China’s Anti-Carrier Ballistic Missile Now Opposite Taiwan | Bloomberg

[Martian2]

First of all, you obviously do not know what is "Mid-Way Refuelling".

Secondly, have you ever heard of a thing called "Buddy Refuelling" system?

Before you demonstrate the necessary knowledge on both term, I will ignore you from now on

Real combat is different

No citation as usual. Trolling again with your trash talk.

I have at least six reputable citations (and possibly more) in this thread. You have zero.

How will buddy refueling help the Hornets? You take fuel from one Hornet and put it in another one. And you expect the Chinese fighters to sit there while you take all the time you need to buddy refuel? What kind of stupid thinking is this. It doesn't work under real combat situations.

Furthermore, you only have about 80 Hornets on a carrier. Under buddy refueling, you're down to 40 combat aircraft. The Chinese have hundreds of fighters waiting and they're backed up by a modern air-defense system.

 

[jhungary]

you realize you're talking to martian? the guy is our resident comedian.

lol I may need to talk Martian so he would understand

No citation as usual. Trolling again with your trash talk.

I have at least six reputable citations (and possibly more) in this thread. You have zero.

[edit] Real combat is different

No citation as usual. Trolling again with your trash talk.

I have at least six reputable citations (and possibly more) in this thread. You have zero.

How will buddy refuelling help the Hornets? You take fuel from one Hornet and put it in another one. And you expect the Chinese fighters to sit there while you take all the time you need to buddy refuel? What kind of stupid thinking is this. It doesn't work under real combat situations.

Furthermore, you only have about 80 Hornets on a carrier. Under buddy refuelling, you're down to 40 combat aircraft. The Chinese have hundreds of fighters waiting and they're backed up by a modern air-defence system.

So, is this an admission of you don't know both term??

LOL you can take your 6 reputable citation and shove it up your.....

[edit] first of all, next time if you want to pull a fast one and edit a post I already replied so that it seems I am the one who's without answer....You should really put a "edit" tag in front.

Dude, the bolted part indicate how much you actually know about Buddy refuelling

My cousin was a USMC Puke, I was a US Army Captain, between the two of us, I think we know how "real" combat work. Actually I did see 30 months of Real Combat in the middle east. So thank you for asking.

You do not even need a F-18 to buddy refuel another F-18. You can use almost everything to buddy refuel the F-18, this way you can protect the integrity of the squadron while provide them with longer range, and very obvious that you never heard of the term "Drop tank"

lol, the more you comment on something you actually have no clue about will only make you look more like a jackass. I won't stop you from embarrassing yourselves, but my time is limited. I rather answer other people with insight rather than talk to a person who he think he know everything, but indeed nothing.

go down a few post, you will se a K-6A refuelling a F14 and F-18 also a S-3 refuelling an F-18

[edit May 10 2013 17:09 AEST]
and why would I need citation when I am asking a question? You need citation to ask a question now? Weird......

 

[gambit]

Real combat is different

No citation as usual. Trolling again with your trash talk.

I have at least six reputable citations (and possibly more) in this thread. You have zero.

How will buddy refueling help the Hornets? You take fuel from one Hornet and put it in another one. And you expect the Chinese fighters to sit there while you take all the time you need to buddy refuel? What kind of stupid thinking is this. It doesn't work under real combat situations.

Furthermore, you only have about 80 Hornets on a carrier. Under buddy refueling, you're down to 40 combat aircraft. The Chinese have hundreds of fighters waiting and they're backed up by a modern air-defense system.

What do YOU know about 'real combat', noob?

The highlighted is hilarious and it only further proves to all that no one should take the Chinese members here seriously.

Buddy refueling does not mean 1-to-1 pairing. DOES NOT.

Buddy refueling does not fill up the receiving fighter. A single fighter configured with several buddy refueling pods can service several clients. Not 1-to-1. A flight of strike configured F-18s can take off with more armaments than normal. A pair of F-18s configured with buddy refueling pods accompanies them. At a certain point in flight, the strike fighters are refueled and continue the strike mission. The refuelers return to the ship to 'gas up' again. For the strike fighters on the way home, they will be refueled again.

This is the most basic scenario of buddy refueling. The PLAAF does not have even this most basic experience. So what make you think you who have never served in the military, to speak for China in this regard?

Who is really trash talking now?

 

[gambit]

As promised, some titles of open-source R&D documents related to ASBM development in China. Just for information.

I introduced this forum to navigation laws long before you got here.

And nothing proves the contrary neither.

The fact is that YW-4 has been transformed, as soon in the picture, and several months after this transformation it is officially announced as "retired".

As most of the thing you said here. Quoting part of books doesn't proof that you really understand it and can apply it effectively.

Henri K.

Then what make you are so certain you have the superior knowledge about this subject? Just because you quote some papers?

Looky here...You made a claim then demand we accept that claim without critical examination. That is not how a debate works. When you are ready to properly debate this subject, let us know.

I asserted China would use an EMP to stop an American carrier group. Gambit replied that there was no proof China had EMP warheads.

That is a lie. I 'replied' no such thing. I challenge you to provide the post I said so.

 

[sms]

Real combat is different

No citation as usual. Trolling again with your trash talk.

I have at least six reputable citations (and possibly more) in this thread. You have zero.

How will buddy refueling help the Hornets? You take fuel from one Hornet and put it in another one. And you expect the Chinese fighters to sit there while you take all the time you need to buddy refuel? What kind of stupid thinking is this. It doesn't work under real combat situations.

Furthermore, you only have about 80 Hornets on a carrier. Under buddy refueling, you're down to 40 combat aircraft. The Chinese have hundreds of fighters waiting and they're backed up by a modern air-defense system.

Highlighted part is hilarious at it's best!

Just to remind I do have an unanswered question for more than a year by self proclaimed Chinese aviation/ aeronautics/ material science experts.

It seems comedians at PDF are doing their job very well

 

[gambit]

How will buddy refueling help the Hornets? You take fuel from one Hornet and put it in another one. And you expect the Chinese fighters to sit there while you take all the time you need to buddy refuel?

No. We expect the Chinese fighters to wander the sky looking for the air refueling point.

 

[gambit]

Are you an idiot?

A tanker is a giant target. How will it survive flying in the airspace between the carrier and the Chinese mainland? China has long-range surface-to-air missiles and fighter interceptors. How will a giant tanker manage to loiter in the airspace between a carrier and the Chinese coastline?

How many planes do you think it can refuel before it is shot down? One? Maybe two?

Are you an idiot?

Show me a citation from a reputable source (e.g. AviationWeek, Jane's Defence, Flight Global, Richard Fisher, Andrew Erickson, Naval War College, etc.) to back up your idiotic idea.

Pleeeeeease...You think we are amateurs at this?

Let me get this out of the way: The above is PUBLIC information.

Now...China and the US are nearly geographically identical. So if we can map out the entire US for air refueling points, what make you think we cannot do the same for China based upon known locations of PLAAF bases? Look at how small those refueling areas are compared to known geographical locations. You think it is that easy for the PLAAF to find these areas, which can be changed on notice? But even if the PLAAF can see a tanker, that does not mean Chinese fighters have the range to reach it, while US fighters once refueled will have additional range to their fighters.

Look at it this way...A US air refuel tanker can be well within radar view of the PLAAF but just right outside of PLAAF fighters' range. We can gas up our fighters right in full radar view of the PLAAF and there is nothing the PLAAF can do about it. And if PLAAF fighters are foolish enough to try to reach the tanker, they will be at the edge of their limit, low on fuel, and vulnerable to the tanker's escorts.

Worse off for your argument, we learned much from Desert Storm. We learned that tanker scheduling and refueling methods were better for long range distance bombers than for shorter range fighters. The USAF reorganized. SAC and TAC are now Air Combat Command (ACC). Tankers are now under Air Mobility Command (AMC) and really really bad for China, the tanker community now have a university level post graduate study and training center to help them: USAF Expeditionary Center.

What does the PLAAF have other than another American standard to meet?

 

[jhungary]

Real combat is different

No citation as usual. Trolling again with your trash talk.

I have at least six reputable citations (and possibly more) in this thread. You have zero.

How will buddy refueling help the Hornets? You take fuel from one Hornet and put it in another one. And you expect the Chinese fighters to sit there while you take all the time you need to buddy refuel? What kind of stupid thinking is this. It doesn't work under real combat situations.

Furthermore, you only have about 80 Hornets on a carrier. Under buddy refueling, you're down to 40 combat aircraft. The Chinese have hundreds of fighters waiting and they're backed up by a modern air-defense system.


Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...posite-taiwan-bloomberg-14.html#ixzz2Ss3k9cnj

What do YOU know about 'real combat', noob?

The highlighted is hilarious and it only further proves to all that no one should take the Chinese members here seriously.

Buddy refueling does not mean 1-to-1 pairing. DOES NOT.

Buddy refueling does not fill up the receiving fighter. A single fighter configured with several buddy refueling pods can service several clients. Not 1-to-1. A flight of strike configured F-18s can take off with more armaments than normal. A pair of F-18s configured with buddy refueling pods accompanies them. At a certain point in flight, the strike fighters are refueled and continue the strike mission. The refuelers return to the ship to 'gas up' again. For the strike fighters on the way home, they will be refueled again.

This is the most basic scenario of buddy refueling. The PLAAF does not have even this most basic experience. So what make you think you who have never served in the military, to speak for China in this regard?

Who is really trash talking now?

He also forgot you don't need a F-18 to Buddy fuel another F-18, We can use almost EVEYTHING to buddy refuel a squadron of F-18. C-2 Greyhound, EA-6B Prowlers, S-3 Vikings. F-18 refuel F-18 is only 1 option.

I think that is enough photo to shut him up lol

and furthermore, I think he never even heard of the term "Drop Tank"

Even if a Big KC-10 is large, it they station off 1000 nmi and refuel the F-18, there are nothing the Chinese can give chase from the ground. As there are currently no SAM can reach that far....

Highlighted part is hilarious at it's best!

Just to remind I do have an unanswered question for more than a year by self proclaimed Chinese aviation/ aeronautics/ material science experts.

It seems comedians at PDF are doing their job very well

This guy is really funny.......

Honestly, he made many of my buddy laugh from time to time, I think we should thank his entertainment.

When the F-18 fully 1:1 refuel another F-18, are they supposed to dive out into the sea or are they suppose to crash land at Chinese Airbase?? Cause there will not be any fuel for them to fly back lol

and he really REALLY think this is the case. This guy is really funny.... and yet he keep talking like we are the stupid one lol

Pleeeeeease...You think we are amateurs at this?

Let me get this out of the way: The above is PUBLIC information.

Now...China and the US are nearly geographically identical. So if we can map out the entire US for air refueling points, what make you think we cannot do the same for China based upon known locations of PLAAF bases? Look at how small those refueling areas are compared to known geographical locations. You think it is that easy for the PLAAF to find these areas, which can be changed on notice? But even if the PLAAF can see a tanker, that does not mean Chinese fighters have the range to reach it, while US fighters once refueled will have additional range to their fighters.

Look at it this way...A US air refuel tanker can be well within radar view of the PLAAF but just right outside of PLAAF fighters' range. We can gas up our fighters right in full radar view of the PLAAF and there is nothing the PLAAF can do about it. And if PLAAF fighters are foolish enough to try to reach the tanker, they will be at the edge of their limit, low on fuel, and vulnerable to the tanker's escorts.

Worse off for your argument, we learned much from Desert Storm. We learned that tanker scheduling and refueling methods were better for long range distance bombers than for shorter range fighters. The USAF reorganized. SAC and TAC are now Air Combat Command (ACC). Tankers are now under Air Mobility Command (AMC) and really really bad for China, the tanker community now have a university level post graduate study and training center to help them: USAF Expeditionary Center.

What does the PLAAF have other than another American standard to meet?

Gambit my man, you seems to left out one point, to challenge our Mid-Air Refuelling point, PLAAF need to get absolute Air superiority. Which I don't really think it's possible for the PLAAF to grab such a feat. Otherwise our fighter will make mince meat out of the PLAAF wanted to challenge the tanker.

 

[hk299792458]

I introduced this forum to navigation laws long before you got here.

And?

Then what make you are so certain you have the superior knowledge about this subject? Just because you quote some papers?

Looky here...You made a claim then demand we accept that claim without critical examination. That is not how a debate works. When you are ready to properly debate this subject, let us know.

I'm doing quit the same as you did so far.

Henri K.

 

[Beast]

Gambit my man, you seems to left out one point, to challenge our Mid-Air Refuelling point, PLAAF need to get absolute Air superiority. Which I don't really think it's possible for the PLAAF to grab such a feat. Otherwise our fighter will make mince meat out of the PLAAF wanted to challenge the tanker.

Why do you think it's not possible consider you are tryng to play the ground at our home turf? Support by ground base SAM, ground defense network. Thinking a easy walkover over PLAAF is only a moronic view from any major airforce general. And you claim you have so many years of experience working in the US airforce? May I know how long ago? 20 years? LOL. If you ask any of current USAF pilot. I am sure they will think you are out of touch of current reality.

 

[Beast]

And?




I'm doing quit the same as you did so far.

Henri K.

Henri, you are a well respected forumer in Chinese thread. This 2 clown of jhungary and gambit are not worth the effort of talking sense to them. they just some keyboard warrior who fake about their combat experience and ruin the reputation of America and USAF. Both are just overweight couch potatoes coming here with their racist idealogy to start their agenda.

 

[gambit]

He also forgot you don't need a F-18 to Buddy fuel another F-18, We can use almost EVEYTHING to buddy refuel a squadron of F-18. C-2 Greyhound, EA-6B Prowlers, S-3 Vikings. F-18 refuel F-18 is only 1 option.

To say that he 'forgot' implies that he knew but memory failed him. No, he did not 'forgot'. He just did not know. And now he just put his foot, shoe and all, in his mouth for the readers to see. The most hilarious part of his trash talking is the 80 down to 40 fighters bit. One gem of ignorance among many.

 

[jhungary]

Why do you think it's not possible consider you are tryng to play the ground at our home turf? Support by ground base SAM, ground defense network. Thinking a easy walkover over PLAAF is only a moronic view from any major airforce general. And you claim you have so many years of experience working in the US airforce? May I know how long ago? 20 years? LOL. If you ask any of current USAF pilot. I am sure they will think you are out of touch of current reality.

Well, assume you mean the Air Superiority Remark.

First of all, what I mean is the total superiority around the tanker. Not in China. And the Tanker does not loiter in your backyard as you said, depend on which fuelling method, our tanker will loiter around 1200-1600 nautical mile OUTISDE your coastal range.

By then the range is too far for your SAM (Which is at most with 300 km), and with that range, only J-11A can get that far out of your AO and that is with Air Refuelling. How many J-11 you have in your inventory? And How many Tanker you have in your inventory??

Of course China will have regional superiority INSIDE your soil, but your DF-21 will also need to deploy further inland to benefit from the Defensive network. That will negate the range on your DF-21 and the threat is diminished.

By the way, I never said I worked with the USAF, I was a Captain in the Army, you confused me with Gambit, dude

你將我同Gambit調轉了

 

[jhungary]

To say that he 'forgot' implies that he knew but memory failed him. No, he did not 'forgot'. He just did not know. And now he just put his foot, shoe and all, in his mouth for the readers to see. The most hilarious part of his trash talking is the 80 down to 40 fighters bit. One gem of ignorance among many.

lol, the guy is just laughing stock for all.

and yeah he is really funny, I reckon if what he said is true then half of our carrier base hornet are just for suicide mission lol...

 

[gambit]

Henri, you are a well respected forumer in Chinese thread. This 2 clown of jhungary and gambit are not worth the effort of talking sense to them. they just some keyboard warrior who fake about their combat experience and ruin the reputation of America and USAF. Both are just overweight couch potatoes coming here with their racist idealogy to start their agenda.

Kid...Do you know why not even egotistical fools like Marty does not claim to have military, let alone combat, experience? Because on an open forum, frauds will be called out. There are just some things and experience common to all those who actually served, no matter his country of allegiance, that sooner or later a fraud will trip up. If it is that easy to fake it, this forum would be crawling with officers, from Legionnaires to mercenaries to squadron leaders and all the way up to generals.

And when it comes to technical issues, bad area to fake it...

My first jet was the F-111. That is not a very large community. I once busted a guy by asking him where is the 'flux valve' and what must be done even by just loosening it from its mount. My second jet was the F-16, a much larger community. I once busted a guy by asking him: 'Is it possible to have only one man on the CB panels during an LE flap rig?' The Technical Orders (TO) does not specify, but only well experienced people on the -16 would know the tricks of the trade, things beyond the trade, to know how to tell a fraud from the real thing.

I do not count my time in Desert Storm as 'combat experience', even though technically, it is. Instead, I count it only as part of my overall military experience. I have enough respect for those who actually had their lives in real close danger to know better than to put myself in their shoes. You Chinese here should grow up.