巴基斯坦飞行员驾驶中国J10战机以9-0完胜欧洲台风战机。这是飞行员的实力还是装备的优势？
正文翻译
J-10 的机动性是否胜过了台风？
绝对如此。
绝对如此。
评论翻译
Joe
The J-10 like the Eurofighter is an unstable canard delta. Both have high instantaneous turn rates, probably on the order between 29–31 degrees per second. On the sustained turn rate side of the equation, the Eurofighter should be better here. And that is because of the Typhoon’s very high thrust to weight ratio. And because of that superior thrust to weight ratio, the Typhoon would also have better acceleration, energy addition, and climb rates. The J-10, I believe, has superior nose authority; perhaps a few more degrees on the AOA limiter than Typhoon. Most importantly this performance comparison is dependent on both jets being near equally configured.
J-10 与欧洲战斗机（Eurofighter）一样，都是不稳定的鸭式三角翼战机。两者都具有很高的瞬时转弯率，大约在每秒 29–31 度左右。在持续转弯率方面，欧洲之鹰应当更具优势。这是因为台风战机具有极高的推重比。也正因为优越的推重比，台风在加速、能量增益和爬升率方面都更胜一筹。我认为 J-10 在机头控制上更为敏捷；其迎角限位器可能比台风多几个度。最重要的是，这一性能对比是建立在两者配置几乎相同的前提下。
If the Pakistani 9–0 figure is true, then perhaps the Pakistan AF pilots are better trained. Also, we do not know the set-ups. Most importantly (as reference above) if the jets fought each other while NOT being equally configured than that is most likely the reason for the rout.
如果巴方声称的 9 比 0 战绩属实，那或许是巴基斯坦空军飞行员训练更为精良。但我们并不清楚双方的具体作战配置。最关键的是——正如上文所述——如果两机并非在等同配置下交战，那么这很可能就是导致溃败的主要原因。
Here is a photo supposedly from the exercise:
以下是一张据称来自此次演习的照片：
If the Pakistan AF removed the external fuel tanks from their J-10’s, while the Qatari AF Typhoons did not -then that is most likely the reason why they prevailed. It would simply be that the jets did not fight each other in near equal configurations. This can happen from time to time. For example, I have seen F-16 Block 50s fight Typhoons and get a near guns solution on the Typhoon because the Viper did not have external fuel tanks on while the Eurofighter did. Perhaps in the future more information about this Pakistani/Qatari aerial exercise will be made available.
如果巴基斯坦空军在 J-10 上拆除了外挂油箱，而卡塔尔空军的台风依旧挂载油箱——那很可能就是巴方胜出的原因。简而言之，战机并非以近乎相同的配置交战。这种情况时有发生。例如，我曾见过 F-16 Block 50 与台风对抗时，由于“毒刺”未挂载油箱而台风仍挂载，因此 F-16 在近距格斗中获得了优势解法。也许未来，会有更多关于这次巴／卡空中演习的详细信息披露。
Here is a video of F-16 Block 50 without external fuel tanks on vs a Eurofighter Typhoon with them on.
以下是一段视频，展示了未挂载外挂油箱的 F-16 Block 50 对抗挂载油箱的欧洲之鹰台风。
The F-16, which when both jets have no tanks on -has a lower sustained turn rate, lower acceleration, lower climb rate, higher wing loading, basically has the Typhoon in its HUD.
即便双方都未挂载油箱，F-16 的持续转弯率、加速和爬升率仍低于台风，机翼载荷更高，总体性能落后于台风。
Take note of the picture below, the Typhoon has 2 external fuel tanks on and the Viper doesn’t. This unequal ordinance load skews the results of this DACT in favor of the F-16.
请留意下图：台风挂载了两枚外挂油箱，而“毒刺”并未挂载。这种不对等的武装/载荷状态，导致实战空战训练结果偏向 F-16。
Ross Langerak
Military exercises are rarely conducted with both sides enjoying their full capabilities. Military leaders want to know what happens when things go wrong. What happens when a carrier group loses all communication? What happens when stealth fighters lose their stealth advantage.
军事演习很少会让双方都发挥出全部实力。军方领导者想知道当情况出现意外时会怎样——航母战斗群完全失去通信时该怎么办？隐形战机失去隐身优势时又会如何？
In the scenario in question, there was likely some restriction imposed upon the Eurofighter Typhoon. Perhaps a particular weapon was not available. Perhaps the J10 was armed with a hypothetical missile. War planners like to know such things so they can prepare for them.
在此次演习场景中，很可能对欧洲之鹰台风施加了一些限制。也许某种特定武器无法使用，也许 J-10 装备了一种假想导弹。作战计划者正是通过了解这些假设，来为可能发生的各种情况做好准备。
Rodra Hascaryo
When it comes to this kind of stuff, it’s more down to the pilot than the machine, as long as the aircraft they’re flying are about equal; The J-10 and the Eurofighter represent the peak of non-stealthy fighter airplane and a fight between them can go either way. A good pilot in an Su-27 can shoot down a rookie in F-15. In a guns-only dogfight (where a lot of the electronics like radar don’t matter as much), I bet they could even shoot down an F-35. I’m willing to bet the J-10 vs Eurofighter was a series of gun dogfights, where the rules are a little different.
对这类演习而言，胜负更多取决于飞行员而非飞机本身，只要机型性能相近；J-10 和欧洲之鹰都代表了非隐形战机的巅峰，交手结果未可知。一名经验丰富的苏-27 飞行员也能击落菜鸟 F-15。在纯枪炮狗斗中（此时雷达等电子系统作用减弱），我甚至敢打赌他们能击落 F-35。我认为 J-10 和欧洲之鹰的对抗，很可能就是一连串的纯枪炮格斗，规则有所不同。
Top Gun instructors used A-4 Skyhawk, most notable for NOT being a fighter jet (the clue is in the name) to train pilots to dogfight. The A-4 was a very nimble airplane and could give the much newer F-14 a hard time in the hands of experienced pilots.
《壮志凌云》（Top Gun）教官曾用 A-4 天鹰式来训练飞行员进行格斗，最显著的一点是它并非战斗机（名字就说明了一切）。A-4 机动性极佳，经验丰富的飞行员完全能用它给更新的 F-14 造成麻烦。
Similarly, I remember reading an answer by David Tussey how he once shot down an F-15 while flying (if I remember correctly) an A-7. For reference, this is what the A-7 looks like (the F-8 it was based upon first flew in 1957):
同样，我记得大卫·塔西曾回答过，他曾在驾驶（如果没记错的话）A-7 时击落过一架 F-15。供参考，这就是 A-7 的外观（其所基于的 F-8 首飞于 1957 年）：
When it comes to guns-only dogfight, it’s a combination of skill and luck and that allows even older airplanes to punch above their weight. Of course, such a dogfight is pretty unrealistic today. Ukraine is 100% missile fight as far as I can tell; guns were only used to down drones deep inside friendly lines (and even then, not always).
谈到纯机炮狗斗，就要看技术和运气，这也让一些老式飞机有机会“超常发挥”。当然，如今这类格斗已很不现实。据我所知，乌克兰战场上几乎全是导弹交锋；枪炮仅偶尔用于在友军纵深击落无人机（且并不常见）。
The problem with a missile fight is that it’s not easily simulated in a practice fight because you can’t actually fire the missiles and find out if it’s as accurate and reliable as advertised. In Vietnam, it wasn’t. At most, you can lock on to the target but that’s about it.
导弹交锋的难点在于无法在演习中真实发射导弹，难以验证其精度与可靠性。越南战争时的实战也印证了这一点——最多只能对目标进行锁定，威力如何仍未可知。
Basically, a mock dogfight isn’t really representative of the actual power of the airplane.
总之，模拟格斗并不能真正反映战机的实战作战力。
Kanthaswamy Balasubramaniam
It was a Zizal II Exercise between Qataris and Pakistanis
这是一场卡塔尔与巴基斯坦之间的“Zizal II”演习。
The Qataris were flying the Typhoons and the Pakistanis were flying the J-10s with modified Chinese Engines
卡塔尔方面驾驶台风战机，巴基斯坦方面则驾驶装配改良中国发动机的 J-10。
Did the J-10 outfly the Typhoon?
J-10 的机动性是否胜过了台风？
Absolutely
绝对如此。
Its why there is no news whatsoever about it on the Western Media
这也解释了为何西方媒体对此毫无报道。
If it had been the other way round and if the Typhoons had even beaten the J-10s 5–4 in their dogfight round, the Western Media would have gone ballistic about the “China made J-10s” and their decisive defeat
如果情况反过来，就算台风以 5 比 4 击败 J-10，西方媒体也会对“中国制造的 J-10”痛加嘲讽，并大肆渲染其溃败。
The fact that the Western Media which reported a Bogus Nuclear Submarine story based on a random tweet, did not immediately rip the 9–0 claim of the J-10 to shreds is proof that the incident most likely happened
而西方媒体曾仅凭一条随意推文就爆料假“核潜艇”新闻，却并未立即撕破 J-10 9 比 0 的说法，这反而证明事件极有可能真实发生。
Whenever Western Media say UNVERIFIED and China together - It means Its true and we don't wanna talk about it
每当西方媒体把“未经证实”（UNVERIFIED）和“中国”放一起——那几乎说明事情是真的，只是不愿多谈。
So i absolutely believe the above
因此，我坚信上述说法。
If it had not happened - the Western Media would have ripped it to shreds
如果根本没发生，西方媒体早就撕得粉碎。
Was it due to Air Superiority or Craft Superiority?
这究竟是因为制空权还是飞机性能更优？
It has to be Aircraft Mobility Superiority
必然是飞机机动性占优。
You can't have a 9–0 result unless all Qatari Pilots are randomly bad
除非所有卡塔尔飞行员都随机水平极差，否则不可能出现 9 比 0 的结果。
6–3, 5–4 would be far more likely
6 比 3、5 比 4 这种比分才更合理。
9–0 indicates that the conditions were such that the Typhoon was clearly at a disadvantage
9 比 0 说明当时的条件让台风明显处于劣势。
Unfortunately these details are confidential between the Two Air Forces of Qatar and Pakistan
可惜这些细节是卡塔尔与巴基斯坦两国空军的机密。
Does it mean the J-10 is superior in all aspects to the Typhoon?
这是否意味着 J-10 在各方面都胜过台风？
Absolutely Not
绝对不是。
Dogfights are WWI and WWII era ways to judge a craft and it's efficiency
格斗空战是第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战时期评估战机性能的方式。
Dogfights are a way to examine how easy it is to maneuver around in the aircraft and how the aircraft moves in general
格斗空战用于检验战机的机动灵活性及整体运动特性。
The Typhoon is geared for longer range operations whereas the J-10 is primarily aimed for shorter range operations
台风更适合执行远程作战任务，而 J-10 主要面向近程作战。
The point though is that Non Western made Aircraft aren't the Junk people always claim to be
但重点在于，非西方制造的战机并非人们常说的“垃圾”。
The J-10s outflying the Typhoon is something significant
J-10 能在机动性上胜过台风具有重要意义。
Many people give up even before starting saying “Look. We can't defeat the West. They are too advanced. May as well surrender”
很多人在一开始就先认输，说“你看，我们打不过西方。他们太先进了，不如直接投降”。
These incidents bolster some hope that Western Equipment may be equalled and even beaten and that Westerners despite their tremendous advantages are NOT ALIENS
这些事件带来了一些希望：西方装备或许能被匹敌甚至超越，而拥有强大优势的西方人也并非“外星人”。
Sadly while Russians and Chinese are developing this attitude through their Gen Z:- My Countrymen still think like Servants Let's hope this changes soon
遗憾的是，尽管俄罗斯人和中国人通过“Z 世代”正在形成这种自信态度， 我的同胞却仍以仆人心态自居。 但愿此状况能尽快改变。
Dan T. There are unverified claims from Chinese milbloggers that J-10s “won” 9 drills against Qatari Typhoons. That is the entirety of what we know. We don't know the circumstances of the drills, beyond some were beyond visual range and some were dogfights. We don't know who was flying the aircraft or what their relative experience was. We don't know what Tranche of Typhoons they were. Hell, we don't even know for sure if the J-10s truly did what has been claimed. There is not enough information to draw any conclusions.
中国军事博主声称 J-10 在与卡塔尔台风的演习中“赢得”了 9 场对抗。这就是我们所知的全部。我们并不了解演习的具体情况，除了部分交战发生在航迹外、部分是格斗空战。我们也不知道飞行员是谁，经验如何；不知道台风属于哪个批次；甚至无法确认 J-10 是否真的完成了这些所谓的击败。信息不足，无法得出结论。
The only thing I know for sure is that Qatar is a major non-NATO ally of the US, and they train extensively for interoperability with US and NATO forces. The US and NATO train differently from most other militaries. Countries like China, Pakistan, Russia, etc. set up their military exercises so that their forces always “win”. The US and NATO do not. They try to make their training as difficult as possible. They want their forces to lose, because you learn much more from losing in training than you do from winning. Plus, the more difficult they make training, the more successful actual operations will be, since actual ops will be much easier in comparison. So the US and NATO will deliberately handicap themselves in training. This is where stories of the F-22 being “defeated” by some jet that has no business beating it come from. They handicapped the F-22 to make the training as difficult as possible.
我唯一确信的是：卡塔尔是美国的主要非北约盟友，并且与美军及北约部队进行广泛的联合作战训练。美军与北约的训练方式与其他大多数国家不同。中国、巴基斯坦、俄罗斯等国往往设置演习，使己方“必胜”；而美军与北约则相反。他们尽量让训练难度最大化，甚至希望自己“输掉”训练，因为从失败中学到的比胜利更多。而且训练越难，实战就越相对容易。因此，美军和北约会在演习中故意给自己设限。这也就是为何会出现“F-22 被某些本不应击败它的战机打败”的传闻——他们就是故意给 F-22 设了难度。
So, if Qatar has been training for interoperability with US forces, then they may very well have adopted this same training style. So if the unverified claims regarding this training exercise are accurate, it could easily be just be a result of two entirely different training styles meeting. Pakistan gave their forces some advantages so they’d “win” and Qatar deliberately handicapped themselves so they would “lose”. If this is the case, then drawing any conclusions about the aircraft involved is completely impossible.
因此，如果卡塔尔在与美军的联训中采用了这一训练风格，那么若上述未经证实的演习说法属实，也可能仅仅是两种完全不同训练理念的碰撞。巴方给己方设置了一些优势，使之“必胜”，而卡方则有意放低要求以“输掉”演习。若真如此，就无法就参演飞机性能得出任何结论。
J-10 与欧洲战斗机（Eurofighter）一样，都是不稳定的鸭式三角翼战机。两者都具有很高的瞬时转弯率，大约在每秒 29–31 度左右。在持续转弯率方面，欧洲之鹰应当更具优势。这是因为台风战机具有极高的推重比。也正因为优越的推重比，台风在加速、能量增益和爬升率方面都更胜一筹。我认为 J-10 在机头控制上更为敏捷；其迎角限位器可能比台风多几个度。最重要的是，这一性能对比是建立在两者配置几乎相同的前提下。
If the Pakistani 9–0 figure is true, then perhaps the Pakistan AF pilots are better trained. Also, we do not know the set-ups. Most importantly (as reference above) if the jets fought each other while NOT being equally configured than that is most likely the reason for the rout.
如果巴方声称的 9 比 0 战绩属实，那或许是巴基斯坦空军飞行员训练更为精良。但我们并不清楚双方的具体作战配置。最关键的是——正如上文所述——如果两机并非在等同配置下交战，那么这很可能就是导致溃败的主要原因。
Here is a photo supposedly from the exercise:
以下是一张据称来自此次演习的照片：
If the Pakistan AF removed the external fuel tanks from their J-10’s, while the Qatari AF Typhoons did not -then that is most likely the reason why they prevailed. It would simply be that the jets did not fight each other in near equal configurations. This can happen from time to time. For example, I have seen F-16 Block 50s fight Typhoons and get a near guns solution on the Typhoon because the Viper did not have external fuel tanks on while the Eurofighter did. Perhaps in the future more information about this Pakistani/Qatari aerial exercise will be made available.
如果巴基斯坦空军在 J-10 上拆除了外挂油箱，而卡塔尔空军的台风依旧挂载油箱——那很可能就是巴方胜出的原因。简而言之，战机并非以近乎相同的配置交战。这种情况时有发生。例如，我曾见过 F-16 Block 50 与台风对抗时，由于“毒刺”未挂载油箱而台风仍挂载，因此 F-16 在近距格斗中获得了优势解法。也许未来，会有更多关于这次巴／卡空中演习的详细信息披露。
Here is a video of F-16 Block 50 without external fuel tanks on vs a Eurofighter Typhoon with them on.
以下是一段视频，展示了未挂载外挂油箱的 F-16 Block 50 对抗挂载油箱的欧洲之鹰台风。
The F-16, which when both jets have no tanks on -has a lower sustained turn rate, lower acceleration, lower climb rate, higher wing loading, basically has the Typhoon in its HUD.
即便双方都未挂载油箱，F-16 的持续转弯率、加速和爬升率仍低于台风，机翼载荷更高，总体性能落后于台风。
Take note of the picture below, the Typhoon has 2 external fuel tanks on and the Viper doesn’t. This unequal ordinance load skews the results of this DACT in favor of the F-16.
请留意下图：台风挂载了两枚外挂油箱，而“毒刺”并未挂载。这种不对等的武装/载荷状态，导致实战空战训练结果偏向 F-16。
Ross Langerak
Military exercises are rarely conducted with both sides enjoying their full capabilities. Military leaders want to know what happens when things go wrong. What happens when a carrier group loses all communication? What happens when stealth fighters lose their stealth advantage.
军事演习很少会让双方都发挥出全部实力。军方领导者想知道当情况出现意外时会怎样——航母战斗群完全失去通信时该怎么办？隐形战机失去隐身优势时又会如何？
In the scenario in question, there was likely some restriction imposed upon the Eurofighter Typhoon. Perhaps a particular weapon was not available. Perhaps the J10 was armed with a hypothetical missile. War planners like to know such things so they can prepare for them.
在此次演习场景中，很可能对欧洲之鹰台风施加了一些限制。也许某种特定武器无法使用，也许 J-10 装备了一种假想导弹。作战计划者正是通过了解这些假设，来为可能发生的各种情况做好准备。
Rodra Hascaryo
When it comes to this kind of stuff, it’s more down to the pilot than the machine, as long as the aircraft they’re flying are about equal; The J-10 and the Eurofighter represent the peak of non-stealthy fighter airplane and a fight between them can go either way. A good pilot in an Su-27 can shoot down a rookie in F-15. In a guns-only dogfight (where a lot of the electronics like radar don’t matter as much), I bet they could even shoot down an F-35. I’m willing to bet the J-10 vs Eurofighter was a series of gun dogfights, where the rules are a little different.
对这类演习而言，胜负更多取决于飞行员而非飞机本身，只要机型性能相近；J-10 和欧洲之鹰都代表了非隐形战机的巅峰，交手结果未可知。一名经验丰富的苏-27 飞行员也能击落菜鸟 F-15。在纯枪炮狗斗中（此时雷达等电子系统作用减弱），我甚至敢打赌他们能击落 F-35。我认为 J-10 和欧洲之鹰的对抗，很可能就是一连串的纯枪炮格斗，规则有所不同。
Top Gun instructors used A-4 Skyhawk, most notable for NOT being a fighter jet (the clue is in the name) to train pilots to dogfight. The A-4 was a very nimble airplane and could give the much newer F-14 a hard time in the hands of experienced pilots.
《壮志凌云》（Top Gun）教官曾用 A-4 天鹰式来训练飞行员进行格斗，最显著的一点是它并非战斗机（名字就说明了一切）。A-4 机动性极佳，经验丰富的飞行员完全能用它给更新的 F-14 造成麻烦。
Similarly, I remember reading an answer by David Tussey how he once shot down an F-15 while flying (if I remember correctly) an A-7. For reference, this is what the A-7 looks like (the F-8 it was based upon first flew in 1957):
同样，我记得大卫·塔西曾回答过，他曾在驾驶（如果没记错的话）A-7 时击落过一架 F-15。供参考，这就是 A-7 的外观（其所基于的 F-8 首飞于 1957 年）：
When it comes to guns-only dogfight, it’s a combination of skill and luck and that allows even older airplanes to punch above their weight. Of course, such a dogfight is pretty unrealistic today. Ukraine is 100% missile fight as far as I can tell; guns were only used to down drones deep inside friendly lines (and even then, not always).
谈到纯机炮狗斗，就要看技术和运气，这也让一些老式飞机有机会“超常发挥”。当然，如今这类格斗已很不现实。据我所知，乌克兰战场上几乎全是导弹交锋；枪炮仅偶尔用于在友军纵深击落无人机（且并不常见）。
The problem with a missile fight is that it’s not easily simulated in a practice fight because you can’t actually fire the missiles and find out if it’s as accurate and reliable as advertised. In Vietnam, it wasn’t. At most, you can lock on to the target but that’s about it.
导弹交锋的难点在于无法在演习中真实发射导弹，难以验证其精度与可靠性。越南战争时的实战也印证了这一点——最多只能对目标进行锁定，威力如何仍未可知。
Basically, a mock dogfight isn’t really representative of the actual power of the airplane.
总之，模拟格斗并不能真正反映战机的实战作战力。
Kanthaswamy Balasubramaniam
It was a Zizal II Exercise between Qataris and Pakistanis
这是一场卡塔尔与巴基斯坦之间的“Zizal II”演习。
The Qataris were flying the Typhoons and the Pakistanis were flying the J-10s with modified Chinese Engines
卡塔尔方面驾驶台风战机，巴基斯坦方面则驾驶装配改良中国发动机的 J-10。
Did the J-10 outfly the Typhoon?
J-10 的机动性是否胜过了台风？
Absolutely
绝对如此。
Its why there is no news whatsoever about it on the Western Media
这也解释了为何西方媒体对此毫无报道。
If it had been the other way round and if the Typhoons had even beaten the J-10s 5–4 in their dogfight round, the Western Media would have gone ballistic about the “China made J-10s” and their decisive defeat
如果情况反过来，就算台风以 5 比 4 击败 J-10，西方媒体也会对“中国制造的 J-10”痛加嘲讽，并大肆渲染其溃败。
The fact that the Western Media which reported a Bogus Nuclear Submarine story based on a random tweet, did not immediately rip the 9–0 claim of the J-10 to shreds is proof that the incident most likely happened
而西方媒体曾仅凭一条随意推文就爆料假“核潜艇”新闻，却并未立即撕破 J-10 9 比 0 的说法，这反而证明事件极有可能真实发生。
Whenever Western Media say UNVERIFIED and China together - It means Its true and we don't wanna talk about it
每当西方媒体把“未经证实”（UNVERIFIED）和“中国”放一起——那几乎说明事情是真的，只是不愿多谈。
So i absolutely believe the above
因此，我坚信上述说法。
If it had not happened - the Western Media would have ripped it to shreds
如果根本没发生，西方媒体早就撕得粉碎。
Was it due to Air Superiority or Craft Superiority?
这究竟是因为制空权还是飞机性能更优？
It has to be Aircraft Mobility Superiority
必然是飞机机动性占优。
You can't have a 9–0 result unless all Qatari Pilots are randomly bad
除非所有卡塔尔飞行员都随机水平极差，否则不可能出现 9 比 0 的结果。
6–3, 5–4 would be far more likely
6 比 3、5 比 4 这种比分才更合理。
9–0 indicates that the conditions were such that the Typhoon was clearly at a disadvantage
9 比 0 说明当时的条件让台风明显处于劣势。
Unfortunately these details are confidential between the Two Air Forces of Qatar and Pakistan
可惜这些细节是卡塔尔与巴基斯坦两国空军的机密。
Does it mean the J-10 is superior in all aspects to the Typhoon?
这是否意味着 J-10 在各方面都胜过台风？
Absolutely Not
绝对不是。
Dogfights are WWI and WWII era ways to judge a craft and it's efficiency
格斗空战是第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战时期评估战机性能的方式。
Dogfights are a way to examine how easy it is to maneuver around in the aircraft and how the aircraft moves in general
格斗空战用于检验战机的机动灵活性及整体运动特性。
The Typhoon is geared for longer range operations whereas the J-10 is primarily aimed for shorter range operations
台风更适合执行远程作战任务，而 J-10 主要面向近程作战。
The point though is that Non Western made Aircraft aren't the Junk people always claim to be
但重点在于，非西方制造的战机并非人们常说的“垃圾”。
The J-10s outflying the Typhoon is something significant
J-10 能在机动性上胜过台风具有重要意义。
Many people give up even before starting saying “Look. We can't defeat the West. They are too advanced. May as well surrender”
很多人在一开始就先认输，说“你看，我们打不过西方。他们太先进了，不如直接投降”。
These incidents bolster some hope that Western Equipment may be equalled and even beaten and that Westerners despite their tremendous advantages are NOT ALIENS
这些事件带来了一些希望：西方装备或许能被匹敌甚至超越，而拥有强大优势的西方人也并非“外星人”。
Sadly while Russians and Chinese are developing this attitude through their Gen Z:- My Countrymen still think like Servants Let's hope this changes soon
遗憾的是，尽管俄罗斯人和中国人通过“Z 世代”正在形成这种自信态度， 我的同胞却仍以仆人心态自居。 但愿此状况能尽快改变。
Dan T. There are unverified claims from Chinese milbloggers that J-10s “won” 9 drills against Qatari Typhoons. That is the entirety of what we know. We don't know the circumstances of the drills, beyond some were beyond visual range and some were dogfights. We don't know who was flying the aircraft or what their relative experience was. We don't know what Tranche of Typhoons they were. Hell, we don't even know for sure if the J-10s truly did what has been claimed. There is not enough information to draw any conclusions.
中国军事博主声称 J-10 在与卡塔尔台风的演习中“赢得”了 9 场对抗。这就是我们所知的全部。我们并不了解演习的具体情况，除了部分交战发生在航迹外、部分是格斗空战。我们也不知道飞行员是谁，经验如何；不知道台风属于哪个批次；甚至无法确认 J-10 是否真的完成了这些所谓的击败。信息不足，无法得出结论。
The only thing I know for sure is that Qatar is a major non-NATO ally of the US, and they train extensively for interoperability with US and NATO forces. The US and NATO train differently from most other militaries. Countries like China, Pakistan, Russia, etc. set up their military exercises so that their forces always “win”. The US and NATO do not. They try to make their training as difficult as possible. They want their forces to lose, because you learn much more from losing in training than you do from winning. Plus, the more difficult they make training, the more successful actual operations will be, since actual ops will be much easier in comparison. So the US and NATO will deliberately handicap themselves in training. This is where stories of the F-22 being “defeated” by some jet that has no business beating it come from. They handicapped the F-22 to make the training as difficult as possible.
我唯一确信的是：卡塔尔是美国的主要非北约盟友，并且与美军及北约部队进行广泛的联合作战训练。美军与北约的训练方式与其他大多数国家不同。中国、巴基斯坦、俄罗斯等国往往设置演习，使己方“必胜”；而美军与北约则相反。他们尽量让训练难度最大化，甚至希望自己“输掉”训练，因为从失败中学到的比胜利更多。而且训练越难，实战就越相对容易。因此，美军和北约会在演习中故意给自己设限。这也就是为何会出现“F-22 被某些本不应击败它的战机打败”的传闻——他们就是故意给 F-22 设了难度。
So, if Qatar has been training for interoperability with US forces, then they may very well have adopted this same training style. So if the unverified claims regarding this training exercise are accurate, it could easily be just be a result of two entirely different training styles meeting. Pakistan gave their forces some advantages so they’d “win” and Qatar deliberately handicapped themselves so they would “lose”. If this is the case, then drawing any conclusions about the aircraft involved is completely impossible.
因此，如果卡塔尔在与美军的联训中采用了这一训练风格，那么若上述未经证实的演习说法属实，也可能仅仅是两种完全不同训练理念的碰撞。巴方给己方设置了一些优势，使之“必胜”，而卡方则有意放低要求以“输掉”演习。若真如此，就无法就参演飞机性能得出任何结论。
很赞 30
收藏