About china's 4th fighter

bjskyhorse

New Member
Is there any news about PLAF'S forth generation fighter.There a lot of pictures about them on the china's website.But most of them are not true.We can still draw the conclusion it is a kind of fighter looks like F22,YF23 or F35.
 

divedeep

New Member
Is there any news about PLAF'S forth generation fighter.There a lot of pictures about them on the china's website.But most of them are not true.We can still draw the conclusion it is a kind of fighter looks like F22,YF23 or F35.
Anyone can pull off a decent photoshop job if given the time and the rather conspicuous lack of actual design work for a PRC 5th Gen means fan boys will use existing designs as a baseline for their dreams. If a design manages to come out in the next 10, 20 odd years expect it to look something like a "5th Gen" Saab proposed for the ROKAF's KF-X III requirement.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Is there any news about PLAF'S forth generation fighter.There a lot of pictures about them on the china's website.But most of them are not true.We can still draw the conclusion it is a kind of fighter looks like F22,YF23 or F35.
There are very few credible pics, which I think might be available in our gallery section, but even those pics are outdated. They are from preliminary stages. The project design has come long way from them so we are not really sure how its going to turn out. Earlier common belief was that it would be modeled around Russian MiG-1.44. This was because many pics were photo shopped around MiG-1.44.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Is there any news about PLAF'S forth generation fighter.There a lot of pictures about them on the china's website.But most of them are not true.We can still draw the conclusion it is a kind of fighter looks like F22,YF23 or F35.
4th gen.? You mean the J-10? Or did you actually mean 5th gen.?
 

Type59

New Member
4th gen.? You mean the J-10? Or did you actually mean 5th gen.?
Chinese disignate aircraft differently


Designation Manufacturer Quantity Type

4th Generation
J-XX
Chengdu / Shenyang - Multirole stealth fighter

3rd Generation
J-11 Shenyang 95 Multirole fighter
J-10 Chengdu 80~100 Multirole fighter
FC-1 (JF-17) Chengdu - Multirole fighter
Su-30MKK KnAAPO 100 Multirole fighter
Su-27SK KnAAPO 36 Air-superiority fighter
Su-27UBK IAPO 40 Air-superiority fighter / Trainer

Generation 2.5
J-8II Shenyang ~250 Interceptor fighter

2nd Generation
J-8 Shenyang ~50 Interceptor fighter
J-7 Chengdu 500+ Interceptor fighter


1st Generation

J-6 Shenyang Retired Interceptor fighter
J-5 Shenyang Retired Interceptor fighter
MiG-15 Mikoyan Retired Interceptor fighter
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
J-XX refers to the 5th Generation program which were later unveiled as J-13 & J-14 by Shenyang & Chengdu respectively. I think J-14 (Chengdu) has been chosen.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Really? Do you have any links to the unveiled J-13 and J-14?
Unveiled not as in unveiled the prototype or designs. Some 'information was unveiled' by Chinese magazines (I believe) & forums about CAC winning the contract. I myself learned the news from Pathfinder-x. Wait for him or Tphuang to show up. They can give you better information.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
there is no J-13 or J-14. We just know that the CAC design was chosen and got a designation, but SAC got some funding and no official designation. So, you know they will buy CAC's plane for sure, but they might also purchase SAC's product if it turns out okay.
If a design manages to come out in the next 10, 20 odd years expect it to look something like a "5th Gen" Saab proposed for the ROKAF's KF-X III requirement.
don't write stupid stuff like this.
 

divedeep

New Member
don't write stupid stuff like this.
While the Chinese aptitude for copying is well noted don't expect a design approximating the inherent VLO characteristics of a baseline "5th Gen" such as the Lightning or Raptor. They simply are not capable of designing something that advanced despite demonstrating significant advances. Therefore if you have seen the proposed Saab design then I believe that airframe would resemble the CAC design to a degree.
 

zeven

New Member
While the Chinese aptitude for copying is well noted don't expect a design approximating the inherent VLO characteristics of a baseline "5th Gen" such as the Lightning or Raptor. They simply are not capable of designing something that advanced despite demonstrating significant advances. Therefore if you have seen the proposed Saab design then I believe that airframe would resemble the CAC design to a degree.
And what make the F-35/F-22s design more advanced than Saabs??

are you aware SAAB has the patent of that design, and it is very hard to make a canard configuration very stealthy, with that said, SAABs design is more advanced.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
What makes them more advanced in my opinion is the VLOe features, as well as the avionics.
 

ReAl PrOeLiTeZ

New Member
While the Chinese aptitude for copying is well noted don't expect a design approximating the inherent VLO characteristics of a baseline "5th Gen" such as the Lightning or Raptor. They simply are not capable of designing something that advanced despite demonstrating significant advances. Therefore if you have seen the proposed Saab design then I believe that airframe would resemble the CAC design to a degree.
that so called attitude towards copying is your statement and is not true and has intellectual thinking around it. China is 3rd nation in space, and they caught up 30 years of technology in 10 years time. J-8 jumping to J-10 is a significant step and can challenge mainstream of western airforces around the world. Airframe China can come up with something comparable, weapons comparable, electronics not on par but still decent. C-802 one of the most advance anti ship missles in the world, PL-12 comparablity is between AIM-120B-C. People mistaken China as copying when its really is LICENSE MANUFACTURING. J-11, J-7, PL-9 etc...
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
ReAL does your post have a point, other then "China is cool"? There is no evidence of Chinese experiments with LO and VLO technology. The J-10 is impressive, but it's only an early-mid 4th gen.
 

ReAl PrOeLiTeZ

New Member
ReAL does your post have a point, other then "China is cool"? There is no evidence of Chinese experiments with LO and VLO technology. The J-10 is impressive, but it's only an early-mid 4th gen.
im not gonna bother with you, read my post again and think 2 sides of the story and then post back with something decent except one liners.

china doesnt reveal significant projects until it slaps you in the face. so who knows china might already have it but not known to the community. on the other hand maybe not, who knows. j10 if it was developed with influence from Lavi meant to be superior to F-16/F-18 early models. so j-10 wouldnt be an early 4th generation platform, though neither is it a 4.5th generation. its inbetween.
 

nevidimka

New Member
Anyone can pull off a decent photoshop job if given the time and the rather conspicuous lack of actual design work for a PRC 5th Gen means fan boys will use existing designs as a baseline for their dreams. If a design manages to come out in the next 10, 20 odd years expect it to look something like a "5th Gen" Saab proposed for the ROKAF's KF-X III requirement.
interesting. I guess I missed this 1 out. What does this Saab Proposed design looks like?
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
While the Chinese aptitude for copying is well noted don't expect a design approximating the inherent VLO characteristics of a baseline "5th Gen" such as the Lightning or Raptor. They simply are not capable of designing something that advanced despite demonstrating significant advances. Therefore if you have seen the proposed Saab design then I believe that airframe would resemble the CAC design to a degree.
For every air force, there are requirements on certain designs. Considering PLAAF's opposition as F-22/35, what makes you think PLAAF will lower it's requirement to the next generation Gripen?
There are reasons why China is not interested in su-35 (or the Eurocanards when they were possibilities in 2005). These platforms simply are not that helpful against 5th gen US fighters.
ReAL does your post have a point, other then "China is cool"? There is no evidence of Chinese experiments with LO and VLO technology. The J-10 is impressive, but it's only an early-mid 4th gen.
your analysis of J-10 is deeply flawed, but let's focus on the LO technology part.
have you seen the UAV that CAC is developing? Have you seen the UCAV models they have shown? They are all clearly developed to be LO platforms.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
For every air force, there are requirements on certain designs. Considering PLAAF's opposition as F-22/35, what makes you think PLAAF will lower it's requirement to the next generation Gripen?
There are reasons why China is not interested in su-35 (or the Eurocanards when they were possibilities in 2005). These platforms simply are not that helpful against 5th gen US fighters.

have you seen the UAV that CAC is developing? Have you seen the UCAV models they have shown? They are all clearly developed to be LO platforms.
Again there are limitations to what you can achieve with your first operational LO platform, no matter how clever you are. It has taken 30 years for the US to produce a VLO/LO fighter that outperforms its predecessors in terms of kinematics and aerodynamics, doesn't have a maintenance footprint as large as the kitty hawk, doesn't need RAM reapplied after every sortie and doesn't cost the earth (i.e. a 5th gen platform).

Achieving the balance between RCS reduction, reliability/maintainability and cost is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. In addition to the shaping the materials technology required to achieve comparable maintenance requirements to legacy platforms while providing the F-22 with an RCS smaller than the previous gen stealth technology are truly state of the art. That's why it has taken so much investment and so much time for the US to effectively achieve that balance. You think that just because CAC has rolled out a 1st gen LO technology demonstrator or two that it is anywhere near achieving something like the F-22 or F-35 in the short to mid term? I wouldn't hold my breath. There is a light year of difference between technology demonstration/proof-of-concept/lab work and operational experience. So unless the PLAAF wants their new fighter post 2020 i doubt they will get true 5th gen LO performance, as RCS performance will be the first thing to go when CAC doesn't have the materials technology required.

your analysis of J-10 is deeply flawed,
I don't see how his analysis of the J-10 is deeply flawed. Classifying the J-10 as an early 4th gen platform is spot on the mark as far as I'm concerned. The J-10 seems to be a relatively advanced 4th gen airframe, providing good supersonic and subsonic maneuver characteristics and energy management (typical of a delta-canard), however as a platform it distinctly lacks behind the benchmark 4.5th gen fighters. What platforms like the F/A-18F BII and Typhoon provide that puts them in front of the 4th gen pack is a emphasis on information dominance and information management technologies and techniques, which reach a contemporary apex in 5th gen platforms. This goes far beyond glassing the cockpit. The introduction of ESM systems as capable as DASS and AN/ALR 63 (v)3, world leading HUI (more advanced than 5th gen competitors) and extremely capable LPI radars such as the AN/APG-79 (although not capable as the AN/APG-79, notably in terms of LPI performance, but Captor is still a world leading radar), all has a massive effect on SA.

Additionally its not just the quality of the sensors that sets the above platforms apart, its the way the avionics suits collate and fuse the information and work with the HUI to present usable information (rather than data) about the battle-space. Its the ability of these platforms to improve tactical decision making that sets them apart from other 4th gen platforms, and raw performance or airframe design has little to do with it.

I don't see any systems of that caliber anywhere near J-10, and at this point in time PROC has yet to demonstrate the capability to produce previous gen equivalent systems (only just in terms of MSA radar tech). Of course you could stick to the "we haven't seen what they've produced yet so maybe they have an AN/APG-79 in the bag", but personally I'm not into acts of faith. Thus the J-10 as a platform is IMO comparable to an F-16C, with possibly some advantages in raw performance. A long, long, long, way behind a Typhoon or Super bug.
 
Top