- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,506
- Reaction score
- 3,027
Airplane said:A fine example of a totally irrelevant aircraft. Its about 20 years too late. How many did the chicoms field? Hopefully they will keep buying them while we procure the f35.
PaulMM (Overscan) said:Can you imagine them building the J-20 now as rapidly, if they hadn't got the experience from building the J-10? Yes, they built an F-16C equivalent 20 years later than the F-16, but given they were previously warming over 40 year old Russian designs, that was a big step forward. The J-20 won't be that far behind F-22.
sferrin said:PaulMM (Overscan) said:Can you imagine them building the J-20 now as rapidly, if they hadn't got the experience from building the J-10? Yes, they built an F-16C equivalent 20 years later than the F-16, but given they were previously warming over 40 year old Russian designs, that was a big step forward. The J-20 won't be that far behind F-22.
I think the open door to most US programs when it comes to security probably helped them as much when it comes to the J-20 (if not more) than prior experience building the J-10. J-10 experience might have helped them learn production techniques but the technology in the J-20 itself was almost certainly lifted from western (US) sources.
Given the timeline of the J-20's development and the dates of the security breaches, and given the state of computing when China was developing the J-20 compared to the state of computing when the US was developing the F-22, the degree to which the J-20 benefitted from espionage is probably grossly overstated. The science of stealth shaping is not secret special sauce. The physics is the same for everyone, and China, even in the 2000s, was not short of intellectual talent. If I had to peg one area where espionage might've helped, it would probably be materials, but even then, making use of a sample or a formula or even process documentation would require a fair share of independent work, and it's not unlikely they didn't already have their own understanding the material sciences involved to develop their own solutions. While specific applications of technical knowledge might be secret, the general technical knowledge that would allow for scientists and engineers to figure out solutions is not. Being cutting edge has always been much more a resource problem than an expertise problem, assuming that the flow of scientific information is open and accessible.sferrin said:PaulMM (Overscan) said:Can you imagine them building the J-20 now as rapidly, if they hadn't got the experience from building the J-10? Yes, they built an F-16C equivalent 20 years later than the F-16, but given they were previously warming over 40 year old Russian designs, that was a big step forward. The J-20 won't be that far behind F-22.
I think the open door to most US programs when it comes to security probably helped them as much when it comes to the J-20 (if not more) than prior experience building the J-10. J-10 experience might have helped them learn production techniques but the technology in the J-20 itself was almost certainly lifted from western (US) sources.
latenlazy said:assuming that the flow of scientific information is open and accessible.
sferrin said:latenlazy said:assuming that the flow of scientific information is open and accessible.
But with regards to stealth it isn't. Sure, there's stuff in open literature. Pretty sure it isn't the latest and greatest coming out of LM and NG. Hence the assist via espionage. Just look at the difference between the T-50 and J-20 in surface finishes, geometrical features, etc. The J-20 lifts a LOT from the F-22/35 whereas the T-50 is more like something one would expect from a country that had access to open literature but wasn't downloading F-22 and F-35 engineering data.
sferrin said:latenlazy said:assuming that the flow of scientific information is open and accessible.
But with regards to stealth it isn't. Sure, there's stuff in open literature. Pretty sure it isn't the latest and greatest coming out of LM and NG. Hence the assist via espionage. Just look at the difference between the T-50 and J-20 in surface finishes, geometrical features, etc. The J-20 lifts a LOT from the F-22/35 whereas the T-50 is more like something one would expect from a country that had access to open literature but wasn't downloading F-22 and F-35 engineering data.
Deino said:Latest news ... a J-10B/C testbed fitted with a TVC-nozzle made its maiden flight on 25. December.
totoro said:Arent TVC put on planes for other reasons? For fuel conservation (trimming with TVC, less drag overall), for short take off perfomance, for better handling at very slow speeds and for, if it ever comes to that, quicker nose turning in a knifefight one on one.
LowObservable said:There are a few such advantages. For example, on the Su-35 it is claimed that fully integrated TVC makes it possible to eliminate the Su-30's canard and hence recover the original max Mach number. STOL can be improved - which would be interesting if the PLA thought of dispersed operations.
kcran567 said:LowObservable said:There are a few such advantages. For example, on the Su-35 it is claimed that fully integrated TVC makes it possible to eliminate the Su-30's canard and hence recover the original max Mach number. STOL can be improved - which would be interesting if the PLA thought of dispersed operations.
Maybe the J-10B will soon be doing maneuvers like the X-31. Maybe at some point they will eliminate the vertical tail on the J-10B.
kcran567 said:Hey, not to offend anyone here but China is really making some good stuff these days. The J-10 will (has) left the F-16 in the dust (the avionics will be there shortly), the J-20 is going to be fantastic.
The West just will not keep up with Chinese production and cost. The Chinese already have more industry by far than the West and it will only gap further.
West will just not be able to compete. Too expensive and cant outsource forever, that is just not a good strategy long term because the West will have a huge uneducated labor force.
I think the Chinese churn out engineers 10:1 compared to the West.
That why the race is on to transfer tech to the Chinese. Just about every big company is trying to leave the US and other Western countries to try and get (give) into China.
kcran567 said:Sorry, I should have been more specific. For example, the J-10b already has divertless inlet, looks to be getting thrust vectoring, integrated IR sensor, more advanced aerodynamics/canard layout.
All things the F-16 doesn't/will never have.
Alot more growth potential over the F-16 with new engine (some conformal tanks) and increasingly better avionics. And overall a better value and will be produced much more cheaply than Lockheed could ever roll out a newer F-16V or I for.
With newer avionics will even compete with the F-35 apart from internal weapons carriage. But maybe the Chinese will figure that one out for a future version of the J-10 as well.
My point exactly. Sure a couple f-16 one-off's had some of that installed over the last 30 years. But all those great items that were decided not to be put on the f-16 for political or whatever other reason, will end up on the j-10 at a much cheaper price and will be soon operational. The j-10b/c and future versions are really developing into what the f-16 should have developed into. Even then, because it's such a newer design it has more growth potential than the f-16 has. Too bad the f-16xl lost to the f-15e.sferrin said:kcran567 said:Sorry, I should have been more specific. For example, the J-10b already has divertless inlet, looks to be getting thrust vectoring, integrated IR sensor, more advanced aerodynamics/canard layout.
All things the F-16 doesn't/will never have.
Alot more growth potential over the F-16 with new engine (some conformal tanks) and increasingly better avionics. And overall a better value and will be produced much more cheaply than Lockheed could ever roll out a newer F-16V or I for.
With newer avionics will even compete with the F-35 apart from internal weapons carriage. But maybe the Chinese will figure that one out for a future version of the J-10 as well.
The F-16 could have had a diverterless inlet, 3D TVC, IRST, an AESA, and 36k thrust over a decade ago (probably closer to two decades ago). We could have done one better and put it all on an F-16XL. We decided not to.
We'd rather have F-35s than an uber F-16.kcran567 said:My point exactly. Sure a couple f-16 one-off's had some of that installed over the last 30 years. But all those great items that were decided not to be put on the f-16 will end up on the j-10 at a much cheaper price and will be operational.sferrin said:kcran567 said:Sorry, I should have been more specific. For example, the J-10b already has divertless inlet, looks to be getting thrust vectoring, integrated IR sensor, more advanced aerodynamics/canard layout.
All things the F-16 doesn't/will never have.
Alot more growth potential over the F-16 with new engine (some conformal tanks) and increasingly better avionics. And overall a better value and will be produced much more cheaply than Lockheed could ever roll out a newer F-16V or I for.
With newer avionics will even compete with the F-35 apart from internal weapons carriage. But maybe the Chinese will figure that one out for a future version of the J-10 as well.
The F-16 could have had a diverterless inlet, 3D TVC, IRST, an AESA, and 36k thrust over a decade ago (probably closer to two decades ago). We could have done one better and put it all on an F-16XL. We decided not to.
sferrin said:Looks like it's got Russian Krypton missiles on it.
PaulMM (Overscan) said:YJ-91, which is a Chinese clone of KH-31P, also developed into an active radar anti-ship version (not a copy of the KH-31A as China didn't buy it).
kcran567 said:I didn't really want to get into a lengthy discussion on the f-16, wanted to focus more on the j-10b and c, as being superior to the f-16. After all, lockheed is still selling the f-16 so they are not entirely done with it yet for the sake of the f-35. For that matter, I wonder how a future j-10 would compete with the f-35 and super hornet with similar avionics, aesa, engine upgrade, cft's, and some internal bays as an upgrade. Probably pretty well. That's not far fetched based on how far the j-10 has already developed.