Lol people on this forum get too triggered when someone dares criticize Chinese hardware. And then have a knee jerk reaction calling a genuine mistake as "trolling." As the bitching on the last few pages has clearly demonstrated.
European Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter sandyj
- Start date
Deino, love you man, but he's not the one lacking calmness in this situation.
Interesting factiods:
First low rate production serial standard su27 airframes handed over to Soviet air force: 1985.
First low rate production serial standard amraams handed over to USAF: 1988
Soviet Union declares su-27 ready for service: 1990
USAF declares amraam ready for service: 1991
Yeah, you don't get to "end it here" in this thread and claim to be interested in trading information rather than arguments, after writing all of that.
I will move these posts to a different thread, later in the day, but your arguments very much need addressing.
I've read through your previous post again and also this one, and my counter argument is pretty simple:
1. You claimed in your previous post that "the 2015 exercise was recreating the scenario for which Gripen was designed in the 80s - Swedish JAS39 vs Soviet Su-27 in defensive air operations over own territory" -- there is no evidence that the parameters of the exercise was intended to simulate those parameters.
2. Gripen being in service with Hungary and the Czech Republic means literally nothing about how Gripen compares with F-16 or other fighters. Furthermore, the outcome of fighter procurement competitions also does not mean much --fighter aircraft are not procured exclusively based on performance (kinematic, range, payload, sensors, weapons suite etc), but also in terms of procurement cost, operating cost, logistics reliability, geopolitical reliability, upgrade potential etc. Different nations will all have differing requirements and weighting in terms of all of those factors. Sometimes fighter competitions can bring out interesting information, but unless raw data is produced that can be equally compared, the assessments and outcomes of fighter competitions is limited at best if you are trying to "compare how good" one fighter is from another.
3. You are picking and choosing when you want technology to be important.
First you wrote "Bltizo focuses on the technical comparison of both planes as if they were two randomly matched fighters and so he misses the most fundamental observation".
You described the capabilities and subsystems of Gripen:
"When it entered service in 1996 Gripen was by far the world's most sophisticated fighter jet and implemented every possible technological solution in service except AESA radars (J/APG-1 on F-2 a year before). Sweden creatively resolved Gripen's lower ceiling of 15km versus Su-27s maximum of 19km with maneuverability, better situational awareness and smaller RCS. Open architecture and Ada meant that it could integrate every weapon NATO had at its disposal and PS-05/A was a generation ahead of anything the Soviets had at the time - especially the N001 used by Su-27."
Then you wrote:
"Gripen performed well against J-11A because it was designed to do so. It would perform well against J-11B and J-10A for the same reason. It could not perform as well in BVR against J-10C because J-10C is the equivalent of Gripen NG - an aircraft with the next generation of systems and weapons. It can be thought of as a counter to Gripen and Gripen's contemporaries."
Then in this post you wrote:
"Technologically it is the equivalent of Rafale/Typhoon"
...... So, don't you think you are contradicting yourself, because in both of your posts:
A: You have acknowledged that the technology involved and the subsystems of the respective aircraft are important, and you are able to distinguish between the technology and subsystems between Gripen A/C generations and Gripen E/F (aka Gripen NG). You are able to acknowledge that the subsystems of Gripen A/C is far superior to the subsystems of the Su-27SK. You are also able to distinguish the differences in capability between a J-10A and a J-10C.
B: Yet simultaneously, you are unable to distinguish the different capabilities between a J-11A and a J-11B and how differently they would fare against Gripen A/C -- is this because you don't understand the differences in the subsystems and technologies between a J-11A and a J-11B, or is it because you literally think the differences in their subsystems and technologies is not significant?
C: You then say Gripen is the "equivalent of Rafale/Typhoon" -- I assume you are talking about Rafale when it first entered service and Typhoon when it first entered service, because I seriously hope you know that there have been many variants and upgrades to both Rafale and Typhoon since they were first respectively commissioned.
Based on the above, how can you possibly argue that the outcome of the exercise -- specifically in the domains of BVR and in multiship engagements where situational awareness and datalinking would be of emphasis -- is that "Gripen performed well against J-11A because it was designed to do so" rather than a reflection of the technological advancement of key subsystems of the respective aircraft in the exercise?
If you are able to correctly recognize that aircraft like Gripen NG and J-10C are more technologically advanced than Gripen A/C and J-10A, and use a newer and much more capable generation of subsystems -- then how come you cannot also recognize the same is true for Gripen A/C and Su-27SK/J-11A? It is literally applying the same principles to aircraft of different subsystem generations.
Su-27 was flying regularly in units by 1986 (1987 is a well-known P-3 incident, lol). Late acceptance didn't matter here - It's easy to find a few fully operational Soviet fighters, which weren't ever 'accepted' at all, and got through their whole career unaccepted. To give a good analogy - look at Typhoon service history.
Soviet(Russian) acceptance means fulfilling 'all' requirements - including ground attack modes, and such. For example, by the time Su-35s was 'accepted into service' in autumn 2017 - it was (1)operational in multiple regiments for several years, (2)had been in combat in Syria for quite a while, (3)was operational with first its foreign customer i.e. PLAAF. Just a few months later PLAAF was already flying them around Taiwan for lulz.
The first deployment AMRAAM to combat units is early 1992(6-7 years later!) - it was rushed to F-16 units in the Gulf area (to finally provide them with long reach), but nevertheless got late for the Iraq war; a few months later it was fired there in anger for the first time.
RVV-AE became available to
For example, PLAAF had them in wide service by the mid-late 1990s - literally 1.5 decades before the RuAF itself.
Last edited:
Apologies to everyone here in advance. This will be my last and only response to @banjex There will be no additional response as I don't want to hijack and further derail the subject matter that's most pertinent to the discussion. My sincere apologies.
You're reaction wasn't a criticism at all let's be honest. It was mostly composed of a few worded quips, a sardonic response to what you deemed as needless over the top defensiveness from some of the people on this forum when it comes to anything and everything Chinese related military or not. I mean, for you to be this indignant and shocked that a Chinese defense forum which in all likelihood is populated by largely pro-China posters is a bit confusing. You're not being called names or being laughed at with respect to expressing an informed opinion even if that opinion goes against the grain here. What most objective and reasonable people here object to (IMHO) is the idiotic and nonsensical posts, insincere queries that's clear to anyone that's not purposely being obtuse or oblivious to what anyone can read between the lines. One doesn't have to be a psychologist to see, read, or recognize a troll post or when someone is trolling which some of the clowns try to hijack any given topic just so they can put in their anti-China rant and then act and react indignant due to the inevitable pushbacks, mockery from the people on this forum. I mean, just look at your response to what I directly wrote to you and tell me you're not the one being butthurt or as you like to put it, "bitching." Calmdown buddy, get off your high horse.
Reasonable arguments are fine.
Poor arguments are going to be challenged.
I agree that people should be more open minded and that Hanlon's razor should be applied more often -- after all someone might just be stupid rather than exhibiting malice, so patience is typically preferable rather than calling people trolls.
On the other hand, short posts with attitude that include links from outlets with established poor reputations that describes bad takes of old news that has already been discussed in the past and where the user in question doesn't critically assess and consider the validity of the content of the article and claim they are linking to -- yes, people are going to rightly call them out for it, and that is not unjustified. If anything that should be considered common sense
I would also add that members should not call each other trolls on whims, there are rules against it from memory... Criticize their arguments rather than call them names please.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
The same can be said for criticizing Western hardware so why complain?