It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

J-10 vs F-16

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Am i mistaken or are you completly ignorant.


Very, very mistaken, and a bit ignorant your self it seems.



It makes no mention of china recieving the LAVI or any lavi designs.


If you bothered to READ the artical, it said:


The program began in the late 1980s and is thought to be based on an Israeli design.


Of course, I didn't mention this because it is well known that China based the J-10 off of the LAVI design. Sorry, I guess I was giving people on this forum more credit then I should have in terms of their basic knowledge of the aircraft being discussed. I will there for assume you know nothing of what is being discussed in this thread, and treat you accordingly.


My point was, that China did in fact get it's airframe technology from the F-16 via the LAVI. I said this in response to an outlandish, and frankly false assertion that the J-10 was a "generation" ahead of the F-16 in airframe technology. Again, that is patently false.




Sadly journalism has come a long way when the truth is not always the truth. The F-16 was only rumoured to have been given to china because china sold pakistan missiles.

There has been no proof that pakistan gave china a F-16 nor is any F-16 technology in the J-10.



There are a lot of things that there is no definitive proof of, that are none the less based on very sound reasons and sources. This is one of them. Put it this way, I know people in "the buisness" that have said there is no doubt in their mind it happened. I will trust their word because they get paid to know.



Nothing in the F-16 is found in the J-10. Know explain your difinition of a copy.




Clear things up a bit?



PS: your original article was written using secondary sources.


So? It is still acurate in it's information - it just happened to be the first of THOUSANDS of links that said more or less the exact same thing. China designed the J-10 around the LAVI, which in turn was designed around US technology and the F-16.

Get over it. The J-10 is Chinas first attempt at making a viable modern fighter. They would be stupid not to copy a PROVEN design that has served the best air force in the world for 25 years.




posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

What has america done for humanity lately?


I guess sarcasm doesn't translate too well to Commy speek, eh?


If you really must know, we give more towards humanity in both money and manpower then any other nation on earth. So, how does more then everyone else do for an answer?

And to think, this coming from a Chinese communist?




And what hardware are you refering to.?


See post above. For further information on the subject, see the thread All Chinese aircraft are pathetic copies originally authored by ATS member Stealth Spy. Don't worry, it doesn't just single out Chinas aircraft - it shows plenty of other examples too.



China stopped making out-right copys of hardware in the 60s.


Oh yes, now they make copies and slap a new label on it! How original!



The trend is already moving. It soon wont be chinese equipment influenced by so and so but chinese equpment


Since you are so into the literal use of words in the English language, you are wrong in your statement "the trend is already moving" as China has not designed and put into production a single new current "generation" aircraft that was not it's self based off of another nations aircraft.


But I am done with this. This was a good discussion on the F-16, the J-10, it's history, and the forward canard-delta wing configuration. I would like to return to that.

I will leave you with my following thoughts on China because it seems you are interested in hearing my view of your country. I am not interested in arguing over it on this thread, so if you wish to continue this discussion, U2U me, or find another thread to do it in (I am sure I will find it
).

To be frank (not the person, the expression which means honest), China is simply too far behind the US in R&D to pose much of a technological threat for some time. Down the road, I would agree that China could be be a formidable rival in technology, but right now they just aren't there yet. They are doing things that the US did 30-40 years ago, and only then often times by using Russian and American technology.

IMHO, China needs to outspend the US in R&D in order to catch up. To do that they need more money then the US.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
If you bothered to READ the artical, it said:

The program began in the late 1980s and is thought to be based on an Israeli design.


Is Thought But not a definite answer.



Of course, I didn't mention this because it is well known that China based the J-10 off of the LAVI design. Sorry, I guess I was giving people on this forum more credit then I should have in terms of their basic knowledge of the aircraft being discussed. I will there for assume you know nothing of what is being discussed in this thread, and treat you accordingly.


Well known?

Since the J-10 project first appeared people have been making assumtions about where china got the J-10 tech and is china possible to make the LAVI




My point was, that China did in fact get it's airframe technology from the F-16 via the LAVI. I said this in response to an outlandish, and frankly false assertion that the J-10 was a "generation" ahead of the F-16 in airframe technology. Again, that is patently false.


A member (xmotex) posted a image of the J-9. the aircraft that was developed before the J-10. Is it more that the J-10 is based on the J-9 and influenced by the LAVI?



There are a lot of things that there is no definitive proof of, that are none the less based on very sound reasons and sources. This is one of them. Put it this way, I know people in "the buisness" that have said there is no doubt in their mind it happened. I will trust their word because they get paid to know.


They have no doubt of it but do they have proof.?

I convict you of murder but dont have edvidence. give me a break.




Clear things up a bit?


No.




So? It is still acurate in it's information - it just happened to be the first of THOUSANDS of links that said more or less the exact same thing. China designed the J-10 around the LAVI, which in turn was designed around US technology and the F-16.


So your just trying to point out that american equipment is the best?

American supremacism at its best.

How many of thoses thousands of links are american? how many have bias. how many are quoting from FAS?.


And how is the LAVI like a F-16? It was israels attempt to make their version of the F-16.



Get over it. The J-10 is Chinas first attempt at making a viable modern fighter. They would be stupid not to copy a PROVEN design that has served the best air force in the world for 25 years.


The J-10 is nothing like the F-16.

How could it copy the design


[edit on 16-10-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I guess sarcasm doesn't translate too well to Commy speek, eh?

If you really must know, we give more towards humanity in both money and manpower then any other nation on earth. So, how does more then everyone else do for an answer?
And to think, this coming from a Chinese communist?


Here it comes. something you cant dismiss you accuse them of being communist.

Congrats shows how americans handle situations.

I might be chinese but im not a communist nor do i approve of communist ideals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Americans just cause trouble. iraq afganistan korea. You might give but you also take.



See post above. For further information on the subject, see the thread All Chinese aircraft are pathetic copies originally authored by ATS member Stealth Spy. Don't worry, it doesn't just single out Chinas aircraft - it shows plenty of other examples too.


You pointed me out to a inaccurate aircraft list.

Your on a roll today. accuse someone of being communist then distorts information



Oh yes, now they make copies and slap a new label on it! How original!


Of what.?

The J-7 might be a Mig-21 looking airframe but its chiense from the inside. Also the basic Mig-21 has been changed in the J-7.




Since you are so into the literal use of words in the English language, you are wrong in your statement "the trend is already moving" as China has not designed and put into production a single new current "generation" aircraft that was not it's self based off of another nations aircraft.


Wrong in my statment?

Meaning from dictionary.com

The general direction in which something tends to move.


China started off building russian craft.

chinese craft with heavy russian/israeli influence.

Chinese designed and built without any outside influence.

That is a trend is it not?



But I am done with this. This was a good discussion on the F-16, the J-10, it's history, and the forward canard-delta wing configuration. I would like to return to that.


Go have your discussion. i have left this thread with a lesson about americans



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   
May I jump back in here?



Well, here is where I have to dissagree with you. If FC/Delta designs were such a superior configuration, the US would have made it work.

Simply stated, digital fly by wire systems were available in as of
1972. If the light fighter would have been better with a forward canard/delta design, they would have incorporated the FBW systems needed into the R&D budget for the aircraft. ...........To further expand on this, why then did the F-18 not get the design? It came out in 1983 - 10 years after the fly-by-wire digital systems were first introduced. Again, if this was such a - or even somewhat - superior design, why was it never used?


I can answer this point, The FBW systems tested from 1972 were very rudimentary by todays standards, naturally enough, as that represents the beginning of the technology. Its not merely the existence of FBW thats the question, but also the complexity of the system required and the state of computer technology which is crucial to making the unstable layout workable.

You may be aware that the FBW system of the Typhoon (as an example, I don't want to keep typing out all the names!) makes hundreds of adjustments per second due to its instability, this was completely beyond the computing power of '70's technology when the FBW sytems of the day were concerned with controlling conventional fighters and allowing them to be made lighter and more efficient than they would be with mechanical powered controls. The realisation that such a control system, given suitable computer capacity, could be used to make otherwise uncontrollable shapes safe to fly came much later.

Simply saying the USAF would make it work doesn't apply, everyone was trying to make it work, hence all the prototyping. The lead in defence spending and technological capability that the USA enjoyed in the 70's was only a fraction of what it is today, an unrelated but illustrative case in point being the US decision to buy the Harrier from the UK as all US attempts to produce a working VTOL system had failed to produce anything suitable for military service - the point merely being that nobody, even the US, could simply guarantee success by throwing money at the problem.

No-one would risk using such sysytems on a service fighter until the technology had matured to the point where it wouldn't be an unnecessary risk. When I mentioned the EAP etc from 1986, I wasn't saying that only the Europeans had matured the technology, the USA had the HiMAT and several other working demonstrators too, but the reliability of the technology still had to be proven and the reason that European planes made use of the system and US ones did not was purely down to an accident of timing. The original plan for our fighters was to be in service before the end of the 1990's, there was simply no US plan to introduce new fighters into service at this time as the F-16, 18 etc were still in full flow. This was something that Eurofighter and Dassault knew full well and both hoped would lead to their new fighters pinching some export orders off America, I have a report stating that "we need to sell as many fighters on the export market as possible before the next generation US fighter comes on stream" but of course delays set in and put paid to that little scheme. The F/A-22 is a completely different kind of aircraft and the advent of TVC has to a large extent made the benefits of a canard design redundant. That doesn't mean there was anything wrong with canards, simply that technology has moved on.

Its the same now with TVC, we in Europe are perfectly aware of the benefits of it but our fighters don't have it, again its an accident of timing as the design of our fighters was frozen before the technology had matured to the point where it could be safely included. We are now looking at a retrofit programme to bring it into use on the Typhoon etc.

This brings us back to the F-18 which you mentioned. It entered service in 1983, it first flew in 1979. the design of the fighter was therefore necessarily frozen in 1976-77, the same question therefore applies to either FBW reliant unstable canard configuration on the F-18 AND TVC control on the Eurofighter etc a decade later;

"Can we be certain the technology will be reliable and mature enough to incude by the in service date? How catastrophic to the programme will it be if it is found to be unworkable in a service environment?"

In both cases the technolgy was at too early a stage to be included, therefore the statement about simply 'making it work' is taking a rather too simplistic view of the situation, If I may say so.


Fair enough, though NASA calls them canards



well, of course NASA is quite right


It was poor phrasing from me there, I meant canards in the sense of a lifting surface as an alternataive to a tailplane, which the ones on the F-16 were not, but you got the gist of it anyway.




Yes, I understand this. The problem is with recoverability. Again, from how it was explained to me, I am under the impression that the delta/canard design is specifically harder to control after damage is done to control surfaces. I do understand that all modern fighters worth their salt are very unstable, but the canard design makes it nearly unrecoverable if they are damaged, where as an aircraft such as the Raptor could simply hit the throttle to gain lift, and have a decent chance of getting back home


This is right up to a point. The thing about the unstable canard is that it is completely unflyable without its complex FBW system constantly compensating, therefore, if the FBW is up to the task it should not matter if a canard or part of a wing or whatever is missing, it can compensate and the pilot can still fly the plane. However if the FBW system itself is the problem either through malfunction or battle damage, then the only option is to punch out so its swings and roundabouts there. Also the F/A-22 is not immune to such faults, witness the wobbly arse-scraping demonstration of an early prototype. Of course this may never happen again but a similar problem remains a possibility while ever FBW is the main system.



IMHO, the canard design was used because it allowed Europe to make an aircraft that could rival any percieved fighter in manueverability at a reasonable cost.




That statement is completely correct, as I have said, canards allowed greater agility and TVC, which does the same sort of thing without making the plane unstable, was not developed at the time. You mention about 'if the Raptor was not stealthy' (I paraphrase) more to the point, if the Raptor had fixed nozzles the Typhoon would fly rings round it, THAT was the attraction of canards in the '80's and the fact that the Raptor DOESN'T have fixed nozzles at all is why canards have had their day, as far as designing new fighters goes.
With TVC, of either sort, there is no need to modify the shape of the Raptor to make it more manoeverable, thats why you don't see canards on it, or the JSF designs or any other new designs. Just look at the BAe Replica, 2-D TVC and a butterfly tail, from the very people who designed the Typhoon itself.

You shouldn't underestimate the the reasons why the unstable canard was so attractive to designers in the 1980's but like all aircraft design its a question of compromise and TVC now makes the layout unnecessary for new designs. A lot can happen in the time between a design being frozen ( known in BAE as 'a necessary evil which allows a plane to get built'!) and the time when it actually hauls itself into the sky for the first time.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Hmm,



American Mad Man
Mostly due to the IAF?

The F-15 and the F-16 have EACH had over 100 kills in A2A combat with ZERO losses due to enemy aircraft. You can't spin this, it is simple FACT. The IAF hasn't come CLOSE to 100 kills with either aircraft, much less both of them. However, they are undefeated as well, and so prove the dominance of the teen series aircraft


Can you direct me to a source for this claim? Does this include kills with F4 drones, helicopters, Hot air ballons, geese? I frankly can't find a source to back up your claim, I CAN find a few records of 2 launches, from F-15s, on fleeing Iraqi mig's during the first Gulf War. Thats it.



American Mad Man
Well, here is where I have to dissagree with you. If FC/Delta designs were such a superior configuration, the US would have made it work.


Whys that?
There are many ways to produce an effective design, because the US failed to adopt it, does NOT mean it is any less effective. We used different shaped helmets, it make them any less effective? No, you simply have a different way of producing an effective design, that meets your needs.

To believe that, for a design to be the best, it must have come from America, you are very arrogant.



I am American - I have to live up to our 'what have you done for me lately' attitude

In all seriousness though...They have a VERY bad habit of copying military hardware because they are not advanced enough to do it themselves.

This could be a trend we see changing soon though.


Frankly,

Every country on the planet, has either bought or produced a copy from another countries military, either through license or without.

Some examples,
British Cobolt Armour on US Tanks.
US Sat Communcations for the UK Military
UH-60s for Aussie land
Apaches for the UK
Gripens for Cech airforce

::shrugs:: As you say, they might not have the funds to compete with the US for R&D funding. In all honesty, why bother? If there is another country that is selling equipment that is nearly of the same standard, why bother? They are spending their money on IMPROVING the design and operating it, is that not more of a threat?



IMHO, China needs to outspend the US in R&D in order to catch up. To do that they need more money then the US.


That isn't true, the Russians didn't have the same budget in terms of R&D funding etc Yet their aircraft and missile technology was still listed as a threat to your armed forces, also, the UK doesn't have the same level of funds as the US yet your armed forces are using a version of British designed Tank armour


Frankly, your "Better than all" attitude with hit you when are least expecting it. Sadly people other than your self will end up being on the forefront of that. By not respecting the abilities of another nation, you are frankly leaving your self open to an attack. Its foolish.

- Phil



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
For the F-15 from the Boeing site: (Does not give alot of specifics)




The F-15 Eagle has a perfect combat record of 101 victories and zero defeats. F-15s downed four Mig-29 fighters during the recent Balkan conflict and 33 of the 35 fixed-wing aircraft Iraq lost in air combat during Operation Desert Storm. During the Balkan conflict, the F-15E was the only fighter able to attack ground targets around the clock, in all weather conditions.
www.boeing.com...


From an AF site:


The Raptor will eventually replace the F-15 Eagle, an aircraft with an undefeated 104-0 combat record, according to Brig. Gen. Larry New, former 325th Fighter Wing commander. The general said that combat record will continue with the addition of the Raptor to the Air Force team.
www.af.mil...




[edit on 10/16/05 by FredT]

[edit on 10/16/05 by FredT]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Boo! (not to your post Fred)

I know the policy for 'this versus that' type threads but I would have thought this one had evolved into a discussion fully deserving its place on the aircraft board?

Shame, I was enjoying it.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Chinawhite: You do understand that your country - Am I right to assume it's China? - Has a MASSIVE copyright problem. Your leaders do nothing to curb the illegal distribution and copying of protected material from not only the US, but every country on earth. You copy every single software program on the planet, you copy movies, music, and all types of consumer products including even vehicles and aircraft. The reason for this is quite simple. You can establish fake businesses and sell products for essentially pure profit while having no expenses go to research and development. Your work force can therefore be drastically reduced and your upside is huge, while the downside is nilch. the only problem you have to worry about is that the your theft might come up short in the future. You continue to rely on other "smart and inventive" people to do the hard work, i.e. invent, and you steal their very hard work and call it yours. I hope the UN does something about this one day, for it is costing trillions of dollars to the world economy. What a shameful tactic.

Train



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Well, since this has gone to chit-chat on BTS (thanks to your your inferiority complex about China) I will continue this discussion.



Originally posted by chinawhite
Here it comes. something you cant dismiss you accuse them of being communist.
Congrats shows how americans handle situations.
I might be chinese but im not a communist nor do i approve of communist ideals.


Again - the use of sarcasm eludes you. Unfortunate. Your use of English is impressive (assuming it is your second language) but the subtleties elude you.

Basically, I was joking around - playing, if you will, towards a basic American stereotype of instant gratification, and a basic Chinese stereotype of communism.

I hope you understand that better now.




Americans just cause trouble. iraq afganistan korea. You might give but you also take.


I guess we were causing trouble saving China from slaughter during WWII? Causing trouble by saving Kuwait? Causing trouble airdropping food into Berlin? Causing trouble liberating France from Germany?

Whatever you say. Just know that the only reason China is even it's own country today is because America was 'causing trouble."

And yes, we take. That is generally how diplomacy and politics work. You give and take. Except of course with China - we never get anything from them, and Dod knows all they do is take.



You pointed me out to a inaccurate aircraft list.

Your on a roll today. accuse someone of being communist then distorts information


Distort information? I pointed you to another thread already on the subject of China copying other nations products because it would be more suited there. Basically, I was trying to redirect the conversation so as to keep this very thread in the aircraft forum.

Frankly, you are on a roll. You single handidly destroyed a very informative and technical thread, with a lot of historical information because you can not handle the fact that China has, in recent history, been completely unoriginal in it's technology - especially in the military sector. Bravo!



The J-7 might be a Mig-21 looking airframe but its chiense from the inside. Also the basic Mig-21 has been changed in the J-7.


Just because it was made in China and relabled does not make it Chinese. It makes it a Chinese derivative of someone elses aircraft.

Again, it may not be an exact copy, but it is largely based on others work with little domestic technology. Thus, for all intensive purposes, it is a copy.




Wrong in my statment?

Meaning frm dictionary.com

The general direction in which something tends to move.


China started off building russian craft.

chinese craft with heavy russian/israeli influence.

Chinese designed and built without any outside influence.

That is a trend is it not?


Yes, WRONG in your statement.

China has not built ANYTHING without outside influence. NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH. ZIP.

Hence, it was a false statement.



Go have your discussion. i have left this thread with a lesson about americans


Unfortunately, you ruined this thread, so I will have to spend a great deal of time making another thread without your national insecurities.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
Can you direct me to a source for this claim? Does this include kills with F4 drones, helicopters, Hot air ballons, geese? I frankly can't find a source to back up your claim, I CAN find a few records of 2 launches, from F-15s, on fleeing Iraqi mig's during the first Gulf War. Thats it.


I believe Fred has pointed you to a few sources. If you would like more, let me know.



Whys that?
There are many ways to produce an effective design, because the US failed to adopt it, does NOT mean it is any less effective. We used different shaped helmets, it make them any less effective? No, you simply have a different way of producing an effective design, that meets your needs.

To believe that, for a design to be the best, it must have come from America, you are very arrogant.


If you read my further posts, I do say that "inferrior" was a poor choice of word.

None the less, as I repeatedly pointed out, the US has been experimenting with the forward canard/delta design for nearly 40 years - we were in fact the first to do so. We had the technology to make it work, if not in the 70's, clearly in the 80's for the F-18 and the 2000's for the ATF and JSF programs.

The fact that never once has a prototype for a future American fighter incorporated the design speeks volumes.

As for your claim that I am being arrogant, I would reply that I am not, and am in fact very right in my assertation.

The US has the best aircraft companies in the world. Spin it all you want, but no nation can rival Americas big 3. These are companies that sent man to the moon 40 years ago, produced the fastest plane in the world 40 years ago, built the first 4 stealth aircraft, etc etc etc.

Results count. Now, surely, if there were some clear advantege to having a forward canard/delta wing layout, Skunk works, Phantom works, or the Northrop advanced projects division would have incorporated this into one of the 3 fighters that have been introduced to the US military over the last 30 years.

Clearly, none of these design teams found it to be an advantage, or else they would have incorporated it into a design. That alone tells me it's not the best design, because these 3 companies have a PROVEN TRACK RECORD of designing the best aircraft in the world, BAR NONE.






Frankly,

Every country on the planet, has either bought or produced a copy from another countries military, either through license or without.

Some examples,
British Cobolt Armour on US Tanks.
US Sat Communcations for the UK Military
UH-60s for Aussie land
Apaches for the UK
Gripens for Cech airforce



The difference here is that the US has come up with original technology, as has the UK. NATO, and non NATO allies such as Australia have contributed to ground breaking projects.

China copies, and copies only. Seriously, name me one original (read: not heavily influenced by some pre-existing) thing they have made in the military sector.



::shrugs:: As you say, they might not have the funds to compete with the US for R&D funding. In all honesty, why bother? If there is another country that is selling equipment that is nearly of the same standard, why bother? They are spending their money on IMPROVING the design and operating it, is that not more of a threat?



I agree, but that was not my point - my point was they are not original, and simply copy others work.



That isn't true, the Russians didn't have the same budget in terms of R&D funding etc Yet their aircraft and missile technology was still listed as a threat to your armed forces, also, the UK doesn't have the same level of funds as the US yet your armed forces are using a version of British designed Tank armour



First of all, Russia had inferior technology. They did have some systems that were equal to, or even in some cases exceeded America's, but overall they were far behind in everything from ICBM accuracy, to computer technology, to sub accoustics.

They were not our equal in quality, bet were our superior in quantity. Both sides understood that was the only way to compete with the other.

Secondly, Russia was starting from the same point after WWII. The only major advantage the US had was the nuclear weapon, but of course they stole that from us and were thus our relative equal in the 1950's.

China however is behind in nearly every area. They are 20 years (at least) behind in the aero-space field.

They have nothing that can compare to out naval systems.

They have nothing that compares to our heavy armour.

Same with communications systems.

And so on.

Not only that, but even if they were to get equal technology they would still need to BUY and PRODUCE it all, which would be even more expensive. And that is all assuming the US does not advance it's self.

Again, this is the reason I say they need to outspend the US to become our technological equals.



Frankly, your "Better than all" attitude with hit you when are least expecting it. Sadly people other than your self will end up being on the forefront of that. By not respecting the abilities of another nation, you are frankly leaving your self open to an attack. Its foolish.


Frankly, I don't have a better then all attitude. In my very first post I pointed out that the IAF probably has the "best" pilots. I am the first to say that overall, the SAS is probably the "best" SOF forces (though for specific missions, I would argue specific units are).

You just see that because you don't want to have to deal with the fact that right now, overall, the US IS better then all. That isn't arrogance or blind nationalism - it's the reality of today.

No other nation combines our level of technology with our level of training, along with the numbers we have. That is why everyone with half a brain - China and Russia included - agree that the US is superior to them militarily at the moment.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Well, since this has gone to chit-chat on BTS (thanks to your your inferiority complex about China) I will continue this discussion.


I think you have the inferiorty complex to or you wouldn't have responded.



I guess we were causing trouble saving China from slaughter during WWII? Causing trouble by saving Kuwait? Causing trouble airdropping food into Berlin? Causing trouble liberating France from Germany?


America never saved china from slaughter.. It was a stalemate in 1938. a stalemate which the japanese were losing.


Causing trouble killing civillians in korea.

Completey destroying indo-china. introducing drugs to every country you go in.
Giving saddam WMD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If D-day never happened then the soviets would be in control of europe. It was in americas interest to liberate france.



Whatever you say. Just know that the only reason China is even it's own country today is because America was 'causing trouble."


This might surprise yo but china did have a stragery in WW2 againest japan. It was formulated by a german. Check it out.



And yes, we take. That is generally how diplomacy and politics work. You give and take. Except of course with China - we never get anything from them, and Dod knows all they do is take.


America is give a little take a lot



Distort information? I pointed you to another thread already on the subject of China copying other nations products because it would be more suited there. Basically, I was trying to redirect the conversation so as to keep this very thread in the aircraft forum.


Yeah you should have stopped. blaming other people is a american policy



Frankly, you are on a roll. You single handidly destroyed a very informative and technical thread, with a lot of historical information because you can not handle the fact that China has, in recent history, been completely unoriginal in it's technology - especially in the military sector. Bravo!


It takes two to tango. If i was the only one then i would have got a warning.





Just because it was made in China and relabled does not make it Chinese. It makes it a Chinese derivative of someone elses aircraft.

Again, it may not be an exact copy, but it is largely based on others work with little domestic technology. Thus, for all intensive purposes, it is a copy.


Do you know the later chinese varients of the Mig-21 do not share anything with the soviet ones. except the basic body shape?




Yes, WRONG in your statement.


Use a dictionary to find out the meanings of words sometimes.

A trend is The general direction in which something tends to move.

CHina started off building copies to aircraft with chinese equipment to a chiense aircraft that is built with foriegn help to a completely new aicraft.

THat is a trend.



Unfortunately, you ruined this thread, so I will have to spend a great deal of time making another thread without your national insecurities.


You keep saying that I ruined a thread. It was your comment that i was addressing that was un-true



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I believe Fred has pointed you to a few sources. If you would like more, let me know.


Thanks Fred for that, to be honest, I can't find a list of aircraft downed and when, merely numbers, would you happen to have a more detailed list?



If you read my further posts, I do say that "inferrior" was a poor choice of word.

None the less, as I repeatedly pointed out, the US has been experimenting with the forward canard/delta design for nearly 40 years - we were in fact the first to do so. We had the technology to make it work, if not in the 70's, clearly in the 80's for the F-18 and the 2000's for the ATF and JSF programs.


::Shrugs:: Again that means nothing, every nation has a different way of producing their own produce, look at the buildings in France, German, Britain, then compare them to American, there are merely different ways to producing them.

Frankly because the US couldn't see any benefits does not mean there are not benefits of that design. Are you assuming that because the US did not develop it, means that the design isn't worth producing? I apologise, but to me that is arrogant.



The US has the best aircraft companies in the world. Spin it all you want, but no nation can rival Americas big 3. These are companies that sent man to the moon 40 years ago, produced the fastest plane in the world 40 years ago, built the first 4 stealth aircraft, etc etc etc.


Your quite right, don't forget about your german help
Also, the Russians managed to get into space, including China now. What would you like me to say about the rest? Congrats?



Results count. Now, surely, if there were some clear advantege to having a forward canard/delta wing layout, Skunk works, Phantom works, or the Northrop advanced projects division would have incorporated this into one of the 3 fighters that have been introduced to the US military over the last 30 years.


See above. Also, many nations do not consider boeing the gods in terms how we should design our own fighters.



Clearly, none of these design teams found it to be an advantage, or else they would have incorporated it into a design. That alone tells me it's not the best design, because these 3 companies have a PROVEN TRACK RECORD of designing the best aircraft in the world, BAR NONE.


Sure, I have to admit that you lot can design aircraft, I wouldn't say bar none though. but yes they are a very good producer.



The difference here is that the US has come up with original technology, as has the UK. NATO, and non NATO allies such as Australia have contributed to ground breaking projects.

China copies, and copies only. Seriously, name me one original (read: not heavily influenced by some pre-existing) thing they have made in the military sector.


Your write, I am honestly having problems with this, will have to get back to you on this one.



First of all, Russia had inferior technology. They did have some systems that were equal to, or even in some cases exceeded America's, but overall they were far behind in everything from ICBM accuracy, to computer technology, to sub accoustics.

They were not our equal in quality, bet were our superior in quantity. Both sides understood that was the only way to compete with the other.

Secondly, Russia was starting from the same point after WWII. The only major advantage the US had was the nuclear weapon, but of course they stole that from us and were thus our relative equal in the 1950's.

China however is behind in nearly every area. They are 20 years (at least) behind in the aero-space field.

They have nothing that can compare to out naval systems.

They have nothing that compares to our heavy armour.

Same with communications systems.

And so on.

Not only that, but even if they were to get equal technology they would still need to BUY and PRODUCE it all, which would be even more expensive. And that is all assuming the US does not advance it's self.

Again, this is the reason I say they need to outspend the US to become our technological equals.


The thing is, that a world war 1 rifle can still kill you if the sniper knows how to use it and where to aim. If you forget that fact, you will beable to ignore that the russians while still behind the us in R&D still could HURT the us and her troops. It comes down to how they use what they got, in iraq they are using RPGs and there is no effective high tech counter.



Frankly, I don't have a better then all attitude. In my very first post I pointed out that the IAF probably has the "best" pilots. I am the first to say that overall, the SAS is probably the "best" SOF forces (though for specific missions, I would argue specific units are).

You just see that because you don't want to have to deal with the fact that right now, overall, the US IS better then all. That isn't arrogance or blind nationalism - it's the reality of today.

No other nation combines our level of technology with our level of training, along with the numbers we have. That is why everyone with half a brain - China and Russia included - agree that the US is superior to them militarily at the moment.


I agree that because of numbers and budget, the US are the leaders, not the best. There is a vast different between being the worlds best military and the worlds leading military, frankly I believe there are other nations that deserve the Best, title.

- Phil



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
I think you have the inferiorty complex to or you wouldn't have responded.


No - simply defending my (correct) position.



America never saved china from slaughter.. It was a stalemate in 1938. a stalemate which the japanese were losing.


Yeah, great strategy! "maybe if we let them commit genocide on us, they will tire themselves to death!"


Face it, you got your arses handed to you, and the US bailed you out. Otherwise, the Chinese would be Japanese slaves.


Causing trouble killing civillians in korea.


In the Korean war?


Completey destroying indo-china. introducing drugs to every country you go in.


If we completely destroyed indo-china, then Why is China around today? Frankly, this is the typical "I am jellous of America, and as such shall blame all of our problems on them" attitude.

Drugs? Maybe if the Chinese had a little self control, they wouldn't have all become drug addicted junkies, eh? Seems to me, no other nation had that problem but the Chinese.



Giving saddam WMD.


So what? He was fighting Iran, it was the cold war. BTW, it was CHINA that gave Iraq and Iran the delivery sytems they now possess to use them. Great job China!



If D-day never happened then the soviets would be in control of europe. It was in americas interest to liberate france.


And yet during a time of PUBLICALLY STATED NATIONAL ISOLATIONISM, we through out all of our own rules to come save the day, again!



This might surprise yo but china did have a stragery in WW2 againest japan. It was formulated by a german. Check it out.


Great job they did.


It was the US, and the US alone that saved Chinas collective arse. Hell, the only reason we were attacked at pearl horbor is because we cut oil exports to Japan after they invaded China.

You might find this interesting:



A war had begun in Asia years before World War II started in Europe. Japan had invaded China in 1931. By 1937, war had broken out as the Japanese sought control of China. Roosevelt signed an unpublished (secret) executive order in May 1940 allowing U.S. military personnel to resign from the service so that they could participate in a covert operation in China: the American Volunteer Group, also known as Chennault's Flying Tigers. Over a seven-month period, Chennault's Flying Tigers destroyed an estimated 600 Japanese aircraft, sunk numerous Japanese ships, and stalled the Japanese invasion of Burma. With the United States and other countries cutting exports to Japan, particularly fuel oil, Japan planned a strike on Pearl Harbor on Sunday, 7 December 1941, to cripple the U.S. Pacific Fleet while consolidating oil fields in Southeast Asia. It is hard to determine whether the Japanese intended to release an advance declaration of war, however, as means of coordinating secret directives with public communication, particularly during a weekend in the U.S., were limited.


link



America is give a little take a lot



Bull#. We give and give and give. What exactly have we "taken"?




Yeah you should have stopped. blaming other people is a american policy


Yeah, OK.



It takes two to tango. If i was the only one then i would have got a warning.


No, unfortunately it doesn't. The fact that you took this thread off track proves it. I responded to your initial replies, and ended that we should drop the subject in this thread - because I KNEW if it kept up it would get moved.

I GAVE YOU THREE OPTIONS OF OTHER WAYS TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION! THREE! AND YOU HAD TO POST IN THIS THREAD, THUS KILLING IT!

It falls squarely on your sholders.





Do you know the later chinese varients of the Mig-21 do not share anything with the soviet ones. except the basic body shape?


Great, so they only stole the complete aerodynamic shape of the aircraft?!


THis is seriously funny now





Use a dictionary to find out the meanings of words sometimes.

A trend is The general direction in which something tends to move.

CHina started off building copies to aircraft with chinese equipment to a chiense aircraft that is built with foriegn help to a completely new aicraft.

THat is a trend.


I give up. There is nothing the Chinese have done that indicates they can build their own competative aircraft from scratch. NOT ONE THING!



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
::Shrugs:: Again that means nothing, every nation has a different way of producing their own produce, look at the buildings in France, German, Britain, then compare them to American, there are merely different ways to producing them.


How can you shrug off the fact that the three best military aircraft designers in the world have not found a single use for the forward canard/delta design?

Honestly? If one, or even two of them hand not designed an aircraft like that, I'd say maybe you are right. But all three?

Frankly, your building analogy is a terrible one. Building designs are largely aesthetic, as opposed to military aircraft, which are based 100% on performance and cost.

The reason, as I pointed out in this thread, and to which Waynos seems to agree with, is that the forward canard/delta design allows a great amount of manueverability cheaply. The very fact that forward canards are a stealth aircrafts worst nightmare means at this point of time, it is outdated.

The Raptor, as I pointed out, can out turn any aircraft in the world right now - including any FC/delta desgn. Thus, the percieved benefits of the design have been exceeded by more traditional designs.


Frankly because the US couldn't see any benefits does not mean there are not benefits of that design. Are you assuming that because the US did not develop it, means that the design isn't worth producing? I apologise, but to me that is arrogant.


Frankly, yes, that is what I am saying, when you have nearly an unlimited budget, like the US, with the most advanced designers, like the US.

The thing is, the US did develope the technology - in fact we pioneered it - but we never found a use for it. The reason being that TVC made the FC/Delta design redundent. In addition, the forward canard design compramises the RCS of an aircraft much more then more traditional designs.

The only place that the design has a place in, is as a lower cost alternative. If you want the best with no concern for product cost, the FC/delta design would not be used - you give up too much in other aspects of the aircraft. If you want supreme agility, you use TVC instead of FC/delta, because that way you can keep your aircraft more stealthy, while still giving your aircraft elite agility.



Your quite right, don't forget about your german help
Also, the Russians managed to get into space, including China now. What would you like me to say about the rest? Congrats?


This is not supposed to be a 'rah-rah America' thing, I'm just putting it into perspective. These companies have produced the very best in the world at nearly everything they have done. I think that has a lot of relavince when talking about airframes, and their (lack of) use by said companies.



See above. Also, many nations do not consider boeing the gods in terms how we should design our own fighters.


I think a LOT of countries would love to get their hands on the Super Hornet. I'd put the SH up against any non-american aircraft in the world.



Your write, I am honestly having problems with this, will have to get back to you on this one.


Don't hold your breath




The thing is, that a world war 1 rifle can still kill you if the sniper knows how to use it and where to aim. If you forget that fact, you will beable to ignore that the russians while still behind the us in R&D still could HURT the us and her troops. It comes down to how they use what they got, in iraq they are using RPGs and there is no effective high tech counter.


This is fair up to a point.

Technology has a lot more influence on air combat then it does ground combat.

Put it this way - would you use a WWI plane to take on a modern fighter jet? It would stand no chance - non at all.



I agree that because of numbers and budget, the US are the leaders, not the best. There is a vast different between being the worlds best military and the worlds leading military, frankly I believe there are other nations that deserve the Best, title.



Name me 1 country that could go head to head with the US and win. Just one. The US can take any other military in the world, one on one, in the air on the ground or in the sea, and it isn't even close.

Hell, go ahead, name me who you think has the best military, and then we'll go through a play by play of what would happen if the US and your idea of the "best" military went head to head.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
No - simply defending my (correct) position.


Inferioty complex.




Yeah, great strategy! "maybe if we let them commit genocide on us, they will tire themselves to death!"


If china went on a all out conventional war then the chinese armies would have been slaughtered by japans superior firepower.

So china choose a stragery of unconventional warfare.

Gurillea attacks sabotage



Face it, you got your arses handed to you, and the US bailed you out. Otherwise, the Chinese would be Japanese slaves.


America gave us jack #.

Wow a few planes over the hump. big deal



In the Korean war?


Strafing cillivans. It is all documented



If we completely destroyed indo-china, then Why is China around today? Frankly, this is the typical "I am jellous of America, and as such shall blame all of our problems on them" attitude.


Umm. american at their best. doen't know what he is talking about but goes head first

Indo-china is vietnam cambodia and Laos. You know nothing about geography or history



Drugs? Maybe if the Chinese had a little self control, they wouldn't have all become drug addicted junkies, eh? Seems to me, no other nation had that problem but the Chinese.


Cambodian society had never been introduced to drugs or prositution. all this changed with gum-chewing pot-smoking americans.



So what? He was fighting Iran, it was the cold war. BTW, it was CHINA that gave Iraq and Iran the delivery sytems they now possess to use them. Great job China!


You gave them WMDS.

You are comparing a missle to chemical biological weapons?

A artillery shell can fire WMDS.

Also there has never been a document incident of iran or iraq using the missles to deliver WMDs.

A conventional warhead can do little damage. WMDs can do massive damage




Great job they did.

It was the US, and the US alone that saved Chinas collective arse. Hell, the only reason we were attacked at pearl horbor is because we cut oil exports to Japan after they invaded China.


Do you know how much aid the soviets british gave china?






link


Congraulation you know how to use google.

Please, you read one article and you think your a expert.



Bull#. We give and give and give. What exactly have we "taken"?


Lives, money. the two main ones




No, unfortunately it doesn't. The fact that you took this thread off track proves it. I responded to your initial replies, and ended that we should drop the subject in this thread - because I KNEW if it kept up it would get moved.


How did i take it off track.

I respond to the topic and your next reply took it off topic




I GAVE YOU THREE OPTIONS OF OTHER WAYS TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION! THREE! AND YOU HAD TO POST IN THIS THREAD, THUS KILLING IT!



IT WAS ALREADY MOVED WHEN I RESPONDED

THATS THE ONLY REASON WHY I REPLIED BECAUSE IT WAS IN BTS



It falls squarely on your sholders.


Ha. blae the other person. good work




Great, so they only stole the complete aerodynamic shape of the aircraft?!


THis is seriously funny now


Stole?

The russians gave us the equimen to produce it. they gave us a example of the aircraft.

Hell they even sent a russian engineer to over see what was going on.


Now what was stolen?




I give up. There is nothing the Chinese have done that indicates they can build their own competative aircraft from scratch. NOT ONE THING!


We. that is a begining of a trend.

A trend starts of as something then eventually ends up somewhere else.

THat is english

[edit on 17-10-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Knock it off the both of you. STAY on topic



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   

AMM said

How can you shrug off the fact that the three best military aircraft designers in the world have not found a single use for the forward canard/delta design?

Honestly? If one, or even two of them hand not designed an aircraft like that, I'd say maybe you are right. But all three?


It appears to have gotten lost in the mayhem but I posted a very detailed account of why I believe this to be the case which you may have missed. It is in my previous post to the one where I was moaning about the thread being moved, see what you think.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
EDIT:

I'm done here.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Knock it off the both of you. STAY on topic


Sorry, must have hit reply b4 you made this post. As I said, I'm done here.

If I make a new thread concerning airframe designs and their benefits/disadvantages in ATS will it stay there, or be moved to BTS (barring another stray off topic)?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join