There is zero evidence of any damage done to Iran. There is no satellite footage, no videos of the explosions. There is nothing. When Iran attacked Israeli base we had actual hard evidence of what the results were. One has to be an incredibly credulous rube to believe that Israel and Yankeestan were able to attack Iran when they’re unable to provide any evidence of that. You’re such a great illustration how effective propaganda can be on people who are incapable of critical thinking.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jan 13:12
collapse
I have a UK generals quotes. Not as good as video, but better than nothing. I think you have just Irans public stance? With that I’d say mine has more evidence.
No, I think Yankeestan would release footage of that if they actually hit something. Just like Iran released footage of the base in Israel when they hit it. If you’re dumb enough to just read unsourced statement with zero supporting evidence and believe it uncritically, then what else is there to say about you. I’m guessing D stands for dufus.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jan 13:34
collapse
So you’re going off a lack of evidence? Seems shaky. Why would the US disclose it’s satellite intel capabilities for an Israel PR win?
What’s shaky is making bombastic claims without a shred of evidence to support them. I love how you’re. trying to twist that backwards. You made the claim, you provide evidence for it. That fact that you believe things without need for evidence shows that you’re not a serious person.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 01:28
collapse
I did provide evidence, you didn’t. You have not provided evidence yet, if I believed you I’d be believing things without evidence.
Evidently you don’t understand the concept of evidence. An article that says trust me bro is not evidence. Evidence would be satellite imagery of the site that was supposedly attacked which doesn’t exist. Hope that clears things up for you.
leisesprecher@feddit.org
on 06 Jan 2025 04:13
collapse
Producing literally hundreds of a single type of airplane with orders for the next decade or so isn’t exactly “nothing to show for”.
And even if you discount the actual sales, getting billions in development budget from the US government is pretty good for business.
I mean yeah, the purpose of these companies is to put taxes back into the pockets of billionaires instead of spending them on stuff they’re meant for like infrastructure, healthcare, education, and so on. That’s why majority Americans live like dogs.
leisesprecher@feddit.org
on 06 Jan 2025 05:05
collapse
Opposed to the Chinese corporations which are famously basically charity organizations?
What exactly is your point? Your moving goalposts to completely different planets.
macgyver@federation.red
on 06 Jan 2025 06:20
nextcollapse
It’s yogthos lol, can’t expect anything less my friend
It’s pretty much all state owned, and in cases where private industry is used, it’s tightly controlled including party members being embedded within the companies. In fact, the role of private industry in China has been declining overall piie.com/…/chinas-private-sector-has-lost-ground-…
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jan 14:21
collapse
Looks like AVIC is public and private, do you know the ownership breakdown?
I’m sure you can look it up since you’re the one who brought it up.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 01:03
collapse
I did, looks like CCP is about half, but it didn’t show many of the the other ones. I was wondering if you thought it was higher than that, from what you were saying, it sounded like you thought it was like 90%.
It never changed. The official and correct name of the party is has always been The Communist Party of China: CPC. I hae no idea why people in western mainstream insist on misspelling it. It’s like if I just arbitrarily decided to spell USA as SUA and then insisted that it’s the way it should be spelled despite the official spelling being very clear.
Again, it’s very clear what the party calls itself, and the fact that you choose to intentionally use a different way to call it even after being corrected is idiotic in the extreme, so is running around calling people you disagree with tankies. Keep on making a clown of yourself.
Private sector in China is not allowed to operate the same way the private sector operates in the west. So, your whole comparison is fundamentally flawed.
halykthered@lemmy.ml
on 06 Jan 2025 03:53
collapse
It’s in reference to international sales, I believe.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jan 2025 04:00
collapse
Why would they be impacted? What’s their competition?
halykthered@lemmy.ml
on 06 Jan 2025 05:13
collapse
Not sure the specifics, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were countries interested in a next generation fighter jet, and is capable of buying from either the US or China.
F35 is guaranteed to be better than a “6th generation” Chinese plane and they can be upgraded anyway. And it’s actually very successful now with a very cheap per plane cost.
A 6th gen fighter coming out of China while the US can’t make their 5th gen fighter work properly certainly does look bad for Lockheed.
anachronist@midwest.social
on 06 Jan 2025 03:58
nextcollapse
Cope how? I’m not a fan. The worst thing in the world for Lockheed would be if US’s adversaries decided they weren’t going to be designing any new weapons systems. Lockheed runs on fear of what’s next.
Lockheed model of sucking up taxes without producing anything only works when the US feels they have superiority over the adversaries. Now that it’s becoming clear this is not the case, there will be a push to actually have to produce things that work, and Lockheed isn’t good at doing that.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jan 12:57
collapse
Where in the world are you getting that Lockheed stuff doesn’t work? SR71? F104? U2? F117? F22?
Sure both were experimental, and the experiment with U2 was to make something fly so high that it couldn’t be intercepted. Turned out that the US underestimated the quality of the AD systems Soviets developed.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 01:32
collapse
The purpose of the U2 was to make a plane that could never be intercepted for the rest of time? No, they saw a gap that the Soviets didn’t have protection for yet, so they exploded it. One the Soviets caught up and closed the gap, they went higher and faster with the SR71, then higher and faster with satellites. It’s always back and forth, and the U2 gave a valuable capability until a counter was developed.
The U-2 first flew in 1955. One was shot down over the USSR in 1960, and another was shot down over Cuba in 1962. They largely stopped flying over peer air defenses at that point.
That’s about a 7-year span where it was useful for its primary task. Hanging around to fly over Libya in 2011 is not the same as fulfilling the role the plane was designed for decades later.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Jan 2025 04:25
nextcollapse
F22 is working just fine. The new planes from China seem like tech demonstrators, so a similar stage to X35 in 2000. So they could still have plenty of production problems ahead of them.
Sources alluding to what exactly?
That the F-35 had had problems? Every single jet platform has had problems.
While the F-35 has problems of its own, its no secret that China is yet to manage to develop anything that can rival or beat their RAM.
Prototypes are nothing short of speculations and wishful thinking until it starts to hit production.
And I’m not even a fan of US jets. As a Swede I will admit my bias for our own platforms. But the F-35 does fill a role that our fighters doesn’t. And it does fill that specific role quite well. It’s not an all purpose aircraft.
taking pause to look around when new things are revealed, which is sensible. doesn’t mean what you think it means.
I remember the hype about Chinas new submarines. Oh they were gonna be so good and so stealthy. Turns out they didn’t make it far out of the Harbour before sinking.
So what was that you said about China producing things that “actually work”? Or maybe you excluded their sinking sub in that statement. I must have missed the asterisk
Hard to think of another modern jet built outside Yankeestan that has problems that come even close to those that F35 flying cybertruck is having.
While the F-35 has problems of its own, its no secret that China is yet to manage to develop anything that can rival or beat their RAM.
[citation needed]
While the F-35 has problems of its own, its no secret that China is yet to manage to develop anything that can rival or beat their RAM.
The prototype China is making is for a jet a generation after F35, they already have an answer to F35 in production and it hasn’t cost over a trillion dollars to make. In fact, Chinese military budget overall is only a fraction of what Yankeestan spends.
And it does fill that specific role quite well.
No it doesn’t. As many experts have explained in great detail, F35 tries to do too many things and it doesn’t do any of them well. It’s incredibly expensive to maintain, it has constant breakdowns, and they can’t even keep a sufficient number of them operational as a result.
I remember the hype about Chinas new submarines. Oh they were gonna be so good and so stealthy. Turns out they didn’t make it far out of the Harbour before sinking.
The fact that you’d latch onto a conspiracy theory really highlights the quality of your intellect.
So what was that you said about China producing things that “actually work”? Or maybe you excluded their sinking sub in that statement. I must have missed the asterisk
Nah, I’m just not dumb enough to fall for propaganda marketed to people who don’t have fully developed brains.
Ah yes. Everything that is inconvenient for your arguments is a conspiracy. Must be very convenient.
The F35 does try to do a lot of things. You can argue effectiveness of many of them. But what it DOES do well, is performing as a stealth strike craft. Credit where credit is due. The ram technology development in the US is impressive and world leading.
You resort unprovoked to name calling (“yankeestan”), and attack others intellect. It really shows your insecurity the moment something doesn’t go your way.
You speak of “generations” as if the jets are a console. “They’re making a 6th gen aircraft”. They claim they’re making a 6:th gen aircraft. That claim won’t be proven until they start producing. Until then it’s nothing but speculation and fairy dust.
Buddy, you’ve not just fallen for propaganda, you’ve taken an express elevator right down the shaft and keep drilling once you arrive.
Nah, Just anything that is presented without a shred of evidence for the benefit of racist rubes such as yourself.
But what it DOES do well, is performing as a stealth strike craft.
Incredible claim to make given that it’s never been used against a peer adversary with actual modern AD. The fact that you state this as a fact shows that you’re utterly incapable of critical thought. Probably the reason you fall for conspiracy theories so readily.
It really shows your insecurity the moment something doesn’t go your way.
So much projection here.
You speak of “generations” as if the jets are a console. “They’re making a 6th gen aircraft”. They claim they’re making a 6:th gen aircraft. That claim won’t be proven until they start producing. Until then it’s nothing but speculation and fairy dust.
Maybe learn a bit about the subject you’re attempting to debate and the common terminology used instead of making a clown of yourself in public.
Buddy, you’ve not just fallen for propaganda, you’ve taken an express elevator right down the shaft and keep drilling once you arrive.
Ah yes. Now I’m a racist as well. What do you base that on exactly?
If you think they’ve never tested the stealth capabilities of the f35 you’re delusional.
You got absolutely nothing in terms of knowledge on the subject, which is why you resort to personal attacks and throw in the occasional “no u” to derail the discussion into a match of name calling. You follow the same pattern every time.
Ah yes. Now I’m a racist as well. What do you base that on exactly?
I base that on your religious belief in western superiority.
If you think they’ve never tested the stealth capabilities of the f35 you’re delusional.
I know they’ve never tested capabilities of f35 because it’s never been used in combat against a peer competitor. The fact that you don’t understand this shows that you are in fact the one who got absolutely nothing in terms of knowledge on the subject, and are incapable of rational thought in general.
You got absolutely nothing in terms of knowledge on the subject, which is why you resort to personal attacks and throw in the occasional “no u” to derail the discussion into a match of name calling. You follow the same pattern every time.
I love how you keep making ad hominem attacks here to distract from your utter ignorance.
My religious beliefs? I don’t have any. Nor have i stated anything about certain people being superior over anyone else.
You’re right, the f35 has not been performing strikes against Eastern nations directly. That doesn’t mean it has never been tested. They’re sold to various countries in Europe and each and every nation does test their capabilities with their own systems. Each of their neighbours take every oppertunity to test their capabilities as well. Everyone has come to the same conclusion. The ram capabilities of the f35 is mighty impressive.
You’ve displayed your lack of insight into each and every aspect enough as it is.
And addressing your childish game of name calling isn’t an ad hominem attack. But it is funny you mention that, seeing how you unprovoked, resort to personal attacks. The comment-chain is there to read for everyone. You’re the only one between us making personal attacks.
Here’s what an actual battle test platform looks like:
The Russian Air Force has demonstrated high confidence in the Su-57’s stealth capabilities, and has deployed the fighters for high intensity combat operations to parts of the Ukrainian theatre with particularly high concentrations of Ukrainian air defences.
The Su-57 program has prioritised reducing maintenance needs and operational costs to avoid the very low availability rates that have plagued America’s F-117, F-22 and F-35 stealth fighter fleets. One notable means by which this had been achieved is through reduced reliance on radar absorbent coatings, which was achieved by using innovative solutions such as radar absorbent fibreglass. In contrast to American stealth fighters which consistently cost far more to operate than their fourth generation predecessors, this approach allows the Su-57 to potentially achieve lower operational costs than its direct predecessor the Soviet Su-27, thus allowing Russia to move its fleet into the fifth generation without either significantly raising sustainment funding or contracting the number of fighters in service.
You’ve displayed your lack of insight into each and every aspect enough as it is.
And addressing your childish game of name calling isn’t an ad hominem attack.
I see you don’t know what ad hominem means. Ad hominem isn’t a personal attack, it’s a way to deflect from the point being made. You’re trying to discredit what I’m saying by claiming that I don’t know what I’m talking about. You’re not providing counter points, but instead attacking me to deflect because at the end of the day you’rej ust a troll.
In any case, I’ve said all I needed to say here. You can keep on bleating if you like though. Bye.
On the other hand, China has consistently shown the ability to produce things that actually work.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 01:12
collapse
Jfs has been a cluster, they wanted a VTOL jet that do everything, which physics doesn’t like. But with 15 years extra development, they kinda did it.
80% readiness is higher than most jets, my sources are actually showing loser, but still in line with other military jets.
A-10 Thunderbolt II (67 percent) and the F-16C (69 percent), while significantly outperforming air superiority fighters like the F-15C (33 percent) and F-22 (52 percent).
sandboxx.us/…/why-media-coverage-of-the-f-35-repe…
And is your third source just saying that the biggest problem with the F22 is that they want more of them? That hardly seems like a criticism of the plane itself.
Jfs has been a cluster, they wanted a VTOL jet that do everything, which physics doesn’t like. But with 15 years extra development, they kinda did it.
In the same way the Cybertruck is kind of a truck.
80% readiness is higher than most jets, my sources are actually showing loser, but still in line with other military jets.
80% is not the readiness of F22, but a target they can’t hit.
And is your third source just saying that the biggest problem with the F22 is that they want more of them? That hardly seems like a criticism of the plane itself.
It’s a criticism of the abysmal production capability showing that these things are artisanally made.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 02:54
collapse
Did you see the comparison to other jets?
Su57 is artisanally made, less than two dozen. ~200 is a short production run, they shut it down early because those 200 could defeat every other air force on the planet several times over. But tech has progressed since then, it’s only a bit better than the J20. But like the U2, that’s not it’s fault.
If the US ever had use them to fight a peer competitor then these 200 would disappear very quickly. At that point the US would be unable to replace them because it lacks industrial capacity to do so.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 03:23
collapse
It lacks the molds, fittings, and jigs to do so. They were destroyed after the production run shut down. Similar story to the F1 Saturn V engines, it’d be more work to recreate them than to make something better.
F35 was an attempt to make something better, and after over a trillion dollars being poured into the project over many years, it’s an unmitigated disaster.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 04:15
collapse
No, it was an attempt to make something stol and cheaper, and it succeeded after billions of extra dollars and an extra decade. NGAD is supposed to be the all around better replacement.
You can keep repeating that it succeeded till you’re blue in the face, but the reality is that it’s far from a successful platform. It’s highly unreliable, and it needs a ton expensive of maintenance. It’s the opposite of what you want in a weapon which is to be cheap, reliable, and easy to service. It’s a toy.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 05:25
collapse
Expensive maintenance compared to what? Have you looked at the operations rates? It looks like F35 costs about the same per hour as the F15EX.
Far more expensive compared to SU-57 that’s actually been proven effective in combat against NATO air defence systems. This is how actual weapons are developed:
The Russian Air Force has demonstrated high confidence in the Su-57’s stealth capabilities, and has deployed the fighters for high intensity combat operations to parts of the Ukrainian theatre with particularly high concentrations of Ukrainian air defences.
The Su-57 program has prioritised reducing maintenance needs and operational costs to avoid the very low availability rates that have plagued America’s F-117, F-22 and F-35 stealth fighter fleets. One notable means by which this had been achieved is through reduced reliance on radar absorbent coatings, which was achieved by using innovative solutions such as radar absorbent fibreglass. In contrast to American stealth fighters which consistently cost far more to operate than their fourth generation predecessors, this approach allows the Su-57 to potentially achieve lower operational costs than its direct predecessor the Soviet Su-27, thus allowing Russia to move its fleet into the fifth generation without either significantly raising sustainment funding or contracting the number of fighters in service.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 15:20
collapse
What’s the su57 cost per hour taking into account maintainer income differences? I don’t see any numbers. And weren’t you criticizing the F22 for only having 200 units?
F22 was introduced in 1996, SU57 is a new platform that’s still being tested and hasn’t been put into mass production. The manufacturing only started in 2019, and there are already 32 produced. Let me know if you need help crunching the numbers on that one.
What’s the su57 cost per hour taking into account maintainer income differences?
The cost of the entire jet is a mere $35 million. Here’s an article you can read discussing the lifetime cost comparison
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 16:15
collapse
If you’re saying it’s still pre production, then it’s production delay is worse than the F35. It’s first flight was in 2010, so that puts it at 15 years from first fight to lrip and counting. F35 only had 10 year timeline between first flight in 2001 and lrip in 2011.
First, maintenance costs are fundamentally different from sticker price. To find maintenance cost, you’d want to find the maintenance factor, how many hours of maintenance per flight hour, and the cost of replacement parts per flight hour.
Comparing quoted sticker price isn’t much good either, since they haven’t sold any, and as you said it’s still pre production, so even if the cost wasn’t subsidized, it’d still be way off from final numbers.
If you’re saying it’s still pre production, then it’s production delay is worse than the F35.
I’m saying it’s still being tested in actual combat conditions and kinks are being ironed out before mass production starts. This is how you avoid having a debacle like F35 where you start producing something in volume and then discover crippling problems down the road.
Also, not sure what argument you’re trying to make regarding the cost being subsidized. The cost is labor and material used to build it. It costs the Russian state 35 million a pop. There is absolutely no reason to think this cost will go up dramatically once mass production starts. In fact, what happens is that economies of scale kick in and costs go down.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 16:52
collapse
Anyway, let’s talk maintenance costs. You have any data?
The article I linked above talks about lifetime costs. Just to be clear, are you seriously trying to argue that the maintenance cost of SU-57 is comparable to that of F-35. Just want to have that on record here.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 18:33
collapse
I’m trying to say we have no idea what the maintenance costs are on the su57. Russia doesn’t report things like that. I don’t know if they even track it themselves. So you can’t just blanket say the su57 is cheaper to maintain unless you bring data.
One thing that works against Russia in maintenance is they tend to run their equipment much harder. To get good performance on their engines, they sometimes push them so that they only last a couple hundred flight hours. Doing the same with many components would indicate a very high maintenance factor.
Of course you can blanket say that SU57 is cheaper. We know that the total cost of the jet is a fraction of f35, we know that Russian military industry is state owned, and is not operated for profit, and we know that Russia spends a fraction of what US does on the military overall. It’s obvious to anybody with even a minimally functioning brain that the cost of weapon production in Russia is much lower than in the US. Meanwhile, the fact that Russia makes engines that actually last a long time shows the strength of Russian engineering.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 21:17
nextcollapse
To back calculate the cost per flight hour (which is what you’re suggesting) we’d need to know the overall cost of the su57 and the number of flight hours flown. Do we know those numbers? Given there are only about a dozen su57, they’ll have very low flight hours. Plus Russia tends to have about half the training time for pilots as the US, so that further lowers the flight hours.
But do you have info on the yearly cost of the su57?
I don’t have info on SU57 yearly costs, aside from the link I’ve already provided for you. However, as I keep repeating, and you keep ignoring, overall military spending in Russia is FAR LOWER than in the US. That alone clearly shows that cost has to be lower. Perhaps try engaging with that instead of dancing around the elephant in the room.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 22:06
collapse
Having only a handful of jets you rarely fly really helps keep costs down.
Pretty sure Russia has been flying a lot more missions over past three years than US has. No only that, but they actually have to contend with real AD instead of just terrorizing farmers, but do go on making some very interesting and intelligent points.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Jan 21:20
collapse
Russia makes engines that actually last a long time shows the strength of Russian engineering.
I was saying exactly the opposite. US engines usually last a couple thousand hours, Russian engines last a few hundred.
Maybe if there are no competitors. Even as monopolistic as the military aircraft industry is in the U.S., drones open up a lot of space for competition by being vastly cheaper.
Then there’s concern about long-term sales to foreign countries, plus the corresponding parts and maintenance revenues. The F-16 is flown by 25 other countries.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
on 06 Jan 2025 04:30
nextcollapse
I’m not big into airframes but i think it’s a dieing artform making these jets. Some drone strapped to a pulse rocket will eventually make them all obsolete.
It’s more about sensors and communication, there’s no reason you can’t have f35 use drones and stuff. But the better plane will see and target the enemy first. And it can operate without GPS. In other words it’s better to have 3000 f35s flying missions plus a bunch of drones. Being able to deliver a lot of firepower first is a huge deal.
threaded - newest
Strange that the analysis that this will decrease f35 demand. I guess they think it’ll switch to more ngad and less f35?
They’re saying that the military might shift focus to development of 6th gen fighters to catch up with China.
But Lockheed is a front runner for that too.
I’m sure it’ll be just as successful at sucking up billions in taxes with nothing to show for it.
Have you seen their performance in Iran recently? They seem really good air to ground.
You mean when Israel aborted the bulk of their attack because they got painted by radar?
No, I mean the one that took down nearly the entirety of Irans air defenses with less than 100 weapons.
www.iranintl.com/en/202412054965
send me a dm cause I have a bridge to sell you 😂
What’s your source that it was totally ineffective? Iran?
There is zero evidence of any damage done to Iran. There is no satellite footage, no videos of the explosions. There is nothing. When Iran attacked Israeli base we had actual hard evidence of what the results were. One has to be an incredibly credulous rube to believe that Israel and Yankeestan were able to attack Iran when they’re unable to provide any evidence of that. You’re such a great illustration how effective propaganda can be on people who are incapable of critical thinking.
www.iranintl.com/en/202412054965
You think Iran would release videos of that?
I have a UK generals quotes. Not as good as video, but better than nothing. I think you have just Irans public stance? With that I’d say mine has more evidence.
No, I think Yankeestan would release footage of that if they actually hit something. Just like Iran released footage of the base in Israel when they hit it. If you’re dumb enough to just read unsourced statement with zero supporting evidence and believe it uncritically, then what else is there to say about you. I’m guessing D stands for dufus.
So you’re going off a lack of evidence? Seems shaky. Why would the US disclose it’s satellite intel capabilities for an Israel PR win?
What’s shaky is making bombastic claims without a shred of evidence to support them. I love how you’re. trying to twist that backwards. You made the claim, you provide evidence for it. That fact that you believe things without need for evidence shows that you’re not a serious person.
I did provide evidence, you didn’t. You have not provided evidence yet, if I believed you I’d be believing things without evidence.
Evidently you don’t understand the concept of evidence. An article that says trust me bro is not evidence. Evidence would be satellite imagery of the site that was supposedly attacked which doesn’t exist. Hope that clears things up for you.
Producing literally hundreds of a single type of airplane with orders for the next decade or so isn’t exactly “nothing to show for”.
And even if you discount the actual sales, getting billions in development budget from the US government is pretty good for business.
I mean yeah, the purpose of these companies is to put taxes back into the pockets of billionaires instead of spending them on stuff they’re meant for like infrastructure, healthcare, education, and so on. That’s why majority Americans live like dogs.
Opposed to the Chinese corporations which are famously basically charity organizations?
What exactly is your point? Your moving goalposts to completely different planets.
It’s yogthos lol, can’t expect anything less my friend
Hey quick question genius, is Chinese military industry state owned or private? 🤡
Looks like both.
It’s pretty much all state owned, and in cases where private industry is used, it’s tightly controlled including party members being embedded within the companies. In fact, the role of private industry in China has been declining overall piie.com/…/chinas-private-sector-has-lost-ground-…
Looks like AVIC is public and private, do you know the ownership breakdown?
I’m sure you can look it up since you’re the one who brought it up.
I did, looks like CCP is about half, but it didn’t show many of the the other ones. I was wondering if you thought it was higher than that, from what you were saying, it sounded like you thought it was like 90%.
I never gave a number, and it’s weird that you would assume something like that. Also, no idea what CCP is.
Yes you do.
I know what The Communist Party of China (CPC) is.
But you know that that’s the same thing.
I know one is the proper spelling of how the party calls itself and the other is an intentional misspelling western trolls use.
.
It never changed. The official and correct name of the party is has always been The Communist Party of China: CPC. I hae no idea why people in western mainstream insist on misspelling it. It’s like if I just arbitrarily decided to spell USA as SUA and then insisted that it’s the way it should be spelled despite the official spelling being very clear.
.
Again, it’s very clear what the party calls itself, and the fact that you choose to intentionally use a different way to call it even after being corrected is idiotic in the extreme, so is running around calling people you disagree with tankies. Keep on making a clown of yourself.
China doesn’t use private sector for its military. Try to put a bit more work into your trolling.
I disagree.
wikipedia.org/…/Chengdu_Aircraft_Industry_Group wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_Aircraft_Corporation
CAC has been promoted to a state enterprise in 1990. Try harder.
Looks like it’s owned by Zhonghang Electronic Measuring Instruments, which is public? Or maybe they’re owned by AVIC which is both public and private?
Private sector in China is not allowed to operate the same way the private sector operates in the west. So, your whole comparison is fundamentally flawed.
It’s in reference to international sales, I believe.
Why would they be impacted? What’s their competition?
Not sure the specifics, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were countries interested in a next generation fighter jet, and is capable of buying from either the US or China.
F35 is guaranteed to be better than a “6th generation” Chinese plane and they can be upgraded anyway. And it’s actually very successful now with a very cheap per plane cost.
LMFAO
I recently upgraded my stone axe with some flint. Those guys with bronze are doomed.
Lockheed’s stock price fell because they missed on earnings. It’s batshit to think a new fighter coming out of China would be bad for Lockheed. 🤡
A 6th gen fighter coming out of China while the US can’t make their 5th gen fighter work properly certainly does look bad for Lockheed.
Cope how? I’m not a fan. The worst thing in the world for Lockheed would be if US’s adversaries decided they weren’t going to be designing any new weapons systems. Lockheed runs on fear of what’s next.
Lockheed model of sucking up taxes without producing anything only works when the US feels they have superiority over the adversaries. Now that it’s becoming clear this is not the case, there will be a push to actually have to produce things that work, and Lockheed isn’t good at doing that.
Where in the world are you getting that Lockheed stuff doesn’t work? SR71? F104? U2? F117? F22?
Oh man, I remember seeing this U2 in museum, it did a great job intercepting Soviet AD 😂 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident
You think the U2 was an intercepter?
.
So you’re just saying that one was once shot down as to why the U2 as a whole was an ineffective program?
The fact that they have never been put into mass production is a very clear indicator that it was an ineffective program.
Neither was the SR-71. Both programs had a very limited mission, which is why neither was ever produced in quantity.
Sure both were experimental, and the experiment with U2 was to make something fly so high that it couldn’t be intercepted. Turned out that the US underestimated the quality of the AD systems Soviets developed.
The purpose of the U2 was to make a plane that could never be intercepted for the rest of time? No, they saw a gap that the Soviets didn’t have protection for yet, so they exploded it. One the Soviets caught up and closed the gap, they went higher and faster with the SR71, then higher and faster with satellites. It’s always back and forth, and the U2 gave a valuable capability until a counter was developed.
The reality is that U2 was dead on arrival.
And yet they have still been operational for 60 years after that… Funny that the U2 lasted longer than the Soviet Union.
as a museum piece
You should probably look up what the word “operational” means.
The U-2 first flew in 1955. One was shot down over the USSR in 1960, and another was shot down over Cuba in 1962. They largely stopped flying over peer air defenses at that point.
That’s about a 7-year span where it was useful for its primary task. Hanging around to fly over Libya in 2011 is not the same as fulfilling the role the plane was designed for decades later.
F22 is working just fine. The new planes from China seem like tech demonstrators, so a similar stage to X35 in 2000. So they could still have plenty of production problems ahead of them.
sure little buddy, you keep on coping there cause it’s adorable
Could you point to what issues your talking about? It’s hard to converse when you’re referring to vague vibes.
He just straight up doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The only thing you’ll ever get out of him is west bad, China, Russia & North Korea good.
Can just as well name his post lockheed stock drops after kindergarten teacher drinks water and it would be equally accurate.
awww you’re such a sour little muffin aren’t you
Not at all. Just lowering the guys expectations of having a genuine conversation. Feel free to prove me wrong 😘
Already did by providing actual sources instead of clowning around the way you do.
Sources alluding to what exactly? That the F-35 had had problems? Every single jet platform has had problems.
While the F-35 has problems of its own, its no secret that China is yet to manage to develop anything that can rival or beat their RAM.
Prototypes are nothing short of speculations and wishful thinking until it starts to hit production.
And I’m not even a fan of US jets. As a Swede I will admit my bias for our own platforms. But the F-35 does fill a role that our fighters doesn’t. And it does fill that specific role quite well. It’s not an all purpose aircraft.
taking pause to look around when new things are revealed, which is sensible. doesn’t mean what you think it means.
I remember the hype about Chinas new submarines. Oh they were gonna be so good and so stealthy. Turns out they didn’t make it far out of the Harbour before sinking.
So what was that you said about China producing things that “actually work”? Or maybe you excluded their sinking sub in that statement. I must have missed the asterisk
Hard to think of another modern jet built outside Yankeestan that has problems that come even close to those that F35 flying cybertruck is having.
[citation needed]
The prototype China is making is for a jet a generation after F35, they already have an answer to F35 in production and it hasn’t cost over a trillion dollars to make. In fact, Chinese military budget overall is only a fraction of what Yankeestan spends.
No it doesn’t. As many experts have explained in great detail, F35 tries to do too many things and it doesn’t do any of them well. It’s incredibly expensive to maintain, it has constant breakdowns, and they can’t even keep a sufficient number of them operational as a result.
The fact that you’d latch onto a conspiracy theory really highlights the quality of your intellect.
Nah, I’m just not dumb enough to fall for propaganda marketed to people who don’t have fully developed brains.
Ah yes. Everything that is inconvenient for your arguments is a conspiracy. Must be very convenient.
The F35 does try to do a lot of things. You can argue effectiveness of many of them. But what it DOES do well, is performing as a stealth strike craft. Credit where credit is due. The ram technology development in the US is impressive and world leading.
You resort unprovoked to name calling (“yankeestan”), and attack others intellect. It really shows your insecurity the moment something doesn’t go your way.
You speak of “generations” as if the jets are a console. “They’re making a 6th gen aircraft”. They claim they’re making a 6:th gen aircraft. That claim won’t be proven until they start producing. Until then it’s nothing but speculation and fairy dust.
Buddy, you’ve not just fallen for propaganda, you’ve taken an express elevator right down the shaft and keep drilling once you arrive.
Nah, Just anything that is presented without a shred of evidence for the benefit of racist rubes such as yourself.
Incredible claim to make given that it’s never been used against a peer adversary with actual modern AD. The fact that you state this as a fact shows that you’re utterly incapable of critical thought. Probably the reason you fall for conspiracy theories so readily.
So much projection here.
Maybe learn a bit about the subject you’re attempting to debate and the common terminology used instead of making a clown of yourself in public.
You’ve perfectly described yourself there kiddo.
Ah yes. Now I’m a racist as well. What do you base that on exactly?
If you think they’ve never tested the stealth capabilities of the f35 you’re delusional.
You got absolutely nothing in terms of knowledge on the subject, which is why you resort to personal attacks and throw in the occasional “no u” to derail the discussion into a match of name calling. You follow the same pattern every time.
I base that on your religious belief in western superiority.
I know they’ve never tested capabilities of f35 because it’s never been used in combat against a peer competitor. The fact that you don’t understand this shows that you are in fact the one who got absolutely nothing in terms of knowledge on the subject, and are incapable of rational thought in general.
I love how you keep making ad hominem attacks here to distract from your utter ignorance.
My religious beliefs? I don’t have any. Nor have i stated anything about certain people being superior over anyone else.
You’re right, the f35 has not been performing strikes against Eastern nations directly. That doesn’t mean it has never been tested. They’re sold to various countries in Europe and each and every nation does test their capabilities with their own systems. Each of their neighbours take every oppertunity to test their capabilities as well. Everyone has come to the same conclusion. The ram capabilities of the f35 is mighty impressive.
You’ve displayed your lack of insight into each and every aspect enough as it is.
And addressing your childish game of name calling isn’t an ad hominem attack. But it is funny you mention that, seeing how you unprovoked, resort to personal attacks. The comment-chain is there to read for everyone. You’re the only one between us making personal attacks.
Here’s what an actual battle test platform looks like:
militarywatchmagazine.com/…/first-look-stealth-op…
You’ve displayed your lack of insight into each and every aspect enough as it is.
I see you don’t know what ad hominem means. Ad hominem isn’t a personal attack, it’s a way to deflect from the point being made. You’re trying to discredit what I’m saying by claiming that I don’t know what I’m talking about. You’re not providing counter points, but instead attacking me to deflect because at the end of the day you’rej ust a troll.
In any case, I’ve said all I needed to say here. You can keep on bleating if you like though. Bye.
The only one referring to vague vibes here is you bud. The disaster that is F22 is very well documented
On the other hand, China has consistently shown the ability to produce things that actually work.
Jfs has been a cluster, they wanted a VTOL jet that do everything, which physics doesn’t like. But with 15 years extra development, they kinda did it.
80% readiness is higher than most jets, my sources are actually showing loser, but still in line with other military jets.
And is your third source just saying that the biggest problem with the F22 is that they want more of them? That hardly seems like a criticism of the plane itself.
In the same way the Cybertruck is kind of a truck.
80% is not the readiness of F22, but a target they can’t hit.
It’s a criticism of the abysmal production capability showing that these things are artisanally made.
Did you see the comparison to other jets?
Su57 is artisanally made, less than two dozen. ~200 is a short production run, they shut it down early because those 200 could defeat every other air force on the planet several times over. But tech has progressed since then, it’s only a bit better than the J20. But like the U2, that’s not it’s fault.
If the US ever had use them to fight a peer competitor then these 200 would disappear very quickly. At that point the US would be unable to replace them because it lacks industrial capacity to do so.
It lacks the molds, fittings, and jigs to do so. They were destroyed after the production run shut down. Similar story to the F1 Saturn V engines, it’d be more work to recreate them than to make something better.
F35 was an attempt to make something better, and after over a trillion dollars being poured into the project over many years, it’s an unmitigated disaster.
No, it was an attempt to make something stol and cheaper, and it succeeded after billions of extra dollars and an extra decade. NGAD is supposed to be the all around better replacement.
You can keep repeating that it succeeded till you’re blue in the face, but the reality is that it’s far from a successful platform. It’s highly unreliable, and it needs a ton expensive of maintenance. It’s the opposite of what you want in a weapon which is to be cheap, reliable, and easy to service. It’s a toy.
Expensive maintenance compared to what? Have you looked at the operations rates? It looks like F35 costs about the same per hour as the F15EX.
comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/…/2023_b_c.pdf
Far more expensive compared to SU-57 that’s actually been proven effective in combat against NATO air defence systems. This is how actual weapons are developed:
militarywatchmagazine.com/…/first-look-stealth-op…
What’s the su57 cost per hour taking into account maintainer income differences? I don’t see any numbers. And weren’t you criticizing the F22 for only having 200 units?
F22 was introduced in 1996, SU57 is a new platform that’s still being tested and hasn’t been put into mass production. The manufacturing only started in 2019, and there are already 32 produced. Let me know if you need help crunching the numbers on that one.
The cost of the entire jet is a mere $35 million. Here’s an article you can read discussing the lifetime cost comparison
bulgarianmilitary.com/…/how-su-57-dodged-the-f-22…
If you’re saying it’s still pre production, then it’s production delay is worse than the F35. It’s first flight was in 2010, so that puts it at 15 years from first fight to lrip and counting. F35 only had 10 year timeline between first flight in 2001 and lrip in 2011.
First, maintenance costs are fundamentally different from sticker price. To find maintenance cost, you’d want to find the maintenance factor, how many hours of maintenance per flight hour, and the cost of replacement parts per flight hour.
Comparing quoted sticker price isn’t much good either, since they haven’t sold any, and as you said it’s still pre production, so even if the cost wasn’t subsidized, it’d still be way off from final numbers.
I’m saying it’s still being tested in actual combat conditions and kinks are being ironed out before mass production starts. This is how you avoid having a debacle like F35 where you start producing something in volume and then discover crippling problems down the road.
Also, not sure what argument you’re trying to make regarding the cost being subsidized. The cost is labor and material used to build it. It costs the Russian state 35 million a pop. There is absolutely no reason to think this cost will go up dramatically once mass production starts. In fact, what happens is that economies of scale kick in and costs go down.
Anyway, let’s talk maintenance costs. You have any data?
The article I linked above talks about lifetime costs. Just to be clear, are you seriously trying to argue that the maintenance cost of SU-57 is comparable to that of F-35. Just want to have that on record here.
I’m trying to say we have no idea what the maintenance costs are on the su57. Russia doesn’t report things like that. I don’t know if they even track it themselves. So you can’t just blanket say the su57 is cheaper to maintain unless you bring data.
One thing that works against Russia in maintenance is they tend to run their equipment much harder. To get good performance on their engines, they sometimes push them so that they only last a couple hundred flight hours. Doing the same with many components would indicate a very high maintenance factor.
Of course you can blanket say that SU57 is cheaper. We know that the total cost of the jet is a fraction of f35, we know that Russian military industry is state owned, and is not operated for profit, and we know that Russia spends a fraction of what US does on the military overall. It’s obvious to anybody with even a minimally functioning brain that the cost of weapon production in Russia is much lower than in the US. Meanwhile, the fact that Russia makes engines that actually last a long time shows the strength of Russian engineering.
To back calculate the cost per flight hour (which is what you’re suggesting) we’d need to know the overall cost of the su57 and the number of flight hours flown. Do we know those numbers? Given there are only about a dozen su57, they’ll have very low flight hours. Plus Russia tends to have about half the training time for pilots as the US, so that further lowers the flight hours.
But do you have info on the yearly cost of the su57?
I don’t have info on SU57 yearly costs, aside from the link I’ve already provided for you. However, as I keep repeating, and you keep ignoring, overall military spending in Russia is FAR LOWER than in the US. That alone clearly shows that cost has to be lower. Perhaps try engaging with that instead of dancing around the elephant in the room.
Having only a handful of jets you rarely fly really helps keep costs down.
Pretty sure Russia has been flying a lot more missions over past three years than US has. No only that, but they actually have to contend with real AD instead of just terrorizing farmers, but do go on making some very interesting and intelligent points.
I was saying exactly the opposite. US engines usually last a couple thousand hours, Russian engines last a few hundred.
do feel free to provide sources for the claim
More advanced hardware from a country the US see as an adversary sounds like it should be great for the stock of Lockheed and Co., actually.
Maybe if there are no competitors. Even as monopolistic as the military aircraft industry is in the U.S., drones open up a lot of space for competition by being vastly cheaper.
Then there’s concern about long-term sales to foreign countries, plus the corresponding parts and maintenance revenues. The F-16 is flown by 25 other countries.
I’m not big into airframes but i think it’s a dieing artform making these jets. Some drone strapped to a pulse rocket will eventually make them all obsolete.
The same can be said for small arms I guess.
It’s more about sensors and communication, there’s no reason you can’t have f35 use drones and stuff. But the better plane will see and target the enemy first. And it can operate without GPS. In other words it’s better to have 3000 f35s flying missions plus a bunch of drones. Being able to deliver a lot of firepower first is a huge deal.
How do we know that the Chinese fighter jet is actually 6th gen and not say 5.999999… gen?
Also how are they stealing this tech from the future!