When twenty years after RFP F-22 went operative it was surely respondent to the project requirements, thanks to superb engineering skills of those involved in its development but external conditions were dramatically changed, stealth was not any more such a overwhelming factor into the airpower equation as quite efficient and cost effective countermeasures against it had been developed in the meantime.
F-22 will remain a superb fighter and will remain unmatched when it comes to the stealth level reached, but it was designed to a a very specific mission, a mission that is not possible anymore.

Well it’s not like Stealth and the F22 are not needed over Syria right now.

Well the entire “super maneuverability” phrase is a bit stupid and non specific anyway.

The point I was getting at is that the PLA do operate current and past aircraft designed with impressive maneuvering in mind, so I think we can safely infer the claim of “super maneuverability” for J-XX/J-20 to mean the J-20 is intended to be a maneuverable fighter aircraft of some kind relative to the fighters they currently operate. This is all in relation to lukos’ question about whether J-20 is an “interceptor” — which I can’t believe people around these parts are still confused about.

In other words, if PLA classify flankers and J-10 as “ultra-super maneuverable” or something, then maybe the question of just how relatively nimble J-20 is meant to be by “super maneuverable” is valid. But some good old fashioned logic and PLA watching experience tells us that almost certainly isn’t the case.

Please notice that I mixed the numbers speaking about J11 when I was thinking at the J10(B).

Regarding the J20, although a formidable opponents, there is only a few chances that it would be in the class of any of the other Super Maneuverable fighters ( Mig35, Su35, F18E/F or a F35).

A few year back, someone made here a good analysis of the J20. You might have a look back at it. But sound reasoning tells u sthat it won’t out-climb, out-turn, out Alpha or out-roll anyone. It’s another bread. Another use. And presented as a fighter certainly with the sole purpose to hide a more offensive role. EoA for me.

Whoever said J-11 doesn’t?

“Super maneuverability” was one of the prerequisites for the J-XX project that was stated by an air force general quite publicly on TV (and remains one of the most candid revelations ever made by the PLA officially on an under development project).
Obviously we don’t know what “super maneuverability” means for the PLAAF but given they operate nimble planes like flankers and J-10s, I think we can make a fair guess as to the kind of minimum bench mark it needs to reach to qualify for PLAAF calling it “super maneuverability” rather than say, just being maneuverable or whatever.

It remain to be seen if both those design can really pass 30+ deg of AoA. That is even doubtful IMOHO. Then that the J10 can superstall, why not. But is this Super Maneuverability (at least more than an old Draken)?.

On the other hand, the roll rate of the J10 will be something to keep an eye on.

Yes I had a though for the formidable Cheyenne my self (rigid rotor, propulsive propeller…)

But The revolution lies in reliability 😉 (contra-rotating, vibration free mast (see patent), light weight structure, crash-safety features etc…)… This is NOT a soup-up Cheyenne. And at an age where some in Eu want to make us belief that a re-tagged 1970’s civil helo can be the future a military transportation, once again, congrats to the teams of the venerable Sikorsky and thanks to them to dust-off the vision of rotary aviation.

Given all the bashing by some of the most vivid Fr supporter around here on the theme that the USAF shld better buy more A10 than invest in a single F35, I guess that a couple of hundreds A10s belongs to those fine theoretician in modern warfare. I can even see some name ready to be stenciled under the Canopy.

Seriously, those seeking an A37 replacement shld be interested by such an offer. It could even results in a two folds counter-insurgency package from the US aside of the more economical/sustainable Scorpion.

Indeed there is something in the vortices…

regarding the last pic:
To me they look like as amazing as sighting dolphins playing

I do agree that there is something fishy here. But sadly, we do not have or even can’t expect to have the minimum amount of information that would be needed to comment suitably the situation leading to that awful crash.

Since it looks quite similar to that of the recent loss of the ATR 72, with the convergence on time and occurrences, plus the fact that Airbus is an adept of extreme modular integration (the bean counter effect – see post above), it could well be something as trivial as a software command or ctrl valve in-adapted to the type of engine.

http://www.inews163.com/2015/04/05/foreign-media-speculation-that-chinese-military-aircraft-production-status-quo-j15-year-is-not-enough-of-a-group-122217.html

According to “Chinese Defense Review” magazine reported 4, 2014

One year old report.