China Military Watch

wen · Post by **wen** » 04 Jan 2011 13:57

shiv wrote:The need for extreme accuracy to hit a carrier is essential ONLY if you use a conventional warhead. With a conventional warhead a miss even by 50 meters would make it useless - and as such it would require up to the second information.

If a nuclear warhead is used an airburst would be fine - and a miss by even 2 km would easily be covered by a 50 kt warhead. Since a ship sailing at 60 kmph (unlikely) would have sailed 2 km in 2 minutes - the last missile update could be given as early as 120 seconds before impact. Even at 6 mach (2000 m/sec) the last update could be given when the missile is 240 km away.

Of course that would mean starting nuclear war. In fact - if the Chinese could take out a carrier with a conventional warhead the US would be powerless to respond with nukes. But if they used the "easy route" and nuked the carrier as suggested above - then the US of course has the capability to finish China despite damage to itself. I think the Chingos (Chinese internet jingos) have got it wrong. China is trying to make a conventional warhead take out a carrier. And I am saying that they are not there yet and it is not that easy.

KT-1, basically a DF-21 varation, hit a satellite 900+ km away, travelling at 28000 km/hour, with an kinetic-head-on kill, and the satellite has a cross area of 1 m^2. Obviously missile with a CEP of 50 meter wont do this feat, more like it is some missiles with a CEP of <1 m.

So still worry about China's KT-1/DF-21 is not accurate enough for this task?

For China, the primary techique challenge of deploying an AShBM system is not the accuracy of this advanced ballastic missile system, more like the development of a robust/surviving survery part.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jan 2011 14:09

wen wrote: KT-1, basically a DF-21 varation, hit a satellite 900+ km away, travelling at 28000 km/hour, with an kinetic-head-on kill, and the satellite has a cross area of 1 m^2.

Obviously missile with a CEP of 50 meter wont do this feat, more like it is some missiles with a CEP of <1 m.

So still worry about China's KT-1/DF-21 is not accurate enough for this task?

For China, the primary techique challenge of deploying an AShBM system is not the accuracy of this advanced ballastic missile system, more like the development of a robust/surviving survery part.

The satellite was not maneuvering and had a predictable path. Please stop this drama of 28000 kmph. Just by sitting on my backside I am doing 40,000 kmph because of the earth's rotation and I can take accurate pot shots at you. Only the relative velocity matters. CEP of <1 metre is total bullshitting.

You seem to be worried that I have figured out your bluff. Your missile won't hit that carrier unless it has a nuclear warhead. It's a bluff. Nobody believes you and the more desperate you get the more obvious it becomes that you want somebody to believe you.

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 04 Jan 2011 14:10

what wen birather said is very believable

china the land where anything can happen when communist party bosses want it to happen

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jan 2011 14:20

Raghavendra wrote:what wen birather said is very believable

china the land where anything can happen when communist party bosses want it to happen

Well someone is tying himself up in knots...

Comrade Wen's bluff number 1

wen wrote:Aerodynamic frame: the aeroydynamic frame of warheads are highly-low resistance one, thus much less heat is generated, comparing with other type of much larger and much "fatter" re-entry vehicles. thus less black-windows.

Actually, without the requirement of terminal trajectory adjustment/active seeking, nuclear warhead actually want this black-window for stealth puprose, and it requires the nuclear warhead to be designed in a special way and to adding special coating material to improve the fricitions to generate sufficient heat (which is a necessary condition of creating such black window) to creat this ionization layer around the warhead to absorb radar waves. (and emit IR rays? )

Bluff number 2

wen wrote: Read my post again, all I said this, it doesnt take a nuke warhead to hit an air-carrier as long as you get middle-course trajectory adjustments through sohpasicated survey network (satellites/scout aircraft/OTH radar etc) and an advanced ballastic missile with an good active seeker. (Didn't you say Pershing II? )

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Jan 2011 14:27

Wen,

There is a difference between MCG and TG. MCG in the absence of TG is useless. In case of a BM it is alwaws the TG that matters, MCG cannot be done as the weapon must reach a certain altitude after which gravity will take over. It dosenot really require much by way of guidence to acheave that.

However, the TG is some thing that is required till the last second. Espicially when it comes to killing a moving & randomly manuvering target.

This is some thing you seem incapable of understanding. Which brings me to my assertion that you did not answer my last post addressed to you.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jan 2011 14:31

Pratyush wrote: This is some thing you seem incapable of understanding. Which brings me to my assertion that you did not answer my last post addressed to you.

He will read your post and tell you that you are wasting his time.

Like the serial rapist who gave a police complaint against every woman he raped for distracting him from his work.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 04 Jan 2011 14:47

The US won’t move in with the CBG until they have ensured a reasonable degree of electronic supremacy. In that case the very means of providing guidance in the last 25 seconds be ineffective and these include OTH radars, any scouts or other means. The US is far ahead of others in EW, let us not forget that.

This is if, and it is a pretty big if the RV is able to receive guidance towards the end of it's terminal phase against a moving target. Even what the Pershing II achieved was for a stationary target. Here we are talking about a full CGB escorted by numerous EW assets and Aegis which itself as some ABM capability.

One last bit, if the RV carries a radar, wont that be susceptible to jamming?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jan 2011 14:49

I did mention that SAMs with ARM capability can be made - JDRADM the new usaf/usn a2a missile will also be an arm for example. its seeker ported to a ESSM airframe will work.

amit · Post by **amit** » 04 Jan 2011 14:53

On a different note, I find it very interesting that suddenly a spate of Chinese drones have come in to shock and awe us shivering dhoti-clad SDREs with Chinese tacknological wonders, especially after Wen's visit - I'm taking about the asli Wen not the drone who's firing mizziles into outer space here. Such shock and awe tactics used to be reserved for the Chinni thread in the tech forum.

One explanation for the shift from the tech forum to the mil forum could be that the RV was jammed pretty effectively in the Tech forum so now the new target is here. However, the way Doc is twisting somebody's chaddis here (

) we are soon going to see another RV malfunction methinks! :-0

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Jan 2011 14:56

^^^

Shivji,

It seems that you, me and most of the posters on this thread are guilty of feeding this troll

. Is it because we have too much time on our hands or is it because it is too much fun exchanging posts with the PRC troll.

P Chitkara,

Please dont distract Mr Wen with minor details. Did you not know that a missile with good MCG will not need TG to kill a randomly moving target.

.

You are hereby sentenced to an eternity in a labour camp for re-education to cure you of your ignorence.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jan 2011 16:54

Pratyush wrote:^^^

Shivji,

It seems that you, me and most of the posters on this thread are guilty of feeding this troll . Is it because we have too much time on our hands or is it because it is too much fun exchanging posts with the PRC troll.

Pratyush we SDRE dhoti-shiverers are basically a serious and dour bunch. If you throw facts at us we shut up,
listen, crap in our langotis and add one more god to our pantheon and sing his praises.

But when you say "adding a special friction coating" to a re entry vehicle so it gets more hot because Chinese re entry vehicles are normally slim and stay cool, and then those artificially heated up re-entry vehicles start absorbing radar for stealth then you are overloading the SDRE mind, small as it is with tzutiyapanti. Then you tell me that your nukes are stealthy till they come just over your head after which they behave like Pershing II missiles and get a radar picture of your head and can knock off your left ear selectively - my BS meter goes off loud and clear.

I am amazes at how far bullshitting is carried on only to convince some backward time-wasting Indians. It seems like wen and his ilk are completely convinced about what they write. Don't you think that the simplest way to get more irritating skeptics to believe you would be to place a maneuvering ship in the ocean and post a video of that ship being taken out by a DingDong 21. I will settle for nothing less. I am expecting to find just such a video appear soon. Perhaps filmed on a foggy morning using an IR camera?

Mark my (time wasting) words.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Jan 2011 17:14

Shivji,

"adding a special friction coating"

Puts the image of an item starting with the alphabet C and ends with M. Used to cover some thing starting with a P which enters some thing starting with a V.

But am just a dirty mind. I am sure you used it with that intention onlee

Don't you think that the simplest way to get more irritating skeptics to believe you would be to place a maneuvering ship in the ocean and post a video of that ship being taken out by a DingDong 21. I will settle for nothing less. I am expecting to find just such a video appear soon. Perhaps filmed on a foggy morning using an IR camera? Mark my (time wasting) words.

Am sure it will appear, but how can we be sure that it is not a CG image. Hain ji. The PRC trolls are known to have indulged in this from time to time. No.

This Ding dong, if, can be made to work and the PRC can develop the ecosystem needed to operate such a system. Will make the job of any navy that needs to operate in the SCS very difficult. But the challanges of targeting a moving object with a BM remain. As is the glaring absence of the ecosystem in which it will operate.

The concerns that we have are not easily understood by posters like Wen.

PS..............

OT, for the subject on hand, the K15 under development for the IN will be a much better AShBM as it dosen't need to bother regarding the Re-entry into atmospheare for the warhead along with the resolution of the Terminal guidence problems for the weapon.

JMT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jan 2011 21:13

This seems to be a fairly realistic and believable account of China's effort at an AShBM.
http://www.comhaha.com/blog/530037-anal ... -in-china/

An article like this evokes empathy about the tech difficulties faced by China as much as India rather than the laughter evoked by the idiotic bluster of the CPC single babies who come and do a lungi dance on here. I wonder if Chingos get too used to Pakis licking Chinese ass and expect praise and admiration at every step.

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 04 Jan 2011 21:26

Don't know if it is appropriate for this thread, but the article title is interesting: "Long March: China’s fifth-generation fighter is years away "
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... years.html

blankedchuc · Post by **blankedchuc** » 04 Jan 2011 22:33

haha...i find out how this forum and this topic is going....this is so funny that this topic and forum fullfill with a bunch of ignorant and choose to ignore truth to keep living in their wet dream.This is so useless to the discussion and you stupids are just nothing. Dont show your stupid here and youtube lol.ROFL.Better go for some us/china/aussie forum for more useful information and discussion.

blankedchuc · Post by **blankedchuc** » 04 Jan 2011 22:36

For shiv:

Don"t show how you stupid around here thank you? Bunch of useless tards barking around for their wet dream.Please give some usefull discussion

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 04 Jan 2011 22:42

actually the discussion is going really well, it is providing a lot of entertainment for us when we find CPC drones like yourself spouting useless propaganda, so please continue...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Jan 2011 23:01

timely post of the flightglobal link took our blanked vision muffled for another decade..

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 04 Jan 2011 23:08

shiv wrote:This seems to be a fairly realistic and believable account of China's effort at an AShBM.
<u r l>

An article like this evokes empathy about the tech difficulties faced by China <snip>

Shiv garu saw only tech difficulties. What about the language difficulties in the article?
Even the poor language/translation cannot hide the smelly propaganda material in the so called "Analysis" article.
IMHO, one would go for a "Ballistic" weapon against a carrier when no other better guidance technologies exist. One needs a standoff distance enough to cover the operational range of the offensive (as against recky) aircraft in the carrier. Is a ballistic weapon necessary? Or is it an attempt to find alternative use for aging stock of BM's?

blankedchuc · Post by **blankedchuc** » 04 Jan 2011 23:13

oh yeah? BTW, im not ccp or what commie or chinese but you guys are just like to take ignoance as your favour but its ok for you to ignore something truth if you choose to do so.Its your right ....human right like i do in my country ....keep it up mkid sp !! yeah=)

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 04 Jan 2011 23:21

ignorance is bliss as they say
but what is causing you so much takleef? is it that we are not shivering in our dhotis at the J20?
forgive us for not being scared, we must be ignorant and don't know what we don't know
actually none of the hardware put up by the PLA/AF/N scares me, but what does is the chauvinistic attitude emanating from Beijing
if China is determined to be hostile and aggressive towards the rest of the world, then i guess its going to come back and bite you on the musharraf

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 04 Jan 2011 23:26

@ "blankedchuc"
keep it civil, hero.
you may be blanked out from here before long.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Jan 2011 23:34

blankedchuc wrote:For shiv:

Don"t show how you stupid around here thank you? Bunch of useless tards barking around for their wet dream.Please give some usefull discussion

useless turd flushed out for using free email. the smell should clear out in sometime.

@ wen, discuss what you want without being rude, if you want to continue posting here that is.

Tushar Sharm · Post by **Tushar Sharm** » 04 Jan 2011 23:45

The ASBM project is not all its made out to be. The Chinese propaganda won't really work well on this forum.

What technological leaps have the Chinese made that the Russians and Americans have not?

The largest constellation of active satellites are from the U.S., that have a quite extensive view of the worlds oceans, and If they felt ASBM's were substantive, they would have already had a TD by now. But the fact is, they do not require ASBM's to use as kill vehicles for Naval armadas. Thus they do not invest in the project. The Chinese are far inferier than the supereriority they claim. A country like India that has almost every Defence Establishment from around the world at its disposal is having a hard time with its own programs, and "China" a country sanctioned by almost every international defence establishment thinks it can compete with the U.S? I think they should first be realistic by being gratefull that India even considers them an adversary.

Just my 2 Rupees

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 05 Jan 2011 00:33

blankedchuc wrote:oh yeah? BTW, im not ccp or what commie or chinese but you guys are just like to take ignoance as your favour but its ok for you to ignore something truth if you choose to do so.Its your right ....human right like i do in my country ....keep it up mkid sp !! yeah=)

Oh bliss , yes we are ignorant and since some chini drones are here to show us some light, here dhotis are shivering.
I dont know whether some posters with alien type names are chinese ,paki,or whatever ,but wen jiabao must understand that dragon is an extincnt animal ,Tiger is not.
dragon dance cant make us fear ccp/pla , because we know its fake ,you can use your time photoshopping ,modelling large plastic aircrafts .

wen · Post by **wen** » 05 Jan 2011 01:05

shiv wrote:
wen wrote: KT-1, basically a DF-21 varation, hit a satellite 900+ km away, travelling at 28000 km/hour, with an kinetic-head-on kill, and the satellite has a cross area of 1 m^2.

Obviously missile with a CEP of 50 meter wont do this feat, more like it is some missiles with a CEP of <1 m.

So still worry about China's KT-1/DF-21 is not accurate enough for this task?

For China, the primary techique challenge of deploying an AShBM system is not the accuracy of this advanced ballastic missile system, more like the development of a robust/surviving survery part.
The satellite was not maneuvering and had a predictable path. Please stop this drama of 28000 kmph. Just by sitting on my backside I am doing 40,000 kmph because of the earth's rotation and I can take accurate pot shots at you. Only the relative velocity matters. CEP of <1 metre is total bullshitting.

You seem to be worried that I have figured out your bluff. Your missile won't hit that carrier unless it has a nuclear warhead. It's a bluff. Nobody believes you and the more desperate you get the more obvious it becomes that you want somebody to believe you.

The trajectory of the satellite is not that predicatable, and I have explained the reasons for that before so I dont want to waste my time to repeat again, re-read my previous thread, thanks.

As for being CEP<1 m, even if the satellite is static, still it is just as static as any ground target, get it?

And of cause it should be a CEP<1 m case to ensure it can hit the satellite with a cross area of 1m^2 through a kintetic-head-on kill, or you have some difficult to understand what does CEP mean?

Just in case if you have no clue here (as you seems to being not so well informed elsewhere), CEP means 50% of the chance the missile is hitting within the radius of the CEP, of the target's correct location.

And this fact (ASAT using an DF-21 varation, etc) is confirmed by the Americans, not the Chinese, and Americans change their defence plan accordingly, so thats not some typical internet hoax/joke like some of our neighbours's mindless boasts, you get my point, do you?

Actually the american military only begin to take China's AShBM project seriously after China used a ballastic missile's varation to kill a satellite.

So as you can see, most human beings are practical.

In another possible scenario, if your ballastic missile launch tests failed 50% or more of the time, then don't expect anybody will take your mindless boasting about the capability of your missiles seriously, get the basics done right before boasting.

wen · Post by **wen** » 05 Jan 2011 01:14

Few in China takes india even remote to be their rivialy or something, so I really dont understand the hostility here.

They may feel india being a developing country with some different culture, and some may think there is some interesting loud mouths, and thats it.

Tushar Sharm · Post by **Tushar Sharm** » 05 Jan 2011 01:38

^^^^^
Please lets refrain from stereotyping all Indians. If I were to play the same game, I could classify the Chinese as mushroom pickers and Nail salon owners, as in my county, The Chinese dominate this industry.

Leave the anger aside, and debate logically

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Jan 2011 01:48

wen wrote:Few in China takes india even remote to be their rivialy or something, so I really dont understand the hostility here.

They may feel india being a developing country with some different culture, and some may think there is some interesting loud mouths, and thats it.

Errr! Could you please check how loud your own post is before you stereotype or accuse others?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Jan 2011 01:54

people, this is not the place to discuss the national stereotypes of various nations. I'm surprised that people have so little self-control to respond to every retarded troll.
is it really worth it to earn a ban for a troll ?

wen wrote:Few in China takes india even remote to be their rivialy or something, so I really dont understand the hostility here.

They may feel india being a developing country with some different culture, and some may think there is some interesting loud mouths, and thats it.

this comes after my warning, therefore you are out for a month.
perhaps you would have learnt some manners when you return but I'm not hopeful.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 05 Jan 2011 02:16

Wen , You have been repeating for a long time now that it is the Americans who are leading the way when it comes to accepting the existence of Chinese ASBM.This itself indicates how little you know about the workings of their Defense dept and intelligence agencies.

Their standard modus operandi over the last 50 years has been to exaggerate the military capabilities of their adversaries so that they can get increased funding both to feed their huge Military Industrial complex and indulge in geopolitical manipulations.

It was in the time of JFK when it was announced that Soviet Union had Hundreds of ICBMs.Afterwards it was found that it had less than 50(at that point of time).Throughout the cold war the capabilities of soviet union were routinely exaggerated in order to justify funding for America's own weapon systems.The same is happening today with respect to China.

America is not a single party nation like China.Their defense budgets are passed through US congress.Without adequate justification their huge budgets will never get passed.So what does Pentagon(and CIA) do?They manufacture these justifications.And what is the best justification?That your primary adversary has developed some revolutionary weapons.

In fact I will not be surprised if using this Chinese ASBM story they ask for more funds for their Anti Ballistic Missile programs.

In fact not only China , even N.korea aand Iran are made to look like they are the next superpowers on the block.Remember it was the same US that said Saddam Hussein had WMDs.Of course we now know how true that was.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jan 2011 06:19

blankedchuc wrote:For shiv:

Don"t show how you stupid around here thank you? Bunch of useless tards barking around for their wet dream.Please give some usefull discussion

You want a useless "tard" to give you a useful discussion? Are things getting so bad where you crawled out from? Sir.

Anger when faced with the truth is a sign of cognitive dissonance. But what would a tard know.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jan 2011 06:23

wen wrote:Few in China takes india even remote to be their rivialy or something, so I really dont understand the hostility here.

They may feel india being a developing country with some different culture, and some may think there is some interesting loud mouths, and thats it.

When someone disagrees with your viewpoint, you think it is hostility? That is what is funny. You want everyone to agree and say "Wow! Great! Fantastic China tech!" - then I guess many of you will be happy.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Jan 2011 08:38

At last a reputed website comes out and talks about the J-20- and their conclusion is the same as mine and others- that its a disappointing design and quite clearly takes a lot of influence from the MiG 1.42 program.

And so much for the WS-10. Apparently it requires an OVERHAUL (not even preventive maintenance checks!) every 20 hours !

Long March: China’s fifth-generation fighter is years away
By Greg Waldron

Images of a new aircraft purported to be China's fifth-generation fighter have created a stir among aviation enthusiasts, but a true Chinese combat aircraft in this category is probably well over a decade away from readiness.

In late December grainy photographs emerged on Chinese websites of an aircraft described as the fifth-generation Chengdu J-20. Most of the images appeared to show the aircraft during taxi tests, although one especially pixellated image showed what appeared to be the new aircraft close to taking off.

While there is the possibility that the aircraft is a hoax, Chinese air force generals have reportedly hinted about the existence of a fifth-generation fighter programme known as J-XX.

Some similarities to the Lockheed Martin F-22 and Sukhoi's PAK-FA/T-50 demonstrator are apparent. The J-20 features a blended fuselage and large, canted twin tails, while its fuselage has some low-observable characteristics. On the other hand, the aircraft's thrust nozzles are clearly fixed, whereas thrust vectoring has become de rigueur for even some fourth-generation fighters.

Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the Institute of Strategic Studies, warns about concluding much based on available images.

"Drawing even tentative conclusions about anything other than the basic airframe configuration strikes me as speculative," he says. "The canard-delta configuration, coupled with canted vertical fins, is reminiscent of MiG's now cancelled 1.42 programme, and it would be interesting to know why the Chinese designers settled on this approach, rather than that of the Lockheed F-22 or Sukhoi T-50 platform."

Barrie says Sukhoi moved away from the "tri-plane" configuration in its latest revision of the Su-27, the Su-27SM2/Su-35, which disposes of the canard design of the Su-27M.

The J-20 also appears to be very large for a fighter. In one photo it dwarfs a truck, suggesting a size similar to the General Dynamics F-111, or perhaps more appropriately the long-retired Tupolev Tu-128. Size alone could suggest that the aircraft is not a fighter, but a bomber.

Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia is also dubious about the new aircraft. "I'm less sure that it's even much of an impressive airframe," he says. "There are two rather large canards. I'm not sure that can be reconciled with a low-observable design. It looks like something that might have been designed in 1985."

Despite China's clear ambitions to be a leader in both civil and military aviation, other programmes suggest that it lacks the building blocks to create a truly fifth-generation combat aircraft.

This pixellated image suggests that the J-20 has come close to flying

Chengdu's fourth-generation J-10 first appeared in 2006 after a decade of testing, but many experts feel it is comparable with Western aircraft of the 1980s. More recently, Beijing has struggled to develop the Shenyang J-15 carrier-borne fighter, a reverse-engineered version of the Su-33 that first flew 25 years ago.

One area where China is particularly weak is jet engines, with reports suggesting that its most advanced model, the Shenyang WS-10, requires an overhaul after every 20h of operation. The J-10 uses Russian Saturn AL-31s, as does the J-11B, a locally produced version of the Su-27.

Even the Chengdu JF-17 Thunder - an inexpensive aircraft pitched to developing nations such as Pakistan as a third-generation platform - is powered by the Klimov RD-93.

"People have seen the F-22 and this has given them ideas about how to approach stealth," says Richard Bitzinger, a senior fellow with Singapore's S Rajaratnam School of International Studies' Military Transformations Programme.

He points out that the F-22, the world's only operational stealth fighter, relies not only on a low-observable design, but also on the sophisticated integration of coatings and materials. The US Air Force type is also covered with sensors and avionics, many of which remain classified.

"The J-20 could make its first flight this year, but it is bound to have a long flight-test programme," Bitzinger says. In his view, China's fifth-generation fighter is over a decade away. For the time being the country will focus on cost-effective programmes such as the J-10 and J-11B to replace older types such as its air force's Chengdu J-7s - based on the Mikoyan MiG-21 - and Shenyang J-8s.

Flightglobal link

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Jan 2011 09:21

^^^The observation about similarity with Mig 1.42 and presence of canards ties in with my hypothesis that this a/c is product of programme started with 'help' of Russians post the 1991 period....when it was free for all in CIS and Russia.They have incorporated newer technologies as they could get their hands on sucbh tech from industrial espionage (DSI intakes for example).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jan 2011 09:55

WS-10 seems to be a tech demo than a deployable product at this point - if the reports be true. unfortunately from external pics is not possible to say ws-10 or al31 so fanboys can continue to tom tom it as being used in regular squadron service.

disha · Post by **disha** » 05 Jan 2011 09:56

Uh-oh I missed entire episode of Dron warriors and how they got whacked ...

Anyhow. Selectively quoting from the above article

Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia is also dubious about the new aircraft. "I'm less sure that it's even much of an impressive airframe," he says. "There are two rather large canards. I'm not sure that can be reconciled with a low-observable design. It looks like something that might have been designed in 1985."

I had already named it - FatBox., an aliteration on Mig FoxBat ... I hope the drones get it.

He points out that the F-22, the world's only operational stealth fighter, relies not only on a low-observable design, but also on the sophisticated integration of coatings and materials. The US Air Force type is also covered with sensors and avionics, many of which remain classified.

Stealth is not just about trapezoidal intakes and making the plane black....

I have an epiphany., China is playing catch-up. Not to Russia and definitely not to US. They are playing catch up to - India.

Take that baki-lurks and Chi-Drones.

wrdos · Post by **wrdos** » 05 Jan 2011 11:06

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

A WSJ report

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 05 Jan 2011 11:24

Off topic remark, I just couldn't resist it, considering some of the comments posted: Have you noticed the girly language the wen's use? I haven't had so much fun in quite a time. And Shiv sahab, thank you for the hilarious illustrations.

Added later:

Rohit sahab, your earlier post on the development of this J-20 seems the most likely course of events. Chinese could't possibly develop such an aircraft on their own.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 05 Jan 2011 11:59

If the chinese tech is all it is made out to be, why do they want the EU to lift the arms export ban? Why are they again going back to Russia for aircraft and engines?

Just as Soviets had the iron curtain, the CCP also has the same. We won’t know about any failures unless they spill into public domain - like the long march accident. There too, a design deficiency was found; some US co. (LM?) identified it and gave the solution.

Also, if the chinese tech was all that super duper why would the pukes look for better radar and avionics for jf17?

Not that we are not facing problems but, we are at least transparent by virtue of being a democracy. The CCP OTOH shows what it wants others to see.

Various defense agencies in US have finally got something they can blow out of proportion and get increased funding and that something is china. This has been a pretty standard practice by them all these decades.