J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Blitzo]

If you wish to engage in silliness, I have no intention to be a party to it. However if you wish to make a case in support of your views then you are most welcome.

Out of respect for past debates that we have had, I have chosen to respond to your questions seriously.

But the questions you're asking and the logic and perspective you are asking them from, is seen by many users here as silly, and invites equal silly answers.

 

[Brumby]

America does not not exist is a negative. Therefore, you cannot prove that America exists.

Whether America exist or not is not a statement of expression. It is a statement of fact and there are many ways to test for facts..

Our indications from the Chinese grapevine is that the J-20 has likely entered series production. This is a topic in dispute, but you can't prove it hasn't entered series production either, which is a negative.

The burden of proof is on the party making the claim that it has gone into series production. In the absence of evidence, the claim remain unsubstantiated.

 

[Inst]

The burden of proof is on the party making the claim that it has gone into series production. In the absence of evidence, the claim remain unsubstantiated.

It's been substantiated by rumors, but it's not "properly" substantiated. And were it unsubstantiated that wouldn't mean it's false. The claim that I will hit the Post Reply button is unsubstantiated, because there's no indication of such. But I can press that button now to make that claim true, and I will.

Like you, of course, I disagree with certain posters here who favor the rumor mill a bit too much. But try to keep an open mind as to the J-20's production status.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Frankly I am agnostic. There are obviously many here who already subscribed to a certain position and that is fine and I respect that. For a forum that prides itself in being professional and better informed than others, the standard of expectation goes beyond merely claiming to be better informed. Here is an opportunity to present your case as to your belief that an AESA radar has already been fielded in the J-20. What is your case in support of your claim?

Brumby what you ask is perceived as

Is The Pope Catholic? Does Bear ... In the Woods?

type of question

 

[Brumby]

Out of respect for past debates that we have had, I have chosen to respond to your questions seriously.

But the questions you're asking and the logic and perspective you are asking them from, is seen by many users here as silly, and invites equal silly answers.

The silliness is in the nature of the rebuttal. This is a thread on the J-20 and the subject matter is on whether an AESA radar has been fielded in the J-20. It is a subject of considerable interest and warrant a serious discussion. If the rebuttal attempt is to detract into a conversation of what about the APG-77, it merely projects an inability to articulate a sensible reply beyond degenerating into silliness.

 

[Brumby]

It's been substantiated by rumors, but it's not "properly" substantiated. And were it unsubstantiated that wouldn't mean it's false. The claim that I will hit the Post Reply button is unsubstantiated, because there's no indication of such. But I can press that button now to make that claim true, and I will.

Like you, of course, I disagree with certain posters here who favor the rumor mill a bit too much. But try to keep an open mind as to the J-20's production status.

As I said I am agnostic on this. I just want to see the case and evidence (whatever that might be) in support of a particular case. If the standard of being better informed is basically rumour based then at least I understand being better informed is basically having a better rumour mill.

 

[Brumby]

Brumby what you ask is perceived as

Is The Pope Catholic? Does Bear ... In the Woods?

type of question

Good question as to whether the Pope is Catholic. I sometimes wonder whether he is more of a SJW rather than a Pope by his statements.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Good question as to whether the Pope is Catholic. I sometimes wonder whether he is more of a SJW rather than a Pope by his statements.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[latenlazy]

Frankly I am agnostic. There are obviously many here who already subscribed to a certain position and that is fine and I respect that. For a forum that prides itself in being professional and better informed than others, the standard of expectation goes beyond merely claiming to be better informed. Here is an opportunity to present your case as to your belief that an AESA radar has already been fielded in the J-20. What is your case in support of your claim?

In very brief, given that you’re asking people to compile a decade of evidence buried across thousands of pages of content archived in SDF and CDF...

1) We know having an AESA was in the original design requirements for the J-20. Since the J-20 has entered production PLAAF officials are said to be very satisfied with the J-20 and that it has met or exceeded all performance requirements.

2) We know AESAs were to be first tested and fielded in the J-10B and, given apparent delays, subsequently the J-10C. We have visual evidence of the J-10B during testing phase mounted with some kind of ESA, which was also described and visually identified in a study. The J-10B then went into production, We have further visual evidence of a J-10B/C mounted with a different ESA which clearly looked like an AESA, with sources describing the J-10B’s AESA as being delayed, leading it to use a PESA, but that an AESA would be mounted on a J-10C. Around the same time, we got visual confirmation of the J-10C, with visually identified production planes soon after. The J-10B/C were said to have acted as a testbed for some of the avionics for the J-20.

3) We know that the J-16 was also to field its own AESA with dedicated surface scanning functions, and according to leakers and big shrimps production of the J-16 was delayed after the PLAAF found the performance of the AESA mounted on the J-16 to be unsatisfactory. The J-16 ended up being mounted with a different AESA (if I recall correctly the first AESA was from the 607th institute and the second AESA ended up being sourced from the 14th institute). It is now in production. One big shrimp has on at least two occasions drawn comparisons between the J-16’s AESA and the Su-35’s PESA.

4) We have some early leaked images of what was alleged to be the J-20’s radar array that clearly indicate the array will be composed of module elements. The J-20 is now in production.

5) Several at least semi-official sources mention the J-20, J-10C and J-16 all mount AESAs

6) We have some reporting (hard to verify) on the J-20, J-10C, and J-16 conducting exercises where there was explicit mention of how the PLAAF found that the J-10C and J-16’s AESAs were essential to apprehending stealthy adversaries, and that non AESA mounted fighters didn’t have a hope of a chance.

This is the case. Other people have already made similar cases to this, and it’s a bit absurd that you would just ignore them while demanding that a case be made for you, but in case the case wasn’t clear enough, there it is.

 

[Blitzo]

The burden of proof is on the party making the claim that it has gone into series production. In the absence of evidence, the claim remain unsubstantiated.

The burden of proof is on the party making a new claim that is contrary to the existing base of knowledge and consensus.