Military Review

Some details of the contract with China on the supply of Su-35

181
The largest contract for the sale of Beijing to Russian Su-35 aircraft also provides for the supply of backup engines and ground equipment, reports Look With reference to Victor Kladov, Head of Rostec Corporation Department.




“The contract stipulates both the supply of equipment and what is called the“ butt ”in the slang of professionals. This is the technique of ground support equipment, this is also a number of additional reserve aviation engines, this is a package of training programs for engineering and technical personnel and flight personnel, ”said Kladov.

On the conclusion of a contract worth about $ 2 billion became known on Thursday. According to the agreement, China will get the 24 multi-functional Su-35 fighter. PLA became the first foreign customer of these aircraft.

Now Su-35 are in service with only the Russian army. Under the terms of the contract from 2009 g, the manufacturer during 2012-2015. must put the Ministry of Defense 48 machines.

As the Chinese press noted earlier, “the purchase of the Su-35 is inevitable,” since “the existing production capacity of the domestic J-11 did not make it possible to narrow the gap in equipment from the air forces of other countries.”
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com/
181 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. venaya
    venaya 21 November 2015 10: 09 New
    16
    “The purchase of S-35 is inevitable,” because “the existing production capacities of domestic J-11s did not allow us to narrow the equipment gap from the air forces of other countries.”

    It seems that the Chinese want to put pressure on the Americans and Japanese, regarding the islands, otherwise it is difficult to explain their actions.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Baikonur
        Baikonur 21 November 2015 10: 14 New
        12
        C'mon, this is basically not the point! (Maybe the author did not find the desired picture, but set it more beautifully!) But of course, accuracy would have to be observed!
        1. Good me
          Good me 21 November 2015 10: 34 New
          +3
          This is the ground support equipment technique, this is a number of additional backup aircraft engines, this is a package of training programs for engineering and flight personnel ”


          Interestingly, this "package", will it go to the Chinese "as is", or already translated into Chinese?

          In the case of "adaptation of documents for the Chinese", with us, the contract price must be higher ...

          After all, the "product" is offered "take and use" ...
          1. krot
            krot 21 November 2015 17: 16 New
            +1
            I hope our people know what they are doing .. The Chinese are obviously taking engines for analysis. They want our technology.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. DmitryK
          DmitryK 21 November 2015 15: 12 New
          +3
          But I think the essence. This is how I write that my grandfather fought in the thirty-four near Prokhorovka. And add a photo of T-34-85. And my grandfather fought on the T-34-76. The difference is huge, isn't it?
        5. DmitryK
          DmitryK 21 November 2015 15: 13 New
          0
          85x has not yet been ....
      2. vell.65
        vell.65 21 November 2015 10: 40 New
        +5
        Quote: War and Peace
        damn it in the article one -su35, in the picture another -su30, having lied once, who will believe you?

        Maybe he himself (the author) decided to breed the Chinese. laughing
        1. War and Peace
          War and Peace 21 November 2015 10: 49 New
          +1
          Quote: vell.65
          Quote: War and Peace
          damn it in the article one -su35, in the picture another -su30, having lied once, who will believe you?

          Maybe he himself (the author) decided to breed the Chinese. laughing


          The Sukhoi Design Bureau had an experimental su37, so he really had front plumage, but he was abandoned ...
          1. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 21 November 2015 12: 52 New
            0
            Quote: War and Peace

            The Sukhoi Design Bureau had an experimental su37, so he really had front plumage, but he was abandoned ...

            SU 30 CM in the photo
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Baikonur
      Baikonur 21 November 2015 10: 12 New
      11
      And they want to disassemble to the screw and copy, copy, copy!
      We created an entire research institute for disassembling, analyzing, and copying inotechnologies! They even agreed to get such a big batch! (our guys are also apparently cunning - they shoved as many as 24 pcs., although they need a couple of pieces) And the words:
      existing domestic J-11 production capacities did not reduce the gap
      - it's a screen!
      1. Temples
        Temples 21 November 2015 10: 17 New
        +6
        Yes, let them copy! If they can.
        Delivery will not be today or tomorrow.
        By the time of a possible copy, we should have new engines for the T-50.
        So, to each his own.
        Someone creates new, and someone copies.
        1. DIVAN SOLDIER
          DIVAN SOLDIER 21 November 2015 10: 29 New
          +8
          So they will buy T50 with new engines, and ours will gladly sell it.
          1. Temples
            Temples 21 November 2015 10: 30 New
            +4
            Yours may be sold.
            And ours so far sell only what can be sold abroad.
            And China is not a hostile country to us. Although many are trying to sow hatred of China.
            Reasons for this hatred and distrust are not given or given by China.
            Rather, on the contrary, it provides comprehensive support both in the economy and in politics.
            And the events of recent years show that in our country far from fools are engaged in military affairs.
            1. Temples
              Temples 21 November 2015 10: 42 New
              +2
              Yes, and tell me what we sold abroad such a new, secret?
              And to whom?
              I constantly hear accusations that we have all sold out, everything will be copied from us. Itself is not enough!
              1. Baikonur
                Baikonur 21 November 2015 10: 50 New
                +7
                I agree with the Temple! I said that they would copy without regretting it, because ours do not stand still and sell only what can be sold, because then there is a newer development!
                Since the days of the USSR, we have the right policy -
                We sell development only the 3rd level of freshness!
                We scream about the developments of the 2nd level of freshness!
                And the development of the 1st level - sov.secretno!
                1. Temples
                  Temples 21 November 2015 11: 16 New
                  +2
                  Here I am about it!
                  drinks
              2. clidon
                clidon 21 November 2015 11: 44 New
                +2
                S-300PMU-2 in China. S-300V in Vnesuela. The C-400 went to Algeria. India received tank technologies (T-90S), Bramos (Onyx), submarines with Caliber (Club), a rented nuclear submarine and the latest Mig-29Kub carrier-based fighters. The Vietam received the "Caliber" in the coastal version.
                The Russified Indian version of the Su-30SM (MKI) is the main fighter of the Russian Air Force in the near future ...
                1. Alexander Romanov
                  Alexander Romanov 21 November 2015 12: 55 New
                  +2
                  Quote: clidon
                  . C-400 went to Algeria. AND

                  Hahahha, funny.
                  Quote: clidon
                  . India got tank technology (T-90S),

                  India received T 90CM
                  Quote: clidon
                  Brahmos

                  joint development
                  In short, do not write crap
                  1. clidon
                    clidon 21 November 2015 13: 19 New
                    0
                    Well then at least smirk ..
                    http://yablor.ru/blogs/zrs-s-400-postavlena-v-aljir/5135873

                    http://lenta.ru/news/2015/07/21/s400algerie/

                    joint development

                    Approximately the same joint as the Su-30MKI, the Indians wanted to push as much of their electronics into Onyx as possible, plus get maximum access to the technology.
              3. Alexander Romanov
                Alexander Romanov 21 November 2015 12: 53 New
                +1
                Quote: Temples
                Yes, and tell me what we sold abroad such a new, secret?

                They will not prompt for the sofa expert is not able to do this a priori hi
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 11: 18 New
              18
              Quote: Temples
              And China is not a hostile country

              Yes, not hostile. Just not allied, and even with unresolved territorial claims.
              Quote: Temples
              Although many are trying to sow hatred for China.

              My father served in Damansky (though he got there after the well-known events, but before his discharge in relations with China. Why should I love China?
              It doesn't make sense to hate him either. China is big, strong, and right on our borders. China follows only its own Chinese path, on which it, like good old England, "has no permanent allies, but only permanent interests." And not all of these interests intersect with the interests of the Russian Federation.
              Quote: Temples
              And ours so far sell only what can be sold abroad

              And since almost everything can be sold abroad, then ...
              What are we doing now? The Su-35 is our most modern and perfect fighter, and so new that not all "childhood diseases" have been cured with it. The PAK FA is still, alas, far from being delivered to the troops, and even then the first batch will run for a long time to the pros in the procedure for extracting and curing the same "childhood diseases". Nobody ever said that the PAK FA would become the main aircraft of the Russian Air Force - it was always about the production of a limited number of these machines. At the same time, the Su-35, although inferior, is still capable of fighting 5th generation vehicles. We cannot compete with China in production capacity yet.
              In general, by delivering Su-35 we bring the Chinese Air Force to a very high level, comparable not even with the current, but with the promising level of the Russian Air Force. Attention, a question. And for what? What do we actually want to have from this?
              1. ancient
                ancient 21 November 2015 11: 28 New
                10
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In general, by delivering Su-35, we bring the Chinese Air Force to a very high level, comparable not even with the current, but with the promising level of the Russian Air Force


                Andrew, dear drinks I absolutely agree +! soldier

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Attention, a question. And for what? What do we actually want to have from this?


                This is how you "pinned" the "urya-patriots"? wassat ..type - "The power of Siberia - .. national heritage" wassat
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 11: 54 New
                  13
                  Greetings, dear Sergey! drinks
                  Quote: ancient
                  This is how you "pinned" the "urya-patriots"?

                  The question, of course, is rhetorical, the answer to it, alas, is obvious.
                  It's just that supporters of the supply of our latest weapons systems to China should think about this. China is a country that ONLY professes its own interests. For our sake, they will not scratch themselves, there is no "friendship of fraternal peoples" between us. By supplying China with Su-35 and S-400, we are actually making them the most powerful force in the region. The Chinese themselves will not achieve this status without external assistance, and no one will provide such assistance to them except us, because whoever can, he does not want (USA), and whoever wants, he cannot (Ukraine laughing ).
                  And here we, all of ourselves, are so virtuous. So, in matters of real politics, if you render a great service to a certain country, then only in exchange for at least equal (or better - great) service of this very country for yourself, your beloved. So many on "VO" have long thought - what do we get from China in exchange for a truly royal service - the Su-35 / S-400?
                  Personally, I see NOTHING. We have an advantage, we have what China really needs, we give it, and get nothing in return. wassat
                  "Weirder and weirder" - as Carroll's Alice used to say ...
                  1. KnightRider
                    KnightRider 21 November 2015 12: 58 New
                    -5
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    So many people on "VO" have long thought - what do we get from China in exchange for a truly royal service - the Su-35 / S-400?
                    Personally, I see NOTHING. We have an advantage, we have what China really needs, we give it, and get nothing in return.

                    That is, a few billion dollars for you - NOTHING? And what is the promising level for the Chinese Air Force to get the Su-35 and S-400?
                    1. Stanislas
                      Stanislas 21 November 2015 17: 11 New
                      +1
                      Quote: KnightRider
                      a few billion dollars for you - NOTHING?
                      This is shit. I hope that the latest weapons are not sold for pieces of paper, the currency here should be geopolitical, as well as the nature of the weapon itself. I don’t know which one, but I believe that it is.
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 19: 57 New
                      +5
                      Quote: KnightRider
                      That is, a few billion dollars for you - NOTHING?

                      Well, the Darkest here in Ukraine in the person of Yanukovych gave 3 billion dollars. And how much we nearly threw away for the Mistrals we do not need? At the World Cup, it was planned to spend 660 billion rubles, i.e. more than 10 billion dollars, but now we are talking about 1,39 trillion, i.e. more than 20 billion dollars. So Russia has the means to throw money.
                      By the way, what MULTIPLE billions are we talking about? Have you accidentally forgotten that in exchange for these billions we have to supply the latest fighters, the creation of which will cost us a lot of money? So the profit on this deal will be good if there are millions of 500-600, and even that is doubtful.
                      This is not to mention the idea of ​​changing national security to FEW BILLIONS of dead presidents - I thought all this remained in the 90's, when Khodorkovsky proposed to sell the Russian nuclear missile shield to the Americans. For the big grandmas! negative
                      Quote: KnightRider
                      And what is the promising level for the Chinese Air Force to get the Su-35 and C-400?

                      In the foreseeable future, we will build our air forces on the basis of the Su-30 / Su-35 and, perhaps, after all, the MiG-35 plus PAK FA as the "king of beasts" - most likely there will not be many of them, after 2020 will go into series of ten a year, hardly more. The basis of the air defense will be the S-400 (the S-500 is more of an anti-missile system). The Chinese are able to clone our machines and equipment. Their clones will be much worse in terms of resource, but China will be able to afford it, simply taking the quantity. How can he afford to put 2-3 of his own on each of our aircraft, and with well-trained pilots.
                      Our ability to dominate in the air under such conditions could only be based on the superior quality of our machines - theoretically, we could have better aircraft in service than China. But we are abandoning this superiority by handing the latest Su-35 to China
                  2. Karlovar
                    Karlovar 21 November 2015 15: 18 New
                    -1
                    In geopolitics, there has never been, is not and will not be "friendship of peoples", instead, alliances, military alliances ... And it is foolish to expect bosom friendship from countries ... As for what turns out in return, no one will rattle about such things on everyone corner .... In the city of Kovrov, all residents know that components from China come to their famous factory, then the finished products are sent to the same China ... But this is, like, a big secret ...
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 20: 05 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Karlovar
                      As for what turns out in return, no one will crack about such things on every corner ....

                      Listen, I beg you, leave these conspiracy theories aside. NO secret agreement is worth giving our Chinese technological advantage for the sake of it. Just because from any secret arrangement subsequently it is easy to refuse and not abide by it. The scale of our gift is such that no promises by the Chinese are worth it. But nothing real in our relations with China, no such epic change that could explain the sale of the Su-35 is not visible.
                      1. Karlovar
                        Karlovar 21 November 2015 22: 51 New
                        +1
                        I wrote that Chinese components come to the Degtyarevsky plant, and not only microcircuits .....
                  3. KaPToC
                    KaPToC 22 November 2015 00: 08 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The question, of course, is rhetorical, the answer to it, alas, is obvious.

                    The question is NOT rhetorical and the answer to it is obvious. Russia cannot stand alone against the whole Western world, the transfer of second-fresh technology to potential allies is inevitable if we do not want to fight alone against the whole world.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 01: 27 New
                      +2
                      Quote: KaPToC
                      Russia cannot stand alone against the whole Western world

                      And you have to.
                      Quote: KaPToC
                      technology transfer of the second freshness

                      This is the FIRST freshness. The Russian Aerospace Forces have nothing more modern.
                      Quote: KaPToC
                      potential allies

                      China will never become our ally. Especially against Europe.
                      Not to enter into an alliance with Russia, not to oppose America, not to avenge Japan - this is the basis of Chinese politics
                      1. KaPToC
                        KaPToC 24 November 2015 00: 11 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Not to enter into an alliance with Russia, not to oppose America, not to avenge Japan - this is the basis of Chinese politics

                        Somehow, neither Japan nor the United States asked China what it will do and what will not
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        This is the FIRST freshness. The Russian Aerospace Forces have nothing more modern.

                        Do you know for sure or just guess?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And you have to.

                        I would not want to carry this burden alone.
                2. Temples
                  Temples 21 November 2015 11: 54 New
                  +7
                  Here we were talking about China once before.
                  Do not read about China "urya-patriots".
                  Think about who and why is trying at the moment to previously expose China as our enemy or enemy ???

                  Temples RU September 3, 2015 17:56 | Beijing military parade


                  Mao - "Stalin could be criticized - but not killed."
                  Mao said that Khrushchev was ruining the cause of Stalin!
                  In January 1957, he declared that the Soviet leaders were “blinded by a thirst for profit”, so “the best way to deal with them is to ask them to flog it.”

                  How modern it sounds !!!

                  This is not about the USSR! Not about the people! Not about the course! Not about Stalin! This is about Khrushchev and his comrades.

                  “If imperialism imposes a war on us,” said Mao, “and now we have 600 million people, and we will lose 300 million of them, so this is a war, years will pass, we will grow new people and restore the population.” If the West invades the territory of the USSR, he continued, one should not resist - it is better to move beyond the Urals and hold the defenses for a year, two, three, until the Chinese come to the aid of the Russians.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 12: 07 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Temples
                    If the West invades the territory of the USSR, he continued, one should not resist - it is better to move beyond the Urals and hold the defenses for a year, two, three, until the Chinese come to the aid of the Russians

                    But why didn’t you quote the fragment to the end?
                    Mao's behavior in Moscow, in contrast to his ambiguous speeches, looked quite unambiguous. Unlike Stalin, Khrushchev surrounded Mao with hospitality at the highest level. He settled the distinguished guest in the magnificent palace that once belonged to Catherine the Great, visited him every morning to visit him, accompanied him to political meetings and cultural events. It was impossible to behave more “respectful and friendly,” recalled Mao's personal doctor. In response, Mao literally exuded irritation and contempt for the kind host. The huge soft bed in the Catherine’s bedroom did not fit him, so he made himself a bed on the floor. The luxurious toilet in the bathroom also did not like - instead, Mao used a night pot. He refused the services of two Russian chefs and ate only Chinese dishes prepared by his personal chef. At the presentation of Swan Lake at the Bolshoi Theater, he refused to take the place prepared by Khrushchev in the box, saying that he prefers to sit “with the masses”, and almost immediately after the start of the performance left the hall - as if, according to Dr. Lee, “consciously refused contact with Russian culture. "
                    In personal conversations with his Chinese colleagues (who, of course, were overheard by the KGB), Mao continually “stuck hairpins” at his master. Khrushchev's sincere attempts to make amends for the humiliation that Mao suffered in 1949 turned against him. “You see, now they treat us in a completely different way,” said Mao contemptuously. - Even in a communist country, they cannot forget who is weak and who is strong. What snobs! ”Mao’s behavior was eloquent and unequivocal. He treated Khrushchev as an "ill-bred and annoying fool," recalled L. Delyusin.
                    1. Odysseus
                      Odysseus 21 November 2015 16: 17 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Mao's behavior was eloquent and unequivocal. He treated Khrushchev as an "ill-bred and annoying fool," recalled L. Delyusin.

                      And, of course, the Leader of the Chinese people was absolutely right.
                      All our troubles began with Khrushchev.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 20: 06 New
                        +2
                        I believe you are absolutely right
                  2. Karlovar
                    Karlovar 21 November 2015 15: 39 New
                    +1
                    Before the Russo-Japanese War, "well-wishers" also frightened with the "Chinese threat" ........ As for Mao, he could not forgive Khrushchev for lamenting the memory of his friend and elder brother Stalin ... Mao then succumbed to emotions, a break with the USSR (Khrushchev's) was economically, politically, geopolitically unprofitable for the then China ...
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. jaroff
                jaroff 21 November 2015 12: 16 New
                +2
                Therefore, I repeat that in the near future, our main aircraft in this class will be the Su-30SM and Su-30M2.
              4. NEXUS
                NEXUS 21 November 2015 14: 14 New
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In general, by delivering Su-35 we bring the Chinese Air Force to a very high level, comparable even not with the current, but with the promising level of the Russian Air Force.

                I don’t agree and here’s why. We don’t sell technologies to China, but sell finished products. What am I saying ... hmm ... I will say the words that I already wrote ... Take the violin of Stradevari. We already know the composition of the varnish and the parameters of all the bends and the wood is known ... Copy then these violins were copied, but over so many centuries, not a single copy even closely matches the original.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Attention, a question. And for what? What do we actually want to have from this?

                Isn't this the reason for the arms trade? For example, with the money you can bring the same PAK FA to the series, or invest it in the PAK YES project ... But you never know ...
                Sincerely. hi
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 20: 11 New
                  +2
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Copy, these violins were copied, but over so many centuries, not a single copy even closely matches the original.

                  That's just China at least learned to copy. Yes, copies are usually worse than the original (mainly - by resource), but by TTX - if they are inferior, then not too much.
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  And the arms trade is not a reason for you?

                  No, because selling 24 cars is not a arms trade, but selling technology in its purest form. If it was a question of one and a half hundred, there would still be something to talk about, although one should always remember that the last time China simply broke off such a contract when it considered that it would cope with the reproduction of the Su-27 itself.
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  For example, with this money it is quite possible to bring the same PAK FA to a series. Or invest it in the PAK YES project ... You never know.

                  Don't be under any illusion about this. The profit from the deal will be received mainly by Rosoboronexport, and it seems that it does not order any modifications to the PAK FA, or the development of PAK DA - these cases are being dealt with by another department.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 21 November 2015 20: 41 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    but on TTX - if they are inferior, then not too much.

                    Very controversial thesis.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    No, since the sale of 24 cars is not an arms trade, but the sale of technology in its purest form.

                    They sell all the documentation and pass on the chemical composition of the blades of the same, and also give out a specialist consultant? I repeat, the finished product is only a finished product, but not technology. Remember how we tried to copy amers when we created (God forbid) Tu- 4, when the B-29 was copied ...
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Don't be under any illusion about this. The profit from the deal will be received mainly by Rosoboronexport, and it seems that it does not order any modifications to the PAK FA, or the development of PAK DA - these cases are being dealt with by another department.

                    Possibly. But the arms trade itself is one of the main items of state revenue.
                    And why are you so worried that the Chinese will copy our technology then? I understand that if there were the USA instead of China ... sorry, I do not see anything wrong with this deal with China.
                    Best regards hi
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 21: 18 New
                      +2
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Very controversial thesis.

                      Nothing controversial about him. Take a look at the TTX of the J-11B and especially the J-11D.
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      They sell all the documentation and pass on the chemical composition of the blades of the same, as well as provide a specialist consultant? I repeat, the finished product is just a finished product

                      Tell me, from what finished domestic product did the Chinese lick the AFAR on the J-11D?
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      But the arms trade itself is one of the main revenue items of the state.

                      (heavy sigh) What about looking at the revenue structure of the domestic budget? By the way, here it is (2013 g):
                      Total revenue - 12 865,9 billion rubles. (Xnumx%)
                      Mineral extraction tax - 2 339,9 billion rubles. (Xnumx%)
                      Customs duties (import and export for oil and gas) - 3 585,6 billion rubles. (Xnumx%)
                      VAT - 4 098,8 billion rubles. (Xnumx%)
                      Excise taxes (alcohol, tobacco, fuel, cars) - 573,8 billion rubles. (Xnumx%)
                      Corporate profit tax - 445,4 billion rubles. (Xnumx%)
                      Customs duties (excluding oil and gas revenues) - 701,0 billion rubles. (Xnumx%)
                      Mineral extraction tax (without oil and gas revenues) - 18,4 billion rubles. (Xnumx%)
                      Other - 1 103,0 billion rubles. (Xnumx%)
                      At the same time, in the 2013 year, arms were sold as much as 9,8 billion dollars, even if we take the peak ruble exchange rate (33,47 rubles / dollars) it will be 328 billion rubles. Even if we assume that we sold weapons with 100% profit (which is clearly wrong), it will be 164 billion or 1,27% of the revenue of our budget. But even in this case, one must understand that not all profit from transactions fell into the budget
                      So what did you say about "one of the main items of income"? :))
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 21 November 2015 21: 34 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Check out the TTX J-11B and especially the J-11D.

                        Yes, on a piece of paper, right is the ideal of fighter aircraft.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Tell me, from what finished domestic product did the Chinese lick the AFAR on the J-11D?

                        Tell me, from which year China buys SU-27 and from which year it began production of its analogue from its components.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        (heavy sigh) What about looking at the revenue structure of the domestic budget? By the way, here it is (2013 g):

                        (Deep breath) For 13 years, say ... hmm ... That is, the maintenance of this sold equipment, modernization, repair is generally free, as I understand it ... And this applies not only to the equipment that we are selling now, but also to Soviet times in service with other countries.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So what did you say about "one of the main items of income"? :))

                        Yes, I thought. winked
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 22: 05 New
                        +2
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Yes, on a piece of paper, right is the ideal of fighter aircraft.

                        And yet, compare the J-11В (which is not on a piece of paper) with our modified Su-27, which are now part of the Russian Aerospace Forces. Will there be much difference?
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Tell me, from which year China buys SU-27 and from which year it began production of its analogue from its components.

                        Su-27 - from 1992 of the year, the first two copies of the J-11J were created by China by 1997 of J-11, if sclerosis does not lie to me - 2007, the level is close to our Su-27СМ (first flight - 2002г).
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        For 13 year, say ... hmm ... That is, the maintenance of this sold equipment, modernization, repair is generally free, as I understand it ..

                        All services, repairs, and other and other included in my figure 9,8 billion dollars.
                      3. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 21 November 2015 22: 14 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And yet, compare the J-11В (which is not on a piece of paper) with our modified Su-27, which are now part of the Russian Aerospace Forces. Will there be much difference?

                        Have you seen J-11D in the case?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Su-27 - from 1992 of the year, the first two copies of the J-11J were created by China by 1997 of J-11, if sclerosis does not lie to me - 2007, the level is close to our Su-27СМ (first flight - 2002г).

                        If you count from 92 years old, then I think for 23 years, something worthwhile even Nigeria conquers. laughing
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        All services, repairs, and other and other included in my figure 9,8 billion dollars.

                        Well think so hi
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 22: 21 New
                        +2
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Have you seen J-11D in the case?

                        We’re talking about J-11, aren’t we? :) And what’s the matter - so I haven’t seen Su-27СМ in business.
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        If you count from the 92 of the year, then I think for the 23 of the year, something good even Nigeria

                        Count as you wish. But if you want to calculate the real difference, you will see that having received the first copies of Su-27, China was able to start their production at home (though with the help of the Russian Federation) within five years (1992 - 1997). And he was able to create an analogue of our Su-27СМ five years later than our first flight (2002 - 2007г).
                        Five years.
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Well think so

                        What is there to think? I KNOW.
                      5. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 21 November 2015 22: 34 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Count as you wish. But if you want to calculate the real difference, you will see that having received the first copies of Su-27, China was able to start their production at home (though with the help of the Russian Federation) within five years (1992 - 1997). And he was able to create an analogue of our Su-27СМ five years later than our first flight (2002 - 2007г).
                        Five years.

                        Your conclusions are fundamentally wrong. Firstly, because once we sell FINISHED PRODUCTS for export, it means that we probably already have something better. Second, tell me, in the entire history of our neighborhood, how many times has Russia / Russian Empire / USSR fought with China? Third, help to a neighbor in the light of the current political situation is in itself necessary, because an adversary can always "repaint" a weak neighbor (for example, Ukraine). And lastly, it is always more profitable to cooperate and trade than to butt yourself at a loss, with an incomprehensible outcome of such events.
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 23: 01 New
                        +3
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Your conclusions are fundamentally wrong

                        Rather, my conclusions fundamentally do not suit you :))
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        .First of all, because if we sell READY-MADE PRODUCTS for export, then we probably already have something better with us

                        And what kind of fighter aircraft is better than the Su-35 is in service with our VKS? Please name.
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Second, tell me, in the entire history of our neighborhood, how many times has Russia / Russian Empire / USSR fought with China?

                        The first time is in 1684 year. In 1858, the signing of the Aigun Treaty, which was obviously unfavorable for China (China was weakened by the war, the Russians threatened him with an invasion - they chopped off their lands in the end). Russian occupation of the Iliysk Territory in 1871. Depression of Chinese lands at the end of the 19 century (the same Port Arthur), etc. etc.
                      7. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 21 November 2015 23: 11 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Rather, my conclusions fundamentally do not suit you :))

                        Well no laughing I am pleased to communicate with you. Good reasoned answers. hi
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And what kind of fighter plane is better than the Su-35 is in service with our VKS?

                        While there is no such SERIAL. But on the approach of PAK FA, possibly MIG-41 (although this is not a correct comparison), God grant LFI from the 5th generation Mikoyanites (rather want laughing ) ... or maybe something more serious. Infa is not enough.
                        And about C-400 ... so on the way we have C-500
                      8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 01: 32 New
                        +2
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        While there is no such SERIAL

                        I will tell you more - in essence, we also have no Su-35 as such in service. It would be more correct to say that the plane gets rid of childhood diseases in conditions close to the army service laughing
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        But on the way PAK FA

                        Which will not be soon and which will not be many.
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        maybe MIG-41 (although this is not a correct comparison)

                        Absolutely. Especially considering the fact that the MiG-41 is not yet drawn on paper.
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        God forbid LFI from Mikoyan residents 5 generation (rather the desire to laugh)

                        So far - fantastic pure water. They are for the happiness of the MiG-35 to bring to the series.
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        And about C-400 ... so on the way we have C-500

                        C-500 is optimized for missile defense (against ballistic missiles) and so on is nothing globally superior to C-400.
                      9. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 22 November 2015 02: 31 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I will tell you more - in essence, we also have no Su-35 as such in service. It would be more correct to say that the plane gets rid of childhood diseases in conditions close to the army service

                        48 pieces, followed by the transfer of another 48 pieces? Hmm ... well, well. laughing
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Which will not be soon and which will not be many.

                        Blessed is he who believes laughing Maybe under other political conditions in the world, I would agree with you, but the situation is slightly laughing Therefore, the adversary himself and competitors will force us to do them quickly and, if possible, in a good series.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Absolutely. Especially considering the fact that the MiG-41 is not yet drawn on paper.

                        And here you are wrong. The development of the 41st began about 8 years ago. It was then that the Americans began to talk about a new Russian interceptor. And now this is being discussed not only at their highest level, but also with us. Another question is that everything is secret .But recalling the history of Almaty, for example, we wondered before the Parade long and painfully, if you remember.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So far - fantastic pure water. They are for the happiness of the MiG-35 to bring to the series.

                        And the point is? The 35th was already outdated already. All the players in the world are working on the 5th generation LFI, including China. What is the point of putting a knowingly losing machine in its arsenal? And it will not go for export when it is already brought up for the above reason. That is why the Mikoyanites raised all the documentation for MIG-1.44 (1.46) ..

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        C-500 is optimized for missile defense (against ballistic missiles) and so on is nothing globally superior to C-400.

                        Yah laughing S-500 is not yet, and you already know the performance characteristics of this complex laughing Strong!
                      10. Bongo
                        Bongo 22 November 2015 08: 00 New
                        +4
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        48 pieces, followed by the transfer of another 48 pieces? Hmm ... well, well.

                        Andrey, whether you like it or not, Andrey from Chelyabinsk is right. Su-35 aircraft, which are available in the 23rd IAP at the Dzemgi airfield in Komsomolsk, are essentially undergoing military tests. This is still a rather "raw" machine, not yet able to fully realize its potential. On this occasion, there was even an order from Shoigu, who gave instructions by the end of this year to bring the characteristics of the weapons of combatant Su-35 in line with the design ones.
                      11. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 22 November 2015 11: 48 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Andrey, whether you like it or not, Andrey from Chelyabinsk is right. Su-35 aircraft, which are available in the 23rd IAP at the Dzemgi airfield in Komsomolsk, are essentially undergoing military tests. This is still a rather "raw" car, not yet able to fully realize its potential.

                        Sergey, this is a common practice. The SU-35S passed the state tests recently. It is clear that all sores at the factory can’t be identified. But it’s important that they enter the troops badly and poorly. And the number of vehicles in the order can always be reviewed.
                        They will bring happiness to us and that’s where we need to look at what kind of political hassle is unfolding. And political somersaults can change how the decision depends on the number of cars and the timing.
                        Militarization is gaining momentum around the world and does not see this unless it is blind. And by this, I think, the speed of deliveries and the introduction of new equipment into the troops will only be accelerated.
                        Sincerely. hi
                      12. Bongo
                        Bongo 22 November 2015 12: 04 New
                        +3
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        according to this, I think, the supply turnovers and the introduction of new equipment into the troops will only accelerate.

                        But with this I agree to all 100% good
                2. summer
                  summer 22 November 2015 15: 21 New
                  0
                  In the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, having read your reasoning, they took up their heads — why didn’t we, fools, think about it before?

                  It is necessary to find Andrei in Chelyabinsk and elect him by voting in the VO as chief of the General Staff .. For life ..

                  And Gerasimov? Will move, not a wall, tea .. Or shoot himself from shame (holy, holy, holy) ..
                3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 16: 13 New
                  +1
                  Quote: summer
                  In the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, having read your reasoning, they took up their heads — why didn’t we, fools, think about it before?

                  And what does the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces have to do with it? :) The sale of military equipment to the side is actually not their competence. You would first figure out who is responsible for what in our guide, and then, if you want to, stay sharp ...
                4. summer
                  summer 22 November 2015 19: 46 New
                  0
                  You Kozlevich A.K. you know You know .. Ah, but you do not know VV Gerasimov?

                  So, Gerasimov, Valery Vasilyevich - Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, member of the Military-Industrial Commission
                  Russian Federation.

                  A Chemezova S.V. You know?
                  Chemezov Sergey Viktorovich - General Director of the State Corporation for the Promotion of the Development, Production and Export of High-Tech Industrial Products “Rostec”, member of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation.

                  A Manturova D.V. You know?
                  Manturov Denis Valentinovich - Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation, member of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation.

                  A Putin V.V. You know? Have you heard about this?
                  Putin is simply V.V. Putin - President of the Russian Federation .. Quite by accident - Chairman of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation.

                  There is such a document - "Regulation on the Military-Industrial Commission under the Government of the Russian Federation."

                  It mentions the concept of "export" of arms 3 (three) times.
                  The first time is “organization and coordination .. of export-import supplies of military and dual-use products”.
                  The second time - "coordinates the activities of federal bodies ... to ensure export-import supplies of military and dual-use products, organizes control over their implementation."
                  The third time - “considers proposals to improve the regulatory framework on the development, production, supply, repair, operation, disposal, export and import of weapons”.

                  And do you, dear, have a concept about FSTEC?

                  FSTEC is the federal executive authority of Russia, implementing state policy, organizing interagency coordination and interaction, special and control functions in the field of state security on the issues: - la-la-la and “export controls».

                  And the fact that the FSTEC is subordinate to the RF Ministry of Defense, you know?
                  Selin, Vladimir Viktorovich - Director of the FSTEC of Russia, member of the board of the military-industrial complex of Russia.


                  Now the question is when the Russian military-industrial complex is considering the issue of exporting, say, Su-35, for example, China, or, say, slingshots to Ukraine, the chairman of the commission says the head of the General Staff - Valera, go for a walk, smoke, sod a couple of drops, we are here with important uncles patsansky questions mash.? Did I understand you correctly?

                  In your opinion, it turns out that fighters decided to sell purely traders to China, without taking into account the interests of the country's defense capability?

                  Are the Chelyabinsk men so severe that they consider the state system of the Russian Federation an anarchist lawlessness that fully complies with the requirements of Makhno Nestor Ivanovich?
                5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 20: 14 New
                  +1
                  Now try to comprehend what you wrote here.
                  Quote: summer
                  There is such a document - "Regulation on the Military-Industrial Commission under the Government of the Russian Federation."

                  Is there such a document? There is. What are the powers of the Military Industrial Commission?
                  Quote: summer
                  "Organization and coordination .. of export-import supplies of military and dual-use products."

                  It is time.
                  Quote: summer
                  “Coordinates the activities of federal bodies ... to ensure export-import supplies of military and dual-use products, organizes control over their implementation”

                  This two.
                  Quote: summer
                  "Considers proposals to improve the regulatory framework on the development, production, supply, repair, operation, disposal, export and import of weapons."

                  These are three. In fact, it turns out that it is the Military-Industrial Commission that deals with the main permissive / prohibitive export issues. So? So.
                  And who is responsible for the work of the Military-Industrial Commission? Probably the chairman of the commission? And who is the chairman of the commission?
                  Quote: summer
                  Putin is simply V.V. Putin - President of the Russian Federation .. Quite by accident - Chairman of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation.

                  Question. So what place does the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation relate to export? Gerasimov is just a MEMBER of the commission. And the CHAIRMAN takes decisions. The supply of Su-35 to China is not a bargain, of course, it is a POLITICAL decision. The wrong decision. And V.V. Putin is responsible for it. And not the MO of the General Staff of the Russian Federation.
                6. summer
                  summer 22 November 2015 21: 48 New
                  0
                  You, dear Andrei Kolobov, are embarking on a shaky ground of speculation. I, unlike you, do not play such games. I have never been to a meeting of the military-industrial complex of Russia, if only because I am a citizen of Ukraine. And in the modern history of Russia, only Israeli citizens were allowed to control national security from “strangers”. I did not go out snout ..
                  But if you have been there? Well, the flag is in your hands.

                  If we proceed from the very probable assumption that you are not a "celestial", I can only rely on the language of logic.

                  The Military Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation is a collegial government body.
                  You are replacing the notion - “who is responsible for the work of the Military-Industrial Commission? Probably the chairman of the commission? ” This is from the category of organizational responsibility of the chairman.
                  The concept of “Who is responsible for the decision” has a completely different meaning and content. The decision-making procedure on the commission is collegial (just by definition - an axiom). And for making a decision on each issue, each of the members of the commission (the chairman, including) is personally responsible.

                  Quote:

                  Preparation and organization of meetings of the Commission is carried out by the Executive Secretary of the Commission.
                  The meeting of the Commission is chaired by the chairman of the Commission or, on his behalf, the deputy chairman of the Commission.
                  Members of the Commission participate in its meetings without the right to substitute and have equal rights in decision-making.
                  A meeting of the Commission shall be deemed competent if at least half of the members of the Commission are present at it.
                  Decisions of the Commission are adopted by a majority vote of the members of the Commission present at the meeting. In case of equality of votes a decision is considered to be adopted, for which the chairman of the meeting of the Commission voted.

                  If you are responsible for the decision for which the chairman voted, then ... There are no words. Otherwise, there is nothing to complain about.

                  I will call you to my aid - "Listen, I beg you, leave these conspiracy theories aside."

                  According to the current Constitution, the Russian Federation is a republic, not a monarchy.

                  And even within the framework of the monarchy - the Russian autocracy, at all times, society, even in the absence of the Internet and TV, managed to find the culprit for specific failures in Russia, not counting the tsar himself.

                  I am interested in one question abstracted from this topic - how are you, a person from deeply continental Chelyabinsk, so keen on the navy?
                  Yesterday I was at sea, breathing the sea air, but I am not pierced by a craving for navy. Although I’m familiar with the concepts of “rubber dam”, “metacentric height”, “clinket doors”, “information about stability and unsinkability”, “two-compartment flooding” and, as a result, “save yourself who can”.
                  I congratulate you on your hobby - a worthy topic. hi love
                7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 22: 51 New
                  +1
                  Quote: summer
                  You, dear Andrei Kolobov, are embarking on a shaky ground of speculation. I, unlike you, do not play such games

                  And it says the man who wanted to put me in place of Gerasimov? laughing
                  Quote: summer
                  If we proceed from the very probable assumption that you are not a "celestial", I can only rely on the language of logic.

                  And what does logic tell us?
                  What does our GS benefit from exporting Su-35 to China? The answer is nothing. The profit from the transaction will not go to the budget of the Moscow region, so the monetary issue disappears by itself.
                  What does our GS lose from this deal? Very, very much. Firstly, this is a violation of the secrecy of the newest fighter - China will know about it, if not all, then a lot, and who knows if China is the only one. It is understood that the Chinese will not run to trade the Su-35 in the United States at the most reasonable price, but they can make some leaks. In general, secrecy is bursting at the seams. Secondly, deliveries to China either lead to a slowdown in deliveries to the Russian Aerospace Forces, or create a risk of disruption in the supply schedule (simply because no one will build a new Su-24 plant under 35 cars, i.e. they will be built on existing production capacities). Thirdly, the General Staff still sees China as a likely enemy in the Far East (which is natural) and the appearance of Chinese Su-35 against our air forces in the layout is very unpleasant for the General Staff. Fourth, even if the Chinese cannot master the production of Su-35 (and they can), then they will study Su-35 thoroughly, identify its strengths and weaknesses, develop counter tactics ... which is again bad. And other and other and other.
                  Thus, logic tells us that the chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is perhaps the last person on the planet who needs the supply of Su-35 to China.
                  Quote: summer
                  The decision-making procedure on the commission is collegial (just by definition - an axiom).

                  Sure. The commission is collectively in favor! whatever Vladimir Putin wants laughing
                  You see, there is a political field and there is a military field. At the same time, politics prevails over the military (the president, whatever one may say, is higher in position than the chief of staff of the Armed Forces) Therefore, if the president believes that it is politically advantageous to supply China with two dozen Su-35s, then so be it. Gerasimov, of course, will bring military reasons (that the supply of Su-35 is extremely ... undesirable from the position of the military), but if the political situation requires it, Gerasimov will argue and cannot and will not. The question is not that there are two opinions - the opinion of GDP and the wrong one, but that Gerasimov, by definition (he is military), cannot evaluate the political benefits of an action - this is the presidential prerogative.
                  And I repeat - the supply of Su-35 to China is a political, not a military solution.
                  Quote: summer
                  I am interested in one question abstracted from this topic - how are you, a person from deeply continental Chelyabinsk, so keen on the navy?

                  request I don’t know, honest noble word :)))
                8. summer
                  summer 22 November 2015 23: 58 New
                  0
                  secrecy bursts at the seams
                  -
                  A common but unfair thesis. Especially in relation to China.
                  The regime of secrecy is both theoretically and practically studied thoroughly. This does not mean that it cannot be violated - it only means that the violation will be revealed. With all the consequences. There are many examples where states loyal to the United States rested their horn, but did not give pin-dos access to military developments purchased from the USSR. There is such a thing in this specific topic - observability. So it (with the right approach) exists.

                  they will be made at existing production facilities
                  Rather, the problem will be in personnel than in industrial sites.

                  General Staff still considers China as a likely enemy in the Far East
                  - Strongly disagree with this term and its use in this context. This resembles the paranoia mode in antivirus protection. It also reminds one of Mueller’s famous tirade about who you can trust.

                  identify its strengths and weaknesses, develop tactics to counter ... which is again bad
                  - yes. But time is also a strategic resource. Forcing China to be dependent on itself, Russia guarantees itself a temporary handicap. Now the world is not in such a rosy situation to sort out grubs. Here, to the place of reasoning of H. Nasreddin about donkey, padishah and himself. We do not know how much time is allotted to the dominance of Pin-get. One thing is clear - having crushed Russia under themselves, they will be able to feel like Christ’s bosom for a very long time. If they fail this maneuver, there are two options - “You will either be in the infantry or in the tank troops. If you’re in a tank, then you’ll immediately pee .. ”.. well, then on a joke.

                  logic tells us that the chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is perhaps the last person on the planet who needs to supply Su-35 to China
                  A slightly inaccurate wording is fairer "would be the last person on the planet, ...., if ...". This is my main rebuke to you. For some reason, I am inclined to believe in the decency of people. At least based on the principle of observability laughing .
                  The chief of the General Staff knows and can do much more than we think from the TV picture.
                  "The doctor said - to the morgue, then to the morgue."

                  The commission is collectively in favor! whatever Vladimir Putin wants

                  I did not hold a candle. And you?

                  The question is not even that there are two opinions - the opinion of GDP and the wrong one, but that Gerasimov, by definition (he is military), cannot evaluate the political benefits of an action - this is the presidential prerogative

                  Here we are on horseback - even if we and people are bonded (I do not), then military statutes and subordination do not work within the framework of military training. Therefore, what is allowed to the bull is not allowed to Jupiter smile . No offense.
                9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 November 2015 21: 45 New
                  0
                  Quote: summer
                  A common but unfair thesis

                  Fair, fair :))) There are much more opportunities to ensure secrecy in the Russian Federation than in China. And China’s patent law is a lightbulb - having understood the design, he copies it, announces it as a development and pushes it to the world arms market at the most reasonable price.
                  Quote: summer
                  There is such a thing in this specific topic - observability.

                  There is. For example, we regularly observe China's attempts to sell "its" fighters, and even "its" air defense systems. Turkey, for example.
                  Quote: summer
                  Rather, the problem will be in personnel than in industrial sites.

                  The problem will be both in that and in another, but Gerasimov is not any easier from this. Gerasimov will have a problem - the danger of disruption of supplies, and for what reason - that there are not enough industrial capacities or qualified specialists - what is it to him?
                  Quote: summer
                  I strongly disagree with this term and its application in this context.

                  Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately), in this case, absolutely nothing depends on your consent or disagreement. For the military, China is seen as a likely adversary in the Far East without knowing what year. And they would be simply super-incompetent if they were not prepared to repulse, among other things, Chinese aggression
                  Quote: summer
                  But time is also a strategic resource. Forcing China to be dependent on itself, Russia guarantees itself a temporary handicap.

                  Not seriously. For Su-35 one could get much more than time.
                  Quote: summer
                  A little inaccurate wording - it is fairer to "be the last person on the planet, ...., if ..."

                  The wording is exactly the same, but what "if" you mean - I can not imagine.
                  Quote: summer
                  For some reason, I am inclined to believe in the decency of people.

                  Dear Sergey, Vera’s questions are sacred to me! laughing
                  Quote: summer
                  I did not hold a candle. And you?

                  Well, I have a little information about how decisions are made in the Fatherland :)
                  Quote: summer
                  No offense.

                  Of course!
                10. summer
                  summer 24 November 2015 01: 35 New
                  0
                  Andrey, I see your busyness in discussing a few more articles - Big Brother is not only a vigilant himself, but also allows others to be vigilant.

                  To limit the scope of the issues discussed and based on the inability to insist on my own, I will limit myself to a few comments.

                  The term "observability" in the theory of information has a certain formulation in which its meaning does not coincide with the hostel.

                  Gerasimov “would be the last person on the planet, ...., if ...” knew that the supply of Su-35 aircraft to China would increase Russia's vulnerability. Apparently, the General Staff of the Russian Federation knows more than it says.

                  Faith is a powerful weapon, but mine is also backed up - “based on the principle of observability laughing. "

                  For the military, China is seen as a likely adversary in the Far East without knowing what year. And they would simply be super incompetent if they were not prepared to repulse, among other things, Chinese aggression

                  The definitions of the strategy distinguish between probable opponents, neutral countries and allies. Apart from the anecdote of the adage of Alexander III - “In the whole world we have only two faithful allies - our army and navy”, not all countries are also constant potential opponents. For example, the USA. Or do you think the United States in the period 42-44 years. at the same time a probable adversary? So China in different periods of history played different roles in Russia's strategy. Strive to repel all theoretically possible threats? Any country, including Russia, will not have enough resources. It is also unnatural. It’s the same as getting married and immediately getting ready for a divorce. For this, they find allies for themselves, in order to save on defense spending.

                  Little by little, we all have some information about decision-making mechanisms. I think that you still were not at meetings of the military-industrial complex. If you are right and make decisions at each level in the same way - looking into the mouths of superiors, then, given the number of levels of intermediate decisions, it can be argued that in the final instance only stupid or incorrect decisions are made. What we do not observe in real life. I do not want to discuss for a long time why this is not so.
                  The commission is collectively in favor! whatever Vladimir Putin wants
                  THIS IS NOT TRUE.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  2. Bongo
    Bongo 22 November 2015 08: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: NEXUS
    And about C-400 ... so on the way we have C-500

    Damn, how much can you talk about it wassat The purpose of the C-500 will be mainly the fight not with aerodynamic, but with ballistic targets, as well as the defeat of objects in near space. What is the point of comparing these systems? Despite the fact that even C-400 is too expensive to replace in the ratio 1: 1 the decommissioned C-300P of earlier modifications. Most popular most likely will be the medium-range air defense system C-350, but its delivery to the air defense units earlier than in a couple of years should not be expected.
  3. NEXUS
    NEXUS 22 November 2015 11: 54 New
    +1
    Quote: Bongo
    Damn, how much can you talk about this. The purpose of the S-500 will be mainly to fight not with aerodynamic, but with ballistic targets, as well as the defeat of objects in near space.

    This is what the Internet and the media "feed" us with. I am sure with this S-500 system not everything is as simple as you think. And that in the end it will not be able to be able to you, I cannot yet know. Therefore, with such statements about be careful about what this system can and is not intended for. hi
  4. Bongo
    Bongo 22 November 2015 11: 58 New
    +1
    Quote: NEXUS

    This is what the Internet and the media "feed" us with. I am sure that with this S-500 system, not everything is as simple as you think.

    Andrey, I don’t suppose - I know ...
    Quote: NEXUS
    Therefore, with such statements about what the system can and why it is not intended for, be careful.

    With all due respect, on this thread you made a lot of contradictory statements, so this also applies to you. hi
  5. NEXUS
    NEXUS 22 November 2015 12: 32 New
    +1
    Quote: Bongo
    With all due respect, on this thread you made a lot of contradictory statements, so this also applies to you.

    What are my contradictions? request As they say, only in a dispute truth is born. Moreover, if a person demonstrates an interesting look at the topic under discussion, and it does not coincide with mine, this does not mean that I will fundamentally not pay attention to it. Just the opposite! Consider the opposite the essence of the point of view is useful and even necessary in order to more or less form a sober opinion about what is happening.
    Best regards hi
  6. Bongo
    Bongo 22 November 2015 12: 56 New
    +1
    Quote: NEXUS
    What are my contradictions?

    Andrey, using this formulation, I did not want to hurt your feelings. At some points, your statements were frankly erroneous or too categorical. hi
  7. Amurets
    Amurets 22 November 2015 02: 18 New
    +4
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In 1858, the signing of the Aigun Treaty, which was obviously unfavorable for China (China was weakened by the war,

    Here you are wrong! After the First Opium War and the outbreak of the Crimean War, China began to fear for its northern borders and it was more profitable for it to have Russia as a neighbor than to get the occupation of Manchuria by the British. The Chinese proposed to conclude the preliminary Aigun Treaty of 1858. The treaty was finally concluded in 1860 and is called "Peking Treatise". In Venyukov's Memoirs it is described. And the delimitation on the Amur is a complex and long topic.
  8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 11: 47 New
    +1
    Well, I will not argue - I feel that you own this subject better than me. And thanks for the clarification!
  9. Odysseus
    Odysseus 21 November 2015 23: 01 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    J-11B, if sclerosis does not lie to me - 2007, they are similar in level to our Su-27SM (first flight - 2002).

    If you evaluate the possibilities of working on the ground, the J-11B is even better. Plus, unlike the Su-27SM, these are new sides. Another thing is that due to the lack of engines, their production was carried out at a rather slow pace. This, in turn, does not allow changing all J-7, J-8 in parts.
  • Amurets
    Amurets 21 November 2015 14: 27 New
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Yes, not hostile. Just not allied, and even with unresolved territorial claims.

    The fact that it’s not an allied one, I agree, the agreement on demarcation has basically been fulfilled, and a number of non-fundamental issues remain. Otherwise, you are right.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 20: 13 New
      +2
      Quote: Amurets
      the agreement on demarcation is basically fulfilled; a number of non-fundamental issues remain

      As it were, yes, but China has long been eyeing our Far Eastern territories. With interest.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 21 November 2015 20: 47 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        As it were, yes, but China has long been eyeing our Far Eastern territories. With interest.

        But Japan is looking at the Kuril Islands, Germany is looking at Kaliningrad ... so what? Let them watch. I have the feeling that you don’t believe in the mental potential of our military-industrial complex. Creating your own and copying someone else’s are different concepts, since when copying, they will always be behind .
        We are collaborating with the Indians on BRAMOS ... also, following your logic, a bad idea. And there, by the way, are our specialists and our technologies. And the SU-30 production is also being deployed. hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 21: 23 New
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          And Japan is eyeing the Kuril Islands, Germany is Kaliningrad ... so what?

          And the fact that we do not supply the most modern weapons to any of these countries. And it’s clear why.
          Quote: NEXUS
          We are collaborating with the Hindus on BRAMOS ... too, following your logic, a bad idea

          You really don’t understand? To the Hindus, we can sell anything. For one simple reason-with India, the Russian Federation DOES NOT EXIST a overlapping interest. In other words, in realpolitik (geopolitics, if you like), in principle, there is no reason for a confrontation between India and the Russian Federation. So why not sell them our latest weapons?
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 21 November 2015 21: 42 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And the fact that we do not supply the most modern weapons to any of these countries. And it’s clear why.

            Do you have some kind of fix idea about the fact that China is just holding a knife in his bosom in order to stick it in our backs laughing Understand that no power will try to chop off a piece of territory from the NUCLEAR POWER. Or do you truly believe that in the event of aggression by anyone, we will not use nuclear weapons?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You really don’t understand?

            No respected namesake, I don’t understand. Since no ruler, being in his right mind, will play such games with a state that has a nuclear arsenal comparable to the arsenal of the whole of NATO. Such an occupation is akin to swimming with a crocodile in one pool ... fun but not for long.
            Best regards hi
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 22: 17 New
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            Do you have some kind of fix idea about the fact that China is just holding a knife in his bosom in order to stick it in our backs

            As the unforgettable foreman Petrenko used to say: "Healthy vigilance and paranoid suspicion are synonyms." laughing
            Quote: NEXUS
            Understand that no power will try to chop off a piece of territory from the NUCLEAR POWER.

            Very, very witty. Let me ask, WHAT then did China try to do in 1969? An attempt at an armed capture of Damansky - how does it fit into your wonderful theory? Or, in your opinion, in the 1969-th USSR was not a nuclear power? laughing
            Quote: NEXUS
            Since no ruler, being in his right mind, will play such games with a state whose nuclear arsenal is comparable to the arsenal of the entire NATO

            But China has ALREADY tried it. And he tried it when he himself did not have any significant stocks of nuclear weapons, or any reliable means of delivering it. Now the situation has changed "a little", hasn't it?
          3. NEXUS
            NEXUS 21 November 2015 22: 24 New
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Very, very witty. Let me ask, WHAT then did China try to do in 1969? An attempt at an armed capture of Damansky - how does it fit into your wonderful theory?

            It fits very well, maybe it was a local conflict. And tell me then, did this very conflict develop? We had a war with China? M. By minimal means, "they gave the snot" and grief the aggressor calmed down. At that time, why was it necessary to use nuclear weapons?
            It’s clear that nobody wants to unleash a nuclear armageddean, but as the GDP said, if necessary, we’ll apply, the hand will not flinch.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Now the situation has changed "a little", hasn't it?

            But tell me, namesake, how many nuclear weapons does China have?
          4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 22: 52 New
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            Fits in very well, maybe it was a local conflict. And tell me then, did this conflict develop? We had a war with China? M. With the minimum means "they gave a snot" and the aggressor calmed down

            So - almost nuclear-free (well ... maybe a couple of atomic bombs) power impudently climbs into a fight on a large, powerful, nuclear Soviet Union. And China wanted to spit on the fact that the USSR had the means to incinerate this very China. Where is the guarantee that China will not try to repeat the same? The nuclear weapons arsenal, as we see, did not become an argument in the 1969 year. Why should he become such an argument now?
            And now ... if China climbs now by conventional means - according to its face, alas, we will get it. Apply nuclear weapons? So China has something to answer.
            Quote: NEXUS
            But tell me, namesake, how many nuclear weapons does China have?

            Unknown According to various estimates from 200 to 3000 warheads, 240 is considered a generally accepted figure.
          5. NEXUS
            NEXUS 21 November 2015 22: 59 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And now ... if China climbs now by conventional means - according to face, alas, we will get it.

            Oh oh laughing You never answered me ... did China fight with us in all history?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Unknown According to various estimates from 200 to 3000 warheads, 240 is considered a generally accepted figure.

            Even the question of the presence of nuclear weapons in China is in question. China does not publish anywhere else about its nuclear weapons.
          6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 23: 10 New
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            Oh, laughing. You never answered me ... did China fight with us in the whole history?

            So you scribble comments at such a speed that where do I have time to answer? :))) And so - answered above.
            Quote: NEXUS
            Even the question of the presence of nuclear weapons in China is in question

            "Forgive me, who stood on whom? Take the trouble to express your thoughts more clearly" (Professor Preobrazhensky)
            Sorry generously, could not resist repeat
            On October 16 on October 1964, the PRC carried out its first nuclear test. It was an atmospheric explosion on a test tower.
            14 May 1965 years, the Chinese conducted the first nuclear test with the atomic bomb dropped from an airplane. 17 On June 1967, the first thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb was tested in China. On December 27 on December 1968, the PRC conducted a test of a thermonuclear charge in which weapons-grade plutonium was first used. On 23 of September 1969, the first underground nuclear test was conducted. On October 16 on October 1980, the last nuclear test in the atmosphere was carried out in China, all further tests were carried out underground. The last nuclear test of the People's Republic of China was carried out on July 29 1996 of the year.
          7. NEXUS
            NEXUS 21 November 2015 23: 17 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            So you scribble comments at such a speed that where do I have time to answer? :))) And so - answered above.

            Well sorry laughing I'm not evil wassat
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            "Forgive me, who stood on whom? Take the trouble to express your thoughts more clearly" (Professor Preobrazhensky)
            Sorry generously, could not resist

            fellow laughing Here everyone thinks to the extent of their depravity wink
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The last nuclear test of China was carried out on July 29, 1996.

            What about the delivery vehicles?
          8. Sergei 67
            Sergei 67 22 November 2015 12: 10 New
            +1
            What about the delivery vehicles?

            Br
            The obsolete mobile on the Dongfeng2 slurry Dongfeng3 was withdrawn from service.
            A relatively modern mobile solid fuel Dongfeng21 with a radius of 1700-1800 km in service.
            Plus, some other systems are under development.
          9. Bongo
            Bongo 22 November 2015 12: 15 New
            +1
            Quote: NEXUS
            What about the delivery vehicles?

            Nuclear potential of China: history and modernity. Part 1
            http://topwar.ru/65790-yadernyy-potencial-knr-istoriya-i-sovremennost-chast-1-ya
            .html

            Nuclear potential of China: history and modernity. Part 2
            http://topwar.ru/65823-yadernyy-potencial-knr-istoriya-i-sovremennost-chast-2-ya
            .html
  • Karlovar
    Karlovar 21 November 2015 23: 12 New
    +2
    The provocation (not war!) In Damansky was the US signal that China was ready to consider proposals from the United States, after 3 years the high US delegation arrived in China, fateful agreements were concluded ....
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 21 November 2015 23: 10 New
    +5
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    As it were, yes, but China has long been eyeing our Far Eastern territories. With interest

    Everything is simple here. Unfortunately, we now have no chance in the fight against China using conventional weapons.
    Our only and sufficient insurance against the PRC is nuclear weapons.
    In this context, I can not agree with you in assessing the threats from the sale of Su-35. The sale of the Su-35 does not change the balance of our forces with China.
    It’s another matter that our Air Force itself needs new airplanes, and the PRC can be helped to obtain new B-B engines and missiles (they have some problems with them) only for some impressive preferences besides $ 2 billion.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 23: 21 New
      +2
      Quote: Odyssey
      Everything is simple here. Unfortunately, we now have no chance in the fight against China using conventional weapons.
      Our only and sufficient insurance against the PRC is nuclear weapons.

      Not certainly in that way. We greatly raised the air force of the Middle Kingdom, passing them the Su-27. But the era of the 4 generation is leaving and China is not in a position to catch up with the outgoing steam engine.
      We really cannot repel China's massive aggression by conventional means. But if at the same time our aerospace forces had the ability to achieve air supremacy over their territory and break through China's air defense, then even with conventional weapons we could inflict extremely painful damage on China and China would have to reckon with this. The presence of the Su-35 and S-400 puts an end to our technological superiority - the threat to China's infrastructure facilities smoothly flows from "inevitable" to "unlikely."
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 22 November 2015 00: 40 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        . We greatly raised the air force of the Middle Kingdom, passing them the Su-27.

        I agree, given the conditions under which this was done, it was a wrong decision, but it was in the 90s. Having taken off a head through hair do not cry.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But the era of the 4th generation is leaving, and China is not able to catch up with the outgoing steam engine on its own.

        It’s hard to say. China is developing very fast. It is still difficult to assess the limit of their growth. But the fact is that post-Soviet republics can help them a lot with decisions like selling Su-27 or Varyag at the price of scrap metal.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But if at the same time our VKS had the ability to achieve dominance in the air over its territory and breakthrough China's air defense, then even with conventional means of destruction we could inflict extremely painful damage on China and China would have to reckon with this.

        I doubt that China is historically insensitive to losses, and even more so in its socialist form. If the PRC decides on a large-scale war with us (for now, thank God, there are no prerequisites), it is hard to imagine that China could have been inflicted by conventional means of defeat unacceptable losses.
        As for the Su-35 regiment, it will probably go to the Navy aviation and go to serve at the border with big Chinese friends from Taiwan.
        PS The provision from our military doctrine that in the event of a large-scale invasion by non-nuclear forces threatening the statehood of Russia, we can be the first to use nuclear weapons was written specifically under the PRC wink
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 01: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: Odyssey
        I agree, given the conditions under which this was done, it was a wrong decision. But it was in 90.

        Well, the sale of Su-35 takes place in 2000. And if in 90 our government:
        a) hesitated for a long time, and initially generally refused to sell the Su-27 to China
        b) In the end, agreed, but subject to MASS acquisition of aircraft by China.
        Those. we see the beginnings of a kind of state thinking - for those two hundred airplanes + help in organizing their production in China (from the sets we sent) we really could earn a lot and advance our latest developments (the same Su-30, for example). But the Chinese threw us a little, breaking the contract in half of its execution.
        And today we are just selling them a small batch — we are doing something that even Yeltsin did not do at one time.
        Quote: Odyssey
        I doubt China is historically insensitive to losses, and even more so in its socialist form. If the PRC decides on a large-scale war with us (for now, thank God, there are no prerequisites), it is hard to imagine that China could have been inflicted by conventional means of defeat unacceptable losses

        If the Three Gorges Dam breaks, Polchina will be left without electricity and 360 million people will be in the flooded zone, not to mention the disruption of navigation on the Yangtze. And such objects ... China has a lot of them.
      3. Odysseus
        Odysseus 22 November 2015 02: 18 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And today we are just selling them a small batch — we are doing something that even Yeltsin did not do at one time.

        Then 24 aircraft would not help them. They could not establish their own production. Their level in the early 90s and now it is heaven and earth, so they themselves wanted a big batch.
        Selling the Su-27 (with poor contract drafting) in the early 90s was wrong because it gave them a giant boost, they immediately switched from unsuccessful clones of the Mig-21 to the Su-27. Now the train has left, they can do it all themselves. Su-35 is that if we do not sell it now, then after some time they will not take it at all. They can do without the Su-35, this will only delay their engine building for several years.
        However, as I wrote, I agree with you that with a scanty number of Su-35s in your own air forces give them to China, thereby also voluntarily developing their wrong strategy.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        If the Three Gorges dam breaks through, Polkina will be left without electricity and 360 million people will be in the flooded zone

        It is somewhat exaggerated, but the goal, of course, is notable. Many stare)) But the Chinese only know about it. The dam is very durable and well covered by air defense, and far from our borders. It is unclear how it can be hit in a non-nuclear version.
        The nuclear power plants that the Chinese are now building in a large number are more suitable.
      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 11: 46 New
        0
        Quote: Odyssey
        Then 24 aircraft would not have helped them.

        Maybe so.
        Quote: Odyssey
        Now the all-train is gone, they can do it all themselves. The logic of selling Su-35 is that if we don’t sell it now, then after a while they won’t take it at all. They can do without Su-35, it will only delay them engine building for several years.

        I would not say that.
        China is still experiencing problems copying our Al-31. We, selling them Al-41F1С, which should be considered transitional to the next generation of engines.
        China boasts of its "fifth generation fighters" which are in development - but you need to understand that as long as the Chinese install Al-31 clones on them, they will have NOTHING. And the Chinese themselves are unable to jump to the next generation. We will actually give them this new generation, in five years they will make an inferior copy of Al-41F1S.
        But not the engines alone. Sushka still has a lot of interesting and useful equipment - including a new information management system, brought almost to the ideal of a radar with PFAR and much more, to which the Chinese themselves - like Dover in the lotus position.
        Quote: Odyssey
        However, as I wrote, I agree with you, with a scanty number of Su-35 in my own Air Force, give them to China, thereby voluntarily developing their wrong strategy

        Of course of course. We essentially do not disagree on a matter of principle, but rather, we are discussing the nuances rather :))
  • Amurets
    Amurets 22 November 2015 02: 39 New
    +3
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    As it were, yes, but China has long been eyeing our Far Eastern territories. With interest.

    I’m already tired of repeating that China is more profitable to buy what is produced and mined in our Siberia and the Far East than to open its underbelly from the Arctic Ocean. He is interested in the short road transportation of its goods to Europe. I agree with you that China cannot to be considered as a friend, but as a trading partner it should be considered. Do you think that Japan or Korea are different? Exactly the same. Only under the fifth USA. Read the books of V. Ovchinikov, this is the journalism of a person who has lived and worked for 20 years in China and Japan. He writes very interesting and informative. From his books you can understand the mentality of the peoples of Japan and China.
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 22 November 2015 02: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: Amurets
      I’m already tired of repeating that it is more profitable for China to buy what is produced and mined in our Siberia and the Far East than to open its underbelly from the side of the Arctic Ocean

      It is true. In addition to this, "dominance over the sea is dominance over the world."
      We are for them the strategic rear in the future combat with naval powers.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 11: 31 New
      0
      Quote: Amurets
      I’m already tired of repeating that it is more profitable for China to buy what is produced and mined in our Siberia and the Far East than to open its underbelly from the side of the Arctic Ocean

      And who is threatening them from the Arctic Ocean? Operational strategic walruses? :))
      Quote: Amurets
      . I agree with you that China cannot be regarded as a friend, but as a trading partner it must be considered

      So this is the point. At the same time, trading partners are different, and China may well turn out to be a very unfriendly trading partner for us - there have already been periods of tension and cooling relations.
      And if so, it is necessary to trade with China exactly as a partner "you - me, I - you", and not as an ally. Which, in fact, I argued.
      Quote: Amurets
      Do you think Japan or Korea are different?

      Of course not. Well, we are not selling any of them to Su-35.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 22 November 2015 16: 55 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And who is threatening them from the Arctic Ocean? Operational strategic

        I didn’t specify, I thought you’d guess? Odysseus immediately understood the essence of the problem. The fact is that the PRC, in its White Paper on Strategic Defense, very seriously considers the possibility of delivering a Strategic nuclear strike from the Arctic Ocean in two cases: 1 if Russia and The United States will conclude an agreement on strategic partnership and mutual assistance and mutual assistance. The option is certainly unbelievable, but the Chinese do not exclude it. The second option is also unlikely. China captures Siberia and the Far East. And here opens the underbelly of the PRC from the Arctic Ocean. One thing shoot at Beijing through Chinese territory, according to your assumptions. And another thing is to shoot through the territory of Russia. Here, in answer, you’ll get a blow from both Russia and China. Therefore, rapprochement between Russia and the United States is not beneficial for China. Parsing numerous options will take up a lot of space, so let's limit ourselves to this.
  • Karlovar
    Karlovar 21 November 2015 14: 59 New
    +1
    In the early to mid-15th century, when China was the first economy in the world, had the scientific and technological superiority in the world, had an ocean fleet more powerful than all the fleets of the world combined, he (China) refused the naval world expansion ... Due to economic inexpediency this event (war is expensive, but to keep the conquered is even more expensive). Trading is more profitable than fighting .... For fidelity, the emperor ordered the fleet to be burned ...
    1. Stanislas
      Stanislas 21 November 2015 17: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: Karlovar
      Trading is more profitable than fighting.
      Thanks for the help. I know little of China, but in my opinion it is a trading, but not a bargain, but a working people, remembering the good. Look how sincerely our music and songs are performed. Although, evil is also not forgotten. It's just that the Chinese, despite the cultural revolution, have a good memory laughing .
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 22 November 2015 00: 40 New
      -1
      Quote: Karlovar
      For fidelity, the emperor ordered the fleet to be burned ...

      I am sure that these are just inventions of historians.
  • Stanislas
    Stanislas 21 November 2015 17: 00 New
    +3
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    China follows only its own Chinese path, on which it, like good old England, "has no permanent allies, but only permanent interests."
    However, the "good" England, following its English path, tried to make the Chinese drug addicts, and when the Chinese government prohibited the opium trade, the "old woman" waged a war with China. China defends its interests in a more civilized manner; it has a different path.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 20: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: Stanislav
      China defends its interests in a more civilized way; it has a different path.

      I do not argue at all, because I agree. England with her "burden of a white man" killed so many Indians, Chinese and others who had the misfortune of being part of her empire (or on its way) peoples, that Hitler simply envied him with fierce envy. Who invented the concentration camps here? Scorched earth tactics? A demoniac Fuhrer? Far from it! The most Christian, most democratic, enlightened gentleman of the best British blood - General Kitchener, so that he could get a hotter frying pan in the next world and a quicker attendant ...
  • xtur
    xtur 21 November 2015 23: 49 New
    -1
    > In general, by supplying the Su-35, we are bringing the Chinese Air Force to a very high level, comparable not even with the current, but with the promising level of the RF Aerospace Forces. Attention, question. And for what? What do we actually want from this?

    since you, apparently, do not want to think about this, in principle, not a difficult issue, you will have to try to do it for you. There are two countries in the world whose armament level is higher than that of China, and potentially posing a threat to it - we are talking about the Russian Federation and the USA. Accordingly, according to the classical norms of politics, it is necessary to unite with a weaker country to repulse a stronger one.

    And this theoretical norm was tested by reality a few weeks ago, during a dispute about sovereignty over the Spratly Islands. The issue is especially piquant in connection with the fact that everyone knows that approximately 80% of the Chinese trade turnover takes place in the zone of these islands, and that these islands can be the strategic milestone that will close China’s access to the ocean.

    And yes, again I have to think for you - China has a specific problem with Taiwan, chinese ukrainewhose ally, like the original Ukraine, for some reason, again turned out to be the USA

    When becoming acquainted with the voiced fundamental interests of the Chinese state, it becomes quite obvious that the Russian Federation decided that in the near future this set of threats to China’s security is enough to guarantee a reliable alliance with China.

    And after this period, other military equipment will become relevant.

    PS. I can remind you of another area of ​​interaction between the Russian Federation and China - together they begin the project of a wide-body long-range aircraft, which in translation into the military language means first step towards technology transfer strategic bombers
    And this means that the Russian Federation takes seriously that the United States will not disintegrate in the foreseeable future, will not retire, will not become a third world country - that is, all the reasons for the allied relations of the Russian Federation with China will continue to be significant even when considering the strategic time scale .
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 01: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: xtur
      since you, apparently, do not want to think about this, in principle, not a difficult issue, you will have to try to do it for you.

      Try it, suddenly it works out?
      Quote: xtur
      There are two countries in the world whose armament level is higher than that of China, and potentially posing a threat to it - we are talking about the Russian Federation and the USA. Accordingly, according to the classical norms of politics, it is necessary to unite with a weaker country to repulse a stronger one.

      Yeah. It is necessary. But China somehow doesn’t know about it - and contrary to your absolutely correct calculations (in theory), it’s in no hurry to unite with Russia.
      DO NOT enter into an alliance with Russia. DO NOT confront the United States. DO NOT take revenge on Japan. Here are three "NOTs" on which the modern Chinese policy is based, which China quite officially declared to itself in 2015.
      I am very pleased when they think of me. But still, I would strongly recommend that you, instead of thinking for someone else's person, take and study REAL Chinese politics. And if this policy for some reason does not fit into your idea of ​​it (and it does not fit) - then try to understand why this happens.
      Perhaps then you will discover that the Chinese do not want to become enemies of the United States at all. Yes, they now have a conflict of interest and a rather intense one, the United States is beginning to view China as a rival and adversary, but China does not want to become neither one nor the other for the United States. That is why in the foreseeable future it is impossible to wait for an alliance between China and the Russian Federation - because such an alliance will finally oppose China to the United States. And the rejection of an alliance with Russia in favor of a POSSIBLE non-deterioration of relations with the United States brilliantly demonstrates with what "seriousness" China takes the Russian Federation and how seriously (this time - without quotes) - to the United States.
      China lives with us peacefully for one single reason - having a bunch of unresolved territorial (and other) problems with its neighbors (Japan, India, etc.), it is not at all eager to add problems with the Russian Federation. But at the same time, China appreciates relations with the United States and would like to improve them.
      Under these conditions, to strengthen the military power of China for us ... to put it mildly, is unwise.
      Suppose we re-equip China with modern Russian weapons and thereby dramatically increase its power. What's next? It is very simple - the United States, seeing that further confrontation with China is meaningless, extends to the Chinese the olive branch of the world. Against whom then will Chinese power turn? If the Chinese NOW do not enter into an alliance with us when they (at least theoretically) need it, then why should they stand on ceremony with us on condition of reconciliation with the USA? In this case, conflicts of interest with the same Japan will also be frozen. As a result, the territorial (or other) claims of China against the Russian Federation will be tacitly supported by the United States and Japan. And we, in addition to the USA, will receive a powerful enemy on the eastern borders - while we ourselves will be in international isolation. Is that Mongolia will support laughing
      We are now moving away from European goods, reorienting ourselves towards Asian markets. Do you even understand what effect China will receive on the Russian Federation, being one of the largest industrial suppliers of the Russian Federation, and at the same time possessing overwhelming superiority in the ground forces and at least parity in the air? We can twirl our nose with the Europeans because we have Asians, but what happens if the Asians put a knife to our throats in the face of ongoing European sanctions?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 01: 13 New
        +3
        Quote: xtur
        I can remind you of another area of ​​cooperation between the Russian Federation and China - together they begin the project of a wide-body long-range aircraft, which in translation into the military language means the first step towards the transfer of technology for strategic bombers

        Another project that Russia does not need, but China needs. Kill me cat backwards, if I understand why you are happy.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 22 November 2015 02: 37 New
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Kill me cat backwards, if I understand why you are happy.

          About the cat, an impressive expression smile
      2. xtur
        xtur 23 November 2015 14: 51 New
        0
        > DO NOT enter into an alliance with Russia. DO NOT confront the United States. DO NOT take revenge on Japan. Here are three "NOTs" on which the modern policy of China is based, which China quite officially declared to itself in 2015

        I have already voiced one principle of politics for you, now you have to voice another - what matters in politics is not intentions, but resources and opportunities.

        So you voiced your intentions, but you did not analyze and provide opportunities for pursuing this policy.

        And in opportunities - 80% of trade across the sea-ocean and US ability to block China on the Spratly Islands with its resources and those of its allies and vassals. And on these opportunities the US has three Chinese NOT they don’t have any real impact, because an analysis of the leverage of the United States on its allies and vassals will require a single newspaper article on your part, no less, especially taking into account the recent strengthening of the US’s ability to build its allies (Trans-Pacific Commonwealth)

        Only a reliable rear in the form of the Russian Federation provides strategic stability for China. The analysis of this strategy of blocking China by the Americans is on the network and, in my opinion, it was even published on our website - so these are not assumptions on my part, but a strategy worked out for the USA.

        Serious conversation, and not baby scarecrows at bedtime, requires something like this for analysis.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 November 2015 18: 02 New
          0
          Quote: xtur
          I have already voiced one principle of politics for you, now you have to voice another - in politics, not intentions are important, but resources and opportunities. So you voiced your intentions, but you did not analyze and provide opportunities for implementing this policy.

          Your given statement is "a little" theorized. For example, Hitler, having a war with England and potentially hostile States, did not have the resources, and therefore the opportunity to defeat the USSR. However, he attacked. So your thesis is good for a political science textbook, but in life, alas, it can be different.
          Quote: xtur
          And in opportunities - 80% of trade across the sea-ocean and the US ability to block China on the line of the Spratly Islands with the help of its resources and the resources of its allies and vassals. And the three Chinese do not have any real impact on these possibilities.

          Sorry, but this conversation can be safely ended. You just brilliantly confirmed the "three NOT" of China, congratulations.
          If you take for granted your conclusion about 80% blocking the trade of China (the conclusion is absolutely not connected with reality, but I'm not going to argue with it - I repeat, we take your statement as an axiom) then it follows from this:
          1) For China, sea trade is extremely critical (would be uncritical - you would not write about the blockade as an instrument of influence on China)
          2) The USA is able (directly or indirectly) to organize such a blockade
          3) The Russian Federation is unable to influence this blockade - the fleet and the political weight did not come out, alas. Russia cannot ban the United States from blocking China, and send a powerful fleet to Spratly to lift the blockade with the threat of force.
          Accordingly, an alliance with the Russian Federation and deepening confrontation with the United States is counterproductive for China - an alliance with the Russian Federation in no way affects the ability of the United States to block Chinese trade with Spratley.
          Back to the Chinese three "NOT". Not concluding an alliance with the Russian Federation, not getting into a confrontation with the United States is a pure real-life politician.
          Quote: xtur
          Serious conversation, and not baby scarecrows at bedtime, requires something like this for analysis.

          You flatter yourself.
          Quote: xtur
          Only a reliable rear in the form of the Russian Federation provides strategic stability for China. The analysis of this strategy of blocking China by the Americans is on the network and, in my opinion, it was even published on our website - so these are not assumptions on my part, but a strategy worked out for the USA.

          The problem is that for some reason China does not want to follow the advice of VO analysts. It's a shame, of course, but if I were you, I would have resigned myself and would undertake to analyze politics as it is, and not as you would like to see it.
          Have you ever heard the saying: "Logic is the enemy of the historian"? It's about the same in politics.
          1. xtur
            xtur 24 November 2015 22: 04 New
            0
            1) from the point of view of the Chinese, war is a way of deception. After that, three Chinese NOT get toilet paper value

            2) About US policy regarding China

            On the possibility of blocking China as the most effective method of war with China:

            http://periscope2.ru/2013/03/14/7151/
            http://topwar.ru/31162-pochemu-slaba-mertvaya-hvatka-vozmozhna-li-voenno-morskay

            a-blokada-kitaya.html

            http://topwar.ru/25464-o-vozmozhnosti-morskoy-blokady-kitaya.html

            http://topwar.ru/27910-udushenie-kontekst-provedenie-i-posledstviya-amerikanskoy

            -morskoy-blokady-kitaya.html

            http://topwar.ru/36529-ssha-kitay-novaya-strategiya-sderzhivaniya.html

            On the inevitability of a clash between the US and China from the point of view of American elites:

            Graham Allison's article “Thucydides Trap: US and China Going to War?” (The Thucydides Trap: Are the US and China Headed for War?)

            http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/united-states-china-war
            -thucydides-trap / 406756 /



            If the American elite leads the war, how can China evade it? Only actual union with Russia.

            Hitler’s strategy had its own explanation, like the Kaiser’s strategy in WWI, each of these strategies had a rational kernel, as well as its own risks — these strategies should be analyzed separately, but somehow they do not apply to the situation under discussion, but they divert the conversation into side.
  • BIGLESHIY
    BIGLESHIY 21 November 2015 11: 48 New
    +2
    Quote: Temples

    And China is not a hostile country to us.

    About Damanskiy remind you?
    China has always been, is and will be "on my mind." And if the opportunity comes along, it will sink its claws into our country.
    1. Temples
      Temples 21 November 2015 11: 57 New
      +1
      Remind.
      You, as I see it, are a specialist in Sino-Russian relations.

      And if the opportunity turns up, it will stick its claws into our country.

      What is this tabloid romance?
      Thrusts claws into the country ????
      1. Karlovar
        Karlovar 21 November 2015 15: 42 New
        -3
        He had read Khramchikhin ... By the way, he (Khramchikhin) had not been heard for a long time, they put him in, apparently, the guys from the office ...
        1. Stanislas
          Stanislas 22 November 2015 20: 40 New
          0
          And why is it so minus? For the mention of the expert who vanged 07.08.08 that there will be no Georgian invasion, and in 2012, that before the end of the year Syria and Iran will be defeated? He began to shout about the dangers of capturing Siberia by China in synchronism with a wave of Western media about the dangers of China in general. If only someone responded, which was negative.
  • Ze Kot
    Ze Kot 23 November 2015 14: 51 New
    0
    Unfortunately, China and Iran are POTENTIALLY hostile countries. With the strengthening of their military power, they will pose a threat to Russia more and more. And do not talk about strategic nuclear forces wink
  • iliitchitch
    iliitchitch 21 November 2015 10: 52 New
    +3
    Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
    So they will buy T50 with new engines, and ours will gladly sell it.


    Well, why so. Commentary implies that in the Security Council and the Moscow Oblast there are stupid kazly who don’t rush nifig, just to cut the dough and not grow grass, so what? Who puts the pluses?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 11: 20 New
      +5
      Quote: iliitch
      Commentary implies that stupid kazly sit in the Security Council and Moscow Region

      The supply of such machines to China is a political decision, not the level of MO.
      1. KnightRider
        KnightRider 21 November 2015 13: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: iliitch
        Commentary implies that stupid kazly sit in the Security Council and Moscow Region

        The supply of such machines to China is a political decision, not the level of MO.

        Yeah, that is, a friend from Chelyabinsk is hinting that stupid kazly are sitting in the Kremlin laughing
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 November 2015 20: 49 New
          +2
          Quote: KnightRider
          Yeah, that is, a friend from Chelyabinsk is hinting that stupid kazly are sitting in the Kremlin

          You know, an old, old western comes to my mind. There the main characters were played by a colorful couple - one thin blonde and a fat brunette. According to the plot, they are brothers, one of whom became a gangster (thin) and the second - a sheriff (fat), and somehow the leaner ran into the city, where the elder (fat) was sheriffing than the fat man, naturally, was dissatisfied with.
          And now - a challenge - the younger made a brawl in the tavern. The eldest arrives, sees the younger scandalous with several cowboys:
          - What ... are you doing here! I warned you that you would sit quieter than water below the grass!
          - (Junior): They committed a state crime!
          - (Senior): What other crime?
          - They called our mother an old sh ... ho!
          - Eghkm ... let's go and leave.
          Depart
          - (Senior): listen, but our mother is really sh..ha!
          - (Junior): Yes, but not old!
  • Peterhof 73
    Peterhof 73 21 November 2015 11: 01 New
    +6
    Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
    So they will buy T50 with new engines, and ours will gladly sell it.

    And indeed, these $ 2 billion look frivolous, compared with 3 billion euros just donated to Ruin. In addition, the transfer to the very unexplored Chinese of their advanced technologies, used, incidentally, on the T-50. A little joy from this news, to be honest.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 21 November 2015 11: 23 New
      +2
      Quote: Petergofsky73
      compared with 3 billion euros just donated to the Ruin.

      Nobody gave $ 3 billion to Ukraine. It is only a question of paying off debt until 2018 (+%), and only after the bank or the USA give guarantees. If they do not give guarantees, then our debt will be required to be paid this year.
      1. Karlovar
        Karlovar 21 November 2015 15: 49 New
        -1
        A person needs to blur a thread urgently, moreover, without understanding the nuances ....
        1. Peterhof 73
          Peterhof 73 21 November 2015 18: 37 New
          +2
          Quote: Karlovar
          A person needs to blur a thread urgently, moreover, without understanding the nuances ....

          Did you mean me or Yaytsenyuk? Or maybe I didn’t understand it correctly yesterday (about debt). Or are you now me?
          By the way, if you are already from the Czech Republic and understand the nuances, I dare to ask: is the Czech Republic planning to return the Russian gold reserve stolen by the white-collar from Kolchak? If yes, then when?
      2. Peterhof 73
        Peterhof 73 21 November 2015 18: 32 New
        +2
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Quote: Petergofsky73
        compared with 3 billion euros just donated to the Ruin.

        Nobody gave $ 3 billion to Ukraine. It is only a question of paying off debt until 2018 (+%), and only after the bank or the USA give guarantees. If they do not give guarantees, then our debt will be required to be paid this year.

        Well, of course, no one gave Ukraine anything. It was just lending by one civilized state to an even more civilized, super-European fraternal-cronyist state. The most reliable economic partner. It's just that the timing and process of returning this non-gift are in such a deep fog that only time will probably clarify. Yaytsenyuk will confirm my words.
    2. Karlovar
      Karlovar 21 November 2015 15: 47 New
      -1
      What makes you think that they gave 3 lard to Ruin ... It’s about a deferred payment .... From personal experience: one weirdo owed me many thousand thalers, I also had a bank ... I gave him a deferment ( to earn during this time) for 4 years, then for 2 more, in the end I got a debt from him .... Normal scheme ... Or should I have ordered it ???
      1. Peterhof 73
        Peterhof 73 21 November 2015 19: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: Karlovar
        What makes you think that they gave 3 lard to Ruin ... It’s about a deferred payment .... From personal experience: one weirdo owed me many thousand thalers, I also had a bank ... I gave him a deferment ( to earn during this time) for 4 years, then for 2 more, in the end I got a debt from him .... Normal scheme ... Or should I have ordered it ???

        Well, if by the logic of dill, then the crank should have ordered you. That would not pay off the debt. And it is better to demand from you his (debt) restructuring. By the way, enlighten: in what country of the world they lend in TALERS ??? Maybe a crank is not a debtor but a creditor?
        1. Karlovar
          Karlovar 21 November 2015 23: 27 New
          +1
          Taller, I call the dollar, slang like that ... By the way, the dollar came from the taller (German) ... And as for me to order, I calculated and secured such a course of events ..... As for the debtor, I never I didn’t take loans and I don’t take them, I think it’s the highest degree of stupidity, at 15-20% per annum .... You’ll earn money for moving to the Czech Republic ....
  • Good me
    Good me 21 November 2015 10: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Temples
    Yes, let them copy! If they can.


    C-300, copied, but something is not very request
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 21 November 2015 10: 41 New
      +7
      Quote: Good Me
      C-300, copied, but something is not very

      You can continue to sincerely believe in it, the Chinese HQ-9A in its performance is quite consistent with the level of the C-300PMU2 anti-aircraft system. This is confirmed by the results of the Turkish tender, which the Chinese won.
      1. Good me
        Good me 21 November 2015 11: 05 New
        0
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        You can continue to sincerely believe in it, the Chinese HQ-9A in its performance is quite consistent with the level of the C-300PMU2 anti-aircraft system. This is confirmed by the results of the Turkish tender, which the Chinese won.


        Sincerely believe yes that all the same, the Chinese clone in its characteristics is significantly inferior to the anti-aircraft missile systems that we have in service with.

        The fact that the Turks bought the "Chinese" only says that it is POSSIBLE, he is still better than the American "Patriot" ...

        And we, with our EXPORT OPTION (I can’t assert), apparently simply did not participate in the tender ...
        1. mvg
          mvg 21 November 2015 16: 14 New
          +2
          If it is not difficult, by what indicators does the S300-PMU2 surpass the Patriot PAC3 or HQ-9A or ASTER 15/30 in the Sea Viper air defense system? Well, at least one parameter.
          I’ll clarify those that actually exist, and not mythical telegraph poles flying 400 km.
          1. Good me
            Good me 21 November 2015 21: 45 New
            0
            Quote: mvg
            If it is not difficult, by what indicators does the S300-PMU2 surpass the Patriot PAC3 or HQ-9A or ASTER 15/30 in the Sea Viper air defense system? Well, at least one parameter.

            I did not look for data for PMU2, but it is clear that even the "ancient" modification of PMU1 surpasses Patriot PAC3 in a number of important characteristics. At the same time, the significant (lethal) superiority of the C300 over the "American" is not indicated, the deployment time, the "all-round", vertical launch of the missiles of our air defense system, as well as the differences in the missile control system on the march. Ours does not need radio accompaniment, that is, "fire and forget" ...

            In the era of electronic warfare, will the Patriot missiles go crazy under their influence?

            The table, in terms of readability, is certainly not a fountain, but what is ...

            TTX C-300ПМУ1, С-400, Patriot PAC-1 and Patriot PAC-3

            Borders of the affected area, km:

            - distant for aerodynamic purposes: 150- 400 - 60 - 80
            - distant for ballistic purposes: 40 - 60 - 20 - 45
            - Near: 5 - 2 - 3 - N / A

            Target hit height:

            - minimum, m: 10 - 5 - 60 - n / a
            - maximum, km: 27 - 185 - 24 - 20

            Maximum missile speed, m / s: 2200 - 2600 - 1700 - 2200
            The maximum speed of the hit targets, m / s: 2800 - 4800 - 2200 - n / d
            Number of targets followed: 12 - 72 - 8 - 16
            Number of targets fired: 6 - 36 - 8 - 16

            Missile warhead mass, kg: 145 - 180 - 91 - 24.

            To justify the low parameters of the PAC-3 missile, it must be said that they are largely compensated by the increased accuracy of pointing the warhead at the target. As well as its increased ability to maneuver. The PAC-3 missile is designed primarily to destroy tactical ballistic missiles. And this is a very serious weapon that uses satellite navigation. However, this is a double-edged sword. The guidance satellite begins to transmit information about the coordinates of the target to the rocket only 90 seconds after it is detected. During this time, a hypersonic missile is capable of covering a distance of 300 km or more.

            The Patriot PAC-3 also uses PAC-2 missiles. They already have quite a decent range in comparison with both the PAC-3 and the PAC-1, as well as a higher ceiling. However, both in range and in the ceiling, they do not reach the S-400 air defense missiles.
        2. Bongo
          Bongo 22 November 2015 07: 48 New
          +1
          Quote: Good Me
          I sincerely believe that, nevertheless, the Chinese clone, in its characteristics, is MUCH inferior to the air defense systems that are in service with us.

          Well, you can still believe No. Have you ever wondered what the share of truly modern long-range air defense systems is in the air defense system?
          It is not sad, but about half, so far - is the C-300PS, the production of which began in the 1983 year, with a range of about 90 km.
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 21 November 2015 11: 34 New
        +2
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        the results of the Turkish tender, which the Chinese won.

        The results of the tender showed that the Turks bought what is cheaper
        1. ancient
          ancient 21 November 2015 11: 40 New
          +5
          Quote: Pilat2009
          The results of the tender showed that the Turks bought what is cheaper


          For information drinks

          According to the Agence France Presse news agency, citing a source in the Turkish government, Turkey finally decided to break the contract for the purchase of Chinese air defense systems HQ-9 worth 3 billion euros.
          According to the source, "this decision was recently made by the government."



          This contract was won by China Precision Machinery Export-Import Corporation (CPMIEC) in 2013.
          The decision to terminate the contract was formally made due to the unwillingness of the Chinese side to transfer technology, despite months of negotiations.
          This was reported by the Turkish television channel CNN-Turk.
          According to the channel, "Ankara expects to produce its own anti-aircraft systems with the help of a well-known global manufacturer."
          According to an informed source, a new tender is not planned, as this procedure will delay the decision for many more months.

          Turkey's final refusal to purchase the Chinese HQ-9 air defense system means the actual termination of the entire tender for the Turkish T-LORAMIDS program for the acquisition of medium and long-range air defense systems. In return, according to Turkish media reports, the purchase of ready-made air defense systems from "partners" can be chosen as a "transitional solution" on an out-of-competition basis - which, most likely, in reality will almost certainly mean the purchase of American Patriot air defense systems. wink
          1. Karlovar
            Karlovar 21 November 2015 15: 53 New
            +1
            The Turks refused to tender only under pressure from the United States ... Yes, and the Chinese agreed to transfer technology to the Turks ....
          2. mvg
            mvg 21 November 2015 16: 19 New
            +3
            The refusal was more due to the fact that the United States made it clear with a "subtle" hint that the air defense / missile defense system based on "Chinese" will NEVER be integrated into the European air defense system. Not that the Chinese refused to give technology. The Turks are not their competitors.
            The Turks will make the national air defense system with the help of the Chinese. Moreover, for many years, the Turks have been pursuing a policy of localizing the production of weapons in the country. MBT Altai, frigates, promising fighter, armored personnel carrier, etc.
      3. TSOOBER
        TSOOBER 21 November 2015 11: 56 New
        +2
        Turkish tender? According to the news agency Agence France Presse, citing a source in the Turkish government, Turkey finally decided to terminate the contract for the purchase of a Chinese air defense system HQ-9 worth 3 billion euros. According to the source, "this decision was recently made by the government."
      4. BaLaLaykin
        BaLaLaykin 21 November 2015 14: 40 New
        0
        Olga, well, first of all, they didn’t win
        Turkey canceled a tender for the production of components for the Turkish missile defense system (ABM) worth $ 3,4 billion, Ankara will focus on the national project of the missile defense system, said a representative of the office of the Turkish Prime Minister.http: //www.vz.ru/news/2015/11 /15/778188.html
        well secondly
        Unlike competitors in the tender, China allowed the production of part of the missile systems in Turkey and the transfer of its technology to the Turkish side
        1. clidon
          clidon 21 November 2015 14: 42 New
          +3
          China did win the tender, but NATO began to put pressure on Ankara threatening the impossibility of integrating Chinese systems into the Alliance’s common air defense system.
  • Vita vko
    Vita vko 21 November 2015 11: 55 New
    0
    Quote: Temples
    Yes, let them copy! If they can.

    That's it. And even if you sell the technology, it takes time to study it, create production, debug, test an experimental batch and organize serial production. On average, it takes from 3 to 5 years. During this time, the technology seller naturally manages to develop and introduce newer ones, and the buyer, due to the concentration of scientific and technical personnel in the development of the purchased technology, is simply not able to engage in the development of more advanced ones. Thus, a system of guaranteed technological lag of 2-3 years is created.
    Copying technologies is dangerous only if the developer is greedy and stops investing in new R&D, in order to get more profit from the old ones.
  • veksha50
    veksha50 21 November 2015 10: 32 New
    0
    Quote: Baikonur
    An entire research institute was created for disassembly, analysis and copying inotechnology!


    We already spoke literally yesterday or the day before yesterday on this subject ...

    They have been producing TT and AKM for decades now ... So what ??? Where is the quality ??? No quality ...
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 21 November 2015 10: 57 New
      +5
      Quote: veksha50
      They have been producing TT and AKM for decades now ... So what ??? Where is the quality ??? No quality ...

      What are we talking about? About small arms or anti-aircraft systems and fighters?
      Maybe you should go to the aircraft plant in Shenyang, where they build their J-11? I assure you, as it is not sad, but the build quality of aircraft in Shenyang is higher than in Komsomolsk.
      1. veksha50
        veksha50 21 November 2015 12: 17 New
        -3
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        What are we talking about? About small arms or about anti-aircraft systems and fighters?
        Maybe you should go to the Shenyang aircraft factory, where they build their J-11s? I assure you, it’s not sad, but build quality aircraft to Shenyang higher than ours in Komsomolsk.


        That's it - what we are talking about ... First of all, about technologies ... And I have not in vain pointed out that for decades they have been producing our CTs and AKMs, and there’s no sense from this ... They could not copy the compositions of the same steel or create your own, more or less close to ours, reliable ...

        And here we are talking about much more complex technologies ...

        And the build quality here is already a completely different question ... It would be something and from what to collect ...
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 21 November 2015 14: 45 New
          +3
          Quote: veksha50
          And here we are talking about much more complex technologies ...

          At present, China is developing the Russian D-30 engine for the Yun-20; from the technical point of view, the D-30 is already behind. Despite the fact that domestic engines are being developed, however, real technological maturity takes time. The D-18T engine developed by Motor Sich for the An-124 is too large for the Yun-20, but if China absorbs this Ukrainian technology, it will positively affect the technological breakthrough in the production of Chinese engines.
        2. Bongo
          Bongo 22 November 2015 07: 41 New
          +3
          Quote: veksha50
          That's it - what we are talking about ... First of all, about technologies ... And I have not in vain pointed out that for decades they have been producing our CTs and AKMs, but there’s no sense from this ..

          Now they no longer produce it, in the land units of the PLA, a new Type 95 assault rifle (pictured) was adopted for the new Chinese 5,8-mm intermediate cartridge.

          How much can you use 20 summer information? Do you really think that with such expenditures on armaments as in China there is no progress? The build quality and materials in high-tech products manufactured in the PRC for their own needs are quite at the level.
          1. veksha50
            veksha50 22 November 2015 22: 37 New
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            How much can you handle information 20 years ago?



            You want to say that China has stopped producing AKM and TT and selling all over the world ???

            But the Americans, who, according to Zadornov, are completely dumb, for some reason they are trying to release AKMs on a pirate basis, are buying from China ... And the quality of the Chinese, as was worse than ours, remains, and after 20, and 30, and 40 years of release ...

            What are we arguing about ??? I told him about Thomas, and he about Yeryomu ...

            What does it have to do with new Chinese machine gun, when I talked about AKM and TT ???
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 23 November 2015 06: 17 New
              +1
              Quote: veksha50
              You want to say that China has stopped producing AKM and TT and selling all over the world ???

              And for a long time. Also, our country trades SKS and even Mosin rifles. But this does not mean that we still release them.
              Quote: veksha50
              But the Americans are those who, according to Zadornov, are completely stupid, for some reason they are trying to release AKMs on a pirate basis, and they are buying from China ...

              Well, yes ... Tell me more that they throw out full-time M4 and equip their marines with Chinese AKs. wassat Do not confuse the initiative of private arms companies, of which there are many in the US and state policy in the field of armaments.
  • atalef
    atalef 21 November 2015 10: 37 New
    +6
    Quote: Baikonur
    And they want to disassemble to the screw and copy, copy, copy

    Baikonur, there according to your profile (article - The last flight of the “Buran”) - people are chopped.
    Maybe you can unsubscribe, so to speak. How does one know the topic from the inside?
    And then something like a jack is uncomfortable, the people are not in the subject, and the main expert is resting on other branches.
    Best regards hi
    1. lis-ik
      lis-ik 21 November 2015 12: 55 New
      0
      atalef
      Excellent and subtle, big +!
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Altona
    Altona 21 November 2015 10: 56 New
    0
    Quote: Baikonur
    And they want to disassemble to the screw and copy, copy, copy!
    We created an entire research institute for disassembling, analyzing, and copying inotechnologies! They even agreed to get such a big batch! (our apparently also cunning guys - shoved as many as 24 pcs.,

    ------------------------
    I thought they were more advanced, but to see China’s industry and science more difficult if they still can’t master the key technologies and their copies with greatly reduced capabilities in range and engine life. I couldn’t, I couldn’t ... I can only use other people's ideas and developments, plus technical and cyber espionage ...
    1. U-96
      U-96 21 November 2015 12: 05 New
      +4
      Quote: Altona
      I couldn’t, I couldn’t ... I can only use other people's ideas and developments, plus technical and cyber espionage ...

      By the number of applications in the field of IP and patent cooperation, the Chinese have already bypassed Germany and are confidently in the top three with the United States and Japan. So, IMHO, making them extremely stupid copyists is not entirely fair.
      1. Altona
        Altona 21 November 2015 15: 15 New
        0
        Quote: U-96
        By the number of applications in the field of IP and patent cooperation, the Chinese have already bypassed Germany and are confidently in the top three with the United States and Japan. So, IMHO, making them extremely stupid copyists is not entirely fair.

        -----------------------
        Nobody makes them stupid, just stating a fact ... The number of patents can also not talk about anything, it is important to apply the invention, its technological or commercial impact ...
      2. Karlovar
        Karlovar 21 November 2015 15: 57 New
        0
        The USSR in the 30s was a "stupid copyist" .... And then ...., you know what ...
    2. veksha50
      veksha50 21 November 2015 12: 23 New
      0
      Quote: Altona
      I thought they are more advanced, but to see China’s industry and science is very difficult if they still can’t master the key technologies and their copies



      Guys, well, let's take this issue more seriously ... After all, we have enough problems in the defense industry complex, even in shipbuilding - since the times of the USSR, the noise was the noise of our submarines, and the reason, it would seem, was simple - the processing technology of those same propellers for movers ... But then the USSR had opportunities oh how many ...

      To be honest, I would very much like the OPK-MIC in Russia to also walk at the same pace as in China, and I will only be with two hands FOR if our people buy-steal-copy-improve-develop-produce any newest technology , which just appeared at the "partners" ...

      But problems in science and technology were, are and always will be for everyone ...
  • evge-malyshev
    evge-malyshev 21 November 2015 11: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: Baikonur
    And they want to disassemble to the screw and copy, copy, copy!
    We created an entire research institute for disassembling, analyzing, and copying inotechnologies!


    Yeah! No matter how it happened with the Tu-204. The contract for 5 cars, bought 2. One was tested, the second was dismantled, made its design.
    1. veksha50
      veksha50 21 November 2015 12: 27 New
      0
      Quote: evge-malyshev
      Yeah! No matter how it happened with the Tu-204. The contract for 5 cars, bought 2. One was tested, the second was dismantled, made its design.



      Hmm ... Yoshkin cat ... Well, let's not trade arms with China (by the way, he is still one of the main buyers), so what then ???

      Damn them, if for the amount of proceeds from 24 sold aircraft, the defense industry complex can produce the same amount and put it in our VKS - let them sell ... On the way - PAKFA, God forbid, will soon be brought to mind ...
      1. lis-ik
        lis-ik 21 November 2015 13: 00 New
        0
        I think this amount will be built not 24, but at least one and a half times more.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • VP
    VP 21 November 2015 12: 37 New
    0
    While copy will lag.
    Since money, personnel, research and production resources are not spent on creating one’s own school, not on setting up one’s own school, not on one’s own research, but on how to try to repeat someone else’s with less loss of characteristics and quality.
  • Civil
    Civil 21 November 2015 10: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: venaya
    “The purchase of S-35 is inevitable,” because “the existing production capacities of domestic J-11s did not allow us to narrow the equipment gap from the air forces of other countries.”

    It seems that the Chinese want to put pressure on the Americans and Japanese, regarding the islands, otherwise it is difficult to explain their actions.


    This is a failure, but most likely a business policy, these are the terms of a certain agreement, the S-400 is also coming to them ... although they are copying S-300 with might and main
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 21 November 2015 10: 47 New
      +8
      Interesting? And what do they copy? We buy microchips that we buy from them for the same C-300?
      1. zyablik.olga
        zyablik.olga 21 November 2015 10: 59 New
        +8
        Quote: Amurets
        Interesting? And what do they copy? We buy microchips that we buy from them for the same C-300?

        I do not know about C-400, but on Su-35 a significant part of the elemental base is of Indian and Chinese production.
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 21 November 2015 11: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: Amurets
        Interesting? And what do they copy? We buy microchips that we buy from them for the same C-300?

        There is nothing secret in microchips. The matter is in the algorithms of control programs and in new missiles, well, maybe in new radars. Everything else iron is nothing complicated
  • Tor5
    Tor5 21 November 2015 11: 08 New
    +1
    And there is! This is in opposition to the US and Japanese.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 21 November 2015 11: 18 New
      +3
      Quote: Tor5
      And there is! This is in opposition to the US and Japanese.

      No! At the opening of their free economic zones, the Chinese made agreements so that the manufacturers took the products of the company for themselves, and the equipment and technologies remained in the PRC. So they got the technology for the production of chips.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 21 November 2015 10: 11 New
    0
    All these units and aircraft are objects of strict reporting. It’s not possible to just take this away and take it apart for the purpose of copying, it will become known about it, and all sorts of troubles provided for in the contract may follow. This is to start copying. Not so simple, not to mention the problems of technology and metallurgy. If they want very much, they will spend ten years copying engines.
    1. Vikxnumx
      Vikxnumx 21 November 2015 10: 16 New
      0
      Only this also holds them back.
      How to master the engines, and trample forward
    2. DIVAN SOLDIER
      DIVAN SOLDIER 21 November 2015 10: 31 New
      +3
      What troubles ???? As they copied and will be, nobody will even say a word to them, I think so.
    3. veksha50
      veksha50 21 November 2015 10: 35 New
      +3
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      It’s not possible to just take this away and take it apart for the purpose of copying, it will become known about it, and all sorts of troubles provided for in the contract may follow.



      They always spit on all these conventions ... So if I need IM, they will take it apart and try to copy ...

      The question is - will it work out ???

      Here they have screwdrivers (for example) - apparently one-on-one with Bosh ... So what ??? Metal is rubbish ... This is so, just for example ...
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 21 November 2015 10: 59 New
        +3
        We had a massive marriage on one. After hardening, the parts started to burst, they didn’t pass the tests. Do the manufacturers understand what it is? They started looking for the cause and what turned out to be? Someone who didn’t find washed their hands with soap in the quenching solution. Here is the nuance of technology.
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 23 November 2015 20: 41 New
          0
          Quote: Amurets
          They started looking for a reason and what turned out to be?

          I can tell a similar story: the delegation of our deputies went to the factory in America and the deputy turner decided to surprise the Americans - he turned the part twice as fast as their turner. After measuring the part, the American technologist praised ours and threw the part into the waste, explaining that when changing the cutting conditions metal structure changes
    4. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 21 November 2015 11: 02 New
      +4
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      All these units and airplanes are objects of strict accountability.

      Why would the Chinese report to us?
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      this will become known, and any troubles stipulated in the contract may follow.

      We will impose sanctions against China? wassat In the past, despite contracts and licenses, they didn’t bother with copyright.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 21 November 2015 10: 13 New
      +1
      This, unfortunately, has become the norm. Relax hi
  • mag nit
    mag nit 21 November 2015 10: 12 New
    -7
    Sunhui - 35
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 21 November 2015 10: 16 New
    +3
    According to the Chinese press, “the purchase of the C-35 is inevitable,” since “the existing production capacity of the domestic J-11 did not allow narrowing the gap in equipment from the air forces of other countries.”

    Well, yes, it's over, the supply of 24 Su-35S from Russia will greatly reduce this gap. In general, the Chinese are cunning once again. The "Chinese" J-11 fighters are essentially modernized Su-27s with Chinese avionics. How many countries build such heavy fighters themselves?
  • popandopulo
    popandopulo 21 November 2015 10: 16 New
    +3
    some details, but no details, we are talking about the Su-35, in the photo Su-30, a completely stupid post.
  • Lesorub
    Lesorub 21 November 2015 10: 18 New
    +6
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    All these units and aircraft are objects of strict reporting. It’s not possible to just take this away and take it apart for the purpose of copying, it will become known about it, and all sorts of troubles provided for in the contract may follow. This is to start copying. Not so simple, not to mention the problems of technology and metallurgy. If they want very much, they will spend ten years copying engines.


    CHINESE copy everything at once !!!!!!! Purchasing 24 machines - which is clearly not enough for China. The answer suggests itself - the rest will be copied and put into production!
    1. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 21 November 2015 11: 22 New
      +2
      Quote: Lesorub
      CHINESE copy everything at once !!!!!!! Purchasing 24 machines - which is clearly not enough for China. The answer suggests itself - the rest will be copied and put into production!

      In fact, they copied the su-27, they need purely engines for them. Su-35 is purchased to study and further upgrade their copies, possibly on our engines.
  • Mercenary
    Mercenary 21 November 2015 10: 24 New
    +2
    It would be better said that China will NOT infringe on copyrights, otherwise in a year they will begin to supply copies to the Middle East for cheap!
    1. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 21 November 2015 13: 22 New
      0
      Quote: Mercenary
      It would be better said that China will NOT infringe on copyrights, otherwise in a year they will begin to supply copies to the Middle East for cheap!

      The joke is that the Chinese have expensive service, and some think that they will not have to service the aircraft often.) As a result, they get counterfeit, at the price of the original.)
    2. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 21 November 2015 13: 22 New
      0
      Quote: Mercenary
      It would be better said that China will NOT infringe on copyrights, otherwise in a year they will begin to supply copies to the Middle East for cheap!

      The joke is that the Chinese have expensive service, and some think that they will not have to service the aircraft often.) As a result, they get counterfeit, at the price of the original.)
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 21 November 2015 10: 28 New
    +1
    What are you so worried about possible copying. Ours are not made with a finger, and probably provided such an opportunity. Technologies are not transferred, and this is important.
  • dzerzhinsky
    dzerzhinsky 21 November 2015 10: 28 New
    +2
    I think that first you need to equip our Air Force with such advanced machines, and then sell them abroad!
  • midshipman
    midshipman 21 November 2015 10: 29 New
    +2
    It is urgent to begin negotiations on the supply to the PRC of the "Combat Aviation Control" simulators, created at JSC "VNIIOA". All export documentation has been approved by the RF Ministry of Defense. I have the honor.
  • bad
    bad 21 November 2015 10: 37 New
    -1
    Quote: Lesorub
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    All these units and aircraft are objects of strict reporting. It’s not possible to just take this away and take it apart for the purpose of copying, it will become known about it, and all sorts of troubles provided for in the contract may follow. This is to start copying. Not so simple, not to mention the problems of technology and metallurgy. If they want very much, they will spend ten years copying engines.


    CHINESE copy everything at once !!!!!!! Purchasing 24 machines - which is clearly not enough for China. The answer suggests itself - the rest will be copied and put into production!

    while it is copied and implemented, a lot of time will pass .. and we will have t-50 during this time .. and there will be a queue for many years ahead .. yes, and the Chinese will probably be cut off a lot of resources and funds for copied planes. .. you know, you can’t copy a microwave .. and nobody handed over production technology to them ..
  • amba balamut 77
    amba balamut 77 21 November 2015 10: 39 New
    +2
    24 Drying for the PLA is yes, this is an armada. How many backup engines do they take? What do they have with engines for the 5th generation? Stuck in our Eagle engines, and continue to test it, but for a long time not heard of his trials. They will copy, it will be exactly copied. Quality may be worse, but they will definitely surpass the number of us.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 21 November 2015 14: 40 New
      0
      Quote: amba balamut 77
      How many backup engines do they take?

      "According to media reports, in the period from 2001 to 2041, Ukraine will supply more than 1900 Motor Sich engines to China, in addition, by 2041 it plans to repair 3840, which will result in a total engine production of $ 5,7 billion over 40 years old."
      While we are not talking about engines for the Su family, but anything is possible
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 22 November 2015 00: 54 New
        0
        Quote: Pilat2009
        While we are not talking about engines for the Su family, but anything is possible

        Ukraine does not produce ANYTHING to the Su family.
  • Amurets
    Amurets 21 November 2015 10: 42 New
    +2
    For particularly concerned. I advise you to read the book: "Scientific and technical intelligence. From Lenin to Gorbachev. Industrial espionage has not been canceled and is not going to be canceled."
    1. amba balamut 77
      amba balamut 77 21 November 2015 10: 50 New
      0
      Shaw, you. What is industrial espionage? Ento honest wassat mutually beneficial business. The main thing we do not stay without pants.
      1. Peterhof 73
        Peterhof 73 21 November 2015 11: 08 New
        -2
        It’s better to shake off any 3 billion euros from the Ruins. And save your face in the international economic arena.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. U-96
      U-96 21 November 2015 11: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Amurets
      . Nobody has canceled industrial espionage and is not going to cancel it.

      copying is still not espionage)
      1. Karlovar
        Karlovar 21 November 2015 16: 20 New
        0
        Espionage involves subsequent copying, the development of new knowledge, then creative rethinking, then improvement ....
    4. Karlovar
      Karlovar 21 November 2015 16: 17 New
      0
      Industrial espionage does not disdain, did not disdain and will not disdain any country, not a single corporation in the world .... The world rests on that ...
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 21 November 2015 10: 47 New
    +3
    Quote: veksha50
    The question is - will it work out ???

    I completely agree. The correct manufacturing of one small part is not possible without technological documentation, however many copy it will not work out. But when he wrote above that ours provides for the possibility of copying and is simply obligated to complicate it to impossibility, so the minuses immediately flew. And to repeat constantly in the comments about China the same thing with an emphasis on copying is normal.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 21 November 2015 11: 13 New
      +5
      Quote: rotmistr60
      I completely agree. The correct production of one small part is not possible without technological documentation, however many copy it will not work out.

      Do not pay attention? Those who are in the production are FULL-FIVE or FIVE-FIVE, and in short DUB-DUB. Minus the concepts of production technology or material science. In the previous discussion of this contract, 2 days ago, smart heads offered an engine for 3D printer stamping.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. amba balamut 77
        amba balamut 77 21 November 2015 11: 32 New
        0
        I could be mistaken, but at one time, accurate, and most importantly, fast copying of super-strength allowed the creation of the Tu-4, and gave a good impetus to the Tupolev Design Bureau. Do you think the story of the Su-35 does not happen again? And Chinese copies, as a rule, are cheaper, they are made faster and in large quantities, although the quality is lower. Agree, the Chinese can palm off not frail. Sincerely.
        1. veksha50
          veksha50 21 November 2015 12: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: amba balamut 77
          I could be mistaken, but at one time, accurate, and most importantly, fast copying of super-strength allowed the creation of the Tu-4, and gave a good impetus to the Tupolev Design Bureau.



          Hmm ... Then, to be honest to the end, and in our first Royal missiles, there was a lot from the German ... And in the same AKM, to be honest ... And Li-2 and the subsequent IL-12,14 , XNUMX - this is the same Douglas ... So what ???

          And what did the First Directorate of Soviet Intelligence do mainly ??? Yes, his main task was - search and - if roughly - the theft of scientific and technical secrets ... So what ???

          Now this is called industrial espionage, and he has been, is and will always be ...

          Now - the technologies are different ... The level is not the same ...

          PS The captain correctly said: yesterday or the day before yesterday, someone even spoke about the possibility of stamping engines through a 3D printer ... Lord, educate people ...
  • DIVAN SOLDIER
    DIVAN SOLDIER 21 November 2015 11: 11 New
    +1
    Quote: iliitch
    Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
    So they will buy T50 with new engines, and ours will gladly sell it.


    Well, why so. Commentary implies that in the Security Council and the Moscow Oblast there are stupid kazly who don’t rush nifig, just to cut the dough and not grow grass, so what? Who puts the pluses?

    And what do they sell s-400 when they stated that until we rearm ourselves with others, we don’t put it, is this normal in your opinion ???
  • Gippo
    Gippo 21 November 2015 11: 45 New
    0
    They will copy the glider, their electronics are also on the level.
    With engines, trouble. Because they take them with a margin.

    In an interview with the Chinese news agency Xinhua, a prominent figure in the Chinese aviation industry, academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering Feng Pende noted that the problem of the PRC's lag in aircraft engine building remains acute - “starting with comrades from the central leadership, ending with ordinary workers of the aviation industry, citizens, Internet users - everyone pays close attention to this issue. " Feng bluntly admitted that at present, Chinese pilots do not trust domestic engines. “In the field of aircraft engine building, several types of engines have already been created, in particular, helicopter engines are operated very well, but there are domestic aircraft engines with the use of which certain questions have arisen, pilots do not really believe in them, the use of domestic engines inevitably raises doubts, and when If a foreign language is used, they are calmer about it.
  • pts-m
    pts-m 21 November 2015 12: 11 New
    +2
    In military supplies, each thinks in his own way — Chinese in Chinese, and a Russian in Russian, and you cannot close the shop, as there are other shops selling “essential goods” nearby.
  • BaLaLaykin
    BaLaLaykin 21 November 2015 14: 35 New
    0
    Quote: Petergofsky73
    Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
    So they will buy T50 with new engines, and ours will gladly sell it.

    And indeed, these $ 2 billion look frivolous, compared with 3 billion euros just donated to Ruin. In addition, the transfer to the very unexplored Chinese of their advanced technologies, used, incidentally, on the T-50. A little joy from this news, to be honest.

    Where are they donated 3 billion? Type of Ukraine will not return? So our country may not pay for gas transit during the litigation, and this is 1.5 billion. Will we lose the court? So this is also not a problem, Russia has 33 billion of debt in European bonds , lose, there will be a precedent for not returning them.
  • Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff 21 November 2015 14: 46 New
    0
    The arms trade makes a lot of money. Nobody sells technology to China.
  • BaLaLaykin
    BaLaLaykin 21 November 2015 14: 50 New
    0
    Quote: clidon
    China did win the tender, but NATO began to put pressure on Ankara threatening the impossibility of integrating Chinese systems into the Alliance’s common air defense system.

    Tell this to the Greeks who have our S-300s, but won is when the money came and the shipment of goods began
    1. clidon
      clidon 21 November 2015 14: 57 New
      +1
      No won, this is when the results were announced. Which failed on the basis of the competition.
      We didn’t sell S-300 to the Greeks, just like no tender was announced. The systems sold to Cyprus (which is not a member of NATO) has no alternative, for a completely understandable reason.
      1. BaLaLaykin
        BaLaLaykin 21 November 2015 15: 02 New
        0
        and what in the end? You never know what was announced, the result is what. You can just as well say that we bought the Mistral. I wrote about Greece in terms of integration into NATO hi
        1. clidon
          clidon 21 November 2015 16: 48 New
          +1
          In the context of the issue, we are not very interested in the final result - the Turks chose the Chinese. The fact that under absolute undisguised pressure they changed their minds is the second thing.

          The Greeks were not going to integrate the S-300 into the NATO system, they did not buy this complex at all.
  • antiexpert
    antiexpert 21 November 2015 15: 27 New
    0
    It is hardly worth worrying that the celestials use the received planes for subsequent copying.
    Now in Russia, those who deal with such issues are not fools like Nikita Khrushchev, who gave the Chinese nuclear industry. It is no secret that the most important features of any such technique depend on 2-3 small parts, which, without a doubt, will be delivered to the celestial in a truncated version.
    This is not to mention the backdoors that can be inserted into the machine, and if that - successfully use exploits, if necessary)))
  • umka_
    umka_ 21 November 2015 16: 35 New
    +2
    Oh and make these dry rustles !!!
    1. veksha50
      veksha50 21 November 2015 20: 46 New
      0
      Quote: umka_
      Oh and make these dry rustles !!!



      Um ... It looks pretty predatory ...
  • Stanislas
    Stanislas 21 November 2015 16: 39 New
    0
    Desktop wallpaper.
  • GraveBezKresta
    GraveBezKresta 21 November 2015 16: 54 New
    +1
    Already wrote, but not a sin and repeat. Betrayal at the top. And to them the fact that their children are not in the Far East and not in Siberia live.
    "Putin betrays the interests of the Slavs and arms the Chinese to the teeth, with the latest weapons. It will end in a deplorable way for us. War and millions of victims. The Chinese themselves write and talk about it openly. Go to any Chinese patriotic site, everything is written there. Vova Putin - not the prophet Moses. And because he calls the Chinese friends and partners they will not become such. The dragon is a crawling and flying reptile. And by definition, he will never become a peaceful dove, despite all the oligarchic propaganda. "
    1. Vais
      Vais 26 November 2015 07: 42 New
      0
      And to them the fact that their children are not in the Far East and not in Siberia live.

      But my children live in the Far East, as I myself and my whole family. And yet, I also consider the fables of the Chinese threat to be alarmist fictions. Your problem is that you are still in the 1970s, when on a military conscription they hammered into your head the actual for that time: "China is the enemy." It's like the veterans of the Second World War or the Cold War in Western countries still continue to consider the Germans, the Japanese and us, the Russians, as enemies. Only times have changed and it's time to understand it.
  • Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 21 November 2015 18: 15 New
    0
    Quote: Grave without Cross
    It will end badly for us. War and millionth sacrifice. The Chinese people themselves write and talk about it openly. Go to any Chinese patriotic site, everything is written there.


    Unfortunately, one cannot disagree with this. The risks are specific. Our resources would not hinder the Chinese and we ourselves do not need them for their extraction (they have enough Chinese).

    But it is likely that these apocalyptic scenarios still did not come true.

    As for the sale of the Su-35, it cannot be said that this deal would advance the Chinese so much, even if copying. This is not such a breakthrough product, and what it makes sense to copy is not easy to copy. it is tied to technology.
  • Wild_grey_wolf
    Wild_grey_wolf 22 November 2015 11: 23 New
    +1
    So they know what they are doing. After all, they even said before that they were writing a lot of subtleties in the contract, and that’s why it had been mentioned for a long time. . . then both Katay and Russia made concessions once signed. There should be a benefit for everyone.