Doesn’t mean much given that the PLAAF pilots would also be forbidden from pushing their planes to the limit for the same reasons. If anything, the Chinese military has a lot more to lose intelligence wise.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J-10 Thread IV
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Doesn’t mean much given that the PLAAF pilots would also be forbidden from pushing their planes to the limit for the same reasons. If anything, the Chinese military has a lot more to lose intelligence wise.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Hey I am not the one who wrote that post. If anything, I don't see what both sides have to lose much, both fighters aren't exactly the best that their respective producers have to offer.Doesn’t mean much given that the PLAAF pilots would also be forbidden from pushing their planes to the limit for the same reasons. If anything, the Chinese military has a lot more to lose intelligence wise.
Hey I am not the one who wrote that post. If anything, I don't see what both sides have to lose much, both fighters aren't exactly the best that their respective producers have to offer.
tbf it's kind of implied in the post that both sides wouldn't take it very seriously.
Both fighters might not be best, but I think PLAAF training methods and tactics (especially using a plane that makes up a large part of the air force) is dangerous knowledge.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Don't see what we are missing here, Thailand may be using NATO equipment but they certainly are not part of any military alliance associated with NATO. In fact they use multiple weaponry from different countries, Ukraine, China included. As such they are certainly not privy to any military info sharing between NATO members.Thailand... Gripen... Nato... . I think I'm missing something very crucial here.
Don't see what we are missing here, Thailand may be using NATO equipment but they certainly are not part of any military alliance associated with NATO. In fact they use multiple weaponry from different countries, Ukraine, China included. As such they are certainly not privy to any military info sharing between NATO members.
Sweden is a block free state.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Thailand also uses the F-16 which is from the US which is a NATO member. Also Sweden is a member of the Partnership for Peace program of NATO. Which while not making them full members facilitates military to military ties and relations with the block.Sweden is a block free state.
Thailand also uses the F-16 which is from the US which is a NATO member. Also Sweden is a member of the Partnership for Peace program of NATO. Which while not making them full members facilitates military to military ties and relations with the block.
Instead of trying to move around. That Chinese text should be read as most Chinese insider stuff - as baseless speculation.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Like what posted before, I am not the one that wrote that post. The exact details of what transpires between the two side during the training exercise is anyone's guess, but it is a safe bet to say that 2 singular exercise does not translate into an immediate level of trust wherein both sides are willing to divulge military info.Instead of trying to move around. That Chinese text should be read as most Chinese insider stuff - as baseless speculation.
Like what posted before, I am not the one that wrote that post. The exact details of what transpires between the two side during the training exercise is anyone's guess, but it is a safe bet to say that 2 singular exercise does not translate into an immediate level of trust wherein both sides are willing to divulge military info.
Such excercises are never about competing against each other in a way to determine who is the better pilot or who has the better plane. The fact that the J-10A can't compete with western fighters of the same time frame is also a no brainer.