Chinese Stealth Fighter/Bomber
- Thread starter Angel4576
- Start date
That's fugly!
And idk about the F-22. Maybe look into a worthwhile interceptor that's actually worth its price. The Typhoon, for example.
And idk about the F-22. Maybe look into a worthwhile interceptor that's actually worth its price. The Typhoon, for example.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
Great, here comes the next arms race.
Switch
Captain
It's like a 5th-generation F-111. Smart move really.
Surprise news here is that the prototypes at least will be powered by Russia's 117S engines as being used on Su-35BM, Su-34 (future production batches) and PAK FA prototypes. Didn't think Russia and China were all that buddy-buddy in the arms transfer dept. these days after China reverse-engineered Russia's Su-27 and Su-33 designs for their J-11B and J-15 programs. Maybe Russia really is just that hard up for cash.
In the long run even 117S is undersized/powered for this sort of thing and its indigenous WS-15 replacement is going to have to be a real monster to get the T:W ratio and supercruise perf. up there. Waiting until all the ducks are in a row would be a mistake, though. China is doing the right thing here.
Surprise news here is that the prototypes at least will be powered by Russia's 117S engines as being used on Su-35BM, Su-34 (future production batches) and PAK FA prototypes. Didn't think Russia and China were all that buddy-buddy in the arms transfer dept. these days after China reverse-engineered Russia's Su-27 and Su-33 designs for their J-11B and J-15 programs. Maybe Russia really is just that hard up for cash.
In the long run even 117S is undersized/powered for this sort of thing and its indigenous WS-15 replacement is going to have to be a real monster to get the T:W ratio and supercruise perf. up there. Waiting until all the ducks are in a row would be a mistake, though. China is doing the right thing here.
Last edited:
Switch
Captain
If you look at the history of how Chinese aircraft projects have become known to the outside world, this is very odd. Most recently, J-10 had been flying for several years before enough evidence accumulated to convince some folks that it wasn't all an elaborate photoshop hoax.
No, it's safe to say that this almost-public unveiling of J-20 and DF-21 has been very deliberately timed by China to coincide with the start of debate in the United States surrounding the defence budget, in a year where - for the first time in a decade - real cuts seem like an actual possibility.
China doesn't want a reduced US military budget, it enjoys watching the US spend itself into an early grave, it merely hastens the arrival of an age in which China is indisputably ascendant over all. The unveiling of J-20 at this time is designed to forestall any sudden bouts of American fiscal sanity, and it is likely to succeed in that goal.
Rett Mikhal
Captain
Russia is most defiantly hard up for cash, because people (like the Chinese) just keep reverse engineering their arms and manufacture them in situ for less money and more quality control.
What is it that you've heard about the 117S that makes it so bad? I was under the impression it was reliable and could deliver 140 kilonewtons dry, which is better than the F-22's engines (104 kilonewtons). Also without raw data the thrust to weight ratio can't be obtained; the thing could weigh 50 newtons or 50 stones for all we know.
I'm for a reduction of the DoD budget, but still there is no danger for what you are claiming...the US spends A LOT on the military, but its less with two supposed wars going on than during the Vietnam War by less than half the GDP and less than the end of the cold war era. We are in no danger of what happened to the Soviet Union.
RAMA
Switch
Captain
Nothing wrong with 117S, but this aircraft appears significantly larger/heavier than the other aircraft being powered by it. If it's still intended to perform like a fighter - and the canards and other airframe features would suggest it is - then that's a problem. The MiG-31's D-30F6 appears to be the class of engine required, but that's a much older tech line than 117S. The only 4.9/5th gen engine of the right size/thrust available now is the F-135 powering the F-35, and that obviously isn't going to happen.
EDIT: I think you'll find that 117S figure is for the pair vs. the F-22 figure which is for each F-119. The US is still definitely king of the hill in the engines dept. Then again, I don't think Russia was interested in this instance in producing an engine that costs as much as a basic Flanker package.
The better comparison point for 117S would be the latest F110 variants powering new F-15/16s.
Last edited:
Considering that the J-10 took from 1988 to 2004 to enter Initial Operational Capability with prototypes flying from 1996 on.... that's longer than projections for the entry to service of this new and VERY different fighter. I'm willing to give it 8 more years before IOC at a mininium..
This is an entire order of magnitude more complex than the J-10...in both materials, weapons and engines..
This is an entire order of magnitude more complex than the J-10...in both materials, weapons and engines..
Switch
Captain
Definitely. It'll still be out there in numbers well before US Navy's NGAD program is likely to yield fruit though. Question is whether the US can actually afford such a capability gap in, say, 2025. Be interesting to see if this results in a retooling of those long-term airpower plans. Bringing NGAD forward would almost certainly mean committing to a manned aircraft.
Also interesting will be reactions from India (which of course has TWO 5th gen aircraft in development) and Korea (ambitions for KF-X or KF-X follow-on) and Japan (build ATD-X!).
I think the US should worry more about developing countermeasures for the anti-carrier missiles that this beast could deploy.
Re the original article referenced, what about the 50+ carriers that it states that the US is supposed to have in reserve. Even if they are mothballed, that must constitute a significant budgetary expense. I assume that they are small, conventional vessels rather than nuclear-powered wessels.
Re the original article referenced, what about the 50+ carriers that it states that the US is supposed to have in reserve. Even if they are mothballed, that must constitute a significant budgetary expense. I assume that they are small, conventional vessels rather than nuclear-powered wessels.
We scrapped most or all of the pre-nuclear carriers.
Wiki lists 5 as museums, 7 decommissioned/docked and 11 active.
I don't know how anyone could get 50.
Wiki lists 5 as museums, 7 decommissioned/docked and 11 active.
I don't know how anyone could get 50.
It's a nice-looking plane.
Switch
Captain
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the Daily Mail.
(they're probably counting all the flat-deck amphibs in mothballs, which might be reasonable enough if there were actually any aircraft able to operate from them.
)Eh, from a couple angles perhaps. Not a fan of the aesthetics of so-called 5th generation aircraft myself. To a greater or lesser extent they all look like bloated cows.
^ Yes, definitely unfamiliar 
Similar threads
