The "experts" are unable to understand Dr. Song's paper nor do they see the improvements achieved in the shape of J-20.Because if the J20 is over 21m, then they can continue to cling to their increasingly desperate hope that it will have average agility. Some people are just in a deep state of denial about the fact that the J20 is a full-blooded 5th gen air dominance fighter and seem to have a pathological need to try and find flaws or design compromises to try to put it down.
The root cause of all this angst seems to be either a deep sense of insecurity about how well their own favourite fighters might stack up against the J20 if it met the design's full potential, or a deep sense of racism which makes them unable to accept that anyone except a fellow white man could come up with something so advanced, so anything the Chinese designed by themselves instead of copied must be deeply flawed in some way if only they looked hard enough.
That is also probably partially why the J31 did not generate anywhere like the kind of indignant disbelief, or baseless speculation about just how well it might stack up against other designs as the J20 did when it first came out. The J31 has been branded as a copy of the F22 and F35 by most western 'experts', and it is within their expectation that a Chinese 5th gen would be a rip-off of one or more existing designs. The fact that the J20 was radically different was simply incomprehensible to many western 'experts' with decades of ingrained prejudice and bias despite the fact that they have seen pictures of it with their own eyes.
If it was not for all these psychological barriers, there was no way the 23m claim could have been taken seriously for as long as it was or this much resistance to very logical, transparent and effectively peer-reviewed estimates of it's true length using known constants.
I have not seem a single credible rebuke of even the previous detailed pixel count that arrived at ~20.5m, certainly nothing that stood up to any kind of scrutiny.
More often then not, the 23m crowd simply ignored all evidence and reasoning to the contrary with a degree of diligence and determination that would be almost admirable if it was not used in such a worthless pursuit.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who can still claim that the J20 is > 23m after seeing all the evidence to the contrary without even presenting any evidence to support their own claim is not someone whose opinion matters in the slightest to me.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
The "experts" are unable to understand Dr. Song's paper nor do they see the improvements achieved in the shape of J-20.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
i would agree that it could be around 20.7 or 20.9 at the smallest estimate but it could be around 21 meters, in my estimate is between 20.5-21.5 meters.
but in the range of 21 meters
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
all what you see in J-20 was knew in the west in the 1980s. except the DSI that was designed in the 1990s.
Because it is a universal law of physics that canopies MUST be the same size in order for amateurs to measure the length of aircraft.
Right. But by "the west" I hope you have the good sense that those "experts" are not representative of what "the west" knows. As far as I am concerned and judging by my reading of these "experts", they are just too much like you, whose knowledge in what China has or is capable of, and in what they keep babbling about, and whose attempted pretention in impartiality have been for some time losing more and more shreds of authority or credibility...Some of these experts are downright idiots or morons or retards to me!
Wow, I just turned the page AGAIN!
"Nobody" is really concerned with the J-20s pitot tube, we are talking airframe to airframe!
Right. But by "the west" I hope you have the good sense that those "experts" are not representative of what "the west" knows. As far as I am concerned and judging by my reading of these "experts", they are just too much like you, whose knowledge in what China has or is capable of, and in what they keep babbling about, and whose attempted pretention in impartiality have been for some time losing more and more shreds of authority or credibility...Some of these experts are downright idiots or morons or retards to me!
Wow, I just turned the page AGAIN!
If your "experts" are like David Axe, they make money like all authors, telling the readers what they want to hear, within our own DOD, there are people who "know" the specs on all these birds and could likely tell you the length and breadth, thrust to weight ratio, and within reason which bird has the advantage in which area, and also where the weaknesses lie. The one real lie in topgun, is that the Defense analysts were'nt properly informed, they are, and while everyone gets a "surprise" once in a while, the Chinese, Russian, US and allies bright boys work with and for our respective DODs! Brat
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
Right. But by "the west" I hope you have the good sense that those "experts" are not representative of what "the west" knows. As far as I am concerned and judging by my reading of these "experts", they are just too much like you, whose knowledge in what China has or is capable of, and in what they keep babbling about, and whose attempted pretention in impartiality have been for some time losing more and more shreds of authority or credibility...Some of these experts are downright idiots or morons or retards to me!
Wow, I just turned the page AGAIN!
No, i think you have no idea what i meant, all the aerodynamics of J-20 have been studied before in Russia and the West.
The avionics for 5th generation were developed first in the west and Russia, the engine technology were the same.
China is catching up, Song`s paper is just a justification of why J-20`s configuration was chosen, is not new in terms of what Russia or the West knows.
Many western experts are experts in technology fields applied to fighters, they might be mistaken sometimes, that is possible, but that is not much because the do not know physics or engineering, but more because they do not what is the state of aircraft engineering in China only that.
But do not dismiss them as wrong, they know engineering enough to know technological features you or me we do not even know.
No, I believe it is you who have little clue as to what I had written, and for that matter, you seem to have little clue or don't seem to have bothered to read what other people said to you. You just kept babbling, repeating the same XXXX all too often, seemingly habitually... Honestly, I'm starting to suspect that you have a reading comprehesion disability... probabaly not a physiological but a psychologically one...
Last edited:
- Status