Chengdu J-20 pictures, analysis and speculation Part II

[Blitzo]

Maybe you missed this when it was discussed before but the first third of the J-20 bears a marked resemblance to the F22. Check out the view of the F-22 and J-20 from headon


More than distant relatives I would say. How about you?

That's like saying Q-5 is related to F-14 because both feature similar cockpit canopies.




And I do kind of understand where Del is coming from. Visually, the J-20 is very dissimilar to the F-22, F-35 (and even T-50 to an extent), mostly due to its fairly unique canard/delta configuration. Of course, all stealth fighters will maintain some shaping similarities to each other given they seek to achieve similar RCS reduction within the same bounds of physics and similar technology, resulting in things such as serrations, canopy shapes, clean cockpits, edge alignment, and what not. Past generations of fighters which focused more on the aerodynamic and structural performance would give greater variety of fighter shapes than the current gen.


I expect all future 5th generation fighters to yield a similar configuration to the "tried and proven" F-22 shape. J-20, and to an extent, T-50 (given its flanker inspired body blending and movable LERX), will probably remain as the exceptions for decades to come.

 

[Blitzo]

Your source is not the only source claiming that China is having difficulty meeting RCS goals for the J-20. What revisions they undertake are still a matter for debate and will only show up when these revisions are finally revealed.

I'm not sure which sources have said that J-20 has issues with its RCS reduction, because we've got nothing near credible from the typical places.

Note, strategypage, want china times, Kanwa/Andrei Chang, David Axe/War is boring, are not particularly credible sources on Chinese military matters. In fact they are considered the laughing stock.

Secondly, although China maybe serious about catching the United States in aircraft design especially stealth aircraft it should be understood that the US is just as serious about not being overtaken by China or anyone else. While China maybe developing a 6th generation aircraft it is trying to hit a moving target. And the United States is determined to keep the lead.

Determination of China and the US aside, I do think that China is at least in a better position now to vie with the US for future 6th generation development than the USSR was with the US for 5th generation development -- this is unless some kind of cataclysmic event hinders China's current projected economic and technological trend.

For what it is worth my humble advice to China would be to field a fully developed 5th generation fighter that includes engines of indigenous design and the associated systems before talking about 6th generation aircraft.

It would be massively irresponsible to not at least allocate resources for R&D for the next generation especially if you know your adversary is trying to work to that goal as well. So unless there is some frantic need for immediate 5th generation fighters over investing in future fighters, it would make sense to look into 6th gen with as much expertise and budget as can be spared.

Finally modern air combat is today a heady mixture of aircraft design, materials, air crew quality and tactics. It is a system. I have not seen any Chinese breakthroughs in any of those areas that would allow China to claim that they are surging into the lead.

And you will never hear about any "breakthrough" in aircraft design, materials, and air crew quality and tactics. China doesnt advertise these kind of things in much detail, unlike the US.
We can only speculate how competent their crews are, how advanced their materials, electronics, etc, are, based on what we see and what rumours and what few credible documents we obtain.


And how did we get to talk about "modern air combat"? I thought we were only talking about the J-20's technology and how fast the chinese could get on 6th generation technology.


If we're assessing "modern air combat" then it's a matter of looking at the entire PLAAF as a whole, which is an entirely different bag of beans.

 

[VH]

I'm curious what your other sources are? But anyways, I agree. There will be more revisions. Still I anticipate that these further revisions are already built into expect IOC date. The PLA general's comments do not in any way imply the J-20 is behind of schedule, and was more than likely directed at the stirrings in the public that the J-20 was ahead of schedule.

That discussion will have to be covered at a later date. Don't worry.

Really? I feel like we dropped the ball on the F-35 and tied our hands with it a bit. I also think that our budgetary outlook is going to put pressure on our military, and we end up not being able to iterate quickly enough. I think there's no doubt that the target is always moving, but that's why we don't look at place but pace, and China's going at a terribly fast clip and seeming to do pretty good all the while. It's not about whether the target is moving, but who is moving faster.

I think that the jury is still out on F-35 so do not make up your mind just yet. One thing is for sure, F-35s are finally rolling off the assembly line and will start to see service soon. By the time J-20 gets into service barring any delays on its deployment, there will be a J-35D and even later model with enhancements coming into service.


There are many problems for J-20 and J-31 yet to be solved. Any one of these problems might prove lengthy to these Chinese development. And costly. For example what if these RCS problems call for a serious re-design of the aircraft? Things like that

Well, I don't think they plan on building a 6th generation prototype for a while, but that doesn't mean they aren't doing the R&D for it and looking at designs already. My estimate is that, if the 2016 date for the 15 T:W ratio engine is right, that engine is probably going to be ready by about 2030, which may also be when they settle on a design and start building a prototype. It sounds optimistic, but using the J-20's development as a reference timeline things seem to square rather well. Even if the US starts their 6th generation program in 2020, that's a significant gap that China has managed to close.

But what if this super engine the Chinese are developing runs into significant developmental problems? What if they cannot maintain proper quality control for series production? These problems could mean a back to the drawing board type of situation and we have seen this type of thing in Chinese technical manufacturing before. Your developmental dates are optimistic and I hope that they are accurate.


Unexpected problems would be a game changer.

I agree with you, but I suspect that given what we're seeing with the PLAAF's procurement practices and other developments that's clearly the direction they're headed. I wouldn't say that they're surging ahead, but I do think they're beginning to reach parity.

If you haven't seen breakthroughs in technology you might not have been paying attention. China's fielding a lot of different UAV designs that clearly have specialized purposes, and they seem to have caught up (or begun to at least) in the radar game (KJ-2000, J-16 and J-10B's AESAs, the Type 052D's sensor suite). We're also seeing some interesting technologies being put onto the J-20. It's been documented that China has gotten pretty good at electric engineering.

I think these breakthroughs that you refer to should be measured against where the state of China is rather than a world standard. I think that parity from the Chinese side is relative.

They've changed how they train their pilots too and the number of hours each pilot gets in a plane. If I'm remembering correctly they've slowly downsized their pilot count so that the pilots they have can get more hours. Since their J-10 and J-11 fleets have gotten large enough they've been conducting war games and aggressor exercises (look up the Red Sword/Blue Sword competition). I wouldn't say they're there yet but they're clearly headed in the right direction.

Yes but how realistic are these exercises on a world stage? It is hard to believe that Chinese pilots have broken free from the top down structured model of Chinese society. When I see Chinese pilots marching in rigid formations to their aircraft I tend to believe that rigidity carries over to the air.

One thing we should not overlook is how far looking the PLA really is. These guys aren't just groping around in the dark or imagining national revival with little understanding of what they're doing. They're deadly serious and have done a lot of studying and thinking. We even helped them along with understanding contemporary military combat, operations, training, doctrine, etc in the 1980s when relations were still good, and they didn't just stand still afterwards.

I tend to believe that the Chinese airforce is a reactive force. I think that they see what others are doing and then base doctrine and training on what they perceive. I do not see evidence of a 'free wheeling' fluid Chinese airforce that is ready to adapt quickly to sudden changes. I think it has something to do with how you are raised. This is my perception.

I agree with the overall point that the PLA remains untested, but I think some depend on it too much and stretch its implications too far. It could well be that by the time there is a conflict (god forbid) the nature of combat will have evolved enough that even those with more experience don't hold a unique advantage.

Today the American military is the most combat hardened combined arms force on the planet. That is not going to change anytime soon

 

[VH]

I'm not sure which sources have said that J-20 has issues with its RCS reduction, because we've got nothing near credible from the typical places.

Note, strategypage, want china times, Kanwa/Andrei Chang, David Axe/War is boring, are not particularly credible sources on Chinese military matters. In fact they are considered the laughing stock.

At the very least I look at the many problems the United States encountered on their long road to developing the F-22, B2, and the F-35. Then I look at the technological society America is. In contrast I look at China which is trying to leap, a 'great leap forward' if you will excuse the pun, from manufacturing copies of Russian fighters to a world class 5th generation fighter complete with Chinese made engines and more importantly Chinese made combat systems and I just say that there are things that they have overlooked or at least not mastered fully in the quest for this world beater aircraft. Its just human nature.


Then you factor in the speed of trying master these complex subjects so that China can best the United States and you know that there are hidden problems just lurking ready to bite Chinese technology in the ass.


I contend that these problems will have to be solved before China can claim the prize as top dog. Its just human nature. Meanwhile America will continue to lead because they have put the hard work in to be top dog. There are no short cuts.


You cannot cut corners

And you will never hear about any "breakthrough" in aircraft design, materials, and air crew quality and tactics. China doesnt advertise these kind of things in much detail, unlike the US.
We can only speculate how competent their crews are, how advanced their materials, electronics, etc, are, based on what we see and what rumours and what few credible documents we obtain.

Maybe they don't advertise because its not happening. Maybe China is trying to project a certain image, a bigger image, to deter others from moving on them. Maybe they are operating under the idea of perception being reality.

And how did we get to talk about "modern air combat"? I thought we were only talking about the J-20's technology and how fast the chinese could get on 6th generation technology.

Well to my way of thinking the subject of modern air combat operates hand in glove with having a fully operational combat system that is ready to achieve air dominance. To that end the aircraft plays just a role.

 

[latenlazy]

I think that the jury is still out on F-35 so do not make up your mind just yet. One thing is for sure, F-35s are finally rolling off the assembly line and will start to see service soon. By the time J-20 gets into service barring any delays on its deployment, there will be a J-35D and even later model with enhancements coming into service.

It's not so much the F-35's capabilities. It's the cost and delays. The J-20 is set for an IOC of 2018-2020. Unless something goes wrong, they seem to be on pace. I don't think the US can turn out a F-35D in that time

There are many problems for J-20 and J-31 yet to be solved. Any one of these problems might prove lengthy to these Chinese development. And costly. For example what if these RCS problems call for a serious re-design of the aircraft? Things like that

If there were more fundamental problems with the design we'd have seen greater changes with 2011. The fact that they iterated and made significant but ultimately modest changes is indicative that there's no fundamental flaw with the design. I wouldn't bank on China taking forever to complete development. Their competence in aerospace is only increasing.

But what if this super engine the Chinese are developing runs into significant developmental problems? What if they cannot maintain proper quality control for series production? These problems could mean a back to the drawing board type of situation and we have seen this type of thing in Chinese technical manufacturing before. Your developmental dates are optimistic and I hope that they are accurate.

Sure, but it's unlikely that they will get worse at R&D. And what if the US ends up running into these problems? You may undersell on China and oversell on the US, and there may be a reason for it, but this is always a very dynamic situation.

Unexpected problems would be a game changer.

They COULD be a game changer, but not just for China. I wouldn't discount problems, but I wouldn't count on it either. Sometimes unexpected problems are resolved quicker than expectation.

I think these breakthroughs that you refer to should be measured against where the state of China is rather than a world standard. I think that parity from the Chinese side is relative.

I don't see why they shouldn't be measured against a world standard. There's no China league and rest-of-the-world league in terms of technological capability. It's all one league. If China develops an AESA, it's an AESA. There's nothing inherently flawed about a technology that's developed in China just because it's made in China. At the pace they're going it's only a matter of time before they catch on, and they've been at this for a lot longer than other people have been paying attention to.

Yes but how realistic are these exercises on a world stage? It is hard to believe that Chinese pilots have broken free from the top down structured model of Chinese society. When I see Chinese pilots marching in rigid formations to their aircraft I tend to believe that rigidity carries over to the air.

How realistic is any exercise?

Let's not get into an argument about the structure of Chinese society. Suffice to say that kind of framework for looking at any society is a gross oversimplification that would generate a lot of inaccurate predictions and expectations. Extrapolating superficial qualities such as "rigidities" and "top down" is rather meaningless. Other people could equate American individualism with "chaos and lack of discipline". It's substanceless rhetoric.

I tend to believe that the Chinese airforce is a reactive force. I think that they see what others are doing and then base doctrine and training on what they perceive. I do not see evidence of a 'free wheeling' fluid Chinese airforce that is ready to adapt quickly to sudden changes. I think it has something to do with how you are raised. This is my perception.

Well, considering most of us don't get to see much of anything about the PLAAF, it's very hard to judge. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, especially in such an opaque situation.

Today the American military is the most combat hardened combined arms force on the planet. That is not going to change anytime soon

Combat hardened doesn't always translate to victory or supremacy. It can help, but it can also be overstated.

 

[Blitzo]

There are many problems for J-20 and J-31 yet to be solved. Any one of these problems might prove lengthy to these Chinese development. And costly. For example what if these RCS problems call for a serious re-design of the aircraft? Things like that
----
But what if this super engine the Chinese are developing runs into significant developmental problems? What if they cannot maintain proper quality control for series production? These problems could mean a back to the drawing board type of situation and we have seen this type of thing in Chinese technical manufacturing before. Your developmental dates are optimistic and I hope that they are accurate.
----
Unexpected problems would be a game changer.

Basically your argument is "they might still screw up/be delayed".
That danger applies to literally every single project ever. Unless there is a reason to think that the chances of them encountering such issues is higher than anyone else, this is a non-statement.

I think these breakthroughs that you refer to should be measured against where the state of China is rather than a world standard. I think that parity from the Chinese side is relative.

Some of them can be measured to a world standard, some of them can be measured to where China is.

For instance, China is clearly a world leader in UAVs at the moment. Their radars aren't lagging much behind european and american counterparts on paper.

But I don't want to get into a pissing contest over this. Just note that like Latenlazy said, just because it's made in China doesn't mean it's somehow immediately inferior or something. From reading your replies you seem to have some kind of cultural or race related presumption about China.

Yes but how realistic are these exercises on a world stage? It is hard to believe that Chinese pilots have broken free from the top down structured model of Chinese society. When I see Chinese pilots marching in rigid formations to their aircraft I tend to believe that rigidity carries over to the air.

I think you're using a cultural stereotype to assume how their military training is framed.

And are you seriously saying marching in formation means they are "rigid" in the air?? So if they marched out of sync would that indicate they would all be hot shot pilots? C'mon... :

I tend to believe that the Chinese airforce is a reactive force. I think that they see what others are doing and then base doctrine and training on what they perceive.

The PLAAF are/were reactive in the sense that they were catching up to what everyone else was doing -- i.e.: 4th generation fighters, more advanced training, AEW&C, better C4ISR, EW, what not.
But if you think they are just jumbling together what they think is useful for others then you ignore the basic premise of what every military wants -- to conduct missions for its own interests.

China's interests are different to anyone else on the planet, just as every country's is different, therefore their doctrine and training will differ accordingly. Take an example, the PLAAF rejected building J-11As and developed the J-11B exactly because it didn't suit their doctrine which needed streamlined logistics, and use of indigenous weapons and greater integration into their own communications and information system. If they wanted to base doctrine on what they perceived, they would've kept buying kit set J-11As.

I do not see evidence of a 'free wheeling' fluid Chinese airforce that is ready to adapt quickly to sudden changes. I think it has something to do with how you are raised. This is my perception.

You'll have to define what "fluid," "adapt," and "sudden changes" mean in your sentence, because those terms suggest a limitation in combat capability/equipment rather than something doctrinal which inherently limits their ability to respond to different situations.

 

[Blitzo]

At the very least I look at the many problems the United States encountered on their long road to developing the F-22, B2, and the F-35. Then I look at the technological society America is. In contrast I look at China which is trying to leap, a 'great leap forward' if you will excuse the pun, from manufacturing copies of Russian fighters to a world class 5th generation fighter complete with Chinese made engines and more importantly Chinese made combat systems and I just say that there are things that they have overlooked or at least not mastered fully in the quest for this world beater aircraft. Its just human nature.

I suppose we'll have to see.
Sure, the US has encountered many difficulties in developing recent aircraft -- hell they encountered many difficulties in most of their recent military projects across the board. But whether that is technology related or management related (or indeed, related to politics), is another matter entirely.

Then you factor in the speed of trying master these complex subjects so that China can best the United States and you know that there are hidden problems just lurking ready to bite Chinese technology in the ass.

But that applies to everyone, and the US as well.

I contend that these problems will have to be solved before China can claim the prize as top dog. Its just human nature. Meanwhile America will continue to lead because they have put the hard work in to be top dog. There are no short cuts.

Well I never said about China wanting to be "top dog" -- my argument was deliberately open ended and applied only to when the 6th generation fighters of the future may appear.
And you're being awfully pretentious by saying America has "put the hard work in" -- as if no one else has? I'm not saying China will overtake the US and come out with a 6th generation fighter earlier than the US, only that the difference in time between when the US and Chinese reveal their 6th generation fighters may be a lot shorter than the two decades between when F-22 and J-20 were revealed.

You cannot cut corners

You cant' cut corners on technology and science, but you can "cut corners" in the sense of reducing time needed to complete a project (or develop a technology), if you manage your programme well and if you divorce politics from important military projects.

Maybe they don't advertise because its not happening. Maybe China is trying to project a certain image, a bigger image, to deter others from moving on them. Maybe they are operating under the idea of perception being reality.

I'm not sure how new you are to PLA or indeed, China watching, but it is basically PLA doctrine to deliberately understate their capability and to not reveal their R&D (although sometimes we get inadvertant leaks).

They didn't officially declassify J-10 until about 2006. By your logic, J-10 didn't exist before 2006... They still haven't declassified J-20. I suppose J-20 doesn't exist either.

Stand in China's position at the moment, think, that if they did reveal all of their military development and R&D and projects, what woudl that do? Would it scare its adversaries from moving against Chinese interests or will it galvanise them into developing their counters?

At this point, Chinese military technology and the Chinese economy isn't at the point where they can steamroll adversaries in an arms race of technology. That's why they seek to constantly under report their development and keep a lid over their projects. Otherwise, if the US knew China was developing X, Y or Z, then the US would have ample warning to develop policies or weapons to coutner them. More importantly, the US still has a larger economy and a technological lead, and if it was applied, it may be able to achieve a more decisive operational in service military technological superiority in the near term, which would be detrimental to China's interests. It is instead better for china to grow its economy and technological base while simultaneously trying to match/counter the US in operational assets as competently as possible, until such a time where its economy and industry can allow china to have a more decisive superiority over the US (if or when this may happen, I do not know or speculate, I'm only stating their likely long term reasoning)

A perfect example is the J-20. the J-20 project started in the early 2000s. If China was as open as the US about its fighter programme, then the world would have known the J-20 was in development by the early/mid 2000s at latest. If the US knew that, then they'd never have shut down F-22 production, would they?

But instead, what did China do? They kept J-20 under wraps to most of the world's eye until 2001 literally took to the skies and rustled Mr Gates jimmies, and well after F-22 production ended.

So, reality is basically the reverse of what you said -- China is actually trying to project an image that its military development is behind where it actually is, so its opponents underestimate its assets.

You can see China's policy on revealing military development as the opposite of countries like North Korea or Iran. Those countries tout false achievements, fake models, and raucously hailing everything from small UAVs to a mediocre missiles, partly for nationalism, partly to scare adversaries by overemphasizing their capability.

They are paper tigers, whose roads are fiercer than their bite.

China OTOH, "reveals" its projects through third party online communities, and doesn't report on weapons development unless success is either imminent or highly assured. Nationalism is garnered rarely through official state reports, but mostly via official sanctioning of some leaks and photos delivered through he internet. This gives the PLA both pride and support from military enthusiasts, but also they can avoid giving too much information away which may scare the US or Japan or whomever into investing too much into their own weapon counters.

Well to my way of thinking the subject of modern air combat operates hand in glove with having a fully operational combat system that is ready to achieve air dominance. To that end the aircraft plays just a role.

Right, well we were talking about timelines of when both nations might reveal 6th generation fighters.

Trying to assess the "subject of modern air combat" and the PLAAF's "combat system" is far too big a topic to even consider discussing on an online forum.

 

[Deino]

Holy moly !!!!

 

[sferrin]

Nice. China seems to be making much more progress with the J-20 than Russia is with it's T-50.

 

[SOC]

Nice. China seems to be making much more progress with the J-20 than Russia is with it's T-50.

Actually, the T-50 is now in the hands of Akhtubinsk for acceptance trials, and they're getting two more new prototypes this year. The difference is that new T-50 photos aren't appearing every 5 minutes.

 

[sferrin]

The ones they have shown don't appear to show anywhere near the amount of attention to detail re. RCS reduction. They still have those big naked metallic areas around the engine bays, not to mention the nozzles themselves. A lot less edge alignment as well.

 

[SOC]

The ones they have shown don't appear to show anywhere near the amount of attention to detail re. RCS reduction. They still have those big naked metallic areas around the engine bays, not to mention the nozzles themselves. A lot less edge alignment as well.

Part of that is because the Russians seem to care less about all-aspect RCS reduction. It's a fighter, so they may be thinking that front-quarter RCS reduction is the most relevant, allowing them to focus on enhanced agility without some of the design constraints an all-aspect RCS optimization may require.

Plus, the T-50s are supposed to still be prototypes, at least the ones seen so far. The grey J-20 is described as close to production standard, so you'd expect it to be a more cleaned-up design. We'll have to wait and see what a production-standard T-50 looks like.

 

[sferrin]

Part of that is because the Russians seem to care less about all-aspect RCS reduction. It's a fighter, so they may be thinking that front-quarter RCS reduction is the most relevant, allowing them to focus on enhanced agility without some of the design constraints an all-aspect RCS optimization may require.

Which is a bit strange when you think about it. They plan on manuvering all over the sky while at the same time focusing RCS reduction in one quadrant? ???

 

[Avimimus]

I don't claim to understand. I have wondered if this means that sensor technology has overtaken passive stealth... these planes are also being developed by the countries with the highest stake in developing such sensor technologies after all.


There is also the possibility that the current PAK-FA is aimed at the export market, with the current orders primarily being to support this venture - a follow-on design with RCS/IR reduction is planned as an eventual generation 5.5 project for domestic use (as soon as the overseas orders are locked in).


Given the size and aggressive industrial development going on in China - the plan may be to build a large number of J-20 and use the experience to build another completely new design around 2050. The existing J-20s during that time would replace second line types.

 

[TomS]

Part of that is because the Russians seem to care less about all-aspect RCS reduction. It's a fighter, so they may be thinking that front-quarter RCS reduction is the most relevant, allowing them to focus on enhanced agility without some of the design constraints an all-aspect RCS optimization may require.

Which is a bit strange when you think about it. They plan on manuvering all over the sky while at the same time focusing RCS reduction in one quadrant? ???

Makes sense to me. Agility mainly matters at shorter ranges, where radar power is going to overwhelm any reasonable RCS reduction. Emphasizing front-quarter RCS lets you get closer before you get detected, but once you're close and have been detected, you're arguably into a maneuvering regime where RCS is less important than agility.

The question is whether you expect to get into that turning fight or just do the missileer thing -- shoot before you're detected, then disengage and reposition for another long-range shot.

 

[SOC]

I have wondered if this means that sensor technology has overtaken passive stealth... these planes are also being developed by the countries with the highest stake in developing such sensor technologies after all.

There are now sensors that can counter FCS-band LO designs, yes. And yes, they're predominately developed in Russia and China.

There is also the possibility that the current PAK-FA is aimed at the export market

The "export" PAK-FA is the Indian FGFA.

Which is a bit strange when you think about it. They plan on manuvering all over the sky while at the same time focusing RCS reduction in one quadrant? ???

What they're doing is focusing on a BVR shot at range, and retaining the ability to maneuver like a bastard.

 

[totoro]

since pakfa airframes are given over to ruaf, i'm not sure they can be called more prototype than 2011-standard j20. With 5 planes flying after 4 years of testing, it seems more likely pakfa programme is farther along than j20 programme with 3 prototypes after 3 years of testing.

seems more likely j20 programme had two distinct phases. first one where the design demonstrator airframes (first two) flew and validated various ideas, shown various issues, and now the second phase where prototypes that are much closer to production standard will be flying a lot. if true, it wouldn't even make sense to produce more than two airframes for the first phase. but now that j20 programme is in phase closer to production standard, we might see more prototypes quite soon.

 

[sferrin]

What they're doing is focusing on a BVR shot at range, and retaining the ability to maneuver like a bastard.

Problem is things like HOBS missiles aren't really impressed. "Manuever like a bastard" means something completely different to them.

 

[Radical]

HOBS missiles still have weapon engagement envelopes, and better maneuverability will allow better positioning to get better missile Pk. Of course there's also a point of diminishing returns at which more maneuverability won't be enough to be really meaningful.

 

[sferrin]

Part of that is because the Russians seem to care less about all-aspect RCS reduction. It's a fighter, so they may be thinking that front-quarter RCS reduction is the most relevant, allowing them to focus on enhanced agility without some of the design constraints an all-aspect RCS optimization may require.

Which is a bit strange when you think about it. They plan on manuvering all over the sky while at the same time focusing RCS reduction in one quadrant? ???

Makes sense to me. Agility mainly matters at shorter ranges, where radar power is going to overwhelm any reasonable RCS reduction. Emphasizing front-quarter RCS lets you get closer before you get detected, but once you're close and have been detected, you're arguably into a maneuvering regime where RCS is less important than agility.

The question is whether you expect to get into that turning fight or just do the missileer thing -- shoot before you're detected, then disengage and reposition for another long-range shot.

Then there's the famous quote about the Aussie exchange pilot being able to see the F-22 with his eyes yet still not being able to lock onto it.

As for "missileer", it's not like the F-22/35s are YF-12s for God's sake. Both of them are very capable in the WVR regime. The T-50 is (apparently) severly compromised in RCS for the dubious reason of thinking they can outmanuever a HOBS missile. And what will they do when DEWs are a reality? Can't outmanuever a laser beam.

 

[VH]

If there were more fundamental problems with the design we'd have seen greater changes with 2011. The fact that they iterated and made significant but ultimately modest changes is indicative that there's no fundamental flaw with the design. I wouldn't bank on China taking forever to complete development. Their competence in aerospace is only increasing.

Much of what you...and I post, is speculation in the absence of hard data on J-20. While I don't mean to imply that it will take China forever to complete J-20, what should be taken into consideration is China having little or no experience in creating advanced aircraft such as what they are attempting with J-20.


The yardstick I use in the development of these types of aircraft is the rich background of the companies that are making such aircraft today. Can you point to a Chinese aircraft company the equivalent of a Shukhoi or a Skunkworks? If you can then please provide the name. And more importantly point to the body of work by such a Chinese company.


It is the rich background of these companies and the designers that work there which has come up with these beautiful designs you see today. Recently Rostislav Belyakov of MiG died. This Russian designer had been making aircraft since WW2. Belyakov worked on designing such world famous aircraft such as MiG 23, Mig 25, and MiG 29. Where are the Chinese designers of such experience? Before J-20 where were the Chinese aircraft of world fame?


My point is that experience counts! And all the computer simulations in the world cannot replace the practiced eye of a Belyakov or a Kelly Johnson. Until computers design aircraft from a blank sheet of paper to the aircraft sitting on the ramp I will have to go with experience over the johnny-come-lately designs China is trying to field today. This is my opinion.


And remember, China is indirectly and in many cases borrowing heavily from the original work of these designers and others I mention above. So the question remains: What does China really know when compared to a Ben Rich of Lockheed or Norshir Sheriarji Gowadia of Northrup? How can they make an informed decision?


And regarding your comments about realistic air combat exercises and how realistic are they I submit two points:


TopGun was created during the Vietnam air war after unfavorable air-to-air combat losses. After pilots were sent through that training syllabus and redeployed to the airwar a marked improvement in pilot performance was noted. The training worked.


Secondly, the saying that imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery comes to mind when we see the Chinese airforce attempting to duplicate Red Flag and Top Gun training with their version named "Red Sword / Blue Sword" Need anymore be said?

Well, considering most of us don't get to see much of anything about the PLAAF, it's very hard to judge. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, especially in such an opaque situation.

And that really is the point. Until China comes out of its self imposed shell and trains against other air forces every thing they do should be taken with a grain of salt.


Russia brought their first line fighters to the Paris airshow. Let China do the same. Then you,me and the rest of the world can judge what China is doing against a world standard.

 

[SOC]

Problem is things like HOBS missiles aren't really impressed. "Manuever like a bastard" means something completely different to them.

The T-50 is (apparently) severly compromised in RCS for the dubious reason of thinking they can outmanuever a HOBS missile. And what will they do when DEWs are a reality? Can't outmanuever a laser beam.

Who said they think they can out-turn a 60-g+ WVR AAM? The point is that they've decided that based on how they're going to use the T-50, all-aspect RCS isn't as important. Agility then lets you try and get into a WVR shooting position quicker.

Lasers...yeah, when they figure out how to pack enough generating power into a fighter to run a laser weapon able to really do some damage, let me know.

 

[sferrin]

Agility then lets you try and get into a WVR shooting position quicker.

When you can, literally, shoot HOBS missiles behind you "getting in postion" ceases to have the importance it did in Vietnam.

Lasers...yeah, when they figure out how to pack enough generating power into a fighter to run a laser weapon able to really do some damage, let me know.

How many watts do you think it'd take to BBQ the pilot? How many years do they plan on having the T-50 in service? [/quote]

 

[Blitzo]

@ VH

Secondly, the saying that imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery comes to mind when we see the Chinese airforce attempting to duplicate Red Flag and Top Gun training with their version named "Red Sword / Blue Sword" Need anymore be said?

So they have similar names, is there a point beyond that you'd like to make?

Besides, the PLAAFs red/blue sword exercises were originally deliberately modelled around the PLAAFs red flag exercises, if not in detail but at least in principle.

Russia brought their first line fighters to the Paris airshow. Let China do the same. Then you,me and the rest of the world can judge what China is doing against a world standard.

Doing a few loops and aerobatics only reflects the performance of the aircraft and the skill of the pilot, is that what you want to compare? Air shows don't prove much. However china doesn't need a greater presence at arms expos anyway. For one, it's not particularly dependent on its arms export industry. Also, the current geopolitical situation means china probably won't be looking to sell many of its more advanced and in service weapons, making comparisons moot anyway.

I agree that international exercises would be revelatory, but again given the PLAs doctrine of portraying an understated facade, I wouldn't be surprised if their pilots are told to take it easy and not reveal too many of their of tactics while trying I soak in as much as they can – again, due to geopolitics.
And obviously it is the US which is restricting PLAAF opportunities to exercise with other air forces

 

[VH]

I'm not sure how new you are to PLA or indeed, China watching, but it is basically PLA doctrine to deliberately understate their capability and to not reveal their R&D (although sometimes we get inadvertant leaks).

They didn't officially declassify J-10 until about 2006. By your logic, J-10 didn't exist before 2006... They still haven't declassified J-20. I suppose J-20 doesn't exist either.

Stand in China's position at the moment, think, that if they did reveal all of their military development and R&D and projects, what woudl that do? Would it scare its adversaries from moving against Chinese interests or will it galvanise them into developing their counters?

Russia tried that hidden development thing too until they saw that with modern snooping methods what they thought was secret was in reality well known to their adversities. I believe China's developments are well known to those who have a need to know

At this point, Chinese military technology and the Chinese economy isn't at the point where they can steamroll adversaries in an arms race of technology. That's why they seek to constantly under report their development and keep a lid over their projects. Otherwise, if the US knew China was developing X, Y or Z, then the US would have ample warning to develop policies or weapons to coutner them. More importantly, the US still has a larger economy and a technological lead, and if it was applied, it may be able to achieve a more decisive operational in service military technological superiority in the near term, which would be detrimental to China's interests. It is instead better for china to grow its economy and technological base while simultaneously trying to match/counter the US in operational assets as competently as possible, until such a time where its economy and industry can allow china to have a more decisive superiority over the US (if or when this may happen, I do not know or speculate, I'm only stating their likely long term reasoning)

The cat is already out the bag regarding China's intentions towards the US. America has been designing systems and weapons to combat China for some time. Plus certain demographic trends are already stating to go against China which give China a very small window of time to go against America and her allies.


China's constant harping on their perception of America as a declining power has been heard loud and clear and steps are being taken to check China's perceived advantages. They should have kept their mouths shut and just gone on and done what they plan to do.

A perfect example is the J-20. the J-20 project started in the early 2000s. If China was as open as the US about its fighter programme, then the world would have known the J-20 was in development by the early/mid 2000s at latest. If the US knew that, then they'd never have shut down F-22 production, would they?

While I would have like to have seen more F-22's in service I think we are seeing a situation like when B-1 production was shut down because America knew the B-2 was on the way and that B-2 was such a superior aircraft over B-1. Politics caused the re-start of production of B-1


There may be a much more superior solution over F-22 available in the near term that could be the basis for leapfrogging the F-22 for something much, much better. It has happened before.

China OTOH, "reveals" its projects through third party online communities, and doesn't report on weapons development unless success is either imminent or highly assured. Nationalism is garnered rarely through official state reports, but mostly via official sanctioning of some leaks and photos delivered through he internet. This gives the PLA both pride and support from military enthusiasts, but also they can avoid giving too much information away which may scare the US or Japan or whomever into investing too much into their own weapon counters.

Actually China's 'revealing' systems with selective leaks does nothing at the end of the day to deter potential adversities. Much of what China 'reveals' is as much for domestic consumption as it is for the world to know. And this tactic is now well known.

 

[VH]

@ VH

Secondly, the saying that imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery comes to mind when we see the Chinese airforce attempting to duplicate Red Flag and Top Gun training with their version named "Red Sword / Blue Sword" Need anymore be said?

So they have similar names, is there a point beyond that you'd like to make?

Besides, the PLAAFs red/blue sword exercises were originally deliberately modelled around the PLAAFs red flag exercises, if not in detail but at least in principle.


I think you understand quite well what I am saying. China adopted this type of training because they saw the results America was getting in training. America's Red Flag existed while China was still flying MiG-19's and MiG-21's.

Russia brought their first line fighters to the Paris airshow. Let China do the same. Then you,me and the rest of the world can judge what China is doing against a world standard.

Doing a few loops and aerobatics only reflects the performance of the aircraft and the skill of the pilot, is that what you want to compare? Air shows don't prove much. However china doesn't need a greater presence at arms expos anyway. For one, it's not particularly dependent on its arms export industry. Also, the current geopolitical situation means china probably won't be looking to sell many of its more advanced and in service weapons, making comparisons moot anyway.

I agree that international exercises would be revelatory, but again given the PLAs doctrine of portraying an understated facade, I wouldn't be surprised if their pilots are told to take it easy and not reveal too many of their of tactics while trying I soak in as much as they can – again, due to geopolitics.
And obviously it is the US which is restricting PLAAF opportunities to exercise with other air forces

When Russian aircraft came to Paris one of the things they displayed was their command of vectored thrust engines on the Su-27, their aircraft's agility when Viktor Pugachev did his Cobra. Further the tail slide demonstrated MiG - 29 showed how the Russian Klimov RD-33turbofan could handle severely disturbed airflow during extreme maneuvers, finally the K-36 ejection seat was shown to be a pilot life saver when Mikoyan test pilot Anatoliy Kvochur used it at very low altitude after a bird strike during the show.So is China trying not reveal too much to the world or are they afraid just how little they would have to show by participating in an international air show?

And America did little or nothing to restrict the PLAAF from performing joint exercises with the Turkish airforce so you really cannot blame the US for China not performing joint exercises with others. You will have to find another excuse.

 

[sferrin]

Dude, what are you trying to quote? ???

 

[Blitzo]

Russia tried that hidden development thing too until they saw that with modern snooping methods what they thought was secret was in reality well known to their adversities. I believe China's developments are well known to those who have a need to know

Apparently not, given how much surprise J-20 took the pentagon by. Furthermore, you underestimate just how important china not recognizing its military development is. The impetus for a government to increase funding for a particular weapons project is less if the evidence for china building X Y or Z only comes from a military intelligence source. Furthermore if the government in question thinks chinese military technology is incompetent, they'll be blinded by their biases and presumptions and not seek to improve their own capability at a correct rate and place less value on their military intelligence in the first place.

At the very least, I'm sure we can agree that china is seeking to hide its true capability rather than exaggerate it.

The cat is already out the bag regarding China's intentions towards the US. America has been designing systems and weapons to combat China for some time. Plus certain demographic trends are already stating to go against China which give China a very small window of time to go against America and her allies.


China's constant harping on their perception of America as a declining power has been heard loud and clear and steps are being taken to check China's perceived advantages. They should have kept their mouths shut and just gone on and done what they plan to do.

It isn't china harping on about America as a declining power. It is America and the west itself.

If anything, if America was serious about checking China's rise it should have started earlier around 2000 instead of only in the last four or so years.


That said, a military engagement looks unlikely for the foreseeable future and it will be the economies of both nations (and China's in particular) which will write the future.

While I would have like to have seen more F-22's in service I think we are seeing a situation like when B-1 production was shut down because America knew the B-2 was on the way and that B-2 was such a superior aircraft over B-1. Politics caused the re-start of production of B-1


There may be a much more superior solution over F-22 available in the near term that could be the basis for leapfrogging the F-22 for something much, much better. It has happened before.

You missed my point completely, I was using J-20 and F-22s end of production as an example of the benefit that not revealing j-20 until the last minute had for the PLAAF, because if china had revealed J-20 while it was in developement it would've meant the US would never have shut down F-22 production and likely would have bought more of it, which would've been detrimental to the PLA.

Actually China's 'revealing' systems with selective leaks does nothing at the end of the day to deter potential adversities. Much of what China 'reveals' is as much for domestic consumption as it is for the world to know. And this tactic is now well known.

Again, you miss my point completely, I never said china sought to deter potential adversaries by its selective leaking, what I said was "but also they can avoid giving too much information away which may scare the US or Japan or whomever into investing too much into their own weapon counters."


So the entire point of limiting leaks and limiting reporting on military projects is to avoid giving the government of other nations to put more funding for their own weapons programmes that may counter China's.

 

[Blitzo]

When Russian aircraft came to Paris one of the things they displayed was their command of vectored thrust engines on the Su-27, their aircraft's agility when Viktor Pugachev did his Cobra? Further the tail slide was displayed by the Mig-29 which showed how the Russian Klimov RD-33 turbofan could handle severely disturbed airflow during extreme maneuvers, finally the K-36 ejection seat was shown to be a pilot life saver when Mikoyan test pilot Anatoliy Kvochur used it at very low altitude after a bird strike during the show.

So is China trying not reveal too much to the world or are they afraid just how little they would have to show by participating in an international air show?

Actually china has sent its 8-1 aerobatic team abroad... But you have missed the point completely that,
A: air show performances like which the Russians like to do are good for showing off the aircraft and the pilot and little else,
and B: china has no impetus for show fly off at air shows because it doesn't rely on arms shows as much as the US or Russia.

So in terms of air shows, china isn't a big performer because they simply have no reason to. They don't no to impress anyone with a few loops to get anyone to buy their planes because that isn't their marketing strategy in the first place.

 

[VH]

When Russian aircraft came to Paris one of the things they displayed was their command of vectored thrust engines on the Su-27, their aircraft's agility when Viktor Pugachev did his Cobra? Further the tail slide was displayed by the Mig-29 which showed how the Russian Klimov RD-33 turbofan could handle severely disturbed airflow during extreme maneuvers, finally the K-36 ejection seat was shown to be a pilot life saver when Mikoyan test pilot Anatoliy Kvochur used it at very low altitude after a bird strike during the show.

So is China trying not reveal too much to the world or are they afraid just how little they would have to show by participating in an international air show?

Actually china has sent its 8-1 aerobatic team abroad... But you have missed the point completely that,
A: air show performances like which the Russians like to do are good for showing off the aircraft and the pilot and little else,
and B: china has no impetus for show fly off at air shows because it doesn't rely on arms shows as much as the US or Russia.

So in terms of air shows, china isn't a big performer because they simply have no reason to. They don't no to impress anyone with a few loops to get anyone to buy their planes because that isn't their marketing strategy in hue he first place.

Well okay.

 

[bobbymike]

When Russian aircraft came to Paris one of the things they displayed was their command of vectored thrust engines on the Su-27, their aircraft's agility when Viktor Pugachev did his Cobra? Further the tail slide was displayed by the Mig-29 which showed how the Russian Klimov RD-33 turbofan could handle severely disturbed airflow during extreme maneuvers, finally the K-36 ejection seat was shown to be a pilot life saver when Mikoyan test pilot Anatoliy Kvochur used it at very low altitude after a bird strike during the show.

So is China trying not reveal too much to the world or are they afraid just how little they would have to show by participating in an international air show?

Actually china has sent its 8-1 aerobatic team abroad... But you have missed the point completely that,
A: air show performances like which the Russians like to do are good for showing off the aircraft and the pilot and little else,
and B: china has no impetus for show fly off at air shows because it doesn't rely on arms shows as much as the US or Russia.

So in terms of air shows, china isn't a big performer because they simply have no reason to. They don't no to impress anyone with a few loops to get anyone to buy their planes because that isn't their marketing strategy in the first place.

I read somewhere (can't find the report right now) that the USAF has wargamed a 'South East Asian' operation with 4000 aimpoints X 10 days, 2500 X 20 days and 2000 X 30 days. So just the USAF hitting 60,000 targets in the first 30 days. Now add the Navy both aircraft and ship based land attack.

No nation, currently (most importantly) can withstand the might of US aerospace power. Who knows what the future holds and why I am a strong proponent of CONSTANT R&D into advanced weapons development.

 

[Blitzo]

I read somewhere (can't find the report right now) that the USAF has wargamed a 'South East Asian' operation with 4000 aimpoints X 10 days, 2500 X 20 days and 2000 X 30 days. So just the USAF hitting 60,000 targets in the first 30 days. Now add the Navy both aircraft and ship based land attack.

No nation, currently (most importantly) can withstand the might of US aerospace power. Who knows what the future holds and why I am a strong proponent of CONSTANT R&D into advanced weapons development.

Intruiging statistics, but not sure how it is particularly relevant to the section which you quoted.


I would be interested to know the parameters of their wargame and also what kind of adversary they simulated.

 

[sferrin]

I read somewhere (can't find the report right now) that the USAF has wargamed a 'South East Asian' operation with 4000 aimpoints X 10 days, 2500 X 20 days and 2000 X 30 days. So just the USAF hitting 60,000 targets in the first 30 days. Now add the Navy both aircraft and ship based land attack.

No nation, currently (most importantly) can withstand the might of US aerospace power. Who knows what the future holds and why I am a strong proponent of CONSTANT R&D into advanced weapons development.

Intruiging statistics, but not sure how it is particularly relevant to the section which you quoted.


I would be interested to know the parameters of their wargame and also what kind of adversary they simulated.

"South East Asian". It's a safe bet they weren't going after 60,000 targets in Laos.

 

[Blitzo]

"South East Asian". It's a safe bet they weren't going after 60,000 targets in Laos.

Well, I think my question is a valid one because even the most southern part of China isn't generally perceived as part of the "South East Asian" region, and I doubt the USAF was simulating striking at PLAN ships in the SCS (and the PLAN doesn't have 60,000 ships anyway).
There aren't many other countries in South East Asia which the US would be interested in bombarding to such a degree.

If you're saying the exercise meant hitting targets in Southern China, then okay. In which case I'd still be interested in seeing the parameters of the exercise.

 

[sferrin]

If you're saying the exercise meant hitting targets in Southern China, then okay. In which case I'd still be interested in seeing the parameters of the exercise.

It's unlikely the parameters were, "pretend the zombie apocalypse has happened in China and they can't defend themselves". Come on man, what do you think they'd assume when gaming/exercising?

 

[Blitzo]

It's unlikely the parameters were, "pretend the zombie apocalypse has happened in China and they can't defend themselves". Come on man, what do you think they'd assume when gaming/exercising?

Well I haven't read reports on the original exercise (which still hasn't been named), but it sounds more like a theoretical maximum sortie/mission rate rather than a maximum bomb-on-target rate that manages to account for fighter resistance, ground based air defence, and a potential shut down of airbases and/or C4ISR assets via opfor strikes of their own.


And of course we are still talking about South East Asia rather than china, unless anyone has access to a document that says South East Asia is just an euphemism for china. If they wanted an euphemism for china East Asia might have been more accurate

 

[sferrin]

It's unlikely the parameters were, "pretend the zombie apocalypse has happened in China and they can't defend themselves". Come on man, what do you think they'd assume when gaming/exercising?

Well I haven't read reports on the original exercise (with still hasn't been named), but it sounds more like a theoretical maximum sortie/mission rate rather than a maximum bomb-on-target rate that manages to account for fighter resistance, ground based air defence, and a potential shut down of airbases and/or C4ISR assets via opfor strikes of their own.


And of course we are still talking about South East Asia rather than china, unless anyone has access to a document that says South East Asia is just an euphemism for china. If they wanted an euphemism for china East Asia might have been more accurate

East Asia would be Japan and South Korea. Why would they game bombing them?

 

[Blitzo]

East Asia would be Japan and South Korea. Why would they game bombing them?

East Asia includes China
Southeast Asia doesn't include China

Which is why this exercise confuses me if it really was titled Southeast Asia, because unless the USAF is pining for another go at Vietnam or wants to attack ASEAN, I don't see where they will find 60,000 targets. Which makes me think that the exercise (or was it more of an academic study?) was meant to show the hypothetical maximum sortie rates in a fixed geographic region rather than a particular exercise meant to demonstrated a specific doctrine or bomb on target rate against China and definitely not compensating for the various forms of resistance they can expect from a true opfor, which I mentioned in my last post.

Maybe the author of the study simply had a poor grasp of geography, and the content of the study actually looked at targets against China, in which case I'd still like to see the parameters.

 

[Avimimus]

Maybe nominally saving SE Asia from China?


Or - I know! - It is a plan for Operation Rolling Thunder II which will finally win the Vietnam war and prevent the dominoes from falling! All of the targets are found within North Vietnam...

 

[sferrin]

Judas people are we really that dense? How many nations are there in East Asia, North/South/Central whatever the hell, with 60,000 targets worth bombing by the USAF. That's right - 1.