China Military Watch

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jan 2011 05:52

DavidD wrote: According to the person who did this analysis, it's between 19.5 and 19.6 meters long.

Ah finally a more serious analysis using an object of known dimensions. I did say it was probably "60-65 feet" long and was not too far off.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 01 Jan 2011 06:10

shiv wrote:
DavidD wrote: According to the person who did this analysis, it's between 19.5 and 19.6 meters long.
Ah finally a more serious analysis using an object of known dimensions. I did say it was probably "60-65 feet" long and was not too far off.

I've been trying to convince people on various boards for days that it's a normal-sized 19-21 meter long aircraft! Writers like Bill Sweetman have some great strategic thoughts, but I'd take their technical evaluations with a grain of salt. I still can't stop laughing at 70-90 feet "analysis"

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 01 Jan 2011 07:41

EU Could End China Arms Embargo In Early 2011

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jan 2011 09:01

thats good. greater the threat emanating from PRC, greater we will have GOI take a serious interest in defence issues. what china buys from EU will also reveal areas of weakness and future plans.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jan 2011 09:11

Ok one more statistic. Wingspan=11 meters

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 01 Jan 2011 13:27

ShauryaT wrote:OK, I am on a wild goose chase now. So if I post something stupid, just bear with me.

Chinese SAM Network
China's other ASAT
Dragon's Fire: The PLA's 2nd Artillery Corps
I really liked this one, lot of hard work, it is a Google Earth link.
Chinese Military Aviation

All of it from this blog.

I checked up few missing airports

Kunshasiang at Nagari opposite Fukche
Nayingachi on AP norder in Brahamputra valley

Apart from these two there are some airports on Myanmar border not shown

Daqen, Lilang,Lijiang,dali,baoshan,luxi ,linchang,simao, gasa ( all north to south axis, west of mengzi shown in kmz file)

Spellings may differ . I have them marked on GE

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jan 2011 13:56

the 50m cep @ 600km for DF15c target test grid in the 2nd artillery link above indicates indian airbases in north and east india can and will be targeted with BMs. SAMs are useless against the reentry speed of this class of missile, I am not even sure it falls in the PAD engagement envelope. perhaps the higher ceiling AD1 and AD2 being worked on might engage such targets.

wen · Post by **wen** » 01 Jan 2011 14:21

Here are weapons developed for J-20:

Including a ramjet-based PL-21, and several PL-12's mods, for long range anti-air missions, same as AIM-120s.

And gaze-actuated guided PL-10 for short range anti-air missions, same as AIM-9X.

According to the figure, most of the missiles have finished design by 2010.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 01 Jan 2011 14:26

shiv wrote:Ok one more statistic. Wingspan=11 meters

Thanks, so it seems like the plane is fairly narrow doesn't it?

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 01 Jan 2011 15:29

Singha wrote:the 50m cep @ 600km for DF15c target test grid in the 2nd artillery link above indicates indian airbases in north and east india can and will be targeted with BMs. SAMs are useless against the reentry speed of this class of missile, I am not even sure it falls in the PAD engagement envelope. perhaps the higher ceiling AD1 and AD2 being worked on might engage such targets.

Only lasers could be used to intercept very high speed missile. Time to procure something like this, although it is currently not intended to be used against our said purpose.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jan 2011 15:43

delta winged planes tend to have narrower wingspans vs non deltas? 11m is less than su30/f22 wingspan.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Jan 2011 23:41

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-311210-1.html
What China's New J-20 Stealth Fighter Means for the F-35 JSF and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
By our Oz friends - Peter Goon & Carlo Kopp

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Jan 2011 10:47

I have spent a good deal of time staring at the dozen or so photos of the "J-20" that I have downloaded along with the current assessments of length and wingspan.

Close scrutiny from what is available seems to indicate that the the mainwing does not have a separate leading edge root extension (LERX) of its own but seems to be like the Su-30 MKI where the LERX itself serves as the origin of the canard.

The wingtip to wingtip span is 11 meters as indicated earlier. However if one takes the edge of the intakes as where the fuselage ends and wing begins, one finds that the mainwings extend out for a mere 4 meters from the edge of the fuselage.

Also from a side view it is possible to measure the chord of the wing at the wing root and that appears to be about 6.5 meters. If you take each wing as a pure delta and not a cropped delta (which it is) then the area of wing alone is quite small. (13 sq m) But clearly the canards, LERX and fuselage add to the lift area a great deal. Even otherwise I am finding it difficult to cook up a total wing area figure of over 50 sq m. This assessment may be wrong - given that we don't have an image from above.

If you take the engines as AL 31s with a thrust of 14 tons each - you get a total weight of 28 tons to achieve a T/W ratio of 1:1. That works out to a fairly high wing loading of over 500 kg per sq m. Contrary to many assessments this aircraft is slim. It is currently mainly wing and engines. It has great scope for being fluffed up for a great increase in internal volume - but the Chinese have not ye done that. I disagree with assessments that say it has a great deal of internal volume. Actually if you allow space for an internal weapons bay between the engines - it does not leave all that much extra internal volume. Not a problem - that can easily be done later IMO with conformal additions. Clearly this is a prototype which is going to need some serious development

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Jan 2011 12:28

shiv wrote:If you take the engines as AL 31s with a thrust of 14 tons each - you get a total weight of 28 tons to achieve a T/W ratio of 1:1. That works out to a fairly high wing loading of over 500 kg per sq m.

T:W ratios of 1:1 are usually designed for with something like 75% to 100 % internal fuel therabouts and with A2A missiles loaded only and no external tank-shank. If with 14ton thrust engines, you estimate 28 tons at that condition, well, the MTOW of this plane is much higher. I would put it at 6 to 10 tons higher at around 34 to 38 tons. Not a bantam weight by any standards.

After all,you want the plane to fly into battle and have decent persistence before and during battle and want to design the best for that state, rather than have the plane do some super-duper thing right after take off!.

The Su-27 series finesses by using some "Pakiness". It is simply NOT 9g or whatever max g's it is designed for with full internal fuel. What the Russians did was to call one of their large internal tanks as "Additional internal tank" or whatever . So in plain Inglees, it means that the Su-27 and derivatives need to empty that tank before it does all the super duper bhangra style dancing and peak performance.

I am sure the Chinese have done some similar thing and in "Ingrees" it will have a Su-30 like finessing.

Other planes use a lot "more honest" external fuel tank and a smaller airframe

Contrary to many assessments this aircraft is slim. It is currently mainly wing and engines. It has great scope for being fluffed up for a great increase in internal volume - but the Chinese have not ye done that

No. It is a SU-27 size plane at the least and I think approaching the F-22.This plane is a high wing plane and doesn't seem to have any anhedral , which is rather surprising, maybe relaxed stability compensates for that ..Dont know.. And if the wing loading is what you say it is, it will be an absolute barn door to maneuver as altitude increases (where wing loading will quickly become the limiting factor) and that sort of reinforces the feeling that it is a striker primarily.

Oh. I do think it is fat. Compare this with an F-15 pic, which is a high wing plane like this Chinese one. Compare the fueslage cross section size with the forebody size. The Chinese plane is definitely fatter in comparison and there surely is lot more internal volume than a conventional design.

However, if you fatten up the plane like that , with haunches comparable to Tamil Film actresses of yesteryears atleast, you simply need a cutting edge T:W ratio engine ,which no one outside Amir Khan has , if you want it to still be a fighter , with atleast current class of performance. But if is primarily a stealthy striker, with A2A strictly on the return trip home, then it is okay I guess.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jan 2011 12:49

on certain indic defence blogs people are comparing the Tejas (IOC next week), MRCA (FOC + available with almost all bells and in full production now) with J-20 (IOC likely 10 yrs out) and doing the usual yindu bad, chini good dance. irritating and very juvenile behaviour.

but let me shiver some more in my cave, atleast keeps me warm in blr winter.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 02 Jan 2011 13:25

to shiv: i was wonderin if the wing surface area is so small wouldnt it cause problem in creating lift maybe they did it to reduce RCS but me still clueless why they went for that!??

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 02 Jan 2011 14:38

Shiv, I think it's best to wait till a clear over head or bottom view to calculate the wingspan, as there are too many sources of errors with a single unclear picture that's not in the best perspective. You'd be surprised at how little change of perspective and clarity is needed to completely screw up the calculations. For example, the head on picture you used is taken from slightly below the nose and to the left of the plane, but if you use one that's taken a bit above the nose and straight on like this one:
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/2903 ... 823974.jpg
and the wingspan comes out to close to 14m.

If you just use a clearer version of the same head on pic like this one(using wingtip to wingtip instead of nose to the shorter side):
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/5690 ... 534997.jpg
and you get a wingspan of about 12m.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 02 Jan 2011 16:57

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Jan 2011 16:58

DavidD wrote:Shiv, I think it's best to wait till a clear over head or bottom view to calculate the wingspan, as there are too many sources of errors with a single unclear picture that's not in the best perspective.

Absolutely true. My post was pure speculation - but there is absolutely no indication from Chinese sources as to the intended role of this plane. Since all combat aircraft are compromises of some sort - no matter what the Chinese say its role will be someone is going to be critical and say ha ha ha - it won't do XYZ. That is part of the game. But I was wondering whether the intent here is partly a research and development aircraft given that a host of new technologies are being tried out. That would be the most credible role although it might be a disappointment to some Chinese jingos.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 02 Jan 2011 18:09

ShauryaT wrote:

One more question, Why is PRC the only one trying for something like this? I mean, we do not hear of an Agni being used as an ASBM? Are there specific reasons, they have chosen this route as opposed to medium/long range cruise missiles?

It can be used as an anti-ship weapon as well as for destroying land targets depending on the range.

Read more: 'Dhanush' missile successfully test-fired - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... z19sNsjUtA

We can say PRC is not the only one having BM as anti-ship weapon. But ASBM is not a versatile solution for the problem. It is an extreme solution for a peculiar problem just like US intention of using Trident ICBM for killing terrorists. China has chosen this as its other weapons for defending itself from CBG is weak. Chinese sub force is no match to Americans. Same goes for the naval and air force. Mainly these conventional options like sub/naval air arm are not acting as deterrent to American forces. Their anti ship cruise missile don't stand a chance against American defense. So they devised ASBM as long stand off weapon to act as deterrent against CBG. They wont be having more than 50 ASBMs and it is mainly to threaten US Carrier.

ASBM relies on its speed, height and trajectory, whereas cruise missile can use all these plus sea skimming role to neutralize a ship. To change the trajectory of high speed missile and to control the re-entry trajectory with precision is a hard job. It is like landing a hi speed plane on water. Further it has to find a Carrier and hit it defeating its defense. We are yet to see how successful their ASBMs are.

Another question I have is, what do we know on the tests conducted. We should link up sites that track, Chinese testing activities - maybe first post of the thread, that are reasonably credible. Reading sino defense reads like Chinese are walking on Mars already.

We do have our intelligence inputs on this. May be we have sharing agreement with like minded countries as well as our own observation posts as rumored to be in Mongolia & other countries. If i'm not wrong, they are having failures in tests.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 02 Jan 2011 18:10

We can say PRC is not the only one having BM as anti-ship weapon. But ASBM is not a versatile solution for the problem. It is an extreme solution for a peculiar problem just like US intention of using Trident ICBM for killing terrorists.

American response:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 050609.xml

At the U.S. Navy League exhibition in Washington this month, Raytheon Missile Systems will unveil an upgrade to the BGM/UGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV land-attack cruise missile that will make it a multirole weapon capable of hitting moving ships. The package has four elements: An active electronically scanned array, millimeter-wave seeker provides target acquisition and homing; a passive electronic surveillance system is for long-range acquisition and identification; the 1,000-lb. blast-fragmentation warhead is replaced by a shaped charge; and the two-way data link gets more bandwidth.

The missile is designed to kill or disable large, hardened warships in difficult environments such as littoral waters, over a greater range than Boeing’s Harpoon/Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM), the U.S. Navy’s standard antiship missile. The Raytheon warhead is twice as large as SLAM’s, and the 900-naut.-mi. range is six times greater. This is not an antipirate weapon, and it is not hard to guess which navy is the most likely target.

and

Long range anti ship cruise missile to be designed by Lockheed Martin for DARPA

the LRASM concept seeks to reduce dependence on precision intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sources, data links, and GPS satellite navigation and guidance by demonstrating advanced onboard missile sensor and missile processing capabilities, which will enable precision engagement of moving ships based only on course and initial target cueing in extremely hostile environments.

The new anti-ship missile and its associated missile electronics will provide Navy warships like the guided missile cruiser with the ability to attack important enemy ships outside the ranges of the enemy's ability to respond with anti-ship missiles of its own.

It is not hard to guess the intended target/nation. Min. range of this new Anti-ship missile in development could well be more than 1500 km.

And from the available information, range of DF-21C is the same 1700 km (900 nautical mi.) only.

Don · Post by **Don** » 02 Jan 2011 18:40

A new destroyer

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Jan 2011 19:23

vina wrote:
Oh. I do think it is fat. Compare this with an F-15 pic, which is a high wing plane like this Chinese one. Compare the fueslage cross section size with the forebody size. The Chinese plane is definitely fatter in comparison and there surely is lot more internal volume than a conventional design.

However, if you fatten up the plane like that , with haunches comparable to Tamil Film actresses of yesteryears atleast, you simply need a cutting edge T:W ratio engine ,which no one outside Amir Khan has , if you want it to still be a fighter , with atleast current class of performance. But if is primarily a stealthy striker, with A2A strictly on the return trip home, then it is okay I guess.

The following two photos seem to tell a story. The intakes are far apart leaving space for the cockpit and perhaps an internal weapons bay. The exhausts on the musharraf are closer together indicating a tapering of the fuselage cross section as one moves aft.

The plane appears to have a flat "shoulder" on both sides that blends with the upper surface of the intakes in the front but continues behind as a wing surface right to the back where the tailfins and ventral fins seem to arise from the rear end of this shoulder. The canards sprout from the upper surface of the intakes and behind that the wings sprout from this flat shoulder. The whole upper surface is flat and clean aft of the cockpit and presumably the lower surface too is like that. So the lifting surface is probably larger than it seems. I guess you are right in saying that there is a lot of space for both fuel as well as space for an internal weapons bay. The canards are big and probably add to the lift

But still - from the available images - unless there is a lot of body lift the combined wing surface area does not look that large. Need to wait for more images. If the engines are Al 31 then the weights are surely going to be about 35 tonnes at least. The large number of aerodynamic surfaces suggests to me that some effort has gone into producing agility - but if wing loading is high it could mean 3 things
1) Strike aircraft
2) Somewhat compromised high altitude agility
3) High altitude take off capability may be limited.

Note that a wing loading of 300 kg/sq m at 30,000 kg needs a 100 sq m wing area. That is a 20 x 10 delta. In this case we have lifting surfaces that extend for about 15 meters from front to back and 11 meters max on the sides.

Someone has put up a whole lot of images of AAMs to be used by the J-20. Two points about that

1) in surgery there is an axiom that if many different operations exist for a given condition it means that none of them is good enough and none of them is perfect. When something is the "best" - it will be the only one that is used. So much for the large variety of AAMs. Like Indian jingos, Chinese jingos get orgasms from super-agility AAMs and BVRAAMs and fret if anyone argues against agility. Strike, with bums is unromantic.

2) If the plane is a strike aircraft which are the standoff weapons it is going to carry?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jan 2011 19:33

the possibility of it using D30 engines from foxhound should not be discounted until confirmation of al31. Mig likely used it on 1.44 protos also and would be really familiar with that engine. aviadigitel (perm) is still making a variant of it for civilian liners and also remaining foxhounds.

its 150kN wet thrust would solve the agility issue vs AL31 family...

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Jan 2011 21:26

Singha wrote:the possibility of it using D30 engines from foxhound should not be discounted until confirmation of al31. Mig likely used it on 1.44 protos also and would be really familiar with that engine. aviadigitel (perm) is still making a variant of it for civilian liners and also remaining foxhounds.

its 150kN wet thrust would solve the agility issue vs AL31 family...

No it wont. It is an old engine with a T:W ratio of around 3 or 4 or so. With that kind of weight, this plane will be a King Kong in terms of weight and shoot up close to 50 tons , if it need to carry a decent fuel and weapons load.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Jan 2011 23:19

Frontal VLO design is straight lift of JSF/raptor. Areas where they would lack would be thrust, internal weapons launch, and avionics.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Jan 2011 23:53

vina wrote:
Singha wrote:the possibility of it using D30 engines from foxhound should not be discounted until confirmation of al31. Mig likely used it on 1.44 protos also and would be really familiar with that engine. aviadigitel (perm) is still making a variant of it for civilian liners and also remaining foxhounds.

its 150kN wet thrust would solve the agility issue vs AL31 family...
No it wont. It is an old engine with a T:W ratio of around 3 or 4 or so. With that kind of weight, this plane will be a King Kong in terms of weight and shoot up close to 50 tons , if it need to carry a decent fuel and weapons load.

Just a nitpick, the afterburning version would have a T:W of over 6.

But otherwise in complete agreement with Vina here. Nobody would build a plane today with those engines.

The nozzles on this plane look like those of the AL-31.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Jan 2011 00:02

BTW, from the pak-fa thread there is a zip file which states what kind of engine might be it.. J20 may get the 147kN 117S (export variant)?

wen · Post by **wen** » 03 Jan 2011 07:11

Kanson wrote:
We can say PRC is not the only one having BM as anti-ship weapon. But ASBM is not a versatile solution for the problem. It is an extreme solution for a peculiar problem just like US intention of using Trident ICBM for killing terrorists.
American response:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 050609.xml
At the U.S. Navy League exhibition in Washington this month, Raytheon Missile Systems will unveil an upgrade to the BGM/UGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV land-attack cruise missile that will make it a multirole weapon capable of hitting moving ships. The package has four elements: An active electronically scanned array, millimeter-wave seeker provides target acquisition and homing; a passive electronic surveillance system is for long-range acquisition and identification; the 1,000-lb. blast-fragmentation warhead is replaced by a shaped charge; and the two-way data link gets more bandwidth.

The missile is designed to kill or disable large, hardened warships in difficult environments such as littoral waters, over a greater range than Boeing’s Harpoon/Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM), the U.S. Navy’s standard antiship missile. The Raytheon warhead is twice as large as SLAM’s, and the 900-naut.-mi. range is six times greater. This is not an antipirate weapon, and it is not hard to guess which navy is the most likely target.
and

Long range anti ship cruise missile to be designed by Lockheed Martin for DARPA
the LRASM concept seeks to reduce dependence on precision intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sources, data links, and GPS satellite navigation and guidance by demonstrating advanced onboard missile sensor and missile processing capabilities, which will enable precision engagement of moving ships based only on course and initial target cueing in extremely hostile environments.

The new anti-ship missile and its associated missile electronics will provide Navy warships like the guided missile cruiser with the ability to attack important enemy ships outside the ranges of the enemy's ability to respond with anti-ship missiles of its own.
It is not hard to guess the intended target/nation. Min. range of this new Anti-ship missile in development could well be more than 1500 km.

And from the available information, range of DF-21C is the same 1700 km (900 nautical mi.) only.

A priniciple technique difficult of the developing very long range anti-ship (as contrast to anti-land taget) missiles is locate and tracking the target in the high sea since the ship is movable, it should be noted that mid-course closed-loop trajectory corrections are needed.

Tracking some movable target in high sea requires a lot of techiniques, thats why China today deploy advanced OTH radar, sea-survey satelliates, long-range unmanned aircraft to develop a robust detect/guidance system for long-range anti-ship warfare.

As for the missile itself, cruise missiles are nowhere near efficient as anti-ship ballatic missile when it come to attack an air-carrier.

Lets do some simple maths:

1, In terms of explosive damage, China's C-602 (roughly the same size/weight as tomhawk missile) is 1/5 of that of a DF-21C (2000 kg payload), meanwhile, the biggest anti-ship supersonic cruise missile in the world, Soviet's P-700, get 1/3 of the payload of DF-21C.

2, More importantly, in terms of impact damage, thanks to roughly 10X faster speed and 2X heavier (the warhead of DF-21C >2000 kg, meanwhile, during the terminal phase, C-602 only has a weight around <700 kg), DF-21C can inflicat a impact damage which is equal to 300 C-602/tomahawk missiles hit the ship at the same time on the same spot, or roughly 15-20 Soviet's P700 hit the ship at the same time on the same spot.

3, For a tomahawk-like missile, it takes ~2 hours to travel over 1500-2000 km, for a DF-21C/D-like, it may only take ~10 mintiues, thats a night and day difference, for these low-speed cruise missile, it may need the long-range tracking/locating system to provide 20-30 times updates to adjust its trajectory, meanwhile for a DF-21C/D-like, it may take as low as 1-2 times udpates of the target position to adjust its trajectory during mid-course, thanks to the much faster speed and much higher payload(hence the possiblity to accommodate a far more powerful radar for the active-seeking terminal phase guidance).

Therefore, Anti-Ship Ballastic Missiles, will pose a far more serious and far more creditable threat to heavy air-carriers than any cruise missiles.

For a DF-21C/D etc, if it can hit a heavy air-carrier for once, it may inflict a damage to render the carrier beyond repairable due to the critical structral damage it made thanks to the huge impact, not to mention it could cancel the attack capability of the AC immedicately (no possible way to repair for the aircrafts to take-off or landing on the ship anymore).

When mulitple DF-21C/Ds hit a heavy air-carrier, it may sink the ship if being lucky.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Jan 2011 07:13

Folks I may be completelywrong, but why do SDRE dhoti-shivering Indians cry soi much for changing the intakes of their SDRE baby LCA? It's not such a big deal is it?

See how easily the Chinese change intakes - almost as frequently as a Paki brigadier may rape someone. The Chinese have shifted wholesale to DSI?

Old J-10 Intake:

New J-10 Intake

Old JF-17 intake

New JF-17 intake

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Jan 2011 07:19

wen wrote:
Tracking some movable target in high sea requires a lot of techiniques, thats why China today deploy advanced OTH radar, sea-survey satelliates, long-range unmanned aircraft to develop a robust detect/guidance system for long-range anti-ship warfare.

As for the missile itself, cruise missiles are nowhere near efficient as anti-ship ballatic missile when it come to attack an air-carrier.

Lets do some simple maths:

Sir. Balls to the math - everyone knows that.

Please answer two simple questions:
1) How does anyone send commands to a warhead that is glowing at 1500 deg C like any re entry vehicle.
2) How will the warhead respond to those commands? With aerodynamic surfaces that are glowing at 1500 deg C?

Note that the stupid Americans cannot even communicate with their space shuttle during re entry because a cloud of ionizing gas around that monster stops signals from passing through. Are the Chinese using Sun Tzu's ghost to communicate?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jan 2011 07:24

I had the same question why does every new Chinese intake design i.e. J-20,J-10B and JF-17 have DSI , they seem to have standardised in DSI type intake , any reason ?

From what I have read on internet DSI has no moving parts but it would restrict the Max speed to 1.8.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Jan 2011 07:30

Austin wrote:I had the same question why does every new Chinese intake design i.e. J-20,J-10B and JF-17 have DSI , they seem to have standardised in DSI type intake , any reason ?

From what I have read on internet DSI has no moving parts but it would restrict the Max speed to 1.8.

Austin - forget all that and look at it in this way. All aircraft other than gliders depend on the engine to keep it flying. Engines are sensitive to changes in airflow and so intakes have to be designed with great caution. Even after that the performance of the engine with new intakes has to be tested thoroughly under all possible flight circumstances. That takes time. And unless that time is spent there will be surprise accidents. There is definitely some funny business going on here.

wen · Post by **wen** » 03 Jan 2011 07:36

shiv wrote: Please answer two simple questions:
1) How does anyone send commands to a warhead that is glowing at 1500 deg C like any re entry vehicle.

2) How will the warhead respond to those commands? With aerodynamic surfaces that are glowing at 1500 deg C?

Just in case if you don't know, for a ballastic missile, its mid-course trajectory is in space.

wen · Post by **wen** » 03 Jan 2011 07:40

Austin wrote:I had the same question why does every new Chinese intake design i.e. J-20,J-10B and JF-17 have DSI , they seem to have standardised in DSI type intake , any reason ?

From what I have read on internet DSI has no moving parts but it would restrict the Max speed to 1.8.

J-10B is a multi-role striker variation of J-10, so top-speed is not a concern.

For FC-1, again, its a cheap multirole figther/striker which get a top speed of Mach 1.8 or so.

As for J-20, appanerantly the J-20's intake contain movable parts, its a combination of DSI and some movable parts to cancel the disadvantage of DSI.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Jan 2011 07:41

What a drag!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Jan 2011 07:48

wen wrote:
Just in case if you don't know, for a ballastic missile, its mid-course trajectory is in space.

Sir. That is funny.

Please let us now use your simple math

Assume space is 50 km up - 50,000 meters

A warhead at 6 mach will be travelling at 2000 meters per second

At 6 mach it will take 25 seconds to hit the US carrier after its last course update

In that 25 seconds the US carrier will be more than 500 meters away from the calculated point of imapct.

I put it to you that you are bluffing and you have not thought this thing through. Maybe good for Chini jingo forums but you need to do better than that on here. TIA

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jan 2011 08:13

wen wrote:Just in case if you don't know, for a ballastic missile, its mid-course trajectory is in space.

My 2 cents on ASBM based on what I have read

> ASBM is a hypersonic boost glide vehical with speed greater then Mach 5 and less then Mach 7 and a trajectory of 40 - 50 km which is very high altitude ( definately not space which is >100 km ) ( Note: above Mach 7 plasma is formed making RF communication impossible )
> It takes the advantage of travelling high and fast to the target ( typical of old Soviet missile like Kh-22 and new 32 ) and most likely relies on RF seeker to discriminate ships or if its sophisticated and RF has SAR/ISAR mode can discriminate class of ship among ships ( CBG vs Destroyer )
> Should rely on accurate and real time intelligence to know enemy position like moving ships , its an area denial weapon to be used in Chinese backyard and not to target 600 km away ships in open ocean.
> Once its identifies the target , typically at 40 km altitude its radar should be capable of tracking about 200 plus km its locks and dives in the target at high supersonic speed or even hypersonic.

Disadvantage
> Since it spends most of the time in air 40 - 50 km it is easier to track even though it has speed , against a clear blue sky as background , making tracking and interception easier with right missile, compared to anti ship missile which can travel low and can use multiple direction to the target making tracking difficult against sea background and other targets and multipath effect.
> It is limited in the ways it can be deployed which is Ground to Sea.
> Needs realtime intelligence to be effective.

vina · Post by **vina** » 03 Jan 2011 08:30

shiv wrote:Austin - forget all that and look at it in this way. All aircraft other than gliders depend on the engine to keep it flying. Engines are sensitive to changes in airflow and so intakes have to be designed with great caution. Even after that the performance of the engine with new intakes has to be tested thoroughly under all possible flight circumstances. That takes time. And unless that time is spent there will be surprise accidents.

Nothing "funny" going on here. For the Bandar, the original intake design was F*cked up, there were serious control problems. So it went for a wholesale redesign, since the original was no good, so a new intake was put in, along with bigger leading edge strakes, bigger control surfaces in the back etc.

For the J-10 , again, it suffered multiple problems during development (including collapse of the inlet tunnel lips, which was strengthened later, see the rod like things connecting that to the fuselage bottom?), and then topa-maar chini chaap (ie, copied and branded as Chinese) Al-31 version (whatever they call it in Chinese) would have been tried for the J-10 to make it fully "indigenous" and exportable . Now with new engine why not new intake , while doing away with problematic old one.

There is definitely some funny business going on here.

Oh the only thing funny here is this. You see Sun Tzutiapati will never allow them to admit for H&D purposes why it was done. They will present it as a "gleat accomprishment" and very advanced and very "imbrooved" (Eqyoob TM). It is sort of like that comical Segway riding sharpshooters showcased for the Beijing olympics .. it is impossible to do both, you are better off sitting on a horse if you want to be mobile, the horse watches where it is going and while you can shoot , but Sun Tzutiapati is bothered more about show and H&D rather than reality.. if anyone watched that and wasn't amused, I can only guess that it must be the cowed domestic Chinese population.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 03 Jan 2011 09:15

shiv wrote:
wen wrote:
Just in case if you don't know, for a ballastic missile, its mid-course trajectory is in space.
Sir. That is funny.

Please let us now use your simple math

Assume space is 50 km up - 50,000 meters

A warhead at 6 mach will be travelling at 2000 meters per second

At 6 mach it will take 25 seconds to hit the US carrier after its last course update

In that 25 seconds the US carrier will be more than 500 meters away from the calculated point of imapct.

I put it to you that you are bluffing and you have not thought this thing through. Maybe good for Chini jingo forums but you need to do better than that on here. TIA

This is the last missing piece that puzzles me too. After all of this OTH/ISAR/UAV/IR based detection and tracking business (giving them the benefit of doubt that they can somehow make all of this work in the given time and heat challenges), what keeps the ship from simply moving away from the BM trajectory. PRC cannot just think, that an adversary's CBG or ships will not have the assets needed to track such launches and the ships are blind to the incoming threat?

I am guessing, these missiles can be intercepted by BMD shields?