Go Back   Defence Talk Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Our Supporters
Contact us today!

Veterans can obtain information regarding VA Loan including how to get a VA Refinance

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

PAK-FA-Test-Flight-Fighter-Aircraft-Russia.jpg

PAK-FA-Test-Flight-Fighter-Aircraft-Russia-02.jpg

PAK-FA-Test-Flight-Fighter-Aircraft-Russia-01.jpg

PNS_Shamsheer_1.jpg
Tag Cloud
Thread search tags
armed forces army artilery assault rifles balance of power battleship boeing book british british empire brt-80 cannon colombia cruise defense degree divide and rule education evolution f-16 f15 patrol france future of sidearms gcc gulf gunner guns history horn of africa information intelligence japanese empire leningrad lifestyle machine gun malaysian army missle national defence nazi soldiers new zealand northrop grumman nzdf policy raf rafale ran bluewater mrv rmn royal malaysian navy rus russia sas saudi russia bandar putin security ship singapore somalia south american strategies sweden tactics thai air force top uae ucav ukraine vehicle viking weapons weapons. wwii

Random Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





China Close To Testing Next-Gen Fighter

This is a discussion on China Close To Testing Next-Gen Fighter within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; A Chinese fighter of nominally the same technology generation as the Lockheed Martin F-22 will soon enter flight testing, while ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old November 18th, 2009   #1
Junior Member
Private First Class
 
cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 68
China Close To Testing Next-Gen Fighter

A Chinese fighter of nominally the same technology generation as the Lockheed Martin F-22 will soon enter flight testing, while a jet airlifter larger than the Airbus A400M should be unveiled by year-end.

Beijing’s fighter announcement suggests a serious failing in U.S. intelligence assessments, mocking a July 16 statement of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates that China would have no fifth-generation fighters by 2020. Industrial competition looks more remote than strategic competition, however, since China will want to fill domestic requirements before offering the aircraft abroad, even if it judges export sales to be a wise policy.

The new fighter “is currently under development,” says Gen. He Weirong, deputy air force chief. “[It] may soon undertake its first flight, quickly enter flight testing and then quickly equip the forces.

“According to the current situation, [the entry into service] may take another eight to 10 years,” he adds.

No details of the aircraft were given, but it is almost certainly designed for supersonic cruise without afterburning. In April, Adm. Wu Shengli, the navy chief, listed supercruising fighters among equipment that his service needed. Notably, all the other equipment on his wish list looked quite achievable by the end of the next decade, matching the timing that the air force now suggests for the fighter.

China classifies aircraft of the F-22’s technology level as fourth-generation fighters, although they are called fifth-generation aircraft in the West. China’s current advanced fighter, the J-10, is locally called a third-generation aircraft, which in Chinese terms means that it is comparable with the Lockheed Martin F-16.

Work on “the fourth-generation aircraft is now proceeding intensely,” He says.

Whether the upcoming fighter is really comparable with the F-22 remains to be seen. Low radar reflectivity would not be surprising, since aircraft and missiles with stealthy shapes are now popping up in many countries, including South Korea as recently as last month (AW&ST Oct. 26-Nov. 2, p. 42). But sensor performance, information fusion and maximum supercruise speed would also be assessed critically in measuring a claim to have caught up with technology levels that the U.S. did not deploy until 2005.

The existence of a Chinese fifth-generation fighter, usually tagged J-XX, has been rumored for years without official confirmation.

If the aircraft does go into service before 2020, then at that time China may well have jumped past Britain, France and other Western European countries in terms of deployed, domestically developed combat-aircraft technology. That will depend on how quickly those countries move to field combat drones to replace current strike aircraft, says Andrew Brookes of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Brookes takes seriously the Chinese objective of technology equivalent to the F-22, and he sees no reason to doubt that the F-22 would be the standard against which they would judge their design. The know-how can be imported.

“The Russians have the technology and the Chinese have the money,” he says. “If they really set that as a target, then I think they can do it.”

The aircraft may not bother Western manufacturers in export markets, Brookes suggests, simply because an equivalent of the F-22 would be a destabilizing export that China would be prefer to keep to itself.

Even if China decides that it wants to export the fighter, Lockheed Martin should by then be well entrenched with the F-35, which should be mature and reliable at that point. Other manufactures may not be so well placed, however.

Gen. He made his remarks during an interview on China Central Television as part of the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the air force of the People’s Republic of China. (The general’s surname is pronounced as “her” but without the “r.”)

China is probably working on two fifth-generation concepts, says Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center. One of those concepts, appearing most commonly in bits and pieces of evidence that have turned up from time to time, would be a heavy twin-engine fighter probably of about the same size as the F-22. The other is a single-engine aircraft probably closer to the Lockheed Martin F-35.

Gen. He could be referring to either of the aircraft when predicting an entry into service during the next decade. Fisher’s bet is that he is talking about the twin-engine concept.

Like Brookes, Fisher believes China is realistically aiming at the F-22’s technology level. “One has to assume that the People’s Liberation Army is confident in its projections, as it almost never makes such comments about future military programs, especially one that has been as closely held as its next-generation fighter.

“As such, one has to be asking very hard questions: How did the U.S. intelligence community get this one wrong? And inasmuch as no one expects the F-35 to replace the F-22 in the air superiority role, is it time to acknowledge that F-22 production termination is premature and that a much higher number is needed to sustain deterrence in Asia?”

In his July 16 speech, Gates said that even in 2025 China would have but a handful of fifth-generation aircraft.
The new Chinese fighter could come from the Chengdu or Shenyang plants of Avic Defense.

Gen. He says the Chinese air force plans to emphasize development of four capabilities: reconnaissance and early warning, air strike, strategic supply, and air and missile defense.

The J-10 began large-scale service entry in 2006, state media say.

When Wu raised the prospect of a supercruising fighter, an easy answer seemed to be an advanced version of the J-10. That looks less likely now that He describes the future concept as a full generation ahead of the J-10.

“I believe the Chinese have a difficult road if their design is tied to the J-10,” says a U.S. Air Force officer involved in the development of the F-35. “Significantly reduced signature requires more than coatings. It requires an integrated design philosophy with the right shaping, the right structure and the right surface coatings.”

Fisher assumes that China is developing improved fourth-generation fighters in parallel with the fifth generation.

The existence of the airlifter has been known for several years, if only because pictures of it have appeared fleetingly in presentations by the Chinese aviation conglomerate Avic.

As expected, it turns out to be a product of Avic’s large-airplane subsidiary, Avic Aircraft and, more specifically, of the subsidiary’s core plant, Xi’an Aircraft.

Avic Aircraft General Manager Hu Xiaofeng says the airlifter is in the 200-metric-ton class and will be unveiled at the end of this year.

In fact, its design has already unveiled in pictures shown by state media. The four-engine aircraft adopts the universal high-wing, T-tail configuration. The wing is mounted on top of the circular body, rather than passing through a deep segment of it and cutting out much of the usable cross-section. In that respect it is like the A400M, Ilyushin Il-76 and Kawasaki C-X but unlike the C-17, whose embedded wing presents less frontal area.
The main gear of the Chinese aircraft is housed in very protuberant sponsons, like those of the C-17.

A photograph of the cockpit shows five electronic displays of moderate size and conventional transport-style control columns. Engines are not revealed but would presumably be imported from Russia. A wind-tunnel model shows the engines are enclosed in long nacelles, like those of the Perm PS-90 from Russia.

The PS-90 has a standard maximum thrust of 35,300 lb. in its latest version. The C-17, with a gross weight of 265 tons, is powered by four Pratt & Whitney F117 engines of 40,400 lb. thrust.

The airlifter’s fuselage appears to be of conventional metal construction. The aircraft will be significantly larger than the A400M, which has a 141-metric-ton gross weight.

Hu says it has been independently developed in China. However, his parent company, Avic, has a long history of cooperation with Ukrainian airlifter specialist Antonov.


With David A. Fulghum in Washington.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...xt-Gen Fighter

Admin. Up until this point you were doing fine. Don't however try to bait other members or trot out silly comments or you will end up being treated as a troll. It wasn't necessary and you have polluted your credibility by posting such drivel. Take it as a warning - and from a Mod who has asian blood coursing through their veins.

Last edited by gf0012-aust; November 19th, 2009 at 12:50 AM.
cheetah is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

2 Lastest Threads by cheetah
Thread Forum Last Poster Replies Views Last Post
China Close To Testing Next-Gen Fighter Air Force & Aviation gf0012-aust 11 3468 November 18th, 2009 11:35 AM

Old November 18th, 2009   #2
New Member
Private
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5
Testing, by no means IOC. For the matter, General He himself states 9-10 years, and 9-10 years = 2019/2020? Add another year or two to achieve IOC and you have it at 2020 or later. Sure, Gates may have estimated 2025, but considering the secretive nature of Chinese development, does it surprise you that the estimates are off?

And your part 1) is simply inflammatory and pointless.
dtwn is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2009   #3
Super Moderator
General
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 3,196
Additionally I would treat with a healthy does of skepticism the supposed capabilities of this fighter. If it's nominally fifth gen, what does this mean in practical terms? We're skeptical of even the Russian PAK-FA, and Russia has AESA, has experience in RCS-reduction (including operationally on the Tu-160, and experimentally on the Su-47) and has extremely advanced 4.5th gen aircraft. Even so, it's questionable on how capable a next-gen fighter will be. Even more so with this Chinese announcement.
Feanor is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2009   #4
Moderator
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,099
I wrote this in my blog in the second half of this entry
China Air and Naval Power: US/China relations + PLA transparency
to sum up, this will happen. The deputy commander of PLAAF will not come out to talk about a strategically important project like this without assurances from people below with fear of embarassment. When it mentions service entry, that means FOC if you look at the fact that it referred to J-10's service entry as 2006.
__________________
Visit my Chinese military blog at http://china-pla.blogspot.com/
tphuang is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2009   #5
Super Moderator
General
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 3,196
So best case, everything goes as planned, it will be at FOC aroudn 2018-19.
Feanor is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2009   #6
New Member
Private
 
King Comm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
Additionally I would treat with a healthy does of skepticism the supposed capabilities of this fighter. If it's nominally fifth gen, what does this mean in practical terms? We're skeptical of even the Russian PAK-FA, and Russia has AESA, has experience in RCS-reduction (including operationally on the Tu-160, and experimentally on the Su-47) and has extremely advanced 4.5th gen aircraft. Even so, it's questionable on how capable a next-gen fighter will be. Even more so with this Chinese announcement.
If you think about it, China already has a lot of the things necessary for a true 4th generation fighter.

For one, China already has three types of AESA in service, in KJ-2000 and KJ-200 AWACS and Type 052C destroyer, one that can fit into a fighter shouldn't be beyond reach. Advanced avionics,

JF-17 features a total glass cockpit, a weapon and mission management computer built around a powerful processor, and distributed power management system. J-10B features a wide angle holographic HUD, large LCD displays have being displayed in various air shows.

Engines, the reason why most people believe that China won't come up with a sufficient engine in time is because of the time it took the Americans to come up with F119 after F100. However, work on F119 only started after F100 was completed, if the new Chinese engine didn't start after WS10 was completed, but ran parallel to it, than it could come out a lot sooner than people expect, and even if the new engine can not be ready in time, Saturn 117S is still available.

As to the aerodynamic layout, as early as 2001, the designer of J-10, Song Wencong, proposed a radical design featuring high degree of instability in the pitch axis, delta wings with LERX, directional control canard, and small all moving rudders, though the original paper discussed Caret type intake, judging by what we have seen so far, DSI is more likely. Over the years, LERX was tested on JF-17, DSI was tested on both JF-17 and J-10B, and directional control canard was tested on J-10.

So the only thing we know virtually nothing about is stealth capability. But rumour has it that China obtained pieces of the downed F-117 from Serbia.
King Comm is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2009   #7
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
 
DarthAmerica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: CONUS
Posts: 722
There is a lot going under the hood and external to the F-22/35 that make them so great. Again, think systems. Even if the Chinese could make an aircraft like the F-22 with it's exact performance characteristics it would still not have the avionics or benefit from the external enablers all USAF platforms do. This isn't a realistic threat until will into the 2020's considering the bar will continue to be raised and they are playing catch up. The rate of advance is exponential and not linear.

-DA
DarthAmerica is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2009   #8
Super Moderator
General
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 3,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Comm View Post
If you think about it, China already has a lot of the things necessary for a true 4th generation fighter.

For one, China already has three types of AESA in service, in KJ-2000 and KJ-200 AWACS and Type 052C destroyer, one that can fit into a fighter shouldn't be beyond reach. Advanced avionics,

JF-17 features a total glass cockpit, a weapon and mission management computer built around a powerful processor, and distributed power management system. J-10B features a wide angle holographic HUD, large LCD displays have being displayed in various air shows.
So first thing is first. AESA arrays on destroyers, AWACS, and GBAD is different from operational AESA on a fighter. Not to mention I would state that it takes 2nd or 3rd gen AESA for a true 5th gen. Yes China can produce capable 4th gen fighters (though not without some help). They are not a few years away from an operating 5th gen.

Quote:
Engines, the reason why most people believe that China won't come up with a sufficient engine in time is because of the time it took the Americans to come up with F119 after F100. However, work on F119 only started after F100 was completed, if the new Chinese engine didn't start after WS10 was completed, but ran parallel to it, than it could come out a lot sooner than people expect, and even if the new engine can not be ready in time, Saturn 117S is still available.
Provided that Russia is willing to export license and ToT for the Al-41 (117S). Hasn't been the case recently. And if it's developed in parallel, how much more advanced really is it? Without operating experience from the WS-10, a new engine design would be limited in terms of how far it can improve.

Quote:
As to the aerodynamic layout, as early as 2001, the designer of J-10, Song Wencong, proposed a radical design featuring high degree of instability in the pitch axis, delta wings with LERX, directional control canard, and small all moving rudders, though the original paper discussed Caret type intake, judging by what we have seen so far, DSI is more likely. Over the years, LERX was tested on JF-17, DSI was tested on both JF-17 and J-10B, and directional control canard was tested on J-10.

So the only thing we know virtually nothing about is stealth capability. But rumour has it that China obtained pieces of the downed F-117 from Serbia.
The airframe issue is one of combining multi-aspect LO with aerodynamic viability. The F-117 is ancient in this regard, practically useless. How much they could glean from obtaining some pieces of it is questionable.

Again the Chinese are moving fast, but not that fast. Some things require time to build up.
Feanor is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2009   #9
Moderator
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthAmerica View Post
There is a lot going under the hood and external to the F-22/35 that make them so great. Again, think systems. Even if the Chinese could make an aircraft like the F-22 with it's exact performance characteristics it would still not have the avionics or benefit from the external enablers all USAF platforms do. This isn't a realistic threat until will into the 2020's considering the bar will continue to be raised and they are playing catch up. The rate of advance is exponential and not linear.

-DA
actually, avionics is one part that they are not as far behind the West. If they can get the radar signature down to the level of F-22, that would be amazing. And let's not forget, engine remains the achille's heel of PLA
__________________
Visit my Chinese military blog at http://china-pla.blogspot.com/
tphuang is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2009   #10
New Member
Private
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by tphuang View Post
I wrote this in my blog in the second half of this entry
China Air and Naval Power: US/China relations + PLA transparency
to sum up, this will happen. The deputy commander of PLAAF will not come out to talk about a strategically important project like this without assurances from people below with fear of embarassment. When it mentions service entry, that means FOC if you look at the fact that it referred to J-10's service entry as 2006.
Aww bitchin, I totally dig your blog dude. Just a shame you dont post more often , but keep up the good work and the valuable insights!

Quote:
actually, avionics is one part that they are not as far behind the West. If they can get the radar signature down to the level of F-22, that would be amazing. And let's not forget, engine remains the achille's heel of PLA
If you say so, tho I remain sceptical. Because the F-22 and especially the F-35 avionics are realllllly advanced, and the level of integration and the amount of computer power are quite staggering.

Quote:
So first thing is first. AESA arrays on destroyers, AWACS, and GBAD is different from operational AESA on a fighter. Not to mention I would state that it takes 2nd or 3rd gen AESA for a true 5th gen. Yes China can produce capable 4th gen fighters (though not without some help). They are not a few years away from an operating 5th gen.
I think I dare to add that every system works different on aircraft. Think about it, power supply, weight, size are ,much less of an issue on a ship or a large airborne platform than on a fighter plane.
Toptob is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2009   #11
New Member
Private
 
King Comm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
So first thing is first. AESA arrays on destroyers, AWACS, and GBAD is different from operational AESA on a fighter. Not to mention I would state that it takes 2nd or 3rd gen AESA for a true 5th gen. Yes China can produce capable 4th gen fighters (though not without some help). They are not a few years away from an operating 5th gen..
Well, from Chinese official source, about the feats of the director of 607 institute, mentioning the completion of AESA for the "X gen" fighter as one of his major achievments. The prototype was completed in 2008 and tested on an airborne testbed (Y-8CB?). And now the Chinese have 8-10 years to perfect it.

Quote:
Provided that Russia is willing to export license and ToT for the Al-41 (117S). Hasn't been the case recently. And if it's developed in parallel, how much more advanced really is it? Without operating experience from the WS-10, a new engine design would be limited in terms of how far it can improve.
Keep in mind that WS-10 is based on the older WS-6 and CFM-56, both came out in the 70's, the technologies were already quite mature when WS-10 started, the new engine could have just used a lot more newer, and untested technologies, which explains why it takes much longer to complete than WS-10. But for the first flight which will happen soon, both WS-10A and AL-31F or even D-30K can be used, Supercruise capability is not needed for the maiden flight and ground testing.


Quote:
The airframe issue is one of combining multi-aspect LO with aerodynamic viability. The F-117 is ancient in this regard, practically useless. How much they could glean from obtaining some pieces of it is questionable.
Pieces of the F-117 provides information on radar absorbent materials.

Note that F-22's aerodynamic layout was set in the early 80's, understandings of aerodynamics, flight control, and signature reduction progressed massively since then, just look at the X-36 technology demonstrator, the ideas are way ahead of F-22, and it's from the mid-90's, So basically, if the Chinese can reach the same level in aerodynamics and flight control as the US in the late 90's, something with superior maneouverability and supercruise capability, and comparable or slightly inferior low observability is achievable.

Last edited by King Comm; December 23rd, 2009 at 03:06 AM.
King Comm is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2009   #12
Lurker
General
 
gf0012-aust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Comm View Post

Pieces of the F-117 provides information on radar absorbent materials.

Note that F-22's aerodynamic layout was set in the early 80's, understandings aerodynamics, flight control, and signature reduction progressed massively since then, just look at the X-36 technology demonstrator, the ideas are way ahead of F-22, and it's from the mid-90's, So basically, if the Chinese can reach the same level in aerodynamics and flight control as the US in the late 90's, something with superior maneouverability and supercruise capability, and comparable or slightly inferior low observability is achievable.

US sig management is not based around the F-22. Bear in mind that the F-22 is fundamentally their 3rd iteration of an operational deliberately designed LO platform. It's a bow tie design which is already being supplanted. In development terms although the JSF is not as "superior" at an RCS level, the tech for it as generationally (physical) more advanced. Its RCS is relative to its mission. In other areas bear in mind that the US is also on an equiv 6th physical generation of unmanned asset and that in technical terms, those platforms are also technically superior to the F-22.

also, looking at RAM for the F-117 is really 30 year old technology, and in real terms (from Have Blue genealogy) its close to 40 years old. That RAM was also specific to that iteration of sig management - it is positively archaic in contemp terms in fact its not that far removed from what the US was doing with their ferret surveillance lightning bugs.

You just can't pull tech from one asset and attach it to something else, thats not how it works at an engineering level
__________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
gf0012-aust is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:41 PM.