[Igor Antunov]

It just means india is more dependent on foreign weapons imports in the long run.

[MB.]

I'm waiting for that F-22/Dreadnought comparison article to pop up...

Dreadnought was about 2 million pounds in 1905 (133 million today); F22s cost 150 million dollars each in 2009.

[NYYS]

cool looking, so it gets the NYYS seal of approval

[Igor Antunov]

Video:

[youtube]o3v7-MdIXYk[/youtube]

And here's a large pic with people for scale: http://img407.imageshack.us/i/k7ejx.jpg/

[Rilzik]

Seems like the J-20 made it's first flight.

http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2011/01/j-20.html

[Igor Antunov]

Here's a video of the flight:

[youtube]NfPbf3Ob_1M[/youtube]

And a nice image of it in the air: http://i.imgur.com/YWEpX.jpg

[Rilzik]

An early American response to the J-20. A interesting read and it gives a little hint about strategy at the end too.

In a nut shell, the USAF is fitting older 15's with improved radars. Because they aren't stealth they can have larger nosecones which can hold larger radars. It goes on to touch on a bit about deployment and some basic strategy combining these upgraded 15's flying with F-22's and later the F-35.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/old-school-jet/

Here is another article a bit more technical, but still easy to read.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 84bff0ffc6

[Igor Antunov]

Isn't the J-20 very large therefore it may carry a larger radar despite it's slimmer build?

[MB.]

The J-20 is only slighter larger than the average for air superiority fighters. Without knowing the plane's load capacity, performance and strike range I wouldn't call a paradigm shift or anything and the slighter larger apparent size probably has more to do with inferior Chinese miniaturization (or focus on range and load-out) than some unknown revolutionary systems.

Said to be designated J-20, it is larger than most observers expected—pointing to long range and heavy weapon loads.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... xi%20Tests

[Igor Antunov]

So in short more fuel capacity, more weapons capacity, and more capacity for other systems including radar.

[MB.]

The nose cone looks similar to the J-10:

Assume the J-20 is equipped with a slightly more advanced version of that system...

Radar

CAC revealed that the J-10 is equipped with an indigenous fire-control radar featuring a mechanically slewed planar array antenna, capable of tracking 10 targets and engaging 2 (using semi-active radar-homing AAM) or 4 (using active radar-homing AAM) of them simultaneously. Possibly based on Russian or Israeli technologies, the radar is believed to be comparable to the early 1990s-era Western fighter radar designs. Alternatively the J-10 could be fitted with a range of fire-control radar introduced by Russian, Israeli, and European manufacturers on its export variant.

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp

[MB.]

http://defensetech.org/2011/01/24/chine ... -wreckage/

Chinese Spies May Have Taken F-117 Wreckage

Croatia’s top military official during NATO’s 1999 air war in the former Yugoslavia is saying that Chinese intelligence officials scooped up parts of an F-117A Night Hawk stealth fighter shot down during that war and used the information gained to help fuel the development of Chinese stealth technology.

Some are skeptical that the roughly 30 year-old technology found in the F-117 would be massively useful to China. This is a good point, especially considering that the vastly superior F-22 and F-35 were already in various stages of development at the time of the shootdown.

Still, if Chinese agents did indeed get to the wreckage, then tech gleaned from the F-117, combined with info that may have been stolen from the F-35 program in a massive cyber attack years later that some believe China was behind, could absolutely aid in the development of Chinese stealth — and counter-stealth — technology.

Combined, all this information may not have revealed all the secrets of modern stealth tech; but, at the very least it might have helped Chinese engineers understand the basics of low-observable technology, moving them one step closer toward developing a fifth-gen fighter.

From the AP:

“At the time, our intelligence reports told of Chinese agents crisscrossing the region where the F-117 disintegrated, buying up parts of the plane from local farmers,” says Adm. Davor Domazet-Loso, Croatia’s military chief of staff during the Kosovo war.

“We believe the Chinese used those materials to gain an insight into secret stealth technologies … and to reverse-engineer them,” Domazet-Loso said in a telephone interview.

A senior Serbian military official confirmed that pieces of the wreckage were removed by souvenir collectors, and that some ended up “in the hands of foreign military attaches.”

In Washington, an Air Force official said the service was unaware of any connection between the downed F-117 plane and development of Chinese stealth technology for the J-20. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject involves classified information.

Russian officials are also reported to have been granted access to some of the wreckage.

Oh, and someone on Wikipedia has already made the link to the U.S.’ bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade just months after the F-117 was shot down. You know it was only a matter of time before somebody moved to tie these two events.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz1C10Pbyv7
Defense.org

[Igor Antunov]

Re-inventing the wheel every time would be dumb and ensure you lag behind. Of course they are taking shortcuts where they can. It's how you catch up. Their engineers aren't superhuman.

But these sound like very minor things, a few pieces of wreckage from a downed aircraft and perhaps some schematics gleamed off the internet. Nowhere near enough to do anything with unless you now what you're doing.

[MB.]

Igor, doesn't this article strike you as an obvious piece of western propaganda?

[Rilzik]

This is not new news, the only difference between now and yesterday is that we have a object to point at and say "we told you so"

This news article is a sensational piece. It doesn't mean anything.

I actually completely agree with Igor for once... or the second time.... or something.



The fact is that this is the equivalent of a YF-23 or YF-22, look at the YF-22 and see how much difference there is between that and the F-22. China won't have a plane for years and by that point a 6th or 5.5 gen fighter will be on the drawing boards.

I did find it interesting that they linked this with the US bombing of the China embassy though. Also I am surprised the US didn't bomb the crashed airplane, maybe it was to spread out or too risky. Well if this is true then there is a high likelihood of Chinese and maybe Russian stealth tech being a bit behind our own which is reinforced by the many years Americans have been working with stealth.

It might be just BS, but one of the things I noticed is the Chinese plane had a darker coating then the Russian or US stealth aircraft. I have no idea if this is true but it could be due to a lack in the tech behind RAM composites? Or was color a non factor? If Chinese coatings are some kind of improved F-117 type, could this be due to the tech they are using? and more importantly could this mean they lack current generation coatings that the US and maybe Russia are using? I don't know, Black isn't Ideal for a bomber unless you only fly at night, usually a darker top with a lighter bottom is ideal, so I am wondering if the F-117 and B-2 weren't darker from technological constraints.

I know the angles or lack of angles of the B-2 were possible because of RAM coating, and would mean the J-20 also had this advantage compared too the F-117, but also might it suggest that the J-20 had a lack of next gen stealth coating that made the F-22 possible over the B-2. Or some intermediary tech level?

[Igor Antunov]

This isn't hearts of iron/civilization/age of empires and tech doesn't come in neat little research progression trees. You jump ahead in certain areas, fall behind in others, but in general the cutting edge will always be a highly uneconomical luxury that serves no great purpose in a conflict where majority of the hardware isn't cutting edge.

Germany had it's superweapons, thousands of V2's it launched, hundreds of jetfighters it utilized, hundreds of king tigers it put on the battlefield, fat good that did. Waste of resources. Waste of talent.

All prestige weapons, little else. Likewise the US has it's few F-22's, russias is building it's few 5th gen fighters and china will also follow suit with a few of theirs. But what will be doing 90% of the fighting will be economical, well established platforms that don't require 10 million different parts to construct and maintain.

Enter the J-10/11, russias SU-35's, natos F-35, all presenting something more realistic for the modern battlefield.

These luxury weapons are nice testbeds to have in wargames, but they won't be useful for many decades yet in a large scale conflict scenario, and conflict between great powers that can afford such toys WILL be large scale every time.

Keep the research alive but keep implementation one step behind the cutting edge, or you will end up with unreliable, expensive and small numbers of shit. The cancellation of the F-22 line and it's replacement with the F-35 is the most recent testament to that. A fall back to reality. Also russias recent battletank and who knows what else all over the world got the shaft.

You can't just throw money at things, you will end up with small numbers of superweapons that aren't very effective in real conflict.An aircraft carrier for example is nothing, it requires a complement of highly trained pilots to fly a complement of well tested and reliable aircraft. These stealth fighters are decades away from being as affordable and as reliable, that includes the F-22, it only came about a decade before the russian and chinese implementation is set to be produced, and all 3 will receive limited production and all three will remain limited for many years thereafter and in the meantime china (not so much russia it was always strapped for money not tech) will continue to steal and catch up until the 10 year head start of the F-22 becomes irrelevant when 6th gen aircraft roll by.

Furthermore this gen talk is crap, there aren't really clean-cut generations of weapons, there is huge overlap. It's not as simple as the next iphone iteration.

[MB.]

well established platforms that don't require 10 million different parts to construct and maintain.

Enter the J-10/11, russias SU-35's, natos F-35, all presenting something more realistic for the modern battlefield.

These are all fairly new systems and are expensive to maintain. The technology in the latter two is so expensive and complicated that the defense industry is withholding production, despite the significant foreign investment & bids, and even the Marine Crops looks to have lost the VTOL variant again...

[ cancellation of the F-22 line and it's replacement with the F-35 ]

The F-35 is not 'replacing' the F-22. The F-22 is the USAF's premier supersonic air-superiority fighter, and there are a number of active squadrons.
The F-35 is a very different next-generation system designed primarily for the supercruise joint multi-operations role (as mentioned before, basically the THX/F-111 on steroids).

You can't just throw money at things, you will end up with small numbers of superweapons that aren't very effective in real conflict. An aircraft carrier for example is nothing, it requires a complement of highly trained pilots to fly a complement of well tested and reliable aircraft. These stealth fighters are decades away from being as affordable and as reliable, that includes the F-22, it only came about a decade before the russian and chinese implementation is set to be produced, and all 3 will receive limited production and all three will remain limited for many years thereafter and in the meantime china (not so much russia it was always strapped for money not tech) will continue to steal and catch up until the 10 year head start of the F-22 becomes irrelevant when 6th gen aircraft roll by.

I don't think you understand why these things are built.

[Rilzik]

I don't disagree.

But the F-22 wasn't a super toy. It has real potential in major combat situations, especially the theater it was designed for. It should be a testament to the US that we cut it when not needed. I was a big supporter of it until very recently, until the news of Chinese, Russian and Indian stealth fighters. Now your right it seems the best course of action is holding off on the F-22, do everything we can to make the F-35 economically viable, and start work on a new plane(s).

I was more a proponent of this mentality with the navy. Build more Arleigh Burke, not sink so many dollars into the LCS's. Russian built and Russian flown planes have recently not been reason enough to go beyond a few hundred F-22's and the only reason for more F-22's was the idea of making the F-15 obsolete and rendering a large part of the worlds air superiority fighters to the same bin as the F-15.

I remember being so worried about more Arleigh Burke class ships and the F-22 when ... when it comes down to it at least for big projects the military does seem to have a fairly decent idea of what is needed much sooner then I ever gave them credit for.

Heck I have everything I would ask for at the moment of military budget cuts. More Arleigh Burke, more Virgina class subs, holding the F-22 at near rate of what potential adversaries may build while having the option to expand, replacing (with the F-35) the aging F-16, F-18, while saving $ by keeping some of those older models around, not slowing the Ford class CV's, funding new long range bombers, not to mention all the cash flowing into missile defense, and cyber defense.

I don't like the costs of some of the projects, but ideally, personally I want to see a scale down of the forces of Afghanistan and Iraq, and cut personnel, with a mind of keeping NCO's and other key ranks so we can spare some of these large projects which are actually not that expensive compared to personnel.

This isn't hearts of iron/civilization/age of empires and tech doesn't come in neat little research progression trees.

speaking of that, this conversation is putting me in the mode for some HOI3 I.C.E. (modded) gaming... see you later

[MB.]

Build more Arleigh Burke, not sink so many dollars into the LCS's.

The Arleigh Burke DDGs are being replaced with DD21/ DDX / DDG1000s. The LCS's are for replacing the current FFG class.

Furthermore, the DDG-51 are still running their production cycle as part of Flight III to replace the canceled CG(X).

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/BAE ... ers-06498/

Flight III ships will be built starting in FY2016 in place of the canceled CG(X) program. The Flight III destroyers will have 14-foot-diameter (4.3 m) radars (up from 12 feet currently) and various other design improvements.[30] These Air and Missile Defense Radars (AMDR) will use digital beamforming.[31]

and start work on a new plane(s).

I'm excited about the prospects of the aerospace cruisers and missile-buses the USAF will soon demand it requires.

I want to see a scale down of the forces of Afghanistan and Iraq, and cut personnel, with a mind of keeping NCO's and other key ranks so we can spare some of these large projects which are actually not that expensive compared to personnel.

That would be convenient, wouldn't it? The US withdrawals and leaves the mess it created for the taliban?

[Rilzik]

Build more Arleigh Burke, not sink so many dollars into the LCS's.

The Arleigh Burke DDGs are being replaced with DD21/ DDX / DDG1000s. The LCS's are for replacing the current FFG class.

Sorry you were writing your post as I posted...

Right all I am saying is those dollars could have been better spend with the Arleigh Burke, and especially considering the cash we spend designing super high tech LCS's when it wasn't needed as a more cost effective ship would have served the role fine and in more numbers.

and start work on a new plane(s).

I'm excited about the prospects of the aerospace cruisers and missile-buses the USAF will soon demand it requires.

Could you expand on this as I don't know what you are referring to.

I want to see a scale down of the forces of Afghanistan and Iraq, and cut personnel, with a mind of keeping NCO's and other key ranks so we can spare some of these large projects which are actually not that expensive compared to personnel.

That would be convenient, wouldn't it? The US withdrawals and leaves the mess it created for the taliban?

That's not what I meant in the slightest.

I was saying Ideally that would be the case, I was always against the Iraq war and think we should get or help get both nations on their feet before leaving.

Regardless, scaling down forces in both countries seems to be a real possibility, so I don't think it is unrealistic that US personnel could be scaled down without jeopardizing the missions in these regions beyond what the administration has called for. I support the idea of scaling down as the situation allows for.