這是遊戲玩太多了吧!
升級就能無敵，呵呵。
<div></div>
只是小升級 就誇大!!! 國外就是故意賣淘汰 物品給我們!!!{:32:}
看起來又是個自high的新聞真的這樣別人花大錢買的東西真的可以丟到水裡了
讚不錯喔讚不錯喔讚不錯喔
不樣再騙自己人了，兩岸軍力早就失衡了，以現在科技台灣是耐不住打得。
<br><br><br><br><br><div></div>
新聞內文有說阿
〝近距離空戰〞時............
但會不會對方不用近距離就可以...........
發生戰爭是不可能的事情 我不懂飛機也非研發人員也磨興趣阿謝謝分享哦
有一點小弟一直不是很了，
大陸在軍事不只是武器越來越強，數量也比台灣多很多，
一對一，F-16V或許還可與J20一戰，
但如果是一對二甚至一對多呢？
F-16V有任何勝算嗎？
f123456784 發表於 2017-1-21 12:09 AM static/image/common/back.gif
有一點小弟一直不是很了，
大陸在軍事不只是武器越來越強，數量也比台灣多很多，
一對一，F-16V或許還可與J ...
只能說很低，不能說沒有
總算是開始升級了，F16算是台灣最有信心的裝備了吧。加油
<br><br><br><br><br><div></div>
luxegen 發表於 2017-1-18 10:46 AM static/image/common/back.gif
錯了,對付J-20哪需要F-16V?? IDF就很夠看了,很簡單,J-20要是行,大陸買SU-35幹嘛??FC-31怎麼會連巴基斯坦都 ...
看你的發言就像看{:31:}個笑話，不知道對軍事討論有何意義？
12345fu 發表於 2017-1-19 01:02 PM static/image/common/back.gif
這卅一比一的戰果，說來話長了。而且數據上有些不對，應該是卅一比二。
那是1958年所發生八二三炮戰期間 ...
台灣飛行員素質更高？樓主還在夢中吧
spacemonkey2000 發表於 2017-1-21 04:36 AM static/image/common/back.gif
看你的發言就像看個笑話，不知道對軍事討論有何意義？
基本軍事常識,j-20才真的是笑話{:3:}{:3:}
spacemonkey2000 發表於 2017-1-21 04:36 AM static/image/common/back.gif
看你的發言就像看個笑話，不知道對軍事討論有何意義？
才剛貼馬上被版主刪掉,愚民愚到這種程度,難怪已為j-20打得過idf{:31:}
話說,這本來是貓眼論壇上一個5毛對我的要求,當時我把他當笑話,.沒有想到真的這樣快就可以PK了
台灣的IDF還真的任重而道遠,出生前本來是要PK J8的,只是J-8太不成才,沒得比, IDF 變成要和下代的
J-10 PK ;想不到 20年前的IDF寶刀未老,連20年後的J-10都一併管了
現在中國的J-20浮出檯面,IDF這老驥只有再上場 PK了
要把IDF 和 J-20 PK ,首先就刺傷了一堆中國五毛,滿簡單的.,說台灣20年前出的IDF比中國
的J-10强已經很難過了,繼續讓IDF 去 PK中國的四代機,那就不是普通的傷感情了
只是,J-20當然不是真的四代機,要是真的四代機,IDF那裡PK的起??除非J-20飛行員是豬
J-20不是四代機??????聽了本人這個評論大概滿多人不以為然,其實我已經算高估了J-20
俄羅斯人更惡毒,干脆說J-20連空優戰機都不是,只能算轟炸機
俄羅斯軍事評論家皮亞圖什金說，殲-20像轟炸機。皮亞圖什金說：「從外形看，殲-20的尺寸要超過俄羅斯的第五代戰機T-50約30%。因此俄羅斯軍工專家們的一個共識是，殲-20不僅是殲擊機，殲-20更像轟炸機。也就是說，殲-20不是空優戰機，它可長途飛行，並能搭載更多的彈藥和油料。相比之下，俄羅斯的T-50雖然也是多功能戰鬥機，但T-50更强調空優攻擊攔截功能。」
------------------------------------------
IDF再不才總是純種的空優戰機,要是連J-20這種轟炸機都對付不了,根本直接推到太平洋填海算了
為什麼j-20會被俄羅斯嘲笑是轟炸機??很簡單,和老美已經退休的f-111比就曉得,j-20的重量比f-111只小一點點,推力只比f-111大一點點,推力重量比
算一算居然不到0.8,只能和台灣已經退休去當教練機的f-5e比美
這樣差的推重比,不要說四代機的超巡航,連三代機的能量機動都不合格
要不是F-5E已經不可能改良,拿IDF去PK J-20還真殺機用牛刀,把F-5E改良一下
就成了
首先我們看四代機的門檻在哪裡,隱身到底帶來多大的問題
先來看看F-15和F-22的SIZE";
-------------------------------------------------
F-15 Eagle drawing.png
* 全長： 63.75 ft (19.43 m)
* 翼展： 42.75 ft (13.03 m)
* 全高： 18.625 ft (5.68 m)
* 主翼面積： 608 ft178; (56.5 m178;)
* 空重： 28,575 lb (12,973 kg)
F-22
* 全長: 18.92 m （62 ft 1 in）
* 全高: 5.08 m （16 ft 8 in）
* 翼幅: 13.56 m（44 ft 6 in）
* 翼面積: 78.04 m178; （840 ft178;）
* 空虛重量: 19,700 kg （43,340 lb）
* 最大離陸重量: 38,000 kg （83,500 lb）
* 動力: 、156 kN （35,000 lb） (A/B時) ×
---------------------------------------------------------
有沒有發現一件事??雖然F-22略小於F-15,但是空重卻遠遠大於
F-15差了快6800公斤,快是一台IDF的重量了,F-22採用的複合材料遠遠多於F-15
但是重量不只沒有比較輕,反而大很多,這個就是隱形帶來的代價:
暴增的重量
重量來源就是
1:隱形涂料,這是很重的東東
2:為了隱形,飛彈都要內置,飛彈掛架等都要內置,要佔不少機身空間,空間就是意味著重量;造成機身機翼虛胖,
3:為了隱身要求需要機身外形配合,機身不得不有不必要的線條,
4:為了隱身,.不能帶副油箱,油箱通通要塞裡面,這些都是重量
下場就是F-22的機重不只沒有比F-15輕,反而暴增很多,等於背了一台輕型機在身上
我讓IDF去和J-20 PK,滿多人會笑,看到這裡大概就笑不出來了
滿簡單的;讓IDF去和F-22 PK,,但是要換上F-15用的F-100,去掉向量推力的退化版F-
差不多就等於一台F-15身上再背台IDF(不考慮氣動的影響)去和IDF PK
然後還要考慮隱身對飛機氣動性能的破壞,退化版的F-22三代機動空戰力根本比F-15身上再背台IDF 還要慘,所以
你說是IDF 找死還是退化版F-22找死??
根本可以說,如果IDF的機師如果不是白痴,碰上這種退化板的F-22,光憑3代機的機動力標準,根本就是好像切西瓜一樣容易
退化版的F-22對IDF的唯一優勢就是隱身和先進的雷達,要是連隱身先進的雷達的優勢都沒了,
根本就是只能去當攻擊機的份,看到IDF ,祇能逃之夭夭而已
事實上,中國的T-50機身比不只比F-22;根據俄羅斯軍事評論家皮亞圖什金說
"從外形看，殲-20的尺寸要超過俄羅斯的第五代戰機T-50約30%。"
T-50的基本諸元
===============================
* 長度： 20.6 m（）
* 翼展： 14.2 m（）
* 高度： 6.05 m（）
* 翼面積： 78.8 m178;（）
* 空重： 17,500 kg（）
* 載重： 26,000 kg（）
* 最大起飛重量： 37,000 kg（）
--------------------------------------------------------------
J-20要想贏IDF;唯一的本事就是隱身(因為IDF也可以升級電戰)
但是J-20卻採用對隱身最不利的鴨翼,機身龐大更是先天性的RCS大
而且J-20整体看來隱身設計並不好,漏洞滿多的,面對小巧的IDF有多少RCS優勢
也是直得懷疑的
看完本人這篇帖子,你就曉得四代機的門鑑有多高,强如美國的F-35都要拉盟國來分錢開發了 尤其是那個垂直起降形的F-35B,真的是要命的錢坑
對比日本的四代概念機心神就更看的出J-20問題
1:心神一推出,除了隱身外特別强調高推力引擎和整合了飛控系統的向量推力
2:最重要的就是因為日本雖然有了高推重比的引擎但是沒有大推力,所以只能先造縮小版
3:就算真實版的F-3,日本也預期會比F-22小,因為日本有自知之明,曉得自己引擎科技
落後老美20年,
所以J-20一推出,全世界都嚇一跳.等仔細分析後,全世界從嚇一跳變成笑一跳
原因就是J-20很像是一個完全不懂得什麼叫四代機的人設計出來的
首先就是那個鴨翼,然後是沒有强力引擎丅的超龐大機身,都讓人不曉得
飛機設計師到底在想什麼,J-20很像是各種先進觀念的拼奏体
但是設計師太急於求現.,乃至於不管這些觀念彼此的衝突性
尤其是J-20奇怪的曝光方式,選在人口稠密的都市旁機場試飛,,現場居然還有
椅子可以坐,飲料可以喝,這在民主國家的試飛都是不可思議的,何況是保密貫的中國??
所以我認為J-20不要說不是四代機了,連四代機的概念機都不算,比較像
緊急被拉上場的戰略威嚇物,這不禁讓人想起前蘇聯大閱兵慣用的假飛彈
J-20當然不是假飛彈那樣慘,但是離真正的四代機還很遠
...<div class='locked'><em>瀏覽完整內容，請先 <a href='member.php?mod=register'>註冊</a> 或 <a href='javascript:;' onclick="lsSubmit()">登入會員</a></em></div>
spacemonkey2000 發表於 2017-1-21 04:36 AM static/image/common/back.gif
看你的發言就像看個笑話，不知道對軍事討論有何意義？
J-20是隱身戰機還是轟炸機??
這個就是老外評論中國J-20的標題,你就知道J-20在老外的評價,ＩＤＦ應該是沒有人會搞錯是轟炸機
所以PK起來勝負不言可喻,原因就是J-20用的發動機AL-31太落後,推重比不到７,比IDF用的發動機還要差
機身又過重,導致推重比過低,低到根本不能當空優機,這點看FC-31就曉得,根本賣不掉
連巴基斯坦都不要,寧可買F-16 J-20的用途大概在取代飛豹 FBC-1 當攻擊用
文章來自 The Diplomat 網站
=========================
Stealth Fighter or Bomber?
Is China’s J-20 stealth jet likely to be a bomber or an interceptor? It might not actually matter.
By David Axe
July 26, 2011
A photo from a Chinese aerospace exhibit, posted on an Internet forum, provides the first new evidence in more than six months regarding the role and capabilities of China’s first stealth fighter prototype.
The photo depicts the underside of a scale model of the Chengdu J-20, showing the angular fighter’s three weapons bays open and eight air-to-air missiles mounted inside. The missile loud-out includes one short-range infrared-guided missile in each of two small side bays, plus six medium-range missiles packed into the single, large, belly bay.
Since shortly after the J-20 made its public debut on Christmas Day, the consensus among Western observers has been that the new fighter is optimized for air-to-ground attacks against heavily defended targets. That belief stems from the J-20’s apparent large size: up to 70 feet long and 40 tonnes fully loaded, compared to 62 feet and 32 tonnes for the US F-22 stealth fighter. The J-20’s basic dimensions most closely match the F-111 bomber retired from service in the late 1990s.
Beijing’s emphasis on pre-emptive military doctrine seemed to support the J-20-as-bomber theory. Many of China’s most impressive weapons developments in recent years, including the long-range ballistic missiles of the Second Artillery Corps plus surveillance satellites, have been driven by the People’s Liberation Army’s ‘Joint Anti-Air Raid Campaign’ doctrine.
‘The Joint Anti-Air Raid Campaign is designed as the cornerstone for countering US military intervention and draws heavily on PLA observations of US war-fighting tendencies as demonstrated in numerous conflicts including the 1991 Gulf War and 1999 Operation Allied Force,’ Wayne Ulman wrote in Chinese Aerospace Power, a new collection of essays edited by noted China analyst Andrew Erickson.
In part, the doctrine aims to disable most US airfields and aircraft carriers in the western Pacific before they launch aircraft to intervene in any Chinese military operation. The missiles and satellites are key components of that offensive capability—and the J-20 was previously thought to be so as well. A fast, long-range, stealthy, precision bomber might be able to penetrate US defences and destroy any airfield infrastructure that survived the missile barrage.
But the scale model of the J-20, if accurate, undermines this conclusion. ‘It is hard to judge definitively from this photo of a scale model, but there doesn’t appear to be room for air-to-surface missiles like the bulky YJ-12 or smart bombs inside the internal bays,’ aviation journalist Stephen Trimble wrote on his blog.
Instead, the J-20 appears solely configured for an air-to-air weapons load—in fact, a load that matches the F-22's arsenal of two short- and six medium-range air-to-air missiles.
But if the J-20 is strictly an interceptor, what kind of interceptor will it be—and how might the People’s Liberation Army Air Force employ it in future conflicts?
Ask the Russians. Throughout the Cold War, Moscow invested heavily in large, fast interceptors meant to destroy American bombers flying over Siberia. In their day, the MiG-25 (65 feet long, 40 tonnes) and MiG-31 (75 feet, 45 tonnes) were both widely feared by NATO. But when the prospect of World War III faded, so did the interceptors’ utility, and Moscow has chosen not to continue their development.
But the Chinese Communist Party views the world differently. An interceptor J-20 might still figure in the Joint Anti-Air Raid Campaign, though in a different role than previously thought. After all, the doctrine ‘has both defensive and offensive components,’ Ulman pointed out. In the event of major war, the PLAAF would need to defend its own airfields and installations against any US warplanes that survived the initial Chinese onslaught.
In fact, Washington is working to remove the bulk of its air power from within the range of Chinese missiles and warplanes, possibly heightening Beijing's need for an interceptor. The new ‘B-3’ stealth bomber, under development for the US Air Force, would reinforce the current American bomber presence on Guam in around a decade’s time. ‘The PLAAF and Second Artillery Corps currently have only limited capabilities to threaten US facilities on Guam due to their distance from mainland China,’ Ulman wrote.
As more US aircraft concentrate on Guam, the PLAAF might need to counter with an improved capability to intercept them en route to their targets. The J-20 could possibly meet this need.
Of course, the destruction of stealthy bombers doesn’t necessarily require a stealthy interceptor like the J-20. The J-20's ability to evade detection—a consequence of its airframe shape, above all else—doesn’t really improve its own ability to detect a B-3 or another US stealth plane.
But the J-20 could help the PLAAF develop other methods of countering stealthy planes. ‘As the PLAAF gains access to reduced-signature systems, it will allow the development of tactics, training, and procedures for use against low-observable threat systems,’ Ulman posited.
In that case, it hardly matters what role the J-20 actually performs if and when it enters full-scale military service. All that matters is that it helps the PLAAF understand stealth technology, so Beijing can develop systems specifically tailored to defeat it. If the J-20 also performs as a useful interceptor in its own right, helping defend against incoming US bombers during some hypothetical shooting war—well, that’s just a nice bonus....<div class='locked'><em>瀏覽完整內容，請先 <a href='member.php?mod=register'>註冊</a> 或 <a href='javascript:;' onclick="lsSubmit()">登入會員</a></em></div><br><br><br><br><br><div></div>