China Flanker Thread II

[Jeff Head]

That first is a way to claim IRST systems stop working, technically the IRST systems is not affected by any restriction beyond bad weather.

No, Mig-29, I did not claim that, I simply said that there were limitations placed on the F-22, both with BVR and other capabilities to level the playing field and not to count too highly on what a fighter jock said as a result of such a Red Flag exercise while engaging an F-22 so handicapped. I stand by that arguement and statement.

You think that F-22 is unvulnerable, un-detectable, that is not true, F-22 can be detected, even by old systems, as i told you a soccer ball pretty much is a ver small size, by the way 400km of engagement capability.

Nope again. Read what I wrote. I specifically said that the F-22 is NOT invulnerable.

The reality at 28km, F-22 will be detected, even at 60-80km, the JDAMs are useless, that is the reality.

Not. Given the flight profile and capabilities it has, the reality is that most will get in range and deliver their JDAMS (or longer ranged standoff weapons if qual'ed) if they are tasked to do so. And the weapons will most certainly work if delivered.

We will simply have to disagree on this. But it is a moot topic anyway because, as I have stated and will explain again, the F-22 is not likely to be tasked with this mission.

You re not thinking with logi

Well, Mig-29, I am certainly NOT thinking with YOUR logic...and that is fine.

But everything I have mentioned to you has been very logically laid out. You just disagree with it...and that's fine too.

... first the F-22 will destroy enemy fighters and B-2s and F-15E destroy SAMs, AWACs and Radar stations and later F-22 will start doing bombing missions when there is little probability it might be down.

I have stated over and over that the probability of the F-22 being used as a strike aircraft is very low...too few aircraft in inventory and they are simply too good and valuable in the air to air role. But they are capbale of strike if the US desired. With the F-35 JSF, purpose built strike fighter coming on, it is unlikely that the option will ever be used.

So, as a result, your scenario probably goes more like this.

1) Highly stealthy B-2s engage and destroy enemy radars and C&C targets using their stealth and standoff missiles to do so.

2) Highly stealthy F-35 strike aircraft follow up the B-2 raids and destroy leftover radars and other high value targets with standoff precision weapons.

3) While that is happening, F-22s establish air superiority and ultimately air dominance.

4) Then, F-35s acting in a non-stealth role, and F-15Es and other attack aircraft continue the attack.

He is the designer of F-16 says a rifle will down it, compare the Su-34 has armoured cockpit and Russia still retains Su-25s

Hitting an F-22 with a bullet fired from a rifle on the ground, while it is engaging in air to air combat, or attack combat at any altitude over 1000 feet is more unlikely than finding a needle in a haystack...a very large haystack.

 

[SteelBird]

Между тем на форуме портала club.mil.news.sina.com.cn резмещен обзор вышедшей в недавнем номере американского военного журнала Defense Review статьи, где говорится о том, что Китай ведет работы по созданию собственного варианта российского фронтового бомбардировщика Су-34.

Китай уже имеет опыт успешной разработки истребителей J-11B и J-16 на базе российских Су-27 и Су-30. Сообщается, что завершен этап продувки модели J-17 (Су-34) в аэродинамической трубе. Далее идут предположения, что китайская версия Су-34 должна прийти на замену бомбардировщикам H-6 (Ту-16).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to this report, Defence review claimed China was building J-17 based upon Su-34, they say it is american and the test model of Su-34 was tested on a Wind tunnel, the aircraft J-17 might be to replace H-6 according to the source

Excuse me, when you said China builds J-17 based Su-34, is it possible to build something based on something without having the sample? I doubt it!!!

 

[MiG-29]

But again !!! This report too says more or less exactly the samne what the other Russian report IO posted yesterday tells us. ... the quetion remains still remains: is this report true or once again some kind of BS ???

Deino

Well Deino, here i can not answer, i do not know, i just read that because if the source is american you have to ask, why they say that.

My sources are math, i can only tell you what i learn at school or read on the internet about aerodynamics, my sources do not go so far, i can read 3 languages very well, and 2 so so, the only thing i can say to you is wait and try to look for more sources.

If i find something in Russian, English or even Spanish, Japanese and portuguese i will tell you, but honestly that answer i can not tell you how reliable is.

 

[MiG-29]

Excuse me, when you said China builds J-17 based Su-34, is it possible to build something based on something without having the sample? I doubt it!!!

No idea, honestly. i am just quoting the article

 

[Deino]

But the problem again is we once agin have a highly questionable link and regardless if that one is reposted in Russian, German, English, Chinese or even any other language, it does not make it more relaible.

We all know how often news agencies without any true knowing in military aviation matters do check their information and once anything is posted anywhere it is riaght thereafter reposted by any other 2source".

As such - and to admit that's why I'm so mad about the last pages full of pros and cons about thsi or that type, the superiority of the mightly Su-34 and so on .... these discussions are simple useless if we don't know if there's anything true in that report. Only then we might discuss if a Su-34-look alike - and You know that I don't think so - is better suited to the PLAAF needs than a new stealthy design.

Deino

 

[MiG-29]

No, Mig-29, I did not claim that, I simply said that there were limitations placed on the F-22, both with BVR and other capabilities to level the playing field and not to count too highly on what a fighter jock said as a result of such a Red Flag exercise while engaging an F-22 so handicapped. I stand by that arguement and statement.

Nope again. Read what I wrote. I specifically said that the F-22 is NOT invulnerable.

Not. Given the flight profile and capabilities it has, the reality is that most will get in range and deliver their JDAMS (or longer ranged standoff weapons if qual'ed) if they are tasked to do so. And the weapons will most certainly work if delivered.

.

Jeff

The question is who you are going to believe Antey Almaz who claims to have radars that detect F-22s or Lockheed to claim to have F-22 very stealthy.

I believe the hunt of stealth fighters is possible, it is hard, yes, but is possible in the realm of current technology, might F-22 work perhaps sometimes.

PAKDA is a stealth replacement of Tu-22M3, China can skip the Su-34 generation and go straight for a PAKDA or B-2 aircraft type, but Su-34 is not inferior to F-22 in the attack role, specially since F-22 uses JDAMs that have ranges of 18 miles at the most and see that depends in the aircraft and trajectory, in few words in the ballistic of the attack.
Su-34 flies the ground hugging mission better than Su-30.
F-22 by the virtue of attacking a ground target, it might be hit by AAA or ground fire, that is what he is saying, which is true, A-10s and Su-25 are designed for that mission, F-22 is not a bomber, it is designed as an air superiority with limited attack capability it might be able to attack some targets, but to claim it will excell in the attack role, consider at WVR it can be downed, well at short ranges, it can be downed too by SAMs

 

[MiG-29]

But the problem again is we once agin have a highly questionable link and regardless if that one is reposted in Russian, German, English, Chinese or even any other language, it does not make it more relaible.

We all know how often news agencies without any true knowing in military aviation matters do check their information and once anything is posted anywhere it is riaght thereafter reposted by any other 2source".

As such - and to admit that's why I'm so mad about the last pages full of pros and cons about thsi or that type, the superiority of the mightly Su-34 and so on .... these discussions are simple useless if we don't know if there's anything true in that report. Only then we might discuss if a Su-34-look alike - and You know that I don't think so - is better suited to the PLAAF needs than a new stealthy design.

Deino

I do agree with you in that re-mark, however people here make remarks based upon opinions.

You for example think the Su-34 is kind of a sitting duck, i disagree, but you base your opinion in the reliability of the article in part in that.

I just defended the article`s logic in what respects why China could build a Su-34 look alike.

And i defended not because of Russian pro-bias, no i defended it because in Russia they are doing it in real life, replacing a better bomber than H-6 (AKA Tu-22M3) with Su-34 in some missions and i know perfectly a F-22 armed with JDAMs is not a better bomber than a dedicated armed bomber with ASM, plus for China to build a better bomber than Su-34 would mean a PAKDA type aircraft or a FB-22 bomber design.

So here the question is we hold different views, only that, that is not being out of topic simply that we see the world in different ways

 

[Deino]

...
You for example think the Su-34 is kind of a sitting duck, i disagree, but you base your opinion in the reliability of the article in part in that.

I just defended the article`s logic in what respects why China could build a Su-34 look alike.
...

Where do I base my opinion in the reliability of that report and even more my opinion that the Su-34 is dated ???

I only question the reliability of the report itself and while You take it for granted and asagin as proof that the Su-34 is super-duper - what I don't question - You have nothing better to do than to repost in each and every post thru the last three pages with countles examples that :

... replacing a better bomber than H-6 (AKA Tu-22M3) with Su-34 in some missions and i know perfectly a F-22 armed with JDAMs is not a better bomber than a dedicated armed bomber with ASM, plus for China to build a better bomber than Su-34 would mean a PAKDA type aircraft or a FB-22 bomber design.

So, YES we all know that and everyone who still did not understand that can simply read the last posts from You ... as such no need to refrain over and over again especially since it's irrelevat in the discussion if that report is FAKE !!!

 

[MiG-29]

Where do I base my opinion in the reliability of that report and even more my opinion that the Su-34 is dated ???

I only question the reliability of the report itself and while You take it for granted and asagin as proof that the Su-34 is super-duper - what I don't question - You have nothing better to do than to repost in each and every post thru the last three pages with countles examples that :




So, YES we all know that and everyone who still did not understand that can simply read the last posts from You ... as such no need to refrain over and over again especially since it's irrelevat in the discussion if that report is FAKE !!!

Look, here i will be honest and sharp, you are acusing me of repeating my opinion, countless of times, but what you do not see is i am engaged answering to three people or more people at the same time and what you do not see, is conversations develop that way, first because we are not physically speaking with each other, so in order to argument a point of view and make your self understood you have to develop your points sometimes in several posts, plus in a conversation specially on the internet you have people who speak other languages, like you do or i do, so both of us can get misunderstandings..

Plus you are only seeing what you are interested of the article, does it mean every one of us have to only see the world as you do? only be interested in what you are interested?
This is a forum, as such is like drinking coffee with some other fans of aviation, people here we express our interests and opinions, i do it that way, it does not mean i have to agree in your opinions otherwise then is not a forum.

The reason people has queoted me is because i am holding the position of the article, and i have questioned their position with counter arguments to those who do not agree with the article, you might not be interested in the article as it self, just in how reliable it is, it does not mean we can no develop conversation if they will do it what are the reasons to do it.

Be open, we are in a forum, true is you ask to all of us let us move on, that is okay, we can skip the article but do not blame me for hold my opinion, that is mine and i have the right to express my self in a polite way like i am doing it.

Plus you have to see people here are comenting other issues of the article, simply like that, is how conversations develop in the real world.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Where do I base my opinion in the reliability of that report and even more my opinion that the Su-34 is dated ???

I only question the reliability of the report itself and while You take it for granted and asagin as proof that the Su-34 is super-duper - what I don't question - You have nothing better to do than to repost in each and every post thru the last three pages with countles examples that :

So, YES we all know that and everyone who still did not understand that can simply read the last posts from You ... as such no need to refrain over and over again especially since it's irrelevat in the discussion if that report is FAKE !!!

You're onto Mig's strategy, if you don't find a reliable source, continue searching the inter-webs for a bogus article or study or Winslow Wheeler or Pierre Spey, folks who at one time where critical thinkers, but have since become Chihuahua's, with incessant yapping and running around in circles and yapping some more, engaging in circular reasoning. After being swatted with the newspaper of truth they come back and attack your ankles once more, such as the F-22 is vulnerable to small arms fire, the F-22 operates well above 35,000 ft. As Dieno stated, the article you have quoted is bogus, to continue to go back to that is an insult to logic and reasoning, and the intellegence of fellow form members.

Mig, I am your friend, I have given you credit where due, and defended your sorry butt, and your "right" to be here, but your circular reasoning tries my patience, much like a disobedient Chihuahua, you continue to yap and yip. While others post knowledgeable and credible sources, you will post anything that suits your fancy, or more accurately your "fantasy of the moment", when some unsuspecting innocent "buys" your story, then you'll flip-flop and argue with them.

Logic and Reason proceed in a linear fashion, you claim "math" as your foundation, but very seldom do you proceed in a logical or linear fashion, I have yet to see you issue a retraction or an apology when your "theories" are refuted by the truth and a credible source or witness, you just continue to repeat, repeat, repeat, as if that continued assault on our senses will give you a "victory".

Finally, the Su-34 & the F-22 are two entirely different animals, your failure to "grasp" that belies your self expressed expertise on matters of aircraft design and aerodynamics, like I said before, you better pray that your professors don't look at your posts. Brat

Now I suggest we get back on Topic before Dieno loses his patience entirely, sorry Dieno.