Jeremy
TRANSFER!!!
- Jun 11, 2010
- 7,777
- 1,991
- 98
well, there IS a HUGE difference there
LOL
Freudian slip maybe?
The Raptor delivers the Rapture to it's enemies?
Chinese Stealth Bombers: Surprise, Surprise, they look just like our!
Freudian slip maybe?
The Raptor delivers the Rapture to it's enemies?
daveman
Diamond Member
China?s Over-Hyped Stealth Jet | The Diplomat
But Gates could still prove correct in his sanguine view of Chinese weaponry, at least as far as it applies to the J-20, if Beijing continues to falter on one key facet of fighter technology. Arguably the most important part of a fighter is its engine. And engines just happen to be the Chinese aviation industry’s biggest weakness. ‘So far, China isn’t able to indigenously produce (engines) and is dependent on Russian-made fighter engines,’ Arthur Ding, a professor at Taiwan’s National Chengchi University, says.
In recent years, AL-31F engines imported from Russia have powered all successful Chinese fighters. When relations with Russia soured in the middle of the last decade, Beijing tried to copy the AL-31F as the so-called ‘WS-10’—but consistently failed. This slowed production of Chinese fighters, themselves mostly low-grade copies of Russian designs.
With warming relations, Russia has resumed supplying AL-31Fs to China—and in fact it appears the J-20 is fitted with this motor. But the AL-31F isn’t necessarily adequate for a large, stealthy fighter. For the T-50, Sukhoi originally planned to use an up-rated version of the AL-31F, but ended up installing a brand-new (and mostly secret) engine, instead. Similarly, both the F-22 and F-35 required from-scratch engine designs, the development of which largely determined the pace of their progression from blueprints to frontline service.
It’s not obvious from the grainy photos of the J-20 what engines the plane currently uses, but it’s probably safe to assume they’re Russian AL-31Fs—still the best engines China reliably has access to. However, the AL-31F is clearly inadequate for the apparently heavy J-20. Even the up-rated 117S version of the AL-31F ‘would likely not be sufficient to extract the full performance potential of this advanced airframe,’ Kopp and Goon wrote. To perform at its best, the J-20 will probably need purpose-designed motors. And developing those could take a long, long time.
Equally vexing to Beijing’s aerospace designers and military planners are the sophisticated electronic, conceptual and human systems required in and around a modern fighter aircraft in order for that aircraft to deliver a useful military effect.
Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the US Teal Group, told the Internet trade publication Defense Tech that a modern fighter requires at least 11 supporting systems to be effective, including but not limited to sound mission planning, a talented and disciplined pilot, good maintenance personnel on the ground, accurate weapons, an advanced radar and other electronic systems inside the aircraft plus ‘off-board’ radar detection provided by purpose-built command-and-control planes and the reliable ministration of an aerial tanker.
Of all the systems required by a modern fighter, Beijing has mastered just one, Aboulafia said—and that’s the airplane’s physical structure itself, minus the engines.
In recent years, AL-31F engines imported from Russia have powered all successful Chinese fighters. When relations with Russia soured in the middle of the last decade, Beijing tried to copy the AL-31F as the so-called ‘WS-10’—but consistently failed. This slowed production of Chinese fighters, themselves mostly low-grade copies of Russian designs.
With warming relations, Russia has resumed supplying AL-31Fs to China—and in fact it appears the J-20 is fitted with this motor. But the AL-31F isn’t necessarily adequate for a large, stealthy fighter. For the T-50, Sukhoi originally planned to use an up-rated version of the AL-31F, but ended up installing a brand-new (and mostly secret) engine, instead. Similarly, both the F-22 and F-35 required from-scratch engine designs, the development of which largely determined the pace of their progression from blueprints to frontline service.
It’s not obvious from the grainy photos of the J-20 what engines the plane currently uses, but it’s probably safe to assume they’re Russian AL-31Fs—still the best engines China reliably has access to. However, the AL-31F is clearly inadequate for the apparently heavy J-20. Even the up-rated 117S version of the AL-31F ‘would likely not be sufficient to extract the full performance potential of this advanced airframe,’ Kopp and Goon wrote. To perform at its best, the J-20 will probably need purpose-designed motors. And developing those could take a long, long time.
Equally vexing to Beijing’s aerospace designers and military planners are the sophisticated electronic, conceptual and human systems required in and around a modern fighter aircraft in order for that aircraft to deliver a useful military effect.
Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the US Teal Group, told the Internet trade publication Defense Tech that a modern fighter requires at least 11 supporting systems to be effective, including but not limited to sound mission planning, a talented and disciplined pilot, good maintenance personnel on the ground, accurate weapons, an advanced radar and other electronic systems inside the aircraft plus ‘off-board’ radar detection provided by purpose-built command-and-control planes and the reliable ministration of an aerial tanker.
Of all the systems required by a modern fighter, Beijing has mastered just one, Aboulafia said—and that’s the airplane’s physical structure itself, minus the engines.
You'll have something to crow about when China can produce her own jet engines.
As far as China's moon program goes, America did it 4 decades ago with less computing power than is in your cell phone.
Last edited:
What Concerns me is that GE just agreed to transfer a significant amount of information about their work on the Dreamliner 787. Is that dual use tech. or what? Not to mention selling out one of our key competitive advantages. I'm guessing that, assuming that they can build an engine, that this thing will be closer to an F18 Rhino. I'm no engineer, vet fighter pilot, or ground crew member, but I know and talk to enough of them to say that building a stealth fighter ain't as easy as it looks. Until one of them is arrogant or stupid enough to buzz one of our carrier groups with an AWAC up, we won't know. Yeah we've got those prop planes like the one that they crashed into, too. Hmm. now I know why they risked so much to down that plane. If one of them picked up this thing on their radar, then we would know exactly how stealthy it is. But I'm counting on their arrogance to get the better of them and send one out to intercept one of our carrier groups.
I have little trust in GE.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
Photo of the Day: Chinas Stealth Plane | Product Design and Development
Chinas New Stealth Fighter May Use U.S. Technology | Product Design and Development
The Chinese are well-known perpetrators of industrial espionage in Western Europe and the United States, where the administration has also been increasingly aggressive in prosecuting cases of Chinese espionage.
------------------------------
Nice. What will they think of next?
Hope the right feels sending millions of American jobs to China was worth the investment.
Aren't you an engineer?
Stealth technology and aerodynamics determine designs. All planes have to fly, and stealth is designed to reflect radar away from the originating antenna. You combine those and you have a very limited set of design parameters, and an even more limited set of results. This is one reason no one has ever built a plane that looks like a pencil, and why no one has ever built a submarine that has screen doors.
The reason they look alike is that they do the same thing.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
>
Psst - this is our bomber.
>>>>
Developed by scientists and engineers. Not a lot of Republican input.
Developed by the US Air Force.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
Funny thing here.
Republicans want to spend more on staying ahead of the Chinese, and everyone else, and Democrats argue that they are 20 years behind and that we can relax.
I would be really confused at this point it anyone intelligent had tried to make this point.
i wonder if they did a poll of Northrup/Grumman or Boeing employees, how many would be republican and democrat>
Psst - this is our bomber.
>>>>
Developed by scientists and engineers. Not a lot of Republican input.
Developed by the US Air Force.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
The never ending doomsday of Social Security, this time running out by 2033. I know how to fix it, but the poor would hate the idea.- Started by Mikeoxenormous
- Replies: 0
-
Zone1 The “Greater Islam” Takeover of the Middle East and elsewhere
- Started by Lisa558
- Replies: 2
-
Space Radiation Effects on Human Physiology and Performance.- Started by ShahdagMountains
- Replies: 2
