Proposal.
About china's 4th fighter
- Thread starter bjskyhorse
- Start date
When they fly I'll be convinced. And even the I'll have my reservations. Until then, Russia is also developing an unmanned LO bomber meant to enter service around 2020, and it's also clearly an LO platform, at least the mockup looks like it. That doesn't mean anything. Not to mention that there is a big difference between an LO UCAV and an LO 5th gen. air superiority/multirole fighter.
Thanks. This design looks much stealthier and more 5th gen then the Gripen, NG or not. Why didn't Saab go straight to this design compared to a 4th gen design in the Gripen? $$$ problem?
It's certainly not going to be their first LO platform. They already have LO UAV in service and are developing more. Their 5th generation plane is not going to be the first one.
It's not a technology demonstrator. GAIC already have LO UAV in service, the CAC prototype is another that they are developing.
Do you think they just started researching on this? They've been working on these for years. They had a local competition between SAC and CAC for the best design like USAF did for F-22 and F-35. Unless you think China is more than 15 years behind US in material technology. There is no reason to think that China would not have at least the same level of material used on F-22 when it was being developed in the late 90s and early this decade. And the electronics on the Chinese 5th generation plane will be better than the one on F-22 when it came out. Just think about how much faster processors got in the past 15 years.
do you know the performance of J-10's radar? From the numbers I got, it's comparable to Captor's performance (probably less range due to the smaller nose of J-10).
The J-10B that just flew this year is suppose to have avionics, situation awareness equivalent to any of the eurocanards, we will see if that's the case in a couple of year.
Even take a look at J-11B (which gives a good indication of what's on the current J-10), it has the holographic HUD, Quadriplex FBW, good modern cockpit, MAWs and IRST, fiber optic cable for data transmission. We can't really quantify the quality of the EW suite or knows what kind of system architecture it uses to process the data. How far behind is it compared to the super hornet, who really knows?
When did F-16C become early 4th generation?
Let's go with the "long, long, long way behind" statement. J-10 routinely dominates "early 4th generation" fighters in PLAAF like su-27 and su-30mkk and it has very little chance against F-22 even on its home turf. And I can say the same about the typhoon and the super bug. Even from a high level point of view, how much are you gaining when you go from a J-10 to a typhoon?
Let's see now, the Russians are going from having nothing LO to having a LO 5th gen fighter, nobody thinks they will have a problem of doing so.
China is going from having no LO fighter but with a couple of LO UAVs to having a LO 5th gen fighter, everyone thinks they will have trouble to do so.
Realistically speaking, if China even thought they would not be able to develop something capable of countering F-22, they would've joined the Russian 5th generation project while pursuing a separate program on the side. China has plenty of resource to do this, but instead they held their own competition between Shenyang and Chengdu to get a design it wants. Looks like they are both getting funding (China has a lot of money), but Chengdu got a designation (so they will get orders for sure). At the same time, they are developing a new generation of sensors, missiles and avionics that they are testing out on J-10 and J-11 series. They also have next generation engine projects that are due to be completed around the time when the 5th gen fighters/UAVs are scheduled to join service. They have a very comprehensive program. It's not just CAC doing this. Their "big plane" project is not just to create a civilian airliner, but also to develop/buy the manufacturing process, machinery, material science, production/quality control, maintenance/repairs process needed to develop a successful military complex.
Russia has a far longer history of successful aircraft manufacture. Russia also has had multiple 5th gen. projects (which fell through due to lack of funding) from which it can learn. Russia has been experimenting with reduced-RCS technology since the mid 70's. I think all of this put together gives a pretty strong case that Russia will be able to produce an LO platform.
China is much newer to the manufacturing of aircraft. The J-10B and J-11B that you pointed out are very new aircraft, practically cutting edge for China. To go from a J-11B to a F-22 level aircraft is a very big leap.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
The fact that you think having produced a UAV with LO features is comparable to a manned fighter indicates to me you don’t understand the complexities of the technologies involved. The US developed an LO UAV in the late 60’s with the SR-71 platform that was 30 years before they produced a 5th gen fighter, and they do have R&D infrastructure twice as extensive as PROC with a 30 year head start. The private sector does not significantly help in this area.tphuang said:
Just because you produced a tactical UAV with a significantly reduced RCS does not mean you are anywhere near ready to produce something like a US 5th gen platform, especially an F-22A. The requirements are miles apart and in terms of a 5th gen project a “LO” UAV would provide little more experience than lab work. The materials requirements would be totally different.
Additionally you have to ask the question as to what the actual level or RCS reduction is. With all of the RCS reduction on the F/A-18F one could argue the case that it is a LO platform too.
And after all this work what previous gen capability have they demonstrated? A UAV?
Again so what if they have been working for a while, at the time they started work they had ZERO experience with LO technology and after 10 years they have a UAV to show for their efforts. Remember with more cash, R&D resources, 2 previous operational platforms (no their UAV projects don’t count) and 20 years experience it took the US 15 years to develop the F-22A, and PROC is planning on making up 30 years of ground with less resources, less experience and expertise in half the time?
In this area yes I most certainly do. The US is 10 years ahead of the rest of the world in this form of materials technology, and PROC isn’t coming second (the EU is). Advances in the private sector won’t dramatically help as LO technology is not commercially viable industry in the wider economy i.e. very few commercial applications. Thus there is little or no private investment in LO R&D apart for government contracts.
Private sector advances in processor technology have nothing to do with materials tech in LO platforms. There is virtually no wider economic drive for LO technology, therefore PROC is going to have to either develop all of the materials tech required in their own labs and then figure out the production techniques, or acquire the information through espionage (which is unlikely considering the depth of the information base required). This form of materials tech is extremely, extremely advanced and sophisticated, its a lot more than carbon fibre. Right now not even the EU has demonstrated operational competency in this area, and PROC is still a developing nation (i.e. the R&D base is no where near as well developed). The F-22A is state of the art, in the true sense of the word, and your claiming that in 10 years PROC will move from just producing its first indigenous fighter that is not significantly behind the rest of the world generationally (and with a little help from the Israelis) to producing something that was the most advanced form of this technology known to man within 10 years, from scratch? Sounds like a huge leap of faith to me.
There are several, many of which are listed above.
A big one is the F-22A is still under development. Every platform or system has a development curve, and the further along the development curve the more capable said platform or system becomes. I’ve had this conversation with people re AESA radars many times, usually in response to a discussion on the Super Hornet. The usual response is “well platform XXX (Typhoon, Flanker, Grippen, whatever) will have an AESA in XX years and then the APG-79 wont matter (in this discussion) any more”. The reality however is very different, because by the time XX AESA is deployed the AN/APG-79 will be much more advanced, providing features like EA or high capacity data links in addition to significantly advanced D&T performance, when XX AESA will still be working out the bugs. In terms of LO tech the same rule applies, the F-22A of 2020 will be much more lethal than the F-22A of today, and the F-22A uses more advanced materials technology than was used/developed in the 90’s, and it will continue to be upgraded over the next 10 years. After that consider the fact that the F-22A is an order of magnitude more “stealthy” than even the F-35, yet PROC isn’t starting from the F-35, their not even starting from the F-117, they’re starting from the D-21 (well not exactly considering that UAV travelled at Mach 3). PROC has a long, long, long way to go to build a platform as ‘stealthy’ let alone capable as the F-22A of 2000, what about the F-22A of 2020?
Do you know CAPTOR’s D&T radii? What about its side-lobe performance or beam integrity at XX range? What about it’s organic ECCM? Any hard data on how it performs in high clutter environments? What about its LPI features? AFAIK that sort of thing is classified. There’s a lot more to contemporary radar designs than aperture size or power output, or even detection and track performance. How did you come to the conclusion that the J-10’s radar is comparable to CAPTOR? What sources do you have? Do they know or did they do a Carlo Kopp esk Power/Aperture comparison and draw conclusions from that? Unless you have security clearance or know someone who does you won’t know real performance statistics for either system. Thus the above is pure speculation and when we are speculating there are very few things we can know for certain.
However there is one thing we do know, that the EU has demonstrated competency through previous gen systems such as Blue Vixen, which evidently proved to be extremely capable. What previous gen systems has PROC deployed and how did they perform??? Remember every form of technology HAS to move through a development curve, and again apart from processors COTS doesn’t help a heap in radar design. CAPTOR is a highly refined slotted planar array radar that stands at the apex of that technologies development curve. Even IF current gen PROC systems achieve D&T performance somewhere in the ballpark of CAPTOR (which I doubt given how refined that system is) there are several other PI’s that dictate radar performance. Now again you could claim that the J-10’s radar will be comparable to CAPTOR in terms of D&T radii, side-lobe performance & beam integrity, ECCM, LPI, IFF, missile support capability, high clutter performance, SAR mapping other advanced features, but since there is a lack of any verifiable data we have to weigh up how likely these claims are. As yet PROC has yet to demonstrate capacity through previous gen systems, the EU has. That says plenty in my book.
Again claims without demonstrated capacity.
That statement contradicts the previous one. Typhoon’s avionics suite is much more advanced than a glass cockpit, IRST/MAWS and FBW. The MMI is extremely sophisticated; an example is the ability to select weapons through voice recognition technology.
All of that stuff (outlined for the J-11B) is current on US F-15E’s (the IRST comes on the F-15K), and not 4.5th gen pedigree, just stock on a western platform. Again the HUI and information management systems on the SH are the most advanced on the planet, as is the software that drives it, and of course this is in addition to a 3rd gen AESA (2~3 gens ahead of current PROC radar technology).
It’s a baseline 4th gen platform in contemporary terms, meaning it has the stuff that is considered stock on a 4th gen platform nowadays. Big difference between that and 4.5th gen platform.
That says a lot more about the quality of other PLAAF platforms than the J-10’s capability in a global context. I dare say an F-16C would also do pretty well when facing such opposition. In any case exercise results alone can not be the basis for a conclusion on capability, simply because there are far too many variables.
There’s a big difference between 4th gen, even rather advanced 4th gen and 4.5th gen platforms. IMO only 3 platforms make it into that category currently, F/A-18F BII, Typhoon and F-15E BII, SU-35 is a possibility but we’ll have to see how capable that platform is. Those fighters set them selves apart from all other 4th gen platforms primarily (as out lined above) because of the information management technologies introduced and the emphasis on information dominance. Again from everything I’ve read the J-10 or J-11B seem to be a long way from implementing anything like that, and as I said previously this technology means more than glassing the cockpit.
In any case why does PROC constantly compare itself to the US military, like they see a conflict with the US as inevitable? Like if a platform does not provide good enough capability vs an F-22A it’s useless. Attitudes like that will make such a conflict inevitable and at the moment it’s not a view shared by Americans on the whole.
What about your larger strategic threat, India? How many 5th gen platforms do they have currently? I dare say a typhoon would bring plenty to the fight in such a scenario.
This “F-22A standard or its useless” is an odd attitude. Typhoon or Super Hornet provide capabilities far greater than other 4th gen platforms, and its not the sole responsibility of a tactical aircraft to duel with an F-22A.
I think they will have trouble. The Russians are much more advanced in RCS reduction R&D than PROC, and they again have yet to operationally deploy an LO platform (no current gen UAV’s don’t count). I think the PAK-FA will have a significantly reduced RCS technically making it a 5th gen platform, as will the J-XX, but claiming that the level of RCS reduction will be anything near US 5th gen platforms is a bit of a stretch as far as I’m concerned. Remember the AESA paradox? Just because you have produced a LO fighter (or AESA) does not mean you have one as capable as the world leaders in that form of technology. Achieving the balance between practicality, cost and RCS reduction is a very hard thing to accomplish, and when the materials tech is not capable of providing all 3 the first thing to compromise will be the level of RCS reduction.
It doesn’t automatically mean PROC thinks they can produce something as capable as the F-22A, it means they figure they have as good of a chance as the Russians do.
There are a myriad of reasons why PROC wanted a stand alone project, you don’t develop you military industrial complex and R&D capability by buying off the shelf, and doing just that seems to be a key strategic requirement for PROC. Therefore even if they thought they could get a superior platform for less money by participating in the PAK-FA programme there is enough of a dividend in increasing domestic capacity and knowledge base to do the whole thing at home.
In any case I have no doubt that by 2025 PROC will have a “5th gen” fighter in the air, but again claiming it will be as capable, stealthy or lethal as an F-22A or even F-35 in contemporary terms requires Chinese designers to advance their forma of technology in leaps and bounds, much faster than western or even Russian designers have. And considering there won’t be much help from the private sector I think that is one tall order and IMO very difficult to achieve, even if PLA press releases say different.
This is quite untrue.
"Microwave-absorbing materials are currently in high demand
for many expanded electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding
and radar cross section (RCS) reduction applications with both
commercial and defense purposes. Consumer electronics, computers,
wireless LAN devices, wireless antenna systems, and
cellular phone systems are just a few device applications that
require these materials. Generally, magnetic or metal particles
are used for the microwave absorption materials. However, high
specific gravity and difficult formulation have limited their
practical applications. Thus, there remains a need for an efficient
microwave-absorbing material that is relatively lightweight,
structurally sound and flexible, and efficient in absorption in a
wide band range."
http://nanocenter.nankai.edu.cn/script/nanocenter/paper/jp0731396_LZF_2007.pdf
Interesting link. Especially where its coming from.
Let me just state that I totally admire the fact that you wrote such a long response, it's taking me 2 days to reply to it.
Now, looking aside, I don't think you appreciate how long China has been working on this project. You keep on using 10 years, yet they've been working on this since the early 90s. As for material tech, they are testing out their latest composite material on J-10/Z-10. Nobody knows for sure how far behind these things are. And they are putting a lot of resource behind developing this over the next 10 years.
Also, when you already see someone developing something, it gives you a head start in a way vs when the thing you are trying to emulate has never existed. So in terms of stealth and AESA radar, US is on its second/third generation, whereas most other countries have yet to develop either. But due to the fact that US has led the way (shown the path on what's needed to develop these things, published journals on non-confidential material), it's a shorter path. They don't necessarily have to go to the first generation before moving to the second generation.
As for Chinese 5th generation not being a true 5th gen fighter, I would say that if it does turn out that way, it would be because they underestimated the performance of F-22/35. Which is actually quite possible.
Alright, that was like an hour and half of my time, I don't think it was worth it.
I don't recall saying that I think it's comparable, but rather it's refuting your argument that they haven't done anything that's LO. Developing stealthy cruise missiles/UAVs are orders of magnitude simpler, but that's still experience. That's why UAVs take less than half the time to develop. As for super hornet, com'on now, do you really think the Chinese 5th gen plane would not have internal weapon bay and showing engine blades? Even J-10 completely hides the engine blades.
UAV, UCAV, cruise missiles. If the qualification for having Lo-technology capability is having previously developed stealth bombers, then they haven't done that. But they've introduced LO features on Z-10, J-10. Looking outside of the AF, the naval platforms are all showing LO features.
Don't give me this. You have no idea how long CAC/SAC has been researching into this. Do you know how long their 5th generation fighter project has been going on for? Do you know how much resource they have? If you haven't checked, Chinese economy is booming, the American economy is going through a depression. If there is anything China is not lacking, it would be money.
See, what Crobato wrote. They've devoted a lot of resource in China to this recently, there are many institutes in China researching into this. Let's put it this way, China got some of the material used on F-117 that got shot down in Serbia. They actually found it to be not as advanced as the material they already have.
You could easily argue that the jump from J-7 to J-10 was just as large if not larger. I mean prior to J-10, CAC has never successfully developed its fighter. It had been modifying J-7s all along. And the J-10 project produced an entirely new generation of engineers/workers in China + improved the entire production quality. Of course, a lot of their contracting work with civilian airliners help too.
Now, looking aside, I don't think you appreciate how long China has been working on this project. You keep on using 10 years, yet they've been working on this since the early 90s. As for material tech, they are testing out their latest composite material on J-10/Z-10. Nobody knows for sure how far behind these things are. And they are putting a lot of resource behind developing this over the next 10 years.
Well, to think from PLAAF perspective, developing something that achieves IOC in 2018 would have to be more capable in many areas than F-22 of 2000, but also be able to handle F-22 of 2018 in possible war scenarios (ie: around Taiwan factoring additional support from both side).
Also, when you already see someone developing something, it gives you a head start in a way vs when the thing you are trying to emulate has never existed. So in terms of stealth and AESA radar, US is on its second/third generation, whereas most other countries have yet to develop either. But due to the fact that US has led the way (shown the path on what's needed to develop these things, published journals on non-confidential material), it's a shorter path. They don't necessarily have to go to the first generation before moving to the second generation.
by looking at the publicly available numbers in D&T range for J-10's radar/Captor, they are very similar. By looking at the Zhuk series which China rejected and comparing that to the public stuff on captor. I certainly don't have ECCM figures or performance in high clutter and such, but even if J-10 is weaker in these area. I don't see why using the word comparable is wrong. I don't see any reason why I should believe that J-10's radar would be a generation behind Captor on the more specific performance.
well, the D&T range for J-10's radar is mentioned by the person in charge of avionics for J-10. I'd say that's a pretty good source. The tracking and concurrent engagement numbers are also from people working on the project. It's the same idea, PROC did not demonstrate that it could develop anything prior to the past 10 years, but now it has developed an entire range of weaponry even though a lot of its project started in the 80s/90s when it had even less advanced R&D base + funding. And Pakistan even chose China's radars for JF-17 over it's western rivals and said that it fulfilled all of their requirements.
I have contradicted nothing. There has been an upgrade for J-10B from the stuff used on J-10 and J-11B. As for MMI, that's the kind of stuff that we don't have the ability at the moment to verify whether or not China has them. There are things that we can spot with our eyes. Now if you want to say that all the HUI/situation awareness/system architecture (things that no one can actually quantify) is that much further behind for Chinese fighters even though the stuff you can see are all there, then I don't see what's the point of us even going through with this.
I doubt F-16C can dominate MKK the way that J-10 does, lol. And they've had so many exercises by now, the results are pretty valid imo.
and I'm not saying J-10/J-11B are at that level, but J-10B will be. And it's not just me thinking this way, that seems to be what PAF believes too.
India? There is this natural barrier called the Himalayas that would prevent anything from there to seriously threaten China's heartland. Please check the range on MKI and see how far it can fly with useful missile load. There has been a lot of analysis done on this (you clearly have not read any of them if you are bringing this up) and you would see that geography would prevent either side from launching successful land incursions into the other country.
that's the thing, J-10/J-11B with AWACS/ground support can already handle anything from surrounding countries (especially against fighters in ROCAF). Now when we are talking about next generation (so 2015 to 2020), US would be pretty much fielding F-22, F-35 and super hornet in any kind of confrontation. If China's 5th generation fighter is going to get creamed by F-22/35, why would it matter how well it fares against F-16C/F-15J/MKI? If you will have to spend another 5 years to improve your design so that its a true 5th generation fighter, then do it. There is no point spending 20 years working on a 5th generation fighter and come out with something that's slightly better than a super hornet/typhoon.
We will see. Your entire argument falls along the line that they don't have the material technology or technical base for it and my argument is that they have better material technology than you realize and that the amoung of investment they are putting in rivals anything that US put in.
As I said, they have enough money to join the Russian project and work on their own project at the same time. Yet, they chose to fund 2 separate projects at home. And they are also working on building a state of the art assembly line for 5th generation production. Btw, the recent economic depression provides China a lot of opportunity to buy out bankrupted Western machinery companies for their technology. They've already done some purchasing, which will help their general aerospace production capabilit in the future.It doesn’t automatically mean PROC thinks they can produce something as capable as the F-22A, it means they figure they have as good of a chance as the Russians do.
There are a myriad of reasons why PROC wanted a stand alone project, you don’t develop you military industrial complex and R&D capability by buying off the shelf, and doing just that seems to be a key strategic requirement for PROC. Therefore even if they thought they could get a superior platform for less money by participating in the PAK-FA programme there is enough of a dividend in increasing domestic capacity and knowledge base to do the whole thing at home.
In any case I have no doubt that by 2025 PROC will have a “5th gen” fighter in the air, but again claiming it will be as capable, stealthy or lethal as an F-22A or even F-35 in contemporary terms requires Chinese designers to advance their forma of technology in leaps and bounds, much faster than western or even Russian designers have. And considering there won’t be much help from the private sector I think that is one tall order and IMO very difficult to achieve, even if PLA press releases say different.
As for Chinese 5th generation not being a true 5th gen fighter, I would say that if it does turn out that way, it would be because they underestimated the performance of F-22/35. Which is actually quite possible.
Alright, that was like an hour and half of my time, I don't think it was worth it.
You don't know.
"The first 50 JF-17s will be outfitted with Chinese avionics, radar and missiles. But under an agreement with France in February, newer JF-17s will be outfitted with MBDA Mica air-to-air missiles and Thales RC 400 multimission radars."
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3637167
14 July 2008
Pakistan Spending Falls With Economy
"Khan said several foreign arms purchases are likely to be curtailed, including frigates, the next-generation submarine, the option for further F-16 Block-52Ms, French weapons and avionics for the JF-17, Hawkeye 2000 AEW&C-equipped P-3s, improvements to the Al-Khalid main battle tank, a navalized JF-17, new helicopter gunship and replacements for the Navy's Sea King helicopters.
The poor economy may further hurt programs delayed by the October 2005 earthquake, which forced Pakistan to reduce the number of F-16 Block-52Ms on order from 75 to 18, with a further 18 as options. It also reduced the planned number of Saab Erieye AEW&C aircraft from seven to six."
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3736501
22 September 2008
When cash is scarce, they make do with chinese avionics.
Oh. Please, tell us how much is China spending on R&D, and specifically on the J-XX and J-10 project? Having a lot of money doesn't necessarily produce results you know. Throwing money into a rubbish bin wont get you LO technology. You need the industrial base with the depth of experience and quantity of technical expertise. China doesn't have that, even if it really did spend more money on R&D. And I doubt that.
if we assume that original jh7 was something in between sepecat jaguar and original tornado, technology wise, that's a 17 year gap. If we assume that j10 is about as good as f16blk40, that is a 11 year gap. jh7 first flew in 1988, j10 in 1998, so if some new chinese plane flies for the first time in 2008 it should be lagging western tech at least 5 years. (probably a few years more, due to the technology development curve) It has to be less than 11 years so a middle value would be 8 years. That way a chinese plane today would be as good as top european plane in 2000.
If we go to 2018, we have enough previous point to draw a decent curve which would lead us to 5-6 year gap in 2018. in 2028 the gap would be 4-5 years.
Providing the investment in europe remained the same through the future years.
Yeah, i know, its far from scientific, but what the hell, it's no worse than some of the figures being thrown here.
If we go to 2018, we have enough previous point to draw a decent curve which would lead us to 5-6 year gap in 2018. in 2028 the gap would be 4-5 years.
Providing the investment in europe remained the same through the future years.
Yeah, i know, its far from scientific, but what the hell, it's no worse than some of the figures being thrown here.
You can't put gap or makes assumptions on "years" when it comes to technology. History is no precedent when it comes to assessing technology base. First of all, technology is based standing on the shoulders of others. How long did Xerox worked to develop the first GUI and how long does it take to develop a new one now? The amount of basic LO technology information available simply by open source today is exponentially far greater than it was in 1980. Neither does the technology tree have to work from the bottom. For a country to start developing fighter aircraft, it does not need to start from the Wright Brothers flyer to Fokker Eindecker and complete nearly a hundred years before you get into a modern 4th generation jet fighter. Technology also works in leapfrogs. It is a tree after all, not a ladder. You only need to go up one branch and no need to try everyone of the branches. When people are trying to abstract technological development in gaps of years what they are essentially trying to do is trying to express a "comfort zone" or the need for one.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Actually one can put years to it....
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1688&d=1184546676
Anyhow, what you say apply to single or less interdependent technologies.
"Stealth" is a very large number of technologies requiring a knowledgebase on how they work together. Experience & corporate knowledge in the industrial base.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1688&d=1184546676
Anyhow, what you say apply to single or less interdependent technologies.
"Stealth" is a very large number of technologies requiring a knowledgebase on how they work together. Experience & corporate knowledge in the industrial base.
ReAl PrOeLiTeZ
New Member
It still sounds like a ridiculous claim. China's development in technology and technology alone doesnt move in a linear pattern. Look at China as an example, the Western society has a well developed land line system and then the mobile system, while China has a average line system but a well developed mobile system. Go back to China and people will have little knowledge of what a VCR is. The skipped VCR and went into VCD/DVD straight away. Attack heli were non existant but now their own domestic version is in flight testing.
You dont need to start with the basic fundamentals if the their is current technology exposed and on the market. The knowledge can be spread and the basic principles can be skipped. China produces technology cheaper and comparable to Western technology, even India cannot achieve this. India can produce the technology but its cost is somewhat higher then China. China J-10 project started with a budget of less then US$100 million, and F-16 project cost what +$1 billion, and yet the J-10 is comparable the matured F-16 blocks. America's F-16 after entering service took +25 years to develop the F-16 Block50/52 yet China started to produce J-10 without development after service to C/D level. AESA isn't known to be on Chinese fighter platforms but that isnt to say they dont have them, AESA is fitted on their latest destroyers.
If at all China is behind America is like 4.5-5 years, Europe 2-2.5 years. America and Europe have had larger budgets and Economy while China has had 10 years of decent money. By 2020 I would in theory see China ground/air force be on par with America, but its navy still 10-15 years behind
Put to the current financial crisis of America and Europe and don't see how the 2 will have enough funds to run new future projects or even acquire enough units to maintain their force. Decommissioning old fighters to allow F-22 is a step to re-invert cash into acquiring new fighters but then their is a large quantity shortage despite however the F-22 is capable in the end quantity still counts. Its a balance of both.
JH-7 was never mean't to be technologically superior it was an affordable bomb delivery truck with better range and payload then the Q-5/H-6.
You dont need to start with the basic fundamentals if the their is current technology exposed and on the market. The knowledge can be spread and the basic principles can be skipped. China produces technology cheaper and comparable to Western technology, even India cannot achieve this. India can produce the technology but its cost is somewhat higher then China. China J-10 project started with a budget of less then US$100 million, and F-16 project cost what +$1 billion, and yet the J-10 is comparable the matured F-16 blocks. America's F-16 after entering service took +25 years to develop the F-16 Block50/52 yet China started to produce J-10 without development after service to C/D level. AESA isn't known to be on Chinese fighter platforms but that isnt to say they dont have them, AESA is fitted on their latest destroyers.
If at all China is behind America is like 4.5-5 years, Europe 2-2.5 years. America and Europe have had larger budgets and Economy while China has had 10 years of decent money. By 2020 I would in theory see China ground/air force be on par with America, but its navy still 10-15 years behind
Put to the current financial crisis of America and Europe and don't see how the 2 will have enough funds to run new future projects or even acquire enough units to maintain their force. Decommissioning old fighters to allow F-22 is a step to re-invert cash into acquiring new fighters but then their is a large quantity shortage despite however the F-22 is capable in the end quantity still counts. Its a balance of both.
JH-7 was never mean't to be technologically superior it was an affordable bomb delivery truck with better range and payload then the Q-5/H-6.
Well lets just all wait till 2015, and we will know, easy.
Why talk of things that are that far down the line.
In the now with J-10s, J-11Bs(Su-30 with chinese gear right), JF-17s etc. etc. China has no need of importing any fighter from now to the point when this VLO fighter enters PLA-AF, thats one part of the job well done.
Why talk of things that are that far down the line.
In the now with J-10s, J-11Bs(Su-30 with chinese gear right), JF-17s etc. etc. China has no need of importing any fighter from now to the point when this VLO fighter enters PLA-AF, thats one part of the job well done.
localhost127
Member
but has any of it been proven/tried in battle? systems working together, experience, etc?
I guess so.You don't know.
The original choice was made in 2006 when they still had a really rapidly growing economy. And even when the French option came in, it was really just one of the options for the second batch. China at that time had yet to present their competition to the French option.
They spend 20 billion RMB on J-10 and that was from 86 to 2004. Take into consideration how much their economy has grown in the past 20 years, you can do an estimation of how much would be spent from when the research started in the early 90s to let's say somewhere between 2015 and 2020. And their aerospace industry back in the early 90s were stuck in the 60/70s, now at least they are building regional jets and doing a lot of subcontracting work.Oh. Please, tell us how much is China spending on R&D, and specifically on the J-XX and J-10 project? Having a lot of money doesn't necessarily produce results you know. Throwing money into a rubbish bin wont get you LO technology. You need the industrial base with the depth of experience and quantity of technical expertise. China doesn't have that, even if it really did spend more money on R&D. And I doubt that.
i agree with funtz on this one.
its not like China is gonna go to war with USA anytime soon.
any confrontation is likely to be via proxy.
and for that the j-10 / j-11 are more than sufficient.
as fo future development , i think china is on the right track....albeit behind the USA but still on the right track.
I would disagree.
Arms Race in terms of both Quantity & Quality in itself is a Conflict (if not a war). Quality translates into your military superiority & Quantity into your military strength. You not only have to show your adversary your military strength & superiority but also to your friends & proxies, otherwise they would start looking else where. This is one reason Space Race became so important. Both USA & USSR knew victory into Space will insure technological (qualitative) superiority of one power over the other & the rest of the world will start following the victor.
So it does not matter if you are at war or going to fight a war soon. You cannot compromise on Technological qualitative superiority. USA does not need F-22s right now they would need them may be 15 years from now but they are producing & inducting them already. China in a same way cannot afford stay behind. If not the product then at least they would have to show off designs & plans.
In almost very same manner you also maintain the military deterrence (also nuclear deterrence) which prevents the powers from violently conflicting.
You seem to lack a basic understanding of how technology development works. There is a very big difference between knowing how to build something and understanding properly how it works which is the only thing that enables you to design something. Of course they started with the fundamentals. They just did it very fast but they're still some years, in some cases decades behind.
Did you ever think about how many experience and knowledge is contained in the technologies we are watching today? Generations of engineers laid the foundations for that. And you can't just leave out and skip this.
Not true. In terms of production technology (material science, special tooling, welding technology etc.) China is appr. 15-20 years behind Western Europe, e.g. friction stir welding. And at the moment, India is closing the gap faster than China.
Pure BS. All you're saying is that China now can deploy technologies comparable to those that have been developed in the US more than 30 and more than 20 years ago. And btw, how do you know the J-10 is comparable to a present day F-16 systemswise? Ah, you don't? What a shame.
If China would be able to field a F-22 class fighter right now that would be a different thing. But they aren't. If they would be able to make a 787-class plane fly next year, ok. They can't. Can they build an S-class car with a similar quality and technology level as Mercedes does? No.
No doubt that they achieved a lot and they are working fast and someday they perhaps will close the gap. But development doesn't stand still here either
The financial crisis will have a dire impact on China as well and will possibly strike much harder there than in Western Countries due to lower general wealth and less developed infrastructure and industry.
Economy will be back again in a few months and then it's business as usual. Until then, a few more billions of federal deficit, but that's it.
The fact that many western militaries are reducing numbers and ending some projects in favor of others has nothing to do with the current crisis.
So they made an outdated, underpowered fighter intentionally?
ReAl PrOeLiTeZ
New Member
Lack knowledge thats pretty funny since I'm a Mechanical/Material Engineer. So I know alot of fundamental basics thank you very much. So you say basic can't be skipped oh is that so then China should go all the way back to foward propellor planes with manned machine guns. And since China never design cars before, their future car must be like those in the colonial days then hey? And their airliners don't exist, oh well what is the ARJ-21 then? A hot air ballon?
I know well that J-10 system is comparable to F-16. Pakistan F-16 was examined fully by Chinese Engineers, and if reports are true then most of Lavi technology would've been shown to them also. Lavi was mean't to be superior to both F-16/F-18 in respective terms of technology, America pulled out of the development cause they knew it would harm their sales.
China and India doesn't need to go toe-to-toe in technology, just cause some nation has this and the other doesn't. It doesn't prove that the other nation technology is inferior or not comparable. We are in a military forum, so we are talking technology within military not other area's.
China was the least hit by the financial crisis, and your so called developed Western countries being least effected. BS!!!! Europe, Australia, Japan, America, South Korea all well developed nation are hit very hard. China not that developed was hit the least. America knows this and are angry, and now eventually which China knew sooner or later would happen, are poking the finger at China saying its their fault. America yeah not effected much and recover soon BS!! And ontop of that their in debt to China and Japan with $15 trillion in debt to them. Have some knowledge in technology and economy before posting BS. JH-7 read my post again, oh sorry your illiterate aren't you awwh. From the post you wrote I can clearly see that you have little knowledge of technology and military hardware.
I know well that J-10 system is comparable to F-16. Pakistan F-16 was examined fully by Chinese Engineers, and if reports are true then most of Lavi technology would've been shown to them also. Lavi was mean't to be superior to both F-16/F-18 in respective terms of technology, America pulled out of the development cause they knew it would harm their sales.
China and India doesn't need to go toe-to-toe in technology, just cause some nation has this and the other doesn't. It doesn't prove that the other nation technology is inferior or not comparable. We are in a military forum, so we are talking technology within military not other area's.
China was the least hit by the financial crisis, and your so called developed Western countries being least effected. BS!!!! Europe, Australia, Japan, America, South Korea all well developed nation are hit very hard. China not that developed was hit the least. America knows this and are angry, and now eventually which China knew sooner or later would happen, are poking the finger at China saying its their fault. America yeah not effected much and recover soon BS!! And ontop of that their in debt to China and Japan with $15 trillion in debt to them. Have some knowledge in technology and economy before posting BS. JH-7 read my post again, oh sorry your illiterate aren't you awwh. From the post you wrote I can clearly see that you have little knowledge of technology and military hardware.