Err who's been speculating that the golden helmet pilots has been part of developing the J-20 combat manual? Is it your own speculation?
For instance, this part:
.... that part is so wrong I do not even know where to begin.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
- Status
Err who's been speculating that the golden helmet pilots has been part of developing the J-20 combat manual? Is it your own speculation?
For instance, this part:
.... that part is so wrong I do not even know where to begin.
danielchin
Junior Member
Time flies!
(Celebration for the maiden flight of 2001, wonder how many of them are still in the program...)
(Celebration for the maiden flight of 2001, wonder how many of them are still in the program...)
Brumby
Major
My understanding of the US in terms of developing and integrating tactics using their 5th gen aircraft into their force structure are (i) leveraging situational awareness and (ii) as a force multiplier. With the former as evident in their red flag exercises, the consistent message is the "first look, first shot, first kill" that it brings into the BVR engagements and WVR is basically history. With regards to the latter, the F-35's are enhancing the situational awareness of their legacy platforms when integrated into the force structure with overall enhanced effectiveness in comparative large scale engagements.
Seems to me there is a completely different outlook in terms of how 5th gen assets are meant to be used. Interesting.
Hold your horses, the problem here is that you are taking GreenestGDP at his word.
Let's just say that we should know nothing about how the Chinese Air Force may intend to use its 5th generation fighters, and we should be immensely skeptical towards anyone claiming to do so in anything resembling operational detail.
In this case, it seems like GreenestGDP is stringing together a few of his own observations and assumptions about the Golden Helmet competitions, as well as an entry that he read on evading air to air missiles, and used that to do a write up of his own speculation which he seems to be portraying as "this is what is happening".
Ultra
Junior Member
The development of J-20 reminded me of China's Project 596 nuclear weapon program. China went from no nuke to having nuke in one of the shortest time compare to any other nation, and even shorter development cycle from crude uranium-235 implosion device to 3-staged hydrogen bomb in 2 years.
This feat has never been matched by any other nation to date.
GreenestGDP
Junior Member
Why don't you begin with PROVING that Super Maneuverable fighter aircraft can NOT
OUT TURN the best NATO supersonic missiles ??
My guess is ... ... you can NOT. ... ... please try ... ...
Because Law of Physics says ... ...
Yes, most definitely Acrobatic Super Maneuverable fighter aircrafts from PRC and Russia
( such as JF-17xx, J-10xx, J-11xx, Su-35, T-50 ) can absolutely OUT TURN
the best NATO supersonic missiles.
At present, I am holding back the inclusion of J-20 mobility and Super Maneuverability,
until the J-20 joint the annual PLA Golden Helmet Confrontational Combat Competition.
Thus, based upon all the available physical data and facts from the PLAAF
and PLAN pilots intensive weekly ( Day and Night ) exercises, and the
5 years running of the annual PLA Golden Helmet Confrontational Combat Competitions ... ...
The combination of Super Extreme Maneuverability and Heavy Radar Jamming
and EW fighter fighter aircrafts will obliterate a ( mediocre mobility and stiff and LO )
fighter aircrafts belong to the other side of the ocean.
BVRAAM is only good to attack the opfor AWACS and TANKER and EW aircrafts.
Being able to dogfight your way out from the opfor assets in WVR combat environment
is the numero uno priority for PRC and Russian AF.
In other words, for any self respecting fighter aircraft pilot, the BVR combat is a hoax.
Please do study the scientific aspects from all those videos links,
and study Dodging and Evading missiles physics,
before you refute my posts by using Scientific Diagrams.
I am sure most posters agree with me that Wall--of--Texts are annoying.
Last edited:
I never said that super maneuverable fighters cannot out turn air to air missiles under certain circumstances. They may well be able to.
What I am saying is that you should not be making claims about what Chinese Air Force 5th generation tactics may be based on your own speculation -- or at the very least you should make it clear that it is your own speculation and that you have no evidence to suggest the Air Force is actually pursuing your speculated strategy.
Like I said, super maneuverable aircraft could may well be able to evade incoming air to air missiles successfully, but it is very incorrect of you to write:
In other words, the fact that you wrote your own speculation of Golden Helmet pilots being asked to "create 2 manuals" as well as writing "methods" as if they are official Chinese Air Force tactics, without any evidence let alone rumours, and passing it off to make it look "official" is the problem I have.
My personal opinion of Chinese Air Force 5th generation tactics is irrelevant, and whether "super maneuverable" aircraft can or cannot evade incoming air to air missiles is also irrelevant.
The problem is that we should not portray our own personal speculation as "fact" of what the Chinese military may be doing, and also consider the evidence (and lack of evidence) and the logic (or lack of logic) which may support the positions we hold. It is also important to not be "too confident" in a certain position, for instance, using words like "absolutely" without sufficient available evidence is not very confidence inspiring.
- Status