J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII


Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
So we've established you're NOT working within the MIC then? Good. Again I remind you my intentions for posting the graph was two-fold:

1) For posterity so new members can look up past discussions on the subject since the graph WASN'T posted before.
2) More importantly, to speculate on the unknown with a given set of limitations. Is there a hard rule stating that new imagery/dataset posted here have to be accurate with realities on the ground? Preferable? Sure. Always? Certainly not.

1) I have stated in my role as a moderator why we specifically do not want this topic to be brought up again, and indeed the very intent of letting new members be aware of the past discussion is actively not useful for this thread.
2) I have stated that we do not want any further discussion on this topic as it has already been done to death in the past and was distracting for the thread and will be distracting again, in context where none of us can speculate with anything resembling insider information. The fact that you posted that chart and tried to restart the discussion is not against the rules.

The fact that you have continued to challenge it when other members have patiently explained to you why your post is unhelpful, and when challenged it and quoted it when I in a moderator role with red text has explained the same to you, however is poor etiquette with the latter being against the rules. Yes, if a moderator says "stop" then it means one is expected to stop.


So unless otherwise stated in the rules of the forum, members are free to rehash old discussions e.g. How many times have the Taiwan contingency thread repeated old talking points? How often have members speculated on J-20 estimates only to end up being so far off their initial hypothesis? Feel free to point out if I got THIS PART wrong.

The fact that you're a moderator speaks NOTHING to the value new members can add to the discussion. It's also not as if you're above allowing members to derail threads harmlessly or otherwise,
evidenced here so the hypocrisy is telling. If a new account is all it takes to expose your double standards then I think it's time well spent.

So I ask again, is there a reason why you've advocated to police future discussions?

It is in the rules that users are expected to accept the instructions of moderators, and I've given you two opportunities now to back off and let it go.
Yes, it means that moderators by virtue of experience and by virtue of their common sense and good judgement, are expected to have a sense for when a discussion can sufficiently be derailed in a given thread to intervene and say "let's not talk about this" and to block off an avenue of discussion.
I've been here a while, I've seen enough threads get derailed to know what can result in a page or so of temporarily off topic discussion and what has the potential to lead to a multipage long emotive argument.

====

I've deleted posts above regarding the resurrection of that RCS study discussion.
To everyone, please exercise some common sense. If a member (and especially a moderator) gives a signal that perhaps a particular post or line of discussion is not worth re-pursuing, take a step back and maybe consider if they have a good reason for it instead of immediately becoming combative and oppositional.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Taiwan not including j-20 in daily monitoring does not necessarily indicate Taiwan did not observe j-20 to whatever degree they may or may not have.

I think the plaaf and CPC is too smart to believe and operate that way (how the GT article is implying) and even if they have certainty in the low observability of the j-20, it wouldn't be something the CPC and plaaf assumed without caution. Retractable luneberg lens have something to do with it all but if plaaf is secure enough to fly j-20 with LL retracted, it is hopefully doing so with a well known control and full knowledge of adversary intelligence on the matter.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


From this report, when the 8th started their conversion to J-20, the 9th transferred one of their Gold Dart winning pilots, vice commander of their own brigade, 2 teams of ground crew to the 8th.

Basically, it has been the same story everywhere, like the 98th transferred several experienced pilots to the 99th for the J-16 conversion.

Yes, that sort of inter unit support is very much sensible and appropriate.

Though what I was describing was something more like the USAF Weapons School -- an institutionalized way in which all units send their annual best pilots and crew for further subspeciality training and courses and to return to their home unit afterwards to teach and apply what they can learn, enabling better service wide dissemination of knowledge and competency.
 

minusone

Junior Member
Registered Member
Taiwan not including j-20 in daily monitoring does not necessarily indicate Taiwan did not observe j-20 to whatever degree they may or may not have.

I think the plaaf and CPC is too smart to believe and operate that way (how the GT article is implying) and even if they have certainty in the low observability of the j-20, it wouldn't be something the CPC and plaaf assumed without caution. Retractable luneberg lens have something to do with it all but if plaaf is secure enough to fly j-20 with LL retracted, it is hopefully doing so with a well known control and full knowledge of adversary intelligence on the matter.
Relax...it's just Taiwan..
 

plawolf

Brigadier
Frankly that's a bit odd, because while I can understand the importance of having some more elite and experienced units, concentrating high end competence like that isn't really that wise at a military level.

What you really want to do is to distribute your highly competent individuals among different units, and send them periodically to a high yield intensive training course so they can return to their unit and teach the fruits of learning to their peers.

I suspect part of the video's description of the brigade is to partly ham it up a bit to make it seem "special" because for the general public the idea of a more "elite" brigade seems more appealing.

That might be beneficial when you are actually engaged in live combat against a peer or near-peer where combat attrition and replacements is a major factor, in the peacetime, there is a lot of value in getting your best and brightest together so they can challenge and inspire each other.

The purpose of these elite units is more to help write the playbook and develop new tactics and strategies rather than to just have one super elite unit of ‘aces’. These units are basically going to be the instructors of the Chinese Top Gun, where they will play opfor against regular PLAAF and PLANAF regiments to kick their butts and then show them how it was done.
 

siegecrossbow

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Taiwan not including j-20 in daily monitoring does not necessarily indicate Taiwan did not observe j-20 to whatever degree they may or may not have.

I think the plaaf and CPC is too smart to believe and operate that way (how the GT article is implying) and even if they have certainty in the low observability of the j-20, it wouldn't be something the CPC and plaaf assumed without caution. Retractable luneberg lens have something to do with it all but if plaaf is secure enough to fly j-20 with LL retracted, it is hopefully doing so with a well known control and full knowledge of adversary intelligence on the matter.

Of course you can detect even stealth aircraft on radar. The question is how close and whether the signal is lost in the background noise. As per ShiLao’s podcast most of Taiwan’s groundbased radar (bar PAVE PAWS) are very old, some of which were purchased during the 1970s. For them to not have a clear picture of enemy assets is perfectly normal.
 

Top