Two links…
DSP satellites detect the missile launch and hands over targeting information
and AEGIS shoots them down

and all this was done under real combat conditions against a real AShBM missile? yes?
and,
you understand that a 50s era scud is not the same thing as whatever they are developing right?

R-77, SD-10, S-300, HQ-9, AIM-7 etc etc, also did great on the range against aerial drones too.
I guess F-22/F-35 should just run and hide ?
….

why is it so hard for some people to take a holistic view of things, instead of going into these My missile will shoot your missile down because I said so bs.

There seems to be very little evidence that the Chinese ballistic missiles can hit a moving aircraft carrier. And, even if they could, the SM-2 and SM-3 are capable of intercepting those missiles.

and tell me, smart man, just how the **** do you know that?

I have to say, the Russians really blew their chances with the IL-76/78 deal. Assuming that plane under-construction is the Y-20 prototype it seems unlikely that China will have any more need for IL-76 platforms in the near future. Their current fleet can last another 5-6 years till the Y-20 is certified for induction.

Those Pictures are not Y-20.
those are old pictures of IL-76 rebuilt line that PLAAF runs.

now the real money shot would be a picture of AL-31F rebuilt line or the D-30 rebuilt/ WS-18 line.

It almost looks like an Airbus wing on a C-17.

FYI,
no body owns the rights on a ” tube-body-T-tail high winged transport aircraft with a transonic wing with high lift flap systems. “

As Deino says, the aircraft in the censored image is clearly a Tu-204 freighter with part of its outer wing obscured on purpose to give the impression of a refueling boom. I also suspect that it is the same former Air China Cargo example shown in Deino’s photo, the Chinese characters may or may not be real but even if they are that doesn’t mean it can’t be the same one, just repainted. Since the photoshopping is so heavy we have no way of confirming the location and given how deliberately misleading the retouching is, I’m not inclined to take any claims about it seriously.

I also agree that the Tu-204 is too light to be a good tanker (potentially about 20 tons of fuel offload at 1000nm) – although it is still better than the H-6U.

Airchina only got only a handful in service. and most is in storage.
CFTI may just get one as a test bed for their telescoping boom.
ultimately a variant of Y-20 would be the refueler boom carrier.

🙂
Here is a blurred out and intentionally censored image of a desk-top model of that particular SAC 601 4th (5th) Generation J-XX concept – as seen in the drawing posted by Blitzo et al. Rumor has it that SAC 601 offered two different concepts – the J-19 and the J-21 – the J-21 is the concept with the twin V-tail, like that on the American YF-23. The J-19 concept looked more like the YF-22 / F-22. But of course Chengdu CAC 611 won the competion for the contest with their J-20 – that we all now can see. But SAC 601 might still be pursuing their efforts with advanced combat aircraft – giving the Chinese PLAAF more options. Just like the open competion between the L-15 and the JL-9 series for an advanced supersonic trainer.

When I said “They” I didn’t mean 601’s stuff in particular.

there were some question wether to compete against all 4S of the 4S were wise; that it stood a better chance at technical program and tactical success if one sacrificed one of the “S”, the “super maneuverability”, make a fast, long range, stealthy missileer that is dependent on hit and run tactics. a YF-23 if you will.

611 demonstrated that it is possible, given the foreseenable propulsion and material science constraint, to achieve that extra S.

as far as I know the 2005 competition 601 offered one final concept not 2. and i believe it was a tri-plane.

Now I know some people are still interested in a long range fast fighter concept. may be that got revived? who knows.

A long range, high speed stealthy aircraft that can fly its way through enemy lines to destroy force multipliers to deny F-22s refuelling (can of worms here I know) and therefore win matches against the biggest challenge to PLAAF without fighting them — but maneuverable enough to duel with F-22 if they ever get into close range (it has doors for SRAAM for a reason) or need to fight their way out of sticky situations like the one above. And we all know how much PLAAF values close dogfighting skills.

But mostly it’s due to what we’ve been hearing over the years, the above paragraph is just my opinion.

looks like PLAAF appreciate the value of range in Pacific, unlike Some other airforces…

ok my last snicker at DoD for a while now.

Bill Sweetman has a point you know, F35 faces block obsolescent when facing oppositions like T-50 and J-20, and even F-22 is at best evenly matched. there is no dominance anymore thus put USAF in an uncomfortable position of using shear numbers, once again.

Time to restart a bid for 6th Gen fighter (GO Boeing!) and meanwhile dust off F-22 line and re hash a F/B-22 out of it. go for speed, range and firepower, forget maneuverability.