What's new

The Great Game Changer: Belt and Road Intiative (BRI; OBOR)

Ace pilots need a lot of tough training, just like Olympic champions needs tough training, China trained a lot of Olympic champions, we use the same way to train our pilots. as to Vietnam... see how they perform in the Olympics and you could get a general idea of that country's training programs.
 
Wang Hai (Chinese: 王海), (January 19, 1926- ) is a Chinese ace pilot of the 3rd Fighter Aviation Division during theKorean War (1950–1953). During the war, he shot down or damaged 9 American aircraft, with his own air group scoring 29. The MiG fighter he flew is exhibited in the Military Museum in Beijing.

Chinese air force

LOL I love cinema, too, especially nice films such as Top Gun with Tom Cruise. do you know that the US founded the Top Gun school to train US pilots after they noticed the north vietnamese pilots posed a serious threat to their US pilots in Vietnam war?


 
Absolutely. National interest triumphs over all other obligations. However, China didn't have a national interest in Korea. The communists already controlled everything down to the 38th parallel. You fought for nothing more than Mao's wish to buddy up with Stalin.
Our national interest in North Korea is beyond monetary term.

your pilots sucked. the US airforce shot down your jets like chicken.
Go learn about the Korean War, kid. LOL Here is the portion of the aerial warfare.

Aerial warfare
Further information: MiG Alley, USAF Units and Aircraft of the Korean War and Korean People's Air Force
For the initial months of the war, the P-80 Shooting Star, F9F Panther, and other jets under the UN flag dominated North Korea's prop-driven air force of Soviet Yakovlev Yak-9 and Lavochkin La-9s. The balance would shift with the arrival of the swept-wing Soviet MiG-15.[270][271]

The Chinese intervention in late October 1950 bolstered the Korean People's Air Force (KPAF) of North Korea with the MiG-15, one of the world's most advanced jet fighters.[270] The fast, heavily armed MiG outflew first-generation UN jets such as the F-80 (United States Air Force) and Gloster Meteors (Royal Australian Air Force) posing a real threat to B-29 Superfortress bombers even under fighter escort. Fearful of confronting the United States directly, the Soviet Union denied involvement of their personnel in anything other than an advisory role, but air combat quickly resulted in Soviet pilots dropping their code signals and speaking over the wireless in Russian. This known direct Soviet participation was a casus belli that the UN Command deliberately overlooked, lest the war for the Korean peninsula expand to include the Soviet Union, and potentially escalate into atomic warfare.[270]


A B-29 Superfortress bomber unloading its bombs.
The USAF countered the MiG-15 by sending over three squadrons of its most capable fighter, the F-86 Sabre. These arrived in December 1950.[272][273] The MiG was designed as a bomber interceptor. It had a very high service ceiling—50,000 feet (15,000 m) and carried very heavy weaponry: one 37 mm cannon and two 23 mm cannons. They were fast enough to dive past the fighter escort of P-80 Shooting Starsand F9F Panthers and could reach and destroy the U.S. heavy bombers. B-29 losses could not be avoided, and the Air Force was forced to switch from a daylight bombing campaign to the necessarily less accurate nighttime bombing of targets. The MiGs were countered by the F-86 Sabres. They had a ceiling of 42,000 feet (13,000 m) and were armed with six .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns, which were range adjusted by radar gunsights. If coming in at higher altitude the advantage of engaging or not went to the MiG. Once in a level flight dogfight, both swept-wing designs attained comparable maximum speeds of around 660 mph (1,100 km/h). The MiG climbed faster, but the Sabre turned and dived better.[274]

In summer and autumn 1951, the outnumbered Sabres of the USAF's 4th Fighter Interceptor Wing—only 44 at one point—continued seeking battle in MiG Alley, where the Yalu River marks the Chinese border, against Chinese and North Korean air forces capable of deploying some 500 aircraft. Following Colonel Harrison Thyng's communication with the Pentagon, the 51st Fighter-Interceptor Wing finally reinforced the beleaguered 4th Wing in December 1951; for the next year-and-a-half stretch of the war, aerial warfare continued.[275] On the ground the battle lines had stabilized by early 1951 and a static front developed, which changed little till the armistice was signed in 1953.[276]


A US Navy Sikorsky HO4S flying near the USS Sicily
UN forces held air superiority in the Korean theater from the outset, but this was challenged by the arrival of the Soviet MiGs. It was regained in 1951 and was maintained for the duration of the conflict. This was decisive for the UN: first, for attacking into the peninsular north, and second, for resisting the Chinese intervention.[264] North Korea and China also had jet-powered air forces. Their limited training and experience made it strategically untenable to lose them against the better-trained UN air forces. Thus, the United States and the Soviet Union fed matériel to the war, battling by proxy and finding themselves virtually matched, technologically, when the USAF deployed the F-86F against the MiG-15 late in 1952.

Unlike the Vietnam War, in which the Soviet Union only officially sent "advisers," in the Korean aerial war Soviet forces participated via the 64th Airborne Corps. 1,106 enemy airplanes were officially downed by the Soviet pilots, 52 of whom got ace status. The Soviet system of confirming air kills erred on the conservative side that is the pilot's words had to be corroborated and enemy aircraft falling into the sea were not counted, the number might exceed 1,106.[277][citation needed]

After the war, and to the present day, the USAF reports an F-86 Sabre kill ratio in excess of 10:1, with 792 MiG-15s and 108 other aircraft shot down by Sabres, and 78 Sabres lost to enemy fire.[278][279] The Soviet Air Force reported some 1,100 air-to-air victories and 335 MiG combat losses, while China's People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) reported 231 combat losses, mostly MiG-15s, and 168 other aircraft lost. The KPAF reported no data, but the UN Command estimates some 200 KPAF aircraft lost in the war's first stage, and 70 additional aircraft after the Chinese intervention. The USAF disputes Soviet and Chinese claims of 650 and 211 downed F-86s, respectively. However, one unconfirmed source[citation needed] claims that the U.S. Air Force has more recently cited 230 losses out of 674 F-86s deployed to Korea.[274]

The Korean War was the first war in which jet aircraft played the central role in air combat. Once-formidable fighters such as the P-51 Mustang, F4U Corsair, and Hawker Sea Fury[280]—all piston-engined, propeller-driven, and designed during World War II—relinquished their air-superiority roles to a new generation of faster, jet-powered fighters arriving in the theater.

The Korean War marked a major milestone not only for fixed-wing aircraft, but also for rotorcraft, featuring the first large-scale deployment of helicopters for medical evacuation (medevac).[281] In 1944–1945, during the Second World War, the YR-4 helicopter saw limited ambulance duty, but in Korea, where rough terrain trumped the jeep as a speedy medevac vehicle,[282] helicopters like the Sikorsky H-19 helped reduce fatal casualties to a dramatic degree when combined with complementary medical innovations such as Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals.[283] The limitations of jet aircraft for close air support highlighted the helicopter's potential in the role, leading to development of the AH-1 Cobraand other helicopter gunships used in the Vietnam War (1965–75).[281]

Notice we are weak relatively to the world power in those era. We don't produce any jet nor we have much experience consider we were in a civil war. Yet despite all odd, we manage to push back US's led UN back when we intervene. Land war: biggest winner: China, Sea: US, Air: Draw.

can you tell me how many chinese would have places in such shelters and how long could they survive on the surface after nuclear blasts?
Against a country of Vietnam, I am confident we will last longer. The Cuchi tunnel is nothing compare to the thousand of miles underground network we built. LOL
 
Wang Hai (Chinese: 王海), (January 19, 1926- ) is a Chinese ace pilot of the 3rd Fighter Aviation Division during theKorean War (1950–1953). During the war, he shot down or damaged 9 American aircraft, with his own air group scoring 29. The MiG fighter he flew is exhibited in the Military Museum in Beijing.

Chinese air force

So, u guys only can brag abt Korean war when trying to ignore how bad your pilots were in TW conflict ??
On September 22, 1958, the Sidewinder missile was used for the first time in air-to-air combat as 32 Nationalist Chinese F-86s clashed with 100 Red Chinese MiGs in a series of aerial engagements. Numerous MiGs were shot down by Sidewinders, the first "kills" to be scored by air-to-air missiles in combat.

Soon, the PRC was faced with a stalemate, the PLA's artillerymen had run out of artillery shells. The Red Chinese government announced a large decrease in bombardment levels on October 6.
Second Taiwan Strait Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to mention to 1979 conflict when PLAF dare not take any air strike to VN due to its pilots sucked :pop:
 
One Belt, One Road’ follows worldwide pattern of regional integration
By John Ross

4985a7cc-6344-4246-af59-3d509665cb25.jpeg

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

One of the key recent policies launched by China is the "One Belt, One Road" initiative announced by President Xi Jinping. As this simultaneously combines both economic and diplomatic aspects, it provides an important part of the international context for discussion at the ongoing two sessions. But the strategic importance of the "One Belt, One Road" policy should not be seen as a short-term or specific tactical policy by China.

Globalization remains the overall trend in the world economy. But it is important to be clear that it is not an even or undifferentiated international process. In particular, geographical proximity continues to play a significant role in shaping economies.

Within the overall framework of rising world trade, it is striking that the development of international division of labor has now reached a point where the "classic" sized nation state, on a scale that dominated Europe in the 19th and most of the 20th centuries, and which exists in large parts of Asia, is too small by itself to constitute a sufficiently developed economic unit.

This trend itself creates globalization. But instead of a fully "equalized" global economy being created, in which geography does not play a significant role, there is instead an emerging division into "continental scale" economic units which are replacing "national" ones.

The US was the world's first continental scale economy. The USSR was the second, ultimately failed, continental scale economy, though it remains to be seen how much of the former USSR will be reintegrated in the Eurasian Economic Union.

China is, as with the US, in political terms a nation state but also history's third continental scale economy; India is the fourth continental economy, and if it succeeds in integrating itself fully, the EU will be the fifth continental economy.

It is also clear that to gain the advantages of international division of labor, international trade, and other factors, the most successful of these "continental economies" have a tendency to integrate themselves with surrounding regions even in cases where political union is not posed.

The US has therefore created very strong economic links with Mexico and Canada, formalized in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The EU has progressively expanded from its original six-member West European nucleus to form an integrated European economic zone including 28 member states and several closely associated ones.

The willingness of smaller economies to create links with these larger "continental" scale economic hubs in turn reflects the fact that these smaller economies by themselves cannot achieve the scale of production required for the most efficient operation in a modern economy.

The "win-win" outcome is therefore that the continental-scale economic hub benefits from expanding further its scale of participation in global division of labor, while the smaller economies benefit from their increased links with a larger economy.

Isolation from such trends leaves smaller countries unable to benefit from the developing global division of labor, with negative consequences for their own growth. China has the advantage of being a "continental" scale economy, but for success even this requires economic integration with geographically surrounding economies. In turn, these smaller surrounding economies benefit from their relation with China's continental scale economy. This creates a win-win outcome even when there is no intention in Asia to follow the EU route of political integration. Equally there is no move toward political integration of Canada or Mexico with the US.

Countries in Southeast Asia similarly face important choices between the continental scale economy of China, which forms the economic center of the Asian region, and non-Asian states particularly the US. Some, such as the Philippines, currently attempt to resolve this through subordination to the US. Others, such as contemporary Indonesia, attempt to balance various trends through a "non-political" stance. Some, such as Thailand, have experienced internal differences on the issue.

China is in the fortunate political position that it faces no such choice. China's fundamental strategy for "national renewal" continues to be building up its own "continental" economy. But this, in turn, requires building mutually beneficial relations with its surrounding neighbors. It is clear from these reasons that the "One Belt, One Road" is not a short-term initiative but of major strategic significance for both China and its neighbors.

The author is a senior fellow of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China, and the former director of Economic and Business Policy of London.
 
BEIJING, March 13 -- China is confident about trade with Russia although a slump hasbeen a cause for concern in the past two months.

The decline was billed as a temporary fluctuation, not reflecting the overall trend by LingJi of China's Ministry of Commerce on Friday.

Trade between the two countries tumbled 30.6 percent year on year to 61.3 billion yuan(10 billion U.S. dollars) in January and February due to the state of the Russian economy,a depreciating ruble and changing demand in the two countries.

"Both countries are in a period of development and reform which will provide thecooperation and desire for collaboration to remain strong," Ling said. "A new stage oftrade will be brought about by favorable policies including the 'belt and road' initiatives."

Sino-Russia trade rose to a record high of 95.4 billion U.S. dollars in 2014.

China confident in trade with Russia despite slump - People's Daily Online
 
Vietnam's Balancing Act Between Its Tricky Triangle of Interests ...
1019354971.jpg

21:51 17.03.2015(updated 22:22 17.03.2015)
Andrew Korybko

The American Angle

The US was served a harsh rebuke from Vietnam after it recently demanded that Hanoi cut its military ties with Moscow.

General Vincent Brooks, the commander of the US Army in the Pacific, demanded last week that Vietnam stop allowing Russia to use its territory to send refueling aircraft over the Pacific. These planes, Brooks alleged, were helping to refuel strategic bombers that have routinely been flying over Pacific international waters. Vietnam responded by harshly criticizing the US for interfering in its internal affairs, saying that Russia was a strategic partner and that it would not halt its cooperation in the military field.

The whole episode raised eyebrows among some who weren’t aware that Russia and Vietnam were currently enjoying such close relations in the first place, as well as those who questioned what interest the US has in Vietnam in the 21st century. All of this draws attention to the larger issue just beneath the surface, which is the triangle of interests that Vietnam is balancing between the US, Russia, and China. As its leadership’s actions seem to indicate, the country’s number one foreign policy priority is to stand independently strong from China, and it’s using its relationships with Washington and Moscow to achieve this.

The US is interested in Vietnam as an anchor for its Pivot to Asia policy, and it would like to one day formally return to the Cam Ranh Bay naval facility. American ships have already called port in Vietnam in the past for repairs and friendly visits, and President Bush even visited the country in 2006 to symbolize the rejuvenation of ties ever since the Vietnam War. Showing how far relations have progressed, the US beat the EU last year to become Vietnam’s largest export market, and it aims to weave Vietnam into the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) web that it wants to build in the region. The economic vector is precisely what Washington seeks to strengthen in its ties with Hanoi in order to present itself as a more than a mere anti-China patron.

Taking matters further, the US eased arms restrictions on the country in October in order to sell it naval weaponry, and it plans to provide Vietnam with six patrol boats later this year. This development is but one way in which the US has demonstrated its strong support of Hanoi in its island disputes with Beijing. Through its deepening partnership with the US, Vietnam can work on increasingly attracting its Indian, Japanese, and perhaps even Australian allies to provide military-naval assistance in helping to beef up its forces against China. No matter the importance of the US to Vietnam’s overall anti-China strategy, however, it’s Washington than needs Hanoi more than the reverse, which was publicly demonstrated when Vietnam refused to buckle under American pressure last week.

Robust Russian Relations

Ties with Moscow have withstood the test of time, stretching as far back as the Vietnam War and developing along a full spectrum model. Military-technical cooperation is the focal point of the two countries’ relations, and Russia is the top arms supplier to Vietnam. It’s currently supplying a fleet of state-of-the-art kilo-class submarines that will lead to a surge in its naval capabilities, as well as new frigates and warships. Aside from the naval aspect, it was reported that it sold Vietnam a dozen Sukhoi fighters back in 2013.

Diversifying their relations, Vietnam and the Russian-led Eurasian Union clinched a free trade agreement back in December that should enter into force later this year. On top of that, Russia is helping to construct the planned Ninh Thuan 1 nuclear power plant, which will be the country’s first nuclear energy facility. This shows that Russia is able to be more than a simple weapons provider to Vietnam, and that it can offer the country benefits that it can’t receive elsewhere. Considering their robust relations, it’s obvious why Vietnam refused to listen to the US and halt its cooperation with Russia.

Chinese Complications

Vietnam’s relationship with China has always been complicated, largely due to the fact that both neighbors have interacted with one another for millennia and experienced long periods of rivalry and discontent. In modern history, Vietnam and China reached a stalemate in their brief 1979 war, which observers described as a relative Chinese loss. Both countries have competing claims over the Spratly and Paracel Island chains, and movement of a Chinese oil rig into the latter last summer triggered violent anti-Chinese protests in Vietnam.

Despite this drama, China is Vietnam’s single-largest overall trade partner, and the opportunity is certainly there that Beijing can integrate the country into its proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (China’s response to the TPP), if Hanoi so chooses. Either way, Vietnam must delicately balance its moves vis-à-vis China in order to avoid provoking it and risking a full-blown conflict, which in any case, would only play to the interests of the US in its ultimate policy of Chinese containment. Should the two butt heads (be it on land or at sea), then US would gleefully exploit such a situation to rush its military units into the region for a long-term stay, thereby mirroring the same thing it did in Eastern Europe as a result of the Ukrainian Crisis that it helped manufacture.

Russian bias says that US needs Vietnam more and will aid the country for its own military gain. :usflag:
 
Russian bias says that US needs Vietnam more and will aid the country for its own military gain. :usflag:

Nguyen Phu Trong, the party chef of VCP will visit Washington soon. problem for Vietnam is that how stop invasion of China in East Vietnam Sea.
 
Doing this way, you will end up with no allies. You can't really balance equally. You need to pick the right winner and bet it big on it.
 
Russia seeing 'surge' of investment from China

A slew of Chinese companies are investing in Russia, according to the CEO of Russia's sovereign wealth fund, who said it was helping to negate the void caused by international sanctions.

Speaking at the Egypt Economic Development Conference (EEDC) in the resort of Sharm El-Sheikh, Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), underlined the importance of China's relationship with Russia.

"We have a special program where we co-invest with people to localize their production in Russia, and frankly we see (a) major surge of strategies from China," he told CNBC on the sidelines of the event.

"So a little bit less European countries are coming in right now, but lots of Chinese companies are coming in in mass. So we believe that for Russia it's important to continue working with China, but also to have a strategic relationship with Europe."

Russia annexed the southern Ukrainian area of Crimea in March 2014 and, as a result, has faced tough economic sanctions from Western nations.

Kirill Dmitriev, chief executive officer of Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF).
These sanctions have hit the country's economy hard, along with a dramatic fall in the price of oil which Russia remains heavily reliant on for revenues. The international community has witnessed a pivot by Russia towards the world's second-largest economy, with several major gas deals and trade pacts between the two countries announced last year.

Dmitriev said he hoped the sanctions would ease this year, and highlighted that Europe remains an important market for Russia. But he added that he was currently working mostly with Middle Eastern nations, like the United Arab Emirates, and Asian countries like China.

The RDIF is a $10-billion fund established by the Russian government to make equity investments that are mostly concentrated in the Russian economy.

It has brought over $15 billion of foreign capital into the country through long-term strategic partnerships, according to its website.

"We mostly look for Middle Eastern and Asian investors right now, around 90 percent of the $15 billion that we raised in our joint platforms comes from Asian and the Middle East," Dmitriev said.

"But we also hope a lot to work with European investors, similarly with U.S. investors and many others, once our situation gets more stable geopolitically."
 
Russia seeing 'surge' of investment from China

A slew of Chinese companies are investing in Russia, according to the CEO of Russia's sovereign wealth fund, who said it was helping to negate the void caused by international sanctions.

Speaking at the Egypt Economic Development Conference (EEDC) in the resort of Sharm El-Sheikh, Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), underlined the importance of China's relationship with Russia.

"We have a special program where we co-invest with people to localize their production in Russia, and frankly we see (a) major surge of strategies from China," he told CNBC on the sidelines of the event.

"So a little bit less European countries are coming in right now, but lots of Chinese companies are coming in in mass. So we believe that for Russia it's important to continue working with China, but also to have a strategic relationship with Europe."

Russia annexed the southern Ukrainian area of Crimea in March 2014 and, as a result, has faced tough economic sanctions from Western nations.

Kirill Dmitriev, chief executive officer of Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF).
These sanctions have hit the country's economy hard, along with a dramatic fall in the price of oil which Russia remains heavily reliant on for revenues. The international community has witnessed a pivot by Russia towards the world's second-largest economy, with several major gas deals and trade pacts between the two countries announced last year.

Dmitriev said he hoped the sanctions would ease this year, and highlighted that Europe remains an important market for Russia. But he added that he was currently working mostly with Middle Eastern nations, like the United Arab Emirates, and Asian countries like China.

The RDIF is a $10-billion fund established by the Russian government to make equity investments that are mostly concentrated in the Russian economy.

It has brought over $15 billion of foreign capital into the country through long-term strategic partnerships, according to its website.

"We mostly look for Middle Eastern and Asian investors right now, around 90 percent of the $15 billion that we raised in our joint platforms comes from Asian and the Middle East," Dmitriev said.

"But we also hope a lot to work with European investors, similarly with U.S. investors and many others, once our situation gets more stable geopolitically."

China's HAVAL is becoming popular in Russia.

CHINA: Land Rover & Jeep rival Haval launches H9
By Glenn Brooks | 28 November 2014



great-wall-haval-h9-2014-2015.jpg
H9 on sale just days after its debut at Guangzhou show

Great Wall Motors' Haval division has begun selling the H9, the brand's largest model yet. Haval, once known as Hover, also makes China's best selling SUV, the H6.

The body-on-frame H9 is similar in size to the Toyota Land Cruiser/Prado. It has seven seats and a standard turbocharged 2.0-litre four-cylinder petrol engine and six-speed automatic gearbox. A 3.0-litre V6 and an eight-speed automatic are due to be added from the fourth quarter of 2015.

While rival domestic brand Geely had one model in the top ten selling sedans list for October, GWM's best performing car was ranked 66th. By contrast, the Haval H6 swept all before it in the SUV segments thanks to 30,373 sales last month. That was not only almost 10,000 more than the second placed Shanghai Volkswagen Tiguan (20,119), but double the sales rate of the Dongfeng Honda CR-V which ranked third (14,148).

Haval is on a roll in China, the smaller H2 SUV grabbing fifth place on the October best selling SUVs list, its 11,678 placing it 888 units behind the Chery Tiggo 3. The H5 did not fare quite so well, its total was just 3,473, giving it 41st position.

In the first ten months of 2014, 319,736 Haval SUVs were sold, a 43% year on year surge. Of that total, 253,465 units were the H6. In early 2015, GWM will be celebrating the twelfth straight year as China's most successful SUV brand.

Russia is a rising market for the brand and it will soon be launched in another country where both buyers of SUVs and local conditions can be extremely demanding.
 
There is a lot of room for growth in Russia's economy, China should prioritize investing in Russia rather than countries like United Kingdom.
 
Back
Top Bottom