A KFC is a KFC, a burger is a burger, testing stage or not.
Ahhh...But a burger man should not criticize the chicken man. He may criticize on the restaurant layout or the prices, but not how to cook the birds.
Don't " "that expert. I am sure he is more knowledged than you are in the field.
This is called the 'appeal to authority' argument fallacy. Look it up.
How could possiblely you criticise other people such as that aviation expert's opinion on F35 or F111 when youself could build neither of them?
Again, if you can't built it yourself, shut up! You have no qualification to criticise others.
What is Chen's experience? So far we have some info that he is editor-in-chief of the state owned World Military Affairs magazine, which pretty much exposed that 'Q&A interview' piece as a sham. Not only that...It is funny that Chen would mention the F-111 as 'useless', because it failed to meet all of the services' requirements, but then the F-4 and its successful integration into the USAF and USN, which included the US Marines Phantoms, pretty much rendered his criticism of the current JSF program truly useless. The F-111 was actually one of the major weapons system the Soviets wanted US to remove from its UK basing. Let me put it shorter for you: The F-4 Phantom was an accidental JSF-like success that invalidated Chen's criticisms of the current JSF program. Not only was the F-4 a great success at providing the USAF and the USN with a common platform, the F-4 was also flown by other countries and it met their needs as well. So does anyone need to have aircraft manufacturing experience to criticize Chen's criticism? No, because history does it well enough and now the military aviation world can see the eggs on Chen's face. More like Chen is an 'expert' on Chinese military aviation's shortcomings and with this joke of an 'analysis' he is trying to cover those weaknesses up.
So here is a
to eggs and the F-4. Let us begin...
Chinese expert says F-35 fighter has become an expensive toy|China Military Power Mashup
Chen: In 1996, it was a big surprise when the US Air Force introduced the concept of a joint strike fighter.
Wrong, Mr. Chen. The USAF did not originated the JSF program and is not trying to cram it down anyone's throat. The JSF program was a DoD/Pentagon initiative.
The aim of the JSF program was to try to combine three types of fighter aircraft: conventional aircraft for the Air Force, the catapulted ship-borne aircraft for the Navy, and vertical take-off-and-landing aircraft for the Navy Marine Corps.
At the same time, the JSF program planned to produce different models from the same assembly line, and to standardize most parts across all models. The JSF was intended to be a stealth fighter with the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds. It was intended to be reliable enough for different missions in land, sea and air conflict.
Very good, sir, Mr. Chen. At least now we know you understand general brochures.
Chen: The problems exist in all these aspects. The final reason is that one piece of hardware has been required to perform so many tasks, but the requirements from the air force, navy and marine corps are different.
But Mr. Chen, the F-4 seemed to be quite successful at meeting those diverse requirements. Granted, there were no dedicated program for the F-4 to be as successful as it was and when there was a program, it failed to meet those diverse requirements: the F-111. So the issue here is not the R/D problems as you posit but about creating a platform that can balance out those diverse requirements. The F-111 failed because it was a top-down enforced effort. The F-4 succeeded because, even though accidental, the aircraft somehow managed to perform better than good at the services' common criteria and we found out from the bottoms up.
Under this united criteria, four major indicators were set for the fourth-generation fighter aircraft.
It needed to be stealthy, fly at supersonic speeds, have advanced electronic systems and have a good capability to maneuver in the air.
Wrong, Mr. Chen. What you laid out was the platform's basic performance. Any modifications asked for by the individual services must not violate or severely compromise those basic performance criteria. The reason why the F-111 failed because back then, the mistake was there were no overriding performance criteria. Each of the services wanted their requirements to be supreme. The F-4 accidentally made all those requirements subordinate because the F-4 was already in production and when the USAF examined the aircraft it found the aircraft to meet its expections very well. Same for the USN and the USMC. Today we have the F16 replacing the F-4.
The military strategy of the US is an offensive one, which requires their weapons to be equipped to a high standard. They attempt to overwhelm others in military actions.
Make you nervous, eh?
The original idea of their fourth-generation fighters is to have an aircraft capable of beating any other contender. They put too heavy a burden on it, so the final product has become an oversized monstrosity capable of doing nothing.
Really, Mr. Chen. Do not impose China's inexperience and inferior technical capabilities upon US.
If Mr. Chen could remove the state imposed ideological blinders and speak his mind freely without fear of retribution, he would have mentioned the fact that the USAF is now most well known for two platforms: the F-15 and the F-16, as the main power projectors. In the 'old days' we had the F-102, F-106, F-104, F-4, F-5, A-7, A-4 and many others. The USN air wings are moving towards having only the F-18 Super Hornet for its aircraft carriers to replace the F-14, A-6, F-4, legacy F-18. In other words, the F-18 is the USN's mini JSF program. He might have stated that despite the F-35's per unit cost, it would have made better economic sense than to keep all those other platforms and their associated support costs. He might have pointed out an example like that the cost of the F-35's external gun pod is far less costly to manufacture and maintain than the gun systems, plural, on several other aircrafts that an aircraft carrier must carry with it on deployments.
Here is just one of the many economic factors that initiated the JSF program...
Total Ownership Cost Focus Area, Naval S&T Strategic Plan - Office of Naval Research
To implement this vision, we will attack the three main cost drivers comprising total ownership cost for the Navy and Marine Corps -- acquisition of platforms and systems, maintenance and life-cycle, and manpower. The cost component of affordability will be reduced by addressing platform manufacturing cost drivers and reducing manpower and material costs associated with operations and maintenance of platforms and systems. The performance component of affordability will be increased by expanding the operating envelope and reliability of systems and components. The availability component of affordability will be improved by increasing service life and reducing man-hours required for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.
Now substitute all those 'strike' and 'surveillance' platforms with just one: F-18E/F. Now substitute in with the F-35 with its superior avionics and very low radar reflectivity across all three services: USAF, USN and USMC.
If Mr. Chen was
ALLOWED by the state to be intellectually honest, he could have pointed out this source...
Carrier air wing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...Where it shows the progressive
DECLINE in an aircraft carrier's aircraft composition. Heavens forbid...He could have advised the PLAAF to do the same: reduce overall costs by reducing diversity by concentrating on a common platform and praise the F-35 for being that platform despite its per unit cost. But hey...Since when is a communist an honest person? But then if he was
ALLOWED to be honest, why should he remain a communist anyway?
Is 5th gen> 4th> 3th>2th>1th?
yes or no?
Yes!
Is F-111 4th gen or 5th gen? Yes or no?
NO!
So China's general capability on warplanes is > building F-111.
More like less than the F-111.
In my analogies, why people want to buy books, music records, or visit museum, etc??
They want to enjoy them , or appreaciate them in other words; if they fail to appreciate them, they are criticising them implicitly, right? No other options left.
So since almost all normal Joes even professional critics themselvesd o not and can not make a crap of music, painting, or writing a book in the catagory of stuffs on display , how could they appreciate or criticise the works? They should ALL shut up as far as your own logic goes, including yourself, you still follow?
To go further along the line of your absurd logic, all judges will have no qualifications in all courtrooms, since do they know how to kill a man? have they actually murdered a man themselves? If they don't have such an experience, they should have no say in criticising the criminals in courts and should all shut up, right?
Utterly absurd. If you want to learn how to kill, then join the military or the criminal element of society. But if you want to opine if a killing is acceptable or not, then it is irrelevant if you know how to kill. How to do something and the effects of that act on other things are separate issues. You and I are more than qualified to judge if a killing is acceptable or not. For example, if a policeman killed an armed and drug crazed man who was approaching a school, neither you nor I need to have any knowledge of weapons and killing techniques to know that the armed and drug crazed man is menace to children and therefore, our criticism or opinion of the policeman's action would be positive.
Now I'm done with you bull***.
No...The only who are spewing out BS here are Mr. Chen and you. The F-35 will be like the F-16, except with a very low radar observable signature. If there is a shooting match between US and China, the F-22 will remove the sky of any air opposition and leave the F-35 and legacy 'non-stealth' aircrafts to support the ground objectives. When that happens, Mr. Chen will eat this joke of an 'analysis' for dinner.
what "intention still the same"?? 
) ; 
i think the publisher of the artical has no right to critisize something he knows nothing about, the F-35 may be costly but in no way is it less capable, this logic also applies to the pak-fa and the J-10, not much can be said about either one because not much is know about either one and, of course, the same holds true for the F-35.
