China Military Watch

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Samay » 06 Jan 2011 18:34

One thing that I want to ask learned gurus is how did the chinese designed a 5th gen fighter ,when the last time they used their fighter jets was 40-50 yrs ago, using 2nd gen aircrafts.
Designing a figher aircraft ,that too stealthy, needs a lot of feeding from AF. This cant happen with the chinese,with no real experience . And certainly its not a joke ,otherwise sudan could do it as well.

This means that either russians/americans had helped them to do this or it is a plastic toy .
Last edited by Samay on 06 Jan 2011 18:43, edited 2 times in total.

Raghavendra
BRFite
Posts: 1252
Joined: 11 Mar 2008 19:07
Location: Fishing in Sadhanakere

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Raghavendra » 06 Jan 2011 18:36

China's J-20 stealth fighter: 'design is 25 years old' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... s-old.html
Douglas Barrie, an aerospace expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, noted that the J20's airframe resembled that of an abandoned Russian prototype, the MiG 1.42.

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

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 06 Jan 2011 18:50

Singha wrote:nothing much so far ... just footage of high speed taxi runs...it lifts the nose then slows down and deploys the parachute.


Where? Where?? Where???

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

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 06 Jan 2011 18:52

Samay wrote:One thing that I want to ask learned gurus is how did the chinese designed a 5th gen fighter ,when the last time they used their fighter jets was 40-50 yrs ago, using 2nd gen aircrafts.
Designing a figher aircraft ,that too stealthy, needs a lot of feeding from AF. This cant happen with the chinese,with no real experience . And certainly its not a joke ,otherwise sudan could do it as well.

This means that either russians/americans had helped them to do this or it is a plastic toy .



Saar first stop using the term "5th generation". It has no meaning. If it has meaning please state that first. I want to know what 5th generation means.
Last edited by shiv on 06 Jan 2011 18:57, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 06 Jan 2011 18:55

Samay wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgEANwpFc5o

Please provide a short description of the link. TIA

1) This particular video is not a high speed taxi run
2) The tailfins are fixed in that weird skewed position initially - but they do straighten up later.
3) The fly is open - i.e. the brake parachute trapdoor is open.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Samay » 06 Jan 2011 19:07

I think the engines are working. some sound suggests that .
Saar first stop using the term "5th generation". It has no meaning. If it has meaning please state that first. I want to know what 5th generation means.

I assume a stealthy design is a general requirement

Raghavendra
BRFite
Posts: 1252
Joined: 11 Mar 2008 19:07
Location: Fishing in Sadhanakere

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Raghavendra » 06 Jan 2011 19:10

China denies it is contemplating first use of nuclear weapons http://www.sify.com/news/China-denies-i ... jdehc.html

Beijing: China on Thursday denied reports that it would consider a pre-emptive nuclear strike if it finds itself faced with a critical situation of a war with another nuclear state.

Terming the reports as "totally false" and "made with ulterior motives", Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said, "Since the very day China got nuclear weapons, Chinese government has made a solemn pledge never to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time under any circumstance."

"China has lived up to this," the spokesman said, as media reports, citing secret internal PLA documents outlined that China had framed a new nuclear doctrine contradicting its no-first-use of nuclear weapons, likely to fan concern in the United States, Japan, India and other regional powers about Beijing's nuclear intentions.

The media reports said the newly revealed policy paper, called "Lowering the threshold of nuclear threats" may lead to People's Liberation Army adjusting "the nuclear threat policy if a nuclear missile-possessing country carries out a series of air strikes against key strategic targets in the country with absolutely superior conventional weapons."

Japanese news agency Kyodo, quoting the PLA document had said, China will first warn an adversary about a nuclear strike, but if the enemy attacks Chinese territory with conventional forces the PLA "must carefully consider" a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

Commenting on the document, Akio Takahara, a professor of contemporary Chinese politics at the University of Tokyo's Graduate School of Public Policy, said an adjustment of the PLA's nuclear threat policy as spelled out in the paper runs counter to President Hu Jintao's pledge that China will not launch a preemptive nuclear strike under any circumstances.

"It is uncertain whether such policy adjustment represents a policy shift or has been in existence from before," Takahara said.

"But a preemptive strike as assumed (in the documents) would apply to an extreme situation such as war with the United States, and that is almost inconceivable today. I think President Hu is aware of that."

China has not publicly discussed its nuclear doctrine in public much since it became a nuclear power in 1964.

Analysts often quote a Chinese White Paper presented in 1998 which stated that "from the first day it possessed nuclear weapons, China has solemnly declared its determination not to be the first to use such weapons at any time and in any circumstances, and later undertook unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones."

Don
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 09 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Don » 06 Jan 2011 19:47

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... tary-power

Chinese jet fighter 'sighting' raises fears over region's military power balance

Image reportedly showing prototype of China's fifth generation J-20 stealth fighter has been circulating on the internet
Image
Share442 Jonathan Watts in Beijing, and Julian Borger, diplomatic editor guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 5 January 2011 18.33 GMT Article history

A photograph of what is reported to be a new Chinese stealth fighter and "carrier-killer" missile has prompted concerns that a tilt in the balance of military power in the western Pacific towards China may come sooner than expected.

The emergence of the hi-tech weaponry - which would make it more difficult for the US navy and air force to project power close to Taiwan and elsewhere on China's coastline - comes at a politically sensitive time. Later this month, President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, will hold a summit in Washington aimed at patching up their differences after a niggling year in bilateral relations.

The photograph, of what appears to be a prototype J-20 jet undergoing runway tests, has been circulating on the internet since last week, fuelling speculation that China's fifth-generation fighter may fly ahead of forecast.

The defence ministry has yet to comment on the image, which seems to have been shot from long-distance near the Chengdu aircraft design institute. The photographer is also unknown, which has added to the mystery about its origins and authenticity as well as the motive of the distributor.

But defence analysts believe this is the first glimpse of the twin-engined, chiselled-nosed plane that mixes Russian engine technology with a fuselage design similar to that of the US air force's F-22 "stealth" fighter, which can avoid detection by radar.

If confirmed, it would be an impressive step forward for the Chinese air force, which until now has largely depended on foreign-made or designed planes. "I'd say these are, indeed, genuine photos of a prototype that will make its maiden flight very soon," said Peter Felstead, the editor of Jane's Defence Weekly.

The J20 is likely to be many years from deployment, but the US defence secretary, Robert Gates - who visits Beijing next week - may have to revise an earlier prediction that China will not have a fifth generation aircraft by 2020.

It is not the only challenge to US superiority in the region. China has refurbished a Ukranian aircraft carrier and wants to build its own by 2020.

A more immediate threat is posed by China's adaptation of an intermediate-range ballistic missile - the DF-21D - to target US aircraft carriers. This project is also further advanced than previously believed.

Admiral Robert Willard, the US navy's commander in the Pacific, warned last month that the weapon - nicknamed the "carrier killer' - had reached "initial operational capability". Faced by this threat US battle groups are likely to take a more withdrawn position if there is a standoff over Taiwan than they did in 1996, when the USS Nimitz sailed through the strait.

"The main implication of China deploying this system is that it would certainly make the US navy pause before deciding to project naval power into the South China Sea region during a time of tension," said Felstead.

But China's ambassador to the UK, Liu Xiaoming, said today that his country had no ambitions to rival US military power in the western Pacific region.

"We do not see ourselves as rivals to the US. We believe the US and China can work together in the region," Liu said, arguing there was a double standard in the west towards Chinese defence spending.

"When China carries out an exercise on its own territory there is a lot of attention, but when the United States comes all the way across the Pacific for exercises with its allies, no one speaks about it in the same way. There is a cold war mentality still. If you develop your defence capability, they [the Americans] are annoyed. But our defence construction is purely for self-defence. China's defence expenditure is still the lowest among the five permament members of the [UN] security council."

China's military advances worry many in the east Asian region who have benefited for decades from the US-policed status quo. In its latest defence white paper, Japan noted that China's military spending had nearly quadrupled over the past decade, while its own shrank by 4% due to a stagnant economy.

Officials in Tokyo have also expressed alarm at the increasingly confrontational approach of Chinese vessels in disputed fisheries. In Washington, rightwing thinktanks and commentators want Obama and Gates to apply diplomatic pressure on China to join the intermediate nuclear forces (INF) treaty and halt its missile buildup.

The photographs of the J20 jet are also likely to prompt calls for accelerated production of F35s - the US's next generation stealth fighter - to ensure air superiority.

The US remains the most potent military force in the western Pacific with 60,000 troops, a military airbase in Okinawa and one forward-deployed carrier fleet.

The US also outspends China on defence by a ratio of six to one, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Even so, while China's economy grows rapidly and the US remains sluggish, fears of a shift in the balance of power are likely to grow. It will not happen overnight and worldwide, but China appears to be steadily pushing the US back from its shores in a strategy know as "area denial". The government has not confirmed this approach. Chinese nationalists want their country to be more assertive, but they say the priority is to improve defence of an increasingly wealthy coastal region.

The "area denial" strategy can be seen as China trying to manage its own market and routes to main trading partners such as South Korea and Japan.

"We don't need the US to be the policeman in the west Pacific area," said Song Xiaojun, a former naval officer who now edits military magazines.

"China's priority is to develop its near sea defence, because our economy is concentrated on the coast. But we have to reconsider the concept of 'near sea' to fit a modern age in which military threats can come from far away. China must improve its defences, but that does not mean we are a threat. Only arms merchants would say that to persuade the US to raise military spending. The US is far ahead," he said.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2610
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: China Military Watch

Postby abhik » 06 Jan 2011 20:00

shiv wrote:er why is a stealth plane needed to counter a stealthy aircraft. That is a naive idea that I keep hearing. The counter to one stealthy aircraft does not have to be another stealthy aircraft. How can a stealthy aircraft defeat another stealthy aircraft?

Its to level the playing field, not be at a disadvantage.
Would an F-117 beat up an F-22? Why wouldn't an MKI or a MiG 35 beat up a B2?

Sly, you should rather ask Why wouldn't an MKI or a Mig 35 beat up an F-22.

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

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 06 Jan 2011 20:06

abhik wrote:Its to level the playing field, not be at a disadvantage.

Sorry I did not understand how the playing field gets leveled. Could you please explain?

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

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 06 Jan 2011 20:21

abhik wrote:
Would an F-117 beat up an F-22? Why wouldn't an MKI or a MiG 35 beat up a B2?

Sly, you should rather ask Why wouldn't an MKI or a Mig 35 beat up an F-22.


I could ask a lot of things, but I am asking why stealth is required to defeat stealth.

Stealth is not required to defeat stealth. What is required is to expose what is hidden by stealth.

If someone attacks at night - he is trying to use stealth. You defeat that by lighting up the area and hitting him, not by saying "We also need darkness to defeat him"

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Singha » 06 Jan 2011 20:29

and thats why the chinese have purchased anything remotely claimed as a capable of detecting stealth aircraft from czech republic , ukraine etc. and also developing some of their own...

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/air-for ... -5308.html

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Lalmohan » 06 Jan 2011 20:35

dont fighter jocks use a term like 'first sight first shot'?
whatever gives you that and denies it to your opponent is what wins

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

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shiv » 06 Jan 2011 21:34

prithvi wrote:..thats why J-20 featues in CNN International...home page


I think thick-headed BRF members need to a proper explanation for them to understand the significance of this.

America is the greatest country in the world. Anything that America notices is worth noticing. CNN is an American channel and if anything appears on CNN it means that it has to be something great and worth noticing. BRF members are generally blinkered rustic-background Indians and don't understand what is great and not great, let alone understanding the supreme honor of being noticed by CNN - that largest news network of the greatest country in the world. Appearing on CNN is not like some turd world nautch girl appearing on Zed TV or unheard of NTDV or NDVT channel. Their accent is so funny LOL have you heard it?

J-20 appearing on CNN is a fearsome thing - but how to explain that to fools who don't even know what a significant event an appearance on CNN is. And most Indians won't even know that even Ayub Khan had featured alongside Kennedy (Kennedy was a President of the United states who invented the moon lander). So I think you may be casting pearls before swine. How do you explain the joys of Pate de Foie gras to a moron who only eats chapatis? :roll:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Singha » 06 Jan 2011 21:56

in medical terms this persistent disorder is called Indicus SelfFlagellitis. patients are advised not to take stress but spend all their free time on BR to stage a complete recovery.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: China Military Watch

Postby vivek_ahuja » 06 Jan 2011 22:31

shiv wrote:
abhik wrote:Its to level the playing field, not be at a disadvantage.

Sorry I did not understand how the playing field gets leveled. Could you please explain?


Shiv,

Consider the following example as my attempt to answer your question:

Let's say that a Su-30MKI is attempting to intercept the J-20 head on. If the enemy had been a SU-30MKK, let us assume the detection range on the radar was 100Km. Now, with the J-20 etc and the stealth factor, your detection range is only 20 Km. So earlier, where you might have taken a shot at 50 Km, you are now forced to do so at less than 20Km. What happens in between? If the J-20 has even the same radar as the MKI, it would have detected the latter at 100Km and would have taken a shot at 50Km, without the Indian pilot having a clue as to what just happened. Now, if on the other hand, instead of the MKI, we have, let's say, the AMCA, then even the J-20 with its super duper stealth would only detect it at say 20Km (apples to apples). In this case, the Indian pilot has been allowed to close the distance between him and the J-20 without dying using his own stealth features. After that, at 20Km, when both aircraft "see" each other, its down to the knife fight and whoever wins on account of weapons superiority.

The other alternate route would be to increase the power of the radar on the MKI to ensure that even though the J-20 has stealth, you still detect it at the original range of 100Km. But doing so is far more difficult than designing your own aircraft around stealth, IMVHO.

Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Arya Sumantra » 06 Jan 2011 22:39

shiv wrote: why stealth is required to defeat stealth.

Stealth is not required to defeat stealth. What is required is to expose what is hidden by stealth.


Like mutually assured destruction works for deterence. Somewhat deterrence is achieved by enemy seeing you as equal once you have similar capability and enemy's perception of having an edge is lost. Offence is best form of defence.

Of course what you explain about exposing the stealth is true from self-defence pov.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: China Military Watch

Postby SaiK » 06 Jan 2011 22:41

Why not consider a raptor type rcs being shot down by lca mk2 with astra 50km ranged electro-optic-mmw fusion seeker? Also think a gnd based setup (whatever range the detector may have) detection system say detected the enemy at 1000kms away, it would not take seconds to track that by relaying that information to a net centric setup.

Bottom line, the enemy may not even know they are tracked by various means, and their exact coordinates can be calculated with a net centric setup.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4221
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Jan 2011 22:43

It would all depend upon how stealthy the J20 really turns out. An Irbis or Bars II (after MLU) will supposedly detect a 1msq target @ 300-350km. But yes, given that the Chinese will probably have a super duper radar on their J20, such advantages can be better nullified by similarly stealthy platforms.

Either that or you somehow find a way of flanking the J20, which would considerably increase its radar sig.

OR have a SAM network that is extremely powerful (ala S400/LRTR types) and widespread.

OR, as Sai was alluding - get an IRST that can detect the bird before your radar, and somehow manage ranging at BVR distances.

CM

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: China Military Watch

Postby SaiK » 06 Jan 2011 23:05

Combine laser and optics, the range can be even enhanced, though it might be only in ieee mags now. If we can proactively work on it, I am sure a remote sensing sensor could be device for our mil ops, even at extended range. who knows fiber laser could be used!?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 07 Jan 2011 00:14

Austin wrote:Indranil ,since J-20 and F-22 like design generated most of the lift from its wing and T-50/Flanker type generates lift from the body and wing with its lifting body design ( and integrated aerodynamic layout by Sukhoi )

What are the disadvantage of lifting body design over design like J-20/F-22 that uses classic wings for lift ?


Austin the J-20 and F-22 generate a lot of body lift as well, thought when I look at the side profile of the J-20, I feel that the ratio of body lift/body length will be lower than the F-22 (I have to say the side profile of F-22 is awesome IMHO). The body lift by the T-50/Flanker is highest because the space between the nacelles where the air just goes straight through.

Now to come to your question, I don't know of any significant disadvantage of lift generated by the body. But your question has aroused my interest to know more about this. Please bear in mind that we are not speaking of "lifting body" design where there are almost no wings. There are many disadvantages and challenges in that design especially at high AoA and/or high speeds. The air flow deviates from a longitudinal flow which results in enormous challenges (led to many crashes in the few planes which were ever designed that way). We are also not speaking of a flying wing design where FBW is very complex and control surfaces are completely different.

But for fighters, nobody designs thinking I will generate 40% lift from my body and rest from the wing and then move around things in the body to make sure that you get that 40% lift you need. AFAIK the design goes in the opposite direction. One knows how to generate lift from the body and the wing. They are just design knowledge and not objectives. One draws up a rough idea of how the plane would like based on these knowledge and indeed many others. One refines from that sketch, saying "Oh, my body is creating so much lift, I can therefore shorten the wings, or make them thinner. Nobody would move the cockpit around to get better lift from the body. For example look at the T-50 hump behind the cockpit (was it you who had provided the link to that paper?). They found a drop in the cross sectional area along the longitudinal axis and introduced the hump. Now adding that hump increased body lift. So they would have definitely refined the wings suitably.

One disadvantage of lift generated by the body is that the lift will always be perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the plane. There is no control surface on this. This is unlike a conventional wing. Also on a conventional wing you could modify the amount of lift by using flaps (both LE/TE). This is not true with a lifting body The amount of lift created at an AoA and speed is a constant.

Therefore in a plane like the T-50, the wings are smaller but the control surfaces on those wings are of the same size as that of a conventional "wing-lift-only" design. Thus a size-able percentage of the wing is taken up by the control surfaces. This could cause challenges.

Also with smaller wings, one has less span to work with for under-wing hard points.

But in general a body lift is more advantageous than disadvantageous especially when your body has to be thick to carry internal weapons.
1. you can make the wings stouter/thinner reducing drag at supersonic flight.
2. wetted area also goes down per unit internal volume.
3. wing structures can be much lighter due to lower span and load thus reducing weight.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 07 Jan 2011 00:26

Arya Sumantra wrote:
Austin wrote:What are the disadvantage of lifting body design over design like J-20/F-22 that uses classic wings for lift ?


If the fuselage body also generates lift besides the wings then isn't it a constraint for fuselage side profile shape? Merely a flat underbelly will not make fuselage lift-generating. Just like the wing's cross-section, the longitudinal cross section of fuselage will now have to be shaped, optimized for lift which will be affected by the profile of bubble canopy, its location, contour profile of rest of fuselage in side profile etc. As opposed to a wing-lift-only design where fuselage shape is only drag minimized, here there would be additional restrictions too, isn't it?

JMT


Arya, you are right and wrong.

You are right that the fuselage is optimized for drag.

You are wrong that there are restrictions on the canopy placement. The point is that nobody would do that. Nobody cripples his design by restricting the percentage of lift that the body has to create. as I said it does the other way around. One would put things where they ought to be and minimize body drag. But one can keep in mind how can generate lift using the body. The Su-27/Mig-29 designers spaced the nacelles knowing that it would create more body lift.They would not compromise on the drag of the fuselage or the placement of the cockpit or its shape.

P.S. Moderators, IMHO there should a separate to discuss general aero stuff. My discussions are OT for this thread, but I don't know where else to post. Also such a thread can be used for reference later, instead of searching for a body-lift discussion in China-Military-watch thread! I see so many capability/feature discussion strewn all over threads as well. A central look up would be much easier. JMT.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 07 Jan 2011 00:38

kit wrote:Now the Indian MCA is not thought of as an stealth design

:eek: Sir, how do you come to such decisions when the design has not been finalized yet. Supposed to be done by year end!!
Even if you go by the wind tunnel model could you please elaborate what is not stealth on the AMCA (barring the air intakes)?

kit wrote:the only way to deal with the J 20 would be to have a stealth fighter of western standard, at least a JSF class.

What do you mean by stealth fighter of western standard?
And what is JSF class? From whatever I have read JSF is not going to make the cut against any of true A2A platforms. Forget the J-20/F-22/PAKFA, even EF contends that JSF would do well against enemy territory guarded by the EF. JSF was not designed as an A2A platform. The F-22s were supposed to provide air dominance and then the F-35s were supposed to enter the arena. So you can imagine what would happen if a JSF were ever sent up against an F-22 equivalent.

prithvi

Re: China Military Watch

Postby prithvi » 07 Jan 2011 00:40

shiv wrote:
prithvi wrote:..thats why J-20 featues in CNN International...home page


I think thick-headed BRF members need to a proper explanation for them to understand the significance of this.

America is the greatest country in the world. Anything that America notices is worth noticing. CNN is an American channel and if anything appears on CNN it means that it has to be something great and worth noticing. BRF members are generally blinkered rustic-background Indians and don't understand what is great and not great, let alone understanding the supreme honor of being noticed by CNN - that largest news network of the greatest country in the world. Appearing on CNN is not like some turd world nautch girl appearing on Zed TV or unheard of NTDV or NDVT channel. Their accent is so funny LOL have you heard it?

J-20 appearing on CNN is a fearsome thing - but how to explain that to fools who don't even know what a significant event an appearance on CNN is. And most Indians won't even know that even Ayub Khan had featured alongside Kennedy (Kennedy was a President of the United states who invented the moon lander). So I think you may be casting pearls before swine. How do you explain the joys of Pate de Foie gras to a moron who only eats chapatis? :roll:


too much of rhetoric and crude sarcasm for nothing... have seen enough of this in BRF from the "heavyweights". Just picking a phrase out of context and then launching an orgasmic anti USA rhetorics ... time tested method is not it....
my whole point was --if we had invested same enthu, money and energy for Arihant... why can't we use it as a statement of intent..? rather than using as a political tool to celebrate birthday of our Government...?

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4350
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: China Military Watch

Postby sanjaykumar » 07 Jan 2011 00:52

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... s-old.html

China's J-20 stealth fighter: 'design is 25 years old'

shaunb
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 22 Oct 2009 01:42

Re: China Military Watch

Postby shaunb » 07 Jan 2011 01:01

An observation on the J-20.

It looks like the plane is making taxi runs and undergoing initial cheks. Normally, (Tejas, JSF, Pak-Fa) when such tests are done, the plane never come out in their final colour schemes. We have seen others in their green and yellow primers.

Is there any reason why J-20 would be all dressed up while others chose to go in their undies even for the first flight?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: China Military Watch

Postby SaiK » 07 Jan 2011 01:24

^for stealth reasons! :twisted:

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3826
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: China Military Watch

Postby hnair » 07 Jan 2011 02:40

prithvi wrote:too much of rhetoric and crude sarcasm for nothing... have seen enough of this in BRF from the "heavyweights". Just picking a phrase out of context and then launching an orgasmic anti USA rhetorics ... time tested method is not it....
my whole point was --if we had invested same enthu, money and energy for Arihant... why can't we use it as a statement of intent..? rather than using as a political tool to celebrate birthday of our Government...?


:D it was not for nothing. Infact it was total fun for panda-lovers like me! Particularly that CNN bit. I too always thought LCA would be deemed to have achieved all its objectives, when a burning gora runs around screaming "I got hit by the LCA" on the Beeb!!!

The only equivalent thing I have seen of this little interaction between you and Doc-saar is this fabled reality show on Fox (which makes it super cool), "Fast Animals, Slow Children". And do not step on that tube of glue that fell out of your rucksack....

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: China Military Watch

Postby heech » 07 Jan 2011 02:40

shaunb wrote:An observation on the J-20.

It looks like the plane is making taxi runs and undergoing initial cheks. Normally, (Tejas, JSF, Pak-Fa) when such tests are done, the plane never come out in their final colour schemes. We have seen others in their green and yellow primers.

Is there any reason why J-20 would be all dressed up while others chose to go in their undies even for the first flight?

Yes, a lot of people are asking the same question. The prototype J-10s were also flying in yellow primer for months/years.

One rumor going around is that the J-20 had already under-gone its initial flights last year, in secret. These two units (at least one of which appears to be using a variant of the WS-10) is here for public unveiling, which is why none of these pictures are being censored. We now know a high-profile ceremony at the base is being prepared for Friday, and expectations are that the J-20 will be on national TV for Friday night. If you're going to put this thing on national TV, showing a jet in yellow primer just doesn't look quite as good.

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: China Military Watch

Postby heech » 07 Jan 2011 02:48

Just wanted to add another comment... the exact capabilities of the J-20 vis-a-vis F-22/F-35 is interesting, but ultimately probably not that important. The odds of them actually facing off in combat is slim.

The strategic importance here, is that with every such upgrade (J-20/ASBM), Beijing grows more immune to Western intimidation and influence. The US won't be able to influence decisions by holding military practices off of the coast of China (see: North Korea 2010), or just by parking a few CVG in the area (see: Taiwan 1997).

Speaking as a Chinese person, I don't see any reason why China ever need to fight a war of aggression. China already looks set to dominate on the economic front over the next 50 years as long as the current status quo holds. That's good enough for me.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 07 Jan 2011 02:53

heech wrote:One rumor going around is that the J-20 had already under-gone its initial flights last year, in secret. These two units (at least one of which appears to be using a variant of the WS-10) is here for public unveiling, which is why none of these pictures are being censored. We now know a high-profile ceremony at the base is being prepared for Friday, and expectations are that the J-20 will be on national TV for Friday night. If you're going to put this thing on national TV, showing a jet in yellow primer just doesn't look quite as good.


Dude how many things do the gossip mongers want us to believe
1. A new plane on a new engine.
2. WS-10 also has a variant which is good enough for testing prototypes but the "actual" one needs a deep overhaul every 20-30 hours on tested airframes.
3. There are 2 J-20 prototypes with different engines!!! and yet the new one when undergoing taxi tests has its access door open!

Why can't people take a simple view at things. It is a painted prototype. You are right. A government-run media can't show an unpainted plain on national screen. It is as simple as that. It is using some tested engine (most probably a Al-31) as an interim till WS-10/15 comes up. There is nothing wrong in the above two statements. In fact it is the most pragmatic thing to do. I mean why is it so enticing to cook up stories.
Last edited by Indranil on 07 Jan 2011 02:58, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 07 Jan 2011 02:56

heech wrote:Just wanted to add another comment... the exact capabilities of the J-20 vis-a-vis F-22/F-35 is interesting, but ultimately probably not that important. The odds of them actually facing off in combat is slim.

The strategic importance here, is that with every such upgrade (J-20/ASBM), Beijing grows more immune to Western intimidation and influence. The US won't be able to influence decisions by holding military practices off of the coast of China (see: North Korea 2010), or just by parking a few CVG in the area (see: Taiwan 1997).

Speaking as a Chinese person, I don't see any reason why China ever need to fight a war of aggression. China already looks set to dominate on the economic front over the next 50 years as long as the current status quo holds. That's good enough for me.


And how do you think Anti satellite missile would be looked at or ASBM for that matter. Are you naive or you want to look naive?

I mean if you would never have a faceup between the J-20/F-35/PAKFA, then why build up such weaponry, You can sit pretty on the Su-27 rip-offs!!!

prithvi

Re: China Military Watch

Postby prithvi » 07 Jan 2011 03:10

hnair wrote:
prithvi wrote:too much of rhetoric and crude sarcasm for nothing... have seen enough of this in BRF from the "heavyweights". Just picking a phrase out of context and then launching an orgasmic anti USA rhetorics ... time tested method is not it....
my whole point was --if we had invested same enthu, money and energy for Arihant... why can't we use it as a statement of intent..? rather than using as a political tool to celebrate birthday of our Government...?


:D it was not for nothing. Infact it was total fun for panda-lovers like me! Particularly that CNN bit. I too always thought LCA would be deemed to have achieved all its objectives, when a burning gora runs around screaming "I got hit by the LCA" on the Beeb!!!

The only equivalent thing I have seen of this little interaction between you and Doc-saar is this fabled reality show on Fox (which makes it super cool), "Fast Animals, Slow Children". And do not step on that tube of glue that fell out of your rucksack....

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: enough said.. .. hurt egos should be happy or else insomnia will crack up too...

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: China Military Watch

Postby heech » 07 Jan 2011 03:16

indranilroy wrote:
Why can't people take a simple view at things. It is a painted prototype. You are right. A government-run media can't show an unpainted plain on national screen. It is as simple as that. It is using some tested engine (most probably a Al-31) as an interim till WS-10/15 comes up. There is nothing wrong in the above two statements. In fact it is the most pragmatic thing to do. I mean why is it so enticing to cook up stories.

I don't know if someone on BR has posted the pictures yet, but it's on a number of other sites. If it hasn't been posted here, I can track it down.

There are clearly two very different nozzles on display on the runway this week. One looks almost identical to the AL-31 on the Su-27, and the other looks similar (but slightly different) from the WS-10 on the J-11s.

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: China Military Watch

Postby heech » 07 Jan 2011 03:21

indranilroy wrote:And how do you think Anti satellite missile would be looked at or ASBM for that matter. Are you naive or you want to look naive?

I mean if you would never have a faceup between the J-20/F-35/PAKFA, then why build up such weaponry, You can sit pretty on the Su-27 rip-offs!!!

Anti-satellite and ASBM are perfect examples, and part of the same story. I don't see how the ASBM or anti-satellite would be key developments in a war of aggression against any of China's neighbors... on the other hand, they deny the US the opportunity to park hostile CVGs within striking distance off the coast of China.

The J-20 is about developing capability for the next 50 years. The Su-27 will do just fine for the next 2 decades... what about the year 2060? No nation can maintain true independence and preserve national interests while out-sourcing its defense industry. It's really that simple.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 07 Jan 2011 03:23

^^^ Yes David had posted them ... It could look completely different based on the incidence of the sun and the position of the photographer ... his ISO settings etc. etc.

Do you really believe that you would put the prototype in the air with the WS-10 when the PLAAF is not ready to put the J-11s up with them?!!!

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: China Military Watch

Postby heech » 07 Jan 2011 03:28

Here's the image showing the two nozzles. I saw this version on Key Publishing, but believe I've also seen it (or a variant) on CDF.

Image

I don't think the difference shown here could be attributed to sun or camera settings.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 07 Jan 2011 03:33

heech wrote:
indranilroy wrote:And how do you think Anti satellite missile would be looked at or ASBM for that matter. Are you naive or you want to look naive?

I mean if you would never have a faceup between the J-20/F-35/PAKFA, then why build up such weaponry, You can sit pretty on the Su-27 rip-offs!!!

Anti-satellite and ASBM are perfect examples, and part of the same story. I don't see how the ASBM or anti-satellite would be key developments in a war of aggression against any of China's neighbors... on the other hand, they deny the US the opportunity to park hostile CVGs within striking distance off the coast of China.

The J-20 is about developing capability for the next 50 years. The Su-27 will do just fine for the next 2 decades... what about the year 2060? No nation can maintain true independence and preserve national interests while out-sourcing its defense industry. It's really that simple.


Exactly my point. It is as simple as that. China is trying to grow its military might as its economy grows. Nothing wrong with it. Any country in its place would.

But you are trying to put a halo around it, which is not right.

US and USSR built so many weapon systems which they directly never (very rarely) used against each other. So was it for their defense/offense? It is just military might. One is trying to deter the other by keeping parity. Once the parity is broken the larger just engulfs the smaller.

Now if your submarine comes up shadowing an aircraft career nowhere near your sees. You shoot down satellites. You build missiles against an aircraft carrier. You directly commit espionage. Are you not marking out your opponent. Will your opponent say, "Oh no, they are peace loving commies!"? Or do you want me to believe that China is so naive that it doesn't understand the signals it is sending out?

Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Arya Sumantra » 07 Jan 2011 03:34

heech wrote: If you're going to put this thing on national TV, showing a jet in yellow primer just doesn't look quite as good.


That's not the point. The reason is when you show off your plane with unfinished surface with panels and rivets exposed, the quality of your machining and finishing gets exposed to all.

Just look at how, after launch of pakfa, during debate with russkie fans on keypubs, the yanks started talking about "undulations" and "waviness" of panels in some images and type of rivetting on pakfa and comparing it with f35. In response, the russkies posted an image of Su30 MKM saying that in the finished form even the Su30s look smooth, well-finished and immaculate and so would be pakfa.

The dragons involved with J20 were smart enough to present the plane with the final finishing leaving everyone guessing about the level of finishing and machining finesse in panel work underneath. That would also keep their big bosses happy with them as there are no flaws pointed out in the fighter.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Indranil » 07 Jan 2011 03:36

heech wrote:Here's the image showing the two nozzles. I saw this version on Key Publishing, but believe I've also seen it (or a variant) on CDF.

Image

I don't think the difference shown here could be attributed to sun or camera settings.


It is most probably doctored. I don't believe that the Chinese would jeopardize such a prestigious project on an unproven engine.

But you are free to believe whatever you want to.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests