Comments by "Orbital_Inclination" (@Orbital_Inclination) on "How China's pursuit of top military tech is challenging the global power balance" video.

  1. Tbf accidents happen. The US lost the USS Bonhome Richard to a fire in port
    10
  2. You've missed out the US in that timeline
    10
  3. It works both ways, both are dependent on each other
    6
  4. ​ @ricardosmythe2548 unless you have access to classified information, you have no way of actually knowing that. 'Stealth' isn't a quantifiable thing, it just means the airframe has a low observable design that gives it a lower RCS than a similarly sized airframe without LO design. Both the J-20 and F-22 have airframe design features which are intended to reduce RCS.
    5
  5. ​ @tonmoyhasankakon201 pretty irrelevant when the UK is part of NATO. Now compare NATO with China.
    4
  6. ​ @jessicayoung1190 a 15% drop in exports would be awful
    4
  7. ​ @jayhaygarth2005 storm shadows serve a different purpose. Both subsonic cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles have a place, and valid use cases
    3
  8. You realise that, like F-35s, Chinese 5th gen jets fly around with radar reflectors fitted?
    3
  9. ​ @ricardosmythe2548 you clearly don't understand the basics. The 'brick' appearance is exactly what many stealth aircraft favour because it reduces the number of angles that give a large radar return. The belly of the F-22 is a large flat surface for that exact reason. The important aspect is frontal RCS for an initial engagement, which the J-20 minimises fairly effectively with many of the same features as the F-22 and F-35
    3
  10. ​ @ricardosmythe2548 again, without access to data I'm certain you don't possess, there is no way of knowing the RCS of an aircraft. I'm not sure what aircraft you've been looking at, but the J-20 is no more of a flying brick than the F-22. It has the same flat surfaces, same angled panel lines, same chined nose, its just larger because it needs to carry more fuel and long range missiles, but that doesn't mean its RCS scales accordingly.
    3
  11. ​​​ @ricardosmythe2548 your claim that it does not allow for the same level of stealth is completely unfounded, with no actual data to support your assertion. As for relevant expertise, does being a qualified electronic warfare officer count? The whole point of the J-20 is to go after AWACS/tankers, outranging their fighter escort/CAP before turning and heading home. They're literally there to keep US tankers and AWACS at greater range from China to severely limit the US' ability to operate in that part of the world.
    3
  12. ​ @ricardosmythe2548 so you're basing your opinion on factually unsupported gut feeling? Cool.
    3
  13. You realise Chinese citizens have been educated in many of the world's most prestigious educational establishments for years now? The copy-paste jokes do hold truth, of course, but there's also a hell of a lot of innovative capability being taught to the Chinese in Western universities.
    2
  14. ​​ @MAG1C-ez4de that sailor was found not guilty, so the fact he was charged is irrelevant. I didn't make anything up, I just didn't think that irrelevant, outdated info was relevant given he was cleared of the charge.
    2
  15. ​ @SengpoSatbang the Chinese government literally released a statement confirming the event
    2
  16. They do work, they're just not unstoppable super weapons like some people believe
    2
  17. And yet they told you all about them? 😂
    2
  18. J-20 and F-22 aren't designed for the same role. The J-20 is a long range interceptor, while the F-22 is an air superiority fighter.
    2
  19. ​ @ellingwood1651 what exactly is wrong?
    2
  20. ​ @yuyu-zr8dn the F-22 is not made in China
    2
  21. ​ @GoodCitizen-gm1tl +1 citizen score to you, you've unlocked food for your family for another day.
    1
  22. ​ @ellingwood1651 no, it didn't. There's imagery evidence of it having sunk
    1
  23. ​ @SengpoSatbang and the imagery? How do you explain that? Were they just testing their recovery cranes out?
    1
  24. ​​ @SengpoSatbang people do indeed build subs on rivers, why would they not? Seems like a weak counter arguement as a desperate cope, especially with so many people parroting it as fact. As for the nuclear sub claim, that's easily verifiable by looking at the shape and comparing it with China's inventory of subs.
    1
  25. Clearly you're not from Taiwan, or Bhutan, or India.
    1
  26. ​ @jayhaygarth2005 they are, they have a far smaller intercept window and reduce the ability of enemies to react
    1
  27. When? Recently enough to be relevant?
    1
  28. Tell that to the foreign territories of Tibet or Taiwan.
    1
  29. Are Russia planning on invading you too?
    1
  30. ​ @Puntonghua pretty irrelevant given the fact that fighters spend nearly all their operational life subsonic anyway, and the F-35 can still go supersonic when required to
    1
  31. ​ @ricardosmythe2548 so nothing of substance? Got it.
    1