[IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161101131547-china-zhuhai-j-20-large-169.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]
Two of China's brand new, top-of-the-line stealth fighter jets streaked and screamed across an air exhibition on Tuesday as Beijing showed its newest military hardware to the public for the first time.
The J-20 fighter is called Beijing's answer to the US F-22 stealth fighter and the F-35 that will be soon deployed in the Pacific by the United States and Japan.
The J-20, a long-range, radar-avoiding stealth combat aircraft, first flew in 2011 but had not been shown to the public until Tuesday.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/01/asia/china-j-20-stealth-fighter-introduction/index.html[/url]
[media]https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/793351703617757184[/media]
[Media]https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/793308340067692544[/media]
Looks like a J-9 and an F-35's lovechild.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51290912]If it's a stealth fighter then why can I see it in the picture?
China failed again.[/QUOTE]
It's a turkey.
Is it just me or did that seem weirdly awkward in the footage?
Given the design, I was expecting high agility, but it just sorta blundered around.
[QUOTE=GunFox;51290946]Is it just me or did that seem weirdly awkward in the footage?
Given the design, I was expecting high agility, but it just sorta blundered around.[/QUOTE]
The pilots were made in China.
With stolen tech from the US
it looks stupid
Looks neat, but not built for slow flying hehe
ah, so that's why my Chinese buddy was spamming pics of the J-20 a few weeks ago
Can nobody come up with a half original design these days without it looking like something out of the far future?
You can take all the notes you want to off of American Fighters, these Chinese clones will never perform as well as it's US RU counterparts
[QUOTE=GunFox;51290946]Is it just me or did that seem weirdly awkward in the footage?
Given the design, I was expecting high agility, but it just sorta blundered around.[/QUOTE]
Sounds suspiciously like the same problem the F35 has.
[QUOTE=Megadave;51291219]Can nobody come up with a half original design these days without it looking like something out of the far future?[/QUOTE]
I believe there's a point where a design is optimized so much that it's practically impossible to come up with an alternative.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;51291241]You can take all the notes you want to off of American Fighters, these Chinese clones will never perform as well as it's US RU counterparts[/QUOTE]
especially considering that the chinese reportedly said that they wanted to use the engines out of Su-35s that russia sold them, but the project was 'too mature' in its development cycle
the j-20 is a joke, and serves mostly as a nationalistic propaganda tool
[editline][/editline]
this image is always relevant
[thumb]http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2044/4oopg.jpg[/thumb]
[QUOTE=nikomo;51291002]The pilots were made in China.[/QUOTE]
jets stolen from america, pilots made in china.
I would be careful about disregarding china's military capability - whilst they have the reputation of "made in China", you have to realise they've been working hard to achieve and surpass parity with the US ever since 1991, unlike Russia which has kinda just been plodding along with better versions of weapons from the 80s, and unlike the Russians they have the money to achieve that goal
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
Additionally the new government has been working hard to strip out complacency within the ranks of the PLA/PLAAF/PLAN, so they'll probably be more competent than people would give them credit for ten years ago
The airforce should have a contest where people submit new aircraft designs and whoever's design gets stolen the fastest wins.
[QUOTE=Mallow234;51291361]I would be careful about disregarding china's military capability - whilst they have the reputation of "made in China", you have to realise they've been working hard to achieve and surpass parity with the US ever since 1991, unlike Russia which has kinda just been plodding along with better versions of weapons from the 80s, and unlike the Russians they have the money to achieve that goal
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
Additionally the new government has been working hard to strip out complacency within the ranks of the PLA/PLAAF/PLAN, so they'll probably be more competent than people would give them credit for ten years ago[/QUOTE]
They can't even build a SU-27 ripoff that doesn't absolutely blow. They for damn sure can't build a competent stealth fighter.
[QUOTE=Mallow234;51291361]I would be careful about disregarding china's military capability - whilst they have the reputation of "made in China", you have to realise they've been working hard to achieve and surpass parity with the US ever since 1991, unlike Russia which has kinda just been plodding along with better versions of weapons from the 80s, and unlike the Russians they have the money to achieve that goal
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
Additionally the new government has been working hard to strip out complacency within the ranks of the PLA/PLAAF/PLAN, so they'll probably be more competent than people would give them credit for ten years ago[/QUOTE]
as anders said, even their 4th gen equivalent was late and under-performed. they have the money but they dont have the leadership or talent to back up the money and equipment. just look at the Liaoning.
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
i'm not saying that china doesnt have the military prowess to be a threat, they obviously do, and they have the logistics and numbers to back it up. but their engineering and rushed attitude towards training is evident
Actually i find it funny how people here mock that new plane, especially considering we basically know nothing about it's true capabilities and just saw a 3 minute long performance video.
[QUOTE=Mallow234;51291361]unlike Russia which has kinda just been plodding along with better versions of weapons from the 80s[/QUOTE]
Except for a tracked vehicle platform made from scratch, the t50 itself, a bunch of new helicopters and other stuff i'm unaware of since i'm not really interested in all that military stuff. But you're right about the funding being the biggest problem of our military.
Nothing wrong with the Chinese Sukhois except teething problems with engines.
[QUOTE=Megadave;51291219]Can nobody come up with a half original design these days without it looking like something out of the far future?[/QUOTE]
How does it look like it's coming out of the far future when it's literally being designed and flown today?
Wouldn't that make it look like it's coming out of the present since technically its a design that is being made today?
Maybe you've seen too many sci-fi movies and have a distorted vision of what constitutes as a 'futuristic' design and a 'modern' design.
So confused. Do you want it to look like a bi-plane?
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;51291372]The airforce should have a contest where people submit new aircraft designs and whoever's design gets stolen the fastest wins.[/QUOTE]
I laughed at the idea, and then remembered that it was said that the US planted faulty designs for subs among their R&D teams and the soviets fell for one and then they had that incident in which a sub sunk in the middle of the ocean
[QUOTE=Megadave;51291219]Can nobody come up with a half original design these days without it looking like something out of the far future?[/QUOTE]
It's for aerodynamics. It's the same reason cars are starting to look more and more alike - they're having less room to wiggle because if you want it to be as aerodynamic as possible, there's only so much you can do with it.
Sort of the same deal with planes - this is what is working now and, to the best of the knowledge of engineers & scientists this is the most aerodynamic design they can achieve. Why would they do it differently? Obviously they're striving for the best performance possible.
What do you want the planes to look like?
I'd take the new "futuristic" design any day over.. well..
[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/04/article-2288111-186F879D000005DC-66_634x462.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Megadave;51291219]Can nobody come up with a half original design these days without it looking like something out of the far future?[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure no one really cares about aesthetics when it comes to fighter planes and instead care more about how well they do/don't function.
[QUOTE=Mallow234;51291361]I would be careful about disregarding china's military capability - whilst they have the reputation of "made in China", you have to realise they've been working hard to achieve and surpass parity with the US ever since 1991, unlike Russia which has kinda just been plodding along with better versions of weapons from the 80s, and unlike the Russians they have the money to achieve that goal
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
Additionally the new government has been working hard to strip out complacency within the ranks of the PLA/PLAAF/PLAN, so they'll probably be more competent than people would give them credit for ten years ago[/QUOTE]
Everytime someone starts talking about China having the ability to beat the US, their main strategy isn't having better weapons. Its about placement.
They can beat us...in the East China Sea. [I]That's about it.[/I]
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zombii;51291387]as anders said, even their 4th gen equivalent was late and under-performed. they have the money but they dont have the leadership or talent to back up the money and equipment. just look at the Liaoning.
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
i'm not saying that china doesnt have the military prowess to be a threat, they obviously do, and they have the logistics and numbers to back it up. but their engineering and rushed attitude towards training is evident[/QUOTE]
Even with the money thing, they're economy is already on the ropes from all the production they've been pooling. They're now buying American food companies because they can't even secure healthy food stocks from their own land.
[QUOTE=Megadave;51291219]Can nobody come up with a half original design these days without it looking like something out of the far future?[/QUOTE]
Are you expecting a flying saucer? Look at fish and any animal that spends all or most of its time swimming through the water, they all have the same shape because it's the best shape for moving through water. The same thing applies to stealth aircraft until we get a floating battleship
[QUOTE=Megadave;51291219]Can nobody come up with a half original design these days without it looking like something out of the far future?[/QUOTE]theyre all based on the same UFO designs bruh
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51291267]Sounds suspiciously like the same problem the F35 has.[/QUOTE]
Except for the US that makes sense because we've stopped playing the agility game.
This thing has twin vectored thrust engines that take up a considerable portion of the aircraft and massive canards for performance. Clearly they built it for agility.
The F-35 has a stupidly powerful set of sensors and relies heavily on avionics in general, which is the point. It isn't supposed to use agility to dodge anything.
[QUOTE=Swilly;51292242]Everytime someone starts talking about China having the ability to beat the US, their main strategy isn't having better weapons. Its about placement.
They can beat us...in the East China Sea. [I]That's about it.[/I]
[editline]1st November 2016[/editline]
Even with the money thing, they're economy is already on the ropes from all the production they've been pooling. They're now buying American food companies because they can't even secure healthy food stocks from their own land.[/QUOTE]
I'm not one to underestimate the Chinese but if it's a battle in the sea then they're not going to beat the US.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
