What's new

Chinese expert says F-35 fighter has become an expensive toy

A false analogy, as almost no Chinese would shut you up in that scenario, except perhaps " a big load of BS ".
They cannot, of course. But the intention is still the same, that if you do not know what you are talking about: shut up. :toast_sign:

Again, double false analogies here !

<snipped>
Not worth trying to explain -- again -- the proper context of 'shut up' here.

2. Even assuming that Chinese don't have capability to build F35 at the moment, it doesn't equate to their lack of understanding of performance of F35 , and even lack of knowledge of how F35 should perform to justify its price tag, etc. It's same as saying that if you don't know the exact recipe to cook a KFC, you should not criticise ( or in your words, Shut Up) the taste, texture of the chicken in relation to its price.
Understanding the performance is the same as eating the meal but not knowing the recipe. Plenty of air show attendees knows well enough the performance level of the aircrafts displayed but they know next to nothing about their constructs and how to fly them. So they should keep their mouths shut about how to design and fly aircrafts.:toast_sign:

BTW, gambit, when I was stationed at Yangzi Delta fighting the Chinese Cilvil War at 1946, your papa probably wasn't even born yet. :smokin:
Good for you. How does this translate to aviation, an area I may have some knowledge about?
 
.
They cannot, of course. But the intention is still the same, that if you do not know what you are talking about: shut up.

:undecided: what "intention still the same"?? :toast_sign:


Not worth trying to explain -- again -- the proper context of 'shut up' here.


Understanding the performance is the same as eating the meal but not knowing the recipe.

Exactly. So?

One doesn't need to knowing the recipe to able to criticise the performance. That's the whole point why it's ok for aviation experts to critise F35 without knowing how to build all the details themselves.

Do you know how to build F35, gambit? If no, in your own logic, should you shut up and quit bullshiting in this forum?

:toast_sign:



Plenty of air show attendees knows well enough the performance level of the aircrafts displayed but they know next to nothing about their constructs and how to fly them. So they should keep their mouths shut about how to design and fly aircrafts.

You cunningly switched the topic here. The point in discussion is that "if someone doesn't know how to build a F35, should shut up or not to critise its performance?" Not "if someone doesn't know how to desing and fly, should shut up".

According to you, he should shut up, especially when he comes from a communist country. ( Does it include yourself too? since either USA or Vietnam is more communist than PRC today :lol: ) ;

According to many others here and I, he could rightly critise it and make his point sound when he is an expert.

According to your pathetic logic, all the movie/book/art critics should be fired, for example, because no one knows how to paint like a Piccaso? so they should shut up and all the museums should beclosed and ban tourists since there is no point for anyone to say or express anything, positive or negative...?


That's how moronic what you have suggested. Nuts!

:toast_sign:



Good for you. How does this translate to aviation, an area I may have some knowledge about?

Thank you, but having some knowledge is just NOT enough!

If you don't know how to build all the details of an aircraft yourself, as you really don't know in fact, you'd better just shut up to critise others (in your own logic), right ? :lol: :toast_sign:
 
Last edited:
.
Exactly. So?

One doesn't need to knowing the recipe to able to criticise the performance. That's the whole point why it's ok for aviation experts to critise F35 without knowing how to build all the details themselves.
That is funny considering the F-35 is still in the flight test stage, so how can this 'expert' criticize any performance?

Do you know how to build F35, gambit? If no, in your own logic, should you shut up and quit bullshiting in this forum?
No I do not. But when I do criticize an aircraft, I usually do it in an area I know something about, such as sensor-guidance and flight controls. They are subsystems. I can criticize by comparing a hydro-mechanical FLCS versus a FBW one. I can criticize by comparing radar performance between aircrafts. This 'expert' called the F-111 useless when even the Soviets made the aircraft part of their arms negotiations during the Cold War.

You cunningly switched the topic here. The point in discussion is that "if someone doesn't know how to build a F35, should shut up or not to critise its performance?" Not "if someone doesn't know how to desing and fly, should shut up".
My point here is that if you are going to criticize, do it from a sound foundation. When you, meaning China, cannot even build an F-111 equivalent and call it 'useless', then for those who have relevant experience in aviation in general and with the F-111 in particular, we can call this criticism on the carpet and effectively ask the critic to 'shut up' or 'put up'. And if the critic, meaning China, cannot 'put up' then may be China should 'shut up'.

According to you, he should shut up, especially when he comes from a communist country. ( Does it include yourself too? since either USA or Vietnam is more communist than PRC today :lol: ) ;
Yeah...Sure...This is so absurd only a communist could delude himself into believing it...:rolleyes:

According to many others here and I, he could rightly critise it and make his point sound when he is an expert.
And do it from a sound foundation. Not when China cannot even build an F-111 equivalent but still call it 'useless'.

According to your pathetic logic, all the movie/book/art critics should be fired, for example, because no one knows how to paint like a Piccaso?
May be they should be so dismissed.

so they should shut up and all the museums should beclosed and ban tourists since there is no point for anyone to say or express anything, positive or negative...?
Nonsense...Museums and bookstores are for display and purchase. People can buy the arts and books and criticize it to their hearts' contents. The issue here is from what basis are they doing it. Museums closed and ban tourists? What is this attraction communists have for such drastic measures?
 
.
That is funny considering the F-35 is still in the flight test stage, so how can this 'expert' criticize any performance?

A KFC is a KFC, a burger is a burger, testing stage or not.

Don't " "that expert. I am sure he is more knowledged than you are in the field.

No I do not. But when I do criticize an aircraft, I usually do it in an area I know something about, such as sensor-guidance and flight controls.

No you don't? So shut up, all right? not but....

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? :toast_sign:


They are subsystems. I can criticize by comparing a hydro-mechanical FLCS versus a FBW one. I can criticize by comparing radar performance between aircrafts. This 'expert' called the F-111 useless when even the Soviets made the aircraft part of their arms negotiations during the Cold War.

Again, if you can't built it yourself, shut up! You have no qualification to criticise others.

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.

That's why that expert has qualification to criticise it, while you not, not even close. If you ask him to shut up, maybe you should shut up first, not other way around. :toast_sign:



My point here is that if you are going to criticize, do it from a sound foundation. ....

from a sound foundation now? what foundation you have, compared to that expert?



Yeah...Sure...This is so absurd only a communist could delude himself into believing it...:rolleyes:

yeah right, are you rolling your eyes to Obama or Vietcom? :partay:



And do it from a sound foundation. Not when China cannot even build an F-111 equivalent but still call it 'useless'.

Again with this twisted logic. :lol: Is F-111 4th gen or 5th gen? How do you know China can't build F-111?

Nonsense...Museums and bookstores are for display and purchase. People can buy the arts and books and criticize it to their hearts' contents. The issue here is from what basis are they doing it. Museums closed and ban tourists? What is this attraction communists have for such drastic measures?

Crap!


I'll repeat one last time for slow learners such as you:

Those actions are following your original bullock logic that "if one can not build/make it himself, he should shut up".

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? :lol:

Now I'm done with you bull***.
 
.
As much as i love reading about KFC, museums, and shuting up :D 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.
 
.
< i think the publisher of the artical has no right to critisize something he knows nothing about>

What's this bullshit about no right to criticize?

F-22 a much capable plane than F-35 was cancelled because of the cost.

Not only the Chinese expert says F-35 fighter has become an expensive toy but the Congress, the Pentagon, and the Secretary of Defense say the same thing. So, it's possible that F-35 might be cancelled also.
 
.
< i think the publisher of the artical has no right to critisize something he knows nothing about>

What's this bullshit about no right to criticize?

F-22 a much capable plane than F-35 was cancelled because of the cost.

Not only the Chinese expert says F-35 fighter has become an expensive toy but the Congress, the Pentagon, and the Secretary of Defense say the same thing. So, it's possible that F-35 might be cancelled also.

I have two answers to your question, but i will first start with cost. The author states that the F-35 could cost up words of $120 million, with its impessive avionics such as DAS, VSTOL, F-135 engines and a low RCS is that really unreasonable when you compare it to such aircraft as the Typhoon?

The author also bashed the F-35, just in case you missed it here is the quote:

the final product has become an oversized monstrosity capable of doing nothing.

I still stand by my statement, that the author has no right critisize something he knows nothing about, calling the F-35 "oversized" and "capable of doing nothing" really proves he doesn't know what he is talking about.
 
.
<I still stand by my statement, that the author has no right critisize something he knows nothing about, calling the F-35 "oversized" and "capable of doing nothing" really proves he doesn't know what he is talking about.>

I don't think you understand the meaning of <the final product has become an oversized monstrosity capable of doing nothing.>

<I have two answers to your question, but i will first start with cost. The author states that the F-35 could cost up words of $120 million>

The cost of F-35 varies on who you believe but one thing for sure it's exorbitantly over priced (where is the ******* GAO on this?).
 
. .
<ohh ya now skip the F-35 and buy the J-10, what a joke thread.>

How did you come up with this conclusion? No, you should buy SU-30MKI (Indian members seem to rave about this plane so much).

Why J-10? It's obsolete technology.
 
.
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 :toast_sign: 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.

usn_rtoc.jpg


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.
 
.
I say sorry at the first,my English is poor.
In my own view that F35 isn't a toy ,it is a very advanced jet. At the same time, I believe that J10 isn't a toy too,though it isn't advanced as F35,but it is cheaper. The most advanced aircraft suit the developed country,such as USA.The other aircrafts such as J10,JF17,Mig21 and so on suit the developing countrys. In the standpoint of American,JF17 may be the "fly target",but in the viewpoint of developing countrys, F35 may be "expensive toy".
 
.
Back
Top Bottom