XXJ - Chinese fifth generation fighter programme

[Guest JamesG123]

I would say that they have just mastered the American art of designed obsolescence and limited service life. lol.

[tankerwanabe]

I've lived in Shanghai for the past nearly ten years.

 

I can tell you that with very few exceptions, things made in China are not of good enduring quality. Chinese citizens often defend the quality issue by saying that this is not true. I think this is more out of nationalism since I am a foreigner.

 

I am not being biased, in fact I am as pro-China as any non-PRC citizen can be.

 

But fact is fact.

 

And the quality issue will remain a serious one until people here tackle the problem instead of denying it.

 

I believe that one recent PRC citizen was jailed when he openly questioned quality issues when his child died from contaminated food. It may be nationalism. It may also be self-perservation.

[Guest JamesG123]

Yes. Don't confuse China's "free market capitalism" with freedom. The PRC is only as free and capitalist as it benefits the State's interests (ie: filling their coffers and bleeding the US dry).

[tankerwanabe]

BTW, since the PRC have become the number 1 leader in counterfit goods including spare parts to major machinaries, the US could also put out erroneous blue prints of spare parts on the Chinese black market.

 

We'll see how long their aircraft stays in the sky while using their own counterfit spares.

[mnm]

Confucius said: "Him who thinks Chinese are inherently stupid will wake up with Shar Pei poo in his rice bowl".

 

[Chris Werb]

Confucius said: "Him who thinks Chinese are inherently stupid will wake up with Shar Pei poo in his rice bowl".

 

 

Listen old chap it's well known that their aeroplanes are cheap imitations of ours, made of bamboo and rice paper and their pilots are all short sighted and have to wear REALLY thick-lensed glasses.

 

I have to go with Chino on the quality of Chinese kit though - for example I've had some bad experiences with out of spec Chinese scope rings - I only buy British, German, Czech or US now.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Chris Werb

[wallaby bob]

Listen old chap it's well known that their aeroplanes are cheap imitations of ours, made of bamboo and rice paper and their pilots are all short sighted and have to wear REALLY thick-lensed glasses.

 

CHRIS. I can only guess you're being facetious,for the sake of humour here. Sounds suspiciously like the twaddle that was being peddled re Japanese pilots wa.....y back in the thirties(1930s).

On a more serious note I as a non up-to date aeronautical ignoramus am jusr a little puzzled as ro why so BIG. Radar reflection is by means the only way of observing a plane, or any other target for that matter.Size counts! To the disadvantage of the aircraft in this instance. WB

[AETiglathPZ]

 

I can tell you that with very few exceptions, things made in China are not of good enduring quality. Chinese citizens often defend the quality issue by saying that this is not true.

 

Give them a couple years. Not sure if it was early 80's BS but those Japanese Datsuns were considered poor if I recall.

 

Wouldn't even think of Korean Hyundai during the 80's for a car but they also overcame that also.

 

 

Had issues at a prior job with the new Chinese sprayers handles falling apart. Pieces of shit due to the type of welds on them and the metal. So I agree with the your current opinion.

 

But give them a decade or two and they could be the next Japan with India becoming the new China in cheap manufacturing.

[TonyE]

CHRIS. I can only guess you're being facetious,for the sake of humour here. Sounds suspiciously like the twaddle that was being peddled re Japanese pilots wa.....y back in the thirties(1930s).

 

 

Son, they won`t have a floating carrier until 2025 at earliest...HELL YEAH!!!!

Edited January 13, 2011 by TonyE

[Fritz]

I came across a russian article which, analyzing the available images at the moment, basically summarizes that this plane can't be much more than a technological demonstrator.

[Scythe]

CHRIS. I can only guess you're being facetious,for the sake of humour here. Sounds suspiciously like the twaddle that was being peddled re Japanese pilots wa.....y back in the thirties(1930s).

On a more serious note I as a non up-to date aeronautical ignoramus am jusr a little puzzled as ro why so BIG. Radar reflection is by means the only way of observing a plane, or any other target for that matter.Size counts! To the disadvantage of the aircraft in this instance. WB

 

To carry larger stores of fuel and weapons internally? Just throwing things out there right now, but it's reasonable to think that the Chinese would want to carry bombs/AGMs on the thing.

 

I don't remember Chinese/Russian ordnance being very internal-carriage friendly - at least, not to the same degree as the AIM-120C/D, the GBU-39 SDB and the AIM-9X.

[seahawk]

I came across a russian article which, analyzing the available images at the moment, basically summarizes that this plane can't be much more than a technological demonstrator.

Yet it looks much more refined and ready than PAK-FA.

[Archie Pellagio]

CHRIS. I can only guess you're being facetious,for the sake of humour here. Sounds suspiciously like the twaddle that was being peddled re Japanese pilots wa.....y back in the thirties(1930s).

 

I'm pretty sure thats what he was intending.

"Their planes are made of ricepaper and bamboo and their pilots all wear bifocals"

I'm pretty sure the quote comes from Claire Chennault recounting a conversation after he reported back on the Zero.

 

 

On a more serious note I as a non up-to date aeronautical ignoramus am jusr a little puzzled as ro why so BIG. Radar reflection is by means the only way of observing a plane, or any other target for that matter.Size counts! To the disadvantage of the aircraft in this instance. WB

 

While it is a big boy, it isn't as ridiculously massive as it looks at first glance, a lot of it is due to the small and angled ruddervators which throw off the natural sense of scale.

 

I think the Chinese are more interested in reducing RCS much in the same way the Euros did with their 4th gens (obviously this is more though)

If the Chicoms really wanted to go for full LO they wouldn't have left those honking big engines out the back, gone smaller and not gone with the canards.

[seahawk]

Well the rear aspect stealth might be not that big, and the canards will have an influence on the RCS, but Canards only move a lot when you are in a turning fight, when Stealth is usually already beaten due to the fact that the enemy is close. And the new nozzles might have to RAM coating. Currently I would say it is not the same standard in all aspect stealth as F-22, how it compares to other fighters in development is hard to say.

[Guest JamesG123]

 

If the Chicoms really wanted to go for full LO they wouldn't have left those honking big engines out the back, gone smaller and not gone with the canards.

 

Depends on what their intended role and use for it is. If its a long range standoff continental defense interceptor or attack platform (big AShM need big bays and big bays need a big airframe), then cute and expensive features aren't necessary. Its LO only needs to be optimized from the frontal aspect.

 

And its entirely possible that this was a test airframe with an interim propulsion. There is nothing to say that a "J-20A" won't come with all sorts of thrust vectoring doo-dads.

[tankerwanabe]

I can't help but think that the PRC may be going the wrong route the way the Japanese did with their Mitsubishi F-2. The Japanese poured their resources in the F-2 and got stuck in developmental hell even after the rest of the world moved on to the next generation. By the time it flew, the F-2 was old tech.

 

I wonder whether the PRC should spend money on smaller more stealthy UAVs instead of their behemoth manned fighter. By the time this PRC fighter goes into prodution, the F-22 will be old tech.

[Guest JamesG123]

 

I wonder whether the PRC should spend money on smaller more stealthy UAVs instead of their behemoth manned fighter. By the time this PRC fighter goes into prodution, the F-22 will be old tech.

 

Be careful of assuming that others work on the same scales/pace as we do. Last week the "experts" were predicting that this plane was "years away from its first test flight". For all we know the J-20 might be in production next year.

 

They are also very good and hiding their moves. They could have advanced UCAVs in development that they are keeping up their sleeves.

[Archie Pellagio]

I can't help but think that the PRC may be going the wrong route the way the Japanese did with their Mitsubishi F-2. The Japanese poured their resources in the F-2 and got stuck in developmental hell even after the rest of the world moved on to the next generation. By the time it flew, the F-2 was old tech.

 

I wonder whether the PRC should spend money on smaller more stealthy UAVs instead of their behemoth manned fighter. By the time this PRC fighter goes into prodution, the F-22 will be old tech.

 

The big difference between the Chinese and the West is that their R&D cycle is both rapid and relentless.

Even if this turns ou to be a piece of crap in a flashy package, they will have their follow on fighter in production in a few years as well.

 

We'll still be relying on a handful of F22's and legacy F15/16/18's for decades to come.

[pikachu]

While there is no actual trend in Chinese combat a/c development, the J-10 proceeded from first flight in 1996 or 1998 to full unveiling (by which time it was already in regimental service) in 2007. That's either 9 years or 11 depending on source. If Chinese internet is to be believed, then 2003 was when the final design achieved IOC. Of course, in this case they had to use a Russian engine and ended up developing a more advanced B version right away, but it does show the relative rapidity China is capable of in military a/c development.

 

The JF-17/FC-1 development was even more rapid. 2005 first flight and already in squadron service as of last year. That too with a major airframe redesign one year (and two prototypes) into the development cycle. Then again, that was a special case and a much simpler a/c that benefited from the J-10 development immensely.

 

Also, it's not like China isn't developing UCAVs. Last year's Zhuhai airshow featured a video showing a Chinese-made jet-engined Predator clone (closer to Reaper, really). We also know of the existence of the sci-fi-ish Anjian stealth (possibly supersonic) UCAV, and at least four separate Chinese aviation design bureaus are developing their own UAVs (including a stealthy-looking "rainmaking" one) and special weaponry to be fitted on UCAVs. There is supposedly even a version of the LY-60 helicopter-launched AAM developed to be carried by UCAVs for self-defense and a Chinese company exhibited small-diameter laser guided bombs in Zhuhai. I think China might be running parallel to Russia in manned a/c development and to Europe in UCAV development. Of course, actual capability of their weapons systems and quality control might not be up to par, but the programs are there, at the (roughly) same tech level, and might actually finish sooner unless the EU and Russia manage to get their acts together.

Edited January 14, 2011 by pikachu

[chino]

But give them a decade or two and they could be the next Japan with India becoming the new China in cheap manufacturing.

 

I'm quite sure you are right.

 

Not just Japan and S. Korea, but also HK, went through a similar cycle of first producing things not known for quality, and then moving on.

 

I just hope it happen soon for China.

 

However, what you may not know is that China used to produce solidly reliable stuff in the 60's and 70's. They made all kinds of things that were low-tech like motors, clocks, lighters, thermos flasks etc which may not look polished, or stylish, but they worked well for a very long time.

 

And then, economic reform and all the state-owned factory closed. And the focus was on profitability. In China this meant cheap, bad quality stuff that last only a fraction of the time they used to.

 

Example, wind up alarm clocks. Those made 20, 30 yrs ago were solid stuff. Today, they make the same stuff, but the metal is soft and malleable, and feels horribly cheap.

 

The star manufacturers back then were mostly in/around Shanghai. Now land and labor in Shanghai is too expensive for manufacture and the industry has moved to other places.

[Corinthian]

Re: quality, I'd rather err on the side of caution when speculating about the quality of their military equipment.

 

Sure, those scopes Chris mentioned. For the export market. And typical with Chinese exports, there's a quality issue.

 

But with .mil equipment they own and use? How sure are we they didn't ensure quality for their military equipment, particularly those shiny new ships and this fighter of theirs. I'd rather that the USA (and all other militaries out there that see China as a threat) would not let their guard down. Foreign powers view of Japan pre-WW2 didn't do them any good.

[Archie Pellagio]

Re: quality, I'd rather err on the side of caution when speculating about the quality of their military equipment.

 

Sure, those scopes Chris mentioned. For the export market. And typical with Chinese exports, there's a quality issue.

 

But with .mil equipment they own and use? How sure are we they didn't ensure quality for their military equipment, particularly those shiny new ships and this fighter of theirs. I'd rather that the USA (and all other militaries out there that see China as a threat) would not let their guard down. Foreign powers view of Japan pre-WW2 didn't do them any good.

 

Generally speaking the quality of the general produce is comparable to the quiality of military equipment.

 

The Soviet Union is a good example.

[glenn239]

We’ve dealt with Chinese firms for a decade. The pace at which they’ve adapted their practices even in that timeframe is remarkable.

[Guest JamesG123]

Generally speaking the quality of the general produce is comparable to the quiality of military equipment.

 

The Soviet Union is a good example.

 

The quality of Soviet weapons and military equipment was quite acceptable and much better than its civilian goods. It was not as "good" as Western product, but it would have proven more effective if history had demonstrated it in other than the hands of proxy fights.

 

 

Presume the worst, lest we find ourselves in "Oh shit!" moments, or as the DARPA folks like to say, "Strategic surprise".

[Corinthian]

The quality of Soviet weapons and military equipment was quite acceptable and much better than its civilian goods. It was not as "good" as Western product, but it would have proven more effective if history had demonstrated it in other than the hands of proxy fights.

 

 

Presume the worst, lest we find ourselves in "Oh shit!" moments, or as the DARPA folks like to say, "Strategic surprise".

 

Ditto.