Jump to content
tanknet.org

Little Flying Dragons Of China


Recommended Posts

 

 

Also fun, and something Americans really don't talk about enough, how China hacked Lockheed Fucking Martin and stole ALL THE FUCKING BLUEPRINTS to build the F35. Jason man, why not post pics of the J31 or whatever they calling it now. It's the F35 with twin engines. Lockheed admitted the hack. And China turned it into a flying product in very fast time ....

Actually the J31 is MUCH closer to the YF-22 than the F-35. The only part that seems to be lifted from the F-35 is the intake design.

 

 

If anything, DSI intake is one part they do not need to lift, if they actually did any lifting. Chinese had been tracking DSI development since the start -- they actually modified an J-7 with DSI to test the concept. FC-1/JF-17, which uses DSI, is developed after X-35, but is in service before F-35. J-20 uses DSI, so does J-10B/C. All three implementation looks different in shaping and details. If anything, the implementation of FC-1/J-17 is closest to F-35, event that is different in details. J-7 tech demonstrator and FC-1/JF-17 actually predates so called hack, so I don't really see how you can call that a copy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 541
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe, could be parallel development. It does kinda sound like China's really going hard on the espionage though, something to consider. https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/10/1079309_-eastasia-china-us-ct-tech-china-based-hacking-of-760.html

Or/also could be economic warfare. If the F35 doesn't sell enough, the price will be higher, and fewer will be built. Fewer American fighter planes is good for China. Instead of shooting them down in hot warfare later, they could be destroying hundreds or thousands by using espionage and market underpricing today. How to sell more? Make yours look the same, have comparable capabilities, and cost 30%. Hey, why not instill the fear that it's a compromised system, as well?

 

Genius. Genius. Genius.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FC-31 V2 is the second version of what was called the J-31.

 

The first image came out within last couple of months. The next two and video are a little older, maybe April 2017. There are other pictures which are late 2016 would be my guess.

F-31v2.jpg

 

FC-31%2B2.0o1.jpg

 

FC-31%2B2.0o2.jpg

 

Laptol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Why not stealth the missile?

 

Wouldn't work, or at least it wouldn't work as well as you'd want. Total RCS is more than just the RCS of the clean airframe + the RCS of the missile.

 

Unless the aircraft was designed ahead of time with an appropriate recess to tuck the weapon into (like the AMRAAM slots on the underside of the Eurofighter Typhoon), or a big flat spot that the missile happened to snug up to, the missile would have to be on a long pylon. For counter-intuitive reasons I won't get into, short weapons pylons actually create more drag than long ones, so this pylon is going to need to be sizable and have a fair amount of side area.

 

Well, that's not good, because pylons are usually vertical, and wings are usually horizontal, so that pylon and the wing are going to act like a corner retroreflector when viewed from the side. This will increase side aspect RCS enormously.

 

OK, so the side-aspect RCS is totally screwed by external ordnance, but say we only care about the front. It's still OK then, right?

 

Nope.

 

Radar waves tend to reflect off of interfaces where the conductivity changes suddenly. So, obviously, the leading and trailing edges of the wings (and this is why designers are so anal about planform alignment), but also access panel lines, landing gear and weapon bay doors, et cetera. There's a reason all those little panels and doors are sawtoothed and angled on stealth aircraft. So, the interfaces between the stealth aircraft and the weapon pylon, and between the weapon pylon and the stealth weapon are going to act as radar reflectors unless they are treated and angled appropriately.

 

Finally, radar waves can do some funky stuff that could increase RCS in ways that are hard to predict without fancy software. Incoming radar waves might have just the right resonant frequency to bend around a piece of ordnance and echo back to the emitter, or the tube between the aircraft and the ordnance might act as a wave guide and cause greater returns.

 

So, in general, external ordnance can be considered to de-stealth stealth aircraft even if the ordnance itself is stealthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Twin prop UAV unveiled last month.

 

 

 

首飞成功的双尾蝎无人机系统由无人机、地面站、任务载荷和综合保障系统组成,无人机机长10米、机高3.3米、翼展20米,最大飞行高度8000米、最大起飞重量2.8吨、任务载荷能力近1吨,航程6000公里、航时35小时,机体采用上单翼、双尾撑、双发翼吊设计布局,是国内首款双发中大型高端无人机系统,相较于国内同类产品具有更高的可靠性与安全性,更强的侦察打击一体、高原与海洋快速机动部署能力,以及更为突出的中空长航时飞行能力。

四川腾盾科技有限公司(简称腾盾科技)自主研发的多用途模块化双发中空长航时无人机今日在我国西南某机场成功首飞。

2017年9月26日12:14,在我国西南某机场一架代号“双尾蝎”的无人机悄然升空,在平稳飞行近半个小时后安全返回地面,双尾蝎首飞圆满成功。

“民字头”的腾盾科技在创立不到两年的时间内即完成四型中大型(固定翼及旋翼)高端智能飞行器设计制造,并以双尾蝎无人机领先首飞,标志着中国已全面掌握中大型高端智能飞行器设计、制造及试飞等关键领域的核心技术,国内高端智能装备产业总体呈现百花齐放、百舸争流态势。

据了解,首飞成功的双尾蝎无人机系统由无人机、地面站、任务载荷和综合保障系统组成,无人机机长10米、机高3.3米、翼展20米,最大飞行高度8000米、最大起飞重量2.8吨、任务载荷能力近1吨,航程6000公里、航时35小时,机体采用上单翼、双尾撑、双发翼吊设计布局,是国内首款双发中大型高端无人机系统,相较于国内同类产品具有更高的可靠性与安全性,更强的侦察打击一体、高原与海洋快速机动部署能力,以及更为突出的中空长航时飞行能力。而双尾蝎所特有的多余度核心系统设计、模块化载荷集成方式以及国际化综合保障体系等,使得该型无人机具有卓越的环境适应性、优异的应用适配性和广阔的使用延展性,能够为环境监测、地质勘察、地貌测绘、管线巡检、植被监视、大气研究、体育摄影等国计民生项目提供更为灵便的民用航空支持,能够为反恐维稳、边防巡视、海陆搜救、定点投送、通讯中继、环保执法等公共安全任务提供更为可靠的警用航空平台,同时可执行战场监视、情报处理、攻击或拦截地空目标等国防安全任务,既填补了民用、警用高端智能航空装备的空白,更是对现有航空武器装备体系的有力补充。

腾盾科技代表中国民营无人机企业,携旗下两型固定翼(双尾蝎、扑天雕)与两型旋翼(没羽箭、小李广)无人机系统惊艳亮相第十四届中国-东盟博览会后,两周时间内再次凭借双尾蝎首飞回归大众视野,展现了其核心团队优异的多项目并行、跨领域大型系统工程管理能力,卓越的航空产品项目策划与设计开发能力,以及顶尖的智能飞行器产品实现与市场拓展能力。

据腾盾科技高管透露,继双尾蝎首飞后,扑天雕、没羽箭、小李广三型无人机也将于年内陆续实现首飞。腾盾科技将持续秉持“汇智报国、聚才兴业”的企业宗旨,强力塑造中国“智”造与国产智能装备品牌,全力构建智能产业价值网络与商业生态系统,倾力成为“让智能去做一切”的优异创造者与卓越运营商,与社会各界共同探索航空科技未来发展,共同成就智能飞行不朽传奇!

http://uav.xinhuanet.com/2017-09/26/c_129712584.htm

twin03.jpg

More pictures in the spoiler

 

twin01.jpg

 

twin02.jpg

 

twin04.jpg

 

twin05.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Is there any source on how many H-6Ks are in service? Or H-6s in general for that matter. I was under the impression the oldest aircraft were being retired (most of them were not particularly capable, even the 'M' versions, compared to the 'K' with turbofans).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting site. It has pictures for each aircraft with a different number. For H-6K it counts to 61 that have a picture of it. If all those pictures are really of different H-6Ks and none being some older version, its more than I would have thought.

http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.jp/p/gallery-i.html#H-6K

Link to post
Share on other sites

60 would be a lot more than I would have thought. I thought the entire H-6 force was rough 120 machines, but it must be much larger unless older variant are being retired as the K comes online. I had heard once before that the production rate was a dozen airframes per year, but I think it must rather higher. I wonder what the total production run will be? I would have thought 100-200 total.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a new version of the H-6 coming out, apparently soon, called the H-6KH. Is said that first flight was in 2014.

Two model images in the spoiler and the usual blurry and top-down teaser view image.

H-6KHo3.jpg

 

 

H-6KHo1.jpg

 

H-6KHo2.jpg

 

 

https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%BD%B0-6KH

http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/h/slide_8_203_52803.html#p=6

Chinese text from first link in spoiler

 

轰-6KH(中国代号:H6-KH)轰炸机,是中国新研制的改进型轰-6K型号,作为海军专用的远程导弹攻击机,该机携带YJ-12超音速远程反舰导弹及与之配套的火控系统,大大增强了中国海军的对海、对岸远程精确打击力量。

中文名称 轰-6KH 英文名称 Xian H-6KH Strategic Bomber 前型/级 轰-6K 研制时间 2014~2017年 国 家 中国 飞机类型 远程导弹攻击机
中国航空工业集团公司下属中航西飞/603所,正在轰-6K基础

上为海军研发一款新型远程导弹攻击机,首架改装后的轰-6KH已于2014年首飞。这表明西飞/603所正在朝轰-6K系列化的发展目标迈进[1] 。

据悉轰-6KH主要改进为加装YJ-12超音速远程反舰导弹及与之配套的火控系统。为此强化了轰-6KH机载火控雷达的对海攻击模式,并对火控软件进行了升级,安装了新的数据链。

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like there's a ventral targeting pod and a pair of outboard jammers of some kind. Do any of the articles list the changes to the new model?

 

I find it fascinating they still are producing new builds of an aerodynamic shape that debuted over half a century ago. Avionics wise, I'm sure its very modern and as cutting edge as they can make it. In terms of the airframe, it inferior to the B-52 or especially the B-1 in pretty much every measurable way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they keep making more of them, it might be meant as a sort of work horse meant to get lots of anti-ship missiles in the skies. With all the tech and gizmos, it'll probably make it good enough for their intended role if in great enough numbers. They still have the H-20 bomber program which is supposed to become their so-called B-2 equivalent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they keep making more of them, it might be meant as a sort of work horse meant to get lots of anti-ship missiles in the skies. With all the tech and gizmos, it'll probably make it good enough for their intended role if in great enough numbers. They still have the H-20 bomber program which is supposed to become their so-called B-2 equivalent.

I think there is always a utility in even very basic platforms with large payload and range. The basis mechanics and engineering of large subsonic aircraft is a mature technology with very little prospect for improvement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If they keep making more of them, it might be meant as a sort of work horse meant to get lots of anti-ship missiles in the skies. With all the tech and gizmos, it'll probably make it good enough for their intended role if in great enough numbers. They still have the H-20 bomber program which is supposed to become their so-called B-2 equivalent.

 

I think there is always a utility in even very basic platforms with large payload and range. The basis mechanics and engineering of large subsonic aircraft is a mature technology with very little prospect for improvement.

"If it isn't broken, why fix it?" or something like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they keep making more of them, it might be meant as a sort of work horse meant to get lots of anti-ship missiles in the skies. With all the tech and gizmos, it'll probably make it good enough for their intended role if in great enough numbers. They still have the H-20 bomber program which is supposed to become their so-called B-2 equivalent.

It definitely is intended as an anti shipping platform as one of its primary purposes. It has six hard points for either super sonic AShMs or else long ranged sub sonic land attack missiles; these are its primary armaments. They already have enough of them to be effective as an anti shipping platform; even a dozen would still carry over seventy missiles. It retains the top speed and RCS of its ancestor Tu-16 though, so it better have an escort or operate out of fighter and SAM range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If they keep making more of them, it might be meant as a sort of work horse meant to get lots of anti-ship missiles in the skies. With all the tech and gizmos, it'll probably make it good enough for their intended role if in great enough numbers. They still have the H-20 bomber program which is supposed to become their so-called B-2 equivalent.

I think there is always a utility in even very basic platforms with large payload and range. The basis mechanics and engineering of large subsonic aircraft is a mature technology with very little prospect for improvement.

 

"If it isn't broken, why fix it?" or something like that.

 

The H-6K uses Russian turbofans. I suspect the answer is much more 'this is the best we can do right now'. For all of the talk of the Chinese being ten feet tall, they are just now building their first MPA (based on a Russian design with US help in pressurizing the airframe IIRC) and their first strategic airlifter (which looks very much like an Il-76). They have achieved success in producing some weapon types but are still generations behind in others. They've been playing catch up for decades and had a decimated engineering and education base due to the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. I think people underestimate how hard its been for them to establish their technological base and how focused it had to be to get where they are now.

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...