SAC J-50 China’s Next-Generation Aircraft

[gman]

Yes, it is not. I was merely stating the facts. If facts annoy you then find another venue

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, it is not. I was merely stating the facts. If facts annoy you then find another venue

To reiterate:

You said:

...his wife Eleanor championed socialist causes. His second VP, Henry Agard Wallace, was as close to being a communist as you could be...

Sounds like an anti-Democrat rant to me, and nothing to do with Soviet espionage

Which continued thru republican administrations. Feel better now?

Can we say that, contrary to what you said earlier, that Russia is no longer "following the very successful Soviet espionage operations beginning in the 1930’s til the end of the Cold War." ?

 

[gman]

I think you’re reading too much into my response. I would advise you to do some research on Eleanor and Mr Wallace. Just the facts ma’am, just the facts. And yes it has everything to do with the times.
And once more, Russia’s espionage establishment ain’t what it used to be.

 

[Rich2018]

I think you’re reading too much into my response. I would advise you to do some research on Eleanor and Mr Wallace. Just the facts ma’am, just the facts. And yes it has everything to do with the times.
And once more, Russia’s espionage establishment ain’t what it used to be.

You said about Russia that:

...they’re following the very successful Soviet espionage operations beginning in the 1930’s til the end of the Cold War.

But then you said:

...with the end of the Cold War there wasn’t any reason for the American communists who worked in the defense industry and traitors who were in it for the money to continue to spy for a failed regime. The new Russia had much more serious problems to fix. I’m not saying they’re still not trying but Russian intelligence apparatus isn’t what it used to be.

So which is it ???

Because it sounds like Russia TODAY is NOT "following the very successful Soviet espionage operations beginning in the 1930’s til the end of the Cold War."

 

[gman]

You’re talking in circles and it’s extremely annoying. Give it a rest or go bother someone else.

 

[Peter]

The UK, Japan and Italy are building a 6th gen jet called Tempest.
A few other countries are also interested in joining and it looks to be going well so far.

Team Tempest

The Future of Combat Air Delivering next-generation combat air capabilities, created by world class talent and skills.

www.raf.mod.uk

BAE Systems Tempest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I have learned to be highly cynical of Russian and Chinese claims and especially when it comes to military technology.

Around Dec 26 video's of two jet aircraft that have stealthy shapes without vertical tail sections were put out.

One quite large, with a suspected 3 engines, nicknamed the J36 and this one.

They are at least flying, Given China's electronic industry no reason not to think they are not 6th Gen aircraft, at least test beds for 6th gen aircraft

The j20 was first seen around 2012, and now the Chinese have over 200 of a few types ( different engines.

What was called the J35 seems to be getting closer to serial protection. Which is a smaller 2 engine stealth aircraft more similar in size to the f16

 

[Rich2018]

Around Dec 26 video's of two jet aircraft that have stealthy shapes without vertical tail sections were put out.

One quite large, with a suspected 3 engines, nicknamed the J36 and this one.

They are at least flying, Given China's electronic industry no reason not to think they are not 6th Gen aircraft, at least test beds for 6th gen aircraft

The j20 was first seen around 2012, and now the Chinese have over 200 of a few types ( different engines.

What was called the J35 seems to be getting closer to serial protection. Which is a smaller 2 engine stealth aircraft more similar in size to the f16

Great, so they fly - I don't think China would put them on display if did not

But being able to fly is a million miles away from being a Gen 6 jet - which is what they're trying to achieve.

 

[sanman]

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Great, so they fly - I don't think China would put them on display if did not

But being able to fly is a million miles away from being a Gen 6 jet - which is what they're trying to achieve.

Correct

But let's look at things this way

Electronics China is a world leader in electronics. Domestically producing 5 nm Chios which the US can't do( needs Taiwanese company to do it)

It is great at material science being the leader in rare earth metal production and refining

About 7 years ago it was able to create single crystal turbine blades ( required for high performance jet engine)

It produces titanium Domestically,

Certainly good at network communications ( drone shows prove that).

So the only areas where it might have issues is stealth coating, but as that is purely a science problem to solve I am sure the large number of STEM grads can solve that issue.

So realistically China today has nothing preventing them from developing a Gen 6 fighter jet. It certainly has more resources to do so than Europe or Japan

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

To add

If the JF17 / J10s and the pl15 missiles were actually able to shoot down 2 Rafales and 3 other Indian fighters it certainly shows that Chinese electronics are very capable especially given they are export versions and the J10 is the cheapest newer fighter jet

 

[medi]

There are significant weaknesses in many aspects of the PRC's military buildups. There are a number of studies that would take weeks to properly study.

For example, the PRC still hasn't managed to get a handle on using a nuke power plant to run their carriers. And if they want to project power in just the Asian AO, they need carriers. The Japanese figured that one out early in their days when they wanted to control natural resource locations.

The PRC is not even close to that sort of naval asset to be able to control sea lanes.

Maybe this article could help you on just this topic:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a64514247/china-naval-advancements-aircraft-carriers/

 

[sanman]

To add

If the JF17 / J10s and the pl15 missiles were actually able to shoot down 2 Rafales and 3 other Indian fighters it certainly shows that Chinese electronics are very capable especially given they are export versions and the J10 is the cheapest newer fighter jet

Maybe future Defense Minister Freeland can go order some

 

[medi]

This article should be okay for most of you to access and it is a couple years old, but it is still a good summary of another aspect of the PRC and their militray improvements:

China's Nuclear Submarine Program: Fact vs. Fiction - Defense Security Monitor

The nuclear submarine program of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is fraught with contradictory information, speculation, and propaganda. The lack of valid and verified information is a vivid reminder …

dsm.forecastinternational.com

 

[gman]

There are significant weaknesses in many aspects of the PRC's military buildups. There are a number of studies that would take weeks to properly study.

For example, the PRC still hasn't managed to get a handle on using a nuke power plant to run their carriers. And if they want to project power in just the Asian AO, they need carriers. The Japanese figured that one out early in their days when they wanted to control natural resource locations.

The PRC is not even close to that sort of naval asset to be able to control sea lanes.

Maybe this article could help you on just this topic:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a64514247/china-naval-advancements-aircraft-carriers/

What concerns me most is the shit shape of our own navy. It appears to me the in last 20 years or so we’ve seen a marked decline in leadership qualities, systems reliability, construction problems, graft, and corruption. Whether a carrier is nuclear or conventional powered doesn’t mean squat if it doesn’t possess a strong defensive survival network.

 

[medi]

What concerns me most is the shit shape of our own navy. It appears to me the in last 20 years or so we’ve seen a marked decline in leadership qualities, systems reliability, construction problems, graft, and corruption. Whether a carrier is nuclear or conventional powered doesn’t mean squat if it doesn’t possess a strong defensive survival network.

So you have properly briefed yourself on the full task force that is assigned to a carrier, yes?

And you feel a nuclear powered carrier - - - well, you wrote "doesn't mean squat" but if these weaknesses you are pointing to can be solved in a quick manner, then that nuclear powered carrier is still there for use, correct?

Interesting that you bring up that subject of graft. Are you familiar with how important graft is in the PRC?

Frankly, I think having an already built nuclear aircraft carrier does mean squat. And also in the numbers.

That is quite a list you put up there, though. Might take a copy of your post down to Yokosuka next time I'm down there. See what they think of that set of ideas.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

There are significant weaknesses in many aspects of the PRC's military buildups. There are a number of studies that would take weeks to properly study.

For example, the PRC still hasn't managed to get a handle on using a nuke power plant to run their carriers. And if they want to project power in just the Asian AO, they need carriers. The Japanese figured that one out early in their days when they wanted to control natural resource locations.

The PRC is not even close to that sort of naval asset to be able to control sea lanes.

Maybe this article could help you on just this topic:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a64514247/china-naval-advancements-aircraft-carriers/

China has just started to build carriers, 1 a rebuilt Soviet carrier, number 2 a copy of the first. The third a conventional carrier with Emals. The forth is expected to be nuclear but I don't think they are in a huge rush as they also need a new jet to fly off it.

As China already has nuclear powered subs creating a nuclear powered carrier won't be a huge stretch

 

[gman]

So you have properly briefed yourself on the full task force that is assigned to a carrier, yes?

And you feel a nuclear powered carrier - - - well, you wrote "doesn't mean squat" but if these weaknesses you are pointing to can be solved in a quick manner, then that nuclear powered carrier is still there for use, correct?

Interesting that you bring up that subject of graft. Are you familiar with how important graft is in the PRC?

Frankly, I think having an already built nuclear aircraft carrier does mean squat. And also in the numbers.

That is quite a list you put up there, though. Might take a copy of your post down to Yokosuka next time I'm down there. See what they think of that set of ideas.

I’ll be the first to admit that not having been a swabby I don’t possess the latest on naval capabilities. However, I do know that from what I’ve read in the last 20 years leaves a lot to desired from our vaunted US NAVY.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I’ll be the first to admit that not having been a swabby I don’t possess the latest on naval capabilities. However, I do know that from what I’ve read in the last 20 years leaves a lot to desired from our vaunted US NAVY.

China's latest destroyers are believed to be fairly capable. Modern radar, a large number of missiles in vertical launch systems type 55 d

 

[Ikari]

This looks pretty advanced

It's crap.

 

[Rich2018]

Maybe the USA need to start copying Chinese designs ?

 

[sanman]

Maybe the USA need to start copying Chinese designs ?

Won't that lead to a circular loop?

The space-time continuum might collapse.

Isn't that how F-14s shot down Zeros in WW2?

 

[Rich2018]

Won't that lead to a circular loop?

Maybe.