China's New Stealth Fighter

reply to post by Neocrusader



To zaphod ( soz tried to reply to you but replied to myself somehow ???


Thanks for that
I'm the first to admit my access to mainstream up to date info is somewhat restricted, so thanks for clearing up a few of my points
I was unaware of the weapon system development and am still awaiting to hear from a TP friend of mine if the breathing system has indeed been rectified.
But there has been a few other problems as I'm sure youre aware of

With regards to the STOVL variant
This is the variant that the Brits have bought into and indeed ordered thus removed from the design of their new carriers the need for launch apparatus
However a few months ago the royal navy were informed that this version may not reach final production and as such has caused a number of issues for the Brits, now considering having to add launch and catch apparatus at a HUGE expense to accommodate a non STOVL variant .......and I beg to differ on the j20 but we will just have to agree to disagree on that

With the component side .....I concede but the Chinese already had their own stealth tech in development, but have now had a chance to 'rob' through reverse engineering of those components some aspects that they have now incorporated into their own design ( Admitadly their JET propulsion is no where near the US's, however their ally Russia's is as good if not better - the US had to steal Russia's jet tech remember )
But I agree the us had a massive head start due to the tech, designs, reserch and prototypes taken from the nazis

I say no country is better than another - they are all s**t
But to believe that china is no competition is nothing less than naive nationalism ........and if your as switched on as I think you are .........you know this also

Not looking for a fight dude - it's good to have someone here that knows his stuff

Originally posted by perpetrator76
The f-35 was failure because it was hard to control fully loaded, and then lacked the range, or you could lose the ordiance and get the range you wanted but not both... thats why the platform failed and boeing is selling to other countries because the military isnt interested. We're going to drones and unmanned aircraft. Stealth tech while important is a old facet that we have already incorporated into our designs and we are currently developing more as we speak.... TR3B anyone?

The F-35 has a long way to go in flight testing, but it's not a failure by any means. It was meant from the very start to be a multinational project.

www.jsf.mil...

reply to post by Zaphod58
Yes, I guess 'incredibly unstable' is a bit strong for wording.

Both the YB35 and YB49 both had yaw oscillations that hindered their ability as a bomber, but they were stable enough to do considerable flight testing, flight testing data from the YB49 was used in the development of the B2.

reply to post by Zaphod58


And I agree with you there
There was something very unusual about the RQ that was brought down, having seen the RQ myself first hand on 4 occasions - once in the hangar , up close and personal, once in bits after a pilot error lol and twice flying low level on ascent/descent, however it still needed the roudamentry software to remain airborne.
Whether or not this was a trojan with reduced software I have no 100% reliable source .......but I do know that drone operators were indeed concerned about this software issue

Originally posted by Neocrusader
reply to post by Neocrusader

 

With regards to the STOVL variant
This is the variant that the Brits have bought into and indeed ordered thus removed from the design of their new carriers the need for launch apparatus
However a few months ago the royal navy were informed that this version may not reach final production and as such has caused a number of issues for the Brits, now considering having to add launch and catch apparatus at a HUGE expense to accommodate a non STOVL variant .......and I beg to differ on the j20 but we will just have to agree to disagree on that

In January of last year, the F-35B was put on probation. It was removed from probation within six months, and has progressed nicely. The Royal Navy changed their mind to the F-35C, largely because the F-35B can't carry as much fuel, or the weapons payload of the F-35C CTOL variant. They lost a lot of capacity due to the lift fan taking up so much room. They chose to switch back to the F-35B variant when it became clear that the cost of modifying the Queen Elizabeth class carriers was prohibitive. The decision to switch came well before the B model was put on probation.

The British government has confirmed it will revert to the F-35B short-takeoff, vertical-landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter to equip aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond announced in Parliament that the plan to purchase the F-35C carrier variant had been axed due to what he said was unacceptable cost growth and delays in the plan to convert a carrier to handle the conventional takeoff variant.

The previous Labour government originally opted to purchase the STOVL version to fly off two 65,000-ton carriers being built for the Royal Navy, but that decision was overturned in favor of the F-35C by the Conservative-led coalition government in a rapidly constructed strategic defense review in late 2010, just months after it entered office.

At the time, Prime Minister David Cameron cited greater interoperability with U.S. and French aircraft carriers and a cheaper aircraft with longer range and greater capability as the reason for the change.

Source

The decision to switch had nothing to do with any cancellation claims. The MOD wanted greater interoperability between the Queen Elizabeth class, the Nimitz class, and the Charles De Gaulle. However, the cost of modifying the ships, and the fact that the F-35C appears to be too heavy for the De Gaulle, led to them changing their mind back to the STOVL variant.

As for the J-20:

The U.S. believes that China's radar-evading fighter jet will be operational in six years, a Pentagon official said Friday.

China is expected to have sufficient numbers of its J-20 fighter and enough pilots trained to conduct missions with the stealthy jet by 2018 but not any earlier, according to David Helvey, acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia and Asia Pacific affairs.

Chinese officials have said they expect the J-20 to be operational between 2017 and 2019.

security.blogs.cnn.com...

There are currently two or three J-20s in flight testing. How are you going to go from first flight to operational in two years? It hasn't been done since the 1960s with the U-2, and even that took 18 months, for an unarmed semi-glider. You can't incorporate weapons, and flight testing, and be operational in two years.

In any event, the J-20 is years from achieving operational status, if indeed it ever enter service. Stealth aircraft can require thousands of hours of development flying; in its first year the J-20 reportedly racked up an estimated 60 flights, each probably an hour or so in duration. The addition of a second J-20 could double the testing rate, but even with several airframes full development could take five years or more.

The Pentagon has projected that the J-20 will enter service around 2020, approximately the same time as the U.S. F-35. America’s previous stealth aircraft include the F-22 (2005), the B-2 (1997) and the F-117 (1983). China is reportedly developing at least one more stealth fighter design, though it has yet to appear in public. Japan and Russia are also working on radar-evading fighter demonstrators.

www.offiziere.ch...

reply to post by Zaphod58


Again thanks

Life's kinda one big op so I kinda loose track of time and as I said my access to the net or news can be very restricted
But my information regarding the STOVL airframe comes direct from MOD sources and a report only accessible on the MOD inTRAnet, so I can't link to it and won't be at a MOD intranet station for a little while so I can't check the date. It was this year though and not too long ago, but not sure on the time scale in regards to your link ( being may this year )

The f-22 as stated in your link came about in 2005 - but 7 years later ..........still isn't working !


From your source
"The U.S. believes that China's radar-evading fighter jet will be operational in six years, a Pentagon official said Friday. "

.......the US believes !

You have to admit lot of that info is speculation by the US
The earliest estimation of use of the j20 is 2017 .......3 years before the f35
......5 years away ........will the f-22 have all it's kinks ironed out by then ?
Thats the big question
So even though the US had gen 5 in 2005 - will they have it operational before the Chinese ? Whom by many's opinion are 30 years behind !

reply to post by Zaphod58


One more thing .........WOW how do I get me one of those ATS sme badges lol
Admitadly this isn't my area of expertise ........but wow ........top of my Christmas list !

reply to post by Neocrusader


Except that the F-22 IS fully operational. What's going on now is upgrades, as is done to all aircraft through their life cycle. The program achieved IOC (Initial Operational Capability, this means combat capable) in 2005. Just because it hasn't seen combat doesn't mean it's not operational.

As for the J-20, even the Chinese are saying 2018 or later. You can't be operational with three examples. China would have to devote all of their resources to building them to build enough of a fleet to call them operational by next year. And even that would be almost impossible.

The F-35B program has made huge strides since the beginning of last year when it was put on probation. There is no chance of it being cancelled. The F-35C wasn't even able to catch a cable during low speed taxi tests, and it wasn't in danger of being cancelled.

In 2010, a panel recommended cancelling the F-35B, due to the fact that the majority of the program costs came from the development of the STOVL variant. The lift fan design is revolutionary, and has caused some problems during development. However, as of January of this year, the biggest problem for the entire program is the spiraling costs of the total development. A large part of the panel's decision was based on the MOD decision to switch to the C model, which happened shortly before.

As for the FSME, intelligent posting, and know your stuff, and the staff will approach you if they think you deserve it.

reply to post by travis911
maybe there are better then we are just want intell they get a u.f.o

reply to post by Zaphod58


It may well be considered operational, but fixing problems that have been present from the outset cannot really be considered an upgrade. Not with all the problems it's had, especialy the hypoxia ........what use is the most advanced fighter in the world if your pilots can't breath .....and as such has very little faith placed in it by the pilots that fly it
It would be like giving me grenades that don't always detonate .......that's not in need of a routine continual improvement upgrade .........that's a design flaw, and only indicates the rush that was placed on getting this aircraft into service ..........because the US gov was aware that Russia was about to announce its own gen 5 and couldn't be seen to be behind the ruskies ........do you not see it as suspicious how the f-22 upon announcement was sold as dominating the air for the next 30-40 years ?
6 months later Russia announced their gen 5 .....a few months later china announced theirs ! 30-40 years !!! Really!
Raptor pilots have even been hushed up regarding their views and issues with the f22 to the point that pilots are requesting transfers to other, nowhere near advanced aircraft ......that should tell you something

I have spoken to a US captain who has done just that, and he has told me of a few others, I can't remember all the details or ranks but it's a good spread, but I do remember there is another captain a major and a Brit group captain ( If memory serves me right) amongst them.

And they are still not entirely sure what's causing the problems, although I admit this info is as of late July.

That is a BIG problem, the pilots are transferring out or atleast trying to as they don't trust some of the aircrafts systems and don't want to fly it

Sorry if this seems a bit blunt/rude ....with plenty of errors in spelling lol .....not exactly in the best of conditions at the mo

Quickly snatched this


"Air Force officials admitted to the House Armed Services Committee that they continue to be confused about what physical condition is actually causing the lethal effects. Service leaders have stopped using the term “hypoxia,” which means oxygen shortage, instead referring to “hypoxia-like symptoms.” Low blood sugar, dehydration and hypocapnia — a shortage of carbon dioxide in the blood — could also cause pilots to get dizzy and black out, testified Maj. Gen. William Lyon, who heads the service’s F-22 investigation."


"In other words, the current fixes — an improved pressure suit for the pilots, a new backup oxygen system plus the removal of a faulty air filter, among other adjustments — are really only band-aids."

"The Thursday hearing shed new light on the F-22′s history of harming its pilots and the Air Force’s years-long efforts to figure out why. Lyons told Maryland representative Roscoe Bartlett, the Republican chair of the Subcommittee on Tactical and Air Land Forces, that the first case of Raptor-pilot breathlessness occurred in 2000, when the F-22 was still in testing. Raptor pilots suffered just six hypoxia-like incidents between 2003 and 2008, in part because there were so few of the jets flying, Lyon added."

"The number of pilot chokings spiked from 2008 to 2011 as more new F-22s rolled out of Lockheed’s Marietta, Georgia, factory, Lyon explained."


"Overall the Raptors strangled their pilots 27 times per 100,000 flight hours, nine times the rate of other U.S. warplanes. Weirdly, ground crews suffered occasional symptoms, as well"

"The F-22s returned to flight in September last year, albeit with altitude restrictions that Lyon said represented an “acceptable level of risk.” But two pilots disagreed. Maj. Jeremy Gordon and Capt. Josh Wilson refused to resume flying a jet they deemed too dangerous."

"In an interview with 60 Minutes in May, Gordon and Wilson claimed that the “vast, silent majority” of F-22 pilots lived in fear of the airplane. Facing Air Force reprisal, Wilson sought whistleblower protection. "


"NASA investigator Clinton Cragg testified alongside Lyon. In other words, over time pilots and bureaucrats risk viewing preventable dangers as just a routine part of the job — a phenomenon that partially explains why the Raptor’s oxygen woes have dragged on for 12 years."

www.wired.com...

Don't know how reliable wired is - but this article only confirms what I've been told by US servicemen and other gov employees


Just to add
I believe this is an astonishing aircraft at the cutting edge, what annoys the s**t outta me is the belief that no-one can possibly compete with the US war machine
That's exactly what your gov wants you and the rest of the world to think

My little theory ........after Vietnam the US psyche had taken a huge knock by being successfully resisted by what was sold to you as a bunch of half arsed tree swinging rice eating yellow skins

So a program of nationalisation and US pride was launched, which saw the rise of the USA....USA.....USA mentality, the very definition of sheeple
Problem, reaction, solution
The US withdraws,=a loss of morale and self viewed world standing= a program of American exceptionalism
Regardless of how unwarranted it was, it stuck
Look at the US IN THE '50's, 60's, 70's , then compare that to the 80's and the indoctrination of renewed national pride
Whoa .....sorry banged out on a massive tangent there

Originally posted by Zaphod58

The F-35 has a long way to go in flight testing, but it's not a failure by any means.

They just pulled the plug on anymore money going into the F-35 to complete it. Israel was making the helmet and appears they are keeping it for themselves and the new news story says America has to make its own new helmet for the F-35 and it won't have much for functions.....like the F-35 Israeli helmet.

Essentially since we aren't supporting Israel's strike on Iran they aren't sharing the F-35 helmet with us we've been pouring all that money out to them for.

The F-35 from the start was a bad design. Not enough fuel storage for Pacific War Operations....where she will be needed. The Chinese are going to have superior range since they opted for larger stealth airframes that hold more fuel and will have more range....AND theirs carries more internal weapons.

reply to post by Neocrusader


The only real problem that the Raptor has had is the OBOGS issue, which to an extent has been blown out of proportion. Yes, it's a real problem, and yes it has led to a fatality (although that was caused by him trying to activate the back up system more than a hypoxic event), but the number of incidents that have happened over the years are surprisingly low, compared to the number of sorties that have been flown in that same time frame.

It is believed that the problem has been found, and a couple of fixes have been come up with, including a redesign of the upper body pressure suit. The simplest fix appears to be an oxygen valve, to keep too much oxygen from being pumped into the pilots bodies. It is believed that the problem is a combination of too much oxygen being pumped in at too high a pressure, but the real problem is that the only aircraft that have ever operated at the altitudes that the F-22 operates at for an extended period of time are the SR-71, and the U-2. Both of those aircraft gave the pilots several days to recover from the flight, where F-22 pilots are flying two a days, and maneuvering much harder than either of those aircraft ever have.

"In the end, there is no smoking gun," he said. "We have assembled the pieces of the mosaic. They reside in the cockpit. Some of them are here before you today, in the upper pressure garment, in the oxygen delivery hoses, in the quick connection points and for a short time, in the air filter canister.

"As we completed end-to-end testing in the life support systems components, we were able to piece together the contributing factors for our previously unexplained incidents.

"And I must add that it was only through an integrated, collaborative approach by government and industry that we got to where we are today.

"So how did we eliminate contamination as the root cause? We did this through months of exhaustive testing and flight testing line operational aircraft. We pored over aircraft involved in incidents. We analyzed thousands of samples of gasses, volatile and semi-volatile compounds, solids, liquids, and particulate matter.

"We compared these samples to occupational hazard standards. And we checked the levels in incident aircraft and pilots against non-incident aircraft and pilots. We found nothing remarkable."

www.upi.com...

The F-22 going operational actually had very little to do with Russia or China announcing they were building a fifth gen fighter. The original program began as an F-15 replacement program in 1981. The concept definition studies began in 1983, with the RFP going out in 1985. The four prototypes flew in 1990. The Russian T-50 (PAK-FA) wasn't tendered until the early 2000s. The J-XX, J-X, and XXJ programs in China were undertaken throughout the 1990s, but the J-20 wasn't announced until well after the F-22 program was underway (it's thought that part of the J-20 tech came from the F-117 downed in 1999 in Serbia).

Everything else with the F-22 is just an upgrade, and was planned from the start as the development timeline. Even with the T-50, and the J-20 becoming operational, the F-22 WILL continue to dominate the skies, because of the doctrine of their use. The Russian and Chinese militaries have always relied on close control of their pilots. They are only just now getting to the point where they trust them to operate on their own, and even then most of the time they are under close control during intercepts and other maneuvers. The US on the other hand, relies on the pilots to work together, and adapt to different tactics used against them, and be more open to working on their own. It's going to take time for Russia and China to develop and implement the new doctrine (in fact Russia has been observing US exercises and beginning to train with US troops for the last few years, learning from them).

The other factor to look at is training. A single US military pilot can get more hours in a year than some MILITARIES get in two years. You can't have training levels that low, and go out and beat up the big kid on the block. Russia is starting to work hard to overcome that, with long range training flights, and more operations, but they're working to overcome years of being horribly underfunded, and their planes sitting on the ground for months at a time at times. They are having to build up maintenance, and flight crews to the point that they can even fly the mission, let alone be at a level of the US or other militaries. Then you add Red Flag, Red Flag Alaska, and the other training the US does, and you see why we think we're so good.

reply to post by Neocrusader


The US isn't unbeatable, we are just very difficult to beat in a stand up fight. ANY military is beatable, but the US has made it a point since post WWII to go for high technology in small numbers, as opposed to cheaper "throw away" technology in larger numbers. Russia (and the Chinese copies) makes some nice aircraft, and they have some new ones that are very impressive in the design pipeline, but when it comes to operations and training, they have a long way to go

Originally posted by Pervius

Originally posted by Zaphod58

The F-35 has a long way to go in flight testing, but it's not a failure by any means.

They just pulled the plug on anymore money going into the F-35 to complete it. Israel was making the helmet and appears they are keeping it for themselves and the new news story says America has to make its own new helmet for the F-35 and it won't have much for functions.....like the F-35 Israeli helmet.

No, they didn't. They have said that they won't add any more money to fund it, if Lockheed doesn't get the helmet and software problems fixed. There's a huge difference between that, and pulling the plug on money to finish it.

The helmet is already developed and in US hands. It's suffering from software issues, including "jiggle" when the pilots move their heads too fast, or pull too many Gs. The helmet is state of the art, and suffering from development issues, like any other brand new system.

The helmet in use now, is just as advanced as the one that was going to be built by Israel, including night vision, weapons controls, and they will be able to use the cameras that are mounted around the airframe to display on the visor.

I agree .... And disagree
I have seen plenty of instances of quantity over quality, especialy in the infantry world, Admitadly very different from air power doctrine
But fully agree on training and op experience and have often wondered if this is some part of the reason for perpetual war

Soz getting tired now lol
But I've really REALLY enjoyed our chat ........thanks again
Hope to bump into you somewhere where I'm the SME

M.

Originally posted by Neocrusader

I agree .... And disagree

I have seen plenty of instances of quantity over quality, especialy in the infantry world, Admitadly very different from air power doctrine
But fully agree on training and op experience and have often wondered if this is some part of the reason for perpetual war

Quantity over quality CAN work, hence the reason for stealthy platforms. You can have 100 aircraft in the air, but if your opponent can hit you long before you can even see him, that's a big game changer when it comes to air combat.

Think of it as a sniper on a battlefield. If you know he's out there somewhere, but you don't know where or when that shot is going to come in, until it's on the way, then having all the forces in the world out there won't do you any good. A WVR engagement is a different story. That's when numbers really come in to play, but when you're talking WVR (which in a WWIII scenario is vastly different than what we've seen recently), where the F-22 can fire and disappear, that's when the Raptor really comes into its own.

Soz getting tired now lol
But I've really REALLY enjoyed our chat ........thanks again
Hope to bump into you somewhere where I'm the SME

M.

It's definitely been kinda nice having a civil discussion for a change, and it's kept me on my toes.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yep it's been most pleasant

And thanks for putting into a context for me
Us infantry are simple things lol
As it says under my name
I beat juba

reply to post by Zaphod58


Soz for replying here but my message centre refuses to work
But just got told

The f35 has now completed its first mid air restart tests
Completing 27 in total at Edwards paving the way for its high angle of attack tests

Can't post any links soz - but knowing this is your bag thought you'd be interested

reply to post by Neocrusader


Yeah, that was about two weeks ago I believe. The high AOA tests are scheduled to start any time now, and on the other coast, they are preparing for (or have started, not sure) weapons separation tests. The test program is moving along fairly well now, and has been meeting its milestones as of late (despite LM jacking costs up every chance they get).

The latest threat to the program is that Lockheed has said that if sequestration occurs, and the budget for the military is slashed (which will screw the Air Force in a massive way), then they will have to lay off a large number of workers at (here's the big shock) Fort Worth, where the F-35 is built. Which means, (here's another big shock) there will be more delays to the program, because they will have to slow production.