J-31 stealth fighter designed for export, says PLA admiral

[vK_man]

Are you being swayed by such news of fake chips, Man they have LARGEST DEFENCE BUDGET and they will go for fake e-chips ? Be Mature
Even our telecom equipments come from china because we cant fab below 0.5um,so you should respect who are world leader in fab

Yes yes,there is a lot of cutting corners in production processes and supply chains whether in USA and China. I have stated my sources humbly and some guy who claims to be know it all starts attacking me.

Man they have LARGEST DEFENCE BUDGET and they will go for fake e-chips ? Be Mature

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-wa...-export-says-pla-admiral-4.html#ixzz2gGaatigW

The problem is cutting corners by Contractors.Are you seeing the number of fire problems the Boeing 787 is having due to lithium battery components.Its the effect of cutting corners. And it has taken its toll on boeing's stock and created concerns for minority shareholders.

 

[Firemaster]

Yes yes,there is a lot of cutting corners in production processes and supply chains whether in USA and China. I have stated my sources humbly and some guy who claims to be know it all starts attacking me.



The problem is cutting corners by Contractors.Are you seeing the number of fire problems the Boeing 787 is having due to lithium battery components.Its the effect of cutting corners. And it has taken its toll on boeing's stock and created concerns for minority shareholders.

AFAIK It is being practised all over the world why only taking bad shot at US?

 

[vK_man]

AFAIK It is being practised all over the world why only taking bad shot at US?

Simple .Because an american was lecturing me about Quality assurances blah blah .

 

[zainijaz]

maturity !!!.. ........i think you need of it .As my observations chinese are the most mature and hardworking nation in the world

 

[gambit]

What costs more money, to develop an AESA radar, or to develop a next gen airframe like Rafale?

I know that the US has the lead in sensors and electronics, but for a moment, consider only the rest of the world. Why are they all hell bent on developing new airframes, rather than an AESA, if the AESA makes all the difference?

Why wouldn't Europe use a cheap F-16 (or tornado or mirage) with an AESA, instead of the very expensive Eurofighter with a mechanically scanned radar? Surely they had the money and brains to have developed an AESA instead of the Eurofighter? Or why would Russia develop Su-35s with non AESA radars, instead of mig-35s with Zhuk-AE or Su-30 with NIIP AESA (or older, dirt cheap mig-29s with an AESA)?

Basically, what I'm trying to clarify is this - that if an AESA makes all the difference in air combat as you say, what is the need for all these uber expensive 4.5+ gen aircrafts with non AESAs? The Chinese have working AESAs, so are you saying that one of their cheap fighters (JF-17 or J-10B) with an AESA will prove invincible against heavy, twin engined aircrafts without AESAs, but nevertheless with very powerful radars?

P.S: BTW, are all the F-16s and F-15s in the USAF inventory currently flying with AESAs? The F-16IN fielded for the Indian MRCA competition had a very mature and advanced AESA. Will all the older F-16s in USAF be upgraded with that, or is it more cost effective to simply retire the older airframes as the F-35 enters service?

Sometimes it is frustrating debating people who can only think in extremes.

You cannot stick an AESA system into a Korean War or even Vietnam War era fighter and expect 'invincibility'. That is not how real life works. There is the total package that must be considered. When I said that a PESA fighter will be inadequate against an AESA equipped opponent, I was talking about the sensor area. The rest of the package, for both sides, are commensurate to each other. Like an F-16 against an Su-27, for example.

Holy Sh1t...!!! Is critical thinking that rare nowadays?

 

[gambit]

Yes yes,there is a lot of cutting corners in production processes and supply chains whether in USA and China. I have stated my sources humbly and some guy who claims to be know it all starts attacking me.

Your playing victimhood is pathetic. I did not 'attack' you. In post 45, I criticized your claim about the disadvantages of the AESA system and supposedly difficulty in maintenance. Clearly you have no military experience to know how things are maintained. I made no reference to you in post 45. Your response is the one that truly qualified as a personal attack when you called my explanation about aircraft maintenance as 'BS'.

Face it, kid. You are nothing but exactly that -- a child.

 

[janon]

Sometimes it is frustrating debating people who can only think in extremes.

You cannot stick an AESA system into a Korean War or even Vietnam War era fighter and expect 'invincibility'. That is not how real life works. There is the total package that must be considered. When I said that a PESA fighter will be inadequate against an AESA equipped opponent, I was talking about the sensor area. The rest of the package, for both sides, are commensurate to each other. Like an F-16 against an Su-27, for example.

Holy Sh1t...!!! Is critical thinking that rare nowadays?

My intention was not to debate you, but simply to ask questions, since you are an authority in that field and I am not. Maybe you are getting overly defensive because another person on the thread is trying to argue with you - I wasn't.

As for critical thinking, I happen to earn my living in a field that is mostly about that. But I cannot apply that to fields that I have very little knowledge in.

 

[vK_man]

Your playing victimhood is pathetic. I did not 'attack' you. In post 45, I criticized your claim about the disadvantages of the AESA system and supposedly difficulty in maintenance. Clearly you have no military experience to know how things are maintained. I made no reference to you in post 45. Your response is the one that truly qualified as a personal attack when you called my explanation about aircraft maintenance as 'BS'.

Face it, kid. You are nothing but exactly that -- a child.

The only thing you are doing senile old man is attacking others.If you are so smart ,then prove your assertions as primary evidence instead of attacking me and my sources because I have provided sources.

Face it, kid. You are nothing but exactly that -- a child.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-wa...-export-says-pla-admiral-5.html#ixzz2gGvzuj53

and you are a senile old man or a child.

My intention was not to debate you, but simply to ask questions, since you are an authority in that field and I am not. Maybe you are getting overly defensive because another person on the thread is trying to argue with you - I wasn't.

As for critical thinking, I happen to earn my living in a field that is mostly about that. But I cannot apply that to fields that I have very little knowledge in.

He sounds like those armchair experts from Worldaffairsboard or ATS ,every second one claiming to be from military or having top secret clearances.

 

[janon]

The only thing you are doing senile old man is attacking others.If you are so smart ,then prove your assertions as primary evidence instead of attacking me and my sources because I have provided sources.





and you are a senile old man or a child.



He sounds like those armchair experts from Worldaffairsboard or ATS ,every second one claiming to be from military or having top secret clearances.

He was/is (?) an F-16 pilot. Hence the "professional" tag under his name.

 

[gambit]

My intention was not to debate you, but simply to ask questions, since you are an authority in that field and I am not. Maybe you are getting overly defensive because another person on the thread is trying to argue with you - I wasn't.

As for critical thinking, I happen to earn my living in a field that is mostly about that. But I cannot apply that to fields that I have very little knowledge in.

You can have the most advanced airframe and engines in the world...But if your sensor is inferior to your opponent, if you cannot die because they cannot catch you, you will be useless because they will be able to avoid you. On an aircraft, the more extreme the focus on a singular feature, the more dedicated the aircraft will be.

Take the SR-71, for example, the focus was on speed and more speed, then add on more speed. That aircraft ended up being a high altitude photographer. We tried to put missiles and drones on it and did not worked. It was too narrowly designed from start.

If you design a mediocre fighter airframe but install a super duper advanced sensor on it, you will have something with limited utility like an AWACS. It cannot maneuver, carry less weapons, and inferior acceleration. But hey...It can see far and wide.

So when I explained to you the superiority of the AESA system, it does not it is a magical thing to have.

 

[vK_man]

He was/is (?) an F-16 pilot. Hence the "professional" tag under his name.

Okay.He needs to change his tone then . He won't get respect with that kind of tone.

 

[gambit]

The only thing you are doing senile old man is attacking others.If you are so smart ,then prove your assertions as primary evidence instead of attacking me and my sources because I have provided sources.

I did not 'attack' you in post 45. Asking you to explain yourself is not a personal attack. You said an AESA system is maintenance intensive. How? Your failure to explain how is evident of your no experience in the subject. As for your sources, all sources are fair game in a debate. If you use them to support your argument, you are burdened of defending them and their contents.

He sounds like those armchair experts from Worldaffairsboard or ATS ,every second one claiming to be from military or having top secret clearances.

Must sucks to be YOU on a military oriented forum and know you got outclassed.

 

[janon]

You can have the most advanced airframe and engines in the world...But if your sensor is inferior to your opponent, if you cannot die because they cannot catch you, you will be useless because they will be able to avoid you. On an aircraft, the more extreme the focus on a singular feature, the more dedicated the aircraft will be.

Take the SR-71, for example, the focus was on speed and more speed, then add on more speed. That aircraft ended up being a high altitude photographer. We tried to put missiles and drones on it and did not worked. It was too narrowly designed from start.

If you design a mediocre fighter airframe but install a super duper advanced sensor on it, you will have something with limited utility like an AWACS. It cannot maneuver, carry less weapons, and inferior acceleration. But hey...It can see far and wide.

So when I explained to you the superiority of the AESA system, it does not it is a magical thing to have.

That's all that I was trying to clarify.

Another question, have you ever exercised with or against flankers? Or with the Indian air force?

 

[gambit]

That's all that I was trying to clarify.

Another question, have you ever exercised with or against flankers? Or with the Indian air force?

Never had with the Indians.

 

[vK_man]

I did not 'attack' you in post 45. Asking you to explain yourself is not a personal attack. You said an AESA system is maintenance intensive. How? Your failure to explain how is evident of your no experience in the subject. As for your sources, all sources are fair game in a debate. If you use them to support your argument, you are burdened of defending them and their contents.


Must sucks to be YOU on a military oriented forum and know you got outclassed.

Outclassed ?you provided no evidence.

On the maintaince intensive point ,I have cited sources already.