Usa Pilot critical of Chinease J31 & J15 fighters

[Genesis]

And you really think you can beat a professional F1 racer it we plop you into such a car?

Pilots do not 'see' each other? How do you define 'see'? With your own eyes? If so, then you are as ignorant about the use of technology as I thought. Radar 'sees', just in a different mode. So do IR sensors. Even for the visually impaired, meaning those who cannot see with their eyes, their sense of touch allows them to 'see' in their own ways and interpretations of the objects they touched.

So when you add all these enhancements to the ability of the human pilot to expand his knowledge of the immediate combat situation, the superior training and institutional memory from his ancestors will increase his odds of survival. Look at the army sniper for example. For all his ability and tool (rifle) to kill an opponent at distances far beyond his natural reach, the institutional memory from his ancestors about concealment and stealthy movements are still applicable.

You really do not know what you are talking about. But I do encourage the PLA to recruit more and more like you who have contempt for what came before them.

You are right, I'm not a fighter pilot nor am I in the industry, but with the modern advances, information systems are taking a more and more center role. Cars these days have so much that aids in driving itself that they practically could.

BTW the comparison isn't me and F1, it's professional against professional.

Any program I design should function the same and be the same effectiveness regardless of who uses it, a person with a lot of experience should only be able to do it faster not better.

By not seeing I mean the radars are doing the seeing, if things appear on a radar and missiles can track a fighter, then what does a human matter into the equation? Maybe evasive maneuver, but that can be practiced by anyone for we got the same quality of missiles available to us. Even then I think the computer should handle evasive maneuver for it can react infinitely faster than a person.

With the range of radars and missiles, a battle should be over before pilots see the planes physically.

If that were the case, it's technology against technology not people against people.

But then again you are the expert here not me, regarding actual aerial combat. I'm just putting what I think should if we want the same result from a air force year in and year out.

 

[gambit]

I think you have gone overboard this time.

What you think a J-20 is lacking that it cant win against F-16?
If you agrees that a J-20 will see F-16 first, then do you think the chinese A2A missiles are not at par/can be evaded by F-16 EW suite?
Or you think J-20 is not at all a VLO design viz a viz F-16 and hence wont give an edge?

In a pure BVR, I dont think man behind machine puts so much of difference. Please suggest if otherwise.

First...We are talking about pilot vs pilot.

Second...We are not talking about putting a WW II era pilot into an F-16.

The J-20 have been discussed plenty here and readers know that unless the Chinese members here are challenged, they would have ran away with the J-20's capabilities. The really amusing thing is that I put the stop to their nonsense, not by revealing anything 'top secret' about US military aviation, but by explaining the basic foundations of anything technical in aviation.

Here are a couple of examples...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction | Page 3

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction | Page 3

Not one -- NOT ONE -- from the Chinese crowd, and their suck-ups, contributed to the understanding of aviation in general, let alone military aviation in particular. Truly objective readers will take those principles and applies them against all aircrafts from all countries and against all claims and THAT is what the Chinese crowd is afraid of.

Avionics wise, and let us take flight controls for example. Did the J-20 contributed anything new? The F-16 was the pioneer in wide scale production of the now take for granted 'fly by wire' flight controls system (FLCS). Voting quadruple channels, was that a Chinese innovation? Did the Chinese even made any improvement to the basic architecture of the concept, the one that was adopted and adapted by aircraft manufacturers the world over? Did the Chinese made any innovation to the HUD? Sorry, but enlarging the glass pane does not qualify. Did the Chinese developed HOTAS and applied the concept into the J-20?

The difference between the J-20 and the F-16 is purely external with the insinuation that the J-20's shaping will insert it into the clutter region, or the 'stealth' threshold, and we have not one shred of credible evidence in that front, not even anecdotal. If we are to go by visuals alone, the F-117 would not qualify as 'stealth'. But the -117 proved itself in combat. What have the J-20 proved? That China can smooth out the rough edges of the MIG 1.44 and call the new body 'stealthy'?

The issue is not so much what the J-20 lack but what the PLAAF does not have -- well trained and/or experience combat pilots. The PLAAF may have well trained pilots but do their training measured up to American standards? Like it or not, putting 'US-trained' on one's resume in applying for a pilot slot will raise one's odds of getting hired. And if the applicant is an American himself...

Chinese Airlines Lure Pilots With Double the Pay of U.S. Captains - WSJ.com

HONG KONG—China is snapping up the world's supply of senior pilots, contributing to a global shortage and creating headwinds for Asia's fast-expanding airlines.

Chinese airlines are wooing experienced foreign pilots by upping the pay for captains. Some carriers are advertising annual salaries and benefits of up to $270,000, or roughly double the average wage of a U.S. airline captain.

Today, nearly all Chinese airlines employ foreign crews. Americans represent the largest proportion.

Not all US fighter pilots are combat experienced, but enough of ours are while the PLAAF have none, and given no technical differences between the J-20 and the F-16, the claim of 'stealth' notwithstanding for the J-20, a PLAAF pilot will need an enormous amount of luck to beat a Top Gun or Red Flag graduate.

Let us all bow down to the unbeatable US.

Do not forget to bend at least one knee when you bow.

 

[gambit]

You are right, I'm not a fighter pilot nor am I in the industry, but with the modern advances, information systems are taking a more and more center role. Cars these days have so much that aids in driving itself that they practically could.

BTW the comparison isn't me and F1, it's professional against professional.

Any program I design should function the same and be the same effectiveness regardless of who uses it, a person with a lot of experience should only be able to do it faster not better.

By not seeing I mean the radars are doing the seeing, if things appear on a radar and missiles can track a fighter, then what does a human matter into the equation? Maybe evasive maneuver, but that can be practiced by anyone for we got the same quality of missiles available to us. Even then I think the computer should handle evasive maneuver for it can react infinitely faster than a person.

With the range of radars and missiles, a battle should be over before pilots see the planes physically.

If that were the case, it's technology against technology not people against people.

But then again you are the expert here not me, regarding actual aerial combat. I'm just putting what I think should if we want the same result from a air force year in and year out.

Do you know what is a 'decision matrix'? Facing a choice between A and B, any computer would respond faster than any human. So when will China be able to program a computer with the ability to create and execute complex decision matrixes like a human being can, complex decision matrixes that involves intuition or even 'gut feelings' about an adversary fighter under maneuvers? The fact that you use a computer program analogy tells me that you ventured beyond whatever technical education you may have. Yes, it is true that any program will perform exactly the same over and over. But it is not true that any program will be used appropriately and efficiently as member of a greater program. Appropriately and efficiently does not mean the program, which is most likely used as a subroutine inside a larger program, will execute any faster. It may be called upon sooner, which is not the same as working faster.

Regarding your comments about radar. When we talk about the pilot 'see' his opponent, we are talking about the enhancement to his ability to detect his opponent outside of the visual range, so no, the radar does not 'see' in this context. It is still the pilot who 'sees' his opponent.

I do hope the PLA hire more and more people like you.

 

[Genesis]

Do you know what is a 'decision matrix'? Facing a choice between A and B, any computer would respond faster than any human. So when will China be able to program a computer with the ability to create and execute complex decision matrixes like a human being can, complex decision matrixes that involves intuition or even 'gut feelings' about an adversary fighter under maneuvers? The fact that you use a computer program analogy tells me that you ventured beyond whatever technical education you may have. Yes, it is true that any program will perform exactly the same over and over. But it is not true that any program will be used appropriately and efficiently as member of a greater program. Appropriately and efficiently does not mean the program, which is most likely used as a subroutine inside a larger program, will execute any faster. It may be called upon sooner, which is not the same as working faster.

Regarding your comments about radar. When we talk about the pilot 'see' his opponent, we are talking about the enhancement to his ability to detect his opponent outside of the visual range, so no, the radar does not 'see' in this context. It is still the pilot who 'sees' his opponent.

I do hope the PLA hire more and more people like you.

Why would PLA hire me? I even said in my previous post i am not in the industry.

I'm not sure what you think you know about information systems, but you don't so, stick to what you know. Being a pilot doesn't mean you know how to design and make one. Not dissing pilots, but it is what it is, pilots are just that pilots, not god. Let's not get carried away here.

If that were true certain neighbour to the West would lead Asia in weapons development.

 

[gambit]

Why would PLA hire me? I even said in my previous post i am not in the industry.

I'm not sure what you think you know about information systems, but you don't so, stick to what you know. Being a pilot doesn't mean you know how to design and make one. Not dissing pilots, but it is what it is, pilots are just that pilots, not god. Let's not get carried away here.

If that were true certain neighbour to the West would lead Asia in weapons development.

Take your own advice. You are the one who believes pilots could be replaced with programs.

 

[Genesis]

Take your own advice. You are the one who believes pilots could be replaced with programs.

It's happened, it's called UCAV, it's also America's goal for six gen anyways.

Replacing pilots is the eventual step anyone can see that, I didn't say it was achieved.

 

[IND151]

The purpose that OP opening the thread is that: Get away from India, China, we have better weapon imported from Russia, your indigenous weapon is crap, we will not be scared by you.




When F14 was in service in USN, no EMALS, it was SLS, OK?!

I was under impression that it operated from CATOBAR carriers.

 

[gambit]

It's happened, it's called UCAV, it's also America's goal for six gen anyways.

Replacing pilots is the eventual step anyone can see that, I didn't say it was achieved.

Geezz...UCAV stands for 'un-manned combat aerial vehicle'.

Being un-manned is not being un-piloted and I will repeat for your intellectual and technical development...

BEING UN-MANNED IS NOT BEING UN-PILOTED...!!!.

The pilot for the UCAV is remote but he is still the pilot. The vehicle may even have some autonomous functions based upon decision matrixes developed from narrowly constructed mission criteria, such as take-off and landing, or return-to-base in the event of loss of C-n-C link. But it is still the human pilot who always make the final decisions for the overall mission, as in where to go, how to get there, or when and why to deviate or abort. The pilot is not replaced, just physically removed from the aircraft.

Oooooohhh yes...I do hope the PLA hire more and more people like you.

 

[Genesis]

Geezz...UCAV stands for 'un-manned combat aerial vehicle'.

Being un-manned is not being un-piloted and I will repeat for your intellectual and technical development...

BEING UN-MANNED IS NOT BEING UN-PILOTED...!!!.

The pilot for the UCAV is remote but he is still the pilot. The vehicle may even have some autonomous functions based upon decision matrixes developed from narrowly constructed mission criteria, such as take-off and landing, or return-to-base in the event of loss of C-n-C link. But it is still the human pilot who always make the final decisions for the overall mission, as in where to go, how to get there, or when and why to deviate or abort. The pilot is not replaced, just physically removed from the aircraft.

Oooooohhh yes...I do hope the PLA hire more and more people like you.

Of course there are still people "piloting" it. Without it, it would be artificial intelligence and we are no where close to that.

I know you think you are making a good point, but you are not.

as in where to go, how to get there, or when and why to deviate or abort. The pilot is not replaced, just physically removed from the aircraft.

You just said the exact thing I said. These functions are not critical to the survival of a fighter, you first claim that Chinese pilots are crap compared to American ones, means that pilots must factor into the actual maneuvering and shooting the target like in WW2.

I simply said in today's world, computers are taking a more central role in survival and attacking, since beyond visual range combat from what I understand is the new thing. Also jamming of communication and SAM sites, which btw is also not done by the pilot, unless throwing a pilot at a SAM site disables it.

 

[gambit]

Of course there are still people "piloting" it. Without it, it would be artificial intelligence and we are no where close to that.

I know you think you are making a good point, but you are not.

Yes, I did. You brought up the UCAV as support for your point that pilots can be replaced with programs. You did not understand the difference between being un-manned and un-piloted. If you did, you would not have brought on the UCAV in the first place.

You just said the exact thing I said. These functions are not critical to the survival of a fighter, you first claim that Chinese pilots are crap compared to American ones, means that pilots must factor into the actual maneuvering and shooting the target like in WW2.

I simply said in today's world, computers are taking a more central role in survival and attacking, since beyond visual range combat from what I understand is the new thing. Also jamming of communication and SAM sites, which btw is also not done by the pilot, unless throwing a pilot at a SAM site disables it.

You have a very narrow view of what is a pilot and what he does in the cockpit. The pilot is the decision maker, we created machines to replace certain of his actions, not his decision making. Even automated processes are based upon the human decision to automate those processes and we control the contents of the decision matrixes that govern those automated processes. So for you to say 'not done by the pilot' is patently wrong.

 

[Genesis]

Yes, I did. You brought up the UCAV as support for your point that pilots can be replaced with programs. You did not understand the difference between being un-manned and un-piloted. If you did, you would not have brought on the UCAV in the first place.


You have a very narrow view of what is a pilot and what he does in the cockpit. The pilot is the decision maker, we created machines to replace certain of his actions, not his decision making. Even automated processes are based upon the human decision to automate those processes and we control the contents of the decision matrixes that govern those automated processes. So for you to say 'not done by the pilot' is patently wrong.

You are basically arguing with me on a technicality, in my arguments I never said a fighter should be completely automated, UCAV may not be fully automated, but it shows the level of involvement a pilot is engaged in is limited, that the pilot is in fact not as important as you make it out to be.

What I mean by that is not that the pilot is useless, but due to the level of automation, the level of pilots cannot make that much a difference, WHEN THEY ARE BOTH PROFESSIONAL PILOTS.

What was your original argument? 1 F-16 can take out 2 J-20s, probably an exaggeration on your part, but it shows the level of importance you place on pilots, and the level of incompetence of Chinese pilots.

What I am claiming is with modern tech, the difference in EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS is not 100% based on a pilot anymore, much has been taken over by information systems.

 

[UKBengali]

Why are people bothering with this gambit for?

By his own admission he is just a technician and has ZERO experience in aircraft design.

His comments on the subject are worth no more than any other reasonably educated and informed layman.

To add to his lack of knowledge, he is also extremely biased and thinks US will be dominant for eternity.

At least the US takes China's development seriously and is in the process of deploying 60% of it's Navy to the East Pacific region to try to contain China. I would take the opinions of senior planners in the US military rather than that of a ex-technician any day.

 

[gambit]

You are basically arguing with me on a technicality, in my arguments I never said a fighter should be completely automated, UCAV may not be fully automated, but it shows the level of involvement a pilot is engaged in is limited, that the pilot is in fact not as important as you make it out to be.

What I mean by that is not that the pilot is useless, but due to the level of automation, the level of pilots cannot make that much a difference, WHEN THEY ARE BOTH PROFESSIONAL PILOTS.

What was your original argument? 1 F-16 can take out 2 J-20s, probably an exaggeration on your part, but it shows the level of importance you place on pilots, and the level of incompetence of Chinese pilots.

What I am claiming is with modern tech, the difference in EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS is not 100% based on a pilot anymore, much has been taken over by information systems.

And an extremely important one.

Here is an example on where you are wrong in your estimation of the decreasing level of importance of the pilot...

Rolls-Royce Merlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The use of carburettors was calculated to give a higher specific power output, due to the lower temperature, hence greater density, of the fuel/air mixture compared to injected systems.[43] However, the Merlin's float controlled carburettor meant that both Spitfires and Hurricanes were unable to pitch nose down into a steep dive. The contemporary Bf 109E, which had direct fuel injection, could "bunt" into a high-power dive to escape attack, leaving the pursuing aircraft behind because its fuel had been forced out of the carburettor's float chamber by the effects of negative g-force (g). RAF fighter pilots soon learned to "half-roll" their aircraft before diving to pursue their opponents.

Look at the highlighted. Before execution of a dive, whether to press an attack or as part of evasive maneuver, an RAF pilot had to execute a 'tell' motion of a half roll.

Do you know what is a 'tell'?

Tell (poker) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A tell in poker is a change in a player's behavior or demeanor that is claimed by some to give clues to that player's assessment of their hand. A player gains an advantage if they observe and understand the meaning of another player's tell, particularly if the tell is unconscious and reliable. Sometimes a player may fake a tell, hoping to induce their opponents to make poor judgments in response to the false tell. More often, people try to avoid giving out a tell, by maintaining a poker face regardless of how strong or weak their hand is.

Essentially, a 'tell' is a signal that there will be a certain follow up action or an indication of an existing condition. In poker, a 'tell' can be deceitful and misleading to observers, but when a person blush out of embarrassment, the reddened skin coloring is involuntary and is an assurance that the person has a certain emotional and psychological condition.

German pilots learned to recognize these subtle and fleeting signals whenever they engaged their British opponents. Did the Germans knew of the Merlin's technical flaw? No. But the flaw manifested itself when it required a British pilot to execute a certain maneuver prior to another maneuver: a half roll before a dive.

For speculation's sake, can we program a computer to automate that 'tell' maneuver? Absolutely. The computer would actually make the combination moves of a half roll then a dive even more smoothly and faster than the human pilot could. BUT IT WOULD STILL BE A TELL.

This kind of intuitive thinking, like the WW II air combat example, is where the human still reigns supreme, and for now, cannot be replaced by computer programs, and this is where you are wrong in classifying what could be automated, what could not, then derived your flawed arguments from there. Beyond visual range scenarios have their own unique demands on the intellect, training, and experience of the human pilot. But am sure you are confident that based upon your computer programming skills you can eliminate the pilot just because there is a radar instead of eyes.

 

[gambit]

His comments on the subject are worth no more than any other reasonably educated and informed layman.

That is actually funny.

It means that objective and reasonably educated people WOULD NOT believe anything Chinese members here claimed about the J-20. It also begs the question: What does that make you since you uncritically swallowed everything the Chinese said? Stupid? Uneducated? Gullible? You must buy kneepads in bulk.

 

[UKBengali]

That is actually funny.

It means that objective and reasonably educated people WOULD NOT believe anything Chinese members here claimed about the J-20. It also begs the question: What does that make you since you uncritically swallowed everything the Chinese said? Stupid? Uneducated? Gullible? You must buy kneepads in bulk.

I do not swallow everything the Chinese members say.

As an example I do not believe like some Chinese members think that the new Type-052D is better than the latest US destroyers. If anything they are likely to still be a little behind in radar and other electronics but the relevant fact is that the gap is not that large anymore than quality would necessarily negate quantity.

You hit an own goal by claiming that the F-16 can take down a J-20 that is specifically being designed as a 5th generation air-superiority fighter.

The J-20 has so many advantages over the F-16 and let us list a few here:

1. Sustained super-cruise of unknown mach - remains to be seen if the Chinese can hit their goal of 10:1 T/W ratio of the WS-15

2. Much larger radar than the F-16 can hold - how much the still superior US radar technology will negate this to some extent remains to be seen.

3. Dual engines to allow much faster ability to change position in space which always helps in getting the best position to fire your AAM missiles.

4. VLO airframe - F-16 radar will see the J-20 way after the J-20 detects the F-16.

You are asking us to believe that whatever superiority the US will have in radar/electronics, when coupled with any superior US pilot skill, will in anyway negate these massive advantages that the J-20 has is asking way, way too much.

Lastly economic power = military power.

China will overtake the US in GDP(PPP) in a couple of years time and then in nominal by around 2020. As history has proved whoever has the most money ends up having the best military