J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V

[Blitzo]

There is evidence US generals said differently. That was the case during the Soviet-era, as military officers had no problems saying the Soviets may have parity or even ahead in some areas. Bringing it to current events, a US Air Force general was recently quoted on Chinese missiles "out sticking" US missiles. There's also general agreement among US experts China is a near-peer in the space domain.

Oh I find that very debatable; especially in this case when we're talking about a specific type of weapon system whose obvious roles are meant to directly confront each other in event of hostilities. There is much more ego and pride mixed into a nation's fighter aircraft than almost any other weapons system that a military fields.

No nation and no high ranking military officer would be willing to openly concede parity or superiority of an opposing force's fighter aircraft vs their own top line aircraft, and if it were close they would end up rationalizing out statements like training, offboard force multipliers, or differences quality to try and "even things" for any sort of public comment.


To be honest I'm even a little bit offended that the article was even posted here and we're discussing it in a non-ironic way. I thought we were all better than this, and the base psychology that drives these sort of statements is something we've all seen many times, many years ago repeatedly.

 

[manqiangrexue]

There is evidence US generals said differently. That was the case during the Soviet-era, as military officers had no problems saying the Soviets may have parity or even ahead in some areas. Bringing it to current events, a US Air Force general was recently quoted on Chinese missiles "out sticking" US missiles. There's also general agreement among US experts China is a near-peer in the space domain.

As I see it, whenever a general says, "We are well ahead and they have no chance against us," he's basically dick-waving for his own team, and when he says, "Our adversaries are developing new advanced ways that our military is currently unable to cope with," he's trying to scare people into funding his cause. There is, in general, no reason for a military official to honestly discuss with civilians, the (classified) findings of his intelligence team on exactly how his country's classified fighters are expected to stack up against another country's classified fighters.

 

[vesicles]

As I see it, whenever a general says, "We are well ahead and they have no chance against us," he's basically dick-waving for his own team, and when he says, "Our adversaries are developing new advanced ways that our military is currently unable to cope with," he's trying to scare people into funding his cause. There is, in general, no reason for a military official to honestly discuss with civilians, the (classified) findings of his intelligence team on exactly how his country's classified fighters are expected to stack up against another country's classified fighters.

Exactly! In order to truly compare two pieces of equipment, you need to list specs of both equipment. That means you might expose classified info of your own equipment. Even without saying the specifics and only saying simple things like "our plane is faster than theirs", your opponent might be able to deduce the actual speed of your plane. Since they know the details of their own plane and they know the physical limitations of certain types of equipment, they can safely deduce detailed info from some seemingly simple statements.

Additionally, how did you get detailed specs of your opponent's equipment? Using spies, of course. By discussing the specific aspect of specs of a foreign equipment, you might expose the methods, by which you obtained the info, and expose your agents inside...

 

[Blackstone]

Oh I find that very debatable; especially in this case when we're talking about a specific type of weapon system whose obvious roles are meant to directly confront each other in event of hostilities. There is much more ego and pride mixed into a nation's fighter aircraft than almost any other weapons system that a military fields.

No nation and no high ranking military officer would be willing to openly concede parity or superiority of an opposing force's fighter aircraft vs their own top line aircraft, and if it were close they would end up rationalizing out statements like training, offboard force multipliers, or differences quality to try and "even things" for any sort of public comment.

Remember how the Mig-25 Foxbat caused so much concerns in the West, the F-15's requirements were dramatically increased to deal with it? I recall at the time, there was no lack of admission of a better fighter by an adversary.

To be honest I'm even a little bit offended that the article was even posted here and we're discussing it in a non-ironic way. I thought we were all better than this, and the base psychology that drives these sort of statements is something we've all seen many times, many years ago repeatedly.

I can't help how you feel, but the article I linked quoted a high-ranking Air Force officer on the J-20, so it's a totally legit item to bring up.

 

[Blackstone]

Exactly! In order to truly compare two pieces of equipment, you need to list specs of both equipment. That means you might expose classified info of your own equipment. Even without saying the specifics and only saying simple things like "our plane is faster than theirs", your opponent might be able to deduce the actual speed of your plane. Since they know the details of their own plane and they know the physical limitations of certain types of equipment, they can safely deduce detailed info from some seemingly simple statements.

Additionally, how did you get detailed specs of your opponent's equipment? Using spies, of course. By discussing the specific aspect of specs of a foreign equipment, you might expose the methods, by which you obtained the info, and expose your agents inside...

All of this handwringing doesn't detract from the fact that one of the most high-ranking Air Force generals think the J-20 doesn't stack up against the F-35, and I don't doubt his facts or reasons. Nor does it surprise me in the least.

 

[Blitzo]

Remember how the Mig-25 Foxbat caused so much concerns, the F-15's requirements were dramatically increased to deal with it? I recall there was no lack of admission of a better fighter by an adversary.

I would argue that the circumstances have changed dramatically since then in terms of the overall balance of airpower and overall military power that the US is used to vs that time.
Not only is the US much more used to having a much greater technological superiority to almost everyone else due to experiences in the recent past, but their overall military doctrine now is so much more dependent on various synonyms of the phrase, "full spectrum dominance".

So yes, I do consider his statements quite dismissible.

I can't help how you feel, but the article I linked quoted a high-ranking Air Force officer on the J-20, so it's a totally legit item to bring up.

Oh I think it's worth posting, but not as a "let this stimulate some serious discussion" and more "look, another high ranking military official making a statement about another nation's big ticket weapons system and disparaging it, how silly".

===============


On a side note: there are some silly articles and commentary about PAK FA essentially dissing it as well over the last few years in a similar vein, and I expect that to be trained upon J-20 too in coming months. I hope we, as experienced defence watchers won't post that sort of cancer here on the J-20 thread, and that we can exercise our best judgement as to what is intelligent and what is not. Or maybe post all the silly articles in a dedicated thread for it.

 

[Blitzo]

All of this handwringing doesn't detract from the fact that one of the most high-ranking Air Force generals think the J-20 doesn't stack up against the F-35, and I don't doubt his facts or reasons. Nor does it surprise me in the least.

I do think he may not have access to all the facts (specifically, the facts about J-20's capabilities; I'm sure he's well intimate with F-35's capabilities).

Based on that, I can understanding his reasoning.

But his statements don't surprise me either. Regardless of whether J-20 was competitive, better or worse than F-35 or F-22 or whatever (assuming one had full access to all of the facts of J-20, which the General here almost certainly does not), I would have expected words of dismissiveness or self-lionizing to have been expressed.

 

[vesicles]

All of this handwringing doesn't detract from the fact that one of the most high-ranking Air Force generals think the J-20 doesn't stack up against the F-35, and I don't doubt his facts or reasons. Nor does it surprise me in the least.

I do doubt his ability to obtain facts on the J-20 though... Did the USAF hack into China's DoD network, something the US government denies?

 

[manqiangrexue]

All of this handwringing doesn't detract from the fact that one of the most high-ranking Air Force generals think the J-20 doesn't stack up against the F-35, and I don't doubt his facts or reasons. Nor does it surprise me in the least.

Except that he expressed no facts, only his opinion (which, may or may not even be his true opinion), and gave no reasons for why he reached his conclusion that the J-20 employs F-117 level technology. "Facts" and "reasons" were invented in your mind to lend his statement credibility because you want them to be true. You don't doubt them because you want badly to believe them. You crave anything, evidence or no evidence, that says what you want to believe and you fail to put those through a filter.

If a PLA general were to say that in his simulation, he found that J-20 easily destroyed F-22's outdated technology as well as the philosophically-flawed F-35, then whether or not what he said could be true would be an afterthought in my mind. My first thought would be that he's out of his mind for discussing this with the public.

 

[Blackstone]

I do think he may not have access to all the facts (specifically, the facts about J-20's capabilities; I'm sure he's well intimate with F-35's capabilities).

What a curious thing to say, and you base your claims on what evidence?

But his statements don't surprise me either. Regardless of whether J-20 was competitive, better or worse than F-35 or F-22 or whatever (assuming one had full access to all of the facts of J-20, which the General here almost certainly does not), I would have expected words of dismissiveness or self-lionizing to have been expressed.

Of course you're entitled to your opinions, but I find General Goldfein believable with regards to the J-20 being no match for the F-35.