This member has provided no bio about themself...
Without resorting to stereotyping Chinese scientists and engineers as brainwashed red communist drones with zero ability for invention and innovation, can anyone seriously doubt that the Chinese military industrial complex, spending twice as much money as the Russians can only come up with something after cutting corners and stealing tech?
I am just sick and tired of people (not you) on these internets who browse pictures of a non-western technology and say it is a copy/cross/love child of their favorite jet just because it has some stupidly common design features like *canards*, *LERX*, or *DSI* or that they are worthless without listing any actual evidence because of some stupid stereotype about some country or ideology.
"Do you know most of China's Aviation tech is Reversed engineered?"
Does this even matter for this discussion? Never mind that, while you can claim that SAC is only good at reverse engineering with their Flanker derivatives. Can you seriously deny the progress CAC has made on their indigenous aircraft development?
Let's just address the common insinuations against CAC that comes up:
- "J-10 is a copy of the Lavi (or substitute any other delta canard)." Whether or not CAC received technical assistance from Israel, the J-10 is a clear continuation of the J-9, which is a delta canard fighter from 70s that got cancelled in favor of the J-8.
- "J-20 stealth is reverse engineered from F-117 shot down in Serbia." Yea, but official Chinese sources have already stated that F-117 stealth is outdated by the time it was shot down, and J-20 uses different technology.
- J-20 is a copy of the F-22/F-35. Even with the espionage allegations floating around. The fact is these aircrafts have different basic planforms. Delta wing vs Trapezoidal wing. Canards vs tailplane. The rest, angled fuselage, canted fail fins, frame-less canopy, internal weapon bays, are common stealth features. If stealth shaping has to be unique, then Japanese STD-X, Korean KF-X, and Indian AMCA concepts are all copies??!
First of all, my comment was not addressed at you.
Possible fifth gen requirements:
1. Short take off
2. Super cruise
4. Super maneuverability
5. Advanced avionics
6. Multirole capability
7. Advanced networking.
Which one of these requirements has the J-20 clearly failed to demonstrate? This thread will not be a genuine discussion until these points are addressed with evidence backing it. Common grievances raised against the J-20:
- "Canards are not stealthy." Think of Canards as tailplanes in the front of the aircraft. I am not a specialist, so I differ to this report from Air Power Australia (which agrees with you on the inferiority of F-35) which argues that J-20 has excellent forward-aspect stealth: Ausairpower.net
- "J-20 doesn't have good avionics." I don't think anyone can make any conclusive assessments from just photos. However, from little of what we know. J-20's nose is shaped for AESA, it has EODAS, and possibly have MAWS and IRST. It also features glass cockpit, holographic HUD, Latest prototype also shows EOTS.
- "J-20 isn't maneuverable because it is big." It is about the same size as a flanker.
All of this speculation and stereotyping is pointless and baseless. The PLAAF, like any competent air force, would not be backing a program it has no faith in. CAC is a capable developer that has already demonstrated its abilities going from 3rd-gen Mig-21s to JF-17 to 4th-gen+ J-10Bs in mere 2 decades. Does China, with the second largest military expenditure in the world both in absolute terms and adjusted for PPP, lack the resources, the manpower, or the funds to seriously develop a 5th gen fighter? Why would any institution spend years and millions developing secret prototypes without a viable goal in mind? Surely not just to leak kewl photos for you internet armchair aviation experts...
That article sources from "Sina Military Network", which is basically a blog, but then links to Want China Times, some other Taiwanese blog. Where did they get that 12 tonnes from? Closest guess is 6.5 tonnes load.
Just some wild internet guessing.
Actually WZ-19 recon chopper
4 additional L2 hovers per side and 1 additional L3 hovers.
The sky says twilight, but the direction of the moon's crescent says day time. The crescent should be parallel to or facing towards the horizon, not away from it. This is both bad Photoshop and bad astronomy.
You don't have core contingency. Just download ccdata.ccx here D-gun.com plus other goodies.
It will look more like a shark and less like a dolphin if the dorsal tail is longer than the ventral tail
Any determined army can win any war under the right conditions using the right strategy no matter how badly the odds are stacked on paper.
Only a nationalist kool-aid drinking armchair general with no knowledge of history would think otherwise.
China already fought the US, and they weren't "totally crushed".
China pushed the US all from the Yalu river to the 38th parallel 60 years ago back in 1951. A 2-year-old third-world nation finally united after half a century of civil wars and foreign invasions forced a nuclear super power emerging victorious from two world wars into a disorganized retreat. They fought with a "WWI" army with barely any mechanization, no navy, and no air force against the US's mechanized "WWII" army with full naval and air superiority to a bloody stalemate at the Koreas' borders.
If you think the gap is wide now, the difference was astronomical back then. A Yet the US, with full support of the UN, wasn't able to "completely crush" China's "terrible" military back then. Just like how it wasn't able to "totally crush" North Vietnam back in the 60s, or "totally crush" the Taliban in the 00s.
Don't underestimate your enemies. If there is a full-on conflict between US and China near the Chinese mainland, the fight wouldn't be as one-sided as you think.
J-20 has canards and delta wing.
F-22 and F-35 have elevators and trapezoid wings.
Kind of different.
How can you call yourselves aircraft lovers if you didn't know that delta-canard is a common aircraft configuration.
The Israelis had the Lavi, the Russians had the Su-33, the Americans had the F-15STOL/MTD. Did they all copy each other?
The J-10 is based on the J-9, another Chinese delta canard from the 70s. Talk with facts instead of fan wank to your favorite good guy plane.
darkvamp's computer is as fast as wotan's for recording
Dark Metal, will be in next version
That is the Nomad Mobile Factory.
Single custom UFO huh? The biggest units nothing can carry.
You are incorrect, the system used is called NOTAR. It uses an internal fan to produce a jet that pushes air the same way a tail rotor does. The makers of this mod even mentions this: Moddb.com
Where is the tail rotor? How does this fly?
J-11Bs are based off of Su-27. China doesn't use Mig-29.
No, Overcharge. Increases defense fire rate. Players can use their shield generators to either improve armour of their buildings via shield, or improve the firing rate of their defenses with overcharge.
Need a tail blade or counter-rotating rotor to prevent torque effect.
768px height resolution minimum. Total Annihilation + Core Contingency + 3.1 Patch (And NO OTHER FILES added): D-gun.com . Decent CPU and memory (should probably be bought in the last 5 years).
What are you talking about? Radar jammers work. Maybe the AI spotted you with planes.
There is the Manticore, Jammer Towers, Resource Generators, Advanced Storages, UW Resource units, Floating plasma cannons, Hover Carriers. Geo Upgrades. And various changes to all units in T1 and T2. But T1 and T2 factories are already overcrowded in OTA. If any mod adds a lot of T1 and T2 units, it is probably unbalanced. TA:Esc balance is determined by multiplayer tests and feedback from frequent games on game ranger.
The shoulder patch says SWAT
WZ-10 has entered PLA service.
This is a Hong-6 (or H-6, or Tu-16 Badger)
FYI, Type 99 is named after the year 1999.