China Release New Fighter. The J-10.

page: 26
0
<< 23  24  25   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Nah..Japan wouldn't jump the gun on China unless they saw the US getting anywhere with such a conflict..And I agree with Gooseuk, the US would never win any campaign against China, the logistical problems are just too vast..
Same with say US vs. Russia/India/France/UK..
The US sure does have the upper hand but not enough to facilitate a decisive victory..


Look at the facts. Japan alone has enough power to influence china on its own. Now if there is a U.S., EU, and Asia alliance against china it would suppress china pretty damn quickly. I'm not talking about invading and occupying china I’m talking about devastating blows to their economy, thus making them pull an about face on the world and close cease global interaction. This was said by a (Thailand?) politician that has studied china for many, many years.

You all must think that when one says war with china they must mean mass invasion and occupation. While at present that is possible, albeit bloody, most are talking on the terms of major strikes (from whatever tactic) on major economical and targets, setting the country back and ‘stabilizing’ their power influence.




posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Greetings,

I think we are getting a wee bit off track, to be honest for the J-10 I feel that this for the chinese is a leap forward, as it has been commented before this is what they have produced in the last 5 years, imagine what this nation could develop in the future.

In relation to conflict with china, it would require an instant response from the US or Taiwans Allies, by instant, I mean within 2 hours of China unleashing its military might on taiwan soil, any thing later than that may not have any bases to stage from. If China was to offer settling the island dispute in Japans favour, if there was an invasion of taiwan, I could see Japan agreeing.

Prediction: IF china was to invade, I could see them doing it in the next 4 years. Before they host the olympics. This in my view would be very wise, the US are in what could be termed 2 active combat zones and with the possiblity of US forces invading Iran... Any forces from the US being deployed to defend Taiwan wouldn't last long as they would have to cut them from other zones. But I could see china doing this before the olympics and then declaring it business as usal, "Our fellow brothers of Taiwan have been returned to the fold"? maybe.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   
What a ridiculous travesty.

1. The reason the F/A-18 'looks funny' is because Northrop used differential rule (displacing area vertically rather than horizontally) to achieve single engine drag numbers across the frontal arc while maintaining twin engine thrust to weight ratio advantages around a relatively pitch neutral wing center of pressure/center of gravity location. That is why the YF-17 could pull 90kn 'wheelies' like a Flanker almost 20 years before it Cobra/Hook/Tailslide became commonplace at Euro airshows.

2. The J-10 is most assuredly a rip off of the Lavi technology base. Which was itself just another attempt to give Israel a means to support it's worthless existence by stealing ideas from her 'proud sponsor' and selling it behind our backs.

www.fas.org...
www.israeli-weapons.com...

The irony being that only a /fool/ believes a 'pure attack' aircraft can be made exportable (see the AMX Centauro) in a world dominated by fighter sales and thus the Lavi was never what the bloody Israeli's advertised it to be (Skyhawk replacement) _from the start_.

Of course, now that they have indeed given the PRC the lock stock and barrel on U.S. composite, flight controls and integrated avionics functionality, all without a penny back to U.S., the Chinese would be fools indeed not to develop the _innate_ attack-biased capabilities of the Lavi airframe heritage. Because while fighter-sex sells. Bomber-attack wins wars. And despite all the guff, nobody buys 'defensive weapons' that they don't want to see used to butcher their enemies.
Ignoring the geopolitical realities of making war without winning resources or land to pay for it, just look at you all here. I SWEAR it sounds like a round of fantasy football with your stats and odds LOMD obsessivness.

3. The J-10 is itself a waste of time however because the AL-31F weighs almost 1,000lbs more than the PW-1120 (the AL-31FN with thrust vectoring is more like 1,500lbs more) and while the engine thrust class is also undoubtedly greater, so is it's specific fuel consumption. The Lavi was designed to beat the F-16 thru _lightweight_, _low drag_, _compareable cost_ (given the U.S. paid for all R&D) performance, effectively bringing F-5 economies of scale and range performance to a statically unstable airframe with little of the base drag and long moment arm structural penalties of a tailed airframe. It got there with 5,000lbs of fuel and only two effective pylons underwing.

Look at the Vanguard. It's spec'd lenght and wingspan are _exactly_ the same as that of the Lavi yet it has almost double the weight of internal fuel and at least half a ton of added weight in a larger engine. That means it may well be a rocket ship in the straightaway, but it is going to have a monstrous wingloading which will quickly 'add up' to F-16 or greater (150lb/square foot) levles when fully kitted out with tanks.

And for all that, the range shown is pathetic, even if it does, again, overlap that /predicted/ for the smaller/lighter Lavi as a function of scaring the Syrians and Iraqi's if not Iranians. The Chinese NEED a 3,000km radius fighter and they NEED one which can cover these linear distances at rates of travel approaching that of an F-22.

The J-10 is no where's close and likely will /never be so/. Because of drag. For it lacks the Lavi's SRM tiprails. Yet it continues to need large wing tanks to offset it's fuel shortcomings (my bet is that 4,500kg is a flat out lie) and the 'tunnel inbetween' a 300lb outboard pylon and a 3,500lb inboard one is the ONLY place to put significant standoff weapons like AS-13/18 or ballistic LGB/IAM. Or to place wide-span A2A weapons like the PL-8/9/10. This alone will dictate that the jet's effective capabilities are defined by the point in the mission at which it _has to_ jettison fuel to gain back acceleration Ps.

And when that happens, the 8,000lbs of fuel I see under the jet will instantaneous end the mission because, even if you duck the SAM or accelerate to first-pole dominance on the BVR AAM shot, you WILL mission-kill yourself for the continued penetration to target with reserves to get home on whatever's left inside the jet. The stubpylons are worthless because they don't allow for safe clearance of CCG guidance heads on a SALH weapon. And their total munition length may even make light (GBU-38/39 class) IAMs uncarriageable.

Overall, the J-10 is half the fighter it needs to be. Half the fighter the J-11 /already is/. And thus can be classified, at best, as the 'low end' (airshow sextoy) of a mixed fighter force system that cannot cover all of China but must be locally deployed or based-in with little more competence against the India or even ROC/ROK threats than the F-7 whose type-equivalency it replaces.

While I hate the Israeli's for effectively stealing American Glass Cockpit tech (and the cockpit IS btw, a virtual clone of the Lavi TD which supposedly was shipped to the PRC after the Chinese paid IAI to refurbish it), the Lear Siegler Astronics flight control tech. Even the composite wing technology which IAI STOLE FROM Northrop Grumman. The simple fact of the matter is that the PLAAF got 'bargained into the basement' for received quality as a function of total aeronautical design.

4. In terms of 'beating the Euroflubber' the entire notion is ridiculous. Because the Chinese will blow up Typhoons using ballistic technology to level the airfields of Taiwan or Korea long before they face an AMRAAM or Meteor equipped force with Python-3 and Aspide clones (or even the SD-10/PL-12 AMRAAMzhou). And when it comes to a 'dogfight' both jets are likely to be equally well equipped to kill each other with parthian type shots (HMS, IRST and a decent motored SRM with widebore optics or IMU/datalink based HOBS). But NEITHER ONE has the capability to /survive/ the other's shots. It is like Clint Eastwood walking down the street with a stove door strapped to his chest as The Mad Mexican shoots him in the heart with a Winchester. Where that improvised armor is a DIRCM, _then_, maybe, I will believe in WVR combat. Otherwise, no amount of physical performance on the part of the shooter will exceed the ability of it's pilot to cue the missile seeker by turning his head. TAC Brawler tests way back in the 1980's with Kaiser's 'Agile Eye' (before Congressional sellouts again gave half the profits to Elta for the 'DASH' clone technology that now pollutes the JHMCS); achieving a 3:1 improvement in first sight and a 7:1 improvement in first shot over non-HMD equipped visual shooters.
And so you are looking at two 7ft tall NBA centers trying to kill each other by freethrowing handgrenades while 'hiding in a barrel' that only protects them if the grenade doesn't land in with them. At 3pter range, it may work. At dogfight slam dunk distances you won't stand a prayer.

5. Manned fighters are stupid for the simple reason that nobody retains the balls to walk like Napoleonic Infantry into the wall-of-BVR musket and cannon fire that is moder _guided_ 'bullets'. We see this evertime an enemy fights us. Humans are cowards that want to kill their enemy gloriously or by bar-lies. Not 'die bravely' at the hands of a robotic missile. MiG-29's come over at us over Bosnia and, at the last minute, lose their nerve and turn away to try and notch AMRAAMs that are not seduced by the maneuver at all. MiG-21 and Mirage F-1 fly -away from- their main operating bases over Iraq when Navy Tomcats start brooming their radar warning receivers with AWG-noise. Leaving _home soil_ (home plate) bases to be obliterated.

A better setup for weapons reach and overall situational awareness helps. But only a little bit. Because the training and the mindset is always going to be flakey between individuals and times in service (RHIP) for competence vs. dumb-guts.

With this in mind, one must remember Stalin's saying: "Quantity has a quality all it's own".

For the definition of war often comes down to not how many skilled opponents you can kill but rather how many stupid friends you can convince to 'use up his bullets' so that you can overrun and club the opfor to death.

Say an SRM costs 200 grande. Say an MRM costs 400 grande. 'Universally' (for quality). Say a MiG-21 /class/ robotic fighter costs 5 million 'in Chinese terms' (8:1 Yuan:USD fixed ratios).

Now say a Eurofighter costs 60 million.

If I take a flight of four Eurofighters and arm each of them with 4 BVRAAM class weapons at 400 grande each and 2 ASRAAM class weapons at 200 grande each, that's 248 million dollars on the wing. NOT including significant 'cost of living autopilot' expenses for recurrent training and families and housing and and and inherent to aircrew. Which typically runs about 1 million a year, per pilot, in the U.S. (with admittedly a much higher flying rate than even the UK achieves).

Let's say I put up 20, five million dollar UCAVs, each armed with 2 PL-8 class weapons. That's 104 million dollars. Furthermore, let's say that _every one_ of the Eurofighter's longrange weapons scores a kil in the BVR phasel. That leaves 4vs.4 in the WVR merge. If HALF OF EVERYONE'S REMAINING SRMS SCORE before disengagement, that's a _purely attritional LER (Loss Exchange Ratio) of 128 million dollars vs. 94 million dollars. And the 'lemming approach' WINS.

Because the expensive missiles are gone regardless (must be reimported to theater from existing stocks in the short term, replaced in the long term). And the Eurofighter force, even though it has scored a nominally /tremendous/ kill rate (9:1) is down two fighters from perhaps an 'expeditionary' total of 40 such aircraft that it simply cannot replace. While the 5 million dollar UCAVs can be shipped in, a wing at a time, indefinitely 'as fast as CATIC can make them'.

If you face two such raids per day, by the end of _1 WEEK, 3 DAYS_ of fighting, you will have lost your entire manned force. While the Chinese have merely expended 360 'drones' which will be replaced in a year or two. And have /never/ paid a single dime for pilot training or family support. At all.

THIS-

www.nasa.gov...

Is the kind of airframe I am talking about.

The HIMAT having a miserable T/Wr off it's J85 core, STILL managed to routinely turn _inside_ an F-15 at height. Often pulling upwards of 12Gs to do so. And the Eagle, simply could do nothing to hold position aft of the drone's 3/9. Within 1 circle, it ALWAYS lost (indicating sustained turn rates approaching 30dps).

Take that maneuver capability, use a basic IRST (which costs half as much as an advanced AI radar, say 1.5-2 million bucks) to cue those SRMs onto 'any target which looks /different/ from another HIMAT (a single silicon chip with a single silouhette classification capabiltiy, probably worth 50 cents). And another 4-5 Missile Approach Warning Sensors (bugeyes that function much like the nightvision on a highend cadillac and in fact use much the same _uncooled_ technology). And then point them in a given direction with orders to 'kill on sight' while across a given fenceline.

And you will have a force that will eat the enemy alive. Because the reality is that a well flown target drone (not a QF fighter conversion but a real Chukar or Firebee type system), with MAWS cued expendables and a lot of evasive maneuver capability, will in fact _physically defeat_ almost any missile out there. And frequently does so, whenever signature augmentation fails.

If you shoot and miss and the drone evades and closes in, there is no requirement for bravery. Because it doesn't care that it will beat the shot 70% of the time. Nor does it feel an overwhelming need to run away in the face of superior enemy firepower. While the nominal 'fighter' aircraft is a virtual cement truck on stilts for comparitive agility once the drone enters 'dogfight' WVR distances. And so the 'fighter' can ONLY _run_. And the drone is now the 'braver warrior'. Since it doesn't care if it dies. And will in fact beat most threat shots better than the best human fighter pilot ever born.

THAT is what the Chinese should be looking towards if they want to impress with more than their ability to monkey-see:monkey-do. Because, even using 'free world marketed' Western Technology against itself rather than trying to play catchup as the Russians once did on a 20 year technology shortfall; they are only playing into a game whereby the man in the cockpit is the most serious design limitation of Polish Engineering by which the entire concept of air combat is compromised.

And that 'limitation' is one set, artificially, by Western Manufacturers looking to make the maximum megabucks from satisfying WESTERN pilot corps. Who themselves only get to exist so long as their block obsolescence in accomplishing the task at hand is not rendered obvious. By someone (or nation) willing to break out of the evolution-not-revolution loop.



KPl.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   
HELLO

From your article



While there is no firm evidence indicating that Israel has offered the Lavi or its technology to other nations, some open source reports suggest that the People's Republic of China has purchased a sophisticated Lavi radar system and is seeking Lavi avionics.61


It mentions that there is no edvidence and never mentioned that china ever got the LAVI plans or a LAVI plane



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   
www.aeronautics.ru...

i dont care what you think about the J-10 its not a LAVI.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Hi

The point is the War,The point is the J-10 or more info about it.

Since most of you consider that US army are much more powerful than Chinese,please don't worry about it.The Chinese think about the war more serious,they want to keep the peace more than any other countries . Do you know how many lives taken by the war,The Chinese do understand that. So keep the peace and development, and don't make anything out of control,like Taiwan. Read the history carefully and consider the current situation seriously. We should know in a certain period,no world wide war will take place.Because it's high risk to raise a war.So, the best choice is keeping yourself strong ,and keeping your families safe,be friendly to others.

The most risk is the high tech like nuclear,chemical or any others which become more and more powerful impact to the whole world.Take care of that,it's not so hard to reach.

So for politics,the best choice is the UN,try to make it more stronger and justice . Establishing a system to control and develop the whole world is very important. Although there is long way to go and hard to do.

By the way,I am a Chinese .

Best Regards to All!



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
War with China? The president said," Bring them on". The vice president said, " After we liberate them, the people will greet us with flowers and kisses." So, don't worry, Smile.



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
War with any major power these days will result in massive global ecomical damage.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tshsn
 


who said that?
the war between US and China is unimaginable and destructive to both side.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
why is everybody anti china? there not an agressive nation, they are peaceful, they will soon be democratic!they have to be, a lot of there laws are being relaxed,its only a matter of time until they come into the global democratic fold! A WAR BETWEEN US AND CHINA IS ABOUT AS LIKELY AS A WAR BETWEEN US AND EUROPE!



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
can we expect the cooperation for pakistan from israel in military email akrkykk@yahoo.com



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I hate to say this, but without mentioning any names in particular, none of you people know what the heck you're talking about. You have no idea how far China has come from an economic, AND military point. You all live in denial, and believe that the US will remain an empire till the end of time. Well the Greeks couldn't. Genghis Khan couldn't. The Romans couldn't. Napoleon couldn't. The British couldn't. Germany couldn't, disappointing Hitler "so very much". The Soviets couldn't either, and they were the biggest industrial military complex of all time. What makes you "know it all" believe the US can?! We are already seeing the decline of the country before our very own eyes! So please don't get hung up on how "invincible" the USAF is, or how we're going to shoot down all those J-10s because it's not going to happen! If our "fearless leaders" in Washington, and our military big wigs thought we could dominate the Chinese or the Russians in military combat, we would have done so by now! It won't happen. Get used to it! And by the way, so called "stealth" fighters, are NOT invisible to radar. Back in the late 1980s, Popular Science published an eye opening report about "space junk". The Soviets had already developed radars capable of detecting, and tracking objects as small as a paint chip! And that's an object flying at 17,500 mph, and between 150 to 300 nautical miles above the Earth's surface. If you think they didn't further develop this technology for military use, I have a cheap bridge to sell you in Brooklyn! The Chinese have been working on similar systems. Such data can be transmitted to their air borne interceptors and missile batteries to shoot down intruders. Good luck in trying to penetrate their air space.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   


Every body heard about three F22 were shot down By J10. in Fujian Province of China.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I hope China mass produce and name one of its fighter jets locust 蝗虫 to fulfill the great prophecy.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
For China to project real power on the world stage it should expand its navy, mostly aircraft carriers and SSBM's [for a serious second strike capability] i think they have three of them?..Every great empire had a large navy, they have a long way to go, but they may catch up in 15 to 20 years...before real demographic problems[ageing] arise and the economy starts to shrink..



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by greatredstar


Every body heard about three F22 were shot down By J10. in Fujian Province of China.


Sure thing, buddy



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by greatredstar


Every body heard about three F22 were shot down By J10. in Fujian Province of China.


Comedians aren't supposed to laugh at their own jokes.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by greatredstar


Every body heard about three F22 were shot down By J10. in Fujian Province of China.


Are you serious?

Your comment doesnt make any sense at all... Why post such a comment?

Asides that, the J-10 never, EVER will kill one F-22. Let alone 3...

J-10 = 4.25th gen fighter AC. F-22 = 5th gen fighter AC.

Chinese pilot flying hours (estimated). 85 to 90 hours per year. US pilot flying hours (estimated). 145 to 160 hours per year.

Outcome = No hope for the Chinese fighter pilot commandeering a J-10.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by wisdomnotemotion
I hope China mass produce and name one of its fighter jets locust 蝗虫 to fulfill the great prophecy.




Is it me or are the people on ATS getting weirder and weirder by the day? Not intended to insult people but... These comments... So strange...


Wisdomnotemotion, could you please elaborate of why you posted that comment and what the background of a possible story that lies behind that mysterious comment?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 23  24  25   >>

log in

join