Chinese Stealth Fighter/Bomber

[Angel4576]

It's commonly referred to over here as the Daily Fail.

 

[FPAlpha]

That baby will not be a dog fighter at that size and gait.

Doesn't need to be.. if an enemy plane gets into dogfighting range something already has gone seriously wrong.

State of the art radar/sensor systems and medium/long range AA missiles are par for the course.. pilots are unlikely to ever see the enemy plane they are shooting at.

 

[Rett Mikhal]

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.

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.

Looking at my technical data sheet book on fighter aircraft I see you're right, the 140 KN of thrust was for the Su fighter itself, not the engine.

Guess the Chinese just like buying things for cheap. Their casting abilities are legendarily awful and machining techniques non-existent (especially with FANUC right across the ocean in Japan). They would be ill-suited to designing and making their own afterburning turbofan.

 

[FPAlpha]

I wouldn't mix private sector "cheap as fuck" products with military grade precision parts.. i think China has the ability to produce both.

It's "just" buying the right machines and there certainly are enough engineers and technicians to man them.

 

[Switch]

Guess the Chinese just like buying things for cheap. Their casting abilities are legendarily awful and machining techniques non-existent (especially with FANUC right across the ocean in Japan). They would be ill-suited to designing and making their own afterburning turbofan.

Well they're doing it. They've recently introduced the WS-10 to power the J-10 and J-11B aircraft and also the WS-13 to power the JF-17 Thunder. But it takes time and experience to get up to speed and for all the progress China has made, they're not there yet ... as evidenced by the new 117S buy. They'll get there eventually, certainly they plan to operate J-20 with an indigenous engine (WS-15) eventually. Apparently their problem these days isn't so much power as service life.

Engine development is what's holding back a number of non-US/Russian/Euro fighter programs from being truly 'independent':

- Sweden selected the US F414 (which powers the Super Hornet) for Gripen NG over the (partly) indigenous engine powering Gripen A-D aircraft. Interestingly, Gripen NG can apparently supercruise with the engine.

- India also recently selected the F414 for its LCA Mk. 2 program, over the indigenous engine powering the Mk. 1 Tejas.

- Japan's ATD-X and Korea's KF-X programs will almost certainly require foreign engines (probably either US F414 or EU EJ200 as on the Typhoon) and little else.

 

[Angel4576]

The BBC have followed up on the story;

The US is downplaying pictures which appear to show a working prototype of a Chinese stealth aircraft, invisible to radar.
The images - first published on websites - show what looks like a stealth fighter on a taxi run.
Beijing has not commented on whether the pictures - published ahead of US Defence Secretary Robert Gates' visit later this week - are genuine.
The Pentagon says China is still years away from deploying a stealth aircraft.
In late 2009 the deputy head of China's air force, General He Weirong, said the country's stealth fighter would be ready sometime between 2017 and 2019, reports said.
But US director of naval intelligence Vice Admiral David Dorsett said that it would be "years" before China's new fighter would be operational.
"Developing a stealth capability with a prototype and then integrating that into a combat environment is going to take some time," he said.
The leaked photos of the prototype aircraft first appeared on military websites and blogs. They were said to have been taken at the Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute.
The images were then discussed in the Chinese state-run Global Times newspaper, in both its Chinese and English-language editions, although no comment was made on their authenticity.
Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper said China could begin test flights of the stealth jet as soon as this month, citing unidentified Chinese military sources.
Military build-up
The world's only operational stealth fighter is the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, but Russia is also known to be working on its own prototype.
BBC defence correspondent Nick Childs says the aircraft certainly bears a superficial resemblance to the latest US stealth designs - and that may spook some in Washington.
And it will add to the concerns of those who have been warning especially of the increasing reach and capabilities of China's air force and navy, he adds.
The US has been watching closely as China increases its military capacity - in particular, its development of a so-called "carrier killer" missile, a land-based system which could sink an aircraft carrier from up to 1,800 miles (2,900km) away.
US battle groups - including aircraft carriers - are stationed in the South China Sea.
And in August, the Pentagon reported that China had been expanding its nuclear arsenal and submarine force, as well as upgrading its land-based missiles.

BBC News

 

[Switch]

In late 2009 the deputy head of China's air force, General He Weirong, said the country's stealth fighter would be ready sometime between 2017 and 2019, reports said.
But US director of naval intelligence Vice Admiral David Dorsett said that it would be "years" before China's new fighter would be operational.

I like how the article presents these statements as opposed to each other. Like anyone, anywhere has suggested that China is going to be fielding squadrons of these things this time next year. 2017-19 as when the aircraft will be ready for service and 2020+ as when it'll actually be in service in operationally relevant numbers sounds about right.

BBC defence correspondent Nick Childs says the aircraft certainly bears a superficial resemblance to the latest US stealth designs - and that may spook some in Washington.

Poppycock. If anything it looks like an LO evolution of Russia's 90s-era MiG 1.44 design (which itself drew from the Eurocans) that never went anywhere on account of Russia having no money at the time.

In any case the interesting thing here isn't the revelation that China has been working on a 5th generation aircraft - that's been known forever - nor the details of its design, which are for the most part inelegant and uninteresting, certainly not half as impressive as Russia's PAK FA which is probably the most aerodynamically advanced aircraft on the planet. What's significant is just how early it's been unveiled - and I've speculated as to possible reasons for that - and also its apparent size and intended role as a long-range supercruising striker, which is sure to spook other players in the region to say nothing of the US Navy's strategic planners.

 

[Saquist]

like eveything in china....what a rip off.

 

[STR]

I don't think this is meant for the United States. The US has RADAR's and defense nets decades more advanced that are inherently more sensitive to LO aircraft (not because the US has felt threatened by stealth bombers, but because they've spent a lot of time and money on antimissiles, and missiles (being physically small) tend to have lower RCS as well). This plane, as a first generation effort, will simply not be in the same league as 3rd or 4th generation (in the literal sense of the term, not the official term of "Xth Generation figher) stealth efforts like the F-22 and F-35. However, it's probably more than enough for China's neighbors, all of whom it seems has some kind of territorial dispute with China.

 

[Switch]

I don't think this is meant for the United States.

Of course it is. It's meant to threaten US carrier groups and increase the distance from China from which they must operate, thus dramatically reducing their effectiveness. China was humiliated in 1996 when the US used its carriers to force China to stand down re: Taiwan and it has devoted tremendous resources to ensuring that the US will never be able to dictate terms in China's backyard again.

And they'll succeed, because it is China's backyard, they're not attempting to project power thousands of miles away from a handful of small, vulnerable hulls. That sort of thing only works when you're bombing third-world nations. Between comparable powers, the land-based one is going to win. In the long-run, the US strategic position in the Pacific is toast and everybody knows it. Even today the US would be a lot more skittish about sending carriers into the strait than it was 15 years ago. In 2025? Fuhgedaboutit.

The US would probably have great difficulty fielding an aircraft in response to J-20 (i.e. able to operate outside its operating radius) even if it wanted to because of the difficulties associated with getting such an aircraft off of - and then back onto - a carrier deck.

 

[STR]

Land-based powers? That kind of poor strategic thinking went out the window with Mahan.

As for "fielding a response" you don't need to deploy a new aircraft to compete with something 20 years behind you in development. The YF-22 first flew in 1990. That's 20 years of lessons on how to build, exploit, and counter LO technology. The J-20 will have a much harder time dealing with the F-35 than vice versa. Furthermore, AEGIS was built from the ground up to counter multidirectional saturation attacks by aircraft and cruise missiles. It's just plain stupid to try and fly a plane into its defense radius when you have anti-ship missiles (which also have low RCS) that you can launch from outside the defense envelope. I don't really see this changing how the USN operates all that much, as it was built to handle the Soviet Navy, which could throw a lot more at a carrier.

All that ignores the fact that major trading partners NEVER go to war, which means this is a permanent hypothetical that will never play out. This is why this plane is really intended for China's neighbors, because they're the only ones that will EVER be on the receiving end of an attack from them.

 

[MANT!]

Besides it's a stealthy F-111, NOT an air superiority fighter..

A huge fighter bomber of that type is simply beyond China's ability to field quickly... it's a prototype that's done a few taxi tests... and from what I'm able to see, folks here are writing off the USA based on a single plane that hasn't even flown yet?


There's secret UAV aircraft flying out of Groom Lake and Utah that make this aircraft look like an F-86 by comparision..


This is definitely aimed at Taiwan, Japan and India...not so much the USA...

 

[Switch]

Land-based powers? That kind of poor strategic thinking went out the window with Mahan.

3-4 350m runways operating aircraft with X combat radius and payload

vs.

Dozens of 1500m runways operating aircraft with 1.5x combat radius and payload

China will make mincemeat out of the carrier groups in any future (i.e. 2020+) pitched battle in the South China Sea. No different than the US would if China tried to 'project power' off the Florida coast. If carrier-based aviation could match land-based within the purview of land-based aircraft then the US Air Force wouldn't exist.

The J-20 will have a much harder time dealing with the F-35 than vice versa.

The F-35 won't even be able to intercept this thing as it screams by at 50,000ft and Mach 1.5 to club AWACS, tankers and ISR assets out of the sky. Just have to hope there are enough F-22s operating from Guam.

Furthermore, AEGIS was built from the ground up to counter multidirectional saturation attacks by aircraft and cruise missiles. It's just plain stupid to try and fly a plane into its defense radius when you have anti-ship missiles (which also have low RCS) that you can launch from outside the defense envelope.

It's great to know that in your world anti-ship missiles just magically transport themselves to the launch point (and/or have infinite range w/no trade-offs re: kinematics or lethality) and that targetting data just generates itself.

I don't really see this changing how the USN operates all that much, as it was built to handle the Soviet Navy, which could throw a lot more at a carrier.

The Soviets couldn't throw a fifth at the US Navy what the Chinese can in the South China Sea. There was never an entry in the US Navy manual reading 'approach Russian coast with carrier group, see what happens' - which is what China scenarios involve - rather the carriers were designed to escort convoys across the Atlantic, protecting them from long-distance (i.e. low tempo) Backfire raids and submarines and their loadout was primarily tailored to that mission, i.e. defensive in character. It's only since the end of the Cold War that they've become primarily instruments of power projection.

All that ignores the fact that major trading partners NEVER go to war

Who was France's largest trading partner in 1939 again?

And who said anything about the US and China going to war? All this stuff is designed to make the US butt out of what China sees as its affairs. It's the US which will have to decide - as one Chinese general put it in the 90s - whether it is really willing to trade Los Angeles for Taiwan. China is merely looking to deny the US ability to dictate terms in its corner of the world, and they'll succeed not because they're on par with the United States but because their strategic goal is a hell of a lot more constrained and easier to achieve than the United States' grand strategy of controlling everything everywhere - a strategy which was enabled by specific geostrategic circumstances and will change as those circumstances change.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't really see this changing how the USN operates all that much, as it was built to handle the Soviet Navy, which could throw a lot more at a carrier.

The Soviets couldn't throw a fifth at the US Navy what the Chinese can in the South China Sea. There was never an entry in the US Navy manual reading 'approach Russian coast with carrier group, see what happens' - which is what China scenarios involve - rather the carriers were designed to escort convoys across the Atlantic, protecting them from long-distance (i.e. low tempo) Backfire raids and submarines and their loadout was primarily tailored to that mission, i.e. defensive in character. It's only since the end of the Cold War that they've become primarily instruments of power projection.

And ironically, the Soviet Navy was specifically designed around that very same doctrine: convoy raiding and long-range harassment of carrier groups with massed salvos of guided missiles fired over the horizon. In essence, since about the 1970s the U.S. Navy has become a large organization primarily specialized in neutralizing Soviet weapons and tactics (with the Soviet navy and its remnants specialized in defeating American defenses).

Even more ironically, the Chinese military is now largely specialized in neutralizing American tactics, with an entire defensive doctrine revolving around area denial weapons/tactics whose sole purpose is to neutralize the USN's most powerful weapons.

It's like a dead guy in a tank beings stalked by a guy with a bazooka, being stalked by a guy with a sack of landmines.

 

[Saquist]

Well we'll find out soon enough but one things for sure the information is out there to steal on US stealth tech. I wouldn't assume theirs isnt on par with the US the way people have been running off with secrets.

 

[Darth Picardous]

All that ignores the fact that major trading partners NEVER go to war, which means this is a permanent hypothetical that will never play out. This is why this plane is really intended for China's neighbors, because they're the only ones that will EVER be on the receiving end of an attack from them.

Don't make the same mistake as 1910, everyone thought Germany and Great Britain would never go to war with each other as they were major trade partners.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Well we'll find out soon enough but one things for sure the information is out there to steal on US stealth tech. I wouldn't assume theirs isnt on par with the US the way people have been running off with secrets.

That's just it, it doesn't have to be "on par" with U.S. technology at all. All they have to do is customize their weapons and tactics to exploit a specific weakness in American battle strategy and do this effectively enough to compromise our offensive planning.

Take the example of the Chinese Navy. They don't have alot of nuclear submarines, certainly nothing "on par" with the Seawolfs or Virginias. This doesn't matter, in the end, because their entire fleet of diesel boats and commanders are all customized and specifically trained to fuck with American carrier groups.

In the end, they're playing to our weaknesses, not our strengths. They wouldn't have to beat us, just not loose to us.

 

[FPAlpha]

And who said anything about the US and China going to war? All this stuff is designed to make the US butt out of what China sees as its affairs. It's the US which will have to decide - as one Chinese general put it in the 90s - whether it is really willing to trade Los Angeles for Taiwan. China is merely looking to deny the US ability to dictate terms in its corner of the world, and they'll succeed not because they're on par with the United States but because their strategic goal is a hell of a lot more constrained and easier to achieve than the United States' grand strategy of controlling everything everywhere - a strategy which was enabled by specific geostrategic circumstances and will change as those circumstances change.

Bingo.. the Chinese just have to have the theoretical/practical power to oppose the US militarily and the world has to know it and the US will lose any possibility to stop China from doing anything it wants.

China finally deciding to pay Taiwan a visit? What can the US do? Nothing in reality.. military option is out of the question, economy too and the UN is a paper tiger (especially because China is amongst the big 5 in the council and can veto any resolution).

If China remains this totalitarian regime and doesn't fold in on itself it may well be that in 10-20 years it may decide to flex its muscles and start to expand and there is little the world can do without shooting itself in the foot too.

 

[Switch]

And who said anything about the US and China going to war? All this stuff is designed to make the US butt out of what China sees as its affairs. It's the US which will have to decide - as one Chinese general put it in the 90s - whether it is really willing to trade Los Angeles for Taiwan. China is merely looking to deny the US ability to dictate terms in its corner of the world, and they'll succeed not because they're on par with the United States but because their strategic goal is a hell of a lot more constrained and easier to achieve than the United States' grand strategy of controlling everything everywhere - a strategy which was enabled by specific geostrategic circumstances and will change as those circumstances change.

Bingo.. the Chinese just have to have the theoretical/practical power to oppose the US militarily and the world has to know it and the US will lose any possibility to stop China from doing anything it wants.

China finally deciding to pay Taiwan a visit? What can the US do? Nothing in reality.. military option is out of the question, economy too and the UN is a paper tiger (especially because China is amongst the big 5 in the council and can veto any resolution).

If China remains this totalitarian regime and doesn't fold in on itself it may well be that in 10-20 years it may decide to flex its muscles and start to expand and there is little the world can do without shooting itself in the foot too.

There's no indication that China is interested in anything beyond what it's always told everyone it's interested in, i.e. recovering Taiwan and all the other various territorial disputes it has with other nations in the region.

I don't think Taiwan is necessarily a lost cause, but it's certainly only going to get tougher from here on out.

The big strategic problem is that although the US has a lot of allies and potential allies in the region, none of them are allied with each other. There's just no basis for a NATO-esque mutual defence pact in the region to counter the Chinese heavyweight.

That said, the US would still do well to deepen its ties with India that Bush began (probably the only smart thing that man ever did) and also with Vietnam .... as humiliating as the latter might be.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Of course, the odds of China trying to capture Taiwan with a military action are slim to none. They've spent years trying to sweet talk the Taiwanese government into warming up to the idea of unification, and lately have even started to deploy American-style "I Can't Believe It's Not Bribery" lobbyists to influence political discourse. They'll probably reunite eventually by democratic processes, and then they can just march over to the Spratlys, plant a flag and dare someone to say something.