Brumby
Major
Thank you to all those who have responded on the weapons separation discussions. I do not intend to address each post individually. I would instead address it in one post to maintain centrality in my reply.
I believe there are two main points in this conversation. The contention itself and the underlying argument in support of each opposing views.
What is the contention? Is weapons separation a sufficiently significant milestone that demands evidence or is it an event achievement that one can simply assume without evidence.
Below are the two opposing post that kicked off this conversation
“Deploying weapons externally is different from launching from internal bays. One can't assume is business as usual until is proven.” My post #5289
If anything I would argue it is a rather rudimentary and basic capability that should be demonstrated rather early on for 5th generation aircraft during their development/EMD phase. Bltizo’s post #5288
With that I would now move on to address the reasoning because that seems to be the main point that had been brought up by a number of posters that had commented on it.
Is weapons separation so rudimentary that it can be assumed? A fighter plane like the J-20 is an offensive platform and being able to launch weapons is central to its function. It is an important milestone because everything about the program is working towards that capability. It is an event that is monitored to assess progress in a program. It is also often demonstrated with much publicity because it is a very visual representation of capability and a messaging tool. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean that such capability is absent but a demonstration of such capability is very often a signal that such a milestone is reached.
Why is the question and the underlying rationale so unreasonable whereas presumption of capability without evidence is somehow reasonable? It is about what is reasonable and application of equal measure regardless of your views. Is your belief of the program progress status based on your choice to believe regardless of evidence or your belief is grounded on evidence?
A number of posters have invoked the operational status argument. In reply, the meaning “in operation” is so broad especially with the way China inducts a platform into service that in my view is hardly a ground to prove anything. For example, a competing program like the SU-57 is also “in service”. It has demonstrated a couple of days of being in Syria and had provided escort to Putin as a propaganda tool. Based on independent sources, the SU-57 is presently a flying shell and testing to-date had been rather limited. Currently it is still undergoing weapons and systems testing. It is unreasonable in my view to assume anything on program progress until there is evidence of milestone achievement.
I believe there are two main points in this conversation. The contention itself and the underlying argument in support of each opposing views.
What is the contention? Is weapons separation a sufficiently significant milestone that demands evidence or is it an event achievement that one can simply assume without evidence.
Below are the two opposing post that kicked off this conversation
“Deploying weapons externally is different from launching from internal bays. One can't assume is business as usual until is proven.” My post #5289
If anything I would argue it is a rather rudimentary and basic capability that should be demonstrated rather early on for 5th generation aircraft during their development/EMD phase. Bltizo’s post #5288
With that I would now move on to address the reasoning because that seems to be the main point that had been brought up by a number of posters that had commented on it.
Is weapons separation so rudimentary that it can be assumed? A fighter plane like the J-20 is an offensive platform and being able to launch weapons is central to its function. It is an important milestone because everything about the program is working towards that capability. It is an event that is monitored to assess progress in a program. It is also often demonstrated with much publicity because it is a very visual representation of capability and a messaging tool. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean that such capability is absent but a demonstration of such capability is very often a signal that such a milestone is reached.
Why is the question and the underlying rationale so unreasonable whereas presumption of capability without evidence is somehow reasonable? It is about what is reasonable and application of equal measure regardless of your views. Is your belief of the program progress status based on your choice to believe regardless of evidence or your belief is grounded on evidence?
A number of posters have invoked the operational status argument. In reply, the meaning “in operation” is so broad especially with the way China inducts a platform into service that in my view is hardly a ground to prove anything. For example, a competing program like the SU-57 is also “in service”. It has demonstrated a couple of days of being in Syria and had provided escort to Putin as a propaganda tool. Based on independent sources, the SU-57 is presently a flying shell and testing to-date had been rather limited. Currently it is still undergoing weapons and systems testing. It is unreasonable in my view to assume anything on program progress until there is evidence of milestone achievement.