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.
Locked
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

shiv wrote:Well there is one other possibility about the engines - and I would expect the Chinese to do something like that. After all - how long does an engine gave to work for just one 20-30 minute flight? 2 hours? 3 hours? As long as reliability exists for a short flight it would be a massive propaganda blow for China to have the first public flight with a Chinese engine. Obviously further developmental flight tests will require a known engine and that will be done along with an experimental engine. The Chinese have the chutzpah to do that.
That's very possible, I highly doubt that the new variant is fit for mass production right now.
shiv wrote:WThat is why it may well be a technology development platform that will give rise to a combat aircraft in due course.
Could be, or maybe CAC has worked out most of the contradictions and made them mostly fit already, we won't really know for sure until we see the later prototypes and how much they change. I think it's definitely very possible that the design will be altered quite a bit with many prototypes built. However, I think the basic canard-deltaish design will remain.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8426
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Indranil »

I have been hearing that variable-DSI thing for sometime. To me it sounds like an Oxymoron. The DSI itself can't change shape as it is the body itself. How will somebody change the a body panel in the air? And what will it change its shape to?

Look at the penalty side of it, You would be having the weight and complexity of all the machinery. This when you are fine with a large canard with a huge dihedral and all the non aligned edges. Beats me completely.

David, the J-20 is long enough to have afforded any kind of wing. Everything could have been tucked behind the cone. But for some reason the wing chosen was a delta. and pushed back to as far as possible. This is on top of the fact the fuselage is essentially a big box. Imagine the slope of drop of cross sectional at the back of the plane. Now compare the same with the F-22 and the T-50. One can very easily see how much wave-drag the J-20 will face.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

indranilroy wrote:
David, the J-20 is long enough to have afforded any kind of wing. Everything could have been tucked behind the cone. But for some reason the wing chosen was a delta. and pushed back to as far as possible. This is on top of the fact the fuselage is essentially a big box. Imagine the slope of drop of cross sectional at the back of the plane. Now compare the same with the F-22 and the T-50. One can very easily see how much wave-drag the J-20 will face.

Incidentally an image was posted earlier about a 3 view depiction of the J-20 and its estimated length. I have a problem with the estimated wingspan that I believe is something under 12 meters (as per the length assessment of under 20 meters by a Chinese who compared the length to a nearby truck). I believe the wingspan is not 13 meters but just under 12 meters.

As far as I can tell
J-20 length = 19.5 meters
Wingspan - probably 11.8 meters or so

Image
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

Let me give the first update on today's scheduled flight of the J-20. The pilot is up and has brushed his teeth. 747 being refuelled in Beijing. 07-47 AM Beijing time :wink:
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Kanson »

Regarding the two different engine nozzle, so far, no one seen two J-20 together. Everyone feasting on the rumor and making a circular reference.

In that case there are only two possible outcomes:

1. Indeed there are two J-20, while one is on display doing trials, other one is tucked in the hangar.

2. There is only one J-20, this was re-painted with new engine which is of kind drop & fit and made ready for photo psy-ops.

As the chance of option 2 happening is less compared to option 1, I go with option 1.

Chinese has the habit fielding two prototypes for every new design.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

indranilroy wrote:I have been hearing that variable-DSI thing for sometime. To me it sounds like an Oxymoron. The DSI itself can't change shape as it is the body itself. How will somebody change the a body panel in the air? And what will it change its shape to?

Look at the penalty side of it, You would be having the weight and complexity of all the machinery. This when you are fine with a large canard with a huge dihedral and all the non aligned edges. Beats me completely.

David, the J-20 is long enough to have afforded any kind of wing. Everything could have been tucked behind the cone. But for some reason the wing chosen was a delta. and pushed back to as far as possible. This is on top of the fact the fuselage is essentially a big box. Imagine the slope of drop of cross sectional at the back of the plane. Now compare the same with the F-22 and the T-50. One can very easily see how much wave-drag the J-20 will face.
Some guy on secretproject(rousseau) explained it, I don't understand completely(he mentioned a bunch of technical terms such as the wave riding theory and whatnot), but I think the gist is that there would be a second bump behind the visible one which would adjust the airflow, something like this:

Image

I'm not certain, but I don't really see how the J-20 will face significantly higher wave drag than say the F-22. It's boxier in the fuselage, but skinnier in the wingspan. The tapering of the back gives the J-20 sort of a half-cone shaped fuselage, which should add body lift much like the T-50's fuselage.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

I have zero knowledge of intakes. Long ago I was given to understand that the Mirage III (and the HF-24) had classic divertless supersonic intakes - with no moving parts. My understanding may be wrong. The other alternative is to have some mechanical gizmo to change the shape of the intake depending on speed of flight.

The F-22/J-17/J-20 style DSI combine the simplicity and weight savings of a divertless intake with a low radar signature - or at least that was what I was told. if a separate mechanism is needed to change the geometry of the inlet along with DSI - it could mean that the DSI is not able to do its job on its own. Or maybe the choice of having 2 engines necessitates such antics. Can't be good for weight though.

I am no expert and an wading into unknown waters here.
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Gaur »

^^
Small correction. F-22 does not have DSI. It is F-35 which has one.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Kanson »

amit wrote:I have a noobie type question in this Al-31/WS-10 debate. Unless the WS-10 is an exact carbon copy of the AL-31 wouldn't the two engines require different structural dimensions to fit into the J20? If that's the case then wouldn't a structural change require new flight control software and extensive testing of the plane? This is not like taking out memory and putting in another one in a computer.

I remember there was talk a few years ago of what it would take to fit the LCA with the Kaveri (once it was ready). Everyone agreed that there would be major changes in the body and so the entire test regime would have to be redone. Even with the upgrade of the same engine Tejas MK2 dimensions would change, right?

Are our Chingos trying to tell us that in their collective brilliance they will flight test two prototypes with different engines simultaneously? :shock:
amit bhai, in their no holds barred wisdom, they are very 'capable' of doing such things. I can recollect an article describing of how they simply wasted money in creating real size prototypes of every proven western design.

If you recall, we too have parallel studies of EJ200 and GE414 engine on LCA, to manage time and we stopped with studies.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: China Military Watch

Post by amit »

Kanson wrote:If you recall, we too have parallel studies of EJ200 and GE414 engine on LCA, to manage time and we stopped with studies.
Studying is one thing. Every country has experimental designs and aircraft. But having two prototypes of the J20 with different engines - that too even before the first flight - well my SDRE brain can't take such logic, what to do.

I used to think that the rule of thumb is to always match a new frame with a proven engine or a new engine with a proven frame for prototype development.

But then China doesn't do anything in the normal way.
Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1655
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Sid »

I have to say. This plane does look handsome. F22 Knockoff. :mrgreen:

pardon bigger image.
http://oi53.tinypic.com/2hrj0n7.jpg
Last edited by Rahul M on 08 Jan 2011 13:53, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: please don't post large images inline.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Kanson »

amit wrote:
Kanson wrote:If you recall, we too have parallel studies of EJ200 and GE414 engine on LCA, to manage time and we stopped with studies.
Studying is one thing. Every country has experimental designs and aircraft. But having two prototypes of the J20 with different engines - that too even before the first flight - well my SDRE brain can't take such logic, what to do.

I used to think that the rule of thumb is to always match a new frame with a proven engine or a new engine with a proven frame for prototype development.

But then China doesn't do anything in the normal way.
Amit bhai, they are exactly following on the foot steps of US/F-22 program, i think. Expected from a copy cat!
During dem/val, the two companies were to build two prototypes each. Lockheed designated their aircraft the "YF-22A", while Northrop designated theirs the "YF-23A". The two examples for each prototype were to have different engine fits, one powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney (P&W) F119 engines, and the other by a pair of General Electric (GE) F120 engines. Both the P&W and GE engine types were specifically designed for the competition in a parallel "Joint Advanced Fighter Engine (JAFE)" effort.
Last edited by Kanson on 08 Jan 2011 10:32, edited 1 time in total.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8426
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Indranil »

DavidD wrote: Some guy on secretproject(rousseau) explained it, I don't understand completely(he mentioned a bunch of technical terms such as the wave riding theory and whatnot), but I think the gist is that there would be a second bump behind the visible one which would adjust the airflow, something like this:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7345/mdsi.png
I'm not certain, but I don't really see how the J-20 will face significantly higher wave drag than say the F-22. It's boxier in the fuselage, but skinnier in the wingspan. The tapering of the back gives the J-20 sort of a half-cone shaped fuselage, which should add body lift much like the T-50's fuselage.
Intakes. I told you the same things in last post. you can do things behind the bump, but it will beat the whole purpose of going for DSI, i.e. to reduce weight and maintenance. the slight increase in RCS from just the boundary layer separation of the intake is nothing compared to the huge canard that you see in front. It is worth the weight gain? Nah ... I am sure the designers know much better.

David, All planes taper at the back. you are drawing me into this discussion now by simply not looking into it yourself. Anyways here I go.

T-50 is the sleekest in this field as it never grows fat, it grows flat instead. However, its wings end much before the end of the plane. Before the wings end the rudder and the elevator have taken over which end close to the engine nozzle. The biggest part is the volume between the engines. The huge tapering tailboom which ends way beyond the nozzles would give it one of the best curves in combat plane history.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft ... pak-fa.jpg

Now the F-22 comes a very close second. Do you see how slowly it tapers compared to the J-20 It starts to taper down right from the intake lip both in width and height. Also mark its intakes which not only grow trapezoid-ally in the vertical, but also in the horizontal plane (same goes for the PAKFA). Also notice their rate of growth.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MpnA9si4GMs/T ... 2Bview.jpg
Also notice that the F-22 has the part of the rudder behind the nozzles. The elevators are almost completely behind the the nozzles. also notice the size of the booms and how it tapers.
http://images.defensetech.org/images/f22_jdam.jpg
Now see how the engine is housed. The body wraps around the engine at both the top and the bottom. This decrease in CS-area is spread over the entire length of the engine and more.
http://www.check-6.com/gallery/img/jet_ ... ff_rvm.jpg
Here's another view.
Top:
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/ ... ically.jpg
Bottom"
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/ ... rsOpen.jpg

Now compare this to the J-20
http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/wp- ... j-20-7.jpg
Compare the rate of growth of the nose CS-area. Also notice the rate of growth at the intake lip. After this body just goes on and on, barely tapering till the last 3-4 metres (even where the tapering is very slow). Meanwhile the canard grows and falls to zero. Then the wing starts . When the wing grows to its maximum span. Where the trailing edge starts, the rudder, the tail strakes are all at the largest point. I will call this point X. I know that the wing is not at its highest CS-area here. But considering the big hydraulics housing and all, it won't be very far off. The fuselage till about a meter before X has barely changed at all since the intake lip. There seems to be no sculpting around the engine till the parachute housing, which itself is near about X (may be a meter before). Here's it from the back.
http://www.patricksaviation.com/files/p ... _36087.jpg

From this point X it goes to naught in 1 meter or so, wing, rudder, body, fin, engine nozzle et.al. So do you think it will be a smooth fall?
Last edited by Gerard on 08 Jan 2011 23:36, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Please avoid posting large inline images
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Singha »

I know nothing of these matters, but what happened to the classical 'wasp waist' design of supersonic a/c wherein the waist would taper down and then grow again towards the chest and hips? was it superseded by new math at some point ?
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8426
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Indranil »

Singha wrote:I know nothing of these matters, but what happened to the classical 'wasp waist' design of supersonic a/c wherein the waist would taper down and then grow again towards the chest and hips? was it superseded by new math at some point ?
No sir, it is pretty much what I am speaking of. The "wasp waist" is used on the fuselage to make the fuselage at the lowest CS-area where the wing has the highest CS-area. See the F-106 as a classic example.

The swept wings don't have to do this or have to do it by a much lesser extent because the intrinsically follows the Sears Haack body. But for a delta wing it becomes important.

The planes with internal weapons can't constrict breath wise, as they need the internal weapon bays to have the same CS-area along the length. So if you carefully observe the PAKFA does the same, but in the vertical plane. The neck grows smaller as the wing grows bigger. In the F-22, again the body is cut closest to the air intakes/engine at that point.

In the J-20 none of these nor any other method is visible. Everything stays almost the constant and everthing tumbles down very quickly at the end.

There is nothing wrong with that design, because they have kept the wing away from the cone. Also the Sears Haack body changes shape slightly to get bulkier at the back at high supersonic speeds. That is why deltas are peferred in those planes. But the J-20's configuration way to far back. The body, the wing and everything fall very very quickly from max to nothing and all together which is not good. Take for example the Concorde, the wing is an Ogive-delta. But after the wing, the fuselage tapers for a long distance.

So I am pretty sure that the J-20 is not meant to be a high mach plane. May be it is banking on the fact that against a non-stealthy plane it, can come much closer before it takes a shot and hence it doesn't need the high speed for long range missile firings. For two stealthy planes, they would anyways be fighting WVR, so the high speed is not required.

If you ask me aerodynamically, the J-20 will be EF-ish
D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: China Military Watch

Post by D Roy »

seeing that profile of the PAK-FA I couldn't help wonder,

sink that IRST into the nose, put in a frameless canopy, do some more RCS treatment in the head on aspect and wallah you have a plane that can "strategically intercept" the J-20 over Tibet.

of course with the addition of 17.5 ton engines into the PAK-FA it is curtains for anything that Chicom comes up with. Supercruising at Mach 1.7-1.8 with its genuine stealth capability I don't think Chicom will have the capability to detect the PAK-FA before its too late.

Ultimately its not supercruise or stealth alone its a combination of both thereby cancelling out both IR and radar from the game.

and by the way it is curtains for J-20 even if the LCA gets to do WVR with it. This is one ugly slothful mofo.
prithvi

Re: China Military Watch

Post by prithvi »

another video has surfaced.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=53d_1294436432
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: China Military Watch

Post by disha »

So it is possible that F-22 Nose was added to J-20 to reduce the RCS and the chingos and BRjingos took it as an advent of Chinese stealth? It also helps to put your weapons in the internal bay like done in F-15.

I think it is an attempt to reduce the RCS, reduced RCS being another arrow in the quiver unlike F-22 which was designed centrally with LO as the end goal.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

indranilroy wrote:
Intakes. I told you the same things in last post. you can do things behind the bump, but it will beat the whole purpose of going for DSI, i.e. to reduce weight and maintenance. the slight increase in RCS from just the boundary layer separation of the intake is nothing compared to the huge canard that you see in front. It is worth the weight gain? Nah ... I am sure the designers know much better.
Obviously, the DSI design for the J-20, if it's indeed of the VG variety, wouldn't be for reducing weight and maintenance. It will be strictly for combining the DSI's stealthiness with the supersonic performance of regular intakes. Like I said, the J-20 is full of contradictions. On the one hand, you have a very complicated intake design, and on the other hand, you've got canards which are difficult to make stealthy.
David, All planes taper at the back. you are drawing me into this discussion now by simply not looking into it yourself. Anyways here I go.

T-50 is the sleekest in this field as it never grows fat, it grows flat instead. However, its wings end much before the end of the plane. Before the wings end the rudder and the elevator have taken over which end close to the engine nozzle. The biggest part is the volume between the engines. The huge tapering tailboom which ends way beyond the nozzles would give it one of the best curves in combat plane history.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft ... pak-fa.jpg

Now the F-22 comes a very close second. Do you see how slowly it tapers compared to the J-20 It starts to taper down right from the intake lip both in width and height. Also mark its intakes which not only grow trapezoid-ally in the vertical, but also in the horizontal plane (same goes for the PAKFA). Also notice their rate of growth.
Also notice that the F-22 has the part of the rudder behind the nozzles. The elevators are almost completely behind the the nozzles. also notice the size of the booms and how it tapers.
Now see how the engine is housed. The body wraps around the engine at both the top and the bottom. This decrease in CS-area is spread over the entire length of the engine and more.


Now compare this to the J-20

Compare the rate of growth of the nose CS-area. Also notice the rate of growth at the intake lip. After this body just goes on and on, barely tapering till the last 3-4 metres (even where the tapering is very slow). Meanwhile the canard grows and falls to zero. Then the wing starts . When the wing grows to its maximum span. Where the trailing edge starts, the rudder, the tail strakes are all at the largest point. I will call this point X. I know that the wing is not at its highest CS-area here. But considering the big hydraulics housing and all, it won't be very far off. The fuselage till about a meter before X has barely changed at all since the intake lip. There seems to be no sculpting around the engine till the parachute housing, which itself is near about X (may be a meter before). Here's it from the back.
http://www.patricksaviation.com/files/p ... _36087.jpg

From this point X it goes to naught in 1 meter or so, wing, rudder, body, fin, engine nozzle et.al. So do you think it will be a smooth fall?
Honestly, it's a bit difficult for me to comment on this design without some exact dimensions and serious calculations. I'll say though, aerodynamics is a pretty old field, and CAC shouldn't have a dearth of simulation softwares. If this design creates a lot of drag, then they must have made it purposefully in order to strengthen some other aspects of the plane. Now, it seems to me that the J-20, unlike the F-22/T-50, is flatter on top and has one smooth curve on the bottom from front to the back. IMO, this is good for using the fuselage as a lifting surface. Some say the T-50 has a lifting body, that's not exactly correct. The area starting from the outer edge of one intake to the outer edge of the other doesn't appear to be designed for lift at all, it's the area of the body that's between the wings and the outer edges of the engines that provide lift. The J-20, it seems, is designed to provide some lift(obviously less per area than the wings) over its entire body. I don't know if this type of design would create too much drag though.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8426
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Indranil »

^^^ You are not right there about the lift created by the body.

If you want your body to create lift, you would put it at a positive AoA. This ofcourse will increase drag tremendously. Instead you could shape it like a wing. The lower surface is flat and the upper surface bulges. This is exactly what is done on the Su-27/Mig-29/F-15/T-50 kind of frames. Lift by the body is created by almost all modern planes. But nobody does it better that the Mig-29s or the Su-27/T-50. They space the air intake nacelles. So the air between the nacelles and under the cockpit goes straight through. However the air above the fuselage has to go over the cockpit and over the upper body which is curved. Rest is Bernoulli's theorum. So this kind of shape actually increases body lift rather than decreasing it.

Between the F-22 and the J-20, the F-22 will create more body lift because it tapers down like an aerofoil.

The reason for the J-20's high wing and smooth top is to give it a good side aspect RCS. It doesn't add to lift.

I never said the Chinese don't have the analytical power to come up with what they want. The J-20 never said that it is not a A2A platform. It doesn't seem to be designed for 2.4-2.5M top speeds of the PAKFA/F-22.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

You're talking more of the flying wing concept, which requires a body that's somewhat wing shaped to create lift. I think the lifting body concept has the reverse general shape, but the bottom of the aircraft bulges out more than regular aircrafts' upper surface. That way, the separation point is at the tip of the body and the air pressure is actually higher below than on top. I'm not sure if the J-20 had that in mind though, it may not be thick enough in the front for that to occur.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8426
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Indranil »

No David I am not speaking of a flying wing. Few pages back, Austin had asked the disadvantages of body-lift. I discussed how a "flying wing" and a "lifting body" is different from what we are speaking of.

I am speaking simple aerodynamics. physics will not change for a wing or the body. the air has to be faster for lower pressure. You can do it by making the surface on that side rough (turbulent air) or spinning the object in some direction (like bend it like beckham :) ). One can't do any of that for planes. So you bulge the side where you need higher speed and lower pressure :)
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

indranilroy wrote:No David I am not speaking of a flying wing. Few pages back, Austin had asked the disadvantages of body-lift. I discussed how a "flying wing" and a "lifting body" is different from what we are speaking of.

I am speaking simple aerodynamics. physics will not change for a wing or the body. the air has to be faster for lower pressure. You can do it by making the surface on that side rough (turbulent air) or spinning the object in some direction (like bend it like beckham :) ). One can't do any of that for planes. So you bulge the side where you need higher speed and lower pressure :)
Right, but if the bulge is past a certain size, then the airflow separates too early and actually creates negative lift(on a wing that is). The lifting body is built on this concept, check these pics out:

http://www.century-of-flight.net/new%20 ... s18/19.gif
http://www.century-of-flight.net/new%20 ... s18/17.jpg
http://www.us-spaceplanesystems.com/images/P1010004.jpg
Last edited by DavidD on 08 Jan 2011 13:30, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

Kanson wrote: amit bhai, in their no holds barred wisdom, they are very 'capable' of doing such things. I can recollect an article describing of how they simply wasted money in creating real size prototypes of every proven western design.
.
Saars - we have been given to believe that they have created scale models of Himalayas alsoo. :shock:
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8426
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Indranil »

DavidD wrote: Right, but if the bulge is past a certain size, then the airflow separates too early and actually creates negative lift(on a wing that is). The lifting body is built on this concept, check these pics out:
Exactly my point, you would do well to read more about the difference of "lifting bodies" and body lift. They are different. Lifting bodies are very difficult to control and has almost never been used on a conventional aircraft.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

prithvi wrote:another video has surfaced.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=53d_1294436432
Totally weird. At least I can't explain it.

The starboard exhaust nozzle opening is broader than the port nozzle at 16 sec. At 23 sec the opposite happens. in fact it appears that the nozzle diameters are continuously varying.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cy ... n-2010.jpg
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Austin »

indranilroy , Thanks for responding to my query on lifting body/wing .. this thread is moving too fast didn't realised you had responded.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

Yo Chinese lurkers. You can depend on your "taller than the tallest mountains" and "deeper than deepest oceans" prostitutes the Pakistanis for abundant admiration and praise. Of course I am sure you have experienced this - any Pakistani will lick any Chinese ass the minute he sees it. So here is one Paki who has released more details about the J20 than any of you guys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM3jtk3n5bA


And check out the lovey dovey comments between Chinese and Pakis :rotfl: You really ought to gift them some J-20s. Especially if they are not fully ready yet. Pakistani pilots are the best in the world. Better than Chinese - as you can see from this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXinpChdW4M
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Kanson »

shiv wrote:we have been given to believe that they have created scale models of Himalayas alsoo. :shock:
They haven't left that too. :rotfl:
Bihanga
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 04 Jul 2010 12:23

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Bihanga »

So Chinese are really preparing for the Hostile like situtation to force their forceful regime on all other nations. It seems to me that India had prior info about the possible Chinese revelation of their Stealth J-XX and hence it has in one go project the venture worth $30 Billion with russians.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: China Military Watch

Post by darshhan »

The benefits of being born as a chinese are many.If one ever needs a blowjob all he has to do is to place a call to the pakis and within minutes the pakis will be on their knees with their mouths open.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch

Post by NRao »

The starboard exhaust nozzle opening is broader than the port nozzle at 16 sec. At 23 sec the opposite happens. in fact it appears that the nozzle diameters are continuously varying.
New TV technology.

Kidding aside, we need to wait for a little bit.

I still feel this is just a tech demo. The real one will/can come out only in about 8-10 years.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Singha »

good music....better than a scientist saying 10..9...8...7 before a raakit launch.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Singha »

imo the pilot taxiing around was probably using only one engine and the other engine was at the limp (wide open) position? and he may have shut that and used the other engine later.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10205
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: China Military Watch

Post by sum »

darshhan wrote:The benefits of being born as a chinese are many.If one ever needs a blowjob all he has to do is to place a call to the pakis and within minutes the pakis will be on their knees with their mouths open.
:rotfl: :rotfl:
Don
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 09 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Don »

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110109/ap_ ... a_military

US defense chief: China moving fast on new weapons

ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer Anne Gearan, Ap National Security Writer – Sat Jan 8, 7:38 pm ET
ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT – China is farther along in its development of a new stealth fighter jet than the U.S. had predicted, and that plane and other Chinese military advances are worrisome, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday.

The United States is also nervous about a new Chinese ballistic missile that could theoretically explode a U.S. aircraft carrier nearly 2,000 miles out to sea. China has also apparently beaten U.S. estimates to develop that weapon.

"They clearly have potential to put some of our capabilities at risk," Gates said en route to military talks with Chinese leaders. "We have to pay attention to them, we have to respond appropriately with our own programs."

The United States has long known that China wanted to field a stealth jet, but development outpaced U.S. intelligence estimates, Gates said.

China is still years behind U.S. capabilities in radar-evading aircraft, and even by 2015 the United States would still have far more such aircraft flying than any other nation in the world, Gates said.

China says it does not pose a threat and its military forces are purely for defense — which in its definition includes deterring Taiwan, a self-governing island that Beijing claims as its territory, from declaring formal independence.

In an apparent nod to U.S. calls for more openness, China allowed video and pictures of last week's runway tests of its prototype stealth fighter to be taken and posted online.

While there was no official comment on the tests of the J-20, photos and video of the plane taxiing on the runway were widely distributed. That was a sign of official approval because government censors routinely remove politically sensitive content.

Gates is trying to coax Chinese military leaders into more regular discussions with the U.S. A predictable framework for such contacts could help avert the need for some of the capabilities now in development, Gates said.

The Pentagon is focusing scarcer defense dollars on ways to counter the kinds of weapons China is now building. For example, Gates said recently he wants to spend more on a new long-range nuclear bomber and updated electronics gear for the Navy that could throw an incoming missile off course.

Gates said he has been concerned about the anti-ship missile since he became defense secretary. It's unclear how close the "carrier killer" DF-21 missile is to being usable.

China announced a smaller-than-usual increase last year in its military budget, 7.5 percent, bringing it to $76.3 billion. But actual spending, including money for new weapons and research and development, is believed to be as much as double that. China has the second largest defense budget in the world, trailing only the U.S.

Gates is also visiting South Korea, for brief talks about averting war with the North, as well as Japan, which is alarmed by Chinese military moves.

The China invitation was a coup for Gates, who invited a Chinese counterpart for similar talks and a visit to the U.S. nuclear weapons headquarters in 2009. A reciprocal invitation was expected in 2010, but China withheld it in protest of a planned $6.4 billion arms sale to China's rival, Taiwan.
Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1438
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Craig Alpert »

^^News already posted couple of pages ago.. A link will suffice.
karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 705
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: China Military Watch

Post by karan_mc »

F-35 will be no match for the Chinese J-20 : Retired USAF Lt. Gen

http://idrw.org/?p=2240

Alarm bells are already ringing in Washington :rotfl:
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: China Military Watch

Post by amit »

karan_mc wrote:F-35 will be no match for the Chinese J-20 : Retired USAF Lt. Gen

http://idrw.org/?p=2240

Alarm bells are already ringing in Washington :rotfl:
More likely a nice ploy to raise the alarm to get more funding from a reluctant Ombaba.

I don't see US jarnails browning pants about a plane which one one yet knows which engine or radar will be put in it. Soley on the basis of its TFTA (well a fat ass) looks every one is shitting bricks. Yeah give me another one! :rotfl: :rotfl:
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Singha »

I feel its a pity the US did not follow through and fund two options
- develop the basic F22 into a FB22 for which detailed plans existed like a larger wing and a bigger internal bay probably
- let the F22 be as-is for A2A but select the YF23 for the long range strike role.

either of these would be a great replacement for the strike eagle -vs- what the JSF will do. F22 with SDB is more like a hacked up soln to cover the lack of a real soln.

UCAV/UAV loitering around or going in is ok for pakistan/small countries I suppose...not so sure about serious opponents like PRC.
Locked