Shenyang J-31/35 Stealth Fighter

nomadski wrote:Are the Aircraft carriers Stealth ? Then the Aircraft are not . If China can neutralize Carrier at sea , then America can do it too . But like having skyscrapers , they are the must have things or status symbols  . Useful perhaps for pushing around poor and weak nations . Otherwise against an opponent with parity , then they are a waste of money . Who are the Chinese building these to be used against  ?

then America can do it too wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

nomadski wrote:Are the Aircraft carriers Stealth ? Then the Aircraft are not . If China can neutralize Carrier at sea , then America can do it too . But like having skyscrapers , they are the must have things or status symbols  . Useful perhaps for pushing around poor and weak nations . Otherwise against an opponent with parity , then they are a waste of money . Who are the Chinese building these to be used against  ?

It really is a dick measuring contest.

As you say, these would be sunk far before the jets onboard can do anything about.  As you also said, its to power project against poor countries.  But against Taiwan? Taiwan would sink these rather quickly.

It boils all down to saying "we got em too! and ours are bigger" or whatever.

I guess it could be a way for China to host temporary bases on costs of poor african nations.

walle83 wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

nomadski wrote:Are the Aircraft carriers Stealth ? Then the Aircraft are not . If China can neutralize Carrier at sea , then America can do it too . But like having skyscrapers , they are the must have things or status symbols  . Useful perhaps for pushing around poor and weak nations . Otherwise against an opponent with parity , then they are a waste of money . Who are the Chinese building these to be used against  ?

It really is a dick measuring contest.

As you say, these would be sunk far before the jets onboard can do anything about.  As you also said, its to power project against poor countries.  But against Taiwan? Taiwan would sink these rather quickly.

It boils all down to saying "we got em too! and ours are bigger" or whatever.

I guess it could be a way for China to host temporary bases on costs of poor african nations.

How would Taiwan sink a carrier surronded by a large numbers of escorts? Its not like they have any Zircon missiles.

miketheterrible wrote:

In this regard, they don't need zircon. Supersonic missiles and a dozen of them and that's it.

This isn't fricking Bollywood, Chinawood or Hollywood. No such thing as 100% defense and big targets become easy targets.

Not like China wouldn't launch enough to decimate the island. But as Lyle said, TSMC is really only value to the island, besides maybe an additional unsinkable carrier.  Oh, and to push US further back

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:It's less bulky in the back half part.

And practically identical in the front

Honestly if Chinese had more powerful engine so they didn't have to use two small ones it would have been 1:1 on F-35

Isos wrote:

To compare with f-35 :



It's less bulky in the back half part.

walle83 wrote:

Isos wrote:Just imagine how many years and money they saved by hacking f-35 files...

AZ-5 wrote:

Isos wrote:Just imagine how many years and money they saved by hacking f-35 files...

Both planes still look like massive flops. I'd take a Strike Eagle or a Flanker.. any day.

PS. Nice Harrier replacements.. that's it.

Isos wrote:With R-77M, R-37M, pl-15/21, Meteor and new US aim 260 I wouldn't want to be in a old flanker or eagle.

Su-35 with very good EW ok but nothing less. Best is a very low RCS aircraft that helps a lot evading those missiles but keeps manoeuvrability like su-57 and f-22 or Rafale.  

At close range su-27 would be better than a lot of newer jets. However getting in a dogfight against an enemy carrying new state of art missiles is not easy.