"It flies!!! (Chinese J-20)" Topic

Apparently not photoshopped as some alleged:
link

The nozzles/ fairings for the engines and intakes suggest that there isn't any thrust vectoring, at least on this prototype and they're probably using the same crappy engines as on many of their other aircraft(again, it could be they weren't ready in time for this PR stunt or test flight). That is the huge difference between this and an F-22. I'm beginning to think that this is a deep strike aircraft with limited stealth capability used for first wave attacks against Taiwan and/or any other country who gets in their way in the coming years such as Japan, Australia, India,, etc. Personally, I think this thing would have very limited success against an F-22, but YMMV.

China has to do something with all the money they get from the US … Taking their forces to the 21st Century is a good start, I guess. However it appears China continues to build up it's navy. And until they can deploy forces outside of China in numbers, the only threat they pose is to nations on their borders like Russia and India … Or even Afghanistan ? But can't see any real reasons why they'd attack any of those. Save for the ongoing border disputes with a few of their neighbors …

Yep, it's an airplane.
That's about the sum of what we know.
-Kle.

Wasn't the MiG-25 a huge scare back in the late 70s? I recall reading that it resulted in the US waking up to come up with something that could counter it? The F-15 was the proposed counter to the MiG-25.

In the end the MiG-25 was no where near the threat it was precieved and the F-15 turned into a far superior aircraft.

the only threat they pose is to nations on their borders like Russia and India … Or even Afghanistan ?

Japan?

They'd need more ships & landing craft to invade Japan. But airstikes and possibly long range missiles could prove troublesome for the Japanese … However, like in the Battle of Britain … it would only "P.O." the Japanese and their Allies … like the US …

Hi

The story is backwards, the Mig 25 was a response to our high altitude supersonic bomber program that we, basically, abandoned when we realized the SA 2 was puting paid to the idea.

As for how good it, the Mig 25 was . That is the wrong speculation! One cannot assume the other side are bucktoothed and wear glasses and only copy us, that whole "Zero surprise" thing.

More interesting is the back story on the 23 and 27, but that is not germane here.

I am not sure how stealthy that J20 is, time will tell. The real question is this: whatever! What is the actual mission it is designed for? "I know, lets "prove" we are the cool kids who have joined the first world"?

R

The story is backwards, the Mig 25 was a response to our high altitude supersonic bomber program that we, basically, abandoned when we realized the SA 2 was puting paid to the idea.

SA-5. The SA-2 didn't have the kinetics to hit a B-70.

Whatever the impetus for the Soviets producing the MiG-25, it was played up as a superfighter in the West, especially in the U.S. Incredible speed, 9G turning capability, very long range, etc., etc. Some of it was essentially made up, some resulted from mixing up intercepted telemetry from two different test flight programs.

And, yes, the MiG-25 did drive the F-15 program. See Jenkins, Dennis R.; McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle: Supreme Heavy-Weight Fighter. Arlington, TX: Aerofax, 1998. ISBN 1-85780-081-8.

The nozzles/ fairings for the engines and intakes suggest that there isn't any thrust vectoring, at least on this prototype

Agreed, but with a canard configuration this isn't such a big deal.

and they're probably using the same crappy engines as on many of their other aircraft(again, it could be they weren't ready in time for this PR stunt or test flight).

The engines are the big question. I can't imagine building something that large with the inadequate engines the Chinese have had for so long. At a minimum, they would have to be Russian engines equivalent to the latest for the Su-27.

Yep the Chinese are using Russian engines.

Its nice to know Chinese aeroplane spotters get just as excited as we do link

I'm wonering how much of a technological advantage 'the West' has over China any more. After all most of the computers, mobiles and other gizmos seem to be made there these days and China spends serious money and effort on science and technology in general.

On the other hand their defence budget is just over 10% of the US apparently.

Europe likely has little or no advantage. The US on the other hand is at least a generation ahead and likely more.

The Zero was no surprise as it had the same dimensions and shape of Howard Hughes record breaking aircraft. What was a surprise is that the planes were light and forewent armor for the pilots. While maneuverable, they ultimately failed as their pilots has no protection, ours did and our aircraft development got our armored planes to go even faster.

The real danger with the Chinese craft is that they are attempting to catch up. They have a long way to go but apparently are heading in a correct direction. While economically they have moderately, unfortunately China still poses a serious threat to all democratic nations.

[The real danger with the Chinese craft is that they are attempting to catch up. They have a long way to go but apparently are heading in a correct direction. While economically they have moderately, unfortunately China still poses a serious threat to all democratic nations.]

I must disagree entirely, on two grounds.

1/ They are not that stupid. They need a war like a hole in the head.

2/ Their major thrust is developing and modernizing their economy, not expanding their military.

3/ The regime's major focus is on regime survival and internal stability. War with anyone would not help with either of those aims. They saw what happened to the USSR when it got stupid in Afghanistan. They also know that if they do not continue to deliver improved material living standards year-on-year they are toast.

For now Chinese people – or the vast majority of them – are happy to accept peace and improved material goods in lieu of political freedom. Diverting more money into the military or launching a war would screw both those plans. We think of them as rich, but the bill for modernising the country is almost unimaginable. They need to develop their economy a lot further in order to meet their publicly stated aim of catching up with the West in terms of living standards and infrastructure.

As they get closer to that aim, people will begin demanding more political freedom. They will have their hands full.

China is modernising everything, including their military. Hardly surprising considering how backwards it was. This is in conjunction with a considerable shrinking in size.

They have no overseas bases. Their nuclear arsenal is about 20% the size of the USA's. While a regional superpower, they have little or no ability to project power very far beyond its borders. Since the death of the monster Mao, they have kept the heck out of foreign entanglements. How many guerrilla forces are backed by China these days?

The Taiwan situation seems stable unless someone does something stupid like declare unilateral Taiwanese independence – which btw would invalidate the USA's security guarantee so I don't imagine anyone would be silly enough to do that. There are now daily flights from Taiwan to the mainland, KMT leaders are feted in Beijing, and the cross-investment is huge. You can't throw a stick in Shanghai without hitting a Taiwanese management type. They need HK and Taiwanese expertise a lot more than they need a war.

Sure they need to maintain a credible military to support their claim to own the place, but going hot would be a huge own goal. And let's not forget the USA keeps topping up Taiwan with new armaments too. They have to reply in kind – after all, the Taiwanese govt maintains a claim to be the rightful govt of all China as well.

In short, they are an emerging power and are building a military to match. There are no signs I can see of expansionist ambitions. They don't have the hardware, the bases, or the stance. Heck, they are actively trying to reduce their population – hardly the actions of an expansionist power.

Given they are building a worldwide trading empire, they are as much beneficiaries of the Pax Americana as anyone in the world.

Oops. That's three grounds. 对不起。

2/ Their major thrust is developing and modernizing their economy, not expanding their military.

Apparently, they believe they can do both, and the latter is on the fast track…..

They are both necessary and overdue. The period between 1900 and the (blessed) death of that SOB Mao essentially saw minimal or negative economic development. The question is where they place the emphasis.

According to RAND Corporation figures, China's military spending is about 2.3 to 2.8% of GDP (about 40% higher than official figures), compared to about 4% for the USA. And the USA still has a rather larger GDP. That's no way to catch up militarily and I see no signs of them making a serious attempt. They may build a carrier or two but they ‘aint building 11+ anytime soon.

The old USSR stressed military spending and let their civilian economy lag behind. China will not make the same mistake of a huge military overhang – though of course they may make others.

The Chinese are intent on making wealth before they spend it. Frankly I wish a few more western governments – including my own – would learn that prudent capitalist lesson. I find it amusing for instance that China does not have universal socialized health care.

My opinion is that the Chinese govt recognise they face a much greater potential threat from inside than outside. Not because of a well-organised opposition but simply because they are playing with very powerful forces indeed.

Working with Chinese people every day, I agree entirely with the conventional wisdom that there is a tacit deal between govt and people, trading political rights for economic progress – but it relies absolutely on the govt continuing to create conditions where people can become more prosperous. And even then it can't last forever.

I predict they will have to slowly introduce more reforms simply as a matter of economic necessity; the major reason being the direct and indirect costs of maintaining a police state. The RAND military spend figures above do not take into account that China spends vastly more on 'internal security' than the US or other western countries.

The SCMP (South China Morning Post) estimate they spend nearly 1 to 1 on internal to external security. Of course that also includes many legitimate civilian policing functions, but there is still a huge wodge of cash devoted to internal spying, maintaining overlapping and competing beaurocracies, and generally being pains in the butt. That's a huge tax on the economy.

The Chinese are certainly thinking about it. You may have seen some of the considerable coverage of Gordon Brown's recent speech in China, where he told the Chinese that unless political reform was forthcoming, their economic reforms were under threat.

What I didn't see a single reporter pick up on was he was virtually parroting word for word a speech Premier Wen had made 17 times in recent months, both in China and overseas. It should be noted however, that President Hu has made no such noises, which has led to some interesting if pointless speculation.

Personally I would predict a gradual loosening of the reins, not out of choice but out of necessity. They won't be a democracy anytime soon, but the spread of a genuine rule of law has to be a priority over the next couple of decades if they want to leave the ‘cowboy/wild wild East' phase of economic development.

Business in China is both fun and frightening at the moment. Did I ever mention the time I left Shanghai airport with my jacket pockets literally stuffed with US hundred dollar bills? The US company I'd contracted to for two months paid me with a brown paper bag full of greenbacks. A bit of a worry, but typical here. And it was tax-free.

In any event, whether the Communist Party of the PRC manage to stay on the horse or not, I can't see a situation where they will achieve anywhere near military parity with the USA within my lifetime.

And of course the USA has a number of well-armed friends, including some close-by in the neighbourhood. China is busy developing economic partnerships to secure resources the old-fashioned way: by buying them (and by paying the sort of hefty bribes Western companies have to hide and can get into trouble for). But they have no substantial military allies (I am excluding NK, who I am sure are as big a worry to them as to us) and seem supremely uninterested in placing Chinese military boots outside its own borders. I think they like their troops close to home where they may be needed.

Western papers don't give it a lot of coverage, but there is more ferment in China than most people realize. And the govt has proved responsive to public pressure – particularly from HK. The govt are walking a tightrope and I can't possibly imagine them risking falling off over the sake of some stupid foreign adventure.

The CCP are corrupt, authoritarian SOBs with no regard for human rights. But they are smart and seem unburdened by ideology of any flavour. A western reporter asked a senior govt official recently if China was still communist. The very carefully worded reply was that China was governed by the Communist Party of China.

They are enjoying 8% year-on-year GDP growth, more or less. If anyone thinks communism can deliver that they have much more faith in the efficacy of communism than I do.

IMO they are also the best government Mainland China has had since at least the Ming (which unfortunately is not saying much). That is post-Mao obviously. I also think it is a lot more possible for the West to do business with these guys – on every level – than it ever was with the old SU.

The engines are the big question.

Yeah, that and the AESA question.
-Kle.

Hi

The hughes racer/zero length is a myth.

The zero should NOT have been a surprise, but it was. And the reason was dismissing the abilities of Japanese engineers.

Part of this story, out of period, involves the Boeing 88 being sold to Japan and producing a rivet by rivet copy in the Mitsubishi A2N fighter. So, the various myths after the fact linking the Zero to all sorts of things, like the huges racer or the P43 are….wrong.

Ironicically, there wAS a link between the P35 and the Reggiane fighters in Italy, but that is a totally different story.

And while the SA 2 wasn't a real threat, that is not what I said. It was a given in the day that if it could kill Gary Power's U2, high altitude as a vector wasn't valid. One of the times WE decided to not fight the last war as in "Korea".

"Wasn't the MiG-25 a huge scare back in the late 70s? I recall reading that it resulted in the US waking up to come up with something that could counter it? The F-15 was the proposed counter to the MiG-25."

Wasn't most of the Soviet era stuff overhpyed? Probably to help the US defence industry by convincing everyone to develop new equipment.

Cheers
Kieran

I'm waiting for the classified report. Wikileaks might have it already.

It will be as speculative as this thread but will sound convincing.

An Ounce of Appearance beats a Pound of Performance.

The only people who should be worrying about this (and mostly as a political pressure ploy) should be Taiwan. India has border disputes with PRC but have you seen any serious action in the news? Ditto the Russians? There is no way the Chinese would ever want to go into or over Afghanistan, what would be the benefit, Drugs?

Gracias,

Glenn

The nozzles/ fairings for the engines and intakes suggest that there isn't any thrust vectoring

Don't forget that the US is big on 2d vectoring, while the Russians have figured out 'super turkey feathers' for 3d vectoring. I *believe* that the F35(all variants) will be using a 3d nozzle.