J20 Stealth Fighter

[Adux]

China has an united central government since 2200 years ago, India just was a geographical name before 18xx.
If the energy crisis comes, you can't afford the administrative cost.

Central Government since 2200 years ago, lol, laughable. Learn what India is, learn about Indian empires. Wait, you need CCP approved links for that, sorry chicom. The current China never ever existed. It is a construct of evil, scheming hans. You have absloutely no idea what you are talking about. Be quiet and learn something from here, remember you are on an Indian forum. Go yearn your yuan somewhere else.

 

[Adux]

Let's pray war will never happen.

Yup, I dont want photoshop chicoms to see reality,

 

[Ray]

So what? Russia gave China a losing project, Russia shares the wining project with India, you should happy for this situation.

Happiness is a warm gun!

 

[Oracle]

Happiness is a warm gun!

But, Ray Sir I guess Beatles or Rock is not popular in China as in Japan! It's all English you see!

 

[ace009]

Yup, I dont want photoshop chicoms to see reality,

Dude - chill! You are too hyper about your "Pro-Capitalist" and Anti-Communist tirades. China is about as "commie" as Indian politicians are honest. As for capitalism - it is not all hunkey dorey as you think sitting in Kerala backwaters. I live in a very Capitalist society and it ain't all paved with gold bro - unless you work for Goldman Sachs.

 

[ace009]

China has an united central government since 2200 years ago, India just was a geographical name before 18xx.
If the energy crisis comes, you can't afford the administrative cost.

Actually, China and India have about same levels of "historical united government" - 2500-3000 years old for both. China with the Zhou dynasty and India with the Mahajanapadas.
But that is all besides the point.

 

[ace009]

Thanks for your long reply.

Economic opening is important, but not directly connect to military projects, and other factors also should be considered, you can buy advanced weapons and production lines from other counties, it's a huge advantage for force modernization, when you fetch out billions and billions dollar many advanced military counties want help you, ascribing the result to economic opening is arbitrary.

You have to admit Deng Xiaoping was a great man, after a deep research and think he predicted world war would not happen in next decades, peace and development would be the trend of the world, don't forget he got this conclusion in 1978, he was a real wise politician, the 15 years delay is not accidental, you opened in 1992 because you didn't have real politician. So, what if such wise decisions apply to military development?

China and Pakistan has no interest conflict in a long future, I know you mean the religious extremism, but the possibility is pretty low.

The reason Deng Xiaoping opened up the economy in 1978 was not so much because he had this wonderful vision about the future, no matter what you (or the CCP) may claim now. It was because after Mao's "cultural revolution", the whole chinese economy was in shambles. China had no manufacturing, no development, no banks and even the traditional farming economy had been devastated by Mao's crazy-ass ideas. China opened up to receive loans from Japan (!!), their long time enemy - it is as if Pakistan decides to open up their economy to India in 2018 (may happen who knows?)! Back then, with no internet and no newspaper/ TV other than state controlled ones, it was not that difficult for the Chinese government to control the populations mindset. As Japanese banks and companies started investing in China and the Chinese economy recovered, USA and Europe got interested, primarily to counter the Soviet influence in China. Anyway, since the 60's it had waned significantly, due to intense d**k measurements between Khruschev and Mao and by early 80's soviet influence in China was almost gone. By the time the Soviet empire fell, China was copying soviet style political control, while pursuing western style capitalism (sugar-coated with "communism").
India was still holding onto the "non-aligned" past - a legacy of the Nehru-Gandhi family beliefs. In one way India copied western political systems, while on the other hand, following a control economy like the soviets! A study in contrast - right! Anyway, in 1992, reform came to India not because of anyones vision, but just like China, because Indian economy was in deep doo-doo. It was either open up or go bankrupt for India. So, open up we did - as much as was good for the ruling elites.

Now, make no mistakes, neither in China, nor in India we have true capitalism. In both countries what we have is a more capitalistic economy than before. In true capitalism, there would be almost no organized government. No monopolies, no oligopolies. The market will be "perfect" in terms of information and have same opportunities (to make money) for everyone. As such, this does not exist anywhere - not even in the USA. And it is a good thing too -if it did exist, we would eventually see super-powerful greedy corporations raping the societies/ nature for a few dollars more profit (closest is obviously USA nowadays).
Anyway, coming back to the point. China is economically 3 times bigger than India and has twice the millitary strength because of a historic fact - their economic crisis came 15 years before India's did and their leaders chose to open up their economy 15 years before Indian's did. India has a 15 years 8% compounded GDP growth to catch up to ... guess how much that comes to? ~300% - or three times - the difference between chinese and Indian economy.

 

[cw2005]

The reason Deng Xiaoping opened up the economy in 1978 was not so much because he had this wonderful vision about the future, no matter what you (or the CCP) may claim now. It was because after Mao's "cultural revolution", the whole chinese economy was in shambles. China had no manufacturing, no development, no banks and even the traditional farming economy had been devastated by Mao's crazy-ass ideas. China opened up to receive loans from Japan (!!), their long time enemy - it is as if Pakistan decides to open up their economy to India in 2018 (may happen who knows?)! Back then, with no internet and no newspaper/ TV other than state controlled ones, it was not that difficult for the Chinese government to control the populations mindset. As Japanese banks and companies started investing in China and the Chinese economy recovered, USA and Europe got interested, primarily to counter the Soviet influence in China. Anyway, since the 60's it had waned significantly, due to intense d**k measurements between Khruschev and Mao and by early 80's soviet influence in China was almost gone. By the time the Soviet empire fell, China was copying soviet style political control, while pursuing western style capitalism (sugar-coated with "communism").
India was still holding onto the "non-aligned" past - a legacy of the Nehru-Gandhi family beliefs. In one way India copied western political systems, while on the other hand, following a control economy like the soviets! A study in contrast - right! Anyway, in 1992, reform came to India not because of anyones vision, but just like China, because Indian economy was in deep doo-doo. It was either open up or go bankrupt for India. So, open up we did - as much as was good for the ruling elites.

Now, make no mistakes, neither in China, nor in India we have true capitalism. In both countries what we have is a more capitalistic economy than before. In true capitalism, there would be almost no organized government. No monopolies, no oligopolies. The market will be "perfect" in terms of information and have same opportunities (to make money) for everyone. As such, this does not exist anywhere - not even in the USA. And it is a good thing too -if it did exist, we would eventually see super-powerful greedy corporations raping the societies/ nature for a few dollars more profit (closest is obviously USA nowadays).
Anyway, coming back to the point. China is economically 3 times bigger than India and has twice the millitary strength because of a historic fact - their economic crisis came 15 years before India's did and their leaders chose to open up their economy 15 years before Indian's did. India has a 15 years 8% compounded GDP growth to catch up to ... guess how much that comes to? ~300% - or three times - the difference between chinese and Indian economy.

I believe the most important contributors to Deng's Economical reform are overseas Chinese. The Hong Kong Chinese were the main contributors, not the Japanese. Same thing happens in India thanks to overseas Indians.

 

[LurkerBaba]

China and Pakistan has no interest conflict in a long future, I know you mean the religious extremism, but the possibility is pretty low.

Really ? Do you have any clue about Indo-Pak wars? This is what really ticks me off. You guys are completely ignorant about Indo-Pak dynamics

China has an united central government since 2200 years ago, India just was a geographical name before 18xx.
If the energy crisis comes, you can't afford the administrative cost.

It seems CCP teaches the same Churchill trash that taught in Pakistani madrasas.

btw the name 'China' was given to you by Indians

/rant

 

[badguy2000]

The reason Deng Xiaoping opened up the economy in 1978 was not so much because he had this wonderful vision about the future, no matter what you (or the CCP) may claim now. It was because after Mao's "cultural revolution", the whole chinese economy was in shambles. China had no manufacturing, no development, no banks and even the traditional farming economy had been devastated by Mao's crazy-ass ideas. China opened up to receive loans from Japan (!!), their long time enemy - it is as if Pakistan decides to open up their economy to India in 2018 (may happen who knows?)! Back then, with no internet and no newspaper/ TV other than state controlled ones, it was not that difficult for the Chinese government to control the populations mindset. As Japanese banks and companies started investing in China and the Chinese economy recovered, USA and Europe got interested, primarily to counter the Soviet influence in China. Anyway, since the 60's it had waned significantly, due to intense d**k measurements between Khruschev and Mao and by early 80's soviet influence in China was almost gone. By the time the Soviet empire fell, China was copying soviet style political control, while pursuing western style capitalism (sugar-coated with "communism").
India was still holding onto the "non-aligned" past - a legacy of the Nehru-Gandhi family beliefs. In one way India copied western political systems, while on the other hand, following a control economy like the soviets! A study in contrast - right! Anyway, in 1992, reform came to India not because of anyones vision, but just like China, because Indian economy was in deep doo-doo. It was either open up or go bankrupt for India. So, open up we did - as much as was good for the ruling elites.

Now, make no mistakes, neither in China, nor in India we have true capitalism. In both countries what we have is a more capitalistic economy than before. In true capitalism, there would be almost no organized government. No monopolies, no oligopolies. The market will be "perfect" in terms of information and have same opportunities (to make money) for everyone. As such, this does not exist anywhere - not even in the USA. And it is a good thing too -if it did exist, we would eventually see super-powerful greedy corporations raping the societies/ nature for a few dollars more profit (closest is obviously USA nowadays).
Anyway, coming back to the point. China is economically 3 times bigger than India and has twice the millitary strength because of a historic fact - their economic crisis came 15 years before India's did and their leaders chose to open up their economy 15 years before Indian's did. India has a 15 years 8% compounded GDP growth to catch up to ... guess how much that comes to? ~300% - or three times - the difference between chinese and Indian economy.

well, your veiw of CHina's economy during Mao era is basically wrong.

Duirng Mao era, China successfully set up obsolete but full industry chains.

Compared with the first world(capitalsim bloc) and second world(Soviet and east Europe), CHina's industry chains were indeed quite obsolete technically at that time.

However,China's industry chains had few missing sections already when Mao died in 1976.
In fact, China's steel production in 1976 was more than that of India in 2000. During Mao era, China already could produce all weapons by itself ,including aircraft,nuke subs,satellite and missles ,however obsolete those weapons were compared with the first and second world.

That is why CHina could produce nuke sub in 1970s while India cann't do it yet .

After Mao died, all CHina needed do were just to upgrade the obsolete but full industry chains left by Mao,instead of "start from the scratch". So, the economy achievment of China today in fact is based on the finish of the initial industrializaiton during Mao's era.

As for india, although some sections of Indian industry might be advanced quite a few sections of industry chains are still missing in India. that is why it is so hard for india to work out LCA and Arjun while CHina can work out J10,J11 and J20 so quickly.

The defference between India and CHina has nothing to do with "ethnic" "moral" or "intellectual property",but with the difference between industry base of the two counties.

 

[pmaitra]

well, your veiw of CHina's economy during Mao era is basically wrong.

Duirng Mao era, China successfully set up obsolete but full industry chains.

Compared with the first world(capitalsim bloc) and second world(Soviet and east Europe), CHina's industry chains were indeed quite obsolete technically at that time.

However,China's industry chains had few missing sections already when Mao died in 1976.
In fact, China's steel production in 1976 was more than that of India in 2000. During Mao era, China already could produce all weapons by itself ,including aircraft,nuke subs,satellite and missles ,however obsolete those weapons were compared with the first and second world.

That is why CHina could produce nuke sub in 1970s while India cann't do it yet .

After Mao died, what CHina has done were just to upgrade the obsolete but full industry chains left by Mao.

Badguy2000, while it should be a matter of pride for you, and rightfully so, that you managed to build your Type 091 Han-class nuclear powered SSN, I still don't agree with this being proof that the economy of PRC was doing great between 1970 (when the submarine was launched) and 1974 (when the submarine was commissioned).

Moreover, the submarine was rudimentary, could not fire missiles from under water, had poor radiation shielding and had a crude noisy reactor, just in case it helps buttress your claims that PRC was doing great at that time in the industrial front.

Neither does PRC producing large amounts of steel does make it an industiral power, nor does Australia producing large amounts of pitch-blende make it a nuclear power (be it in the military or civilian sense).

 

[badguy2000]

Badguy2000, while it should be a matter of pride for you, and rightfully so, that you managed to build your Type 091 Han-class nuclear powered SSN, I still don't agree with this being proof that the economy of PRC was doing great between 1970 (when the submarine was launched) and 1974 (when the submarine was commissioned).

Moreover, the submarine was rudimentary, could not fire missiles from under water, had poor radiation shielding and had a crude noisy reactor, just in case it helps buttress your claims that PRC was doing great at that time in the industrial front.

Of course, Mao's economy policy can hardly be called a "success". THe construction of full industry chains set up during Mao's era was quite inefficient , unprofitable and uneconomic,driven by huge investments.

Generally speaking, Mao's economy policy is one political achievement at high economical cost.It made CHina have independent national defence industry,but also made Chinese people live a poor life quality.

Neither does PRC porducing large amounts of steel does make it an industiral power, nor does Australia producing large amounts of pitch-blende make it a nuclear power (be it in the military or civilian sense).

Before information revolution started in 1980s,"steel production" was the key indice of industry power.
Even today, "steel production","elctric energy production" and "concrete production" are still one of most important indice to measure the industry capacity,as well as the output of autos,ships and aircrafts.

 

[pmaitra]

Before information revolution started in 1980s,"steel production" is the key indice of industry power.

Yeah, kind of. To be precise it was heavy engineering, which is quite more than merely producing steel, that was considered an index of industrial might. I am talking about the 1960s and 1970s. PRC was not known for its heavy engineering at that time, although it did setup certain workshops (like for steam locomotives) with Soviet help before the Sino-Soviet split.

 

[badguy2000]

As for india, although some sections of Indian industry might be advanced, quite a few sections of industry chains are still missing in India. Those missing section usually become the tech bottleneck to India's the indigenization of weapons .

that is why it is so hard for india to work out LCA and Arjun while CHina can work out J10,J11 and J20 so quickly.

The defference between India and CHina has nothing to do with "ethnic" "moral" or "intellectual property",but with the difference between industry base of the two counties.

 

[Ray]

Must we revisit the Great Leap Forward?


In 1958, after China's first Five-Year Plan, Mao called for "grassroots socialism" in order to accelerate his plans for turning China into a modern industrial state. In this spirit, Mao launched the Great Leap Forward, established People's Communes in the countryside, and began the mass mobilization of the people. Many communities were assigned production of a single commodity - steel. Mao vowed to increase agricultural production to twice 1957 levels and to quickly transform China into an industrialized nation.

The Great Leap was an economic failure. Industries went into turmoil because peasants were producing too much low-quality steel while other areas were neglected. Furthermore, uneducated low-income farmers were poorly equipped and ill-trained to produce steel, partially relying on backyard furnaces to achieve the production targets set by local cadres. Meanwhile, essential farm tools were melted down for steel, reducing harvest sizes. This led to a decline in the production of most goods except substandard pig iron and steel. To make matters worse, in order to avoid punishment, local authorities frequently exaggerated production numbers, thus hiding and intensifying the problem for several years. Extreme weather events like drought further worsened the production of grain.

Having not fully recovered from decades of war, the Chinese economy was again in shambles. In 1958, the party had no choice but to admit that production numbers were exaggerated. In addition, much of the steel produced was impure and useless. In the meantime, chaos in the collectives, bad weather, and exports of food necessary to secure hard currencies resulted in the Great Chinese Famine. Food was in desperate shortage, and production fell dramatically. According to various sources, the death toll during this period was at least 45 million.

The Great Leap's failure had a significant impact on Mao's prestige within the Party. In 1959, Mao resigned as the State Chairman (China's head of state), and was succeeded by Liu Shaoqi. In July 1959, senior party leaders convened at the scenic Mount Lu to discuss party policy (庐山会议), particularly the effects of the Great Leap Forward. At the conference, Marshal Peng Dehuai, then Minister of Defence, criticized Mao's policies on the Great Leap, writing that it was plagued by mismanagement and cautioned against elevating political dogma over established laws of economics.

 

[pmaitra]

As for india, although some sections of Indian industry might be advanced quite a few sections of industry chains are still missing in India. that is why it is so hard for india to work out LCA and Arjun while CHina can work out J10,J11 and J20 so quickly.

The defference between India and CHina has nothing to do with "ethnic" "moral" or "intellectual property",but with the difference between industry base of the two counties.

I think this is limited to military technology. India probably has access to all technologies that are not sensitive or classified and due to FDI, many modern technology based items are actually manufactured in India. Hence, if we are not limiting our discussion to military hardware, I don't think there is a gap in Indian industry chains.

 

[Ray]

Industrial base of China is the foreign industry collaborators and the Chinese adeptness to copy/ 'borrow' without authority technical and strategic know-how from foreign sources.

 

[badguy2000]

Must we revisit the Great Leap Forward?


In 1958, after China's first Five-Year Plan, Mao called for "grassroots socialism" in order to accelerate his plans for turning China into a modern industrial state. In this spirit, Mao launched the Great Leap Forward, established People's Communes in the countryside, and began the mass mobilization of the people. Many communities were assigned production of a single commodity - steel. Mao vowed to increase agricultural production to twice 1957 levels and to quickly transform China into an industrialized nation.

The Great Leap was an economic failure. Industries went into turmoil because peasants were producing too much low-quality steel while other areas were neglected. Furthermore, uneducated low-income farmers were poorly equipped and ill-trained to produce steel, partially relying on backyard furnaces to achieve the production targets set by local cadres. Meanwhile, essential farm tools were melted down for steel, reducing harvest sizes. This led to a decline in the production of most goods except substandard pig iron and steel. To make matters worse, in order to avoid punishment, local authorities frequently exaggerated production numbers, thus hiding and intensifying the problem for several years. Extreme weather events like drought further worsened the production of grain.

Having not fully recovered from decades of war, the Chinese economy was again in shambles. In 1958, the party had no choice but to admit that production numbers were exaggerated. In addition, much of the steel produced was impure and useless. In the meantime, chaos in the collectives, bad weather, and exports of food necessary to secure hard currencies resulted in the Great Chinese Famine. Food was in desperate shortage, and production fell dramatically. According to various sources, the death toll during this period was at least 45 million.

The Great Leap's failure had a significant impact on Mao's prestige within the Party. In 1959, Mao resigned as the State Chairman (China's head of state), and was succeeded by Liu Shaoqi. In July 1959, senior party leaders convened at the scenic Mount Lu to discuss party policy (庐山会议), particularly the effects of the Great Leap Forward. At the conference, Marshal Peng Dehuai, then Minister of Defence, criticized Mao's policies on the Great Leap, writing that it was plagued by mismanagement and cautioned against elevating political dogma over established laws of economics.

well ,nobody wants to revise "great leap" here at all.

Mao's economy policy is unsustainable and uneconomic. nobody here wants to resume it.

but Mao's economic policy is quite difference with Chinese economy during Mao era.
you obviously are confused at it.

 

[badguy2000]

Industrial base of China is the foreign industry collaborators and the Chinese adeptness to copy/ 'borrow' without authority technical and strategic know-how from foreign sources.

you know little about the industry base of CHina.....

almost all of FDI are invested on light industry such as toys,textile ,household appliance and electronics and particular heavy industry such as cars.

FDI play little role of the heavy industry in CHina,such as steel,electric generator,railway/trains ,heavy vehicles ,rocket,aircrafts-manufacturing,turbo,engine and shipbuilding...etc.

However,it are those heavy industry sections that are the backbone of one real independent global powers.
one country Without those heavy industry sections can not become the real player of global potical game.
USA, Russia , CHina and EU( as a whole) all have full heavy industry sections,so they all can support one long-term full war of attrition and are the major powers in the world.

India still has long way to reach it.

 

[pmaitra]

you know little about the industry base of CHina.....

almost all of FDI are invested on light industry such as toys,textile ,household appliance and electronics and particular heavy industry such as cars.

FDI play little role of the heavy industry in CHina,such as steel,electric generator,railway/trains ,heavy vehicles ,rocket,aircrafts-manufacturing,turbo,engine and shipbuilding...etc.

However,it are those heavy industry sections that are the backbone of one real independent global powers.
one country Without those heavy industry sections can not become the real player of global potical game.
USA, Russia , CHina and EU( as a whole) all have full heavy industry sections,so they all can support one long-term full war of attrition and are the major powers in the world.

India still has long way to reach it.

Regarding those that I highlighted (emboldened), how would you compare India with PRC w.r.t. the following?

• Locomotives
• Tractors, Earth-Movers, Bulldozers, Lorries, Dumpers, Heavy Load Carriers, Cranes
• Satellite Launch Vehicles

I'd like to know your perspective.