, suggests the J-15 might be a better aircraft than the Su-33. “I think that there might be some improvements because electronic equipment now weighs less than in the 1990s,” he said. It could also be lighter due to new composites that China is using on the J-11B that were not available on the original Su-33. Despite improvements, Kashin wonders why the Chinese bothered with the Su-33 given the fact that Russia gave up on it. Weight problems and other issues forced the Russians to develop the MiG-29K, which has better power-to-weight ratio and can carry more weapons. “Of course, when the Chinese get their future carriers equipped with catapults, that limitation will not apply and they will be able to fully realize Su-33/J-15 potential — huge range and good payload,” Kashin said.
The Liaoning is the problem. The carrier is small — 53,000 tons — and uses a ski jump. From Russia’s experience, “taking off from the carrier with takeoff weight exceeding some 26 tons is very difficult,” Kashin said. Roger Cliff, a China defense specialist for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said this is “one of the reasons why sky-jump carriers can’t be considered to be equivalent to full-size carriers with catapults.”
A number of unanswered questions are raised by the SMN report, Kashin said, including the amount of fuel on board, carrier speed, wind speed and direction.
Cliff also raises issues with SMN’s conclusions. “It doesn’t make sense to me that the J-15 can take off with YJ-83s but not PL-12s, since the YJ-83 weighs about 1,800 pounds and the PL-12 weighs about 400 pounds.” A possible answer is that it was unable to take off with both. “The article says that it can only carry ‘two tons’ of missiles and munitions when fully fueled, which is 4,400 pounds, and two YJ-83s plus two PL-8s would weigh over 4,000 pounds, leaving no margin for any PL-12s. But I don’t see why it couldn’t take off with PL-12s if it wasn’t carrying YJ-83s.” Cliff concludes that the J-15 should be capable of carrying PL-12s when it is flying purely air-to-air missions and that “it probably just can’t carry PL-12s when it is flying a strike mission.”
Kashin said the J-15, unlike the Su-33, should have a “potent” internal countermeasures suite, thus allowing for more space for weapons. The SMN report suggests it has an external electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod. Weight issues should also not be too much of a problem for the J-15, he said, since the Su-33 did fly from the same type of carrier carrying “6-8 air-to-air missiles and Sorbtsia ECM pods carrying something like 6 to 6.5 tons of fuel.”
China’s next carriers will reportedly use electromagnetic catapults, Kashin said, but “limitations are significant when it comes to air-to-surface weapons, which limit the J-15’s use as a multirole fighter.
TAIPEI — In an unusual departure for mainland Chinese-language media, the Beijing-based Sina Military Network (SMN) criticized the capabilities of the carrier-borne J-15 Flying Shark as nothing more than a “flopping fish.”
On Sept. 22, the state-controlled China Daily Times reported the new aircraft carrier Liaoning had just finished a three-month voyage and conducted over 100 sorties of “various aircraft,” of which the J-15 “took off and landed on the carrier with maximum load and various weapons.” This report was also carried on the official Liberation Army Daily. Contradicting any report by official military or government media is unusual in China given state control of the media.
What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons, “effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.”
The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a weapons “load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carrier’s ski jump ramp.” This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles. To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons while fully fueled. “This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and two PL-8 missiles,” thus the “range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN [People’s Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.”
Losing the ability to carry the PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles will make the J-15 an “unlikely match” against other foreign carrier-based fighters. “Even the Vietnam People’s Air Force can outmatch the PL-8 short-range missile. Without space for an electronic countermeasure pod, a huge number of J-15s must be mobilized for even simple missions, a waste for the PLA Navy in using the precious space aboard its sole aircraft carrier in service.”
Built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, the J-15 is a copy of the Russian-made Su-33. China acquired an Su-33 prototype from the Ukraine in 2001. Avionics are most likely the same as the J-11B (Su-27). In 2006, Russia accused China of reverse engineering the Su-27 and canceled a production license to build 200 Su-27s after only 95 aircraft had been built.
Vasily Kashin, a China military specialist at the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, suggests the J-15 might be a better aircraft than the Su-33. “I think that there might be some improvements because electronic equipment now weighs less than in the 1990s,” he said. It could also be lighter due to new composites that China is using on the J-11B that were not available on the original Su-33. Despite improvements, Kashin wonders why the Chinese bothered with the Su-33 given the fact that Russia gave up on it. Weight problems and other issues forced the Russians to develop the MiG-29K, which has better power-to-weight ratio and can carry more weapons. “Of course, when the Chinese get their future carriers equipped with catapults, that limitation will not apply and they will be able to fully realize Su-33/J-15 potential — huge range and good payload,” Kashin said.
The Liaoning is the problem. The carrier is small — 53,000 tons — and uses a ski jump. From Russia’s experience, “taking off from the carrier with takeoff weight exceeding some 26 tons is very difficult,” Kashin said. Roger Cliff, a China defense specialist for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said this is “one of the reasons why sky-jump carriers can’t be considered to be equivalent to full-size carriers with catapults.”
A number of unanswered questions are raised by the SMN report, Kashin said, including the amount of fuel on board, carrier speed, wind speed and direction.
Cliff also raises issues with SMN’s conclusions. “It doesn’t make sense to me that the J-15 can take off with YJ-83s but not PL-12s, since the YJ-83 weighs about 1,800 pounds and the PL-12 weighs about 400 pounds.” A possible answer is that it was unable to take off with both. “The article says that it can only carry ‘two tons’ of missiles and munitions when fully fueled, which is 4,400 pounds, and two YJ-83s plus two PL-8s would weigh over 4,000 pounds, leaving no margin for any PL-12s. But I don’t see why it couldn’t take off with PL-12s if it wasn’t carrying YJ-83s.” Cliff concludes that the J-15 should be capable of carrying PL-12s when it is flying purely air-to-air missions and that “it probably just can’t carry PL-12s when it is flying a strike mission.”
Kashin said the J-15, unlike the Su-33, should have a “potent” internal countermeasures suite, thus allowing for more space for weapons. The SMN report suggests it has an external electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod. Weight issues should also not be too much of a problem for the J-15, he said, since the Su-33 did fly from the same type of carrier carrying “6-8 air-to-air missiles and Sorbtsia ECM pods carrying something like 6 to 6.5 tons of fuel.”
China’s next carriers will reportedly use electromagnetic catapults, Kashin said, but “limitations are significant when it comes to air-to-surface weapons, which limit the J-15’s use as a multirole fighter.
Roger Cliff, a China defense specialist for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington,
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fareastdriver, I agree, I wouldn't write off China. From what I have seen there is low volume R&D platforms being built, their subs are coming on
Last edited by JSFfan; 30th Sep 2013 at 03:53.
The Aviationist » No match for a U.S. Hornet: ?China?s Navy J-15 more a flopping fish than a flying shark? Chinese media say
I'll leave it to the big brains here if the analysis is correct. I find it curious the Chinese media passing judgement.
I'll leave it to the big brains here if the analysis is correct. I find it curious the Chinese media passing judgement.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: UK, VN, TW.
Age: 60
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the Taiwanese media might choose to report, you can rest assured that there is a general tightening of bottoms here regarding the increasingly obvious capabilities of our mainland cousins. The degraded F35 is no longer regarded as the answer to our prayers, hence the rise of the 'sink 'em before they get too near' strategy.
