Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[UKBengali]

f-35 was designed TO better than F-22, good going peacefull!!! to be cheaper, more tech savvy, and better capabilty in A2A combat!!! f-35 is number 1 hands down, F-22 is a failed project because it requires 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of FLIGHT....

O didn't chninese just order 121 Al-31 engines from Russia, WOW so you really think China has over taken the might russia in aircraft dev???? Su-47 berkut used to send shivers down american defence, Russia claims T-50 was supposed to comebat and be better than f-22!
SO I AM SURE RUSSIANS have a rep to consider!

As for chinese, well i just bought an iphone 4 and also picked one off from the china town a replica ... Looks pretty decent from the outside BUT ITS NOT ORGINAL and it will probably break in few day! So now you tell me china has the ability to make knockoff of iphones , so it can now make better planes than Russians and Americans???? pride .... hahahahah see what it does to one

F-35 was not designed to be "better" than the F-22. The F-22 was concieved as a purely air-superioty fighter, whereas the F-35 was meant to be a much cheaper all-rounder that could do it all. The F-35 is much less stealthy, less manuevrable and has a subsonic cruise speed. Once the F-22 avionics have been updated, it would litreally buttf*ck F-35s in any air-to-air duel. Why do you think that the US will be exporting the F-35 and not the F-22?

As for China importing AL-31s, this has been answered many times and there is a very recent thread on the topic so I suggest you spend some time reading that to educate yourself.

 

[rcrmj]

f-35 was designed TO better than F-22, good going peacefull!!! to be cheaper, more tech savvy, and better capabilty in A2A combat!!! f-35 is number 1 hands down, F-22 is a failed project because it requires 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of FLIGHT....

O didn't chninese just order 121 Al-31 engines from Russia, WOW so you really think China has over taken the might russia in aircraft dev???? Su-47 berkut used to send shivers down american defence, Russia claims T-50 was supposed to comebat and be better than f-22!
SO I AM SURE RUSSIANS have a rep to consider!

As for chinese, well i just bought an iphone 4 and also picked one off from the china town a replica ... Looks pretty decent from the outside BUT ITS NOT ORGINAL and it will probably break in few day! So now you tell me china has the ability to make knockoff of iphones , so it can now make better planes than Russians and Americans???? pride .... hahahahah see what it does to one

you make a real good laugh mate``welcome to the reality`

 

[rcrmj]

F-35 was not designed to be "better" than the F-22. The F-22 was concieved as a purely air-superioty fighter, whereas the F-35 was meant to be a much cheaper all-rounder that could do it all. The F-35 is much less stealthy, less manuevrable and has a subsonic cruise speed. Once the F-22 avionics have been updated, it would litreally buttf*ck F-35s in any air-to-air duel. Why do you think that the US will be exporting the F-35 and not the F-22?

As for China importing AL-31s, this has been answered many times and there is a very recent thread on the topic so I suggest you spend some time reading that to educate yourself.

he is just one new newbi, will get some reality spank soon`

 

[Render.Insane]

he is just one new newbi, will get some reality spank soon`

that or your can't handle the bit of reality i showed you, no matter, F-35 is being inducted with massive orders of upto 2000 planes for the U.S. NAVY< ARMY<AIRFORCE??? WHY because it made to better ECONIMICALLY, CAPABILITY wise, ALL-WEATHER, and a work horse!! BETTER as in that aspect, maybe i should of clarfied....

I am not a NEWBI, i spoke the TRUTH many times, and i got banned for it so not new

 

[Martian2]

How knowledgeable is gambit in physics anyway? I wonder if he actually understood what he's been talking about the whole time....as if he was an aerospace engineer.

Gambit knows very little about physics.

A year ago, in the thread on China's ASBM, he insisted ALL ballistic missiles descend on their targets in a vertical trajectory. I showed him a picture of U.S. Peacekeeper MIRVs in their terminal phase at different angles. He claimed it was an optical illusion. Everyone on this forum saw our debate. He's a stubborn bugger.

Incoming Peacekeeper MIRVs. According to Gambit, he claims all of the warheads are falling vertically and you're seeing an optical illusion of angles. I'm still waiting for an apology from him or at least an acknowledgement that he was dead wrong. I have received neither.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Incoming Peacekeeper MIRVs. According to Gambit, he claims all of the warheads are falling vertically and you're seeing an optical illusion of angles. I'm still waiting for an apology from him or at least an acknowledgement that he was dead wrong. I have received neither.

Two words for you:

Good Luck.

 

[gambit]

Gambit knows very little about physics.

A year ago, in the thread on China's ASBM, he insisted ALL ballistic missiles descend on their targets in a vertical trajectory. I showed him a picture of U.S. Peacekeeper MIRVs in their terminal phase at different angles. He claimed it was an optical illusion. Everyone on this forum saw our debate. He's a stubborn bugger.

Incoming Peacekeeper MIRVs. According to Gambit, he claims all of the warheads are falling vertically and you're seeing an optical illusion of angles. I'm still waiting for an apology from him or at least an acknowledgement that he was dead wrong. I have received neither.

I know it better than you. In that discussion, the word 'vertical' is never meant to be taken literally. It was meant to be perspective. Similar to navigation where someone would argue that a shortest distance between two points is a great circle while from our personal perspectives, it is a straight line. The image you posted above is taken from a wide angle aspect but for the individual targets, each will see its own warhead very much vertical. And that was the point of how an ASBM defense would see.

 

[gambit]

How knowledgeable is gambit in physics anyway? I wonder if he actually understood what he's been talking about the whole time....as if he was an aerospace engineer.

dont worry he knows, if it is out of his understanding, he'd use the phrase like 'chinese physics' or 'you defy physics' sort of funny thing

Boys...You learned more from me about the basics of radar detection and this 'stealth' thingie than ALL of you Chinese boys have contributed to the subjects. I will put my posts against your 'Chinese physics' any day.

 

[gambit]

Did he ask for deployed aircraft, or did he ask for aircraft intended to be low observable? Trying to twist his words won't save you.

Did he mention USAF in his entire post? No? Well do stop embarassing yourself.

He does not need to. When it comes to aviation, most people, including avid enthusiasts in and out of the military, are more focused on what is available to the public to see. Most people know of the F-15's many deployed variants, but very few know of the AFTI version and other more obscure modified for specific research purposes. So when he made this comment...

One thing that confuses me are the canards. Other than the J-20, I haven't seen a single aircraft intended for stealth having canards. Not even the PAK-FA has them.

I heard the Americans are now working on a 6th generation fighter

Just like most...He was not interested in experimental designs but deployed aircrafts. The question he asked is based upon what everyone know best: first are the F-117 and the B-2, then came the F-22 and F-35. None of them has canards. You, in trying to defend the J-20's canards, jumped in with a list of experimental US designs. Totally off base from what the man was curious about. The J-20, if its RCS qualify it to be 'stealth' based upon only nothing more than a general consensus of what is 'stealth', would be the first deployed 'stealth' aircraft with canards. Whatever the US had in experiments are irrelevant.

In order to learn "Chinese physics", you'd have to be at least somewhat capable of reading first. A trait you have not demonstrated.

I can read just fine and with my military experience, I can see the context better than you can. Looky here...Your ignorance and non-experience in this matter created a very low knowledge ceiling. You jumped to conclusion and smacked your head on said low ceiling. Take some time and recover.

 

[S10]

He does not need to. When it comes to aviation, most people, including avid enthusiasts in and out of the military, are more focused on what is available to the public to see. Most people know of the F-15's many deployed variants, but very few know of the AFTI version and other more obscure modified for specific research purposes. So when he made this comment...

Just like most...He was not interested in experimental designs but deployed aircrafts. The question he asked is based upon what everyone know best: first are the F-117 and the B-2, then came the F-22 and F-35. None of them has canards. You, in trying to defend the J-20's canards, jumped in with a list of experimental US designs. Totally off base from what the man was curious about. The J-20, if its RCS qualify it to be 'stealth' based upon only nothing more than a general consensus of what is 'stealth', would be the first deployed 'stealth' aircraft with canards. Whatever the US had in experiments are irrelevant.

So now you resorted to twisting his words and reinterpreting them. He clearly asked for "aircraft intended for stealth". All of the designs I've posted had low radar observability as part of their design requirements. But no, you had to lie about "he meant deployed aircraft". Notice any objection he provided? Of course not, because you made it up. On the other hand, that thank you underneath my post by him, clearly there.

Twisting other's word to cover your own @ss. That's a new low.....wait you've always been low.

I can read just fine and with my military experience, I can see the context better than you can. Looky here...Your ignorance and non-experience in this matter created a very low knowledge ceiling. You jumped to conclusion and smacked your head on said low ceiling. Take some time and recover.

The only thing you smacked is another hole your argument, more specifically, your inability to read. He asked a question in which I answered. If he had problem with that answer he would have voiced it, not providing a thanks. You jumped out like a clown, and I'm treating you like one.

Run along now with what little dignity you...wait you never had any, so just run along.

 

[S10]

Boys...You learned more from me about the basics of radar detection and this 'stealth' thingie than ALL of you Chinese boys have contributed to the subjects. I will put my posts against your 'Chinese physics' any day.

Things I've learned from you:

- Cry about butthurt from racist Chinese boys for pages on end
- Interprete others' words liberally until they suit you, even if you have to fabricate.
- Generally being an @

You sir, taught us some great lessons which I hope we never learn.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Dude calm down now. Last time I had an outburst the old J-20 thread got deleted. We don't want history to repeat do we?

 

[gambit]

So now you resorted to twisting his words and reinterpreting them. He clearly asked for "aircraft intended for stealth". All of the designs I've posted had low radar observability as part of their design requirements. But no, you had to lie about "he meant deployed aircraft". Notice any objection he provided? Of course not, because you made it up. On the other hand, that thank you underneath my post by him, clearly there.

Twisting other's word to cover your own @ss. That's a new low.....wait you've always been low.


The only thing you smacked is another hole your argument, more specifically, your inability to read. He asked a question in which I answered. If he had problem with that answer he would have voiced it, not providing a thanks. You jumped out like a clown, and I'm treating you like one.

Run along now with what little dignity you...wait you never had any, so just run along.

The man also said: 'Not even the PAK-FA has them'. The PAK-FA is not an experimental design. It may be a 'rough draft' but it is also meant for eventual deployment. It is unlikely that the Russians will install canards on the PAK-FA despite their experience with canards on other Russian aircrafts. You can find out what they are, no?

 

[gambit]

Things I've learned from you:

- Cry about butthurt from racist Chinese boys for pages on end
- Interprete others' words liberally until they suit you, even if you have to fabricate.
- Generally being an @

You sir, taught us some great lessons which I hope we never learn.

Wrong...In the beginning, when I posted my challenges, I stayed on subject and supported my arguments with credible third party sources. It has been the Chinese boys here who interpreted and/or twisted my arguments to be 'racist' and proceeded to get personal since then. If my behavior is learned, it is learned from you Chinese boys here. Sooner or later, one of you will inject race/ethnicity or IQ or something to that effect into a discussion.

 

[S10]

The man also said: 'Not even the PAK-FA has them'. The PAK-FA is not an experimental design. It may be a 'rough draft' but it is also meant for eventual deployment. It is unlikely that the Russians will install canards on the PAK-FA despite their experience with canards on other Russian aircrafts. You can find out what they are, no?

Is T-50 deployed? No, only two prototype so far. Was the term "deployed" ever used or did you invent it? Did he ask for "intended for stealth" or did you invent "already in service"?

Fess up now.