What's new

China's Second New Stealth Development

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Chinese economy is booming. The Chinese defense budget keeps growing by double digits every year. They are in a virtuous cycle of ever increasing resources and technological expertise.

"Virtuous cycle"?? Good god, man, do you realize how much of a propagandist bot you sound like?
 
F-35 is a piece of trash.

F-22 is not even proven in combat, just a bunch of American hype like they do to everything else.

Remember the hype around F-117, the piece of sh*t got shot down.

Remember how the American media like to portray the US military as some invisible and untouchable military, well that myth was shredded in the Korean war when we gave the US military a good spanking.

Everything in the US is all about hype and fraud just like their debt based ponzi scheme economy.
 
F-35 is a piece of trash.
Better than anything China yet produced.

F-22 is not even proven in combat, just a bunch of American hype like they do to everything else.
Have the J-20?

Remember the hype around F-117, the piece of sh*t got shot down.
One loss out of over 800 sorties. No hype there. That is reality.

Remember how the American media like to portray the US military as some invisible and untouchable military, well that myth was shredded in the Korean war when we gave the US military a good spanking.
You have to all the way back to the Korean War? What have the PLA accomplished since then?
 
Better than anything China yet produced.


Have the J-20?


One loss out of over 800 sorties. No hype there. That is reality.


You have to all the way back to the Korean War? What have the PLA accomplished since then?


I am usually not critical of other people's military. However I must note that even back at the korean war, the PLA showed remarkable disregard for its soldiers lives and essentially threw them in front of enemy guns. And that is a historical fact.
 
F-35 needs to start over

The Chinese F-60 mini-Raptor has a far superior stealth design than the F-35. This is merely a statement of fact. We will know for sure when we see the F-60 unwrapped.

To be competitive, the United States should scrap the F-35 and start with a clean larger design. The Pentagon crammed too much additional equipment for different missions into the F-35.

Instead of the original clean F-35 design, the current F-35 looks like it has cancer with warts, lumps, and bumps all over its airframe. All of these protrusions have lead to a less stealthy F-35.

The F-35 will be at a disadvantage against the F-60 in stealth, especially underside stealth.

F-22

9QCDz.jpg


F-35

gmK1I.jpg


The APA team also makes the point that the F-35 doesn't look as much like an F-22 (or the X-35) as you might think. Those two aircraft both reflected a refined version of the F-117 shape - they are basically faceted designs, although they incorporate large radius curves and the lines between facets are smoothed. But the F-35 has acquired some very conventional-airplane-shaped lumps and bumps around its underside, not to mention the hideous wart that covers the gun on the F-35A. It's enough to raise questions.

JSF News 2 - Stealth Questions Raised
 
F-35 is a piece of trash.

F-22 is not even proven in combat, just a bunch of American hype like they do to everything else.

Remember the hype around F-117, the piece of sh*t got shot down.

Remember how the American media like to portray the US military as some invisible and untouchable military, well that myth was shredded in the Korean war when we gave the US military a good spanking.

Everything in the US is all about hype and fraud just like their debt based ponzi scheme economy.
Atleast F 35 exists.........
For all we know F 60 is just a plastic model right now. You can't compare a fighter which has been developed and is in Initial production stage with one, that is in early developmental stage. As for t's stealth it is 0.01 m2 or something near it, which is perfectly fine for a stealth fighter.
South Korea exists!!!Duh........American objective achieved. And please take a look at manpower loss on both sides. I think you'll find that China suffered more. it was a phhyric victory for China and it's objectives weren't achieved either
 
Gambit. I think US and China have no real reason to be , enemies. Planet is not able to withstand such lunacy anymore. The bougey man here is China in the US perception , not the other way around.

Chinese military is not building up to take on the US because its decades behind and all develpments are aimed at replacing the obselete equipment PLA has.

F-60 will be discussed when we will see a flying prototype.
 
Gambit. I think US and China have no real reason to be , enemies. Planet is not able to withstand such lunacy anymore. The bougey man here is China in the US perception , not the other way around.

Chinese military is not building up to take on the US because its decades behind and all develpments are aimed at replacing the obselete equipment PLA has.

F-60 will be discussed when we will see a flying prototype.
Bullsh1t. To put it politely. EVERY country has a bogeyman. Real or not. Perceived or not. EVERY country has one. Ever since the collapse of the Soviets, China have been alone in Asia. She cannot count on North Korea, which is an abomination and contemptible even in Chinese eyes, and she is surrounded by hostiles, if not outright enemies. So do not tell US that China does not US as her bogeyman.
 
To Manofwar:

How F60 can compare F35, no way, F60 can only compare with great LCA, by the way, is LCA made by metal? Have LCA ever filed?
 
Gambit. Do you honestly think PLA can be a real competetion to the US military as American media prjoects it in the short term?
 
To Manofwar:

How F60 can compare F35, no way, F60 can only compare with great LCA, by the way, is LCA made by metal? Have LCA ever filed?
Why are you bringing LCA unnecesarily into discussion?? This thread has no relevance to it. My countries defence projects do not reflect the level of knowledge I have about other countries projects.
In short- Bad troll attempt failed. Target not provoked:)
 
Do you really think that by posting that it make your criticisms against the F-35 any better? Not.

Let us see...

The Air Power Australia team have produced an unprecedented report which asserts that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is much less stealthy than the F-22 - and in fact is comparable in radar cross-section (RCS), under some circumstances, to a conventional fighter in clean condition.
Big fracking deal. A clean fighter is next to worthless and am sure Sweetman realize that. But a clean F-35 is NOT an unarmed attacker when in fact with its avionics the few munitions that it carries make it a deadly precision attacker. The F-117 have no radar and can carry only two bombs.

The APA analysis will no doubt be countered by the JSF team in several ways. They'll argue that the APA team has an agenda. They will argue that the analysis is too crude to reflect reality; that anything it does show is not operationally relevant; and that the true picture is much more complex and (of course) secret.

The APA team does have an open agenda (as does the JSF team) but that does not mean that their data is bad.
Yes, it does, Monsieur Sweetman. APA used only Physical Optics for the J-20, in which they had to acknowledged that it was woefully inadequate when they listed the 'does not' measure as longer than the 'does' measure. In effect, APA simulated measurement took into consideration at best 1/4 of the total radiation sources that as complex a body as an aircraft WILL produce. Three blind men and an elephant? But why not do the same for the F-35?

On the other hand, the APA analysis is a lot more detailed than the cartoon representations in Lockheed Martin briefings. And more realistic than the claims of total invisibility made on JSF's behalf.
Senor Sweetman. APA's so called 'analysis' is just a better set of cartoons. And no...No one ever claimed that the American 'stealth' fighters are 'invisible'. That word is admittedly casually used for the general public, but for an aviation author like yourself to say that is what the engineers at LM and the USAF actually believe is beyond belief in itself.

The APA team also makes the point that the F-35 doesn't look as much like an F-22 (or the X-35) as you might think. Those two aircraft both reflected a refined version of the F-117 shape - they are basically faceted designs, although they incorporate large radius curves and the lines between facets are smoothed. But the F-35 has acquired some very conventional-airplane-shaped lumps and bumps around its underside, not to mention the hideous wart that covers the gun on the F-35A. It's enough to raise questions.
Mr. Sweetman, raise what questions? The F-35 is not the F-22. Just like the B-25 Mitchell was not the B-17 Flying Fortress, even though both are bombers. As long as those 'lumps and bumps' and that 'hideous wart' does not raise the aircraft above a certain threshold, why should aesthetics matter?

Of course, it's possible to argue that the F-35 meets its stealth requirements (which may or not be the same for all F-35s), and that it will be stealthy enough to survive - combined with situational awareness and tactics.
Herr Sweetman, we have learned much from the F-117. In fact, we have learned that we may have gone overboard in 'stealth' as far as the F-117 goes with its extremely limited capabilities, in technology and weapons. It is understandable in that the F-117 was the world's FIRST complex body that was DELIBERATELY designed to be low radar observable from prediction/modeling processes. The F-35 is the result of what we learned from the F-117, the B-2 and the F-22.

Gambit. Do you honestly think PLA can be a real competetion to the US military as American media prjoects it in the short term?
No. But that is not the point. China is not (yet) a credible threat to US but has breach that credibility line for our allies in Asia. Like it or not, the first place to hit any adversary that is either a peer to yourself or a superior is at his peripheral.
 
That is called the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. Look it up.

It's called: you're not telling Bill Sweetman anything he doesn't already know.

Many of his articles are written for mass consumption by the average reader that may or may not be aviation experts.

However, Bill Sweetman would own you hard in a face to face conversation.:lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom