H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)

J

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
MarKoz81 said:
From my experience those who tend to spread vague hints on a regular basis actually get less information but exaggerate what they know, because the others who can keep a secret actually can keep a secret. There is never need to be vague when you can simply be careful. The main reason why I despise "vague hint experts" is because they're almost without exception dishonest and manipulative bullshitters. And that's because one of the main tasks of military counter-intelligence is ensuring information doesn't flow out accidentally through insecure channels that develop spontaneously through interaction between military, industry and media. People who tend to behave this way in public, behave even more carelessly in private and private is where 99,9% of the actual leaks occur. Therefore how journalists behave in public is the best measure for gauging how they behave in private which is why as a rule such people are a waste of time. In fact they're often used as smokescreens because of how easily they can be used to divert attention.
Click to expand...
"Vague hints" are a core feature of the Chinese language and civilization in general, and of PLA watching in particular.
MarKoz81 said:
Which only increases the likelihood of deliberate manipulation of audience for revenue since they're more dependent on it while PLA-dependent media have to maintain greater information discipline.
Click to expand...
Yankee definitely is manipulating the audience -- to buy the paid Guancha subscription.

The Guancha military content team (观网军工组) has multiple programs:
Free programs:
Asia Express (亚洲特快) starring Xi Yazhou a.k.a. General. ~15 minute program weekly. Casual and not very credible.
Investigation team (侦缉队) starring Yang Ji a.k.a. Yankee. ~15 minute program weekly. Casual, more credible than Asia Express, with a focus on North Korea/Northeast Asia.
Tea Chat Party (察话会a pun on tea "cha" which sounds the same as observation) starring Shi Yang a.k.a. Shilao + Yankee or Wang Shiyi a.k.a. Ayi. 2*~1 hour weekly. Discussion on current military news with discussion on military technology development history on weeks with not a lot of news.

Paid programs:
Sheep Squad (羊羔特工队a pun on Yang which sounds the same as sheep) starring Shilao, Yankee and Ayi. ~2 hours weekly. Discussions on miscellaneous military topics.
Weekly Military Observations (一周军情观察) starring Shilao, Yankee and Ayi. ~2 hours weekly. Discussions on military news last week.

The purpose for all these free programs is to advertise for the paid subscription to Guancha (plus ad revenue). So it is absolutely appropriate and sensible for Yankee et. al to leave vague hints for listeners wanting for more in the free programs.

Guancha military content team also do paid consultancy for Chinese companies and agencies, for example sitrep on Ukraine for affected industries.
MarKoz81 said:
To restate:

1. Mirage IV could carry more than one ASMP but since doctrine and tactics don't require it modifications weren't ordered.

Mirage IV has 19t of total load (fuel, weapons, pilot etc) wich is twice the load of Mirage 2000N (9,4t). Of the 19t approximately 7t can be munitions. Structural strength of pylons allows for a maximum of three ASMPs to be carried since main underwing pylon was capable of four 1000lb bombs (1,8t). With modifications to the centerline pylon two missiles could be carried under fuselage to free-up two main underwing pylons for spare fuel tanks. The reason why it was never done is that ASMP is not the same as American or Soviet tactical nuclear cruise missiles. It has a specific unique application and never more than one per plane is necessary or optimal while carrier performance should be at maximum. Hence in pre-strategic role Mirage IVP carries only one missile so the rest of the load is taken up by fuel or nothing. In contrast Mirage 2000N can't carry more than one missile because it can't carry two on underwing pylons due to limited extra fuel capacity.

2. Maneuverability had never been a consideration in retirement or replacement of Mirage IV.

"Maneuverability" includes not just g-loads and turning radii but also velocity and thrust-to-weight. Mirage IV with maximum speed of 2,2Ma and ceiling of 20km has been replaced by Mirage 2000N while Super Entendard with maximum speed of 1,3Ma and ceiling of 15km which carried the ASMP for French Navy wasn't until Rafale M. Mirage IV was also modified to P (pénétration) version to carry ASMP which implied high speeds at low altitude in response to SAMs. The type of maneuverability which is required for such flight profile is very different from that provided by Mirage 2000N and the difference isn't that great.

3. Mirage 2000N was left with the role due to budget cuts.

In 1992 cuts forced the retirement of AN-52 bomb carried by Jaguars, Super Entendard, Mirage III and Mirage 2000N before it was certified to carry ASMP because the first Mirage 2000N carried only the AN-52. AN-52 was intended as low-yield (under 10kt to 25kt) tactical weapon with broader application and would likely stay in use if funding was provided. ASMP with yield of 100kt to 300 kt was intended as replacement of AN-22 and not the AN-52 and served a very specific and narrow role therefore Mirage IV was the natural carrier for organisational, doctrinal and training reasons that had little or nothing to do with the specifications of the aircraft itself - e.g. Mirage IIIE (ground strike) which was retired in 1994 and carried AN-52 could theoretically carry ASMP if upgraded. Only after the cuts ASMP became the only tactical nuclear weapon because French deterrence doctrine requires a doctrinally specific warning shot and doctrinally appropriate means to deliver it.

In sum all Yankee had to do was either:
  • read up on (1) basics of military aviation, (2) specs of all ASMP carriers and (3) history of French nuclear weapons and convey the facts
  • STFU and not spread BS for views
and I wouldn't say a thing. But he didn't do either so now everyone who wants to know can know who Yankee is in reality which is a good thing because establishing credibility for public communicators - and especially the lack of it - is fundamental.

There's literally nothing else to say here. EOT.
Click to expand...
When you write a long rebuttal nitpicking on a 10 seconds long youtube clip using strawman arguments, it does not make you sound knowledgable or compelling, it makes you sound obnoxious.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Zisan Artaxerxes said:
Actually the source of that news was from here.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
That is not a source, it is a statement/story without source. The article has no name of author, nor does it claim to be from a person. A source has to be from a person who has access to the claimed matter.

Here is an example:
  1. You've found an internet post saying "There is alien walking among us." Is this post a source? No.
  2. A post saying "Person named John saw an alien walking in his backyard." This is an unvarified claim by a supposed person John. John must be proven to exist before the post can be called a source.
  3. Then John must present a photo or video evidence for examinaiton before it can be called a verified source.
Your post is in the first stage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top