China Military Watch

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 29 Dec 2010 13:12

Pratyush wrote:Guys,

It is a hoax until proven otherwise. How many times in the past have we seen the celeberation of Photoshopped items from the PRC fanboys. Only to have it proven a photoshopped image.

JMT

Pratyush,
There can be no way that these images are photoshopped or 3d rendered. These are 100% genuine. The only thing to see now whether this is a flying prototype or not.

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 29 Dec 2010 13:27

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

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 29 Dec 2010 13:50

Austin wrote:
DavidD wrote:We have clear pics of the rear now, so it doesn't have to be all speculation anymore. Judging by those pics, they're definitely not the AL-31. They look very much like the WS-10 or its derivative. Obviously, the final production model isn't gonna use the WS-10, but they should be enough to test its aerodynamic performance.
David , the speculation part was respect to the engine , if its not any russian engine it would be chinese variant.

Yea, I was commenting on the engine too. Either way, I take back what I just said. After looking at the latest photos, it does look like an AL-31:

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2010 14:29

Kanson wrote:From net:

http://cnair.top81.cn/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm
J-20 Black Eagle

Oh Ohhhhh! Bad Baaad move. If Deepel fliend Islamic Republic of Prostitutistan has to be supplied with these they had better rename it JSF-23 White Eagle

. You can't supply black stuf to the taall fair herrows can you?

ranjithnath · Post by **ranjithnath** » 29 Dec 2010 14:30

saw tooth design of landing gear doors,DSI intakes. has lot more in common to f35 than the amrikhans would like.just waitin to see where they place IRST to this bird.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2010 14:34

rohitvats wrote:A question: If this thing has to fly, would not the chinese need quadruple FBW technology to be implemented? Where does Chinese R&D stand in this regard? Thanx.

Saar we speak so much about Fly By Wire for aircraft. Fact is even engines can do better on fly-by-wire - and its called FADEC. As far as I know neither J-10 nor J10 million(JF 17 Bundaar) have FADEC. Their engines are just no designed for FADEC.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 29 Dec 2010 14:41

Gaur wrote: I cannot understand the use of cannards though. That would certainly have an adverse effect on stealth.

As for it being fake, I though that when the first set of unclear pics had arrived. But now there cannot be any doubt that the pics are genuine.

IMHO 'falseness' of this aircraft has more to do with real performance than its resemblance. This toy will be used by chinese to lure illiterate customers like pakistan and other 3rd world countries. (they sell jf17 but use su27/30 as their front-liners!)

BTW this is more like a marketing launch ,where they are trying to show that they are the next big arms seller for a buyer . Certainly things like these alleviates their market position .
Otherwise they don't need to show this thing so early .
My assumption is based upon:
Whats the risk in showing a seemingly fifth gen aircraft only in taxi-runs than flying? no risk at all .
What data is given about its stealth -maneuverability ?
How Mr Chipandu was able to take these pics so easily from his cell phone camera, that too in front of some supposedly restricted area ,why he wasnt shot ,and these pics reached the web one after another ?

Obviously these are released by PLA in the same way they show their capabilities .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2010 14:41

Kanson wrote:
If the info is correct, it got a name, black eagle and it may take few years to fly.

The Chinese have certainly learned loud bullshitting from the Americans. You build a huge plane with 8 large flat surfaces to throw out radar reflections and then start throwing around numbers about its radar signature. Wah wah! We need to learn bullshitting rather than joining a chorus of others deriding our own products.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2010 14:41

Samay wrote: Obviously these are released by PLA in the same way they show their capabilities .

Correct. +1

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2010 14:58

Sid wrote: why it has those bumps under its wings (LCA type for flaps)? wont that hit the RCS?

Depends on the designer. When the plane is designed by short, dark rice eating people - the radar CS of those bumps is as big as the pyramids of Giza. But when others do it those bumps are invisible to radar.

sunilpatel · Post by **sunilpatel** » 29 Dec 2010 15:02

[deleted...was posted earlier..warning about male ware]

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 29 Dec 2010 15:05

shiv wrote:
rohitvats wrote:A question: If this thing has to fly, would not the chinese need quadruple FBW technology to be implemented? Where does Chinese R&D stand in this regard? Thanx.

Saar we speak so much about Fly By Wire for aircraft. Fact is even engines can do better on fly-by-wire - and its called FADEC. As far as I know neither J-10 nor J10 million(JF 17 Bundaar) have FADEC. Their engines are just no designed for FADEC.

According to a highly knowledgeable poster on another board, a FADEC version of the WS-10 was supposed to be completed this year. He said that back in early 2009, so I don't know if it actually happened or not. The WS-15 is designed to have FADEC from the ground up, but that's many years away from being production ready.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 29 Dec 2010 15:13

shiv wrote:
Sid wrote: why it has those bumps under its wings (LCA type for flaps)? wont that hit the RCS?
Depends on the designer. When the plane is designed by short, dark rice eating people - the radar CS of those bumps is as big as the pyramids of Giza. But when others do it those bumps are invisible to radar.

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

Dharma · Post by **Dharma** » 29 Dec 2010 15:29

I dont believe the chinese will just open up their supposedly state of the art top secret project to the people without clearance so they can post it on the internet bypassing GFW censors...This is a rip off technique of sun tzu to imitate and mislead its perceived enemy and to slow down others progress..real or not we must take this at face value and develop better

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 29 Dec 2010 15:33

From the same person who brought us the first, blurry pics(the guy clearly has inside connections):

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Dec 2010 15:45

DavidD wrote:
shiv wrote: Depends on the designer. When the plane is designed by short, dark rice eating people - the radar CS of those bumps is as big as the pyramids of Giza. But when others do it those bumps are invisible to radar.
Lol, was there a big clamoring about them on the LCA thread or something? But really, what is it? I checked out the other 5th gen fighters, and both the F-22 and the PAK-FA have them too. Judging by the positions of them on the F-22, they don't appear to be possible missile racks.

actuator housing IIRC.

vina · Post by **vina** » 29 Dec 2010 15:59

From the same person who brought us the first, blurry pics(the guy clearly has inside connections):

Nice try. This is clearly photoshopped rubbish and a bad attempt at that. Try selling that snake oil somewhere else. Thanks and have a nice day.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2010 16:16

this thread has 711000 views, about 100,000 more than even the LCA thread and all other threads are aeons behind in hits. looks like a lot of people watch this thread very closely or maybe some specialized 'web spiders' poll this thread only quite frequently for further analysis.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2010 16:22

the JSF program team is likely in emergency session to figure out how/if the bird can deal with this baby in the pacific rim markets like japan, singapore, thailand, australia and soko which I assume are prime and rich markets for JSF.

since the JSF is fat and ugly and barely matches the late model F-16 in flying agility even with its elephantine engine, either they need to find a even bigger engine (lol) or some super duper missile and radar combo that makes agility and acceleration redundant. but then again with such a super combo people will want that on cheap F-16 airframe and not a costly stealthy JSF airframe

good psyops and shot across the bows by PRC.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 29 Dec 2010 16:53

As for the design and resemblance to Mig-1.44, I think the answer lies in the year when this programme was initiated. If the 1996/97 report from US intelligence is true, then the only source Chinese had was Russian design houses. The level of industrial espionage may not have been upto a level of attaining stealth technology from USA.

This is how it could have happened:

(a) Chinese understand that while trying to develop something like J-10 is good, in due course of time, AFs of Western world will transition to stealth.
(b) The GW-1 had made a deep impact on CCP Politbureau and role of F-117 would not have been lost on them. So, the decided to do whatever possible about this aspect. So, in addition to Lavi's cousin, PLAAF went for stealth a/c development.
(c) The programme could have been an attempt at R&D in the field as well as workable product.
(d) The only source at that time were the Russians and the fact they needed cash double quick was too much of an opportunity to let go. And hence, the 'resemblence' with Mig-1.44
(e) Somewhere along the road, came the 'data points' about DSI intakes and presto, Black Eagle prominently features them. Some other stuff, which they might have discovered along the way will also become public and we will know, what other inspiration the chinese took.

But the real stuff is this: How much learning has the Chinese R&D set-up absorbed and is ready to implement in next project? Can they come up with a contemporary design for next level of aircraft in the same genre as F-22? What is road map ahead of J-10 and J-20? Can Chinese come up with completely domestic design of their own?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Dec 2010 16:53

Just received this email from Australia Air Power on J-20 , posting in full
Dr Carlo Kopp

Over the last few days imagery of what is claimed to be China's new stealth fighter has appeared on a range of Chinese Internet sites. There have been no official disclosures as yet, so many of the claims appearing in the media may only be speculation presented as fact.

The aircraft may be a technology demonstrator or a prototype for a mass production fighter aircraft. The latter is however much more likely, given that the PLA Chief of Air Staff claimed an IOC later in the decade.

What the imagery shows is a large fighter, approaching the size of an F-111, with a canard delta configuration and pair of outward canted all moving vertical tails. This configuration will provide good sustained supersonic cruise performance with a suitable engine type, and good manoeuvre performance in transonic and supersonic regimes.

Of most interest is the stealth shaping, which is considerably better than that seen in the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Chinese design appears to be largely built around the stealth shaping design rules employed in the F-22A Raptor. The chined nose section and canopy are close in appearance to the F-22. The trapezoidal inlets are closest to the F-22, but employ an F-35 style boundary layer control design. The wing fuselage join angle, critical for side aspect stealth, is very similar to the F-22 and superior to the Russian T-50 PAK-FA prototypes and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The flat lower fuselage is optimal for all aspect wideband stealth. Planform alignment is impossible to assess until in flight imagery becomes available.

The aft fuselage, tailboom, strakes and nozzles are not compatible with high stealth performance, but may only be stop gap measures to expedite flight testing of a prototype. The airframe configuration and aft fuselage would be compatible with an F-22 style 2D TVC nozzle design, or a non-TVC rectangular nozzle designed for controlled infrared emission and radio-frequency stealth.

The PLA have not disclosed the engine type. There are claims that the Russians supplied supercruise capable 117S series engines - these would not be sufficient to extract the full performance potential of this advanced airframe.

The airframe configuration is compatible with ventral and side opening internal weapon bays, and large enough to match or exceed the internal weapons payload of the F-22A Raptor. Internal fuel fraction may also be high, given the fuselage configuration and large internal volume of the big delta wing.

Other unknowns are the intended sensor suite. China has yet to demonstrate an AESA radar, or an advanced indigenous emitter locating system. However, these could become available by the time this airframe enters production.

The size of the airframe, and its evident focus on supersonic persistence, suggests at a minimum an intention to provide a long range interceptor for air control in the Second Island Chain geography. This capability by default would provide the ability to penetrate an opposing IADS to destroy assets like AWACS, other ISR systems, and tankers. Suffice to say, with suitable internal weapons, the design could be employed as a penetrating strike aircraft, in the combat radius class of the F-111 or Su-34 Fullback.

The notion that an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be capable of competing against this Chengdu design in air combat, let along penetrate airspace defended by this fighter, is simply absurd.

APA will produce a detailed analysis at a future date, once more technical material becomes available.

Some excellent analysis of this system by Bill Sweetman, Editor of DTI, can be located at:

J-20 - Denial Is Not An Option
China's Stealth Striker

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 29 Dec 2010 17:02

From above:

The notion that an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be capable of competing against this Chengdu design in air combat, let along penetrate airspace defended by this fighter, is simply absurd.

So, we don't know about engine, sensors and other paraphernalia and the a/c has not flow yet but it is already superior to JSF and F/A-18 SH.......brilliant!

This is how BS called 'urban legend' starts.........now expect the usual pakroaches to exult that how they can defeat IAF in 2020.....

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2010 17:09

Carlo Copp-ji has lost it. How is an aircraft stealthy in front but not so at the back?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Dec 2010 17:11

Rohit,

Didnt you know that the F 22 is the last word in air combat. Any threat from any of the non US design will have to be met onlee by the F 22. The 35 or any other US design is no better then the softwith camel when compared to the F 22 for this guy.

So yes the J 20 will beat all except the F 22.

If you were ignorant of the above then let it be lesson for you

Now bliss say that you are sorry for doubting Shri Copp.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Dec 2010 17:18

shiv wrote:Carlo Copp-ji has lost it. How is an aircraft stealthy in front but not so at the back?

He mentioned the same thing for PAK-FA in APA analysis , probably because of Round Nozzle and Strakes in case of J-20 , perhaps one of the reason the new engine for PAK-FA has a flat nozzle.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 29 Dec 2010 17:28

Hey, all these are orchestrated by the 'lone superpower' and the 'emelging supel powel' as a stimulant to beat the recession!!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Dec 2010 17:39

Dileep wrote:Hey, all these are orchestrated by the 'lone superpower' and the 'emelging supel powel' as a stimulant to beat the recession!!

Dileep Cheta you smell conspiracy theory , well certainly what I foresee is there would be lot of questions at Aeroindia and MAKS 2011 on J-20 , if this bird manages to make couple of flights by then

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Dec 2010 17:45

This will go for some 10 + years of testing. This is how they usually build a plane.

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 29 Dec 2010 17:50

Mods can you remove link from fyjs on page 78 of this thread, cant visit it rite now, Thanks

Warning: Something's Not Right Here!
forums.bharat-rakshak.com contains content from ww.fyjs.cn, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site.
Google has found malicious software may be installed onto your computer if you proceed. If you've visited this site in the past or you trust this site, it's possible that it has just recently been compromised by a hacker. You should not proceed, and perhaps try again tomorrow or go somewhere else.
We have already notified ww.fyjs.cn that we found malware on the site. For more about the problems found on ww.fyjs.cn, visit the Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 29 Dec 2010 18:10

How is an aircraft stealthy in front but not so at the back?

Well it doesn't have all aspect stealth. But frontal RCS reduction is considerable.

Even this J-20 is presently optimized for head on engagement.

However I would say that the way he started off it seemed that he was talking about wide band all aspect stealth. But then qualified that to talk about the non-stealthy nature of the aft fuselage. Rounded engine nozzles are not good for RF stealth. fully embedded engines with serrated nozzles and faceting is.

by the way here's something

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2010 19:15

Here is my assessment of the length of this aircraft. Both photos are not exactly from the side so the assessment is necessarily approximate.

In both photos I have drawn a red line corresponding roughly to the height of a man standing very close to the aircraft. I have roughly assessed one line as 5 feet and the other as 6 feet (as marked) and used that as a scale to measure the length. I get one figure of 54 feet and another of 80 feet. I would guess the real length to be somewhere in between - maybe 60-65 feet ~ 20 meters long. That is approximately the same length as the F-22 or Su-27

I don't know how agile the Su-27 is. The Su-30 MKI and F-22 are very agile - probably the most agile fighetrs on earth barring the MiG 35. In all cases there is a TV engine and canards as well for the MKI.

The canards of this JXX/J-20 aircraft will certainly add to its agility. But it is a big aircraft and big aircraft have more inertia and will need greater energy for a change of direction (agility) in the absence of TV.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2010 19:22

One of the big bluffs created by American fanboys is that stealth is everything in 5th gen. It is not. 5th gen is only partly about stealth by shape. It is about avionics, smart weapons, situational awareness, networking, range and performance. It is not even about supercruise or thrust vectoring. A lot of the 4 and 4.5 gen aircraft can supercruise or have TV. And remember the HF 24 could supercruise - as could the Viggen IIRC

manum · Post by **manum** » 29 Dec 2010 19:45

http://twitpic.com/3kve4o

here you can see one more length analysis...according to it its > 23 m long

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2010 19:54

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

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

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Dec 2010 20:01

This is just a tech demo IMHO. This aircraft has too many flaws to be considered a final 5th gen product.

Even the Russians do NOT have a proper engine for a "5th Gen" aircraft, so, I have to assume that the Chinese are way behind in that dept too. Which has and will have implications on the design of the this aircraft.

For the final 5th gen product to come out it should take 5-10 more years.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2010 20:08

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

manum · Post by **manum** » 29 Dec 2010 20:15

aircraft is longer than 20 m and its around 22 m...which is pakfa length...
it is supposed to do exactly what pakfa is supposed to do...I am wondering GOI knew about this development, so they entered into the deal as a safeguard...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2010 20:20

manum wrote:

http://twitpic.com/3kve4o

here you can see one more length analysis...according to it its > 23 m long

Someone's copied my red serrated line technique.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Dec 2010 20:22

IMHO, the AMCA will represent India and not the FGFA. In fact, I have always said, do not expect too much out of the FGFA. The FGFA will arrive, but, IMHO, the AMCA will be there.

manum · Post by **manum** » 29 Dec 2010 20:24

shiv wrote:
manum wrote:

http://twitpic.com/3kve4o

here you can see one more length analysis...according to it its > 23 m long
Someone's copied my red serrated line technique.

yeah, it was your genius idea...but there was one clearer pic, so i tried to be bit more accurate by superimposing the two...