By: latenlazy
- 23rd October 2016 at 01:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is close enough data that we can assume a few things. Anyone with eyes can see that its a rather big aircraft
What is your approximate guess though ? Do you believe that its shorter than the Pak Fa >?>
As I've said numerous times in this forum, based on both the statistical spread of numerous other attempts using other methods to identify the J-20's length and my own estimation ranges (I tried multiple assumptions), I think the J-20 is probably about 20-20.5 meters long. In all likelihoods that is longer than the PAK-FA, but not by much.
As for weight (the actual thing we care about in terms of "bigness" on planes)...I wouldn't even dare make an attempt. Cross sectional area is tricky. You could say that x has roughly the same cross section as y, but roughly could be off by say a square meter, which becomes a much bigger difference multipled over the length of a plane. Furthermore, it's incredibly difficult to eyeball even rough comparisons. We are cognitively biased to think "thick" boxes have more area than "thin" boxes. The PAK-FA looks thin and the J-20 looks boxy. However, it's entirely plausible that the PAK-FA simply distributes its cross sectional area more evenly across its span, but we wouldn't know without hard measurements. This doesn't even begin to consider factors like density or internal composition. The PAK-FA is supposed to receive significant weight reduction from extensive use of composites. The J-20 is supposed to have a titanium frame that's 40% lighter than the F-22's due to additive manufacturing methods. Do I believe any of those claims? I don't know what to believe, so we'll just have to wait and see.
New
Posts: 269
By: Byoin
- 23rd October 2016 at 03:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I've said numerous times in this forum, based on both the statistical spread of numerous other attempts using other methods to identify the J-20's length and my own estimation ranges (I tried multiple assumptions), I think the J-20 is probably about 20-20.5 meters long. In all likelihoods that is longer than the PAK-FA, but not by much.
thank you, its quite obvious it is 20 meters!
You are also 100% correct that some Russian aviation fanboys have this air of supremacy about themselves and can't admit that China has caught up or even surpassed MiG or Sukhoi in many fields.
Russia and China are allies. China is the only one who stood by Russia when the west turned its back. China is the one keeping Russia's economy afloat. Please be more respectful of your big brother.
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 23rd October 2016 at 03:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is dishonest to claim the J-20 is any length without also acknowledging we actually don't know. Regardless of the reasons we think it's 19 meters or 23 meters, these are all estimations. No one should have any confidence to assert a categorical claim here.
Not that I have a personal dog in this fight (I'm American, actually), but your second paragraph reeks of a "We're friends only if you think I'm superior mentality". If I were a Russian nationalist I'd worry about blind spots....
It is dishonest to claim the J-20 is any length without also acknowledging we actually don't know. Regardless of the reasons we think it's 19 meters or 23 meters, these are all estimations. No one should have any confidence to assert a categorical claim here.
The F-35 is bigger than the J 20. That's my claim and nobody should have any confidence to assert any other categorical claim here.
^ Is that the game you really want to play ?
Not that I have a personal dog in this fight (I'm American, actually), but your second paragraph reeks of a "We're friends only if you think I'm superior mentality". If I were a Russian nationalist I'd worry about blind spots....
Haha I couldn't imagine how you, as an American, would feel if Britain was building its own stealth 5th gen aircraft and the Britain fans would not only claim to be further ahead than you in fighter jet expertise but also claim that you, the US, should consider buying the British aircraft because it is superior to the Raptor. All the while, you are providing Britain all of the engines for said aircraft.
You would be tearing your hair out.
I am just politely implying that the whole proposition is laughably ridiculous.
By: latenlazy
- 23rd October 2016 at 03:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-35 is bigger than the J 20. That's my claim and nobody should have any confidence to assert any other categorical claim here.
^ Is that the game you really want to play ?
No, but that wasn't my point. My point is against certainty without sound, strongly supported reason.
Haha I couldn't imagine how you, as an American, would feel if Britain was building its own stealth 5th gen aircraft and the Britain fans would not only claim to be further ahead than you in fighter jet expertise but also claim that you, the US, should consider buying the British aircraft because it is superior to the Raptor. All the while, you are providing Britain all of the engines for said aircraft.
You would be tearing your hair out.
I am just politely implying that the whole proposition is laughably ridiculous.
I wouldn't, actually. I'm not a believer in nationalism.
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 23rd October 2016 at 03:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
thank you, its quite obvious it is 20 meters!
You are also 100% correct that some Russian aviation fanboys have this air of supremacy about themselves and can't admit that China has caught up or even surpassed MiG or Sukhoi in many fields.
Russia and China are allies. China is the only one who stood by Russia when the west turned its back. China is the one keeping Russia's economy afloat. Please be more respectful of your big brother.
Here he is tossing in total malarkey about Russia's economy again. Then I will put to rest all of these wrong headed claims and then get accused of "chest pumping" for the Russian economy.
As for the rest of the post; wake me up when China stops crawling to Russia to buy engines. It is such a ridiculous claim that its not even worth accessing until China can power its own fighters.
And the Russian engines of the J20 would probably slip most peoples minds if the China fans picked a real enemy
By: Blitzo
- 23rd October 2016 at 03:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
while our chinabot friends are feverishly debating over the size of airplanes or non-existant stealth paint
something bad happened. a JH-7 crashed a few hours ago
no word on the pilots. but it would probably be a good time to consider withdrawing these old jets.
By: KGB
- 23rd October 2016 at 03:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, but that wasn't my point. My point is against certainty without sound, strongly supported reason.
I wouldn't, actually. I'm not a believer in nationalism.
No, but that wasn't my point.
But that is your point. On one hand, you want to defer to common sense for my claim about the F 35. And on the other, you claim that no conclusion can be reached.
I wouldn't, actually. I'm not a believer in nationalism.
Nationalism has nothing to do with it. If someone shorter than you, made fun of you for being short and claimed to know more about being tall than you, you'd be conflicted and perturbed by it.
New
Posts: 269
By: Byoin
- 23rd October 2016 at 04:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here he is tossing in total malarkey about Russia's economy again. Then I will put to rest all of these wrong headed claims and then get accused of "chest pumping" for the Russian economy.
As for the rest of the post; wake me up when China stops crawling to Russia to buy engines. It is such a ridiculous claim that its not even worth accessing until China can power its own fighters.
And the Russian engines of the J20 would probably slip most peoples minds if the China fans picked a real enemy
Engines aside, Russia imports far more from China and relies a lot on Exports to China for its GDP. for China, Russia is only a small part of both import and export.
China has some new engines coming out that will end the need for Russian engines, the last area where it imports from Russia.
China fans don't care about Russia beyond its Russian fan boys.
China's enemy has been and always been Japan and lately, South Korea.
New
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 23rd October 2016 at 04:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
there's only a handful of jh7s..200-300 yet more than 4-5 crashes
in comparison the Mirage 2000 has around 600 built and only 2-3 crashes. Almost all in Indian service.
time to withdraw the jh-7. the Su-30 clones already do its job, and better.
By: Blitzo
- 23rd October 2016 at 04:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
there's only a handful of jh7s..200-300 yet more than 4-5 crashes
in comparison the Mirage 2000 has around 600 built and only 2-3 crashes. Almost all in Indian service.
time to withdraw the jh-7. the Su-30 clones already do its job, and better.
Not sure about the full accuracy of the list... but a quick search does show quite a few news reports of Mirage 2000 crashes, some in ROC service, some in Greek service, some French, some UAE, so at any rate the actual Mirage 2000 crashes I think is quite a bit higher than 2-3, and the crashes aren't only in IAF service.
And considering Mirage 2000 has been built in large numbers and in service for quite a few decades, that kind of crash/accident rate is pretty normal.
New
Posts: 269
By: Byoin
- 23rd October 2016 at 04:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I did a quick search for Mirage 2000 crashes, and came up with this?
By: latenlazy
- 23rd October 2016 at 04:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But that is your point. On one hand, you want to defer to common sense for my claim about the F 35. And on the other, you claim that no conclusion can be reached.
If I claimed no conclusion can be reached I wouldn't have made my own claims. Don't confuse being modest and reasonable about one's conclusions with not drawing any conclusions at all.
Nationalism has nothing to do with it. If someone shorter than you, made fun of you for being short and claimed to know more about being tall than you, you'd be conflicted and perturbed by it.
By: JSR
- 23rd October 2016 at 04:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Engines aside, Russia imports far more from China and relies a lot on Exports to China for its GDP. for China, Russia is only a small part of both import and export.
China has some new engines coming out that will end the need for Russian engines, the last area where it imports from Russia.
China fans don't care about Russia beyond its Russian fan boys.
China's enemy has been and always been Japan and lately, South Korea.
China imports far more important stuff from Russia. when you look at the whole picture of importance.
Chinese uranium centrifuge and nuclear reactor is based on Russian tech. C919 titanim is from Russia. only Russian provide the cheapest fresh air and water.
Chinese has to compete with SKorea and Japan/Vietnam for Russian market. there is ramazan kadyrov that time to time attract surplus capital from middleast.
The above data show that profits of China’s titanium enterprises are a bit higher than Japan’s enterprises but far below those of US and Russian companies, and profits of Russian enterprises are higher than US titanium companies.
For reasons of the above conclusion, almost 80% of titanium materials are applied for aerospace and military industry with high added value in Russia, and profits of Japan’s titanium products are mainly for civil use with few profits despite perfectly manufacturing and high exports. Product structure decides profits, and profits of products with cutting-edge technology or for high end market are high.
By: shiphone
- 23rd October 2016 at 06:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
there's only a handful of jh7s..200-300 yet more than 4-5 crashes
in comparison the Mirage 2000 has around 600 built and only 2-3 crashes. Almost all in Indian service.
time to withdraw the jh-7. the Su-30 clones already do its job, and better.
dear....not again.. where have so called 'western style' preciseness and Prudence gone? although someone would cover for you with those beautiful words, somehow the 'tail' well hided would be exposed time to time
and loads of stupid baseless statements have ruined this thread and forum ...I was a little surprised that those living in the largest 'country' would have such a little mind...lol
Not sure about the full accuracy of the list... but a quick search does show quite a few news reports of Mirage 2000 crashes, some in ROC service, some in Greek service, some French, some UAE, so at any rate the actual Mirage 2000 crashes I think is quite a bit higher than 2-3, and the crashes aren't only in IAF service.
And considering Mirage 2000 has been built in large numbers and in service for quite a few decades, that kind of crash/accident rate is pretty normal.
i think you are correct. mirage 2000 is a more dangerous plane.
By: Blitzo
- 23rd October 2016 at 06:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i think you are correct. mirage 2000 is a more dangerous plane.
I think there is a less colourful way of saying it, like "mirage 2000 has had more accidents than you initially thought, but the accident rate should not be unexpected given the number of mirage 2000 aircraft that have been produced and it's overall length of service".
Saying one plane is more "dangerous" than the other can present the opportunity for unnecessary disagreement, especially on this forum.
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 23rd October 2016 at 07:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Engines aside, Russia imports far more from China and relies a lot on Exports to China for its GDP. for China, Russia is only a small part of both import and export.
China has some new engines coming out that will end the need for Russian engines, the last area where it imports from Russia.
China fans don't care about Russia beyond its Russian fan boys.
China's enemy has been and always been Japan and lately, South Korea.
I refrain from responding to his mutterings about the economy.
He addresses zero of the points I made about the subject at hand and reverts back to talking about..... the... economy.
Then he will say that my silence is just proof that the Russian economy blah blah blah.
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 23rd October 2016 at 07:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think there is a less colourful way of saying it, like "mirage 2000 has had more accidents than you initially thought, but the accident rate should not be unexpected given the number of mirage 2000 aircraft that have been produced and it's overall length of service".
Saying one plane is more "dangerous" than the other can present the opportunity for unnecessary disagreement, redirector on this forum.
Where do the engines for the Mirage 2000 come from ?
Posts: 655
By: latenlazy - 23rd October 2016 at 01:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I've said numerous times in this forum, based on both the statistical spread of numerous other attempts using other methods to identify the J-20's length and my own estimation ranges (I tried multiple assumptions), I think the J-20 is probably about 20-20.5 meters long. In all likelihoods that is longer than the PAK-FA, but not by much.
As for weight (the actual thing we care about in terms of "bigness" on planes)...I wouldn't even dare make an attempt. Cross sectional area is tricky. You could say that x has roughly the same cross section as y, but roughly could be off by say a square meter, which becomes a much bigger difference multipled over the length of a plane. Furthermore, it's incredibly difficult to eyeball even rough comparisons. We are cognitively biased to think "thick" boxes have more area than "thin" boxes. The PAK-FA looks thin and the J-20 looks boxy. However, it's entirely plausible that the PAK-FA simply distributes its cross sectional area more evenly across its span, but we wouldn't know without hard measurements. This doesn't even begin to consider factors like density or internal composition. The PAK-FA is supposed to receive significant weight reduction from extensive use of composites. The J-20 is supposed to have a titanium frame that's 40% lighter than the F-22's due to additive manufacturing methods. Do I believe any of those claims? I don't know what to believe, so we'll just have to wait and see.
Posts: 269
By: Byoin - 23rd October 2016 at 03:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
thank you, its quite obvious it is 20 meters!
You are also 100% correct that some Russian aviation fanboys have this air of supremacy about themselves and can't admit that China has caught up or even surpassed MiG or Sukhoi in many fields.
Russia and China are allies. China is the only one who stood by Russia when the west turned its back. China is the one keeping Russia's economy afloat. Please be more respectful of your big brother.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 23rd October 2016 at 03:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-35 is bigger than the J 20. That's my claim and nobody should have any confidence to assert any other categorical claim here.
^ Is that the game you really want to play ?
Haha I couldn't imagine how you, as an American, would feel if Britain was building its own stealth 5th gen aircraft and the Britain fans would not only claim to be further ahead than you in fighter jet expertise but also claim that you, the US, should consider buying the British aircraft because it is superior to the Raptor. All the while, you are providing Britain all of the engines for said aircraft.
You would be tearing your hair out.
I am just politely implying that the whole proposition is laughably ridiculous.
Posts: 655
By: latenlazy - 23rd October 2016 at 03:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, but that wasn't my point. My point is against certainty without sound, strongly supported reason.
I wouldn't, actually. I'm not a believer in nationalism.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 23rd October 2016 at 03:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here he is tossing in total malarkey about Russia's economy again. Then I will put to rest all of these wrong headed claims and then get accused of "chest pumping" for the Russian economy.
As for the rest of the post; wake me up when China stops crawling to Russia to buy engines. It is such a ridiculous claim that its not even worth accessing until China can power its own fighters.
And the Russian engines of the J20 would probably slip most peoples minds if the China fans picked a real enemy
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 23rd October 2016 at 03:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Alert 5 has another photo
http://alert5.com/2016/10/22/caught-on-camera-jh-7-crashes-today/#more-58434
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 23rd October 2016 at 03:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But that is your point. On one hand, you want to defer to common sense for my claim about the F 35. And on the other, you claim that no conclusion can be reached.
Nationalism has nothing to do with it. If someone shorter than you, made fun of you for being short and claimed to know more about being tall than you, you'd be conflicted and perturbed by it.
Posts: 269
By: Byoin - 23rd October 2016 at 04:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Engines aside, Russia imports far more from China and relies a lot on Exports to China for its GDP. for China, Russia is only a small part of both import and export.
China has some new engines coming out that will end the need for Russian engines, the last area where it imports from Russia.
China fans don't care about Russia beyond its Russian fan boys.
China's enemy has been and always been Japan and lately, South Korea.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 23rd October 2016 at 04:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
there's only a handful of jh7s..200-300 yet more than 4-5 crashes
in comparison the Mirage 2000 has around 600 built and only 2-3 crashes. Almost all in Indian service.
time to withdraw the jh-7. the Su-30 clones already do its job, and better.
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 23rd October 2016 at 04:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I did a quick search for Mirage 2000 crashes, and came up with this?
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/Mirage_2000/mirage_2000.htm
Not sure about the full accuracy of the list... but a quick search does show quite a few news reports of Mirage 2000 crashes, some in ROC service, some in Greek service, some French, some UAE, so at any rate the actual Mirage 2000 crashes I think is quite a bit higher than 2-3, and the crashes aren't only in IAF service.
And considering Mirage 2000 has been built in large numbers and in service for quite a few decades, that kind of crash/accident rate is pretty normal.
Posts: 269
By: Byoin - 23rd October 2016 at 04:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
single engine jets are more prone to crashing. mirage 2000 is a dangeorus plane for rookie pilots
Posts: 655
By: latenlazy - 23rd October 2016 at 04:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If I claimed no conclusion can be reached I wouldn't have made my own claims. Don't confuse being modest and reasonable about one's conclusions with not drawing any conclusions at all.
No, I wouldn't. I'm not so ego sensitive.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 23rd October 2016 at 04:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
China imports far more important stuff from Russia. when you look at the whole picture of importance.
Chinese uranium centrifuge and nuclear reactor is based on Russian tech. C919 titanim is from Russia. only Russian provide the cheapest fresh air and water.
Chinese has to compete with SKorea and Japan/Vietnam for Russian market. there is ramazan kadyrov that time to time attract surplus capital from middleast.
Posts: 57
By: shiphone - 23rd October 2016 at 06:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
dear....not again.. where have so called 'western style' preciseness and Prudence gone? although someone would cover for you with those beautiful words, somehow the 'tail' well hided would be exposed time to time
and loads of stupid baseless statements have ruined this thread and forum ...I was a little surprised that those living in the largest 'country' would have such a little mind...lol
http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Database/Accidents/listing.php --- those only in IAF
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249206[/ATTACH]
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 23rd October 2016 at 06:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i think you are correct. mirage 2000 is a more dangerous plane.
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 23rd October 2016 at 06:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think there is a less colourful way of saying it, like "mirage 2000 has had more accidents than you initially thought, but the accident rate should not be unexpected given the number of mirage 2000 aircraft that have been produced and it's overall length of service".
Saying one plane is more "dangerous" than the other can present the opportunity for unnecessary disagreement, especially on this forum.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 23rd October 2016 at 07:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I refrain from responding to his mutterings about the economy.
He addresses zero of the points I made about the subject at hand and reverts back to talking about..... the... economy.
Then he will say that my silence is just proof that the Russian economy blah blah blah.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 23rd October 2016 at 07:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where do the engines for the Mirage 2000 come from ?
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 23rd October 2016 at 07:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
M53s are French, obviously. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything?
Posts: 30
By: Evastun - 23rd October 2016 at 08:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
wow, omg, what happened to this thread. its all about russia vs china again.