Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

[Zarvan]

Let See How many of those weapons Pakistan Can Get I think we are getting Type 54 Frigates and Nuclear Submarines and also we will very soon go for J-10B and also we will get whenever it is ready J-20 but are we can we be interested in Destroyer if our economy allows?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Let See How many of those weapons Pakistan Can Get I think we are getting Type 54 Frigates and Nuclear Submarines and also we will very soon go for J-10B and also we will get whenever it is ready J-20 but are we can we be interested in Destroyer if our economy allows?

Of course.

 

[Zarvan]

Of course.

Sir on how many Stealth Planes is China working on I mean are their some other projects also going with J-20 ?

 

[marshall]

I should mention that it is possible, even with a clear horizon, to change your point of view to align with the plane of a ballistic missile warhead trajectory to make an angled flight look like it's falling vertically. However, the converse is not true. When there is a clear horizon, it is impossible to shift your point of view to make a vertical trajectory look like an angled trajectory. It is obvious to me that Gambit does not understand this asymmetry.

Utter BS. Assume that an object is falling at a 45 deg angle from a 'side' view, in other words, the object is falling laterally away from me, if I shift my viewing position 90 deg so that the object is falling towards me, it will appear in a 2-dimension photo to be falling vertically. Buddy, I watched enough Shuttle launches in Fla., from my house backyard in Orlando and at the Cape itself, to see this effect in action.

You do realize that after claiming his statement was BS that you then immediately replied by repeating exactly the same so-called BS using a different example but the same logic. Does this mean you understand the logic but are calling it BS anyways?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Sir on how many Stealth Planes is China working on I mean are their some other projects also going with J-20 ?

From what i known, 4 types of 5th gen stealth fighters so far.

1. J-20 air superiority/multi-role
2. J-16 air superiority/multi-role
3. J-18 STOVL multi-role
4. J-2X Pakistan's 5th gen stealth fighter project

 

[Zarvan]

From what i known, 4 types of 5th gen stealth fighters so far.

1. J-20 air superiority/multi-role
2. J-16 air superiority/multi-role
3. J-18 STOVL multi-role
4. J-2X Pakistan's 5th gen stealth fighter project

Can you tell more details about J-2X I have heard for the first time

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Can you tell more details about J-2X I have heard for the first time

It has only been confirmed so far, no further detail has been leaked.

I think J-2X is likely a joint development like JF-17, and PAF could still purchase J-20 apart just like it purchases J-10B apart from JF-17.

 

[gambit]

You do realize that after claiming his statement was BS that you then immediately replied by repeating exactly the same so-called BS using a different example but the same logic.

Let us try this again...

The man is claiming that based upon a single test firing with a wide angle photo, ALL warheads descend upon an angle. I am saying that is not true and that you cannot make that kind of a blanket statement. I have always maintain that depends on the distance involved, the descend angle may begin with an angle but once the Earth's rotation moved the ground point towards that spatial intercept point, the final descent angle may often approaches vertical. You simply cannot make his kind of a sweeping statement without knowing the variables involved.

That is the recent Atlantis deorbiting from the ISS view. Key word search 'atlantis iss deorbiting'.

If we go by photos alone, my NASA source fully support my argument. But I do not go by photos alone. I have relevant experience in this matter and explained why back on post 280 => http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/128212-top-10-future-weapons-china-19.html#post2103030

This is the problem with this guy: His ego. He cannot accept the fact that someone may have knowledge based upon experience that may not agree with his preconceived notions of whatever he bloviate about.

 

[marshall]

From what i known, 4 types of 5 gen stealth fighters so far.

1. J-20 air superiority/multi-role
2. J-16 air superiority/multi-role
3. J-18 STOVL multi-role
4. J-2X Pakistan's 5 gen stealth fighter project

As far as verified projects, only the J-20 and J-16 are confirmed projects. The STOVL project is speculation and rumor on the Chinese BBSes as far as I can tell. It would make a lot of sense for this sort of carrier borne aircraft because it would allow China to rapidly induct smaller aircraft carriers on smaller, simpler vessels once expansion to the 2nd island chain began. Sounding good doesn't make it reality though and I highly doubt it's on the table given the difficulty and remote timeframe when this sort of aircraft would eventually be useful. There's also been some speculation of stealth versions of the JF-17 and JH-7. No authentic news on this front either what follows is my own speculation...the JF-17 and indeed ALL of China's mainline aircraft are undergoing studies or actual flight testing of low-observable modifications, but no purpose built stealth versions of these aircraft. This has already happened to the J-11B when compared to the SU-27 and the J-10B can almost be described as a LO aircraft at this point.

Whether these modifications will eventually result in something comparable in stealth to an F-15SE, I think the Russian derived fighters (J-11B, J-15) have a great potential for this. The underbelly between the engines is perfectly placed for an internal weapons bay that would behave like the PAK FA. The rest would be easy by comparison, not to say that adding an internal weapons bay is easy.

 

[Zarvan]

It has only been confirmed so far, no further detail has been leaked.

I think J-2X is likely a joint development like JF-17, and PAF could still purchase J-20 apart just like it purchases J-10B apart from JF-17.

In which China hopes to induct J-20 in its fleet?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

As far as verified projects, only the J-20 and J-16 are confirmed projects. The STOVL project is speculation and rumor on the Chinese BBSes as far as I can tell. It would make a lot of sense for this sort of carrier borne aircraft because it would allow China to rapidly induct smaller aircraft carriers on smaller, simpler vessels once expansion to the 2nd island chain began. Sounding good doesn't make it reality though and I highly doubt it's on the table given the difficulty and remote timeframe when this sort of aircraft would eventually be useful. There's also been some speculation of stealth versions of the JF-17 and JH-7. No authentic news on this front either what follows is my own speculation...the JF-17 and indeed ALL of China's mainline aircraft are undergoing studies or actual flight testing of low-observable modifications, but no purpose built stealth versions of these aircraft. This has already happened to the J-11B when compared to the SU-27 and the J-10B can almost be described as a LO aircraft at this point.

Whether these modifications will eventually result in something comparable in stealth to an F-15SE, I think the Russian derived fighters (J-11B, J-15) have a great potential for this. The underbelly between the engines is perfectly placed for an internal weapons bay that would behave like the PAK FA. The rest would be easy by comparison, not to say that adding an internal weapons bay is easy.

The STOVL project is coupled with the amphibious assault ship, since China has no interest to build the aircraft carrier less than 80,000 tons.

---------- Post added at 01:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 AM ----------

In which China hopes to induct J-20 in its fleet?

Possible, since it is dimentionally smaller than J-15, only its maximum takeoff weight is greater.

 

[marshall]

what rubbish there is no need of canards in 5th gen fighters as they have thrust vectoring nozzle to compensate that.
now see T50 prototype
Leading edge root extensions (LERX)

PAK FA Features Movable LERX, this would be more like a Stealthy Canard...

You said there are no 5th gen fighters with canards and I replied that there is...the J-20, self explanatory. I never said canards HAVE to be on 5th gen fighters, obviously since the other 5th gen fighters and projects all do not have it. The fact that LERX does some of what a canard can does not make it equivalent. Canards superior maneuverabily to non-vectored thrust fighters add a degree of stability an order of magnitude greater than LERX can. In combination with thrust vectoring, a canard would gives a fighter a degree of supermaneuverabity that would allow it to dance sky acrobatics while retaining stability at lower speeds than with vectoring+LERX. As I said, the maneuverabilty with vectoring+canards would be unbeatable, especially at lower speeds.

 

[gambit]

You said there are no 5th gen fighters with canards and I replied that there is...the J-20, self explanatory. I never said canards HAVE to be on 5th gen fighters, obviously since the other 5th gen fighters and projects all do not have it. The fact that LERX does some of what a canard can does not make it equivalent. Canards superior maneuverabily to non-vectored thrust fighters and add a degree of stability an order of magnitude greater than LERX can. In combination with thrust vectoring, a canard would gives a fighter a degree of supermaneuverabity that would allow it to dance sky acrobatics while retaining stability at lower speeds than with vectoring+LERX. As I said, the maneuverabilty with vectoring+canards would be unheard of.

And self-referential. Not good. There are no accepted criteria as to what constitute a '5th-gen' class. However, there are some reasonable features that would nudge an aircraft into that unofficial class:

1- Radar cross section (RCS) of less than 1 meter square at 150-200 km distance.

2- A quadruple redundant fly-by-wire flight control system (FLCS).

3- An AESA radar system.

4- Integrated sensors.

You presume that the J-20 is '5th-gen' based solely upon appearance alone, meaning it 'looks stealthy' without any hard data to back it up. If those canards do not bring the aircraft to below 1 meter square at the effective radar distance of most fighter class radar, calling it '5th-gen' will not make it so.

 

[marshall]

And self-referential. Not good. There are no accepted criteria as to what constitute a '5th-gen' class.

That's according to your own self-referential opinion but ironically well over 98% of everybody else in the know are quite certain what 5th gen is.

However, there are some reasonable features that would nudge an aircraft into that unofficial class:

1- Radar cross section (RCS) of less than 1 meter square at 150-200 km distance.

2- A quadruple redundant fly-by-wire flight control system (FLCS).

3- An AESA radar system.

4- Integrated sensors.

I see that you omitted supercruise which would disqualify the F-35 according to your definition of a 5th gen fighter. Can you explain why the F-35 is not 5th gen or is supercruise not on the list because it sounds nice to say the F-35 is a 5th gen fighter?

You presume that the J-20 is '5th-gen' based solely upon appearance alone, meaning it 'looks stealthy' without any hard data to back it up. If those canards do not bring the aircraft to below 1 meter square at the effective radar distance of most fighter class radar, calling it '5th-gen' will not make it so.

On appearance alone? Are you kidding me? HAHAH... I will let that one slide and attribute it to a clumsy trolling attempt. Please refer to the 50 thousand messages posted in January 2011 worldwide after the J-20 unveiling. If you prefer professional sources, refer to the dozens of studies from APPEARANCE and VISUAL analysis by various international aviation experts. If you want to argue against all the experts, feel free to send some disparaging remarks their way and I'm sure some will take up your challenge. I wish you good luck, you will need it.

 

[below_freezing]

Of course it was a design choice. But the F-35's DSI 'bumps' are not what I was talking about but the various other 'bumps' elsewhere on the aircraft. The question is that if the J-20's DSI 'bumps' are not detrimental to 'stealth' then why are the F-355's assorted 'bumps' are detrimental? Because Kopp said so? Remember...Your man has been propagating that argument all this time without any credible arguments to support it.


Technically incorrect. Radar detection is based upon assorted modes of reflected signals. Same for RCS control methods. The F-22, F-35, and B-2 uses some of the F-117's angled facetings method but all methods are about the same goal: To direct reflected and diffracted signals away from source direction.

RCS control can also be done with absorption or non-reflective deflection of radio waves.