Chinese junk? Latest fighter plane from People's Army ticketed for exp

[Obambam]

Why the F-35 is a turkey by defense analyst and aircraft designer Pierre Sprey:

 

[Lightningbolt]

Why the F-35 is a turkey by defense analyst and aircraft designer Pierre Sprey:

Just a piece of junk. Carlo Kopp has exposed the flaws of this joke F-35.

Between Rachel Maddow and Carlo Kopp, they have exposed the F-22 and F-35 respectively.

 

[longewala]

"The original J-11 is a licensed legal production"
The Chinese really have a nice sense of humour.

 

[longlong]

Because there is no need for it. How do you even know if we did not already flew it over China undetected? Sorry, but 'Chinese physics' do not cut it.

That's correct.

At least 2 F-22 had ever been to China.

One was shot down.

 

[MULUBJA]

this coming from NATO (No Action, Talk Only) dirty Indians.



As Rachel Maddow exposed the major flaws in the F-22, they switched to the F-35. But now the F-35 is a bigger disaster than the failed F-22.

The US decline is there for everyone to see.

What a surprise that dirt master Chinese tell somebody dirty. Actually Chinese should lodge a claim in genius book of world record for developing the planes which can not match even 50 years old Planes.Just There was an exposure in Chinese media that their much hyped J 15 can carry only 2 ton load which is less than 50 year old Single engine Mig 21.

 

[MULUBJA]

It resulted China No.2 from nothing 30 years ago.

It works!

Do you believe all those figures?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...ated-china-s-gdp-900-billion-last-year-6.html

 

[longlong]

What a surprise that dirt master Chinese tell somebody dirty. Actually Chinese should lodge a claim in genius book of world record for developing the planes which can not match even 50 years old Planes.Just There was an exposure in Chinese media that their much hyped J 15 can carry only 2 ton load which is less than 50 year old Single engine Mig 21.

2 tons means 2 tons, that's the number. number will not cheat and lie.

China can made this 2-tons loading aircraft as many as they want.

Imported aircrafts are different, you have one less once you lost one of them.

 

[Cheetah786]

A lot less than the Pakistani military.

Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government so you see pakistan military needs them.On the other hand Einstein Professional political science has what to do with jets.

Oh my bad i just realize you and Abhishek prolly subscribe to fox daily weekly and monthly dont worry help is on the way keep the foil antennas on your head at all times.

 

[Esc8781]

Goddamn so much stupid. I have ask you, Gambit, would the RQ-170 aid them a little for creating LO airframes?

 

[gambit]

@gambit

On the topic, regardless of the current state of Chinese RCS measures(of which we have no definite quantitative or qualitative data to base any conclusions of, and the approach of pseudo analysts like Kopp dont count.) Does there seem to be a definite reason as to why the planform for the J-31 or the J-20(which I disagree on being based solely on the 1.44 as it has more in common in looks and design with the JAST concept, but it could be inspired/adapted from both) dont seem as stealthy to you as a 117 strictly from a shaping point of view.

It is precisely because of the lack of credible data from both sides that there is no definitive reason as to why the J-20 and the J-31 is any comparable to the F-117 in terms of radar observability. The US still have not released the average RCS value of the F-117, and the J-20 and the J-31 is still too new even for the Chinese in their experimentation of the field.

That said, it does not mean we have the latitude to argue: That because of the lack of data from both sides, it is equally valid to say that the J-20 and J-31 are peers to the F-117 in terms of radar observability

We do not have that latitude because the F-117 have been in combat. Neither of the Chinese aircrafts have. In development, variables are controlled, even up to the point of declaring the weapon suitable for fielding. In combat, variables are unpredictable in both frequency and intensity. Here is the catch: The more combat experience you have, the better you will be able to replicate the environmental conditions that made those variables unpredictable in frequency and intensity, and the better you will be able to design your next evolution of your current weapon or develop a completely new one.

The F-117 served as foundation for both technical and tactical development of the F-22 and F-35. Data gleaned from the F-117's combat missions told US what to expect under what environmental conditions, from the hilly terrain of Europe to the relatively uniform one of the ME. Terrain is highly influential on how seeking radars are positioned and arrayed in defense of something valuable. We know from passive sensor data that if the aircraft present a certain aspect angle to A seeking radar, whether that seeking radar redirected its beam in attempt to track or not. That information is extremely useful in development of later generations of low radar observable bodies. We can replicate, at least virtually, the same RCS control methods and tactics from the F-117 and graft them onto the experimental body, observe the same or similar responses, and proceed to re-shape the experimental body to reduce those responses.

But even the F-117 did not came to be as it is known simply from exploiting Ufimtsev's work. We already have a wealth of data regarding radar detection in general, how to avoid it, and how we failed to escape detection when we are inside a beam. In attacking a target that is defended by radars, the ultimate is to avoid being inside any beam. What the F-117 proved was that we can be inside a radar beam and remain unrecognized long enough for us to escape that beam when we have a chance. This is probably the second great misconception people have about 'stealth', that we can be inside a beam with absolute confidence that we will not be recognized/detected.

So in the absence of hard data, from sheer experience alone, there is no credible argument and/or reason to say that the J-20 and J-31 are comparable to the F-117 in terms of radar low observability. When I said 'experience' I do not restrict the word to the US but to the entire world. I do not mean that every country have an F-117 equivalent. I mean that the world experienced what low radar observability is thru observation and that was enough to make it clear that the idea work. The Chinese and the Russians know this. The F-117 got inside many radar beams, remained inside long enough and still was not recognized, then successfully escaped them with the enemy not knowing what happened.

Neither the J-20 nor the J-31 have been tested to the same degree as the F-117 have.

 

[gambit]

Goddamn so much stupid.

You got that right...

I have ask you, Gambit, would the RQ-170 aid them a little for creating LO airframes?

No. Not even a little bit. The impression that the RQ is 'stealthy' came mainly from ignorant media blurbs. The general principle is that the smaller the dimensions, the decrease in radar observability. There is nothing magical or 'stealthy' about it.

 

[Genesis]

You can interpret what 'the media' said any way you wish. I have my interpretation of it and it is much kinder than yours. I have said it many times before that there is nothing wrong with copying an established work if the desire is to rapidly advance one's own.


I look at it this way...

If the Chinese engineers copied the Flankedsteak's airframe, most likely they copied as much as possible the architectural layout of the entire avionics system as well, that includes any mechanical linkages, if any, in the flight controls system, the radar package, the navigation, and electronic countermeasures. It make perfect sense to do so. Any gap can be developed indigenously.


I have said it many times before, the J-20 is based upon, not a copy, of the MIG 1.44 and it incorporated post F-117 RCS control methods and tactics.


Mad? No. Amused is more like it. More so at the intellectual dishonesty of many people that after I presented indisputable technical arguments as to why they are wrong, they persists in perpetuating what has been debunked.


Direct this to your fellow Chinese who have no problems making pronouncements about things they know nothing of.

See there lies our difference, you said we copied even the radar or as much as possible. But this isn't true.

Why do I say this? Because the J-11 is a licensed Su-27, there's no reason to copy, we have ordered 200 to be built in China, but we stopped at 100. Because the Russian fighter was deemed not up to standard and thus the J-11B was developed, for naval use the J-15 was developed, and for other uses the J-16 was developed.

Now, having said that, it is more than clear that we started with the complete copy, if you will. But the later variants weren't' copies, but based on the original with much improvements. How can we copy things that didn't exist in the original model?

Yet, the media continue to say that the J-15 and J-11b is a copy, if they say based on, fine I'll take it, but they say it like we completely ripped off the Russians when we had the original the the later variants were new models that the Russians don't have.

Not saying ours is superior to any Russian fighters but it is done with DIFFERENT tech.



The J-20 and J-31 is supposed to be superior to the F-117, there are various reports that the Chinese have said that the F-117 tech was not the best even when it was shot down and any info from the wreck would be a reference at best and is not up to today's standard. I have also seen American news that agrees with this point, which I have to say is something that doesn't happen everyday.

Our stealth fighters will obviously be available to the international market. Of course some boasting is expected, but it still have to be close to the truth. So J-20 and J-31 can be said that at most we took some "tips" from the American fighters. However even that is generous.

I can say at least 95%+ is Chinese. Not least because we are still under the arms embargo.



So why would you choose to argue this point that what the pilot and the professor said could be true, if you yourself knows how ridicules these claims are. It is true there are no data to support any counter arguments, but there's no data at all.

If no data means that these guys could be right then, I could say the American 6th gen fighter will not work in snow. There's no data that would prove me otherwise.



Lastly, this is a forum for fans of the military and generally a place for people to discuss stuff. Most people I bet are not involved in the military or fields related to such. I personally have no experience with such stuff and is not in this field, I pick up things here and there and it is very basic.

Wouldn't it be pretty dead here if everyone here needs to be an expert.

 

[xunzi]

THAT right there tells me you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the true meaning of the phrase 'radar observability'. You fit the criticism you leveled at others. No need to continue with the rest of your post.

We have a serious discussion over F-22 radar observability and J-20 if you can head over to Sino Defense Forum.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Where do people get the time to write such articles?

We don't even know anything about the J-10. Let alone J-20 and J-31.

Though, some folks here take it too far. Like J-10B = F-16 E/F and such.

 

[longlong]

Do you believe all those figures?

CCP has the habbit to optimise the figure, no doubt.

But i will not doubt China's enormous developements. Look at what Taiwanese, hongkongnese, Sinaporean, maybe together with Japanese, S.Korean, had achieved in the last century. Basically, they are the same people with the same culture. China is the origin of all of them, no way it would do it worse, right?

Now only one thing is missing to India's loop: a sucessful model within the culture.