Top 10 future weapons of CHINA

[cloneman]

If that is the case, then why are you buying T-50s?

Who tells you we are interested in T-50,care to provide the source?

 

[Martian2]

If that is the case, then why are you buying T-50s?

Which world do you live in? The J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the T-50 in almost every respect (except for engines currently). The Indians are the ones who can't build a tank or a fighter without foreign help. That is the reason they always attack me when I post an objective observation of the Russian T-50.

China's aviation heritage: J-10A Vigorous Dragon --> J-10B Vigorous Dragon with advanced Diverterless Supersonic Intake --> J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter

From GlobalSecurity:

PAK FA / T-50 / Project 701

"The maiden flight of the T-50 / Project 701 / PAK FA, the first Russian ... that China declined to participate in this project given a belief that Russia stood to gain ..."

----------

From my January 23, 2011 posts:

Russian T-50 is clearly inferior to China's J-20

It's obvious to everyone that the Russian T-50 is very crude and far behind China's J-20.

This is what a polished J-20 stealth fighter prototype looks like:

China's J-20 stealth fighter

And this other Russian T-50 is a crude (e.g. exposed rivets, exposed engine fan blades, metal-framed cockpit canopy, no RAM coating, no Serpentine air inlets, no DSI, etc.) attempt at a stealth fighter:

Russian T-50. Is it even stealthy? Look at those giant engine fan blades.

-----

General Brady on T-50: “I don’t know if it’s really a fifth-generation aircraft”

The Russian T-50 prototype falls far short of expectations (e.g. does not meet most of the ten criteria that I have formerly listed for a stealth fighter design). The biggest failing is in the design of the air inlets. The Russians didn't bother at all to shield the engine fan blades from enemy radar. Also, the metal frame on the cockpit canopy is another clear lack of effort.

If you believe my opinion is unfair in saying that the Russian T-50 falls far short of a modern fifth-generation stealth fighter, would you accept the opinion of an expert instead? Four-star general Roger Brady does not believe that the Russian T-50 qualifies as a fifth generation stealth fighter: “I don’t know if it’s really a fifth-generation aircraft” (see article below).

In conclusion, I am willing to revise my assessment of the Russian T-50, as judged by my list of ten objective stealth design features, if there is a serious re-design. I stand by my claim that the current Russian T-50 design (if allowed to stay mostly intact) is not a worthy competitor to China's J-20 or U.S. F-22 and F-35.

Leaders not impressed by new Russian fighter - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

"Leaders not impressed by new Russian fighter
By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Mar 22, 2010 19:53:27 EDT

The flying debut of Russia’s answer to the F-22 Raptor isn’t wowing Air Force leaders.

Dubbed the T-50 or PAK-FA, the fifth-generation stealth fighter jet made its maiden flight Jan. 29 — 47 minutes over eastern Russia — and has flown at least twice since then. The twin-engine jet will replace the MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker, both fourth-generation front-line fighters.

The first operational T-50s should be delivered in 2015, the same year the Air Force expects its first F-35 Lightning II. Also a fifth-generation fighter, the F-35 has a single supersonic engine and stealth capabilities.

“I didn’t see anything … that would cause me to rethink plans for the F-22 or F-35,” Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters Feb. 18 at the Air Force Association’s winter conference, held in Orlando, Fla.

“Russia has a robust [aircraft industry],” Donley added. “This is not a surprise in that context.”

The PAK-FA resembles the F-22 — distinctive tilted rear tail fins and all — and has many of the same high-tech features, including digital avionics, a phased-array radar and communications equipment to link the fighter to command and control centers, according to the Russian news agency Tass.

The Air Force ordered the last of its 187 F-22s in 2009. Russia has not had a new fighter in nearly 20 years; the Indian air force is also sponsoring development of a version of the T-50.

“It looks like a plane we’ve seen before,” Gen. Roger Brady, the air boss for NATO and commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said at the conference.

Gen. Gary North, commander of Pacific Air Forces, made clear his impression of the fighter: “I guess the greatest flattery is how much they copy you.”

Still, the four-stars wonder whether the T-50 will live up to its fifth-generation billing.

“I don’t know if it’s really a fifth-generation aircraft,” Brady said. “What I do know is that it’s very clear that they’re working on a fifth-generation technology.”

For Brady, Russia’s push on the development front signals that the U.S. cannot settle for the status quo.

“The key is, we must continue to do fifth-generation and sixth-generation research and put money against it because other people clearly are,” Brady said.

North added that the Pentagon must ensure fourth-generation jets such as the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 are continually upgraded.

“If we’re not going to buy more, what we’ve got to have is the very best that our sons and daughters go out to fight with,” he said.

In tandem with the T-50 project, Russia is developing a long-range bomber.

“We won’t limit ourselves to just one new model,” Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said March 1. 'We must start work on a prospective long-range aircraft, our new strategic bomber.'”

[Note: Thank you to Sudhir007 for the newslink.]

Look closely, do you see those gigantic fan blades in the engine? Enemy radar can see them too. So, just exactly how is the Russian T-50 stealthy?

-----

Russian T-50 wheel-bay doors are not serrated/saw-toothed

I'm disappointed at the lack of serrated wheel-bay doors on the Russian T-50. Let's compare the wheel-bay doors for China's J-20 and Russian T-50.

J-20's serrated wheel-bay door

Once again, we will use the eyeball-test. Do you see serrated edges on the Russian T-50 wheel bay door?

 

[aimarraul]

Who tells you we are interested in T-50,care to provide the source?

russian............

"china will buy 50 su-33","china will buy 60 su-35","china will buy 100 T-50",etc.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

And i don't think the current Russian engine is good enough to power J-20.

 

[cloneman]

russian............

"china will buy 50 su-33","china will buy 60 su-35","china will buy 100 T-50",etc.

Opps,I don't think the Russians can make the decision for us.I don't think the PLA will have any interest to the three aircrafts above.

 

[gambit]

When it comes to stealth, you can't use "looks" as a standard. The fighter-concept drawing is flawed. The nose is round. That is not stealthy. It needs a "shaped nose" like a duck-bill with a chine/ridge line.

The air ducts are not canted. That's also not stealthy. The upper-fuselage does not appear to follow the continuous-curvature principle. It tapers to a point toward the rear.

The J-20 Mighty Dragon is a marvelous piece of stealth design and engineering. If you haven't seen it yet, watch my video. It has 79,534 views.

You are so blinded by your own ego that you cannot see how you contradicted yourself as highlighted. You demand that others not use 'looks' but you make declarations about the J-20 based purely upon looks and your interpretations of what you see.

 

[gambit]

From my January 30, 2011 post:

J-20 matches F-22 in front-profile and may exceed F-22 in side-profile stealth

Left-half of picture is China's J-20. Right half is U.S. F-22.

Remember your own words that in 'stealth' we cannot go by 'looks' alone.

(Note the J-20 air-inlet has been better integrated into the fuselage than the F-22's gap between the air-inlet and fuselage.)

Better? Bunk. As long as that 'gap' is not a significant contributor to overall RCS, it is not 'inferior' in anyway.

I have two observations. Firstly, as shown in the spliced-photo above, I believe that I have been proven correct that the J-20 matches the F-22's frontal profile in stealth design.

You have 'proven' nothing. You guessed and even if eventually credible radar data is available and confirm your guesses, that still does not make you anymore credible today.

Above: Picture of sleek J-20 with small tailfins.
Below: Picture of sleek F-22 with large tailfins.

Secondly, the F-22 may have tailfins that are significantly larger than the J-20. Given the increased surface area to reflect radar, this raises the possibility that the F-22 may have a higher side-profile stealth signature than the J-20 and is more vulnerable to bi-static or multistatic radar systems.

Please see this => http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/20908-rcs-different-fighters-6.html#post2006035

Heck, am willing to bet you have never heard of bi-static radar until I came along.

 

[gambit]

China's J-20 is the new gold standard in front-profile stealth. The J-20 has both a serpentine air-duct and DSI bump to hide the engine compressor blades. Due to its older design, the F-22 lacks DSI bumps.

You mean gold paint. It is proven that DSI 'bumps' are not for 'stealth' but for inlet air control. As far as 'stealth' goes, all contributors must be designed, measured, and rated according to their relationships to each other. That mean as long as the diverter plates are not significant contributors, they are not considered detrimental to overall RCS. You obviously have a difficult time understanding the concept of 'balanced stealth'.

 

[ao333]

You mean gold paint. It is proven that DSI 'bumps' are not for 'stealth' but for inlet air control. As far as 'stealth' goes, all contributors must be designed, measured, and rated according to their relationships to each other. That mean as long as the diverter plates are not significant contributors, they are not considered detrimental to overall RCS. You obviously have a difficult time understanding the concept of 'balanced stealth'.

No no no, American military hardware remains unparalleled globally. The only problem is, you're Vietnamese.

 

[Martian2]

You are so blinded by your own ego that you cannot see how you contradicted yourself as highlighted. You demand that others not use 'looks' but you make declarations about the J-20 based purely upon looks and your interpretations of what you see.

There is a huge difference between "looks" and SHAPING. I am discussing SHAPING and you can't tell the difference.

From my July 12, 2011 post:

J-20 can supercruise and is more stealthy than F-35

1. In a much earlier post, I quoted a J-20 Chinese test pilot who confirmed the J-20 can supercruise. F-35 cannot.

2. J-20 has a clean design like the F-22. I have already mentioned the two flaws in the J-20 design that makes it currently inferior to the F-22 (e.g. "some curvature of the sides" that need to be re-worked and glaring round engine nozzles). However, the F-35 is far more flawed with its compromised design of "‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."

3. Australia Air Power "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" has shown the J-20 is optimized for stealth. In contrast, the F-35 design is mostly meant to defeat radars in two bands: "to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band."

In conclusion, aside from avionics, the J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the F-35 in both supercruise ability and stealth across all "nine radio-frequency bands."

----------

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In spite of being smaller than the F-22, the F-35 has a larger radar cross section. It is said to be roughly equal to a metal golf ball rather than the F-22's metal marble.[126] The F-22 was designed to be difficult to detect by all types of radars and from all directions.[127] The F-35 on the other hand manifests its lowest radar signature from the frontal aspect because of compromises in design. Its surfaces are shaped to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band, which are typically found in fighters, surface-to-air missiles and their tracking radars, although the aircraft would be easier to detect using other radar frequencies.[127] Because the shape of the aircraft is so important to its radar cross section, special care must be taken to maintain the "outer mold line" during production.[128] Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets in order to verify the RCS of the aircraft after performing repairs, which was not a concern for previous generations of non-stealth fighters.[129][130]"

F-35 with "‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."

----------

J-20 Mighty Dragon has a smooth and flat underside.

The Chengdu J-20: Peace in Our Time?

"This study has therefore established through Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands, that no fundamental obstacles exist in the shaping design of the J-20 prototype precluding its development into a genuine Very Low Observable design.

Above: L-band RCS, below X-band RCS head on, both in PCSR format (M.J. Pelosi).

Engineers and Scientists who work in ‘stealth’ (AKA ‘Low Observable&#8217 designs have a way for explaining it to lay people: ‘Stealth’ is achieved by Shaping, Shaping, Shaping and Materials (Denys Overholser).

The F-22A is clearly well shaped for low observability above about 500 MHz, and from all important aspects. The J-20 has observed the ‘Shaping, Shaping, Shaping’ imperative, except for the axisymmetric nozzles, and some curvature of the sides that smears a strong, but very narrow specular return into something of a more observable fan. The X-35 mostly observed the ‘Shaping, Shaping, Shaping’ rule, but since then, to quote a colleague, ‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative, forcing excessive reliance on materials, which are at the rear-end of the path to ‘Low Observability’.

While discussing ‘rear-ends’, both the F-35 and the J-20 have large signature contributions from their jet nozzles. However, the difference is much like the proverbial ‘Ham Omelette’: the F-35 Pig is committed, but the J-20 Chicken is a participant. If the Chinese decide that rear sector Low Observability is tactically and strategically important, they are at the design stage where they can copy the F-22A nozzle design for the production configuration of the J-20."

[Note: Thank you to HouShanghai for the J-20 underside picture and Stereospace for the F-35 underside picture.]

 

[gambit]

There is a huge difference between "looks" and SHAPING. I am discussing SHAPING and you can't tell the difference.

And how can you tell anything about shaping just by looking? Now you are feebly playing with words in trying weasel out of your own trap.

From my July 12, 2011 post:

J-20 can supercruise and is more stealthy than F-35

1. In a much earlier post, I quoted a J-20 Chinese test pilot who confirmed the J-20 can supercruise. F-35 cannot.

How does this make the J-20 superior? And sorry, we are under no obligations to take your words for it.

2. J-20 has a clean design like the F-22. I have already mentioned the two flaws in the J-20 design that makes it currently inferior to the F-22 (e.g. "some curvature of the sides" that need to be re-worked and glaring round engine nozzles). However, the F-35 is far more flawed with its compromised design of "‘hideous lumps, bumps, humps and warts’ [that] have appeared on the JSF to disrupt the shaping imperative."

Your continuing focus on those 'bumps' tell me you still have not learn anything and quoting from Kopp will not help. As long as those 'lumps and bumps' are not significant contributors, they work.

3. Australia Air Power "Physical Optics simulation across nine radio-frequency bands" has shown the J-20 is optimized for stealth. In contrast, the F-35 design is mostly meant to defeat radars in two bands: "to best defeat radars operating in the X and upper S band."

And I have pointed out the reasons why PO alone is inappropriate. Heck, I even used Chinese sources to prove it.

 

[Martian2]

And how can you tell anything about shaping just by looking? Now you are feebly playing with words in trying weasel out of your own trap.

How does this make the J-20 superior? And sorry, we are under no obligations to take your words for it.

Your continuing focus on those 'bumps' tell me you still have not learn anything and quoting from Kopp will not help. As long as those 'lumps and bumps' are not significant contributors, they work.

And I have pointed out the reasons why PO alone is inappropriate. Heck, I even used Chinese sources to prove it.

I'm tired of your stupidity. If you can't understand the difference between a "shaped nose" and a "round nose," a "canted airduct" and a "flat airduct," or a serrated J-20 and non-serrated T-50 wheel-bay doors then you're wasting my time.

Your extreme anti-Chinese views have blinded you to obvious Russian T-50 defects like the metal-framed canopy, exposed rivets, protruding IRST probe, exposed engine blades, non-RAM covered engine nacelles, non-continuous curvature upper fuselage, and completely unstealthy Su-30-like underside. You're blind as a bat. Give me a break.

This is a stealth superfighter:

J-20 Mighty Dragon sheer intimidation

J-20 Mighty Dragon sheer intimidation

----------

This is not a stealth fighter and it is a mere pretender:

Russian T-50. Is it even stealthy? Look at those giant engine fan blades.

Russian T-50 underside is a messy design. Vents, gaps, stuff jutting out, etc. This is not stealthy.

 

[below_freezing]

physical optics theory may be an inaccurate approximation for certain wavelengths, but that does not make its final answer necessarily wrong. and if the physical optics theory answer is indeed, wrong and indeed wrong by orders of magnitude, if the "correct" value of reflected power is still low, the end result might not even matter as the reflected beams could still be lower than the detection threshhold.

I'm not saying youre wrong, i'm just saying that we need some hardcore computational EM data down to say for sure whether the J-20 is good, or not. as for now, the thing that has results is the physical optics model. if you could make a Mathematica program for that, i'd more than appreciate it =)

 

[Zabaniyah]

Which world do you live in? The J-20 Mighty Dragon is superior to the T-50 in almost every respect (except for engines currently). The Indians are the ones who can't build a tank or a fighter without foreign help. That is the reason they always attack me when I post an objective observation of the Russian T-50.

China's aviation heritage: J-10A Vigorous Dragon --> J-10B Vigorous Dragon with advanced Diverterless Supersonic Intake --> J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter

What world do I live in? I prefer to live in the real world

According to one Russian website, China will be one of the recipients on the FGFA under 'certain circumstances'.
At least 1000 PAK FA fighters will be manufactured until 2050 - News - Russian Aviation - RUAVIATION.COM

Here also:
Russians develop fifth-generation PAK FA stealth multi-role fighter « Wintery Knight

These are just speculations, and will remain that way until the Chinese Government is clear on the matter. It is a simple yes or no.

The Russians have decades of experience in the aviation sector compared to China. The latter still has much to learn from the former.

And if you are so self-sufficient, why go for Russian engines for the FC-20s and JF-17s?

The current prototype of the PAK FA is not the final version. It is speculated that the final product would look something like this:

The PAK FA's general air-frame is fine, the only thing that does need work are the engines, which is by far the most difficult aspect of the aircraft.

Is the J-20 better? Hard to say at this point.

 

[DrSomnath999]

Give me a break. I was a member of Indian Defence Forum before you got there. I was there in the beginning (member #72) in April of last year.

Check the Chinese sub-forum. See those stickies by "Martian." Hmmm...who could that be?

so what man ,it means u can say anything to anyone & get away ,tell me when u r logged on IDF i would reply ur queries nicely & stop this farce of comparision of T50 & j20 jet here, this is a thread of future weapons of china not a comparision of T50 & j20 ,do it in some other thread or create ur own thread comparing T50 & j-20.ok