What i said is that there is not enough convincing reason in that article to claim J-31 a 'junk'. J-31 is totally different from J-15, and the article itself admits that as of today only limited info of the J-31 is available. The shortcomings of J-15 not necessarily lead to the same issue of J-31. To assess a new plane based on a totally different type is really unreasonable. That is why I think the citation from Sina Military News is totally useless. It can never be regarded as a convincing fact to support the author's premature claim on J-31. Ironically, the Fox News boasts 'fair and balanced'.
The article doesn't claim that. Seems you didn't get past the first two words of the headline. Right after them was a question mark. Which means it's a question not a claim. Following the question mark is a statement of fact. Headlines are designed to grab attention. "Chinese Junk" is also a play on words.
The article states the opinions from different sources on past Chinese aircraft and on a future aircraft. Some more skeptical than others. These are the last four paragraphs:
James Hardy, Asia-Pacific Editor of Jane’s Defence Weekly, said there is no way to compare the J-31 to other fighter planes, given the secrecy still surrounding it.
“Because we have only limited data on the J-31, it impossible to say whether it is inferior to the F-35,” Hardy said. "Qualitatively there's no way to compare unless we know its fire-control radar, subsystems, avionics, and what it is made of. Its planform [silhouette] certainly makes it look like a fifth generation fighter, but what materials it is made of and all kinds of other questions mean judging its radar cross section - and so its stealthiness - is hard to do.”
Hardy adds that lack of strong information about the fighter --and the fact that it is going straight to export--might make it a hard sell on the international market.
“One key point is that if the People's Liberation Army air forces aren’t going to field it, that might deter other countries," he said. "The thinking may go: if it's not good enough for China, why should we buy it?”
Well, there are a lot of other sources/expert comments about the J-31, such as those from the Russians and other Chinese media source (In fact, Sina Military has a couple of articles on the J-31, many of which hold positive opinion on the plane). Obviously the author of this article only quotes those holding sceptical opinions so as to support his biased point of view. The question mark and the use of the word 'junk' cannot hide his prejudiced 'US-paramount' stereotype. As you can see, the author also cites that 'No amount of espionage or copying of U.S. technology can duplicate American air power' from an air force pilot. 'Espionage', 'copying'...So where is the evidence? Nothing. I don't see any evidence, and that 'espionage' statement is groundless and hence, untenable. If you look at other comments from the same 'veteran pilot' in the later paragraphs you can see how conceited this guy is. Yet the author still quotes this statements as his supporting material, the traditional way of misleading readers.
Ok, the article doesn't really suggest anything! It merely poses a question that was reasonably raised based on the fat that the plane is set for export so quickly and other reasons.
Seems to me that you are a fan of the J-31 (which is ok) and simply have an issue with anyone questioning the quality of the aircraft. That's fine...your opinion, but the article is just a question...it's not unfair and quotes noted sources on military equipment. It's ok...it will be fine. I remember when the M2 Bradley came on line to replace the M113 and people were opining about all of the differnt ways it was garbage. As an infantryman, I loved it.
You have reached a comclusion about the aircraft that others have not. So don't get frustrated when those who have not, discuss it
As for copying...many Chinese aircraft are known copies. The J-15 was a close copy of the Su 33. Heck, the J31 looks like an F35. The Chinese barely even try to deny that they reverse engineer stolen/acquired/purchased machinery. So don't act shocked when it is at least discussed in the article (whether or not they really do steal and copy or whether its coincidence)
< Message edited by mikeCK -- 10/4/2013 2:23:24 PM >