Ask anything Thread


Brumby

Major
Why not? Given the claim you are making, the burden should be on you to convince us that your question is a reasonable one in the first place.
I think you are now borderline in being dictatorial. I have already stated that I am not making any claim but asking a question that based on the facts I will draw my own conclusion. You are now suggesting that my question is being unreasonable. If you think the question is unreasonable then the onus is on you to demonstrate that the question itself is unreasonable and explain the underlying rationale. In my opinion, you are now stepping into silliness territory. .

None of the above is relevant to the topic of debate, which is whether it's reasonable to assume that supersonic weapons separation tests have been conducted before an aircraft is declared as being in combat service.
Given other aircraft like F-22 and F-35 conducted those supersonic weapons separation tests/supersonic launch tests before they were inducted into service, it is entirely reasonable for me to ask you to provide evidence for why you think it would not be the case for J-20 as well.
The fact that the supersonic test were conducted prior to induction into service doesn't mean by necessity that it is a prerequirement for induction. They can be mutually exclusive. You are the one insisting it is a mandatory requirement and so the onus is on you to support your position. Secondly, we are comparing two different armed services and their requirements are different
=====

I think others in the community have expressed their opinions as to the usefulness and reasonableness of your questions as well.
They are entitled to their opinion just as I am entitled to mine. There are forum rules and one of the thing that people in this forum needs to respect are the rules and the opinion of others even if it is contrary to their ideological preference.

I personally have no issues with people asking these sort of questions, but there's been a persistent pattern where your questions lead threads down off topic tangents which detract from the overall goal of a thread in terms of trying to have a record of J-20 related news, photos and discussion.
Are you suggesting it is entirely my fault because a conversation requires more than one participant? The problem is generally pro China members cannot tolerate anything that is less than positive about the J-20. I would say to them grow up. Learn how negative comments are discussed in the F-35 threads. It is what matured people do.

Consider making a thread specifically for any questions that you may have in future, rather than causing the main threads to have pages and pages of pointless debate.
Here I speak as just another user and not as a moderator. But you should have had enough experience here over the years to understand the kind of posts you make which tend to create long pointless arguments. So do the rest of the user base a favour and consider keeping those questions to a specific thread instead.
The one thing that I can agree on is that there are pages of unwarranted comments.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I think you are now borderline in being dictatorial. I have already stated that I am not making any claim but asking a question that based on the facts I will draw my own conclusion. You are now suggesting that my question is being unreasonable. If you think the question is unreasonable then the onus is on you to demonstrate that the question itself is unreasonable and explain the underlying rationale. In my opinion, you are now stepping into silliness territory. .


The fact that the supersonic test were conducted prior to induction into service doesn't mean by necessity that it is a prerequirement for induction. They can be mutually exclusive. You are the one insisting it is a mandatory requirement and so the onus is on you to support your position. Secondly, we are comparing two different armed services and their requirements are different

If the examples of F-22 and F-35 and their testing history are somehow insufficient for you then I'm not sure what can make you understand that your question is unreasonable.




They are entitled to their opinion just as I am entitled to mine. There are forum rules and one of the thing that people in this forum needs to respect are the rules and the opinion of others even if it is contrary to their ideological preference.


Are you suggesting it is entirely my fault because a conversation requires more than one participant? The problem is generally pro China members cannot tolerate anything that is less than positive about the J-20. I would say to them grow up. Learn how negative comments are discussed in the F-35 threads. It is what matured people do.



The one thing that I can agree on is that there are pages of unwarranted comments.
When the main thread becomes polluted from unwarranted comments and when different threads over time become sidetracked resulting from questions of a user that devolves into meaningless arguments then that becomes a basis for intervention.


I'm using my mod hat and I'm moving the last few pages to the Ask Anything thread. I won't stop you asking your questions but for the benefit of this forum, flagship threads like J-20 are not here to be trivialized.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
I don't know because I have not seen any evidence. LOL.
Yeah, that's not how burden of evidence works. The burden is on the person making the more outrageous claim; if you claim that your neighbor is a human being, there is very little to no evidence required. If you say we cannot assume if someone is human or not unless we dissect them to get concrete evidence, you will be laughed at, like you are here. The norm for modern fighters is to have supersonic launch capability; there are no exceptions. That's evidence.

You choose not to see the evidence provided and to ignore all the examples so one can only assume that you're choosing to be blind and digging yourself deeper into a hole because you think it's too embarrassing to come back out.
 
I am not here to convince you of anything. I asked for the evidence and based on the evidence or lack of I form my own opinion. Youi are trying to push a certain view and therefore the onus is on you to support your position - not me.
The conditions qualifying for combat service are different between China and the US. I have no idea what is the meaning of combat service is for China and I don't think you know either. Conversely I know what is the meaning of IOC is for the F-35 and what capabilities comes with 3F.
We are here to learn more about Chinese military capabilities, with your attitude like that, I am not sure you would learn much here

Your opinions, my opinions any anyone's opinions here mean nothing to the reality of Chinese military capabilities, we are here trying to "decipher" them

Many members here are highly regarded in Chinese military affairs. @Bltizo is definitely one of the few
 

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
The old saying about absence of evidence not being evidence of absence applies. It is of course prudent not to jump to conclusions, but that works *both* ways.

Take the Su-57, it is actually a case in point, but not in the way you portray. While it's NOT officially in service (contrary to what you say), it clearly isn't as far along as the manufacturer and customer hoped it would be at this time. Nonetheless, the assumption - based simply on an absence of milestone announcements - that it still is nothing more than an empty shell, and testing very limited, is also false. For example, even if the 2018 Syrian deployment was likely nothing more than a propaganda exercise (I can't think of any useful contribution to the test programme...), it did demonstrate capabilities that speak to a certain progress.

There were plenty of skeptics who were convinced its internal bays were non-functional, even though in 2017 a milestone slide (not intended for public consumption) dating to 2014 was leaked which stated they had been opened in flight by then. Even ignoring the aforementioned leak (which in itself proves milestones can happen without disclosure to the public!), is it credible to assume the launch of the Kh-59MK2 was the first time any weapon had been dropped? We are only talking about the bulkiest and heaviest payload planned for internal carriage on the Su-57...

... and the missile itself is actually another case in point: until the release of that footage, it had been only seen as a plastic trade-show mock-up. It was not even certain that it was an active project of record with the Russian air force, and given the deafening silence since its debut at MAKS 2015 one might have been forgiven for considering it vapourware by 2018. There had never been photos of a flight-worthy unit or even press releases about so much as an external captive carry on an aircraft other than the Su-57. Yet suddenly there is footage of a launch from the tight confines of the internal bay (and the rear one too, where the CoG shift is probably most problematic), followed by the wings and fins popping out for a full flight.
 
Last edited:

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
The old saying about absence of evidence not being evidence of absence applies. It is of course prudent not to jump to conclusions, but that works *both* ways.

Take the Su-57, it is actually a case in point, but not in the way you portray. While it's NOT officially in service (contrary to what you say), it clearly isn't as far along as the manufacturer and customer hoped it would be at this time. Nonetheless, the assumption - based simply on an absence of milestone announcements - that it still is nothing more than an empty shell, and testing very limited, is also false. For example, even if the 2018 Syrian deployment was likely nothing more than a propaganda exercise (I can't think of any useful contribution to the test programme...), it did demonstrate capabilities that speak to a certain progress.

There were plenty of skeptics who were convinced its internal bays were non-functional, even though in 2017 a milestone slide (not intended for public consumption) dating to 2014 was leaked which stated they had been opened in flight by then. Even ignoring the aforementioned leak (which in itself proves milestones can happen without disclosure to the public!), is it credible to assume the launch of the Kh-59MK2 was the first time any weapon had been dropped? We are only talking about the bulkiest and heaviest payload planned for internal carriage on the Su-57...

... and the missile itself is actually another case in point: until the release of that footage, it had been only seen as a plastic trade-show mock-up. It was not even certain that it was an active project of record with the Russian air force, and given the deafening silence since its debut at MAKS 2015 one might have been forgiven for considering it vapourware by 2018. There had never been photos of a flight-worthy unit or even press releases about so much as an external captive carry on an aircraft other than the Su-57. Yet suddenly there is footage of a launch from the tight confines of the internal bay (and the rear one too, where the CoG shift is probably most problematic), followed by the wings and fins popping out for a full flight.
Nice post Trident, much more introspective and logical, even Gentlemanly post questioning Mr. Brumby's position. Now, I'm rather more confidant that the J-20 has indeed conducted a supersonic launch, than my esteemed co-hort Mr. Brumby, but once again I'm going to defend his concern, and his right to be skeptical.

The J-20 is progressing nicely in its development, however, the J-20 is indeed China's first clean sheet attempt to develop, prototype, and begin LRIP of a large twin engine Hi end fighter of the 4th Generation for China. Zhuhai 2018 provided each of us with amazing, even clinical evidence of the very fine flying qualities of the J-20, China wouldn't place the J-20 "out there" if there were major flaws or even concerns about its present developmental status...

He did provide more than ample evidence to support his position that weapons release is a rather more complex undertaking than the average SDF poster seemed to realize.. He also pointed out the many, and varied issues faced by the X-35/F-35 in bringing that aircraft into production.... the F-35 is NOT unusual, nor is it extraordinary in having these types of issues in the numbers that it has, not unusual at all...

No rational individual with knowledge of aircraft development, prototyping, and preproduction, production would be offended, nor would they deem his question somehow "out of bounds"? the truth is not a single soul on this forum, or even in the aviation press? have a definitive answer to his question.. the only accurate answer for those of us here is? "I don't know, but, give your own logical reasoning behind your own suppositions...

I'm only responding to the very personally negative, even insulting responses Mr. Brumby received from fellow posters....

I'm a fan of the J-20 as well, I took no offense at Mr. Brumby's concern, or question about where exactly do people suspect the J-20 is presently in its developmental process. I'm rather more concerned that J-20 production seems to be hanging right at 20 developmental and LRIP aircraft, I could be completely wrong about that, but that appears to be the case with the evidence we have at hand....

Finally going back to your Su-57 analysis, in your concerns about the CG with a fore and aft weapons bay, you would of necessity load the forward bay with the heaviest weapons, and you would also release weapons from the aft bay first, particularly if they were the same or nearly the same weight as those weapons in the forward weapons bay.... To release weapons in the forward weapons bay, and retain a heavy weapon in the aft bay would leave you with an extremely dangerous aft CG, which is likely out of the safe "flight envelope", and would lead to some very dangerous characteristics were you to accidentally "depart" the aircraft in air combat maneuvering, in fact its likely that you might not be able to recover the aircraft at all....
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
I'm rather more concerned that J-20 production seems to be hanging right at 20 developmental and LRIP aircraft, I could be completely wrong about that, but that appears to be the case with the evidence we have at hand....
Current regime --- Xi Jing Ping's --- is like no other. They stress the meritocratic system more, which means you no longer put out stuff for the sake of putting out stuff for shows, but rather answerable to the highest standards before it can be put out. Thus they are not in a hurry like previous Chinese regimes and are more willing to take the time to bake products to perfection, and/or to make sure they have sufficiently trained personnel to man them, people that are trained to a high standard. You can also start to see this with the naval, rocket and army branches as well.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I'm a fan of the J-20 as well, I took no offense at Mr. Brumby's concern, or question about where exactly do people suspect the J-20 is presently in its developmental process. I'm rather more concerned that J-20 production seems to be hanging right at 20 developmental and LRIP aircraft, I could be completely wrong about that, but that appears to be the case with the evidence we have at hand....
Three PLAAF units are confirmed to have received J-20s in service:
176th brigade, 172nd brigade and 9th brigade.

176th brigade is a tactics development unit.
172nd brigade is an advanced training and combat reserve unit.
9th brigade is a frontline combat unit.


The units that have had J-20s assigned to them give us a gauge of how far along they are with the programme.
We do not know how many J-20s they are producing annually, however the fact that new units are being equipped with J-20s is proof that production is ongoing and total J-20 numbers are growing.
 

Top