What's new

Chinese officials warned US bomber during 'routine' East China Sea flyover

You are taking this too literally...

Not literally, just concrete, because you where deliberately trying to be vague, to spin your bigoted opinions into Wiki "facts" that are simply not there as so often when you are trying to abuse credibility of independent sources and citations to pull off your twisted piss stories about China and fabricated anecdotes again, even when China was actually only responsible for a fraction of Iraqi diverse armory through exporting old junk, regardless of the fact it ended up technically as the main arms supplier by mere exclusion of others for reasons unrelated to China, making the whole attempt to smear China ridiculous.

Usually, if you buy the product, in this case instruments of warfare, you get the training that goes with it, and inevitably, the ideas on how to use these instruments.

It was obvious this stretch was going to be your grasp for straws to justify your desperate spin to pin Iraqi war failure on Chinese "incompetence" or make implications on China's weapon systems based on Iraqi performance. Which leads to the following dilemma for you:

U.S. Chinese military relations in the 70s.

Only 1-2 decades earlier, since the late 60 and over the 70s, the U.S.A. supplied the Peoples Republic of China with military equipment and training to fend off the Soviets.

Which by your twisted troll logic has significant implications on today's U.S. air defence and radar technology and it might be just as bad as China during the 70s. Just as Iraqi past defences suggest significant limitations for modern Chinese air defence according to you.

Remember, China "hired" the U.S.A.. :lol:
 
.
Not literally, just concrete, because you where deliberately trying to be vague, to spin your bigotted opinions into Wiki "facts" that are simply not there as so often when you are trying to abuse credibility of indepent sources and citations to pull off your twisted piss stories about China and fabricated anecdotes again, even when China was actually only responsible for a fraction of Iraqs diverse amory through exporting old junk, regardless of the fact it ended up technically as the main arms supplier by mere exclusion of others for reasons unrelated to China, making the whole attempt to smear China ridiculous.



It was obvious this stretch was going to be your grasp for straws to justify your desperate spin to pin Iraqi war failure on Chinese "incompetence" or make implications on Chinas weapon systems based on Iraqs performance. Which leads to the following dilemma for you:

U.S. Chinese military relations in the 70s.

Only 1-2 decades earlier, since the late 60 and over the 70s, the U.S.A. supplied the Peoples Republic of Republic of China with military equipment and training to fend of the Soviets.

Which by your twisted troll logic has significant implications on todays U.S. air defence and radar technology and it might be just as bad as Chinas during the 70s. Just as Iraqs past defences suggest significant limitations for modern Chinese air defence according to you.

Remember, China "hired" the U.S.A.. :lol:
Very well said and the insight view. Bro.
But pls stay steady and the arguments will be continued and endless:lol:
 
.
Last time China radar detected 2x B-52 bombers flying to ADIZ of China East Sea, this time the radar detect US Air Force B-1B Lancer bomber aircraft and speak warning to B-1B pilot !!! (okay the case just tell us Chinese radar already detect where is the B-1B in that airspace, maybe PLAAF fighters on the way)... so next time pls send B-2 bomber aircraft to China radar :-), if i tell two years ago the China AESA radar in ShanDong ever detected 2x F-22 fighters flying in S.Korea military base (about 2015 2x F-22 visited to S.Korea) ... China already can detect the F-22, i just wanna how U.S Airforce will win when China (AESA) radars can detect F-22 & B-2 ???

:-) We hope the U.S Airfore to send all aircrafts including F-16、F-15、F-18、F-35、F-22、B-52、B-1、B-2、C-130、C-17、C-5、E-2、E-3 flying around China Sea to test PLA radars, when China radars catch them all let Chinese air traffic controllers speak warning to them again !!! :lol: In Peace time the 'Warning' == 'Detect - Shoot down' in War, it just prove the China radars work well ! :coffee::coffee::coffee:
1.jpg
2.jpg
3.jpg
4.jpg

SLC7_type_L_band_multifunction_Phased_Array_Rada.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
Not literally, just concrete, because you where deliberately trying to be vague, to spin your bigotted opinions into Wiki "facts" that are simply not there as so often when you are trying to abuse credibility of indepent sources and citations to pull off your twisted piss stories about China and fabricated anecdotes again, even when China was actually only responsible for a fraction of Iraqs diverse amory through exporting old junk, regardless of the fact it ended up technically as the main arms supplier by mere exclusion of others for reasons unrelated to China, making the whole attempt to smear China ridiculous.
I do not need to 'smear' China, buddy. :lol:

The fact that your PLA reformed to what the US military looks like is evident enough that the PLA realized that what it practiced and exported in doctrines all these decades were WORTHLESS.

As for the Iraq-China military relationship, people have strained to create the Iraq-US military version with far less, even to the point that the US supposedly sold chemical weapons to Iraq. So please, do not expect the world to be that gullible.

It was obvious this stretch was going to be your grasp for straws to justify your desperate spin to pin Iraqi war failure on Chinese "incompetence" or make implications on Chinas weapon systems based on Iraqs performance.
Not mine. But practically every military analyst whose reputation is on the line. If they have no problems stretching, am willing to follow their lead.

Perhaps you do not know and perhaps we can excuse you for living where you are controlled for what you can read, but we captured many Iraqi POWs and we learned from them that the way the Iraqi military organized pretty much mirrored what/how the Soviets and your China does. Centralized control is the signature of both of your countries' militaries. Inflexibility even down to the squad level and speaking as an Air Force guy, an Iraqi fighter wing must receive authorization from Baghdad daily before it can conduct even regular training flights.

China already can detect the F-22,...
And we track Santa Claus every yr.

i just wanna how U.S Airforce will win when China (AESA) radars can detect F-22 & B-2 ???
How does it feel to want ?
 
.
I do not need to 'smear' China, buddy. :lol:

The fact that your PLA reformed to what the US military looks like is evident enough that the PLA realized that what it practiced and exported in doctrines all these decades were WORTHLESS.
Yes the PLA needed reforms only because US realized the outcome of the Korean & Vietnam wars revealed how worthless the American military doctrine was. US should thank China for teaching this lesson hence transformed into a modern fighting machine which in turn showed China the way to modernize our own forces as well.
 
.
Hey loser, when the Russians sent a spy ship about 20 miles offshore of the U.S. coast, how did we react? Nothing. Not even a blockade to shoot the Russian ship, or what Chinese would do which is park in front of the ship to make it stop. Or couple of years ago ram into a plane. I expect China to do something like that as well. Since we have the courtesy to allow Chinese ships near Alaska and Hawaii outside 12 mile zone. You on the other hand warning ships and planes hundreds of miles out and claim its your space.

it's useless for me to argue because we simply can't reciprocate by patrolling US west pacific coast as yet but we all know that US is never the one who would like to play by the rule that why it didn't want to sign the UNCLOS. This certainly is an wake up call for Chinese general staffs to learn on how to answer to US provocation.
 
.
How does it feel to want ?
The news just prove China radars work well, and detect B-1B bomber flying around China Sea ... after last B-52 and this B-1B ... I want next time U.S Airforce should send B-2 stealth bomber to test China's radar, both U.S and China military force need work together to check whether B-2 is stealthy before China radars. If next news say China radar detect B-2 stealth bomber & another Chinese air traffic controller give warning to B-2 pilot, I will feel happy and hope China export these anti-stealth radars & techs to other foreign countries in this world, U.S B-2 stealth bomber + China anti-stealth radar cooperation to make money together, is that a good deal ?! :lol:
 
.
The news just prove China radars work well, and detect B-1B bomber flying around China Sea ... after last B-52 and this B-1B ... i want next time U.S Airforce should send B-2 stealth bomber to China radar, both U.S and China military force need work together to check whether B-2 is stealth before China radars. If next news like this to say China radar detect B-2 stealth bomber & another Chinese air traffic controller speak warning to B-2 pilot, i will feel happy and hope China export these anti-stealth radars & techs to other foreign countries in this world, U.S B-2 stealth bomber + China anti-stealth radar cooperation to make money together, is that a good deal ?! :lol:
Aaahh...Yeah...Kinda hard to miss when we flew high enough...:rolleyes:
 
.
Aaahh...Yeah...Kinda hard to miss when we flew high enough...:rolleyes:
My friend ... as far as I knew whatever B-2 or F-22 they cannot fly higher than Lockheed U-2 "Dragon Lady", I think once China radar can effectively detect these stealth aircraft flying around China sky, it is not a problem for HQ missiles to take them down.

So just flew high enough ... that's not enough yet! In 1960s China already shot down several U-2 aircrafts from Taiwan supplied by U.S. After 50-year I think China's air-defense techs & anti-aircraft missiles making progress too.

timg (1).jpg


timg2.jpg


timg.jpg


1.jpg


2.jpg


3.jpg
 
.
My friend ... as far as i knew whatever B-2 or F-22 they can not fly higher than Lockheed U-2 "Dragon Lady", i think once China radar can effectively detect these stealth aircraft flying around China sky, not a problem for HQ missiles to take them down.

So just flew high enough ... that's not enough yet ! In 1960s China already shot down several U-2 aircrafts from TaiWan supplied by U.S, after 50-year i think China air-defense techs & anti-aircraft missiles making progress too.
View attachment 386763 View attachment 386764 View attachment 386765 View attachment 386766 View attachment 386767 View attachment 386768
@cnleio what are the parade of aircraft in those old B&W pictures indeed... 1st pic has 5 aircraft and the 2nd one has 4.

Are them the reconfigured wreckages of U-2 series? :D
 
.
@cnleio what are the parade of aircraft in those old B&W pictures indeed... 1st pic has 5 aircraft and the 2nd one has 4.

Are them the reconfigured wreckages of U-2 series? :D
just 4, 1st & 2nd all show 4x aircraft tails ... pls google TaiWan Black Cat Squadron & U-2, i remember TaiWan airforce still equip U-2 in the island, but from 1970s to now they never fly it to China again.

u=3826433179,230961094&fm=214&gp=0.jpg
W020091023619850081149.jpg
128614f192cg215.jpg
nvsdy20131016026.jpg
U2zhenchaji_2934177.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
My friend ... as far as i knew whatever B-2 or F-22 they can not fly higher than Lockheed U-2 "Dragon Lady", i think once China radar can effectively detect these stealth aircraft flying around China sky, not a problem for HQ missiles to take them down.
It looks like you did not learn what I have teaching all these yrs on this forum.

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

The HIGHER the flight altitude, the EASIER it is for radar to detect. :lol:

The issue is not about whether the SAM can reach that altitude. When it became apparent that U-2 altitude was no longer safe, we switched tactic to low altitude penetration. When I was on the F-111, that was what we specialized on. Why do you think we had terrain following radar (TFR) ? Not because of high altitude.


Fast forward to time stamp 5:55 and you can see the Bone's silhouette on the ground, at the same time, you can make out the ground's many features. The Bone can fly even LOWER.

So I will repeat...

The HIGHER the flight altitude, the EASIER it is for radar to detect. :lol:
 
.
China cann't even prevent her own backyard from being dominated by the US. Iraq is too far and China has no experience operating that far from their mainland. Basically china is a big fish in small pond. USA is the real saltwater alligator here.

We have unfriendly nations in our backyard so what you expect? same go for India, you guys did not dominate neither your backyards despite the fact your military is much larger scale than your neighbors. You can say the same that China don't have jungle or mountainous warfare experience as during Vietnam and Korea war...experience don't fall from sky, it was said battlefield made great solder so it was a good experience for Chinese military advisers but China chose to concentrate on the economy instead of pissing US off in Iraq.
 
.
I do not need to 'smear' China, buddy. :lol:
No one said you need to :lol:. We all know the inferiority complex is driving you.

The fact that your PLA reformed to what the US military looks like is evident enough that the PLA realized that what it practiced and exported in doctrines all these decades were WORTHLESS.

As for the Iraq-China military relationship, people have strained to create the Iraq-US military version with far less, even to the point that the US supposedly sold chemical weapons to Iraq. So please, do not expect the world to be that gullible.
Your point is?

The fact is we where talking about some historical events which didn't quite occur as you try to claim and some very specific implication against China you tried to make based of it, with some logic twist that would fail any STEM undergrad, not some hypotheticals or unrelated conspiracy theories about the U.S. being unjustly framed.

Im not that gullible enough to think you made some case here, just throwing in your WORTHLESS opinions about the PLA and just rephrasing your same narrative with a reproaching undertone, still begging the question.

Not mine. But practically every military analyst whose reputation is on the line. If they have no problems stretching, am willing to follow their lead.

Perhaps you do not know and perhaps we can excuse you for living where you are controlled for what you can read, but we captured many Iraqi POWs and we learned from them that the way the Iraqi military organized pretty much mirrored what/how the Soviets and your China does. Centralized control is the signature of both of your countries' militaries. Inflexibility even down to the squad level and speaking as an Air Force guy, an Iraqi fighter wing must receive authorization from Baghdad daily before it can conduct even regular training flights.

So your "knowledge" is so widely shared not one word backs it up on the Wikipedia pages you tried to pass as sources, pokering for no one to notice, pushing you into mental gymnastics about training that still put you into a dilemma with historical U.S. Chinese military relations (and thats not the only one but lets not further derail this) and your revision of history is such a widely acknowledged fact you have nothing more to back it up than your classic "experts agree with me" phrase and some speculation over some obscure reference to unsourced stories allegedly revealing some unspecific infomation about an unspecific one or mabye two sided relationship with China or Soviets in form of an alleged unspecific emulation of command structures to vague extend, having some unclear impact on Iraqi army, somehow (don't blame me for missing one or two more corners in all your incoherent nonsense) backing up some implications about Chinas airdefence capability decades later, which given you posting record no one even knows how much of it is just your creative writing or personal speculation.

Are you going entertain us with some pundit China bashing conspiracy article or some of your classic anecdotes next? It seems to me we are not getting any substantial answers from you again and we got another case of Gambit leaning too far out the window for a piss on China.
 
.
Bottomline, china is pathetic bully who can only warn weaker nations. At the first sight of an fitting opponent, they will surrender before you can even say 'Beijing'.


China cann't even prevent her own backyard from being dominated by the US. Iraq is too far and China has no experience operating that far from their mainland. Basically china is a big fish in small pond. USA is the real saltwater alligator here.


Not possible till all those container bringing good to sell in USA. Heck, if push comes to shove, US can blockade China herself, stopping any shipment from and to China. That CPEC is too feeble to provide any alternative path since in winter, the entire karakoram pass is closed. If US blockades China during winters, they can throttle China's oil supply with relative ease. Not to mention any exports too.

And india is an Eternal Victim nation which can only wail and whine and fails even to intimidate tiny SA nations.... all it can do is play Dalai card and sponsor terror against Pak and other SA nations.

But hey, you are a super power now... whatever you say goes.

Good luck!
 
.
Back
Top Bottom