It doesn't really matter as the two coolest planes ever (the F-4 Phantom II and the MiG 25) have already been invented. I do realize this is about tech and all that but screw it. Planes haven't been a deciding factor in war since WW I and it's all about having the best looking one anyway.
PS: I know planes help a lot in war and still do, but it's not as much about planes fighting planes anymore. It's just planes doing bombing runs or tactical strikes.
With regards to the J20, have you paid close attention to the engines? There's absolutely no attempt to give them a stealth profile at the exit points. Look at the back end of an F-117A or Raptor, they're seriously styled to reduce the radar cross-section even more.
The J20 has ordinary engines.......two giant great glowing targets. It's an OK effort, but they can do better!
EDIT: Just though I'd mention, as I'm quite proud of it, that I took that shot of the typhoon above. Two days in Wales, waiting!
I noticed the J-20's exhaust as well - needs work. But it's still just a prototype airframe, maybe they could blend the profile like the F-35 does. We just have to wait and see... for probably at least another 10 years. Oh, and kudos on that shot of the Typhoon! How the hell didya take it? Definitely worth the 2 day wait (it's currently my wallpaper - the Typhoon is my favorite delta-wing fighter, looks real dramatic with the full payload!)
vxicepickxv said:
As for both China and Russia I will say this. They make scary looking aircraft. Russia is REALLY good at making aircraft that look tough and perform well below US standards. We haven't gotten much info from China, but this new aircraft of theirs seems to be missing quite a bit of the form, fit, and function of the F-22 and F-35. One of the biggest things that's missing is a heat signature dampener from the exhaust, plus it's more rounded than an F-22. Militarily, the US is making superior aircraft.
Financially though, we are losing, and the new MAD has nothing to do with H-bombs.
Umm, you might want to look at the war games that India hosted a couple of years back. Sukhoi Su-30s and MiG-21s regularly cleaned the clocks of F-16s and F-15s, and the Su-27 variants are kinematically far more superior than any 4th generation fighters. F-22s changed the game, but we've yet to see what the T50 has to offer. As for stealth, like I already mentioned, the T50 is being equipped with IR scanners (which the F22 was supposed to get, but was cancelled due to budget constraints) - so they wouldn't only scan for radar signatures, but also heat signatures (a major aspect, as the F-35 lacks supercruise). Also, only the F35 will be produced in any meaningful number to be tactically viable, as the F22 has been axed. I wouldn't underestimate the Russians. As for finances: yes. You better stop the Chamber of Commerce from shipping all your jobs over to China.
Redlin5 said:
I don't think that fancy fighters are a good excuse for war.
]I don't believe you actually want a war to start (I'm at least hoping) and I imagine you just think this is a charming or witty way to frame your pose.
It's not.
There is absolutely nothing funny or cute about this suggestion. War kills people. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of it being possible to justify war, war should never be desirable for its own sake. I understand that people like to geek out over weapons, aircraft, et cetera, but ideally that takes the form of interest in the equipment itself, not in seeing it put to use killing people.
Mine as well. Dick fencing by countries showing off their toys while tens of thousands (if not millions) of soldiers die senseless deaths? We need less fancy military hardware, not more.
First of all, let me clear something. I'm happy that all these aircrafts are being made. Okay, not happy, but positively delighted. Because it simply means that there is no single military hegemony. Any country that can acquire one of these cheaper T50s or J20s will be able to upgrade their air force. Any super-power (be it USA or China) who might gain something by attacking said nation will think twice before making any progression. What if an undetected fighter/interceptor takes out an AWAC or ECM aircraft, crippling their capabilities? What if a stealth fighter launches an anti-ship missile and deals major damage to their flotilla? What if, as a counter-attack, one their own strategic bases are hit? In short, it gives everyone (who can afford the dough) a fighting chance - unlike the situation, say, back in Vietnam, when Vietnamese second generation fighters had to fight off American third generation fighters (the F-4 Phantoms were using heat-seeking missiles, whereas the MiG-21s mostly only had guns). What you might call a dick-waggling contest (I personally call it a pissing contest) is called a deterrence by others. When everyone gets fancy hardware, it raises the stakes, and war becomes more of a last-ditch efort. I admit it's not perfect, but it's all the world has got.
And for The Spaghetti Monster's sake, when someone says "We really need an all out war right now to see who wins!" and ends it with this- you seriously need to consider whether s/he is serious. I mean, let's try to convey a serious message with that emoticon at the end:
"Boss, I just accidentally killed the two orphans who were the only people capable of saving the entire world from the armageddon that is going to initiate in about 2 minutes... ... ... "
See? DOES. NOT. WORK.
And since when did war become a touchy subject, considering we are surrounded by it? And since when was war, despite its terrible consequences, never subject to humor?
Here, I'll have a stab at it.
"What did Winston Churchill do right after WW2? Why, he decided to launch Operation Unthinkable. Which was basically attacking the Soviet Union."
First, bear me out, I realise that this sounds really self-righteous and blown-out-of-proportion, but I think the point is important to make.
Again, it has nothing to do with you actually meaning it. It has to do with jokingly saying "these things kill people, let's have a war :-D", which is troubling in other ways. There is humour about war, and the overwhelming majority of major humour about war is about the ways in which it is BAD. Catch-22 is a book about war and it's funny, but it is by NO MEANS a book about how war is fun and hilarious. Even works with pro-war messages tend to restrict themselves to darker war humour or humour about the irony of a lot of it.
It's not a touchy subject, it's a subject that's pretty resilient, but still gets uncomfortable if you touch it in certain ways.
Nor does it have to do with the actual effect of the aircrafts' production. Agree or disagree on the idea of deterrence or on justification for armament, the point still stands that "yay war" is not a great attitude. Saying it so casually "as a joke" doesn't make it any better.
It's like standing in the middle of a party and saying "Hey, check out this new gun. I can't wait to find someone to try it out on." Except we're not talking about a guy with a gun and maybe a few lives, we're talking about potentially THOUSANDS of lives. Do you think that the thousands upon thousands of people living in places that actually see these things kill their neighbors think it's all okay because it's a joke?
It's okay to joke about serious things, but it isn't okay to pretend like they're not serious because you can joke about them.
Aircraft of these kinds probably would have very unspectacular dogfights because the nature of missiles these days have ranges beyond line of sight, even at 15,000ft. Major powers would also be unwilling to put such expensive toys in a location where they could be easily destroyed. One does not take decisions lightly regarding machines that quite literally are worth their weight in gold.
Also, I think you need to be able to make the distinction between "Need" and "Want".
Mine as well. Dick fencing by countries showing off their toys while tens of thousands (if not millions) of soldiers die senseless deaths? We need less fancy military hardware, not more.
We should instead be having a competition about who can explore space first. That way in the course of developing feasible space-travel we'd also end up figuring out new ways to use fuel, grow/store food, and plenty of other technological developments that would benefit us.
Or we should at least work towards getting to Mars, as that would provide us with some of what I said. Plus traveling to other planets just sounds freaking awesome. And yes, I do know about the issues with it(mainly your chances of returning are very, very low), but the more we develop the tech tech the more feasible 2-way space trips get.
Or this could all just be ramblings of a 19 year-old with a dream to explore space. Either way, there are better ways to measure our dicks.
Why can't we have a "who can help the most needy countries" contest?
the J-20 is a bomber
oh its partly based on the stolen F-35 plans but it's way to big to be a fighter
if they plan to use it for anything it'll be as a tactical first strike aircraft like the F-117
Agreed, it's fucking massive. It'll also probably break just after the years warranty is up, like everything else made in China! Check this page and keep scrolling.
http://bbs.rednet.cn/thread-24610276-1-1.html
Anyway, what about 4.5 gen aircraft such as the typhoon? Extremely low radar cross-section, brilliant avionics, more agile than anything mentioned in this thread so far........and far prettier. If you're going to war, may as well look good too!
If the various governments involved would just go ahead and post the results of years of Red Flag operations, all these questions could be answered without firing any weapons!
OT: I dont really know or care who is better. its not hte plane its the pilot. If it were always about the better plane, Japan would have won the war in the pacific through the air. Besides, all war is bad, and always leaves one country in massive debt while another doesnt get the monetary and capital gain to replace the cost of human lives and destruction caused/taken. But I would say the US is better cause their airforce is bigger, and numbers beat tech. Why do you think no one has launched a Land War with China, AND WON?
First, bear me out, I realise that this sounds really self-righteous and blown-out-of-proportion, but I think the point is important to make.
Again, it has nothing to do with you actually meaning it. It has to do with jokingly saying "these things kill people, let's have a war :-D", which is troubling in other ways. There is humour about war, and the overwhelming majority of major humour about war is about the ways in which it is BAD. Catch-22 is a book about war and it's funny, but it is by NO MEANS a book about how war is fun and hilarious. Even works with pro-war messages tend to restrict themselves to darker war humour or humour about the irony of a lot of it.
It's not a touchy subject, it's a subject that's pretty resilient, but still gets uncomfortable if you touch it in certain ways.
Nor does it have to do with the actual effect of the aircrafts' production. Agree or disagree on the idea of deterrence or on justification for armament, the point still stands that "yay war" is not a great attitude. Saying it so casually "as a joke" doesn't make it any better.
It's like standing in the middle of a party and saying "Hey, check out this new gun. I can't wait to find someone to try it out on." Except we're not talking about a guy with a gun and maybe a few lives, we're talking about potentially THOUSANDS of lives. Do you think that the thousands upon thousands of people living in places that actually see these things kill their neighbors think it's all okay because it's a joke?
It's okay to joke about serious things, but it isn't okay to pretend like they're not serious because you can joke about them.
Look, see my stab at a joke about Churchill? Why is it funny? Because in context of the economy and military state of that time (everything was in shambles after WW2), it was absurd. And so is the idea of a war involving USA, China and Russia. America's investments are ties up in China and vice versa, and the Russian economy is just pickng up after decades. It's common knowledge. I simply assumed everyone would be able to put it in context and see the humor (hell, even the Cold War wasn't crazy enough to wage a war just to see who has better hardware). I even put that goddamned emoticon!
But since sarcasm doesn't conveyed very well through text alone, I guess I should've ended it with a [/sarcasm]. Hate doing that; destroys even a remote semblence of subtlty.
First, bear me out, I realise that this sounds really self-righteous and blown-out-of-proportion, but I think the point is important to make.
Again, it has nothing to do with you actually meaning it. It has to do with jokingly saying "these things kill people, let's have a war :-D", which is troubling in other ways. There is humour about war, and the overwhelming majority of major humour about war is about the ways in which it is BAD. Catch-22 is a book about war and it's funny, but it is by NO MEANS a book about how war is fun and hilarious. Even works with pro-war messages tend to restrict themselves to darker war humour or humour about the irony of a lot of it.
It's not a touchy subject, it's a subject that's pretty resilient, but still gets uncomfortable if you touch it in certain ways.
Nor does it have to do with the actual effect of the aircrafts' production. Agree or disagree on the idea of deterrence or on justification for armament, the point still stands that "yay war" is not a great attitude. Saying it so casually "as a joke" doesn't make it any better.
It's like standing in the middle of a party and saying "Hey, check out this new gun. I can't wait to find someone to try it out on." Except we're not talking about a guy with a gun and maybe a few lives, we're talking about potentially THOUSANDS of lives. Do you think that the thousands upon thousands of people living in places that actually see these things kill their neighbors think it's all okay because it's a joke?
It's okay to joke about serious things, but it isn't okay to pretend like they're not serious because you can joke about them.
Look, see my stab at a joke about Churchill? Why is it funny? Because in context of the economy and military state of that time (everything was in shambles after WW2), it was absurd. And so is the idea of a war involving USA, China and Russia. America's investments are ties up in China and vice versa, and the Russian economy is just pickng up after decades. It's common knowledge. I simply assumed everyone would be able to put it in context and see the humor (hell, even the Cold War wasn't crazy enough to wage a war just to see who has better hardware). I even put that goddamned emoticon!
But since sarcasm doesn't conveyed very well through text alone, I guess I should've ended it with a [/sarcasm]. Hate doing that; destroys even a remote semblence of subtlty.
I'm not going to keep going after this post, but for the final time, I understand what you're saying. I'm not misunderstanding the joke, I'm not misunderstanding your reasoning, I'm not misunderstanding the likelihood of a war between the US, China, and Russian, I'm not misunderstanding your sarcasm, I'm not misunderstanding your humour. Assuming that people who disagree with you just don't understand you is a pointless game.
I'm not saying that it isn't a funny joke (I'm not among them, but I'm sure some people thought it was funny/cute (I don't mean cute in a demeaning way here either)) or that war isn't something that jokes can be made about. What I'm saying is that it was a joke in extremely poor taste and, moreover, that joking casually about killing people/things that kill people isn't good for society as a whole. My whole point was that this is not some subject that's "off limits", it just needs to be approached with some thought. My point about things like Catch-22 is that they're extremely funny, about war, but hold onto the idea that war is about killing people and is generally pretty unpleasant stuff. The same can be said for the overwhelming majority of well-known, well-received comedy about war.
I think that's probably as clear as I'm going to be able to make my point and I feel like we're sort of keeping this thread afloat with a somewhat off-topic argument, so I'm going to move on. I don't want to be dismissive or anything though, so if you want to respond, I'll certainly take a look or you can feel free to shoot a PM.
Oh, and kudos on that shot of the Typhoon! How the hell didya take it? Definitely worth the 2 day wait (it's currently my wallpaper - the Typhoon is my favorite delta-wing fighter, looks real dramatic with the full payload!)
A lot of driving, followed by a lot of climbing, followed by a lot of waiting! I got video footage of all of the passes from the second day using a Kodak Zi6, bootstrapped onto my E3/50-500 combo!
For the uninitiated: 5th generation fighters are the most advanced aircrafts, designed to incorporate numerous technological advancements, including all-aspect stealth even when armed, Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR), high-performance air frames, advanced avionics features, and highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the theater of war in order to achieve an advantage in situational awareness, and automatically connects you to Facebook.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
you seriously need to consider whether s/he is serious. I mean, let's try to convey a serious message with that emoticon at the end:
