Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Chinese Stealth Copy Of F-22/F-35?  
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10351 posts, RR: 14
Posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 20407 times:

Just saw this photo of the Chinese J-31 on the Airliners.net homepage and wondered if the Chinese were copying the F-22 and/or the F-35 (or both):




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mutha


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Aldo Bidini
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nicholas Peterman




"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
112 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 20391 times:

I am certain China stole a lot of engineering data, enough to give them the confidence to try and design their own stealthy fighter. Besides the coatings to absorb signals, the shape is pretty much dictated by simple math and radar signal behavior. You want to shape the exterior so that the signals emitted from the radar do not bounce back where they originated from.

If the Chinese can give the plane the ability to produce very high kinetic energy, akin to the F-22, it'll be a real threat, even if it's not as stealthy. The reason is that even a MACH 4 missile with a target lock has a hard time getting to a plane with the amount of energy the F-22 has.

The fact they are making it a twin engine, speaks to a higher, rather than lower kinetic energy potential. Everyone basically can see what makes the F-22 a success and will try to emulate it or even improve on it, as best they can. That's only natural. The F-22 will not be top dog forever.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10351 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 20368 times:

I remember hearing a story of during the Korean War, where a USAF B-29 was forced down in China and the Chinese copied it, but the engineering was off and it didn't fly very well.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 20348 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 2):
I remember hearing a story of during the Korean War, where a USAF B-29 was forced down in China and the Chinese copied it, but the engineering was off and it didn't fly very well.

That is because the Chinese need to start producing their own tech rather than try to copy others. They will never reach the level of sophistication that the US has without trial and error ON THEIR OWN.


User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 773 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 20329 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 3):
That is because the Chinese need to start producing their own tech rather than try to copy others. They will never reach the level of sophistication that the US has without trial and error ON THEIR OWN.

Hopefully you're right. I somewhat doubt that, though. This is the 2010s, not the 1950s. I'm sure technology has significantly increased the ability to copy other things.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2577 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 20265 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 1):
The fact they are making it a twin engine, speaks to a higher, rather than lower kinetic energy potential.

This is because the J-31 is a light fighter with a purpose similar to the F-35 but the Chinese engine technology can't produce an engine as powerful as the F-35's. So they put two. The Chinese have been having trouble with engines for a long time.

Quoting mayor (Reply 2):
I remember hearing a story of during the Korean War, where a USAF B-29 was forced down in China and the Chinese copied it, but the engineering was off and it didn't fly very well.

You may be thinking of World War 2 where it landed in Russia and was eventually made into the Tu-4. Which was slightly inferior in performance due to the English to metric conversion of all parts which made it slightly heavier.


User currently offlinegeekydude From China, joined Apr 2004, 401 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 20253 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 2):
I remember hearing a story of during the Korean War, where a USAF B-29 was forced down in China and the Chinese copied it, but the engineering was off and it didn't fly very well.

Never heard of it. Was it not Russia that made their Tupolev-4 based on the B29?



FLIB 152 'heavy' low approach...Caution wake turbulance!
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 20250 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 5):
This is because the J-31 is a light fighter with a purpose similar to the F-35 but the Chinese engine technology can't produce an engine as powerful as the F-35's. So they put two. The Chinese have been having trouble with engines for a long time.

The Chinese are struggling to even license produce some of the engines that they have access to, such as the RR Spey. The Chinese haven't gotten the metallurgy down right, which is often half the battle with engine design and production. The story I am hearing is there is a lot of QC problems with the engines they are manufacturing, which is affecting production rates as engines have to be scrapped or rebuilt before they leave the factory.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 20221 times:

If you remove the requirement for the F-35 to have its engine farther forward than normal to accommodate the lift fan in the F-35B, it would look very much like the J-31. The vert stabs look like the YF-22s.


In defense of the Chinese 'copying', in their culture, there is no such thing as 'intellectual property'. You came up with a good idea, you were first to market with it, that is it. Dont look at it as stealing designs so much as finding alternate sources designs. It is still an inferior jet... but they have made a leap ahead in tech.


User currently onlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7133 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 19979 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 8):
It is still an inferior jet... but they have made a leap ahead in tech.

How do you know that, it may well be better than the F-35.


User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 19947 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 5):
You may be thinking of World War 2 where it landed in Russia and was eventually made into the Tu-4. Which was slightly inferior in performance due to the English to metric conversion of all parts which made it slightly heavier.
Quoting geekydude (Reply 6):
Never heard of it. Was it not Russia that made their Tupolev-4 based on the B29?

I have read that when the Soviets copyed the B-29 that the rudder pedals said "BOEING" as the order was to copy it, and nobody wanted to disobey Stalin's order.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 19832 times:

The J-20 and J-31 may mean there is a competition or evaluation going on....

User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10351 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19730 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):
How do you know that, it may well be better than the F-35.

It may not be inferior, but it seems it's designed more for a role like the F-22, not the F-35.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19737 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 8):
If you remove the requirement for the F-35 to have its engine farther forward than normal to accommodate the lift fan in the F-35B, it would look very much like the J-31. The vert stabs look like the YF-22s.

Disagree. The main issue for the Chinese was a lack of a suitable engine for their fighters (hence the use of Russian engines and a twin-engine design otherwise they would have gone for a powerful single). You want to bury the engines deeper and further back in the fuselage as it will reduce the frontal radar signature. You can better hide the front of the engine as the engine blades are often a major source of radar reflection.


User currently offlinebilgerat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 212 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 19688 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 3):
That is because the Chinese need to start producing their own tech rather than try to copy others. They will never reach the level of sophistication that the US has without trial and error ON THEIR OWN.

And of course the Americans got absolutely nothing from Peenemunde, Werner Von Braun, Frank Whittle, the Miles M.52 etc etc.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10351 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 19670 times:

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 14):
And of course the Americans got absolutely nothing from Peenemunde, Werner Von Braun, Frank Whittle, the Miles M.52 etc etc.

You think there was NO trial and error, even after all of that? Alot of good men died, trying to prove many designs, LONG after the U.S. (and others) was using this technology.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinebilgerat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 212 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 19663 times:

Yes of course there was trial and error. However, it's quite disingenuous to criticise the Chinese for using other countries' ideas and technology when the US itself benefitted hugely from doing just this.

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 19595 times:

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 16):
Yes of course there was trial and error. However, it's quite disingenuous to criticise the Chinese for using other countries' ideas and technology when the US itself benefitted hugely from doing just this.

Who did the US copy for the F-22...F-35?


User currently offlinedkswim From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 19567 times:

I remember reading that the B-29 that went to russia had a couple patches from damage (odd bullet holes) and the tu-4 had them copied as well

User currently offlinedkswim From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 19560 times:

A lot of the technology we gained durring WWII from the UK like radar, jet engines to name a few was an agreement between UK and USA. UK traded info for meterial, american mass production, and allies.

USA has copied german design on a couple items over the years. U-Boats, V-1, V-2.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 19451 times:

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 10):
I have read that when the Soviets copyed the B-29 that the rudder pedals said "BOEING" as the order was to copy it, and nobody wanted to disobey Stalin's order.
Quoting dkswim (Reply 18):
I remember reading that the B-29 that went to russia had a couple patches from damage (odd bullet holes) and the tu-4 had them copied as well

I heard that too, might well be true given that his henchman Beria (hobbies included abducting, raping, sometimes murdering young women), was supervising the effort.
He did the same for the Soviet atomic bomb project, holding the scientists families hostage as an 'incentive' get the job done ASAP.
(Small wonder that when Stalin died, Beria did not as he had thought, succeed him, rather he was bundled off to prison and quietly executed some weeks or months later).

It is a fair point about others not being entirely clean of using others technology, in the case of the US on jet engines and aspects of designs for pioneering supersonic design, as well as UK contributions to the Manhattan Project, it was more a case of agreements on sharing of it, or technology exchanging, being unilaterally broken by the US after WW2 ended.
Which is not the same as what China is suspected of doing.

It's far from clear however if China has had to do this, or succeeded at all, for this aircraft.
(We do know that China did benefit from US military technology in the late 1980's/early 1990's.However that was supplied via Israel. Something probably that many lawmakers in Washington don't want to, or choose not to, hear about).


User currently offlinebilgerat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 212 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 19411 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 17):
Who did the US copy for the F-22...F-35?

Please don't try and use a silly strawman argument here.

Earlier in this thread you stated:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 3):
That is because the Chinese need to start producing their own tech rather than try to copy others. They will never reach the level of sophistication that the US has without trial and error ON THEIR OWN.

Which as I explained was quite disingenuous given the US has benefitted hugely from technology gained from other countries.

Or perhaps Frank Whittle travelling to General Electric with several examples of his engine in 1942 didn't kick start American jet engine development. Perhaps the Americans, British and Soviets gained nothing from the research conducted by the Germans in Peenemunde's supersonic wind tunnels. Perhaps the Americans could have put a man in orbit and got to the moon totally on their own without all those German scientists and the V-2.

Do I need to continue?

As I said, it is most disingenuous to criticise the Chinese for using technology gained from other countries when *everyone* - the US included, has always been doing it. Unless of course you want to believe that American aerospace technology got where it is today totally on its own merit and work without any innovation, input or discoveries from elsewhere?


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 19390 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
(Small wonder that when Stalin died, Beria did not as he had thought, succeed him, rather he was bundled off to prison and quietly executed some weeks or months later).

Actually Beria´s execution was not so silent:

Quote:
Beria and all the other defendants were sentenced to death. When the death sentence was passed, according to Moskalenko's later account,[citation needed] Beria pleaded on his knees for mercy[31] before collapsing to the floor and wailing and crying energetically, but to no avail: the other six defendants were executed by firing squad on 23 December 1953, the same day as the trial,[32] while Beria was fatally shot through the forehead by General Batitsky after the latter stuffed a rag into Beria's mouth to silence his bawling. The body of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria was subsequently cremated and buried around Moscow's forest.

(from Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beria
He died as a coward.

Jan


User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2098 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 19337 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 22):
(from Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beria
He died as a coward.

That was an amazing, if not appalling, read. The guy was a nightmare.


On topic... while the US has obviously benefited from foriegn technology, most notably from England and Germany during and after the war respectively, i don't believe we've actually 'stolen' technology often if at all, and definitely not on the levels that the USSR and China has. The Tu-4 is an amazing example and an interesting story for anyone who hasn't read it yet.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2577 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 19299 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Most cases it is hard to say what was copied by any country whether it is USA, USSR or China. Yes the Tu-4 was an outright copy and nobody has denied that. But just because a Tu-154 and a B-727 have a similar configuration does not mean one is a copy of the other. In that case why does nobody ever say the British copied the B-727 with the Trident? The bottom line is that in those days "copying" and "stealing" was arguably much harder. You needed spies, informants, etc... now it is all possible digitally through hacking. Is the J-31 a copy of the F-22? Most certainly not. But the nose does have a striking resemblance. I think if China did in fact manage to steal information then no doubt it has been incorporated or at least used in some way. But nobody in China will admit to this.

User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2086 posts, RR: 14
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 19526 times:

Quoting mayor (Thread starter):
Just saw this photo of the Chinese J-31 on the Airliners.net homepage and wondered if the Chinese were copying the F-22 and/or the F-35 (or both):

I hope for the Chinese that they didn't copy the not up to spec aerodynamics (and numerous other problems) of the F35.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10351 posts, RR: 14
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 19277 times:

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 21):
Or perhaps Frank Whittle travelling to General Electric with several examples of his engine in 1942 didn't kick start American jet engine development. Perhaps the Americans, British and Soviets gained nothing from the research conducted by the Germans in Peenemunde's supersonic wind tunnels. Perhaps the Americans could have put a man in orbit and got to the moon totally on their own without all those German scientists and the V-2.

Do I need to continue?

There's a bit of a difference between duplicating the Mona Lisa or just using the same artistic techniques to paint something different. Did the P-59, P-80 or F-86 look just like the Me-262 or did they just use some of the same methods, etc. as the Germans did?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinebilgerat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 212 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 19459 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 24):
In that case why does nobody ever say the British copied the B-727 with the Trident?

Because the Trident was developed before the 727.

Quoting mayor (Reply 26):
There's a bit of a difference between duplicating the Mona Lisa or just using the same artistic techniques to paint something different.

Once again, I never said the Americans "copied" or "duplicated" anything. I'm saying Powerslide's earlier comment about the Chinese never being able to reach the level of sophistication the Americans are at unless they develop their own technology is quite disingenuos given the historical examples I mentioned.

Why would China reinvent the wheel? Why not use other people's designs as a starting point when they are playing catch up? The US (and everyone else) has done just that when they've been in the same situation in the past - jet engines and high speed flight being two good examples.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 19424 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 24):
In that case why does nobody ever say the British copied the B-727 with the Trident?

Funny you should mention that, though the Trident was the earlier design.
in the development stage, a Boeing team was invited over view a mock up of the aircraft, with the understanding that the builders of the British tri-jet would get to see Boeing's ideas about a short/medium haul jet.
(At the time Boeing was building the 707 derivative, the 720 for this role but it wasn't ideal).

The Boeing people duly came but the Trident team never got an invite to Boeing.
It probably was naive of them to expect it?

However, they would lose the advantage of being first to market with a tri- jet not because of any Boeing skulduggery, rather they unwisely scaled down the aircraft after BEA, the lead and then main customer, panicked after a dip in traffic over the winter 1959/60 season. Thus making the aircraft less attractive, blunting it's development potential (by using smaller engines) and delaying it's first flight and service entry.


User currently offlinebilgerat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 212 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 19377 times:

The Trident is a very interesting aircraft, not least because of the conjecture that had DH (amalgamated into HS during the Trident's development) been allowed to build the aeroplane they wanted to, the world would have had the 727 a few years earlier and the potential effect that may have had on British aircraft manufacturing. Similar to how some believe had the BAC 1-11 been developed along the lines BAC wanted to it could have been a real 737 competitor.

What I think most people don't consider is British manufacturing capacity was nowhere near that of the US and even if British aircraft had been ordered in large numbers we probably wouldn't have been able to build them fast enough.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 19357 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 28):

Funny you should mention that, though the Trident was the earlier design.
in the development stage, a Boeing team was invited over view a mock up of the aircraft, with the understanding that the builders of the British tri-jet would get to see Boeing's ideas about a short/medium haul jet.
(At the time Boeing was building the 707 derivative, the 720 for this role but it wasn't ideal).

The Boeing people duly came but the Trident team never got an invite to Boeing.
It probably was naive of them to expect it?

There was a similar story about the French Caravelle and the DC-9. Originally Douglas engineers went over to France to see the Caravelle to possibly start a licence production of this aircraft in the US, but then they built the very similar DC-9 for their own market.

Jan


User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 773 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19337 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 25):
I hope for the Chinese that they didn't copy the not up to spec aerodynamics (and numerous other problems) of the F35.

If they're going to copy it, they might as well copy its mistakes, too... especially since they may not know what's a mistake and what's not. 



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2577 posts, RR: 17
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19309 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

GDB - interesting story!

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 27):
Because the Trident was developed before the 727.

Fair enough, my mistake. My argument still stands though except just reverse the types   i.e. nobody says Boeing copied the Trident.

Either way, leaving subjective opinions out of the argument, whatever China is copying or stealing I say good for them. I would hardly believe anyone here never copied homework or tests from the "smart kid" at least once when you were all in school   . China was very far behind and look where they are now. There is also fault in the US and Russia for letting their designs be susceptible to being copied and stolen. If the J-31 really has stuff from the F-22 and F-35 then the J-20 most probably has stuff from the MiG 1.44 concept.


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 152 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19302 times:

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 21):
Which as I explained was quite disingenuous given the US has benefitted hugely from technology gained from other countries.

Or perhaps Frank Whittle travelling to General Electric with several examples of his engine in 1942 didn't kick start American jet engine development. Perhaps the Americans, British and Soviets gained nothing from the research conducted by the Germans in Peenemunde's supersonic wind tunnels. Perhaps the Americans could have put a man in orbit and got to the moon totally on their own without all those German scientists and the V-2.

Do I need to continue?

As I said, it is most disingenuous to criticise the Chinese for using technology gained from other countries when *everyone* - the US included, has always been doing it. Unless of course you want to believe that American aerospace technology got where it is today totally on its own merit and work without any innovation, input or discoveries from elsewhere?

I think there is a tremendous and obvious difference from receiving technology 60+ years ago vs engaging in espionage/theft today. Yes the US gained technology from other nations...in the 1940s! But somewhere around the time the US went to the moon (40+ years ago) it can claim 100% credit for its aerospace accomplishments.

It is not disingenuous to criticize the Chinese for gaining technology TODAY that they obtain through SPYING and using that technology to develop weapons systems hostile to the nation they spied on.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 5):
This is because the J-31 is a light fighter with a purpose similar to the F-35 but the Chinese engine technology can't produce an engine as powerful as the F-35's. So they put two. The Chinese have been having trouble with engines for a long time.

I think two engines are more suitable, and most modern fighters have two engines. The F-35 has one specifically to accommodate the B model vertical lift requirement.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
Quoting Oroka (Reply 8):
If you remove the requirement for the F-35 to have its engine farther forward than normal to accommodate the lift fan in the F-35B, it would look very much like the J-31. The vert stabs look like the YF-22s.

Disagree. The main issue for the Chinese was a lack of a suitable engine for their fighters (hence the use of Russian engines and a twin-engine design otherwise they would have gone for a powerful single). You want to bury the engines deeper and further back in the fuselage as it will reduce the frontal radar signature. You can better hide the front of the engine as the engine blades are often a major source of radar reflection.

I agree with Oroka, the F-35 engines are further forward to accommodate the lift fan, reducing the stealth of all F-35s and interfering with weapons bay capacities. Why would the Chinese go for a single engine when almost all modern fighters have 2?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 11):
The J-20 and J-31 may mean there is a competition or evaluation going on....

Two different planes, two different missions and China has enough money to develop both. J-20 is long range strike like a stealthy F-111 or F-15E while the J-31 is a multi role fighter like the F-35.


User currently offlinebilgerat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 212 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19277 times:

*Sigh*

So many people can't see past the little flag next to their username....


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 19115 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 32):
hina was very far behind and look where they are now. There is also fault in the US and Russia for letting their designs be susceptible to being copied and stolen. If the J-31 really has stuff from the F-22 and F-35 then the J-20 most probably has stuff from the MiG 1.44 concept.

You can copy/steal/reverse engineer all you like, they will get a better aircraft than they might have done otherwise. What they won't get is a properly integrated aircraft/weapon system to match F-22 and (eventually whatever all the sceptics say) the F-35. The development difficulties those two aircraft had/are having, are from an industry way bigger, hugely experienced at cutting edge design and production and have been that way for many decades.

A case in point, after the USSR broke off military/technical cooperation with China at the end of the 1950's, China had to rely on adapting what they had been gifted, along with some spying and subterfuge. But for the next 30 years the results were variations on a theme based around MIG-19 and (where subterfuge came in) , very early MIG-21 versions.

Even with Mao throwing every resource to try and catch up (basically starving the whole country - except himself - in probably the most devastating - and deliberate - famine in history), by his death in 1976 his air force was a huge museum exhibit (those aircraft that at least could actually fly), he had the bomb but still by then no means to deliver it much outside of China's borders, far from having an ocean going navy including 350 nuclear subs, it was still largely an obsolete coastal defence force.

There is just no substitute for a properly advanced industry and research base if you want to keep up with the West.
Now China is way more improved on that since Mao, still theft and subterfuge will only get you so far.

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 29):
What I think most people don't consider is British manufacturing capacity was nowhere near that of the US and even if British aircraft had been ordered in large numbers we probably wouldn't have been able to build them fast enough.

True, A lot of small by US standards, companies, made worse by the legacy of wartime factory dispersal.
Nothing on the scale of Seattle, Wichita , St Louis or Long Beach.
As for their capitalisation, just no comparison.

When the Comet first entered service in 1952, before the metal fatigue accidents happened, when it looked set to conquer the airline world, the head of then influential Sabena Airlines was asked who would dominate the industry a decade hence. Without hesitation he said the US.
He would have made that comparison between size and money between the UK and USA, quite likely too that when he enquired about buying Comets, he was told to join the queue After all DH were still setting up extra lines elsewhere to try and cope with the demand as it was. In Chester, also they planned to in Belfast.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 19058 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 33):
I agree with Oroka, the F-35 engines are further forward to accommodate the lift fan, reducing the stealth of all F-35s and interfering with weapons bay capacities. Why would the Chinese go for a single engine when almost all modern fighters have 2?

1. The lift fan is connected to the engine via a driveshaft. How far forward the engine doesn't really matter as much. I will note that the Boeing X-32 had its engine at roughly the same location as the F-35 does.

2. Engine technology. The Chinese are struggling mighty with engine technology. They don't have the engine available to make it a single engine fighter. The best they have access to is the Russian AL-31 and the RD-33 and the various derivatives. You want to go to a single engine if you have the engine to do so. Single engine aircraft are easier to maintain and build, and are cheaper to buy and operate. Witness the sales differences between the F-16 and the F/A-18; the Viper has a massive sales lead over the Hornet with the majority of export customers, when they have a choice between the two and will pick one or the other.


User currently offlinebilgerat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 212 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 18941 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 36):
Witness the sales differences between the F-16 and the F/A-18; the Viper has a massive sales lead over the Hornet with the majority of export customers, when they have a choice between the two and will pick one or the other.

Don't forget the F/A-18 was optimised for carrier ops and carries around a far amount of dead weight for a land based aircraft.

Hypothetical question:

If Northrop and MDD hadn't had their little spat and Northrop hadn't subsequently thrown in the towel, how well would the Northrop F-18L have done on the export market?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 18914 times:

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 37):
If Northrop and MDD hadn't had their little spat and Northrop hadn't subsequently thrown in the towel, how well would the Northrop F-18L have done on the export market?

Don't know if the F-18L would have done better against the F-16 (and Mirage 2000) in international competitions to pick a new combat aircraft but I think it's fair to say that the only users of the F/A-18 would have been the US Navy and Marines.


User currently offlinebilgerat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 212 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 18903 times:

I'm not so sure... compared to the F/A-18A the F-18L was considerably lighter, could carry a greater payload, and was 9G capable... all the while retaining the same radar and avionics as the F/A-18A.

Definitely could have been a contender.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10351 posts, RR: 14
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 18904 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 38):
Don't know if the F-18L would have done better against the F-16 (and Mirage 2000) in international competitions to pick a new combat aircraft but I think it's fair to say that the only users of the F/A-18 would have been the US Navy and Marines.

Don't forget that the basic F-18 design was the LOSER in the lightweight fighter design competition that the F-16 won.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 18884 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 40):
Don't forget that the basic F-18 design was the LOSER in the lightweight fighter design competition that the F-16 won.

I thought I read somewhere the F-16 choice was more political, as General Dynamics had a big ol' factory in Texas with nothing to make. The F-111 production was winding down. Northrop eventually got the B-2 contract as a consolation prize.

JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 18804 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 40):
Don't forget that the basic F-18 design was the LOSER in the lightweight fighter design competition that the F-16 won.

Well, the YF-17!
However, I do recall some air arms picked the Hornet in close competitions with the F-16, where the deciding factors were twin engines (Canada and Australia) and having SARH capabilities (with AIM-7 missiles) 'out of the box'. At that time, late 70's/early 80's, that capability was some years away with the F-16.

Whether the latter capability would have been available right away with the F-18L is another matter.
It could have ended up like the F-20. ('If the USAF don't want it, why should we?' 'Other AF's in our region have F-16's, why not us?')


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10351 posts, RR: 14
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 18779 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 42):
Well, the YF-17!
However, I do recall some air arms picked the Hornet in close competitions with the F-16, where the deciding factors were twin engines (Canada and Australia) and having SARH capabilities (with AIM-7 missiles) 'out of the box'. At that time, late 70's/early 80's, that capability was some years away with the F-16.

I think you'll agree that the F-18 is probably a more capable a/c than it's "ancestor", the YF-17 as well as slightly larger. Today, it might beat the F-16 in that same competition.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 18718 times:

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 37):
Don't forget the F/A-18 was optimised for carrier ops and carries around a far amount of dead weight for a land based aircraft.

Hypothetical question:

If Northrop and MDD hadn't had their little spat and Northrop hadn't subsequently thrown in the towel, how well would the Northrop F-18L have done on the export market?

What really killed the Northrop F-18L was that it was first pitched to Canada, we were unwilling to bet the house on an aircraft that wasn't built yet. The DND wasn't willing to have a new fighter designed and built just for Canada and there were strong concerns regarding delivery schedules and price. The lack of the Canadian order pretty much sealed the deal for the F-18L.


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 605 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 18605 times:

Why is a thread about the J-20/J-31/F-22/F-35 morphing into discussions on the Fighting Falcon vs the Hornet?
Go back on the right contrails, please.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12340 posts, RR: 25
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 18508 times:

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 21):
Or perhaps Frank Whittle travelling to General Electric with several examples of his engine in 1942 didn't kick start American jet engine development. Perhaps the Americans, British and Soviets gained nothing from the research conducted by the Germans in Peenemunde's supersonic wind tunnels. Perhaps the Americans could have put a man in orbit and got to the moon totally on their own without all those German scientists and the V-2.

Do I need to continue?

Germaine to this conversation, you may want to mention that the UK contributed Klaus Fuchs to the Manhattan Project, who then contributed high level design info to the USSR, which indeed the USSR used to copy the implosion design.

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 27):
Why would China reinvent the wheel? Why not use other people's designs as a starting point when they are playing catch up? The US (and everyone else) has done just that when they've been in the same situation in the past - jet engines and high speed flight being two good examples.

Well it certainly creates trade tensions, but as we see, the US politicians would rather keep Wal*Mart happy whilst almost every manufacturing job that can move to China has.

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 29):
What I think most people don't consider is British manufacturing capacity was nowhere near that of the US and even if British aircraft had been ordered in large numbers we probably wouldn't have been able to build them fast enough.

It's probably the case now that since so much has been outsourced to China and elsewhere that there are many things that just cannot be manufactured in the West without having to start from scratch in terms of facilities and training, which would make it economically unfeasible.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 33):
It is not disingenuous to criticize the Chinese for gaining technology TODAY that they obtain through SPYING and using that technology to develop weapons systems hostile to the nation they spied on.

Just finished reading a book about thos MiGs the USAF has been flying around the Nevada desert since the 60s. It was mostly done to figure out how to fight against them, but I'm sure any good things they learned made it into the requirements sheets of the later US fighters.

Quoting GDB (Reply 35):
There is just no substitute for a properly advanced industry and research base if you want to keep up with the West.
Now China is way more improved on that since Mao, still theft and subterfuge will only get you so far.

Right, but it gives you a much better starting point.

Keep in mind technology that can be used for reverse engineering (intentionally or not) has advanced tremendously too.

Also keep in mind that all companies do some degree of intelligence gathering on their competitors which may or may not cross the line morally or legally. I known earlier in my career that my employer would acquire its competitor's products and do a 'teardown' and would learn a lot about manufacturing techniques, cost of manufacture, etc. They'd also learn a lot about what vendors the competitor had in its supply chain, etc. I don't think that what they were doing was illegal, but I do know the info was very tightly held within the company. If they wanted to cross the line, there's no reason why they couldn't just read the software off the chips and reverse engineer it, but I never saw that done in my career, but certain US companies have sued certain Chinese companies for doing exactly that.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 18486 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 36):
1. The lift fan is connected to the engine via a driveshaft. How far forward the engine doesn't really matter as much. I will note that the Boeing X-32 had its engine at roughly the same location as the F-35 does.

I will have to do some searching as to where I read it, but the F-35 engine is farther forward to accommodate the F-35B lift fan. Yes, there is a drive shaft, BUT, the engine was moved forward so that shaft was not too long. Between weight and torque, the materials are not there to have a light yet strong enough shaft with a normally farther aft engine.


That said, the F-35 profile is also due to a single large engine rather than 2 smaller ones.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3107 posts, RR: 6
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 18042 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 32):

Fair enough, my mistake. My argument still stands though except just reverse the types   i.e. nobody says Boeing copied the Trident.

But some have said that (read previously in the thread, not just us A.net kooks), and Boeing probably did. Early studies of the 727 looked nothing like it ended up looking... after they studied the Trident at Dehavilland's invitation.

-Rampart


User currently offlinealberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17718 times:

Not to get off topic but the J-20 has apparently begun weapons integration testing...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8q24mSjkRmk/UVITTXHryWI/AAAAAAAAUzU/iimpwy8Lh_c/s1600/1364312332_79707.jpg

http://china-defense.blogspot.com/20...-day-j-20-mounting-pair-of-pl.html

Notice how the prototypes have been painted gray instead of black....



short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17660 times:

Just by the size of the J-20 and it's 2 large engines, it seems to me to be aimed at the F-22 and as a long range interceptor in general. I wouldn't be surprised it can carry 8 A2A missiles or more internally.

This thing and the Russian T-50 make the F-35 obsolete once they're all operational, which by 2020, they should all be.

As to the Chinese avionics, I don't think the Chinese should have much of a problem matching the western planes in that department. All ipads and the majority of global electronics are made in China already. They have a huge industrial infrastructure for making electronic components.

And the size of its radome is gigantic. I have never seen such a large radome in a fighter before. In theory, that should be able to house an extremely strong AESA radar.

[Edited 2013-03-29 09:58:11]

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3391 posts, RR: 26
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17673 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Isn't it amazing that Russia and China roll out new planes, fly them within weeks, and have them doing weapons integration testing within months, all with only one or two examples.. and the US needs 300+ examples and 3-7 years to do the same...

I suspect that the Chinese will have fully operational planes before we see a single fully operational combat useable F-35. However I guess it's all in the intent, on one side defense, on the other corporate profit.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17684 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 51):
I suspect that the Chinese will have fully operational planes before we see a single fully operational combat useable F-35. However I guess it's all in the intent, on one side defense, on the other corporate profit.

Also the Chinese don't really care about their pilots when they crash in a fiery death.

Quoting kanban (Reply 51):
Isn't it amazing

When the Chinese and Russians reach the level of sophstication and technology that lockheed has, then maybe their test program will have something to test. When you are building modern Sopwith Camels it's not hard get it right the first time.


User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2577 posts, RR: 17
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 17672 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 52):
When the Chinese and Russians reach the level of sophstication and technology that lockheed has, then maybe their test program will have something to test. When you are building modern Sopwith Camels it's not hard get it right the first time.

Your ignorance is just at amazing levels. China is arguable since for all we know they're flying J-20 and J-31 shells just for show to scare us, but Russia is by far not developing modern Sopwith Camels. They know what they're doing, they have the engineering and knowledge. What they don't have is money.


User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 17652 times:

Have to agree with that last point. The Chinese may be unproven in modern warfare, but Russia has shown what it's capable of against a much more sophisticated and wealthier foe. Think of WWII Germany and NASA for starters.

I'd say underestimate Russia at your own peril, and would venture the same with China. They may be sloppy as hell in most regards but if they truly want to accomplish something world class, well..they have the talent and the money.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 17631 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 54):
They may be sloppy as hell in most regards but if they truly want to accomplish something world class, well..they have the talent and the money.

..still waiting for it.....


User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2577 posts, RR: 17
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 17635 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wingman (Reply 54):
they have the talent and the money.

China has the talent and money but not the experience. They are playing a very fast catch-up game. Maybe the J-20 and J-31 will be slightly inferior to the F-35. But that's still way better than what they fly right now.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 17616 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 50):
This thing and the Russian T-50 make the F-35 obsolete once they're all operational, which by 2020, they should all be.

Maybe some lessons, or warnings, from the past.

When the Mig-25 Foxbat appeared in prototype form, it sent a chill of fear through NATO. The sheer performance seemed to render much of NATO's inventory obsolete.
By 1971, recce versions had skirted the border of Israel, the Israeli F-4's unable to intercept them in time.
The Foxbat led directly to the development of the F-15 Eagle.

Then one defected to Japan in 1976, before it was returned, minus of course it's pilot - who had plenty to say about Soviet capabilities and tactics, this interceptor version was poured over by US intel people.
They were in for a shock.
This Mach 3 aircraft (actually 'red-lined' at Mach 2.8 but still impressive), was not, as assumed, made out of titanium but stainless steel.
The radar used valves. Had no look-down/shoot-down capability, at all.
It had barely any agility.

The bogeyman plane of a few years before, had been brought down to Earth.
It had some interesting features but advanced it was not.
What had been created was a platform to carry SA)">AA-6 missiles, 4 of them, to a high altitude, under very strict control from the ground, to intercept a B-58 Hustler, maybe a B-70, probably not a SR-71. The B-58 was gone by 1970, the B-70 was never in service and SR-71's did not replicate what the U-2's had once done over Soviet territory, since thay would be vulnerable to the SA-5 SAM, as the U-2 had been to the SA-2.

But the Mig-25 had no capability against lower flying B-52 unleashing SRAMa and later Cruise Missiles, or FB-111A's.
There was a certain inertia with projects in the USSR, a reflection of their economy as a whole.
They carried on even after the US types they had been designed to counter were either phased out or cancelled.

Mig-25 Recce versions were useful assets, though the Interceptor was later developed into the Mig-31 which was a different aircraft.

Then there was the Mig-23, the swing wing tactical fighter and interceptor.
Not a great design, a poor dog-fighter which did eventually get a weapons system roughly comparable to the F-4J/K/M Phantom's, a decade or so after the McDonnell-Douglas fighter.
It performed terribly against both the US and Israelis. In combat at various times between 1979 and 1991.

I remember when the Russians brought fighter aircraft to the Farnborough airshow in 1988, inconceivable just a couple of years before. Including the Mig-29. Something I'd thought I'd never see up close and flying above.
The Fulcrum had some interesting aerodynamics, it's said to be the ultimate achievable in agility without a fly by wire system. It's weapon system however, at least in the versions around when the Cold War was still on, was poor.
It compared very poorly in that respect to both the F-16C and F-18A.

These new Russian and Chinese aircraft today, are prototypes, that may well become effective aircraft once in service. But how many years behind are they compared to the F-22 and F-35 prototypes?
As stated before, Russia for one has a very poor record of actually putting into service newer prototypes.

With China, though they are expending much effort, it still pales compared to the resources that the USSR threw at military aircraft. Just as well since the vast expenditure on arms eventually destroyed the Soviet Union and it's empire, China will not make that mistake.


User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2577 posts, RR: 17
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 17584 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

GDB raises some valid points. Yes, the USSR has had its fair share of inadequate designs (although I would consider planes like the Tu-22 (not Tu-22M) and Yak-38 much bigger ones). But what nation hasn't? The MiG-25 has become infamous because of the defection. However is it the plane's fault that the West grossly overestimated it? You are right, it is a high speed high altitude interceptor reliant on ground control. But that is what it was designed for after all. The recon versions proved much more valuable and are still in use today. The interceptor versions already were doing a job they weren't supposed to be doing from the very beginning. After the defection the MiG-25 was urgently upgraded and changed to the MiG-25PDS standard but with the advent of the MiG-31 this was rather fruitless. By the early 90s the interceptors were gone.

Quoting GDB (Reply 57):
Not a great design, a poor dog-fighter

I know a few former MiG-23 pilots who would prove you wrong. The last versions of the plane, the MiG-23ML and MLD especially the Soviet version "23-18" rivaled even the MiG-29 when it came down to maneuverability.

Quoting GDB (Reply 57):
It performed terribly against both the US and Israelis. In combat at various times between 1979 and 1991.

That's because the MiG-23s involved in those combats were MiG-23MS export versions. Downgraded avionics, downgraded performance. The airframe was a MiG-23, but the weapons and radar inside were taken directly from the MiG-21. Not to mention poorly trained pilots.

Quoting GDB (Reply 57):
It's weapon system however, at least in the versions around when the Cold War was still on, was poor.

Agreed, the MiG-29s weapon system is rather poor compared to what it was replacing (MiG-23MLD).

Quoting GDB (Reply 57):
It compared very poorly in that respect to both the F-16C and F-18A.

But really it should be compared to the F-16A and in that case I think they compare quite fair. I understand the F-16C started coming online around the time MiG-29 did but by the mid 80s the USSR was already falling behind the curve schedule wise. They didn't have money to keep up with new designs as fast as the West did. Electronics has usually been the Achilles heel of Soviet designs.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 17545 times:

That's interesting history. The Russians did develop some very effective aspects in their fighters that were later adopted everywhere - IRST and off boresight, helmet controlled A2A missiles.

Looking backwards in time is no way to predict the threats in the future. Both China and Russia are open societies that can access much global technology (legally or not) that they couldn't before. The US is not without mistakes. Just look at the F-35 with all its problems and 7 year of delays for proof. The T-50 is also using Indian money and engineers....

One of the reasons the MIG-25 was unmaneuverable, was because at very high altitude, that's the nature of the beast. In addition, if you are going very fast, you have a high kinetic energy, making maneuvering even harder. That's why the F-22, T-50 and I think the J-20 have engine exhaust vectoring, and fly by wire controls to help at high speed/high altitude.

To assume the J-20, J-31 and T-50 will not be effective for what they're designed for, is asking for it. Would you bet your life and your country's security on that assumption? Or do you think its prudent to examine them closely and see what would probably happen if you went up against them with what you've got planned for the future - basically F-35s in our case, as that is all there is coming down the pike. We've put all our eggs in that basket.

Yes we have the F-22, but only 179 of them. India alone plans to buy 144 T-50s, Russia at least 150 and I'm sure they'll export it. The F-35 has no chance against any of these in A2A, IMHO. They'd be coming in at 65,000 feet at almost MACH 1.6 - 1.8 super cruising and the F-35 would be much much lower at high subsonic speeds. No contest. The AIM-120D fired from an F-35, even if fired first, fired from that position has little chance and no where near the published range, especially if it's fired high off boresight as well.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121016/176668178.html

[Edited 2013-03-29 15:50:57]

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 17543 times:

Sovietjet, quite so, really my post was about Western overrating of Russian and Chinese designs, rather than the aircraft themselves.

With the later Mig-23's, I note they were phased out rather rapidly, along with the original versions.
Still, it was a swing wing, which no one, in the West or anyone else, made a good agile dogfighter. The best effort was probably the F-14 Tomcat.
I don't think that was ever a design goal anyway, however in that era, this was far from unique to the Russian designs.

Point taken about the 'export' Mig-23's, I'm not sure on this, but I think at least Syria might have had some with the full up weapon system by 1982 - with the Bekka Valley combat in mind.
I agree though that the doctrine they employed was a death trap.
(Which Iraq 9 years later still used).

You'll note I missed out the SU-27, great aircraft, still it was an F-15 equivalent that appeared in service just over a decade after the Eagle.
IIRC it had a challenging development and had to be effectively re-designed after the initial prototypes flew in the late 1970's.
(Seeing the Flanker , up close and in the metal at F.I. 1988 was a blast too!).

Which leads me back to my point about this new Chinese fighter, if it is a Sino F-22.
One suspects it's a long way from service in any numbers.
Unlike the US programs, it's hardly going to be transparent and under public scrutiny.
Which can, rather like in the Cold War, lead some in the West to sometimes overrate the other guy's aircraft and bemoan their own projects. Assuming the 'other' are in a more advanced stage of development than they actually are.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17444 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 59):
Looking backwards in time is no way to predict the threats in the future. Both China and Russia are open societies that can access much global technology (legally or not) that they couldn't before. The US is not without mistakes. Just look at the F-35 with all its problems and 7 year of delays for proof. The T-50 is also using Indian money and engineers....

While Russia is not the USSR (thankfully), Mr Putin has been busy rolling back the openness for his country, China of course is open compared to say Mao's time, even so it's a one party state.
With the T-50, it seems to have had a protracted development to say the least, that as summarised here makes the travails of the F-35, previously the F-22 and to be honest, Typhoon and even Rafale look of model of rapidity;

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

While it's certainly true there is a major effort to get hold of sensitive Western secrets - MI5 reckons that the level of FSB activity is comparable in the UK to the KGB activity in the Cold War - for all that, while having some technical secrets might help, if your industrial/technical base cannot deliver the goods, which seems to be true of Russia in recent times, they are still left with the problem of implementing modernisation.

The record here, for the Russian AF has been dismal.
Money has a lot to do with it, as does an overdue radical restructuring of the industry, which seems to have only partially been realised. Too many projects in an under capitalised industry.
(And as example, look at the rate of Russian airliner deliveries, these are the same companies at the heart of their military aerospace industry).

As has been noted, China has major problems with engines.
(With the civil part of their aerospace industry, look at the truly terrible record here, that rear engined DC-9 lookalike, years of delay, then the thing is very overweight and plagued with systems problems. In both cases, these are less challenging then advanced military aircraft).
Neither have produced anything like say the Boeing 777 - 18 years in airline service, or the A320 - celebrating 25 years in operation this week. Much less the 787 or A350.

It's quite understandable to be concerned about issues that come up, the time taken, with projects like F-22 and F-35, however if you look at the eventual results, they get there in the end. This cannot always be said of post Cold War Russian projects and China is likely finding making the leap from endless variations on a Mig-19 and Mig-21 based theme, to producing projects roughly comparable to Western aircraft of the current generation.

The restructuring of the US aerospace industry in the 1990's was painful, had it not happened however, the problems of too few projects spread across too many companies would have been a real issue.
(This was a recurring problem with the UK industry from 1945 to the early 1960's).

With Russia, they do have many highly skilled engineers but money and the effects of the immediate post Cold War chaos still has an effect.

For Western security, it's probably more about who these products might end up being exported to.
But they have to be in service and available for export first.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 17308 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 61):
With the T-50, it seems to have had a protracted development to say the least, that as summarised here makes the travails of the F-35, previously the F-22 and to be honest, Typhoon and even Rafale look of model of rapidity;


T-50 began 2003, combat capable 2017 - 14 years total. (they say 2015)
F-35 began 1996 (JSF begin), Combat capable, 2019 - 23 years total (current estimate)
F-22 began 1986 (YF-22 begin), combat capable 2005, - 19 years total

Different industries
GDB, IMHO, comparing civil and military industries is not a good analogy. These are different industries and markets. For instance, the Russians have no apple ipad or similar civilian consumer products to offer the world (they're made in China btw), but they did sell millions of AK-47s around the world, which are one of the most effective machine guns ever made and cheaper than most. Just one example.

Discount the T-50 at your peril, by assuming that it just can't be any good, because of ....pick your analogy, rather than the actual capabilities. Assumptions are potentially lethal to the people who you bet their lives based on mere assumptions. The same goes for the J-21/J-30 planes in China.

In China, they also have hundreds of J-10a and J-10bs. Those are all fly by wire canard planes, with AESA radars (J-10b) and IRST. China in particular has been fine tuning their defenses against stealth, with batteries of high powered UHF and L band radars, which detect stealth aircraft better than other frequencies.

Those are the future threats the 179 F-22s and the F-35s will face. Not the F-16s of yesteryear. Without F-22 cover, I don't see F-35s surviving in that environment.

Consider also the advancement of A2A missiles with dual or triple seeker types on 1 missile including datalink guidance. Some will have a combination of IR, Optical, Radar and datalinks all in one. This means perfect radar stealth alone will not suffice for evasion. That's only 1 spectrum.

That is the real threat environment in 2020 and beyond. Or you can operate under the assumption that the threats will remain static and unchanged.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 17269 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 62):
T-50 began 2003, combat capable 2017 - 14 years total. (they say 2015)

I'd not put money on that. A senior Russian politician cast doubt whether they've got the capacity to produce them except at a very low rate. (Which has been the story of post Cold War Russian projects. Even after Putin pledged to shake things up still modern military aircraft - or to be precise - updated previous generation ones - arrive at a trickle.
It's caused political consternation there, they go through heads of aerospace companies at a high rate. One is installed, he doesn't improve things, he gets sacked. And/or responsible minsters.

The airliner comparison does I think, have resonance, since they are technically less challenging to develop and they, like the military aircraft, leave the factories often in single digit numbers per year.
It shows up the problems of the industry as a whole.

It's tempting to look at the often highly impressive looking displays at the Moscow air days, the stands and brochures at air shows/trade fairs, they don't however match the reality.

We know this when we recall the attack on Georgia in 2008.
Georgia had no air force to speak of, not much in the of air defences either, nothing sophisticated.
Yet the Russians lost two T-22M bombers as well as a number of other aircraft, they could not bomb at night due to a lack of PGM's. This also affected the other principal type used, the aging SU-25 Frogfoot.
There was also anger about a lack of effective command and control, communications problems and a general lack of coherence - against a virtually defenceless target.

Worse, at least one of the TU-22M crews killed included high ranking air force officers.
Why? It seems they had a greater number of recent flying hours - you'd think it would be the other way around with the lower ranks having the experience.
This is another chronic problem for them.
It may have improved a bit since the 1990's, still their average flying hours are a fraction of the NATO average - the NATO average from before the large scale operational deployments of the last 11 years that is.
A peacetime NATO air-force had a much higher flying hours average - this is not a good way to operate newer, sophisticated aircraft if and when they finally get them.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 62):
but they did sell millions of AK-47s around the world, which are one of the most effective machine guns ever made and cheaper than most. Just one example.

They largely gave away, in vast numbers, these weapons.
The clue is in the designation, Assault Rifle designed in 1947.
It's virtues are it's simple and rugged enough for a child in Africa to use.
By comparison to modern small arms, it lacks accuracy and range.
The smaller calibre version the AKS-74 (the year developed again) while improved still has the same limitations.
The design is based on - of course they denied this - the Stg.44 from Hitler's Germany.
(The chief export by the USSR, apart from AK-47's, was always BS!)

AK's are also everywhere since many nations licensed - and many more did unlicensed - production. From the Warsaw Pact to China, from Arab states to back street gunsmiths in the Khyber Pass.

Speaking of the Soviet era, it was fairly common practice then to fake things at the Moscow Parade flypast too.
In the 1950's they spooked the west into thinking they had many more TU-95 and M-4 bombers - the latter was a B-52ski except it did not have have the range - by flying the same few aircraft around in a circuit, rather than being flypast after flypast of different aircraft.

The political issue of the 'missile gap' in the US politics in the late 1950's/early 1960's lasted as long as the first pics came back from the very first 'Corona' spy satellites.
Line and line of long range bombers? No, a fraction of the numbers expected.
Missiles too, at the time of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crises the US had a 17-1 advantage in strategic bombers and missiles that could hit the USSR, compared to what the USSR could attack the US with.
(However, Europe did have a lot of early IRBM's aimed at them, it was developing the ICBM's that was the log jam. So they had some spare to stick on Cuba to try and redress the balance with the US).

Now, we know that the USSR did catch up and overtake the US with ICBM's, matching then by the end of the 1960's, overtaking later. Trouble is that was, as with the rest of the vast arsenal, the reason why the USSR eventually collapsed.

There is some resonance today I think, some lessons.
1. Don't take the displays of new aircraft at air shows, statements by the politicians, at face value. Look at the bigger picture - which of course in the Cold War was much harder to do.

2. Whatever the ambitions for new arms, Russia is not going to bankrupt itself doing so. For a start, unlike the Warsaw Pact days Russia is not insulated from the world. They have to live in it.
This is even more true of China. A recent risible movie, a pointless remake of the already silly 1980's film 'Red Dawn', was going to be about a Chinese invasion of the US! Only the Hollywood people realised this would play badly to say the least in that huge emerging market.

Must be big, they don't usually bother about insulting foreigners. 'Argo' had it that the British Embassy in Tehran turned the Americans away, actually they were the only ones who helped them. So 'Red Dawn' had to be delayed while every reference, flag, to China was changed and CGI'd out and replaced with, North Korea!
Anyway, the Chinese have already invaded you, they just did it through Wal-Mart.
The point is China is so heavily economically integrated with the West, not least the US. The Cold War it ain't.

3. The projected time-lines for production and service entry for these new Russian aircraft will be bunkum. They have been since the end of the Cold War and that's with upgraded legacy types not a new highly ambitious one.

That's not to say the T-50 won't, in time, eventually, become a valuable and effective asset for them. Even if it's 'stealthiness' is much less than the F-22 - which they've admitted to.
But the numbers will be small, likely much less than 179.

In conclusion, yes we should take notice of aircraft like the T-50 and the newer Chinese designs, however this has also to be viewed in a wider context based of political/economic and diplomatic reality.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 17141 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 63):
I'd not put money on that.

Same with the F-35. IMHO, bound to be delayed further if the past performance on this aircraft is any indication. 2020 at the earliest I'd say.

I agree on your analysis on China and I would add Russia. They are never going to be at war with any Western Country. That danger has passed - Too much at stake for everyone and it makes no sense, no matter which way you look at it.

However, don't you think the T-50, J-20, J-31 should be examined on their own merits? The Indians are participating, which is new. It could turn out that these are very lethal planes. The potential is there. You can see it. These are not paper planes.

IMHO, there is no substitute for examining them closely, rather than making assumptions about low numbers or their low effectiveness. Those assumptions could be wrong. For example India alone is to buy 144 and Russia at least 150 to start and they will export the T-50. The numbers will certainly surpass 179 by far I think. Who knows who will be flying the Chinese planes, besides China. These things will proliferate.

Quoting GDB (Reply 63):
That's not to say the T-50 won't, in time, eventually, become a valuable and effective asset for them. Even if it's 'stealthiness' is much less than the F-22 - which they've admitted to.

I have not heard them make any such statements. They said it is better than the F-22 - a vague statement that can't be verified just yet, and I personally doubt it. But who knows? The F-22 has no helmet cuing system yet and no IRST. So it's possible. Of one thing I am certain, these would all club the poor F-35 into the ground, if they all perform as promised, the F-35 included.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 17147 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 63):
Whatever the ambitions for new arms, Russia is not going to bankrupt itself doing so. For a start, unlike the Warsaw Pact days Russia is not insulated from the world. They have to live in it.
This is even more true of China.

I agree with you on that 100%. The US is the one going broke on Defense spending now. The T-50 is reported to have cost Russia and India a total of $40 Billion to develop. Drop in the bucket compared to the F-22 and F-35.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 17115 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 65):
I agree with you on that 100%. The US is the one going broke on Defense spending now. The T-50 is reported to have cost Russia and India a total of $40 Billion to develop. Drop in the bucket compared to the F-22 and F-35.

For what is admittedly a much less capable aircraft. And they haven't even finished development of the actual engine that will power it, so that development cost will change. Unfortunately, because the actual costs are shrouded in secrecy (there is no such thing as open government in Russia), we won't know the actual total, only what is anticipated.

And FYI, the Indians are developing their own variant, the HAL FGFA, and that's already gone over budget; budget for the FGFA was around $30 billion dollars, and the Indians have already significantly cut numbers because of budget overruns from a planned 200 down to 144.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 64):
The Indians are participating, which is new.

The Indians are participating for their own reasons (to gain experience for their domestic aviation industry), and the Russians needed Indian development because they otherwise could not afford T-50's development with them.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 4 hours ago) and read 17108 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 64):
Same with the F-35. IMHO, bound to be delayed further if the past performance on this aircraft is any indication. 2020 at the earliest I'd say.

Which version and what do we mean by in service?
Because no modern combat aircraft comes with all the capabilities 'out of the box' these days.
F-22 certainly did not, neither did the European ones.

One of the main drivers here seems to be software, sheer complexity of it, the need to test and test it again. Then when you add a new capability.....and on it goes.

Judging by how things are going now, by 2020 the F-35A should be quite a way down the road, F-35B should have some initial combat capabilities, F-35C will be the one tailing behind.
This is based the the most recent information.

Yes, it's been messy, the original claims for costs and time-lines were way too optimistic. (So were the ones for the F-22).
Not just the Raptor either, I struggle to think of one combat aircraft in recent history that has arrived when advertised and at the original price.

However, there is one important factor with the F-35.
In the 1990's the US realised that separate replacements for the F-18C/D, the F-16, the AV-8B were just not going to happen. Fingers had already been burned badly with the intention to develop the A-12 to replace the A-6. That was a huge scandal. Hence an improved F-18E/F to plug the gap to an extent after the A-6 was retired.

So to field a new generation of combat aircraft, that would not be as vastly expensive to develop, buy and operate as the F-22, some compromises had to made, some different branches of the armed forces had to cooperate.
(Not so new, the F-16 and F/A-18 only emerged when it became clear that both the F-15 and F-14 were too expensive to replace one for one the legacy fleet).

Also, to support the combat aircraft industrial base, the new type had to be exportable. In fact they had to go one further and allow a degree of foreign involvement never before seen in a US combat type.
This would not be a multi-national program like Tornado and Euro-fighter, however it was a step in that direction.
(The Typhoon is actually a BAe design, P.116 with some German influence, with Italy and Spain involved at a work-share/cost spreading level. It's been UK government policy to do combat aircraft as multi national projects since the 1960's, the only way to get the costs spread and the critical mass of numbers built to sustain the design and industrial base).

Though the head of the JSF program back then put it more succintly, when desribing how the USAF, USN, USMC had to come together if they wanted to replace their legacy types, the main driver was, they didn't have a choice!


User currently offlineyyzala From Canada, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17027 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 63):
Georgia had no air force to speak of, not much in the of air defences either, nothing sophisticated.

They had Buk-M, Tor, Osa and even SPYDER. That is quite sophisticated and not defenseless as you would describe. When you have 70s era planes with no EW flying against these modern systems you are asking for trouble. Fortunately the Su-34 in the later days of the war was quite effective in suppressing these systems. The Air Force had Su-25s, upgraded by Israel, with night vision and laser guided bombs.

Yes, the first few days were quite embarrassing for Russia with poor communication, lack of air support and immediate availability of various equipment. Have a look here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_war#Combatants. There is no real superiority over Georgia in equipment. However, with significant tactical challenges, an all out superiority was gained in mere 9 days. The only modern equipment seen was Su-34 and Iskander ballistic missiles. The use of the Soviet Deep Battle doctorine, just shows how potent of an enemy Russia is, regardless of the circumstances.

Quoting GDB (Reply 63):
Now, we know that the USSR did catch up and overtake the US with ICBM's, matching then by the end of the 1960's, overtaking later. Trouble is that was, as with the rest of the vast arsenal, the reason why the USSR eventually collapsed.

The USA is on the exact same path. With trillions of debt, you would think they would slow down printing the dollar and maybe think twice about building top notch planes to bomb cave men. Unfortunately corporate greed and the military industrial complex is only contributing to the next Roman Empire. The current generation planes are more than adequate to take down the T-50 or J-31 for one basic reason you already described - training and flying time advantage (for now). Regardless how many F-35s are bought, China will overwhelm them in numbers of their own planes.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 66):
The Indians are participating for their own reasons (to gain experience for their domestic aviation industry), and the Russians needed Indian development because they otherwise could not afford T-50's development with them.

Nice try! You are forgetting BAE is a significant partner in this project, as well as the supply chain spanning the world. Still overpriced.


PS. GDB always a pleasure reading your comments. You are of the very few here that provides accurate, virtually bias free replies!


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 69, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17019 times:

Quoting yyzala (Reply 68):
The USA is on the exact same path. With trillions of debt, you would think they would slow down printing the dollar and maybe think twice about building top notch planes to bomb cave men.

it does look like that I grant you.
But surely the difference is in that nature of the political system - the US has the capacity to change, alter policy radically and has done so often enough.
The USSR could not, even the very modest reforms that Kruschev tried to implement went when he did.

To get an idea of this, I hugely recommend the book Red Plenty by Francis Spufford.
Spufford, who has a record of wring about science and the politics around it, uses both real and fictional characters, in a series of novellas, set at various times from the late 1930's to the late 60's, to chart the attempts to bring scientific rationality, cybernetics, computer technology, to rationalise and direct economic activity to try and create, truly, 'Red Plenty'.
And the TU-114 airliner even has a cameo!


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 70, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16938 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 67):
One of the main drivers here seems to be software, sheer complexity of it, the need to test and test it again.

I agree to an extent. What is making that issue 10x more complex, is that the software that is delivered is ridden with errors and some versions only had 50% of the capabilities they were supposed to have.

The extent of the technical struggles with the F-35 are especially hard to understand, given that Lockheed developed the F-22, which is even more advanced than the F-35 in almost every respect. It's like they learned nothing, or it was set up deliberately to create as much work and billing as possible. Like a car repair shop over billing customers. Same thing, just on an industrial scale and the DoD is easily hoodwinked, like a doe eyed elderly lady in a car repair shop holding her husband's credit card.

In the context of global politics, none of this really matters. Neither do the Chinese planes and the T-50, Because the time when we could have fought each other is past. There will be no war between large countries anymore. The only remaining dangers are rouge nations that get nuclear capabilities, and can not be trusted to keep the peace - like Iran and N Korea. Even Pakistan and Israel should be monitored and persuaded to disarm their nukes. Maybe Israel could make a deal with Iran and say we disarm our nukes and you dismantle your nuclear program.

Nah, to practical for reality.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 16898 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):
given that Lockheed developed the F-22, which is even more advanced than the F-35 in almost every respect.

Having more than one engine doesn't make it more advanced...


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 16863 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):

The extent of the technical struggles with the F-35 are especially hard to understand, given that Lockheed developed the F-22, which is even more advanced than the F-35 in almost every respect. It's like they learned nothing, or it was set up deliberately to create as much work and billing as possible. Like a car repair shop over billing customers. Same thing, just on an industrial scale and the DoD is easily hoodwinked, like a doe eyed elderly lady in a car repair shop holding her husband's credit card.

Because F-35 is programmed using C and C++ and F-22 uses Ada... In addition, the F-35's avionics software has over 5 times the software code compared to F-22. Not surprising, since the F-35 has a more extensive set of sensors and is designed to use a whole suite of weapons, not just 3 or 4 weapons like F-22.

It will be easier to integrate new weapons onto F-35, because of the Universal Armaments Interface which will be the the only interface for weapons on F-35. There's a lot of work being done upfront instead of later on down the line for weapons integration, as with other aircraft, where integrating new weapons requires massive software configuration for each weapon being integrated which adds costs and complexity down the line. New weapons down the line will only require flight and separation testing, which is a much easier task compared to software testing and integration. There will be no more "we've integrated a new bomb, but in the process, we accidentally messed up the launch control software for our AIM-9 missiles" scenario's with F-35 in the future. I think the Israeli's are working on converting their weapons over to UAI right now, as they want to integrate the Spice bomb kit with F-35 from the start.

Remember that the USAF has over 30 different weapons and pods that can be carried by fighter jets; the end goal with F-35 is that we will have at least 12 different weapons cleared and ready for use on F-35 from the start, excluding any possible pods or other weapons under development or planned for F-35. Foreign users probably want even more weapons choices with their F-35's (I imagine Japan would want to integrate their domestic missiles onto F-35 as well), so doing the work now to make adding new weapons a easier and cheaper task down the line will save money in the long run.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 73, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 16699 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 72):
Foreign users probably want even more weapons choices with their F-35's (I imagine Japan would want to integrate their domestic missiles onto F-35 as well),

That's true, the UK will presumably want to integrate Brimstone missiles, they should be OK for internal carriage.
Worth remembering though, that at least for the UK for the Navy, a lot of the potential tasking will be in what you could call the 'USMC Role'.
That is close support in a littoral environment, here LO is less important, as is range, so the four wing pylons could be employed to hang more stuff on. Plus the podded cannon.

I don't see the Storm Shadow land attack missile being able to be internally housed in any F-35 version, however they plus being LO itself, this system could be a useful extra punch for CVF based F-35's.
Though the Treasury might object, citing the RN submarines Tomahawks.

The Meteor missile might be on the RN's wish list too, not for RAF F-35B's, they've got Typhoon for that.
Given the join nature of the RN/RAF fleet, that could mean the UK, for the F-35B, either puts the AMRAAM's (possibly upgraded - is that possible?) once replaced by Meteors on the Typhoons on the F-35B. Or just buys some new ones from the US.

What is very likely, will be the AIM-132 ASRAAM integration on to F-35B.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 16660 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 73):

Indeed. Moving to the UAI weapons interface will simplify weapons integration testing for everyone, driving down partner costs for weapons integration.

The best way to think of UAI is to think of it like the Print Manager for Windows. A program has to have a way of communicating with a printer. In the days of DOS, each program has to be configured for each and every printer. We are currently at that stage right now with existing combat aircraft; a DOS like stage where each aircraft has to be configured for each and every store hung off the aircraft. This is a very costly and time consuming process, and realistically, most nations prefer to perform integration on larger block or spiral upgrades because you do need to go into the aircraft source codes, so weapons integration is put off until there is either a real need for that weapon, or it's time to upgrade the aircraft's software anyways, and you have a number of weapons that need integration.

When Windows came along, it introduced “Print Manager” to act as a middleman between the program and the printer. The program no longer needs to talk directly with the printer or vice-versa. New printers could be added without the need to update programs or the operating system. This is essentially what UAI is; a middleman/translator between the store and the aircraft.

In a UAI enable package, the plane’s combat computer interacts with the UAI module, which in turn communicates with the weapon itself. Each version of UAI (CV01 is the first) introduces new features that can be supported. CV01 is most of the A2G, CV02 brings more A2G, CV03 bring UAV functionality, and CV04 plans on A2A functions. UAI also handles info passed from the weapon to the avionics like a datalink, sensor readings, etc.

Current UAI development is focused on weapons but there has been word that pods (RECCE, FLIR, Jamming, EW, etc) could also be adapted using this same methodology, which makes sense.

Currently, the F-15E is being back-fitted with UAI because the F-15E is the lead developmental fighter for UAI, it’s a USAF program, and UAI is initially focused on A2G weapons which are much more diverse than A2A weapons. The next plane to get UAI is the next block of F-16 40/50’s, including European partners (if they upgrade them). F-35 will come out of the package with UAI from the start.

Also, since UAI is an international program, allied partners can develop Block upgrades to get UAI and can develop UAI interfaces for their weapons. Besides the F-35B/C, no USN plane has officially signed onto the program, although some interests exists to modify the F/A-18's with UAI.

The end result of all of this is that once the plane has the right CV build (requires a Block upgrade) and the weapon has the right driver, only separation tests are needed. Once those are done, any plane with that configuration can use that weapon, worldwide. The drivers are loaded as a separate upload as part of the normal mission planning upload, and this will vary between aircraft types (with F-35, it's wireless).

Simply put, any plane that has CVx can use a weapon that has a CVx driver with only separation tests being needed. This is a vast improvement compared to the old way of doing things in general. Witness the problems the Australians faced when they tried to get the F-111 integrated with Popeye missile; had both F-111 and the Popeye missile used the UAI standard, integration would have consisted of check fits and separation testing assuming both had the same UAI variant, instead of the painful process they had to go through.

You can see how individual weapons vendors find the notion of a UAI standard so appealing is that it opens up new potential markets for their wares - internationally as well as domestically. Lockheed Martin was the first to push for such a standard, and they already came out with a precursor to UAI a few years back before UAI ever became a standard by designing a modification for their JASSM missile cruise missile to be integrated onto aircraft that have the existing capability to carry and launch the Raytheon JSOW. Unlike the UAI, this capability requires no change to the aircraft source code at all. Lockheed Martin has altered the JASSM software so that an aircraft recognizes the weapon as if it were a JSOW. Thus, in theory, all existing aircraft that are capable of launching JSOWs now constitute ready potential users for JASSM, and this is especially important for overseas sales as it really isn't necessary for USAF aircraft as they already have interfaces for both JSOW and JASSM integrated on most of their combat aircraft. New weapons can be integrated at a lower cost, in a shorter timeframe, and reduced schedule risk and capability risk.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 16391 times:

From the pictures it seems the J-31 having to big canards. The radar return must be huge unless they apply extensive RAM coatings.(if they do have some usable RAM???)

I guess they wanted better aerodynamics but it will be another trial and error.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 16344 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 75):
From the pictures it seems the J-31 having to big canards.

Agreed on that. My take on the J-31 is that it is still fairly stealthy, but the Chinese want it maneuverable at 65,000 feet at Mach 2 - or whatever speed it's going to go. Going fast at that altitude makes for a plane that doesn't want to change course, because of the high kinetic energy it has. So it requires more energy to maneuver in that situation.

The USAF in the YF-22/23 evaluation also put a big emphasis on maneuverability. The YF-23 was faster and stealthier, but not as maneuverable as the YF-22. The USAF chose the YF-22, which became the F-22.

The J-31 is a big plane, with a big radar dome and probably with plenty of room for internal weapons carriage. Adding the canards to the wing area, results in a fairly large lift area. Maybe they are not going to incorporate thrust vectoring and designed the canards to still provide enough aerodynamic surfaces to still remain maneuverable, despite a lack of thrust vectoring. If that's the case, it certainly would remove complexity, weight and costs.

The F-22 really is groundbreaking, with thrust vectoring, stealth, super cruise ability, and large AESA radar, etc....but at a very high cost, and low readiness rate, because it costs somewhere between 65-120k USD per hour to operate. This means a lot of maintenance man hours for each hour of flight of the F-22. The F-35 is trending in the same direction. The F-35s readiness rate should be lower than that of the F-16 or any other legacy fighter, judging by it's 60% higher operating costs, per the latest GAO report.

I assume the Russian/Indian T-50 and the J-31 will be cheaper and less sophisticated, but still have a large fraction of the F-22s capability. If the J-31 substitutes canards for thrust vectoring that would be just one such example.

Kind of like when NASA spend a ton of money to develop a pen that works in zero gravity and the Soviets used pencils. Both get the job done and today US astronauts, and everybody else, uses Russian metal to get into orbit. Just my personal 2 cents.

[Edited 2013-04-02 10:34:49]

User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 605 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 16324 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 76):
Kind of like when NASA spend a ton of money to develop a pen that works in zero gravity and the Soviets used pencils. Both get the job done and today US astronauts, and everybody else, uses Russian metal to get into orbit. Just my personal 2 cents.

In contrast to most of your views, this statement I readily agree.   (credit given where credit is due)
A little correction though. Allow me to point out that: "today US astronauts, and everybody else" with the sole exception of China "uses Russian metal to get into orbit".



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2577 posts, RR: 17
Reply 78, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 16314 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Where do you guys see canards on the J-31??

http://www.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/f31b.jpg

I think you may be talking about the J-20  


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 79, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16210 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 78):
Where do you guys see canards on the J-31??

Righto, J-20 I was talking about with canards....
Big version: Width: 1000 Height: 750 File size: 95kb
J-20, China laps the F-35 too


Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 695 File size: 126kb
F-35 has been lapped


[Edited 2013-04-02 18:34:46]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 16202 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 77):
Allow me to point out that: "today US astronauts, and everybody else" with the sole exception of China "uses Russian metal to get into orbit".

Good catch. I forgot about that. I think the Chinese are far further along in technology and engineering ability, than they are generally given credit for. The present and future is not the same as the past. They have been churning out engineering students like crazy. Some of them must be as smart as our smartest, IMHO.

So assuming the J-20 will be crap and inferior just because it's from China, is staking lives on that assumption. I remember when people said the J-20 was a paper plane and couldn't fly or was a PR stunt. Well those assumptions were proven wrong too.

[Edited 2013-04-02 18:25:53]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 16130 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 76):
Going fast at that altitude makes for a plane that doesn't want to change course, because of the high kinetic energy it has. So it requires more energy to maneuver in that situation.

Maneuverability is great, but it isn't the end all be all for air combat. It's its a straight up one verses one battle, pilot skill will determine the outcome. You have have the best fighter in the world, and have a numerical advantage, but if your pilots are trained terribly, they will get shot down. I believe there are a couple of instances in the Yom Kippur War where a handful of Israeli fighters mixed it up with Egyptian and Syrian fighters and were outnumbered significantly against more agile opponents and still came out the victor because the Israeli pilots were better trained. The Russians and the Chinese have yet to really match us in terms of pilot training (a average Chinese pilot gets less than half the hours his NATO counterpart is supposed to get as a minimum).

When it becomes multiple aircraft verses multiple aircraft (say a 4 on 4), situational awareness will be a key determining factor in addition to pilot skill. Being able to keep track of where you are, where your wingmen, and where is the enemy is key to survival and victory.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 80):

So assuming the J-20 will be crap and inferior just because it's from China, is staking lives on that assumption.

They are still years, if not decades behind us in many key areas, such as engines and avionics. The important bits I might add.

However, this does not mean we should dismiss their attempts lightly. Respect the enemy as you have less of a chance of underestimating him.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 76):
The F-22 really is groundbreaking, with thrust vectoring, stealth, super cruise ability, and large AESA radar, etc....but at a very high cost, and low readiness rate, because it costs somewhere between 65-120k USD per hour to operate. This means a lot of maintenance man hours for each hour of flight of the F-22.

Partially because of the fragile skin the F-22 has. About one-third of the F-22’s current maintenance activity is associated with the stealth system, including the skin. The F-22's coating requires lots of maintenance and upkeep, and every seam needs to be filled with a gap-filler to help maintain a stealthy signature, and many access panels were not designed for regular serving without a check to make sure the stealth signature isn't compromised.

F-35 eliminated the coatings in favour of baking the RAM right into the aircraft skin. They've done pretty extensive durability studies to make sure that the skin is 'damage tolerant'. RAM is baked on in a lot of instances forming part of the structure while said RAM/structure will tolerate minor damage and still retain stealth properties within required tolerances. To eliminate the maintenance intensive gap-fillers, they've worked on tightening up tolerances to eliminate such gaps in the first place through laser alignment, and they've designed access panels to be easily removed for servicing without negatively affecting the signature. Lots of lessons learned on that front. I believe some of the last F-22's off the line, the Lot 9 F-22's started to incorporate the F-35's advances in the coatings department in a bid to improve maintainability.

As a bit of random trivia, the technology for laser alignment and templating technology for 3D composite ply alignment is Canadian in origin; Virtek Vision International and Nikon Metrology Canada supply the technology for the laser alignment technology that Lockheed is now using to assemble the F-35. The laser templating technology shows workers, with a high degree of speed and accuracy, where to lay the cut pieces of composite material as they assemble aircraft skin and structure parts. Nikon Metrology produces a system that projects a laser image onto aircraft parts, allowing assembly personnel to see how the parts fit together, including where drilling or fastening will occur.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 76):
I assume the Russian/Indian T-50 and the J-31 will be cheaper and less sophisticated,

FYI, the Indians are right now saying the T-50 is about $100 million dollars a copy, and that's just the current estimate. They haven't finished development on many key areas, like the engines, and the Indians have already made significant cuts in the planned procurement to stay within budget.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 16084 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 77):
with the sole exception of China

Maybe without russian metal but not without russian knowledge.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 76):
My take on the J-31 is that it is still fairly stealthy,

I disagree on the J-20, EADS put much effort to design the canards of the Typhoon as small as possible but still to get best possible maneuverability, because canarads do harm the rcs badly. That's why BEA Systems had to apply extensive RAM's into the canards.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 605 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 16053 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 82):
Maybe without russian metal but not without russian knowledge.

That's true and I (as do many others) am very much aware of it. The Shenzhou was designed and built by China with legally acquired Soyuz technology as a starting point. Their homebuilt spacesuits were also Soviet based and their taikonaut instructors were trained in Russia who in turn home-produced all their men and woman who went up in orbit.

My post was in response to "uses Russian metal to get into orbit" which means Russian spacecraft. There was no need for me to go further into unnecessary depth. A straight clarification to a straight statement; nothing more and nothing less.
Anyway, American space metal was also originally built on German knowledge as I believe you are aware of too.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 84, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 15929 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 81):
They are still years, if not decades behind us in many key areas, such as engines and avionics. The important bits I might add.

Of course you have no way of knowing that. Even if true, nobody here can know to what extent. Even if the J-20 is only 70% of the F-22, it would still shoot everything out of the sky except for the F-22 and T-50, IMHO. To counter your personal opinion, you may consider that most electronics made today, are made in China. And many that are not still have components made in China.

Besides, the F-35 is also years behind in those exact same areas as well. That we know for sure. Even the F-22 does not have a helmet cuing system for its A2A missiles, which is why the Typhoon got them, when within visual range.

Even if you have 100% situational awareness against this new breed of fighters, that's not enough. You have to be able to get yourself into a good firing position, not just see them. That's where these high altitude, high speed F-22 like planes come in. They will always have the upper hand against slower and lower fighters that can not super cruise without afterburner or accelerate in the transonic zone without afterburner.

So what if the J-20s are seen far above, approaching at super cruise speeds (twice your speed), that doesn't mean they can (or should) be fired on. The J-20s and T-50s can fire well before other fighters can that are flying lower and slower. Conversely, with their significant speed and altitude advantage, the faster agile fighters can more easily defeat inbound missiles fired at them.

Missile range depends to a very great extent on the altitude and speed delta. High off bore sight shots decreases the range further, quite a lot actually. One expert explained that over the shoulder shots are hopeless in real life, as the missiles would have no range having to turn around 180 degrees during the fastest portion of their flight, expending a large portion of their energy just turning and backtracking, which would not leave them with enough energy to chase down a target.

High Off Bore sight helmet cuing for A2A missiles is best for short range missiles fired within visual range, as the F-22/Typhoon exercises show. Within visual range, the F-22 is not equal to the Typhoon, and several said it is because of a lack of off bore sight cuing, which the Typhoon has. Though I hear the F-22 will be getting that in a few years, if they haven't started already. That should put things back in order.

[Edited 2013-04-03 13:36:00]

[Edited 2013-04-03 13:39:12]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 15903 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 84):
Of course you have no way of knowing that. Even if true, nobody here can know to what extent. Even if the J-20 is only 70% of the F-22, it would still shoot everything out of the sky except for the F-22 and T-50, IMHO. To counter your personal opinion, you may consider that most electronics made today, are made in China. And many that are not still have components made in China.

Manufacturing consumer electronics and components =/ expertise in electronics. Someone has to design the circuitry and the software that runs the electronics, and many of those programmers, scientists, and engineers reside in the US.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 84):

Besides, the F-35 is also years behind in those exact same areas as well. That we know for sure.

The publicly known information is says F-35 is good enough. It's definitively equivalent of the F/A-18 and the F-16, the aircraft that it is supposed to replace. The rest of the performance specifications is and will be highly classified.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 84):
So what if the J-20s are seen far above, approaching at super cruise speeds (twice your speed), that doesn't mean they can (or should) be fired on.

We don't know if J-20 is capable of supercruise (supercruise being defined as being traveling in excess of Mach 1.5 without afterburners). It may, it most like may not (the Chinese don't have the engine technology to really make it work and thus are reliant on what the Russians can provide).

And some of the analysis indicates that J-20 may be more of a long range strike aircraft with secondary air superiority fighter, I might add.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 84):
One expert explained that over the shoulder shots are hopeless in real life, as the missiles would have no range having to turn around 180 degrees during the fastest portion of their flight, expending a large portion of their energy just turning and backtracking, which would not leave them with enough energy to chase down a target.

With the current missiles and how they are employed. We are looking at using the AIM-120 coupled with a helmet mounted sight for the future, which has more energy, and more range.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 84):
High Off Bore sight helmet cuing for A2A missiles is best for short range missiles fired within visual range, as the F-22/Typhoon exercises show

Not if you know the limitations of your opponent and what circumstances brought the engagement... The USAF and USN had a chance in the past to exercise against German MiG-29's armed with the AA-11 Archer and helmet mounted sights. After a few engagements, they studied the issue and developed new tactics against this combo.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 86, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 15889 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 85):
And some of the analysis indicates that J-20 may be more of a long range strike aircraft with secondary air superiority fighter, I might add.


It's clearly built for high speed. And the J-20 also has massive engines, like the others do. Not to say it won't be able to be a strike plane. But it would excel at shooting other planes out of the sky, coming in high and fast. Others have seen how the F-22 does it and are following suit. Super cruise at 65-70k feet at almost Mach 2 with stealth - and you're mopping up the area and nobody can touch you. It's that simple.


Side by side comparison - New Generation Fighters


[Edited 2013-04-03 16:17:27]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15883 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 86):
And the J-20 also has massive engines, like the others do.

With what engines? The best engines the Chinese have are the Russian AL-31's and their copies, and those engines don't have the power necessary to give them the required performance.

The Chinese are still decades behind everyone in engine technology; the only engine that they are manufacturing locally with some success is a licensed copy of the Rolls Royce Spey engine, and they struggle to even produce that. Everything else is still under development, and with the continued problems with quality control and metallurgy, it will be many years until they have a engine ready.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15855 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 87):
Everything else is still under development, and with the continued problems with quality control and metallurgy, it will be many years until they have a engine ready.

I don't think the J-20 would be going so fast with development, if they didn't have an appropriate engine lined up in the end. Nor anything else. That engine is most likely an AL-41 derivative, which is also going into the T-50 at first. The Chinese were invited to join the T-50 project but declined in favor of their own. Apparently, that would now be the J-20.

The F-22's F-119 engines have the same power as the AL-41s. Both have 2 of these. However, the canard/delta layout is more efficient at high speeds than what the F-22 has, as the Rafale and Typhoon clearly demonstrate. So the J-20 certainly won't be any slower than the F-22.

The all new product 30 engines, being developed now in Russia, should be ready by 2015. These are being optimized for stealth, unlike the AF-41s.

I think there are several options for the Chinese to have an engine sufficiently powerful to do the job and we don't know what they're doing in that area nor what their deal may be with Russia.

I think you'll have to admit (though I don't expect you to), that the F-35 will have very little chance against these two (T-50 and J-20) once they're all are sorted out and operational. Since the F-35 isn't going to be combat ready by 2019 at the earliest, that leaves the other two plenty of time.

http://vijainder.sawfnews.com/News/70055.aspx

[Edited 2013-04-03 18:01:18]

[Edited 2013-04-03 18:06:00]

User currently offlineyyzala From Canada, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15838 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 80):
I think the Chinese are far further along in technology and engineering ability, than they are generally given credit for.
Such as? Tommytoyz, what Chinese company has produced anything that made your jaw drop? What company can you equate to in China to the likes of Lockheed Martin, BAE, Raytheon, Sukhoi, MiG and Tupolev? The Russians have given China so much in technology, but the best they can produce is a rehashed concept. They then have the nerve to resell the concept as their own for cheaper!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 80):
So assuming the J-20 will be crap and inferior just because it's from China

Highly likely will be. Frontal reduced RCS is the only thing going for it. Inferiorly bigger radar in the front to make it easier for the opponent to lock onto? Al-31 engine (sorry WS-10) with not even a 5th generation on the horizon?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 80):
They have been churning out engineering students like crazy.

Haven't exactly seen any results from them. The bright and the smart end up leaving to NATO countries anyways.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 80):
So assuming the J-20 will be crap and inferior just because it's from China, is staking lives on that assumption

Lives are at stake because they can potentially produce 10 of these for the price of one F22.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 88):
That engine is most likely an AL-41 derivative

AL-41 has been cancelled, how would China have it??


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 90, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15832 times:

Quoting yyzala (Reply 89):
AL-41 has been cancelled, how would China have it??

Because they're fully operational already. The T-50s currently fly with them. It is being replaced by the Product 30 engine around 2015 with a stealth and high speed design, specifically designed for planes like the J-20 and T-50. Since the Russians sell just about anything for money, I am sure they would sell the Chinese the new Product 30 engine.

Another thing that occurred to me, was that the F-35 is not optimized for radar stealth from above. But that is exactly where the new fighters will most likely be in relation to the F-35 should they ever meet. Like 40,000 feet above the F-35. Guess the US DoD just didn't assume others would do an F-22 on them. Assumptions are the mother of all bilges.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15830 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 88):
I think you'll have to admit (though I don't expect you to), that the F-35 will have very little chance against these two (T-50 and J-20) once they're all are sorted out and operational.

The F-35 will be good enough. We've seen enough of what comes out from the Russians and by extension, the Chinese, in terms of their aircraft through evaluations to know not all is what it seems to be with their hardware. Not enough to dismiss them, but enough to know that some of the claims don't stand up to close scrutiny.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 88):
Since the F-35 isn't going to be combat ready by 2019 at the earliest, that leaves the other two plenty of time.

Which is a lie you keep repeating, the USMC intents on IOC F-35B in 2014-2015. The first Block 2B aircraft have already rolled out a few months back and that has combat capabilities.

The 2019 line you keep repeating is for the Block 6 aircraft, which is a further development standard. The USMC intends on IOC with Block 2B, while the USAF and USN intend on IOC with Block 3.

And by 2019, we will have hundreds of F-35's already in service. Full rate production is scheduled for 2015, and the first lot alone will have 107 aircraft allocated to it. Not to mention the F-22's we already have.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 88):
The all new product 30 engines, being developed now in Russia, should be ready by 2015. These are being optimized for stealth, unlike the AF-41s.

Yes, the highly visible engine blades that can be seen from the frontal aspect on the PAK-FA is really stealthy; you do realize that engine blades are a large source of radar returns on a fighter aircraft? Something about the modulation that is induced by the engine blades when they are spinning creating a highly scattered radar return that is amplified by the engine ducts.

http://oi40.tinypic.com/jzwkuc.jpg

One of the basic rules of stealth design is that you find a way to keep radar beams from striking the rotating parts of an engine. Engine faces produce large, sometimes amplified, and distinct radar reflections that can be analyzed to identify the engine and aircraft.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 88):
I think there are several options for the Chinese to have an engine sufficiently powerful to do the job and we don't know what they're doing in that area nor what their deal may be with Russia.

Years, if not decades away, by any conservative estimates. They are still figuring out the metallurgy necessary to produce turbine blades, and are importing that from the Russians to build their domestic engines. They only just started to produce the WS-10, and they are having massive quality control and reliability problems that have precluded mass production so far.


User currently offlineyyzala From Canada, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15826 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 90):
The T-50s currently fly with them

That is the 117S. Only the T-50 and SU-35 and have it.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 90):
Since the Russians sell just about anything for money, I am sure they would sell the Chinese the new Product 30 engine.

Maybe in the 90s but no more. With 46.3 billion worth of weapons orders in '12, do you really think Russia will risk its technology for another billion?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3391 posts, RR: 26
Reply 93, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15814 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One thing I learned long ago is it is easy to belittle the opposition and maintain they are no threat only to have them pop up and beat the pants off you. It's true in sports, it's true in military assessments and planning. It's also true in aircraft design and manufacture. It's what one thinks one knows and portrays as "absolute truth" that bites the hardest.

While several comments appear to have a better grounding than others, the truth is nobody knows.. we have writers, analysts, computer simulations, but we still can only offer an opinion..

so here we have some really unknowns from the Chinese being evaluated against the presumed final abilities as defined by a manufacturer who must stick to the message while scrambling to make it so.

The question I still have is how do the Chinese roll out a new plane that is a big surprise, fly it with in weeks, while we take years? How do they move from prototype to a few test birds and into production, while we need 360 plus test planes and years? Yes, maybe theirs or more expendable.. however it's who's left after a battle that wins, not who spent the most, or had the most sophisticated..


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 94, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15765 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 91):
Which is a lie you keep repeating, the USMC intents on IOC F-35B in 2014-2015.


The F-35A and B will not declare IOC before 2019. If you want to consider a handful of Marine F-35Bs with limited weapons and capability to be IOC at the end of 2015 - fine. However the USAF and NAVY birds will not be IOC. Because it's totally ridiculous and probably driven by fear on the part of the Marines that their bird will get the axe. By 2015, a lot of critical stuff will not be completed yet. And that's only if nothing else slips - which is probably will, judging from past performance.

GAO 13-309, March 2013:
Initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) is scheduled to begin in 2017. This date is dependent on successful completion of development test and evaluation. IOT&E evaluates the combat effectiveness and suitability of the aircraft in an operationally realistic environment. Its successful completion is a prerequisite for DOD’s plans to approve the F-35 for full rate production in 2019.

Achieving key performance parameters are critical to the F-35 meeting the warfighter’s operational requirements. They include measures such as range, weapons carriage, mission reliability, and sortie rates. These parameters also cannot be fully verified until the end of IOT&E in 2019. Based on limited information, DOD is currently projecting that the F-35 program is either meeting or close to meeting at least threshold (minimum) performance requirements.


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 91):
Yes, the highly visible engine blades that can be seen from the frontal aspect on the PAK-FA is really stealthy;

That is not the Product 30 engine you are showing a picture of or are talking about. The producr 30 engine is being optimized for Stealth. The T-50s flying today are just prototypes - development versions, not the final version.

And if you think the Russians wouldn't sell stuff to the Chinese, why were the Chinese invited to join the T-50 program by the Russians? Why have the Chinese been allowed to build the AL-31 engine, as they are doing now? You make a ton of assumptions on which you build more assumptions.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 15762 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 94):

The F-35A and B will not declare IOC before 2019.

The USMC disagrees with you on that. They said IOC in the 2014-2015 timeframe, and they aren't going to wait for IOT&E to finish. Col Kevin Killea, the USMC's aviation requirements officer at the Pentagon has stated that already; they intend on IOC the F-35B with the Block 2B software. The Marines have certain criteria that must be met, which include enough equipment and trained crews for two shifts of maintainers, 10 deployable jets with all required modifications and a working and deployable autonomic logistics information system (ALIS) before the service will declare the F-35B as operational.

IOT&E does not need to be complete before an system can be fielded. In fact that's what IOT&E essentially is there for; you field the system, and you test and evaluate how the system operates in the field. You then make modifications and adjustments based upon how the weapon performs in the field. To bring a recent example, the AARGM was IOC'ed back in 2010. However, IOT&E was only started in 2011 and completed in 2012.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 94):
That is not the Product 30 engine you are showing a picture of or are talking about. The producr 30 engine is being optimized for Stealth.

You are going to have to redesign the front intakes to do that... you need to hide the engine, and you have to redesign the front intakes to either move the engines so they aren't exposed or a redesign entailing a blocker, which will degrade engine performance. Unfortunately, as the Russians intend on starting production of the T-50 with the current test engines, not the final engines, they acknowledge that the engine they want is still not ready yet.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 94):
And if you think the Russians wouldn't sell stuff to the Chinese, why were the Chinese invited to join the T-50 program by the Russians?

That was years ago, before the Russians got a little miffed that the Chinese were making copies of their systems without permission and competing with them on the arms market. I don't think the Russians are going to be that willing now to let go of some of their top end technology without some major strings attached now.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 94):
Why have the Chinese been allowed to build the AL-31 engine, as they are doing now?

FYI, it's only local assembly. They are assembling the engines from components primarily made in Russia, especially the critical components, such as the fan blades.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 94):
You make a ton of assumptions on which you build more assumptions.

Because people know where the Chinese are at technologically, and they are behind everyone in engine department. There is information and speculation from defence analysts that from the recent Chinese actions (they just pumped $16 billion into a crash engine development program to jumpstart engine research a few months back), they aren't where they would want to be in terms of engine development.

A quick article from Reuters explains the situation with Chinese engine development:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...china-engine-idUSLNE89T00W20121030


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 96, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 15757 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 95):
The USMC disagrees with you on that.

oops. Meant F-35A and C. You should have noticed my booboo. I dd say USAF and NAVY birds/


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 97, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15703 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 93):
The question I still have is how do the Chinese roll out a new plane that is a big surprise, fly it with in weeks, while we take years?

The quality and level of sophistication they produce is crap. Plain and simple.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 98, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 15681 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 91):
One of the basic rules of stealth design is that you find a way to keep radar beams from striking the rotating parts of an engine. Engine faces produce large, sometimes amplified, and distinct radar reflections that can be analyzed to identify the engine and aircraft.

Absolutly correct, radar return of engine blades is a big issue and can be analyzed by sophisticated radars and computer hardware to identify them. Again in the Typhoon this issue was adressed from beginning and was challenging to accomplish because they didn't want to harm the airflow for the engines intakes. Thats why there are vortex generators in front of the engine intake.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 91):
Years, if not decades away, by any conservative estimates. They are still figuring out the metallurgy necessary to produce turbine blades, and are importing that from the Russians to build their domestic engines.

I really hope you are right, it scares me what the Chinese are already are able to do.

[Edited 2013-04-04 06:07:31]


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3391 posts, RR: 26
Reply 99, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 15633 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So today we have
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/meet-f-35-uss-200-144812833.html

calling the F-35 a bench warmer .

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 97):
The quality and level of sophistication they produce is crap. Plain and simple.

and you can of course authenticate this without using LM's propaganda.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 100, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15606 times:

I remember when analysts were surprised to see the J-20 to begin with and then said it probably wouldn't fly.

Don't forget the F-35 is also at least 6 years away from being fully combat capable as well in only a handful of them. Then, once all the fixes are approved, all existing ones already built would have to be fixed and upgraded - and that will take time. As of now, we're at $9 million in fixes per F-35 already built. Anyone know how much time it will take to do the work per plane?

Even at 100% combat capability, it wouldn't stand a chance against a 100% capable J-20 or T-50. And all wil be capable within a few years of each other.

This opens the question of if the F-35 will become obsolete too quickly to be worthwhile, or if it is too risky to continue putting all our eggs into that creaky basket.

Just assuming the others won't be able to, is a very dangerous poker bluff.

By all indications, the Chinese J-10B is a good aircraft as are all the Russian Flankers, especially the SU-35. This is not their first time around the patch. The evidence is clearly there that they can both build good fighter jets that have Fly by wire, AESA radars, IRST, thrust vectoring, helmet cuing and all.

Ask the USAF what how the Indian AF did against their F-15s with their Russian metal in Copa India.

"General Hal M. Hornburg told USA Today that India's Sukhoi Su-30 MKI multi-role fighters have been successful against F-15 C/D Eagle aircraft in mock combat. In fact, the Indians won 90% of the mock combat missions." - Source USA today.

But they're crap and inferior right? Want to bet your life on that assumption?


User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2577 posts, RR: 17
Reply 101, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 91):
Yes, the highly visible engine blades that can be seen from the frontal aspect on the PAK-FA is really stealthy

Personally, this to me is the most surprising and confusing aspect of the T-50. I'm certain the Russian engineers know what S-ducts are and that blocking the compressor is critical. Hence I have always been intrigued why they didn't implement it. It leads me to believe they have something else up their sleeves which may be put in later and for now they are just running the jet "pure" so as not to interfere with initial performance.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 94):
Why have the Chinese been allowed to build the AL-31 engine

From kits and because after Russia sold them Su-27s in the 90s they probably figured the Chinese would try and copy them anyway. Better to make some money off of it and supply kits. That way you still control the most critical components (like turbine blades) and let them make it at the same time. Kind of a best of both worlds in this situation.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 95):
you need to hide the engine, and you have to redesign the front intakes to either move the engines so they aren't exposed or a redesign entailing a blocker, which will degrade engine performance.

The latest I have read on Russian websites suggest a blocker, maybe similar to the super hornet.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 95):
I don't think the Russians are going to be that willing now to let go of some of their top end technology without some major strings attached now.

Another reason would be that India probably wouldn't be too happy about it. If Russia sells China T-50s, India would just pull the plug on the funding. In essence India would have paid for the development of China's most advanced fighter jet.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 100):
Ask the USAF what how the Indian AF did against their F-15s with their Russian metal in Copa India.

The engagements were limited to visual range only. The F-15s also had no AESA radars. Although I think the latest Su-30s would have no problems hanging with any F-15 in both BVR and visual. Red Flag certainly showed they can do well.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1596 posts, RR: 2
Reply 102, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15626 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 84):
Of course you have no way of knowing that. Even if true, nobody here can know to what extent.

It is a known fact the chinese are lacking when it comes to engines. They have had severe issues on making their CFM56 copy work, and yet it is still inferior to older engines in its class.

There is a reason why most of the J-11B fleet was grounded without engines.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 85):
We don't know if J-20 is capable of supercruise (supercruise being defined as being traveling in excess of Mach 1.5 without afterburners)
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 84):
So what if the J-20s are seen far above, approaching at super cruise speeds (twice your speed), that doesn't mean they can (or should) be fired on.

As it is right now, it can't. It is flying around with AL-31F engines

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 87):
the Russian AL-31's and their copies

Amusingly enough, the chinese haven't been able to replicate the AL-31F.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 88):
That engine is most likely an AL-41 derivative, which is also going into the T-50 at first.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 90):
The T-50s currently fly with them.

The AL-41 is dead, and has been for a while. The only examples of this engines flew with the MiG 1.42.

The T-50 is flying around with the Izd.117(doesn't have an AL-XX designation yet) engines, which aren't related to the AL-41.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 91):
Yes, the highly visible engine blades that can be seen from the frontal aspect on the PAK-FA is really stealthy;

That is a shoped image of an AL-31



Plus, the next engine will have PCM compressor blades for the first stage compressor and possibly the inlet guide vanes, with radar absorbent properties.
Quoting yyzala (Reply 92):
That is the 117S. Only the T-50 and SU-35 and have it.

The Su-35 flies with Izd.117S, the T-50 flies with Izd.117.

Different engines and not related to each other despite the denomination.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 103, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 15611 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 99):

So today we have
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/meet-f-35-uss-200-144812833.html

calling the F-35 a bench warmer .

Winslow Wheeler. Yahoo Finance. CNBC. I don't think so.

Quoting kanban (Reply 99):
and you can of course authenticate this without using LM's propaganda.

Unless you can otherwise. This is the internet, you don't have to authenticate anything.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 100):
But they're crap and inferior right? Want to bet your life on that assumption?

Yes. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian tech has been....how to put this nicely... a joke. The country is corrupt and all the smart engineers have left for the west years ago.


User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2577 posts, RR: 17
Reply 104, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 15588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 103):
Yes. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian tech has been....how to put this nicely... a joke. The country is corrupt and all the smart engineers have left for the west years ago.

Not necessarily. True, there have been a lot of one-offs and projects that have gone nowhere but there are a few exceptions. The Su-30 is quite successful. The Mi-28 has finally been brought up to scratch and is entering service in large numbers. The Yak-130 so far is promising. And the various versions of Mi-17s are being pumped out by the hundreds and sold worldwide. I do think that MiG has gone downhill since the fall of the USSR. Not really any new projects, the countless MiG-29 upgrades still seem to me to not give the jet enough new capabilities to be formidable. The order book shows this, as most customers go with Sukhoi. The Algerians tried MiGs and found out that quality control has also suffered. The country is corrupt I agree but they still have plenty of brains working there. The biggest problem is funding and corruption can make any amount of funding seem not enough.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3391 posts, RR: 26
Reply 105, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 15546 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 103):
all the smart engineers have left for the west years ago.

Then why would Boeing have a big design and manufacturing engineering center there?..

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 103):
This is the internet, you don't have to authenticate anything.

that has been obvious in your posts for some time and has earned you an RR rating of Zero.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 106, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15486 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 105):
that has been obvious in your posts for some time and has earned you an RR rating of Zero.

Oh noes, not the all too important RR rating.  


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 107, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 15468 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 103):
Yes. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian tech has been....how to put this nicely... a joke. The country is corrupt and all the smart engineers have left for the west years ago.

That's a derogatory and ignorant post, there are plenty of technologies or platforms which Russia is still top.

Like the S-300W or S-400 Systems which are much more powerful then Patriot. Or the RD-180 rocket engine, there is nothing similar.

Same for the Topol-M, or Russia's experience with coaxial rotors on helicopters.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineindia1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15442 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Don't they say espionage is the world's 2nd oldest profession? So of course, every nation keeps a tab on other nations and there is a whole raft of illicit technology flowing back and forth. And of course, I'm sure the Chinese have gleaned plenty of American technological secrets, but the trick is in adapting and incorporating these into weapons that work for them.

In the Cold War days, the Soviets had a counterpart for most American aircraft (B52/Bear, B1/Blackjack, F111/Su24, F15/Flanker, A10/Frogfoot, even the mythical Aurora had the AYAKS), but they were built to a different brief, different specs, different operational doctrines... As a rule, I think Americans prefer pushing the tech barrier, money per se being no constraint, whereas the rest optimise more broadly - something like the best there can be vs something which is good enough. I see the China of today as something similar - the J20 cannot (but is not meant to) compete against the F22 one on one, nor can (is) the J31, but its part of the answer and a part of the consistent learning curve that they have embarked on with determination, like their space program. It may not be as advanced as the US', but it works just fine. We'd be fools to think they build their planes as shoddily as they do toys.

And guys, seriously, as much as a "threat" as the West may consider them, I just cannot see the US and China going head to head. With India, it's perhaps a different matter - I can visualise a small skirmish, not a full fledged war. And that's why I hope the T50 doesn't go the way of many other recent Indo-Russian collaborations, except for the Brahmos. I'd like for India to gain (& contribute to) high technology through a symbiotic partnership - cash for technical expertise - whence the end product will be far better than were we to go it alone, and will be a potential match for the J20/31.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 109, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 15271 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 107):
That's a derogatory and ignorant post, there are plenty of technologies or platforms which Russia is still top.

Not even to mention that NASA sends its astronauts to Russia and relies on the "crap" Russian technology to launch their astronauts into orbit and safely back to earth again.

My quote of the day: Life it tough, but even tougher when your stupid.


User currently offlineSP90 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14819 times:

The US imported a lot of talent and designs from Germany and England after WW2. The moon landings were made possible because of Von Braun. The Soviets did the same. In the end when the aliens finally invade we want Earth to have as many 5th gen fighters as possible. Who cares where they're from.

[Edited 2013-04-11 12:40:19]

User currently onlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 987 posts, RR: 3
Reply 111, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14592 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
Disagree. The main issue for the Chinese was a lack of a suitable engine for their fighters (hence the use of Russian engines and a twin-engine design otherwise they would have gone for a powerful single). You want to bury the engines deeper and further back in the fuselage as it will reduce the frontal radar signature. You can better hide the front of the engine as the engine blades are often a major source of radar reflection.

100% correct. I doubt this copy would have the performance of F-22 but its a huge leap for the Chinese. And although the F-22 might be better, it might not be by much and there are but 187 total frames because its so expensive. It might cost China just $40 mill a pop.


User currently offlinevlad135 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 7 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14247 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 110):
My quote of the day: Life it tough, but even tougher when your stupid.

His stupid? I bet life is tough for you indeed.



[Edited 2013-04-17 02:26:57]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Chinese Stealth Copy Of F-22/F-35?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Second Crash Of A V-22 In 3 Month posted Fri Jun 15 2012 05:04:50 by oldeuropean
Chinese Stealth Fighter Emerges... posted Mon Dec 27 2010 12:44:39 by alberchico
IR Footage Of F-22 At Farnborough posted Sun Jul 25 2010 10:34:23 by LimaNiner
Suitability Of V-22 Osprey For CG SAR Missions posted Thu Aug 13 2009 08:29:18 by BOACVC10
Cool Video Of The F 35 posted Fri Apr 25 2008 14:29:43 by Mortyman
Outstanding 360 View Of V-22 Pit In High Detail... posted Sun Jul 23 2006 07:50:37 by AirRyan
Sea Trials Of F-35 Aboard U.S.S. Wasp posted Mon Jan 21 2013 22:02:33 by Geezer
First Flight Of China's New Stealth Fighter J-31! posted Wed Oct 31 2012 13:37:08 by justinlee
F-35 On Exhibition In Front Of Oslo Town Hall posted Fri Aug 31 2012 15:43:25 by Mortyman
Talk Of F-35 Project Being Scrapped! posted Sat Apr 28 2012 19:03:19 by Zkpilot

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format