It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Chinese fighter 'has changed power balance'

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:11 PM
Here is an interesting Chinese perspective.
Well worth the read.....

China Military Report

posted by China Military 时间: 5:51:00 PM 11/20/2010

U.S. 6th generation fighter will be equipped with directed energy weapons, which combat targets against China and Russian

In today's world only one fifth-generation fighter - F-22 "Raptor" has been in service later, do the U.S. need to develop the next generation of fighter aircraft? Why do not mass production of the U.S. F-22 fighter jets, which will air supremacy firmly in control in their own hands? The U.S. military did not give any answers on these questions.

However, recently the U.S. Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) to issue a paper notice, so many people understand what Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered the closure of F-22 fighter jet production line really want to do. To find successors for the F-22

According to Reuters reported on November 5th Air Force has begun to look to the future, exploring the production of Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter subsequent models. Recently, the Air Force Materiel Command to the information industry, issued a consultation notice, requiring industry to provide information on available around 2030 initial operational capability of the "next-generation tactical aircraft systems" concept and the ability to form / information technology needs .

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by Violater1

Lol nice reverse psychology there.

China's glaring flaw, and will be till the end, is their view that no one would dare walk away from the Middle Kingdom. Their leadership truely beleive they have a date with destiny, and that they are the chosen ones and the rest of the planet should change in order to suit Chinas needs.

The advantage the US has over that is, once again, we have been down this road trying to get the World to bend to what best suits us, and we see how well that worked out. Its a tough lesson to learn, and we ae stilling dealing with it. China has a ways to go, but they are going to ignore history in the process and will learn the same lesson the US has, the hard way.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:15 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

I wholeheartedly agree with most of what you said, except that a drunk driver that continues to drive drunk isn't really in a position to pass on their negative experiences as a lesson to others.

Nuclear warfare, and indeed much aerial warfare, is effective because any government that would see its civilians killed and not end the war is not going to be in power for long.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady

The nick is Ilovecatbinlady but you know this and you are just irritated by my comments. The US needs put back in its hole and I hope the Chinese will do it.....

You are confusing the international elite who use Americans as Cannon Fodder with the American people.

Ask yourself this WHO wins wars?

The BANKERS do because they FUND both sides!

The banker Bankrolled the Soviet Union and played the USSR and the USA against each other. Now they are going to play the same games with China.

Soviet Russia was allowed to emerge from the destruction of World War II as one of the victors, solely because she was needed as the next "evil empire" against which the civilized West could launch a new Crusade. Because Russia was bankrupt, had lost 40 million of her population in the war, plus another 66 million murdered by the Bolsheviki since 1917, and was unable to feed herself, once again the World Order was obliged to step in with enormous subsidies of food and material from the U.S., in order to maintain an "enemy power"....

It turns out Cargill sold AMERICAN grain to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe throughout the cold war.

US—Soviet grain embargoes : Regulating the MNCs

The US government has often attempted to regulate commercial interaction between US grain MNCs (multinational corporations) and the Soviet Union. The US government tried to prohibit the sale of grain to the Soviet Union prior to 1971, to swap US grain for Soviet oil in 1975, and to embargo all grain sales to the Soviets in 1980. Distinctive characteristics of grain MNCs and grain as a commodity, however, have made such efforts at national regulation by the US government a difficult administrative task. These characteristics include the secrecy surrounding grain trading, the fungibility of grain, the use of ‘optional origins’ contracts, and the possession of a considerable number of foreign subsidiaries by the grain MNCs.

In other words Cargill did what every it wanted because it was a privately owned MNC and US tax payers subsidized the grain they sold to the USSR!

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:20 PM

Originally posted by SLAYER69
With regards to the "Video Game" Analogy.

Need I remind people that in Real war there are no "do overs" or "Re-spawning"

So simply saying All your bases are belong to us wont cut it anymore?

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by TheWill

My drunk driving analogy was in regards to an intoxicated person getting behind the wheel, causing an accident and killing people. He is sent to jail for however much time, and once he gets out decides that his story can serve as an example to others (with the underlying info being the guy is no longer a drunk).

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:28 PM
Good post, and responses, but there are a few things to be stated. First this is just saber rattling on the part of the Chinese government. The military there, is just showing off what it has in store when the dignitary from your biggest competitor, militarily, is there for a visit?
The only reason to unveil new weapons, is when they are either in the final stages of production, or fully completed, especially in this day and age. Showing a weapon or a weapons system that does not work, would only be a temporary thing, in a high stakes poker game. So there is a good chance that this fighter is ready to go, with some minor problems that would need to be taken care of. It can only be speculated, that if the capabilities of this new fighter is, as it is reported, then it is a game changer in the Pacific area, and the US, along with its allies, would have to rethink the strategies for a conflict with China. China has emerged from its isolation and is revealing things that are a threat, in a military sense, to the US and its allies. We can only hope and pray, that cooler heads and diplomats will be able to prevail in all negotiations, lest we see a new cold war that could potentially be disastrous to all of us in the long run.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:31 PM
Ariel fighter jet combat is soooo WWII.

WWIII will be fought with hypersonic cruise missiles, tipped with nuclear warheads that are capable of orbiting the Earth from space for years at a time. Then at the push of a button they will fall out of the sky directly over the targeted country and take out every important military installation before the fighter jets can even get off the ground.

Unless, they focus all of their country's energy into a single, high-powered missile defense laserbeam they wont even know what hit them or how to respond.

edit on 15-1-2011 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:32 PM
China is being set up to be the next Nazi Germany. All manufacturing sent there. They are nationalists, when the powers who rule are globalists. They are being manipulated, given military technology on the sly to make them think they can challenge the US empire.

That's my theory anyway, reading history of WWI and WII.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:46 PM
While the J-20 will change many things lets take it easy for the meantime.

1) Impressive as the J-20 looks (note "looks") it has had one flight. When it enters serial production then its a much bigger issue. The s-47 was an impressive airframe as well but never advance beyond the prototype. I know the Chicoms have alot of $$$$ thanks to us and our leaky contractors but it takes alot of time to deploy a combat ready airframe.

2) Is it a leap in terms of technology? yes, with much of I assume pilfered from the US. Kudos to the Chicom spy network. To quote Jim Carrey quoting Vanilla Ice "I aint stupid, I just dupe it". According to AWST engines are an weakness. They are using knockoffs of Soviet era designs so they will need time to get anywhere near the efficiencies of western designs. That being said with Airbus and Boeing falling over themselves to hand the Chicom government production the technology is well within thier grasp

Its not just the shaping that makes the F-22 such a potent airframe but rather the integration of its avionics. That type of effective intergration takes time. .

3) In terms of Australia, even with the large size of the fighter, its unlikely that it will pose a direct threat to Australia. THis is based on the assumption that its the same size as an F-111 and that they avoided small fuel fractions of Soviet era designs.

4) I agree with previous posters that the F-35 would not be able to survive the first day of war environment over mainaland China. Im not even sure that is its intent. Given its RCS (-30 dBsm) and the fact that its stealth is NOT all aspect would be an issue. However, defending Taiwan for instance, it would be well suited. For comparison the F-22 has an RCS of (-40 dBsm)

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

No no no hold on, "far superior?" to the f-35? They have one prototyped plane. What am I missing here?

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:12 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

And that was where the analogy fell down - the US still, unless I am gravely mistaken, keeps updating its nuclear armoury. It didn't go to jail and realise the error of its ways - it realised the error of its ways and kept the whisky bottle in the car, in case if ever felt like erring again.

That said, I am not convinced that leading by example works on a political scale - now that we know it can be done, someone is bound to build it and try to use it sooner or later, regardless of whether the whole world disarms itself.

The argument was largely because I felt the analogy was flawed, not the practice. The practice is flawed, but it's the best it can be with human nature what it is.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by sdcigarpig

I think its something to pay very close attention to. The leak of the photo was authorized by the military, since people stated if it wasnt it would have been pulled and the people who posted it would be smiling for muzzle flashes.

Also, the Chinese defense minister took Gates to task during their joint press conference, which is not something they have ever done. Turns out, according to several media sites who analyzed the incident, the chinese military was upset Gates was coing for a visit and the politbureau ignored military concerns.

The actions they took, from the leaked photo, to the test flight during gstaes visit, to their minister taking gates to task were supposedly not authorized by the central government. In other words the Chinese military acted independant of the government, which to me is more serious than any stealth plane reveal.

The bulk of the monetary surplus goes into upgrading their military, from buying top of the line fighters from Russia, to aircraft carriers. They are wanting to improve their navy from the current brown / green water to that of a blue water navy (for those not familiar - Brown is coastal, green is limited regional and blue is world wide capability for projection of force).

China's intelligence apparatus is in overdrive in an effort to obtain technological and industrial know how. The analogy I used in another thread is the Chinese remind me of the Pakleds from Startrek: TNG.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
China's intelligence apparatus is in overdrive in an effort to obtain technological and industrial know how. The analogy I used in another thread is the Chinese remind me of the Pakleds from Startrek: TNG.

We need stuff to make us go.....

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by TheWill

Fair point... Just because the drunk is using himself as an example of what not to do does not mean we can pack up the Police department and send them home. There will be people who will ignore the warnings because, like many drunks, they make the argument that they are not drunk and are ok to drive themselves.

Everyone at the bar / party knows the guy is sloshed, but let him go anyways. It doesnt mean we should give up the lecturing, nor at the same time does it mean we give up protections from people who want to commit a crime.

The US has signed many agreements that have drawn down our nuclear forces. Keeping stockpiles is for nothing more than mutually assured destruction. Even setting off 1 or 2 of those things will impact the world in ways that would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like cold and flue season.

Nukes are not meant to be used in an offensive manner, because we knowing that by doing so will make that area useless for years to come. They are a weapon of last resort, and when not being used, are a weapons of deterence. The US ended our live nuke testing decades ago, but recently we did some testing, which tells me that yes we have developed some new design, since live testing is the only manner in which to observe what those changes can do.

Thre is a reason its refered to as MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction) which is exactly what kept the peace. The West and the East knew if they were used, it was game over for everyone.

The countries developing these weapons today in my opinion have a mind set that does not include mutually assured destruction, but more along the lines of how many more of them can we kill.

It sounds arrogant I know, but when certain countries who are pursuing nukes dont place the same value on human life, its a problem.

It reminds me of the scene from the movie Heartbreak Ridge when they are all on the firing line, and the one guy has a weapons malfunction. Instead of exercising common sense, he lasers a bunch of his fellow marines while trying to fix the weapon, which then discharges down the line.

My point being there are countries out there who, when it comes to nuclear weapons, exercise the common sense of a 2 year old who ran out of riddilin so instead the parents gave the kid spoon fulls of sugar instead.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:55 PM

Originally posted by SLAYER69
In the not too distant future robots will dominate the battle field negating any and all troop numerical superiority.

I very rarely disagree with you, Slay.

But I am a pilot, and I will reveal a great secret- one the Chinese already know.

Silicon microprocessors can take more G's than meatpilots. They cost less. They make great Kamikaze drivers in Sidewinders and AMRAAM's.

But they can never equal carbon-based nanotechnology for information density, hyperprocessing, cunning, or the desire to come home at the end of the day.

And they can't run on rice. Or switch jobs in a heartbeat when downed.

The shift away from meatpilots in the West is a fatal error.

Men trump machines every time, because Man is the ultimate machine.

War is about men, machines, and weapons.

After the opening engagements, war is about military industrial production.

And American industry is dying due to US Gov't interference.

Superior weapons did not give Hitler victory.

American industry, Navy, grunts and American meatbots in P51's gave the US victory.

Point being: survivable military industrial production is paramount to victory.
edit on 15-1-2011 by Chakotay because: for the Halibut...

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by Chakotay

I was referring mainly to "Remote" piloted aircraft and robots on the ground.
If i failed to make that distinction then I apologize.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:29 PM
So this new fighter, is it any thing like the American stealth fighter? I wonder if one of those dual citizens sold the chinese the tech. Another rich picking for the tribe.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:41 PM
really need to ask this

China holds what 95% of rare earth which is used in the state of the art computers and so on in the US war machine,

why would china need to lift a finger when it can cut off supplies and choke the US econemy
as it effects consumer prices as well as military gear production

correct me if i am wrong if rare earth isnt used in any military hardware

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in