Chinese delegation sent to Russia to discuss stealth fighter engine

[HariPrasad]

A Chinese delegation was last month sent to the plant of the Moscow Machine-building Production Association, a Russian engine manufacturer also known as Salyut or Salut, to discuss cooperation on the development of the engine for the Chengdu J-20, China's first stealth fighter, the Hong Kong-based Wen Wei Po reported on Nov. 11.

The visit of the Chinese delegation was first reported on Salyut's official website on Oct. 31. The delegation was led by Xu Qiliang, the vice chairman of the Central Military Commission of the Communist Party of China, according to the company's website, and was accompanied by Sergey Shoigu, Russia's defense minister. Vladislav Masalov, the general director of Salyut, stressed the importance of Russia's cooperation with China in developing the new aircraft engine.

With the permission of the Russian government, Xu and his delegation was allowed to visit Salyut's workshop, engine testing facility, production line and museum. Back in 2005, representatives from Beijing signed a contract worth US$300 million with Salyut to purchase 100 AL-31FN engines. It was the largest sale for Rosoboronexport, the state intermediary agency for Russia's exports/imports of defense-related and dual use products, technologies and services, in 2005. By 2006, another contract was signed between Salyut and Shenyang Liming Aero-Engine Group Corporation to produce engines for Chinese aircraft.

As the Chengdu J-20 does not as yet have an adequate engine, it is believed by many experts in Russia that the fighter is likely to be equipped with the more advanced AL-31FM1. Wen Wei Po said that through investing with Russia in an engine plant, China will eventually gain the know-how it needs to design its own high-performance engines in the future. In turn, the trade and investments will help Russia's

Chinese delegation sent to Russia to discuss stealth fighter engine｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com

Few days back, Chinese members were claiming that only Russia, China and US has the capability to build over 180 KN thrust engine. Now they are in Russia to bag it. Always Hollow claims, Always exaggeration about the chinese economy and defense. This has become a Chinese charecter now.

 

[Jlaw]

This is just another regurgitation of 'Chinese physics' where only when something is moving will it contribute to RCS. That mean under 'Chinese physics'...

...The above illustration so often used to each aspiring aviation engineers are applicable only to Western designed aircrafts, not Chinese ones.

This is exactly the reason why CDF is the intellectual desert it continues to be since the day it was created. 

Radar detection is half data processing and we are the world's best at it. We created 'stealth', not the Russians, and you can bet whatever salary you make that we already know how to detect any low observable fighter from any country. Sorry, but this is real physics, not 'Chinese physics'. 

We already have...

Hainan Island incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A smaller and more agile aircraft piloted by a mediocre (at best) pilot collided with a lumbering four engine prop jobber. That does not bode well for the reputation of the air force that owns the smaller and more agile fighter.

thanks 越南仔 for posting something from 2001.

 

[rcrmj]

Soviet Union inducted airborne PESA radars while Americans were still using mechanically scanned arrays. Yep, Chinese are closer.. from other side

that so called PESA mounted on your antique migs were more of face project than real meaning, Soviet stone age avionics made it obsolete to function.

 

[rcrmj]

BS news is famous 'insider' news that most Chinese accept blindly without even knowing the origins of the insider. This news is official, not something that some insider cooked up. It's on Solyut's official webpage.

based on your sheer ignorance on the landscape of Chinese defence forums in China, to say the least, the infos regarding J-20, 094, KJ-2000/200, UAV, 052D, 055 and even HQ-9 deal were leaked from them, when most foreign Chinese 'experts' considered those as delusion..
to the safest point, those 'insiders' are more reliable than clueless russian experts in those regards, this 'official' news can be as good as those tacky rumors from streets

 

[gambit]

Repeating a fallacy again and again doesn't make it true.

Take your own advice.

Mind giving a detailed explanation to this forum as to why canards disrupt stealth?

Disrupt 'stealth'?

First...What is 'stealth' is arbitrary to start. There is no agreed upon RCS value to qualify any aircraft as 'stealthy'. A clean F-16 is the unofficial standard for the threshold of what is 'stealth' -- BASED UPON THE CURRENT RADAR DETECTION TECHNOLOGY. What this mean is that when there comes a time when detecting a clean F-16 is as easy as detecting the Goodyear blimp on a clear day, there will be a new unofficial standard for 'stealth'.

Second...Based upon the first, your use of the word 'disrupt' is wrong. To 'disrupt' is to...

1. interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem.

What is 'stealthy' is not an event or a process but the achievement of reaching a threshold. Since I began to explain to the readers on this forum years ago, long before you came on, on the basics of radar detection and 'stealth', I have consistently use the words 'contributor' and 'contributorship' because they are the correct words to use in the controversial and often misunderstood subject of low radar observable designs.

Here is an example of the word 'contributor' and its relatives in this subject...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2760(19960405)11:5<247::AID-MOP3>3.0.CO;2-E/abstract

Abstract

In this article a technique is proposed to reduce the contribution from support structures during backscattered field measurements of objects. The contribution from support structures contaminates the backscattered field from objects with low radar cross-section (RCS) or stealth characteristics.

Nowhere have I used the word 'disrupt' to describe a structure in relation to radar cross section (RCS). Simply because it is technically -- WRONG.

I have always describe the J-20's canards, along with many other structures on many other aircrafts, as suspicious if the goal is to design a low radar observable body.

One such explanation is here...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction | Page 3

It is clear to all that post 39 is over your head since you persists to accuse me of describing the canards as 'disruptive'. Anyone with a reasonable intelligence and some level of technical education will see post 39 as legitimate basic explanation about this subject.

I'll get you started if you want.

Canards have a leading edge and a trailing edge.

Main wings have a leading edge and a trailing edge.

Horizontal stabilizers have a leading edge and a trailing edge.

And all of you guys learned that from me.

How do they differ from a RCS perspective?

Canards move.

But so can the F-22's stabilators.

How do they differ from a RCS perspective?

The difference depends on the radar view perspective. See if you can figure out why. But I doubt that you can. 

Your proud F-22 is a lame duck. It's just one of the failed projects in USAF history.

Till 19 Nov, 2013, 5 F-22 had crashed, in the sky, on runway, taking off or landing, anywhere, anytime. And, was rumoured shot down in Jordan and China.

Accidents/Flying hours ration is high, only 2nd after F-89 in the F-x range.

Even though they produced 1,029 F-89, a bad stuff. Good stuff like, F-15 @ 1,198, F-16 is uncountable, at least 4,500. They even deployed 223 C-17. But, F-22 only at 180+, and was absent in any real warfield.

And why?

I tell you why: it's the first generation main stealthy fighter, like IPhone 1, heavy, slow, short range.

As the first new generation fighter, nobody had the experience to balance stealth against maneuver. Resulting F-22 is not so steath, easy crashing.

It's just tooooooo old. Your understanding to the stealth is at least one generation obsoleted.

According to Maxwell's physics, electric and magnetic fields will not care it is called J-20 or F-22, canard or main wings.

That is amazing...

I did not know that the F-22 have large canards and small wings.

You cannot even properly ID the major structures of an aircraft and you are telling me that what I know of radar is 'obsoleted'. Probably the closest you ever came to an aircraft is looking at pictures.

 

[longlong]

Take your own advice.


Disrupt 'stealth'?

First...What is 'stealth' is arbitrary to start. There is no agreed upon RCS value to qualify any aircraft as 'stealthy'. A clean F-16 is the unofficial standard for the threshold of what is 'stealth' -- BASED UPON THE CURRENT RADAR DETECTION TECHNOLOGY. What this mean is that when there comes a time when detecting a clean F-16 is as easy as detecting the Goodyear blimp on a clear day, there will be a new unofficial standard for 'stealth'.

Second...Based upon the first, your use of the word 'disrupt' is wrong. To 'disrupt' is to...

1. interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem.

What is 'stealthy' is not an event or a process but the achievement of reaching a threshold. Since I began to explain to the readers on this forum years ago, long before you came on, on the basics of radar detection and 'stealth', I have consistently use the words 'contributor' and 'contributorship' because they are the correct words to use in the controversial and often misunderstood subject of low radar observable designs.

Here is an example of the word 'contributor' and its relatives in this subject...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2760(19960405)11:5<247::AID-MOP3>3.0.CO;2-E/abstract

Nowhere have I used the word 'disrupt' to describe a structure in relation to radar cross section (RCS). Simply because it is technically -- WRONG.

I have always describe the J-20's canards, along with many other structures on many other aircrafts, as suspicious if the goal is to design a low radar observable body.

One such explanation is here...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction | Page 3

It is clear to all that post 39 is over your head since you persists to accuse me of describing the canards as 'disruptive'. Anyone with a reasonable intelligence and some level of technical education will see post 39 as legitimate basic explanation about this subject.


And all of you guys learned that from me.


The difference depends on the radar view perspective. See if you can figure out why. But I doubt that you can. 

That is amazing...

I did not know that the F-22 have large canards and small wings.

You cannot even properly ID the major structures of an aircraft and you are telling me that what I know of radar is 'obsoleted'. Probably the closest you ever came to an aircraft is looking at pictures.

You pace is froze, too slow to catch up.

 

[gambit]

You pace is froze, too slow to catch up.

So say the man who could not properly identify major structures on an aircraft.

So according to the Chinese way of identifying major flight control surfaces, anything in front is a 'canard' and anything behind it is the 'wing'. That is why the F-22 have 'large canards' and 'small wings'.

Then how should we classify the B-2...

Is it a 'flying canard' or a 'flying wing'? How could we call it anything since there is nothing in front or behind?

This is why debating the Chinese members here about these technical issues are so much fun.

 

[Srinivas]

So say the man who could not properly identify major structures on an aircraft.

So according to the Chinese way of identifying major flight control surfaces, anything in front is a 'canard' and anything behind it is the 'wing'. That is why the F-22 have 'large canards' and 'small wings'.

Then how should we classify the B-2...

Is it a 'flying canard' or a 'flying wing'? How could we call it anything since there is nothing in front or behind?

This is why debating the Chinese members here about these technical issues are so much fun.

Hi Gambit,

I think J20 is less maneuverable and not suitable for dog fights, it is like a bomber or a hit and run fighter aircraft. Plus Chinese are dependent on Russians for engines and Radars.
They do have some awkward way of shooting missile.
Please Your thoughts in this regard.

 

[longlong]

So say the man who could not properly identify major structures on an aircraft.

So according to the Chinese way of identifying major flight control surfaces, anything in front is a 'canard' and anything behind it is the 'wing'. That is why the F-22 have 'large canards' and 'small wings'.

Then how should we classify the B-2...

Is it a 'flying canard' or a 'flying wing'? How could we call it anything since there is nothing in front or behind?

This is why debating the Chinese members here about these technical issues are so much fun.

You just can not understand. It's beyond your range.

As I said below the pic "According to Maxwell's physics, electric and magnetic fields will not care it is called J-20 or F-22, canard or main wings.", whatever you called (Oh, a N1 baby also know how to ID, you need not to show off), its just an object.

So the name is very important to you? Like it will state your class belong to?

B-2, however, whatever you call it, it is 1 (or 2) pair object less, it's more stealthy.

Now, I look down on your technical background if it does exist.

 

[zzzz]

that so called PESA mounted on your antique migs were more of face project than real meaning, Soviet stone age avionics made it obsolete to function.

Stone age avionics are something what China produced at that time. There are no doubts that your paper "AESA" radars as advanced as your "5-th generation" engines

 

[Beast]

Russian engine is cheap.

Stone age avionics are something what China produced at that time. There are no doubts that your paper "AESA" radars as advanced as your "5-th generation" engines

Russian until now still do not have a operational AESA AWACS. If China avionics is stone age, Russian is 10 times worst

China has operational phased array destroyer and aircraft carrier and Russian got none.

Your chest thumping will bring you no where. Accept the reality that China technology is far superior than you. 

Few days back, Chinese members were claiming that only Russia, China and US has the capability to build over 180 KN thrust engine. Now they are in Russia to bag it. Always Hollow claims, Always exaggeration about the chinese economy and defense. This has become a Chinese charecter now.

Even until now China still has a 180KN engine on J-20. Fancy the Indian jump at any smearing about China wanted to buy 117S engine. The report just mention China delegate visit the factory and Russian and Indian are desperate to paint this event as China wanted to buy more advanced engine.

May you point me where the link and official agreement between China and Russian signed about buying 117S engine?

You must be plain jealous of China advancement.

 

[zzzz]

Russian engine is cheap.

Russian until now still do not have a operational AESA AWACS. If China avionics is stone age, Russian is 10 times worst

China has operational phased array destroyer and aircraft carrier and Russian got none.

Your chest thumping will bring you no where. Accept the reality that China technology is far superior than you.

Yep, Russia has not yet built new type of AWACS, destroyer, aircraft carrier and has only one type of 5-th gen fighter. According to Chinese logic that supposedly should mean that Russia is behind China in radars and engines

 

[j20blackdragon]

Disrupt 'stealth'?

Second...Based upon the first, your use of the word 'disrupt' is wrong. To 'disrupt' is to...

1. interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem.

Nowhere have I used the word 'disrupt' to describe a structure in relation to radar cross section (RCS). Simply because it is technically -- WRONG.

Go tell your buddy Oldman1 since he used it first in post #75 in this thread.

I'm simply asking him to back up his claim about canards. The burden of proof is on him.

 

[UKBengali]

based on your sheer ignorance on the landscape of Chinese defence forums in China, to say the least, the infos regarding J-20, 094, KJ-2000/200, UAV, 052D, 055 and even HQ-9 deal were leaked from them, when most foreign Chinese 'experts' considered those as delusion..
to the safest point, those 'insiders' are more reliable than clueless russian experts in those regards, this 'official' news can be as good as those tacky rumors from streets

Russians have a vested interest in playing down the capabilities of the Chinese.

China will first take market share from them before it takes from the EU/US. Unlike the EU/US, arms sales is really all it sells manufacturing wise. 

Yep, Russia has not yet built new type of AWACS, destroyer, aircraft carrier and has only one type of 5-th gen fighter. According to Chinese logic that supposedly should mean that Russia is behind China in radars and engines

China is ahead of Russia in radars and general avionics but is a little behind in engines currently.

 

[zzzz]

China is ahead of Russia in radars and general avionics but is a little behind in engines currently.

Amateur Chinese radar producers doesnt even know what are the features of top Russian military radars. And they have no way to even learn that without spending decades on research. Theres no difference here with engines. Russia is exporting its radars to China with most of advanced functions removed and theres no way to even reverse engineer that. Just 10 years ago performance of Chinese radars were on the level of 1970 year. Sorry to disappoint you, but coping designs of western civilian transistors from Iphone wont give you the knowledge how to build advanced military radars.