Deino, a few posts above (like my discussion with Terran empire) are actually relevant to the transport/tanker thread.
If you could please kindly move the on topic posts back to that thread, thanks
Pardon, which I did I miss?
Could you just mention the numbers missing (like #3355)?
Best,
Deino
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Posts here #57,58,61,62
Are in regards to tankers.
I generally limited myself to the tanker subject and not join the furball.
Are in regards to tankers.
I generally limited myself to the tanker subject and not join the furball.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
In regards to #62, Blitz,
I point out I have actually reiterated that very point, that a large tanker can have two Drogue lines and a boom. However if the PLA do not have anything using that boom then the boom is unnecessary weight and cost. Although a boom can be fitted with an adapter to fuel a Probe and Drogue system. It would be easier to just run a Drogue line from the fuselage.
That said one thing I really disagree with alot of people on is Y20 in my opinion has a good potential for export, and as the US is now moving to slowly retire it's KC135s it likely other nations will to. So I restate there is potential for a boom export. Perhaps not on Y20 but with the rise of China's civil and military transport fleets there may come more options.
I point out I have actually reiterated that very point, that a large tanker can have two Drogue lines and a boom. However if the PLA do not have anything using that boom then the boom is unnecessary weight and cost. Although a boom can be fitted with an adapter to fuel a Probe and Drogue system. It would be easier to just run a Drogue line from the fuselage.
That said one thing I really disagree with alot of people on is Y20 in my opinion has a good potential for export, and as the US is now moving to slowly retire it's KC135s it likely other nations will to. So I restate there is potential for a boom export. Perhaps not on Y20 but with the rise of China's civil and military transport fleets there may come more options.
If all of this is about what was written in public documents, such as the DOD report to Congress, there is nothing to talk about. I'm mostly responding to what started as a claim that USAF didn't know the J-20 would fly in 2010 (2011?). Thus, I'm talking about what US intelligence and USAF knew, not what was published.
Like I mentioned before, this claim is quite extraordinary. Somehow American military leadership did not get access to existing intelligence? We're going to need some evidence.
Wow, I guess anyone can LOL.
LOL
First, in 1997 the program was just beginning, so it was early for detailed descriptions. Second, it is clear that everything in that paragraph (Fisher) is attributed to ONI, including "a reduced radar signature design". I don't know why I should take your "must mention it's intended to compete with the F-22" standard seriously (had they thought it was a 4+ generation fighter, would they have had to write "it's intended to compete with the F-15 and the F-16"?).
This was a reasonably detailed disclosure from ONI. "PLAs next-generation combat aircraft, referred to by the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence in 1997 as the XXJ"; China had "begun preliminary design studies on a twin-engined multi-role fighter" with "an emphasis on air combat and a reduced radar signature design", which "could enter service around 2015". Literally everything is correct, and clearly it's not just "an aircraft with wings and engines".
Let's get to the crux of the matter. With the first flight of the J-10 happening a year later, surely they knew about it and classified it as a fourth-generation fighter. What were they then supposed to be talking about when it comes to the XXJ? Next generation compared to what? The J-8? A 4+ generation aircraft with a reduced radar signature design? 18 years of development for a 4.5 generation fighter?
All sounds very unlikely. It's much more probable they were talking about a fifth-generation fighter.
The rest is in the next comment.
So, are you going to quote any of these declassified reports that got things wrong?
Can you support this position with anything other than attempts to shift the burden of proof?
Like I mentioned before, this claim is quite extraordinary. Somehow American military leadership did not get access to existing intelligence? We're going to need some evidence.
You are free to have any opinion you like about these reports. I have noted that, as a matter of fact, they are generally about the present and don't include detailed predictions about the future, which explains why they didn't include what you wanted them to.
Where did you get the idea that US intelligence has any interest in publishing anything they know about foreign military developments? Did they say anything substantial about the PAK-FA, the Type 055, or any other program? If they didn't say the Su-57 is intended to compete with the F-22, are they underestimating it as well?
LOL
Wow, I guess anyone can LOL.
LOL
First, in 1997 the program was just beginning, so it was early for detailed descriptions. Second, it is clear that everything in that paragraph (Fisher) is attributed to ONI, including "a reduced radar signature design". I don't know why I should take your "must mention it's intended to compete with the F-22" standard seriously (had they thought it was a 4+ generation fighter, would they have had to write "it's intended to compete with the F-15 and the F-16"?).
This was a reasonably detailed disclosure from ONI. "PLAs next-generation combat aircraft, referred to by the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence in 1997 as the XXJ"; China had "begun preliminary design studies on a twin-engined multi-role fighter" with "an emphasis on air combat and a reduced radar signature design", which "could enter service around 2015". Literally everything is correct, and clearly it's not just "an aircraft with wings and engines".
Let's get to the crux of the matter. With the first flight of the J-10 happening a year later, surely they knew about it and classified it as a fourth-generation fighter. What were they then supposed to be talking about when it comes to the XXJ? Next generation compared to what? The J-8? A 4+ generation aircraft with a reduced radar signature design? 18 years of development for a 4.5 generation fighter?
All sounds very unlikely. It's much more probable they were talking about a fifth-generation fighter.
The rest is in the next comment.
Late by what standard? To please you, maybe. I don't think they care.
Criteria that can't be met? My argument is falling apart...
More likely, you've come up with unreasonable standards of evidence that that would be impossible to fulfill in any case.
You're also apparently confused about some things. Congress is a part of the US national government and that hearing wasn't quoting a few analysts; instead, analysts spoke at the hearing. The one I quoted, Wayne Ulman, was then China Issues Manager at the U.S. Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center and is now Deputy Director of Intelligence, US Strategic Command. So he was a high level analyst in military intelligence who testified before the USCC, yet his bosses didn't read his reports? Getting less and less likely.
US intelligence has no reason to publish things they know. This is undisputable and also true for any other country. Thus, an absence of detailed public reports on the J-20 is not evidence that they were uninformed. Not saying anything doesn't make them ignorant.
However, they did say some things. If they held false beliefs about the J-20 program (such as that it was a 4.5 generation fighter), you should be able to find and post articles or reports where they were wrong, like I was able to find examples of them being right.
So far, I have posted three examples of US intelligence commenting on the J-20. These include one from the start of the project in 1997, one that refers to it as a fifth-generation fighter and says intelligence services have been warning about it for years (from 2009) and one from 2010 that includes a reasonably detailed description of the program. (I have also found more, maybe for later use.) No-one has provided any examples of them being wrong.
Furthermore, your position remains totally unsupported by evidence. That several intelligence analysts had accurate assessments of the program that somehow never made it further up would be a massive failure and extremely unlikely, which is why I don't take it seriously unless evidence is provided.
Moreover, you haven't addressed the point that US intelligence would have been very interested in this project, using all available means to obtain information, including hacking, human intelligence and so on. Can you explain why they wouldn't do that or how it is reasonable to expect that they failed totally?
Seriously, let's not have any more shifting the burden of proof. I have posted sources and evidence. If you have any, do the same.
Jura The idiot
General
you might want to check
Intel Analysts: We Were Forced Out for Telling the Truth About Obama’s ISIS War
if you wanted to read what NavyTimes had to say (for example if you didn't like Daily Beast), you'd find the article reposted inside
#1396 Jura, Sep 11, 2015
(the link
got broken in the meantime)
the point is while analysts may be right, their assessment is, ehm ehm, not always taken into account
Late as in the J-20 appeared a mere 11 months afterwards.
Late as in, even if the conclusion had been genuinely reached and not said as a scaremongering tactic to get more funding, it came too late to stop F-22 cancellation.
Late as in defence forums and BBS at the time had already been saying the exact same thing for years.
Late as in if that was the best US intelligence could provide, they might as well cease their foreign aviation infiltration operations and just read SDF. Maybe then they wouldn't have prematurely shut down F-22 production.
The fact is the US stopped F-22 production a year before the J-20 appeared in the flesh. Not a decade before, not half a decade, not a decade and a half. Just a year. So you tell me what happened. Did US officials tell DIA to neck themselves or were the DIA simply confident enough in China's perceived lack of capability to not throw a fit at the idea of cancelling F-22 production?
Exactly. Actions speak louder than words and the US acted to shut down F-22 production. All that intelligence you claim existed either didn't exist or were ignored. I'm betting they didn't exist because if they did, notorious war hawk Gates probably would've allowed F-22 production to continue to 240 examples as requested by the USAF.
Being right with just 11 months til the grand debut and after their country just shut down the best chance of maintaining aerial dominance is only "right" in the very technical sense, and wrong for all intents and purposes. In other words, they ought to have been more right, and sooner.
Pull up a report from ~2003 stating the US intelligence agency has very high confidence the PLA is developing an air superiority fighter with next-gen avionics that can rival the F-22 in high and fast flight envelopes and I'll concede.
I'll just repeat myself, though. I don't believe such a report exists because no higher-up in the US intelligence community ever considered it realistic.
Intelligence successfully making its way up to the top and then getting blatantly ignored is even more unlikely. You're suggesting the US intelligence community believed China was developing a 5th-gen fighter capable of rivalling the F-22 that would have entered service before 2020 in meaningful numbers but was unable to convince their country's leaders to not shoot themselves in the foot by cancelling the most viable and existing solution to that problem.
Yeah, lol, no. I think the intelligence just wasn't there. Gates had no reason not to cancel the F-22 because the people responsible for finding out if there were good reasons to continue production (DIA/CIA/NSA) didn't do their jobs properly and concluded there were no good reasons to continue production. By 2009 when they seemed to have reversed their conclusions, it was already too late and the F-22's fate had been sealed.
Excellent question. I'd like to know too. How the actual f*ck did US intelligence f*ck up so badly on basically every spectrum including land, sea, air, and cyber?
Under-investment in land units have allowed US Army units to lose their edge to peers in ability to fight a combined-arms conflict. The Paladins are outranged by Eastern designs, all other organic artillery is less dense and shorter-ranged, and a BCT's anti-air is severely inferior to a Russian motorised brigade/division's or a PLA combined-arms brigade's.
Do I even need to expand on the LCS and Zumwalt? Had US intelligence done their jobs, today the Zumwalts would've been entirely cancelled, a US next-gen destroyer/cruiser hull will be close to design completion, and an OHP-replacement would already be in production.
The F-22, a perfectly good existing solution with plenty of upgrade potential built into the airframe, got cancelled because no one, from the leadership to the intelligence guys, perceived a problem for which the F-22 was an appropriate solution. Well, at least not until they already cancelled the damn thing.
US cyber is so behind, they allowed a foreign country to successfully manipulate domestic online phenomena into electing him to the presidency. While the US is still pondering on whether to set up a cyber branch, the PLA had already done it in 2015 in the form of the Strategic Support Force. Tick tock... if the US establishes one today, they'll only be three years behind. And my bet is it won't get established this year.
I agree, if you have something that indicates the US leadership threw their middle fingers at intelligence personnel who did their jobs competently and concluded China was to have the J-20 as we know it in service by 2017, I'm all ears.
Looking at US actions, I've concluded the exact opposite. There was a systemic underestimation of the J-XX program from everyone in the US establishment, including the intelligence community. The current fretting and constant moaning about F-22 production cancellation is testament to the regret of having underestimated the speed of PLA advances.
To please me?
Honestly I'm not sure what would please me -- I suppose at the end of the day if high level govt and military brass in the US continue underestimating Chinese weapons developments that not be the worst thing in the world.
However it seems completely illogical to me that people like the Secretary of Defence could in 2009 make a statement about China only having a handful of 5th generation fighters by 2025 considering what the rest of us knew about the aircraft simply from open sources.
Well then something certainly got missed between Mr Ulman and Mr Gates at the time.
Indeed, but when the absence of detailed public reports dovetails with the Secretary of Defence saying China will only have a handful of 5th generation fighters by 2025 the only logical conclusion is for one to wonder where on earth that came from.
Demonstrating an understanding of information too late is a demonstration of incompetence as much as being incorrect, in my opinion.
The report from 1997 does not describe it as a 5th generation fighter. Nothing in that report is technically incorrect but it is too vague for what is important. It could very reasonably be interpreted that they think China is looking to develop a 4+ generation fighter.
The reports from 2009 and 2010 are accurate, but too late, and they are not from testimonies or reports of people at high levels of govt or military service.
See Mr Gates and his comment in 2009. That is all the proof I need, actually.
I'm sure US intelligence would have been very interested in this project and I'm sure certain branches of US intelligence agencies and branches in the USAF would have gotten the right information.
But whether that information would have been adequately conveyed to the sufficient high levels of US govt and military responsible for the US to actually conduct actions (i.e.: procurement and strategy) in response to new intelligence is another matter. So when I speak of the "US" or "US intelligence" this is what I refer to.