China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Mar 2017 21:20

for LO, USN has bet on the UHF band with APY9

https://news.usni.org/2014/06/09/u-s-na ... lain-sight

dont know if they will go same route with the future E3 radars. looks like in future could provide mid course data to dozens of inflight SM6 and AAMs to defeat swarm attacks beyond the horizon of the ships or fighters radar. has been tested on lesser numbers.

J-20 has got to be shivering in its red undies.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Mar 2017 21:28

Isnt S Band much better to detect LO Target over L Band , I see US latest AWACS are going for S band based radar.

Even Indian AWACS Phalcon Radar is L Band based.

How you design a sensor depends upon a ton of factors but primarily the size, weight, power and cost in addition to the mission. For certain missions you have a very wide range of frequencies you can choose yet for others you need to optimize with a narrower field of bands available to accomplish the mission objectives. Aircraft like the X-47, B-2 are designed with broadband stealth features while the fighters are optimized around the frequencies most likely encountered in acquisition and fire control radars. These generally tend to range from S through C and X i.e. the higher frequency radars. It is no coincidence that practically 100% of the self-defense Electronic protection suits in fighter and larger aircraft be it the old TWT based analog systems or the digital AESA based systems also provide protection in these bands.

That said, lower frequency radars offer counter LO capability against aircraft that either aren't structural optimized around them or whose RAM does not cover those bands. Surveillance radars generally float around the L to S band and all really depends upon the coverage being sought, beam width, physical footprint, cooling and power requirement provided etc. Within a fixed requirement for power, size and weight a lower frequency radar will get you larger surveillance volume. On the MEADS for example the C-130 footprint demand of Germany and other European partners pushed Lockheed towards UHF band AESA because L band radar would have been too large and would required higher power for the mission demand (surveillance). Yet, for fixed instalation and no air transport requirement the FPS-117 they produced an L-Band radar that scales down to cover other mission areas. Against a fast jet such as the J-20 given constant power and size/thermal footprint an L-band AESA will perform better than an S-Band AESA. Again, all things equal. S-band will be more versatile since S-Band MMR's allow you to do all missions through multiple modes on the same radar.

I see US latest AWACS are going for S band based radar.

US Army, NORAD, has traditionally preferred L-Band surveillance radars for applications where surveillance, early warning was the primary mission. USAF has also in the past sought and operationalized L-band radars for such a role.

This appears to be continuing with the TPY-X retaining L-Band and it will scale up to fully accomplish the entire surveillance mission currently performed by the FPS-117 family.

The "Latest" as in the last AWACS sensor the USAF funded was the Westinghouse (Now Northrop Grumman) L-Band sensor that would have gone into the E-10. Northrop uses an 80% scaled down version of that sensor (L-Band AESA) on the Boeing E-7 aircraft which would be the latest AWACS on offer from the US.

The US Navy has always preferred the UHF surveilance radar on its AEW but that is likely dictated by the size of the platform, power availability and the nature of the band that allows long range/volume surveilance while meeting those power requirement (it is processing heavy however).

On the Ground side the USAF Surveilance mission was open to L, S and C band radars and all three could meet the classified requirements. The program chose a Raytheon C band application but this was subsequently protested and upheld. They will this year announce a winner for that role where Lockheed has proposed its TPY-X, Northrop an S-Band MMR, while Raytheon an unknown C-Band MMR. All three are GaN radars and all have had 2 prototypes tested for the demonstration phase. Northrop and Raytheon pitched higher frequencies because they probably sensed additional growth in the counter UAV mission for the USAF which the L-band is unlikely to support as well. Lockheed (Ex GE) is the western leader when it comes to long range surveillance radar and is the largest AESA supplier to US Ground forces so they stuck with what has worked for them and offered a clean sheet GaN based L-Band AESA. Incidentally, Lockheed is also the only US radar maker to successfully export a GaN radar.

USN Prefers S band but that is dictated by the need for both Surveilance and fire control for both the BMD and AAW mission so you cannot really go lower than S band and still retain the discrimination requiremed for the type of decoys they are gearing up for. Same reason the Missile Defense Agency went through the expense and trouble of building an XXXX km ranged X-Band AESA in the TPY-2 when a much simpler, cheaper and power effecient lower frequency sensor would have covered more area at a lower cost and complexity.

Below is Lockheed's L-Band GaN AESA which would be the middle of the pack in terms of size. The FPS-117 replacement would be between 2-2.5x the size of this radar for the NORAD mission. This would be the best US radar for counter LO work within this size footprint. Of course the giant AMDR will remain unmatched but that is because of its sheer size, power and capability which is many times that of what is usually demanded in a ground based surveilance or early warning radar.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Mar 2017 21:39

^^ Thanks , Thats a lot of information.

On US versus China thing , I dont think any dispute in South China sea will lead to confrontation with US much less War , There will be lot of Rhetoric and Posturing but nothing closer to any one firing a missile at each other.

There is too much at stake and things can easily go out of control , Even if China takes over those disputed island tommorow there will be Noise and Sound in Western press but nothing beyond that.

Even DT had to eat his word and accept One China Policy as a condition to speaking with China president.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Mar 2017 22:16

My comment about wasn't about war but the idiotic claim that the J-20 with four drop tanks is going to fly to Alaska and make the forces deployed there shiver in fear. As explained there is a robust early warning network of radars that NORAD and other US forces control and there are F-22, F-15 and soon F-35 squadrons based there to scramble if and when required as the USAF has been doing for decades when Soviet/Russian bombers flew close.

The US and Canada operate 49 (with 6 backup mothballed sites) radar sites providing both long range surveillance as well as shorter ranges for coverage gaps. The current ESA's will all be replaced in the next decade and the TPY-X is one such radar that will replace them. TPY-X as designed for the USAF's 3DELRR mission is the mid sized variant, with one larger and one smaller variant that meets each of the long range 3D Surveillance mission.

NORAD is even looking into a new OTH radar.

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/nor ... izon-radar

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Mar 2017 22:18

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Mar 2017 22:29

Singha the USN's destroyers have a very complex mission in that they do BMD work for both their fleet, and dirt so you cannot go lower than an S band since discrimination would not meet the MDA's threat assessment. MDA has held firm on discriminating radars requiring either X band (preferable) or S/C band (compromise). USN's X-band horizon search radar does not participate in the BMD mission. Similarly, the Ground based LRDR is like the AMDR an S-Band multi-face discriminating GaN radar and Raytheon actually proposed a much larger AMDR assembly but lost to Lockheed. It is expected that the BMD mission is likely to force the US Navy away from the destroyers in the future (for the BMD mission) so you could well have something like a multi-faced TPY-2 deployed on something like a San Antonio class ship in the future. Raytheon has a giant 69 Module AMDR and scaling up or down does not break the radar architecture so that too will be an option.

For the Ground Based Mid Course mission (Homeland with the Interceptors deployed) they will use the LRDR with the UHF radars providing early warning. With time the LRDR will take over from the UHF radars once they are retired. LRDR uses a compromise S band set up because the X-Band given the range requirement was deemed to be unaffordable . It would have essentially meant stacking three AN/TPY-2s (per face).

On the Ground side you either have pure surveilance missions such as those performed by the early warning radars operated by US and Canada that cue interceptors or are large volume surveilance radars mated to other fire control sensors such as what the MEADS does with the UHF AESA and the X-Band MMR. Similarly, the US Army Patriots (C Band) leaverage the USAF (Ground and Air) and US Army surveilance sensors for situational awareness.

ranjan.rao · Post by **ranjan.rao** » 05 Mar 2017 22:46

chola wrote:
Rakesh wrote: That is what makes him so unique. Why would you want to ban him? He is hilarious. His comic timing is SPOT ON! Neither is he insulting anyone. Let him be Saar. We need a break from serious discussion every now and then.

Liu, please continue. By the way, when is Optimus Prime coming?

If we don't ban him, we run the risk of Shivji's great fear -- that Liu's propaganda can turn a gullible among us.

Is his comedy truly worth such a risk? Nope, let's ban him and the other one, David.

At worst, a banning would force his propaganda ministry to send someone new. I am bored of the same old two or three 50-centers. It's almost an insult to us to use these washed-up operatives. I demand better quality potempkin pushers if we have to suffer through propaganda!

Chola on the contrary i think having him here and countering his propaganda here gives us an opportunity to see what their propaganda machine is up to. The dhoti shivering that goes on here is nothing compared to what happens outside of BRF. Look at the Two Front War article in TNN today by a UIUC buffoon warming his pockets from NYT and WP. It is better to have them here let'em ejaculate in their wet dreams and be ready for their counter their mizziles(read tool) in public. Just my two cents, I know unlike me you've had enough of (t)his drama

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 05 Mar 2017 23:32

no American quantum radar?

we must close the quantum radar gap!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Mar 2017 06:48

This is China thread.
Why is US being discussed here

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Mar 2017 08:30

From Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rajfortyseven/statu ... 3057758208

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Mar 2017 10:09

All said and done DF41 has a throw up weight of ~ 1.65 Tons for range of 14,000 Km

kit · Post by **kit** » 07 Mar 2017 11:52

http://www.janes.com/images/assets/484/ ... e_edit.pdf

pdf file . good read.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 07 Mar 2017 12:04

Chola, you are not contributing anything by this constant waving around of the word "ban". Admins will deal with it as and when needed. If you dont like to read or respond to the likes of Liu, dont

Treat it as an informal warning

chola · Post by **chola** » 07 Mar 2017 14:35

Rajfortyseven is first rate on chini watching. He called the J-15 training crash a month before the PRC revealed. He also pointed out the catapult training program too.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 08 Mar 2017 19:46

刚刚进入3月份，中航工业西飞机身装配厂已是一派繁忙景象，在大家的共同努力下，又一架中机身部件开始了总装。据悉，该厂2月下旬已经完成一架份的中机身下架交付，后续架次依次在各站位有条不紊展开了相应工作，西飞正在向连续生产、均衡交付的目标迈进，全力冲刺首季开门红。

Xi''an assembling workshop is busy with Y20 now . It started assembling one more after finished one on Feb,this year. The production goes on smoothly with efficiency rising steadily.
http://www.cannews.com.cn/2017/0307/162771.shtml

news from Xi'an,CAIC.

Xi'an now is producding one Y20 every month,perhaps.

vina · Post by **vina** » 08 Mar 2017 20:38

Frankly, I think China has been incredibly stupid strategically by both its sponsorship of North Korea and Pakistan. Yes. NoKo and Pakistan are Chinese proxies. And what is the net result of the sponsorship of these proxies ?

1. With NoKo, it has lost control and has very little levers left and are faced with a very difficult choice. Allow NoKo to collapse (and unleash a tidal wave of instability on it's borders) or support it and further invite reaction from US and it's allies (SoKo, Japan etc). As a result of this idiocy , THAAD is already in Korea now . With ThAAD and other anti BMD stuff in the Korean Peninsula, China's Nuclear deterrence is toast. I am talking specifically of the submarine launched one. China is Geographically constrained and ringed in on all sides , starting from Japan, Korea,Taiwan all the way down to Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. With the safe Bo Hai bay/Yellow sea now ringed by THAAD and other ABM defences, the Chinese SLBMs can be shot down at boost phase itself ! There goes it's SLBM deterrent . The Hainan area too is hemmed in and all it will take is a couple of Aegis equipped cruisers and destroyers in that area to degrade it significantly.

2. With Pakistan, the sponsorship , including of named terrorists, has alienated India completely and basically given impetus to the Indian build up. It is facing both offensive (SLBM and other BM) and also defensive (BMD) build up from the Southern borders as well.

In addition, it has picked up fights with all countries in the south china sea. If this isn't stupidity, I don't know what is. This isn't going to end well for both themselves and it's proxies. If NoKo actually gets ICBM capability and ability to mount a Nuke on it, the red lines would have been crossed and conflict is inevitable. If NoKo fires off one at the US and bombards SoKo, it will get obliterated and China will have a massive blow back.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Mar 2017 21:09

For China the 2 Japanese TPY-2's are more worrisome. As long as there is a THAAD coverage requirement in South Korea the radar would not be used in FBM which would allow them to look into Chinese countermeasures at some of their ranges up north given that it is an X-band sensor designed around challenging discrimination. It could also give them a posterior look at Chinese missiles along with their countermeasures and decoys. Three was a suggestion floated that the SOKO side will introduce a compromise of them using a Green Pine radar to avoid this potential chinese concern but that would have not worked with either the interceptor or the C2 so wouldn’t have meant a deployed system. Things will get interesting if South Korea procures the THAAD system allowing the US to withdraw the battery and leave an FBM radar by itself. Same with Japan..if it procures AEGIS Ashore or THAAD for itself the US could move another radar into South Korea.

ricky_v · Post by **ricky_v** » 08 Mar 2017 22:57

http://www.janes.com/images/assets/484/ ... e_edit.pdf

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 Mar 2017 01:22

brar_w wrote:For China the 2 Japanese TPY-2's are more worrisome. As long as there is a THAAD coverage requirement in South Korea the radar would not be used in FBM which would allow them to look into Chinese countermeasures at some of their ranges up north given that it is an X-band sensor designed around challenging discrimination. It could also give them a posterior look at Chinese missiles along with their countermeasures and decoys. Three was a suggestion floated that the SOKO side will introduce a compromise of them using a Green Pine radar to avoid this potential chinese concern but that would have not worked with either the interceptor or the C2 so wouldn’t have meant a deployed system. Things will get interesting if South Korea procures the THAAD system allowing the US to withdraw the battery and leave an FBM radar by itself. Same with Japan..if it procures AEGIS Ashore or THAAD for itself the US could move another radar into South Korea.

@ Brar .. the US could just move their sea based X band radar to South China sea ..i think it can easily cover the whole of china

.. now that would be really interesting

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 Mar 2017 02:48

Mango Man question,How will China react if India gets and deploy THAAD like capability on border with China ?.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Mar 2017 03:40

I would assume as sternly as they would for the Indigenous capability. Their concern vis-a-vis South Korean deployment has to do with the sensor peeking into their ballistic missile testing given its nature and location, and the fact that a ring of integrated TPY-2's and SPY-6s could provide an asymmetric advantage when it comes to discrimination against its deterrent launched at CONUS. Some may be grounded in fact while most of this is fear on their part that the US is going to be integrating and developing a common picture with land and sea based assets in its neighborhood hand in hand with Japan and South Korea. A South Korea -- US -- Japan Missile Defense alliance along with the associated data sharing runs counter to Chinese ambitions of removing the US from the Indo-Pacific forcing these nations to adopt a regional defense posture which makes Chinese hegemony in the region much easier from their perspective.

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 09 Mar 2017 04:14

I am sure the Swordfish-2 will be deployed to keep an eye on china. Its a massive over kill for pakis. Not that they can do anything other than whine and bitch about it as Unkil just showed. Now waiting for Indo-china sea showdown!!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Mar 2017 07:55

Liu wrote:
刚刚进入3月份，中航工业西飞机身装配厂已是一派繁忙景象，在大家的共同努力下，又一架中机身部件开始了总装。据悉，该厂2月下旬已经完成一架份的中机身下架交付，后续架次依次在各站位有条不紊展开了相应工作，西飞正在向连续生产、均衡交付的目标迈进，全力冲刺首季开门红。

Xi''an assembling workshop is busy with Y20 now . It started assembling one more after finished one on Feb,this year. The production goes on smoothly with efficiency rising steadily.
http://www.cannews.com.cn/2017/0307/162771.shtml

news from Xi'an,CAIC.

Xi'an now is producding one Y20 every month,perhaps.

Sir What is the troop carrying capacity of the Y 20? What is the landing distance at sea level?

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 09 Mar 2017 18:12

shiv wrote:
Liu wrote: Xi'an now is producding one Y20 every month,perhaps.
Sir What is the troop carrying capacity of the Y 20? What is the landing distance at sea level?

Il76 can carry 120+ para troops or 160+ fullly-armed amrysoilders ,or 1 tanker/2 armored vehicles.

Y20 performances a bit better than Il76

it is reported that if PLA wants to deploy one fullly-armed division somewhere 5000KM away from China(say Iraq or Papua New Guinea), then China need 200 Y20 at least.

Before Y20 enter into service, PLA has only 30+ Il 76.

China might expand the production of Y20 to meet its urgent demand of Y20,because many guys argue that PLAAF need 400 Y20 at leat( beside long-distance airlifting fleet, PLAAF's AWAC and refueler fleet also need many Y20 as platforms)

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 10 Mar 2017 07:12

Liu wrote: Y20 performances a bit better than Il76

You dont know anything about Y20's "performances", but want us to believe your fairy tale about its production of one per month

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2017 07:31

Liu wrote:
shiv wrote:
Sir What is the troop carrying capacity of the Y 20? What is the landing distance at sea level?
Il76 can carry 120+ para troops or 160+ fullly-armed amrysoilders ,or 1 tanker/2 armored vehicles.

Y20 performances a bit better than Il76

it is reported that if PLA wants to deploy one fullly-armed division somewhere 5000KM away from China(say Iraq or Papua New Guinea), then China need 200 Y20 at least.

Interesting. 160 troops x 200 aircraft = 32,000.

Yes a division of 10,000 men + material can definitely be carried by 200 aircraft.

But are these 200 aircraft planning only one trip? Because the same 10,000 men + material can be transported by 20 aircraft in 10 trips and I don't know of any airports in Papua New Guinea of Iraq that can hold those 200 aircraft on a one way trip. But Iraq has a lot of flat desert I believe - so that should be OK

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 10 Mar 2017 09:57

hnair wrote:
Liu wrote: Y20 performances a bit better than Il76
You dont know anything about Y20's "performances", but want us to believe your fairy tale about its production of one per month

昨日央媒官方节目中，提到了“空军运20、轰6K、歼20等一批高新武器装备进入人民空军序列！”，这是官方首次承认歼20战斗机进入空军现役，代表中国已经成为世界上为数不多的装备五代机的国家。有消息称，歼20目前已有3条生产线，年产量将达到至少48架。
http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/k/sli ... 5.html#p=1

news about J20

CCTV connfirmed officially that j20 is now in service.

it is also reported that there are 3 assembling~lines of j20. the yearly production of j20 is 48 at least.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2017 10:13

Liu wrote:
it is also reported that there are 3 assembling~lines of j20. the yearly production of j20 is 48 at least.

So Papua New Guinea can be invaded by 2020 then?

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 10 Mar 2017 10:38

Liu wrote: news about J20
it is also reported that there are 3 assembling~lines of j20. the yearly production of j20 is 48 at least.

does not answer:

You dont know anything about Y20's "performances"

Without knowing these, why we be impressed with your posts?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 10 Mar 2017 10:39

China will start building "artificial islands" in the Indian ocean not long from now for military purposes just as they are in South East Asia.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 10 Mar 2017 10:48

shiv wrote:
Liu wrote:
Il76 can carry 120+ para troops or 160+ fullly-armed amrysoilders ,or 1 tanker/2 armored vehicles.

Y20 performances a bit better than Il76

it is reported that if PLA wants to deploy one fullly-armed division somewhere 5000KM away from China(say Iraq or Papua New Guinea), then China need 200 Y20 at least.
Interesting. 160 troops x 200 aircraft = 32,000.

Yes a division of 10,000 men + material can definitely be carried by 200 aircraft.

But are these 200 aircraft planning only one trip? Because the same 10,000 men + material can be transported by 20 aircraft in 10 trips and I don't know of any airports in Papua New Guinea of Iraq that can hold those 200 aircraft on a one way trip. But Iraq has a lot of flat desert I believe - so that should be OK

well one devision has thousands of vehicles and needs thousands tons of material(fuels and so on) even in non~combat status every day.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2017 14:33

Liu wrote: well one devision has thousands of vehicles and needs thousands tons of material(fuels and so on) even in non~combat status every day.

No you misunderstand and the numbers you quote are odd. One division may have 600-800 vehicles - not "thousands".

Most countries, including India re-use their transport planes. That means that if one aircraft flies one sortie carrying troops, the same aircraft is re-used again and again. It will return and carry more troops. Now I know that China makes a lot of single use items - but are you saying that you need 200 planes to transport one division? That means Y-20 must be single-use planes. They are discarded after 1 flight. If you can re use your Y-20s - then about 15-20 of them will be enough to transport one division and all the vehicles. Each plane will do about 10 flights. It would be better to make Y-20 reusable for at least 20-30 flights before discarding. Of course I know China has the money to make single-use planes - but still - it seems such a waste.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Mar 2017 14:35

he is talking of shock and awe in which a "fist" division is inducted in 1 day rather than over 1 week.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Mar 2017 14:36

Neshant wrote:China will start building "artificial islands" in the Indian ocean not long from now for military purposes just as they are in South East Asia.

the only shallow area is the andaman sea between our land and thailand. parts of it are really shallow. but I dunno if ancient maps exist to show cheen rule over those shallows

rest of indian ocean is really deep.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2017 14:42

Singha wrote:he is talking of shock and awe in which a "fist" division is inducted in 1 day rather than over 1 week.

I was just thinking - which airport will hold those 200 planes when they land that day? Or they will paradrop everything and those troops will be running here and there to pick up 1000s of vehicles and 1000s of tons from Papua New Guniea jungles. It sounds like a "Phusss..sst" plan to me, not fist.

In fact that was an ignorant post. the man does not know anything about either the aircraft or what it will carry. But he has great pride in China and a +1.5 for that

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2017 14:43

200 single use planes dumped into the sea one on top of the other will make an island. If the men and material are still there - so much the better - that would be a ready made army base.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2017 20:21

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/600 ... ghter.html

But subsequently the Chinese military has discounted, J-20 will be deployed inTibetalong the India-China border.Reacting to media reports, China's stealth fighter J-20 spotted at the Daocheng Yading Airport inTibetan article on the PLA website in September last year said the plane will be put into service soon but the 'China-India border is apparently not the ideal place for its deployment'.

"In addition, the world's highest airport there does not have a complete set of supporting facilities and such shortage will impede the function of J-20," the report said.

"J-20 will not be deployed in Daocheng Yading airport as the airport is too close to the border and it is vulnerable to India's first wave hit. If India is to deploy BrahMos missile on the China-India border, then the Daocheng Yading airport will likely to become its target," it said.

"Experts pointed out that for India, China is undoubtedly its largest opponent and therefore every move of the Chinese military will touch the nerve of Indian media. However, the Indian military has more movements than China along the China-India border," it said.

The average height of Tibet Autonomous Region is more than 4,000 m above sea level, for which Tibet is known as the 'roof of the world'.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 11 Mar 2017 21:13

yesterday, Mr. Yang Wei, the chief engineer of J20/j10/jf17, was interviewed by Xinhua.
here are some of Mr. Yang Wei's words during the interview.

http://3g.163.com/touch/article.html?ch ... 3E000187V5

“航空装备发展要服务于国家战略。中国航空人将凭借自主创新让新装备不只有某个机型的惊鸿一瞥，而是全面、系列化赶超世界先进水平。”
the development of aeroindustry should serve the purpose of the nation. our new developement is surely beyond a certain mode（j20?）. we will have series of mods catch up with the best ones completely

“中国的航空新装备会不断出现，包括歼－10系列、“枭龙”系列以及更多的新型号飞机。在不断拓展已有型号的系列化发展的同时，我们还会探索更新的型号，这是航空人服务国家战略的职责使命。”
china aeroindustry will work out more new mods
,besides j10,jf17. we will develope more new mods while upgrading those old ones. it is our duty for the country

“我们取得了很大成绩，但必须正视的是，我们与世界最先进水平还有差距。"
we indeed have had great achievement. but we have to accept the case that we are still left behind by the global most advanced one

杨伟表示，如今，中国已经跻身全球包括美国、俄罗斯和欧洲在内的四大航空体，但要实现全面比肩乃至赶超，仍有差距。
Yang said that nowdays china has leaped into the top elite league with only 4 members（USA,RUSSIA,EU and china）as for aero industry. but china still has a lot to fix before china can stride side by side with others and overtake them completely.

杨伟认为，中国与世界先进水平可以说是“大体比肩”。他说：“别人的东西已经搞了十几年，我们的产品刚刚出来，还是要正视差距的。但是我们要看到已经取得的进步，以及在某些方面的赶超，这样将更有发展的动力。”
Yang think chinese aero industry “is closely striding side by side with the top elite league,as a whole ”
He said that“they finished that（f22?） over one decade ago,but ours（j20?）had been finished just now,thus there does exist a gap indeed.but we should notice what we have achieved and our overtaking them in some fields. then we would be encouraged more maybe!”

“怎么可能有这样的产品？任何一个产品都有取舍，没有取舍的产品不是一个好产品。你有针对性的目标，比如，依据未来战争的特点要突出一些东西、舍掉一些东西，这是必须的。”

some guys argue that a new aircrafte should be perfect（it can fly fastest,highest and has longest voyage） .
the great engineer Yang said:“it is impossible to have such a perfect aircraft.you have to give up some while stick to some performance”

“现在到了今天这个点上，往前走比以往更难，难就难在你的方向性，我们就是这种方向性的探索者。”杨伟说。

“一直有个梦想，希望对手根据我们的装备来调整他们装备的发展目标，而不是我们根据别人的装备来调整我们的发展目标。如果那一天到来，就更值得自豪了。”
" now it is harder for us to advance further,because there is nobody ahead guiding us. we are not follower any more ,but a explorer now, and we have to look for the new direction ourselves"
“my dream is that our rivals（yankees?）is not followed by us, but follow us, if some day it comes to be a truth, i would be proud of it”

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 12 Mar 2017 03:43

Liu, J-20 is inducted

It is half baked product which by any yard stick is not ready to active duty, so forget these statements to these birds to be deployed against US or India during war time. During peace, China can keep flying these to tom-tom your wares. Flying plane from R&D location is one thing and keeping it fighting fit on remote air base is another thing. China will need at least 5-7 years before J-20 can deployed in any meaningful way.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 12 Mar 2017 05:02

Rkumar..even flying in 5/7 years is a major accomplishment. u have to give it to the chinis..copy, steal, beg, develop ...they try to get the job done.