PDA

View Full Version : China's 5th generation fighter?



Ferry_vO
December 29th, 2010, 05:45
Only a few photos, no further info..:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Ferror/Diversen/jxx2.jpg

:mixedsmi:

stansdds
December 29th, 2010, 15:59
Looks a lot like a F-22 on steroids.

Allen
December 29th, 2010, 19:13
Looks a lot like a F-22 on steroids.

Not so much..

Looks like a Mig 1.44, Su-47 and F-22 blened up. May be some Mig 31 in there too.

OBIO
December 29th, 2010, 19:18
I think it's one seriously ugly aircraft. But then again, not many jets made after the Vietnam War have any character in their design....in my opinion at any rate.

OBIO

Allen
December 29th, 2010, 19:33
I think it's one seriously ugly aircraft. But then again, not many jets made after the Vietnam War have any character in their design....in my opinion at any rate.

OBIO

No love for the YF-23?

TARPSBird
December 29th, 2010, 22:00
Seeing as how our Wal-Mart purchases are paying for their aircraft development I wish they'd come up with something more original. :rolleyes:

Allen
December 30th, 2010, 00:38
Seeing as how our Wal-Mart purchases are paying for their aircraft development I wish they'd come up with something more original. :rolleyes:

Epic burn... but

After all, All China dose is make copies of things other people already made at half the price! Why should there planes be any different!

Cees Donker
December 30th, 2010, 00:58
This is on the verge of getting political...

Cees

stansdds
December 30th, 2010, 02:24
Seeing as how our Wal-Mart purchases are paying for their aircraft development I wish they'd come up with something more original. :rolleyes:
ROTFLMAO!!!!!

centuryseries
December 30th, 2010, 02:34
People may think that they are copying designs, but I see it differently. Given that radar beams across the world all behave similarly, it is possible that there are only a few ways to design a plane that reflects or absorbs radar energy.

I see it like the Honda Insight Hybrid car has a very similar aerodynamic side profile to the Toyota Prius. Both driven by the need to cut emissions they have both come up with very similar designs in terms of drag efficiency. The same can be quite true of radar.

deathfromafar
December 30th, 2010, 02:46
It was coming but this is just the tip of the iceberg. It doesn't have to be superior or even level to the F-22 or F-35. If it's roughly in the ballpark and they build several hundred to or over 1000 of them, 188 F-22's isn't enough even with the numbers of F-35's that may be built. China can turn out vast numbers of heavy manufactured equipment at far below the cost of what the West pays for far less numberwise. Word is, they are working on a low observable global bomber which in addition to their newer solid fuel mobile ICBM's would be a game changer. I'm not going to be at all dismissive of what they may be up to in terms of long term strategy and production capability. Especially considering their openly hostile tone at times and the fact their war planning that was revealed doesn't contain any olive branches for the West. The 15 years I helped part time in a private firm with advanced strategic studies on China showed many troubling trends. This project and many other things are worth keeping an eye on.

bearcat241
December 30th, 2010, 02:56
Given that radar beams across the world all behave similarly, it is possible that there are only a few ways to design a plane that reflects or absorbs radar energy.

...the American answer to that fact -- the TR-3B Stryker II (Black Manta) Stealth...uhh, sorry, it really doesn't exist yet (wink wink): http://www.darkgovernment.com/tr3b.html

But if it did exist (wink), it would be 10th-gen compared to the anti-radar capabilities of this J20/XX knockoff. And i won't even bother with comparing flight performance specs.:isadizzy:

XLR8
December 30th, 2010, 11:03
No love for the YF-23?



I read in a magazine a couple of months ago where the 2 prototypes were moved from where they were for a possible retool.

Allen
December 30th, 2010, 14:46
This is on the verge of getting political...

Cees

I ment nothing political about it. I was puting out my one or two liner there.


I read in a magazine a couple of months ago where the 2 prototypes were moved from where they were for a possible retool.

I hope they go back and look at the F-23.

N2056
December 30th, 2010, 17:33
I wonder how much melamine and cardboard is in that thing...:kilroy:

Allen
December 30th, 2010, 19:13
I wonder how much melamine and cardboard is in that thing...:kilroy:

lead and cadmium too... or is that only in the models they will export?:kilroy:

Lionheart
December 30th, 2010, 19:41
It does look very high tech in my opinion. How can they have gone that high tech in just 10 years? Remember, they also now have a space program.

How it flies will say all.

wombat666
December 31st, 2010, 08:56
As one who has dealt with the Chinese (only because if you don't and you're in a competitive market, it becomes a non-issue because you are 'out of business') 'originality' is not in their lexicon.
However, give them a working product, be it a humble Life Jacket or an up market Electronic whatever, not only will you get a decent product at a very competitive price, if you have specified EXACTLY how and what improvements you require, the end result is satisfactory.

India is much the same except they are far better businessmen and indeed, tend to apply some genuine innovations in specialised areas.

We don't like it but it is a fact of 21st Century Life.
For myself, as the marine business is no longer of interest to me due to my younger brother having a stroke, I'm very happy not flying in and out of Shanghai.
:ernae:

FlyingFinn
January 9th, 2011, 11:59
I don't think that it'll be very agile. It doesn't seem to utilize thrust vectoring like the russian MiG/Sukhoi platforms or F22/F35 do. I believe it's more of a high speed interceptor with long range.

Bjoern
January 10th, 2011, 13:15
It does look very high tech in my opinion. How can they have gone that high tech in just 10 years? Remember, they also now have a space program.

Money <-> know-how




I don't think that it'll be very agile. It doesn't seem to utilize thrust vectoring like the russian MiG/Sukhoi platforms or F22/F35 do. I believe it's more of a high speed interceptor with long range.

Or a fighter-bomber.



Love your avatar; by the way. "Scandinavia and the world" is cool. :d

wiltzei
January 11th, 2011, 21:32
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uvJTB_Zo9lY?rel=0&amp;hd=1" frameborder="0"></iframe>

wiltzei
January 23rd, 2011, 10:20
"China's new stealth fighter may use US technology" (http://tinyurl.com/5wg4qbz)

XLR8
January 24th, 2011, 08:46
The more I read about this plane the more I believe its a stealthy Foxbat.

Toastmaker
January 24th, 2011, 12:56
. . . Or a foxy StealthBat - who knows what they'll call it ?


:running:

Bjoern
January 24th, 2011, 13:14
. . . Or a foxy StealthBat - who knows what they'll call it ?


:running:

In chinese, it'll be just a symbol, the translation will be something like "The wind that swept over the Yang-Tse and summoned the dragon on a moonless night in the year of the tiger." :d

TARPSBird
January 24th, 2011, 15:08
OK, so not only can it taxi, it can fly too. :rolleyes: I am still not convinced that it's a legit advanced prototype and not just a demo mock-up. All this media leakage, videos from outside the airfield perimeter, etc. I smell a mackerel, as in disinformation campaign.

Willy
January 24th, 2011, 15:11
OK, so not only can it taxi, it can fly too. :rolleyes: I am still not convinced that it's a legit advanced prototype and not just a demo mock-up. All this media leakage, videos from outside the airfield perimeter, etc. I smell a mackerel, as in disinformation campaign.

Same here

Allen
January 24th, 2011, 17:20
"China's new stealth fighter may use US technology" (http://tinyurl.com/5wg4qbz)

Paging Captain Obvious, Paging Captain Obvious thanks you!

I got $20 the FA-PAK dose too.

Also with Willy. It a flying mock-up nothing more.

deathfromafar
January 24th, 2011, 18:23
OK, so not only can it taxi, it can fly too. :rolleyes: I am still not convinced that it's a legit advanced prototype and not just a demo mock-up. All this media leakage, videos from outside the airfield perimeter, etc. I smell a mackerel, as in disinformation campaign.

It's very real but in the sense that it's like what the YF-22A prototype was before the F-22A became finalized. Inside information from Jane's and one of my old DARPA partners say the tooling and integral systems for the J-20 are truly 5th Gen. Right now, it lacks a Radar set, Fire Control, and other outfittings to make it anything other than a base airframe to demonstrate proof of concept. On one of the videos, you can see the control surfaces moving. That was clear indication of advanced quadruplex fbw flight control systems. As to it not having thrust vectoring, that could end up being an option later in the production version since it uses AL-31F engines anyway but judging from the significant amount of aerodynamic surface area, I tend to believe adding systems for thrust vectoring is likely a waste of time and weight on the aircraft.

This plane isn't the end of their stealth ambitions. Rumors persist that there is a global stealth bomber in the works as well. I'm not going to rule anything out after so many people in our aerospace and intelligence apparatus said this plane's first flight was not going to happen until 2018 to 2020 or that it would never happen at all.
:salute:

Lionheart
January 24th, 2011, 20:33
Leaps and bounds.. Leaps and bounds..

deathfromafar
January 24th, 2011, 21:38
Besides the belief that China & Russia benefited from the remains of the F-117 shot down in 1999,
this guy was another who helped them obtain Stealth secrets, a former B-2A engineer:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/ap_on_re_us/us_china_spy_case

China also developed a Stealth Cruise Missile with help from this guy.

Bjoern
January 25th, 2011, 13:00
Besides the belief that China & Russia benefited from the remains of the F-117 shot down in 1999,
this guy was another who helped them obtain Stealth secrets, a former B-2A engineer:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/ap_on_re_us/us_china_spy_case

China also developed a Stealth Cruise Missile with help from this guy.

Happened before; will happen again.


But just $110000?

Gee, that guy was *cheap*!

TARPSBird
January 25th, 2011, 13:28
Happened before; will happen again.
But just $110000? Gee, that guy was *cheap*!
Most of these traitors sell out for way less than the value of the information they provide. I hope the guy dies in prison.

n4gix
January 25th, 2011, 14:02
The defense argued Gowadia only provided unclassified information to China and was innocent.


That "defense" fails any sanity check. Why would anyone pay for "unclassified information?"

deathfromafar
January 25th, 2011, 14:09
Most of these traitors sell out for way less than the value of the information they provide. I hope the guy dies in prison.

Yes, like John Walker and his bunch. The damage he did was massive. Unforgivable!

Allen
January 25th, 2011, 15:10
That "defense" fails any sanity check. Why would anyone pay for "unclassified information?"

Just for the fun of it....

Have you ever tryed to get any thing from the Gov that was unclassified? Every 2-3 month I read how some had to sue to get to get unclassified information about any thing. Just because it unclassified information dosn't mean that you can just get it. The Gov will stone wall you if they want no mater what.

deathfromafar
January 25th, 2011, 17:20
Just for the fun of it....

Have you ever tryed to get any thing from the Gov that was unclassified? Every 2-3 month I read how some had to sue to get to get unclassified information about any thing. Just because it unclassified information dosn't mean that you can just get it. The Gov will stone wall you if they want no mater what.

Allen, you have a good point. I have had to jump through many hoops to get FOI requests granted just to get details about family members who were killed in action in various locations. And that was with me being former Military and Civilian DARPA with a host of clearances. But on the other hand, on many occasions, there have been so called "unintended leaks" or transfers of extremely sensitive technologies directly into foreign hands. It's the nature of the Govt machine. The security tarp cover is only so big and only as good as it's gate keepers and quite honestly, I wouldn't trust some of those gate keepers to watch my house & it's contents!

Allen
January 25th, 2011, 19:43
That "defense" fails any sanity check. Why would anyone pay for "unclassified information?"

An to go on this subject again...

Do you think the Gov will just hand unclassified information about Stealth tech to a Chinese in a sute and tie and not know what was going on?

We all know this would not happen. This is why people will pay for unclassified information.

Bjoern
January 26th, 2011, 04:39
We all know this would not happen. This is why people will pay for unclassified information.

...for everything else, there's Wikileaks.


SCNR

Allen
January 26th, 2011, 13:26
http://www.wineberserkers.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif

wiltzei
January 28th, 2011, 03:27
"Chinese TV May Have Used Top Gun Footage as Real-Life Air Force Footage" (http://www.geekosystem.com/chinese-tv-top-gun-footage/)

centuryseries
January 28th, 2011, 11:23
The theory behind stealth technology at least in the F-117's case is out there already. China has many scientists and mathematicians who could work it out for themselves.

Just because the US was the first to exploit the maths behind it all, doesn't mean to say that other countries can't figure it out for themselves!! Especially given todays computing power.

Allen
January 28th, 2011, 15:20
"Chinese TV May Have Used Top Gun Footage as Real-Life Air Force Footage" (http://www.geekosystem.com/chinese-tv-top-gun-footage/)

Now there just being lazy. Iran would have photoshoped it at least.....

deathfromafar
January 28th, 2011, 16:03
The theory behind stealth technology at least in the F-117's case is out there already. China has many scientists and mathematicians who could work it out for themselves.

Just because the US was the first to exploit the maths behind it all, doesn't mean to say that other countries can't figure it out for themselves!! Especially given todays computing power.

China could not come up with the technology and manufacturing techniques of the previous J-10 Fighter and it's engines on their own. They had to borrow the IAI Lavi fighter from Israel and the AL-31F tooling from Russia to make that project a reality. But I give them credit for making a truly advanced copy based on a working design and tooling up their industry to meet the demands of that. Time & $$$ saved.

The geometry behind Stealth is only part of the puzzle. The manufacturing techniques and highly specialized materials used in Stealth are not so easily copied. That's not to mention the delicate interfacing of systems and avionics that if not done correctly can literally neutralize the advantages normally gained in Stealth techniques. Until recently and after over 30+ years of the US being the only builder and operator of Stealth Combat Aircraft, suddenly both Russian and China build two prototypes 12 years after the F-117 loss/materials recovery and known cases of espionage from workers who had access to sensitive information. Even in those two prototypes, there are very obvious signs that there are major pieces of the puzzle missing for them but at least now they are in the game albeit at entry level. That in itself cannot be ignored or dismissed.

centuryseries
January 29th, 2011, 02:52
Until recently and after over 30+ years of the US being the only builder and operator of Stealth Combat Aircraft, suddenly both Russian and China build two prototypes 12 years after the F-117 loss/materials recovery and known cases of espionage from workers who had access to sensitive information. Even in those two prototypes, there are very obvious signs that there are major pieces of the puzzle missing for them but at least now they are in the game albeit at entry level. That in itself cannot be ignored or dismissed.

While everyone is harping on about the Russians and Chinese being handed information from defectors or from espionage, lets not forget that the US built up it's space program and furthered it's aircraft design from WW2 German scientists. (Along with the British).

This sort of espionage is clearly not a new thing.

But I also need to inject the fact that China has massive manufacturing potential. Indeed the Microsoft keyboard I'm typing this message on was made in China along with so many other items in my house.

You shouldn't underestimate the fact that a country that manufactures for a global market cannot come up with it's own designs.

China is on the verge, or perhaps is already a global super power.

While these designs are fledgling designs, they don't look like the F-117, nor F-22 or even the F-35 - therefore we cannot assume that they have copied the principles and radar absorbing materials that drove those designs.

Overwhelming numbers are a match for stealth technology - and China is big enough to field overwhelming numbers, just like Russia used to be.

Bjoern
January 29th, 2011, 08:30
Now there just being lazy. Iran would have photoshoped it at least.....

http://i54.tinypic.com/15hgyuf.jpg

:icon_lol:

deathfromafar
January 29th, 2011, 11:05
While these designs are fledgling designs, they don't look like the F-117, nor F-22 or even the F-35 - therefore we cannot assume that they have copied the principles and radar absorbing materials that drove those designs.

Overwhelming numbers are a match for stealth technology - and China is big enough to field overwhelming numbers, just like Russia used to be.

Overwhelming numbers can easily translate to overwhelming piles of scrap metal if employed poorly. That has been demonstrated quite well several times already without Stealth added into the mix.

The designs(the T-50 & J-20) show some obvious parallels to the F-22/35 and even the F-117 even though the designs are different. The data they have acquired from different sources helped them get to the baseline segment of actually building their designs and getting them into the air. But there is a lot more distance to go. Building these type of airframes and the requirement of exotic materials and processes is far more demanding than conventional airframes. I'd say their current benchmarks are about where we were in the mid to late 80's. If they cut corners and build them in numbers, then the effectiveness will likely be far below what should be expected of a 5th Generation Fighter. If either Russia or China take the time to get it right(which will take time), then the costs will go up and the affordability & numbers will go down. We already know Sukhoi is reporting that the T-50 is likely to undergo prolonged delays and the costs may double. Last report was that the total number to be built may drop down to 150 from the planned 250. The thing to keep an eye on with China's J-20 is how fast they produce and test succeeding prototypes and what changes may occur in the outward appearance. This will be very telling on what the project's end game may be.

crashaz
January 29th, 2011, 11:53
Global superpower phooey. The Chinese Navy couldn't get out of the East China Sea.... admirals here have been playing up the "carrier-killer" missile for appropriations in my mind. Nothing trumps a Carrier Battle Group. Our subs are still the best.

Bone
January 29th, 2011, 12:06
Alot of discussion (academic) on the chinese fighters, but what are they going to do with them? Are these airframes just going to have a flat-line existence all the way into obsolescence, like every other fighter they've had over the last 50 years? Uselessly fly them into uselessness?

Taiwan, the Spratley Islands, and maybe Vietnam would be the only targets China could possibly have. (I'll leave out the Korea's, because China would have to go through the North to get to the South, and could easily wind up bogged down in the totally good for nothing North...that would be an oops for them.) But rolling over Taiwan, the Spratleys, or Vietnam would be more trouble than it's worth. With the exception of the Spratleys and their oil, there would be no point of value. Bringing the two China's back together? Increasing land holdings vis-a-vis Vietnam? There would really be no viable gains for China in any agrression scenario. If China did roll into the Spratleys, they would have quite a number of enemies to face, so the gain just wouldn't be worth the pain.

deathfromafar
January 29th, 2011, 12:58
Alot of discussion (academic) on the chinese fighters, but what are they going to do with them? Are these airframes just going to have a flat-line existence all the way into obsolescence, like every other fighter they've had over the last 50 years? Uselessly fly them into uselessness?

Taiwan, the Spratley Islands, and maybe Vietnam would be the only targets China could possibly have. (I'll leave out the Korea's, because China would have to go through the North to get to the South, and could easily wind up bogged down in the totally good for nothing North...that would be an oops for them.) But rolling over Taiwan, the Spratleys, or Vietnam would be more trouble than it's worth. With the exception of the Spratleys and their oil, there would be no point of value. Bringing the two China's back together? Increasing land holdings vis-a-vis Vietnam? There would really be no viable gains for China in any agrression scenario. If China did roll into the Spratleys, they would have quite a number of enemies to face, so the gain just wouldn't be worth the pain.

Bone, that is precisely what I used to say when I sat in discussion groups dating back 20 years. We looked at it frontwards and backwards and sideways. I stood steadfastly on every remark you just made. Our group discussion was centered primarily on the possible retaking of Taiwan and Korean Peninsula response. Less than 2 decades ago, PRC Air Forces had one of the lowest mission readiness and regeneration rates of any air force in the world. We're talking day long or longer regeneration rates. They had so many aircraft(all obsolete) that they could keep multiple groups staged while some flew. When recovery of a flight was made, those would rotate to "back of the line" so to speak while the staged aircraft would launch. The system they used was highly vulnerable in more ways than one and their logistical system for Ground and Sea Forces wasn't much better. But since that time, China has started to follow a doctrine that is more like Western Military capability and they have reduced the bloated and ineffective size they used to be at to more practical means and gradually with better equipment. But I have taken notice that some of their advanced and fielded pieces of ground equipment like the Type 99 Tank for example have been limited to small numbers due to high costs and upgrading previous versions. They still have a long way to go to flush out all the obsolete segments and modernize but they will be in a far different position before this decade is out.

What does it all mean? Truth is, we don't know. As always, we have a zero percent rate of accurately predicting future aggressions. We can only do our best to be prepared for what might suddenly become a stark reality in the future. I still contend that China is coming out more and more and pushing their weight the same. There's no major regional threat to them which leaves the question of their true intentions in the region and with their military buildup(modernization). When they openly assert the US is a Superpower in decline and impose their will on neighboring nations, it's quite possibly a sign of things to come. I take the safe road and not assume anything. Everything is subject to change and often when we least expect it.

centuryseries
January 30th, 2011, 05:07
Bone, that is precisely what I used to say when I sat in discussion groups dating back 20 years. We looked at it frontwards and backwards and sideways. I stood steadfastly on every remark you just made. Our group discussion was centered primarily on the possible retaking of Taiwan and Korean Peninsula response. Less than 2 decades ago, PRC Air Forces had one of the lowest mission readiness and regeneration rates of any air force in the world. We're talking day long or longer regeneration rates. They had so many aircraft(all obsolete) that they could keep multiple groups staged while some flew. When recovery of a flight was made, those would rotate to "back of the line" so to speak while the staged aircraft would launch. The system they used was highly vulnerable in more ways than one and their logistical system for Ground and Sea Forces wasn't much better. But since that time, China has started to follow a doctrine that is more like Western Military capability and they have reduced the bloated and ineffective size they used to be at to more practical means and gradually with better equipment. But I have taken notice that some of their advanced and fielded pieces of ground equipment like the Type 99 Tank for example have been limited to small numbers due to high costs and upgrading previous versions. They still have a long way to go to flush out all the obsolete segments and modernize but they will be in a far different position before this decade is out.

What does it all mean? Truth is, we don't know. As always, we have a zero percent rate of accurately predicting future aggressions. We can only do our best to be prepared for what might suddenly become a stark reality in the future. I still contend that China is coming out more and more and pushing their weight the same. There's no major regional threat to them which leaves the question of their true intentions in the region and with their military buildup(modernization). When they openly assert the US is a Superpower in decline and impose their will on neighboring nations, it's quite possibly a sign of things to come. I take the safe road and not assume anything. Everything is subject to change and often when we least expect it.

Points very well put.

To Crashaz, I'm talking about global superpower in terms of manufacturing and economic growth as opposed to military superpower.

So much stuff is made in China these days. You go to London for a holiday by a souvenir of London look at the bottom and it says "Made in China" lol

Bjoern
January 30th, 2011, 15:49
Alot of discussion (academic) on the chinese fighters, but what are they going to do with them? Are these airframes just going to have a flat-line existence all the way into obsolescence, like every other fighter they've had over the last 50 years? Uselessly fly them into uselessness?

Wouldn't that be the best case scenario?

After all, everything in the nuclear department fielded since "Mushroom Cloud Day" #1 and #2 over Japan hasn't been used in anger. That stuff just stood around in its silos or dusted away in storages just to be scrapped a few (dozen) years later.

After all, arms of all kind aren't meant to be used. They're just there for deterrence.

Bone
January 30th, 2011, 16:07
Wouldn't that be the best case scenario?

After all, everything in the nuclear department fielded since "Mushroom Cloud Day" #1 and #2 over Japan hasn't been used in anger. That stuff just stood around in its silos or dusted away in storages just to be scrapped a few (dozen) years later.

After all, arms of all kind aren't meant to be used. They're just there for deterrence.

Yes, we certainly aren't itching for anyone to use their weapons systems.