Anonymous commented at 2013-06-21 01:00:27 » #1345226

"Fighter", my ass. That has about as much cred as applying it to the F-111 or F-117.

2 Points Flag

Anonymous commented at 2013-08-13 09:11:10 » #1379226

Calm down blinded patriot. It just an artwork. And amazing one by that. You don't know anything when this protype is being refined.

5 Points Flag

Anonymous commented at 2014-11-28 17:07:19 » #1643255

Study aeronautical design, anon2. You will see how this is not a fighter, no matter how much you stretch the term. It's a tactical bomber, plain and simple. And an obsolete one at that. There's nothing about this design that can be 'refined'.
You don't know anything about aviation, do you?

2 Points Flag

Anonymous commented at 2015-05-03 10:18:53 » #1733412

Nice try kid but real tactical bomber designs are never that small and never designed with a canard-delta layout. If you know anything about the aviation industry then you'd know this is a multi-role fifth-gen fighter. Keep your ignorance and bias to yourself.

1 Points Flag

Anonymous commented at 2015-06-25 00:57:34 » #1764473

@1733412 - And which tactical bombers deigns have you been studying?

Canard layouts have nothing to do with the mission profile (used from light planes up to the Tu-144, and most everything in between), meaning their presence does not equate to the design being a fighter, so that argument is irrelevant.

As for size, try looking up the A-4...one of the smallest carrier jets and purposely designed as a tactical nuclear bomber.

I know about the industry, I know about the history, and I sure as hell know the J-20 is not and never will be a fighter. That's not bias nor ignorance...that is fact.

1 Points Flag

Womenslayer69 commented at 2021-08-30 21:53:31 » #2644606

what the fuck are you retards talking about?

3 Points Flag