China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

[Sid]

F 22 actually has a special launch rail in its internal bays which allows it to launch AAM at high Gs and in any orientiation.

Launchers on J20 seem fixed for the time being restricting flight profiles in which it can release any weapon.

Click for real thing..https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/u ... er-bay.jpg

[Singha]

Ariane5 mki class....


Reuters.

Reuters) - China has launched its new Long March-5 heavy rocket, state media said, sending its payload into orbit in the country's latest step in advancing its space exploration program.

The launch comes after China began its longest manned space mission last month, sending two astronauts to spend a month aboard a space laboratory that is part of a broader plan to have a permanent manned space station in service around 2022.

The rocket, larger than previous versions of China's Long-March carrier rockets, blasted off on Thursday night from a pad in the southern province of Hainan, state news agency Xinhua said, a launch intended to verify its design and performance.

"Its successful launch has propelled China to the forefront of the world in terms of rocket carrying capacity, and marks a milestone in China's transition from a major player in space to a major power in space," Xinhua cited the ruling Communist Party's Central Committee and powerful Central Military Commission as saying in a letter.

The two-stage rocket's ability to put 25 tonnes of payload into low-Earth orbit and 14 tonnes to geostationary transfer orbit gives it a carrying capacity 2.5 times larger than previous models, Xinhua said.

"With the heavy-lift carrier rocket, China can build a permanent manned space station and explore the moon and Mars," the news agency said.

[Singha]

new CH5 drone with 67 hour endurance
https://www.rt.com/news/365290-china-ex ... per-rival/

[chola]

new CH5 drone with 67 hour endurance
https://www.rt.com/news/365290-china-ex ... per-rival/

What is powering this thing?

It is a straight-forward engine efficiency thing to make a vehicle go more than two days with a "24" missile load.

How did they come up with something on the order of the MQ-9's Garret if the specs are true? Russians?

[brar_w]

J-20 At Zhuhai Shows Unstealthy Features

Bradley Perrett, Dan Katz, Graham Warwick Zhuhai

The Chinese military is often criticized for a lack of transparency, for keeping quiet about weapons programs that Western countries, at least, would discuss long before entry into service. But in the case of the Avic J-20 fighter China has been far less secretive than usual.
So the appearance of two J-20s at Airshow China at Zhuhai on Nov. 1 was not the public unveiling widely reported in the general media. Avic and the air force have publicly flown the big fighter in its test program. Even the first flight in January 2011 was watched by a crowd of enthusiasts.Two aircraft arrived but one soon left

The J-20 that maneuvered for the crowd had features that did not look very stealthy

But it also had edge treatment previously seen on aircraft that may have been early production units

Still, the appearance of the two aircraft at Zhuhai offered an opportunity for useful observation. One of them may have been an early unit intended for squadron service. Like two J-20s that have been seen with a new sequence of serial numbers that suggested the beginning of a volume production run, the aircraft had a surface treatment behind its radome intended to control energy received from enemy radars.

But the same aircraft also had a distinctly nonproduction feature: what looked like two ill-fitting access panels on its upper fuselage between the engines. Projecting perhaps 1 cm (0.4 in.) from the surrounding structure, they could ruin stealth characteristics and would therefore be unacceptable for a production aircraft. Since they were serrated to disperse radio energy, they looked like permanent features, not some kind of temporary addition.

This was the aircraft that performed aerobatics at the show. The other left shortly after arrival, no doubt because program managers were unwilling to risk maneuvering two in close proximity. Both are likely employed in development, since the U.S. Department of Defense does not expect the type to enter service before 2018.Each aircraft had a small pod under its fuselage, near the likely position of the front of the left engine. This could have housed some kind of instrumentation, or perhaps a device intended to strongly reflect radar transmissions, ensuring that the aircraft’s true signature could not be measured.

Other features that did not look very stealthy included bulges for lights above and below the wingtips.

In the maneuvers, the pilot generally avoided climbing much while turning, suggesting no abundance of thrust was available—or that the full potential of the engines was not used. Another possibility is that the pilot was simply being careful with a valuable aircraft. The engines in prototype J-20s are probably 27,500-lb.-thrust AL-31Fs from Russia’s United Engine CorChengdu Aircraft, one of the two fighter works of Avic defense subsidiary Avic Aviation Techniques (AAT), is developing the J-20. The design has changed during flight testing, notably in adopting a more slender fuselage section aft of the main landing gear. That should significantly extend the time needed for development. So if the J-20 enters service in 2018 or soon after, it will probably not be mature, says a senior combat-aircraft engineer from another country who has been observing the program.

The J-20’s primary missions are not confirmed, though its evidently large internal fuel volume provides a good clue. According to one theory, the type is intended to exploit its stealth and perhaps an ability to cruise supersonically to penetrate hostile fighter lines and destroy valuable air targets in the rear, such as tankers and surveillance aircraft. Another possibility is that the Chinese have calculated that a large design with long endurance will provide more fighting power on station when combat arises, since aircraft will not need to retire so frequently for refueling.

Perhaps the biggest question about China’s first stealth fighter is just how stealthy it is. The body has a well-disciplined shape of blended facets for controlling direct reflections and minimizing radio energy emitted by currents as they travel along surfaces and bounce off discontinuities. Serrations direct the surface waves away from the boresight, the most dangerous direction, and edge treatments have been latterly applied to reduce surface waves and suppress diffraction.

The body is also shallow, with its volume distributed more laterally than has been usual in earlier fighters. The reflective side area is thereby reduced.

But the J-20 has six aerodynamic surfaces in addition to the two sides of the mainplane, and their edges are not aligned. Further, the engine nozzles remain conventional, not designed to control reflections. Tail booms, used in the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35 to shield the nozzles from radars abeam, seem to be placed a little high to do that job properly. The aircraft is likely less stealthy in the aft quadrant than the F-22 or even F-35.

Like the F-22, the J-20 has ventral weapon bays, but they are shorter and narrower, apparently capable of accommodating only four weapons the size of the SD-10 air-to-air missile. They could accept bigger missiles with folding fins. China is reported to be negotiating to buy the Russian Kh-58UShKE, a Mach 4 anti-radar missile that is also intended for internal carriage on the Sukhoi T-50.

Little is known about the avionics on the J-20. The radome shape reveals that the radar antenna cannot be large. Whether that antenna will be an active, electronically scanned array is an important but unanswered question. A faceted fairing, likely housing an electro-optical targeting system as on the F-35, appeared below the nose on the third and fourth prototypes, as did a small fairing for a missile-warning sensor on the ventral fuselage, just aft of the right weapons bay.

Avic flew another stealth fighter at Airshow China in 2014. This was the J-31, or FC-31, which AAT’s other main combat-aircraft subsidiary, Shenyang Aircraft Corp., designed and built as an in-house project after losing the competition with Chengdu Aircraft for what became the J-20.

While the J-20 is comparable in size to the F-22 Raptor, the J-31 is closer to the F-35 Lightning. The big difference is that the J-31 is not assured of operational service. That is why it appeared at Zhuhai before the J-20, even though it was developed later. The armed forces control exposure of their new equipment, but the manufacturers are fairly free to show off what they hope to sell to foreigners, which is Shenyang Aircraft’s hope for the J-31.

Still, the air force has previously adopted aircraft that manufacturers created without a development contract, so the possibility of the J-31 entering Chinese service cannot be ruled out. Shenyang Aircraft did not fly it at Airshow China this year.

Chengdu Aircraft won an earlier competition for an air force fighter with what has become the J-10, which is likely to be the mainstay of the air-combat force. While the first version, the J-10A, was used by the air force display team at Zhuhai, the J-10B was exhibited on the ground. This was its first appearance at the show.

A key improvement is a diverterless supersonic inlet, eliminating the plate that fighters have used since the 1950s to slice the turbulent boundary layer from the airflow into the engine.

The Pentagon said in May that the J-10B was expected to enter service in the near term. Accordingly, China has displayed this new equipment for public inspection at close quarters at around the time when it will equip the air force.

[shiv]

J-20 At Zhuhai Shows Unstealthy Features

Bradley Perrett, Dan Katz, Graham Warwick Zhuhai


In the maneuvers, the pilot generally avoided climbing much while turning, suggesting no abundance of thrust was available—or that the full potential of the engines was not used. Another possibility is that the pilot was simply being careful with a valuable aircraft.

Hmmm - here is what I said earlier..same thing

posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=2066217

When a plane turns on its side i.e rolls 90 deg there is a loss of lift that causes the plane to lose altitude - in a movement that I have heard described as a side slip. In airshows I have observed pilots in tight turns prevent or reduce loss of altitude by either maintaining a slight "yaw" - so that tailfin lift, which will push the nose down gets compensated by yawing the nose.

For some reason the J-20 at 18 and 34 seconds does not do that - and in the 90 degree roll attitude the nose can be seen to drop and the plane loses altitude. I am not reaching any conclusions about this - the pilot may merely have wanted to stay close to the ground and crowd. But a tight turn in a combat situation will also cause a loss of altitude like this unless compensated by a yaw - and that requires extra power. Lack of power causing loss of altitude was exactly what the HF-24 was accused of in turns.

[Liu]

new CH5 drone with 67 hour endurance
https://www.rt.com/news/365290-china-ex ... per-rival/

What is powering this thing?

It is a straight-forward engine efficiency thing to make a vehicle go more than two days with a "24" missile load.

How did they come up with something on the order of the MQ-9's Garret if the specs are true? Russians?

Well,Since When can russian make such drones?

[chola]

What is powering this thing?

It is a straight-forward engine efficiency thing to make a vehicle go more than two days with a "24" missile load.

How did they come up with something on the order of the MQ-9's Garret if the specs are true? Russians?

Well,Since When can russian make such drones?

Since when has the PRC created ANY powerplant without Russian help?

[Liu]

http://v.ifeng.com/news/mainland/201611 ... aaeb.shtml

http://v.ifeng.com/mil/other/201611/01c ... aaeb.shtml

china successfully tested " smart drones wave system" for the first time.

the video shows the system controled 60+ smart drones at the same time, and can easily group the 60+ drones into many teams , assign different duty to every team.


for example.

the 60+ drons can be grouped into 3 teams, one for defecting/spying, one for electronic countermeasure，the rest for attack.


the relative scientists said that in the furture, such system can control hundreds of dronesat the same time and launch a "drone wave attack " during wars.

[Liu]

well,

can you imagine that Su30K or LCA meet the attack from hundreds of such smart mini drones, which are controlled by only one team ?
obvioulsy , however hard Su30MK fight ,one su30MKK can not shoot all such mini drones down.....and is destined to be defeated by those "drone waves" at last.

such “drones wave” surely will change the game of air fight.

that is what Chinese sicentist are devloping...


BTW, the last record of such "smart drone war" is created by Yankees, they contolled 50 drones at the same time.

[Austin]

J-31

[anupmisra]

well,

can you imagine that

Liu, what are your thoughts on the J20 being powered by a SU27 engine? Any truth in that?

[Liu]

well,

can you imagine that

Liu, what are your thoughts on the J20 being powered by a SU27 engine? Any truth in that?

well ,

once, it was widely reported that J20 was powered by a special mod of AL31,funded by China. so did I think.

however, several days ago, one high rank PLA officer said on CCTV that J20 is powered by indigenious engines now. which confuse many people.


the high-rank PLA officer is a serious guy,in charge of PLAAF weapon develpement, I don't think he is a big-mouth. so ,I think J20 might be powered by a modifed mod of WS10(say WS10B).

[Austin]

J-20 is powered by Salut AL-31FM2

[Prasad]

Liu,
From where do these drones get launched from and what'll their Range be? If detected(big if) enemy aircraft can outrun/bypass them easily.

[shiv]

http://v.ifeng.com/news/mainland/201611 ... aaeb.shtml

http://v.ifeng.com/mil/other/201611/01c ... aaeb.shtml

china successfully tested " smart drones wave system" for the first time.

Oh shit! Why do the Chinese do this? The video is fake - Suddenly strings appear to be joining up all the drones. Here's a videograb

I was going to comment that those drones are small models which do not have enough power for a serious payload - until I saw the "strings" in at least 2 places. Not even models it seems

[Liu]

Liu,
From where do these drones get launched from and what'll their Range be? If detected(big if) enemy aircraft can outrun/bypass them easily.

Well,

The core tech is not drones,but The control/communication system that runs So many drones and launch drone waves.


If Such One system can make many mini drones “drone wave” It can also run many large drones（say mq9/ch5）“drone wave”.

[shiv]

Liu,
From where do these drones get launched from and what'll their Range be? If detected(big if) enemy aircraft can outrun/bypass them easily.

Well,

The core tech is not drones,but The control/communication system that runs So many drones and launch drone waves.


If Such One system can make many mini drones “drone wave” It can also run many large drones（say mq9/ch5）“drone wave”.

In 1962 and in the Korean war Chinese soldiers did just this. Attack in waves. they also got killed in large numbers. Those toy drones are too small to be a huge threat. I think there is some vivid imagination going on here - but I only need someone from America to tell me that the US has done it so it must be a great and wholesome thing in US hands..

The video is fake.

[hnair]

Liu, you are overreaching and trying to impose ridiculous propaganda on Indians in an immature fashion. Easy on such games, or you get disciplined, dong ma?

well,

can you imagine that Su30K or LCA meet the attack from hundreds of such smart mini drones, which are controlled by only one team ?
obvioulsy , however hard Su30MK fight ,one su30MKK can not shoot all such mini drones down.....and is destined to be defeated by those "drone waves" at last.

BTW, the last record of such "smart drone war" is created by Yankees, they contolled 50 drones at the same time.

The core tech is not drones,but The control/communication system that runs So many drones and launch drone waves.


If Such One system can make many mini drones “drone wave” It can also run many large drones（say mq9/ch5）“drone wave”.

1) Electronic counter measures for breaking the datalink, followed by basic gunwork can take out most of these low-speed swarms, as do a lot of radar-laid AA guns like Skyshield. If you go for highspeed drones, the costs increase exponentially for China.
2) China has not proven to have secure datalinks in either excersizes with other nations or in a war. Such swarms are going to go rogue, when a datalink gets broken and attacks friendlies
3) At this point, this particular swarm's video is partially comparable to the flight management projects that US universities have been conducting. So trying to claim "we overtook the americans" hold zero value to Indians

[Singha]

see the demo here

[shiv]

see the demo here

This video shows that "state of the art" is still external control with some autonomous capability. The Chinese drone claim is currently a bluff. As we have seen the Chinese propensity to bluff is based on Sun Tzutiyapa of scaring the carp out of others and winning wars without fighting. I surprise myself by actually feeling more disappointed than happy

[Indranil]

well,

can you imagine that Su30K or LCA meet the attack from hundreds of such smart mini drones, which are controlled by only one team ?
obvioulsy , however hard Su30MK fight ,one su30MKK can not shoot all such mini drones down.....and is destined to be defeated by those "drone waves" at last.

such “drones wave” surely will change the game of air fight.

that is what Chinese sicentist are devloping...


BTW, the last record of such "smart drone war" is created by Yankees, they contolled 50 drones at the same time.

Surely yes. But how much cheaper do you think these swarms of drones are going to cost to design and maintain.

[brar_w]

The issue is survivability. No one is going to counter these drones with missiles or even the gun. The way to deal with swarm drones is to go after the very thing that makes them work i.e. networks. Same thing with cheap UAV's that leaverage commercial technologies..you can't have military technology that is many times more expensive as a viable counter strategy. You need to rope in commercial technology and make them go after these things and have the expensive options exist only as backup. There are CSWaP challenges with tiny micro swarm drones..your networks are only as robust and hardened as your ability to develop highly resiliant ones within those CSWaP challenges!.

This was the ONR funded drone swarm demo at Georgia Tech - Mostly derived using comerrical technology. The USN is actually thinking this tactically and has a back end network and even launchers in the dev. testing phase but this peice (video) is largely commercially derived. They have put (or are about to soon) as many as 30 off of a ship at sea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwSj-iQ09n0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FukTsKmXOo

[Prasad]

Swarm management isn't exactly new technically. The Granit missile was supposed to have a swarm capability too iirc.

[shiv]

Shotguns are used for birds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEXiRM-qMr4

[Austin]

If the J-20 Stealth Fighter Is So Amazing Why Is China Buying Russia's Su-35?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ign=buffer

[chola]

If the J-20 Stealth Fighter Is So Amazing Why Is China Buying Russia's Su-35?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ign=buffer

Because they have a quid pro quo with the russkies who supplied them with the MiG 1.44 design and the engines for the J-20?

The SU-35 tech including the 117S will go into their J-flanker clones?

Without the Russians their whole air force would still be flying MiG-21 clones.

Screw the Russkies and take our money away from them. About 120 F-16s would completely dominate the PLAF.

[Indranil]

The issue is survivability. No one is going to counter these drones with missiles or even the gun. The way to deal with swarm drones is to go after the very thing that makes them work i.e. networks. Same thing with cheap UAV's that leaverage commercial technologies..you can't have military technology that is many times more expensive as a viable counter strategy. You need to rope in commercial technology and make them go after these things and have the expensive options exist only as backup. There are CSWaP challenges with tiny micro swarm drones..your networks are only as robust and hardened as your ability to develop highly resiliant ones within those CSWaP challenges!.

This was the ONR funded drone swarm demo at Georgia Tech - Mostly derived using comerrical technology. The USN is actually thinking this tactically and has a back end network and even launchers in the dev. testing phase but this peice (video) is largely commercially derived. They have put (or are about to soon) as many as 30 off of a ship at sea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwSj-iQ09n0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FukTsKmXOo

Aah! I did not know that parts of this research has been made public. Good to see many familiar faces in that video.

[Liu]

The complete video of swarm drone test. it shows us what the war will be like in the future.

http://m.acfun.tv/v/?ac=3222574
it reminds me

[Rana S]

cheen J-20 claiming to be stealth.... curiously humorous . It seems to suggest "stealth" means stealth and there is only one standard!

First of all it looks like an F-22. I cannot believe the aerodynamics and and heat shielding etc has to produce F-22ish shape only. If it was another original design and features then it may sound plausible.

I am sure no one has told them how F-22 was tested and the minimum criteria to be considered stealth. Unless they have manged to steal this (or given in G2 line of thinking by khan!). Which radar did they test it with to see if it was stealth. I think they bought the crash debris in Serbia in 90s and may have copied the skins but we dont know something that looks the same works the same. It already does not fly the same as noted above. I would have thought bit like acoustic signature for subs, even fainter signals can be picked up by better radars. Well I may be wong as I have not tested anything anyway !

What is commendable however is the fact that they have managed to build a copy that flies so quickly.

[sanjaykumar]

It seems to suggest "stealth" means stealth and there is only one standard!



More like stealth as in steal.

[Austin]

PHOTOS: Zhuhai-2016. New Chinese air defense equipment

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2230165.html


^^ Good Collection of pictures from AD system

[shiv]

Separated At Birth? China's J-20 Stealth Jet Looks Just Like MiG Prototype

[Austin]

They seem to look like F-22 first half and mix and match of Mig 1.44 design

The aerodynamic feature like air intake ,wings ,all moving tail fin etc are just different and the chinese has certainly studied both the design well and come up with their own , I would stick up my neck and say J-20 is a chinese design.

[Singha]

Yes the same problem often result in similar optimal solutions like concorde and tu144, b1 and tu160, b52 and tu95, fb111 and su24 and tornado

No harm in copying or stealing what works esp in airframes. we do it too like akash and sa6

[chola]

The chinis will cheat, lie and steal to get to where they want. I do not blame them for that.

And simply by looking at the plethora of systems they have available for exports proves that the strategy worked.

But it is not possible that they did this on their own even by "copying" and "cloning." You can make a copy of the F-16 in your garage (you have a big harage and unlimited funds) but it wouldn't fly. But if Lockheed Martin had stepped in to advise you (and you had unlimited funds) then the chance of it flying improves exponentially.

The chinis are able to make viable the J-20 and the J-31 and the JF-17 and the J-10 ONLY with explicit help from the Russians. Hell, none of them would even fly without Russian engines.

If we want to narrow the gap with the PRC, leverage our "partnership" with the russkies to cut off their support for the chinis. Overnight, all development will stop in the PLAF if the Russians withhold aid.

If the russians refuse, then they can go to hell with their crap.

[Liu]

The chinis will cheat, lie and steal to get to where they want. I do not blame them for that.

And simply by looking at the plethora of systems they have available for exports proves that the strategy worked.

But it is not possible that they did this on their own even by "copying" and "cloning." You can make a copy of the F-16 in your garage (you have a big harage and unlimited funds) but it wouldn't fly. But if Lockheed Martin had stepped in to advise you (and you had unlimited funds) then the chance of it flying improves exponentially.

The chinis are able to make viable the J-20 and the J-31 and the JF-17 and the J-10 ONLY with explicit help from the Russians. Hell, none of them would even fly without Russian engines.

If we want to narrow the gap with the PRC, leverage our "partnership" with the russkies to cut off their support for the chinis. Overnight, all development will stop in the PLAF if the Russians withhold aid.

If the russians refuse, then they can go to hell with their crap.

Rusians Did in 1960s ,BUT found It Did not work ,So gave up.

[aditp]

Rusians Did in 1960s ,BUT found It Did not work ,So gave up.

Oh Yes! It did work. The PLAAF didnt have a forward deployable airforce until the late 80s/early 90s till the Soviet Union went kaput and the cash strapped Russians supplied Su-27s to China, and the Chinese had the opportunity to hire out of job Russian scientists and engineers. All your frontline aircraft today are Russian designs. NONE are Chinese. FACT.

[DavidD]

Rusians Did in 1960s ,BUT found It Did not work ,So gave up.

Oh Yes! It did work. The PLAAF didnt have a forward deployable airforce until the late 80s/early 90s till the Soviet Union went kaput and the cash strapped Russians supplied Su-27s to China, and the Chinese had the opportunity to hire out of job Russian scientists and engineers. All your frontline aircraft today are Russian designs. NONE are Chinese. FACT.

J-10 and JH-7 aren't Russian design.

With that said, you're right that Russian assistance has been instrumental in the growth of the Chinese aerospace industry. However, with each passing year, Chinese reliance on Russian assistance is decreasing, so you better get on it fast if you want to slow down Chinese progress.

[Liu]

Rusians Did in 1960s ,BUT found It Did not work ,So gave up.

Oh Yes! It did work. The PLAAF didnt have a forward deployable airforce until the late 80s/early 90s till the Soviet Union went kaput and the cash strapped Russians supplied Su-27s to China, and the Chinese had the opportunity to hire out of job Russian scientists and engineers. All your frontline aircraft today are Russian designs. NONE are Chinese. FACT.

well ,in fact, in 1970s-1980s, tech block did not exist, because yankees and west countries would sell most techs to CHina.

however, China was too poor to afford west tech&weapons at that time and could not afford investment on necessory labb/R&D infrastructures.either.


thus, it is mainly because of its poor economy that The PLAAF didnt have a forward deployable airforce until the late 80s/early 90s .


the development of one countrie's R&D is mainly caused by its interal factors such as good regimes/policty, instead of foreign factors such as foreign tech aids.