China Military Watch

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 25 Dec 2010 23:00

wow.. it does seems to have a large "one-piece canopy" like F-22.

but looking at the past, this is how they reveal their military equipment with some pics from here and there.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Dec 2010 23:52

DavidD wrote:

David the turn at beyond 1:10 is too good to be true. I am sure you would have seen enough of airplane videos to know that. I am not saying that the government sped it up to look good. I think the news just sped it up to match their part of the conversation.

You can see it go in steps beyond 1:10.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 26 Dec 2010 01:17

OK, I've got some updates on that pic I just posted. First, it IS real, but...it IS also PS'd. It was pieced together from 4 smaller photos of the same plane. Some say that it missed a middle section and that the whole plane is actually this:

As for the red star on the back, it's not a PLAAF insignia, it's a PLA insignia. This is actually consistent with rumors from highly reliable sources many weeks back, which stated that the plane has a red star with the words “八一” (August 1st) on the vertical stabilizers. The rumor also said that the plane is of a dark green color rather than the normal yellow color of prototypes, which is consistent with the picture.

This is the PLA insignia:

Here's an outline of what the plane looks like(doesn't seem to have the extra section in it though):

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 26 Dec 2010 01:27

indranilroy wrote:
David the turn at beyond 1:10 is too good to be true. I am sure you would have seen enough of airplane videos to know that. I am not saying that the government sped it up to look good. I think the news just sped it up to match their part of the conversation.

You can see it go in steps beyond 1:10.

Well, I can't prove it one way or another, so you're free to believe what you want, but it seems to me like the angular velocity matches the speed of the turn. I'll say this though, regardless of the speed of that turn, it is a VERY tight turn.

ravar · Post by **ravar** » 26 Dec 2010 01:49

Lends credence to my earlier surmise that some editing could have gone in after 1.10s

Regarding the different hue of blue tone for the sky, I believe they have mashed up the footages of two different flying demos on different days

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Dec 2010 02:00

DavidD wrote:
indranilroy wrote:
David the turn at beyond 1:10 is too good to be true. I am sure you would have seen enough of airplane videos to know that. I am not saying that the government sped it up to look good. I think the news just sped it up to match their part of the conversation.

You can see it go in steps beyond 1:10.
Well, I can't prove it one way or another, so you're free to believe what you want, but it seems to me like the angular velocity matches the speed of the turn. I'll say this though, regardless of the speed of that turn, it is a VERY tight turn.

Well the same applies to you too.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Dec 2010 02:35

DavidD wrote: Here's an outline of what the plane looks like(doesn't seem to have the extra section in it though):

The rudders don't match up! If you would draw the axis of rotation on each of the rudder, they have to be symmetric on both the rudders, no matter whatever the orientation of the rudders might be.

Anyways some of it might actually be true. It looks very similar to the Project 1.44, which makes me believe it a little more. I am really surprised that they have retained such large canards in the front. Its alignment is surprising to me. Giving it that dihedral will make sure that this plane has a high AoA, but this is terrible for the radar signature (frontal and side on). The join seems to follow the chine on the body, which is good, but this gives the join a negative AoA. This will again be very detrimental to the FCS.

They have redesigned the air intakes to the side of the cockpit. there doesn't seem to be any vertical depth in the plane to give the intake as vertical bend. Given that the engines are close to each other, based on the width of the cockpit, their faces might be completely blocked. However, this arrangement might lead to lower internal space.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Dec 2010 06:21

DavidD wrote:

David there appears to be a whole lot of bluffing going on to cover up an initial lie. Your reliable source is coming up with drawings to feed our curiousity and try and suppress the mirth.

I think this is pure nonsense. The intakes, the "extra middle section" and the unbelievable starboard tailfin are the work of standard Chinese photoshop liars whose existence has been known for over a decade. There are far better pictures of a bluff stealth aircraft from China available, I think I will drop this subject. Either find a proper photo or accept that this one is going to be considered a bluff.

We can take a joke - but it appears that your "relaiable sources" are trying to take the joke further than it can go.

I am going to get back to that extremely interesting maneuver by the J-10 whose video looks a lot more genuine than this stealth bullshit in increasing doses you are posting.

Vinu · Post by **Vinu** » 26 Dec 2010 06:29

DavidD wrote: As for the red star on the back, it's not a PLAAF insignia, it's a PLA insignia. This is actually consistent with rumors from highly reliable sources many weeks back, which stated that the plane has a red star with the words “八一” (August 1st) on the vertical stabilizers.

Just Curious, why do they have to use PLA's insignia for an Aircraft, even though PLA's helicaptor fleet not use it?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3wZSwFvZzqM/T ... 29a928.jpg

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 26 Dec 2010 06:42

Vinu wrote:
DavidD wrote: As for the red star on the back, it's not a PLAAF insignia, it's a PLA insignia. This is actually consistent with rumors from highly reliable sources many weeks back, which stated that the plane has a red star with the words “八一” (August 1st) on the vertical stabilizers.
Just Curious, why do they have to use PLA's insignia for an Aircraft, even though PLA's helicaptor fleet not use it?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3wZSwFvZzqM/T ... 29a928.jpg

Beats me, people are wondering the same thing on Chinese boards. BTW, when I say PLA, I don't mean the army, I mean the Chinese military. That's due to an inexactitude of translation, as the Chinese words for the PLA, the "人民(people) 解放(liberation) 军(army)" actually means "people's liberation military." Army in the sense of ground forces is "陆军".

chand · Post by **chand** » 26 Dec 2010 06:43

Vinu wrote:
DavidD wrote: As for the red star on the back, it's not a PLAAF insignia, it's a PLA insignia. This is actually consistent with rumors from highly reliable sources many weeks back, which stated that the plane has a red star with the words “八一” (August 1st) on the vertical stabilizers.
Just Curious, why do they have to use PLA's insignia for an Aircraft, even though PLA's helicaptor fleet not use it?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3wZSwFvZzqM/T ... 29a928.jpg

Probably the PLA navy has some investment in this project, and PLA AF is not the only investor here. So....., JUst my guess.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 26 Dec 2010 06:52

shiv wrote:
DavidD wrote:
David there appears to be a whole lot of bluffing going on to cover up an initial lie. Your reliable source is coming up with drawings to feed our curiousity and try and suppress the mirth.

I think this is pure nonsense. The intakes, the "extra middle section" and the unbelievable starboard tailfin are the work of standard Chinese photoshop liars whose existence has been known for over a decade. There are far better pictures of a bluff stealth aircraft from China available, I think I will drop this subject. Either find a proper photo or accept that this one is going to be considered a bluff.

We can take a joke - but it appears that your "relaiable sources" are trying to take the joke further than it can go.

I am going to get back to that extremely interesting maneuver by the J-10 whose video looks a lot more genuine than this stealth bullshit in increasing doses you are posting.

Hey, I'm just passing along info, you don't have to believe it and I'm under no obligation to convince you. I'll note though, I'm not the only one who believes this(and you're not the only one who's skeptical, obviously), but I'm pretty sure I'm in the vast majority as far as PLA watchers go.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

Here's an artist's impression based on the pic I posted, just for shiz and giggles

http://img163.poco.cn/mypoco/myphoto/20 ... 859098.jpg

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Dec 2010 06:58

DavidD wrote:
Well, I can't prove it one way or another, so you're free to believe what you want, but it seems to me like the angular velocity matches the speed of the turn. I'll say this though, regardless of the speed of that turn, it is a VERY tight turn.

The tight turn is a very interesting one. I have downloaded, edited and viewed both videos several times - especially the turn and sudden climb.

The radius of turn initially remains constant for about 90 degrees. The nose then is pitched up suddenly causing the second half of the turn to become tighter. There are in effect two quarter turns being performed - with the second one being tighter than the first. Exactly the same action is performed in the second video to make the plane climb closer to the vertical plane. The take off angle is suddenly changed with a pitch up that makes the plane go near vertical. It appears that the canards are being used to good effect here.

I think both videos are perfectly genuine, but both have a clever "catch" which I will mention. Both videos actually show the plane "skidding" through the sky as would be expected with a sudden tightening of the turn - and that much is genuine. The "catch" is that both video clips end there. neither of them shows what happens after that because that is of interest to me - and I will say why.

When a plane is suddenly pitched up in that manner and can be seen visibly "skidding" - the aircraft is essentially moving (for a short while) in an axis that is at right angles to the normal axis of flight and for that period the wings are acting like a sail. That is not a problem - this happens to any aircraft that is turning - but in this case the sudden pitching movement in the "pitch up" axis in the middle of a turn exaggerates the drag momentarily. Clearly a plane that does that suddenly loses a lot more energy than a plane that continues through a turn at a constant radius.

Naturally turning like that could surely be an advantage in some situations - but what happens after the turn is also important and not shown or seen in the video. A plane with a superlative thrust weight ratio would be able to quickly regain the lost energy and build up speed after such a turn. What the J-10 does after that is not yet known. The one thing that characterizes some aircraft like the MiG 29, Su-30, Eurofighter, Rafale and the F-22 is their ability to do "lazy maneuvers" in an airshow. By "lazy maneuvers" I mean the ability to lift the nose up or bank and turn at slow speed and still have enough engine power to keep climbing or do a turn.

In contrast there are other aircraft that need to build up kinetic energy first (in terms of speed) before doing maneuvers that would cause loss of energy. he J-10 appears to be the latter category - in which energy is initially built up before bleeding it off in the interesting turn. This fits in with the publicly quoted thrust-weight ratio of about 0.9 for the J-10.

The other point about that turn is that if the initial half of the turn is Xg the second half of the turn will be X+Yg. So it is likely that the nice looking turn has some specific speed criteria. Don;t know enough about it to comment

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Dec 2010 07:06

DavidD wrote: Here's an artist's impression based on the pic I posted, just for shiz and giggles
http://img163.poco.cn/mypoco/myphoto/20 ... 859098.jpg

It looks like the image you posted has been created from the artists impression and not the other way around.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 26 Dec 2010 07:19

shiv wrote:
DavidD wrote:
Well, I can't prove it one way or another, so you're free to believe what you want, but it seems to me like the angular velocity matches the speed of the turn. I'll say this though, regardless of the speed of that turn, it is a VERY tight turn.
The tight turn is a very interesting one. I have downloaded, edited and viewed both videos several times - especially the turn and sudden climb.

The radius of turn initially remains constant for about 90 degrees. The nose then is pitched up suddenly causing the second half of the turn to become tighter. There are in effect two quarter turns being performed - with the second one being tighter than the first. Exactly the same action is performed in the second video to make the plane climb closer to the vertical plane. The take off angle is suddenly changed with a pitch up that makes the plane go near vertical. It appears that the canards are being used to good effect here.

I think both videos are perfectly genuine, but both have a clever "catch" which I will mention. Both videos actually show the plane "skidding" through the sky as would be expected with a sudden tightening of the turn - and that much is genuine. The "catch" is that both video clips end there. neither of them shows what happens after that because that is of interest to me - and I will say why.

When a plane is suddenly pitched up in that manner and can be seen visibly "skidding" - the aircraft is essentially moving (for a short while) in an axis that is at right angles to the normal axis of flight and for that period the wings are acting like a sail. That is not a problem - this happens to any aircraft that is turning - but in this case the sudden pitching movement in the "pitch up" axis in the middle of a turn exaggerates the drag momentarily. Clearly a plane that does that suddenly loses a lot more energy than a plane that continues through a turn at a constant radius.

Naturally turning like that could surely be an advantage in some situations - but what happens after the turn is also important and not shown or seen in the video. A plane with a superlative thrust weight ratio would be able to quickly regain the lost energy and build up speed after such a turn. What the J-10 does after that is not yet known. The one thing that characterizes some aircraft like the MiG 29, Su-30, Eurofighter, Rafale and the F-22 is their ability to do "lazy maneuvers" in an airshow. By "lazy maneuvers" I mean the ability to lift the nose up or bank and turn at slow speed and still have enough engine power to keep climbing or do a turn.

In contrast there are other aircraft that need to build up kinetic energy first (in terms of speed) before doing maneuvers that would cause loss of energy. he J-10 appears to be the latter category - in which energy is initially built up before bleeding it off in the interesting turn. This fits in with the publicly quoted thrust-weight ratio of about 0.9 for the J-10.

The other point about that turn is that if the initial half of the turn is Xg the second half of the turn will be X+Yg. So it is likely that the nice looking turn has some specific speed criteria. Don;t know enough about it to comment

I agree with your analysis, and it's a common theme with delta wing planes, especially canard delta ones. They can achieve very fast instantaneous turn rate, but that increases the drag causing them to lose energy rapidly, thus giving them a slower continuous turn rate. In the tight turn video, the J-10 appears to lose some speed and some altitude as well, but the effect isn't terribly dramatic. For the vertical climb video, if previous vids of the J-10 are of any indication, it would've lost speed rapidly and had to level out. It doesn't have the great T:W ratio of the F-22 and can't continue the vertical climb, obviously.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 26 Dec 2010 07:20

shiv wrote:
DavidD wrote: Here's an artist's impression based on the pic I posted, just for shiz and giggles
http://img163.poco.cn/mypoco/myphoto/20 ... 859098.jpg

It looks like the image you posted has been created from the artists impression and not the other way around.

Well, we'll see within a few weeks probably

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 26 Dec 2010 08:53

shiv wrote: The tight turn is a very interesting one. I have downloaded, edited and viewed both videos several times - especially the turn and sudden climb.

The radius of turn initially remains constant for about 90 degrees. The nose then is pitched up suddenly causing the second half of the turn to become tighter. There are in effect two quarter turns being performed - with the second one being tighter than the first. Exactly the same action is performed in the second video to make the plane climb closer to the vertical plane. The take off angle is suddenly changed with a pitch up that makes the plane go near vertical. It appears that the canards are being used to good effect here.

I have some genuine doubt, the latter half of the 180 deg loop has some difference in depth perception to the first half. I think it happens when the camera is moved in opposite direction in a turn or by a combination of lens which will you show leaner figure than the original...ravar pic capture @ 1.11 supports that contention.

Background hue lines and even the plane bit bent and curved can be seen in ravar pic capture and in video after 1.11
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 90#p999690
.

I think both videos are perfectly genuine, but both have a clever "catch" which I will mention. Both videos actually show the plane "skidding" through the sky as would be expected with a sudden tightening of the turn - and that much is genuine. The "catch" is that both video clips end there. neither of them shows what happens after that because that is of interest to me - and I will say why.

More genuine video...showing full loop...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-54unEK ... re=related

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Dec 2010 10:03

hmm looks like a twin engined JSF with the wing and canards of the j10

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Dec 2010 10:10

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QqlF6nBGeVc/T ... 758392.jpg

?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Dec 2010 10:11

Kanson wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-54unEK ... re=related

That was actually a good show by the J-10.

Which airshow is this? Surya Kirans and J-10 on the same tarmac must be a rarity

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 26 Dec 2010 10:20

^ 2008 Zhuhai

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4h-tDRACRM

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Dec 2010 10:42

Well Kanson - I can't dispute that you may be right. I will upload the photo later but at the end of the J-10s turn there is a flagpole that is visible for 0.83 sec (25 out of 30 frames per sec) The angle of the flagpole changes by 6 degrees in that 0.83 seconds indicating how much the camera is being rotated as it is panned. If the camera is rotating at more than 7 degrees per second then the perspective of the aircraft is also being rotated - so the turn can end up looking artificial, or artificially sharp. I have some videos in which the aircraft i have filmed looks like it is doing a loop although it is merely flying overhead - the camera rotation gives that impression.

I had seen that 2008 video long ago. I thought the J-10's performance was very very tame in that show.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Dec 2010 11:18

SaiK wrote:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QqlF6nBGeVc/T ... 758392.jpg

?

First sucessful PS of J-20 reveled couple of years back derived from Mig-1.44

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Dec 2010 11:39

http://www.nanbie.com/2008/07/29/

China's new "JH7B stealth fighter" test flight successful
admin on July 29, 2008 in Military World

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Dec 2010 11:44

From Aviation week

One Foggy Day In China - Updated
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 12/25/2010 1:30 AM CST

Is China about to give airpower hawks their best Christmas present ever?

The internetz are buzzing (start here and here) with a picture that allegedly shows China's next-generation Chengdu J-20 fighter - the first known Chinese stealth aircraft - undergoing high-speed taxi trials, with rumors of a first flight within weeks.

<snip>

The picture appeared today on the very popular Chinese military fan web site Top81, apparently taken by a cell phone from a car. The bad news is that it makes 1950s shots of new MiGs and Sukhois look like Katsu Tokunaga material. Rumor has it that better shots have put in transient appearances on Chinese websites before being zapped by the censor.

China military specialist and DTI contributor Rick Fisher notes that "in China's military fan web culture, the rapid intervention of the censors is always a boost for the credibility of the poster" and adds that his sources are also predicting an early first flight.

"Such drip-by-drip revelations are apparently condoned or even encouraged by the PLA," Fisher adds. "One rarely hears any more of web posters going to 'drink tea', the Chinese euphemism for having your life upended by the military or party police

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Dec 2010 11:47

See this:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg111581

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 26 Dec 2010 11:52

shiv wrote:Well Kanson - I can't dispute that you may be right. I will upload the photo later but at the end of the J-10s turn there is a flagpole that is visible for 0.83 sec (25 out of 30 frames per sec) The angle of the flagpole changes by 6 degrees in that 0.83 seconds indicating how much the camera is being rotated as it is panned. If the camera is rotating at more than 7 degrees per second then the perspective of the aircraft is also being rotated - so the turn can end up looking artificial, or artificially sharp. I have some videos in which the aircraft i have filmed looks like it is doing a loop although it is merely flying overhead - the camera rotation gives that impression.

I had seen that 2008 video long ago. I thought the J-10's performance was very very tame in that show.

Did you like the 4 second 180 degree turn it made at ~4:50 mark?

Was that doctored too?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Dec 2010 11:54

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 26 Dec 2010 11:54

shiv wrote:See this:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg111581

Yes, the front looks like the F-22, as stated before. Not sure why the poster would compare the Su-47's rear with the J-20's rear though. Other than the placement of the engine nozzles, they're nothing alike.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Dec 2010 12:12

DavidD wrote:
Did you like the 4 second 180 degree turn it made at ~4:50 mark? Was that doctored too?

David that turn is the only reasonably well filmed bit of some incredibly bad video footage. The 360 degree turn lasts 19 to 20 seconds - a perfectly credible figure. Now why would an aircraft that does a 180 degree turn in 6 seconds take 14 seconds more to complete the second half of the turn. Either the pilot is just taking his own time turning in this video or the other one is odd, even if it is not actually doctored.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 26 Dec 2010 12:37

shiv wrote:
DavidD wrote:
Did you like the 4 second 180 degree turn it made at ~4:50 mark? Was that doctored too?
David that turn is the only reasonably well filmed bit of some incredibly bad video footage. The 360 degree turn lasts 19 to 20 seconds - a perfectly credible figure. Now why would an aircraft that does a 180 degree turn in 6 seconds take 14 seconds more to complete the second half of the turn. Either the pilot is just taking his own time turning in this video or the other one is odd, even if it is not actually doctored.

It could be that, or it could be something else, we'll never know. That just underscores the futility of judging an aircraft's performance based on airshows.

Saurabh_M · Post by **Saurabh_M** » 26 Dec 2010 20:58

So
(a) China is still not integrating the WS-10A on its J-10 fighters because it is not able to match the AL-31's performance
(b) China is ordering more AL-31s from Russia for their own fighters and FC-1 / JF-17
(c) We are supposed to believe that they have a 5th generation aircraft prototype ready with super-cruise engine?

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 27 Dec 2010 02:22

More pics. Once again, not as certain of their authenticity as the first pic:

Judging by this pic outside of CAC, it's not gonna be long before we see better quality pics:
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8047/1 ... 7adecc.jpg

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 27 Dec 2010 02:43

Saurabh_M wrote:So
(a) China is still not integrating the WS-10A on its J-10 fighters because it is not able to match the AL-31's performance
(b) China is ordering more AL-31s from Russia for their own fighters and FC-1 / JF-17
(c) We are supposed to believe that they have a 5th generation aircraft prototype ready with super-cruise engine?

You should see the WS-10A soon. Keep in mind that the Russians had to modify the AL-31 to AL-31FN to fit on the J-10, so the WS-10 which is equipping the J-11's would need to be modified to fit the J-10 as well. The FC-1/JF-17 uses the RD-93, not AL-31. Most pertinent to your question is the super-cruise engine, that probably won't be ready for another 5-10 years, so the JXX prototypes won't be equipped with at least a Chinese one for quite a while.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2010 06:55

DavidD wrote:More pics. Once again, not as certain of their authenticity as the first pic:

Judging by this pic outside of CAC, it's not gonna be long before we see better quality pics:
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8047/1 ... 7adecc.jpg

David - I am sure the Chinese are working on what they believe is the "5th gen" fighter. They may even be close to test flying it. But what makes these pictures ludicrous is the seriousness with which lousy photos are posted on the internet and claimed to be the real thing.

It's bad enough that the photos are shameful and that Chinese sources have a history of putting up fakes. But even these photographs show up as possible fakes on several counts. It can be stated that it is a Chinese characteristic to give information in this manner - and it speaks more about the Chinese way and Chinese psychology more than the actual technology it is supposed to reveal. Nobody else does it this way except when the prostitute of China (Pakistan) tries to copy the Chinese.

Don't you think that it is odd (and unique) that the US has a 5th gen flying, for which images are available. So do the Russians. India has openly revealed a wind tunnel model - bluff or not an official agency did that. Why are the Chinese doing it in this way? Is there a degree of frustration to show "We are also doing it?" or is it something else? Surely an official artist's impression would be fine - but we get only this rubbish. Would Chinese enthusiasts lose face if they said "China is working on a 5 gen plane but no photos are available" Or would China be revealing secret info by publishing an artist's impression officially? Chinese behaviour in this regard is peculiar.

The photos you put up yesterday clearly have the same bubble canopy of the F-22 Raptor down to the shape, proportions and angle which the canopy maintains while open.

The pictures above have the same problem. The F-22 canopy when open has a unique white thing that may be part of the canopy locking mechanism. That white flash is visible in both blurred photos that you have posted. Let me post one photo for comparison and links to others.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 27 Dec 2010 07:27

Is this the thread to debate the Chinese psychology? Not sure, but I'm not all that interested in that debate right now anyway. I don't really see a terribly big advantage or disadvantage with the way they're doing things, I just know that it's kinda exciting. I mean, girls do strip-teases for a reason, right?

As for the F-22 comparison, well it's been said many times over by witnesses that the front looks like the F-22, so it's really not all that surprising. With a large bubble canopy like that, I'm sure it's pretty natural to have reflections. I do some drawing myself on my free time, and that reflection on rounded glass objects is pretty characteristic(and kinda hard to draw

). I mean, what's next, are you gonna show me how both the F-22 and the JXX have wings and a fuselage?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Dec 2010 08:03

Is this the thread to debate the Chinese psychology?

Why is so difficult for posters on BR to understand that IF there were good,clear pictures there would be absolutely no reason to discuss psychology? Clearly these pictures bring no substance to the table.

Need to move on. Perhaps to another forum.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2010 08:24

DavidD wrote:Is this the thread to debate the Chinese psychology? Not sure, but I'm not all that interested in that debate right now anyway. I don't really see a terribly big advantage or disadvantage with the way they're doing things, I just know that it's kinda exciting. I mean, girls do strip-teases for a reason, right?

As for the F-22 comparison, well it's been said many times over by witnesses that the front looks like the F-22, so it's really not all that surprising. With a large bubble canopy like that, I'm sure it's pretty natural to have reflections. I do some drawing myself on my free time, and that reflection on rounded glass objects is pretty characteristic(and kinda hard to draw ). I mean, what's next, are you gonna show me how both the F-22 and the JXX have wings and a fuselage?

Hmmm - interesting response.. but you're right this is not the thread to debate Chinese psychology even though that psychology comes and hits one in the face.

There is a very real tendency to build up a part fictitious image and then go a long way to protect that partly fictitious image via various contortions and excuses. When such actions are justified by quoting Sun Tzu it stops being termed psychology and starts being called "Art of war". That is certainly relevant in the China Military watch thread. There is a constant Chinese tendency to maintain an external image of unity, vigor and strength by the use of images, shadows, deceit and deception. This form part and parcel of Chinese foreign policy and military PR. Psychology it may be - but it is very relevant to observers of China.

For example - if the shadow play put up by China with regard to its military intimidates and deters adversaries - it could be an advantage to China. So any potential adversary would have to think one step ahead and ask if the Chinese may be bluffing. For example - if you have a military that depends for its image on shadow plays and deception rather than hard as nails military might, then a "test war" started by an adversary could put that military under great stress.

One could for example look at the elaborate secrecy and bluff to make hypotheses about a conflict. All militaries resort to bluff, but what happens to the bluff after war starts is an important question. One could expect a war to start with an overwhelming Chinese assault across multiple areas in keeping with the publicized doctrine of great strength, great numbers, great unity and resolve. The lesson for someone facing the Chinese would be "Expect initial setbacks". But how would the Chinese respond to devastating and crippling counter strikes? How would a Chinese theatre commander respond to finding his forces in retreat on some fronts? I think most militaries understand the value of bluff but prepare for the worst. So calling a bluff is an important aspect of war without war just as much as bluffing is.

Tanveer · Post by **Tanveer** » 27 Dec 2010 08:27

I have a theory :- why these pictures of chinese Gen 5 jets are so blurry...
Answer :- because that jet is a "STEALTH" one. It is not supposed to be seen. Also you will find that jet only in the ground coz that is the time that thing can be seen coz you know "DE-ACTIVATED STEALTH MODE".

Its AVIONIX is so sophisticated that even when it is turned off it makes camera take blurr images.

(Now I can apply for Grandmaster norm for intelligence)
Tanveer

manum · Post by **manum** » 27 Dec 2010 09:08

DavidD wrote:Is this the thread to debate the Chinese psychology? Not sure, but I'm not all that interested in that debate right now anyway. I don't really see a terribly big advantage or disadvantage with the way they're doing things, I just know that it's kinda exciting. I mean, girls do strip-teases for a reason, right?

As for the F-22 comparison, well it's been said many times over by witnesses that the front looks like the F-22, so it's really not all that surprising. With a large bubble canopy like that, I'm sure it's pretty natural to have reflections. I do some drawing myself on my free time, and that reflection on rounded glass objects is pretty characteristic(and kinda hard to draw ). I mean, what's next, are you gonna show me how both the F-22 and the JXX have wings and a fuselage?

I understand your mystique way of saying things behind it and also parallel similarity to existing established 5th gen...It's totally understandable that Chinese stuff is going to be mix-match of all the existing established designs with some reflection off course and added fog and blur...

what i know it's not gonna help, if anyone tells it matches this and that, its does, its chinese, blurred images, its chinese, its hoo-haa, its chinese...its propaganda, its chinese.

and if you saying you are finding it exciting, and optimistic in relation to history, that the plane is going to be revealed sooner or later, great but can we talk bit more sense about something else, than something almost doesn't exist and exists in bits and pieces of other designs.
Indians and almost all the world is shifting towards post-modern way of living, and being transparent...of achievements, capabilities and future. even Russians announce and verify through established sources...and if it is like, that one can not believe even what chinese government announces or doesn't, then where is the firm line...