Jump to content

NEW Chinese Stealth Fighter


Recommended Posts

We had already thread in General discussion, and wth has Bob Gates anything to do with it? :blink:

And one have to be seriously challenged in eye department to think it is F-22 knock off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, as rapidly as they are shoving these things out the door, the Chinese have a mole in the US system.

M

There's a reason they've been able to go from decades of copying/modifying Russian designs to developing 4.5/5th gen types featuring low-observable features in a very short amount of time. It's no secret that China has spent the past decade gathering technology and experience to boost their own military and industrial base. Send kids overseas to get an education and bring back that knowledge. Buy engines and software for civilian aircraft, reverse engineer it for military applications. They even tried to buy only one Rooviak from South Africa. When China refused South Africa's offer to sell them a fleet of Rooviak helicopters, South Africa got wise and stopped returning their calls.

Computer Spies Breach Fighter-Jet Project

April 21, 2009

Computer spies have broken into the Pentagon's $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project -- the Defense Department's costliest weapons program ever -- according to current and former government officials familiar with the attacks...

...the intruders were able to copy and siphon off several terabytes of data related to design and electronics systems, officials say, potentially making it easier to defend against the craft.

In addition to gaining access to F-35 material, Chinese hackers have been able to sit in on online meetings and technical discussions. In 2010 Noshir Gowadia, an Indian American design engineer for Northrop was convicted of 14 of the 17 charges against him and sentenced to 32 years in prison. One of the charges was selling classified information to China. Gowadia was one of the principal designers of the B-2 and who conceived and conceptually designed the B-2 Bomber's entire propulsion system. He billed himself as the "father of the technology that protects the B-2 stealth bomber from heat-seeking missiles."

In February 2011, India's Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Vasant Naik has suggested that the J-20 is entirely reverse engineered with no Chinese R&D involved. Speaking at the inauguration of the eight edition of the Aero India International Seminar, Naik stated, "Is reverse engineering an ethical process? Because we know of a country which recently developed a fifth generation stealth aircraft… There is no R&D involved in its development. So is it (the project) ethical or an illegitimate backdoor entry?"

It normally takes decades to build up such in indigenous industry (ie - Lockheed, Boeing, BAe, Dassault, SAAB), especially when you add in technologies such as sensors, engines, computers and low observables.* So why invest years and billions on your own R&D budget when it's far less expensive to invest in cybercrime and espionage and just copy the math from the kid next to you, or even just outright buy the technology? The USSR did this right after WWII when they bought the specs for the Rolls-Royce Nene turbojet engine, which was reverse-engineered and produced as the Klimov RD-45, subsequently incorporated into the MiG-15. At this time, jet fighter technology was brand new to the world and both the USSR and US incorporated WWII German design research (the Focke-Wulf Ta 183) into what became the MiG-15 and F-86. Decades later, technical data on the F-15's radar was sold to the USSR and found it's way into the Su-27's radar thanks to Robert Hanssen (what, you thought the USSR - with zero domestic electronics industry and a declining economy - went from the vacuum tube technology of the MiG-25's radar in the mid 1970s to the Flanker's radar of the late 1980s/early 1990s was by sheer force of good ole' fashioned communist willpower? Bulls#1t, they resorted to capitalism. They had capital, Hanssen had information.)

Some will deny that certain designs are copies. They'll read observations of "subsequent design similarities" from the past 2-3 decades as a personal offense. "How dare you accuse my favorite plane/manufacturer/country of copying!" It's no different than the Mac vs. PC or Ford vs. Chevy or Coke vs. Pepsi arguments. They'll state that comparisons between two types as "coincidental" as all aircraft have so many wings, engines, etc. and therefore they all look alike. This is a gross oversimplification of the matter which is merely a dodge to avoid confronting a difficult fact for them to accept as they have developed an emotional, almost religious attachement to their favorites. An idea can be changed, but beliefs are much more difficult. They'll fall into jingoistic arguments such as "you're from (insert whatever country they're not from), therefore you don't know what you're talking about whereas I, being from (insert whatever country they're from) am enlightened." Those discussions are not unlike talking to the flat earth society and they always end well. Or they'll make an impassioned and emotional (not logical) argument that "similar requirements result in similar designs" as an excuse. But most importantly, such arguments conveniently ignore six and a half decades of historical evidence that's contrary to their assertion:

  • Late 1940s, the USAF issued a requirement for an all-weather interceptor. Northrop entered the XP-89, Curtiss-Wright entered the XF-87. Same requirement, very different design configurations.
  • Mid-1950s the NA F-107 competed against the Republic F-105 in a fly-off for the USAF's tactical fighter-bomber design competition. Again, different design configurations.
  • Mid-late 1950s, the English Electric Lightning and Convair F-106 were both designed as Mach-2 interceptors to shoot down Soviet bombers, with similar service ceilings, rates of climb and thrust-to-weight ratios. One was a single engine pure delta with dual air intakes, an internal weapons bay, designed w/o a gun and two drop tanks under it's wings, the other was a swept wing with a single intake feeding two engines stacked vertically, it's weapons mounted externally along the sides of the fuselage, two 30mm ADEN cannons and external fuel tanks on top of its wings and conformal to it's belly. They both entered service in late 1959 and were both retired from frontline service in 1988. The US and UK each went their own way, designing their own indigenous aircraft using the technology available at that time, resulting in two totally different designs that had very, very similar performance. And these weren't enemies, these were two of the closest NATO allies! They could have partnered but they didn't; aviation industries were a nation's crown jewels during this time.
  • Early 70s, the YA-9 and YA-10 were designed at the exact same time to meet the exact same mission specifications and requirements, but they looked nothing alike.
  • Mid 1970s, The YF-16 and YF-17; same story, different designs in response to the LWF competition. This is important for two reasons. One, it's at this time that we start to see FBW enter the "mainstream" as opposed to R&D. Second, computers are getting smaller and more powerful. They're still huge by today's ¡Phone standards, but they were an improvement over the massive computers of just decade or two prior. This frees engineers to expand design thinking and possibilities, resulting in some very unique designs in the form of the X-29 and F-117 being able to fly.
  • Early 90s, the YF-22 and YF-23 were designed at the same time to meet the same requirements again, each was a unique design from two companies with access to similar technology and their own experience in so-called "stealth" aircraft.
  • Mid 90s, the X-32 and X-35, again, two totally different aircraft designed to meet the same requirements. In fact, the X-35 is another example of buying the technology. It's design configuration is a direct result of Lockheed's funding of the Yak-141 in the early 1990s. The Freestyle was designed as a replacement for the Yak-38 (a dog turd of a Harrier knockoff) but it came around as the USSR collapsed and the economy of the CIS couldn't support it's continued development. But most importantly it was capable of supersonic as well as VTOL flight. At the same time, Lockheed was vying for what eventually became the JSF contract, a requirement of which was the capability for both VTOL and supersonic flight. Lockheed had the know-how and experience in low-observables, but lacked experience in VTOL flight, so they basically went out and bought it. Yakovlev was seeking international partners with which to develop and market the type with, a tactic they were also pursuing for development of the Yak-130 trainer, which was eventually developed in partnership with Aermacchi of Italy. Lockheed Martin provided funds of between $385 to $400 million for three new Freestyle prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. I'll simplify that for those of you in the back of the class; the F-35 has a direct "genetic" ancestor in the Yak-141. No one disputes that and most importantly, no one gets their panties in a bunch when that's mentioned.

* One theory behind the cancelation of the CF-105 states it was a conspiracy by the US and UK aviation industry to sabotage the type so as to prevent future market competition from Avro Aircraft Limited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In February 2011, India's Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Vasant Naik has suggested that the J-20 is entirely reverse engineered with no Chinese R&D involved.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

One thing is for sure. J-20 canopy is a direct (yes direct) copy of F-22 canopy. Other than that, during 90's China got ahold of some MiG engineers, that is somewhat explains why one can feel 1.44 presence in J-20.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the "new stealth fighter" is the design that was lost in the competition to J-20. Shenyang Inc. was the designer I think, who decided to continue the effort to develop the stealth fighter on their own money.

It surely looks like a F35, but a 1/72 F35 also looks like a F35 as well. For a real plane to work, it involves a lot more than looks. The avionics and electronics stuffs are the core things that make a plane work. And reverse engineering of those required a lot more than hacking your way into a PC and steal some documents etc. Not even piece meal data will work. Maybe thats why the J20, the plane got picked, is actually not so similar to most of the in development stealth planes. I think Pradeep Vasant Naik's comment is funny, if you have no where to copy from then you may as well have to start drawing yourself!

Certainly China is one of the biggest country on earth to practice reverse engineering. But that also doesnt make them the leader in any field as well. I feel the performance of the J-20 is only comparable to F-16 generations alikes with only less RCS and should be way worse than the F22 and T50.Taking into account of the capabilities of armaments there is still a long way to matching even the Japs. :whistle:

On a side note, it was the States that started the arms race. If a race is started on clean energy we may not suffer from the high gas price today. :touche:

Political discussions are personal and these are just my 0.02s

Edited by Hero Ma
Link to post
Share on other sites

... I think Pradeep Vasant Naik's comment is funny, if you have no where to copy from then you may as well have to start drawing yourself!... ...No they are not... as India still have a hard time developping with their 3.5Gen.-like-trainer jet...

...Certainly China is one of the biggest country on earth to practice reverse engineering... ...NO, it is THE biggest country, where reverse engineering is essential part of their R&D definition!!!

On a side note, it was the States that started the arms race. If a race is started on clean energy we may not suffer from the high gas price today. :touche: ...is this relevant in any way in this discussion? my answer, NO

Political discussions are personal and these are just my 0.02s

BTW, thank you Mr. Stark, that was an interesting reading!

Edited by mingwin
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope China get's his new J-20 fighter soon, that will make things a bit more balanced out there and the US will have to think a bit more carefully where to get is nose in.

Considering that Che Guevara was from Argentina and he went around sticking his nose in other countries business I don't think I'd be talking. Just sayin.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i missed that one too, been too busy with other things lately.

Now with their clone of the X-37 spaceplane and now the F-35, we can clearly say 'copycat' !

(Shame... especially that they had gotten quite original with their J-10 and J-20 shapes, no matter the supposed or partial linneage with the Lavi, but the Lavi was an aircraft that only had canards, a delta wing and a lower intake in common with the J-10, sorry... and it sure looks better than the Lavi).

Stephane

Stratosphere Models

Website: http://www.picturetrail.com/stratospheremodels

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope China get's his new J-20 fighter soon, that will make things a bit more balanced out there and the US will have to think a bit more carefully where to get is nose in.

Considering that Che Guevara was from Argentina and he went around sticking his nose in other countries business I don't think I'd be talking. Just sayin.

Yeah, if only some could post Punkt's comment from a country with no questionable history, huh? Though I'm not sure what that country could be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, if only some could post Punkt's comment from a country with no questionable history, huh? Though I'm not sure what that country could be.

Iceland.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken: LOL

Andre: Why should they? Canada has far more to apologise for in that regard... :P

The Canadian government has apologized for Bryan Adams on several occasions. ;)

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol: :lol:

One thing is for sure. J-20 canopy is a direct (yes direct) copy of F-22 canopy. Other than that, during 90's China got ahold of some MiG engineers, that is somewhat explains why one can feel 1.44 presence in J-20.

Sure, and it's not just the J-20's canopy that's lifted from the F-22, but the entire forward fuselage. Is the F-22's forward fuselage shape the mathematical solution the question of optimal predictable electromagnetic wave redistribution while maintaining an efficient aerodynamic shape? No. The YF-23 had a very different cross section. But back to the reason for the J-20's similarity. Ben Rich once said that the three most important things in reducing an aircraft's RCS were "shape, shape and shape." There's almost two decades between the F-117 and the F-22, that's a lot of $$$ and R&D time invested to get there. Historically, China has operated a mix of imported aircraft from the USSR/Russia, indigenous unlicensed copies of some (Su-27 clone, the J-11B), heavily redesigning others into new variants (MiG-19 into the Q5) and indigenous designs (J-10). And that worked fine for China for quite some time as it kept their manufacturing capabilities somewhat up-to-date as well as providing some economic benefits (keeping costs under control while creating jobs) for Beijing. Russia was p!ssed when China started building Su-27 copies w/o paying a license fee (Define irony: the UK tried to sue the USSR over licensing fees when Stalin did the exact same thing half a century prior with the Rolls-Royce Nene engine).

Now, jumping into the early 21st century, conditions have changed. Stealth has proven to work towards reducing the range at which an aircraft can be detected, thus improving it's survivability, and it's as essential to modern air warfare as the jet engine, radar and the AAM. But China and Russia haven't spent the previous 2-3 decades heavily investing in the R&D as the USSR and China never had a need to place emphasis on reduced RCS. US/NATO/Pacific allies didn't employ the wide range of SAMs that the USSR did, instead they relied upon air defense fighters and interceptors (The USSR's counter to that was a quantitive solution). So that's why that heavy investment was never made on the same scale as what happened in the US. But what good are those SAMs if I can sneak in and operate outside of their performance envelope? So by the time of the early 20th century, Russia and China were well behind in the field of low observable technology and had to catch up fast. Russia spent the 90s building advanced Fulcrum and Flanker variants, with each subsequent variant improving the quality of the avionics. Later on the MiG 1.44 and S-47 technology demonstrators. Both of those have some RCS reduction design features, but they're technology demonstrators, they're not meant to be true "stealth" aircraft. They're learning/engineering tools. A more than a decade later, Russia unveils the T-50, revealing a planform the same as the YF-22 and a forward fuselage similar to that of the YF-23 ("shape, shape, shape"). Before you get your panties in a wad, know that I'll come back to the "why" later and it'll make a lot of sense.

Designing an aircraft with both an efficient aerodynamic shape as well as an RCS reducing design takes a lot of math. You need some very advanced software to reliably design a shape that has predictable low-observable features. This software is the crown jewel of companies such as Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman and Boeing and you just can't go out to Best Buy and pick up a copy like you would WIndows. So let's say that you're an industrial nation and you write your own software from scratch - which would take years, even for global powerhouses such as Microsoft and Apple - because you've got to do the math to begin with so you can program it into your application. Now, how do you know if it actually works? Easy, you don't. That's what RCS ranges and technology demonstrators are for. Again, that's more time and money you've got to spend and China and Russia are working against the clock to catch up. If you know something works such as certain airframe shapes, it's a LOT easier, faster and cheaper to analyze those, reverse engineer data and apply what you've learned into what you're building. As I said earlier, both the US and USSR did it after WWII. Now, Russia and China are doing it again today. That's what happened with the T-50, the J-20 and this new Chinese type we're seeing pictures of - the F60. Russia doesn't have to worry about the US (or else anyone for that matter) invading them anytime soon, all those nuclear missiles they have sorta take care of that. And Russia doesn't have the strategic defense agreements that the US has with NATO, Japan, South Korea, etc. so they're not likely to be called upon by an ally into become directly involved in a regional conflict anytime soon, so why do they need a LO frontline fighter for? 1. It's like keeping a condom around; better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. 2. The export market. It's a very smart business decision on their part. They've always had a very successful export business and they have to keep up with technology to ensure a continued presence in that market for the next couple of decades. In the last decade that market shifted drastically towards wanting/needing advanced LO types. Russia had to catch up fast or run the risk of losing market share. I wouldn't call the T-50 a copy like I would the Su-25, I would consider it to be a chimera. It obviously has some Flanker DNA in it, Sukhoi's had a lot of success with the general arrangement of the forward fuselage and twin nacelle design so if it's not broken, why fix it? But the planform is without a doubt from the YF-22 ("shape, shape, shape") and the forward fuselage cross section is based upon the YF-23s due to the need for a ventral weapons bay. It's a low cost, low risk approach to the design in order to get it fielded and into the market as quickly as possible. The T-50 has a potential market with all the Flanker operators out there, not to mention it could compete against the F-35, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen with non-aligned nations. It's LO features give it an advantage over the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen in those contract competitions.

Regarding the J-20/1.44 connection, yeah, the J-20 has a remarkable similarity to that type and it wouldn't be the first time China copied/modified a Russian design either (Q-5, J-7, JL-9, J-11B). MiG has denied any involvement/technology transfer with the development of the J-20. Do I believe them? Ehhhh.... Lockheed-Martin didn't say anything about their involvement with the Yak-141 until 1994, two years after the fact. A behind closed doors involvement with the J-20 would certainly help boost MiGs cash flow, especially at a time that Sukhoi's enjoying the success of their Flanker family and was selected as the manufacturer of not just the PAK-FA project, but the FGFA as well. MiG 1.44 had some RCS reduction features, but where's China's "Have Blue," their "Tacit Blue," their MBB Lampyridae, their Bird of Prey, their BAe Replica? Those were all low observable technology demonstrators from the past 30 years from various manufacturers from different nations, each type furthering knowledge and experience. Their technology demonstrator may very well be the MiG 1.44.

Could Russia and China produce completely original, indigenous designs on their own? Sure! It would take a few more years, but it would happen. However, they have a vested interest in getting designs out there now; they cannot wait a few more years.

J-20 is going to be an expensive aircraft to manufacture and operate. It's large, it has two engines (twice the maintenance) and it'll burn a lot dead dinosaurs when it flies. It'll perform a role similar to the F-15/F-15E but it's cost will probably limit its numbers and keep it domestic. China's got the J-10, but that's a Gen-4/4.5 type. Nothing wrong with that except it lacks survivability so it'll end up being used as the F/A-18 would. China will need a compliment to the J-20 that they can produce in greater quantities and can operate from a carrier deck. Is what we've seen on the flatbed truck a radar cross-section mockup or ground testing article, or just a propaganda tool? Could be any of those. It IS interesting that the J-20 was a PR coup and this is "leaked" well before it's first flight. China already has a reputation for producing unlicensed copies of consumer goods, even going so far as copying packaging materials. So, this could very well be intended to let nations know that this is China’s attempt at a low cost, mainly export oriented entry level LO fighter. Not quite the full bore, all-aspect stealth of a F-22/F-35, but affordable, practical LO that countries like Pakistan, Egypt, African nations, et al can buy and operate. There's quite a market out there for a fighter that is WAY cheaper than the F-35 or Typhoon, maybe even cheaper to buy and operate than a Gripen. And China doesn't have the export restraints that many western nations have.

There are quite a few competitions going on around the world right now for LO aircraft. Japan, South Korea, India, Pakistan and Turkey are all working on projects. And there's all those Flankers and Fulcrums which will be reaching the end of their service lives over the next two decades. So there's a booming potential export market out there. There's no denying that the US has been on the bleeding edge of LO technology for some time. Sure, others are catching up and that was always been inevitable. But the fact remains that the LO branding is "owned" by the US. It's just like cars; you think of Italian supercars, you think of beautiful works of art that tend to break down a lot whereas Japanese sedans are kinda bland but insanely reliable. When you think of stealth aircraft, you think of the F-117, the B-2, F-22, F-35, YF-23, FB-22, etc... Even the F/A-18E/F and Silent Eagle have some LO features built into them as are US UCAVs. American LO technology works very well, but it's mind-blowing expensive. What Sukhoi and China are doing, by making their aircraft look like American designs, is they're infusing their product with a known quantity. A potential customer looks at the T-50 and F60 and - just by the fact they look like an F-22 or an F-35 - they feel more comfortable with signing that contract since they think that they're going to get that same level of LO characteristics. If Sukhoi or China had a totally all-new design with nothing in common with anything else out there, even if it worked, it'd be a hard sell because it's still an unknown quantity as Russia and China just aren't known for LO innovation. Russia's brand of military hardware has long been "rugged, easy to maintain" but not advanced (sorry comrades). That's why they spent the 90s investing in Fulcrum and Flanker variants, to try to shift that market perception. "Borrowing" from the YF-22/YF-23 helps make their product look like it'll be relevant for the early 21st century.* So by copying the F-22/F-35, they're both angling to get as much export market share as they can, as early as possible. Because if they don't, neither will have much of a domestic aviation industry in a few decades.

Sw1jG.jpg

I want to make clear that despite what you may feel, that I'm NOT slagging on either Russia or China for this. The way I see it, they're both doing their best to stay competitive in the emerging marketplace. Happens all the time in industry, be it automotive, consumer electronics, etc... Hopefully any replies will be adult in nature and not the political bickering that's already tried to ignite.

*One of the reasons the Rafale has had such a hard time on the export market is that it's equal to a late model F-16. Fine for now, but no one wants an F-16 10, 20 or even 30 years from now. Sukhoi's seen this and are trying to avoid the same fate.

Hello you guys,

Greeting from Chinese.

I don't expect so much for this "J-18".

Let see what would that be,it is called Zong Zi by Chinese military fans.

Due to it has a body totally covered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zongzi

:thumbsup:

Haven't tried Zong Zi yet, I'm still on a shawarma kick.

tumblr_m3jvo3tpVa1r03eggo1_r3_500.gif

Edited by Tony Stark
Link to post
Share on other sites

For once, you managed to form an opinion without going to good old and easy stereotypes (for most part) and plain out trolling. I respect your opinion, but it is still a strange mix of truth and fiction, like the point you were trying to make about J-11B or T-50 having planform of YF-22. Surely YF-22 have planform of F-15? :)And if we go even more back, surely MiG-25 has same planform as YF-22?

PS: In general i can agree that YF-23 DNA is felt in T-50 (i don't mind that... :woot.gif: ) but i see nothing connecting it to YF-22 or F-22.

Edited by Berkut
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has Iceland offered official apologies for Björk yet?

;)

Andre

Come again? She is one of the most creative and artistic people in music. Notice I didn't say "females in music." I mean PEOPLE, plain and simple. One of the few music "artists" who really are artists. Granted, if you don't get it, you may not appreciate her, but that's like saying, "I don't understand it, so it's stupid." Bryan Adams (he was mentioned) is a much easier target, and yet he was far more commercially successful. Yet nearly every line of every song, and every song title, could come from a book called "Cliches, Idioms, and Other Extremely Common Phrases."

All this being said, I'm from the U.S. I would hate think if I had to apologize for every cheesy musician from this country before I could discuss the attributes of a (possibly) stealth fighter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great summation Tony Stark - I'm not sure I agree with all of it - but the gist of it is fair comment.

One thing that springs to mind though..........

If the whole LO thing has to do with shape, shape, shape - how would it be possible to design anything indigenous that didn't bear a passing resemblance to the F-22, F-35 etc ???

I know you said not to trot out the old 'Form follows Function' argument - but if China and Russia were to create original LO designs, aren't they by definition bound to look like others of the same ilk??

You can only do so much within the constraints of LO........ and then you're accused of copying!

Unless you design a brick - and rely on plasma cloaking.... :woot.gif:

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...