XXJ - Chinese fifth generation fighter programme

[TRYTRY]

You have just reinforced in different words, my point that the bad quality in China is a problem of attitude.

 

When the authorities ask for a low quality, of course no one is going to produce above that requirement.

Most consumers are incapable in alloy analysis, so they buy the cheapest steel. "Low" alloy means low cost and wins the market. That causes adverse selection. It's a problem of market, not attitude.

Edited January 17, 2011 by TRYTRY

[pikachu]

Most consumers are incapable in alloy analysis, so they buy the cheapest steel. "Low" alloy means low cost and wins the market. That causes adverse selection. It's a problem of market, not attitude.

 

I can confirm that from personal experience. My company basically imports complete thermal power plants from China (to SEA). When we started in 2006, most of the equipment suppliers on their own initiative switched away from local (Shanghai) alloys because the local party boss was breathing down their necks making sure they don't humiliate the state in what were essentially government-to-government deals. So we were perplexed about how they could build extremely large (1000 MW) power plants using local materials. It turns out that there are "market" materials and "state" materials. Basically, when a Chinese contractor builds a major Chinese power plant, his subcontractors manufacture their equipment using high-quality materials either imported from Japan or, if local, from special batches made by Baogang &co for government projects. On the other hand, when a company has to build for a private entity or abroad, they have to buy from the market, and the market sells crap. In such a case, they either use more of the materials (resulting in very thick pipes, for instance) or simply import from Japan. In my company's particular case we found out that using more of the crappy materials in more bulky equipment is STILL cheaper than using Japanese materials. We had double-to-triple-thickness pipes and it was still cheaper on a per-length basis than using Japanese. Of course we demanded testing on ASME standards on all the equipment first and asked for German-made valves everywhere, but the equipment passed, and the end-user utilities accepted the results. It turns out that if you looked at the old power plants operating in most SEA countries, they have double-thickness pipes too. From the client utilities I found out that what I've been calling "inferior" materials are simply "old" materials to them, and it's okay to use (they've been running plants built from those for ages) as long as the proper adjustments are made. I think China's problem with materials isn't really one of QC. They've just continued making primitive stuff and refuse to change because there's still a market for it.

[Miner]

I don't think so. Bad quality owe to bad market. I know the alloy of china stainless steel is controlled at low limit. For example, the Cr of 316L is from 16-18, the china 316l is 16.0-16.1.

 

What you are saying is IT MEETS THE SPECIFCATION. If you specify a steel which has a range for an expensive alloying element then you will get as close to the minimum as the steelmaker (from anywhere) can get - one of the reasons they have all that analysis equipment. Want/need more then specify and pay for it.

[jaro]

I wouldnt be surprised if someone would come with light 5.gen fighter completly without any radar and build around IR suite - something like F-16A was in early 1980... small nimble short range dogfighter that would be very hard to spot even on AESA radars (low frontal RCS, no radar, internal weapon bay)..

 

If you look at future possible confrontation between 5.get fighters, even with best radars, detection range will be short (let say 20-30nm) practically same results can be achieved by IR sensors, and IR seeking missiles. with IR detection only, price would go much lower than with full AESA+ EODAS suite or AESA + ALR-94.. and now imagine that plane could be remotely controlled UAV...

Edited January 17, 2011 by jaro

[Guest JamesG123]

F-35 started out as that concept. A low cost counterpart to the air superiority F-22 similar to the F-15/16 duo they were supposed to replace. Then the gold plating began and the project snowballed into the cluster fuck we have today.

 

Most of the UCAV programs fit your description. Very small passive weapons plaforms.

[Archie Pellagio]

The F35 was meant to be a lower cost equivalent to the modern F16C (Bloc 30/40/50) and F/A-18 et al.

It was never meant to be an F16A or F5 type of aircraft which is what he is talking about.

[ScottBrim]

F-35 started out as that concept. A low cost counterpart to the air superiority F-22 similar to the F-15/16 duo they were supposed to replace. Then the gold plating began and the project snowballed into the cluster fuck we have today.

The Joint Strike Fighter may have been advertised as "the affordable fighter" in the mid 1990s, but its specification was always highly ambitious from the very beginning of the program.

 

I attended a presentation on Boeing's developmental program for the JSF in fall of 1996 where the targeted program unit cost was stated, as I remember it, to be $35 million a copy including R&D.

 

I was completely skeptical the unit cost could be held to that low a figure for an aircraft which was that technically ambitious.

 

Most everyone in the room was just as skeptical, I think, and the most common unofficial guesstimate I was hearing at the time was $60 to $80 million a copy in 1996 dollars.

 

IMHO, the F-35 development program is costing about what it could be expected to cost given the aircraft's highly ambitious performance specification.

 

If the US truly wants the kind of performance that has been specified from the get-go, then we will just have to pony up the kind of money it takes to achieve that objective.

[Guest JamesG123]

The F35 was meant to be a lower cost equivalent to the modern F16C (Bloc 30/40/50) and F/A-18 et al.

It was never meant to be an F16A or F5 type of aircraft which is what he is talking about.

 

True. But it would be hard to believe anyone would buy a new passive, WVR only, "fighter" in this day and age. A purely ground attack platform maybe, but not a fighter...

 

Well, I take that back. As I type this I could picture someone building a tiny little bare bones interceptor with a really low observable cross section loaded with AAMRAMS or the like. You have another A/C that carries a really honkin' radar to paint the targets and then the little guys zip in and fire from BVR off of datalink. Sort of a poor man's "F-22 sucker punch" tactic.

 

Its rather specialized, and requires a high degree of coordination and zero Murphy Factor, but it could be much cheaper than if you have every A/C equiped with a radar set. Sort of a modern day interpretation of the old Soviet GCI system.

[Archie Pellagio]

I never said it was the way to go, just clarifying what he said.

 

That said, every time I see the J10 I'm always amazed by how small the little bugger is, it reminds me of the old Soviet joke about MiG29A's being point defence interceptors with enough range to taxi, take-off, circle and land.

[jaro]

if you look at how 5.gen vs 5.gen dues suppose to look like, most of simulations talk about very short detection range, so it is very possible maneuverability and supercruise would be very influential in such situation - if detection range by radars is below 30-40nm, then you are in the same range as with IR sensors - so why not abandon the radar altogether, and use interlink to get the target info if needed, or go fully passive with EODAS-like system...

[KV7]

if you look at how 5.gen vs 5.gen dues suppose to look like, most of simulations talk about very short detection range, so it is very possible maneuverability and supercruise would be very influential in such situation - if detection range by radars is below 30-40nm, then you are in the same range as with IR sensors - so why not abandon the radar altogether, and use interlink to get the target info if needed, or go fully passive with EODAS-like system...

 

Because most gen 5 aircraft will presumable encounter gen 3-4.5 aircraft rather than other stealth designs in most plausible combat situations. With a good radar they can engage beyond the detection range of their adversaries, with super-cruise they can stay out of detection range as well.

 

I can see a space for a mixed squadron with some active searching and some passive radar versions though.

[Guest JamesG123]

Because most gen 5 aircraft will presumable encounter gen 3-4.5 aircraft rather than other stealth designs in most plausible combat situations.

 

Apparently not anymore.

[KV7]

Apparently not anymore.

 

How long do you think it will be before the active fleet of most major nations are majority gen 5 ?

 

I would expect production of J-17 series to outpace J-20 till 2025 at least, leaving aside legacy craft.

 

Do you think Russia or China is going to retire its Flankers, Fulcrum, Mig-31, J-10 etc any time soon.

Edited January 19, 2011 by KV7

[Guest JamesG123]

Nope, but older aircraft aren't the problem/threat to other Gen 5 types. It will be the other guys Gen 5s and UCAVs.

 

If you are a "wolf" in a Gen 5. you don't worry about the "sheep" of Gen 3s, you have to think about the "sheep dogs" of whatever LO A/C are mixed up with them.

[KV7]

Nope, but older aircraft aren't the problem/threat to other Gen 5 types. It will be the other guys Gen 5s and UCAVs.

 

If you are a "wolf" in a Gen 5. you don't worry about the "sheep" of Gen 3s, you have to think about the "sheep dogs" of whatever LO A/C are mixed up with them.

 

If I was point man in a hypothetical IR only JSF section, and at 30 NM just picked up 6 flankers on the IR, I would be just a little worried about my life expectancy.

 

Secondly, you also probably want to use the thing as an interceptor. Some gen 3 junk might not be a real air combat threat, but you want to be able to pick it up at range and move to intercept it before it is dropping FAE/PGM/Cluster munitions on your front line. Add to that, in the anti-shipping role you still want to engage at a very big standoff, especially if there are Aegis type AA destroyers around.

Edited January 19, 2011 by KV7

[Guest JamesG123]

If I was point man in a hypothetical IR only JSF section, and at 30 NM just picked up 6 flankers on the IR, I would be just a little worried about my life expectancy.

 

Well hypothetically your passive JSF will use and be guiding in on your AWACs datalink so it wouldn't be much of a suprise (for you). The Migs would still be clueless. You just ripple off your AAMRAMs to guide in on the AWACs illunimation or smart IR seekers and call it a day.

 

Secondly, you also probably want to use the thing as an interceptor. Some gen 3 junk might not be a real air combat threat, but you want to be able to pick it up at range and move to intercept it before it is dropping FAE/PGM/Cluster munitions on your front line. Add to that, in the anti-shipping role you still want to engage at a very big standoff, especially if there are Aegis type AA destroyers around.

 

True I imagine that the Gen 3s and 4s will become like the bombers of WW2 with the Gen 5s the fighers providing CAPs for the bomb trucks. So the tactics might mimic that era.

[jaro]

KV7: Thing is how that IR only passive plane is able to comunicate with others... It could just receive all important data over datalink and stay passive whole time... plus, you can easilly have IR medium range AAMs if you have AVACS who does all the searching... you just fire the missiles blindly at the enemy detected by AVACS, and let the missile do the tracking once IR sensor goes up. (btw, i'm quite suprised why IR warhead for AMRAAM-D is not in works.. imagine how usefull it could be together with ALR-94 in F-22...)

[Josh]

if you look at how 5.gen vs 5.gen dues suppose to look like, most of simulations talk about very short detection range, so it is very possible maneuverability and supercruise would be very influential in such situation - if detection range by radars is below 30-40nm, then you are in the same range as with IR sensors - so why not abandon the radar altogether, and use interlink to get the target info if needed, or go fully passive with EODAS-like system...

 

You'd need to add a laser too, but that's not a big deal. But your range would vary with aspect, weather, and IR supression of the target. F-22 at least has some IR reducing features, though its not clear exactly what they are. Plus I still venture that using an AESA radar to focus more energy in a tigher pattern over a longer period of time would give the radar equiped plane a range advantage. They are invisioning radar modes with the APG-77 that would allow detection of fighter sized targets at ~200nm; even against a low RCS target I have to wonder if the detection range won't exceed that of IR by a healthy margin in most circumstances.

[Josh]

KV7: Thing is how that IR only passive plane is able to comunicate with others... It could just receive all important data over datalink and stay passive whole time... plus, you can easilly have IR medium range AAMs if you have AVACS who does all the searching... you just fire the missiles blindly at the enemy detected by AVACS, and let the missile do the tracking once IR sensor goes up. (btw, i'm quite suprised why IR warhead for AMRAAM-D is not in works.. imagine how usefull it could be together with ALR-94 in F-22...)

 

In the case of F-22, it has an extensive ESM system that can locate an emitter's bearing in both azimuth and elevation, and can also use a single active element of its radar to illuminate a 2 degree arc of azimuth and elevation and track the target. So six illuminating targets could be detected, then locked up, without any other platform knowing about it unless they were in that 2 degree line of sight. So unless the enemy fighter being targeted has an ESM set able to detect LPI emissions and also generate a bearing, the F-22 is pretty much flying 'dark' for all intents and purposes even as its self guides its missiles to the targets. From what I understand this is all automated and is a specific mode setting for the integrated radar/ESM.

 

I also think the idea of relying on an AWACS platform in an environment with low RCS super cruise fighers (Gen 5, whatevs) is hopeless optimistic.

[Guest JamesG123]

So unless the enemy fighter being targeted has an ESM set able to detect LPI emissions and also generate a bearing, the F-22 is pretty much flying 'dark' for all intents and purposes even as its self guides its missiles to the targets. From what I understand this is all automated and is a specific mode setting for the integrated radar/ESM.

 

I think its pretty safe to assume that the targets are going to have a halfway decent RTW and ECM system.

 

If nothing else its pilot is going to start screaming on the radio that he's been lit up if not the system transmitting its data to the network.

 

I also think the idea of relying on an AWACS platform in an environment with low RCS super cruise fighers (Gen 5, whatevs) is hopeless optimistic.

 

As if the AWACS bird is going to be flying around all by itself...

[Josh]

I think its pretty safe to assume that the targets are going to have a halfway decent RTW and ECM system.

 

If nothing else its pilot is going to start screaming on the radio that he's been lit up if not the system transmitting its data to the network.

 

 

 

As if the AWACS bird is going to be flying around all by itself...

 

I'm not aware how well fighter type RWR work. I was under the impression they provided warning, not direction information, in most cases. If so, whether verbal or not, they could only provide warning of the presence of enemy fighters, not a position or bearing. I might be wrong. ECM might be present, but it would at the least have to be frequency agile to be that effective against AESA. I'm not saying this system can't be defeated; I just arguing that using IR for sensing alone probably wouldn't work out well.

 

If I have a slow moving passenger plane facing off against a Mach 1.5 fighter that it can't detect until less half the range of a regular fighter, I think the chances of vectoring an intercept in time to prevent the plane from firing would be scarce, particularly if multiple planes were engaging from multiple angles. With a modern active AAM against a slow moving target like an E-3, a successful launch probably means a hit even at near max range. There also is the possibility that some kind of long range, passively mid course guided AWACS specific weapon is used; I believe the Russians have a weapon in this class.

[Guest JamesG123]

No one said it was an easy job.

[KV7]

KV7: Thing is how that IR only passive plane is able to comunicate with others... It could just receive all important data over datalink and stay passive whole time... plus, you can easilly have IR medium range AAMs if you have AVACS who does all the searching... you just fire the missiles blindly at the enemy detected by AVACS, and let the missile do the tracking once IR sensor goes up. (btw, i'm quite suprised why IR warhead for AMRAAM-D is not in works.. imagine how usefull it could be together with ALR-94 in F-22...)

 

Presumably that will not work for SEAD or do you envisage command linked anti radiation missiles, with the targeting done by the AWACS radar ?

Can you expect AWACS to be everywhere for long- won't other 5 gen fighters (with radars)with very long standoff missiles (Novator etc)pose a massive threat, even with heavy escort.

Can an AWACS/IR combo inform you that you have been locked and are being engaged at range, say by S-300/S-300V/S-400/Patriot style complex ?

 

Seems to make sense to have at the least a cheap fully passive radar system in all fighters and the odd front line fighter with some advanced scanning capability.

[KV7]

I believe the Russians have a weapon in this class.

 

Two actually, R-37 and Novator K-100, both claimed to up to 200+ NM range.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KS-172

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel_R-37

[jaro]

ok, lets go back to discussion about J-20.

 

Currently China doesnt have access to AESA technology, and even if they will be able to seal some tech details, building a functional LPI radar is second thing.

What they have right now is PESA radar and IRST systems which are used with J-11. What do you think, how stealthy would be J-20 with PESA/IRST combo, If they will be able to improve IRST to reliably track the targets (with speed info etc..)? Theoretically they could be able to use that plane in STEALTH mode with PESA OFF, and IRST doing all the work...

Edited January 27, 2011 by jaro