AoA! Single-crystal type advancement in dhoti vibration tech!!Samay wrote:as history suggests that reverse engineering bears quicker results than self obfuscation of Indigenous claims
I have no fundamental disagreement with what you have written. But if we know that China indulges in shadow play, we must decide whether we want to enter the shadow-play game or not. By and large India has not been in the shadow-play game while the Chinese seem to thrive on it. The Chinese thrive on shadow play because it has an effect on China watchers. If the shadow play stopped having an effect on China watchers it would be useless for China to continue with shadow play.manum wrote: China is something we look up to in a way...its an example for us for its good things it has achieved (please don't kill me).
Nukes are for weak and irresponsible nations now...or they are for extraterrestrial superman threats...I don't think India can ever use nuke, its impossible, till we are attacked by it, we can never ever cause such unnecessary loss of life...
AMCA is just a showcase of technology, so that our shadow gets larger than us...rest who knows what china is cooking of what...J20 calls for AMCA...we are the only nation who seem 2 most near it after russia and china...Japs are 6th gen guys...given F22 shelved...
So basically, it's a completely different plane except for similar planform concept, like the F-15 and the Su-27. Then again, that never stopped American fanboys from calling the Flanker F-15skisrai wrote:Looking at the J-20 design, it is clearly derived from the MiG-1.44 MFI (which flew in 2001) but with reshaping of the front to be more of a F-22/35 design (nose, cockpit, inlets) as well as other VLO enhancements.
Except that both were good and successful.like the F-15 and the Su-27
Interestingly the F-15 was a reaction to the MiG 25, which was a reaction to the XB-70/SR-71.DavidD wrote:
So basically, it's a completely different plane except for similar planform concept, like the F-15 and the Su-27. Then again, that never stopped American fanboys from calling the Flanker F-15ski
I am very, very surprised that the J-20 does not have a tinge of the Lavi.The J-20 is a reaction to
Yup. On a side note, it's funny how all the brilliant American experts completely misinterpreted both the MiG 25's intentions and capabilities. If they think the J-20 will be meant as a striker, then I'm afraid they're entirely mistaken.... I doubt the PLA is delusional enough to think that they can carry out meaningful offensives against the U.S. and allied forces out to the 2nd island chain yet. Their top priority would be to at least make sure that the Americans and their allies cannot achieve aerial supremacy in nearby areas first, long-range offensive capabilities can come later. There's an order to things, and building a long range strike aircraft without even the ability to fully defend your own airfields and surveillance network is downright stupid. The PLA, for the time being, only needs limited counter-offensive capabilities enough to create a buffer zone.shiv wrote:Interestingly the F-15 was a reaction to the MiG 25, which was a reaction to the XB-70/SR-71.DavidD wrote:
So basically, it's a completely different plane except for similar planform concept, like the F-15 and the Su-27. Then again, that never stopped American fanboys from calling the Flanker F-15ski
The J-20 is a reaction to the F-22
Tai Ming Cheung is an associate research scientist at the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation in San Diego. His book, Fortifying China, examines the transformation and workings of the Chinese defense economy.
The stealthy online unveiling of China’s next-generation fighter aircraft, dubbed the J-20, represents an important marker in the accelerating development of China’s defense science, technology, and innovation capabilities. Although it will likely take another five-to-ten years before the aircraft is ready for serial production and operational service, its unofficial public debut serves notice of China’s intent to become a world-class military power within the next decade.
Strategic Significance of the J-20 Program
The Chinese military aviation industry has made impressive strides over the past 15 years in narrowing the technological gap with the world’s advanced aviation powers. In the mid-1990s, China was struggling to produce third-generation, 1970s-era combat aircraft that were 20-to-30 years behind their global counterparts. After major structural reforms and considerable assistance from Russia, China is now able to field fighter aircraft such as the Chengdu J-10 and Shenyang J-11 that are only 10-to-15 years behind the most advanced Western models. The J-20 will reduce this gap even further.
China’s military aviation industry is now a prospective candidate to join an exclusive group of countries able to indigenously develop a stealth aircraft. The only established member of this elite set is the U.S., which has successfully developed and fielded a number of stealth aircraft over the past two decades. Russia is in the early stages of test-flying its first stealthy aircraft, called the T-50. Other advanced military aviation powers such as the U.K., France, and Sweden that potentially have the technological capabilities to develop stealth programs have opted not to because of the huge costs involved, uncertain sales prospects, and their considerable investment in more traditional non-stealthy fighter aircraft projects.
Besides China, no other country in the Asia-Pacific region has the technological and industrial capabilities to pursue a stealth fighter program. Japan has built a scaled mock-up of a stealth fighter, but it has yet to make any significant investments in conducting serious research and development in this area and most likely will seek instead to purchase the F-35 stealth fighter from the U.S. India signed an agreement with Russia in December 2010 to acquire fifth-generation fighter aircraft based on the T-50. Other regional powers, especially Taiwan, may now have to reconsider their long-term plans for the modernization of their air forces in anticipation of China’s arrival into the stealth fighter club before the end of this decade.
While web images of the J-20 offer some tantalizing glimpses of its design profile, there are critical knowledge gaps that make it difficult to determine whether the aircraft represents an incremental or breakthrough technological innovation or something in-between. One big question concerns how stealthy the aircraft is. This refers to its ability to minimize its radar-cross section through its architectural design and radar-absorbent composite materials. Another issue concerns the sophistication and integration of avionics capabilities. The latest generations of state-of-the-art Western fighter aircraft are now being equipped with Active Electronically Scanned Array radar and advanced sensors and there are few indications that the Chinese defense industry has been able to master this technology. Additionally, stealth aircraft are supposed to be exceptionally maneuverable and able to cruise at high speeds because of high-performance vectoring engines.
If the J-20 were able to meet all or even some of these requirements, it would be a remarkable breakthrough technological accomplishment. While the Chinese aviation industry has made some important progress in the fields of composite materials, avionics and sensors, design processes and propulsion technology over the past decade, these technological capabilities and standards remain considerably short of world-class standards. For example, the Chinese aero-engine sector has yet to begin serial production of its own high-performance turbofan engines such as the WS-10 even though it claims to have mastered development a few years ago.
To address these weaknesses in its research, development and engineering capabilities, China has turned to foreign sources, especially Russia, for critical assistance. Without reliable Chinese aero-engines, China has had to import Russian engines to equip its mainstay J-10 and J-11 fighter fleet. Of particular relevance for the J-20 program was China’s request to Russia for Type 117S aero-engines during annual defense technology cooperation talks between the two countries last year. These engines are being used on Russia’s T-50 aircraft.
Reverse engineering is another technique extensively employed by the Chinese aviation industry to overcome technological hurdles and shorten development times. This includes cooperative deals with Russia in which the Chinese purchased licenses for production rights to produce Su-27 fighter aircraft in the late 1990s, and unauthorized reverse engineering of the same aircraft at the same time. Having access to foreign technologies and knowledge will allow China to mitigate the considerable developmental risks posed by an ambitious but technologically immature aviation industry.
State of China’s Aviation Industry
After sixty years of struggle and stagnation, the Chinese aircraft industry has been experiencing a renaissance over the past decade. The industry is reaping record profits, receiving plentiful flows of orders, developing and producing new generations of advanced aircraft, and forging business and technology ties with some of the world’s leading aircraft and aircraft-component firms.
This is a far cry from the end of the 1990s when the industry was a loss-making relic of the bygone central-planning era. The aviation industry, along with the rest of the defense economy, was severely impacted by the introduction of economic reforms in the late 1970s. Heavy cuts in defense spending and a sharp decline in support for the state sector led to a prolonged downturn during the 1980s and 1990s. The aviation industry’s problems were exacerbated by the unwillingness of conservative defense industrial leaders to implement meaningful reforms to reduce enormous waste, inefficiency, and widespread obsolescence.
The inability of the aviation and defense industries to meet the modernization needs of the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA, became a critical national security concern from the mid-1990s, as tensions intensified in the Taiwan Strait. In the late 1990s, the central authorities intervened and carried out sweeping reforms of the defense and aviation sectors:
Shifting from Administrative to Corporate Mechanisms: The outdated administrative management structure was replaced by new corporate arrangements intended to foster market competition. Two new aviation conglomerates, Aviation Industries Corp. of China (AVIC) 1 and AVIC 2, were established and given considerable autonomy along with major industrial enterprises such as Chengdu Aircraft Corp., which is responsible for development of the J-20.
Overhauling the Research and Development (R&D) Base: Reforms were launched to break down entrenched compartmentalization by integrating R&D and production activities. Funding for R&D activities was also revamped with more money going into viable high priority projects and the culling of lower priority and failing projects.
Paying Attention to End-User Requirements: The aviation industry’s blinkered technology-push approach to product development was wrestled open and the PLA, especially the air force, was given the lead role in setting and overseeing equipment research, development and evaluation.
Changing the Leadership: Reform-minded technocrats took charge of the defense and aviation sectors and vigorously implemented far-reaching reforms, including slashing costs and laying off tens of thousands of workers.
The implementation of these and other reforms created the conditions for a remarkable turnaround in the aviation industry’s fortunes since the beginning of the 21st Century:
Financial Performance: After more than a decade of losses, the aviation industry became profitable again in 2003 and has posted record earnings and revenue growth annually since then. In 2009, AVIC had profits of US$1.4 billion and revenue of $28 billion, and was also included for the first time on the Fortune 500 list of top global companies
R&D and Innovation: Heavy investment in R&D has led to a strong surge in innovation activities, especially with the establishment of dozens of research laboratories and expansion of aviation universities and institutes. By 2009, AVIC had received more than 5,300 patents, the vast majority of which were obtained in the last few years.
Product Development: An extensive range of military aircraft from fighters to electronic warfare aircraft has emerged from the Chinese aviation industry over the past 10 years. Chinese air force officials proudly stated that more than 90 percent of the 15 types of military aircraft that took part in the 60th national day anniversary fly past in October 2009 were indigenously developed products.
While these performance indicators show impressive gains, the aviation industry still suffers from serious structural weaknesses that threaten its long-term ability to narrow the technological gap and catch up with the top tier of global aviation powers. The aero-engine sector, as already pointed out, has struggled mightily to develop and produce state-of-the-art high performance power plants.
Another major structural weakness, and a legacy of the Maoist past, is the widespread duplication and balkanization of industrial and research facilities. The aviation industry has more than 130 large and medium-sized factories and research institutes employing 250,000 workers scattered across the country, especially in the deep interior, and often possessing the same manufacturing and research attributes. But intense rivalry, local protectionism, and huge geographical distances mean that there is little cooperation or coordination among these facilities, preventing the ability to reap economies of scale and engage in innovation clustering, and also hampering efforts at consolidation.
The extended cut-off in ties between the Chinese and Western military aircraft industries since the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown has also contributed to its technological weakness. But Beijing has been able to mitigate the severity of these restrictions by forging a close relationship with Russia that has allowed the Chinese aviation industry to gain access to state-of-the-art weapons, and technology and knowledge transfers through off-the shelf purchases, offsets and license production arrangements.
State of the Chinese Defense Industry
The Chinese defense industry is making a concerted effort to build a strong and capable indigenous innovation capacity, but overall progress is at an early stage and focused predominantly on incremental and sustaining types of activities. More advanced forms of innovation, especially disruptive approaches that would lead to important defense technological advances, are likely to be beyond China’s reach for the near to medium term, although there may be exceptions in select high-priority areas that enjoy access to ample funding, foreign knowledge and technologies, and leadership support. The J-20 program appears to be accorded this special status.
China has demonstrated that it can engage in radical defense innovation leading to significant technological breakthroughs if the country’s security is considered to be in acute danger. This was achieved in the 1960s and 1970s with the development of nuclear weapons and strategic missiles. If China’s leaders were to become as seriously alarmed again, this could see another concerted drive to attain breakthroughs in critical defense technological capabilities. This may have occurred in the 1990s with the development of long-range precision ballistic missile capabilities to counter military contingencies involving Taiwan, especially to deny access to the U.S. navy to waters near China.
China’s present approach appears to be the selective targeting of a few critical areas for accelerated development while the rest of the defense economy pursues a more moderate pace of transformation. But as the country grows more prosperous, more technologically capable, and its security interests become more global and complex, this focused strategy is likely to be broadened. The defense electronics, aviation, shipbuilding and select portions of the space industries are leading the way in the Chinese defense economy’s transformation, especially in forging close ties between the civilian and defense economies, access and linkages with global production and innovation networks, the building of innovation capabilities, and ability to adapt to market competition.
To fully understand China’s defense innovation potential requires the examination of a broad range of tangible and intangible science, technology and innovation indicators. This includes not only hard performance measures such as research-and-development budgets, corporate investment, the output of patents, publications, and products–and the size of the science and technology workforce–but also soft process-related factors such as leadership, organizational flexibility, marketing, entrepreneurial skills, risk cultures, and governance factors.
The Chinese defense economy has been investing heavily in the construction of a comprehensive and high-quality innovation apparatus since the late 1990s that is intended to nurture the ability to conduct disruptive technological innovation R&D. This involves the establishment of large numbers of research laboratories, training a large pool of new generations of scientists and engineers, and forging a robust regulatory regime of standards, regulations, and rules designed to impose discipline, oversight, and raise quality control in a previously haphazardly run system. These structural and process reforms are likely to bear fruit over the next decade and will play an influential role in advancing the defense economy’s innovation performance.
It needs to be viewed in context: Both India and China have faced the same choices - to induct 5th gen fighter. Path of least resistance for India - collaborate with the best available in business, gradually develop indigenous capability. For China, no one is willing to provide that, so the only option is to build it themselves. When the fighters do get inducted, lets say about the same time, I'd put my money any day on FGFA than J20. So guys, stop with all these we-are-oh-so-backward complaints. India has made wise choices. What more can we expect ?shiv wrote:I have no fundamental disagreement with what you have written. But if we know that China indulges in shadow play, we must decide whether we want to enter the shadow-play game or not. By and large India has not been in the shadow-play game while the Chinese seem to thrive on it. The Chinese thrive on shadow play because it has an effect on China watchers. If the shadow play stopped having an effect on China watchers it would be useless for China to continue with shadow play.manum wrote: China is something we look up to in a way...its an example for us for its good things it has achieved (please don't kill me).
Nukes are for weak and irresponsible nations now...or they are for extraterrestrial superman threats...I don't think India can ever use nuke, its impossible, till we are attacked by it, we can never ever cause such unnecessary loss of life...
AMCA is just a showcase of technology, so that our shadow gets larger than us...rest who knows what china is cooking of what...J20 calls for AMCA...we are the only nation who seem 2 most near it after russia and china...Japs are 6th gen guys...given F22 shelved...
Shadow play and acting as if you are bigger that you actually are is a good tactic if you are honest with your own capabilities and understand the strengths of your adversary. Pakistan is the classic case of a nation with an inflated sense of its own capability where the leaders started believing their own shadow play.
The appearance of the J-20 means next to nothing other than what we already know. If you do not work on technology at all you will never understand how easy or difficult it is to reach certain goals. For every goal that China reaches or appears to reach - we have the technological skills to assess what they are up to and where they are. So we need not believe shadow play, and we can be realistic. That is why I react to statements that demand that we speed up something now that the J-20 has flown. Surely, anyone who has watched China should know that "speeding up x, y and z programs" should have been started years ago and should not have been kept waiting so that a panic button can be pressed every time China does something.
If you have been watching these discussions on here regarding China you will see
1) China flew J-20. We must quickly develop FGFA
2) Chinese businessman buys carrier. We should have bought the carrier ourselves.
3) China builds AShM. We must quickly respond
4) Chinese soldiers in PoK, We should attack and take over PoK
5) China building string of pearls. We must build string of pearls.
6) China gives stapled vis. We must give stapled visa.
Don't you think these forum responses are absurd, reactive and illogical? Surely - individual responses to individual events are not the way forward. Only a comprehensive strategic plan is necessary. The real rona-dhona kicks in because we see Chinese shadow play and do not trust out government or their armed forces advisers to have a comprehensive plan.
Nice, thanks. Are those all test pilots of J-20?DavidD wrote:Here's one of the pics of the CCP/PLA celebrating the successful first flight:
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8549/1294930224821.jpg
The banner reads roughly "Celebrating Project 718 Technology Demonstrator 01's First Flight." This indicates that the plane is indeed still in the TD stage, although westerners tend to label them as prototypes since unlike say the S-47 or the YF-23, Chinese TD's all get built eventually. However, since it's still in a stage equivalent to the YF-22 in 1990, the 2015 induction estimates by many on the internet would appear overly optimistic. I think the PLAAF general's estimate in '09 of induction in 2017 - 2019 is still the most realistic time frame.
Yes. In this case, it is like the MiG-1.44 was the TD (technology demonstrator) and the J-20 is the PV (prototype). This probably has trimmed quite a few years in China's effort when compared to having to go with a completely new design (and other hardware/software/know-hows) from scratch. Nothing wrong with that approach.DavidD wrote:So basically, it's a completely different plane except for similar planform concept, like the F-15 and the Su-27. Then again, that never stopped American fanboys from calling the Flanker F-15skisrai wrote:Looking at the J-20 design, it is clearly derived from the MiG-1.44 MFI (which flew in 2001) but with reshaping of the front to be more of a F-22/35 design (nose, cockpit, inlets) as well as other VLO enhancements.
Most, but not all of them, I think. The second one from the right is the test pilot who flew the J-10's maiden flight. The 5th one from the left is the test pilot who flew the J-20's first flight.Kanson wrote:Nice, thanks. Are those all test pilots of J-20?DavidD wrote:Here's one of the pics of the CCP/PLA celebrating the successful first flight:
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8549/1294930224821.jpg
The banner reads roughly "Celebrating Project 718 Technology Demonstrator 01's First Flight." This indicates that the plane is indeed still in the TD stage, although westerners tend to label them as prototypes since unlike say the S-47 or the YF-23, Chinese TD's all get built eventually. However, since it's still in a stage equivalent to the YF-22 in 1990, the 2015 induction estimates by many on the internet would appear overly optimistic. I think the PLAAF general's estimate in '09 of induction in 2017 - 2019 is still the most realistic time frame.
You may consider it an evolution of the 1.44 if you wish, though I don't think it's true, but it most certainly did not use it as a tech demonstrator. Just look at say the YF-22 vs. the F-22 prototype, they're not THAT different. The difference between the J-20 and the MiG 1.44 OTOH is large enough that all wind tunnel testing would need to be redone. When you change all major control surfaces by double digit degrees, change the placement and mechanism of intakes, add LERX's, and use a very different nose, it's basically a completely different airplane.srai wrote:Yes. In this case, it is like the MiG-1.44 was the TD (technology demonstrator) and the J-20 is the PV (prototype). This probably has trimmed quite a few years in China's effort when compared to having to go with a completely new design (and other hardware/software/know-hows) from scratch. Nothing wrong with that approach.DavidD wrote:
So basically, it's a completely different plane except for similar planform concept, like the F-15 and the Su-27. Then again, that never stopped American fanboys from calling the Flanker F-15ski
For FC-1, China purchased the MiG-33 design and test data to quickly develop the plane. Given this history, it is also highly likely the Chinese purchased the MiG-1.44 design, test data, etc. to expedite its development of the J-20. However, the Chinese did make extensive VLO related changes to the original MiG design. So in that sense, it is a new aircraft.
What I see is, there is reason in everything...and first thing you ever see or make or understand is always going to trash, thats the fundamental of any understanding of process...so mostly thats how, we can filter out...and not attach to a particular understanding and grow each moment...so what is being in said forums is stupid, but once we skim the surface, there is inherent stupid childish reasons...but they are some kind of reasons...illogical, but they are reasons...shiv wrote:
If you have been watching these discussions on here regarding China you will see
1) China flew J-20. We must quickly develop FGFA
2) Chinese businessman buys carrier. We should have bought the carrier ourselves.
3) China builds AShM. We must quickly respond
4) Chinese soldiers in PoK, We should attack and take over PoK
5) China building string of pearls. We must build string of pearls.
6) China gives stapled vis. We must give stapled visa.
Don't you think these forum responses are absurd, reactive and illogical? Surely - individual responses to individual events are not the way forward. Only a comprehensive strategic plan is necessary. The real rona-dhona kicks in because we see Chinese shadow play and do not trust out government or their armed forces advisers to have a comprehensive plan.
A successful Project 718 TD-1 first flight now has a thousand fathers....Austin wrote:AW&ST: From JAST To J-20
Thanks for pointing out the article - did not know about it earlier. Will read it.D Roy wrote:that's hardly news. The shenlong spaceplane project has been underway for sometime under 863 and 921. Read the following for greater detail.from the news of the existence of a Chines variant of the X-37, that the Chinese censors are deleting with greater urgency
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/ ... detail.asp
Really? Unbiased?Craig Alpert wrote:The most UNBIASED view of the J-20 by the Russians - for Commies by Commies
The future of China's fifth-generation stealth fighter
The future of the new Chinese fighter will depend on several factors.
1) Engines
2) Materials
3) Electronics
4) Weapons.
Russia and India should speed up work on their joint fifth-generation fighter plane to meet the challenge from the Chinese rival unveiled earlier this week, said a leading military expert. “The Chinese prototype of a fifth-generation aircraft, J-20, appears to be a long-range strike aircraft and as such it will pose a potential threat to India,” said analyst Konstantin Makienko of the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST).
China's stealth fighter made its first 15-minute flight on Tuesday over an airfield in the south-western city of Chengdu. Mr. Makienko called the test flight an “unquestionable success” for the Chinese defence industry. “China has emerged as the third nation developing the fifth-generation fighter plane after the U.S. and Russia,” he told The Hindu. The Russian expert said India and Russia should intensify efforts to build their advanced fighter plane if they are not to lose the race to China. “The J-20 fighter will be a direct rival of the Russian-Indian fifth-generation aircraft. The Chinese plane will be ready by 2020, so time will be a crucial factor.”
Reasons for the doubt if explained will complete the thought process. TIA.NRao wrote:I very much doubt that the J-20 will evolve to the same extent.
ShauryaT wrote:Reasons for the doubt if explained will complete the thought process. TIA.NRao wrote:I very much doubt that the J-20 will evolve to the same extent.
Just one point on this topic.Not enough data points because of lack of experience.
Are you sure that's what they wanted to do? The J-20 is for domestic consumption onlee. Made for the fanbois, by the fanbois, enjoyed by fanbois everywhere. I'll put a case of beer on it that the J-20, PAKFA and F-22 will not see major combat operations with each other within their service life time.SaiK wrote:well, one has to appreciate they have done what they wanted to do - dhoti shiver and jean shiver doctrine by ways of copying technology. It does have a capability value, and that is enough for any military to think about.
Yes. But not for the reason you're thinking. I believe my mention of PAKFA covers the FGFA.Marten wrote:Interesting. So you're not including the FGFA in that list by design?
Well no need for anyone to worry then?Patrick Cusack wrote: Both China, India,Pak and East Asia will be toast and unlivable.
Can relax and have a Charminar.Maybe my question, “Is Hu Jintao really the most powerful person in the world?” was the wrong one to ask. Today, with reports that his military may have tested a new stealth fighter without his knowledge, the better question is, “How much power does Hu Jintao really have?”
It is a relevant question for the U.S. to ponder, especially with Hu visiting President Obama at the White House next week, and the answer is not so straightforward. The story of China’s first test flight of its stealth fighter is a case in point: Many people have asked, incredulous at the media reports, Do you really believe China’s military would do that without telling their commander-in-chief, on the day he’s meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates?
Mr Goon, co-founder of the Air Power Australia think-tank, said the US and its allies had been ''caught flat-footed'' by the J-20's maiden appearance. The J-20 has been described by some analysts overseas as ''unimpressive'' and a ''mish-mash of Soviet and American design features''. But Mr Goon said it was clear from the images of the plane and other material that it is far superior to the JSF, and even to America's top-of-the-range F-22 ''Raptor'' jet.
''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?''
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.NRao wrote: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?
