China Military Watch

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.
neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: China Military Watch

Postby neerajb » 29 Dec 2010 20:30

DavidD wrote:Yep, even before this picture many observers have noted that it's got DSI. Some influential member on a Chinese message board mentioned that it may have "adjustable" DSI, not sure how accurate that is. I'm pretty skeptical of that claim, since one of the advantages of DSI is that it does away with adjustable parts and thus save both weight and maintenance time.


Probably something like this : watch 2:28 onwards. Though the referenced arrangement utilises the splitter plate but the adjustable DSI (if ever implemented) should look something like that where the position and contour of the bump can be changed dynamically. Kudos to the designers of F-111 who designed such complex/beautiful artistic intake.

Cheers....

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 29 Dec 2010 20:32

Singha wrote:sweetman sir speculates its bigger than su30 and is intended in present shape as a Fb-111/Su34 type long range strike bird with a secondary BVR aam role using its powerful radar size. huge internal fuel to roam far out over the ocean and take the war into taiwan and japan(and india!)....a kind of stealth Mig25/31 as Austin sir mentioned!

maybe this is just a root node and things will branch out into a more stealthy strike bird and a shorter, lighter bird for pure a2a like f22 style. there is plenty of time for that and both versions need not enter IOC together.



I am not sure I agree with Sweetman who initially assessed the size as 90 feet IIRC and felt it might be a stealthy attack aircraft. I am guessing that the Chinese are just trying to develop a 5 gen platform and technologies for a multirole aircraft. But this will primarily be an air superiority fighter with secondary SEAD role. IMHO

I think anyone who sees what the US does will understand that a medium bomber or a heavy attack aircraft has never been used against adversaries of equal size but against pipsqueaks whom superpower America wants to butt-kick. Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. If the Chinese want to butt-kick the Vietnamese or the Philippines - then these heavy conventional attack aircraft will come in handy. Using them against the US (i.e. by attacking Taiwan or Japan) or using for deep strikes against India will attract punishment that these fighters will not be able to do much about.

But the Chinese will develop the technology, keep their defence strong and export to every asshole country on earth. Just like America. After all Chinese arming and support of NoKo is not much different from American support to Pakistan.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby manum » 29 Dec 2010 20:45

i dun think its needed for us to get alarmed by this one given our future aircrafts in line....I would have gotten alarmed if it was a drone, coz PRC has great capability to mass produce...
and its not far we'll see a drone in similar way...
Last edited by manum on 29 Dec 2010 20:50, edited 1 time in total.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Gaur » 29 Dec 2010 20:45

Speculative Blueprint from paralay:
http://paralay.iboards.ru/download/file.php?id=11909&mode=view

The drawing does not seem to be right to me. I find it highly inaccurate.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 29 Dec 2010 21:17

manum wrote:i dun think its needed for us to get alarmed by this one given our future aircrafts in line....I would have gotten alarmed if it was a drone, coz PRC has great capability to mass produce...
and its not far we'll see a drone in similar way...


No dhoti shivering for you then? 8)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 29 Dec 2010 21:18

Gaur wrote:Speculative Blueprint from paralay:
http://paralay.iboards.ru/download/file.php?id=11909&mode=view

The drawing does not seem to be right to me. I find it highly inaccurate.


The mainwing is totally wrong.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Victor » 29 Dec 2010 21:27

Multatuli wrote:We have to keep in mind that China "imported" MiG engineers decades ago and these MiG designers really put fighter aircraft design in a higher gear. Most likely the MiG people brought their "experience" ( if not the blueprints ) of the MiG 1.44 with them, so the Chinese did not have to start from scratch.

Exactly, and they are racing ahead in every department they can while these engineers are still productive. The engines, avionics and design refinements can come when they are ready. But the hawks in the US will be milking this "event" for everything its worth in their efforts to resuscitate the Skunk Works/Star Wars era. Every western scare tactic article should be seen in this light. That's good news for India.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby manum » 29 Dec 2010 21:37

shiv wrote:
manum wrote:i dun think its needed for us to get alarmed by this one given our future aircrafts in line....I would have gotten alarmed if it was a drone, coz PRC has great capability to mass produce...
and its not far we'll see a drone in similar way...


No dhoti shivering for you then? 8)


Naah, not with this one, till i see the proof of fifth gen "not so visible" technologies...and also wondering, what PRC is after...a JSF type stealth or they are going to bargain on maneuverabilty a bit...both will be difficult to come by together...

then how much cost cutting they can do and keep it reliable and salable platform. from where the 5th gen engine, avionics and when its going to arrive...given market wise also, they'll have to compete with pakfa/fgfa. forget JSF.

and who are its competitors, India, Vietnam (they both have reliable platforms and experienced pilots ) (I am assuming Pakfa will also be sold to Vietnam and may be malaysia too).

This aircraft is not a game changer, till its arrival in a mature (as much it can be) there will be others in reckoning or arrived in more mature forms...
I am not counting MCA, it'll come when it'll come.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16997
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 29 Dec 2010 21:56

the aircraft does look very large to me, longer than either the PAKFA or the F22. unless there is some fooling around in the pics of course.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby chackojoseph » 29 Dec 2010 22:21

RahulM,

As I said before, the aircraft will have extended period of testing. It will run for more than 10 years. all their development are similar.

As before, the guys are testing the airframe. it will get modified. The engine fiasco then. Moscow will come and then bail them out in both design and engine.

I got banned in one forum for saying this. 1) WS-10 succeeds every year. 2) Chinese developments are like Lord of the Rings epic fantasy.

I hope I won't be banned in this forum for saying this :rotfl:

if you would have read the Washington Post 5 days back, the dudes cannot create and engine. For aircrafts they depend on Russia. Their nuke sub (they say is quite now) is a noisy bucket, their ASBM is a pipe dream, their subs hardly patrol etc etc.


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Austin » 29 Dec 2010 22:27

Rahul M wrote:the aircraft does look very large to me, longer than either the PAKFA or the F22. unless there is some fooling around in the pics of course.


Yes it looks beefy and probably bigger then F-22/PAK-FA , we have a new fighter bomber ;)

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8140
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 29 Dec 2010 22:28

neerajb wrote:
indranilroy wrote:What is the white thing near the under carriage. I could see them consistently across all the pics. It is open even when the aircraft is taxiing in the second pic by Jlin. In the frontal pic by Jlin, it can be seen side on in front of the wheels.


Undercarriage door.

zlin wrote:Image


Cheers....


I thought so too :) ... But didn't understand the logic of the design ...Frankly such huge doors are unprecedented!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Austin » 29 Dec 2010 22:31

indranilroy wrote:I thought so too :) ... But didn't understand the logic of the design ...Frankly such huge doors are unprecedented!


Its unprecedented because its original Chinese design finally ! no copy cat here you know :P

iparvas
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 05 Oct 2010 21:03

Re: China Military Watch

Postby iparvas » 29 Dec 2010 22:34

will this new stealth aircraft penetrate US airspace ? :roll:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16997
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 29 Dec 2010 22:43

chackojoseph wrote:
I got banned in one forum for saying this. 1) WS-10 succeeds every year. 2) Chinese developments are like Lord of the Rings epic fantasy.

I hope I won't be banned in this forum for saying this

you are on a roll man ! :D

Austin, that's what surprises me. it is big AND fat, 40+ tons or F-111 size as kopp says looks reasonable to me. if we are correct about the size, they would really struggle to get requisite engines to power this to a decent TWR. now why would the PLAAF want a fighter bomber when the need for air superiority fighters would be more pressing ?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Austin » 29 Dec 2010 22:54

The Chinese design appears to be largely built around the stealth shaping design rules employed in the F-22A Raptor. The chined nose section and canopy are close in appearance to the F-22. The trapezoidal inlets are closest to the F-22, but employ an F-35 style boundary layer control design. The wing fuselage join angle, critical for side aspect stealth, is very similar to the F-22 and superior to the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The flat lower fuselage is optimal for all aspect wideband stealth.


Finally some one agrees with me that J-20 design takes more from F-22 then any Mig design , Thanks Carlos :)

IMO the reason why they have those Canards ( not stealth friendly ) is because they understand the canard design very well via J-10 experience and until they get a 3 D/2D reliable TVC engine they will keep the canard , after all Eurofighter has canard delta configuration and can do well in subsonic and supersonic regimes of flight as we are told.

The aft fuselage, tailboom, strakes and nozzles are not compatible with high stealth performance, but may only be stop gap measures to expedite flight testing of a prototype.


Agreed right now they need to worry more on validating this new aerodynamic design than some stealth aspect , after all what is the use of stealth if you end up with subpar aerodynamic performance or worst some fundamental design problem.

Much like PAK-FA the J-20 will have couple of prototypes validating its aerodynamic/FBW/systems performance.

The airframe configuration and aft fuselage would be compatible with an F-22 style 2D TVC nozzle design, or a non-TVC rectangular nozzle designed for controlled infrared emission and radio-frequency stealth.


Ejactly if you remove those strakes and replace those round nozzle with a Flat 2D nozzle and just remove the canards this will look like a beefy F-22 , Raptor-chi-lee-ski

Now what CIA has to do is to find out if there is any Chinese mole in the F-22 design team that helped them siphon off the design ... W-88 redux :((

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Austin » 29 Dec 2010 23:04

Rahul M wrote:now why would the PLAAF want a fighter bomber when the need for air superiority fighters would be more pressing ?


Couple of reasons

Their number one enemy namely US has a formidable Air Defence layered system that needs to be penetrated stealthly as possible , atleast to an extent they can launch stand off weapons.

Their number one enemy will be mobile and will try to keep distance which means any fighter will needs persistence.

All this demands a large fighter bomber that can primarily do the strike role but if need be can defend itself which is what J-20 should be capable of doing.

They do not desperately need a Air Superiority Fighter because right now they have J-10/Su-30 that can well do the job of defending their Airspace plus in co-operation with SAM like S-300PMU2 and other cheap copies.

Most certainly they need a formidable engine to power this bird in better T/W class atleast above 10 , but even 117S with 14.5 T thrust will make this into a formidable strike platform if not air superiority one.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby manum » 29 Dec 2010 23:23

Image

http://img196.imageshack.us/i/comparisontj.jpg/

comparison of existing 5th gen...taken from keypublishing

Jamie Boscardin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 71
Joined: 02 Aug 2010 21:56

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Jamie Boscardin » 29 Dec 2010 23:36

China's 5the Gen Aircraft (probably named -CHIPAK), surely seems to be again another attempt at PR, both from PRC(for their physo ops) and for US and its allies to make a bigger threat perception so as to get lot of industrial activity done and to win allies.
As of now, china is not capable of doing serious R&D to a level that they come out with a 5th Gen aircraft.
They will surely like any country investing heavily on military one day get the sophistication but so will India by that time.
One link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/24/AR2010122402788.html

zlin
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 07 Aug 2003 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby zlin » 30 Dec 2010 00:09

new pictures

Image
Image
Image

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5242
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: China Military Watch

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Dec 2010 00:39

indranilroy wrote:I thought so too :) ... But didn't understand the logic of the design ...Frankly such huge doors are unprecedented!
What do you know? :) This is a stealth MTA with the doors designed so that CPC bosses can easily get in and be transported to their favorite destinations, invisible to Chinese radar!

Anyways, this looks like a fat pig, sorry, that is the first impression that comes to mind.

Now the question in my mind is can they make this pig fly and make it lean and mean over time or is this show and tell and vapor ware?

zlin
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 07 Aug 2003 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby zlin » 30 Dec 2010 00:54

Best picture so far
Image

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Virupaksha » 30 Dec 2010 00:59

Why am I getting the feeling that these weapons are from photoshop r&d laboratories

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 905
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby DavidD » 30 Dec 2010 04:49

Rahul M wrote:
DavidD wrote:
Lol, was there a big clamoring about them on the LCA thread or something? But really, what is it? I checked out the other 5th gen fighters, and both the F-22 and the PAK-FA have them too. Judging by the positions of them on the F-22, they don't appear to be possible missile racks.

actuator housing IIRC.


Thanks.

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 905
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby DavidD » 30 Dec 2010 04:51

Singha wrote:even the raptor had a TD phase. the raptor TD had a different tail horizontal elevators than the production model.


I think you mean the prototype phase, all prototypes undergo some modifications before becoming the production model, or else there'd be no need for prototyping!

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 905
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby DavidD » 30 Dec 2010 04:56

neerajb wrote:
DavidD wrote:Yep, even before this picture many observers have noted that it's got DSI. Some influential member on a Chinese message board mentioned that it may have "adjustable" DSI, not sure how accurate that is. I'm pretty skeptical of that claim, since one of the advantages of DSI is that it does away with adjustable parts and thus save both weight and maintenance time.


Probably something like this : watch 2:28 onwards. Though the referenced arrangement utilises the splitter plate but the adjustable DSI (if ever implemented) should look something like that where the position and contour of the bump can be changed dynamically. Kudos to the designers of F-111 who designed such complex/beautiful artistic intake.

Cheers....


Ah thanks! Wow that looks pretty impressive/futuristic. Maybe the DSI bump can be lessened similar to that to improve supersonic performance? Public domain research on the DSI seem to universally agree that it suffers a performance penalty at over Mach 1, I suppose something like this could be a possible solution for it. CAC already has experience designing two DSI fighter aircrafts, so it's not unreasonable to think that they've at least attempted to improve on the basic design.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1649
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Sid » 30 Dec 2010 05:10

Ok, so this is what was sticking out of J-XX's butt. But seriously what it is????

Image

chand
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 25 May 2004 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby chand » 30 Dec 2010 05:22

My guess is that for the parachute.

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 905
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby DavidD » 30 Dec 2010 05:32

chand wrote:My guess is that for the parachute.


Yup, that's where the parachute's located. You can see it in one of the pics where it released the parachute.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16534
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch

Postby NRao » 30 Dec 2010 05:48

zlin,

Nice picture.

What I would be interested in is is this a tech demo? When is the "IOC" expected to be completed.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 30 Dec 2010 06:26

zlin wrote:Best picture so far
Image



Also the weirdest picture. I have never seen an aircraft with differential movement of the twin tailfins.

wrdos
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby wrdos » 30 Dec 2010 06:29

:D :lol: :rotfl:
The weirdest picture is here.
Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 30 Dec 2010 06:30

Sid wrote:Ok, so this is what was sticking out of J-XX's butt. But seriously what it is????

Image


Could be an airbrake cum parachute housing. But seriously that goddam differential skewing of tailfins is there again in this photo too. The leading edge of both tailfins are turned inwards. Weird.

songfeihong
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 23
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 02:36

Re: China Military Watch

Postby songfeihong » 30 Dec 2010 06:40

shiv, according to Chinese fans, the tail fins are not only movable but also can make different movements at the same time.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 30 Dec 2010 06:48

Austin wrote:Agreed right now they need to worry more on validating this new aerodynamic design than some stealth aspect , after all what is the use of stealth if you end up with subpar aerodynamic performance or worst some fundamental design problem.


Austinji - that is a lame excuse. Either you have stealth or you don't have stealth and say that some concessions have been made for stealth but others for performance. The argument "What is the use of stealth if you end up with sub-par performance" is rhetoric at best and invalid at worst. The F-117 IMO was an absolute classic. Subpar performance but very stealthy and did its job extremely well. That is a standard that even the F-22 cannot claim to have reached yet.

Here you have a gi-normous aircraft - people are saying 80 plus feet (I disagree) and 40 tons (nobody knows yet), eight separate reflecting aerodynamic surfaces two huge afterburner pipes sticking out that will glow like a phool-jhadi and what stealth are people talking about? Come on folks - if you put a paper bag to obscure a horse's nose the rest of the horse does not disappear.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 30 Dec 2010 06:49

songfeihong wrote:shiv, according to Chinese fans, the tail fins are not only movable but also can make different movements at the same time.


For what reason? In flight it will only increase drag and serve no purpose.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 30 Dec 2010 07:10

This is the most flattering photo where the plane looks most fearsome. All 8 wings and fins are visible giving the appearance of a plane that is meant to be agile in the air. Yes the Chinese have put in some effort to reduce its radar signature but this is not going to have the F-117s or the F-22 radar signature. To me it looks like a good research platform where they can sling on one Al 31 and one WS 10 and still have the plane survive if the latter fails. Or play with radar signatures.


Image

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 941
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Guddu » 30 Dec 2010 07:30

Or play with radar signatures


Could the idea be to change the radar signature, mid flight, to confuse the enemy as to the type of aircraft that's fast arriving...alternatively, these are just for radar signature testing purposes only. Speculating onlee..

rahuls
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 74
Joined: 11 Feb 2010 09:39
Location: Dharti

Re: China Military Watch

Postby rahuls » 30 Dec 2010 07:58

shiv wrote:Could be an airbrake cum parachute housing. But seriously that goddam differential skewing of tailfins is there again in this photo too. The leading edge of both tailfins are turned inwards. Weird.


I found this differential skewing of tailfins on PAK-FA too, most probably it is only during the parked position.

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/7792/t5012big.jpg
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6163/t5013big.jpg


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests