China's new 5th Generation Fighter ?

[B-one Keeper]

Actually, I was joking, but not being funny, if that makes any sense. Being funny in presenting a serious point, I guess.

To steer clear of the political end of this and to focus on the fighter - no one knows how it would do in actual combat against X in situation Y. As I said, it's all very complicated. Considering that the US and China are both nuclear powers, let's hope we never find out.

What I would say is that supreme confidence that our equipment was superior to someone else's in real-world situations, and that that would make victory assured, well... that has a track record that's real mixed, to say the least. The recent wars have had very little by the way of air-to-air combat, especially after the initial phases of the wars were over with, so I'd say they probably don't have that much to tell us about that particular aspect of war. But our technological confidence seems to have been justified in 1991. In 1950 and 1965, not so much. I think it would be safe to say that in both of the latter cases, the aviation branches of the US military got some real nasty surprises served up for them. They were certainly surprised in Korea at just how good a fighter the MiG-15 turned out to be. And in Vietnam by how effective seemingly-obsolete MiG-17s could be in skilled hands, or how much of their own whiz-bang equipment didn't work as well as advertised. In both cases, the US got the better of the fight, but in neither case was it the commanding blowout that many might have expected - or predicted - before the shooting started.

But in fact, we've made mistakes both ways. We underestimated what competently-flown MiG-17s could do against F-4s and F-105s, and paid dearly for it. We shook in our boots because we thought the MiG-25 was some sort of undefeatable superfighter (Craig Thomas actually had the MiG-25 in mind when he wrote Firefox), and when we finally got our hands on one, found that it was an overweight dog that handled like a Greyhound bus strapped to a rocket motor, and had an electronics suite made of components less sophisticated than what you'd find on the shelves of a Radio Shack.

So... who can tell what the J-20 can do? Certainly not us, here, now.

You're right Sir, the Migs that we fought during Korea and Vietnam were underestimated and gave us plenty of bloddy noses. But, in both cases we learned to adapt and overcome. Better training and tactics came from both of those wars and we were much better prepared for Desert Storm. We have made mistakes in both of our currents wars, but in each case we are learning from the mistakes that we make, and improvements are implemented. I see it everytime I go to work and everytime I deploy. This is one of the many traits that makes the US Military very deadly. When it comes to the Chinese AF, they may have some good aircraft and designs, but they have a long way to go to match our level of experience, tactics and training. And we have made a lot of mistakes over the years to learn from and improve ourselves. The J-20 is a sweet looking aircraft though, it looks like a cross between an F-22 and a Mig 1.42/44. It looks a bit on the large side to me.

[loftycomfort]

I wonder if there's a smaller Chinese G5 jet in the works to complement the big J-20. If not a full-blown G5 stealthy small jet, perhaps a G4.5 version of the J-10?

Terry

[AnthonyWan]

Well it's been a week since it's first "unveiling"...I'll be keeping my eyes pealed on Chinese news sites and blogs to see if any photos of this thing in the air pop up! :)

[TaiidanTomcat]

Actually, I was joking, but not being funny, if that makes any sense. Being funny in presenting a serious point, I guess.

To steer clear of the political end of this and to focus on the fighter - no one knows how it would do in actual combat against X in situation Y. As I said, it's all very complicated. Considering that the US and China are both nuclear powers, let's hope we never find out.

What I would say is that supreme confidence that our equipment was superior to someone else's in real-world situations, and that that would make victory assured, well... that has a track record that's real mixed, to say the least. The recent wars have had very little by the way of air-to-air combat, especially after the initial phases of the wars were over with, so I'd say they probably don't have that much to tell us about that particular aspect of war. But our technological confidence seems to have been justified in 1991. In 1950 and 1965, not so much. I think it would be safe to say that in both of the latter cases, the aviation branches of the US military got some real nasty surprises served up for them. They were certainly surprised in Korea at just how good a fighter the MiG-15 turned out to be. And in Vietnam by how effective seemingly-obsolete MiG-17s could be in skilled hands, or how much of their own whiz-bang equipment didn't work as well as advertised. In both cases, the US got the better of the fight, but in neither case was it the commanding blowout that many might have expected - or predicted - before the shooting started.

But in fact, we've made mistakes both ways. We underestimated what competently-flown MiG-17s could do against F-4s and F-105s, and paid dearly for it. We shook in our boots because we thought the MiG-25 was some sort of undefeatable superfighter (Craig Thomas actually had the MiG-25 in mind when he wrote Firefox), and when we finally got our hands on one, found that it was an overweight dog that handled like a Greyhound bus strapped to a rocket motor, and had an electronics suite made of components less sophisticated than what you'd find on the shelves of a Radio Shack.

So... who can tell what the J-20 can do? Certainly not us, here, now.

The Vietnam lesson is always a good one... But hasn't the US fought a few wars between Vietnam and now and absolutely annihilated the enemy? There is a reason our most whiz-bang fighter has a cannon. Its thanks to Vietnam. We practice Air to air combat. We have red flag. We are good thanks to practice.

The gear does not make the man. I am sorry to say that. I can buy the most expensive sports gear, The nicest boots, the slickest shirt, and the best shin guards, the most advanced socks and I still will not play like Fernando Torres.

i think its odd that the US is constantly whined at for its super expensive equipment, but in the end thats not what makes the US good. the last 10 years have been disturbingly "low tech" and the US still closes with and destroys the enemy regardless of casualties.

Again, China producing a new stealthier fighter is not a surprise any more than the PAK-FA was. People have been predicting this for years. Its not the end of the world, only a validation of those who said High tech warfare is not going away.

[MarkW]

I guess when 10:1 kill ratios in the air are considered a shellacking....

I find this and the Pak-Fa interesting from the aero perspective. Clearly supersonic designs, but both have itty bitty tails relatively speaking. I know the Russians are all over thrust vectoring, but didn't realize the Chinese had worked out the control laws. And could they make the main gear doors any freakin' bigger?!

As for Gates, he was off by a year if he said 2020. The Chinese themselves estimate 2017-2019, and they are certainly going to learn things in flight test that may make this harder than they thought. I'm a bit confused by the stealth aspects. The first three rules of stealth are shaping, shaping and shaping. Having a DVI and some sharp edges are a start, but not enough. Canards and ventral fins are not intuitely obvious stealth features unless they are only going for the frontal aspect. We really need some decent in air shots. All that said, very cool/interesting design.

Crazy idea: subsonic penetrating attack aircraft. Not feeling supercruise on this guy.

[Guest Hoban Washburne]

Just after I went back to work from my recent illness I was pulling night duty and on one ward round during that night shift I got talking to a nurse whose husband happens to design and manufacture camper trailers...they found a canvas maker in China who would make what they wanted exactly as they wanted it and for $600. This new canvas was fitted to the re-redesigned camper trailer and the family took it away and the canvas survived similar high winds and lashing rains. This prototype is still the family's camper and the canvas has lasted that long with no problems. Since then they have sold a few hundred campers and had no problems or complaints about the canvas.

So, you're going to broadly stereotype a huge country with thousands of manufacturing companies ability to produce a complex, cutting edge, high technology fighter aircraft based on a night shift anecdote told to you by a co-worker, who claims her husband who manufactures campers got better canvas from China?

Well sure, with logic like that, I can see why we all should be shaking in our boots over a few grainy pictures we know nothing about. God help planet earth if this thing is made of canvas.

[TaiidanTomcat]

So, you're going to broadly stereotype a huge country with thousands of manufacturing companies ability to produce a complex, cutting edge, high technology fighter aircraft based on a night shift anecdote told to you by a co-worker, who claims her husband who manufactures campers got better canvas from China?

Well sure, with logic like that, I can see why we all should be shaking in our boots over a few grainy pictures we know nothing about. God help planet earth if this thing is made of canvas.

[Litvyak]

So, you're going to broadly stereotype a huge country with thousands of manufacturing companies ability to produce a complex, cutting edge, high technology fighter aircraft based on a night shift anecdote told to you by a co-worker, who claims her husband who manufactures campers got better canvas from China?

Well sure, with logic like that, I can see why we all should be shaking in our boots over a few grainy pictures we know nothing about. God help planet earth if this thing is made of canvas.

You miss the point.

I think his point was the same as one I made in this or the other J-20 thread: the general conception that Chinese products are crap is not valid any longer. Yes, they still make loads of crap for export, but that's because that's what they're getting paid to make, cheap disposable garbage.

However, having lived there myself, I can attest that there is in fact quite a lot of high-quality stuff being manufactured in China.

And that is the point: if they can make good quality consumer goods, then I'm fairly sure they can produce quality equipment for their military. Now, I'm not saying that that means this J-20 is on a par with the F-22 or whatever. All I'm saying is that just because it is made in China does NOT mean it is instantly rubbish. It seems to me that altogether too many Americans have this belief that anything not made in the USA is crap. The world is catching up - in some cases, caught up and even surpassed. So yeah, that's my point: don't assume it's rubbish just because it's Chinese!

[Guest Hoban Washburne]

Don't think I've missed the point a bit.

don't assume it's rubbish just because it's Chinese!

I never said that, mate. And I don't have that as a general conception either. I just found his example a mite humourous, especially given it wasn't even his example, but something twas told him from someone who heard it from someone else.

It seems to me that altogether too many Americans have this belief that anything not made in the USA is crap.

Not sure where you've drawn this conclusion from this thread either. And it seems most Americans are quite happy buying cars, electronics, etc. made in Asia, so I find it hard to understand how you've reached this conclusion overall. At any rate, I was having some fun about the canvas. Even if you are trying to prove "just because it's made in China doesn't make it offal," using fabric as an example when you're talking high technology manufacturing is a pretty flimsy conviction.

I've no idea what this alleged J-20 mockup can do. Given it hasn't even flown, t'would seem a bit premature for anyone to have drawn any conclusions as to the current state of Chinese aircraft manufacturing.

[H Mungous]

I think his point was the same as one I made in this or the other J-20 thread: the general conception that Chinese products are crap is not valid any longer.

But the general conception that U.S. products are crap, especially ones used by the U.S. military, seems to be an acceptable one. Oh the irony.

Cheers,

Hugh

[ross blackford]

:D, Thank you Litvyak. That was my point exactly. I just love the way some people take bits of a post and quote them and then try to use that to justify an unjustiable position. Hoban Washburne, did you even bother to carefully read the rest of my post. If you had you'd see there was a lot there that you have missed in your quote. Go have a good read of the post first. It's a bit like those who take texts from the Bible and say, "There, God said it, I believe it, that settles it." That's a lame statement. Such people and their proof texts annoy me no end. What they don't do is take the whole thing in its correct context because if they did there would be no justification for their position, and in many cases they know it full well. You're going to have to get up a lot earlier than that Hoban Washburne.

,

Ross.

[RandomCatFacts]

A Chinese Mountain Cat is basically crepuscular (active during twilight) and nocturnal, they hunt in the dawn hours and late night time.

[ross blackford]

:D, Hi Hoban Washburne,

Let's just have a little look here shall we?

Quote Hoban Washburne] I never said that, mate. And I don't have that as a general conception either. I just found his example a mite humourous, especially given it wasn't even his example, but something twas told him from someone who heard it from someone else.

For starters, I now think you didn't read my post thoroughly. The nurse who's husband makes these campers didn't hear it secondhand from anyone. She controls the finances in the family and company so she had it first hand. She was also in the camper the first time they took it out in its prototype form and she, like the rest of the family got wet because the Aussie canvas wasn't up to it. And that was on the first trial run. She nurses part time, not because she needs to but because she likes to.

Quote Hoban Washburne] Not sure where you've drawn this conclusion from this thread either. And it seems most Americans are quite happy buying cars, electronics, etc. made in Asia, so I find it hard to understand how you've reached this conclusion overall. At any rate, I was having some fun about the canvas. Even if you are trying to prove "just because it's made in China doesn't make it offal," using fabric as an example when you're talking high technology manufacturing is a pretty flimsy conviction.

I did say in my post that I wasn't comparing a camper trailer to a modern high tech fighter aircraft, that I was merely making the point that the Chinese are rapidly improving their products and the quality is starting to show up. I did make the point that they still have some way to go in some areas, but that whole part of the post seems to have been lost on you. Like I said in my last post, you have to get up a lot earlier than that, mate. I hope (but doubt) this can be the last on the sledgeing bit and we can now concentrate on the aircraft itself.

:),

Ross.

Edited December 31, 2010 by ross blackford

[Guest Hoban Washburne]

Apparently I forgot the jaunty little emoticon that makes it acceptable to call one a horse's backside.

Sorry 'bout that, mate. Clearly you have a dizzying intellect.

You're right, I'm wrong. Feel free to dissect away, mate.

[F-15fan]

Whether this new jet is better than the F-22 is not important as I doubt the US will ever get in a shooting war with China. After all....bombing China would mean reducing their industrial capacity to produce our consumer goods....thus causing prices to rise and wiping out the US economy with run away inflation and rising interest rates. :D

A better approach for the US would be to help China invade Australia.......once China controlled Australia....they would have more resources to produce consumer goods for an even lower price thus benefitting the US economy. :)

It's important to always look at the larger picture in these matters. :P

[MarkW]

I'm quite certain there's a few folks here from Oz who are eagerly awaiting the arrival of their Chinese overlords.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Whether this new jet is better than the F-22 is not important as I doubt the US will ever get in a shooting war with China.

That's a good thing because after hearing for years how the F-22 was overly advanced and too expensive for its job, it has now been made painfully obsolete by this taxiing demon fighter.

But the general conception that U.S. products are crap, especially ones used by the U.S. military, seems to be an acceptable one. Oh the irony.

Cheers,

Hugh

Indeed.

Don't be fooled. Just because the F-15 has never been bested in air combat, and the F-22 is a generation ahead of it, does not mean that American gear doesn't suck out loud. Remember Vietnam-- Nothing has changed in 4 decades. I don't think the US has fought a single bloodless air to air engagement since.

Edited January 1, 2011 by TaiidanTomcat

[GreyGhost]

That's a good thing because after hearing for years how the F-22 was overly advanced and too expensive for its job, it has now been made painfully obsolete by this taxiing demon fighter.

I guess it's been dubbed "FireFang" in some circles ...

Gregg