China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Nov 2016 21:02

It is good that the Chinese are coming with their own design be it J-20 & J-31 , even the J-10 design has evolved beyond their Lavi heritage.

I say good because past 60 years we have just seen design from West and Russian dominating the airspace , now that Chinese are in a big way and have got so many design solution that might meet their needs but also as aviation enthusiasts it's good to see them come with interesting solution beyond the usual west and Russian suspect.

There are other perhaps smaller player like Sweden,Japan,South Korea and India with their own set of ideas , it's good time for aviation buffs that we might see so many ideas flying and taking shape that even 10 years back would look like dream

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Nov 2016 21:53

Airshow China 2016: J-20 cameo generates more questions than answers

http://www.janes.com/article/65276/airs ... an-answers

The first public showing of the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) J-20 'fifth-generation' fighter was one of the most anticipated moments of the Airshow China 2016 exhibition, which took place from 1-6 November in Zhuhai, southern Guangdong Province.

However, those hoping to see a demonstration of the capabilities for which the aircraft has become famous through various Chinese online blogs and other open sources came away disappointed.

While two J-20s actually flew at the show during the opening ceremony, neither performed a complete flight routine. The two aircraft, which flew in from an aerodrome in the nearby city of Foshan, initially made a high-speed flyover that looked like the beginning of a two-aircraft demonstration flight.

However, after flying in front of the show's reviewing stand, one of the two aircraft pulled into a short vertical climb for an abbreviated set of manoeuvres and then turned away on to a flight track exiting the aerodrome's airspace.

This J-20 then pulled in behind the second aircraft, which had simply continued on a straight and level course away from the show site after conducting only one fly-by.

The sense of deflated enthusiasm was palpable among the crowd of onlookers as they waited for the aircraft to return, but they did not.

There are believed to be 10 J-20 prototypes, all of which seem to carry out different functions for the J-20 programme. Most recently one of the aircraft was seen conducting a series of tests at a site in Tibet to validate its performance in high and hot climatic conditions.

This has generated a number of questions as to why the aircraft made a rather timid cameo appearance at China's one and only national air show.

"Lack of experience with the aircraft and therefore concern about a mishap cannot be considered a valid reason," said a Russian aerospace executive at the show.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options　ihs.com/contact

Rana S · Post by **Rana S** » 05 Nov 2016 23:27

bbc propagandu?!

The ever-growing power of China’s Xi Jinping

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-china-blog-37800062

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Nov 2016 07:39

Austin wrote:It is good that the Chinese are coming with their own design be it J-20 & J-31 , even the J-10 design has evolved beyond their Lavi heritage.

I say good because past 60 years we have just seen design from West and Russian dominating the airspace ,

400% agreement Austin. It has got so bad now that our language and terminology and what we think about air warfare is based on what the US says mostly. All that I need to see now is someone make a post on here to explain to me that "Wars are fought the way the US wants it and others had better suck it up and swallow it down"

5th generation is a US defined standard. And is the US say "This is the future" every lay person follows that despite the fact that most militaries have a much better idea of the risks they face and the problem they have in comparing their own reality with the fairy-tale perception of war created by the US dominated west

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Nov 2016 09:10

Austin wrote:Airshow China 2016: J-20 cameo generates more questions than answers

http://www.janes.com/article/65276/airs ... an-answers

I can answer the questions raised by this article with a rhetorical question : "Are the Americans stupid?"

The short answer is "No"

The US started with stealth tech ages ago and had an operational and nearly invisible F-117 way back in the 90s. And yet they seemed to struggle with the F-35.

In the meantime the russkies came and bang bang bang produced a prototype PAKFA and everyone gasped and said wah wah wah kya kamaal hai! But it is getting nowhere now.

Then the Chinese came and whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrr they quickly produced the J-20 and we all said " ah the Chinese! The world now has 2 superpowers" But it appears that J-20 is Phussssssssss...

Second rhetorical question. Are the Europeans stupid? They are neck to neck with the US in engines and civil aircraft. But why did they not jump into Gen 5? Because it's not easy. Parallel lines and serrated edges and black paint and internal bays do not make a 5 gen fighter

chola · Post by **chola** » 06 Nov 2016 09:26

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote:Airshow China 2016: J-20 cameo generates more questions than answers

http://www.janes.com/article/65276/airs ... an-answers
I can answer the questions raised by this article with a rhetorical question : "Are the Americans stupid?"

The short answer is "No"

. . .

Second rhetorical question. Are the Europeans stupid? They are neck to neck with the US in engines and civil aircraft. But why did they not jump into Gen 5? Because it's not easy. Parallel lines and serrated edges and black paint and internal bays do not make a 5 gen fighter

You do not get to be a super power by being stupid period.

Fifth generation was a term invented by Americans for our own inventory. There wasn't anything else in the world at the same level.

The rest of the world appropriated the term anyways because the standard was already set at a level that nobody except maybe their close west european allies could match.

As I said many times, the F-16 is obsolete only for the US not the rest of the world. The F-16 against the J-20 or PAKFA in a real fight? To this day and age we still don't know if a non-Western steal aircraft could evade radar or a non-western BVR missile could actually hit an aircraft. Neither had happened yet on the battlefield.

But know American stealth and BVR had worked on the battlefield. Many times.

chola · Post by **chola** » 06 Nov 2016 09:35

But you know something? Stealth and BVR are already passe, old hat, in American terms even though no else has actually even caught up to those yet. The UAV revolution is the leading tip of this oncoming spear.

This is the future, baby.

The US gets to decide how wars are fought because it holds every advantage and controls each and every initiative. So the Russias and Chinas of the world better suck it up and swallow.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 06 Nov 2016 09:38

Looking at the dodgy progress of the F35, J20, & the Pak FA programs, the IAF assessment of imminent Chinese air threat to be overblown appears to be correct. This as the gist of the IAF assessment that Rafale also has several stealth features. IAF assessment that Rafale is the platform to tackle the air threats to Indian airspace is correct.

Similarly the army assessment of T90 being more than enough to take on the PLA T96 is also justified.

We can question the armed forces for their faults but the capability assessment is right on the dot. We need to keep in mind for future discussions.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Nov 2016 09:46

chola wrote: The US gets to decide how wars are fought because it holds every advantage and controls each and every initiative. So the Russias and Chinas of the world better suck it up and swallow.

The US gets to decide how its wars are fought. That's all. Since it fights the most wars people think all wars are like that. But this is OT for this thread.

chola · Post by **chola** » 06 Nov 2016 10:13

shiv wrote:
chola wrote: The US gets to decide how wars are fought because it holds every advantage and controls each and every initiative. So the Russias and Chinas of the world better suck it up and swallow.
The US gets to decide how its wars are fought. That's all. Since it fights the most wars people think all wars are like that. But this is OT for this thread.

No, more or less for any war worth talking about (discounting counting civil or bush wars in Africa.)

For example, Unkil began slaughter of muzzies with drones in Afghanistan, Iraq, Porkistan, etc. and suddenly the lizard begins exporting CH-3, -4, and now -5 to the Middle East. Each one of them looks exactly like the American Predators and Reapers and operates in the same way.

The same with BVR and Stealth before killing Drones. Helicopter assault and gunships before those. US starts, others follows. There is no way to escape copying these ideas and not risk falling behind.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Nov 2016 10:19

chola wrote: US starts, others follows.

Off topic. I have a huge areas of disagreement with this statement but I am not going to argue. However I will be quoting this from time to time as an illustration where necessary.

A whole lot of Indians in America have been telling me this for 4 decades. The statement is both important and significant. Not because it is true, but because too many Indians think it is true while the armed forces know different. If the statement comes out of America, it is considered to be true by more Indians than is good for India.

chola · Post by **chola** » 06 Nov 2016 10:21

Paul wrote:Looking at the dodgy progress of the F35, J20, & the Pak FA programs, the IAF assessment of imminent Chinese air threat to be overblown appears to be correct. This as the gist of the IAF assessment that Rafale also has several stealth features. IAF assessment that Rafale is the platform to tackle the air threats to Indian airspace is correct.

Similarly the army assessment of T90 being more than enough to take on the PLA T96 is also justified.

We can question the armed forces for their faults but the capability assessment is right on the dot. We need to keep in mind for future discussions.

This is what wrote days before on the Single Engine RFI thread:

It all boils down to the IAF perception of immediate threat.

Personally, I think we have plenty of time to straighten out and incorporate the Tejas. We dominate the porkis with what we have now. They are more of a coin operation anyways. On the other front, we are facing a natural plateau that is more hostile to enemy aviation than the IAF could hope to be. There is nary a major base in Tibet and what tries to take off there would be severely limited in load and last, but foremost, the US, Japan and Taiwan force the concentration of their air assets on the coast furthest away from India.

But I am not the GOI or IAF, I would assume our netas and their appointed babus would know better the threats.

We are not surrounded by first rate military powers.

chola · Post by **chola** » 06 Nov 2016 10:59

shiv wrote:
chola wrote: US starts, others follows.
Off topic. I have a huge areas of disagreement with this statement but I am not going to argue. However I will be quoting this from time to time as an illustration where necessary.

A whole lot of Indians in America have been telling me this for 4 decades. The statement is both important and significant. Not because it is true, but because too many Indians think it is true while the armed forces know different. If the statement comes out of America, it is considered to be true by more Indians than is good for India.

Step back and simply read our military threads in BR. Every thing we consider good and desirable are American designed and perfected concepts.

The LCA needs to have "BVR" missiles -- American.

"Stealth" for our "5th Gen" FGFA -- American and American.

Arihant will be our "boomer" -- American.

"CATOBAR" for Vishal -- American.

Attack helicopters? Heliborne insertion? These were American tactics and equipment developed and perfected during Korean and Vietnam War.

We talk about how well our MKIs did at "Red Flag" but sorry adversary training was pretty much developed by the US Navy in their Top Gun program.

You cannot get away from the fact that the US sets the standard and everyone else must follow to stay current unless proven otherwise.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Nov 2016 11:07

chola wrote:
Step back and simply read our military threads in BR. Every thing we consider good and desirable are American designed and perfected concepts.

Step back and speak for yourself. "We" is what you read of BRF when you leave out what you don't want to read and what you don't know. If you are convinced about what you say - I am happy to accept that. But trying to convince me or paste your attitutes on me is a waste of time. The time is yours to waste - but I thought I would inform you anyway

I really think this discussion should not be on this thread. Please have the last word if you wish because this is the China military thread not the "I love God Bless America thread"

But this will definitely be my last post on the subject in this thread

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Nov 2016 11:21

First Attack on Land Target from Ships using Missile ,1971 war operation trident long before the american or russian invented LACM , This time its Indian

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Nov 2016 14:52

and didnt the Israelis use a Styx missile boat like our own to shatter a elderly Israeli destroyer too?

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 06 Nov 2016 15:56

You mean the Egyptians, yes?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Nov 2016 16:13

Singha wrote:and didnt the Israelis use a Styx missile boat like our own to shatter a elderly Israeli destroyer too?

Yes think it was Egyptians that used it , The IN mission was very unique though they went with the intention of destroying karachi harbour and Refinary/Oil Storage facility on land using the Styx but as they reached near on the radar scope they saw PN ships which was fired upon and that lead to sinking of 3-4 PN ships including destroyers minesweepers commercial ships they simply sank with all hands down and then the refinary was blown using Styx said to have created the longest running flame visible to IAF fighter on mission for over pakistan for couple of days

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Nov 2016 16:30

Singha wrote:and didnt the Israelis use a Styx missile boat like our own to shatter a elderly Israeli destroyer too?

OT for this thread. The Egyptians sank the Israeli ship "Eilat", but what Indian Navy did was land attack - after towing a coastal boat further than it can go to being within striking range of Karachi.

zoverian · Post by **zoverian** » 06 Nov 2016 17:39

POOF

Admin note: do not quote the whole thing for a "+1".

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 06 Nov 2016 18:37

Arihant will be our "boomer" -- American.

chola, easy there. Dont want further thread slide

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Nov 2016 11:18

http://defencenews.in/article/China-Unv ... ndia-39052

China Unveils Its Most Powerful Drone Bomber And It Is Bad News For India
Monday, November 07, 2016
By: TopYaps

China has unveiled its most powerful drone bomber, the CH-5 unmanned aerial vehicle. China displayed the drone to public for the first time at a military air show in the southern city of Zhuhai.

The CH-5 can fly for two days without refuelling within a range of 15,000 miles. The drone made its first flight last year and appears to be based on the US MQ-9 reaper.

According to The Daily Star, it is capable of carrying smart bombs, missiles and high-tech radar jammers.

China is claiming that CH-5 has superior tech specs to equivalent US models. It says it “can perform whatever operations the MQ-9 Reaper can, and is even better than the US vehicle when it comes to flight duration and operational efficiency.”

The drone has a wingspan of 21 meters and can stay in the air for 60 hours. It has a maximum range of 6,500 km. China will be soon expand its range to 10,000 km and 120 hours of flight, giving it the longest range of all hunter-killer drones. It will also carry about 1,000 kg of equipment and up to 24 missiles.

If compared, the MQ-9 Reaper, which has been in service since 2007, can fly for 27 hours, and has a wingspan of 20 meters. China says that it is ready not only to export the drone, but also to license the technology to make it.

According to Shi Wen, chief designer of the CH series at China Academy of Aerospace Aerodynamics, CH-5 can make a joint strike with its predecessors, the CH-3 and CH-4, because they can share the same data link and control system.

The development of CH-5 is clear sign of China’s military technology getting sophisticated with every passing year.

With its powerful capabilities, China can easily use them in spying missions over large territories in its neighbourhood including India.

At present, India has a fleet of over 200 drones bought from Israel and they are deployed on both eastern front with China and western front with Pakistan.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 07 Nov 2016 11:37

Philip wrote:http://defencenews.in/article/China-Unv ... ndia-39052
China Unveils Its Most Powerful Drone Bomber And It Is Bad News For India
Monday, November 07, 2016
By: TopYaps

China has unveiled its most powerful drone bomber, the CH-5 unmanned aerial vehicle. China displayed the drone to public for the first time at a military air show in the southern city of Zhuhai.

The CH-5 can fly for two days without refuelling within a range of 15,000 miles. The drone made its first flight last year and appears to be based on the US MQ-9 reaper.

According to The Daily Star, it is capable of carrying smart bombs, missiles and high-tech radar jammers.

China is claiming that CH-5 has superior tech specs to equivalent US models. It says it “can perform whatever operations the MQ-9 Reaper can, and is even better than the US vehicle when it comes to flight duration and operational efficiency.”

The drone has a wingspan of 21 meters and can stay in the air for 60 hours. It has a maximum range of 6,500 km. China will be soon expand its range to 10,000 km and 120 hours of flight, giving it the longest range of all hunter-killer drones. It will also carry about 1,000 kg of equipment and up to 24 missiles.

If compared, the MQ-9 Reaper, which has been in service since 2007, can fly for 27 hours, and has a wingspan of 20 meters. China says that it is ready not only to export the drone, but also to license the technology to make it.

According to Shi Wen, chief designer of the CH series at China Academy of Aerospace Aerodynamics, CH-5 can make a joint strike with its predecessors, the CH-3 and CH-4, because they can share the same data link and control system.

The development of CH-5 is clear sign of China’s military technology getting sophisticated with every passing year.

With its powerful capabilities, China can easily use them in spying missions over large territories in its neighbourhood including India.

At present, India has a fleet of over 200 drones bought from Israel and they are deployed on both eastern front with China and western front with Pakistan.

The chief engineer of CH5 said that The improved mod of CH5 can fly for 120 hours without refuel, and even can work as a unmaned Mini AWAC.
“彩虹-5”可挂载多达16枚对地导弹，能连续飞行40小时，改进型的续航能力甚至达120小时，意味着它的最大飞行距离将超过1万公里。

As for license tech of CH5，It is just a stunt,because It is No way for china to license core tech(datalink and long distance com tech).

As long as Usa/china keeps core techs(datalink...) in their own hands,they alway have backdoors to own The ultimate cotrol of any exported drones,wherever The exported drones are.

wig · Post by **wig** » 07 Nov 2016 12:23

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201611070022.html
After fighters and jets, China’s ‘secret weapon’: aero engines

ZHUHAI, China--Beyond the roar of its new stealth jets and the buzz of plans to build commercial jumbos, China in the past week offered a quiet first peek at a key test of its drive to become a global aviation powerhouse--a giant state-owned aero engine maker.

In an unassuming pavilion the size of a large gym, tucked behind the main exhibition halls of the Airshow China expo that closes on Sunday, Aero Engine Corp. of China (AECC) was on public display for the first time. Beijing launched the firm in August in a multi-billion dollar mission to develop home-grown, high-tech products fit for export.

For all the grand vision, no new technology was on display at the 1,200 square meter pavilion. That was no surprise to Western industry experts: while China has so far grown more in scale and speed its in aviation drive than some expected, the proprietary commercial engines that are the pinnacle of aero development will take at least a decade to develop, they say.

"Designing an entire engine and designing the entire infrastructure around it so that you can develop it and maintain it, that is the big issue," said Jorg Schluter, a senior engineering lecturer at Australia's Deakin University.

The AECC's presence at the show in Zhuhai, China's biggest air expo, was far from discreet, with banners on the highway to the event site emblazoned with its blue and white logo. Still, an AECC official at the site said that the firm was not giving interviews nor holding events at AirShow China.

Engine mock-ups, gas turbines whose design dates back to 2002 and an interactive science exhibition offered little more than a rough sketch of a company with a nearly 100,000-strong workforce. Drawn together in a union of more than 20 engine companies, repair sites and institutes scattered around the country, AECC's origins date back to the Mao era.

What the company has to its advantage, analysts concede, is cash and a fast-growing domestic airline market. The new firm was seeded with registered capital of 50 billion yuan ($7.40 billion or 770 billion yen) from the State Council, the Beijing government, as well as state-owned planemakers.

ZERO PRESENCE, BIG RIVALS

Beijing's efforts to transform state-owned businesses have reached into sectors such as steel and shipping. But it has no major presence in the commercial engine sector, dominated by General Electric, United Technologies' Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce.

"If you want to break into the world it's a very difficult thing to do and the incumbents aren't going to make it easy," said Mark Daly, editor of IHS Jane's Aero-Engines. China's first home-built passenger jets, the ARJ-21 and C919, currently use foreign-made engines.

To date, China's experience is largely limited to warplane engines, mostly in cooperation with or on license from Russia, but analysts say it is struggling to develop ones that will match Western fighters in combat.

While the country has made great strides in high-speed rail and nuclear technology by acquiring the know-how from overseas partners or reverse engineering products, it has found it more difficult to break into the secretive engine sector, whose technology is heavily guarded by governments and original equipment manufacturers (OEM).

These OEMs have found ways over the past decade to restrict reverse engineering of their engines, through means such as tighter control of their spare parts supply chain, said Steffen Kunth, chief financial officer of MTU Maintenance, a Zhuhai-based aero-engine repair facility jointly owned by Germany's MTU Aero Engines AG and carrier China Southern Airlines.

"I think in about 10 years we'll see the first Chinese (commercial) engine," he said.

"There's a lot of money involved there...you see how they're supported by the Chinese universities, how many engineers every year enter into this industry, so it's a matter of time that they will have this technology and will have an engine flying."

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 07 Nov 2016 20:00

Well,the chief designer of CH5 questioned yankees' way to design drones.

He said that yankees' designers tend to take The lastest tech in dispect of cost,even If The lastest tech in fact can not help performance/effiency much.

Thus,yakees drones might be most advanced technologically,but Usually not most efficient,and always not costperformanced.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 07 Nov 2016 23:33

Said the Chief Engineer of CH5, rolling a fat blunt of "Idukki Gold".........

Liu wrote:The chief engineer of CH5 said that The improved mod of CH5 can fly for 120 hours without refuel, and even can work as a unmaned Mini AWAC.
“彩虹-5”可挂载多达16枚对地导弹，能连续飞行40小时，改进型的续航能力甚至达120小时，意味着它的最大飞行距离将超过1万公里。

Liu wrote:Well,the chief designer of CH5 questioned yankees' way to design drones.

He said that yankees' designers tend to take The lastest tech in dispect of cost,even If The lastest tech in face can not help performance/effiency much.

Thus,yakees drones might be most advanced technologically,but Usually not most efficient,and always not costperformanced.

These childish attempts at "Look! We are same as Khan, heck, even better" to Indians. You are bringing disrepute to China here, Liu. Stop circling the drain.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Nov 2016 16:09

China ch4 drone racks up a notable kill
Haidar Sumeri ‏@IraqiSecurity 13h13 hours ago
Abu Maryam, the Da'ish "military leader of Wilayat Baghdad & Diyala" killed by an Iraqi drone strike in Tarmiyah, north of #Iraq's Baghdad.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwsFQQ4XUAAyFGC.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Nov 2016 16:28

the large CH5 type drones will, within a LRSAM AD bubble permit china to cheaply monitor large swathes of exposed tibet type terrain using thermals, tv and GMTI radar on a 24x7 basis far more than any fleet of manned platforms. though not cheap, the cost is likely to be 1/3 of a manned platform an endurance 3x. #likebutton
does not need to be a huge 30 foot radar aperture like E8, but deploy enough of them with enough eyes to get the job done.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Nov 2016 16:52

http://defencenews.in/article/If-the-J- ... u-35-39058

If the J-20 Stealth Fighter Is So Amazing Then Why Is China Buying Russia's Su-35?
Monday, November 07, 2016
By: National Interest

Even as China is publicly showing off its new Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter at the Zhuhai air show for the first time, Beijing is continuing its efforts to acquire advanced Russian fighters.

Indeed, while a pair of J-20s garnered the attention of the world’s media, the Russian government quietly announced that it has started work on building 24 Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E fighters for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). China signed a contract for the delivery of two-dozen Su-35s in November 2015 worth at least $2 billion.

“Delivery of these aircraft to China will be carried out under the terms defined by the relevant contract,” Vladimir Drozhzhov, deputy director of Russia’s Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, told the Moscow-based TASS news agency. “We are now carrying out the execution of the first phase of our contractual obligations.”

As such, Russia is expected to deliver four Su-35s to the PLAAF before the end of the year. The remaining Su-35s are expected to be delivered within the next three years. But given the Kremlin’s previous experiences with selling China advanced technology, Moscow has insisted on agreements to secure Russian intellectual property onboard the Su-35. In previous years, the Chinese reverse engineered older versions of the Flanker into the Shenyang J-11, J-15 and J-16 series of aircraft.

“We established a Russian-Chinese working group for the purposes of practical implementation of this agreement, which held a regular meeting in September this year,” Drozhzhov said.

Despite whatever agreement Beijing might have signed with Moscow, the Chinese are almost certainly interested in the Su-35 to harvest its technology. While the current configuration of the J-20 externally resembles a genuine fifth-generation fighter in several respects, China remains woefully lacking in engine and mission systems avionics technology. The Su-35’s Saturn AL-41F1S afterburning turbofans, Tikhomirov NIIP Irbis-E phased array radar and electronic warfare suite are likely of high interest to Beijing.

Indeed, China has not perfected its indigenous WS-10 for its Flanker clones, let alone come close to finishing development of the next-generation WS-15 it would need for the J-20. The WS-15 is currently thought to be in a ground-testing phase with flight trials set to begin on an Ilyushin Il-76 some time in the future.

In fact, China has not demonstrated it can build any reliable jet engine—and that’s including designs that it basically stole from Russia. Indeed, the J-20 currently appears to be powered by twin Russian-built Saturn AL-31F engines found on the Sukhoi Su-27 and its many Chinese knockoffs. The addition of the Russian-built AL-41F1S series engines might provide a solution to Beijing’s engine woes.

There are indications that the J-20 carries an active electronically scanned array radar (AESA). Allegedly, the J-20 would be fitted with a Type 1475 (also referred to as the KLJ-5 radar), which is supposedly being tested on a China Test Flight Establishment owned Tupolev Tu-204. However, there is no way to confirm that information because the PLAAF isn’t all that forthcoming about sharing information concerning its developmental projects. However, Russian radar technology is generally believed to be ahead of China’s and it is certainly possible Beijing could glean valuable technical insights from the Irbis-E.

The one advantage the Chinese have over the Russians is in the realm of electro-optical/infrared targeting systems—where Moscow has lagged behind in the wake of the post-Soviet economic meltdown of the 1990s. Indeed, the J-20 does appear to have an electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) mounted under the nose—which could be the Beijing A-Star Science and Technology EOTS-89. But there is no publicly (and reliable) data available about the performance of that sensor. It is very likely it does not match the performance of American or Israeli systems.

Certainly, the J-20 does represent a leap forward for the Chinese defense-aerospace industry. One day, China will be able to develop and build its own jet engines as well as create world-class mission systems avionics—especially given the investment Beijing continues to make into the defense-aerospace sector. However, that day is not today. If the J-20 was really as capable as some would have you believe, Beijing wouldn’t bother with buying a token fleet of Su-35s—there would simply be no point in doing so.

Dave Majumdar is the Defense Editor for The National Interest. You can follow him You on Twitter: @DaveMajumdar.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 08 Nov 2016 19:51

Singha wrote:the large CH5 type drones will, within a LRSAM AD bubble permit china to cheaply monitor large swathes of exposed tibet type terrain using thermals, tv and GMTI radar on a 24x7 basis far more than any fleet of manned platforms. though not cheap, the cost is likely to be 1/3 of a manned platform an endurance 3x. #likebutton
does not need to be a huge 30 foot radar aperture like E8, but deploy enough of them with enough eyes to get the job done.

CH5 is a decent drone,but It is reported that It is a loser defeated by another drone called Yilong2.

because CH5 can not win orders From PLA, Ch5 is allowed for export.

It is also reported that a certain rich MD country(S. Arabia,i guess) has placed an order of YILONG2,worth 1 billon USD.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Nov 2016 22:04

Yes i read of the saudi order

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 09 Nov 2016 04:58

http://www.bilibili.com/mobile/video/av6503775.html
A new video of J20

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 09 Nov 2016 05:18

Singha wrote:the large CH5 type drones will, within a LRSAM AD bubble permit china to cheaply monitor large swathes of exposed tibet type terrain using thermals, tv and GMTI radar on a 24x7 basis far more than any fleet of manned platforms. though not cheap, the cost is likely to be 1/3 of a manned platform an endurance 3x. #likebutton
does not need to be a huge 30 foot radar aperture like E8, but deploy enough of them with enough eyes to get the job done.

Perhaps, but it'd have to fly pretty low. Its endurance is so high because it uses a 300-hp piston engine. While its long range allows it to take off and land at lower altitude airports outside of Tibet, it won't be able to fly very high (7000m max altitude) on the Tibetan plateau. The turboprop powered WL-2 might be a better option here with its 9000m max altitude despite its lower endurance.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 09 Nov 2016 05:34

Someguy said on CD that yesterday china~made electromegnetic catapult helped One J15 sucessfully took off for The first time.

It is a milestone of china~made electromegnetic catapult tech ,and pave The road to china~made next generation Aircraft carrier.

BTW,
Chinese elctromegnetic catapult tech advances faster than expected.

So, china might give up steam catapult(china worked It out One decade ago),and adopt electromegnetic catapult directly on its next AC.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Nov 2016 09:09

Liu wrote:Someguy said on CD that yesterday china~made electromegnetic catapult helped One J15 sucessfully took off for The first time.

It is a milestone of china~made electromegnetic catapult tech ,and pave The road to china~made next generation Aircraft carrier.

BTW,
Chinese elctromegnetic catapult tech advances faster than expected.

So, china might give up steam catapult(china worked It out One decade ago),and adopt electromegnetic catapult directly on its next AC.

I am absolutely amazed that anyone can keep a straight face either saying this or reading it.

I wonder if people are employed for the express purpose of writing out such stuff all over the internet?

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 09 Nov 2016 10:36

The successful EMALS test news is pretty legit, and it fits with all the other evidence, but skipping steam on the next AC would run contrary to what the current rumors are. Installing EMALS isn't just about a catapult, it's a whole system, and the next AC's design has been frozen for a while now so chances are pretty slim that it'll include EMALS.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Nov 2016 23:47

New details emerge on Shenyang FC-31 fifth-generation export fighter

http://www.janes.com/article/65359/new- ... rt-fighter

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Nov 2016 05:52

If this is to scale, then it means something.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Nov 2016 06:16

Good catch. That is no "fighter" in the old sense of the term. It is bomber sized.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 10 Nov 2016 09:50

Indranil wrote:If this is to scale, then it means something.

Satellite imagery has been around for a while now, there's no need to guess the J-20's length.