Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Marlboro BLACK

China & Chinese Shenanigans

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Breckey said:

The Air Dominance’s Intel blog on SIPR has a good write up on those aircraft along with some NASIC analysis. It’s a good read.

Care to provide this civilian with a link? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

He’s not a USG civilian. He’s a civilian civilian.

Gotcha. Then unregard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

If they have one we need one...

AG600 just made its first water landing:

Article on it from Task  & Purpose:  https://taskandpurpose.com/china-ag600-amphibious-aircraft-landing/

 

Yeah we can’t allow a “flying boat gap” to develop.  Probably need to prioritize this right after F-35, KC-46, B-21, new ICBM, Light Attack, 6th gen Air Dominance, hypersonics, nuclear cruise missile, fixing hurricane damaged F-22s, stopping the invasion of Central Americans, Space Force, maintaining the Afghan live fire training range........

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah we can’t allow a “flying boat gap” to develop.  Probably need to prioritize this right after F-35, KC-46, B-21, new ICBM, Light Attack, 6th gen Air Dominance, hypersonics, nuclear cruise missile, fixing hurricane damaged F-22s, stopping the invasion of Central Americans, Space Force, maintaining the Afghan live fire training range........

It was a joke, DD is Code 2 for humor recognizer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a joke, DD is Code 2 for humor recognizer

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Not sure if that’s the case Clark. I thought DD’s was dripping with sarcasm.

 

Everything is the #1 priority, right? Why not add a flying boat to the list...

 

I think yours might be Code 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scooter14 said:

Not sure if that’s the case Clark. I thought DD’s was dripping with sarcasm.

Everything is the #1 priority, right? Why not add a flying boat to the list...

I think yours might be Code 3.

Sheez... I didn't realize my innocuous post about a modern flying boat and the novelty of it would need a trigger warning.

Just to state the obvious, we are not getting a flying boat and if money grew on trees I would say we should acquire one just because... but it doesn't so we will prioritize and spend money on that which we should / must... as referenced by @DirkDiggler 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's another part of their growth in expeditionary capability, not explicitly a military system/capability technically but in about 6.9 seconds it could be adapted to a military role.  

17 ordered so far by the Chinese government but article here doesn't specify if it is the PLAN or their CG.

On the subject of Chinese expeditionary airpower development, they wanna develop a tanker version of their Y-20:

http://www.atimes.com/article/chubby-girls-sister-boost-chinas-military-capability/

Good nick name for the jet also...

probable-tanker-in-future.jpg

Interesting photoshop but should have had pods, don't see them developing a boom AR system anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 10:36 AM, Clark Griswold said:

If they have one we need one...

AG600 just made its first water landing:

Article on it from Task  & Purpose:  https://taskandpurpose.com/china-ag600-amphibious-aircraft-landing/

 

Already accomplished, b1tches...maybe it'll be one of the new plus-up squadrons...

See the source imagearticle-2227304-0044CFC800000258-552_964x524.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Already accomplished, b1tches...maybe it'll be one of the new plus-up squadrons...

If only... 

Japanese US-2 Seaplane would be my choice if the resources and solid requirement were there for a military seaplane:

slide_img01.jpg

screenshot-www-youtube-com-2018-04-25-11

Now, not to inflame righteous indignation over the controversial topic of aircraft that self-identify as amphibious, there could be some argument made for a capability to reach and supply far flung bases in the Pacific / Indian Ocean theaters that either have little or no infrastructure or in the event that infrastructure (runway, port, helipad, etc...) was destroyed by long-range attack (conventional ballistic missile, cruise or stand-off weapons).  

The case for a fixed-wing amphibious aircraft would be for a longer unrefuelled range with a greater payload vs a rotary wing or tilt-rotor aircraft, for a land or sea landing/takeoff.  With typical hot & humid conditions, that would further erode vertical takeoff / landing performance, the option of a fixed wing water takeoff at a higher GW becomes more valuable.

Expensive aircraft for a niche but potentially valuable capability ($116 mil a copy when offered to India in 2016 - ouch that's a lot) but if you were nation with your national interests linked to ocean power projection capabilities with a sometimes bullying neighbor, you might want that...

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×