Official Chengdu J-20 Discussion Thread
Then why is virtually every country nowadays (including small ones like Denmark and those who are not traditionally known for their hightech industry like Turkey) building stealth ships for their navies?
The knowledge and the technology are "out there" today. That is a fact.
If it wouldn't be, the US senate wouldn't just have lifted the export ban on the F-22. Not long after they sold the first ones to South Korea (which was named as one of the main potential customers), the North Koreans most likely will know everything about it. And the americans in return know that and it doesn't seem to bother them too much.
Why? Because nowadays everybody knows how to build a stealth machine, but not everyone has the money to do it.
Like i said, in the end it is just a question of avoiding electro magnetical wave reflection. There are a lot of people all over the world who know a great deal about electro magnetical waves. A few of them thinking about how to absorb as many of that waves instead of reflecting it is all you need in the end.
Remember the physics lessons at school and keep in mind that after all radar waves are nothing else than light you can't see because of it's frequency. And so is warmth (infrared waves) and think about how many civil applications there are for heat absorbing technologies and materials and how many companies all over the world work on things like that......
It really is no whichcraft, believe me.
And what is the big problem about the application once you got a decent anti radar coating? Combined with the knowledge about anti radar design details like "90° angle bad, 10° angle good" i don't see such a big problem, really.
EADS is just finishing the development of their first stealth aircraft, the MAKO, a light trainer and attack aircraft that they are planning to sell about 3000 into the whole world.
China is developing their own stealth fighter.
And i already mentioned all the stealth ships that are just beeing build all over the world.
The knowledge and the technology are "out there" today. That is a fact.
If it wouldn't be, the US senate wouldn't just have lifted the export ban on the F-22. Not long after they sold the first ones to South Korea (which was named as one of the main potential customers), the North Koreans most likely will know everything about it. And the americans in return know that and it doesn't seem to bother them too much.
Why? Because nowadays everybody knows how to build a stealth machine, but not everyone has the money to do it.
Like i said, in the end it is just a question of avoiding electro magnetical wave reflection. There are a lot of people all over the world who know a great deal about electro magnetical waves. A few of them thinking about how to absorb as many of that waves instead of reflecting it is all you need in the end.
Remember the physics lessons at school and keep in mind that after all radar waves are nothing else than light you can't see because of it's frequency. And so is warmth (infrared waves) and think about how many civil applications there are for heat absorbing technologies and materials and how many companies all over the world work on things like that......
It really is no whichcraft, believe me.
And what is the big problem about the application once you got a decent anti radar coating? Combined with the knowledge about anti radar design details like "90° angle bad, 10° angle good" i don't see such a big problem, really.
EADS is just finishing the development of their first stealth aircraft, the MAKO, a light trainer and attack aircraft that they are planning to sell about 3000 into the whole world.
China is developing their own stealth fighter.
And i already mentioned all the stealth ships that are just beeing build all over the world.
Last edited:
You are confusing low RCS with stealth. DDG 1000 and, to a lesser extent, Visby are stealth vessels. This capability is a combination of shape, materials used in construction and, as improtant, the systems employed on the platform. Low RCS vessels being called stealth by some reporters include vessels such as D45 Daring, FREMM etc.
Finally I was not aware the MAKO (a training aircraft with pylons) was considered 'stealth'.
Finally I was not aware the MAKO (a training aircraft with pylons) was considered 'stealth'.
Of course "stealth" means reduction of radar refelction. There are no totally invisible aircraft or ships.
And of course the MAKO isn't as stealthy as a aircraft with internal weapon bays (would hardly be possible on a small thing like that and also they want to keep it cheap, thus it most likely has no advanced stealth coating), but it still has a drastically reduced reflection surface.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mako/
(Read "AIRFRAME".)
Someone who can build a "half stealth aircraft", could also build a complete one. You just need someone who would buy it...
And of course the MAKO isn't as stealthy as a aircraft with internal weapon bays (would hardly be possible on a small thing like that and also they want to keep it cheap, thus it most likely has no advanced stealth coating), but it still has a drastically reduced reflection surface.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mako/
(Read "AIRFRAME".)
Someone who can build a "half stealth aircraft", could also build a complete one. You just need someone who would buy it...
In that case the B-1B would be a stealth aircraft in the context of your definition as it is designed for a low RCS. I am not going to argue semantics about it but if your definition is a low RCS platform then OK they are all stealth.... its a bit like defining a 5th generation fighter, However, if you measure it by the ability of a platform to get within kill range without being detected by the opponent (including ground based systems) they it is a different issue.TrangleC said:
The F-22, F-35 and DDG 1000 will combine a very very low RCS with advanced onboard systems and data sharing giving them an advantage over a platform with less advance RCS reduction and systems. The object being to be able to engage before being detected themselves. this is pretty consistent wiht the oxford dictionary definition of stealthy as proceeding imperceptibly. for example a defintion of stealth technology in the labour law talk dictionary states:
Stealth technology covers a range of techniques, used mostly on stealth aircraft and ships, in order to make them less visible (ideally invisible) to radar. This was most notably used during the Gulf war in 1991 although it has since become less effective due to developments in the algorithms used to process the data received by radars, such as Bayesian particle filter methods. Nevertheless, both the United States and Russia continue to develop stealth vehicles.
Stealth itself is not new. Special operations infantry have always used stealth. Even aircraft have used stealth, through mission unpredictability, secrecy, manuever, terrain following, electronic countermeasures, fake sorties, and other trickery. But "stealth technology", above and beyond electronic countermeasures, redesigns the aircraft itself to dramatically reduce the observability of the aircraft itself.
A mission using stealth will obviously become common knowledge eventually, such as when the target is destroyed. But if the attacking force maximizes stealth and speed, it uses the element of surprise. Attacking with surprise gives the attacker more time before the defending force can begin concentrating force to counter the attack. Conversely, the defender cannot bring as much force to bear to counter the attack. With stealth technology, the defender might not be able to respond at all.
I have no arguement that the theory of stealth is no secret (as shown by the link below) but degree of applicaion is a different issue. The shape is only part of the problem.
http://www.maths.mq.edu.au/texdev/MathSymp/Hall/node5.html
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Stealth
Finally the reference to MAKO states 'stealth technology was incorprated in the design'. This reduced the RCS but does not make it a stealth aircraft in the same mold as the F-22, F-35, F-117 or B2 were when developed. Even the F-117 has and RCS which is a fraction of one meter squared at 44 km.
Last edited:
regarding thumb nails over some city
Gotta be joking!! I think if someone was pouring buckets of money at a stealth program,then the amount of smoke blowing from the bird in the thumb nails is far from stealth...heads would roll!!!
Gotta be joking!! I think if someone was pouring buckets of money at a stealth program,then the amount of smoke blowing from the bird in the thumb nails is far from stealth...heads would roll!!!
I think it will be decades before China has the capabilities to develop indegenously 5th Generation fighter such F-22. I am not saying it doesn't have the people, I actually think it has a lot of, and probably more capable people. The problem is it simply does not have the infrastructures to undertake such task in the short term. You have to remember, American military technological superiority isn't build in one day, it was developed for a long time (50+ years), as said most famously by President Dwight D. Eisenhower calling it the creation of "military-industrial complex".(MIC)
The far more efficient and developed military-industrial complex infrastructures in america is what caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, because USSR's "MIC" combine with their economy isn't as robust as the american's. Today, there are more than hundreds of weapon system manufacturers in america each task in developing subsystems for the F-22 (and the upgrades), compare that to China, it is clear, with only TWO (CAC & SAC), there isn't much competition, or infrastructural complexity to undertake and develop such complex system. The concept is a supply chain system. It is like a sophiscated machinery, like say.. a car. Just have a quick look at the car market and it's easy to see who's capable, countries with most diversity of brands of cars, Japan, USA, Germany (maybe Italy and France) usually have the most comprehensive infracstructural supply chain to back up such undertaking. Russia will be starving itself before it can do it.
Let's not forget, America is on a "permanent war economy".
China may dream, but it needs to understand this first; so unless it has a internal economy that can support the creation of a military-industrial complex to rival USA's, it will never be able to do it.
The far more efficient and developed military-industrial complex infrastructures in america is what caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, because USSR's "MIC" combine with their economy isn't as robust as the american's. Today, there are more than hundreds of weapon system manufacturers in america each task in developing subsystems for the F-22 (and the upgrades), compare that to China, it is clear, with only TWO (CAC & SAC), there isn't much competition, or infrastructural complexity to undertake and develop such complex system. The concept is a supply chain system. It is like a sophiscated machinery, like say.. a car. Just have a quick look at the car market and it's easy to see who's capable, countries with most diversity of brands of cars, Japan, USA, Germany (maybe Italy and France) usually have the most comprehensive infracstructural supply chain to back up such undertaking. Russia will be starving itself before it can do it.
Let's not forget, America is on a "permanent war economy".
China may dream, but it needs to understand this first; so unless it has a internal economy that can support the creation of a military-industrial complex to rival USA's, it will never be able to do it.
Last edited:
i think you might be overlooking things a little. the popular belief is that china will have a full stealth fighter in 15 years and there's no reason to believe otherwise. here's why:dioditto said:
first of all, you're assuming a largely closed economic system like the soviets. china military industry hires westerners often and in large amounts. if you check the sindodefense forums, you'll even catch some western posters who are military contractors in china.
second, there's the increasing rate of technological development. while america started their air program 5 decades ago, the rate of which techology develops is not the same. it took the U.S. 25 years to figure get the f22 but that means the did most of the leg work. the concept of stealth right now is well know, unlike it was 25 years ago, i.e. carbon fiber.. good, 10 degree angles, place intake deep.. etc. sure there's there's classified stuff, but china doesn't have to start from square one. not to mentioned there's the web. need specifications on a certain transistor? dl the data sheet in less than a minute then fedex it from Indiana for next day delivery. not to mention CAD and computer simulations are much more advanced. such turn-arround wasn't possible for china just two decades ago or even the U.S.
third, money... that's the most important. the countries you mentioned, japan, germany and of course, the U.S. has it. The CCCP used alot of it on the military (hence why they were technogically competitive with the US during the cold war despite the lack of what you mentioned... competition.) china has it too, however the new found wealth is recent and alot of it is spent on developing an infrastructure to move from quanty to quality. this includes "buying" advice from high tech western countries such isreal and italy (something that could've never happened 2 decades ago.) i'm not saying competition isn't a factor but money and motivation are more important, and china has both. the U.S. spends over 500 billion on defense but that includes maintaining a two front war (nominally at 300 billion). China is second at 85 billion and growing. that's a huge gap but the U.S. cost maintaince cost is alot higher... i.e. higher wages, 12 carriers. however, if you read alot of the military sites, you'll know that china spends a lot of it's time and money just on learning... i.e. carrier and C4I (again, they purchased a russian carrier just for studying so they don't have to start from square one).
i'm pretty confident china will have the stealth fighter before 15 years. we're is still ahead and by then we'll have something better, but the f-22...psssh.
Last edited:
Not to break your bubble, but China has far more manufacturers than CAC and SAC. Those are just the most well known companies for the development of fighters. There are also XAC, GAIC, HAIG and Shanxxi AC that develop fighters. There are also hundreds of companies developing subsystems for different Chinese fighters. The competition in China is extremely fierce. You know how there are competing proposals for JSF and F-22? There are also competing proposals for the hi and the lo 5th generation fighter in China and also carrier fighter.dioditto said:
That's correct. China's main problem is actually the overlapping over investment and low level of return. That's why China has been cutting the size and concentrating resources. I bet in the future only 3 bigger manufacturers will survive. Others will be merged.tphuang said:
Having said that, the overall idea of dioditto's comment is correct, china's mil aviation industry structure is lagging far behind US, although the real reason is not as he said.
Also I agree, China's advantage is her political will and late comer does enjoy some benefit. Anyway, if J10 so secret, Jxx is actually completely unknown. What I heard is that they plan to have some sort of F22 type of plan around 2020-2025. Let's see how they go. Actually china's recent project executions are pretty good. In the late 90s, US said China planned to mass produce J10 in year 2005. In the mid 80s, one of the chief chinese engine designer said WS10 was planned to be ready in 20 years (10 years ago when I read his words I fainted down and stopped talking about WS10) and WS10 got the certificate in the late 2005.
So, let's wait and see, but I won't waste too much time on something planned to happen in 2020. I hope something interesting and more realistic can show up around 2010-12.
I probably only heard of 2 of those (CAC, SAC and maybe Shanxxi AC)...and they aren't even famous.. (also for reliability, quality)
On the other hand, Russians have : Ilyushin, Sukhoi, Tupolev, Mikoyan, Yakovlev, Kamov, Antonov, Mil.... with the first 5 been world famous.
USA have : Lockheed Martin, Fairchild-Republic, Rockwell International, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, General Dynamics, Bell, Hughes, Northrop Grumman, Sikorsky, Raytheon, General Atomics, Teledyne Ryan, Alliant Techsystems..... with first 11 been the most famous.
Just by looking at the number, and quality, product line diversity, you can see there is little to compare China to the former 2. That is why, China needs to create more world class aeronautical companies, or there is little chance for them to ever catch-up.
(and they still rely on russians to supply them jet engines for fighter aircraft design...)
Another way to look at it is in sports : professional leagues. Why do american dominate in these sports? Basketball, Baseball, while europeans dominated in Soccer? simple, a professional sports league with large enough variety of teams for competitions. Fierce competition creates an environment of harsher scrutiny and thus much higher quality players/products. The country with the most professional teams tends to have much larger infrastructure to support and refine their team's quality. From this point of view, I think China should have atleast 44 MAJOR DEDICATED aeronautical companies. Why? because China is 4 times the population of USA, and there is no reason why it should not have the human resource pool to create such environment of competitions.
Last edited:
you fail to realize that china is perhaps in it's infancy stage of restructuring. i'm always amazed at how far she's progressed in just a few decades. no ever expected china to be capble of producing indugious MBT, Jets and even attack helicopters back then. it's difficult to see what lays in the future, especially at the rate at which things change in china. not to mention, china's only communism in name, and competiton is often encouraged.dioditto said:
aside from that, i think we're getting off the subject a little.
just because you haven't heard of them, doesn't mean they haven't developed good products. Your knowledge of Chinese military industry is stuck with 2 or 3 aircraft manufacturers. There are also engine, avionics, radar developers in China.dioditto said:
number? as I said, China has enough cooperations competing. It's problem is that it needs time to catch up. And it already has caught up the Russians in several areas.
Russian, quality? That's the first time I heard of that, lol.
product line diversity? Do you have an idea of how many different types of ACs are getting produced in Chinese aircraft manufacturers right now?
so what? how much longer do you think that will last? WS-10A just needs more maturation, that's all. The Russians themselves don't even think their engine will be ready for their 5th generation fighter. Yet, they are still going ahead with it.
it's about economics, not about population. If you have no money, it doesn't matter how many people you have.
In this case, China probably spend 1/4 of what US spends on its air force in terms of PPP terms. But if you count the number of major aircraft companies and suppliers, it doesn't have any less than USA. You might not know about the competition, but its there.
Honestly I don't think the designers in PLAAF have a clue about what they want to make. All we ever see is concept designs. If they think ripping off the Russian models will give them stealth comperable to an F-22 I say ha. In the end they are going to get their hands on the schematics for the raptor and they will reverse engineer it like they always do... that will be JXX.
powerslavenegi
New Member
yup J-22 RaptorskiBig-E said:
: ,anyways jokes aside 2020 is a pretty realistic deadline for a 5th Gen fighter,the only constraint being what degree of stealth do the PLAAF desire to achieve.It would be overambitious on their part to expect to emulate F-22 like performance but they should be able to field a decent A/C with an RCS less than 1msq and the rest(Radar + avionics) can be arranged for from the vendors across the globe(if the domestic manf fall behind the schedule.).I think cost is what should be a cause of worry for the Chinese for having technology to build a top of the line fighter is one thing and Manufacturing one in large numbers while keeping costs low is another.:dbananaOh, well. An important meeting was held in April which said to be the final one. So in year 2020 we will know whether PLAAF has any clues about what they want in 2006 or not. And before 2020, we will only see drawings. I do hope they will hold a rock music show for the aircraft's revealation.Big-E said:
Also I don't think JXX in 2020 can reach all of F22A's current specs, especially PLAAF's requirement should be quite different from USAF's.
If they can plan it carefully and set a realistic goal, e.g. shorten the gap by x years, then it should be doable.
Reducing to 1 msq RCS is useless compared to current J10 RCS though. I remember couple years ago, one of J10's upgrade aim was to reach 1.5 msq. (Other main goals were AESA and TVC engine)powerslavenegi said:yup J-22 Raptorski
powerslavenegi
New Member
Stealth
I do not know what is the RCS of J-10,anyways to make an A/C with RCS less than 1msq(say 0.5 or 0.3)would require some designing and fabrication specially when the J-XX would be comparable to F-22 in size(I assume so).The RCS figures of F-22 arent out officially and there is a lot of speculation about the actual numbers but it wont be unrealistic to assume it to be <0.02 msq.I emphasize on the RCS figures so much because there is very little to choose between the two A/C (one with RCS=1msq and other around 10msq) for modern Radars(APG-77,Captor) are capable of detecting an A/C with RCS=>1msq in excess of 150 km(worst case) which would make em a candidate for BVRAAM/LRAAM.Moreover an A/C with RCS=10msq can be reduced to 1-2msq with RAM treatment and other fine tuning to it's Airframe and intakes but to reduce RCS of a 1msq A/C to .05 or less msq would require a completely radical approach(I assume other fancy techs like plasma stealth are a non reality at least in next decade) .IOW 2020 is a still achievable deadline provided the requirements are realistic.wp2000 said:
?? I can't see J-10 being that far from 1 m^2 right now. Remember, J-10 in terms of size is only slightly larger than mig-21 and definitely smaller than Mig-29. In terms of RCS, Mig-21 and Mig-29 have often been speculated at 3 and 5 m^2. That was before either aircraft incorporated stealth technologies like RAM paint. J-10 should have that and also canopy coating that disperses radar. Plus, J-10 has incorporated some features like S-shaped intake and usage of composite materials.wp2000 said:
I don't see why a future J-xx can't exceed the performance of F-22 right now in some categories. For example, the processor used on F-22 right now definitely would not be able to compare to the processor used on any newly developed fighter in 15 years.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
A bit curious here. Don't know that much about the J-10, so I scanned Sinodefence but didn't get much wiser.tphuang said:
To get down to 1-2 sqm-ish of RCS S-shaped inlets and RAM don't make it alone, so do any of you know if the J-10 has a band-pass nose cone? Will it at some point be fitted with an AESA? Both are really necessary for reducing RCS.
Lastly, is the sharks mouth intake a legacy of the Lavi, or is it a premeditated attempt at hiding the turbine blades?
Thanks