The J-20 is not for sale

>>32090041

It's to avoid objective external assessments of the J-20, allowing them to make whatever performance claims they like.

>>32090053
Literally this. Paper tigers don't work so well when you sell them.

>>32090053
>It's to avoid objective external assessments of the J-20, allowing them to make whatever performance claims they like.
You could say the exact same thing about the F-22 famalam.

>>32090077
One is built by a country with a capable and respected aerospace industry with a long pedigree, and a history of understating what its equipment can do in order to hide their abilities.


One is being built by a country with an absolutely terrible aerospace industry that would have had to jump decades in order to produce the aircraft they're claiming their new fighter to be, and is well know to over-state their equipments abilities in order to saber rattle.

So, no, not unless you're laughably ill informed.

>>32090077
But you can't say it about the F-35, obviously.

>>32090077
Zheng Ping, please.

>>32090041

J-20 is a piece of shit until proven otherwise in real combat.

Lets see it get some kills against something without the help of a P.R. officer.

>>32090041
>be saudi
>buy j20
>open hatch
>mig23 tier electronic everywhere

>>32090170
Cool strawman senpai but off topic sadly, problem is there is no way to make objective external assessments of the F-22, just like the J-20. They could both be trash.

>>32090234
>Shit until proven in real combat
I guess the F-22 is shit, the only ''''''combat'''''' it's ever done is bus iron bombs into totally undefended airspace.

Im guessing they'd still sell them to pakistan, if the pakis can afford it

>>32090249
>problem is there is no way to make objective external assessments of the F-22
That would be true if it didn't participate in exercises with foreign nations.

Unfortunately for you, it does.

>>32090327
>Implying seeing it at Red Flag from a distance = Getting an objective external assessment of specs and design
Wew lad, this level of mental gymnastics is reserved for CNN. Let's lift ourselves a little higher on /k/

File: F-22-front.jpg (144KB, 1024x560px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1024x560px

>>32090265
Even though it hasn't shot down an enemy aircraft yet, the F-22 has pulled some pretty cool shit that demonstrated how effective its stealth abilities are.

A few years ago, Iran sent a couple F-4s to intercept a US drone flying in international airspace around the Persian Gulf. A F-22 providing High Value Air Asset Escort managed to sneak up on the F-4s, inspecting them from below to see if they had weapons and then pulled up on their left wing, called them on the radio, and told them "you really ought to go home"
https://theaviationist.com/2013/09/19/f-22-f-4-intercept/

The F-22's mere presence is a huge intimidating factor

>>32090363
It's nice to know that you don't what what happens at exercises, or why they provide a window into what aircraft can and cannot do to their competitors.

By /k/s RETARD fucking logic ITT the J-31 must be better than the J-20 because its actually up for sale.

Honestly just fucking KILL yourselves for using such stupid logic.

>>32090428
Except that isn't the logic being used.

>>32090386
>Escorting planes out of areas
Wow it's fucking nothing, by your logic eurotrash gets more experience than the F-22 ever will since they intercept Tu-95s on a daily basis.

>>32090452
Intercepting bombers in your airspace is different than intercepting interceptors on their own turf

>>32090459
>International airspace
>Own turf
No.

>>32090419
Your strawman just isn't effective senpai. Neither is your insinuation that observing an aircraft's performance with the Mk1Mod0 eyeballs is anywhere near as useful as owning said aircraft.

>>32090491
It's nice that you don't think aircraft actively engage in mock combat an attempt to find each other and achieve weapons lock at exercises, anon, but the adults are talking.

Go play with the other children.

>>32090517
The easy solution to this is to be attractive. Pro tip: you can store your spaghetti in ziplock bags so you don't spill it all over the floor every time a woman looks you in the eye.

>>32090517
>ad hominem too
babby's first argument evidently

>you don't think aircraft actively engage in mock combat
You just cannot stop with the strawman, it's not good for your look senpai.

Nobody would deny engaging the F-22 in combat would give an inkling to its stealth properties (just an inkling mind you, the USAF has never given out the exact numbers and they never will). But to think it gives the same assessment of turbines, g-load, thrust output, fuel mix, avionics, VLO shaping, ferrite-epoxy application, payload limit, ease of maintenance and comfiness of the pilot's seat that buying and owning the aircraft yourself gives is just silly.

The F-22 was always flying in its maximum configuration, the Luneberg lens is just a placebo effect to hide that fact. With or without the Luneberg Lens, the F-22 will have the same RCS, they just don't want you to know.

>>32090636
lmao

They have the J-31 for export

>>32090636
>With or without the Luneberg Lens, the F-22 will have the same RCS, they just don't want you to know.

Big if true

>>32090386
How is a mq1 a high value escort?

>>32090814
of course it's not true you fucking idiot, a luneberg lens physically has to reflect in all directions with it's shape. what do you suggest, the thing is a really large glass marble with some black spray paint? jesus christ.

i don't even think you're projecting for your shitty chinese military since the last time china tried to make an IMAX projector it burned down the theater. go back to chin/k/ or wherever you come from.

>>32090636
True.

JY26 detected F-22 over Korea.

China's new ultra long range AAM will BTFO all US AWACS, tankers and support crafts, cutting the F22 already short legs even further.

>>32090904
>a "stealth means you can never be detected, ever, and any deviation from this means it's not stealth" retard

>also a "a detection means a weapon lock" retard

lemme guess, china's new over the horizon radar means all stealth is forever BTFO despite the fact that they can't do shit without bringing another few planes up to attempt to get a weapons lock?

>>32090872
That's what they want you to think.
In reality it only adds a minute amount of RCS but is eye catching enough so Americans can say the plane was spotted because of it.

Or probably you're just a Lockheed shill.

>>32090913
>despite the fact that they can't do shit without bringing another few planes up to attempt to get a weapons lock?

Chink-com see burger plane enter airspace, and watches it exit before they can get planes in the air or SAM lock-on

Yeah, I agree, it'll be suuuuper useful

>>32090920
>That's what they want you to think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luneburg_lens
unless you want to tell me that everyone from physicists to the people who make your glasses are wrong, your view is just simply not how it works.

and no mr stormfront, people disagreeing with you on the internet are not shills.

>>32090923
it's almost like that quality is extremely important in any war. do you know that in the gulf war the F-117 was extremely important not because it was "invisible to radar" (that's not how it works), but because by the time anyone could find out where it was and start shooting at it the thing had already dropped it's payload and left?

being able to enter enemy airspace, avoid weapon quality locks and destroy radar/C2 installations before anyone can stop you is extremely important. please go down the corner and pick up some noodles so you can get back to decent shilling mr chink.

>>32090910
That fucking ballistic missile is just sabre rattling

>>32090910

Which russian missile was it ripped off from?

File: 19468abmf.jpg (57KB, 794x481px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 794x481px

>>32091447
which Russian long range anti-air missile has gas pulse control?

File: S-duct.jpg (249KB, 827x650px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 827x650px

>>32091447
When will Russia rip off Chinese S-duct technology?

>>32090363
>Implying [Color] Flag exercises aren't one of the most important, revolutionary developments in western training

>>32090240
>be saudi
>drive abrams into yemen
>come back on foot
>fight in new abrams
>burn up inside it while deep in saudi arabia

File: sead.jpg (209KB, 1187x655px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1187x655px

>>32091650
Nah, Chinese Red Sword excercise are better.

They actually involve a complete scenario that is not just Air to Air in isolation, but is a freeform confrontational excercise that allows red and blue force to do anything to win, including stategic attacks on airbases, tankers, AWACS and SEAD operations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eNlXk-mVnU

>>32090386

>5th gen fighter snuck up on 2 3rd gen fighters

CONGRATULATIONS!

>>32091673
>Implying [Color] Flag exercises aren't a full mock deployment covering all aspects of entering a warzone

You're seriously reaching here, buddy.

File: J-10B YJ-91 SEAD.jpg (171KB, 2042x1150px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 2042x1150px

>>32091673
>>32091691


Both teams actually have to do their own recon and intel gathering of the enemy forces, as well as to protect their own logistics. Nothing is scripted and noone gets any information from the organizers. Basically it is simulated war, and not just some random furball which is Red Flag, where even Poo in the Loo Indians can join up and fail hard with their Su-30MKIs.

Pic: J-10B going on a radar hunt mission.

>>32091699
>I don't actually know what goes on at [Color] Flag exercises but I'm going to pretend it's something it's not

>>32091691
the US exercises aren't 100% simulations.

They aren't allowed to use certain things that would totally destroy the enemy fleets. This can be seen with the Indian air-combat things where they outdog fought BVR armed Typhoons because India demanded the Typhoons engage at ranges the Indians could deal with while armed with weapons that could pick off the ENTIRE Indian air force without any response.

China doesn't do that. They go 'This is what you need to do' and thats it. Achieve the scenario using any method you see fit with whatever you see fit.

That's why they have to outright simulate war down to bullshit sneaky tactics because thats a better way of simulating war than setting out rules that make no sense.

Red Flag is a nice show of force vs force on an equal footing. It's terrible to do anything but test organisation in asymmetrical warfare.

>>32091699
Red Flag is no random furball; there's multiple days and scenarios within Red Flag; there are the little artificial ACM training where T-38s can get (and have got) simulated gun kills on F-22s, but there's also the major scenarios where it's not scripted; you have intel teams at Nellis, trying to use airborne and orbital assets to try and get intel to AWACS, etc, you have cyber warfare teams trying to screw with the intel guys and everyone in the air, you have electronic warfare (albeit limited primarily to deception jamming to not damage equipment) being used in the air, etc.

Not every nation that goes to Red Flag gets to participate in those exercises, or at least not without certain assets (eg F-22s) being sidelined to limit what foreign participants experience, but at its peak, Red Flag is one of, if not the most realistic air combat training exercise on the planet.

>>32091745
>China doesn't do that. They go 'This is what you need to do' and thats it. Achieve the scenario using any method you see fit with whatever you see fit.
So, completely useless. No ramp-up, no scenario building, just "go out there and fuck it up."

>>32091745
there's no such thing as symmetrical warfare

>>32091571
The one the Chinese stole, obviously. If China can't unfuck it's engines, it's unlikely to manage it's missiles.
>>32091574
Nothing says authentic like comic sans.

File: j11missile2 PL-15.jpg (46KB, 590x390px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 590x390px

>>32091914
Sorry, but Chinese rocket engines are literallly superior to anything in the world.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-seeks-interim-champ-longer-range-air-to-air-416828/

>Carlisle says outmatching the Chinese PL-15 air-to-air missile in particular is an “exceedingly high priority”.

>“The PL-15 and the range of that missile, we’ve got to be able to out-stick that missile,” he says.

Even the USA cant match China with ANYTHING they have. And that was before the unveil of this new monster AAM.

USAF General Carlsisle is speaking about a PL-12 sized MRAAM (which has LRAAM, 200km range in China's case, though).


And no operational US or Russian AAM has gas impulse control technology. China's the first one.

Shame on you. Hahaha.
"Superior White Race" my ass.

>>32092084
good thing we have f-22s that can shoot down the aircraft that carry this weapon. Not to mention the F-35, which is more advanced and will become the standard aircraft of the free world.

>>32092128
PL-15 is carried inside the J-20, so you do not.

And to even get in the near of China, you need your tankers (since all of your bases around china are cratered), which will be dealt with by the new AABM.

China has everything covered.
Third Offset is basically countered and dead, by China shifting and ever expaning the air-denial bubble out into the pacific.

>>32092084
For weighing 100kg more than an AMRAAM, it better out range it.

>>32092148
sorry bro, but the US will see that plane long before it gets within range to fire. As for the striking of airfields, yeah, but you don't have nearly as many missiles to saturate and completely knock them out as you probably think you do. Not to mention you run the risk of escalating the conflict to areas to where your ability to control (or at the very least predict) is lessened.

What happens when you take out an airfield and AWACS and the American people start clamoring for a counter strike. To that end US subs flood the area and sink anything that doesn't speak English, and considering how bad China's ASW is there would be considerable losses. Now you're stuck fighting a conventional war with weapons you designed to be used in anything but.

#chinastronk

File: Kadena Airbase Attack Points.jpg (65KB, 554x401px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 554x401px

>>32092248
No need to saturate airbases.

You only need to strike TWO points of interest:

1. Runway (cluser warheads are great for that, occassionally some deep penetration warheads to make big craters that take a day to fill with concrete)
2. Runway Access Points (deep penetration bombs)

And maybe a missile into the Control Tower and some buildings where the technicians are usually living in, just to spite them.

RAND indicated that this can be done with less than 60 missiles, even with ABM defenses and against a base as big as Kadena.

Also, if you attack China using your forward bases, you have no excuse to cry bloody murder if they end up cratered. These are military targets, just like your other tools of wanton aggression, like your carriers.

In fact, Okinawans would be happy to be liberated from raping US soldiers. They would happily pour oil over the burning corpses of US airmen, and use them as sacrifice for the spirits of all those raped and murdered schoolgirls.

>>32092297

>Chink thinks they are the first to think of targeting runways.

>Chink doesn't realise the USA can do exactly the same thing to them.

>Chink doesn't realise that CATOBAR carrier borne aircraft, land based STOVL aircraft, and the worlds biggest aerial refuelling fleet (enabling the use of distant airbases) means the USA has already designed its military to resist such a measure, while China hasn't.


:DDDDDDDD

>>32092346
Also that the US (and every other modern military) is trained to repair runways in hours or setup brand new contingency runways anywhere with relatively flat land within a day or two.

>>32092297
>Things China actually believes

We're pretty damn experienced in airfield repair.
In the opening shots of a war you'd have so many cruise missiles and stealth burning your strategic assets on Night Zero you'd need emergency proctology.

>Implying the Japanese don't love the money and eligible bachelors/bachelorettes stationed there

File: fign-62[1].gif (30KB, 550x378px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 550x378px

>>32092382

>>32092297
Yes, you do need to strike two points of interest, very good man. If only where was some way to repair these double quick. Oh look, in the corner combat engineers. As for the amount of missiles, there would almost certainly be a build up of SAM site and BMD. To hit all the sites you want to hit would require more missiles than you probably have available at the moment. It (the Rand reports) really doesn't take into account SAM sites, aircraft flying firing missiles at the inbound missiles (yo dog), misses and malfunctions. Not to mention if there is a Aegis warship, it can handle all of that and more as they rated for about 30 missiles at once.

Also, if you attack US bases in other nations, you have no excuse to cry bloody murder when not only does the US take your butt to pound town courtesy of Subs that strike all your land facilities and sink your ships (which given the size of the PLAN , would be significant), but all the other nations that throw their weight behind hitting back.

In fact citizens of Hong Kong would love to be liberated from brainwashed communist soldiers, they would happily join up with us as a protectorate or head back to Britain, while your nation is humiliated because you thought you could flex nuts.
sorry bro

>>32092084
>news just in, Long March 5 outranges AIM-120D, burgerboos btfo

>>32092763
Not much help if the Western plane can close in and fire a missile that gets you into it's NEZ before you know anybody else is even in the sky.

>>32090170
Never forget to add that ALL their tech is stolen and/or just bought and bastardized.
The truth will trigger the 50cent commandos

>>32090428
Well no because we could already conclude that the J-31 was likely to be a steaming pile of shit from the two chimneys powering it

>>32090589
>caring about logical fallacy on a Micronesian mosaic forum

yeah you see the thing is that you already lost

>>32092297
>In fact, Okinawans would be happy to be liberated from raping US soldiers. They would happily pour oil over the burning corpses of US airmen, and use them as sacrifice for the spirits of all those raped and murdered schoolgirls.

o boi am i laffin

you're one of those fucking retarded Asiaboos aren't you. Newsflash for you, miladdo: You're a burger now and you'll be a burger forever, no matter how much shitposting you get up to

>>32090077
>>32090170
>One is built
This is the only part that matters. The F-22 isn't built anymore and there's only a handful left operational (80 or so?). If Chjina builds 200+ J-20s then, surprise, it becomes the better fighter simply by existing in usable numbers.

>>32093306
>This is the only part that matters. The F-22 isn't built anymore and there's only a handful left operational (80 or so?).
187. And will be in service likely to at least 2040.

>>32093306
>If Chjina builds 200+ J-20s then, surprise, it becomes the better fighter simply by existing in usable numbers.
They barely have more J-10s, and you think they'll build more of a far more expensive model?

>>32093306
but not in a technological means. Combined with the fact the F-35 is and order of magnitudes more advanced than the 22, it (J-20) would still be left in the dust. Also, there are around 180 F-22s, with about 30-35 being down for repairs at any one moment.

>>32092763

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708

>China so hardcore, they test their rockets on their own people ;D

China doesn't export the cutting edge stuff. More news at 100

>>32093374
China has over 400 J-10 aircraft

>>32093508
That's news, current data says 240+.

Meanwhile the US has around 400 or so Super Hornets. And a thousand Vipers.

>>32092084
you think we can't tell you just come in every thread to shill your pathetic missile?

>>32093647

You're thinking of the J-11 aka "I-can't-believe-it's-not-Flanker" The J-10 is the smaller one.

File: 64104868.jpg (126KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 500x333px

>>32090041
>f35 is successful
>1.7 trillion bruned and still can't have a working gun on board
/k/ please

>>32093752
>50 year guesstimate, not money actually spent
>Spreytards inflating it again

Don't you have a Warisboring post to masturbate to?

>>32090077
The F-22 performs repeated exercises with foreign air forces. It's been proven to be virtually impossible to kill them BVR with the most advanced 4.5 generation fighters.

>>32094123
In fact, even with canned scenario starts, a luneburg lens, and operating only for guns, Rafale pilots could only just barely get their radar gunsights to stutter-lock a couple times out of 14 tries.

>>32093359
>All that R&D money for 150 combat aircraft (+37 trainers)
Why even bother? It's not like they didn't know about the F35 program.

>>32095004
Two wars were going on that the F-22 was completely useless in.

Which is also why the Air Force refuses to budge on getting 1763 F-35As to make up the difference.

>>32095301

>Not making it 1776

>>32090053
F-22?

>>32090077
>all these pathetic justifications for the F-22

>>32093752

this gun?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD8mqs93y1s

>>32090041

The only way to settle this is to have a 1 vs.1 simulated dog fight between an F-22 and a J-20. Write your local congress men and petition them.

>another China stronk thread
flags when?

The USA needs a meteor equivalent combined with the F-35. It's practically an untouchable combination.

>>32099659
The AIM-120D is pretty damn good too.

>>32092389
>military females
Literally threw up a bit right there