you know what’s hillarious? Chinese weapons were unproven because they were never used in real world combat. It’s because China has not fought or invaded a country. NATO weapons are “proven” in real world combat, because they are always invading weaker countries. Now you have the overhyped and overpriced French Rafale fighter jet, top of the line in European technology. It’s big selling point is that it was proven in real world combat. You know what that real world combat is? Bombing Libya, a country with a weak airforce and little if any air defence!
In it’s very first Air to Air combat against a modern jet, it was defeated 3-0 by China’s J-10C fighter jet. Europe’s top of the line 4.5 gen fighter jet, was defeated by China’s mid teir fighter jet (China has better jets including 5th and already testing their 6th gen). This is a Sputnik/Deepseek moment for Chinese military hardware.
The Rafale and Eurofighter typhoon are considered NATO’s top 4.5 gen jets, only behind 5th gen F-35 and F-22. India pulled out of Russia’s Su-57 and went with the "proven’ Rafale fighter, spending a whopping $200+ million USD on each Rafale, absolutely got ripped off by France! Big corruption into the Rafale purchase no doubt. $200+ million French jets got taken out by $40 million Chinese jet lol.
Just before the flareup with Pakistan, India agreed to purchase 20 more Rafale jets for their Navy. Wonder if it’ll be canceled lol
Before Ukraine, NATO hardware hasn’t been tested against a peer adversary since the Iran-Iraq war at least. Since then it’s hard to argue any NATO tech is more “battle tested” than any firing range trials
This is a Sputnik/Deepseek moment for Chinese military hardware.
it so obviously is that they had to address this by quoting some shithead from MIT to say it isn’t
it’s wrong to call the J-10C’s potential success a “DeepSeek moment” for China’s military, said Fravel, referring to the artificial intelligence chat bot that surprised the world earlier this year, noting that the jet’s design wasn’t new.
you know what’s hillarious? Chinese weapons were unproven because they were never used in real world combat. It’s because China has not fought or invaded a country. NATO weapons are “proven” in real world combat, because they are always invading weaker countries. Now you have the overhyped and overpriced French Rafale fighter jet, top of the line in European technology. It’s big selling point is that it was proven in real world combat. You know what that real world combat is? Bombing Libya, a country with a weak airforce and little if any air defence!
In it’s very first Air to Air combat against a modern jet, it was defeated 3-0 by China’s J-10C fighter jet. Europe’s top of the line 4.5 gen fighter jet, was defeated by China’s mid teir fighter jet (China has better jets including 5th and already testing their 6th gen). This is a Sputnik/Deepseek moment for Chinese military hardware.
The Rafale and Eurofighter typhoon are considered NATO’s top 4.5 gen jets, only behind 5th gen F-35 and F-22. India pulled out of Russia’s Su-57 and went with the "proven’ Rafale fighter, spending a whopping $200+ million USD on each Rafale, absolutely got ripped off by France! Big corruption into the Rafale purchase no doubt. $200+ million French jets got taken out by $40 million Chinese jet lol.
Just before the flareup with Pakistan, India agreed to purchase 20 more Rafale jets for their Navy. Wonder if it’ll be canceled lol
Before Ukraine, NATO hardware hasn’t been tested against a peer adversary since the Iran-Iraq war at least. Since then it’s hard to argue any NATO tech is more “battle tested” than any firing range trials
F-35s are already unwanted. This whole article is projection. Like there’s a whole ass Wikipedia article on F-35 accidents and failures lmao
we know crackers can’t think in more than 2 layers of convolution
Is there any truth to the claim that the Rafale that India deployed were an older version/generation than the current 4.5gen Rafale?
it so obviously is that they had to address this by quoting some shithead from MIT to say it isn’t