I think you were at least partially misunderstood through the quirks of English semantics...Not sure if You know the original report and he indeed misquoted me or - IMO even worse - gives a hint to a wrong conclusion:
1. My original report said nothing to manoeuvrability but I said "...at least until the planned WS-15 engine is available. In the meantime, the J-20's engines are probably adequate and will provide flight performance at least comparable to the latest J-11B fighter." (in quote 3)
Even worse he did not differ between a Su-27 and Su-33 ...
2. Also he implied another conclusion: “As for the development of a genuine 5th generation combat aircraft, China obviously has a long way to go.” This is an apparent reference to China’s problems developing advanced engines and avionics. (in quote 5) This was also meant regarding the still not available WS-15.
3. And finally ... (in quote 8): Andreas Rupprecht writes “The J-20 is most likely no match for the F-22 and the F-35…” Again a misquote: My original sentence was ... "As regards to stealth the J-20 is most likely no match for the F-22 and the F-35 (see the non-stealthy engine exhaust, the uncovered countermeasures launchers and other details)."
And here I'm indeed not wrong that these issues are points of concern...
Deino
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Jura The idiot
General
congrats
!!...
Deino
let me mention Deino is quoted together with Lt Gen Deptula, Gen Goldfein, Lt Gen Bogdan (just the names I've heard LOL)
Upps ... so You think it is more an issue of my "typical German school-English" than an intentional misquote or lazy research?
All of the above. I think the language barrier made it easy for them to hear what they wanted to hear without without clarification.
I believe using the word "no match" was wrong. This word has a powerful meaning, in this context i believe the reader may have came to the conclusion that F22 and f35 could destroy j20 in a similar way like f22 vs F16.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Congrats Andreas.. however you're right about the reporting.. failrly vague. .. anti-ship ballistic missile? LOL .. like Dong Feng?
Definitely intentional. And here I quote some extremely idiotic statements made by the author ...
"The wing area of the J-20 is "
"with wing loading "
"Aviation Week reports that one of the J-20’s missions appears to be maritime reconnaissance and targeting for antiship ballistic missiles and in support of ship-launched cruise missiles."
"Current Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein has compared the J-20 to the F-117, which reportedly had a radar cross section of .269 square feet. If true, the J-20 stealth level is first generation."
This article is the absolute epitome of American ignorance when it comes to the Chinese military. No wonder why when China comes out with new weaponry, we're always scratching our heads and asking "what in the hell happened?". Then again, this might be more of a problem on the author's end versus actual US military intelligence ...
You would think that someone compiling a formal report for ONI would notice there are satellite pics and bother to take some measurements...Definitely intentional. And here I quote some extremely idiotic statements made by the author ...
"The wing area of the J-20 is "
"with wing loading "
"Aviation Week reports that one of the J-20’s missions appears to be maritime reconnaissance and targeting for antiship ballistic missiles and in support of ship-launched cruise missiles."
"Current Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein has compared the J-20 to the F-117, which reportedly had a radar cross section of .269 square feet. If true, the J-20 stealth level is first generation."
This article is the absolute epitome of American ignorance when it comes to the Chinese military. No wonder why when China comes out with new weaponry, we're always scratching our heads and asking "what in the hell happened?". Then again, this might be more of a problem on the author's end versus actual US military intelligence ...
Definitely intentional. And here I quote some extremely idiotic statements made by the author ...
"The wing area of the J-20 is "
"with wing loading "
"Aviation Week reports that one of the J-20’s missions appears to be maritime reconnaissance and targeting for antiship ballistic missiles and in support of ship-launched cruise missiles."
"Current Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein has compared the J-20 to the F-117, which reportedly had a radar cross section of .269 square feet. If true, the J-20 stealth level is first generation."
This article is the absolute epitome of American ignorance when it comes to the Chinese military. No wonder why when China comes out with new weaponry, we're always scratching our heads and asking "what in the hell happened?". Then again, this might be more of a problem on the author's end versus actual US military intelligence ...
Think tanks today have a tendency to echo whatever their customers wish to hear, which can lead to disastrous decision making. We have numerous interviews with J-20 pilots (who I have the temerity to declare better experts on the subject than U.S. sources) explicitly stating the role and capabilities of the aircraft but alas, they are frustratingly ignored by Western analysts. Is it because of a lack of proper translation or, more likely, what the Chinese sources say directly contradict Western speculation since the very beginning?
Either way, my original intent for posting the USNI article is to congratulate Deino on getting his voice heard. He is the closest thing to a Chinese military expert of all the sources listed and his analysis, unsurprisingly, is also the closest to the mark despite the (un)intentional jumbling by the author of the article.
Tbh I think incompetence is more of a factor than malice in this article. It seems like an academic military officer was given a few weeks to research and come up with a piece about J-20, and naturally the first thing he did was a google search, in English, looking at sources that he would naturally judge as fairly credible and reliable (which we would not give a second's notice to), and he would not look at the sources we would consider to be essential and critical.
I have no doubt that he and other legitimate military analysts and thinktanks do want to get an accurate view of various Chinese projects and weapons systems, but most of these individuals are merely military commentators, used to watching their own military and that of their allies and at most, possibly thinking about Russia, Iran or NK now and then.
But few if any of them are full time Chinese military watchers, and they lack the background discourse and pathways that we are all familiar with when thinking about Chinese military developments.
A year or so back I offered some input for a CSIS article about J-20, and not to take anything away from the author (who had the open mind to ask widely for some input) -- but the original draft read very much like this USNI piece, with similar kinds of citations and similar premises and conclusions.
- Status