The clearest J-20 pictures.

[eachus]

I tried to post the full article many times, new member has too much restriction, no link and limited quota.
can somebody help to post it. it is a nice read.

F35 is not a front line air-superior fighter. it was designed to follow F22 in distance.

 

[Esc8781]

I tried to post the full article many times, new member has too much restriction, no link and limited quota.
can somebody help to post it. it is a nice read.

F35 is not a front line air-superior fighter. it was designed to follow F22 in distance.

I think antonius123 can help you man he is on the fourm right now I know the f-35 isn't an air superiority fighter, but they are underestimating it, ps I new here too.

Found another link Radar Cross-Section Physics - Microwave Encyclopedia - Microwaves101.com on rcs and radar absorbing structurs.

 

[Esc8781]

I tried to post the full article many times, new member has too much restriction, no link and limited quota.
can somebody help to post it. it is a nice read.

F35 is not a front line air-superior fighter. it was designed to follow F22 in distance.

Let me thank you

 

[eachus]

something is very interesting, at the introduction of T50 and J20, US had different comments



“I didn’t see anything … that would cause me to rethink plans for the F-
22 or F-35,” Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters Feb. 18 at
the Air Force Association’s winter conference, held in Orlando, Fla.

The Air Force ordered the last of its 187 F-22s in 2009. Russia has not had
a new fighter in nearly 20 years; the Indian air force is also sponsoring
development of a version of the T-50.
“It looks like a plane we’ve seen before,” Gen. Roger Brady, the air boss
for NATO and commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said at the conference.

Gen. Gary North, commander of Pacific Air Forces, made clear his impression
of the fighter: “I guess the greatest flattery is how much they copy you.”

---------------

China is farther along in its development of a new stealth fighter jet than
the U.S. had predicted, and that plane and other Chinese military advances
are worrisome, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday.

"They clearly have potential to put some of our capabilities at risk," Gates
said en route to military talks with Chinese leaders. "We have to pay
attention to them, we have to respond appropriately with our own programs."

The United States has long known that China wanted to field a stealth jet,
but development outpaced U.S. intelligence estimates, Gates said.



=================
did you notice that,
Americans are humor and speaking artistic.

“It(T50) looks like a plane we’ve seen before,” Gen. Roger Brady, the air boss for NATO


in our words is "10 facts, If Su30 is not stealthy, T50 is not neither." hehe,,, even they meant the same.

 

[rcrmj]

but he doesnt copy & paste as he is not chinese but vietanamese

lol``like he will give you a 'thank' for kissing his ar$e, just cant get rid-off your people's mentality dont you?

 

[DrSomnath999]

lol``like he will give you a 'thank' for kissing his ar$e, just cant get rid-off your people's mentality dont you?

lolllz
no he gives a fart to those thanks which i rememberd he gave u when u thanked him once in some other thread.

Besides it is ridiculous,as this sentense is coming from a person who is himself a b@TT licker of a so called self proclaimed chinese stealth specialist

 

[eachus]

copy is not a bad word, it is not underlooking at you.
after WW2, Russian and Americans were rush into German to ship their tech home.
both spent a lots of effort to understand jet engine and nuke bomb.
take them many years to copy Germany tech.

today, China with a GDP per capital only 1/10 of the west,
can copy what they made, sometimes you can find the copied products are improved.
you should proud of them.

 

[gambit]

oh my!.....................

That is correct. The entire so called 'analysis' is filled with extreme hubris for the J-20 and the usual technical suspects that have been debunked here over and over and over and over and over...

But the three best lines have nothing to do with aviation...

Additionally, the US had been fighting guerrillas for too long and its capability to wage conventional wars had declined.

Whoever wrote that tripe obviously have never experience Red Flag, REFORGER, tank training in Ft. Irwin, and many more, including Desert Storm. The author is clearly confused between capability and ability.

The supposed experience the US military had gained is nothing to be envious about;...

The PLA's leadership would love to have even half of the US military experience.

Now here is the best...

...they have already forgotten how to fight with an opponent on par with themselves.

By what metrics did the author based this upon? Since the turn and start of the 20th century, the only military peer the US had, including WW II, was the nuclear powered Soviets and both sides never directly fought. Isoroku Yamamoto of Imperial Japan knew his country lost the day he attacked Pearl Harbor. The Soviets backed down in the Cuban Missile Crisis and stayed out Viet Nam while US troops actively fought in the region. So by what metrics did the author used to gauge that the US fought against a peer and lost said institutional memory?

This also begs the question of when did China fought against a peer, let alone a military that have extensive global presence and experience that the author derided. Answer: Not.

So if the PLAAF never fought against an opponent that set the standards on 'stealth', air combat tactics, training, organization, low level penetration, radar network avoidance, precision bombing, strategic and tactical reconnaissance, adversarial role playing, foreign technology exploitation, and many other areas, what make this author so confident that the J-20 alone have turned the table?

 

[amalakas]

That is correct. The entire so called 'analysis' is filled with extreme hubris for the J-20 and the usual technical suspects that have been debunked here over and over and over and over and over...

But the three best lines have nothing to do with aviation...


Whoever wrote that tripe obviously have never experience Red Flag, REFORGER, tank training in Ft. Irwin, and many more, including Desert Storm. The author is clearly confused between capability and ability.


The PLA's leadership would love to have even half of the US military experience.

Now here is the best...


By what metrics did the author based this upon? Since the turn and start of the 20th century, the only military peer the US had, including WW II, was the nuclear powered Soviets and both sides never directly fought. Isoroku Yamamoto of Imperial Japan knew his country lost the day he attacked Pearl Harbor. The Soviets backed down in the Cuban Missile Crisis and stayed out Viet Nam while US troops actively fought in the region. So by what metrics did the author used to gauge that the US fought against a peer and lost said institutional memory?

This also begs the question of when did China fought against a peer, let alone a military that have extensive global presence and experience that the author derided. Answer: Not.

So if the PLAAF never fought against an opponent that set the standards on 'stealth', air combat tactics, training, organization, low level penetration, radar network avoidance, precision bombing, strategic and tactical reconnaissance, adversarial role playing, foreign technology exploitation, and many other areas, what make this author so confident that the J-20 alone have turned the table?

it is painted black.

 

[no_name]

It's actually dark green but anyway.

 

[The SC]

I tried to post the full article many times, new member has too much restriction, no link and limited quota.
can somebody help to post it. it is a nice read.

F35 is not a front line air-superior fighter. it was designed to follow F22 in distance.

In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble. The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions. The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies. Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production. Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UKBengali]

Whoever wrote that tripe obviously have never experience Red Flag, REFORGER, tank training in Ft. Irwin, and many more, including Desert Storm. The author is clearly confused between capability and ability.

What a joke!

The US has gained massive huge expereince fighting against against Iraq?

The Iraqi military of 1991 was huge but completely obsolette.

Air force -

Iraq:

Only 30 or so Mig-29s but they were hampered as they were the export version with downgraded avionics and the engines were less powerful.

No AWACs to speak of at all.

US:

Hundreds of modern F-15s and F-16s and full AWACs support


Army:

Only around 500 or so of the T-72 which was a full generation behind the M1-A1 Abrams. This is compounded by the fact that the Iraqi version was a downgraded verion.

I think the US had 2000 of the latest M1-A1 Abrams


You really need to stop comparing apples and oranges.

 

[gambit]

What a joke!

The US has gained massive huge expereince fighting against against Iraq?

The Iraqi military of 1991 was huge but completely obsolette.

Air force -

Iraq:

Only 30 or so Mig-29s but they were hampered as they were the export version with downgraded avionics and the engines were less powerful.

No AWACs to speak of at all.

US:

Hundreds of modern F-15s and F-16s and full AWACs support


Army:

Only around 500 or so of the T-72 which was a full generation behind the M1-A1 Abrams. This is compounded by the fact that the Iraqi version was a downgraded verion.

I think the US had 2000 of the latest M1-A1 Abrams


You really need to stop comparing apples and oranges.

Let me know when BD have something to boast about. In the meantime, we will just take your criticism as a joke in itself and from petty jealousy.

In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble. The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions. The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies. Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production. Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I bet you have no clue as to why these systems uses these high freqs.

 

[Rusty]

That is correct. The entire so called 'analysis' is filled with extreme hubris for the J-20 and the usua1l technical suspects that have been debunked here over and over and over and over and over...

But the three best lines have nothing to do with aviation...


Whoever wrote that tripe obviously have never experience Red Flag, REFORGER, tank training in Ft. Irwin, and many more, including Desert Storm. The author is clearly confused between capability and ability.


The PLA's leadership would love to have even half of the US military experience.

Now here is the best...


By what metrics did the author based this upon? Since the turn and start of the 20th century, the only military peer the US had, including WW II, was the nuclear powered Soviets and both sides never directly fought. Isoroku Yamamoto of Imperial Japan knew his country lost the day he attacked Pearl Harbor. The Soviets backed down in the Cuban Missile Crisis and stayed out Viet Nam while US troops actively fought in the region. So by what metrics did the author used to gauge that the US fought against a peer and lost said institutional memory?

This also begs the question of when did China fought against a peer, let alone a military that have extensive global presence and experience that the author derided. Answer: Not.

So if the PLAAF never fought against an opponent that set the standards on 'stealth', air combat tactics, training, organization, low level penetration, radar network avoidance, precision bombing, strategic and tactical reconnaissance, adversarial role playing, foreign technology exploitation, and many other areas, what make this author so confident that the J-20 alone have turned the table?

The PLA help fight off the extremely advanced Japanese army in the 30's and 40's
Then they defeated the American backed ROC army to gain control of China
Then as an encore they gifted America it's largest land retreat in their history during the Korean war.

I would say the have pretty decent military experience

Oh and one more thing.
The reason PLA doesn't have an intensive military experience is because it is not a warmongering country. China does not start wars every few year with weaker nations to fund it's military industrial complexes.

 

[gambit]

The PLA help fight off the extremely advanced Japanese army in the 30's and 40's

There was no PLA back then.

Then they defeated the American backed ROC army to gain control of China

By itself? And the ROC is not the US, then and now.

Then as an encore they gifted America it's largest land retreat in their history during the Korean war.

Considering Korea is STILL divided, we can call it a draw.

I would say the have pretty decent military experience

Decent does not mean parity. So whistle away...

Oh and one more thing.
The reason PLA doesn't have an intensive military experience is because it is not a warmongering country. China does not start wars every few year with weaker nations to fund it's military industrial complexes.

All the more reason China should be careful in getting into a fist fest with US.