By far not.. currently there are five J-20A airframes from the zero series being flown off the Flight Test & Training AFB at Dingxin.. which means that PLAAF were finally allowed to get their hands on the bird in 2016.. until then the only testers were from its maker, Chengdu..

both PAK-FA and J-20 are years away from reaching FOC.. to my knowledge, both are still being flight tested, not even weapon tested.. for me, operational means that when you violate Chinese airspace, you’ll get scrambled by J-20As.. won’t happen until 2024-25, methinks..

You know better than the Chinese huh?

As for FOC… who cares. If it is operational it counts. That goes for the F-35 and the J-20. Both will certainly get better with time.

Thankfully, LM sims show the F-35 will achieve a very favorable ratio against the J-20. 🙂

You guys still going on about the NEZ ?

Mostly I was just trying to confirm that our troll had returned once again. As before he seeks to substitute persistence for having an argument. He thinks if he just keeps re-posting the same thing long after everyone else has given up on trying to correct him that he somehow “wins.”

No it said, “a missile needs to have a minimum of three times the manoeuvre energy of its target.” Learn to read.

:highly_amused:

Grp Capt Graeme Smith, British Aerospace’s military air advisor, says that”-current medium-range weapons suffer from a lack of overall total energy in that they do not have the manoeuvrability required to achieve a kill against a highly agile opponent: that is, they have a relatively small no-escape zone“.

…

Some sources indicate that RAF simulations of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker and Flanker Plus derivatives and associated missiles versus the EF2000 with the AIM-120B revealed an unacceptably poor exchange ratio. The focus fell on providing the EF2000 with a missile, which has a far greater no-escape volume at BVR ranges.

…

As well as providing increased absolute range, the rocket-booster/ramjet-sustainer design, more importantly, offers an increased no-escape zone. A ramjet-sustainer AAM potentially triples the volume of space within which the probability of a kill remains high.

It is clear as day that MBDA are cautious with the wording here.. no one can expect extremely precise statements like “it has exactly 2.89-times NEZ of an AIM-120C-5 under these and these conditions”, instead they are intelligent enough to resort to rather vague claims which can’t be debunked or disproven.. if they say Meteor has 3-6-times the NEZ of current MRAAMs, then they seem to be very confident in the capabilities of their missile and there are probably multiple conditions under which this statement is also valid against the C-5.. that’s what matters.. end of story

So you agree when we see statements like… this:

Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=0;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F3cb4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70%2F0001%22;rec=0

That it is safe to assume they are talking about the PAK FA and J-20, because those are supposed to be operable by 2020, right? It is clear LM are being cautious with their wording but obviously if they make a statement like this it must mean in most scenarios the F-35 gets at least a 6:1 exchange ratio when out-numbered 2:1 by PAK FAs and J-20s.

Or maybe you will suddenly remember your skeptical side…

:eagerness:

What MBDA is giving is clearly a general range… nobody disputes that the Meteor excels in this metric, but that isn’t to say it triples the AIM-120C5 specifically. (especially when we have a variety of sources saying that the AIM-120B is the basis used for that comparison)

I have provided ample sources given that you haven’t provided a single one. Here is an idea, go find a source that actually says triple the NEZ of the AIM-120C5 and we can talk.

The second article was certainly referring to NEZ, only called it “no escape volume” … and the AIM-120B was certainly not long gone by the point we are discussing. The UK didn’t get their AIM-120Cs until ~2006 if I remember correctly.

…but hey, since we are still playing, here is yet another source that proves it is the AIM-120B:

Meteor has several key performance parameters.
These include a BVR range of well over 100 km, speed
in the M2.5 to M4 bracket, an engagement altitude
from sea level to 25,000 m, all-aspect shoot-up/down
capability, ramjet propulsion with an agile ‘end game’
kill phase and datalink update capability in ight.
Another consideration for the UK is the need for the
Meteor to complement the performance parameters
of the ASRAAM short-range missile already selected
for the Typhoon. This, in eect, signies a minimum
engagement range around the 20 km mark the
outer limit of ASRAAM eectiveness. Ranked against
US AIM-120 AMRAAM, the Meteor is claimed to have
between three and six times the kinematic range
and three times the no-escape zone size. Specically,
MBDA says that the Meteor has three times the range
of an AIM-120B in a head-on engagement and ve
times the range in a tail chase.

http://www.newsdeskmedia.com/Images/Upload/PDFs/raf-air-power.pdf

Added note: “An official publication of the Royal Air Force” 🙂

So yeah, it is the AIM-120B, per a variety of credible/official sources dating from the late 1990s all the way up to 2013. You meanwhile haven’t provided a single actual source supporting your argument.

Note also, if indeed Meteor has a minimum engagement range of 20km that is worse than I thought. (though again, its ramjet propulsion system is unique)