China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

[kit]

How many take Mr. Goon seriously?

There should be concern, but this? Does this guy feel that there is no answer to this J-20? A tech demo?

With a name like Mr Goon - he could well be a character out of Enid Blyton. expect to see Noddy and Big Ears to write scholaraly articles on the J-20 soon.

\

Well the Aussies see a chinese hand in all their problems,real or imaginary anyway ! .But have no problems selling tons of uranium or metals which they are loath to sell to India.(The chinese diaspora in Australia are increasing in political and economic clout as well.)

[svinayak]

Well the Aussies see a chinese hand in all their problems,real or imaginary anyway ! .But have no problems selling tons of uranium or metals which they are loath to sell to India.(The chinese diaspora in Australia are increasing in political and economic clout as well.)

Aussie seeing their problems from chinese is a psy ops just to show many countries that PRC is the problem

[shiv]

Just 4 years ago China test flew and "advanced FC-1/JF-17 and called it FC-4. I wonder what happened?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006- ... 487258.htm

CHENGDU, April 28 (Xinhua) -- An advanced version of the China-developed new-generation fighter plane, the Xiaolong/FC-4, succeeded in its first flight on Friday in southwest China's Sichuan Province.

Based on previous models, the Xiaolong/FC-1 and FC-3, the FC-4 is equipped with advanced electronics and weapons systems, which improve its combat capabilities, say experts.

The success of the 16-minute test flight marks a significant step in China's aviation industry, and makes mass production possible.

The Xiaolong series is a multipurpose light fighter aircraft developed by the China Aviation Industry Corporation I(CAIC-I), the Chengdu Aircraft Group Corp. and China Aero Technology Import and Export Corporation.

With advanced design and manufacturing technology, this export-oriented fighter plane is small, low in cost and suitable for modern warfare and the demands of military fighters, experts said.

The FC-1 made its successful maiden flight in August 2003, after about four years of development. The plane demonstrated outstanding mobility, and good interception and ground attack capabilities.

The development program for the new-generation fighter aircraftwas officially launched in 1999, led by the CAIC-I, the country's leading operator in the aerospace industry. Enditem
Editor: Yan Zhonghua

Image caption:
A Xiaolong 04 fighter plane is seen during its test flight at Wenjiang Airport in Chengdu, capital of southwest China's Sichuan Province, April 28, 2006. Xiaolong 04 is an improved home-built multi-purpose light fighter of a new generation. It succeeded in its first flight April 28. (Xinhua Photo)

There is a little lie being told bythe Chinese here. The FC-1, the news items says was developed in just 4 years (1999 to 2003)

What is missing is this: The FC-1 was a copy of a MiG design bureau creation that got cancelled because of lack of funds in the USSR
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 2713.shtml

Light Fighter FC-1 (Fighter China-1)

The development of this fighter, the improved copy of Soviet MIG-33 (which R&D was terminated due to absence of money at the beginning of 1990s), started at Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corp., in 1994-95.

More exactly, MIG-33 designers resumed this terminated project in Moscow under supervision of experts from Chengdu city and with financing from PLA. In 1995, Chengdu Corp. purchased 100 units advanced RD-93 jet engines, for the future FC-1, at Klimov Aircraft Corp. in St. Petersburg.

In 1997-98, Pakistani Air Forces joined this project; Pakistan provided significant part of R&D financing and is obliged to purchase one half of the future FC-1 production. Despite all the efforts, the project dealt with a lot of problems, and only at the beginning of 2001 did it enter the last stage.

In mid-June 2002, it became known, from Beijing and Taibei sources, that the FC-1 fighter – to be used by PLA Air Force in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea as well as by the Pakistani air force along the border with India – will enter serial production in 2003.

[shiv]

From a random forum link - from 2006. The drawings are pretty accurate - so somebody knew..
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... hp?t=39663

According to the reports of the Jane's Defence Weekly, China has already launched its next generation stealthy fighter aircraft programme, and Shenyang Aircraft Industry Co. (SAC) has been selected to head research and development of a new fighter for the PLA Air Force (PLAAF).

PROGRAMME

According to the report from Jane's, development of the subsystems including the engine and weapon suite for the next generation fighter, which was codenamed by the Western intelligence as J-XX, has been underway for some time. Images of the concepts show a twin-engine aircraft sharing some design traits with Lockheed Martin's stealthy F/A-22 "Raptor" multirole fighter such as the internal carriage of its weapons.

Not too much public information about the programme is available at the moment. The aircraft, which could be designated as J-13 or J-14, is still going through initial concept work, the same stage as the USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) programme in the early 1980s, which later led to the F/A-22 Raptor. Sources within China's confirmed that the SAC is looking at a twin-engine, single-seat, single vertical tale fin design, but other design proposals has yet been ruled out.

As China has developed close ties with Russia's aerospace industry and has license produced many planes of formal Soviet designs, it can be predicted that the J-XX would include some, if not many Russian technologies and designs. China has been offered a 'joint development and production' of a new fifth-generation fighter by Russia -LFI. Russia has been trying to sell this concept both to China and India for some time, but neither of them has committed fully yet. According to Russian resources, the LFI will be able to counter U.S. second fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

Stealth and thrust vectoring are two must-have features in all aircraft being designed in the 21st century. If is not clear that how much progress Chinese designers have made in these areas, and Chinese aircraft industry may have to take Western/Israeli/Russian helps to make the J-XX truly fouth-generation (or fifth-generation using the Russian standards). Once introduced, the J-12's immediate rival will be U.S. F/A-22, JSF and India's MCA (Medium Combat Aircraft).

Another image
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e176/ ... ghter1.jpg

[Samay]

“The J-20 is reminiscent of the Russian MiG-1.42 both in terms of planform and also with regard to the rear fuselage configuration,” says Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies. “The most obvious difference is the greater forward fuselage shaping as the basis for low-observable characteristics, along with the different engine intake configuration. The MiG program was canceled by the Russian government around 1997,” he notes. However, the similarity to the MiG concept may suggest some collusion with the Russian aviation industry.

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1608&catid=255

The chief designer of MiG MAPO Mr. Belosvet stated that 1.42 would have a greater range than the F-22 and would be more versatile. While F-22 primary task is achievement of the air superiority, the 1.42 will be as capable in strike mission as in air combat. The 1.42, like the F-22, can carry weapons both internally and externally, will be capable of supercruise and powered by trust-vectored control (TVC) engines.
How Well Can you Draw?

Western sources published number of ever evolving artists' impressions of the 1.42 which can be sorted in two groups. The first shows an aircraft with two engines with vectored-thrust nozzles, inward-canted twin tails, slightly downturned wingtips, Rafale-like rounded intakes, and possibly foreplanes. The second group describes a more conventionally looking delta-winged twin-engined aircraft with outward-canted twin tails and MiG-29 style intakes. Some of the impressions show the elements of the low observable technology - flattened front fuselage and nozzle shape.

Another clue to a possible appearence of the 1.42 was published in the Flight International and Air Fleet Herald. The photograph taken at Fulkovo test range shows the mockup of the front end of the fighter aircraft mounted on the high speed cart used in the ejection seat tests. From the picture it is clear that the fighter's forward fuselage is a triangular in crossection with large sets of the canards behind the cockpit line. No indication of the developed leading edge extension similar in appearence to that of the MiG-29 or Su-27 can be found. While it is tempting to link this mockup to 1.42, Moscow sources indicate that it has little or no relevance at all. The forward section may also be one of the evolutionary steps with eventually led to the 1.42. Nevertheless, all post-Fulkovo artist impressions of 1.42 show an aircraft with triangular cross section of the forward fuselage.
One of the generals of the RusAF headquarters confirmed that there is no money to continue the programme. For me it is absolutely obvious that even if the technology demonstrator called 1-44 and sitting in a hangar at Zhukovsky would fly some day, and I have strong doubts even about that, Russia cannot afford a 30+ ton new generation combat jet with its current defence budget, it is extremely unlikely that the situation would change in the coming 10-15 years regardless of any possible changes in political leadership, and there is no hope that this programme would ever reach squadron service.
...
The best the RusAF could get in the foreseeable future are modifications of the current Sukhoi Su-25s and Su-27s, i.e. Su-39, Su-34 and Su-35, and MAPO MiG-29M. And even these modernization programmes have BIG question marks on them.PAKFA? MFI: MULTIFUNCTIONAL FRONT-LINE FIGHTER
Anatoly Belosvet, Chief Designer, MiG Aircraft Research and Production Complex

So initially, Mig 1.42 was meant to be the raptor killer,?. Since they had no funding they had let the chinese fund the rnd and get the free final product , as it happened with jf17 . PAKFA on the other hand was only a commercially viable option?

[kit]

A naive question regarding radar stealth.If an aircraft has appropriate stealth design in its fore ward fuselage and has RAM coatings and composites (lets say stealth materials for the ease of comprehension) can it become invisible to radar if it follows some particular flight profile ? This particular aircraft encompasses stealth only in the forward profile !

[Gaur]

A naive question regarding radar stealth.If an aircraft has appropriate stealth design in its fore ward fuselage and has RAM coatings and composites (lets say stealth materials for the ease of comprehension) can it become invisible to radar if it follows some particular flight profile ? This particular aircraft encompasses stealth only in the forward profile !

Stealth is a marketing term and thus very misleading. As I am sure you would know, no aircraft can become "invisible" on the radar. It is just that the so called stealth a/c are LO (low observable) which means that the radar will detect them only when they get comparatively closer to it. So, if the radar positions are predictable (not necessarily static) and known before hand, one can plan a flight profile which will take the a/c out of the range of radars. But depending upon the enemy radar positions, this approach will make the a/c travel a far greater distance and thus its max effective combat range will be drastically reduced. For a LO a/c, the range constraint will be more relaxed and thus range will obviously be relatively greater.
So, I think you would have figured it out by now that for only frontal LO, the flight route will have to be planned with much greater constraint and thus the advantage may be somewhat negated.

Of course, all this is said assuming that the radar positions (both static and moving) are known and there exists some path of vulnerability. If unpredictable movement of ground or air based radars occur, then the situation changes completely.

[TonyMontana]

What is missing is this: The FC-1 was a copy of a MiG design bureau creation that got cancelled because of lack of funds in the USSR

This is pure fanboism here. I think it's kinda cool that China is building all the planes that the USSR would've built if they had the money. Some one has to keep the Americans honest, right?

[Singha]

from the rear aspect, the J20 seems to have about as much concern for LO as the Tejas Mk1..which is minimal. the Tejas being much smaller, no elevator fins, one vertical fin, no ventral fins, will actually have a smaller RCS from the rear aspect probably. with one engine (and smaller engine), its IR signature will be lower too. one fin vs six at the back has gotta count somewhere.

argubably if we change the nose in Mk2 to a "f22 look" (boat hull shape), put in a frameless canopy stolen from EADS, a frameless HUD stolen from EADS and change the undercarriage doors to serrated tooth edge, its frontal RCS wont be too bad vs J20 (only thing left will be splitter plate vs DSI)....atleast when not carrying any external weapons F18 and Pakfa are both working on stealthy weapons pylons for launching AAMs, if we can glue a couple of these on, atleast for A2A role it can be made semi-stealthy platform... without the gee whiz complexity and expenses of the "One True american certified God" (the raptor). the F-15SE fake CFT style weapons bay could also be glued on outside of the air intakes (if the MLG is moved outboard as on Gripen NG).

I think making it about as LO as the F-18EF in Tejas Mk2 version is quite achieveable with a bit of rework, at a very modest cost and timeline.

[Gaur]

^^
Frankly, with canards, large articulators and ventral fins hanging downwards I have more doubts regarding the frontal rcs. Plus, to be honest I am also not able to understand the edge alignment in the prototype.

[NRao]

This is a mere Tech Demo. It is, therefore, allowed to hang any thing, any where.

The real J-20 should evolve out of this. So, we will have to wait and see what this evolution will include.

*Aussies are allowed to fear this plane*

*The rest shall have to wait and see what is to be feared*

[shukla]

J-20 analysis...

The Invisible Bird
Open - The magazine



China’s earlier-than-expected test flight of the fifth-generation J-20 stealth fighter has caught the world defence establishment napping.

Denis Roy, senior fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu, notes, ‘The unveiling of the new Chinese stealth fighter, which the US press is characterising as a rival to the US F-22, reinforces two general US perceptions about the Chinese military. The first is the sense that the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) is modernising more quickly than expected and catching up with US capabilities. The second is anxiety about Chinese intentions, and the fear that Beijing plans to challenge the accustomed US role and US interests in the Asia-Pacific.’’

John J Tkacik Jr, Chief of China Intelligence in the US Department of State during the Clinton Administration and now part of the right-wing Heritage Fou-ndation, tells Open, ‘‘Obviously, we don’t know the technical specifications of the J-20 aside from what we see in the videos, but it appears from the videos that the engine nozzles are for a Chinese-manu-factured engine, and that they show very little exhaust, which indicates that they are quite well advanced, not relative to the US, but to most other countries.”

‘‘The Chinese also indicate that they have Russian-made engines as well, and this could mean the fighter will be available before 2017. Photos of the underside of the test aircraft don’t reveal any lines for weapon bays, so either the test aircraft doesn’t have weapon bays, or they are very tightly incorporated into the fuselage, and hence signal quite acceptable stealth characteristics. I could not see whether the thrust vectoring [the engine’s ability to change altitude and velocity] was performing well in the test flight videos, but it seemed to be part of the design. I could not see whether supercruise—supersonic cruising spe-eds—were tested.’’

The Indian response was planned in conjunction with Russia. The air force planner adds, ‘‘We have jointly developed fifth-generation aircraft from Russia joining in around the same time [as the J-20 becomes operational]. It’s too early to tell in this dogfight.” Harsh V Pant of the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College, London, agrees: ‘‘By the time the J-20 becomes operational, the joint India-Russia response will be ready, and it will add complexity to the South Asian theatre. Do not underestimate the Russians in aircraft technology.”

According to Air Marshal (Retd) Kapil Kak of the Centre for Air Power Studies, a think-tank that tracks strategic developments in aerospace: “The Chinese have this seeming headstart with the new prototype, but the Indians have a credible answer. We are not buying the next plane. We are co-developing it. And Russians are to aircraft what Germans are to motorcars. The T-50 platform will develop and outmatch the Chinese for the simple reason that it’s a few steps ahead already. India will be in an easy position, come 2020, with its 124 new fourth-generation multi-role aircraft contract well on the way, and add to that the Tejas (a third-generation fighter) to take on the MiG-21 workload.”

Tkachik is clear that ‘‘this test flight was designed to be provocative, in the sense that it will provoke the United States to reassess its ability to challenge China’s rise as the pre-eminent power in Asia. I think the Chinese military believes that once the US sees how rapidly China has modernised, and how much disarray its own economy, industry and financial structure has fallen into, the US will quietly back away’’.

[DavidD]

From a random forum link - from 2006. The drawings are pretty accurate - so somebody knew..
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... hp?t=39663

According to the reports of the Jane's Defence Weekly, China has already launched its next generation stealthy fighter aircraft programme, and Shenyang Aircraft Industry Co. (SAC) has been selected to head research and development of a new fighter for the PLA Air Force (PLAAF).

PROGRAMME

According to the report from Jane's, development of the subsystems including the engine and weapon suite for the next generation fighter, which was codenamed by the Western intelligence as J-XX, has been underway for some time. Images of the concepts show a twin-engine aircraft sharing some design traits with Lockheed Martin's stealthy F/A-22 "Raptor" multirole fighter such as the internal carriage of its weapons.

Not too much public information about the programme is available at the moment. The aircraft, which could be designated as J-13 or J-14, is still going through initial concept work, the same stage as the USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) programme in the early 1980s, which later led to the F/A-22 Raptor. Sources within China's confirmed that the SAC is looking at a twin-engine, single-seat, single vertical tale fin design, but other design proposals has yet been ruled out.

As China has developed close ties with Russia's aerospace industry and has license produced many planes of formal Soviet designs, it can be predicted that the J-XX would include some, if not many Russian technologies and designs. China has been offered a 'joint development and production' of a new fifth-generation fighter by Russia -LFI. Russia has been trying to sell this concept both to China and India for some time, but neither of them has committed fully yet. According to Russian resources, the LFI will be able to counter U.S. second fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

Stealth and thrust vectoring are two must-have features in all aircraft being designed in the 21st century. If is not clear that how much progress Chinese designers have made in these areas, and Chinese aircraft industry may have to take Western/Israeli/Russian helps to make the J-XX truly fouth-generation (or fifth-generation using the Russian standards). Once introduced, the J-12's immediate rival will be U.S. F/A-22, JSF and India's MCA (Medium Combat Aircraft).

The top pic on this one was on Huitong's blog as the J-20's picture until real ones surfaced a month ago:



This pic has been around since around 2006 as well. Huitong doesn't put random rumors on his site, so he must've had some sort of indication that it was the real thing. I think the triplane one on the bottom was supposed to be the rejected SAC design.

[shiv]

The top pic on this one was on Huitong's blog as the J-20's picture until real ones surfaced a month ago:



This pic has been around since around 2006 as well. Huitong doesn't put random rumors on his site, so he must've had some sort of indication that it was the real thing. I think the triplane one on the bottom was supposed to be the rejected SAC design.

The top picture is eerily accurate. This gives an insight into several things. The Chinese have not been so totallty secretive but the picture has been fogged by thousands of Chinese fanboys with their photoshop and skeptical western/other observers.

Anyone who followed Chinese media could have had an inkling of the "shape" if not the technology. i must admit that I have myself been ignorant in the way I end up following English language media an have only now started digging up old reports from China.

Mandarin is a language that more Indians should learn.

[shiv]

J-20 analysis...

The Invisible Bird
Open - The magazine
ght the world defence establishment napping. [/i]

As one can see from the reports that have been there for years - this is complete nonsense. This is like a guy who hears a loud fart in a room with only one other person, and then waits 5 minutes till the stink wafts up and says "Hey someone must've farted"

But the entire western media establishment is no better.

[DavidD]

from the rear aspect, the J20 seems to have about as much concern for LO as the Tejas Mk1..which is minimal. the Tejas being much smaller, no elevator fins, one vertical fin, no ventral fins, will actually have a smaller RCS from the rear aspect probably. with one engine (and smaller engine), its IR signature will be lower too. one fin vs six at the back has gotta count somewhere.

argubably if we change the nose in Mk2 to a "f22 look" (boat hull shape), put in a frameless canopy stolen from EADS, a frameless HUD stolen from EADS and change the undercarriage doors to serrated tooth edge, its frontal RCS wont be too bad vs J20 (only thing left will be splitter plate vs DSI)....atleast when not carrying any external weapons F18 and Pakfa are both working on stealthy weapons pylons for launching AAMs, if we can glue a couple of these on, atleast for A2A role it can be made semi-stealthy platform... without the gee whiz complexity and expenses of the "One True american certified God" (the raptor). the F-15SE fake CFT style weapons bay could also be glued on outside of the air intakes (if the MLG is moved outboard as on Gripen NG).

I think making it about as LO as the F-18EF in Tejas Mk2 version is quite achieveable with a bit of rework, at a very modest cost and timeline.

Yea,and don't forget about a new engine for all the added weight. An AESA radar upgrade would be only natural as well. Add all that and...you get a completely new plane. Who needs the AMCA

[shiv]

What is missing is this: The FC-1 was a copy of a MiG design bureau creation that got cancelled because of lack of funds in the USSR

This is pure fanboism here. I think it's kinda cool that China is building all the planes that the USSR would've built if they had the money. Some one has to keep the Americans honest, right?

I am not at all sure of the truth of this any more.

Oh yes the FC-1 does look like that single photo of the alleged MiG Project 33 model I posted earlier. But I am surprised at two things. Why did China go to Grumman in 1986 to upgrade the F-7? Was Pakistan already in it (as it appears to be from some reports). Amazing that there was enough cooperation between the US and China at that time to allow Grumman corp to design a plane for China. The Grumman design was to put the intakes on the sides.

It looks like China was struggling at that time to get a J-8 with side intakes, leave alone a J-9. I read somewhere that the side intakes for the later versions of the J-8 gave a lot of trouble and the J-9 never came into use as far as I know. I have read reports that the intakes on the original FC-1 was also a failure and so it appears that the development (or "borrowing from the US") of divertless supersonic intakes was a godsend - with the same design being implemented on the FC-1 and the new J-20 and on the later versions of the J-10. I find it difficult to believe that the J-10, which is claimed to be to be doing OK suddenly needed an intake change for stealth. The J-10 has huge canards and a tall tail and is unlikely to be all that stealthy and I am certain it already has a serpentine intake duct that hides the compressor face. The J-10 has seen several intake shape changes IIRC - so it appears that this has been a problem area. I don't know for sure.

So we have a China of 1990 struggling to do something better than a MiG 21/J-7, suffering from loss of collaboration with Grumman after Tiananmen. 20 years later there is an F-22 competitor? Sounds a bit surprising. The technology iterations that have to be covered are huge.

[Singha]

well but it wont be a 'true' stealth plane just a smaller f18 at best and without as advanced a radar or amraam-d. new engine is the 414 which should manage .... just the stealth pylons will be extra but going to a f22/j20 style canopy will save the metal frame weight...i am sure the usa will retain the best radar and aam for itself...exporting degraded stuff if at all.

[abhischekcc]

How much of the hype about this plane is real, and how much is fear mongering done to open purse strings of western/Russian/Indian governments so that their air forces can buy more planes of their own?

[Lalmohan]

i am reminded of something from history. for centuries the middle kingdom's ingenious military scientists and engineers built the most fantastic weapons of war and seige engines. great machines of cunning lethality and awe inspiring destructive capability. their prowess lives on beyond the pages of history books and into discovery channel. great barbarian world conquering khans were beguiled by their designs, 'big-nose'white devils marvelled at the oriental martial arts and yet... the barbarians over ran the middle kingdom time and again...

oh well, where is my dhoti? need to do some more shivering

[Dileep]

It is basically a lot more stealthy than the JSF, will fly faster and higher, be more agile and because it's a much bigger aircraft it can carry more weapons,'' he said. ''This thing has been designed to compete with and defeat the F-22. They haven't even bothered with the JSF, and why would you?''

ALL these from a few unclear photus. Amazing!!

[Lalmohan]

^^^ funding panic generation. whatever it takes to scare the politicians to NOT cut defense budgets
old game

[shiv]

http://asian-defence.blogspot.com/2010/ ... -show.html

Eagle Hannan is a Pakistani engineer who works in Nanjing, China. He speaks both Urdu and Chinese fluently.

Hannan describes the aerobatics display of the JF-17 as brilliant. The JF-17 flew twice every day of the air show. He notes that the weather conditions were very bad and hard to take videos in. He said that the J-10s did not perform particularly well. Hannan comments that in 14 minutes of display there was a single performance of 360 and three half-hearted loops. He observes that the rest of the displays by the J-10 were formation flights. He notes that one of the Sherdil pilots (Pakistani Aerobatic team using Chinese ailclaft!!) comments about the J-10 pilots in Punjabi that the old men of China cannot fly their own planes.

Long live Pakistan China friendship! "Deeper than deepest ocean, taller than tallest mountain"

In comparison, the JF-17s did much better. Hannan describes the Chinese crowd as going “wild” with the Thunder’s repeated tight turns, without a single one off-target from the venue.

11. China is confirmed (yet again and without any doubt whatsoever) to buy the FC-1s. Consequently, production is being expanded in Pakistan’s production facilities, Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), to meet the demand. These facilities are located in Kamra.

12. Close cooperation on the J-10B is taking place. The level of cooperation has been significantly expanded since 2009. The size of the cooperation is described as literally a small city-like facility to accommodate PAF and Pakistani civilian engineers. Hannan confirmed that civilian engineers from PAC are also part of the cooperation in China.

Advanced composites have been tested for use on the Block 2 JF-17s. Present JF-17s also use some composites. J-10B/FC-20 is designed from inception from new advanced composites.

A Russian piece on this thread questioned Chinese capability on composites. This is difficult to assess. As I noted in the Tarrel Fliend thread the JF-17/FC-1 is the only aircraft entering service in the last few years that does not make extensive use of composites. Composites are intrinsic to the so called "5 gen tech"

China of course makes a lot of Airbus parts - and many of them are composites. Clearly, some capability exists. But the Pakwhore's post above says that composites "will be" used extensively in J-10B and "have been tested for use" in JF-17 Block 2. That likely indicates that China has not yet extensively incorporated composites into existing Chinee fighter airframes. This would be in keeping with Western and Russian assessments - although they can be wrong.

[shiv]

LOL - the same Paki report as above - in a Chinese site - minus the lovey dovey admiration of Chinese pilots by Paki pilots:

http://www.comhaha.com/blog/577368-xiao ... b-missile/

[SaiK]

How much of the hype about this plane is real, and how much is fear mongering done to open purse strings of western/Russian/Indian governments so that their air forces can buy more planes of their own?

strategically speaking allowing such a dhoti shiver, and especially with our ddm friends can make them buy more cr@p, then so be it.. make it so!

this dhoti shiver is mandatory for our agility.

[Dileep]

I would be glad if all these shivering brown dhothies would translate into a good bi-static radar network looking over the himalayas.

[Philip]

The arrival of the Chinese prototype is going to accelerate the development of the PAK-FA/FGFA fatster than ever.Both Russia and India would not like to be "overtaken" by a Chinese "upstart"! One definite fact is that fron now on,China will have to go it alone,as neither Russia or the west will want China to legitimately acquire key engine technology and in the future challenge it in the skies in battlespace and in exports.

[Christopher Sidor]

^^^^
Philip this is building castles in air. Just as Russia eventually exported SU-30-MK to China, It will, given a chance, export the so called 5th generation fighter PAK-FA/T-50 to China. And this will not stop the Europeans from attempting to sell the Chinese, whether over the counter or under the counter, weapon systems.

In fact India must prepare now, not when it has already happened, for the possibility that China will field a Mig 1.42/1.44 and PAK-FA/FGFA against us.

And giving how reactive we Indians are, don't expect a speeding up of PAK-FA/FGFA until Chinese field their first squadron of their J-20. PAK-FA/FGFA is a Russian baby. Russia has never delivered on schedule and on time the final product.

[NRao]

this is building castles in air

Furthermore, as there are two Chinas, so does Russia have multiple power centers. We can no longer talk in terms of a single country adhering to a single policy. There are those in Russia that oppose the rise of China for sure, but there are power groups within Russia that have other interests in mind. Not to talk of perhaps individual or small groups that are willing to part with some info for various reasons.

What all this means is to be seen.

[DavidD]

The top picture is eerily accurate. This gives an insight into several things. The Chinese have not been so totallty secretive but the picture has been fogged by thousands of Chinese fanboys with their photoshop and skeptical western/other observers.

Anyone who followed Chinese media could have had an inkling of the "shape" if not the technology. i must admit that I have myself been ignorant in the way I end up following English language media an have only now started digging up old reports from China.

Mandarin is a language that more Indians should learn.

It's been like that for quite a few years, and if you know what/who to look for, you can get a much more accurate picture of PLA developments than publicly available media reports. You can follow them just as well on English sites like sinodefence and china-defense though, as some posters on there follow the Chinese boards very closely and know how to filter out the rubbish.

There are some rumors running around right now that they've tested the DF-21D at sea, with this ship(Yuan Wang 4) as the target:

http://calf.cn/attachments/day_100924/1 ... 9b7b1f.jpg

Apparently the ship was accidentally rammed by a civilian ship a few months ago so it's no longer fit for service. It's been converted to a target for a while, and the current rumor is that it was sunk by the DF-21D today. I guess this test worked better than the rumored test last year against a target at sea.

[shiv]

Apparently the ship was accidentally rammed by a civilian ship a few months ago so it's no longer fit for service. It's been converted to a target for a while, and the current rumor is that it was sunk by the DF-21D today. I guess this test worked better than the rumored test last year against a target at sea.

But David - you do understand that this post too constitutes one data point in a sea of high background noise and cannot be looked at as either proof or lack of proof. That is the problem..

[Indranil]

David, I don't quiet understand.

The ship is damaged beyond repairs (this is generally very drastic for a ship of that size and generally encompasses enormous damage to the hull because changing the engine/gears/transmission is not that unheard of). If you read about famous ships like aircraft carriers and big destroyers in WW-II, there were salvage attempts when they were taking in huge amounts of water and hundreds of miles into sea. So when somebody says that a ship is beyond repairs, it was must quite somethinf.

Anyways, how does this not-sea worthy ship simulate an ACC which is moving randomly at its free will? Remember tugging this boat in high seas (very unlikely, when it is beyond repairs). Even if that is done the speed of the tug will be nowhere close to 30 knots of a ACC. Forget about the maneuverability!

[NRao]

IF it did happen then the DF-21D, TOO, is a tech demo.

That is all there is to it.

It was not meant to chase a ACC moving at 30 Knots. The test was meant to hit a stationary ship.

However, this simulation does not prove much. For sure it does not tell us what techs were used - IF they were - to detect the ship, etc, etc, etc.

It just says that a DF-21D was fired, traveled X miles and hit a ship at a predetermined location. (Which by itself could be a mile stone.)

[Indranil]

^^^ That is not a challenge to any of the big guys out there. It would be a matter of CEP reduction (most countries already have the required CEP). I don't think the Chinese scientists are that foolish.

As I said, I don't understand the gossip mongers outside. David, I am not counting you as one. I would rather say you are a gossip messenger in this case.

[Singha]

he he he further spasms of panic among western analysts...burn baby burn!

[NRao]

I also do not think the Chinese scicom is stupid. But, tech can be a limiting factor and this limitation can be enhanced via networks and fotoshap.

added l8r:

This from a comment to an article on key.aero:

What looks like a buiscuit tin, has the radar cross section of a small ship and has the climb rate of a 747 fully loaded........?

Referring to the J-20 test flight. : ) LOL.

[DavidD]

Apparently the ship was accidentally rammed by a civilian ship a few months ago so it's no longer fit for service. It's been converted to a target for a while, and the current rumor is that it was sunk by the DF-21D today. I guess this test worked better than the rumored test last year against a target at sea.

But David - you do understand that this post too constitutes one data point in a sea of high background noise and cannot be looked at as either proof or lack of proof. That is the problem..

That's true, and I don't follow Chinese boards as closely as I do English boards so I might have been wrong in judging the validity of this rumor. This rumor seems to have some legs though. If it turns out to be false alarm, I'll be back to tell you about it

David, I don't quiet understand.

The ship is damaged beyond repairs (this is generally very drastic for a ship of that size and generally encompasses enormous damage to the hull because changing the engine/gears/transmission is not that unheard of). If you read about famous ships like aircraft carriers and big destroyers in WW-II, there were salvage attempts when they were taking in huge amounts of water and hundreds of miles into sea. So when somebody says that a ship is beyond repairs, it was must quite somethinf.

Anyways, how does this not-sea worthy ship simulate an ACC which is moving randomly at its free will? Remember tugging this boat in high seas (very unlikely, when it is beyond repairs). Even if that is done the speed of the tug will be nowhere close to 30 knots of a ACC. Forget about the maneuverability!

People on the Chinese boards are asking the same thing. That ship wouldn't be able to travel at 30+ knots in the first place anyway. Now, this is purely my conjecture, but with the speed this missile travels, the target would only be within its sensors' range for a few seconds, during which time a target the size of a Nimitz class carrier would be essentially stationary. Thus, even if it's coasting along at only 10 knots, as long as the missile can target it in the terminal stage, it would still be a good indication of its capabilities.

[Indranil]

And how is it coasting at 10 knots in deep sea?

A ship which can do that would be easily mended and put back to service. I am not a navy expert, but I can at least assure of this. If you insist I will produce examples of much worse conditions which were salvaged.

It would be failure if the missile misses by 5 mtrs, so 10 knots and 30 knots does a lot of difference.

I am one of those who believes that this missile is not all smoke and no fire. But if it is being tested like this, I would say no more. In my opinion, an electronic target makes much better simulation because nobody will actually sacrifice a real big boat for a test.

Mostly ships which are used for torpedo tests etc are long decommissioned ships. May be for a live test the Chinese would need a ship which has been just decommissioned. But a crippled ship which can't be repaired at port being a live simulations for a ACC is a very feeble test as best.

[shiv]

Now, this is purely my conjecture, but with the speed this missile travels, the target would only be within its sensors' range for a few seconds, during which time a target the size of a Nimitz class carrier would be essentially stationary. Thus, even if it's coasting along at only 10 knots, as long as the missile can target it in the terminal stage, it would still be a good indication of its capabilities.

This is the second time that this discussion is coming up on this thread. A ship at 30 knots would move about 300 meters in 20 seconds. The length of an aircraft carrier is about 300 meters and for a direct hit (using conventional munitions) the final update that a missile needs to have regarding the position of the ship should be given within 20 seconds

For a missile approaching at, say Mach 6 (2000 meters per second) - 20 seconds means that the update must come no later than a distance of 40 km from the ship. There has to be the technical means to feed that information to the re entry warhead. An US aircraft carrier typically has a 1000 km zone of exclusion and there has to be some system in place to track the carrier from 1000 km away to provide that last second update. Also the tracking is done over the earth's curvature and from that angle the ocean is very cluttered with hundreds of ships and other "obstructions". There are Chinese sourced articles that speak realistically about the technical difficulty of overcoming this.

Of course if the missile uses a nuclear warhead it can afford to miss by a largish margin.

[DavidD]

And how is it coasting at 10 knots in deep sea?

A ship which can do that would be easily mended and put back to service. I am not a navy expert, but I can at least assure of this. If you insist I will produce examples of much worse conditions which were salvaged.

It would be failure if the missile misses by 5 mtrs, so 10 knots and 30 knots does a lot of difference.

I am one of those who believes that this missile is not all smoke and no fire. But if it is being tested like this, I would say no more. In my opinion, an electronic target makes much better simulation because nobody will actually sacrifice a real big boat for a test.

Mostly ships which are used for torpedo tests etc are long decommissioned ships. May be for a live test the Chinese would need a ship which has been just decommissioned. But a crippled ship which can't be repaired at port being a live simulations for a ACC is a very feeble test as best.

The ship was near retirement anyway(it was built in the 70's and has been retired since '07), they just didn't see the need to restore the ship. The fire that followed the collision damaged some inside stuff, but I'm sure they can patch up the outside so it can coast along in the ocean.

Now, this is purely my conjecture, but with the speed this missile travels, the target would only be within its sensors' range for a few seconds, during which time a target the size of a Nimitz class carrier would be essentially stationary. Thus, even if it's coasting along at only 10 knots, as long as the missile can target it in the terminal stage, it would still be a good indication of its capabilities.

This is the second time that this discussion is coming up on this thread. A ship at 30 knots would move about 300 meters in 20 seconds. The length of an aircraft carrier is about 300 meters and for a direct hit (using conventional munitions) the final update that a missile needs to have regarding the position of the ship should be given within 20 seconds

For a missile approaching at, say Mach 6 (2000 meters per second) - 20 seconds means that the update must come no later than a distance of 40 km from the ship. There has to be the technical means to feed that information to the re entry warhead. An US aircraft carrier typically has a 1000 km zone of exclusion and there has to be some system in place to track the carrier from 1000 km away to provide that last second update. Also the tracking is done over the earth's curvature and from that angle the ocean is very cluttered with hundreds of ships and other "obstructions". There are Chinese sourced articles that speak realistically about the technical difficulty of overcoming this.

Of course if the missile uses a nuclear warhead it can afford to miss by a largish margin.

Right, they'll have to find a way to get the targeting information for sure. Another solution to the problem you posed though, could be solved by having some sort of terminal guidance system. Either way, it's a tough task, which is one of the reasons why nobody has fielded such a system yet.