China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by shiv »

Christopher Sidor wrote: For example will J-31 have, like the F-35B, a V/STOL variant. J-31 may have a carrier variant, but this will imply that PLAAF is going to field a CATOBAR carrier. That will truly be a game changer. Our IAC-1 is not going to be a CATOBAR carrier.
Sidorji. Please stop and take a deep breath before posting.

How can this be a VTOL fighter without any evidence of thrust vectoring or separate vertical lift engines? It could be STOL but definitely not VTOL so no chance of V/STOL

Could you please educate me on what game gets changed by CATOBAR? The expression "game changer" is pure rhetoric and means nothing to me. I think we need to do a lot better than that on a forum that is supposed to have a lot of knowledgeable people.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Katare »

China have not even made a 4th Gen aircraft that is good enough for anyone but Chinese armed forces so tall claims of multiple 5th gen fighters coming online in a decade are nothing but laughable. Even the super-duper-power and greatest capitalisticly efficient Khan is struggling to complete F-35 with support from most of the industrialized world put together.

EU has given up on 5th gen, Russia supported by Indian cash could deliver something half decent next decade thanks to excellent technical and sub-systems base created by its highly successful 4++ gen flankers.

China would as usual put up a facade of similar capability for internal consumption. But chinese leaders are wise old farts, they will do what they have always done in last 60 years, i.e. create an asymmetric response to compensate for technical backwardness. In the past these included an standing army of 5 million, 10s of thousands armored vehicles and thousands of low end aircraft. Recently they have started to create great piles of all kind of missiles and large number of surface ships and subs etc. In some ways it makes sense and it is probably only real option available until they catch-up to the cutting edge of technology.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Surya »

on a cue after the first fuzzy pictures the next lot of clear pictures come along

what an open society :)
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by chaanakya »

subhamoy.das wrote:
I improvised the term to represent all entities controlled and funded by GOI via public tax payer money. You are focusing on the term while the issue is that the Chinese GOVT is far ahead of the GOI in execution and that is hurting the country big time. Last 10 years is a complete waste.
One can not even begin to state the case without knowing what one is talking about. Then there is a tendencies to use vague and general terminologies and phrases like "far ahead" , "complete waste" which means nothing.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by shiv »

J-31 Intakes appear to be in direct line with engine face - they are neither vertically nor horizontally displaced. Huge exhausts suggest big engines and good T/W ratio - but space for fuel and internal munitions does not look that hot.

Agile interceptor with some aspects of stealth. Nose is ready for AESA but AESA needs to be ready for nose, like a mard who is always ready for wimmens but wimmens not always ready for mard.

The comment about J-31 and J 20 being complementary suggests J-20 is a flying truck in terms of agility.
Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4416
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Mahendra »

Why cant we just open a gleat lepubric photoshop thlead and direct all trolls over there
ashi
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by ashi »

shiv wrote:
The comment about J-31 and J 20 being complementary suggests J-20 is a flying truck in terms of agility.
There is no flying truck that can make this kind of turn.

eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by eklavya »

subhamoy.das wrote:This growth is driven by the INDIAN PRIVATE sector and as - aired in public forums again and again - INSPITE of the GOVT and in areas where GOI did not meddled. Look up the HDI of the world and you will know where GOI stands.
Economic growth in every country, including China, is driven by the private sector, with government providing the enabling framework of laws, infrastructure, etc. Do not have to recount well known failures of socialism and communism here.

As for HDI, why don't you figure out how many Chinese were killed by Mao and the CPC in The Cultural Revolution and The Great Leap Forward. I would take the Indian democratic road to development rather than the Chinese fascist road to development 100 times of of 100. In China, critics like you get sent to jail and worse. In India, your right to talk rubbish is enshrined in the constitution and most of our politicians prove my point every day of the week.
subhamoy.das wrote:Talking about the Chinese here. And how would u respond to the public domain reports of how the CHINESE military intruding into Arunachal Pradesh at will and our GOI just covers it up and does not have the balls to authorised the IA to engage?
All of Arunachal Pradesh is claimed by China and all of it is controlled by India. Why doesn't the super-duper-PLA have the scrotal fortitude to enforce its historical claim. The PLA is so rubbish and the CPC is so weak that they can't ever recover Taiwan, or the Senkaku islands, let alone Arunachal Pradesh.
subhamoy.das wrote:I am just worshiping a well oil ed execution engine here
That lost the war ... what a loser!
subhamoy.das wrote:You are comparing faith to country here.
Ashoka was a Hindu? Akbar was a Hindu? Do you have any idea what their territory comprised?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maury ... 65_BCE.jpg
subhamoy.das wrote:JINGOISM will not alter the fact. While I can certainly climb on a AGNI V but a CHINESE citizen counter part of me can climb on a ROCKET and go 2 times farther ( 11K range ) and have the option of picking on multiple destinations ( MIRV ) and have the option of landing on a SATELLITE ( A-SAT ) and possibly coming back ( i am sure they will soon launch a re-usable version of the same ). And one final attempt - I could have had these same options as well but will have to wait for another 20 years because of GOI.
All of India's enemies are vulnerable to the range and capabilities of Agni V.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Surya »

on one hand we have beijing cab drivers not being allowed to roll down their windows during the leadership change event BUT all and sundry can find increasing clear pictures

this thread goes like

- post fuzzy pic

- chestbeating and wailing and hey - thats fuzzy

- immediately clearer picture

- hey but engine is and 70 degree view is not seen

- immediately pictures of engines and whatever view you want comes aling like clockwork :)
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by eklavya »

ashi wrote:
shiv wrote:
The comment about J-31 and J 20 being complementary suggests J-20 is a flying truck in terms of agility.
There is no flying truck that can make this kind of turn.

What g was the J-20 pulling? How much fuel and munitions was it carrying? Was the afterburner on when it pulled that manoeuvre: what was the thermal signature?

Until the Chinese are prepared to demonstrate the J20 and J31 at an airshow, the safe assumption is that they're pretty useless.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Victor »

Scaling for the pilot, the J-31 looks about as long as the J-20, not much shorter. I get about 65 ft but of course could be off a few. Both are a little shorter than the Su-30 (ie. our's is longer :) ).
asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by asprinzl »

Is that a Rc model or a real J20 pulling stunts? Picture if too small to make certain.....the real barometer of Chinese aviation prowess will be found when Pakis insist on western gadgets on their Chinese wares...
Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Chinmayanand »

Can J-31 match our LCA Mk1 ? Just curious.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Indranil »

ashi wrote:
shiv wrote:
The comment about J-31 and J 20 being complementary suggests J-20 is a flying truck in terms of agility.
There is no flying truck that can make this kind of turn.

Ashi,

I have no faith in that video. Till date, I have never heard or seen any development agency conducting flight trials over populated land, in full public view and so low to the ground. People would generally see the plane going out or returning from a test flight, but never the flight itself. And here we see the J-31 do an almost post-stall maneuver :eek:.

This is most probably a CG created by a fool who doesn't even understand that a flight test routine will never have even 1 extra maneuver than what is required for a test. Nobody does rolls and inside loops on a development perform unless they are test points.
ashi
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by ashi »

indranilroy wrote:
Ashi,

I have no faith in that video. Till date, I have never heard or seen any development agency conducting flight trials over populated land, in full public view and so low to the ground. People would generally see the plane going out or returning from a test flight, but never the flight itself. And here we see the J-31 do an almost post-stall maneuver :eek:.

This is most probably a CG created by a fool who doesn't even understand that a flight test routine will never have even 1 extra maneuver than what is required for a test. Nobody does rolls and inside loops on a development perform unless they are test points.
This is a real J-20 (not J-31 as you said) test flight video clip taken with a cell phone camera few days back. It is in Chengdu and the early J-20 test flight captured in camera in the link below also happened in the same place. I think people here will be surprised how agile J-20 is ...

J-20 early low altitude test flight
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by shiv »

ashi wrote:
shiv wrote:
The comment about J-31 and J 20 being complementary suggests J-20 is a flying truck in terms of agility.
There is no flying truck that can make this kind of turn.

Sorry sir. The plane comes in fast and its nose is already up as it becomes visible at 8 seconds. It loses significant speed by the time it reaches the top of the loop. But it also rolls away to the right as it loops and gains speed as it descends. This is normal for any aircraft - but the ones with real excess power come in slow, turn nose up, climb lazily, maneuver and then come down with no fuss. They do not need to come in fast for the loop because they have the excess power they need to climb into the loop. The second maneuver is merely a roll and the cameraman also rolls his camera. Highly maneuverable camerawork.
Last edited by shiv on 05 Nov 2012 06:39, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by shiv »

These are labelled as "combat maneuvers". What was the pilot combating? Boredom?
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Indranil »

ashi wrote:
indranilroy wrote:
Ashi,

I have no faith in that video. Till date, I have never heard or seen any development agency conducting flight trials over populated land, in full public view and so low to the ground. People would generally see the plane going out or returning from a test flight, but never the flight itself. And here we see the J-31 do an almost post-stall maneuver :eek:.

This is most probably a CG created by a fool who doesn't even understand that a flight test routine will never have even 1 extra maneuver than what is required for a test. Nobody does rolls and inside loops on a development perform unless they are test points.
This is a real J-20 (not J-31 as you said) test flight video clip taken with a cell phone camera few days back. It is in Chengdu and the early J-20 test flight captured in camera in the link below also happened in the same place. I think people here will be surprised how agile J-20 is ...

J-20 early low altitude test flight
Ashi,

The J-31 was a typo, I ofcourse meant the J-20.

About the first video, you are free to believe what you want. I gave you the logic, take it or leave it :-). I don't believe that the J-20 is not maneuverable. I did read about its lifting canards and I was impressed too. But yes it will need much better engines than what it is currently carrying to match the F-22 or PAKFA's maneuverability.

About the second video, this is exactly, what expects to see from a developmental prototype, not what was shown in the first video.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Kanson »

ashi wrote:This is a real J-20 (not J-31 as you said) test flight video clip taken with a cell phone camera few days back. It is in Chengdu and the early J-20 test flight captured in camera in the link below also happened in the same place. I think people here will be surprised how agile J-20 is ...

J-20 early low altitude test flight


Interesting clip !!?!! You said this is real and not doctored? May God bless you to see the light!

somebody can be fooled, not everybody and not for long. Of course people tell lies, but to live a lie is a horrendous burden!
ashi
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 13:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by ashi »

indranilroy wrote:
ashi wrote: This is a real J-20 (not J-31 as you said) test flight video clip taken with a cell phone camera few days back. It is in Chengdu and the early J-20 test flight captured in camera in the link below also happened in the same place. I think people here will be surprised how agile J-20 is ...

J-20 early low altitude test flight
Ashi,

The J-31 was a typo, I ofcourse meant the J-20.

About the first video, you are free to believe what you want. I gave you the logic, take it or leave it :-). I don't believe that the J-20 is not maneuverable. I did read about its lifting canards and I was impressed too. But yes it will need much better engines than what it is currently carrying to match the F-22 or PAKFA's maneuverability.

About the second video, this is exactly, what expects to see from a developmental prototype, not what was shown in the first video.
Indranilroy, J-20 is going to be very maneuverable, thanks to its advanced configuration that has all moving vertical/horizontal tails, moving canards and adjustable DSI. This configuration is intended to compensate the engine deficiency. Would it be enough? We will see. Will China get a high thrust power engine for this fighter in the future? We will see.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by shiv »

That J-20 cellphone video does not show any post stall maneuver. The plane is rolling as it reaches the top of the loop and flies off at right angles to its line of approach so it appears like the loop is compressed. The strange thing is that with all these fanboy videos I have never seen any of these Chinese a/c do a complete loop. Either they are not doing a loop at all (like that J-20 video) or the cameraperson loses it and spends time having an orgasm just as the loop reaches its climax - like the second video above.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by shiv »

ashi wrote:
Indranilroy, J-20 is going to be very maneuverable, thanks to its advanced configuration that has all moving vertical/horizontal tails, moving canards and adjustable DSI.

It needs those huge surfaces to maneuver -those enormous canards are huge juicy radar reflectors. From the front, the J-20 is likely to be stealthy. From above and below not so stealthy.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by shiv »

Don wrote:The latest version of the Y-20 project still relies on the four D-30KP-2 bypass turbofan engines. Naturally, this means that the excellent short take-off and landing specifications of the original design are now out of the question- but there is every reason to believe that these specifications are still fairly good by normal standards.


Image
Same engine, heavier aircraft. STOL performance compromised? Tibet airfields are not going to see full loads on this aircraft.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Kanson »

During loops/turns, frames are cut and altered to give the impression that it is highly maneuverable.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by shiv »

Kanson wrote:During loops/turns, frames are cut and altered to give the impression that it is highly maneuverable.
Kanson there is another factor that I noticed while filming and editing airshow videos. When you pan an aircraft that is flying from one side to the other very fast almost above your head and turning at the same time, your handheld camera angle changes and the resulting video looks more spectacular than it actually was. I will try and post examples from my videos.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Indranil »

ashi wrote:
indranilroy wrote: Ashi,

The J-31 was a typo, I ofcourse meant the J-20.

About the first video, you are free to believe what you want. I gave you the logic, take it or leave it :-). I don't believe that the J-20 is not maneuverable. I did read about its lifting canards and I was impressed too. But yes it will need much better engines than what it is currently carrying to match the F-22 or PAKFA's maneuverability.

About the second video, this is exactly, what expects to see from a developmental prototype, not what was shown in the first video.
Indranilroy, J-20 is going to be very maneuverable, thanks to its advanced configuration that has all moving vertical/horizontal tails, moving canards and adjustable DSI. This configuration is intended to compensate the engine deficiency. Would it be enough? We will see. Will China get a high thrust power engine for this fighter in the future? We will see.
Ashi,

Now you are on a very slippery slope. All moving vertical/horizontal tails, moving canards and adjustable DSI do not make up for lower TWR. They can only create moments about the CG of a plane which give higher roll or pitch rates. To make a plane turn fast, you would need to create a moment about the center of the turn. That is created by lift and the amount of lift you can sustain is driven by your thrust.

Let me ask you a few questions:
Adjustable DSI and maneuverability (:eek:) ... How are they related?
By the way, canards on which modern plane is fixed?
Also which modern fighter plane does not have an all moving horizontal stabilizer?
Do you understand why the J-20 and the PAKFA feature all moving vertical stabilizers? Do you know their pros and cons?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Karan M »

With those huge canards, this thing is not going to be stealthy even from the front, once those canards start moving. The PAKFA can at least "fix" its LEVCONs and depend on TVC plus its extra control surfaces for that extra bit of maneuverability.

The J-20 on the other hand looks like a huge attempt to create a modern day stealth FB-111. Nice idea when dealing with US CBGs etc. But, severely compromised if proper engines are not made available in terms of agility & maneuverability in both BVR and WVR. The achille's heel of modern Chinese copy & paste efforts.

Furthermore, its weight is clearly going to be much higher than the T-50, the excess weight required to carry the larger armament boxes internally, when China is nowhere near the Russians/Europeans/Americans in terms of lightweight alloys & composites will make the TWR even more worse.

The only positives about this aircraft are:

1. Large size, despite all its cons, will allow the PRC to put a large AI radar in the bird. They will lack the compact Tx/Rx module tech currently being employed by the Euros and Americans and being mastered by the Russians, but their larger modules can still fit into this radome. For its size, its performance in terms of range will at best match the range of those achieved by smaller but more sophisticated AESAs fielded by peers, let alone advanced features in terms of ECM resistance & so forth. While the Chinese have done a lot of work in this arena, the breakage of their ties with Israel put paid to their rapid acquisition of easy tech to build upon.

2. The large airframe will carry loads of fuel. Even with earlier AL-31F's, this plane may not be very agile or maneuverable without afterburner (guzzling up all that fuel), but it should have large persistence. Clearly made to take the fight to USN ships/CBGs without having to depend on tankers.
3. Large warload. Chinese missiles are not as sophisticated or as compact as some of the newer US/Euro/Russian/Israeli stuff in the market. This aircraft is designed to work around that by carrying enough of the larger Chinese missiles, whether they be A2A or ASM.

Where this aircraft will clearly be inferior, APA's gloom and doom about the JSF apart:

- Stealth: Frontal stealth is unlikely to be as good as the JSF/F-22 or even the T-50. US & Russia have far more experience with both RCS measurement, reduction techniques and materials. Currently, the "flattened fuselage of the J20" confers it a temporary advantage over the T-50 in terms of strike, from the rear or beam sectors. Unlikely to last if reports of Russia doing a significant redesign for the Stage 2 engine, are correct.

-Avionics. The kind of integrated avionics on the F-22/Rafale/Typhoon/Su-35BM are a generation ahead of what is in any J-10 today. The kind that is coming across with further enhancements to the above & the JSF/T-50 will be a far step ahead. With a sensor suite that can classify a target at around 600 parameters, the JSF suite makes the J-20 look like a toy. The Su-35BM already features sensor fusion, and PAKFA/FGFA is to get a pilot associate, in other word voice activated AI pilot aids.
Situational awareness for the above fighters & pilot capability as a result, will remain ahead.

-Kinematics. This big boxy J-20 may "appear" cool, but compare the blended body wing design that is the T-50, with those extra powerful Type117s, with the Type 129 in development (and far more powerful) - and the J-20 is probably at the bottom of the stakes. The JSF may be behind aerodynamically, but with its sensor suite & that hotrod of a motor may find it possible to detect & even manage the J-20 if it comes to that.

-Weaponry. All said & done - Chinese systems are often fairly behind whatever is available OTS today, let alone what is in development. The Israelis are already offering multispectral long range AAMs for codevelopment. India picks that up....enough said. Similar programs are in place in the US as well. The Rafale, today, already has an IIR BVR missile. If integrated on the FGFA, it would rapidly increase the Pk of any shot against a J-20.

Net, while the J-20 is a positive step for the Chinese, its not a game changer in combat. IAF 4G+ planes such as the Sukhois are to get radars in their MLU which double their effective range. Detection of VLO targets by a wall of Sukhois is yet another method (even without IRST) if AWACs is not available.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Karan M »

Basically, what the Chinese have done is create a lowered RCS Flanker- large persistence, large payload, using a scaled up J-10'ish planform, something they were comfortable with.

This is by no means a true 5G aircraft like the F-22 is, and what the JSF & T-50 are trying to be, with multiple breakthroughs in almost every facet of aircraft design, from structures, to propulsion or avionics apart from the design itself.

From the Indian AF POV, we have three challenges:

- Finding it (harder than earlier birds)
- Fixing it (since it may move with a larger footprint)
- Engaging it (reduced RCS + jamming would reduce Pk of Active BVR missiles)

The shift in the IAF to high powered AESAs for ground based radars and with even non AESA MPRs like 3DCAR able to detect LO UAVs, makes fixing it possible. Plus AEW&C/AEWACs numbers need to rise. Another good thing is the Sukhoi upgrade, which will clearly be able to detect this plane at range. Finally, investments in SIGINT/ELINT need to continue

Fixing it is possible via sats and making detailed assessments of training and usage patterns

Engaging it - best bet, multispectral seekers. We are purchasing Mica-IRs with the Mirage 2000 upgrade. They are a good bet here. For the future, we can invest/work with the Israelis for a long range mulitspectral seeker.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by shiv »

My personal feeling is that the Chinese are looking to win without war and I think they will have sucess in this regard. What they are doing is producing low cost partially capable copies of attractive western stuff that the west has pushed and sold at high prices as "the best"

I see these Chinese efforts as a high-tech-heavy-industry counterpart of China-copy Gucci shoes or handbags, or cloned iPads. What these aircraft will do is pull the export market rug from underneath the biggest arms exporters in the world. Increasingly you will find wannabe air forces all over the world who ar paying through their nose to get half a dozen 4th gen fighters from the west opt for a couple of squadrons of Chnese jets. In 20-30 years China will have eaten up a chunk of western arms markets without firing a shot.

Where India can compete is to make very high tech manufacture cheap for the west and re export components to the west and to their export customers. This too is likely to happen IMO
alexis
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by alexis »

Karan M wrote:Basically, what the Chinese have done is create a lowered RCS Flanker- large persistence, large payload, using a scaled up J-10'ish planform, something they were comfortable with.

This is by no means a true 5G aircraft like the F-22 is, and what the JSF & T-50 are trying to be, with multiple breakthroughs in almost every facet of aircraft design, from structures, to propulsion or avionics apart from the design itself.

From the Indian AF POV, we have three challenges:

- Finding it (harder than earlier birds)
- Fixing it (since it may move with a larger footprint)
- Engaging it (reduced RCS + jamming would reduce Pk of Active BVR missiles)

The shift in the IAF to high powered AESAs for ground based radars and with even non AESA MPRs like 3DCAR able to detect LO UAVs, makes fixing it possible. Plus AEW&C/AEWACs numbers need to rise. Another good thing is the Sukhoi upgrade, which will clearly be able to detect this plane at range. Finally, investments in SIGINT/ELINT need to continue

Fixing it is possible via sats and making detailed assessments of training and usage patterns

Engaging it - best bet, multispectral seekers. We are purchasing Mica-IRs with the Mirage 2000 upgrade. They are a good bet here. For the future, we can invest/work with the Israelis for a long range mulitspectral seeker.
Engaging it would be the hardest part mainly because PLAAF has exposure to R73 and R77, our mainstay AAMs and countermeasures would have been developed by them now. That is why Astra (if possible, a multispectral variant) is important. We should productionise on an IIR seeker for AAMs as quickly as possible.
nash
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by nash »

alexis wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Engaging it - best bet, multispectral seekers. We are purchasing Mica-IRs with the Mirage 2000 upgrade. They are a good bet here. For the future, we can invest/work with the Israelis for a long range mulitspectral seeker.
Engaging it would be the hardest part mainly because PLAAF has exposure to R73 and R77, our mainstay AAMs and countermeasures would have been developed by them now. That is why Astra (if possible, a multispectral variant) is important. We should productionise on an IIR seeker for AAMs as quickly as possible.
That seeker would be quite a interesting concept and possibly in future we may see that in various A2A or SAM.

One missile have combination of RF,IR and ECCM.

Probably one of the effective, as mention by karan, against stealth fighter will be develop a powerful AESA for groundbase radar and AWACS to detect those fighter and BVR or MRSAM with multiple seeker with TVC to engage those.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Singha »

shiv wrote: Same engine, heavier aircraft. STOL performance compromised? Tibet airfields are not going to see full loads on this aircraft.
tibet airfields are being built with very long runways to solve this problem.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Lalmohan »

have the chinese experimented with JATO strap ons for Tibet?
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Indranil »

I am skeptical of that technology for daily use :-)
nits
BRFite
Posts: 1156
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by nits »

UFOs sightings skyrocket across Jammu and Kashmir, Arunachal
The Army troops deployed along the China border from Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh in northeast have reported more than 100 sightings of "Unidentified Flying Objects" (UFOs) in the last three months. Agencies including the Army, DRDO, NTRO and the ITBP have not yet been able to identify these luminous flying objects.

The 14 Corps, which looks after military deployment along Kargil-Leh and looks after the frontiers with China, has sent reports to the Army Headquarters about the sightings of UFOs by an ITBP unit in Thakung near the Pangong Tso Lake, Army officials said here.Reports suggested that these yellowish spheres appear to lift off from the horizon on the Chinese side and slowly traverse the sky for three to five hours before disappearing.

The officials confirmed that these UFOs were not Chinese drones or satellites.

They said Army had also moved a mobile ground-based radar unit and a spectrum analyser to verify the identity of the object but could not detect the object that was being tracked visually, indicating it was non-metallic.Army officials expressed concern over the inability of agencies to identify the object which some believed could be a Chinese surveillance equipment
pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by pentaiah »

On Shiv ji's observation of show off and jingoism in military affairs by civilian
NYT oped piece by ex marine and instructor at Naval war college
But Eisenhower’s least heeded warning — concerning the spiritual effects of permanent preparations for war — is more important now than ever. Our culture has militarized considerably since Eisenhower’s era, and civilians, not the armed services, have been the principal cause. From lawmakers’ constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,” “Homeland” and “Call of Duty,” to NBC’s shameful and unreal reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas. Of course, veterans should be thanked for serving their country, as should police officers, emergency workers and teachers. But no institution — particularly one financed by the taxpayers — should be immune from thoughtful criticism.

Like all institutions, the military works to enhance its public image, but this is just one element of militarization. Most of the political discourse on military matters comes from civilians, who are more vocal about “supporting our troops” than the troops themselves. It doesn’t help that there are fewer veterans in Congress today than at any previous point since World War II. Those who have served are less likely to offer unvarnished praise for the military, for it, like all institutions, has its own frustrations and failings. But for non-veterans — including about four-fifths of all members of Congress — there is only unequivocal, unhesitating adulation. The political costs of anything else are just too high.

For proof of this phenomenon, one need look no further than the continuing furor over sequestration — the automatic cuts, evenly divided between Pentagon and nonsecurity spending, that will go into effect in January if a deal on the debt and deficits isn’t reached. As Bob Woodward’s latest book reveals, the Obama administration devised the measure last year to include across-the-board defense cuts because it believed that slashing defense was so unthinkable that it would make compromise inevitable.
Anthony Hines
BRFite
Posts: 105
Joined: 16 Jul 2009 22:09
Location: West of Greenwich

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Anthony Hines »

China 'pivot' trips over McMahon Line
By Peter Lee

China is looking for a "Western" pivot to counter the United States' diplomatic and military inroads with its East Asian neighbors such as Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Myanmar.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NK06Ad01.html
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by Indranil »

I like the looks of J-31, though it is very similar to the F-35. What I did not like in the F-35 is that monstrous single engine to keep commonality with the VSTOL model. J-31's double engine allows it to be flatter. At the moment it does not seem to have TVC (but that is OK for a mid-sized bird).

I expect this to have Mig-29 kind of agility. Also expect very low observability from front and sides (did anyone notice that they are not using a single canopy like on the J-20).

I don't understand avionics that well and hence won't comment on avionics.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by shiv »

Singha wrote:
shiv wrote: Same engine, heavier aircraft. STOL performance compromised? Tibet airfields are not going to see full loads on this aircraft.
tibet airfields are being built with very long runways to solve this problem.
AFAICT take off is less of a problem than landing. Loads can be reduced for takeoff. For landing apart from fuel dumping, loads cannot be reduced. The approach speed is higher and there is no guarantee that the plane is going to touch its wheel down exactly at the beginning of the runway. Even with a 3000 meter runway a plane approaching landing at 200 kmph on a high altitude runway is eating up runway at over 50 meters per second.

The exact point at which the aircraft touches down becomes even more critical if the approach to the runway is from around mountains and the plane has to descend steeply to touch down at exactly the beginning of the runway to have the benefit of all 2000 or 3000 meters of runway. Approach speeds are higher in any case at altitude. In the mountains, runways simply cannot be lengthened indefinitely even if real estate is available because a plane taking off or one that has an aborted landing has to gain height to avoid mountains beyond the runway. Add to that rainy weather or freezing conditions and the plane can't brake and will need to roll all the way

So the scope for building extra long runways is necessarily limited
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Post by shiv »

indranilroy wrote:
I expect this to have Mig-29 kind of agility.
Naah Indranil you are just making Chinese jingos smile. No way the J 31 is going to do what the MiG 29 does. Let's see it doing a loop first let alone very high AoA flying and recovery

I judge that it will have very high observability from the front because the intakes and exhausts are exactly in a straight line
Post Reply