Ask anything Thread (Air Force)

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
You know what I'm amazed by? How many times you came back and how many graphs/charts you put up trying to defend something that you twice said is no big deal.

I'm also amazed by how many times you've regurgitated that it's unreasonable to make assumptions in the absence of evidence despite being told probably close to 5 times that some things are basic enough to assume without evidence, with examples, no less (assumption such as future computers being functional, people who you've never seen eating actually do eat, etc...). Want another example? Can J-20 fly higher than 20,000 feet? Have you seen it fly at over that height before? Then we can't assume that it can, right? Ignoring these points like they were never brought up doesn't make then disappear. The fact that no other modern fighter has this limitation is evidence enough.

Mr. Brumby asked an honest question? for which you have NO answer? None, but instead of doing a little research or even offering your reasoning for assuming the answer is affirmative, you chose to personally attack his logic and reasoning???

by the way, he offered some excellent resources lending credibility to his own research..

He has not put "you" down, he has not put the "J-20" down, but the fact that he is searching for honest answers, and gives an excellent and well reasoned argument asking if the J-20 has had a successful supersonic weapons release offends you???

Sino Defense Forum has traditionally and historically been an adult, 99% male, military forum Gents, so lets agree not to be offensive, and not to take offense where none has been intended......
 

jobjed

Captain
Mr. Brumby asked an honest question? for which you have NO answer? None, but instead of doing a little research or even offering your reasoning for assuming the answer is affirmative, you chose to personally attack his logic and reasoning???

by the way, he offered some excellent resources lending credibility to his own research..

He has not put "you" down, he has not put the "J-20" down, but the fact that he is searching for honest answers, and gives an excellent and well reasoned argument asking if the J-20 has had a successful supersonic weapons release offends you???

Sino Defense Forum has traditionally and historically been an adult, 99% male, military forum Gents, so lets agree not to be offensive, and not to take offense where none has been intended......

Equation said he was amazed by Brumby, not offended. Why would you accuse him of taking offence? Why don't you agree to stop accusing others of taking offence when none has been taken?

Also, it's not Brumby's """honest""" questions that are objectionable. It's the far-reaching extrapolations he makes when he assumes the answers to his questions. To give some examples of Brumby's astute extrapolations, the J-20 in his mind does not have an operational AESA and cannot launch weapons at supersonic speeds. Hell, given his standards of proof, the J-20 in his mind cannot launch weapons at all, supersonic flight or otherwise. Never mind the J-20 is flying in two combat units, one of which is actually a pure combat unit and does not have advanced training or strategy development as part of its mission profile. I'm sure the PLAAF placed a shell of a aircraft with no operational radar or weapons launch capability into service with a front-line combat unit facing JASDF and ROKAF F-35s. THAT, is the quality of our dear Brumby's extrapolations and deductions. If you see fit to subscribe to them, old Brat, that's your problem and I really don't care. But spare us more of your whining about how we're being "unfair" in our criticism of Brumby and his thought experiments.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Mr. Brumby asked an honest question? for which you have NO answer? None, but instead of doing a little research or even offering your reasoning for assuming the answer is affirmative, you chose to personally attack his logic and reasoning???

by the way, he offered some excellent resources lending credibility to his own research..

He has not put "you" down, he has not put the "J-20" down, but the fact that he is searching for honest answers, and gives an excellent and well reasoned argument asking if the J-20 has had a successful supersonic weapons release offends you???

Sino Defense Forum has traditionally and historically been an adult, 99% male, military forum Gents, so lets agree not to be offensive, and not to take offense where none has been intended......

Oh Brat... You see all those likes I got? That's cus I did answer every point he had, and Blitzo went above and beyond to humor such a troll topic. If you think I didn't didn't answer anything, it's because you didn't read and hedged your support based solely on author rather than content. See my post you responded to? The answers are right in there, just as they were in every previous response. Everybody else sees the answers and they understand. If you don't, I can't help you.

None of his graphs or sources has any relevance to the topic. He compared F-15 with F-16 (both of which have no issues launching at supersonic speeds), and then he showed the diagram of a wing. What part of that has any meaning towards the challenges of supersonic launch from a weapons bay? None. In order to be "excellent sources" by most people's standards, they need to true, and relevant. Unfortunately for you, simply being true is enough. In which case, the sky is blue and grass is green, here are my sources, therefore J-20 can do anything. Excellent argument from a handsome, smart, 1,000% dialed in gentleman who probably has royal blood! There you go, enjoy.
 

Brumby

Major
No, your question is still rather problematic because the way you are asking the question suggests that if there is no "proof" then you can reasonably conclude that it has not happened.
If that is your standard of reasonableness than a presumption of an event based on nil evidence is similarly problematic. You can't have it both ways.

For example, your post that I responded to in 5291 said "One can't assume is business as usual until is proven." -- which I can only reasonably interpret to mean that that we "cannot assume" J-20 has tested supersonic weapons deployment until we have "proof".

In 5294 your reply did not clarify your meaning because you still wrote about the expectation of "proof" as if it should be expected for us to assume whether J-20 had tested supersonic weapons deployment or not: "How do you think the F-35 program found out that they have ejection issues without actually undergoing a testing regime? It is not a positive or negative thing. I was just asking whether there was evidence of testing. If there isn't any then there isn't any. Not a big deal."

If you had written something like: "do we have any evidence that J-20 has tested supersonic weapons testing from its bay yet? I am sure it likely has done so, given the aircraft has entered combat service, however I'm interested in if we've had any evidence for it" -- then I would have no issue with your question.
I will draw my own conclusion based on the evidence or lack of. You can continue to make whatever assumptions that suit your world view regarding the state of the program. If you can't provide any evidence and to-date I have not seen any provided besides some reference to initial failures with targeting, then I will draw my own conclusions.

How about this -- do you think it is reasonable for us to assume that J-20 has conducted supersonic weapons deployment given where it is in its programme by now?
I cannot impose on you or others how you interpret information such as I expect others to respect mine.

For example, I did combed through my archive and did not find any reference to the F-35 testing weapons separation at supersonic speed (until you provided). I have seen simulation data of weapons separation at varying speed (including at supersonic). If the same question was asked of me regarding the F-35 I would simply say I don't know if I have not seen any evidence. I would not make assumptions but that is just me.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
If that is your standard of reasonableness than a presumption of an event based on nil evidence is similarly problematic. You can't have it both ways.

My "presumption" of this event is based on the fact that J-20 is in combat service, where it is very reasonable to assume that tests such as supersonic weapons separation testing from the weapons bay would have occurred by.


I will draw my own conclusion based on the evidence or lack of. You can continue to make whatever assumptions that suit your world view regarding the state of the program. If you can't provide any evidence and to-date I have not seen any provided besides some reference to initial failures with targeting, then I will draw my own conclusions.


I cannot impose on you or others how you interpret information such as I expect others to respect mine.

For example, I did combed through my archive and did not find any reference to the F-35 testing weapons separation at supersonic speed (until you provided). I have seen simulation data of weapons separation at varying speed (including at supersonic). If the same question was asked of me regarding the F-35 I would simply say I don't know if I have not seen any evidence. I would not make assumptions but that is just me.

As of today, we know the F-35 is in combat service with a number of different services around the world.
If we had no evidence that F-35 had conducted supersonic weapons bay separation tests as of today, do you think it would be reasonable to assume that F-35 therefore was also not capable of doing so -- again, remembering that F-35 has been in combat service in its different variants for a few years now for the B and A variants?

If you think that would be a reasonable assumption then I disagree with your interpretation and inference of information in this domain in general.
 

Brumby

Major
My "presumption" of this event is based on the fact that J-20 is in combat service, where it is very reasonable to assume that tests such as supersonic weapons separation testing from the weapons bay would have occurred by.




As of today, we know the F-35 is in combat service with a number of different services around the world.
If we had no evidence that F-35 had conducted supersonic weapons bay separation tests as of today, do you think it would be reasonable to assume that F-35 therefore was also not capable of doing so -- again, remembering that F-35 has been in combat service in its different variants for a few years now for the B and A variants?

If you think that would be a reasonable assumption then I disagree with your interpretation and inference of information in this domain in general.

There are always some form of restrictions operationally even if it is inducted into service. We know that here are many with the F-35 requiring work arounds. You will need to convince me that somehow being able to launch weapons at supersonic speed is a show stopper. In the case of the F-35, It took 2 years between the initial separation test and the first recorded supersonic launch.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Equation said he was amazed by Brumby, not offended. Why would you accuse him of taking offence? Why don't you agree to stop accusing others of taking offence when none has been taken?

Also, it's not Brumby's """honest""" questions that are objectionable. It's the far-reaching extrapolations he makes when he assumes the answers to his questions. To give some examples of Brumby's astute extrapolations, the J-20 in his mind does not have an operational AESA and cannot launch weapons at supersonic speeds. Hell, given his standards of proof, the J-20 in his mind cannot launch weapons at all, supersonic flight or otherwise. Never mind the J-20 is flying in two combat units, one of which is actually a pure combat unit and does not have advanced training or strategy development as part of its mission profile. I'm sure the PLAAF placed a shell of a aircraft with no operational radar or weapons launch capability into service with a front-line combat unit facing JASDF and ROKAF F-35s. THAT, is the quality of our dear Brumby's extrapolations and deductions. If you see fit to subscribe to them, old Brat, that's your problem and I really don't care. But spare us more of your whining about how we're being "unfair" in our criticism of Brumby and his thought experiments.

Ever since Xi Jing Ping clamped down and purged the PLA and all branches, and the Chinese military defense industry for corruption and cronyism, to the extent of putting people in jail, raised all the requirements and the heavy focus on QC, you can bet that what they put on service, are truly and absolutely operational. They no longer and do not put things just for show, just for parades, just for propaganda, just like in the past under earlier leaders, or like the Russians did then and still do now. Very different mindset you have with the PLA and all its branches now as the new guard has taken over.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
There are always some form of restrictions operationally even if it is inducted into service. We know that here are many with the F-35 requiring work arounds. You will need to convince me that somehow being able to launch weapons at supersonic speed is a show stopper. In the case of the F-35, It took 2 years between the initial separation test and the first recorded supersonic launch.

Yes, it was about two years between the F-22's first separation tests and its first supersonic guided missile launch as well. Both F-22 and F-35 conducted supersonic weapons tests before they entered service.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-vi.t8169/page-537#post-562388



As for convincing you that launching weapons at supersonic speed for fighter aircraft with A2A as a primary role being a show stopper, I think the burden of evidence should be on you to convince me that it is reasonable to assume that supersonic weapons deployment should not be considered as a capability that an aircraft should have demonstrated before entering combat service.

After all, in both the examples of F-22 and F-35 (the only other two 5th gen fighters who we have those open milestones on), they demonstrated the ability to deploy weapons at supersonic speeds before entering service as well.
Are you able to demonstrate a persistent pattern among other fighter aircraft where the ability to deploy weapons at supersonic speeds was deliberately not tested before entering service?
 
Yes, it was about two years between the F-22's first separation tests and its first supersonic guided missile launch as well. Both F-22 and F-35 conducted supersonic weapons tests before they entered service.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-vi.t8169/page-537#post-562388



As for convincing you that launching weapons at supersonic speed for fighter aircraft with A2A as a primary role being a show stopper, I think the burden of evidence should be on you to convince me that it is reasonable to assume that supersonic weapons deployment should not be considered as a capability that an aircraft should have demonstrated before entering combat service.

After all, in both the examples of F-22 and F-35 (the only other two 5th gen fighters who we have those open milestones on), they demonstrated the ability to deploy weapons at supersonic speeds before entering service as well.
Are you able to demonstrate a persistent pattern among other fighter aircraft where the ability to deploy weapons at supersonic speeds was deliberately not tested before entering service?

Some people don't grasp logic, perhaps it's better to just avoid a logical debate with such people? I think everyone else is already in agreement that a supersonic fighter designed for supersonic combat that has been in operation for two years already is most likely (not of course, not 100% certain, but a statistical CI in this case is certainly greater than 96%) able to launch weapons at supersonic speeds. Each time I see a new post in this thread and I eagerly check for any real news and updates, it's frustrating to see the same poster arguing that the earth is at the center of the universe.
 
Top